10-Q

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

x QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011

Or

¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from              to             

Commission file number	Exact name of registrants as specified in their charters, addresses of principal executive offices, telephone numbers and states of incorporation	IRS Employer Identification No.
1-32853	DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 550 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202-4200 704-594-6200 State of Incorporation: Delaware	20-2777218
1-4928	DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC 526 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28202-4200 704-594-6200 State of Incorporation: North Carolina	56-0205520
1-1232	DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. 139 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 704-594-6200 State of Incorporation: Ohio	31-0240030
1-3543	DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC. 1000 East Main Street Plainfield, IN 46168 704-594-6200 State of Incorporation: Indiana	35-0594457

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy)    Yes  x    No  ¨

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas)    Yes  x    No  ¨

Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio)    Yes  x    No  ¨

Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana)    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Duke Energy    Yes  x    No  ¨

Duke Energy Carolinas    Yes  x    No  ¨

Duke Energy Ohio    Yes  x    No  ¨

Duke Energy Indiana    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Duke Energy	Large accelerated filer	x	Accelerated filer	¨
	Non-accelerated filer	¨	Smaller reporting company	¨
Duke Energy Carolinas	Large accelerated filer	¨	Accelerated filer	¨
	Non-accelerated filer	x	Smaller reporting company	¨
Duke Energy Ohio	Large accelerated filer	¨	Accelerated filer	¨
	Non-accelerated filer	x	Smaller reporting company	¨
Duke Energy Indiana	Large accelerated filer	¨	Accelerated filer	¨
	Non-accelerated filer	x	Smaller reporting company	¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Duke Energy    Yes  ¨    No  x

Duke Energy Carolinas    Yes  ¨    No  x

Duke Energy Ohio    Yes  ¨    No  x

Duke Energy Indiana    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the Issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Outstanding as of November 4, 2011 Registrant	Description	Shares
Duke Energy	Common Stock, par value $0.001		1,332,733,321
Duke Energy Carolinas	All of the registrant’s limited liability company member interests are directly owned by Duke Energy.
Duke Energy Ohio	All of the registrant’s common stock is indirectly owned by Duke Energy.
Duke Energy Indiana	All of the registrant’s common stock is indirectly owned by Duke Energy.

This combined Form 10-Q is filed separately by four registrants: Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana (collectively the Duke Energy Registrants). Information contained herein relating to any individual registrant is filed by such registrant solely on its own behalf. Each registrant makes no representation as to information relating exclusively to the other registrants.

Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana meet the conditions set forth in General Instructions H(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-Q and are therefore filing this form with the reduced disclosure format specified in General Instructions H(2) of Form 10-Q.

INDEX

FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011

		Page
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1.	Financial Statements		3
	Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy)
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations		3
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets		4
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows		6
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income		7
	Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas)
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations		8
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets		9
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows		11
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Member’s Equity and Comprehensive Income		12
	Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio)
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations		13
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets		14
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows		16
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Common Stockholder’s Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss)		17
	Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana)
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations		18
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets		19
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows		21
	Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Common Stockholder’s Equity and Comprehensive Income		22
	Combined Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana		23
2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		89
3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk		105
4.	Controls and Procedures		105
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
1.	Legal Proceedings		106
1A.	Risk Factors		106
2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds		106
6.	Exhibits		107
	Signatures		109

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

This document includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements are based on management’s beliefs and assumptions. These forward-looking statements, which are intended to cover Duke Energy and the applicable Duke Energy Registrants, are identified by terms and phrases such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,” “estimate,” “expect,” “continue,” “should,” “could,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “predict,” “will,” “potential,” “forecast,” “target,” “guidance,” “outlook” and similar expressions. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to be materially different from the results predicted. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated in any forward-looking statement include, but are not limited to:

• State, federal and foreign legislative and regulatory initiatives, including costs of compliance with existing and future environmental requirements, as well as rulings that affect cost and investment recovery or have an impact on rate structures;

• Costs and effects of legal and administrative proceedings, settlements, investigations and claims;

• Industrial, commercial and residential growth or decline in the respective Duke Energy Registrants’ service territories, customer base or customer usage patterns;

• Additional competition in electric markets and continued industry consolidation;

• Political and regulatory uncertainty in other countries in which Duke Energy conducts business;

• The influence of weather and other natural phenomena on each of the Duke Energy Registrants’ operations, including the economic, operational and other effects of storms, hurricanes, droughts and tornados;

• The impact on the Duke Energy Registrants’ facilities and business from a terrorist attack;

• The inherent risks associated with the operation and potential construction or nuclear facilities, including environmental, health, safety, regulatory and financial risks;

• The timing and extent of changes in commodity prices, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates;

• Unscheduled generation outages, unusual maintenance or repairs and electric transmission system constraints;

• The performance of electric generation facilities and of projects undertaken by Duke Energy’s non-regulated businesses;

• The results of financing efforts, including the Duke Energy Registrants’ ability to obtain financing on favorable terms, which can be affected by various factors, including the respective Duke Energy Registrants’ credit ratings and general economic conditions;

• Declines in the market prices of equity securities and resultant cash funding requirements for Duke Energy’s defined benefit pension plans;

• The level of creditworthiness of counterparties to Duke Energy Registrants’ transactions;

• Employee workforce factors, including the potential inability to attract and retain key personnel;

• Growth in opportunities for the respective Duke Energy Registrants’ business units, including the timing and success of efforts to develop domestic and international power and other projects;

• Construction and development risks associated with the completion of Duke Energy Registrants’ capital investment projects in existing and new generation facilities, including risks related to financing, obtaining and complying with terms of permits, meeting construction budgets and schedules, and satisfying operating and environmental performance standards, as well as the ability to recover costs from ratepayers in a timely manner or at all;

• The effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by accounting standard-setting bodies;

• The expected timing and likelihood of completion of the proposed merger with Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress Energy), including the timing, receipt and terms and conditions of any required governmental and regulatory approvals of the proposed merger that could reduce anticipated benefits or cause the parties to abandon the merger, the diversion of management’s time and attention from Duke Energy’s ongoing business during this time period, the ability to maintain relationships with customers, employees or suppliers as well as the ability to successfully integrate the businesses and realize cost savings and any other synergies and the risk that the credit ratings of the combined company or its subsidiaries may be different from what the companies expect;

• The risk that the proposed merger with Progress Energy is terminated prior to completion and results in significant transaction costs to Duke Energy; and

• The ability to successfully complete merger, acquisition or divestiture plans.

In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the events described in the forward-looking statements might not occur or might occur to a different extent or at a different time than Duke Energy has described. The Duke Energy Registrants undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

(In millions, except per-share amounts)

Item 1. Financial Statements

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011		2010
Operating Revenues
Regulated electric	$	3,016		$	3,077		$	8,165	$	8,233
Non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		867			791			2,586		2,159
Regulated natural gas		81			78			410		435
Total operating revenues		3,964			3,946			11,161		10,827
Operating Expenses
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—regulated		957			990			2,603		2,598
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		383			335			1,147		895
Cost of natural gas and coal sold		48			36			262		272
Operation, maintenance and other		866			881			2,705		2,724
Depreciation and amortization		455			447			1,346		1,329
Property and other taxes		183			182			538		538
Goodwill and other impairment charges		300			44			309		700
Total operating expenses		3,192			2,915			8,910		9,056
(Losses) Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net		(5	)		2			9		9
Operating Income		767			1,033			2,260		1,780
Other Income and Expenses
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates		43			21			123		86
(Losses) gains on sales of unconsolidated affiliates		(3	)		(1	)		11		(3	)
Other income and expenses, net		83			116			297		297
Total other income and expenses		123			136			431		380
Interest Expense		213			202			635		624
Income From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes		677			967			2,056		1,536
Income Tax Expense from Continuing Operations		208			301			633		643
Income From Continuing Operations		469			666			1,423		893
Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax		1			—			1		1
Net Income		470			666			1,424		894
Less: Net (Loss) Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests		(2	)		(4	)		6		1
Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation	$	472		$	670		$	1,418	$	893
Earnings Per Share—Basic and Diluted
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders
Basic	$	0.35		$	0.51		$	1.06	$	0.68
Diluted	$	0.35		$	0.51		$	1.06	$	0.68
Income from discontinued operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders
Basic	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—
Diluted	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—
Net income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders
Basic	$	0.35		$	0.51		$	1.06	$	0.68
Diluted	$	0.35		$	0.51		$	1.06	$	0.68
Dividends declared per share	$	—		$	—		$	0.74	$	0.725
Weighted-average shares outstanding
Basic		1,332			1,320			1,331		1,315
Diluted		1,333			1,322			1,332		1,316

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

3

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
ASSETS
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$	2,032	$	1,670
Short-term investments		146		—
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $35 at September 30, 2011 and $34 at December 31, 2010)		764		855
Restricted receivables of variable interest entities (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $39 at September 30, 2011 and $34 at December 31, 2010)		1,152		1,302
Inventory		1,421		1,318
Other		758		1,078
Total current assets		6,273		6,223
Investments and Other Assets
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		459		444
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds		1,924		2,014
Goodwill		3,847		3,858
Intangibles, net		371		467
Notes receivable		59		42
Restricted other assets of variable interest entities		176		139
Other		2,236		2,300
Total investments and other assets		9,072		9,264
Property, Plant and Equipment
Cost		59,861		57,597
Cost, variable interest entities		921		942
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization		18,905		18,195
Net property, plant and equipment		41,877		40,344
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits
Deferred debt expense		232		246
Regulatory assets related to income taxes		843		780
Other		2,479		2,233
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits		3,554		3,259
Total Assets	$	60,776	$	59,090

4

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS—(Continued)

(Unaudited)

(In millions, except per-share amounts)

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities
Accounts payable	$	1,080		$	1,587
Notes payable		480			—
Non-recourse notes payable of variable interest entities		275			216
Taxes accrued		438			412
Interest accrued		269			237
Current maturities of long-term debt		1,527			275
Other		1,046			1,170
Total current liabilities		5,115			3,897
Long-term Debt		16,625			16,959
Non-recourse Long-term Debt of Variable Interest Entities		959			976
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities
Deferred income taxes		7,466			6,978
Investment tax credits		377			359
Asset retirement obligations		1,905			1,816
Other		5,430			5,452
Total deferred credits and other liabilities		15,178			14,605
Commitments and Contingencies
Equity
Common Stock, $0.001 par value, 2 billion shares authorized; 1,332 million and 1,329 million shares outstanding at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively		1			1
Additional paid-in capital		21,061			21,023
Retained earnings		1,920			1,496
Accumulated other comprehensive income		(188	)		2
Total Duke Energy Corporation shareholders’ equity		22,794			22,522
Noncontrolling interests		105			131
Total equity		22,899			22,653
Total Liabilities and Equity	$	60,776		$	59,090

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

5

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net Income	$	1,424		$	894
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities
Depreciation and amortization (including amortization of nuclear fuel)		1,508			1,481
Equity component of AFUDC		(193	)		(173	)
Severance expense		—			77
Gains on sales of other assets		(19	)		(10	)
Impairment of goodwill and other long-lived assets		309			703
Deferred income taxes		526			527
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates		(123	)		(86	)
(Increase) decrease in
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions		37			44
Receivables		115			87
Inventory		(87	)		289
Other current assets		248			123
Increase (decrease) in
Accounts payable		(455	)		(100	)
Taxes accrued		30			(76	)
Other current liabilities		(172	)		(94	)
Other assets		91			30
Other liabilities		(212	)		(55	)
Net cash provided by operating activities		3,027			3,661
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Capital expenditures		(2,990	)		(3,481	)
Investment expenditures		(36	)		(61	)
Acquisitions		(50	)		—
Purchases of available-for-sale securities		(2,409	)		(1,742	)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities		2,313			1,773
Net proceeds from the sales of other assets, and sales of and collections on notes receivable		115			8
Purchases of emission allowances		(6	)		(11	)
Sales of emission allowances		8			20
Change in restricted cash		(19	)		(29	)
Other		4			(2	)
Net cash used in investing activities		(3,070	)		(3,525	)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Proceeds from the:
Issuance of long-term debt		1,015			2,450
Issuance of common stock related to employee benefit plans		13			215
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt		(179	)		(1,599	)
Notes payable and commercial paper		537			16
Distributions to noncontrolling interests		(19	)		(5	)
Dividends paid		(994	)		(957	)
Other		32			10
Net cash provided by financing activities		405			130
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents		362			266
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		1,670			1,542
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	2,032		$	1,808
Supplemental Disclosures
Significant non-cash transactions:
Accrued capital expenditures	$	276		$	524
Debt associated with the consolidation of variable interest entities	$	—		$	342

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

6

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EQUITY AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

										Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
	Common Stock Shares		Common Stock		Additional Paid-in Capital		Retained Earnings			Foreign Currency Adjustments			Net (Losses) Gains  on Cash Flow Hedges			Other			Pension and OPEB Related Adjustments to AOCI			Common Stockholders’ Equity			Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
Balance at December 31, 2009		1,309	$	1	$	20,661	$	1,460		$	17		$	(22	)	$	(31	)	$	(336	)	$	21,750		$	136		$	21,886
Net income		—		—		—		893			—			—			—			—			893			1			894
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		—		—		—		—			58			—			—			—			58			(1	)		57
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		—		—		—		—			—			—			—			19			19			—			19
Net unrealized loss on cash flow hedges(b)		—		—		—		—			—			(9	)		—			—			(9	)		—			(9	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(c)		—		—		—		—			—			2			—			—			2			—			2
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(d)		—		—		—		—			—						8			—			8			—			8
Total comprehensive income																							971			—			971
Common stock issuances, including dividend reinvestment and employee benefits		15		—		251		—			—			—			—			—			251			—			251
Common stock dividends		—		—		—		(957	)		—			—			—			—			(957	)		—			(957	)
Changes in noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries		—		—		—		—			—			—			—			—			—			(2	)		(2	)
Balance at September 30, 2010		1,324	$	1	$	20,912	$	1,396		$	75		$	(29	)	$	(23	)	$	(317	)	$	22,015		$	134		$	22,149
Balance at December 31, 2010		1,329	$	1	$	21,023	$	1,496		$	97		$	(18	)	$	(17	)	$	(60	)	$	22,522		$	131		$	22,653
Net income		—		—		—		1,418			—			—			—			—			1,418			6			1,424
Other Comprehensive income																							—
Foreign currency translation adjustments		—		—		—		—			(142	)		—			—			—			(142	)		(8	)		(150	)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		—		—		—		—			—			—			—			(6	)		(6	)		—			(6	)
Net unrealized loss on cash flow hedges(b)		—		—		—		—			—			(52	)		—			—			(52	)		—			(52	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(c)		—		—		—		—			—			3			—			—			3			—			3
Unrealized gain on investments of auction rate securities(d)		—		—		—		—			—			—			7			—			7			—			7
Total comprehensive income																							1,228			(2	)		1,226
Common stock issuances, including dividend reinvestment and employee benefits		3		—		38		—			—			—			—			—			38			—			38
Common stock dividends		—		—		—		(994	)		—			—			—			—			(994	)		—			(994	)
Changes in noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries(e)		—		—		—		—			—			—			—			—			—			(24	)		(24	)
Balance at September 30, 2011		1,332	$	1	$	21,061	$	1,920		$	(45	)	$	(67	)	$	(10	)	$	(66	)	$	22,794		$	105		$	22,899

(a) Net of $3 tax benefit in 2011 and $5 tax expense in 2010.

(b) Net of $28 tax benefit in 2011 and $3 tax benefit in 2010.

(c) Net of $1 tax expense in 2011 and insignificant tax benefit in 2010.

(d) Net of $6 tax expense in 2011 and $4 tax expense in 2010.

(e) Includes $19M in cash distributions to noncontrolling interests

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

7

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
Operating Revenues-Regulated Electric	$	1,868	$	1,877	$	5,027	$	4,935
Operating Expenses
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power		577		594		1,557		1,506
Operation, maintenance and other		447		471		1,377		1,401
Depreciation and amortization		210		200		601		585
Property and other taxes		94		93		259		269
Total operating expenses		1,328		1,358		3,794		3,761
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net		1		2		2		7
Operating Income		541		521		1,235		1,181
Other Income and Expenses, net		47		51		139		163
Interest Expense		93		95		264		271
Income Before Income Taxes		495		477		1,110		1,073
Income Tax Expense		184		162		401		364
Net Income	$	311	$	315	$	709	$	709

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

8

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
ASSETS
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$	318	$	153
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $3 at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010)		825		669
Restricted receivables of variable interest entities (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $6 at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010)		637		637
Inventory		757		716
Other		283		398
Total current assets		2,820		2,573
Investments and Other Assets
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds		1,924		2,014
Other		1,026		1,119
Total investments and other assets		2,950		3,133
Property, Plant and Equipment
Cost		32,623		31,191
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization		11,458		11,126
Net property, plant and equipment		21,165		20,065
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits
Deferred debt expense		161		169
Regulatory assets related to income taxes		661		601
Other		1,080		847
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits		1,902		1,617
Total Assets	$	28,837	$	27,388

9

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS—(Continued)

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
LIABILITIES AND MEMBER’S EQUITY
Current Liabilities
Accounts payable	$	545		$	856
Taxes accrued		132			114
Interest accrued		148			109
Current maturities of long-term debt		757			8
Other		468			485
Total current liabilities		2,050			1,572
Long-term Debt		7,216			7,462
Non-recourse Long-term Debt of Variable Interest Entities		300			300
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities
Deferred income taxes		4,530			3,988
Investment tax credits		226			205
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefits		237			242
Asset retirement obligations		1,814			1,728
Other		2,836			2,975
Total deferred credits and other liabilities		9,643			9,138
Commitments and Contingencies
Member’s Equity
Member’s Equity		9,647			8,938
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(19	)		(22	)
Total member’s equity		9,628			8,916
Total Liabilities and Member’s Equity	$	28,837		$	27,388

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

10

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income	$	709		$	709
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization (including amortization of nuclear fuel)		752			730
Equity component of AFUDC		(125	)		(129	)
Severance expense		—			61
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net		(2	)		(7	)
Deferred income taxes		498			260
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		25			26
(Increase) decrease in
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions		2			—
Receivables		96			(37	)
Inventory		(25	)		217
Other current assets		122			(1	)
Increase (decrease) in
Accounts payable		(288	)		42
Taxes accrued		18			4
Other current liabilities		(34	)		(50	)
Other assets		25			26
Other liabilities		(206	)		(117	)
Net cash provided by operating activities		1,567			1,734
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Capital expenditures		(1,604	)		(1,737	)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities		(1,598	)		(871	)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities		1,561			845
Sales of emission allowances		2			7
Change in restricted cash		2			7
Notes due from affiliate		(250	)		267
Other		(9	)		(8	)
Net cash used in investing activities		(1,896	)		(1,490	)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt		499			692
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt		(2	)		(602	)
Distribution to parent		—			(350	)
Other		(3	)		(4	)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities		494			(264	)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		165			(20	)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		153			394
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	318		$	374
Supplemental Disclosures
Significant non-cash transactions:
Accrued capital expenditures	$	122		$	212

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

11

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF MEMBER’S EQUITY AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

				Accumulated Other Comprehensive (Loss) Income
	Member’s Equity			Net (Losses) Gains on Cash Flow Hedges			Other			Total
Balance at December 31, 2009	$	8,304		$	(24	)	$	(9	)	$	8,271
Net income		709			—			—			709
Other comprehensive income
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		—			2			—			2
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(b)		—			—			2			2
Total comprehensive income											713
Distribution to parent		(350	)		—			—			(350	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	8,663		$	(22	)	$	(7	)	$	8,634
Balance at December 31, 2010	$	8,938		$	(20	)	$	(2	)	$	8,916
Net income		709			—			—			709
Other comprehensive income											—
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)					3			—			3
Total comprehensive income											712
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	9,647		$	(17	)	$	(2	)	$	9,628

(a) Net of $1 tax expense in 2011 and 2010.

(b) Net of $1 tax expense in 2010.

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

12

PART I

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
Operating Revenues
Regulated electric	$	442	$	520	$	1,175	$	1,449
Non-regulated electric and other		315		325		825		664
Regulated natural gas		81		78		411		436
Total operating revenues		838		923		2,411		2,549
Operating Expenses
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—regulated		111		140		299		410
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		189		138		500		319
Cost of natural gas and coal sold		12		13		153		191
Operation, maintenance and other		186		191		606		577
Depreciation and amortization		83		97		259		300
Property and other taxes		64		65		200		198
Goodwill and other impairment charges		79		—		88		837
Total operating expenses		724		644		2,105		2,832
Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net		2		—		4		3
Operating Income (Loss)		116		279		310		(280	)
Other Income and Expenses, net		8		8		17		22
Interest Expense		27		26		78		84
Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes		97		261		249		(342	)
Income Tax Expense		46		85		92		111
Net Income (Loss)	$	51	$	176	$	157	$	(453	)

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

13

PART I

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
ASSETS
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$	216	$	228
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $16 at September 30, 2011 and $18 at December 31, 2010)		497		888
Inventory		283		254
Other		149		121
Total current assets		1,145		1,491
Investments and Other Assets
Goodwill		921		921
Intangibles, net		148		248
Other		55		62
Total investments and other assets		1,124		1,231
Property, Plant and Equipment
Cost		10,516		10,259
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization		2,579		2,411
Net property, plant and equipment		7,937		7,848
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits
Deferred debt expense		21		23
Regulatory assets related to income taxes		74		78
Other		358		353
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits		453		454
Total Assets	$	10,659	$	11,024

14

PART I

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS—(Continued)

(Unaudited)

(In millions, except share and per-share amounts)

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
LIABILITIES AND COMMON STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY
Current Liabilities
Accounts payable	$	295		$	467
Taxes accrued		155			153
Interest accrued		33			22
Current maturities of long-term debt		507			7
Other		92			99
Total current liabilities		1,082			748
Long-term Debt		2,051			2,557
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities
Deferred income taxes		1,802			1,640
Investment tax credits		8			9
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		188			207
Asset retirement obligations		28			27
Other		364			372
Total deferred credits and other liabilities		2,390			2,255
Commitments and Contingencies
Common Stockholder’s Equity
Common Stock, $8.50 par value, 120,000,000 shares authorized; 89,663,086 shares outstanding at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010		762			762
Additional paid-in capital		5,085			5,570
Retained deficit		(689	)		(846	)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(22	)		(22	)
Total common stockholder’s equity		5,136			5,464
Total Liabilities and Common Stockholder’s Equity	$	10,659		$	11,024

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

15

PART I

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income (loss)	$	157		$	(453	)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization		261			301
Severance expense		—			23
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net		(4	)		(3	)
Impairment of goodwill and other long-lived assets		88			837
Deferred income taxes		165			28
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		11			11
(Increase) decrease in
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions		15			(34	)
Receivables		170			56
Inventory		(29	)		1
Other current assets		(35	)		66
Increase (decrease) in
Accounts payable		(150	)		(217	)
Taxes accrued		2			(2	)
Other current liabilities		18			(17	)
Other assets		9			15
Other liabilities		(55	)		(31	)
Net cash provided by operating activities		623			581
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Capital expenditures		(344	)		(242	)
Purchases of emission allowances		(5	)		(10	)
Sales of emission allowances		6			10
Notes due from affiliate		221			(113	)
Change in restricted cash		(18	)		—
Other		(3	)		—
Net cash used in investing activities		(143	)		(355	)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt		—			7
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt		(7	)		(7	)
Notes payable and commercial paper		—			(12	)
Dividends to parent		(485	)		—
Net cash used in financing activities		(492	)		(12	)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents		(12	)		214
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		228			127
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	216		$	341
Supplemental Disclosures
Significant non-cash transactions:
Accrued capital expenditures	$	18		$	92

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

16

PART I

DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMMON STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

									Accumulated Other Comprehensive (Loss) Income
	Common Stock		Additional Paid-in Capital			Retained Earnings			Net Gains (Losses) on Cash Flow Hedges			Pension and OPEB Related Adjustments to AOCI			Total
Balance at December 31, 2009	$	762	$	5,570		$	(405	)	$	1		$	(30	)	$	5,898
Net loss		—		—			(453	)		—			—			(453	)
Other comprehensive income
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		—		—			—			(1	)		—			(1	)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(b)		—		—			—			—			1			1
Total comprehensive loss																(453	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	762	$	5,570		$	(858	)	$	—		$	(29	)	$	5,445
Balance at December 31, 2010	$	762	$	5,570		$	(846	)	$	—		$	(22	)	$	5,464
Net income and total comprehensive income							157									157
Dividends to parent				(485	)											(485	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	762	$	5,085		$	(689	)	$	—		$	(22	)	$	5,136

(a) Net of insignificant tax benefit in 2010.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense in 2010.

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

17

PART I

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

	Three Months Ended September 30,					Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010		2011		2010
Operating Revenues-Regulated Electric	$	718		$	694	$	1,997	$	1,883
Operating Expenses
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power		270			256		748		682
Operation, maintenance and other		148			131		472		445
Depreciation and amortization		100			95		297		281
Property and other taxes		20			19		61		52
Impairment charges		222			44		222		44
Total operating expenses		760			545		1,800		1,504
Operating (Loss) Income		(42	)		149		197		379
Other Income and Expenses, net		26			19		70		51
Interest Expense		34			32		104		99
(Loss) Income Before Income Taxes		(50	)		136		163		331
Income Tax (Benefit) Expense		(19	)		44		50		112
Net (Loss) Income	$	(31	)	$	92	$	113	$	219

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

18

PART I

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
ASSETS
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$	21	$	54
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $1 at both September 30,  2011 and December 31, 2010)		223		431
Inventory		283		267
Other		35		85
Total current assets		562		837
Investments and Other Assets
Intangibles, net		53		64
Other		120		126
Total investments and other assets		173		190
Property, Plant and Equipment
Cost		11,711		11,213
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization		3,445		3,341
Net property, plant and equipment		8,266		7,872
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits
Deferred debt expense		40		43
Regulatory assets related to income taxes		108		101
Other		614		588
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits		762		732
Total Assets	$	9,763	$	9,631

19

PART I

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS—(Continued)

(Unaudited)

(In millions, except share and per-share amounts)

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
LIABILITIES AND COMMON STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY
Current Liabilities
Accounts payable	$	277	$	314
Notes payable		14		—
Taxes accrued		122		45
Interest accrued		49		47
Current maturities of long-term debt		13		11
Other		90		99
Total current liabilities		565		516
Long-term Debt		3,456		3,461
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities
Deferred income taxes		881		973
Investment tax credits		143		145
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		261		270
Asset retirement obligations		47		46
Other		731		653
Total deferred credits and other liabilities		2,063		2,087
Commitments and Contingencies
Common Stockholder’s Equity
Common Stock, no par; $0.01 stated value, 60,000,000 shares authorized; 53,913,701 shares outstanding at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010		1		1
Additional paid-in capital		1,358		1,358
Retained earnings		2,313		2,200
Accumulated other comprehensive income		7		8
Total common stockholder’s equity		3,679		3,567
Total Liabilities and Common Stockholder’s Equity	$	9,763	$	9,631

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

20

PART I

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income	$	113		$	219
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization		301			285
Equity component of AFUDC		(64	)		(40	)
Severance expense		—			26
Impairment charges		222			44
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credit amortization		(67	)		82
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		16			18
(Increase) decrease in
Receivables		97			(2	)
Inventory		(17	)		66
Other current assets		18			8
Increase (decrease) in
Accounts payable		(35	)		(98	)
Taxes accrued		76			1
Other current liabilities		(9	)		(21	)
Other assets		19			4
Other liabilities		(47	)		(38	)
Net cash provided by operating activities		623			554
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Capital expenditures		(783	)		(922	)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities		(7	)		(17	)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities		5			19
Purchases of emission allowances		—			(1	)
Sales of emission allowances		1			3
Notes due from affiliate		115			(160	)
Change in restricted cash		6			(5	)
Other		(3	)		—
Net cash used in investing activities		(666	)		(1,083	)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt		—			571
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt		(4	)		(197	)
Notes payable to affiliate		14			—
Capital contribution from parent		—			350
Other		—			(3	)
Net cash provided by financing activities		10			721
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents		(33	)		192
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		54			20
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	21		$	212
Supplemental Disclosures
Significant non-cash transactions:
Accrued capital expenditures	$	127		$	155

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

21

PART I

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMMON STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(Unaudited)

(In millions)

							Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
	Common Stock		Additional Paid-in Capital		Retained Earnings		Net Gains (Losses) on Cash Flow Hedges			Total
Balance at December 31, 2009	$	1	$	1,008	$	1,915	$	10		$	2,934
Net income		—		—		219		—			219
Other comprehensive loss
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		—		—		—		(2	)		(2	)
Total comprehensive income											217
Capital contribution from parent		—		350		—		—			350
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	1	$	1,358	$	2,134	$	8		$	3,501
Balance at December 31, 2010	$	1	$	1,358	$	2,200	$	8		$	3,567
Net income		—		—		113		—			113
Other comprehensive loss
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)								(1	)		(1	)
Total comprehensive income		—		—		—					112
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	1	$	1,358	$	2,313	$	7		$	3,679

(a) Net of $1 tax benefit in 2011 and 2010.

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

22

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Index to Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

The unaudited notes to the condensed consolidated financial statements that follow are a combined presentation. The following list indicates the registrants to which the footnotes apply:

Registrant	Applicable Notes
Duke Energy Corporation	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC	1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

1. Organization and Basis of Presentation

Organization. Duke Energy Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, Duke Energy) is an energy company primarily located in the Americas. Duke Energy operates in the United States (U.S.) primarily through its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio), which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy Kentucky), and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana), as well as in South and Central America through International Energy. When discussing Duke Energy’s condensed consolidated financial information, it necessarily includes the results of its three separate subsidiary registrants, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana (collectively referred to as the Subsidiary Registrants), which, along with Duke Energy, are collectively referred to as the Duke Energy Registrants. The information in these combined notes relates to each of the Duke Energy Registrants as noted in the Index to the Combined Notes. However, none of the registrants makes any representation as to information related solely to Duke Energy or the subsidiaries of Duke Energy other than itself. See Note 2 for information related to reportable operating segments for each of the Duke Energy Registrants.

Duke Energy Carolinas generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas is subject to the regulatory provisions of the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC), the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas’ operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.

Duke Energy Ohio is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy Corp. (Cinergy), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. Duke Energy Ohio is a combination electric and gas public utility that provides service in the southwestern portion of Ohio and in northern Kentucky through its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky, as well as electric generation in parts of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania. Duke Energy Ohio’s principal lines of business include generation, transmission and distribution of electricity and the sale of and/or transportation of natural gas. Duke Energy Ohio is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), the Kentucky Public Service Commission (KPSC) and the FERC. Duke Energy Ohio applies regulatory accounting treatment to substantially all of the operations of its U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas operating segment and to certain rate riders associated with retail generation of its Commercial Power operating segment. See Note 2 for information about business segments.

Duke Energy Indiana is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy. Duke Energy Indiana is an electric utility that provides service in north central, central, and southern Indiana. Its primary line of business is generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. Duke Energy Indiana is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) and the FERC. The substantial majority of Duke Energy Indiana’s operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.

See Note 3 for information regarding Duke Energy’s pending merger with Progress Energy, Inc (Progress Energy).

Basis of Presentation. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the U.S. for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Regulation S-X. Accordingly, these Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements. Because the interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements, the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and other information included in this quarterly report should be read in conjunction with the respective Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes in Duke Energy’s, Duke Energy Carolinas’, Duke Energy Ohio’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s respective Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements reflect all normal recurring adjustments that are, in the opinion of the respective company’s management, necessary to fairly present the financial position and results of operations of each Duke Energy Registrant. Amounts reported in each Duke Energy Registrants’ interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations are not necessarily indicative of amounts expected for the respective annual periods due to the effects of seasonal temperature variations on energy consumption, regulatory rulings, the timing of maintenance on electric generating units, changes in mark-to-market valuations, changing commodity prices and other factors.

These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include, after eliminating intercompany transactions and balances, the accounts of the Duke Energy Registrants and all majority-owned subsidiaries where the respective Duke Energy Registrants have control and those variable interest entities (VIEs) where the respective Duke Energy Registrants are the primary beneficiary. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements also reflect Duke Energy Carolinas’ approximate 19.25% proportionate share of the Catawba Nuclear Station, as well as Duke Energy Ohio’s proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky and Duke Energy Indiana’s proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities.

Use of Estimates. To conform to GAAP in the U.S., management makes estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes. Although these estimates are based on management’s best available information at the time, actual results could differ.

Unbilled Revenue. Revenues on sales of electricity and gas are recognized when either the service is provided or the product is delivered. Unbilled retail revenues are estimated by applying average revenue per kilowatt-hour or per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) for all customer classes to the number of estimated kilowatt-hours or Mcfs delivered but not billed. Unbilled wholesale energy revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt-hour (MWh) to the number of estimated MWh delivered but not yet billed. Unbilled wholesale demand revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt (MW) to the MW volume delivered but not yet billed. The amount of unbilled revenues can vary significantly from period to period as a result of numerous factors, including seasonality, weather, customer usage patterns and customer mix.

23

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana had unbilled revenues within Restricted Receivables of Variable Interest Entities and Receivables on their respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	599	$	751
Duke Energy Carolinas		265		322
Duke Energy Ohio(a)		46		54
Duke Energy Indiana		6		12

(a) Primarily relates to wholesale sales within the Commercial Power segment.

Additionally, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell, on a revolving basis, a portion of their retail and wholesale accounts receivable to Cinergy Receivables. These transfers meet sales/derecognition criteria and therefore, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, account for the transfers of receivables to Cinergy Receivables as sales, and accordingly the receivables sold are not reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Amounts for unbilled revenues related to retail and wholesale accounts receivable at Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana included in the sales of accounts receivable to Cinergy Receivables at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 were as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio	$	61	$	112
Duke Energy Indiana		98		125

See Note 11 for additional information.

2. Business Segments

Management evaluates segment performance based on earnings before interest and taxes from continuing operations (excluding certain allocated corporate governance costs), after deducting expenses attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits (EBIT). On a segment basis, EBIT excludes discontinued operations, represents all profits from continuing operations (both operating and non-operating) before deducting interest and taxes, and is net of amounts attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits. Segment EBIT includes transactions between reportable segments. Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments are managed centrally by Duke Energy, so the associated interest and dividend income and realized and unrealized gains and losses from foreign currency transactions on those balances are excluded from segment EBIT.

Duke Energy

Duke Energy has the following reportable operating segments: U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas (USFE&G), Commercial Power and International Energy.

USFE&G generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in central and western North Carolina, western South Carolina, central, north central and southern Indiana, and northern Kentucky. USFE&G also transmits and distributes electricity in southwestern Ohio. Additionally, USFE&G transports and sells natural gas in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, certain regulated portions of Duke Energy Ohio including Duke Energy Kentucky, and Duke Energy Indiana.

Commercial Power owns, operates and manages power plants and engages in the wholesale marketing and procurement of electric power, fuel and emission allowances related to these plants, as well as other contractual positions. Commercial Power also has a retail sales subsidiary, Duke Energy Retail Sales, LLC (Duke Energy Retail), which is certified by the PUCO as a Competitive Retail Electric Service provider in Ohio. Through Duke Energy Generation Services, Inc. and its affiliates (DEGS), Commercial Power develops, owns and operates electric generation for large energy consumers, municipalities, utilities and industrial facilities. In addition, DEGS engages in the development, construction and operation of renewable energy projects and is also developing transmission projects.

International Energy principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power and natural gas outside the U.S. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy International, LLC (Duke Energy International) and its affiliates and its activities principally target power generation in Latin America. Additionally, International Energy owns a 25% interest in National Methanol Company, located in Saudi Arabia, which is a large regional producer of methanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether.

The remainder of Duke Energy’s operations is presented as Other. While it is not an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain unallocated corporate costs, which include certain costs not allocable to Duke Energy’ reportable business segments, primarily governance, costs to achieve mergers and divestitures, and costs associated with certain corporate severance programs. It also includes, Bison Insurance Company Limited (Bison), Duke Energy’s wholly-owned, captive insurance subsidiary, Duke Energy’s 50% interest in DukeNet Communications, LLC (DukeNet) and related telecommunications businesses, and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), which is 40% owned by Exxon Mobil Corporation and 60% owned by Duke Energy. Prior to the sale of a 50% ownership in DukeNet to investment funds managed by Alinda Capital Partners, LLC (collectively Alinda) in December 2010, Other reflected the results of Duke Energy’s 100% ownership of DukeNet.

24

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Business Segment Data

	Unaffiliated Revenues			Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	2,917		$	9		$	2,926		$	721		$	352
Commercial Power		684			3			687			67			56
International Energy		360			—			360			168			23
Total reportable segments		3,961			12			3,973			956			431
Other		3			11			14			(74	)		24
Eliminations		—			(23	)		(23	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(213	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			7			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			1			—
Total consolidated	$	3,964		$	—		$	3,964		$	677		$	455
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	2,934		$	10		$	2,944		$	946		$	350
Commercial Power		736			1			737			188			54
International Energy		273			—			273			110			21
Total reportable segments		3,943			11			3,954			1,244			425
Other(c)		3			14			17			(100	)		22
Eliminations		—			(25	)		(25	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(202	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			25			—
Total consolidated	$	3,946		$	—		$	3,946		$	967		$	447
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	8,131		$	27		$	8,158		$	2,052		$	1,032
Commercial Power		1,918			8			1,926			217			173
International Energy		1,114			—			1,114			527			66
Total reportable segments		11,163			35			11,198			2,796			1,271
Other		(2	)		36			34			(176	)		75
Eliminations		—			(71	)		(71	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(635	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			53			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			18			—
Total consolidated	$	11,161		$	—		$	11,161		$	2,056		$	1,346

25

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

	Unaffiliated Revenues		Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	8,017	$	25		$	8,042		$	2,361		$	1,033
Commercial Power(b)		1,850		6			1,856			(287	)		167
International Energy		919		—			919			376			63
Total reportable segments		10,786		31			10,817			2,450			1,263
Other(c)		41		41			82			(368	)		66
Eliminations		—		(72	)		(72	)		—			—
Interest expense		—		—			—			(624	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—		—			—			62			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—		—			—			16			—
Total consolidated	$	10,827	$	—		$	10,827		$	1,536		$	1,329

(a) As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

(b) As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $660 million, which consisted of a $500 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

(c) During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $20 million and $164 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

(d) Other within Interest Income and Other includes foreign currency transaction gains and losses and additional noncontrolling interest amounts not allocated to the reportable segments and Other results.

Segment assets in the following table exclude all intercompany assets.

Segment Assets

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
USFE&G	$	46,827	$	45,210
Commercial Power		6,739		6,704
International Energy		4,379		4,310
Total reportable segments		57,945		56,224
Other		2,730		2,845
Reclassifications(a)		101		21
Total consolidated assets	$	60,776	$	59,090

(a) Primarily represents reclassification of federal tax balances in consolidation.

26

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas has one reportable operating segment, Franchised Electric, which generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity and conducts operations through Duke Energy Carolinas, which consists of the regulated electric utility business in North Carolina and South Carolina.

The remainder of Duke Energy Carolinas’ operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain corporate governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Segment EBIT/ Consolidated Income Before Income Taxes
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric	$	627		$	654		$	1,486		$	1,567
Total reportable segment		627			654			1,486			1,567
Other(a)		(40	)		(85	)		(121	)		(244	)
Interest expense		(93	)		(95	)		(264	)		(271	)
Interest income		1			3			9			21
Total consolidated	$	495		$	477		$	1,110		$	1,073

(a) During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $13 million and a $98 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

Unaffiliated Revenues

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas’ revenues are from its Franchised Electric operating segment. There were no intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Depreciation and Amortization

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas’ depreciation and amortization are from its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Segment Assets

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas’ assets are owned by its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Duke Energy Ohio

Duke Energy Ohio has two reportable operating segments, Franchised Electric and Gas and Commercial Power.

Franchised Electric and Gas transmits and distributes electricity in southwestern Ohio and generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity in northern Kentucky. Franchised Electric and Gas also transports and sells natural gas in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Ohio and its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky.

Commercial Power owns, operates and manages power plants and engages in the wholesale marketing and procurement of electric power, fuel and emission allowances related to these plants, as well as other contractual positions. Duke Energy Ohio’s Commercial Power reportable operating segment does not include the operations of DEGS or Duke Energy Retail, which is included in the Commercial Power reportable operating segment at Duke Energy.

The remainder of Duke Energy Ohio’s operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

27

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Business Segment Data

	Unaffiliated Revenues  (a)		Segment EBIT/ Consolidated Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	333	$	93		$	42
Commercial Power		505		44			41
Total reportable segments		838		137			83
Other		—		(16	)		—
Interest expense		—		(27	)		—
Interest income and other		—		3			—
Total consolidated	$	838	$	97		$	83
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	367	$	102		$	56
Commercial Power(c)		556		196			41
Total reportable segments		923		298			97
Other		—		(19	)		—
Interest expense		—		(26	)		—
Interest income and other		—		8			—
Total consolidated	$	923	$	261		$	97
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	1,112	$	251		$	133
Commercial Power		1,299		118			126
Total reportable segments		2,411		369			259
Other		—		(52	)		—
Interest expense		—		(78	)		—
Interest income and other		—		10			—
Total consolidated	$	2,411	$	249		$	259
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
Franchised Electric and Gas(b)	$	1,204	$	69		$	168
Commercial Power(c)		1,345		(273	)		132
Total reportable segments		2,549		(204	)		300
Other		—		(71	)		—
Interest expense		—		(84	)		—
Interest income and other		—		17			—
Total consolidated	$	2,549	$	(342	)	$	300

(a) There was an insignificant amount of intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

(b) In the second quarter of 2010, Franchised Electric and Gas recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $216 million related to the Ohio Transmission and Distribution (Ohio T&D) reporting unit. This impairment charge was not applicable to Duke Energy. See Note 7 for additional information.

(c) As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $621 million, which consisted of a $461 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

28

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Segment Assets

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	6,210		$	6,258
Commercial Power		4,573			4,821
Total reportable segments		10,783			11,079
Other		162			192
Eliminations and reclassifications		(286	)		(247	)
Total consolidated assets	$	10,659		$	11,024

Duke Energy Indiana

Duke Energy Indiana has one reportable operating segment, Franchised Electric, which generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity and conducts operations through Duke Energy Indiana, which consists of the regulated electric utility business in north central, central and southern Indiana.

The remainder of Duke Energy Indiana’s operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Segment EBIT/Consolidated (Loss)/Income Before Income Taxes
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric(a)	$	(6	)	$	178		$	295		$	484
Total reportable segment		(6	)		178			295			484
Other		(13	)		(15	)		(39	)		(65	)
Interest expense		(34	)		(32	)		(104	)		(99	)
Interest income and other		3			5			11			11
Total consolidated	$	(50	)	$	136		$	163		$	331

(a) As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

Unaffiliated Revenues

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana’s revenues are from its Franchised Electric operating segment. There were no intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Depreciation and Amortization

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana’s depreciation and amortization are from its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Segment Assets

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, all of Duke Energy Indiana’s assets are owned by its Franchised Electric operating segment.

29

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

3. Acquisitions and Sales of Other Assets

Acquisitions. The Duke Energy Registrants consolidate assets and liabilities from acquisitions as of the purchase date, and include earnings from acquisitions in consolidated earnings after the purchase date.

Duke Energy

On January 8, 2011, Duke Energy entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) among Diamond Acquisition Corporation, a North Carolina corporation and Duke Energy’s wholly-owned subsidiary (Merger Sub) and Progress Energy, a North Carolina corporation. Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Progress Energy with Progress Energy continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, upon the closing of the merger, each issued and outstanding share of Progress Energy common stock will automatically be cancelled and converted into the right to receive 2.6125 shares of common stock of Duke Energy, subject to appropriate adjustment for a reverse stock split of the Duke Energy common stock as contemplated in the Merger Agreement and except that any shares of Progress Energy common stock that are owned by Progress Energy or Duke Energy, other than in a fiduciary capacity, will be cancelled without any consideration therefor. Each outstanding option to acquire, and each outstanding equity award relating to, one share of Progress Energy common stock will be converted into an option to acquire, or an equity award relating to 2.6125 shares of Duke Energy common stock, as applicable, subject to appropriate adjustment for the reverse stock split. Based on Progress Energy shares outstanding at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy would issue 771 million shares of common stock to convert the Progress Energy common shares in the merger under the unadjusted exchange ratio of 2.6125. The exchange ratio will be adjusted proportionately to reflect a 1-for-3 reverse stock split with respect to the issued and outstanding Duke Energy common stock that Duke Energy plans to implement prior to, and conditioned on, the completion of the merger. The resulting adjusted exchange ratio is 0.87083 of a share of Duke Energy common stock for each share of Progress Energy common stock. Based on Progress Energy shares outstanding at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy would issue 257 million shares of common stock, after the effect of the 1-for-3 reverse stock split, to convert the Progress Energy common shares in the merger. The merger will be accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting with Duke Energy treated as the acquirer, for accounting purposes. Based on the market price of Duke Energy common stock on September 30, 2011, the transaction would be valued at $15.4 billion and would result in incremental recorded goodwill to Duke Energy of $9.3 billion, according to current estimates. Duke Energy would also assume all of Progress Energy’s outstanding debt, which is estimated to be $15.1 billion based on the approximate fair value of Progress Energy’s outstanding indebtedness at September 30, 2011. The Merger Agreement has been unanimously approved by both companies’ Boards of Directors.

The merger is conditioned upon, among other things, approval by the shareholders of both companies, as well as expiration or termination of any applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 and approval by the FERC, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the NRC, the NCUC, and the KPSC. Duke Energy and Progress Energy also are seeking review of the merger by the PSCSC and approval of the joint dispatch agreement by the PSCSC. Although there are no merger-specific regulatory approvals required in Indiana, Ohio or Florida, the companies will continue to update the public services commissions in those states on the merger, as applicable and as required. The status of these matters is as follows:

• On March 17, 2011, Duke Energy filed an initial registration statement on Form S-4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for shares to be issued to consummate the merger with Progress Energy. On July 7, 2011, the Form S-4 was declared effective by the SEC, and the joint proxy statement/prospectus contained in the Form S-4 was mailed to the shareholders of both companies thereafter. On August 23, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy shareholders approved the proposed merger. In addition, Duke Energy shareholders approved a 1-for-3 reverse stock split.

• On March 28, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy submitted Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust filings to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The parties have met their obligations under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, which is no longer a bar to closing the transaction.

• On March 30, 2011, Progress Energy made filings with the NRC for approval for indirect transfer of control of licenses for Progress Energy’s nuclear facilities to include Duke Energy as the ultimate parent corporation on these licenses.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a merger application and joint dispatch agreement with the NCUC. On September 2, 2011, Duke Energy, Progress Energy and the NC Public Staff filed a settlement agreement with the NCUC. Under the settlement agreement, the companies will guarantee North Carolina customers their allocable share of $650 million in savings related to fuel and joint dispatch of generation assets over the first five years after the merger closes, continue community financial support for a minimum of four years, contribute to weatherization efforts of low-income customers and workforce development and agree not to recover direct merger-related costs. A public hearing occurred September 20-22, 2011 and proposed orders and/or briefs must be filed by November 14, 2011.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a merger application with the KPSC. On June 24, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a settlement agreement with the Attorney General. A public hearing occurred on July 8, 2011. An order conditionally approving the merger was issued on August 2, 2011. The KPSC required Duke Energy and Progress Energy to accept all the conditions contained in the order within seven days of the order. After seeking an extension, on August 19, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed for clarification of one of the merger conditions. On September 15, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed for approval of a stipulation revising the merger condition. On October 28, 2011, the KPSC issued an order approving the stipulation and merger.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy, jointly filed applications with the FERC for the approval of the merger, the Joint Dispatch Agreement and the joint Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). On September 30, 2011, the FERC conditionally approved the merger, subject to approval of mitigation measures to address its finding that the combined company could have an adverse effect on competition in wholesale power markets in the Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas East balancing authority areas. On October 17, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed their plan for mitigating the FERC’s concerns by proposing to offer on a daily basis a certain quantity of power during summer and winter periods to the extent it is available after serving native load and existing firm obligations. The price will be incremental cost, plus 10 percent. Intervenors may comment on the plan by November 16, 2011, after which time, the FERC will rule on whether the mitigation plan adequately addresses the market power issues. FERC has not yet ruled on the Joint Dispatch Agreement or the joint OATT. On October 31, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a request for rehearing with the FERC. The request states that the FERC applied a more stringent analysis to the proposed merger than required by its current rules. Duke Energy and Progress Energy also requested that the FERC address the companies’ previously filed mitigation plan no later than December 15, 2011.

30

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

• On April 25, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy, on behalf of their utility companies Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas, filed an application requesting the PSCSC to review the merger and approve the proposed Joint Dispatch Agreement and the prospective future merger of Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas. On September 13, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy withdrew their application seeking approval for the future merger of their Carolinas utility companies, Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas, as the merger of these entities is not likely to occur for several years after the close of the merger. On October 13, 2011 the PSCSC issued an order suspending all scheduled deadlines and the hearing date until Duke Energy and Progress Energy file their proposed mitigation measures with the FERC and the PSCSC. Duke Energy and Progress Energy made that filing on October 17, 2011. On November 2, 2011, the PSCSC adopted a revised procedural schedule for its review of the merger. Hearings are scheduled to begin the week of December 12, 2011. The docket will remain open pending FERC issuance of its final orders on the merger related actions before the FERC.

• On July 12, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed an application with the FCC for approval of radio system license transfers. The FCC approved the transfers on July 27, 2011.

Duke Energy is targeting completion of the merger by the end of 2011, however no assurances can be given as to the timing of the satisfaction of all closing conditions or that all required approvals will be received.

The Merger Agreement contains certain termination rights for both Duke Energy and Progress Energy, and further provides for the payment of a termination fee of $400 million by Progress Energy under specified circumstances and a termination fee of $675 million by Duke Energy under specified circumstances.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy incurred transaction and integration costs related to the Progress Energy merger of $13 million and $29 million, respectively, which are recorded within Operating Expenses in Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

See Note 5 for information regarding litigation related to the pending merger with Progress Energy.

Vermillion Generating Station.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana

In May 2011, Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC (Duke Energy Vermillion), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into an agreement to sell its 75% undivided ownership interest in the Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana and Wabash Valley Power Association (WVPA). On August 12, 2011, the FERC approved the Vermillion transaction. An IURC hearing was held in September 2011 with an order expected in the fourth quarter of 2011. If approved by the IURC, Duke Energy Indiana and WVPA will acquire 62.5% and 12.5% interests in the Vermillion Generating Station, respectively. As Duke Energy Indiana is an affiliate of Duke Energy Vermillion the transaction will be accounted for as a transfer between entities under common control with no gain or loss recorded and is not expected to have a significant impact to Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana’s results of operations. At June 30, 2011, the carrying value of the proportionate share of Vermillion Generating Station which is expected to be sold to WVPA exceeded its estimated fair value. The estimated fair value was determined based on the expected proceeds to be received from WVPA less costs to sell. Accordingly, Duke Energy Ohio’s Commercial Power segment recorded an impairment of $9 million in the second quarter of 2011. This amount is presented in Goodwill and other impairment charges in Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio’s condensed consolidated statements of operations. See Note 5 for further discussion of the Vermillion transaction.

31

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

4. Regulatory Matters

Progress Energy Merger. See Note 3 for information regarding Duke Energy’s pending merger with Progress Energy.

Rate Related Information. The NCUC, PSCSC, IURC and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and gas services within their states. The PUCO approves rates for retail gas and electric service within Ohio, except that non-regulated sellers of gas and electric generation also are allowed to operate in Ohio. The FERC approves rates for electric sales to wholesale customers served under cost-based rates, as well as sales of transmission service.

Duke Energy Ohio Standard Service Offer (SSO). Ohio law provides the PUCO authority to approve an electric utility’s generation SSO. A SSO may include an Electric Security Plan (ESP), which would allow for the pricing structures used by Duke Energy Ohio since 2004, or a Market Rate Offer (MRO), in which pricing is determined through a competitive bidding process. On November 15, 2010, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval of its next SSO to replace the existing ESP that expires on December 31, 2011. The filing requested approval of a MRO. On February 23, 2011, the PUCO stated that Duke Energy Ohio did not file an application for a five-year MRO as required under Ohio statute. On June 20, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO for approval of an ESP for its customers beginning January 1, 2012, with rates in effect through May 31, 2021.

On October 24, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and most intervenors, including the PUCO Staff, entered into a settlement stipulation. If approved by the PUCO, the stipulation would establish an ESP with competitive auctions for a term of January 1, 2012 through May 31, 2015. The stipulation also includes provision for a non-bypassable stability charge of $110 million per year to be collected from 2012-2014 and requires Duke Energy Ohio to transfer its generation assets to a non-regulated affiliate on or before December 31, 2014. The stipulation requests that the PUCO approve the settlement on or before November 15, 2011, to allow Duke Energy Ohio to conduct auctions to serve SSO customers effective January 1, 2012. A hearing on the stipulation occured on November 3, 2011.

Duke Energy Carolinas North Carolina Rate Case. On July 1, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a rate case with the NCUC to request an average 15% increase in retail revenues, or approximately $646 million, with a rate of return on equity of 11.5%. The increase is designed to recover the cost of the ongoing generation fleet modernization program, environmental compliance and other capital investments made since 2009.

On November 1, 2011, the NC Public Staff filed testimony to limit Duke Energy Carolinas to an average 4.8% increase in retail rates, or approximately $211 million, with a rate of return on equity of 9.25%.

A hearing is scheduled to begin with the NCUC on November 28, 2011. Duke Energy Carolinas expects revised rates would likely go into effect in February 2012.

Duke Energy Carolinas South Carolina Rate Case. On August 5, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a rate case with the PSCSC to request an average 15% increase in retail revenues, or approximately $216 million, with a rate of return on equity of 11.5%. The increase is designed to recover the cost of the ongoing generation fleet modernization program, environmental compliance and other capital investments made since 2009. A hearing is scheduled with the PSCSC on December 7, 2011. If approved by the PSCSC, rates would likely go into effect in February 2012.

32

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy Indiana Energy Efficiency. On September 28, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for new energy efficiency programs to enable meeting the IURC’s energy efficiency mandates. Duke Energy Indiana’s proposal requests recovery of costs through a rider including lost revenues and incentives for core plus energy efficiency programs and lost revenues and cost recovery for core energy efficiency programs. The hearing occurred in July 2011 and an order is expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Duke Energy Indiana Storm Cost Deferrals. On July 14, 2010, the IURC approved Duke Energy Indiana’s deferral of $12 million of retail jurisdictional storm expense until the next retail rate proceeding. This amount represents a portion of costs associated with a January 27, 2009 ice storm, which damaged Duke Energy Indiana’s distribution system. On August 12, 2010, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) filed a notice of appeal with the IURC. On December 7, 2010, the IURC issued an order reopening this proceeding for review in consideration of the evidence presented as a result of an internal audit performed as part of an IURC investigation of Duke Energy Indiana’s hiring of an attorney from the IURC staff which resulted in the IURC’s termination of the employment of the Chairman of the IURC. The audit did not find that the order conflicted with the staff report; however, it did note that the staff report offered no specific recommendation to either approve or deny the requested relief, and that the original order was appealed. The IURC set a new procedural schedule to take supplemental testimony and an evidentiary hearing was held in June 2011. On October 19, 2011, the IURC issued an order denying Duke Energy Indiana the right to defer the storm expense discussed above.

Duke Energy Ohio Storm Cost Recovery. On December 11, 2009, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO to recover Hurricane Ike storm restoration costs of $31 million through a discrete rider. The PUCO granted the request to defer the costs associated with the storm recovery; however, they further ordered Duke Energy Ohio to file a separate action pursuant to which the actual amount of recovery would be determined. On January 11, 2011, the PUCO approved recovery of $14 million plus carrying costs which will be spread over a three-year period. Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for rehearing on February 10, 2011, as did the consumer advocate, the office of the Ohio Consumers’ Council (OCC). On March 9, 2011, the PUCO denied the rehearing requests of Duke Energy Ohio and the OCC. Duke Energy Ohio filed a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court on May 6, 2011 and briefs have been filed by Duke Energy Ohio and the PUCO. Oral arguments are to be scheduled by the Court.

Capital Expansion Projects.

Overview. USFE&G is engaged in planning efforts to meet projected load growth in its service territories. Capacity additions may include new nuclear, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), coal facilities or gas-fired generation units. Because of the long lead times required to develop such assets, USFE&G is taking steps now to ensure those options are available.

Duke Energy Carolinas William States Lee III Nuclear Station. In December 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NRC, which has been docketed for review, for a combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for two Westinghouse AP1000 (advanced passive) reactors for the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) at a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina. Each reactor is capable of producing 1,117 MW. Submitting the COL application does not commit Duke Energy Carolinas to build nuclear units. Duke Energy Carolinas had previously received approval to incur project development costs associated with Lee Nuclear Station from both the NCUC and the PSCSC. Through several separate orders, the NCUC and PSCSC have deemed Duke Energy’s decision to incur project development and pre-construction costs for the project as reasonable and prudent through December 31, 2009 and up to an aggregate maximum amount of $230 million. On November 15, 2010 and January 7, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed amended project development applications with the NCUC and PSCSC, respectively. These applications request approval of Duke Energy Carolinas’ decision to continue to incur project development and pre-construction costs for the project through December 31, 2013, and up to $459 million. The hearing before the NCUC occurred March 15, 2011. The PSCSC hearing occurred on May 16 and May 17, 2011.

On July 1, 2011, the PSCSC issued an order stating Duke Energy Carolinas must incur only those costs necessary to keep the project available as an option in the 2021 time frame, not to exceed South Carolina’s allocable share of $120 million, including allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC), for the period of January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. Also, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Duke Energy Carolinas shall provide certain monthly reports to the PSCSC and the Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS). Duke Energy Carolinas has also agreed to provide a monthly report to certain parties on the progress of negotiations to acquire an interest in the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station (refer to discussion below) expansion being developed by South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G). Any change in ownership interest, output allocation, sharing of costs or control and any future option agreements concerning Lee Nuclear Station shall be subject to prior approval of the PSCSC.

On August 5, 2011, the NCUC issued an order approving Duke Energy’s decision to incur project development costs up to North Carolina’s allocable share of $120 million and subject to the limitation that it is only appropriate to incur such costs necessary to maintain the status quo with respect to the Lee Nuclear Station, including the COL application at the NRC.

On April 18, 2011, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) filed a petition requesting that the NRC suspend all pending reactor licensing decisions pending the investigation of lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident in Japan. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a response opposing this petition. In addition to its emergency petition, on August 11, 2011, BREDL also filed a “Motion to Admit new Contention Regarding the Safety and Environmental Implications of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Task Force Report on the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident.” Duke Energy Carolinas filed a response opposing admission of this new contention. On September 9, 2011, the NRC issued a decision denying BREDL’s emergency petition, and on October 18, 2011, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a decision denying admission of the new contention.

The NRC review of the COL application continues and the estimated receipt of the COL is in mid 2013. Duke Energy Carolinas filed with the DOE for a federal loan guarantee, which has the potential to significantly lower financing costs associated with the proposed Lee Nuclear Station; however, it was not among the four projects selected by the DOE for the final phase of due diligence for the federal loan guarantee program. The project could be selected in the future if the program funding is expanded or if any of the current finalists drop out of the program.

Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking partners for Lee Nuclear Station by issuing options to purchase an ownership interest in the plant. In the first quarter of 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into an agreement with JEA that provides JEA with an option to purchase up to a 20% undivided ownership interest in Lee Nuclear Station. JEA has 90 days following Duke Energy Carolinas’ receipt of the COL to exercise the option.

Duke Energy Carolinas V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Letter of Intent. In July 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas signed a letter of intent with Santee Cooper related to the potential acquisition by Duke Energy Carolinas of a five percent to ten percent ownership interest in the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station being developed by Santee Cooper and SCE&G near Jenkinsville, South Carolina. The letter of intent provides a path for Duke Energy Carolinas to conduct the necessary due diligence to determine if future participation in this project is beneficial for its customers.

Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Unit 6. On March 21, 2007, the NCUC issued an order allowing Duke Energy Carolinas to build one 800 MW coal-fired unit. Following final equipment selection and the completion of detailed engineering, Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to have a net output of 825 MW. On January 31, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its updated cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC of $600 million) for the approved new Cliffside Unit 6. In March 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an update to the cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC) with the NCUC where it reduced the estimated AFUDC financing costs to $400 million as a result of the December 2009 rate case settlement with the NCUC that allowed the inclusion of construction work in progress in rate base prospectively. Duke Energy

33

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Carolinas believes that the overall cost of Cliffside Unit 6 will be reduced by $125 million in federal advanced clean coal tax credits, as discussed in Note 5. Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to begin operation by the end of 2012. Also, see Note 5 for information related to the Cliffside Unit 6 air permit.

Duke Energy Carolinas Dan River and Buck Combined Cycle Facilities. In June 2008, the NCUC issued its order approving the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) applications to construct a 620 MW combined cycle natural gas fired generating facility at each of Duke Energy Carolinas’ existing Dan River Steam Station and Buck Steam Station. The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) issued a final air permit authorizing construction of the Buck and Dan River combined cycle natural gas-fired generating units in October 2008 and August 2009, respectively.

The Buck project is expected to begin operation by the end of 2011. The Dan River project is expected to begin operation by the end of 2012. Based on the most updated cost estimates, total costs (including AFUDC) for the Buck and Dan River projects are $700 million and $716 million, respectively.

Duke Energy Indiana Edwardsport IGCC Plant. On September 7, 2006, Duke Energy Indiana and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana (Vectren) filed a joint petition with the IURC seeking a CPCN for the construction of a 618 MW IGCC power plant at Duke Energy Indiana’s Edwardsport Generating Station in Knox County, Indiana. The facility was initially estimated to cost approximately $1.985 billion (including $120 million of AFUDC). In August 2007, Vectren formally withdrew its participation in the IGCC plant and a hearing was conducted on the CPCN petition based on Duke Energy Indiana owning 100% of the project. On November 20, 2007, the IURC issued an order granting Duke Energy Indiana a CPCN for the proposed IGCC project, approved the cost estimate of $1.985 billion and approved the timely recovery of costs related to the project. On January 25, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana received the final air permit from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. The Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. (CAC), Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc., all intervenors in the CPCN proceeding, have appealed the air permit.

On May 1, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana filed its first semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC as required under the CPCN order issued by the IURC. In its filing, Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of a new cost estimate for the IGCC project of $2.35 billion (including $125 million of AFUDC) and for approval of plans to study carbon capture as required by the IURC’s CPCN order. On January 7, 2009, the IURC approved Duke Energy Indiana’s request, including the new cost estimate of $2.35 billion, and cost recovery associated with a study on carbon capture. On November 3, 2008 and May 1, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed its second and third semi-annual IGCC riders, respectively, both of which were approved by the IURC in full.

On November 24, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for its fourth semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC. As Duke Energy Indiana experienced design modifications and scope growth above what was anticipated from the preliminary engineering design, capital costs to the IGCC project were anticipated to increase. Duke Energy Indiana forecasted that the additional capital cost items would use the remaining contingency and escalation amounts in the current $2.35 billion cost estimate and add $150 million, excluding the impact associated with the need to add more contingency. Duke Energy Indiana did not request approval of an increased cost estimate in the fourth semi-annual update proceeding; rather, Duke Energy Indiana requested, and the IURC approved, a subdocket proceeding in which Duke Energy Indiana would present additional evidence regarding an updated estimated cost for the IGCC project and in which a more comprehensive review of the IGCC project could occur. The evidentiary hearing for the fourth semi-annual update proceeding was held April 6, 2010, and an interim order was received on July 28, 2010. The order approves the implementation of an updated IGCC rider to recover costs incurred through September 30, 2009, effective immediately. The approvals are on an interim basis pending the outcome of the sub-docket proceeding involving the revised cost estimate as discussed further below.

On April 16, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed a revised cost estimate for the IGCC project reflecting an estimated cost increase of $530 million. Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of the revised cost estimate of $2.88 billion (including $160 million of AFUDC), and for continuation of the existing cost recovery treatment. A major driver of the cost increase included design changes reflected in the final engineering leading to increased scope and complexity. On September 17, 2010 an agreement was reached with the OUCC, Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Nucor Steel – Indiana to increase the authorized cost estimate of $2.35 billion to $2.76 billion, and to cap the project’s costs that could be passed on to customers at $2.975 billion. Any construction cost amounts above $2.76 billion would be subject to a prudence review similar to most other rate base investments in Duke Energy Indiana’s next general rate increase request before the IURC. Duke Energy Indiana agreed to accept a 150 basis point reduction in the equity return for any project construction costs greater than $2.35 billion. Additionally, Duke Energy Indiana agreed not to file for a general rate case increase before March 2012. Duke Energy Indiana also agreed to reduce depreciation rates earlier than would otherwise be required and to forego a deferred tax incentive related to the IGCC project. As a result of the settlement, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax charge to earnings of approximately $44 million in the third quarter of 2010 to reflect the impact of the reduction in the return on equity. The charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. This charge is recorded in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Indiana’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Due to the IURC investigation discussed below, the IURC convened a technical conference on November 3, 2010 related to the continuing need for the Edwardsport IGCC facility. On December 9, 2010, the parties to the settlement withdrew the settlement agreement to provide an opportunity to assess whether and to what extent the settlement agreement remained a reasonable allocation of risks and rewards and whether modifications to the settlement agreement were appropriate. Management determined that the approximate $44 million charge discussed above was not impacted by the withdrawal of the settlement agreement.

Additionally, the CAC, Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc. filed motions for two subdocket proceedings alleging improper communications, undue influence, fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement, and a request for field hearing in this proceeding. Duke Energy Indiana opposed the requests. During 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed petitions for its fifth and sixth semi-annual IGCC riders. Evidentiary hearings are set for November 17, 2011 and November 21, 2011, respectively.

On February 25, 2011, the IURC issued an order which denied the request for a subdocket to investigate the allegations of improper communications and undue influence at this time, finding there were other agencies better suited for such investigation. The IURC also found that allegations of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement related to the IGCC project should be heard in a Phase II proceeding of the cost estimate subdocket and set evidentiary hearings on both Phase I (cost estimate increase) and Phase II beginning in August 2011. In April 2011, after an attorneys’ conference, and in response to the other parties’ request for more time, the IURC scheduled hearings for Phase I to begin October 26, 2011 and Phase II hearings to begin November 3, 2011.

On March 10, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC proposing a framework designed to mitigate customer rate impacts associated with the Edwardsport IGCC project. Duke Energy Indiana’s filing proposed a cap on the project’s construction costs, (excluding financing costs), which can be recovered through rates at $2.72 billion. It also proposed rate-related adjustments that will lower the overall customer rate increase related to the project from an average of 19% to approximately 16%. The proposal is subject to the approval of the IURC in the Phase I hearings.

34

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

On June 27, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC in connection with its seventh semi-annual rider request which included an update on the current cost forecast of the Edwardsport project. The evidentiary hearing is set for December 13, 2011. The updated forecast excluding AFUDC increased from $2.72 billion to $2.82 billion, not including any contingency for unexpected start-up events. On June 30, 2011, the OUCC and intervenors filed testimony in Phase I recommending that Duke Energy Indiana be disallowed cost recovery of any of the additional cost estimate increase above the previously approved cost estimate of $2.35 billion. Duke Energy Indiana filed rebuttal testimony on August 3, 2011.

On July 14, 2011, the OUCC and certain intervenors filed testimony in Phase II alleging that Duke Energy Indiana concealed information and grossly mismanaged the project, and therefore Duke Energy Indiana should only be permitted to recover from customers $1.985 billion, the original IGCC project cost estimate approved by the IURC. Other intervenors recommended that Duke Energy Indiana not be able to rely on any cost recovery granted under the CPCN or the first cost increase order. Duke Energy Indiana believes it has diligently and prudently managed the project. On September 9, 2011, Duke Energy defended against the allegations in its responsive testimony. The OUCC and intervenors filed their final rebuttal testimony in Phase II on or before October 7, 2011, making similar claims of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement and recommending the same outcome of limiting Duke Energy Indiana’s recovery to the $1.985 billion initial cost estimate. Additionally, the CAC parties recommended that recovery be limited to the costs incurred on the IGCC project as of November 30, 2009 (Duke Energy Indiana estimates it had committed costs of $1.6 billion), with further IURC proceedings to be held to determine the financial consequences of this recommendation.

On October 19, 2011, Duke Energy revised its project cost estimate from approximately $2.72 billion, excluding financing costs, to approximately $2.98 billion, excluding financing costs. The revised estimate reflects additional cost pressures resulting from unfavorable labor productivity trends and incremental material quantity and scope changes. Duke Energy Indiana previously proposed to the IURC a cost cap of approximately $2.72 billion, plus the actual AFUDC that accrues on that amount. As a result, for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $222 million related to costs expected to be incurred above the cost cap. This charge is in addition to a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $44 million recorded in the third quarter of 2010 as discussed above. The approximate $222 million charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations, and in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Indiana’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The cost cap, if approved by the IURC, limits the amount of project construction costs that may be incorporated into customer rates in Indiana. As a result of the proposed cost cap, recovery of these cost increases is not considered probable. Additional updates to the cost estimate could occur through the completion of the plant in 2012.

On October 26, 2011, hearings before the IURC commenced pursuant to the previously established schedule and will continue until all evidence is presented for both Phase I and Phase II.

Duke Energy is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings. In the event the IURC disallows a portion of the plant costs, including financing costs, additional charges to expense could occur. An order is expected in the first quarter of 2012.

Construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant is ongoing and is currently expected to be completed and placed in-service in 2012.

Duke Energy Indiana Carbon Sequestration. Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition with the IURC requesting approval of its plans for studying carbon storage, sequestration and/or enhanced oil recovery for the carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) from the Edwardsport IGCC facility on March 6, 2009. On July 7, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed its case-in-chief testimony requesting approval for cost recovery of a $121 million site assessment and characterization plan for CO₂ sequestration options including deep saline sequestration, depleted oil and gas sequestration and enhanced oil recovery for the CO₂ from the Edwardsport IGCC facility. The OUCC filed testimony supportive of the continuing study of carbon storage, but recommended that Duke Energy Indiana break its plan into phases, recommending approval of only $33 million in expenditures at this time and deferral of expenditures rather than cost recovery through a tracking mechanism as proposed by Duke Energy Indiana. The CAC, an intervenor, recommended against approval of the carbon storage plan stating customers should not be required to pay for research and development costs. Duke Energy Indiana’s rebuttal testimony was filed October 30, 2009, wherein it amended its request to seek deferral of $42 million to cover the carbon storage site assessment and characterization activities scheduled to occur through the end of 2010, with further required study expenditures subject to future IURC proceedings. An evidentiary hearing was held on November 9, 2009, and an order is expected by the end of 2011.

Duke Energy Indiana IURC Investigation. On October 5, 2010, the Governor of Indiana terminated the employment of the Chairman of the IURC in connection with Duke Energy Indiana’s hiring of an attorney from the IURC staff. As requested by the governor, the Indiana Inspector General initiated an investigation into whether the IURC attorney violated any state ethics rules, and the IURC announced it would internally audit the Duke Energy Indiana cases dating from January 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010, on which this attorney worked while at the IURC, which includes the Indiana storm costs deferral request discussed above, as well as all Edwardsport IGCC cases dating back to 2006. Duke Energy Indiana engaged an outside law firm to conduct its own investigation regarding Duke Energy Indiana’s hiring of an IURC attorney and Duke Energy Indiana’s related hiring practices. On October 5, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana placed the attorney and President of Duke Energy Indiana on administrative leave. They were subsequently terminated on November 8, 2010. On December 7, 2010, the IURC released its internal audit findings concluding that the previous rulings were supported by sound, legal reasoning consistent with the Indiana Rules of Evidence and historical practice and procedures of the IURC and that the previous rulings appeared to be balanced and consistent among the parties. The audit concluded it did not reveal any bias or a resultant unfair advantage obtained by Duke Energy Indiana as a result of the evidentiary rulings of the former IURC attorney. As noted above, in the storm cost deferral case, the IURC found no conflict between the order and the staff report; however, the audit report noted the staff report offered no specific recommendation to either approve or deny the requested relief and that this was the only order that was subject to an appeal. As such, the IURC reopened that proceeding for further review and consideration of the evidence presented. The Inspector General’s investigation into whether the former IURC attorney violated any state ethics rules was the subject of an Indiana Ethics Commission hearing that was held on April 14, 2011, and a final report was issued on May 14, 2011. The final report pertained only to the conduct of the former IURC attorney as Duke Energy Indiana was not a subject of the investigation.

Other Matters.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky Regional Transmission Organization Realignment. Duke Energy Ohio, which includes its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky, is in the advanced planning stages to transfer control of its transmission assets to effect a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) realignment from the Midwest ISO to PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), effective January 1, 2012.

The FERC issued an order which approved Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky’s RTO realignment request on October 21, 2010, and authorized Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky to terminate their existing obligations to the Midwest ISO, subject to certain conditions.

In a related FERC proceeding, on December 16, 2010, FERC issued an order related to the Midwest ISO’s cost allocation methodology surrounding Multi-Value Projects (MVP), a type of Midwest ISO transmission expansion cost. The Midwest ISO expects that MVP will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring renewable generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the eastern portion of the Midwest ISO footprint. It is expected that the Midwest ISO will approve MVP proposals with estimated project costs in excess of $5 billion by the date of Duke Energy Ohio’s planned exit from the Midwest ISO on December 31, 2011. These projects are expected to be undertaken by the constructing transmission owners from 2012 through 2020 with costs recovered through the Midwest ISO over the useful life of the projects. The order provides that a withdrawing transmission owner shall remain responsible for all financial obligations incurred while it was a member for the allocation of MVP costs to withdrawing transmission owners for projects approved by the Midwest ISO up to the date of the withdrawing transmission owners’ exit from the Midwest ISO. The basis for allocating such MVP costs will be the withdrawing transmission owners’ historical usage of the Midwest ISO system. Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, has historically represented approximately five-percent of the Midwest ISO system. The impact of this order could result in a substantial increase in the Midwest ISO transmission expansion costs allocated to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky subsequent to a withdrawal from the Midwest ISO. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky, among other parties, sought rehearing of the FERC MVP order. On October 21, 2011, the FERC issued an order on rehearing in this matter largely affirming its original MVP order and conditionally accepting Midwest ISO’s compliance filing as well as determining that the MVP allocation methodology is consistent with cost causation principles and FERC precedent. The FERC also reiterated that it will not prejudge any settlement agreement between an RTO and a withdrawing transmission owner for fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to the RTO. The order further states that any such fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to an RTO are a matter for those parties to negotiate, subject to review by the FERC. The FERC also ruled that Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky’s challenge of the Midwest ISO’s ability to allocate MVP costs to a withdrawing transmission owner is beyond the scope of this proceeding. The Order further stated that Midwest ISO’s tariff withdrawal language establishes that once cost responsibility for transmission upgrades is determined, withdrawing transmission owners retain any costs incurred prior to the withdrawal date. Duke Energy will continue to pursue its challenge in regards to this issue in the appropriate proceeding.

On October 14, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky filed an application with the FERC to establish new rates for transmission service under PJM’s Open Access Transmission Tariff. The new rates are expected to go into effect, subject to refund, on January 1, 2012. The FERC has not yet established a procedural schedule to review the filing but is expected to do so in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky have entered into settlements or have received state regulatory approvals associated with the RTO realignment, including the recovery of MVP costs, if ultimately allocated to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky. On December 22, 2010, the KPSC issued an order granting approval of Duke Energy Kentucky’s request to effect the RTO realignment, subject to several conditions. The conditions accepted by Duke Energy Kentucky include a commitment to not seek to double-recover in a future rate case the transmission expansion fees that may be charged by the Midwest ISO and PJM in the same period or overlapping periods. On January 25, 2011, the KPSC issued an order stating that the order had been satisfied and is now unconditional. The order further requires Duke Energy Kentucky to submit to the KPSC internal procedures for the receipt and tracking of notices from PJM regarding customer requests to participate in PJM demand-response programs. Duke Energy Kentucky submitted its filing describing these internal procedures on March 30, 2011.

On April 26, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio, Ohio Energy Group, The Office of Ohio Consumers’ Counsel and the Commission Staff filed an Application and a Stipulation with the PUCO regarding Duke Energy Ohio’s recovery of certain costs related to its proposed RTO realignment. Under the Stipulation, Duke Energy Ohio would recover through retail rates all Midwest ISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) costs, including but not limited to MVP costs, directly or indirectly charged to Duke Energy Ohio via a non-bypassable rider. Duke Energy Ohio would not seek to recover any portion of the Midwest ISO exit obligation, PJM integration fees, or internal costs associated with the RTO realignment. Also, Duke Energy Ohio would not seek to recover the first $121 million of PJM transmission expansion costs from Ohio retail customers. On May 25, 2011, the Stipulation was approved by the PUCO. An application for rehearing filed by Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy was denied by the PUCO on July 15, 2011.

Duke Energy Ohio currently estimates the liability for its Midwest ISO exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP, will be approximately $90 million. The liability will be recorded within Other in Deferred credits and other liabilities on Duke Energy Ohio’s consolidated balance sheet upon exit from the Midwest ISO on December 31, 2011. Approximately $60 million of this amount will be recorded as a regulatory asset while the remainder will be recorded to Operation, maintenance and other in Duke Energy Ohio’s consolidated statement of operations. In addition to the above amounts, Duke Energy Ohio may also be responsible for costs associated with the Midwest ISO MVP projects. Duke Energy Ohio is contesting its obligation to pay for such costs. However, depending on the final outcome of this matter, Duke Energy Ohio could incur significant costs associated with MVP projects. The appropriate regulatory treatment will be pursued for any costs incurred in connection with the resolution of this matter.

35

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

5. Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental

Duke Energy is subject to international, federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental matters. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal 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 of the Duke Energy Registrants.

Remediation Activities. The Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various contaminated sites. These include some properties that are part of ongoing operations and sites formerly owned or used by Duke Energy entities, such as historic manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. Most of these sites were decommissioned in the 1960s. While a majority of the MGP by-products were sold off-site during the time period when the plants operated, some residuals remained on-site during plant decommissioning. Remediation activities typically focus on the containment, removal and/or the management of these by-products. In some cases, Duke Energy no longer owns the property. Managed in conjunction with relevant federal, state and local agencies, activities vary with site conditions and locations, remediation requirements, complexity and sharing of responsibility. If remediation activities involve statutory joint and several liability provisions, strict liability, or cost recovery or contribution actions, the Duke Energy Registrants could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other parties. In some instances, the Duke Energy Registrants may share liability associated with contamination with other potentially responsible parties, and may also benefit from insurance policies or contractual indemnities that cover some or all cleanup costs. Reserves associated with remediation activities at certain sites have been recorded and it is anticipated that additional costs associated with remediation activities at certain sites will be incurred in the future. All of these sites generally are managed in the normal course of business or affiliate operations.

The Duke Energy Registrants have accrued costs associated with remediation activities at some of its current and former sites, as well as other relevant environmental contingent liabilities. Management, in the normal course of business, continually assesses the nature and extent of known or potential environmental-related contingencies and records liabilities when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. Costs associated with remediation activities within the Duke Energy Registrants’ operations are typically expensed unless regulatory recovery of the costs is deemed probable.

As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio had a total reserve of $36 million, related to remediation work at certain MGP sites. Duke Energy Ohio has received an order from the PUCO to defer the costs incurred. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio has deferred $64 million of costs related to the MGP sites. The PUCO will rule on the recovery of these costs at a future proceeding. Management believes it is probable that additional liabilities will be incurred as work progresses at Ohio MGP sites; however, costs associated with future remediation cannot currently be reasonably estimated.

Clean Water Act 316(b). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposed cooling water intake structures rule on April 20, 2011. Duke Energy submitted comments on the proposed rule on August 16, 2011. The proposed rule advances one main approach and three alternatives. The main approach establishes aquatic protection requirements for existing facilities and new on-site facility additions that withdraw 2 million gallons or more of water per day from rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, oceans, or other U.S. waters for cooling purposes. Based on the main approach proposed, most, if not all of the 23 coal and nuclear-fueled generating facilities in which the Duke Energy Registrants are either a whole or partial owner are likely affected sources. Additional sources, including some combined-cycle combustion turbine facilities, may also be impacted, at least for intake modifications.

36

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The EPA has plans to finalize the 316(b) rule in July 2012. Compliance with portions of the rule could begin as early as 2015. Because of the wide range of potential outcomes, including the other three alternative proposals, the Duke Energy Registrants are unable to estimate its costs to comply at this time.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). On August 8, 2011, the EPA published its final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in the Federal Register. The CSAPR establishes state-level annual SO₂ and NO_x budgets that take effect on January 1, 2012, and state-level ozone-season NO_x budgets that take effect on May 1, 2012, and allocates emission allowances to affected sources in each state equal to the state budget less an allowance set-aside for new sources. The budget levels decline in 2014 for most states, including each state that the Duke Energy Registrants operate in, except for South Carolina where the budget levels remain constant. The rule allows intrastate and interstate allowance trading.

The stringency of the 2012 and 2014 CSAPR requirements vary among the Duke Energy Registrants and each is currently evaluating options for achieving the CSAPR requirements. Where the CSAPR requirements will be constraining, activities being evaluated to meet the requirements include purchasing emission allowances, power purchases, curtailing generation and utilizing low sulfur fuel to reduce levels of SO₂ or NO_x emissions. Technical adjustments to CSAPR proposed by the EPA in October 2011, if finalized, are not expected to materially impact the Duke Energy Registrants. See Note 7 for further information regarding impairment of emissions allowances as a result of the CSAPR.

Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Management. Duke Energy currently estimates that it will spend $369 million ($131 million at Duke Energy Carolinas, $70 million at Duke Energy Ohio and $168 million at Duke Energy Indiana) over the period 2011-2015 to install synthetic caps and liners at existing and new CCP landfills and to convert some of its CCP handling systems from wet to dry systems to comply with current regulations. The EPA and a number of states are considering additional regulatory measures that will contain specific and more detailed requirements for the management and disposal of CCPs, primarily ash, from the Duke Energy Registrants’ coal-fired power plants.

On June 21, 2010, the EPA issued a proposal to regulate, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, coal combustion residuals (CCR), a term the EPA uses to describe the CCPs associated with the generation of electricity. The EPA proposal contains two regulatory options whereby CCRs not employed in approved beneficial use applications would either be regulated as hazardous waste or would continue to be regulated as non-hazardous waste. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking. However, based on the proposal, the cost of complying with the final regulation will be significant. The EPA is not expected to issue a final rule until 2012 or later.

Utility Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards. On May 3, 2011, the proposed Utility MACT Standards rule was published in the Federal Register. The rule proposes to establish emission limits for hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired electric generating units, including mercury. On October 24, 2011, the Court modified its earlier consent decree, giving the EPA until December 16, 2011, to finalize the MACT rule. Based on this date, compliance with the final emission limits will be required in early 2015, three years after the rule takes effect. The proposed rule gives permitting authorities the discretion to grant up to a 1-year compliance extension, on a case-by-case basis, to sources that are unable to install emission controls before the three year compliance deadline. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking. However, based on the proposal, the cost of complying with the final regulation will be significant.

Litigation

Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana

New Source Review (NSR). In 1999-2000, the DOJ, acting on behalf of the EPA and joined by various citizen groups and states, filed a number of complaints and notices of violation against multiple utilities across the country for alleged violations of the NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Generally, the government alleges that projects performed at various coal-fired units were major modifications, as defined in the CAA, and that the utilities violated the CAA when they undertook those projects without obtaining permits and installing the best available emission controls for SO₂, NO_x and particulate matter. The complaints seek injunctive relief to require installation of pollution control technology on various generating units that allegedly violated the CAA, and unspecified civil penalties in amounts of up to $32,500 per day for each violation. A number of the Duke Energy Registrants’ plants have been subject to these allegations. The Duke Energy Registrants assert that there were no CAA violations because the applicable regulations do not require permitting in cases where the projects undertaken are “routine” or otherwise do not result in a net increase in emissions.

In 2000, the government brought a lawsuit against Duke Energy Carolinas in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina. The EPA claims that 29 projects performed at 25 of Duke Energy Carolinas’ coal-fired units violate these NSR provisions. Three environmental groups have intervened in the case. In August 2003, the trial court issued a summary judgment opinion adopting Duke Energy Carolinas’ legal positions on the standard to be used for measuring an increase in emissions, and granted judgment in favor of Duke Energy Carolinas. The trial court’s decision was appealed and ultimately reversed and remanded for trial by the U.S. Supreme Court. At trial, Duke Energy Carolinas will continue to assert that the projects were routine or not projected to increase emissions. On July 29, 2010, the district court issued an order on outstanding motions for summary judgment filed in response to the Supreme Court remand. The court vacated large portions of the previous trial court’s opinion in light of the Supreme Court ruling and found that Duke Energy Carolinas has the burden of proof for the Routine Maintenance Repair and Replacement exclusion, but that the exception must be viewed in light of industry practice, not only in light of an individual unit. The court also clarified that it will apply the “actual-to-projected-actual” emissions test to determine whether Duke Energy Carolinas should reasonably have sought a pre-project permit for any of the projects at issue. On February 11, 2011, the trial judge held an initial status conference and on March 22, 2011, the judge entered an interim scheduling order. The parties have filed a stipulation in which the United States and Plaintiff-Intervenors have dismissed with prejudice 16 claims. In exchange, Duke Energy Carolinas dismissed certain affirmative defenses. The parties have filed motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. No trial date has been set, but a trial is not expected in 2011.

In November 1999, the U.S. brought a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Cinergy, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana alleging various violations of the CAA for various projects at six owned and co-owned generating stations in the Midwest. Three northeast states and two environmental groups intervened in the case. A jury verdict was returned on May 22, 2008. The jury found in favor of Cinergy, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana on all but three units at Duke Energy Indiana’s Wabash River Station, including Duke Energy Indiana’s Gallagher Station units discussed below. Additionally, the plaintiffs had claimed that these were a violation of an Administrative Consent Order entered into in 1998 between the EPA and Cinergy relating to alleged violations of Ohio’s State Implementation Plan provisions governing particulate matter at Duke Energy Ohio’s W.C. Beckjord Station. On May 29, 2009, the court issued its remedy ruling for violations previously established at the Wabash River and W.C. Beckjord Stations and ordered the following relief: (i) Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 to be permanently retired by September 30, 2009; (ii) surrender of SO₂ allowances equal to the emissions from Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 from May 22, 2008 through September 30, 2009; (iii) civil penalty in the amount of $687,500 for W.C. Beckjord violations; and (iv) installation of a particulate continuous emissions monitoring system at W.C. Beckjord Units 1 and 2. The civil penalty has been paid. On October 12, 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing the trial court and ordered issuance of judgment in favor of Cinergy (USA v. Cinergy), which includes Duke Energy Indiana and

37

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy Ohio. The plaintiff’s motion for rehearing was denied on December 29, 2010. On January 6, 2011, the mandate from the Seventh Circuit was issued returning the case to the District Court and on April 15, 2011, the District Court issued its Final Amended Judgment in favor of Cinergy. Plaintiffs did not file a petition for certiorari with the United State Supreme Court prior to the March 29, 2011 filing deadline. This ruling allowed Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 to be placed back into service.

Regarding the Gallagher Station units, on October 21, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new liability trial claiming that defendants misled the plaintiffs and the jury by, among other things, not disclosing a consulting agreement with a fact witness and by referring to that witness as “retired” during the liability trial when in fact he was working for Duke Energy Indiana under the referenced consulting agreement in connection with the trial. On December 18, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a new liability trial on claims for which Duke Energy Indiana was not previously found liable. On May 19, 2009, the jury announced its verdict finding in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on four of the remaining six projects at issue. The two projects in which the jury found violations were undertaken at Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3. The parties to the remedy trial reached a negotiated agreement on those issues and filed a proposed consent decree with the court, which was approved and entered on March 18, 2010. The substantive terms of the proposed consent decree require: (i) conversion of Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3 to natural gas combustion by 2013 (or retirement of the units by February 2012); (ii) installation of additional pollution controls at Gallagher Station Units 2 and 4 by 2011; and (iii) additional environmental projects, payments and penalties. Duke Energy Indiana estimates that these and other actions in the settlement will cost $88 million. Due to the NSR remedy order and consent decree, Duke Energy Indiana requested several approvals from the IURC including approval to add a dry sorbent injection system on Gallagher Station Units 2 and 4, approval to convert to natural gas or retire Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3, and approval to recover expenses for certain SO₂ emission allowance expenses required to be surrendered. On September 8, 2010, the IURC approved the implementation of the dry sorbent injection system. On September 28, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition requesting the recovery of costs associated with the Gallagher consent decree. Testimony in support of the petition was filed in early December 2010. Duke Energy Indiana subsequently requested the IURC suspend the procedural schedule to allow it time to do a solicitation for capacity options to compare to the proposed conversion of Gallagher Units 1 and 3 to natural gas.

On May 26, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony seeking approval of the purchase of a portion of the Vermillion Generating Station from its affiliate, Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio. Refer to Note 3 for further information on the Vermillion transaction. As a result of the proposed purchase, Duke Energy Indiana may retire Gallagher Units 1 and 3. The approval of the Vermillion transaction by the FERC and IURC under terms acceptable to Duke Energy Indiana is a condition to the closing of the transaction and the option of converting Gallagher Units 1 and 3 to gas is being preserved until such approvals have been obtained. On August 12, 2011, the FERC approved the Vermillion transaction. An IURC hearing was held in September 2011 with an order expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

On April 3, 2008, the Sierra Club filed another lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Duke Energy Indiana and certain affiliated companies alleging CAA violations at Edwardsport Station. On October 20, 2009, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the applicable statute of limitations bars all of the plaintiffs’ claims. On September 14, 2010, the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety; however, entry of final judgment was stayed pending a decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in USA v. Cinergy, referenced above, on a similar and potentially dispositive statute of limitations issue pending before that court. On October 12, 2010, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in USA v. Cinergy in which the court ruled in favor of Cinergy and declined to address the referenced statute of limitations issue. The Seventh circuit issued its mandate on January 6, 2011 and the District Court issued final judgment in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on March 1, 2011. On March 2, 2011, the Sierra Club agreed not to pursue an appeal of the case in exchange for Duke Energy Indiana’s waiver of its right to seek reimbursement of costs.

It is not possible to estimate the damages, if any, that might be incurred in connection with the unresolved matters discussed above. Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Duke Energy Registrants’ consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. However, the appropriate regulatory treatment will be pursued for any costs incurred in connection with such resolution.

Duke Energy

CO₂ Litigation. In July 2004, the states of Connecticut, New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the City of New York brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Cinergy, AEP, American Electric Power Service Corporation, Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Xcel Energy Inc. A similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same companies by Open Space Institute, Inc., Open Space Conservancy, Inc., and The Audubon Society of New Hampshire. These lawsuits allege that the defendants’ emissions of CO₂ from the combustion of fossil fuels at electric generating facilities contribute to global warming and amount to a public nuisance. The complaints also allege that the defendants could generate the same amount of electricity while emitting significantly less CO₂. The plaintiffs were seeking an injunction requiring each defendant to cap its CO₂ emissions and then reduce them by a specified percentage each year for at least a decade. In September 2005, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 7, 2006. In September 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the district court and reinstating the lawsuit. Defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was subsequently denied. Defendants filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on August 2, 2010. On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Argument on this matter was held on April 19, 2011. On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court held that the Second Court of Appeals decision should be reversed on the basis that plaintiffs’ claims cannot proceed under federal common law, which was displaced by the CAA and actual or potential EPA regulations. The Court’s decision did not address plaintiffs’ state law claims as those claims had not been presented. On September 2, 2011, plaintiffs notified the Court that they had decided to withdraw their complaints. This effectively ends the proceedings in this case.

Alaskan Global Warming Lawsuit. On February 26, 2008, plaintiffs, the governing bodies of an Inupiat village in Alaska, filed suit in the U.S. Federal Court for the Northern District of California against Peabody Coal and various oil and power company defendants, including Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on behalf of the village’s 400 residents. The lawsuit alleges that defendants’ emissions of CO₂ contributed to global warming and constitute a private and public nuisance. Plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants, including Duke Energy, conspired to mislead the public with respect to global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, attorney’s fees and expenses. On June 30, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, together with a motion to dismiss the conspiracy claims. On October 15, 2009, the District Court granted defendants motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and briefing is complete. By Order dated February 23, 2011, the Court stayed oral argument in this case pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in the CO₂ litigation discussed above. Following the Supreme Court’s June 20, 2011 decision the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set the case for argument on November 28, 2011. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with this matter.

38

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Price Reporting Cases. A total of five lawsuits were filed against Duke Energy affiliates and other energy companies and remain pending in a consolidated, single federal court proceeding in Nevada.

In November 2009, the judge granted defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the denial of defendants’ summary judgment motion in two of the remaining five cases to which Duke Energy affiliates are a party. A hearing on that motion occurred on July 15, 2011, and on July 19, 2011, the judge granted the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In December 2009, plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed a motion to amend their complaints in the individual cases to add a claim for treble damages under the Sherman Act, including additional factual allegations regarding fraudulent concealment of defendants’ allegedly conspiratorial conduct. Those motions were denied on October 29, 2010.

Each of these cases contains similar claims, that the respective plaintiffs, and the classes they claim to represent, were harmed by the defendants’ alleged manipulation of the natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with the remaining matters.

Duke Energy International Paranapanema Lawsuit. On July 16, 2008, Duke Energy International Geracao Paranapanema S.A. (DEIGP) filed a lawsuit in the Brazilian federal court challenging transmission fee assessments imposed under two new resolutions promulgated by the Brazilian electricity regulatory agency (ANEEL) (collectively, the Resolutions). The Resolutions purport to impose additional transmission fees (retroactive to July 1, 2004 and effective through June 30, 2009) on generation companies located in the State of São Paulo for utilization of the electric transmission system. The new charges are based upon a flat-fee that fails to take into account the locational usage by each generator. DEIGP’s additional assessment under these Resolutions amounts to approximately $69 million, inclusive of interest, through September 2011. Based on DEIGP’s continuing refusal to tender payment of the disputed sums, on April 1, 2009, ANEEL imposed an additional fine against DEIGP in the amount of $9 million. DEIGP filed a request to enjoin payment of the fine and for an expedited decision on the merits or, alternatively, an order requiring that all disputed sums be deposited in the court’s registry in lieu of direct payment to the distribution companies.

On June 30, 2009, the court issued a ruling in which it granted DEIGP’s request for injunction regarding the additional fine, but denied DEIGP’s request for an expedited decision on the original assessment or payment into the court registry. Under the court’s order, DEIGP was required to make installment payments on the original assessment directly to the distribution companies pending resolution on the merits. DEIGP filed an appeal and on August 28, 2009, the order was modified to allow DEIGP to deposit the disputed portion of each installment, which was most of the assessed amount, into an escrow account pending resolution on the merits. In the second quarter of 2009, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $33 million associated with this matter.

Brazil Expansion Lawsuit. On August 9, 2011, the State of São Paulo filed a lawsuit in Brazilian state court against DEIGP based upon a claim that DEIGP is under a continuing obligation to expand installed generation capacity by 15% pursuant to a stock purchase agreement under which DEIGP purchased generation assets from the state. On August 10, 2011, a judge granted an ex parte injunction ordering DEIGP to present, within 60 days of service, a detailed expansion plan in satisfaction of the 15% obligation or face civil penalties in the amount of approximately $16,000 per day. Both DEIGP and ANEEL have previously taken a position that the 15% expansion obligation is no longer viable given the changes that have occurred in the electric energy sector since privatization of that sector. ANEEL has also stated that it is not within its jurisdiction to apply sanctions for failure to comply with the alleged expansion obligation. In September, 2011, DEIGP filed (i) a request for reconsideration of the injunction order with the original court; (ii) a request for stay of the order with the appellate court; (iii) an appeal of the order; and (iv) a substantive defense of the lawsuit in the original court. On September 29, 2011, DEIGP’s request for stay of the injunction was denied. The remaining requests for relief are pending. DEIGP plans to submit an expansion plan by the court ordered deadline of November 11, 2011.

Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in South Carolina against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). These allegations arise out of the conversion of the Duke Energy Company Employees’ Retirement Plan into the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. The case also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging errors in the application of Plan provisions (i.e., the calculation of interest rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the calculation of lump-sum distributions). Six causes of action were alleged, ranging from age discrimination, to various alleged ERISA violations, to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs sought a broad array of remedies, including a retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and a recalculation of participants’/ beneficiaries’ benefits under the revised and reformed plan. Duke Energy filed its answer in March 2006. A portion of this contingent liability was assigned to Spectra Energy Corp (Spectra Energy) in connection with the spin-off in January 2007. A hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to add an additional age discrimination claim, defendant’s motion to dismiss and the respective motions for summary judgment was held in December 2007. On June 2, 2008, the court issued its ruling denying plaintiffs’ motion to add the additional claim and dismissing a number of plaintiffs’ claims, including the claims for ERISA age discrimination. Subsequently, plaintiffs notified Duke Energy that they were withdrawing their ADEA claim. On September 4, 2009, the court issued its order certifying classes for three of the remaining claims but not certifying their claims as to plaintiffs’ fiduciary duty claims. At an unsuccessful mediation in September 2008, Plaintiffs quantified their claims as being in excess of $150 million. After mediation on September 21, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit, subject to execution of a definitive settlement agreement, notice to the class members and approval of the settlement by the Court. In the third quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a provision related to the settlement agreement. At a hearing on May 16, 2011, the court issued its final confirmation order and payments have been made in accordance with the settlement agreement.

Crescent Litigation. On September 3, 2010, the Crescent Resources Litigation Trust filed suit against Duke Energy along with various affiliates and several individuals, including current and former employees of Duke Energy, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. The Crescent Resources Litigation Trust was established in May, 2010 pursuant to the plan of reorganization approved in the Crescent bankruptcy proceedings in the same court. The complaint alleges that in 2006 the defendants caused Crescent to borrow approximately $1.2 billion from a consortium of banks and immediately thereafter distribute most of the loan proceeds to Crescent’s parent company without benefit to Crescent. The complaint further alleges that Crescent was rendered insolvent by the transactions, and that the distribution is subject to recovery by the Crescent bankruptcy estate as an alleged fraudulent transfer. The plaintiff requests return of the funds as well as other statutory and equitable relief, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. Duke Energy and its affiliated defendants believe that the referenced 2006 transactions were legitimate and did not violate any state or federal law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in December 2010. On March 21, 2011, the plaintiff filed a response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which was granted. The Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss in response to plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

A hearing on the motion was held on August 31, 2011. No trial date has been set. It is not possible to predict at this time whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with this lawsuit.

39

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

On October 14, 2010, a suit was filed in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina by a group of Duke Energy shareholders alleging breach of duty of loyalty and good faith by certain Duke Energy directors who were directors at the time of the 2006 Crescent transaction. On January 5, 2011, defendants filed a Notice of Designation of this case for the North Carolina Business Court. On July 22, 2011, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit and the plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling.

Progress Energy Merger Litigation. Duke Energy and Diamond Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy have been named as defendants in 10 purported shareholder actions filed in North Carolina state court and two cases filed in federal court in North Carolina. The actions, which contain similar allegations, were brought by individual shareholders against the following defendants: Progress Energy, Duke Energy, Diamond Acquisition Corporation and Directors of Progress Energy. The lawsuits allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Progress Energy shareholders and that Duke Energy and Diamond Acquisition Corporation, aided and abetted the individual defendants. The plaintiffs seek damages and to enjoin the merger. One of the state court cases was voluntarily dismissed. On July 11, 2011, the parties to the remaining nine state court cases entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for a disclosure-based settlement of the litigation. On August 2, 2011, preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the Court. An order approving the proposed settlement is expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

The plaintiff in one of the federal court lawsuits filed a motion for voluntary withdrawal, leaving one federal case pending. The complaint in the federal action includes allegations that defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with the statements contained in Duke Energy’s Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, and is now subject to the notice requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiff’s counsel in the federal case have sent a total of four derivative demand letters to Progress Energy demanding that Progress Energy’s board of directors make certain disclosures, desist from moving forward with the merger and engage in an auction of the company. Progress Energy has indicated that it is evaluating those demands. On August 3, 2011, the Court issued a scheduling order granting the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On October 27, 2011, a hearing regarding the final approval of the proposed settlement was held.

Federal Advanced Clean Coal Tax Credits. Duke Energy has been awarded $125 million of federal advanced clean coal tax credits associated with its construction of Cliffside Unit 6 and $134 million of federal advanced clean coal tax credits associated with its construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant. In March, 2008, two environmental groups, Appalachian Voices and the Canary Coalition, filed suit against the Federal government challenging the tax credits awarded to incentivize certain clean coal projects. Although Duke Energy was not a party to the case, the allegations center on the tax incentives provided for the Cliffside and Edwardsport projects. The initial complaint alleged a failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The first amended complaint, filed in August 2008, added an Endangered Species Act claim and also sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOE and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In 2008, the District Court dismissed the case. On September 23, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint and denying, as moot, the motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs have filed their second amended complaint. The Federal government has moved to dismiss the second amended complaint; the motion is pending. On July 26, 2010, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction seeking to halt the issuance of the tax credits.

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Unit 6 Permit. On July 16, 2008, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Environmental Defense Fund, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defenses Council, and Sierra Club (collectively referred to as Citizen Groups) filed suit in U.S District Court for the Western District of North Carolina alleging that Duke Energy Carolinas violated the CAA when it commenced construction of Cliffside Unit 6 without obtaining a determination that the MACT emission limits will be met for all prospective hazardous air emissions at that plant. The Citizen Groups claim the right to injunctive relief against further construction at the plant as well as civil penalties in the amount of up to $32,500 per day for each alleged violation. In July 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas voluntarily performed a MACT assessment of air emission controls planned for Cliffside Unit 6 and submitted the results to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). On December 2, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and entered judgment ordering Duke Energy Carolinas to initiate a MACT process before the DAQ. The court did not order an injunction against further construction, but retained jurisdiction to monitor the MACT proceedings. On December 4, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas submitted its MACT filing and supporting information to the DAQ specifically seeking DAQ’s concurrence as a threshold matter that construction of Cliffside Unit 6 is not a major source subject to section 112 of the CAA and submitting a MACT determination application. Concurrent with the initiation of the MACT process, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the Court’s December 2, 2008 order to reverse the Court’s determination that Duke Energy Carolinas violated the CAA. The DAQ issued the revised permit on March 13, 2009, finding that Cliffside Unit 6 is a minor source of HAPs and imposing operating conditions to assure that emissions stay below the major source threshold. Based upon DAQ’s minor-source determination, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion requesting that the court abstain from further action on the matter and dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. The court granted Duke Energy Carolinas motion to abstain and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice, but also ordered Duke Energy Carolinas to pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. On August 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order and Duke Energy Carolinas likewise appealed on the grounds, among others, that the dismissal should have been with prejudice and the court should not have ordered payment of attorneys’ fees. The appeals have been consolidated. On April 14, 2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling awarding fees to defendants. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a request for rehearing, which was denied, on May 10, 2011.

Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims. Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September 30, 2011, there were 271 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $57 million, and 53 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $14 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas’ experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke Energy Carolinas in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled $815 million and $853 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, and are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount in Duke Energy Carolinas’ best estimate of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2030. Management believes that it is possible there will be additional claims filed against Duke Energy Carolinas after 2030. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe that they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2030 related to such potential claims. Asbestos-related loss estimates incorporate anticipated inflation, if applicable, and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. These reserves are based upon current estimates and are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. A significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims filed, the nature of the alleged injury, and the average cost of resolving each such claim could change our estimated liability, as could any substantial adverse or favorable verdict at trial. A federal legislative solution, further state tort reform or structured settlement transactions could also change the estimated liability. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting matters into the future and numerous other factors outside our control, management believes that it is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

40

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas’ cumulative payments began to exceed the self insurance retention on its insurance policy during the second quarter of 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by Duke Energy Carolinas’ third party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $968 million in excess of the self insured retention. Insurance recoveries of $813 million and $850 million related to this policy are classified in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Management believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Ohio

Antitrust Lawsuit. In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that Duke Energy Ohio (then The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company), conspired to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into non-public option agreements with such consumers in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio’s pending RSP, which was implemented in early 2005. On March 31, 2009, the District Court granted Duke Energy Ohio’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or set aside the judgment, which was denied by an order dated March 31, 2010. In April 2010, the plaintiffs filed their appeal of that order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The matter is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting the scheduling of oral argument. It is not possible to predict at this time whether Duke Energy Ohio will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy Ohio might incur in connection with this lawsuit.

Duke Energy Indiana

Prosperity Mine, LLC. On October 12, 2009, Prosperity Mine, LLC (Prosperity) filed for arbitration under an Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Coal dated October 30, 2008. The Agreement provided for sale by Prosperity and purchase by Duke Energy Indiana of 500,000 tons of coal per year, commencing on January 1, 2009 and continuing until December 31, 2014, unless sooner terminated under the terms of the Agreement. Duke Energy Indiana could terminate the Agreement if a force majeure event lasted more than three months. Prosperity declared a force majeure event on February 13, 2010 and, when Prosperity did not notify Duke Energy Indiana that the force majeure had ended; Duke Energy Indiana sent written notice of termination on May 14, 2010. Prosperity contends that the termination was improper and that it is owed damages, quantified at $88 million, for the full contractual volumes through 2014. On November 17, 2010, the arbitrators issued their decision, ruling in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on all counts. On January 7, 2011, Prosperity filed a lawsuit in Indiana state court alleging that the arbitrators exceeded their power and acted without authority and asking that the arbitrators’ award be vacated. The parties reached a commercial arrangement pursuant to which Prosperity agreed to dismiss the lawsuit.

Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims. Duke Energy Indiana has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in lawsuits related to asbestos at its electric generating stations. The impact on Duke Energy Indiana’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of these cases to date has not been material. Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerning uncertainties, such as, among others: (i) the number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos during construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Indiana generating plants; (ii) the possible incidence of various illnesses among exposed workers, and (iii) the potential settlement costs without federal or other legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions, Duke Energy Indiana estimates that the range of reasonably possible exposure in existing and future suits over the foreseeable future is not material. This estimated range of exposure may change as additional settlements occur and claims are made and more case law is established.

Other Litigation and Legal Proceedings

The Duke Energy Registrants are involved in other legal, tax and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts. Management believes that the final disposition of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

The Duke Energy Registrants have exposure to certain legal matters that are described herein. Duke Energy has recorded reserves, including reserves related to the aforementioned asbestos-related injuries and damages claims, of $830 million and $900 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, for these proceedings and exposures (the total of which is primarily related to Duke Energy Carolinas). These reserves represent management’s best estimate of probable loss as defined in the accounting guidance for contingencies. Duke Energy has insurance coverage for certain of these losses incurred. As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Duke Energy recognized $813 million and $850 million, respectively, of probable insurance recoveries related to these losses (the total of which is related to Duke Energy Carolinas).

The Duke Energy Registrants expense legal costs related to the defense of loss contingencies as incurred.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

General. As part of its normal business, the Duke Energy Registrants are a party to various financial guarantees, performance guarantees and other contractual commitments to extend guarantees of credit and other assistance to various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties. To varying degrees, these guarantees involve elements of performance and credit risk, which are not included on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The possibility of any of the Duke Energy Registrants having to honor their contingencies is largely dependent upon future operations of various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties, or the occurrence of certain future events.

In addition, the Duke Energy Registrants enter into various fixed-price, non-cancelable commitments to purchase or sell power (tolling arrangements or power purchase contracts), take-or-pay arrangements, transportation or throughput agreements and other contracts that may or may not be recognized on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Some of these arrangements may be recognized at fair value on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets if such contracts meet the definition of a derivative and the NPNS exception does not apply.

41

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

6. Debt and Credit Facilities

Significant changes to the Duke Energy Registrants’ debt and credit facilities since December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Unsecured Debt. In August 2011, Duke Energy issued $500 million principal amount of senior notes, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.55% and mature September 15, 2021. Proceeds from the issuance will be used to repay a portion of Duke Energy’s commercial paper as it matures, to fund capital expenditures in Duke Energy’s unregulated businesses in the U.S. and for general corporate purposes.

First Mortgage Bonds. In May 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas issued $500 million principal amount of first mortgage bonds, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.90% and mature June 15, 2021. Proceeds from this issuance were used to fund capital expenditures and for general corporate purposes.

Other Debt. In April 2011, Duke Energy filed a registration statement (Form S-3) with the SEC to sell up to $1 billion of variable denomination floating rate demand notes, called PremierNotes. The Form S-3 states that no more than $500 million of the notes will be outstanding at any particular time. The notes are offered on a continuous basis and bear interest at a floating rate per annum determined by the Duke Energy PremierNotes Committee, or its designee, on a weekly basis. The interest rate payable on notes held by an investor may vary based on the principal amount of the investment. The notes have no stated maturity date, but may be redeemed in whole or in part by Duke Energy at any time. The notes are non-transferable and may be redeemed in whole or in part at the investor’s option. Proceeds from the sale of the notes will be used for general corporate purposes. The balance as of September 30, 2011 is $30 million. The notes reflect a short-term debt obligation of Duke Energy and are reflected as Notes payable on Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas had $750 million principal amount of 6.25% senior unsecured notes due January 2012 classified as Current maturities of long-term debt on Duke Energy Carolinas’ Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2010, these notes were classified as Long-term Debt on Duke Energy Carolinas’ Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas currently anticipates satisfying this obligation with proceeds from additional borrowings.

At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio had $500 million principal amount of 5.70% debentures due September 2012 classified as Current maturities of long-term debt on Duke Energy Ohio’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2010, these notes were classified as Long-term Debt on Duke Energy Ohio’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Ohio currently anticipates satisfying this obligation with proceeds from additional borrowings.

As discussed below, Duke Energy also issued an additional $450 million in Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011, for general corporate purposes, which is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Non-Recourse Notes Payable of VIEs. To fund the purchase of receivables, Cinergy Receivables borrows from third parties and such borrowings fluctuate based on the amount of receivables sold to Cinergy Receivables. The borrowings are secured by the assets of Cinergy Receivables and are non-recourse to Duke Energy. The debt is recorded as short-term and Duke Energy extended the expiration date to October 2012 subsequent to September 30, 2011. At September 30, 2011, Cinergy Receivables borrowings were $275 million and are reflected as Non-Recourse Notes Payable of VIEs on Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Money Pool. The Subsidiary Registrants receive support for their short-term borrowing needs through participation with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries in a money pool arrangement. Under this arrangement, those companies with short-term funds may provide short-term loans to affiliates participating under this arrangement. The money pool is structured such that the Subsidiary Registrants separately manage their cash needs and working capital requirements. Accordingly, there is no net settlement of receivables and payables related to the money pool between the money pool participants. Per the terms of the money pool arrangement, the parent companies, Duke Energy and Cinergy may loan funds to its participating subsidiaries, but may not borrow funds through the money pool. Accordingly, as the money pool activity is between Duke Energy and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, all money pool balances are eliminated within Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following table shows the Subsidiary Registrants’ money pool balances and classification within their respective Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:

	September 30, 2011						December 31, 2010
	Receivables		Notes Payable		Long-term Debt		Receivables		Long-term Debt
					(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	589	$	—	$	300	$	339	$	300
Duke Energy Ohio		259		—		—		480		—
Duke Energy Indiana		—		14		150		115		150

Increases or decreases in money pool receivables are reflected within investing activities on the respective Subsidiary Registrants’ Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, while increases or decreases in money pool borrowings are reflected within financing activities on the respective Subsidiary Registrants Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

Available Credit Facilities. The total capacity under Duke Energy’s master credit facility, which expires in June 2012, is $3.14 billion. The credit facility contains an option allowing borrowing up to the full amount of the facility on the day of initial expiration for up to one year. The Duke Energy Registrants each have borrowing capacity under the master credit facility up to specified sub limits for each borrower. However, Duke Energy has the unilateral ability at any time to increase or decrease the borrowing sub limits of each borrower, subject to a maximum sub limit for each borrower. See the table below for the borrowing sub limits for each of the borrowers as of September 30, 2011. The amount available under the master credit facility has been reduced, as indicated in the table below, by the use of the master credit facility to backstop the issuances of commercial paper, letters of credit and certain tax-exempt bonds. As indicated, borrowing sub limits for the Subsidiary Registrants are also reduced for amounts outstanding under the money pool arrangement.

Master Credit Facility Summary as of September 30, 2011 (in millions)^(a)(b)

	Duke Energy			Duke Energy Carolinas			Duke Energy Ohio			Duke Energy Indiana			Total
Facility Size(c)	$	1,097		$	840		$	750		$	450		$	3,137
Less:
Notes Payable and Commercial Paper(d)		(450	)		(300	)		—			(150	)		(900	)
Outstanding Letters of Credit		(46	)		(7	)		(27	)		—			(80	)
Tax-Exempt Bonds		(25	)		(95	)		(84	)		(81	)		(285	)
Available Capacity	$	576		$	438		$	639		$	219		$	1,872

42

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

(a) This summary only includes Duke Energy’s master credit facility and, accordingly, excludes certain demand facilities and committed facilities that are insignificant in size or which generally support very specific requirements, which primarily include facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds. These facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds generally have non-cancelable terms in excess of one year from the balance sheet date, such that the Duke Energy Registrants have the ability to refinance such borrowings on a long-term basis. Accordingly, such borrowings are reflected as Long-term Debt on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of the respective Duke Energy Registrant.

(b) Credit facility contains a covenant requiring the debt-to-total capitalization ratio to not exceed 65% for each borrower.

(c) Represents the sub limit of each borrower at September 30, 2011. The Duke Energy Ohio sub limit includes $100 million for Duke Energy Kentucky.

(d) Duke Energy issued $450 million of Commercial Paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana (see money pool table above). The balances are classified as long-term borrowings within Long-term Debt in Duke Energy Carolinas’ and Duke Energy Indiana’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy issued an additional $450 million of Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011. The balance is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Duke Energy began negotiating a replacement of its master credit facility in October 2011. Duke Energy expects to execute a new five-year $6 billion master credit facility in the fourth quarter of 2011, with $4 billion available at closing and the remaining $2 billion available on or soon after the closing of the proposed merger with Progress Energy. The master credit facility will include borrowing sub limits for certain subsidiaries, similar to the current facility.

Restrictive Debt Covenants. The Duke Energy Registrants’ debt and credit agreements contain various financial and other covenants. Failure to meet those covenants beyond applicable grace periods could result in accelerated due dates and/or termination of the agreements. As of September 30, 2011, each of the Duke Energy Registrants was in compliance with all covenants related to its significant debt agreements. In addition, some credit agreements may allow for acceleration of payments or termination of the agreements due to nonpayment, or the acceleration of other significant indebtedness of the borrower or some of its subsidiaries. None of the significant debt or credit agreements contain material adverse change clauses.

7. Goodwill, Intangible Assets and Impairments

Goodwill

The following table shows goodwill by reportable operating segment for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010:

	USFE&G		Commercial Power			International			Total
	(in millions)
Duke Energy
Balance at December 31, 2010:
Goodwill	$	3,483	$	940		$	306		$	4,729
Accumulated Impairment Charges		—		(871	)		—			(871	)
Balance at December 31, 2010, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges		3,483		69			306			3,858
Foreign Exchange and Other Changes		—		—			(11	)		(11	)
Balance as of September 30, 2011:
Goodwill		3,483		940			295			4,718
Accumulated Impairment Charges		—		(871	)		—			(871	)
Balance at September 30, 2011, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges, foreign exchange and other charges	$	3,483	$	69		$	295		$	3,847

	USFE&G			Commercial Power			Total
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio
Balance at December 31, 2010:
Goodwill	$	1,137		$	1,188		$	2,325
Accumulated Impairment Charges		(216	)		(1,188	)		(1,404	)
Balance at December 31, 2010, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges		921			—			921

43

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

	USFE&G			Commercial Power			Total
	(in millions)
Balance as of September 30, 2011:
Goodwill		1,137			1,188			2,325
Accumulated Impairment Charges		(216	)		(1,188	)		(1,404	)
Balance at September 30, 2011, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges	$	921		$	—		$	921

Duke Energy. Duke Energy is required to perform an annual goodwill impairment test as of the same date each year and, accordingly, performs its annual impairment testing of goodwill as of August 31. Duke Energy updates the test between annual tests if events or circumstances occur that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value.

Duke Energy early adopted the revised goodwill impairment accounting guidance during the third quarter of 2011 and applied this revised guidance to its August 31, 2011 annual goodwill impairment test. Pursuant to the revised guidance an entity may first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is necessary to perform the two step goodwill impairment test. If deemed necessary, the two-step impairment test shall be used to identify potential goodwill impairment and measure the amount of a goodwill impairment loss, if any, to be recognized. Duke Energy’s qualitative assessment included, among other things, reviews of current forecasts and recent fair value calculations, updates to weighted average cost of capital calculations and consideration of overall economic factors and recent financial performance. Duke Energy determined it was more likely than not that the fair value of each of its reporting units exceeded their carrying value at August 31, 2011 and that the two step goodwill impairment test was not required.

In the second quarter of 2010, based on circumstances discussed below, management determined that it was more likely than not that the fair value of Commercial Power’s non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit was below its respective carrying value. Accordingly, an interim impairment test was performed for this reporting unit. Determination of reporting unit fair value was based on a combination of the income approach, which estimates the fair value of Duke Energy’s reporting units based on discounted future cash flows, and the market approach, which estimates the fair value of Duke Energy’s reporting units based on market comparables within the utility and energy industries. Based on completion of step one of the second quarter 2010 impairment analysis, management determined that the fair value of Commercial Power’s non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit was less than its carrying value, which included goodwill of $500 million.

Commercial Power’s non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit includes nearly 4,000 MW of primarily coal-fired generation capacity in Ohio which is dedicated under the ESP through December 31, 2011. These assets also generate revenues through sales outside the ESP load customer base if circumstances arise that result in availability of excess capacity. Additionally, this reporting unit has approximately 3,600 MW of gas-fired generation capacity in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Indiana which provides generation to unregulated energy markets in the Midwest. The businesses within Commercial Power’s non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit operate in market structures that are, to a degree, unregulated and allow for customer choice among suppliers. As a result, the operations within this reporting unit are subjected to competitive pressures that do not exist in any of Duke Energy’s regulated jurisdictions.

Commercial Power’s other businesses, including the renewable generation assets, are in a separate reporting unit for goodwill impairment testing purposes. No impairment existed with respect to Commercial Power’s renewable generation assets.

The fair value of Commercial Power’s non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit is impacted by a multitude of factors, including current and forecasted customer demand, forecasted power and commodity prices, uncertainty of environmental costs, competition, the cost of capital, valuation of peer companies and regulatory and legislative developments. Management’s assumptions and views of these factors continually evolve, and certain views and assumptions used in determining the fair value of the reporting unit in the 2010 interim impairment test changed significantly from those used in the 2009 annual impairment test. These factors had a significant impact on the valuation of Commercial Power’s non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit. More specifically, the following factors significantly impacted management’s valuation of the reporting unit:

• Sustained lower forward power prices—In Ohio, Duke Energy provides power to retail customers under the ESP, which utilizes rates approved by the PUCO through 2011. These rates in 2010 were above market prices for generation services, resulting in customers switching to other generation providers. As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy Ohio will establish a new SSO for retail load customers for generation after the current ESP expires on December 31, 2011. Given forward power prices, which declined from the time of the 2009 impairment, significant uncertainty existed with respect to the generation margin that would be earned under the new SSO.

• Potentially more stringent environmental regulations from the U.S. EPA—In May and July of 2010, the EPA issued proposed rules associated with the regulation of CCRs to address risks from the disposal of CCRs (e.g., ash ponds) and to limit the interstate transport of emissions of NO_x and SO₂. These proposed regulations, along with other pending EPA regulations, could result in significant expenditures for coal fired generation plants, and could result in the early retirement of certain generation assets, which do not currently have control equipment for NO_x and SO₂, as soon as 2015.

• Customer switching—ESP customers have increasingly selected alternative generation service providers, as allowed by Ohio legislation, which further erodes margins on sales. In the second quarter of 2010, Duke Energy Ohio’s residential class became the target of an intense marketing campaign offering significant discounts to residential customers that switch to alternate power suppliers. Customer switching levels were at approximately 55% at June 30, 2010 compared to approximately 29% in the third quarter of 2009.

As a result of the factors above, a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $500 million was recorded during the second quarter of 2010. This impairment charge represented the entire remaining goodwill balance for Commercial Power’s non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit. In addition to the goodwill impairment charge, and as a result of factors similar to those described above, Commercial Power recorded $160 million of pre-tax impairment charges related to certain generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets in the Midwest to write-down the value of these assets to their estimated fair value. The generation assets that were subject to this impairment charge were those coal-fired generating assets that do not have certain environmental emissions control equipment, causing these generation assets to be heavily impacted by the EPA’s proposed rules on emissions of NO_x and SO₂. These impairment charges are recorded in Goodwill and Other Impairment Charges on Duke Energy’s Consolidated Statement of Operations.

44

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The fair values of Commercial Power’s non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit and generating assets for which impairments were recorded were determined using significant unobservable inputs (i.e., Level 3 inputs) as defined by the accounting guidance for fair value measurements.

Duke Energy Ohio. Duke Energy Ohio early adopted the revised goodwill impairment accounting guidance, discussed above, during the third quarter of 2011 and applied this revised guidance to its August 31, 2011 annual goodwill impairment test. Duke Energy Ohio’s qualitative assessment included, among other things, reviews of current forecasts and recent fair value calculations, updates to weighted average cost of capital calculations and consideration of overall economic factors and recent financial performance. Duke Energy Ohio determined it was more likely than not that the fair value of each of its reporting units exceeded their carrying value at August 31, 2011 and that the two step goodwill impairment test was not required.

In the second quarter of 2010, based on circumstances discussed above for Duke Energy, management determined that is was more likely than not that the fair value of Duke Energy Ohio’s non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit was less than its carrying value. Accordingly, Duke Energy Ohio also impaired its entire goodwill balance of $461 million related to this reporting unit during the second quarter of 2010. Also, as discussed above, Duke Energy Ohio recorded $160 million of pre-tax impairment charges related to certain generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets in the Midwest to write-down the value of these assets to their estimated fair value.

In the second quarter of 2010, goodwill for Ohio Transmission and Distribution (Ohio T&D) was also analyzed. The fair value of the Ohio T&D reporting unit is impacted by a multitude of factors, including current and forecasted customer demand, discount rates, valuation of peer companies, and regulatory and legislative developments. Management periodically updates the load forecasts to reflect current trends and expectations based on the current environment and future assumptions. The spring and summer 2010 load forecast indicated that load would not return to 2007 weather-normalized levels for several more years. Based on the results of the second quarter 2010 impairment analysis, the fair value of the Ohio T&D reporting unit was $216 million below its book value at Duke Energy Ohio and $40 million higher than its book value at Duke Energy. Accordingly, this goodwill impairment charge was only recorded by Duke Energy Ohio.

The fair value of Duke Energy Ohio’s Ohio T&D reporting unit for which an impairment was recorded was determined using significant unobservable inputs (i.e., Level 3 inputs) as defined by the accounting guidance for fair value measurements.

As management is not aware of any recent market transactions for comparable assets with sufficient transparency to develop a market approach fair value, Duke Energy Ohio relied heavily on the income approach to estimate the fair value of the impaired assets.

All of the above impairment charges are recorded in Goodwill and Other Impairment Charges on Duke Energy Ohio’s Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Intangible Assets. On August 8, 2011, the EPA’s final rule to replace CAIR was published in the Federal Register. As further discussed in Note 5, the CSAPR establishes state-level annual SO₂ and NO_x caps that take effect on January 1, 2012, and state-level ozone-season NO_x caps that take effect on May 1, 2012. The cap levels decline in 2014 for most states, including each state in which Duke Energy operates, except for South Carolina where the cap levels remain constant. The CSAPR will not utilize CAA emission allowances as the original CAIR provided. The EPA will issue new emission allowances to be used exclusively for purposes of complying with the CSAPR cap-and-trade program. Duke Energy has evaluated the effect of the CSAPR on the carrying value of emission allowances recorded at its USFE&G and Commercial Power segments. Based on the provisions of the CSAPR, Duke Energy Ohio has more SO₂ allowances than will be needed to comply with the continuing CAA acid rain cap-and-trade program (excess emission allowances). Duke Energy Ohio incurred a pre-tax impairment of $79 million in the third quarter of 2011 to write down the carrying value of excess emission allowances held by Commercial Power to fair value. The charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio’s Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. This amount is based on the fair value of total allowances held by Commercial Power for compliance under the continuing CAA acid rain cap-and-trade program as of September 30, 2011.

The changes in net carrying amounts of intangible assets during the nine months ended September 30, 2011 relates primarily to the CSAPR impairments discussed above, as well as the consumption, purchases and/or sales of emission allowances.

Other Impairments. As a result of project cost overages related to the Edwardsport IGCC plant, Duke Energy Indiana recorded pre-tax charges to earnings of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and $44 million in the third quarter of 2010.

Refer to Note 4 for a further discussion of the Edwardsport IGCC project.

8. Risk Management, Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

The Duke Energy Registrants utilize various derivative instruments to manage risks primarily associated with commodity prices and interest rates. The primary use of energy commodity derivatives is to hedge the generation portfolio against exposure to changes in the prices of power and fuel. Interest rate derivatives are entered into to manage interest rate risk associated with variable-rate and fixed-rate borrowings.

Certain derivative instruments qualify for hedge accounting and are designated as either cash flow hedges or fair value hedges, while others either do not qualify as accounting hedges (such as economic hedges) or have not been designated as accounting hedges (hereinafter referred to as undesignated contracts). All derivative instruments not meeting the criteria for the normal purchase normal sale (NPNS) exception are recognized as either assets or liabilities at fair value in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As the regulated operations of the Duke Energy Registrants meet the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment, the majority of the derivative contracts entered into by the regulated operations are not designated as hedges since gains and losses on such contracts are deferred as regulatory liabilities and assets, respectively, thus there is no immediate earnings impact associated with changes in fair values of such derivative contracts.

For derivative instruments that qualify and are designated as cash flow hedges, the effective portion of the gain or loss is reported as a component of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) and reclassified into earnings in the same period or periods during which the hedged transaction affects earnings. Any gains or losses on the derivative that represent either hedge ineffectiveness or hedge components excluded from the assessment of effectiveness are recognized in current earnings. For derivative instruments that qualify and are designated as a fair value hedge, the gain or loss on the derivative as well as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item are recognized in earnings in the current period. Any gains or losses on the derivative are included in the same line item as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Regulatory accounting treatment is applied to substantially all of the derivative instruments at Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana.

Commodity Price Risk

The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to the impact of market changes in the future prices of electricity (energy, capacity and financial transmission rights), coal, natural gas and emission allowances (SO₂, seasonal NO_X and annual NO_X) as a result of their energy operations such as electricity generation and the transportation and sale of natural gas. With respect to commodity price risks associated

45

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

with electricity generation, the Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to changes including, but not limited to, the cost of the coal and natural gas used to generate electricity, the prices of electricity in wholesale markets, the cost of capacity required to purchase and sell electricity in wholesale markets and the cost of emission allowances primarily at the Duke Energy Registrants’ coal fired power plants. Risks associated with commodity price changes on future operations are closely monitored and, where appropriate, various commodity contracts are used to mitigate the effect of such fluctuations on operations. Exposure to commodity price risk is influenced by a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the term of the contract, the liquidity of the market and delivery location.

Commodity Fair Value Hedges. At September 30, 2011, there were no open commodity derivative instruments that were designated as fair value hedges.

Commodity Cash Flow Hedges. At September 30, 2011, there were no open commodity derivative instruments that were designated as cash flow hedges.

Undesignated Contracts. The Duke Energy Registrants use derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from providing electricity generation and capacity to large energy customers, energy aggregators, retail customers and other wholesale companies. Undesignated contracts may include contracts not designated as a hedge, contracts that do not qualify for hedge accounting, derivatives that do not or no longer qualify for the NPNS scope exception, and de-designated hedge contracts. Undesignated contracts also include contracts associated with operations that Duke Energy continues to wind down or has included as discontinued operations. As these undesignated contracts expire as late as 2021, Duke Energy has entered into economic hedges that leave it minimally exposed to changes in prices over the duration of these contracts.

Duke Energy Carolinas uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from electricity generation. At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas does not have any undesignated commodity contracts.

Duke Energy Ohio uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from providing electricity generation and capacity to large energy customers, energy aggregators, retail customers and other wholesale companies. Undesignated contracts at September 30, 2011 are primarily associated with forward sales and purchases of power, coal and emission allowances, for the Commercial Power segment.

Duke Energy Indiana uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from electricity generation. Undesignated contracts at September 30, 2011 are primarily associated with forward purchases and sales of power, financial transmission rights and emission allowances.

Interest Rate Risk

The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to risk resulting from changes in interest rates as a result of their issuance or anticipated issuance of variable and fixed-rate debt and commercial paper. Interest rate exposure is managed by limiting variable-rate exposures to a percentage of total debt and by monitoring the effects of market changes in interest rates. To manage risk associated with changes in interest rates, the Duke Energy Registrants may enter into financial contracts; primarily interest rate swaps and U.S. Treasury lock agreements. Additionally, in anticipation of certain fixed-rate debt issuances, a series of forward starting interest rate swaps may be executed to lock in components of the market interest rates at the time and terminated prior to or upon the issuance of the corresponding debt. When these transactions occur within a business that meets the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment, these contracts may be treated as undesignated and any pre-tax gain or loss recognized from inception to termination of the hedges would be recorded as a regulatory liability or asset and amortized as a component of interest expense over the life of the debt. Alternatively, these derivatives may be designated as hedges whereby, any pre-tax gain or loss recognized from inception to termination of the hedges would be recorded in AOCI and amortized as a component of interest expense over the life of the debt.

The following table shows the notional amounts for derivatives related to interest rate risk at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments Related to Interest Rate Risk

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	846	$	—	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		748		500		27		200
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250		—
Total Notional Amount at September 30, 2011	$	1,869	$	525	$	277	$	200

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	492	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		561		500		27
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250
Total Notional Amount at December 31, 2010	$	1,328	$	525	$	277

(a) Includes amounts related to non-recourse variable rate long-term debt of VIEs of $470 million at September 30, 2011 and $492 million at December 31, 2010.

46

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Volumes

The following tables show information relating to the volume of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio’s commodity derivative activity outstanding as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts disclosed represent the notional volumes of commodities contracts accounted for at fair value. For option contracts, notional amounts include only the delta-equivalent volumes which represent the notional volumes times the probability of exercising the option based on current price volatility. Volumes associated with contracts qualifying for the NPNS exception have been excluded from the table below. Amounts disclosed represent the absolute value of notional amounts. Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio have netted contractual amounts where offsetting purchase and sale contracts exist with identical delivery locations and times of delivery. Where all commodity positions are perfectly offset, no quantities are shown below. For additional information on notional dollar amounts of debt subject to derivative contracts accounted for at fair value, see “Interest Rate Risk” section above.

Underlying Notional Amounts for Derivative Instruments Accounted for At Fair Value

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)		7,048		8,200
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		58
Emission allowances: SO2 (thousands of tons)		8		8
Natural gas (millions of decatherms)		37		37
Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)(a)		11,947		13,183
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		60

(a) Amounts include intercompany positions that are eliminated at Duke Energy.

The following table shows fair value amounts of derivative contracts as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, and the line item(s) in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in which such amounts are included. The fair values of derivative contracts are presented on a gross basis, even when the derivative instruments are subject to master netting arrangements where Duke Energy nets the fair value of derivative contracts subject to master netting arrangements with the same counterparty on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Cash collateral payables and receivables associated with the derivative contracts have not been netted against the fair value amounts.

Location and Fair Value Amounts of Derivatives Reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

Balance Sheet Location

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Asset		Liability		Asset		Liability
	(in millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate contracts
Current Assets: Other		5		—		5		—
Investments and Other Assets: Other		4		—		16		—
Current Liabilities: Other		—		13		—		13
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		—		71		—		—
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	9	$	84	$	21	$	13

47

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Commodity contracts
Current Assets: Other	$	73	$	30	$	108	$	54
Investments and Other Assets: Other		43		6		55		4
Current Liabilities: Other		15		50		75		118
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		9		77		3		72
Interest rate contracts
Investments and Other Assets: Other(a)		—		—		60		—
Current Liabilities: Other(a)(b)		—		94		—		2
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other(c)		—		68		—		5
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	140	$	325	$	301	$	255
Total Derivatives	$	149	$	409	$	322	$	268

(a) As of December 31, 2010, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(b) As of September 30, 2011, includes $92 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(c) As of September 30, 2011, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Asset		Liability		Asset		Liability
	(in millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate contracts
Current Assets: Other		4		—		4		—
Investments and Other Assets: Other		4		—		2		—
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	8	$	—	$	6	$	—

48

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Commodity contracts
Current Assets: Other	$	55	$	34	$	106	$	57
Investments and Other Assets: Other		7		2		6		2
Current Liabilities: Other		16		30		75		98
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		12		17		3		7
Interest rate contracts
Current Liabilities: Other		—		1		—		1
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		—		7		—		4
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	90	$	91	$	190	$	169
Total Derivatives	$	98	$	91	$	196	$	169

The following table shows the amount of the gains and losses recognized on derivative instruments designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges by type of derivative contract during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations line items in which such gains and losses are included.

Cash Flow Hedges—Location and Amount of Pre-Tax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in Comprehensive Income

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings(a)
Commodity contracts
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			1			—			1
Interest rate contracts
Interest expense		(1	)		(2	)		(4	)		(4	)
Total Pre-tax Losses Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$	(1	)	$	(1	)	$	(4	)	$	(3	)

Duke Energy Ohio	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Location of Pre-tax Gains Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings(a)
Commodity contracts
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—		1		—		1
Total Pre-tax Gains Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$	—	$	1	$	—	$	1

(a) Represents the gains and losses on cash flow hedges previously recorded in AOCI during the term of the hedging relationship and reclassified into earnings during the current period.

Duke Energy’s effective portion of losses on cash flow hedges that were recognized in AOCI during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 were pre-tax losses of $73 million and $80 million, respectively, and pre-tax losses of $1 million and $14 million, respectively, during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010. In addition, there was no hedge ineffectiveness during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and no gains or losses have been excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness during the same periods for all Duke Energy Registrants.

Duke Energy. At September 30, 2011, $108 million of pre-tax deferred net losses on derivative instruments related to interest rate cash flow hedges remains in AOCI, and a $7 million pre-tax gain is expected to be recognized in earnings during the next 12 months as the hedged transactions occur.

Duke Energy Ohio. At September 30, 2011, there were no pre-tax deferred net gains or losses on derivative instruments related to cash flow hedges remaining in AOCI.

The following table shows the amount of the pre-tax gains and losses recognized on undesignated contracts by type of derivative instrument during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and the line item(s) in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in which such gains and losses are included or deferred on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as regulatory assets or liabilities.

49

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Undesignated Contracts—Location and Amount of Pre-Tax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in

Income or as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings
Commodity contracts
Revenue, regulated electric	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	1
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas and other		—			3			(25	)		(31	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(1	)		6
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings	$	—		$	3		$	(26	)	$	(24	)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities
Commodity contracts
Regulatory Asset	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	2
Regulatory Liability		2			(2	)		12			10
Interest rate contracts
Regulatory Asset(a)		(146	)		(6	)		(155	)		(8	)
Regulatory Liability(b)		(60	)		—			(60	)		—
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities	$	(202	)	$	(8	)	$	(202	)	$	4

(a) Includes amounts related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 of $82 million and $91 million, respectively, and includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011.

(b) Amounts relate to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas.

Duke Energy Ohio	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings
Commodity contracts
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	(6	)	$	46		$	(28	)	$	28
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(1	)		6
Interest rate contracts
Interest expense		—			(1	)		(1	)		(1	)
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings(a)	$	(6	)	$	45		$	(30	)	$	33
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets
Commodity contracts
Regulatory Asset	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	2
Interest rate contracts
Regulatory Asset		(4	)		(2	)		(4	)		(4	)
Total Pre-tax Losses Recognized as Regulatory Assets	$	(2	)	$	(2	)	$	(3	)	$	(2	)

(a) Amounts include intercompany positions that are eliminated at Duke Energy.

50

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Credit Risk

Certain of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio’s derivative contracts contain contingent credit features, such as material adverse change clauses or payment acceleration clauses that could result in immediate payments, the posting of letters of credit or the termination of the derivative contract before maturity if specific events occur, such as a downgrade of Duke Energy or Duke Energy Ohio’s credit rating below investment grade.

The following table shows information with respect to derivative contracts that are in a net liability position and contain objective credit-risk related payment provisions. The amounts disclosed in the table below represent the aggregate fair value amounts of such derivative instruments at the end of the reporting period, the aggregate fair value of assets that are already posted as collateral under such derivative instruments at the end of the reporting period, and the aggregate fair value of additional assets that would be required to be transferred in the event that credit-risk-related contingent features were triggered at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Information Regarding Derivative Instruments that Contain Credit-risk Related Contingent Features

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$	66	$	148
Collateral Already Posted	$	25	$	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$	4	$	14
Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$	65	$	147
Collateral Already Posted	$	25	$	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$	4	$	14

Netting of Cash Collateral and Derivative Assets and Liabilities Under Master Netting Arrangements. In accordance with applicable accounting rules, Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio have elected to offset fair value amounts (or amounts that approximate fair value) recognized on their Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to cash collateral amounts receivable or payable against fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under the same master netting agreement. The amounts disclosed in the table below represent the receivables related to the right to reclaim cash collateral and payables related to the obligation to return cash collateral under master netting arrangements as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. See Note 9 for additional information on fair value disclosures related to derivatives.

Information Regarding Cash Collateral under Master Netting Arrangements

	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy	Receivables		Payables		Receivables		Payables
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	7		—	$	2		—
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets(a)	$	28		—	$	2	$	3
	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio	Receivables		Payables		Receivables		Payables
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	7		—	$	2		—
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (a)	$	16	$	—		—	$	3

(a) Amounts for payables primarily represent margin deposits related to futures contracts.

51

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

9. Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities

Under existing accounting guidance, fair value is considered to be the exchange price in an orderly transaction between market participants to sell an asset or transfer a liability at the measurement date. The fair value definition focuses on an exit price, which is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability versus an entry price, which would be the price paid to acquire an asset or received to assume a liability.

The Duke Energy Registrants classify recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements based on the following fair value hierarchy, as prescribed by the accounting guidance for fair value, which prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three levels:

Level 1—unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that Duke Energy has the ability to access. An active market for the asset or liability is one in which transactions for the asset or liability occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide ongoing pricing information. Duke Energy does not adjust quoted market prices on Level 1 for any blockage factor.

Level 2—a fair value measurement utilizing inputs other than a quoted market price that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for the asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include, but are not limited to, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in an active market, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active and inputs other than quoted market prices that are observable for the asset or liability, such as interest rate curves and yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals, volatilities, credit risk and default rates. A Level 2 measurement cannot have more than an insignificant portion of the valuation based on unobservable inputs.

Level 3—any fair value measurements which include unobservable inputs for the asset or liability for more than an insignificant portion of the valuation. A Level 3 measurement may be based primarily on level 2 inputs.

The fair value accounting guidance for financial instruments permits entities to elect to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value that are not required to be accounted for at fair value under other GAAP. There are no financial assets or financial liabilities that are not required to be accounted for at fair value under GAAP for which the option to record at fair value has been elected by the Duke Energy Registrants. However, in the future, the Duke Energy Registrants may elect to measure certain financial instruments at fair value in accordance with this accounting guidance.

The Duke Energy Registrant’s Policy for the recognition of transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy is to recognize the transfer at the end of the period.

Valuation methods of the primary fair value measurements disclosed below are as follows:

Investments in equity securities. Investments in equity securities are typically valued at the closing price in the principal active market as of the last business day of the quarter. Principal active markets for equity prices include published exchanges such as NASDAQ and NYSE. Foreign equity prices are translated from their trading currency using the currency exchange rate in effect at the close of the principal active market. Prices have not been adjusted to reflect for after-hours market activity. The majority of investments in equity securities are valued using Level 1 measurements.

Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities. Duke Energy held $115 million par value ($97 million carrying value) and $149 million par value ($118 million carrying value) as of September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively of auction rate securities for which an active market does not currently exist. During the nine months ended September 30, 2011, $34 million of these investments in auction rate securities were redeemed by the issuer at full par value plus accrued interest. Duke Energy Carolinas held $16 million par value ($12 million carrying value) of these auction rate securities at both September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The vast majority of these auction rate securities are AAA rated student loan securities for which substantially all the values are ultimately backed by the U.S. government. Those auction rate securities which are classified as long-term investments are valued using Level 3 measurements. The methods and significant assumptions used to determine the fair values of the investment in auction rate debt securities represent estimations of fair value using internal discounted cash flow models which incorporate primarily management’s own assumptions as to the term over which such investments will be recovered at par, the current level of interest rates, and the appropriate risk-adjusted discount rates when relevant observable inputs are not available to determine the present value of such cash flows. In preparing the valuations, all significant value drivers were considered, including the underlying collateral. Those auction rate securities which are classified as Short-term investments are valued using Level 2 measurements, as they are valued at par based on a commitment by the issuer to redeem at par value. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy held $25 million of auction rate securities classified as short-term investments. In October 2011, Duke Energy received $25 million from the issuer who redeemed the securities at par value. As a result, at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy recorded the fair value equal to the par value and transferred these securities from Level 3 to Level 2.

There were no other-than-temporary impairments associated with investments in auction rate debt securities during the nine months ended September 30, 2011 or 2010.

Investments in debt securities. Most debt investments (including those held in the Nuclear Decomissioning Trust Funds (NDTF) are valued based on a calculation using interest rate curves and credit spreads applied to the terms of the debt instrument (maturity and coupon interest rate) and consider the counterparty credit rating. Most debt valuations are Level 2 measurements. If the market for a particular fixed income security is relatively inactive or illiquid, the measurement is a Level 3 measurement. U.S. Treasury debt is typically a Level 1 measurement.

Commodity derivatives. The pricing for commodity derivatives is primarily a calculated value which incorporates the forward price and is adjusted for liquidity (bid-ask spread), credit or non-performance risk (after reflecting credit enhancements such as collateral) and discounted to present value. The primary difference between a Level 2 and a Level 3 measurement has to do with the level of activity in forward markets for the commodity. If the market is relatively inactive, the measurement is deemed to be a Level 3 measurement. Some commodity derivatives are exchange traded contracts, which are classified as Level 1 measurements.

52

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Derivative amounts in the table below exclude cash collateral amounts which are disclosed in Note 8. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	97		$	—		$	25		$	72
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,206			1,154			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		718			151			519			48
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(b)		62			55			7			—
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities(c)		330			27			303			—
Derivative assets(d)		89			15			9			65
Total Assets	$	2,502		$	1,402		$	909		$	191
Derivative liabilities(e)		(349	)		(57	)		(203	)		(89	)
Net Assets	$	2,153		$	1,345		$	706		$	102

(a) $72 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) $209 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $121 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	118		$	—		$	—		$	118
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,365			1,313			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		649			35			573			41
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(a)		164			157			7			—
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale debt securities(a)		221			10			211			—
Derivative assets(b)		186			21			81			84
Total Assets	$	2,703		$	1,536		$	918		$	249
Derivative liabilities(c)		(132	)		(8	)		(21	)		(103	)
Net Assets	$	2,571		$	1,528		$	897		$	146

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

53

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments		Derivatives (net)			Total
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	90		$	53	$	(22	)	$	121
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—		8			8
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		8			—		—			8
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			—		8			8
Settlements		(1	)		—		(2	)		(3	)
Total gains (losses) included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			1		(16	)		(15	)
Transfers out of Level 3		(25	)							(25	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54	$	(24	)	$	102
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights.
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	178		$	48	$	(7	)	$	219

54

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(15	)		(15	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			—			(3	)		(3	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		2			—			—			2
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(3	)		(4	)		2			(5	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			2			1			3
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Derivatives (net)			Total
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	118		$	47		$	(19	)	$	146
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—			8			8
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(19	)		(19	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		13			—			—			13
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			7			8			15
Sales		—			(3	)		—			(3	)
Settlements		(25	)		—			(5	)		(30	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			3			3			6
Transfers out of Level 3		(34	)								(34	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54		$	(24	)	$	102
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2011:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
Total	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	198		$	—		$	25		$	223
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(44	)		(44	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(14	)		(14	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		12			—			—			12
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlement		(33	)		44			(5	)		6
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			2			16			18
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201

55

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2010:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—	$	—	$	15		$	15
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—		—		(1	)		(1	)
Total	$	—	$	—	$	14		$	14

Duke Energy Carolinas

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Carolinas’ Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	12		$	—	$	—		$	12
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,206			1,154		46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		718			151		519			48
Derivative assets(b)		1			—		1			—
Total assets		1,937			1,305		566			66
Derivative liabilities(c)		(92	)		—		(92	)		—
Net Assets	$	1,845		$	1,305	$	474		$	66

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2		Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	12		$	—		$	—	$	12
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,365			1,313			46		6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		649			35			573		41
Derivative assets(b)		62			1			61		—
Total assets		2,088			1,349			680		59
Derivative liabilities(c)		(1	)		(1	)		—		—
Net Assets	$	2,087		$	1,348		$	680	$	59

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

56

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities		Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	12	$	53		$	65
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—		1			1
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	12	$	54		$	66
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities		Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	60	$	48		$	108
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		1		—			1
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		—		(4	)		(4	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—		2			2
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	61	$	46		$	107

57

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	12		$	47		$	59
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases		—			7			7
Sales		—			(3	)		(3	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			3			3
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	12		$	54		$	66
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	66		$	—		$	66
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		3			—			3
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		—			44			44
Total gains (losses) included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		(8	)		2			(6	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	61		$	46		$	107

Duke Energy Ohio

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Ohio’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts which are disclosed separately in Note 8.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Derivative assets(a)	$	34		$	11		$	8		$	15
Derivative liabilities(b)		(27	)		(11	)		(8	)		(8	)
Net Assets	$	7		$	—		$	—		$	7

(a) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

58

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Derivative assets(a)	$	59		$	20		$	6		$	33
Derivative liabilities(b)		(32	)		(7	)		(5	)		(20	)
Net Assets	$	27		$	13		$	1		$	13

(a) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Derivatives (net)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	7
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		(1	)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Settlements		(1	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		2
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	7
Three Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	(4	)
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		29
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(2	)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		9
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	32
	Derivatives (net)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	13
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		(7	)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Settlements		(2	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		3
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	7
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2011:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	1
Total	$	1

59

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

	Derivatives (net)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	7
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		27
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(13	)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		8
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		3
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	32
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2010:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	31
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(1	)
Total	$	30

Duke Energy Indiana

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Indiana’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Available-for-sale equity securities(a)	$	42		$	42	$	—		$	—
Available-for-sale debt securities(a)		28			—		28			—
Derivative assets(b)		6			—		—			6
Total Assets		76			42		28			6
Derivative liabilities(c)		(62	)		—		(62	)		—
Net Assets	$	14		$	42	$	(34	)	$	6

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Available-for-sale equity securities(a)	$	47		$	47	$	—		$	—
Available-for-sale debt securities(a)		26			—		26			—
Derivative assets(b)		4			—		—			4
Total Assets		77			47		26			4
Derivative liabilities(c)		(2	)		—		(2	)		—
Net Assets	$	75		$	47	$	24		$	4

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

60

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 measurements

	Derivatives (net)
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	10
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		8
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		8
Settlements		(2	)
Total losses included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		(18	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	6
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	7
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(3	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	4

(a) Amounts relate to financial transmission rights.

	Derivatives (net)
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	4
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		8
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		8
Settlements		(14	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	6
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	4
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(12	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		12
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	4

(a) Amounts relate to financial transmission rights.

61

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Additional Fair Value Disclosures - Long-term debt: The fair value of long-term debt is summarized in the following table. Judgment is required in interpreting market data to develop the estimates of fair value. Accordingly, the estimates determined as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of the amounts the Duke Energy Registrants could have settled in current markets.

	As of September 30, 2011
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value(a)		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	19,111	$	21,346	$	8,273	$	9,469	$	2,558	$	2,685	$	3,469	$	3,977

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $959 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

	As of December 31, 2010
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	18,210	$	19,484	$	7,770	$	8,376	$	2,564	$	2,614	$	3,472	$	3,746

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $976 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

At both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the fair value of cash and cash equivalents, accounts and notes receivable, accounts payable, commercial paper and non-recourse notes payables of variable interest entities are not materially different from their carrying amounts because of the short-term nature of these instruments and/or because the stated rates approximate market rates.

62

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

10. Investments in Debt and Equity Securities

The Duke Energy Registrants classify their investments in debt and equity securities into two categories – trading and available-for-sale. Investments in debt and equity securities held in grantor trusts associated with certain deferred compensation plans and certain other investments are classified as trading securities and are reported at fair value in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets with net realized and unrealized gains and losses included in earnings each period. All other investments in debt and equity securities are classified as available-for-sale securities, which are also reported at fair value on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets with unrealized gains and losses excluded from earnings and reported either as a regulatory asset or liability, as discussed further below, or as a component of other comprehensive income until realized.

Trading Securities. Duke Energy holds investments in debt and equity securities in grantor trusts that are associated with certain deferred compensation plans. At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the fair value of these investments was $30 million and $29 million, respectively. Additionally, at December 31, 2010, Duke Energy held Windstream Corp. (Windstream) equity securities, which were received as proceeds from the sale of Duke Energy’s equity investment in Q-Comm Corporation during the fourth quarter of 2010. The fair value of these securities at December 31, 2010 was $87 million. Duke Energy subsequently sold these securities in the first quarter of 2011. Proceeds received from the sale of Windstream equity securities are reflected in Net proceeds from the sale of equity investments and other assets, and sales of and collections on notes receivable in the Duke Energy Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows.

Available for Sale Securities. Duke Energy’s available-for-sale securities are primarily comprised of investments held in the NDTF at Duke Energy Carolinas, investments in a grantor trust at Duke Energy Indiana related to other post-retirement benefit plans as required by the IURC, Duke Energy captive insurance investment portfolio, investments in short-term securities at Duke Energy International and investments of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas in auction rate debt securities. The investments within the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are managed by independent investment managers with discretion to buy, sell and invest pursuant to the objectives set forth by the trust agreements. Therefore, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana have limited oversight of the day-to-day management of these investments. Since day-to-day investment decisions, including buy and sell decisions, are made by the investment manager, the ability to hold investments in unrealized loss positions is outside the control of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana. Accordingly, all unrealized gains and losses associated with equity securities within the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are considered other-than-temporary and are recognized immediately when the fair value of individual investments is less than the cost basis of the investment. Pursuant to regulatory accounting, substantially all unrealized losses associated with investments in debt and equity securities within the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are deferred as a regulatory asset or liability. As a result there is no immediate impact on the earnings of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana. For investments in debt and equity securities held in the captive insurance investment portfolio investments in short-term securities at Duke Energy International and investments in auction rate debt securities, unrealized gains and losses are included in other comprehensive income until realized, unless it is determined that the carrying value of an investment is other-than-temporarily impaired. If so, the write-down to fair value may be included in earnings based on the criteria discussed below.

For available-for-sale securities outside of the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust, which are discussed separately above, Duke Energy analyzes all investment holdings each reporting period to determine whether a decline in fair value should be considered other-than-temporary. Criteria used to evaluate whether an impairment associated with equity securities is other-than-temporary includes, but is not limited to, the length of time over which the market value has been lower than the cost basis of the investment, the percentage decline compared to the cost of the investment and management’s intent and ability to retain its investment in the issuer for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in market value. If a decline in fair value is determined to be other-than-temporary, the investment is written down to its fair value through a charge to earnings.

With respect to investments in debt securities, under the accounting guidance for other-than-temporary impairment, if the entity does not have an intent to sell the security and it is not more likely than not that management will be required to sell the debt security before the recovery of its cost basis, the impairment write-down to fair value would be recorded as a component of other comprehensive income, except for when it is determined that a credit loss exists. In determining whether a credit loss exists, management considers, among other things, the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than the amortized cost basis, changes in the financial condition of the issuer of the security, or in the case of an asset backed security, the financial condition of the underlying loan obligors, consideration of underlying collateral and guarantees of amounts by government entities, ability of the issuer of the security to make scheduled interest or principal payments and any changes to the rating of the security by rating agencies. If it is determined that a credit loss exists, the amount of impairment write-down to fair value would be split between the credit loss, which would be recognized in earnings, and the amount attributable to all other factors, which would be recognized in other comprehensive income. Management believes, based on consideration of the criteria above that no credit loss exists as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Management does not have the intent to sell such investments in auction rate debt securities and the investments in debt securities within its captive insurance investment portfolio, and it is not more likely than not that management will be required to sell these securities before the anticipated recovery of their cost basis. Therefore, management has concluded that there were no other-than-temporary impairments necessary as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Accordingly, all changes in the market value of investments in auction rate debt securities, short-term investments at Duke Energy International and captive insurance investments were reflected as a component of other comprehensive income in 2011 and 2010.

See Note 9 for additional information related to fair value measurements for investments in auction rate debt securities.

Management will continue to monitor the carrying value of its entire portfolio of investments in the future to determine if any other-than-temporary impairment losses should be recognized.

Investments in debt and equity securities are classified as either short-term investments or long-term investments based on management’s intent and ability to sell these securities, taking into consideration illiquidity factors in the current markets.

Short-term and Long-term investments. Duke Energy classifies its investments in debt and equity securities held in the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF (see Note 9 for further information), the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust and the captive insurance investment portfolio as long-term. Investments at Duke Energy International are classified as short-term and are available for current operations. Additionally, Duke Energy has classified $72 million carrying value ($90 million par value) and $118 million carrying value ($149 million par value) of investments in auction rate debt securities as long-term at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, due to market illiquidity factors as a result of continued failed auctions. All of these investments are classified as available-for-sale and, therefore, are reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at estimated fair value based on either quoted market prices or management’s best estimate of fair value based on expected future cash flow using appropriate risk-adjusted discount rates. Since management does not intend to use these investments in current operations, these investments are classified as long-term.

63

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The estimated fair values of short-term and long-term investments classified as available-for-sale for Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana are as follows (in millions):

Duke Energy

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Gross Unrealized Holding Gains(a)		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses(a)			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains(a)		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses(a)			Estimated Fair Value
Short-term Investments(b)	$	—	$	—		$	146	$	—	$	—		$	—
Total short-term investments	$	—	$	—		$	146	$	—	$	—		$	—
Equity Securities	$	334	$	(60	)	$	1,261	$	481	$	(16	)	$	1,435
Corporate Debt Securities		8		(4	)		226		12		(3	)		270
Municipal Bonds		2		—			62		1		(9	)		69
U.S. Government Bonds		21		—			373		10		(1	)		235
Auction Rate Debt Securities(c)		—		(19	)		72		—		(31	)		118
Other		5		(2	)		243		11		(5	)		274
Total long-term investments	$	370	$	(85	)	$	2,237	$	515	$	(65	)	$	2,401

(a) The table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $364 million and $63 million, respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains and losses of $505 million and $32 million, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the NDTF. Additionally, the table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $2 million and $1 million respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains of $6 million and an insignificant amount of unrealized losses, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust. As discussed above, unrealized losses on investments within the NDTF and Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are deferred as a regulatory asset pursuant to regulatory accounting treatment.

(b) At September 30, 2011, auction rate securities estimated fair value of $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) At September 30, 2011, auction rate securities estimated fair value of $72 million are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Debt securities held at September 30, 2011, which excludes auction rate securities based on the stated maturity date, mature as follows: $115 million in less than one year, $292 million in one to five years, $235 million in six to 10 years and $383 million thereafter.

The fair values and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt and equity securities which are in an unrealized loss position for which other-than-temporary impairment losses have not been recorded, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are presented in the table below as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

	As of September 30, 2011								As of December 31, 2010
	Fair Value(a)		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months			Fair Value(a)		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months
Equity Securities	$	241	$	(13	)	$	(47	)	$	85	$	(11	)	$	(5	)
Corporate Debt Securities		195		(1	)		(3	)		73		(2	)		(2	)
Municipal Bonds		9		—			—			42		(8	)		(1	)
U.S. Government Bonds		84		—			—			38		—			(1	)
Auction Rate Debt Securities(b)		71		(19	)		—			118		(31	)		—
Other		115		(1	)		(1	)		84		(1	)		(3	)
Total long-term investments	$	715	$	(34	)	$	(51	)	$	440	$	(53	)	$	(12	)

(a) The table above includes fair values of $459 million and $226 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, associated with investments held in the NDTF. Additionally, the table above includes fair values of $15 million and $5 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, associated with investments held in the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust.

(b) See Note 9 for information about fair value measurements related to investments in auction rate debt securities.

64

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy Carolinas

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Estimated Fair Value
Equity Securities	$	333	$	(57	)	$	1,206	$	475	$	(16	)	$	1,365
Corporate Debt Securities		6		(3	)		174		10		(3	)		227
Municipal Bonds		1		—			34		1		(9	)		43
U.S. Government Bonds		20		—			346		10		—			224
Auction Rate Debt Securities		—		(3	)		12		—		(3	)		12
Other		4		(3	)		164		9		(4	)		155
Total long-term investments	$	364	$	(66	)	$	1,936	$	505	$	(35	)	$	2,026

Debt securities held at September 30, 2011, which excludes auction rate securities based on the stated maturity date, mature as follows: $83 million in less than one year, $131 million in one to five years, $202 million in six to 10 years and $302 million thereafter.

The fair values and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt and equity securities which are in an unrealized loss position for which other-than-temporary impairment losses have not been recorded, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are presented in the table below as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

	As of September 30, 2011								As of December 31, 2010
	Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months			Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months
Equity Securities	$	220	$	(13	)	$	(44	)	$	79	$	(11	)	$	(5	)
Corporate Debt Securities		60		(1	)		(2	)		59		(2	)		(1	)
Municipal Bonds		2		—			—			28		(8	)		(1	)
U.S. Government Bonds		76		—			—			33		—			—
Auction Rate Debt Securities(a)		12		(3	)		—			12		(3	)		—
Other		101		(1	)		(2	)		27		(1	)		(3	)
Total long-term investments	$	471	$	(18	)	$	(48	)	$	238	$	(25	)	$	(10	)

(a) See Note 9 for information about fair value measurements related to investments in auction rate debt securities.

Duke Energy Indiana

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses		Estimated Fair Value
Equity Securities	$	1	$	(1	)	$	42	$	6	$	—	$	47
Municipal Bonds		1		—			28		—		—		26
Total long-term investments	$	2	$	(1	)	$	70	$	6	$	—	$	73

65

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Debt securities held at September 30, 2011 mature as follows: $1 million in less than one year, $19 million in one to five years, $7 million in six to 10 years and $1 million thereafter.

The fair values and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt and equity securities which are in an unrealized loss position for which other-than-temporary impairment losses have not been recorded, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are presented in the table below as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

	As of September 30, 2011							As of December 31, 2010
	Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months		Unrealized Loss Position <12 months			Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months		Unrealized Loss Position <12 months
Equity Securities	$	8	$	—	$	(1	)	$	—	$	—	$	—
Municipal Bonds		7		—		—			14		—		—
Total long-term investments	$	15	$	—	$	(1	)	$	14	$	—	$	—

11. Variable Interest Entities

A VIE is an entity that is evaluated for consolidation using more than a simple analysis of voting control. The analysis to determine whether an entity is a VIE considers contracts with an entity, credit support for an entity, the adequacy of the equity investment of an entity and the relationship of voting power to the amount of equity invested in an entity. This analysis is performed either upon the creation of a legal entity or upon the occurrence of an event requiring reevaluation, such as a significant change in an entity’s assets or activities. If an entity is determined to be a VIE, a qualitative analysis of control determines the party that consolidates a VIE based on what party has the power to direct the most significant activities of the VIE that impact its economic performance as well as what party has rights to receive benefits or is obligated to absorb losses that are significant to the VIE. The analysis of the party that consolidates a VIE is a continual reassessment.

CONSOLIDATED VIEs

The table below shows the VIEs that Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas consolidate and how these entities impact Duke Energy’s and Duke Energy Carolinas’ respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. None of these entities is consolidated by Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana.

Other than the discussion below related to Cinergy Receivables, no financial support was provided to any of the consolidated VIEs during the three or nine months ended September 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, respectively, or is expected to be provided in the future, that was not previously contractually required.

66

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other		Total
	(in millions)
At September 30, 2011
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	492	$	13	$	7		$	3	$	1,152
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		82			8		94
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		12			—		12
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		67		48			61		176
Other Assets		—		—		21		—			—		21
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		921			—		921
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(53	)		—		(53	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		25			9		34
Total Assets		637		492		105		1,042			81		2,357
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		1			2		3
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		275		—		—			—		275
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		3			—		3
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		10		57			5		72
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		57			—		62
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		63		533			63		959
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		173			—		173
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—		12
Other Liabilities		—		—		20		37			1		58
Total Liabilities		300		275		98		873			71		1,617
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			2		2
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders’ Equity	$	337	$	217	$	7	$	169		$	8	$	738

67

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other			Total
	(in millions)
At December 31, 2010
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	629	$	12	$	20		$	4		$	1,302
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		282			8			294
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		13			—			13
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		76		(2	)		65			139
Other Assets		—		—		23		—			—			23
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		892			50			942
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(26	)		(29	)		(55	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		24			(3	)		21
Total Assets		637		629		115		1,203			95			2,679
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		2			2			4
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		216		—		—			—			216
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		1			—			1
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		9		45			7			61
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		16			—			21
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		71		518			87			976
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		191			—			191
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—			12
Other Liabilities		—		—		22		4			—			26
Total Liabilities		300		216		107		789			96			1,508
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			1			1
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders’ Equity	$	337	$	413	$	8	$	414		$	(2	)	$	1,170

DERF. Duke Energy Carolinas securitizes certain accounts receivable through DERF, a bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiary. DERF is a wholly-owned limited liability company of Duke Energy Carolinas with a separate legal existence from its parent, and its assets are not intended to be generally available to creditors of Duke Energy Carolinas. As a result of the securitization, on a daily basis Duke Energy Carolinas sells certain accounts receivable, arising from the sale of electricity and/or related services as part of Duke Energy Carolinas’ franchised electric business, to DERF. In order to fund its purchases of accounts receivable, DERF has a $300 million secured credit facility with a commercial paper conduit, which expires in August 2013. Duke Energy Carolinas provides the servicing for the receivables (collecting and applying the cash to the appropriate receivables). Duke Energy Carolinas’ borrowing under the credit facility is limited to the amount of qualified receivables sold, which has been and is expected to be in excess of the amount borrowed, which is maintained at $300 million. The debt is classified as long-term since the facility has an expiration date of greater than one year from the balance sheet date.

The obligations of DERF under the facility are non-recourse to Duke Energy Carolinas. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity, purchase assets of DERF or guarantee performance. DERF is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. If deficiencies in the net worth of DERF were to occur, those deficiencies would be cured through funding from Duke Energy Carolinas. In addition, the most significant activity of DERF relates to the decisions made with respect to the management of delinquent receivables. Since those decisions are made by Duke Energy Carolinas and any net worth deficiencies of DERF would be cured through funding from Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Carolinas consolidates DERF.

Cinergy Receivables. Cinergy Receivables was formed in order to secure low cost financing for Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell on a revolving basis at a discount, nearly all of their customer accounts receivable and related collections to Cinergy Receivables. The receivables which are sold are selected in order to avoid any significant concentration of credit risk and exclude delinquent receivables. The receivables sold are securitized by Cinergy Receivables through a facility managed by two unrelated third parties and the receivables are used as collateral for commercial paper issued by the unrelated third parties. These loans provide the cash portion of the proceeds paid by Cinergy Receivables to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The proceeds obtained by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana from the sales of receivables are cash and a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables (subordinated retained interest in the sold receivables) for a portion of the purchase price (typically approximates 25% of the total proceeds). The amount borrowed by Cinergy Receivables against these receivables is non-recourse to the general credit of Duke Energy, and the associated cash collections from the accounts receivable sold is the sole source of funds to satisfy the related debt obligation. Borrowing is limited to approximately 75% of the transferred receivables. Losses on collection in excess of the discount are first absorbed by the equity of Cinergy Receivables and next by the subordinated retained interests held by Duke Energy

68

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The discount on the receivables reflects interest expense plus an allowance for bad debts net of a servicing fee charged by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are responsible for the servicing of the receivables (collecting and applying the cash to the appropriate receivables). Depending on the experience with collections, additional equity infusions to Cinergy Receivables may be required to be made by Duke Energy in order to maintain a minimum equity balance of $3 million. For the nine months ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy infused $6 million of equity to Cinergy Receivables to remedy net worth deficiencies. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Duke Energy infused $4 million and $10 million, respectively, of equity to Cinergy Receivables to remedy net worth deficiencies. The amount borrowed fluctuates based on the amount of receivables sold. The debt is short-term because the facility has an expiration date of less than one year from the balance sheet date. The current expiration date is October 2011; however, Duke Energy extended the expiration date to October 2012 subsequent to September 30, 2011. Cinergy Receivables is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations, the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity are not performed by the equity holder, Cinergy, and deficiencies in the net worth of Cinergy Receivables are not funded by Cinergy, but by Duke Energy. The most significant activity of Cinergy Receivables relates to the decisions made with respect to the management of delinquent receivables. These decisions, as well as the requirement to make up deficiencies in net worth, are made by Duke Energy and not by Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Kentucky or Duke Energy Indiana. Thus, Duke Energy consolidates Cinergy Receivables. Neither Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana consolidate Cinergy Receivables.

CinCap V. CinCap V was created to finance and execute a power sale agreement with Central Maine Power Company for approximately 35 MW of capacity and energy. This agreement expires in 2016. CinCap V is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. As Duke Energy has the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity, which are the decisions to hedge and finance the power sales agreement, CinCap V is consolidated by Duke Energy.

Renewables. Duke Energy’s renewable energy facilities include Green Frontier Windpower, LLC, Top of The World Wind Energy LLC and various solar projects, all subsidiaries of DEGS, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

These renewable energy facilities are VIEs due to power purchase agreements with terms that approximate the expected life of the projects. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer the commodity price risk to the buyer of the power. Duke Energy has consolidated these entities since inception because the most significant activities that impact the economic performance of these renewable energy facilities were the decisions associated with the siting, negotiation of the purchase power agreement, engineering, procurement and construction, and decisions associated with ongoing operations and maintenance related activities, all of which were made solely by Duke Energy.

The debt held by these renewable energy facilities is non-recourse to the general credit of Duke Energy. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity or purchase the assets of these renewable energy facilities. Duke Energy does not guarantee performance except for an immaterial multi-purpose letter of credit and various immaterial debt service reserve and operations and maintenance reserve guarantees. The assets are restricted and they cannot be pledged as collateral or sold to third parties without the prior approval of the debt holders.

Other. Duke Energy has other VIEs with restricted assets and non-recourse debt. These VIEs include certain on-site power generation facilities. Duke Energy consolidates these particular on-site power generation entities because Duke Energy has the power to direct the majority of the most significant activities, which, most notably involve the oversight of operation and maintenance related activities that impact the economic performance of these entities.

During the second quarter of 2011, the customer for an on-site generation facility cancelled its contract. As a result, the entity providing the on-site generation services no longer has any activity or assets, other than a receivable with payments to be collected through 2017. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy no longer consolidates this entity.

NON-CONSOLIDATED VIEs

The table below shows the VIEs that the Duke Energy Registrants do not consolidate and how these entities impact Duke Energy’s, Duke Energy Ohio’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As discussed above, while Duke Energy consolidates Cinergy Receivables, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana do not consolidate Cinergy Receivables as they are not the primary beneficiary.

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At September 30, 2011 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	87	$	122	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		130		84		25		239
Intangibles		113		—		—		—		113		113
Total Assets		200		122		130		84		138		352
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		1		1
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		18		18
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		19		19
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders’ Equity	$	200	$	122	$	130	$	84	$	119	$	333

69

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At December 31, 2010 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	216	$	192	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		137		95		23		255
Intangibles		119		—		—		—		119		119
Total Assets		335		192		137		95		142		374
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		3		3
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		28		28
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		31		31
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders’ Equity	$	335	$	192	$	137	$	95	$	111	$	343

No financial support that was not previously contractually required was provided to any of the unconsolidated VIEs during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, respectively, or is expected to be provided in the future.

With the exception of the power purchase agreement with the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC), which is discussed below, and various guarantees, reflected in the table above as “Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities”, the Duke Energy Registrants are not aware of any situations where the maximum exposure to loss significantly exceeds the carrying values shown above.

Cinergy Receivables. As discussed above, Cinergy Receivables is consolidated only by Duke Energy. Accordingly, the retained interest in the sold receivables recorded on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are eliminated in consolidation at Duke Energy.

The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price (typically approximates 25% of the total proceeds). The subordinated note is a retained interest (right to receive a specified portion of cash flows from the sold assets) and is classified within Receivables in Duke Energy Ohio’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The retained interests reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana approximate fair value.

The carrying values of the retained interests are determined by allocating the carrying value of the receivables between the assets sold and the interests retained based on relative fair value. Because the receivables generally turnover in less than two months, credit losses are reasonably predictable due to the broad customer base and lack of significant concentration, and the purchased beneficial interest (equity in Cinergy Receivables) is subordinate to all retained interests and thus would absorb losses first, the allocated basis of the subordinated notes are not materially different than their face value. The hypothetical effect on the fair value of the retained interests assuming both a 10% and a 20% unfavorable variation in credit losses or discount rates is not material due to the short turnover of receivables and historically low credit loss history. Interest accrues to Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Kentucky on the retained interests using the accretable yield method, which generally approximates the stated rate on the notes since the allocated basis and the face value are nearly equivalent. An impairment charge is recorded against the carrying value of both the retained interests and purchased beneficial interest whenever it is determined that an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred. The key assumptions used in estimating the fair value in 2011 and 2010 is detailed in the following table:

	2011			2010
Duke Energy Ohio
Anticipated credit loss ratio		0.8	%		0.8	%
Discount rate		2.6	%		2.7	%
Receivable turnover rate		12.7	%		12.6	%
Duke Energy Indiana
Anticipated credit loss ratio		0.4	%		0.5	%
Discount rate		2.6	%		2.7	%
Receivable turnover rate		10.2	%		10.2	%

70

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

The following table shows the gross and net receivables sold as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively:

	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Receivables sold as of September 30, 2011	$	262	$	262
Less: Retained interests		87		122
Net receivables sold as of September 30, 2011	$	175	$	140

71

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Receivables sold as of December 31, 2010	$	373	$	284
Less: Retained interests		216		192
Net receivables sold as of December 31, 2010	$	157	$	92

The following table shows the retained interests, sales, and cash flows during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively:

Three Months Ended September 30, 2011	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	592	$	711
Loss recognized on sale		5		5
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	615	$	696
Return received on retained interests		3		3
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	672	$	686
Loss recognized on sale		5		5
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	707	$	704
Collection fees received		—		1
Return received on retained interests		4		3
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	1,832	$	2,009
Loss recognized on sale		16		13
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	1,952	$	2,051
Collection fees received		1		1
Return received on retained interests		10		10
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	2,178	$	1,893
Loss recognized on sale		19		13
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	2,236	$	1,904
Collection fees received		1		1
Return received on retained interests		12		10

Cash flows from the sale of receivables are reflected within Operating Activities on Duke Energy Ohio’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

Collection fees received in connection with the servicing of transferred accounts receivable are included in Operation, Maintenance and Other on Duke Energy Ohio’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The loss recognized on the sale of receivables is calculated monthly by multiplying the receivables sold during the month by the required discount which is derived monthly utilizing a three year weighted average formula that considers charge-off history, late charge history, and turnover history on the sold receivables, as well as a component for the time value of money. The discount rate, or component for the time value of money, is calculated monthly by summing the prior month-end LIBOR plus a fixed rate of 2.39%.

DukeNet. In 2010, Duke Energy sold a 50% ownership interest in DukeNet to Alinda. The sale resulted in DukeNet becoming a joint venture with Duke Energy and Alinda each owning a 50% interest. In connection with the formation of the new DukeNet joint venture, a five-year, $150 million senior secured credit facility was executed with a syndicate of ten external financial institutions. This credit facility is non-recourse to Duke Energy. DukeNet is considered a VIE because it has entered into certain contractual arrangements that provide DukeNet with additional forms of subordinated financial support. The most significant activities that impact DukeNet’s economic performance relate to its business development and fiber optic capacity marketing and management activities. The power to direct these activities is jointly and equally shared by Duke Energy and Alinda. As a result, Duke Energy does not consolidate the DukeNet joint venture. Accordingly, DukeNet is a non-consolidated VIE that is reported as an equity method investment.

Unless consent by Duke Energy is given otherwise, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity, purchase the assets of DukeNet, or guarantee performance.

72

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Renewables. Duke Energy’s Commercial Power business segment has investments in various entities that generate electricity through the use of renewable energy technology. Some of these entities are VIEs which are not consolidated due to the joint ownership of the entities when they were created. Instead, Duke Energy’s investment is recorded under the equity method of accounting. These entities are VIEs due to power purchase agreements with terms that approximate the expected life of the project. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer the commodity price risk to the buyer of the power.

Other. Duke Energy’s Commercial Power business segment has investments in various other entities that are VIEs which are not consolidated. The most significant of these investments is Duke Energy Ohio’s 9% ownership interest in OVEC. Through its ownership interest in OVEC, Duke Energy Ohio has a contractual arrangement through June 2040 to buy power from OVEC’s power plants. The proceeds from the sale of power by OVEC to its power purchase agreement counterparties, including Duke Energy Ohio, are designed to be sufficient for OVEC to meet its operating expenses, fixed costs, debt amortization and interest expense, as well as earn a return on equity. Accordingly, the value of this contract is subject to variability due to fluctuations in power prices and changes in OVEC’s costs of business, including costs associated with its 2,256 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity. As discussed in Note 5, the proposed rulemaking on cooling water intake structures, utility boiler MACT, CSAPR and CCP’s could increase the costs of OVEC which would be passed through to Duke Energy Ohio. The initial carrying value of this contract was recorded as an intangible asset when Duke Energy acquired Cinergy in April 2006.

In addition, the company has guaranteed the performance of certain entities in which the company no longer has an equity interest. As a result, the company has a variable interest in certain other VIEs that are non-consolidated.

12. Earnings Per Common Share (EPS)

Basic EPS is computed by dividing net income attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, adjusted for distributed and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities, by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted EPS is computed by dividing net income attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for distributed and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities, by the diluted weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur if securities or other agreements to issue common stock, such as stock options, phantom shares and stock-based performance unit awards were exercised or settled.

The following table illustrates Duke Energy’s basic and diluted EPS calculations and reconciles the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding to the diluted weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

	Income		Average Shares		EPS
	(in millions, except per- share amounts)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—basic	$	471		1,332	$	0.35
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options, performance and restricted stock				1
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—diluted	$	471		1,333	$	0.35
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—basic	$	669		1,320	$	0.51
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options, performance and restricted stock				2
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—diluted	$	669		1,322	$	0.51

73

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

	Income		Average Shares		EPS
	(in millions, except per- share amounts)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—basic	$	1,415		1,331	$	1.06
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options, performance and restricted stock				1
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—diluted	$	1,415		1,332	$	1.06
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—basic	$	891		1,315	$	0.68
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options, performance and restricted stock				1
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—diluted	$	891		1,316	$	0.68

As of September 30, 2011 and 2010, 11 million and 16 million, respectively, of stock options and performance and unvested stock awards were not included in the “effect of dilutive securities” in the above table because either the option exercise prices were greater than the average market price of the common shares during those periods, or performance measures related to the awards had not yet been met.

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Duke Energy received proceeds of $98 million and $205 million, respectively, from the sale of common stock issued to fulfill obligations under its Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) and other internal plans, including 401(k) plans.

13. Stock-Based Compensation

For employee awards, equity classified stock-based compensation cost is measured at the service inception date or the grant date, based on the estimated achievement of certain performance metrics or the fair value of the award, and is recognized as expense or capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment over the requisite service period.

Duke Energy recorded pre-tax stock-based compensation expense for each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011(a)		2010(a)		2011(a)		2010(a)
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Stock Options	$	—	$	—	$	2	$	2
Phantom Awards		6		7		20		21
Performance Awards		6		11		17		23
Other Stock Awards		—		1		—		1
Total	$	12	$	19	$	39	$	47

(a) Excludes stock-based compensation cost capitalized of approximately $1 million and $3 million for each of the three and nine months, respectively, ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

The tax benefit associated with the recorded expense for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 was $5 million and $7 million, respectively. The tax benefit associated with the recorded expense for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 was $16 million and $18 million, respectively.

74

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

14. Employee Benefit Obligations

Net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below for the qualified pension, non-qualified pension and other post-retirement benefit plans represent the cost of the respective benefit plan to the Duke Energy Registrants for the periods presented. However, portions of the net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below have been capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment.

Duke Energy

The following table shows the components of the net periodic benefit costs for the Duke Energy U.S. qualified and non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans.

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011								Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	24		$	—	$	1		$	24		$	—	$	1
Interest cost on benefit obligation		58			2		8			62			2		9
Expected return on plan assets		(96	)		—		(3	)		(94	)		—		(3	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		1			—		(2	)		1			1		(2	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		2			—			—		4
Amortization of loss (gain)		20			1		—			12			—		(2	)
Other		4			—		—			5			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	11		$	3	$	6		$	10		$	3	$	7

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $4 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy’s merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy’s merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

75

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011								Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	72		$	1	$	5		$	72		$	1	$	5
Interest cost on benefit obligation		174			6		26			186			6		29
Expected return on plan assets		(288	)		—		(11	)		(283	)		—		(11	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		4			1		(6	)		4			2		(6	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		7			—			—		8
Amortization of loss (gain)		58			1		(2	)		37			—		(4	)
Contractual termination benefit cost		—			—		—			10			—		—
Other		13			—		—			14			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	33		$	9	$	19		$	40		$	9	$	21

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $11 million and $12 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy’s merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $6 million and $7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy’s merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

Each of the Subsidiary Registrants participate in qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans sponsored by Duke Energy. The net periodic benefit costs shown in the tables below represent the allocated cost of the respective benefit plan for the periods presented. Additionally, the Subsidiary Registrants are allocated their proportionate share of pension and other post-retirement benefit cost for employees of Duke Energy’s shared services affiliate that provide support to the respective Subsidiary Registrant. These allocated amounts are included in the governance and shared services costs for each Subsidiary Registrant discussed in Note 17.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011								Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	9		$	—	$	—		$	9		$	—	$	1
Interest cost on benefit obligation		21			—		4			23			—		4
Expected return on plan assets		(37	)		—		(2	)		(37	)		—		(3	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		1			—		(1	)		1			1		(1	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		2			—			—		2
Amortization of loss		9			—		1			6			—		1
Other		1			—		—			2			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	4		$	—	$	4		$	4		$	1	$	4

76

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011								Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	28		$	—	$	1		$	27		$	—	$	2
Interest cost on benefit obligation		64			1		12			68			1		13
Expected return on plan assets		(112	)		—		(7	)		(110	)		—		(8	)
Amortization of prior service credit		1			—		(4	)		1			1		(4	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		7			—			—		7
Amortization of loss		27			—		2			20			—		2
Other		5			—		—			6			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	13		$	1	$	11		$	12		$	2	$	12

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Carolinas’ Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Carolinas by Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Ohio

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011						Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	2		$	1		$	2		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		8			1			8			2
Expected return on plan assets		(11	)		—			(11	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost		—			(1	)		1			(1	)
Amortization of loss (gain)		2			(1	)		1			(1	)
Other		1			—			—			—
Net periodic costs	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	—

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy’s merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $1 million and $2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy’s merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011						Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	5		$	1		$	5		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		24			2			25			3
Expected return on plan assets		(33	)		—			(32	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost		—			(1	)		1			(1	)
Amortization of loss (gain)		6			(2	)		3			(2	)
Other		2			—			1			—
Net periodic costs	$	4		$	—		$	3		$	—

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $5 million and $6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy’s merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy’s merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

77

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Components of net periodic costs for Duke Energy Ohio’s non-qualified pension plans were an insignificant amount for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Ohio’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Ohio by Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Indiana

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011						Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	3		$	1		$	3		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		8			1			8			2
Expected return on plan assets		(12	)		—			(11	)		—
Amortization of prior service cost		—			—			1			—
Amortization of loss		3			—			3			—
Other		1			—			—			—
Net periodic costs	$	3		$	2		$	4		$	3
	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011						Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	8		$	1		$	8		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		23			5			24			6
Expected return on plan assets		(34	)		(1	)		(33	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service cost		1			—			2			—
Amortization of loss		10			1			9			1
Other		2			—			1			—
Net periodic costs	$	10		$	6		$	11		$	7

Components of net periodic costs for Duke Energy Indiana’s non-qualified pension plans were an insignificant amount for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Indiana’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Indiana by Duke Energy.

Employee Savings Plan

Duke Energy sponsors employee savings plans that cover substantially all U.S. employees. Duke Energy made pre-tax employer matching contributions of $18 million and $68 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Duke Energy made pre-tax employer matching contributions of $18 million and $67 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

The Subsidiary Registrants participate in Duke Energy sponsored employee savings plans. The following table shows the respective Subsidiary Registrants’ expense related to its proportionate share of pre-tax employer matching contributions.

78

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	8	$	8	$	28	$	28
Duke Energy Ohio		1		—		3		3
Duke Energy Indiana		1		—		6		4

79

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

15. Severance

2011 Severance Plans. In conjunction with the proposed merger with Progress Energy, in August 2011, Duke Energy announced plans to offer a voluntary severance plan to approximately 4,850 eligible employees. As this is a voluntary plan, all severance benefits offered under this plan are considered special termination benefits under GAAP. Special termination benefits are measured upon employee acceptance and recorded immediately absent a significant retention period. If a significant retention period exists, the cost of the special termination benefits are recorded ratably over the remaining service periods of the affected employees. The window for employees to request to voluntarily end their employment under this plan opened on November 7, 2011 and will close on November 30, 2011. Duke Energy is unable to estimate the amount of severance payments associated with this voluntary plan until the close of the window. Duke Energy reserves the right to reject any request to volunteer based on business needs and/or excessive participation. The voluntary severance plan is contingent upon the successful close of the proposed merger with Progress Energy.

2010 Severance Plans. During 2010, the majority of severance charges were related to a voluntary severance plan whereby eligible employees were provided a window during which to accept termination benefits. As this was a voluntary plan, all severance benefits offered under this plan were considered special termination benefits under GAAP. Special termination benefits are measured upon employee acceptance and recorded immediately absent a significant retention period. If a significant retention period exists, the cost of the special termination benefits are recorded ratably over the remaining service periods of the affected employees. Approximately 900 employees accepted the termination benefits during the voluntary window period, which closed March 31, 2010. Future severance costs under Duke Energy’s ongoing severance plan, if any, are currently not estimable.

Amounts included in the table below represent severance expense recorded by the Duke Energy Registrants during 2010. The Duke Energy Registrants recorded insignificant amounts for severance expense during 2011.

	Three  Months Ended September  30, 2010(a)		Nine Months Ended September  30, 2010(a)
Duke Energy	$	20	$	164
Duke Energy Carolinas		13		98
Duke Energy Ohio		2		23
Duke Energy Indiana		3		29

(a) These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The severance costs discussed above for the Subsidiary Registrants include an allocation of their proportionate share of severance costs for employees of Duke Energy’s shared services affiliate that provides support to the Subsidiary Registrants. Amounts included in the table below represent the severance liability recorded by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana for employees of those registrants, and excludes costs allocated from and paid by Duke Energy’s shared services affiliate.

	Balance at December 31, 2010		Provision/ Adjustments			Cash Reductions			Balance at September 30, 2011
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	87	$	1		$	(52	)	$	36
Duke Energy Carolinas		21		(1	)		(18	)		2
Duke Energy Indiana		1		—			(1	)		—

80

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

16. Income Taxes and Other Taxes

Income Taxes. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. with federal and various state governmental authorities, and in certain foreign jurisdictions. The taxable income of Duke Energy and its subsidiaries is reflected in Duke Energy’s U.S. federal and state income tax returns. These subsidiaries have a tax sharing agreement with Duke Energy where the separate return method is used to allocate tax expenses and benefits to the subsidiaries whose investments or results of operations provide these tax expenses and benefits. The accounting for income taxes essentially represents the income taxes that each of these subsidiaries would incur if it were a separate company filing its own tax return as a C-Corporation.

The following table includes information regarding the Duke Energy Registrants unrecognized tax benefits.

September 30, 2011	Duke Energy		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
	(in millions)
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)	$	392	$	262	$	33	$	22
Amount that if recognized, would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability(b)		121		113		—		—
Amount that if recognized, would be recorded as a component of discontinued operations		11		—		—		—
December 31, 2010
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)		342		217		29		21

(a) The Duke Registrants do not anticipate a significant increase or decrease in unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months.

(b) Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas are unable to estimate the specific amounts that would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability.

Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to U.S. federal examination for years before 2004. The years 2004 and 2005 are in Appeals. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is currently auditing the federal income tax returns for years 2006 and 2007. With few exceptions, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to state, local or non-U.S. income tax examinations by tax authorities for years before 1999.

The effective tax rates for each of the Duke Energy Registrants are as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
Duke Energy		30.7	%		31.2	%		30.8	%		41.9	%
Duke Energy Carolinas		37.0	%		33.8	%		36.1	%		33.9	%
Duke Energy Ohio		47.3	%		32.6	%		36.9	%		(32.6	)%
Duke Energy Indiana		37.2	%		32.2	%		30.8	%		33.8	%

As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a non-deductible goodwill impairment charge of $500 million and Duke Energy Ohio recorded non-deductible goodwill impairment charges of $677 million. In the third quarter of 2011, federal true ups related to the 2010 tax return filing were recorded, which resulted in an increase in income tax expense for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Indiana has reflected an increase in AFUDC equity in 2011, as well as a reduction in pre-tax income due to the Edwardsport IGCC impairment in the third quarter of 2011.

Excise Taxes. Certain excise taxes levied by state or local governments are collected by the Duke Energy Registrants from its customers. These taxes, which are required to be paid regardless of the Duke Energy Registrants’ ability to collect from the customer, are accounted for on a gross basis. When each of the Duke Energy Registrants act as an agent, and the tax is not required to be remitted if it is not collected from the customer, the taxes are accounted for on a net basis. Excise taxes for each Duke Energy Registrant accounted for on a gross basis and recorded as revenues in the respective Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations were as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	45	$	47	$	118	$	123
Duke Energy Ohio		27		28		86		90
Duke Energy Indiana		9		8		24		22
Total Duke Energy	$	81	$	83	$	228	$	235

81

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

17. Related Party Transactions

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas engages in related party transactions, which are generally performed at cost and in accordance with the applicable state and federal commission regulations. Balances due to or due from related parties included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Assets/(Liabilities)

	September  30, 2011(a)			December  31, 2010(a)
	(in millions)
Current assets (b)	$	82		$	293
Non-current assets(c)		110			104
Current liabilities(d)		(125	)		(195	)
Non-current liabilities(e)		(65	)		(93	)
Net deferred tax liabilities(f)		(4,442	)		(3,906	)

(a) Balances exclude assets or liabilities associated with accrued pension and other post-retirement benefits and with money pool arrangements as discussed below.

(b) Of the balances at September 30, 2011, $1 million is classified as Receivables and $81 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balances at December 31, 2010, $90 million is classified as Receivables and $203 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) The balances at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, are classified as Accounts payable on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(f) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(4,530) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $88 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(3,988) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $82 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As discussed further in Note 14, Duke Energy Carolinas participates in Duke Energy’s qualified pension plan, non-qualified pension plan and other post-retirement benefit plans and is allocated its proportionate share of expenses associated with these plans. Additionally, Duke Energy Carolinas has been allocated accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations of $247 million at September 30, 2011 and $252 million at December 31, 2010. This amount has been classified in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Other current liabilities	$	10	$	10
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		237		242

Other Related Party Amounts

	Three months ended					Nine months ended
	September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010		September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010
	(in millions)
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)	$	265		$	276	$	769		$	744
Indemnification coverages(b)		5			7		15			19
Rental income and other charged expenses, net(c)		(1	)		1		(5	)		3

(a) Duke Energy Carolinas is charged its proportionate share of corporate governance and other costs by an unconsolidated affiliate that is a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. Corporate governance and other shared services costs are primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third party costs. These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(b) Duke Energy Carolinas incurs expenses related to certain indemnification coverages through Bison, Duke Energy’s wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. These expenses are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(c) Duke Energy Carolinas records income associated with the rental of office space to a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy, as well as its proportionate share of certain charged expenses from affiliates of Duke Energy.

82

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

As discussed further in Note 6, Duke Energy Carolinas participates in a money pool arrangement with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Interest income associated with money pool activity is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, was insignificant for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Interest expense associated with money pool activity is recorded in Interest Expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations was insignificant for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

In February 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas made a $200 million distribution to its parent, Duke Energy. In June 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas made a $150 million distribution to its parent, Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Ohio

Duke Energy Ohio engages in related party transactions, which are generally performed at cost and in accordance with the applicable state and federal commission regulations. Balances due to or due from related parties included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Assets/(Liabilities)

	September  30, 2011(a)			December  31, 2010(a)
	(in millions)
Current assets (b)	$	84		$	82
Non-current assets(c)		12			15
Current liabilities(d)		(60	)		(86	)
Non-current liabilities(e)		—			(42	)
Net deferred tax liabilities(f)		(1,739	)		(1,579	)

(a) Balances exclude assets or liabilities associated with accrued pension and other post-retirement benefits, Cinergy Receivables and money pool arrangements as discussed below.

(b) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $17 million is classified as Receivables and $67 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $24 million is classified as Receivables and $58 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, ($54) million is classified as Accounts payable, ($4) million is classified as Taxes accrued and ($2) million is classified as Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(83) million is classified as Accounts payable and $(3) million is classified as Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, are classified as Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(f) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(1,755) million is classified as Deferred income taxes, and $16 million is classified as Other within Current Assets, on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(1,588) million is classified as Deferred income taxes, and $9 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As discussed further in Note 14, Duke Energy Ohio participates in Duke Energy’s qualified pension plan, non-qualified pension plan and other post-retirement benefit plans and is allocated its proportionate share of expenses associated with these plans. Additionally, Duke Energy Ohio has been allocated accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations of $192 million at September 30, 2011 and $211 million at December 31, 2010. These amounts have been classified in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Other current liabilities	$	4	$	4
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		188		207

83

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Other Related Party Amounts

	Three months ended					Nine months ended
	September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010		September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010
	(in millions)
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)	$	104		$	99	$	290		$	257
Indemnification coverages(b)		5			5		13			14
Rental income and other charged expenses, net(c)		—	(e)		3		—	(e)		5
Cinergy receivables interest income(d)		3			4		10			12

(a) Duke Energy Ohio is charged its proportionate share of corporate governance and other costs by an unconsolidated affiliate that is a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. Corporate governance and other shared services costs are primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third party costs. These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(b) Duke Energy Ohio incurs expenses related to certain indemnification coverages through Bison, Duke Energy’s wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. These expenses are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(c) Duke Energy Ohio records income associated with the rental of office space to a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy, as well as its proportionate share of certain charged expenses from affiliates of Duke Energy.

(d) As discussed in Note 11, certain trade receivables have been sold by Duke Energy Ohio to Cinergy Receivables, a consolidated entity formed by Cinergy. The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price. The interest income associated with the subordinated note is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(e) For the three and six months ended September 30, 2011, net rental income was insignificant.

As discussed further in Note 6, Duke Energy Ohio participates in a money pool arrangement with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Interest income associated with money pool activity is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations was insignificant for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Interest expense associated with money pool activity is recorded in Interest Expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations was insignificant for each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Duke Energy Ohio enters into certain derivative positions on behalf of Duke Energy Retail, a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. These contracts are undesignated, thus the mark-to-market impacts of these contracts are reflected in Duke Energy Ohio’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. See Note 8 for additional information.

DECAM conducts hedging activities for certain of Duke Energy’s non-regulated entities. DECAM meets its funding needs through an intercompany loan agreement from Duke Energy Ohio’s parent entity, Cinergy. The intercompany loan was executed in February 2011. DECAM had no outstanding intercompany loan balance with Cinergy as of September 30, 2011.

In May 2011, Duke Energy Vermillion, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into an agreement to sell its 75% undivided ownership interest in the Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana and WVPA. Refer to Note 3 and Note 4 for further discussion.

In September 2011 and March 2011, Duke Energy Ohio paid dividends of $200 million and $285 million, respectively, to its parent, Cinergy.

Duke Energy Indiana

Duke Energy Indiana engages in related party transactions, which are generally performed at cost and in accordance with the applicable state and federal commission regulations. Balances due to or due from related parties included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Assets/(Liabilities)

	September  30, 2011(a)			December  31, 2010(a)
	(in millions)
Current assets(b)	$	27		$	51
Current liabilities(c)		(127	)		(69	)
Non-current liabilities(d)		(22	)		(20	)
Net deferred tax liabilities(e)		(872	)		(932	)

(a) Balances exclude assets or liabilities associated with accrued pension and other post-retirement benefits, Cinergy Receivables and money pool arrangements as discussed below.

(b) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $23 million is classified as Receivables and $4 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $27 million is classified as Receivables and $24 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(54) million is classified as Accounts payable and $(73) million is classified as Taxes accrued on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(67) million is classified as Accounts payable and $(2) million is classified as Taxes accrued on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(881) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $9 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(973) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $41 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

84

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

As discussed further in Note 14, Duke Energy Indiana participates in Duke Energy’s qualified pension plan, non-qualified pension plan and other post-retirement benefit plans and is allocated its proportionate share of expenses associated with these plans. Additionally, Duke Energy Indiana has been allocated accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations of $263 million at September 30, 2011 and $272 million at December 31, 2010. These amounts have been classified in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Other current liabilities	$	2	$	2
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		261		270

Other Related Party Amounts

	Three months ended				Nine months ended
	September 30, 2011		September 30, 2010		September 30, 2011		September 30, 2010
	(in millions)
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)	$	100	$	90	$	306	$	266
Indemnification coverages(b)		1		2		5		6
Rental income and other charged expenses, net(c)		1		2		4		6
Cinergy receivables interest income(d)		3		4		10		10

(a) Duke Energy Indiana is charged its proportionate share of corporate governance and other costs by an unconsolidated affiliate that is a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. Corporate governance and other shared services costs are primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third party costs. These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(b) Duke Energy Indiana incurs expenses related to certain indemnification coverages through Bison, Duke Energy’s wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. These expenses are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(c) Duke Energy Indiana records income associated with the rental of office space to a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy, as well as its proportionate share of certain charged expenses from affiliates of Duke Energy.

(d) As discussed in Note 11, certain trade receivables have been sold by Duke Energy Indiana to Cinergy Receivables, a consolidated entity formed by Cinergy. The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price. The interest income associated with the subordinated note is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

As discussed further in Note 6, Duke Energy Indiana participates in a money pool arrangement with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Interest income associated with money pool activity is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and was insignificant for each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Interest expense associated with money pool activity is recorded in Interest Expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. For each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 interest expense was insignificant.

In May 2011, Duke Energy Vermillion, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into an agreement to sell its 75% undivided ownership interest in the Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana and WVPA. Refer to Note 3 and Note 4 for further discussion.

In February 2010, Duke Energy Indiana received a $225 million capital contribution from its parent, Cinergy. In June 2010, Duke Energy Indiana received a $125 million capital contribution from its parent, Cinergy.

18. New Accounting Standards

The following new accounting standards were adopted by the Duke Energy Registrants subsequent to September 30, 2010 and the impact of such adoption, if applicable, has been presented in the respective Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Duke Energy Registrants:

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 605—Revenue Recognition (ASC 605). In October 2009, the FASB issued new revenue recognition accounting guidance in response to practice concerns related to the accounting for revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables. This new accounting guidance primarily applies to all contractual arrangements in which a vendor will perform multiple revenue generating activities and addresses the unit of accounting for arrangements involving multiple deliverables, as well as how arrangement consideration should be allocated to the separate units of accounting. For the Duke Energy Registrants, the new accounting guidance was effective January 1, 2011 and applied on a prospective basis. This new accounting guidance did not have a material impact to the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Duke Energy Registrants.

85

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

ASC 805—Business Combinations (ASC 805). In November 2010, the FASB issued new accounting guidance in response to diversity in the interpretation of pro forma information disclosure requirements for business combinations. The new accounting guidance requires an entity to present pro forma financial information as if a business combination occurred at the beginning of the earliest period presented as well as additional disclosures describing the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments. This new accounting guidance was effective January 1, 2011 and will be applied to all business combinations consummated after that date.

ASC 820—Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). In January 2010, the FASB amended existing fair value measurements and disclosures accounting guidance to clarify certain existing disclosure requirements and to require a number of additional disclosures, including amounts and reasons for significant transfers between the three levels of the fair value hierarchy, and presentation of certain information in the reconciliation of recurring Level 3 measurements on a gross basis. For the Duke Energy Registrants, certain portions of this revised accounting guidance were effective on January 1, 2010, with additional disclosures effective for periods beginning January 1, 2011. The adoption of this accounting guidance resulted in additional disclosure in the notes to the consolidated financial statements but did not have an impact on the Duke Energy Registrants’ consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. See note 9 for additional disclosures required by the revised accounting guidance in ASC 820.

ASC 350–Intangibles–Goodwill and Other. In September 2011, the FASB amended existing goodwill impairment testing accounting guidance to provide an entity testing goodwill for impairment with the option of performing a qualitative assessment prior to calculating the fair value of a reporting unit in step one of a goodwill impairment test. Under this revised guidance, a qualitative assessment would require an evaluation of economic, industry, and company-specific considerations. If an entity determines, on a basis of such qualitative factors, that the fair value of a reporting unit is more likely than not less than the carrying value of a reporting unit, the two-step impairment test, as currently required under existing applicable accounting guidance, would be required. Otherwise, no further impairment testing would be required. The revised goodwill impairment testing accounting guidance is effective for the Duke Energy Registrants’ annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning January 1, 2012, with early adoption of this revised guidance permitted for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed as of a date before September 15, 2011. Since annual goodwill impairment tests are performed by Duke Energy as of August 31, the Duke Energy Registrants early adopted this revised accounting guidance during the third quarter of 2011 and applied that guidance to their annual goodwill impairment tests for 2011.

The following new Accounting Standards Updates (ASU) have been issued, but have not yet been adopted by Duke Energy, as of September 30, 2011:

ASC 820—Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). In May 2011, the FASB amended existing requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. This revised guidance results in a consistent definition of fair value, as well as common requirements for measurement and disclosure of fair value information between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). In addition, the amendments set forth enhanced disclosure requirements with respect to recurring Level 3 measurements, nonfinancial assets measured or disclosed at fair value, transfers between levels in the fair value hierarchy, and assets and liabilities disclosed but not recorded at fair value. For the Duke Energy Registrants, the revised fair value measurement guidance is effective on a prospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the potential impact of the adoption of this revised guidance and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

ASC 220—Comprehensive Income (ASC 220). In June 2011, the FASB amended the existing requirements for presenting comprehensive income in financial statements primarily to increase the prominence of items reported in other comprehensive income (OCI) and to facilitate the convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS. Specifically, the revised guidance eliminates the option currently provided under existing requirements to present components of OCI as part of the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity. Accordingly, all non-owner changes in stockholders’ equity will be required to be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive financial statements. For the Duke Energy Registrants, this revised guidance is effective on a retrospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Early adoption of this revised guidance is permitted. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the revised requirements for presenting comprehensive income in its financial statements and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption of this revised guidance on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

19. Comprehensive Income and Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Comprehensive income (loss) for the Duke Energy Registrants includes net income and all other non-owner changes in equity. The tables below provide the components of other comprehensive income (loss) and total comprehensive income (loss) for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Components of other comprehensive income (loss) and total comprehensive income (loss) for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 are presented in the respective Condensed Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income.

Duke Energy

	Common Stockholders’ Equity			Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Net Income	$	472		$	(2	)	$	470
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		(235	)		(11	)		(246	)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		1			—			1
Net unrealized loss on cash flow hedges (b)		(47	)		—			(47	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(c)		1			—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(d)		3			—			3
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		(277	)		(11	)		(288	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	195		$	(13	)	$	182

86

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

(a) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(b) Net of $26 million tax benefit.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(d) Net of $5 million tax expense.

	Common Stockholders’ Equity		Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Net Income (Loss)	$	670	$	(4	)	$	666
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		88		4			92
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		4		—			4
Net unrealized gain on cash flow hedges (b)		1		—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(c)		2		—			2
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		95		4			99
Total Comprehensive Income	$	765	$	—		$	765

(a) Net of $5 million tax expense.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010
	(in millions)
Net Income	$	311	$	315
Other comprehensive income
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		2		1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(b)		—		1
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		2		2
Total Comprehensive Income	$	313	$	317

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

87

PART I

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION - DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC - DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. -

DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.

Combined Notes To Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements – (Continued)

Duke Energy Ohio

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
	(in millions)
Net Income	$	51		$	176
Other comprehensive loss
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		(1	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(b)		—			(1	)
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(1	)		(1	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	50		$	175

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011.

(b) Net of insignificant tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Indiana

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
	(in millions)
Net (Loss) Income	$	(31	)	$	92
Other comprehensive loss
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		(1	)		(1	)
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(1	)		(1	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	(32	)	$	91

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011 September 30, 2010.

20. Subsequent Events

For information on subsequent events related to acquisitions and sales of other assets, regulatory matters, commitments and contingencies, debt and credit facilities, fair value of financial asset and liabilities, variable interest entities and severance, see Notes 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 15, respectively.

88

PART I

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

INTRODUCTION

Proposed Merger with Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress Energy)

On January 8, 2011, Duke Energy entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) among Diamond Acquisition Corporation, a North Carolina corporation and Duke Energy’s wholly-owned subsidiary (Merger Sub) and Progress Energy, a North Carolina corporation. Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Progress Energy with Progress Energy continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, upon the closing of the merger, each issued and outstanding share of Progress Energy common stock will automatically be cancelled and converted into the right to receive 2.6125 shares of common stock of Duke Energy, subject to appropriate adjustment for a reverse stock split of the Duke Energy common stock as contemplated in the Merger Agreement and except that any shares of Progress Energy common stock that are owned by Progress Energy or Duke Energy, other than in a fiduciary capacity, will be cancelled without any consideration therefor. Each outstanding option to acquire, and each outstanding equity award relating to, one share of Progress Energy common stock will be converted into an option to acquire, or an equity award relating to 2.6125 shares of Duke Energy Common stock, as applicable, subject to appropriate adjustment for the reverse stock split. Based on Progress Energy shares outstanding at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy would issue 771 million shares of common stock to convert the Progress Energy common shares in the merger under the unadjusted exchange ratio of 2.6125. The exchange ratio will be adjusted proportionately to reflect a 1-for-3 reverse stock split with respect to the issued and outstanding Duke Energy common stock that Duke Energy plans to implement prior to, and conditioned on, the completion of the merger. The resulting adjusted exchange ratio is 0.87083 of a share of Duke Energy common stock for each share of Progress Energy common stock. Based on Progress Energy shares outstanding at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy would issue 257 million shares of common stock, after the effect of the 1-for-3 reverse stock split, to convert the Progress Energy common shares in the merger. The merger will be accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting with Duke Energy treated as the acquirer, for accounting purposes. Based on the market price of Duke Energy common stock on September 30, 2011, the transaction would be valued at $15.4 billion and would result in incremental recorded goodwill to Duke Energy of $9.3 billion, according to current estimates. Duke Energy would also assume all of Progress Energy’s outstanding debt, which is estimated to be $15.1 billion based on the approximate fair value of Progress Energy’s outstanding indebtedness at September 30, 2011. The Merger Agreement has been unanimously approved by both companies’ Boards of Directors.

The merger is conditioned upon, among other things, approval by the shareholders of both companies, as well as expiration or termination of any applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 and approval by the FERC, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the NRC, the NCUC, and the KPSC. Duke Energy and Progress Energy also are seeking review of the merger by the PSCSC and approval of the joint dispatch agreement by the PSCSC. Although there are no merger-specific regulatory approvals required in Indiana, Ohio or Florida, the companies will continue to update the public services commissions in those states on the merger, as applicable and as required. The status of these matters is as follows:

• On March 17, 2011, Duke Energy filed an initial registration statement on Form S-4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for shares to be issued to consummate the merger with Progress Energy. On July 7, 2011, the Form S-4 was declared effective by the SEC, and the joint proxy statement/prospectus contained in the Form S-4 was mailed to the shareholders of both companies thereafter. On August 23, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy shareholders approved the proposed merger. In addition, Duke Energy shareholders approved a 1-for-3 reverse stock split.

• On March 28, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy submitted Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust filings to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The parties have met their obligations under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, which is no longer a bar to closing the transaction.

• On March 30, 2011, Progress Energy made filings with the NRC for approval for indirect transfer of control of licenses for Progress Energy’s nuclear facilities to include Duke Energy as the ultimate parent corporation on these licenses.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a merger application and joint dispatch agreement with the NCUC. On September 2, 2011, Duke Energy, Progress Energy and the NC Public Staff filed a settlement agreement with the NCUC. Under the settlement agreement, the companies will guarantee North Carolina customers their allocable share of $650 million in savings related to fuel and joint dispatch of generation assets over the first five years after the merger closes, continue community financial support for a minimum of four years, contribute to weatherization efforts of low-income customers and workforce development and agree not to recover direct merger-related costs. A public hearing occurred September 20-22, 2011 and proposed orders and/or briefs must be filed by November 14, 2011.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a merger application with the KPSC. On June 24, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a settlement agreement with the Attorney General. A public hearing occurred on July 8, 2011. An order conditionally approving the merger was issued on August 2, 2011. The KPSC required Duke Energy and Progress Energy to accept all the conditions contained in the order within seven days of the order. After seeking an extension, on August 19, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed for clarification of one of the merger conditions. On September 15, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed for approval of a stipulation revising the merger condition. On October 28, 2011, the KPSC issued an order approving the stipulation and merger.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy, jointly filed applications with the FERC for the approval of the merger, the Joint Dispatch Agreement and the joint Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). On September 30, 2011, the FERC conditionally approved the merger, subject to approval of mitigation measures to address its finding that the combined company could have an adverse effect on competition in wholesale power markets in the Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas East balancing authority areas. On October 17, 2011 Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed their plan for mitigating the FERC’s concerns by proposing to offer on a daily basis a certain quantity of power during summer and winter periods to the extent it is available after serving native load and existing firm obligations. The price will be incremental cost, plus 10 percent. Intervenors may comment on the plan by November 16, after which time, the FERC will rule on whether the mitigation plan adequately addresses the market power issues. FERC has not yet ruled on the Joint Dispatch Agreement or the joint OATT. On October 31, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a request for rehearing with the FERC. The request states that the FERC applied a more stringent analysis to the proposed merger than required by its current rules. Duke Energy and Progress Energy also requested that the FERC address the companies’ previously filed mitigation plan no later than December 15, 2011.

• On April 25, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy, on behalf of their utility companies Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas, filed an application requesting the PSCSC to review the merger and approve the proposed Joint Dispatch Agreement and the prospective future merger of Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas. On September 13, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy withdrew their application seeking approval for the future merger of

89

PART I

their Carolinas utility companies, Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas, as the merger of these entities is not likely to occur for several years after the close of the merger. On October 13, 2011 the PSCSC issued an order suspending all scheduled deadlines and the hearing date until Duke Energy and Progress Energy file their proposed mitigation measures with the FERC and the PSCSC. Duke Energy and Progress Energy made that filing on October 17, 2011. On November 2, 2011, the PSCSC adopted a revised procedural schedule for its review of the merger. Hearings are scheduled to begin the week of December 12, 2011. The docket will remain open pending FERC issuance of its final orders on the merger related actions before the FERC.

• On July 12, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed an application with the FCC for approval of radio system license transfers. The FCC approved the transfers on July 27, 2011.

Duke Energy is targeting completion of the merger by the end of 2011, however no assurances can be given as to the timing of the satisfaction of all closing conditions or that all required approvals will be received.

The Merger Agreement contains certain termination rights for both Duke Energy and Progress Energy, and further provides for the payment of a termination fee of $400 million by Progress Energy under specified circumstances and a termination fee of $675 million by Duke Energy under specified circumstances.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy incurred transaction and integration costs related to the Progress Energy merger of $13 million and $29 million, respectively, which are recorded within Operating Expenses in Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

Duke Energy Corporation

Duke Energy Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, Duke Energy) is an energy company primarily located in the Americas. Duke Energy operates in the United States (U.S.) primarily through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio), which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy Kentucky), and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana), as well as in South America and Central America through International Energy.

When discussing Duke Energy’s consolidated financial information, it necessarily includes the results of its three separate subsidiary registrants, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana (collectively referred to as the Subsidiary Registrants), which, along with Duke Energy, are collectively referred to as the Duke Energy Registrants. The following combined Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations is separately filed by Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. However, none of the registrants makes any representation as to information related solely to Duke Energy or the Subsidiary Registrants of Duke Energy other than itself.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with the respective Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Duke Energy

EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW

Net income attributable to Duke Energy was $472 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011, as compared to $670 million for the three months ended September 30, 2010. Diluted earnings per share decreased from $0.51 per share for the three months ended September 30, 2010, to $0.35 per share for the three months ended September 30, 2011 primarily due to the decrease in net income in the third quarter of 2011 as compared to the same period in 2010, as a result of a larger impairment related to the Edwardsport integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant in 2011 than in 2010, along with other factors described further below. Income from continuing operations was $469 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 as compared to $666 million for the same period in 2010. Total reportable segment EBIT (defined below in “Segment Results” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations) was $956 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011, as compared to $1,244 million for the same period in 2010.

Net income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation was $1,418 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, as compared to $893 million for the same period in 2010. Diluted earnings per share increased from $0.68 per share for the nine months ended September 30, 2010, to $1.06 per share for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, primarily due to the increase in net income in the nine months ended September 30, 2011, as compared to the same period in 2010, primarily as a result of a 2010 impairment of goodwill and certain generation assets associated with non-regulated generation operations in the Midwest, partially offset by a 2011 impairment related to the Edwardsport IGCC plant, and other factors described below. Income from continuing operations was $1,423 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, as compared to $893 million for the same period in 2010. Total reportable segment EBIT (defined below in “Segment Results” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations) was $2,796 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, as compared to $2,450 million for the same period in 2010.

See “Results of Operations” below for a detailed discussion of the consolidated results of operations, as well as a detailed discussion of EBIT results for each of Duke Energy’s reportable business segments, as well as Other.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Results of Operations and Variances

	Three Months Ended September 30,								Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010		Increase (Decrease)			2011		2010		Increase (Decrease)
	(in millions)
Operating revenues	$	3,964		$	3,946	$	18		$	11,161	$	10,827	$	334
Operating expenses		3,192			2,915		277			8,910		9,056		(146	)
(Losses) gains on sales of other assets and other, net		(5	)		2		(7	)		9		9		—
Operating income		767			1,033		(266	)		2,260		1,780		480

90

PART I

	Three Months Ended September 30,									Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			Increase (Decrease)			2011		2010		Increase (Decrease)
	(in millions)
Other income and expenses, net		123			136			(13	)		431		380		51
Interest expense		213			202			11			635		624		11
Income from continuing operations before income taxes		677			967			(290	)		2,056		1,536		520
Income tax expense from continuing operations		208			301			(93	)		633		643		(10	)
Income from continuing operations		469			666			(197	)		1,423		893		530
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax		1			—			1			1		1		—
Net income		470			666			(196	)		1,424		894		530
Less: Net (loss) income attributable to noncontrolling interests		(2	)		(4	)		2			6		1		5
Net income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation	$	472		$	670		$	(198	)	$	1,418	$	893	$	525

The following is a summary discussion of the consolidated results of operations and variances, which is followed by a discussion of results by segment.

Consolidated Operating Revenues

Three Months Ended September 30, 2011, as Compared to September 30, 2010. Consolidated operating revenues for the three months ended September 30, 2011, increased $18 million compared to the same period in 2010. This change was primarily driven by the following:

• An $87 million increase at International Energy. See Operating Revenues discussion within “Segment Results” for International Energy below for further information.

Partially offsetting this increase was:

• A $50 million decrease at Commercial Power. See Operating Revenues discussion within “Segment Results” for Commercial Power below for further information;

• An $18 million decrease at U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas (USFE&G). See Operating Revenues discussion within “Segment Results” for USFE&G below for further information; and

• A $3 million decrease at Other. See Operating Revenues discussion within “Segment Results” for Other below for further information.

Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011, as Compared to September 30, 2010. Consolidated operating revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, increased $334 million compared to the same period in 2010. This change was primarily driven by the following:

• A $195 million increase at International Energy. See Operating Revenues discussion within “Segment Results” for International Energy below for further information;

• A $116 million increase at USFE&G. See Operating Revenues discussion within “Segment Results” for USFE&G below for further information; and

• A $70 million increase at Commercial Power. See Operating Revenues discussion within “Segment Results” for Commercial Power below for further information.

Partially offsetting these increases was:

• A $48 million decrease at Other. See Operating Revenues discussion within “Segment Results” for Other below for further information.

Consolidated Operating Expenses

Three Months Ended September 30, 2011, as Compared to September 30, 2010. Consolidated operating expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2011, increased $277 million compared to the same period in 2010. This change was primarily driven by the following:

• A $213 million increase at USFE&G. See Operating Expenses discussion within “Segment Results” for USFE&G below for further information;

• A $68 million increase at Commercial Power. See Operating Expenses discussion within “Segment Results” for Commercial Power below for further information; and

• A $56 million increase at International Energy. See Operating Expenses discussion within “Segment Results” for International Energy below for further information.

Partially offsetting these increases was:

• A $62 million decrease at Other. See Operating Expenses discussion within “Segment Results” for Other below for further information.

Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011, as Compared to September 30, 2010. Consolidated operating expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, decreased $146 million compared to the same period in 2010. This change was primarily driven by the following:

• A $443 million decrease at Commercial Power. See Operating Expenses discussion within “Segment Results” for Commercial Power below for further information; and

91

PART I

• A $236 million decrease at Other. See Operating Expenses discussion within “Segment Results” for Other below for further information.

Partially offsetting these decreases were:

• A $430 million increase at USFE&G. See Operating Expenses discussion within “Segment Results” for USFE&G below for further information; and

• A $102 million increase at International Energy. See Operating Expenses discussion within “Segment Results” for International Energy below for further information.

Consolidated (Losses) Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, Net

Consolidated (losses) gains on sales of other assets and other, net, was a loss of $5 million and a gain of $2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011, and 2010, respectively. The decrease is attributable to a loss on the sale of a corporate asset in 2011 compared to net gains on the sales of emission allowances in 2010 at USFE&G and Commercial Power.

Consolidated (losses) gains on sales of other assets and other, net for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, is consistent when compared to the same period in 2010.

Consolidated Other Income and Expenses, Net

Consolidated other income and expenses, net, for the three months ended September 30, 2011, decreased $13 million compared to the same period in 2010. The decrease was driven primarily by unfavorable returns on investments that support benefit obligations; partially offset by higher equity earnings of $21 million primarily from International Energy’s investment in National Methanol Company (NMC),

Consolidated other income and expenses, net, for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, increased $51 million compared to the same period in 2010. The increase was driven primarily by higher equity earnings of $34 million primarily from International Energy’s investment in NMC, a higher equity component of allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC) of $20 million due to additional capital spending for ongoing construction projects, and a $20 million Peru arbitration award; partially offset by unfavorable returns on investments that support benefit obligations.

Consolidated Interest Expense

Consolidated interest expense for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, increased $11 million compared to the same periods in 2010. The increase is due primarily to higher interest expense related to income taxes and higher debt balances in 2011.

Consolidated Income Tax Expense from Continuing Operations

Consolidated income tax expense from continuing operations for the three months ended September 30, 2011, decreased $93 million compared to the same period in 2010, primarily due to a decrease in pre-tax income. The effective tax rate for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 was 31%.

Consolidated income tax expense from continuing operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, decreased $10 million compared to the same period in 2010, primarily due to a decrease in the effective tax rate. The effective tax rate for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, and 2010 was 31% and 42%, respectively. The change in the effective tax rate is primarily due to a $500 million impairment of non-deductible goodwill in 2010.

Segment Results

Management evaluates segment performance based on earnings before interest and taxes from continuing operations (excluding certain allocated corporate governance costs), after deducting amounts attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits (EBIT). On a segment basis, EBIT excludes discontinued operations, represents all profits from continuing operations (both operating and non-operating) before deducting interest and taxes, and is net of the amounts attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits. Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments are managed centrally by Duke Energy, so interest and dividend income on those balances, as well as gains and losses on remeasurement of foreign currency denominated balances, are excluded from the segments’ EBIT. Management considers segment EBIT to be a good indicator of each segment’s operating performance from its continuing operations, as it represents the results of Duke Energy’s ownership interest in operations without regard to financing methods or capital structures.

See Note 2 to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Segments,” for a discussion of Duke Energy’s segment structure.

Duke Energy’s segment EBIT may not be comparable to a similarly titled measure of another company because other entities may not calculate EBIT in the same manner. Segment EBIT is summarized in the following table, and detailed discussions follow.

EBIT by Business Segment

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)
U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas	$	721		$	946		$	2,052		$	2,361
Commercial Power		67			188			217			(287	)
International Energy		168			110			527			376
Total reportable segment EBIT		956			1,244			2,796			2,450
Other		(74	)		(100	)		(176	)		(368	)
Total reportable segment and other EBIT		882			1,144			2,620			2,082
Interest expense		(213	)		(202	)		(635	)		(624	)
Interest income and other(a)		7			25			53			62
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		1			—			18			16
Consolidated income from continuing operations before income taxes	$	677		$	967		$	2,056		$	1,536

92

PART I

(a) Other within Interest Income and other includes foreign currency transaction gains and losses and additional noncontrolling interest amounts not allocated to the reportable segment and Other EBIT.

Noncontrolling interest amounts presented in certain tables below includes only expenses and benefits related to EBIT of Duke Energy’s joint ventures. It does not include the noncontrolling interest component related to interest and taxes of the joint ventures.

Segment EBIT, as discussed below, includes intercompany revenues and expenses that are eliminated in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

USFE&G

USFE&G includes the regulated operations of Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Indiana, Duke Energy Kentucky and certain regulated operations of Duke Energy Ohio.

	Three Months Ended September 30,							Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		Increase (Decrease)			2011		2010		Increase (Decrease)
(in millions, except where noted)
Operating revenues	$	2,926	$	2,944	$	(18	)	$	8,158	$	8,042	$	116
Operating expenses		2,278		2,065		213			6,305		5,875		430
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net		1		1		—			2		6		(4	)
Operating income		649		880		(231	)		1,855		2,173		(318	)
Other income and expenses, net		72		66		6			197		188		9
EBIT	$	721	$	946	$	(225	)	$	2,052	$	2,361	$	(309	)
Duke Energy Carolinas’ GWh sales(a)		22,832		23,608		(776	)		63,626		65,432		(1,806	)
Duke Energy Midwest’s GWh sales(a)(b)		16,127		16,592		(465	)		44,816		46,196		(1,380	)
Net proportional MW capacity in operation(c)									26,907		26,877		30

(a) Gigawatt-hours (GWh).

(b) Duke Energy Ohio (Ohio transmission and distribution only), Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Kentucky collectively referred to as Duke Energy Midwest within this USFE&G segment discussion.

(c) Megawatt (MW).

The following table shows the percent changes in GWh sales and average number of customers for Duke Energy Carolinas for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, compared to the same period in the prior year. Except as otherwise noted, the below percentages represent billed sales only and are not weather normalized.

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011			Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
Increase (decrease) over prior year
Residential sales(a)		(4.3	%)		(4.3	%)
General service sales(a)		(1.7	%)		(1.0	%)
Industrial sales(a)		(0.1	%)		1.3	%
Wholesale power sales		4.4	%		3.4	%
Total Duke Energy Carolinas sales(b)		(3.3	%)		(2.8	%)
Average number of customers		0.4	%		0.3	%

(a) Major components of Duke Energy Carolinas’ retail sales.

(b) Consists of all components of Duke Energy Carolinas’ sales, including all billed and unbilled retail sales, and wholesale sales to incorporated municipalities and to public and private utilities and power marketers.

93

PART I

The following table shows the percent changes in GWh sales and average number of electric customers for Duke Energy Midwest for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, compared to the same period in the prior year. Except as otherwise noted, the below percentages represent billed sales only and are not weather normalized.

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011			Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
Increase (decrease) over prior year
Residential sales(a)		(3.2	%)		(1.7	%)
General service sales(a)		(1.2	%)		(0.7	%)
Industrial sales(a)		0.5	%		(0.1	%)
Wholesale power sales		(11.6	%)		(13.3	%)
Total Duke Energy Midwest sales(b)		(2.8	%)		(3.0	%)
Average number of customers		0.1	%		0.1	%

(a) Major components of Duke Energy Midwest’s retail sales.

(b) Consists of all components of Duke Energy Midwest’s sales, including all billed and unbilled retail sales, and wholesale sales to incorporated municipalities and to public and private utilities and power marketers.

Three Months Ended September 30, 2011, as Compared to September 30, 2010

Operating Revenues. The decrease was driven primarily by:

• A $41 million decrease in GWh sales to retail customers due to less favorable weather conditions in 2011 compared to the same period in 2010. For the Carolinas, cooling degree days for the third quarter of 2011 were 17% above normal as compared to 27% above normal during the same period in 2010. For the Midwest, cooling degree days for the third quarter of 2011 were 29% above normal as compared to 32% above normal during the same period in 2010. For the Carolinas, the third quarter 2010 was the warmest third quarter on record (dating back to 1961).

Partially offsetting this decrease was:

• A $33 million net increase in retail rates and rate riders primarily due to the implementation of the North Carolina construction work in progress (CWIP) rider effective January 2011, and Indiana’s demand side management (DSM) rider.

Operating Expenses. The increase was driven primarily by:

• A $178 million increase due to an additional impairment charge related to the Edwardsport integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant that is currently under construction. See Note 4 to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information; and

• A $42 million increase in operating and maintenance expense primarily due to higher non-outage costs at nuclear and fossil generation stations, higher storm costs and increased scheduled outage costs at nuclear and fossil generation stations, partially offset by lower benefit costs.

Other Income and Expenses, net. The increase resulted primarily from a higher equity component of AFUDC from additional capital spending for increased construction expenditures related to new generation.

EBIT. As discussed above, the decrease resulted primarily from the additional impairment charge related to the Edwardsport IGCC plant, higher operating and maintenance expenses and less favorable weather. These negative impacts were partially offset by overall net higher retail rates and rate riders.

Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011, as Compared to September 30, 2010.

Operating Revenues. The increase was driven primarily by:

• A $143 million net increase in retail rates and rate riders primarily due to new retail rates resulting from the implementation of the North Carolina CWIP rider, riders for the Edwardsport IGCC plant that is currently under construction, the save-a-watt (SAW) program, and DSM program;

• An $86 million increase in fuel revenues (including emission allowances) driven primarily by higher fuel rates for electric retail customers in the Midwest and South Carolina, and higher purchased power costs in Indiana, partially offset by decreased demand from electric retail customers in 2011 compared to the same period in 2010 mainly due to less favorable weather conditions, lower fuel rates for electric retail customers in North Carolina, lower natural gas fuel rates in Ohio and Kentucky, and lower demand from natural gas retail customers. Fuel revenues represent sales to retail and wholesale customers; and

• A $19 million increase in wholesale power revenues, net of sharing, primarily due to the addition of new customers served and additional volumes under long-term contracts and increases in charges for capacity.

Partially offsetting these increases was:

• A $130 million decrease in GWh and thousand cubic feet (Mcf) sales to retail customers due to less favorable weather conditions in 2011 compared to the same period in 2010. For the Carolinas and Midwest, weather statistics for both heating degree days and cooling degree days in 2011 were unfavorable compared to the same period in 2010.

Operating Expenses. The increase was driven primarily by:

• A $178 million increase due to an additional impairment charge related to the Edwardsport IGCC plant that is currently under construction. See Note 4 to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information;

• A $170 million increase in operating and maintenance expense primarily due to higher storm costs, higher non-outage costs at nuclear and fossil generation stations, higher power and gas delivery maintenance costs, increased scheduled outage costs at nuclear generation stations, and increased costs related to the implementation of the SAW program; and

• A $75 million increase in fuel expense (including purchased power and natural gas purchases for resale) primarily related to purchases of power in Indiana (mainly as a result of decreased generation caused by increased outages in 2011 compared to

94

PART I

the same period in 2010) and in the Carolinas, and higher prices of coal used in electric generation, partially offset by lower volume of coal used in electric generation resulting from less favorable weather conditions, and lower natural gas prices and volumes to full-service retail customers.

Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, Net. The decrease is attributable primarily to lower net gains on sales of emission allowances in 2011 compared to 2010.

EBIT. As discussed above, the decrease resulted primarily from additional impairment charge related to the Edwardsport IGCC plant, higher operating and maintenance expenses and less favorable weather. These negative impacts were partially offset by overall net higher retail rates and rate riders and higher wholesale power revenues.

Matters Impacting Future USFE&G Results

Results of USFE&G are impacted by the completion of its major generation fleet modernization projects. See Note 4 to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for a discussion of the significant increase in the estimated cost of the 618 MW IGCC plant at Duke Energy Indiana’s Edwardsport Generating Station. Additional updates to the cost estimate could occur through the completion of the plant in 2012.

Duke Energy Carolinas has filed rate cases in North Carolina and South Carolina during 2011. Duke Energy Carolinas plans to file rate cases in North Carolina and South Carolina during 2012. Duke Energy Indiana plans to file a rate case in 2012. Duke Energy Ohio is evaluating the need for an electric distribution rate case in 2012. These planned rates cases are needed to recover investments in Duke Energy’s ongoing infrastructure modernization projects and operating costs. USFE&G’s earnings could be adversely impacted if any of these rate cases are denied or delayed by the various state regulatory commissions.

Commercial Power

	Three Months Ended September 30,							Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		Increase (Decrease)			2011		2010			Increase (Decrease)
(in millions, except where noted)
Operating revenues	$	687	$	737	$	(50	)	$	1,926	$	1,856		$	70
Operating expenses		621		553		68			1,723		2,166			(443	)
Losses on sales of other assets and other, net		2		1		1			15		4			11
Operating income		68		185		(117	)		218		(306	)		524
Other income and expenses, net		1		5		(4	)		11		26			(15	)
Expense attributable to noncontrolling interest		2		2		—			12		7			5
EBIT	$	67	$	188	$	(121	)	$	217	$	(287	)	$	504
Actual Plant Production, GWh		8,813		7,606		1,207			24,182		20,731			3,451
Proportional MW capacity in operation									8,300		8,005			295

Three Months Ended September 30, 2011, as Compared to September 30, 2010

Operating Revenues. The decrease was driven primarily by:

• A $56 million decrease in retail electric revenues resulting from lower sales volumes driven by increased customer switching levels and unfavorable weather, net of higher retail pricing under the Electric Security Plan (ESP) in 2011;

• A $30 million decrease in Duke Energy Generation Services, Inc. (DEGS) revenues, excluding renewables, due primarily to a contract termination and plant maintenance;

• A $24 million decrease in net mark-to-market revenues on non-qualifying power and capacity hedge contracts, consisting of mark-to-market gains of $2 million in 2011 compared to gains of $26 million in 2010; and

• A $9 million decrease in PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) capacity revenues due to lower cleared auction pricing in 2011 compared to 2010, partially offset by additional megawatts participating in the auction.

Partially offsetting these decreases were:

• A $60 million increase in wholesale electric revenues due to higher generation volumes, net of lower pricing; and

• A $12 million increase in renewables generation revenues due primarily to additional wind generation facilities placed in service after the third quarter of 2010.

Operating Expenses. The increase was driven primarily by:

• A $79 million impairment charge recorded in the third quarter of 2011 to write down the carrying value of excess emission allowances held to fair value as a result of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) issuance of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). See Note 7 to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Goodwill, Intangible Assets and Impairments,” for additional information;

• A $46 million increase in wholesale fuel expenses due to higher generation volumes;

• An $8 million increase in mark-to-market fuel expense on non-qualifying fuel hedge contracts, consisting of mark-to-market losses of $1 million in 2011 compared to gains of $7 million in 2010.

Partially offsetting these increases were:

• A $37 million decrease in retail fuel and purchased power expenses due to lower generation and purchased power volumes in 2011 as compared to 2010; and

• A $25 million decrease in DEGS fuel expense, excluding renewables, due primarily to a contract termination and plant maintenance.

95

PART I

Other Income and Expenses, net. The decrease in 2011 as compared to 2010 is primarily due to distributions from South Houston Green Power received in 2010 which did not recur in 2011.

EBIT. The decrease is primarily attributable to higher emission allowance impairment charges, lower net mark-to-market gains on non-qualifying commodity hedge contracts in 2011 compared to 2010, and lower PJM capacity revenues.

Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011, as Compared to September 30, 2010

Operating Revenues. The increase was driven primarily by:

• A $213 million increase in wholesale electric revenues due to higher generation volumes, net of lower pricing and margin earned from participation in wholesale auctions in 2011;

• A $47 million increase in renewables generation revenues due to additional wind generation facilities placed in service after the third quarter of 2010; and

• An $18 million increase in PJM capacity revenues due to higher average cleared auction pricing in 2011 compared to 2010 and additional megawatts participating in the auction.

Partially offsetting these increases were:

• A $163 million decrease in retail electric revenues resulting from lower sales volumes driven by increased customer switching levels and unfavorable weather net of higher retail pricing under the ESP in 2011;

• A $38 million decrease in DEGS revenues, excluding renewables, due primarily to a contract termination and plant maintenance; and

• A $9 million decrease in net mark-to-market revenues on non-qualifying power and capacity hedge contracts, consisting of insignificant mark-to-market gains in 2011 compared to gains of $9 million in 2010.

Operating Expenses. The decrease was driven primarily by:

• A $572 million decrease in impairment charges primarily related to a $660 million charge related to goodwill and non-regulated coal-fired generation asset impairments in the Midwest in 2010, as compared to a $79 million impairment in 2011 to write down the carrying value of excess emission allowances held to fair value as a result of the EPA’s issuance of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and a $9 million impairment of the Vermillion generation station in 2011. See Note 7 to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Goodwill, Intangible Assets and Impairments,” for additional information;

• A $71 million decrease in retail fuel and purchased power expenses due to lower generation volumes net of higher purchased power volumes in 2011 as compared to 2010; and

• A $26 million decrease in DEGS fuel expense due primarily to a contract termination and plant maintenance.

Partially offsetting these decreases were:

• A $158 million increase in wholesale fuel expenses due to higher generation volumes in 2011 as compared to 2010;

• A $37 million increase in operating expenses resulting primarily from higher maintenance expenses at operated and non-operated generation stations and higher transmission costs in 2011 compared to 2010;

• A $23 million increase in mark-to-market fuel expense on non-qualifying fuel hedge contracts, consisting of mark-to-market losses of $3 million in 2011 compared to gains of $20 million in 2010; and

Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net. The increase in 2011 as compared to 2010 is attributable to 2011 gains on sales of certain assets resulting from a contract termination.

Other Income and Expenses, net. The decrease in 2011 as compared to 2010 is primarily due to distributions from South Houston Green Power received in 2010 which did not recur in 2011.

EBIT. The increase is primarily attributable to lower goodwill, generation and other asset impairment charges, an increase in renewables generation revenues, and higher PJM capacity revenues, net of higher net mark-to-market losses on non-qualifying commodity hedge contracts in 2011 compared to 2010 and lower retail margins driven by customer switching.

Matters Impacting Future Commercial Power Results

Commercial Power operates in Ohio under an ESP that expires on December 31, 2011. On June 20, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval of its next Standard Service Offer (SSO) to replace the existing ESP. On October 24, 2011, Commercial Power entered into a settlement stipulation. If approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), the stipulation would establish an ESP with competitive auctions for a term of January 1, 2012, through May 31, 2015. The stipulation also includes a provision for a non-bypassable stability charge of $110 million per year to be collected from 2012 through 2014 and requires Commercial Power to transfer its Ohio generation assets to a non-regulated affiliate at net book value on or before December 31, 2014. The stipulation requests that the PUCO approve the settlement on or before November 15, 2011, to allow Commercial Power to conduct auctions to serve SSO customers effective January 1, 2012. A hearing on the stipulation was held on November 3, 3011. Commercial Power’s earnings after the expiration of the current ESP could be significantly different than its historical earnings.

The majority of Commercial Power’s gas-fired non-regulated generation assets earn capacity revenues from PJM. PJM capacity prices are determined through an auction process for planning years from June through May of the following year and are conducted approximately three years in advance of the capacity delivery period. Capacity prices for periods beginning June 2011 and continuing through May 2014 will be significantly lower than current and historical capacity prices. As a result, Commercial Power’s operating revenues and EBIT will be negatively impacted through 2014.

96

PART I

International Energy

	Three Months Ended September 30,							Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		Increase (Decrease)			2011		2010			Increase (Decrease)
(in millions, except where noted)
Operating revenues	$	360	$	273	$	87		$	1,114	$	919		$	195
Operating expenses		236		180		56			707		605			102
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net		—		—		—			—		(1	)		1
Operating income		124		93		31			407		313			94
Other income and expenses, net		49		23		26			138		82			56
Expense attributable to noncontrolling interest		5		6		(1	)		18		19			(1	)
EBIT	$	168	$	110	$	58		$	527	$	376		$	151
Sales, GWh		4,565		4,426		139			13,868		15,158			(1,290	)
Proportional MW capacity in operation									4,190		4,203			(13	)

Three Months Ended September 30, 2011, as Compared to September 30, 2010

Operating Revenues. The increase was driven primarily by:

• A $32 million increase in Peru as a result of higher average prices and energy sales volumes;

• A $28 million increase in Central America due to higher average prices and dispatch as a result of favorable hydrology; and

• A $26 million increase in Brazil due to favorable exchange rates, higher spot volumes as a result of favorable hydrology, and higher average contract prices.

Operating Expenses. The increase was driven primarily by:

• A $26 million increase in Peru as a result of higher power purchased costs, increased fuel consumption, and other variable costs due to increased dispatch;

• A $19 million increase in Central America due to higher fuel costs and consumption as a result of increased dispatch; and

• A $13 million increase in Brazil due to the absence of prior year environmental provision reversals, a provision for a revenue tax audit, and unfavorable exchange rates.

Other Income and Expenses, net. The increase was driven primarily by a $21 million increase in equity earnings from NMC due to higher methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) prices partially offset by higher butane costs.

EBIT. As discussed above, the increase was primarily due to higher average prices in Peru, Central America and Brazil, higher margins at NMC and favorable exchange rates, primarily in Brazil.

Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011, as Compared to September 30, 2010

Operating Revenues. The increase was driven primarily by:

• An $84 million increase in Brazil due to favorable exchange rates, higher average contract prices, and higher spot volumes as a result of favorable hydrology;

• A $78 million increase in Central America as a result of favorable hydrology and higher average prices; and

• A $58 million increase in Peru as a result of higher average prices and energy sales volumes and higher hydrocarbon revenues.

Partially offsetting these increases was:

• A $26 million decrease in Ecuador as a result of lower dispatch due to new hydro competitor commencing operations in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Operating Expenses. The increase was driven primarily by:

• A $50 million increase in Central America due to higher fuel costs and consumption as a result of increased dispatch;

• A $46 million increase in Peru due to higher fuel costs and consumption as a result of increased dispatch, and higher purchased power and hydrocarbon royalty costs; and

• A $27 million increase in Brazil primarily due to unfavorable exchange rates, absence of prior year environmental provision reversals and a provision for a revenue tax audit.

Partially offsetting these increases was:

• A $24 million decrease in Ecuador due to lower fuel consumption as a result of lower dispatch, as well as lower operating costs.

Other Income and Expenses, net. The increase was primarily driven by a $34 million increase in equity earnings from NMC due to higher average prices partially offset by higher butane costs, and an arbitration award in Peru.

EBIT. As discussed above, the increase was primarily due to favorable contract prices and exchange rates in Brazil, an arbitration award and higher revenues in Peru, favorable hydrology in Central America, and higher equity earnings from NMC.

97

PART I

Other

	Three Months Ended September 30,									Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			Increase (Decrease)			2011			2010			Increase (Decrease)
	(in millions)
Operating revenues	$	14		$	17		$	(3	)	$	34		$	82		$	(48	)
Operating expenses		80			142			(62	)		246			482			(236	)
Losses on sales of other assets and other, net		(6	)		—			(6	)		(6	)		—			(6	)
Operating income		(72	)		(125	)		53			(218	)		(400	)		182
Other income and expenses, net		(8	)		17			(25	)		30			22			8
Benefit attributable to noncontrolling interests		(6	)		(8	)		2			(12	)		(10	)		(2	)
EBIT	$	(74	)	$	(100	)	$	26		$	(176	)	$	(368	)	$	192

Three Months Ended September 30, 2011, as Compared to September 30, 2010

Operating Revenues. The decrease was driven primarily by the deconsolidation of DukeNet Communications, LLC (DukeNet) in December 2010 and the subsequent accounting for Duke Energy’s investment in DukeNet as an equity method investment; partially offset by mark-to-market activity at Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM).

Operating Expenses. The decrease was driven primarily by a prior year litigation reserve, $20 million of 2010 employee severance costs related to the voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina, and a decrease as a result of the DukeNet deconsolidation in December 2010 and the subsequent accounting for Duke Energy’s investment in DukeNet as an equity method investment.

Losses on sales of other assets and other, net. The decrease is attributable to a loss on the sale of a corporate asset in 2011.

Other Income and Expenses, net. The decrease was driven primarily by unfavorable returns on investments that support benefit obligations in 2011 as compared to gains in 2010.

EBIT. As discussed above, the increase was due primarily to the prior year litigation reserve, 2010 employee severance costs and mark-to-market activity at DETM; partially offset by unfavorable returns on investments that support benefit obligations.

Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011, as Compared to September 30, 2010

Operating Revenues. The decrease was driven primarily by the deconsolidation of DukeNet in December 2010 and the subsequent accounting for Duke Energy’s investment in DukeNet as an equity method investment; partially offset by lower mark-to-market losses in 2011 compared to 2010 at DETM.

Operating Expenses. The decrease was driven primarily by $164 million of 2010 employee severance costs related to the voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina, a decrease as a result of the DukeNet deconsolidation in December 2010 and the subsequent accounting for Duke Energy’s investment in DukeNet as an equity method investment, a prior year litigation reserve, and a $16 million donation to the Duke Energy Foundation, which is a non-profit organization funded by Duke Energy shareholders that makes charitable contributions to selected non-profits and government subdivisions.

Losses on sales of other assets and other, net. The decrease is attributable to a loss on the sale of a corporate asset in 2011

Other Income and Expenses, net. The increase was driven primarily by a reversal of reserves related to certain guarantees Duke Energy had issued on behalf of the Crescent Joint Venture (Crescent) and an increase due to the final settlement of the sale of a 50% ownership interest in DukeNet in the fourth quarter of 2010, partially offset by unfavorable returns on investments that support benefit obligations in 2011 as compared to gains in 2010.

EBIT. As discussed above, the increase was due primarily to 2010 employee severance costs, a prior year litigation reserve and a donation to the Duke Energy Foundation in the prior year.

Matters Impacting Future Other Results

Duke Energy previously held an effective 50% interest in Crescent, which was Duke Energy’s real estate joint venture that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in June 2009. On June 9, 2010, Crescent restructured and emerged from bankruptcy and Duke Energy forfeited its entire 50% ownership interest to Crescent debt holders. This forfeiture caused Duke Energy to recognize its share of the net tax loss in the second quarter of 2010. Although Crescent has reorganized and emerged from bankruptcy with creditors owning all Crescent interest, there remains uncertainty as to the tax treatment associated with the restructuring. Based on this uncertainty, it is possible that Duke Energy could incur a future tax liability related to its inability to fully utilize tax losses associated with its partnership interest in Crescent and the resolution of issues associated with Crescent’s emergence from bankruptcy.

98

PART I

Duke Energy Carolinas

INTRODUCTION

Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with Duke Energy Carolinas’ Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Duke Energy Carolinas, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, is an electric utility company that generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in central and western North Carolina and western South Carolina.

BASIS OF PRESENTATION

The results of operations and variance discussion for Duke Energy Carolinas is presented in a reduced disclosure format in accordance with General Instruction H(2) of Form 10-Q.

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		Increase (Decrease)
	(in millions)
Operating revenues	$	5,027	$	4,935	$	92
Operating expenses		3,794		3,761		33
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net		2		7		(5	)
Operating income		1,235		1,181		54
Other income and expenses, net		139		163		(24	)
Interest expense		264		271		(7	)
Income before income taxes		1,110		1,073		37
Income tax expense		401		364		37
Net income	$	709	$	709	$	0

Duke Energy Carolinas’ net income was flat for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, compared to September 30, 2010, primarily due to the following factors:

Operating Revenues. The increase was primarily due to:

• A $135 million net increase in retail rates and rate riders primarily due to the implementation of the North Carolina CWIP rider effective January 2011, riders for the SAW program, and year-over-year impact related to a phase-in of the new retail rates resulting from the South Carolina rate case in the first quarter of 2010;

• A $57 million increase in fuel revenues driven primarily by increased fuel rates in South Carolina; partially offset by lower fuel rates in North Carolina. Fuel revenues represent sales to retail and wholesale customers; and

• An $18 million increase in wholesale power revenues, net of sharing, primarily due to the addition of new customers served and additional volumes under long-term contracts and increased capacity charges; partially offset by volume decreases and lower pricing for near-term sales.

Partially offsetting these increases was:

• A $109 million decrease in GWh sales to retail customers due to less favorable weather. Weather statistics for both heating degree days and cooling degree days in 2011 were unfavorable compared to 2010. Heating degree days were essentially flat to normal for 2011 as compared to 13% above normal in 2010 and cooling degree days for 2011 were 22% above normal compared to 34% above normal in 2010.

Operating Expenses. The increase was primarily due to:

• A $50 million increase in fuel expense (including purchased power) primarily related to higher economic purchases of power largely due to increased scheduled nuclear outages in 2011 compared to the same period in 2010.

• A $16 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to increased production plant base and software projects amortization; partially offset by the 2011 deferral of the wholesale portion of GridSouth costs.

Partially offsetting these increases were:

• A $24 million decrease in operating and maintenance expenses primarily related to decreased employee severance costs associated with the 2010 voluntary severance plan and a litigation settlement; partially offset by higher non-outage and outage costs at nuclear generation plants, costs related to the implementation of the SAW program, higher storm costs and higher power delivery costs.

• A $10 million decrease in general taxes primarily due to lower revenue related taxes and a sales and use tax refund; partially offset by overall higher property taxes.

Other Income and Expenses, net. The decrease is primarily due to higher interest income recorded in 2010 following the resolution of certain income tax matters related to prior years, lower deferred returns and lower equity component of AFUDC.

Income Tax Expense. Income tax expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, increased compared to the same period in 2010 primarily due to an increase in pre-tax income and the effective tax rate. The effective tax rate for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 was 36.1% and 33.9%, respectively. The increase in the effective tax rate is primarily due to a decrease in the manufacturing deduction in 2011 and a state tax benefit recorded in 2010, partially offset by the write-off of a deferred tax asset in 2010 due to a change in the tax treatment of the Medicare Part D subsidy due to the passing of health care reform legislation.

99

PART I

Matters Impacting Future Duke Energy Carolinas Results

Duke Energy Carolinas has filed rate cases in North Carolina and South Carolina during 2011. Duke Energy Carolinas plans to file rate cases in North Carolina and South Carolina during 2012. These planned rates cases are needed to recover investments in Duke Energy Carolinas’ ongoing infrastructure modernization projects and operating costs. Duke Energy Carolinas’ earnings could be adversely impacted if these rate cases are denied or delayed by either of the state regulatory commissions.

Duke Energy Ohio

INTRODUCTION

Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with Duke Energy Ohio’s Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Duke Energy Ohio is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy Corp. (Cinergy), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. Duke Energy Ohio’s principal lines of business include generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, the sale of and/or transportation of natural gas, and energy marketing.

BASIS OF PRESENTATION

The results of operations and variance discussion for Duke Energy Ohio is presented in a reduced disclosure format in accordance with General Instruction H(2) of Form 10-Q.

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010			Increase (Decrease)
	(in millions)
Operating revenues	$	2,411	$	2,549		$	(138	)
Operating expenses		2,105		2,832			(727	)
Gains on sales of other assets and other, net		4		3			1
Operating income (loss)		310		(280	)		590
Other income and expenses, net		17		22			(5	)
Interest expense		78		84			(6	)
Income (loss) before income taxes		249		(342	)		591
Income tax expense		92		111			(19	)
Net income (loss)	$	157	$	(453	)	$	610

The $610 million increase in Duke Energy Ohio’s net income for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, compared to September 30, 2010, was primarily due to the following factors:

Operating Revenues. The decrease was primarily driven by:

• A $199 million decrease in retail electric revenues resulting from lower sales volumes driven by increased customer switching levels net of higher retail pricing under the ESP in 2011;

• A $71 million decrease in net mark-to-market revenues on non-qualifying power and capacity hedge contracts, consisting of mark-to-market losses of $16 million in 2011 compared to gains of $55 million in 2010;

• A $57 million decrease in retail electric revenues resulting from the expiration of the Ohio electric Regulatory Transition Charge for non-residential customers;

• A $43 million decrease in regulated fuel revenues driven primarily by lower natural gas costs and reduced sales volumes; and

• A $19 million decrease related to less favorable weather conditions in 2011 compared to 2010.

Partially offsetting these decreases were:

• A $213 million increase in wholesale electric revenues due to higher generation volumes net of lower pricing and lower margin earned from participation in wholesale auctions in 2011;

• An $18 million increase in PJM capacity revenues due to higher average cleared auction pricing and additional megawatts participating in the auction in 2011 compared to 2010; and

• An $11 million increase due to higher Midwest Independent Transmission Operator, Inc (Midwest ISO) transmission revenue.

Operating Expenses. The decrease was primarily driven by:

• A $749 million decrease in impairment charges primarily related to a $677 million impairment of goodwill and a $160 million impairment of certain generation assets in 2010 compared to a $79 million impairment in 2011 to write down the carrying value of excess emission allowances held to fair value as a result of the EPA’s issuance of the CSAPR. See Note 7 to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Goodwill, Intangible Assets and Impairments,” for additional information;

• A $108 million decrease in retail fuel and purchased power expenses due to lower generation volumes driven by increased customer switching levels in 2011 compared to 2010;

• A $42 million decrease in regulated fuel expense primarily due to lower natural gas costs and reduced sales volumes;

• A $40 million decrease in depreciation and amortization costs primarily due to decreased regulatory amortization; and

• A $23 million decrease in employee severance costs related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina.

Partially offsetting these decreases were:

• A $158 million increase in wholesale fuel expenses due to higher generation volumes;

100

PART I

• A $46 million increase in operating and maintenance expenses primarily due to higher maintenance expenses and 2011 storm costs; and

• A $23 million increase in mark-to-market fuel expense on non-qualifying fuel hedge contracts, consisting of mark-to-market losses of $3 million in 2011 compared to gains of $20 million in 2010.

Other Income and Expenses, net. The decrease in 2011 compared to 2010 is primarily attributable to reduced interest income accrued for uncertain income tax positions.

Income Tax Expense. Income tax expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, decreased compared to the same period in 2010. The effective tax rate for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 was 36.9% and (32.6)%, respectively. The increase in the effective tax rate is primarily due to a $677 million non-deductible impairment of goodwill in 2010, as discussed above.

Matters Impacting Future Duke Energy Ohio Results

Duke Energy Ohio operates under an ESP that expires on December 31, 2011. On June 20, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval of its next Standard Service Offer (SSO) to replace the existing ESP. On October 24, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and most intervenors, including the PUCO Staff, entered into a settlement stipulation. If approved by the PUCO, the stipulation would establish an ESP with competitive auctions for a term of January 1, 2012 through May 31, 2015. The stipulation also includes a provision for a non-bypassable stability charge of $110 million per year to be collected from 2012 through 2014 and requires Duke Energy Ohio to transfer its generation assets to a non-regulated affiliate at net book value on or before December 31, 2014. The stipulation requests that the PUCO approve the settlement on or before November 15, 2011, to allow Duke Energy Ohio to conduct auctions to serve SSO customers effective January 1, 2012. A hearing on the stipulation was held on November 3, 3011. Duke Energy Ohio’s earnings after the expiration of the current ESP could be significantly different than its historical earnings.

The majority of Duke Energy Ohio’s gas-fired non-regulated generation assets earn capacity revenues from PJM. PJM capacity prices are determined through an auction process for planning years from June through May of the following year and are conducted approximately three years in advance of the capacity delivery period. Capacity prices for periods beginning June 2011 and continuing through May 2014 will be significantly lower than current and historical capacity prices. As a result, Duke Energy Ohio’s operating revenues and EBIT will be negatively impacted through 2014.

Duke Energy Indiana

INTRODUCTION

Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with Duke Energy Indiana’s Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Duke Energy Indiana is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. Duke Energy Indiana is an electric utility company that generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in north central, central and southern Indiana.

BASIS OF PRESENTATION

The results of operations and variance discussion for Duke Energy Indiana is presented in a reduced disclosure format in accordance with General Instruction H(2) of Form 10-Q.

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		Increase (Decrease)
	(in millions)
Operating revenues	$	1,997	$	1,883	$	114
Operating expenses		1,800		1,504		296
Operating income		197		379		(182	)
Other income and expenses, net		70		51		19
Interest expense		104		99		5
Income before income taxes		163		331		(168	)
Income tax expense		50		112		(62	)
Net income	$	113	$	219	$	(106	)

The $106 million decrease in Duke Energy Indiana’s net income for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, compared to September 30, 2010, was primarily due to the following factors:

Operating Revenues. The increase was primarily due to:

• A $72 million increase in fuel revenues (including the rider for emission allowances) primarily due to an increase in fuel rates as a result of higher fuel and purchased power costs; and

• A $40 million net increase in rate riders primarily related to the Edwardsport IGCC plant that is currently under construction and higher recoveries of DSM costs.

Partially offsetting these increases was:

• An $11 million decrease in retail revenues related to less favorable weather conditions in 2011 compared to 2010.

Operating Expenses. The increase was primarily due to:

• A $178 million increase due to an additional impairment charge related to the Edwardsport IGCC plant that is currently under construction. See Note 4 to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for additional information;

101

PART I

• A $66 million increase in fuel costs primarily due to an increase in fuel rates as a result of higher fuel and purchased power costs;

• A $27 million increase in operation and maintenance costs primarily due to higher storm related costs and increased legal and corporate allocations, partially offset by decreased costs associated with the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina;

• A $16 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense primarily due to higher amortization of DSM regulatory assets and increase in production plant base; and

• A $10 million increase in general taxes primarily due to certain property tax true-ups, higher property tax rates in 2011, and increases in gross receipts and payroll taxes.

Other Income and Expenses, net. The increase in 2011 compared to 2010 was primarily attributable to increased AFUDC in 2011 for additional capital spending related to the Edwardsport IGCC plant that is currently under construction.

Income Tax Expense. Income tax expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, decreased compared to the same period in 2010 primarily due to a decrease in pre-tax income and the effective tax rate. The effective tax rate for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 was 30.8% and 33.8%, respectively. The decrease in the effective tax rate is primarily due to an increase in AFUDC equity.

Matters Impacting Future Duke Energy Indiana Results

See Note 4 to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters,” for a discussion of the significant increase in the estimated cost of the 618 MW IGCC plant at Duke Energy Indiana’s Edwardsport Generating Station. Additional updates to the cost estimate could occur through the completion of the plant in 2012.

Duke Energy Indiana plans to file a rate case in 2012. This planned rate case is needed to recover investments in Duke Energy Indiana’s ongoing infrastructure modernization projects and operating costs. Duke Energy Indiana’s earnings could be adversely impacted if this rate case is denied or delayed by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

102

PART I

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

The following discussion of liquidity and capital resources is on a consolidated Duke Energy basis. Duke Energy’s significant cash requirements are largely due to the capital intensive nature of its operations, including capital expansion projects, fleet modernization and other expenditures for environmental compliance. Duke Energy relies upon its cash flows from operations, as well as its ability to access the long-term debt and equity capital markets for sources of liquidity. Additionally, Duke Energy has access to unsecured revolving credit facilities, which are not restricted upon general market conditions, as discussed further below.

Operating Cash Flows

Net cash provided by operating activities was $3,027 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 compared to $3,661 million for the same period in 2010, a decrease in cash provided of $634 million. This change was driven primarily by:

• Traditional working capital decreased cash provided from operations $560 million, primarily due to an increase in coal inventory.

Investing Cash Flows

Net cash used in investing activities was $3,070 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 compared to $3,525 million for the same period in 2010, a decrease in cash used of $455 million. This change was driven primarily by:

• A $520 million decrease in capital and investment expenditures and

• A $100 million cash inflow in 2011 primarily as a result of the sale of Windstream Corp. stock received in conjunction with the sale of Q-Comm Corporation in December 2010, partially offset by

• A $130 million increase in purchases of available-for-sale securities, net of proceeds from sales.

Financing Cash Flows and Liquidity

Net cash provided by financing activities was $405 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 compared to $130 million for the same period in 2010, an increase in cash provided of $275 million. This change was driven primarily by:

• A $520 million increase in proceeds from net issuances of notes payable and commercial paper, partially offset by

• A $200 million decrease in proceeds from the issuance of common stock primarily related to the Dividend Reinvestment Plan, due to the discontinuance of new share issuances in the first quarter of 2011, and other internal plans and

• A $40 million increase in dividend payments.

Significant Financing Activities. Duke Energy issues shares of its common stock to meet certain employee benefit and long-term incentive obligations. Beginning in the first quarter of 2011, Duke Energy discontinued issuing authorized but unissued shares of common stock to fulfill obligations under its DRIP and other internal plans, including 401(k) plans.

In April 2011, Duke Energy filed a registration statement (Form S-3) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to sell up to $1 billion of variable denomination floating rate demand notes, called PremierNotes. The Form S-3 states that no more than $500 million of the notes will be outstanding at any particular time. The notes are offered on a continuous basis and bear interest at a floating rate per annum determined by the Duke Energy PremierNotes Committee, or its designee, on a weekly basis. The interest rate payable on notes held by an investor may vary based on the principal amount of the investment. The notes have no stated maturity date, but may be redeemed in whole or in part by Duke Energy at any time. The notes are non-transferable and may be redeemed in whole or in part at the investor’s option. Proceeds from the sale of the notes will be used for general corporate purposes. The balance as of September 30, 2011, is $30 million. The notes reflect a short-term debt obligation of Duke Energy and are reflected as Notes payable on Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

In May 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas issued $500 million principal amount of first mortgage bonds, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.90% and mature June 15, 2021. Proceeds from this issuance were used to fund capital expenditures and for general corporate purposes.

In August 2011, Duke Energy issued $500 million principal amount of senior notes, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.55% and mature September 15, 2021. Proceeds from the issuance will be used to repay a portion of Duke Energy’s commercial paper as it matures, to fund capital expenditures in Duke Energy’s unregulated businesses in the United States (U.S.) and for general corporate purposes.

In the third quarter of 2011, Duke Energy issued an additional $450 million in Commercial Paper. Proceeds from this issuance were used for general corporate purposes,

At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy had $1.5 billion classified as Current maturities of long-term debt on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These are principally comprised of $750 million, maturing in January 2012, at Duke Energy Carolinas, and $500 million, maturing in September 2012 at Duke Energy Ohio. At December 31, 2010, these notes were classified as Long-term Debt on Duke Energy Carolinas’ and Duke Energy Ohio’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Ohio currently anticipate satisfying these obligations with proceeds from additional borrowings.

Available Credit Facilities and Restrictive Debt Covenants. The total capacity under Duke Energy’s master credit facility, which expires in June 2012, is $3.14 billion. The credit facility contains an option allowing borrowing up to the full amount of the facility on the day of initial expiration for up to one year. Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, and Duke Energy Indiana (collectively referred to as the borrowers), each have borrowing capacity under the master credit facility up to specified sub limits for each borrower. However, Duke Energy has the unilateral ability at any time to increase or decrease the borrowing sub limits of each borrower, subject to a maximum sub limit for each borrower. See the table below for the borrowing sub limits for each of the borrowers as of September 30, 2011. The amount available under the master credit facility has been reduced, as indicated in the table below, by the use of the master credit facility to backstop the issuances of commercial paper, letters of credit and certain tax-exempt bonds. As indicated, borrowing sub limits for the Subsidiary Registrants are also reduced for amounts outstanding under the money pool arrangement.

103

PART I

Master Credit Facility Summary as of September 30, 2011 (in millions)^(a)(b)

	Duke Energy			Duke Energy Carolinas			Duke Energy Ohio			Duke Energy Indiana			Total
Facility Size(c)	$	1,097		$	840		$	750		$	450		$	3,137
Less:
Notes Payable and Commercial Paper(d)		(450	)		(300	)		—			(150	)		(900	)
Outstanding Letters of Credit		(46	)		(7	)		(27	)		—			(80	)
Tax-Exempt Bonds		(25	)		(95	)		(84	)		(81	)		(285	)
Available Capacity	$	576		$	438		$	639		$	219		$	1,872

(a) This summary only includes Duke Energy’s master credit facility and, accordingly, excludes certain demand facilities and committed facilities that are insignificant in size or which generally support very specific requirements, which primarily include facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds. These facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds generally have non-cancelable terms in excess of one year from the balance sheet date, such that the Duke Energy Registrants have the ability to refinance such borrowings on a long-term basis. Accordingly, such borrowings are reflected as Long-term Debt on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of the respective Duke Energy Registrant.

(b) Credit facility contains a covenant requiring the debt-to-total capitalization ratio to not exceed 65% for each borrower.

(c) Represents the sub limit of each borrower at September 30, 2011. The Duke Energy Ohio sub limit includes $100 million for Duke Energy Kentucky.

(d) Duke Energy issued $450 million of Commercial Paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana. The balances are classified as long-term borrowings within Long-term Debt in Duke Energy Carolina’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy issued an additional $450 million of Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011. The balance is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Duke Energy began negotiating a replacement of its master credit facility in October 2011. Duke Energy expects to execute a new five-year, $6 billion master credit facility in the fourth quarter of 2011, with $4 billion available at closing and the remaining $2 billion available on or soon after the closing of the proposed merger with Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress Energy). The master credit facility will include borrowing sub limits for certain subsidiaries, including Progress Energy subsidiaries, similar to the current facility.

Restrictive Debt Covenants. The Duke Energy Registrants’ debt and credit agreements contain various financial and other covenants. Failure to meet those covenants beyond applicable grace periods could result in accelerated due dates and/or termination of the agreements. As of September 30, 2011, each of the Duke Energy Registrants was in compliance with all covenants related to its significant debt agreements. In addition, some credit agreements may allow for acceleration of payments or termination of the agreements due to nonpayment, or the acceleration of other significant indebtedness of the borrower or some of its subsidiaries. None of the significant debt or credit agreements contain material adverse change clauses.

Other Issues

Global Climate Change and Other Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulations Recently Published and Under Development.

The EPA has issued and is in various stages of developing several non-greenhouse gas (non-GHG) environmental regulations that will affect the Duke Energy Registrants, including the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and proposed regulations for coal combustion residuals, cooling water intake structures under the Clean Water Act 316(b) and Utility Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. As a group, these non-GHG environmental regulations will require the Duke Energy Registrants to install additional environmental controls and may result in the accelerated retirement of some coal-fired units. While the ultimate regulatory requirements for the Duke Energy Registrants from the EPA’s regulatory actions will not be known until all the rules have been finalized, for planning purposes, the Duke Energy Registrants currently estimate the cost of new control equipment that may need to be installed to comply with this group of rules could total $5 billion to $6 billion over the next 10 years. The Duke Energy Registrants also expect to incur increased fuel, purchased power, operation and maintenance, and other expenses in conjunction with the non-GHG EPA regulations. In addition to the planned retirements associated with new generation the Duke Energy Registrants are constructing, the Duke Energy Registrants are evaluating the need to retire additional coal fired generating capacity if it is not economic to bring it into compliance with the EPA’s regulations. Total, planned and additional retirements could exceed 3,300 MWs of coal-fired generating capacity. Until the final regulatory requirements are known and can be fully evaluated, the potential compliance costs associated with these EPA regulatory actions are subject to considerable uncertainty. Therefore, the actual compliance costs incurred and MWs to be retired may be materially different from these estimates based on the timing and requirements of the final EPA regulations.

For further information on global climate change and other EPA regulations under development and the potential impacts on Duke Energy, see “Other Issues” in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Duke Energy’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 and Note 5 to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies”.

Merger with Progress Energy. See Note 3 to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Acquisitions and Sales of Other Assets” for information related to Duke Energy’s pending merger with Progress Energy.

Nuclear Matters. In March 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami caused significant damage at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in northeast Japan. As a result, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) special task force initiated a comprehensive review of processes and regulations to determine whether the agency should make additional improvements to the nuclear regulatory system. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) is leading U.S. nuclear industry reviews of the Fukushima Daiichi event, and additional reviews by other national and international organizations are ongoing or expected. Such reviews may impact future operations and/or capital requirements at U.S. nuclear facilities, including those owned by Duke Energy Carolinas. These events could also cause increased regulatory review and scrutiny by the NRC which could lead to delays in the process for obtaining required regulatory approvals. See Item 1A, “Risk Factors”, in the 2010 Form 10-K for further discussion of applicable risk factors.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

The following discussion of off-balance sheet arrangements and contractual obligations is on a consolidated Duke Energy basis.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2011, there were no material changes to Duke Energy’s off-balance sheet arrangements. For information on Duke Energy’s off-balance sheet arrangements, see “Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements” in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Duke Energy’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.

104

PART I

Contractual Obligations

Duke Energy enters into contracts that require cash payment at specified periods, based on specified minimum quantities and prices. During the nine months ended September 30, 2011, there were no material changes in Duke Energy’s contractual obligations. For an in-depth discussion of Duke Energy’s contractual obligations, see “Contractual Obligations” and “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk” in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Duke Energy’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.

New Accounting Standards

The following new Accounting Standards Updates (ASU) have been issued, but have not yet been adopted by Duke Energy, as of September 30, 2011:

ASC 820—Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). In May 2011, the FASB amended existing requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. This revised guidance results in a consistent definition of fair value, as well as common requirements for measurement and disclosure of fair value information between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). In addition, the amendments set forth enhanced disclosure requirements with respect to recurring Level 3 measurements, nonfinancial assets measured or disclosed at fair value, transfers between levels in the fair value hierarchy, and assets and liabilities disclosed but not recorded at fair value. For the Duke Energy Registrants, the revised fair value measurement guidance is effective on a prospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the potential impact of the adoption of this revised guidance and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

ASC 220—Comprehensive Income (ASC 220). In June 2011, the FASB amended the existing requirements for presenting comprehensive income in financial statements primarily to increase the prominence of items reported in other comprehensive income (OCI) and to facilitate the convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS. Specifically, the revised guidance eliminates the option currently provided under existing requirements to present components of OCI as part of the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity. Accordingly, all non-owner changes in stockholders’ equity will be required to be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive financial statements. For the Duke Energy Registrants, this revised guidance is effective on a retrospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Early adoption of this revised guidance is permitted. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the revised requirements for presenting comprehensive income in its financial statements and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption of this revised guidance on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Subsequent Events

For information on subsequent events related to acquisitions and sales of other assets, regulatory matters, commitments and contingencies, debt and credit facilities, and severance, see Note 3, “Acquisitions and Sales of Other Assets,” Note 4, “Regulatory Matters,” Note 5, “Commitments and Contingencies,” Note 6, “Debt and Credit Facilities,” Note 9, “Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities,” and Note 15, “Severance,” to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

There have been no significant changes from the disclosures presented in Duke Energy’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. For an in-depth discussion of Duke Energy’s market risks, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk” in Duke Energy’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures. – Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Disclosure controls and procedures are controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Duke Energy Registrants in the reports they file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported, within the time periods specified by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) rules and forms.

Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by the Duke Energy Registrants in the reports they file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Under the supervision and with the participation of management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the Duke Energy Registrants have evaluated their effectiveness of their disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of September 30, 2011, and, based upon this evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that these controls and procedures are effective in providing reasonable assurance of compliance.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Under the supervision and with the participation of management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the Duke Energy Registrants have evaluated changes in internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that occurred during the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2011 and have concluded no change has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, internal control over financial reporting.

105

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings.

For information regarding legal proceedings that became reportable events or in which there were material developments in the third quarter of 2011, see Note 4 to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Regulatory Matters” and Note 5 to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, “Commitments and Contingencies” under the heading “Litigation.”

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

In addition to the other information set forth in this report, careful consideration should be given to the factors discussed in Part I, “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in Duke Energy’s, Duke Energy Carolinas’, Duke Energy Ohio’s and Duke Energy Indiana’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, which could materially affect the Duke Energy Registrants’ financial condition or future results.

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities for Third Quarter of 2011

There were no issuer purchases of equity securities during the third quarter of 2011.

106

PART II

Item 6. Exhibits

(a) Exhibits

Exhibits filed or furnished herewith are designated by an asterisk (*).

Exhibit Number		Duke Energy		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
*12	Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges		X
*31.1	Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.		X
*31.2	Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.		X
*31.3	Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.				X
*31.4	Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.				X
*31.5	Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.						X
*31.6	Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.						X
*31.7	Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.								X
*31.8	Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.								X
*32.1	Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.		X
*32.2	Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.		X
*32.3	Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.				X
*32.4	Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.				X
*32.5	Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.						X
*32.6	Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.						X

107

PART II

Exhibit Number		Duke Energy		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
*32.7	Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.								X
*32.8	Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.								X
*101	Financials in XBRL Format.		X		X		X		X

The total amount of securities of the registrant or its subsidiaries authorized under any instrument with respect to long-term debt not filed as an exhibit does not exceed 10% of the total assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. The registrant agrees, upon request of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to furnish copies of any or all of such instruments to it.

108

PART II

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrants have duly caused this report to be signed on their behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

	DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DUKE ENERGY OHIO, INC. DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.
Date: November 8, 2011	/S/    LYNN J. GOOD
	Lynn J. Good Chief Financial Officer
Date: November 8, 2011	/S/    STEVEN K. YOUNG
	Steven K. Young Senior Vice President and Controller

109

EX-12

EXHIBIT 12

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES – DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

The ratio of earnings to fixed charges is calculated using the SEC guidelines.

	Nine Months Ended September 30,		Year Ended December 31,
	2011		2010		2009		2008		2007		2006
	(dollars in millions)
Earnings as defined for fixed charges calculation
Add:
Pretax income from continuing operations(a)	$	1,927	$	2,097	$	1,770	$	1,993	$	2,078	$	1,421
Fixed charges		787		1,045		892		883		797		1,382
Distributed income of equity investees		113		111		82		195		147		893
Deduct:
Preference security dividend requirements of consolidated subsidiaries		—		—		—		—		—		27
Interest capitalized(b)		129		168		102		93		71		56
Total earnings (as defined for the Fixed Charges calculation)	$	2,698	$	3,085	$	2,642	$	2,978	$	2,951	$	3,613
Fixed charges:
Interest on debt, including capitalized portions(b)	$	763	$	1,008	$	853	$	834	$	756	$	1,311
Estimate of interest within rental expense		24		37		39		49		41		44
Preference security dividend requirements of consolidated subsidiaries		—		—		—		—		—		27
Total fixed charges	$	787	$	1,045	$	892	$	883	$	797	$	1,382
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges		3.4		3.0		3.0		3.4		3.7		2.6

(a) Excludes amounts attributable to noncontrolling interests and income or loss from equity investees.

(b) Excludes the equity costs related to Allowance for Funds Used During Construction that are included in Other Income and Expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

EX-31.1

EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James E. Rogers, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Duke Energy Corporation;

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Acts Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 8, 2011

/s/    JAMES E. ROGERS        

James E. Rogers

President and

Chief Executive Officer

EX-31.2

EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lynn J. Good, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Duke Energy Corporation;

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Acts Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 8, 2011

/s/    LYNN J. GOOD        

Lynn J. Good

Group Executive and

Chief Financial Officer

EX-31.3

EXHIBIT 31.3

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James E. Rogers, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC;

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Acts Rules 13a–15(f) and 15d–15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 8, 2011

/s/    JAMES E. ROGERS        

James E. Rogers

Chief Executive Officer

EX-31.4

EXHIBIT 31.4

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lynn J. Good, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC;

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Acts Rules 13a–15(f) and 15d–15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 8, 2011

/s/    LYNN J. GOOD        

Lynn J. Good

Chief Financial Officer

EX-31.5

EXHIBIT 31.5

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James E. Rogers, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.;

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Acts Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 8, 2011

/s/    JAMES E. ROGERS        

James E. Rogers

Chief Executive Officer

EX-31.6

EXHIBIT 31.6

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lynn J. Good, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.;

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Acts Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 8, 2011

/s/    LYNN J. GOOD        

Lynn J. Good

Chief Financial Officer

EX-31.7

EXHIBIT 31.7

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James E. Rogers, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.;

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Acts Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 8, 2011

/s/    JAMES E. ROGERS        

James E. Rogers

Chief Executive Officer

EX-31.8

EXHIBIT 31.8

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lynn J. Good, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.;

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Acts Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 8, 2011

/s/    LYNN J. GOOD        

Lynn J. Good

Chief Financial Officer

EX-32.1

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Rogers, President and Chief Executive Officer of Duke Energy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Energy.

/s/    JAMES E. ROGERS        

James E. Rogers

President and Chief Executive Officer

November 8, 2011

EX-32.2

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lynn J. Good, Group Executive and Chief Financial Officer of Duke Energy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Energy.

/s/    LYNN J. GOOD        

Lynn J. Good

Group Executive and Chief Financial Officer

November 8, 2011

EX-32.3

EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Rogers, Chief Executive Officer of Duke Energy Carolinas, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Energy Carolinas.

/s/    JAMES E. ROGERS        

James E. Rogers

Chief Executive Officer

November 8, 2011

EX-32.4

EXHIBIT 32.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lynn J. Good, Chief Financial Officer of Duke Energy Carolinas, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Energy Carolinas.

/S/    LYNN J. GOOD        

Lynn J. Good

Chief Financial Officer

November 8, 2011

EX-32.5

EXHIBIT 32.5

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Rogers, Chief Executive Officer of Duke Energy Ohio, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Energy Ohio.

/S/    JAMES E. ROGERS        

James E. Rogers

Chief Executive Officer

November 8, 2011

EX-32.6

EXHIBIT 32.6

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lynn J. Good, Chief Financial Officer of Duke Energy Ohio, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Energy Ohio.

/S/    LYNN J. GOOD        

Lynn J. Good

Chief Financial Officer

November 8, 2011

EX-32.7

EXHIBIT 32.7

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Rogers, Chief Executive Officer of Duke Energy Indiana, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Energy Indiana.

/s/    JAMES E. ROGERS        

James E. Rogers

Chief Executive Officer

November 8, 2011

EX-32.8

EXHIBIT 32.8

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lynn J. Good, Chief Financial Officer of Duke Energy Indiana, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Energy Indiana.

/s/    LYNN J. GOOD        

Lynn J. Good

Chief Financial Officer

November 8, 2011

XML

Acquisitions And Sales Of Other Assets (Details) (USD $) Share data in Millions, unless otherwise specified	0 Months Ended	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 02, 2011	Sep. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2011
Number of shares to be issued by Duke to acquire Progress, before reverse stock split adjustment				771
Adjusted conversion ratio, after reverse stock split adjustment				0.87083
Settlement agreement, customer guaranteed savings	$ 650,000,000
Transaction costs		13,000,000		29,000,000
Impairment			9,000,000
Duke Energy Corp [Member]
Merger agreement, termination fees		675,000,000		675,000,000
Merger Agreement [Member]
Conversion of Progress' common stock to Duke's common stock, per share, before reverse stock split adjustment		2.6125		2.6125
Number of shares to be issued by Duke to acquire Progress, after reverse stock split adjustment				257
Value of transaction		15,400,000,000		15,400,000,000
Incremental goodwill as a result of the merger		9,300,000,000		9,300,000,000
Debt assumed by Duke as a result of the merger		15,100,000,000		15,100,000,000
Progress Energy [Member]
Merger agreement, termination fees		$ 400,000,000		$ 400,000,000

XML

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (USD $) In Millions	Sep. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	$ 2,032	$ 1,670
Short-term investments	146
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts)	764	855
Restricted receivables of variable interest entities (net of allowance for doubtful accounts)	1,152	1,302
Inventory	1,421	1,318
Other	758	1,078
Total current assets	6,273	6,223
Investments and Other Assets
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates	459	444
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds	1,924	2,014
Goodwill	3,847	3,858
Intangibles, net	371	467
Notes receivable	59	42
Restricted other assets of variable interest entities	176	139
Other	2,236	2,300
Total investments and other assets	9,072	9,264
Property, Plant and Equipment
Cost	59,861	57,597
Cost, variable interest entities	921	942
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization	18,905	18,195
Net property, plant and equipment	41,877	40,344
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits
Deferred debt expense	232	246
Regulatory assets related to income taxes	843	780
Other	2,479	2,233
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits	3,554	3,259
Total Assets	60,776	59,090
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Accounts payable	1,080	1,587
Notes payable	480
Non-recourse notes payable of variable interest entities	275	216
Taxes accrued	438	412
Interest accrued	269	237
Current maturities of long-term debt	1,527	275
Other	1,046	1,170
Total current liabilities	5,115	3,897
Long-term Debt	16,625	16,959
Non-recourse Long-term Debt of Variable Interest Entities	959	976
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities
Deferred Income Taxes	7,466	6,978
Investment tax credits	377	359
Asset retirement obligations	1,905	1,816
Other	5,430	5,452
Total deferred credits and other liabilities	15,178	14,605
Commitments and Contingencies
Equity
Common Stock	1	1
Additional paid-in capital	21,061	21,023
Retained earnings (deficit)	1,920	1,496
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)	(188)	2
Total common stockholder's equity	22,794	22,522
Noncontrolling interests	105	131
Total equity	22,899	22,653
Total Liabilities and Equity	60,776	59,090
Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	318	153
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts)	825	669
Restricted receivables of variable interest entities (net of allowance for doubtful accounts)	637	637
Inventory	757	716
Other	283	398
Total current assets	2,820	2,573
Investments and Other Assets
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds	1,924	2,014
Other	1,026	1,119
Total investments and other assets	2,950	3,133
Property, Plant and Equipment
Cost	32,623	31,191
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization	11,458	11,126
Net property, plant and equipment	21,165	20,065
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits
Deferred debt expense	161	169
Regulatory assets related to income taxes	661	601
Other	1,080	847
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits	1,902	1,617
Total Assets	28,837	27,388
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Accounts payable	545	856
Taxes accrued	132	114
Interest accrued	148	109
Current maturities of long-term debt	757	8
Other	468	485
Total current liabilities	2,050	1,572
Long-term Debt	7,216	7,462
Non-recourse Long-term Debt of Variable Interest Entities	300	300
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities
Deferred Income Taxes	4,530	3,988
Investment tax credits	226	205
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs	237	242
Asset retirement obligations	1,814	1,728
Other	2,836	2,975
Total deferred credits and other liabilities	9,643	9,138
Commitments and Contingencies
Equity
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)	(19)	(22)
Member's Equity	9,647	8,938
Total member's equity	9,628	8,916
Total Liabilities and Member's Equity	28,837	27,388
Duke Energy Ohio [Member]
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	216	228
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts)	497	888
Inventory	283	254
Other	149	121
Total current assets	1,145	1,491
Investments and Other Assets
Goodwill	921	921
Intangibles, net	148	248
Other	55	62
Total investments and other assets	1,124	1,231
Property, Plant and Equipment
Cost	10,516	10,259
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization	2,579	2,411
Net property, plant and equipment	7,937	7,848
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits
Deferred debt expense	21	23
Regulatory assets related to income taxes	74	78
Other	358	353
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits	453	454
Total Assets	10,659	11,024
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Accounts payable	295	467
Taxes accrued	155	153
Interest accrued	33	22
Current maturities of long-term debt	507	7
Other	92	99
Total current liabilities	1,082	748
Long-term Debt	2,051	2,557
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities
Deferred Income Taxes	1,802	1,640
Investment tax credits	8	9
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs	188	207
Asset retirement obligations	28	27
Other	364	372
Total deferred credits and other liabilities	2,390	2,255
Commitments and Contingencies
Equity
Common Stock	762	762
Additional paid-in capital	5,085	5,570
Retained earnings (deficit)	(689)	(846)
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)	(22)	(22)
Total common stockholder's equity	5,136	5,464
Total Liabilities and Equity	10,659	11,024
Duke Energy Indiana [Member]
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	21	54
Receivables (net of allowance for doubtful accounts)	223	431
Inventory	283	267
Other	35	85
Total current assets	562	837
Investments and Other Assets
Intangibles, net	53	64
Other	120	126
Total investments and other assets	173	190
Property, Plant and Equipment
Cost	11,711	11,213
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization	3,445	3,341
Net property, plant and equipment	8,266	7,872
Regulatory Assets and Deferred Debits
Deferred debt expense	40	43
Regulatory assets related to income taxes	108	101
Other	614	588
Total regulatory assets and deferred debits	762	732
Total Assets	9,763	9,631
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Accounts payable	277	314
Notes payable	14
Taxes accrued	122	45
Interest accrued	49	47
Current maturities of long-term debt	13	11
Other	90	99
Total current liabilities	565	516
Long-term Debt	3,456	3,461
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities
Deferred Income Taxes	881	973
Investment tax credits	143	145
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs	261	270
Asset retirement obligations	47	46
Other	731	653
Total deferred credits and other liabilities	2,063	2,087
Commitments and Contingencies
Equity
Common Stock	1	1
Additional paid-in capital	1,358	1,358
Retained earnings (deficit)	2,313	2,200
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)	7	8
Total common stockholder's equity	3,679	3,567
Total Liabilities and Equity	$ 9,763	$ 9,631

XML

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Parenthetical) (USD $) In Millions, except Share data	Sep. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Receivables, allowance for doubtful accounts	$ 35	$ 34
Restricted receivables, allowance for doubtful accounts	39	34
Common stock, par value	$ 0.001	$ 0.001
Common stock, shares authorized	2,000,000,000	2,000,000,000
Common stock, shares outstanding	1,332,000,000	1,329,000,000
Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]
Receivables, allowance for doubtful accounts	3	3
Restricted receivables, allowance for doubtful accounts	6	6
Duke Energy Ohio [Member]
Receivables, allowance for doubtful accounts	16	18
Common stock, par value	$ 8.5	$ 8.5
Common stock, shares authorized	120,000,000	120,000,000
Common stock, shares outstanding	89,663,086	89,663,086
Duke Energy Indiana [Member]
Receivables, allowance for doubtful accounts	$ 1	$ 1
Common stock, par value	$ 0.01	$ 0.01
Common stock, shares authorized	60,000,000	60,000,000
Common stock, shares outstanding	53,913,701	53,913,701

XML

Variable Interest Entities (Non-Consolidated VIEs) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	Sep. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010	Sep. 30, 2010	Dec. 31, 2009
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates	$ 459	$ 444
Intangibles	371	467
Other Current Liabilities	1,046	1,170
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities	15,178	14,605
Total common stockholder's equity	22,794	22,522
Consolidated VIEs [Member]
Intangibles	12	13
Other Current Liabilities	62	21
Total common stockholder's equity	738	1,170
Consolidated VIEs [Member] | Renewables [Member]
Intangibles	12	13
Other Current Liabilities	57	16
Total common stockholder's equity	169	414
Consolidated VIEs [Member] | Other VIEs [Member]
Total common stockholder's equity	8	(2)
Duke Energy Ohio [Member] | Non-Consolidated VIEs [Member]
Receivables	87	216
Intangibles	113	119
Total Assets	200	335
Total common stockholder's equity	200	335
Duke Energy Indiana [Member] | Non-Consolidated VIEs [Member]
Receivables	122	192
Total Assets	122	192
Total common stockholder's equity	122	192
DukeNet [Member] | Non-Consolidated VIEs [Member]
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates	130	137
Total Assets	130	137
Total common stockholder's equity	130	137
Non-Consolidated VIEs [Member]
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates	239	255
Intangibles	113	119
Total Assets	352	374
Other Current Liabilities	1	3
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities	18	28
Total Liabilities	19	31
Total common stockholder's equity	333	343
Non-Consolidated VIEs [Member] | Renewables [Member]
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates	84	95
Total Assets	84	95
Total common stockholder's equity	84	95
Non-Consolidated VIEs [Member] | Other VIEs [Member]
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates	25	23
Intangibles	113	119
Total Assets	138	142
Other Current Liabilities	1	3
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities	18	28
Total Liabilities	19	31
Total common stockholder's equity	119	111
Duke Energy Ohio [Member]
Intangibles	148	248
Other Current Liabilities	92	99
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities	2,390	2,255
Total common stockholder's equity	5,136	5,464	5,445	5,898
Duke Energy Indiana [Member]
Intangibles	53	64
Other Current Liabilities	90	99
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities	2,063	2,087
Total common stockholder's equity	$ 3,679	$ 3,567	$ 3,501	$ 2,934

XML

Debt And Credit Facilities (Details) (USD $)	3 Months Ended						9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011		Aug. 31, 2011	Apr. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011 Maximum [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Master Credit Facility Expiring In June 2012 [Member]	Oct. 31, 2011 Duke Energy Master Credit Facility Repalcement [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Corp [Member]		Aug. 31, 2011 Duke Energy Corp [Member]	Dec. 31, 2010 Duke Energy Corp [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]	Dec. 31, 2010 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]
Principal amount of senior notes			$ 500,000,000
Senior note fixed interest rate											3.55%
Demand notes, maximum amount available for sale				1,000,000,000
Secured demand notes, outstanding	30,000,000
Receivables borrowings reflected as non-recourse notes payable of VIEs									275,000,000
Credit facility, outstanding balance							3,140,000,000
Facility Size	3,137,000,000	[1]						6,000,000,000	1,097,000,000	[1]
Notes Payable and Commercial Paper	(900,000,000)	[2]							(450,000,000)	[2]
Outstanding Letters of Credit	(80,000,000)								(46,000,000)
Tax-Exempt Bonds	(285,000,000)								(25,000,000)
Line of Credit Facility, Remaining Borrowing Capacity								2,000,000,000
Available Capacity	1,872,000,000							4,000,000,000	576,000,000
Commercial Paper	450,000,000
Commercial Paper Issued During The Period	(450,000,000)
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt	$ 959,000,000				$ 976,000,000				$ 470,000,000			$ 492,000,000	$ 300,000,000	$ 300,000,000
Debt to total capitalization ratio, for each borrower						65

[1] Represents the sub limit of each borrower at September 30, 2011. The Duke Energy Ohio sub limit includes $100 million for Duke Energy Kentucky.

[2] Duke Energy issued $450 million of Commercial Paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana (see money pool table above). The balances are classified as long-term borrowings within Long-term Debt in Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy issued an additional $450 million of Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011. The balance is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

XML

Stock-Based Compensation (Duke Energy Corp [Member])

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Stock-Based Compensation

13. Stock-Based Compensation

For employee awards, equity classified stock-based compensation cost is measured at the service inception date or the grant date, based on the estimated achievement of certain performance metrics or the fair value of the award, and is recognized as expense or capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment over the requisite service period.

Duke Energy recorded pre-tax stock-based compensation expense for each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 as follows:

Three Months Ended September 30,					Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011(a)		2010(a)			2011(a)		2010(a)
	(in millions)					(in millions)
Stock Options	$	—	$	—		$	2	$	2
Phantom Awards		6		7			20		21
Performance Awards		6		11			17		23
Other Stock Awards		—		1			—		1
Total	$	12	$	19		$	39	$	47

(a) Excludes stock-based compensation cost capitalized of approximately $1 million and $3 million for each of the three and nine months, respectively, ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

The tax benefit associated with the recorded expense for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 was $5 million and $7 million, respectively. The tax benefit associated with the recorded expense for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 was $16 million and $18 million, respectively.

XML

Comprehensive Income And Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	3 Months Ended					9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011		Jun. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010		Sep. 30, 2011		Sep. 30, 2010
Net Income (Loss)	$ 470			$ 666		$ 1,424		$ 894
Foreign currency translation adjustments	(246)			92		(150)		57
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI	1	[1]		4	[2]	(6)	[3]	19	[3]
Net unrealized gain (loss) on cash flow hedges	(47)	[4]		1	[1]	(52)	[5]	(9)	[5]
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges	1	[1]				(3)	[6]	(2)	[6]
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities	3	[2]		2	[1]	7	[7]	8	[7]
Other comprehensive income, net of tax	(288)			99
Total comprehensive income (loss)	182			765		1,226		971
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI, tax benefit (expense)				(5)		3		(5)
Net unrealized gains (losses) on cash flow hedges, tax benefit (expense)			26			28		3
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges, tax benefit (expense)						(1)
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities, tax benefit (expense)			5			(6)		(4)
Common Stockholders' Equity [Member]
Net Income (Loss)	472			670		1,418		893
Foreign currency translation adjustments	(235)			88		(142)		58
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI	1	[1]		4	[2]	(6)	[3]	19	[3]
Net unrealized gain (loss) on cash flow hedges	(47)	[4]		1	[1]	(52)	[5]	(9)	[5]
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges	1	[1]				(3)	[6]	(2)	[6]
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities	3	[2]		2	[1]	7	[7]	8	[7]
Other comprehensive income, net of tax	(277)			95
Total comprehensive income (loss)	195			765		1,228		971
Noncontrolling Interests [Member]
Net Income (Loss)	(2)			(4)		6		1
Foreign currency translation adjustments	(11)			4		(8)		(1)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI					[2]
Net unrealized gain (loss) on cash flow hedges		[4]			[1]
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges		[1]
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities		[2]			[1]
Other comprehensive income, net of tax	(11)			4
Total comprehensive income (loss)	$ (13)					$ (2)

[1] Net of insignificant tax expense.

[2] Net of $5 million tax expense.

[3] Net of $3 tax benefit in 2011 and $5 tax expense in 2010.

[4] Net of $26 million tax benefit.

[5] Net of $28 tax benefit in 2011 and $3 tax benefit in 2010.

[6] Net of $1 tax expense in 2011 and insignificant tax benefit in 2010.

[7] Net of $6 tax expense in 2011 and $4 tax expense in 2010.

XML

Document And Entity Information	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011	Nov. 04, 2011
Document Type	10-Q
Amendment Flag	false
Document Period End Date	Sep. 30, 2011
Entity Registrant Name	Duke Energy CORP
Entity Central Index Key	0001326160
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--12-31
Entity Filer Category	Large Accelerated Filer
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding		1,332,733,321
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2011
Document Fiscal Period Focus	Q3
Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]
Entity Registrant Name	Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Entity Central Index Key	0000030371
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--12-31
Entity Filer Category	Non-accelerated Filer
Duke Energy Ohio [Member]
Entity Registrant Name	Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
Entity Central Index Key	0000020290
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--12-31
Entity Filer Category	Non-accelerated Filer
Duke Energy Indiana [Member]
Entity Registrant Name	Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.
Entity Central Index Key	0000081020
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--12-31
Entity Filer Category	Non-accelerated Filer

XML

Business Segments (Business Segments Data) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	3 Months Ended					9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011		Sep. 30, 2010		Jun. 30, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011		Sep. 30, 2010
Unaffiliated Revenues	$ 3,964		$ 3,946			$ 11,161		$ 10,827
Total Revenues	3,964		3,946			11,161		10,827
Segment EBIT/Consolidated Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	677		967			2,056		1,536
Depreciation and Amortization	455		447			1,346		1,329
Goodwill and other impairment charges	300		44			309		700
Goodwill impairment charge					500
Expense included in 'Other' relating to voluntary severance plan and consolidation of corporate functions			20					164
Duke Energy Indiana [Member]
Segment EBIT/Consolidated Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	(50)		136			163		331
Depreciation and Amortization	100		95			297		281
Goodwill and other impairment charges	222		44			222		44
Duke Energy Indiana [Member] | Edwardsport IGCC Plant [Member]
Goodwill and other impairment charges	222		44
USFE&G [Member]
Unaffiliated Revenues	2,917	[1]	2,934	[1]		8,131	[1]	8,017	[1]
Intersegment Revenues	9	[1]	10	[1]		27	[1]	25	[1]
Total Revenues	2,926	[1]	2,944	[1]		8,158	[1]	8,042	[1]
Segment EBIT/Consolidated Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	721	[1]	946	[1]		2,052	[1]	2,361	[1]
Depreciation and Amortization	352	[1]	350	[1]		1,032	[1]	1,033	[1]
Commercial Power [Member]
Unaffiliated Revenues	684		736			1,918		1,850	[2]
Intersegment Revenues	3		1			8		6	[2]
Total Revenues	687		737			1,926		1,856	[2]
Segment EBIT/Consolidated Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	67		188			217		(287)	[2]
Depreciation and Amortization	56		54			173		167	[2]
Goodwill and other impairment charges					660
Goodwill impairment charge					500	500
Assets impairment charges					160
International Energy [Member]
Unaffiliated Revenues	360		273			1,114		919
Total Revenues	360		273			1,114		919
Segment EBIT/Consolidated Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	168		110			527		376
Depreciation and Amortization	23		21			66		63
Total Reportable Segments [Member]
Unaffiliated Revenues	3,961		3,943			11,163		10,786
Intersegment Revenues	12		11			35		31
Total Revenues	3,973		3,954			11,198		10,817
Segment EBIT/Consolidated Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	956		1,244			2,796		2,450
Depreciation and Amortization	431		425			1,271		1,263
Other Adjustments [Member]
Unaffiliated Revenues	3		3	[3]		(2)		41	[3]
Intersegment Revenues	11		14	[3]		36		41	[3]
Total Revenues	14		17	[3]		34		82	[3]
Segment EBIT/Consolidated Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	(74)		(100)	[3]		(176)		(368)	[3]
Depreciation and Amortization	24		22	[3]		75		66	[3]
Eliminations [Member]
Intersegment Revenues	(23)		(25)			(71)		(72)
Total Revenues	(23)		(25)			(71)		(72)
Interest Expense [Member]
Segment EBIT/Consolidated Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	(213)		(202)			(635)		(624)
Interest Income And Other [Member]
Segment EBIT/Consolidated Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	7	[4]	25	[4]		53	[4]	62	[4]
Addition Of Noncontrolling Interest Component Of Reportable Segment And Other EBIT [Member]
Segment EBIT/Consolidated Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	$ 1					$ 18		$ 16

[1] As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

[2] As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $660 million, which consisted of a $500 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

[3] During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $20 million and $164 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

[4] Other within Interest Income and Other includes foreign currency transaction gains and losses and additional noncontrolling interest amounts not allocated to the reportable segments and Other results.

XML

Income Taxes And Other Taxes

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Income Taxes And Other Taxes

16. Income Taxes and Other Taxes

Income Taxes. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. with federal and various state governmental authorities, and in certain foreign jurisdictions. The taxable income of Duke Energy and its subsidiaries is reflected in Duke Energy's U.S. federal and state income tax returns. These subsidiaries have a tax sharing agreement with Duke Energy where the separate return method is used to allocate tax expenses and benefits to the subsidiaries whose investments or results of operations provide these tax expenses and benefits. The accounting for income taxes essentially represents the income taxes that each of these subsidiaries would incur if it were a separate company filing its own tax return as a C-Corporation.

The following table includes information regarding the Duke Energy Registrants unrecognized tax benefits.

September 30, 2011	Duke Energy		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
	(in millions)
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)	$	392	$	262	$	33	$	22
Amount that if recognized, would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability(b)		121		113		—		—
Amount that if recognized, would be recorded as a component of discontinued operations		11		—		—		—
December 31, 2010
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)		342		217		29		21

(a) The Duke Registrants do not anticipate a significant increase or decrease in unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months.

(b) Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas are unable to estimate the specific amounts that would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability.

Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to U.S. federal examination for years before 2004. The years 2004 and 2005 are in Appeals. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is currently auditing the federal income tax returns for years 2006 and 2007. With few exceptions, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to state, local or non-U.S. income tax examinations by tax authorities for years before 1999.

The effective tax rates for each of the Duke Energy Registrants are as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
Duke Energy		30.7	%		31.2	%		30.8	%		41.9	%
Duke Energy Carolinas		37.0	%		33.8	%		36.1	%		33.9	%
Duke Energy Ohio		47.3	%		32.6	%		36.9	%		(32.6	)%
Duke Energy Indiana		37.2	%		32.2	%		30.8	%		33.8	%

As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a non-deductible goodwill impairment charge of $500 million and Duke Energy Ohio recorded non-deductible goodwill impairment charges of $677 million. In the third quarter of 2011, federal true ups related to the 2010 tax return filing were recorded, which resulted in an increase in income tax expense for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Indiana has reflected an increase in AFUDC equity in 2011, as well as a reduction in pre-tax income due to the Edwardsport IGCC impairment in the third quarter of 2011.

Excise Taxes. Certain excise taxes levied by state or local governments are collected by the Duke Energy Registrants from its customers. These taxes, which are required to be paid regardless of the Duke Energy Registrants' ability to collect from the customer, are accounted for on a gross basis. When each of the Duke Energy Registrants act as an agent, and the tax is not required to be remitted if it is not collected from the customer, the taxes are accounted for on a net basis. Excise taxes for each Duke Energy Registrant accounted for on a gross basis and recorded as revenues in the respective Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations were as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	45	$	47	$	118	$	123
Duke Energy Ohio		27		28		86		90
Duke Energy Indiana		9		8		24		22
Total Duke Energy	$	81	$	83	$	228	$	235

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Income Taxes And Other Taxes

16. Income Taxes and Other Taxes

Income Taxes. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. with federal and various state governmental authorities, and in certain foreign jurisdictions. The taxable income of Duke Energy and its subsidiaries is reflected in Duke Energy's U.S. federal and state income tax returns. These subsidiaries have a tax sharing agreement with Duke Energy where the separate return method is used to allocate tax expenses and benefits to the subsidiaries whose investments or results of operations provide these tax expenses and benefits. The accounting for income taxes essentially represents the income taxes that each of these subsidiaries would incur if it were a separate company filing its own tax return as a C-Corporation.

The following table includes information regarding the Duke Energy Registrants unrecognized tax benefits.

September 30, 2011	Duke Energy		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
	(in millions)
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)	$	392	$	262	$	33	$	22
Amount that if recognized, would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability(b)		121		113		—		—
Amount that if recognized, would be recorded as a component of discontinued operations		11		—		—		—
December 31, 2010
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)		342		217		29		21

(a) The Duke Registrants do not anticipate a significant increase or decrease in unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months.

(b) Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas are unable to estimate the specific amounts that would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability.

Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to U.S. federal examination for years before 2004. The years 2004 and 2005 are in Appeals. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is currently auditing the federal income tax returns for years 2006 and 2007. With few exceptions, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to state, local or non-U.S. income tax examinations by tax authorities for years before 1999.

The effective tax rates for each of the Duke Energy Registrants are as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
Duke Energy		30.7	%		31.2	%		30.8	%		41.9	%
Duke Energy Carolinas		37.0	%		33.8	%		36.1	%		33.9	%
Duke Energy Ohio		47.3	%		32.6	%		36.9	%		(32.6	)%
Duke Energy Indiana		37.2	%		32.2	%		30.8	%		33.8	%

As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a non-deductible goodwill impairment charge of $500 million and Duke Energy Ohio recorded non-deductible goodwill impairment charges of $677 million. In the third quarter of 2011, federal true ups related to the 2010 tax return filing were recorded, which resulted in an increase in income tax expense for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Indiana has reflected an increase in AFUDC equity in 2011, as well as a reduction in pre-tax income due to the Edwardsport IGCC impairment in the third quarter of 2011.

Excise Taxes. Certain excise taxes levied by state or local governments are collected by the Duke Energy Registrants from its customers. These taxes, which are required to be paid regardless of the Duke Energy Registrants' ability to collect from the customer, are accounted for on a gross basis. When each of the Duke Energy Registrants act as an agent, and the tax is not required to be remitted if it is not collected from the customer, the taxes are accounted for on a net basis. Excise taxes for each Duke Energy Registrant accounted for on a gross basis and recorded as revenues in the respective Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations were as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	45	$	47	$	118	$	123
Duke Energy Ohio		27		28		86		90
Duke Energy Indiana		9		8		24		22
Total Duke Energy	$	81	$	83	$	228	$	235

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Income Taxes And Other Taxes

16. Income Taxes and Other Taxes

Income Taxes. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. with federal and various state governmental authorities, and in certain foreign jurisdictions. The taxable income of Duke Energy and its subsidiaries is reflected in Duke Energy's U.S. federal and state income tax returns. These subsidiaries have a tax sharing agreement with Duke Energy where the separate return method is used to allocate tax expenses and benefits to the subsidiaries whose investments or results of operations provide these tax expenses and benefits. The accounting for income taxes essentially represents the income taxes that each of these subsidiaries would incur if it were a separate company filing its own tax return as a C-Corporation.

The following table includes information regarding the Duke Energy Registrants unrecognized tax benefits.

September 30, 2011	Duke Energy		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
	(in millions)
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)	$	392	$	262	$	33	$	22
Amount that if recognized, would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability(b)		121		113		—		—
Amount that if recognized, would be recorded as a component of discontinued operations		11		—		—		—
December 31, 2010
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)		342		217		29		21

(a) The Duke Registrants do not anticipate a significant increase or decrease in unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months.

(b) Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas are unable to estimate the specific amounts that would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability.

Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to U.S. federal examination for years before 2004. The years 2004 and 2005 are in Appeals. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is currently auditing the federal income tax returns for years 2006 and 2007. With few exceptions, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to state, local or non-U.S. income tax examinations by tax authorities for years before 1999.

The effective tax rates for each of the Duke Energy Registrants are as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
Duke Energy		30.7	%		31.2	%		30.8	%		41.9	%
Duke Energy Carolinas		37.0	%		33.8	%		36.1	%		33.9	%
Duke Energy Ohio		47.3	%		32.6	%		36.9	%		(32.6	)%
Duke Energy Indiana		37.2	%		32.2	%		30.8	%		33.8	%

As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a non-deductible goodwill impairment charge of $500 million and Duke Energy Ohio recorded non-deductible goodwill impairment charges of $677 million. In the third quarter of 2011, federal true ups related to the 2010 tax return filing were recorded, which resulted in an increase in income tax expense for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Indiana has reflected an increase in AFUDC equity in 2011, as well as a reduction in pre-tax income due to the Edwardsport IGCC impairment in the third quarter of 2011.

Excise Taxes. Certain excise taxes levied by state or local governments are collected by the Duke Energy Registrants from its customers. These taxes, which are required to be paid regardless of the Duke Energy Registrants' ability to collect from the customer, are accounted for on a gross basis. When each of the Duke Energy Registrants act as an agent, and the tax is not required to be remitted if it is not collected from the customer, the taxes are accounted for on a net basis. Excise taxes for each Duke Energy Registrant accounted for on a gross basis and recorded as revenues in the respective Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations were as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	45	$	47	$	118	$	123
Duke Energy Ohio		27		28		86		90
Duke Energy Indiana		9		8		24		22
Total Duke Energy	$	81	$	83	$	228	$	235

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Income Taxes And Other Taxes

16. Income Taxes and Other Taxes

Income Taxes. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. with federal and various state governmental authorities, and in certain foreign jurisdictions. The taxable income of Duke Energy and its subsidiaries is reflected in Duke Energy's U.S. federal and state income tax returns. These subsidiaries have a tax sharing agreement with Duke Energy where the separate return method is used to allocate tax expenses and benefits to the subsidiaries whose investments or results of operations provide these tax expenses and benefits. The accounting for income taxes essentially represents the income taxes that each of these subsidiaries would incur if it were a separate company filing its own tax return as a C-Corporation.

The following table includes information regarding the Duke Energy Registrants unrecognized tax benefits.

September 30, 2011	Duke Energy		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
	(in millions)
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)	$	392	$	262	$	33	$	22
Amount that if recognized, would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability(b)		121		113		—		—
Amount that if recognized, would be recorded as a component of discontinued operations		11		—		—		—
December 31, 2010
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)		342		217		29		21

(a) The Duke Registrants do not anticipate a significant increase or decrease in unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months.

(b) Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas are unable to estimate the specific amounts that would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability.

Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to U.S. federal examination for years before 2004. The years 2004 and 2005 are in Appeals. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is currently auditing the federal income tax returns for years 2006 and 2007. With few exceptions, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to state, local or non-U.S. income tax examinations by tax authorities for years before 1999.

The effective tax rates for each of the Duke Energy Registrants are as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
Duke Energy		30.7	%		31.2	%		30.8	%		41.9	%
Duke Energy Carolinas		37.0	%		33.8	%		36.1	%		33.9	%
Duke Energy Ohio		47.3	%		32.6	%		36.9	%		(32.6	)%
Duke Energy Indiana		37.2	%		32.2	%		30.8	%		33.8	%

As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a non-deductible goodwill impairment charge of $500 million and Duke Energy Ohio recorded non-deductible goodwill impairment charges of $677 million. In the third quarter of 2011, federal true ups related to the 2010 tax return filing were recorded, which resulted in an increase in income tax expense for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Indiana has reflected an increase in AFUDC equity in 2011, as well as a reduction in pre-tax income due to the Edwardsport IGCC impairment in the third quarter of 2011.

Excise Taxes. Certain excise taxes levied by state or local governments are collected by the Duke Energy Registrants from its customers. These taxes, which are required to be paid regardless of the Duke Energy Registrants' ability to collect from the customer, are accounted for on a gross basis. When each of the Duke Energy Registrants act as an agent, and the tax is not required to be remitted if it is not collected from the customer, the taxes are accounted for on a net basis. Excise taxes for each Duke Energy Registrant accounted for on a gross basis and recorded as revenues in the respective Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations were as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	45	$	47	$	118	$	123
Duke Energy Ohio		27		28		86		90
Duke Energy Indiana		9		8		24		22
Total Duke Energy	$	81	$	83	$	228	$	235

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Income Taxes And Other Taxes

16. Income Taxes and Other Taxes

Income Taxes. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. with federal and various state governmental authorities, and in certain foreign jurisdictions. The taxable income of Duke Energy and its subsidiaries is reflected in Duke Energy's U.S. federal and state income tax returns. These subsidiaries have a tax sharing agreement with Duke Energy where the separate return method is used to allocate tax expenses and benefits to the subsidiaries whose investments or results of operations provide these tax expenses and benefits. The accounting for income taxes essentially represents the income taxes that each of these subsidiaries would incur if it were a separate company filing its own tax return as a C-Corporation.

The following table includes information regarding the Duke Energy Registrants unrecognized tax benefits.

September 30, 2011	Duke Energy		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
	(in millions)
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)	$	392	$	262	$	33	$	22
Amount that if recognized, would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability(b)		121		113		—		—
Amount that if recognized, would be recorded as a component of discontinued operations		11		—		—		—
December 31, 2010
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)		342		217		29		21

(a) The Duke Registrants do not anticipate a significant increase or decrease in unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months.

(b) Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas are unable to estimate the specific amounts that would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability.

Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to U.S. federal examination for years before 2004. The years 2004 and 2005 are in Appeals. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is currently auditing the federal income tax returns for years 2006 and 2007. With few exceptions, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries are no longer subject to state, local or non-U.S. income tax examinations by tax authorities for years before 1999.

The effective tax rates for each of the Duke Energy Registrants are as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
Duke Energy		30.7	%		31.2	%		30.8	%		41.9	%
Duke Energy Carolinas		37.0	%		33.8	%		36.1	%		33.9	%
Duke Energy Ohio		47.3	%		32.6	%		36.9	%		(32.6	)%
Duke Energy Indiana		37.2	%		32.2	%		30.8	%		33.8	%

As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a non-deductible goodwill impairment charge of $500 million and Duke Energy Ohio recorded non-deductible goodwill impairment charges of $677 million. In the third quarter of 2011, federal true ups related to the 2010 tax return filing were recorded, which resulted in an increase in income tax expense for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Indiana has reflected an increase in AFUDC equity in 2011, as well as a reduction in pre-tax income due to the Edwardsport IGCC impairment in the third quarter of 2011.

Excise Taxes. Certain excise taxes levied by state or local governments are collected by the Duke Energy Registrants from its customers. These taxes, which are required to be paid regardless of the Duke Energy Registrants' ability to collect from the customer, are accounted for on a gross basis. When each of the Duke Energy Registrants act as an agent, and the tax is not required to be remitted if it is not collected from the customer, the taxes are accounted for on a net basis. Excise taxes for each Duke Energy Registrant accounted for on a gross basis and recorded as revenues in the respective Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations were as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	45	$	47	$	118	$	123
Duke Energy Ohio		27		28		86		90
Duke Energy Indiana		9		8		24		22
Total Duke Energy	$	81	$	83	$	228	$	235

XML

Business Segments (Narrative) (Details)	9 Months Ended				12 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011 International Energy Interest In National Methanol [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Interest In DukeNet [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Exxon Mobil Interest In DETM [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Interest In DETM [Member]	Dec. 31, 2010 Alinda Capital Partners Interest In DukeNet [Member]
Ownership interest	25.00%	50.00%	40.00%	60.00%	50.00%

XML

Income Taxes And Other Taxes (Schedule Of Unrecognized Tax Benefits) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	Sep. 30, 2011		Dec. 31, 2010
Income Taxes And Other Taxes
Unrecognized tax benefits	$ 392	[1]	$ 342	[1]
Amount that if recognized, would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability	121	[2]
Amount that if recognized, would be recorded as a component of discontinued operations	$ 11

[1] The Duke Registrants do not anticipate a significant increase or decrease in unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months.

[2] Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas are unable to estimate the specific amounts that would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability.

XML

Business Segments

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Business Segments

2. Business Segments

Management evaluates segment performance based on earnings before interest and taxes from continuing operations (excluding certain allocated corporate governance costs), after deducting expenses attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits (EBIT). On a segment basis, EBIT excludes discontinued operations, represents all profits from continuing operations (both operating and non-operating) before deducting interest and taxes, and is net of amounts attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits. Segment EBIT includes transactions between reportable segments. Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments are managed centrally by Duke Energy, so the associated interest and dividend income and realized and unrealized gains and losses from foreign currency transactions on those balances are excluded from segment EBIT.

Duke Energy

Duke Energy has the following reportable operating segments: U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas (USFE&G), Commercial Power and International Energy.

USFE&G generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in central and western North Carolina, western South Carolina, central, north central and southern Indiana, and northern Kentucky. USFE&G also transmits and distributes electricity in southwestern Ohio. Additionally, USFE&G transports and sells natural gas in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, certain regulated portions of Duke Energy Ohio including Duke Energy Kentucky, and Duke Energy Indiana.

Commercial Power owns, operates and manages power plants and engages in the wholesale marketing and procurement of electric power, fuel and emission allowances related to these plants, as well as other contractual positions. Commercial Power also has a retail sales subsidiary, Duke Energy Retail Sales, LLC (Duke Energy Retail), which is certified by the PUCO as a Competitive Retail Electric Service provider in Ohio. Through Duke Energy Generation Services, Inc. and its affiliates (DEGS), Commercial Power develops, owns and operates electric generation for large energy consumers, municipalities, utilities and industrial facilities. In addition, DEGS engages in the development, construction and operation of renewable energy projects and is also developing transmission projects.

International Energy principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power and natural gas outside the U.S. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy International, LLC (Duke Energy International) and its affiliates and its activities principally target power generation in Latin America. Additionally, International Energy owns a 25% interest in National Methanol Company, located in Saudi Arabia, which is a large regional producer of methanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether.

The remainder of Duke Energy's operations is presented as Other. While it is not an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain unallocated corporate costs, which include certain costs not allocable to Duke Energy' reportable business segments, primarily governance, costs to achieve mergers and divestitures, and costs associated with certain corporate severance programs. It also includes, Bison Insurance Company Limited (Bison), Duke Energy's wholly-owned, captive insurance subsidiary, Duke Energy's 50% interest in DukeNet Communications, LLC (DukeNet) and related telecommunications businesses, and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), which is 40% owned by Exxon Mobil Corporation and 60% owned by Duke Energy. Prior to the sale of a 50% ownership in DukeNet to investment funds managed by Alinda Capital Partners, LLC (collectively Alinda) in December 2010, Other reflected the results of Duke Energy's 100% ownership of DukeNet.

Business Segment Data

	Unaffiliated Revenues			Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	2,917		$	9		$	2,926		$	721		$	352
Commercial Power		684			3			687			67			56
International Energy		360			—			360			168			23
Total reportable segments		3,961			12			3,973			956			431
Other		3			11			14			(74	)		24
Eliminations		—			(23	)		(23	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(213	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			7			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			1			—
Total consolidated	$	3,964		$	—		$	3,964		$	677		$	455
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	2,934		$	10		$	2,944		$	946		$	350
Commercial Power		736			1			737			188			54
International Energy		273			—			273			110			21
Total reportable segments		3,943			11			3,954			1,244			425
Other(c)		3			14			17			(100	)		22
Eliminations		—			(25	)		(25	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(202	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			25			—
Total consolidated	$	3,946		$	—		$	3,946		$	967		$	447
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	8,131		$	27		$	8,158		$	2,052		$	1,032
Commercial Power		1,918			8			1,926			217			173
International Energy		1,114			—			1,114			527			66
Total reportable segments		11,163			35			11,198			2,796			1,271
Other		(2	)		36			34			(176	)		75
Eliminations		—			(71	)		(71	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(635	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			53			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			18			—
Total consolidated	$	11,161		$	—		$	11,161		$	2,056		$	1,346

	Unaffiliated Revenues		Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	8,017	$	25		$	8,042		$	2,361		$	1,033
Commercial Power(b)		1,850		6			1,856			(287	)		167
International Energy		919		—			919			376			63
Total reportable segments		10,786		31			10,817			2,450			1,263
Other(c)		41		41			82			(368	)		66
Eliminations		—		(72	)		(72	)		—			—
Interest expense		—		—			—			(624	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—		—			—			62			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—		—			—			16			—
Total consolidated	$	10,827	$	—		$	10,827		$	1,536		$	1,329

(a) As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

(b) As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $660 million, which consisted of a $500 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

(c) During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $20 million and $164 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

(d) Other within Interest Income and Other includes foreign currency transaction gains and losses and additional noncontrolling interest amounts not allocated to the reportable segments and Other results.

Segment assets in the following table exclude all intercompany assets.

Segment Assets

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
USFE&G	$	46,827	$	45,210
Commercial Power		6,739		6,704
International Energy		4,379		4,310
Total reportable segments		57,945		56,224
Other		2,730		2,845
Reclassifications(a)		101		21
Total consolidated assets	$	60,776	$	59,090

(a) Primarily represents reclassification of federal tax balances in consolidation.

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas has one reportable operating segment, Franchised Electric, which generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity and conducts operations through Duke Energy Carolinas, which consists of the regulated electric utility business in North Carolina and South Carolina.

The remainder of Duke Energy Carolinas' operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain corporate governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Segment EBIT/ Consolidated Income Before Income Taxes
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric	$	627		$	654		$	1,486		$	1,567
Total reportable segment		627			654			1,486			1,567
Other(a)		(40	)		(85	)		(121	)		(244	)
Interest expense		(93	)		(95	)		(264	)		(271	)
Interest income		1			3			9			21
Total consolidated	$	495		$	477		$	1,110		$	1,073

(a) During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $13 million and a $98 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

Unaffiliated Revenues

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' revenues are from its Franchised Electric operating segment. There were no intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Depreciation and Amortization

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' depreciation and amortization are from its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Segment Assets

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' assets are owned by its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Duke Energy Ohio

Duke Energy Ohio has two reportable operating segments, Franchised Electric and Gas and Commercial Power.

Franchised Electric and Gas transmits and distributes electricity in southwestern Ohio and generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity in northern Kentucky. Franchised Electric and Gas also transports and sells natural gas in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Ohio and its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky.

Commercial Power owns, operates and manages power plants and engages in the wholesale marketing and procurement of electric power, fuel and emission allowances related to these plants, as well as other contractual positions. Duke Energy Ohio's Commercial Power reportable operating segment does not include the operations of DEGS or Duke Energy Retail, which is included in the Commercial Power reportable operating segment at Duke Energy.

The remainder of Duke Energy Ohio's operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Unaffiliated Revenues  (a)		Segment EBIT/ Consolidated Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	333	$	93		$	42
Commercial Power		505		44			41
Total reportable segments		838		137			83
Other		—		(16	)		—
Interest expense		—		(27	)		—
Interest income and other		—		3			—
Total consolidated	$	838	$	97		$	83
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	367	$	102		$	56
Commercial Power(c)		556		196			41
Total reportable segments		923		298			97
Other		—		(19	)		—
Interest expense		—		(26	)		—
Interest income and other		—		8			—
Total consolidated	$	923	$	261		$	97
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	1,112	$	251		$	133
Commercial Power		1,299		118			126
Total reportable segments		2,411		369			259
Other		—		(52	)		—
Interest expense		—		(78	)		—
Interest income and other		—		10			—
Total consolidated	$	2,411	$	249		$	259
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
Franchised Electric and Gas(b)	$	1,204	$	69		$	168
Commercial Power(c)		1,345		(273	)		132
Total reportable segments		2,549		(204	)		300
Other		—		(71	)		—
Interest expense		—		(84	)		—
Interest income and other		—		17			—
Total consolidated	$	2,549	$	(342	)	$	300

(a) There was an insignificant amount of intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

(b) In the second quarter of 2010, Franchised Electric and Gas recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $216 million related to the Ohio Transmission and Distribution (Ohio T&D) reporting unit. This impairment charge was not applicable to Duke Energy. See Note 7 for additional information.

(c) As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $621 million, which consisted of a $461 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

Segment Assets

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	6,210		$	6,258
Commercial Power		4,573			4,821
Total reportable segments		10,783			11,079
Other		162			192
Eliminations and reclassifications		(286	)		(247	)
Total consolidated assets	$	10,659		$	11,024

Duke Energy Indiana

Duke Energy Indiana has one reportable operating segment, Franchised Electric, which generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity and conducts operations through Duke Energy Indiana, which consists of the regulated electric utility business in north central, central and southern Indiana.

The remainder of Duke Energy Indiana's operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Segment EBIT/Consolidated (Loss)/Income Before Income Taxes
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric(a)	$	(6	)	$	178		$	295		$	484
Total reportable segment		(6	)		178			295			484
Other		(13	)		(15	)		(39	)		(65	)
Interest expense		(34	)		(32	)		(104	)		(99	)
Interest income and other		3			5			11			11
Total consolidated	$	(50	)	$	136		$	163		$	331

(a) As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

Unaffiliated Revenues

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana's revenues are from its Franchised Electric operating segment. There were no intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Depreciation and Amortization

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana's depreciation and amortization are from its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Segment Assets

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, all of Duke Energy Indiana's assets are owned by its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Business Segments

2. Business Segments

Management evaluates segment performance based on earnings before interest and taxes from continuing operations (excluding certain allocated corporate governance costs), after deducting expenses attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits (EBIT). On a segment basis, EBIT excludes discontinued operations, represents all profits from continuing operations (both operating and non-operating) before deducting interest and taxes, and is net of amounts attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits. Segment EBIT includes transactions between reportable segments. Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments are managed centrally by Duke Energy, so the associated interest and dividend income and realized and unrealized gains and losses from foreign currency transactions on those balances are excluded from segment EBIT.

Duke Energy

Duke Energy has the following reportable operating segments: U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas (USFE&G), Commercial Power and International Energy.

USFE&G generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in central and western North Carolina, western South Carolina, central, north central and southern Indiana, and northern Kentucky. USFE&G also transmits and distributes electricity in southwestern Ohio. Additionally, USFE&G transports and sells natural gas in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, certain regulated portions of Duke Energy Ohio including Duke Energy Kentucky, and Duke Energy Indiana.

Commercial Power owns, operates and manages power plants and engages in the wholesale marketing and procurement of electric power, fuel and emission allowances related to these plants, as well as other contractual positions. Commercial Power also has a retail sales subsidiary, Duke Energy Retail Sales, LLC (Duke Energy Retail), which is certified by the PUCO as a Competitive Retail Electric Service provider in Ohio. Through Duke Energy Generation Services, Inc. and its affiliates (DEGS), Commercial Power develops, owns and operates electric generation for large energy consumers, municipalities, utilities and industrial facilities. In addition, DEGS engages in the development, construction and operation of renewable energy projects and is also developing transmission projects.

International Energy principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power and natural gas outside the U.S. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy International, LLC (Duke Energy International) and its affiliates and its activities principally target power generation in Latin America. Additionally, International Energy owns a 25% interest in National Methanol Company, located in Saudi Arabia, which is a large regional producer of methanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether.

The remainder of Duke Energy's operations is presented as Other. While it is not an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain unallocated corporate costs, which include certain costs not allocable to Duke Energy' reportable business segments, primarily governance, costs to achieve mergers and divestitures, and costs associated with certain corporate severance programs. It also includes, Bison Insurance Company Limited (Bison), Duke Energy's wholly-owned, captive insurance subsidiary, Duke Energy's 50% interest in DukeNet Communications, LLC (DukeNet) and related telecommunications businesses, and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), which is 40% owned by Exxon Mobil Corporation and 60% owned by Duke Energy. Prior to the sale of a 50% ownership in DukeNet to investment funds managed by Alinda Capital Partners, LLC (collectively Alinda) in December 2010, Other reflected the results of Duke Energy's 100% ownership of DukeNet.

Business Segment Data

	Unaffiliated Revenues			Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	2,917		$	9		$	2,926		$	721		$	352
Commercial Power		684			3			687			67			56
International Energy		360			—			360			168			23
Total reportable segments		3,961			12			3,973			956			431
Other		3			11			14			(74	)		24
Eliminations		—			(23	)		(23	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(213	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			7			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			1			—
Total consolidated	$	3,964		$	—		$	3,964		$	677		$	455
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	2,934		$	10		$	2,944		$	946		$	350
Commercial Power		736			1			737			188			54
International Energy		273			—			273			110			21
Total reportable segments		3,943			11			3,954			1,244			425
Other(c)		3			14			17			(100	)		22
Eliminations		—			(25	)		(25	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(202	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			25			—
Total consolidated	$	3,946		$	—		$	3,946		$	967		$	447
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	8,131		$	27		$	8,158		$	2,052		$	1,032
Commercial Power		1,918			8			1,926			217			173
International Energy		1,114			—			1,114			527			66
Total reportable segments		11,163			35			11,198			2,796			1,271
Other		(2	)		36			34			(176	)		75
Eliminations		—			(71	)		(71	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(635	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			53			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			18			—
Total consolidated	$	11,161		$	—		$	11,161		$	2,056		$	1,346

	Unaffiliated Revenues		Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	8,017	$	25		$	8,042		$	2,361		$	1,033
Commercial Power(b)		1,850		6			1,856			(287	)		167
International Energy		919		—			919			376			63
Total reportable segments		10,786		31			10,817			2,450			1,263
Other(c)		41		41			82			(368	)		66
Eliminations		—		(72	)		(72	)		—			—
Interest expense		—		—			—			(624	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—		—			—			62			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—		—			—			16			—
Total consolidated	$	10,827	$	—		$	10,827		$	1,536		$	1,329

(a) As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

(b) As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $660 million, which consisted of a $500 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

(c) During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $20 million and $164 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

(d) Other within Interest Income and Other includes foreign currency transaction gains and losses and additional noncontrolling interest amounts not allocated to the reportable segments and Other results.

Segment assets in the following table exclude all intercompany assets.

Segment Assets

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
USFE&G	$	46,827	$	45,210
Commercial Power		6,739		6,704
International Energy		4,379		4,310
Total reportable segments		57,945		56,224
Other		2,730		2,845
Reclassifications(a)		101		21
Total consolidated assets	$	60,776	$	59,090

(a) Primarily represents reclassification of federal tax balances in consolidation.

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas has one reportable operating segment, Franchised Electric, which generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity and conducts operations through Duke Energy Carolinas, which consists of the regulated electric utility business in North Carolina and South Carolina.

The remainder of Duke Energy Carolinas' operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain corporate governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Segment EBIT/ Consolidated Income Before Income Taxes
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric	$	627		$	654		$	1,486		$	1,567
Total reportable segment		627			654			1,486			1,567
Other(a)		(40	)		(85	)		(121	)		(244	)
Interest expense		(93	)		(95	)		(264	)		(271	)
Interest income		1			3			9			21
Total consolidated	$	495		$	477		$	1,110		$	1,073

(a) During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $13 million and a $98 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

Unaffiliated Revenues

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' revenues are from its Franchised Electric operating segment. There were no intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Depreciation and Amortization

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' depreciation and amortization are from its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Segment Assets

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' assets are owned by its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Duke Energy Ohio

Duke Energy Ohio has two reportable operating segments, Franchised Electric and Gas and Commercial Power.

Franchised Electric and Gas transmits and distributes electricity in southwestern Ohio and generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity in northern Kentucky. Franchised Electric and Gas also transports and sells natural gas in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Ohio and its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky.

Commercial Power owns, operates and manages power plants and engages in the wholesale marketing and procurement of electric power, fuel and emission allowances related to these plants, as well as other contractual positions. Duke Energy Ohio's Commercial Power reportable operating segment does not include the operations of DEGS or Duke Energy Retail, which is included in the Commercial Power reportable operating segment at Duke Energy.

The remainder of Duke Energy Ohio's operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Unaffiliated Revenues  (a)		Segment EBIT/ Consolidated Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	333	$	93		$	42
Commercial Power		505		44			41
Total reportable segments		838		137			83
Other		—		(16	)		—
Interest expense		—		(27	)		—
Interest income and other		—		3			—
Total consolidated	$	838	$	97		$	83
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	367	$	102		$	56
Commercial Power(c)		556		196			41
Total reportable segments		923		298			97
Other		—		(19	)		—
Interest expense		—		(26	)		—
Interest income and other		—		8			—
Total consolidated	$	923	$	261		$	97
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	1,112	$	251		$	133
Commercial Power		1,299		118			126
Total reportable segments		2,411		369			259
Other		—		(52	)		—
Interest expense		—		(78	)		—
Interest income and other		—		10			—
Total consolidated	$	2,411	$	249		$	259
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
Franchised Electric and Gas(b)	$	1,204	$	69		$	168
Commercial Power(c)		1,345		(273	)		132
Total reportable segments		2,549		(204	)		300
Other		—		(71	)		—
Interest expense		—		(84	)		—
Interest income and other		—		17			—
Total consolidated	$	2,549	$	(342	)	$	300

(a) There was an insignificant amount of intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

(b) In the second quarter of 2010, Franchised Electric and Gas recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $216 million related to the Ohio Transmission and Distribution (Ohio T&D) reporting unit. This impairment charge was not applicable to Duke Energy. See Note 7 for additional information.

(c) As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $621 million, which consisted of a $461 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

Segment Assets

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	6,210		$	6,258
Commercial Power		4,573			4,821
Total reportable segments		10,783			11,079
Other		162			192
Eliminations and reclassifications		(286	)		(247	)
Total consolidated assets	$	10,659		$	11,024

Duke Energy Indiana

Duke Energy Indiana has one reportable operating segment, Franchised Electric, which generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity and conducts operations through Duke Energy Indiana, which consists of the regulated electric utility business in north central, central and southern Indiana.

The remainder of Duke Energy Indiana's operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Segment EBIT/Consolidated (Loss)/Income Before Income Taxes
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric(a)	$	(6	)	$	178		$	295		$	484
Total reportable segment		(6	)		178			295			484
Other		(13	)		(15	)		(39	)		(65	)
Interest expense		(34	)		(32	)		(104	)		(99	)
Interest income and other		3			5			11			11
Total consolidated	$	(50	)	$	136		$	163		$	331

(a) As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

Unaffiliated Revenues

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana's revenues are from its Franchised Electric operating segment. There were no intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Depreciation and Amortization

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana's depreciation and amortization are from its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Segment Assets

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, all of Duke Energy Indiana's assets are owned by its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Business Segments

2. Business Segments

Management evaluates segment performance based on earnings before interest and taxes from continuing operations (excluding certain allocated corporate governance costs), after deducting expenses attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits (EBIT). On a segment basis, EBIT excludes discontinued operations, represents all profits from continuing operations (both operating and non-operating) before deducting interest and taxes, and is net of amounts attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits. Segment EBIT includes transactions between reportable segments. Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments are managed centrally by Duke Energy, so the associated interest and dividend income and realized and unrealized gains and losses from foreign currency transactions on those balances are excluded from segment EBIT.

Duke Energy

Duke Energy has the following reportable operating segments: U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas (USFE&G), Commercial Power and International Energy.

USFE&G generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in central and western North Carolina, western South Carolina, central, north central and southern Indiana, and northern Kentucky. USFE&G also transmits and distributes electricity in southwestern Ohio. Additionally, USFE&G transports and sells natural gas in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, certain regulated portions of Duke Energy Ohio including Duke Energy Kentucky, and Duke Energy Indiana.

Commercial Power owns, operates and manages power plants and engages in the wholesale marketing and procurement of electric power, fuel and emission allowances related to these plants, as well as other contractual positions. Commercial Power also has a retail sales subsidiary, Duke Energy Retail Sales, LLC (Duke Energy Retail), which is certified by the PUCO as a Competitive Retail Electric Service provider in Ohio. Through Duke Energy Generation Services, Inc. and its affiliates (DEGS), Commercial Power develops, owns and operates electric generation for large energy consumers, municipalities, utilities and industrial facilities. In addition, DEGS engages in the development, construction and operation of renewable energy projects and is also developing transmission projects.

International Energy principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power and natural gas outside the U.S. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy International, LLC (Duke Energy International) and its affiliates and its activities principally target power generation in Latin America. Additionally, International Energy owns a 25% interest in National Methanol Company, located in Saudi Arabia, which is a large regional producer of methanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether.

The remainder of Duke Energy's operations is presented as Other. While it is not an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain unallocated corporate costs, which include certain costs not allocable to Duke Energy' reportable business segments, primarily governance, costs to achieve mergers and divestitures, and costs associated with certain corporate severance programs. It also includes, Bison Insurance Company Limited (Bison), Duke Energy's wholly-owned, captive insurance subsidiary, Duke Energy's 50% interest in DukeNet Communications, LLC (DukeNet) and related telecommunications businesses, and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), which is 40% owned by Exxon Mobil Corporation and 60% owned by Duke Energy. Prior to the sale of a 50% ownership in DukeNet to investment funds managed by Alinda Capital Partners, LLC (collectively Alinda) in December 2010, Other reflected the results of Duke Energy's 100% ownership of DukeNet.

Business Segment Data

	Unaffiliated Revenues			Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	2,917		$	9		$	2,926		$	721		$	352
Commercial Power		684			3			687			67			56
International Energy		360			—			360			168			23
Total reportable segments		3,961			12			3,973			956			431
Other		3			11			14			(74	)		24
Eliminations		—			(23	)		(23	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(213	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			7			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			1			—
Total consolidated	$	3,964		$	—		$	3,964		$	677		$	455
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	2,934		$	10		$	2,944		$	946		$	350
Commercial Power		736			1			737			188			54
International Energy		273			—			273			110			21
Total reportable segments		3,943			11			3,954			1,244			425
Other(c)		3			14			17			(100	)		22
Eliminations		—			(25	)		(25	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(202	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			25			—
Total consolidated	$	3,946		$	—		$	3,946		$	967		$	447
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	8,131		$	27		$	8,158		$	2,052		$	1,032
Commercial Power		1,918			8			1,926			217			173
International Energy		1,114			—			1,114			527			66
Total reportable segments		11,163			35			11,198			2,796			1,271
Other		(2	)		36			34			(176	)		75
Eliminations		—			(71	)		(71	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(635	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			53			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			18			—
Total consolidated	$	11,161		$	—		$	11,161		$	2,056		$	1,346

	Unaffiliated Revenues		Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	8,017	$	25		$	8,042		$	2,361		$	1,033
Commercial Power(b)		1,850		6			1,856			(287	)		167
International Energy		919		—			919			376			63
Total reportable segments		10,786		31			10,817			2,450			1,263
Other(c)		41		41			82			(368	)		66
Eliminations		—		(72	)		(72	)		—			—
Interest expense		—		—			—			(624	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—		—			—			62			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—		—			—			16			—
Total consolidated	$	10,827	$	—		$	10,827		$	1,536		$	1,329

(a) As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

(b) As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $660 million, which consisted of a $500 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

(c) During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $20 million and $164 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

(d) Other within Interest Income and Other includes foreign currency transaction gains and losses and additional noncontrolling interest amounts not allocated to the reportable segments and Other results.

Segment assets in the following table exclude all intercompany assets.

Segment Assets

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
USFE&G	$	46,827	$	45,210
Commercial Power		6,739		6,704
International Energy		4,379		4,310
Total reportable segments		57,945		56,224
Other		2,730		2,845
Reclassifications(a)		101		21
Total consolidated assets	$	60,776	$	59,090

(a) Primarily represents reclassification of federal tax balances in consolidation.

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas has one reportable operating segment, Franchised Electric, which generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity and conducts operations through Duke Energy Carolinas, which consists of the regulated electric utility business in North Carolina and South Carolina.

The remainder of Duke Energy Carolinas' operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain corporate governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Segment EBIT/ Consolidated Income Before Income Taxes
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric	$	627		$	654		$	1,486		$	1,567
Total reportable segment		627			654			1,486			1,567
Other(a)		(40	)		(85	)		(121	)		(244	)
Interest expense		(93	)		(95	)		(264	)		(271	)
Interest income		1			3			9			21
Total consolidated	$	495		$	477		$	1,110		$	1,073

(a) During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $13 million and a $98 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

Unaffiliated Revenues

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' revenues are from its Franchised Electric operating segment. There were no intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Depreciation and Amortization

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' depreciation and amortization are from its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Segment Assets

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' assets are owned by its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Duke Energy Ohio

Duke Energy Ohio has two reportable operating segments, Franchised Electric and Gas and Commercial Power.

Franchised Electric and Gas transmits and distributes electricity in southwestern Ohio and generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity in northern Kentucky. Franchised Electric and Gas also transports and sells natural gas in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Ohio and its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky.

Commercial Power owns, operates and manages power plants and engages in the wholesale marketing and procurement of electric power, fuel and emission allowances related to these plants, as well as other contractual positions. Duke Energy Ohio's Commercial Power reportable operating segment does not include the operations of DEGS or Duke Energy Retail, which is included in the Commercial Power reportable operating segment at Duke Energy.

The remainder of Duke Energy Ohio's operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Unaffiliated Revenues  (a)		Segment EBIT/ Consolidated Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	333	$	93		$	42
Commercial Power		505		44			41
Total reportable segments		838		137			83
Other		—		(16	)		—
Interest expense		—		(27	)		—
Interest income and other		—		3			—
Total consolidated	$	838	$	97		$	83
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	367	$	102		$	56
Commercial Power(c)		556		196			41
Total reportable segments		923		298			97
Other		—		(19	)		—
Interest expense		—		(26	)		—
Interest income and other		—		8			—
Total consolidated	$	923	$	261		$	97
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	1,112	$	251		$	133
Commercial Power		1,299		118			126
Total reportable segments		2,411		369			259
Other		—		(52	)		—
Interest expense		—		(78	)		—
Interest income and other		—		10			—
Total consolidated	$	2,411	$	249		$	259
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
Franchised Electric and Gas(b)	$	1,204	$	69		$	168
Commercial Power(c)		1,345		(273	)		132
Total reportable segments		2,549		(204	)		300
Other		—		(71	)		—
Interest expense		—		(84	)		—
Interest income and other		—		17			—
Total consolidated	$	2,549	$	(342	)	$	300

(a) There was an insignificant amount of intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

(b) In the second quarter of 2010, Franchised Electric and Gas recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $216 million related to the Ohio Transmission and Distribution (Ohio T&D) reporting unit. This impairment charge was not applicable to Duke Energy. See Note 7 for additional information.

(c) As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $621 million, which consisted of a $461 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

Segment Assets

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	6,210		$	6,258
Commercial Power		4,573			4,821
Total reportable segments		10,783			11,079
Other		162			192
Eliminations and reclassifications		(286	)		(247	)
Total consolidated assets	$	10,659		$	11,024

Duke Energy Indiana

Duke Energy Indiana has one reportable operating segment, Franchised Electric, which generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity and conducts operations through Duke Energy Indiana, which consists of the regulated electric utility business in north central, central and southern Indiana.

The remainder of Duke Energy Indiana's operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Segment EBIT/Consolidated (Loss)/Income Before Income Taxes
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric(a)	$	(6	)	$	178		$	295		$	484
Total reportable segment		(6	)		178			295			484
Other		(13	)		(15	)		(39	)		(65	)
Interest expense		(34	)		(32	)		(104	)		(99	)
Interest income and other		3			5			11			11
Total consolidated	$	(50	)	$	136		$	163		$	331

(a) As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

Unaffiliated Revenues

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana's revenues are from its Franchised Electric operating segment. There were no intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Depreciation and Amortization

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana's depreciation and amortization are from its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Segment Assets

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, all of Duke Energy Indiana's assets are owned by its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Business Segments

2. Business Segments

Management evaluates segment performance based on earnings before interest and taxes from continuing operations (excluding certain allocated corporate governance costs), after deducting expenses attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits (EBIT). On a segment basis, EBIT excludes discontinued operations, represents all profits from continuing operations (both operating and non-operating) before deducting interest and taxes, and is net of amounts attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits. Segment EBIT includes transactions between reportable segments. Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments are managed centrally by Duke Energy, so the associated interest and dividend income and realized and unrealized gains and losses from foreign currency transactions on those balances are excluded from segment EBIT.

Duke Energy

Duke Energy has the following reportable operating segments: U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas (USFE&G), Commercial Power and International Energy.

USFE&G generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in central and western North Carolina, western South Carolina, central, north central and southern Indiana, and northern Kentucky. USFE&G also transmits and distributes electricity in southwestern Ohio. Additionally, USFE&G transports and sells natural gas in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, certain regulated portions of Duke Energy Ohio including Duke Energy Kentucky, and Duke Energy Indiana.

Commercial Power owns, operates and manages power plants and engages in the wholesale marketing and procurement of electric power, fuel and emission allowances related to these plants, as well as other contractual positions. Commercial Power also has a retail sales subsidiary, Duke Energy Retail Sales, LLC (Duke Energy Retail), which is certified by the PUCO as a Competitive Retail Electric Service provider in Ohio. Through Duke Energy Generation Services, Inc. and its affiliates (DEGS), Commercial Power develops, owns and operates electric generation for large energy consumers, municipalities, utilities and industrial facilities. In addition, DEGS engages in the development, construction and operation of renewable energy projects and is also developing transmission projects.

International Energy principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power and natural gas outside the U.S. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy International, LLC (Duke Energy International) and its affiliates and its activities principally target power generation in Latin America. Additionally, International Energy owns a 25% interest in National Methanol Company, located in Saudi Arabia, which is a large regional producer of methanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether.

The remainder of Duke Energy's operations is presented as Other. While it is not an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain unallocated corporate costs, which include certain costs not allocable to Duke Energy' reportable business segments, primarily governance, costs to achieve mergers and divestitures, and costs associated with certain corporate severance programs. It also includes, Bison Insurance Company Limited (Bison), Duke Energy's wholly-owned, captive insurance subsidiary, Duke Energy's 50% interest in DukeNet Communications, LLC (DukeNet) and related telecommunications businesses, and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), which is 40% owned by Exxon Mobil Corporation and 60% owned by Duke Energy. Prior to the sale of a 50% ownership in DukeNet to investment funds managed by Alinda Capital Partners, LLC (collectively Alinda) in December 2010, Other reflected the results of Duke Energy's 100% ownership of DukeNet.

Business Segment Data

	Unaffiliated Revenues			Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	2,917		$	9		$	2,926		$	721		$	352
Commercial Power		684			3			687			67			56
International Energy		360			—			360			168			23
Total reportable segments		3,961			12			3,973			956			431
Other		3			11			14			(74	)		24
Eliminations		—			(23	)		(23	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(213	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			7			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			1			—
Total consolidated	$	3,964		$	—		$	3,964		$	677		$	455
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	2,934		$	10		$	2,944		$	946		$	350
Commercial Power		736			1			737			188			54
International Energy		273			—			273			110			21
Total reportable segments		3,943			11			3,954			1,244			425
Other(c)		3			14			17			(100	)		22
Eliminations		—			(25	)		(25	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(202	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			25			—
Total consolidated	$	3,946		$	—		$	3,946		$	967		$	447
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	8,131		$	27		$	8,158		$	2,052		$	1,032
Commercial Power		1,918			8			1,926			217			173
International Energy		1,114			—			1,114			527			66
Total reportable segments		11,163			35			11,198			2,796			1,271
Other		(2	)		36			34			(176	)		75
Eliminations		—			(71	)		(71	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(635	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			53			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			18			—
Total consolidated	$	11,161		$	—		$	11,161		$	2,056		$	1,346

	Unaffiliated Revenues		Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	8,017	$	25		$	8,042		$	2,361		$	1,033
Commercial Power(b)		1,850		6			1,856			(287	)		167
International Energy		919		—			919			376			63
Total reportable segments		10,786		31			10,817			2,450			1,263
Other(c)		41		41			82			(368	)		66
Eliminations		—		(72	)		(72	)		—			—
Interest expense		—		—			—			(624	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—		—			—			62			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—		—			—			16			—
Total consolidated	$	10,827	$	—		$	10,827		$	1,536		$	1,329

(a) As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

(b) As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $660 million, which consisted of a $500 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

(c) During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $20 million and $164 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

(d) Other within Interest Income and Other includes foreign currency transaction gains and losses and additional noncontrolling interest amounts not allocated to the reportable segments and Other results.

Segment assets in the following table exclude all intercompany assets.

Segment Assets

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
USFE&G	$	46,827	$	45,210
Commercial Power		6,739		6,704
International Energy		4,379		4,310
Total reportable segments		57,945		56,224
Other		2,730		2,845
Reclassifications(a)		101		21
Total consolidated assets	$	60,776	$	59,090

(a) Primarily represents reclassification of federal tax balances in consolidation.

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas has one reportable operating segment, Franchised Electric, which generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity and conducts operations through Duke Energy Carolinas, which consists of the regulated electric utility business in North Carolina and South Carolina.

The remainder of Duke Energy Carolinas' operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain corporate governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Segment EBIT/ Consolidated Income Before Income Taxes
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric	$	627		$	654		$	1,486		$	1,567
Total reportable segment		627			654			1,486			1,567
Other(a)		(40	)		(85	)		(121	)		(244	)
Interest expense		(93	)		(95	)		(264	)		(271	)
Interest income		1			3			9			21
Total consolidated	$	495		$	477		$	1,110		$	1,073

(a) During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $13 million and a $98 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

Unaffiliated Revenues

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' revenues are from its Franchised Electric operating segment. There were no intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Depreciation and Amortization

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' depreciation and amortization are from its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Segment Assets

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' assets are owned by its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Duke Energy Ohio

Duke Energy Ohio has two reportable operating segments, Franchised Electric and Gas and Commercial Power.

Franchised Electric and Gas transmits and distributes electricity in southwestern Ohio and generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity in northern Kentucky. Franchised Electric and Gas also transports and sells natural gas in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Ohio and its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky.

Commercial Power owns, operates and manages power plants and engages in the wholesale marketing and procurement of electric power, fuel and emission allowances related to these plants, as well as other contractual positions. Duke Energy Ohio's Commercial Power reportable operating segment does not include the operations of DEGS or Duke Energy Retail, which is included in the Commercial Power reportable operating segment at Duke Energy.

The remainder of Duke Energy Ohio's operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Unaffiliated Revenues  (a)		Segment EBIT/ Consolidated Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	333	$	93		$	42
Commercial Power		505		44			41
Total reportable segments		838		137			83
Other		—		(16	)		—
Interest expense		—		(27	)		—
Interest income and other		—		3			—
Total consolidated	$	838	$	97		$	83
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	367	$	102		$	56
Commercial Power(c)		556		196			41
Total reportable segments		923		298			97
Other		—		(19	)		—
Interest expense		—		(26	)		—
Interest income and other		—		8			—
Total consolidated	$	923	$	261		$	97
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	1,112	$	251		$	133
Commercial Power		1,299		118			126
Total reportable segments		2,411		369			259
Other		—		(52	)		—
Interest expense		—		(78	)		—
Interest income and other		—		10			—
Total consolidated	$	2,411	$	249		$	259
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
Franchised Electric and Gas(b)	$	1,204	$	69		$	168
Commercial Power(c)		1,345		(273	)		132
Total reportable segments		2,549		(204	)		300
Other		—		(71	)		—
Interest expense		—		(84	)		—
Interest income and other		—		17			—
Total consolidated	$	2,549	$	(342	)	$	300

(a) There was an insignificant amount of intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

(b) In the second quarter of 2010, Franchised Electric and Gas recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $216 million related to the Ohio Transmission and Distribution (Ohio T&D) reporting unit. This impairment charge was not applicable to Duke Energy. See Note 7 for additional information.

(c) As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $621 million, which consisted of a $461 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

Segment Assets

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	6,210		$	6,258
Commercial Power		4,573			4,821
Total reportable segments		10,783			11,079
Other		162			192
Eliminations and reclassifications		(286	)		(247	)
Total consolidated assets	$	10,659		$	11,024

Duke Energy Indiana

Duke Energy Indiana has one reportable operating segment, Franchised Electric, which generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity and conducts operations through Duke Energy Indiana, which consists of the regulated electric utility business in north central, central and southern Indiana.

The remainder of Duke Energy Indiana's operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Segment EBIT/Consolidated (Loss)/Income Before Income Taxes
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric(a)	$	(6	)	$	178		$	295		$	484
Total reportable segment		(6	)		178			295			484
Other		(13	)		(15	)		(39	)		(65	)
Interest expense		(34	)		(32	)		(104	)		(99	)
Interest income and other		3			5			11			11
Total consolidated	$	(50	)	$	136		$	163		$	331

(a) As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

Unaffiliated Revenues

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana's revenues are from its Franchised Electric operating segment. There were no intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Depreciation and Amortization

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana's depreciation and amortization are from its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Segment Assets

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, all of Duke Energy Indiana's assets are owned by its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Business Segments

2. Business Segments

Management evaluates segment performance based on earnings before interest and taxes from continuing operations (excluding certain allocated corporate governance costs), after deducting expenses attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits (EBIT). On a segment basis, EBIT excludes discontinued operations, represents all profits from continuing operations (both operating and non-operating) before deducting interest and taxes, and is net of amounts attributable to noncontrolling interests related to those profits. Segment EBIT includes transactions between reportable segments. Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments are managed centrally by Duke Energy, so the associated interest and dividend income and realized and unrealized gains and losses from foreign currency transactions on those balances are excluded from segment EBIT.

Duke Energy

Duke Energy has the following reportable operating segments: U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas (USFE&G), Commercial Power and International Energy.

USFE&G generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in central and western North Carolina, western South Carolina, central, north central and southern Indiana, and northern Kentucky. USFE&G also transmits and distributes electricity in southwestern Ohio. Additionally, USFE&G transports and sells natural gas in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, certain regulated portions of Duke Energy Ohio including Duke Energy Kentucky, and Duke Energy Indiana.

Commercial Power owns, operates and manages power plants and engages in the wholesale marketing and procurement of electric power, fuel and emission allowances related to these plants, as well as other contractual positions. Commercial Power also has a retail sales subsidiary, Duke Energy Retail Sales, LLC (Duke Energy Retail), which is certified by the PUCO as a Competitive Retail Electric Service provider in Ohio. Through Duke Energy Generation Services, Inc. and its affiliates (DEGS), Commercial Power develops, owns and operates electric generation for large energy consumers, municipalities, utilities and industrial facilities. In addition, DEGS engages in the development, construction and operation of renewable energy projects and is also developing transmission projects.

International Energy principally operates and manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power and natural gas outside the U.S. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy International, LLC (Duke Energy International) and its affiliates and its activities principally target power generation in Latin America. Additionally, International Energy owns a 25% interest in National Methanol Company, located in Saudi Arabia, which is a large regional producer of methanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether.

The remainder of Duke Energy's operations is presented as Other. While it is not an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain unallocated corporate costs, which include certain costs not allocable to Duke Energy' reportable business segments, primarily governance, costs to achieve mergers and divestitures, and costs associated with certain corporate severance programs. It also includes, Bison Insurance Company Limited (Bison), Duke Energy's wholly-owned, captive insurance subsidiary, Duke Energy's 50% interest in DukeNet Communications, LLC (DukeNet) and related telecommunications businesses, and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), which is 40% owned by Exxon Mobil Corporation and 60% owned by Duke Energy. Prior to the sale of a 50% ownership in DukeNet to investment funds managed by Alinda Capital Partners, LLC (collectively Alinda) in December 2010, Other reflected the results of Duke Energy's 100% ownership of DukeNet.

Business Segment Data

	Unaffiliated Revenues			Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	2,917		$	9		$	2,926		$	721		$	352
Commercial Power		684			3			687			67			56
International Energy		360			—			360			168			23
Total reportable segments		3,961			12			3,973			956			431
Other		3			11			14			(74	)		24
Eliminations		—			(23	)		(23	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(213	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			7			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			1			—
Total consolidated	$	3,964		$	—		$	3,964		$	677		$	455
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	2,934		$	10		$	2,944		$	946		$	350
Commercial Power		736			1			737			188			54
International Energy		273			—			273			110			21
Total reportable segments		3,943			11			3,954			1,244			425
Other(c)		3			14			17			(100	)		22
Eliminations		—			(25	)		(25	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(202	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			25			—
Total consolidated	$	3,946		$	—		$	3,946		$	967		$	447
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	8,131		$	27		$	8,158		$	2,052		$	1,032
Commercial Power		1,918			8			1,926			217			173
International Energy		1,114			—			1,114			527			66
Total reportable segments		11,163			35			11,198			2,796			1,271
Other		(2	)		36			34			(176	)		75
Eliminations		—			(71	)		(71	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(635	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			53			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			18			—
Total consolidated	$	11,161		$	—		$	11,161		$	2,056		$	1,346

	Unaffiliated Revenues		Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	8,017	$	25		$	8,042		$	2,361		$	1,033
Commercial Power(b)		1,850		6			1,856			(287	)		167
International Energy		919		—			919			376			63
Total reportable segments		10,786		31			10,817			2,450			1,263
Other(c)		41		41			82			(368	)		66
Eliminations		—		(72	)		(72	)		—			—
Interest expense		—		—			—			(624	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—		—			—			62			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—		—			—			16			—
Total consolidated	$	10,827	$	—		$	10,827		$	1,536		$	1,329

(a) As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

(b) As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $660 million, which consisted of a $500 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

(c) During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $20 million and $164 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

(d) Other within Interest Income and Other includes foreign currency transaction gains and losses and additional noncontrolling interest amounts not allocated to the reportable segments and Other results.

Segment assets in the following table exclude all intercompany assets.

Segment Assets

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
USFE&G	$	46,827	$	45,210
Commercial Power		6,739		6,704
International Energy		4,379		4,310
Total reportable segments		57,945		56,224
Other		2,730		2,845
Reclassifications(a)		101		21
Total consolidated assets	$	60,776	$	59,090

(a) Primarily represents reclassification of federal tax balances in consolidation.

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas has one reportable operating segment, Franchised Electric, which generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity and conducts operations through Duke Energy Carolinas, which consists of the regulated electric utility business in North Carolina and South Carolina.

The remainder of Duke Energy Carolinas' operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain corporate governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Segment EBIT/ Consolidated Income Before Income Taxes
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric	$	627		$	654		$	1,486		$	1,567
Total reportable segment		627			654			1,486			1,567
Other(a)		(40	)		(85	)		(121	)		(244	)
Interest expense		(93	)		(95	)		(264	)		(271	)
Interest income		1			3			9			21
Total consolidated	$	495		$	477		$	1,110		$	1,073

(a) During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $13 million and a $98 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

Unaffiliated Revenues

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' revenues are from its Franchised Electric operating segment. There were no intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Depreciation and Amortization

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' depreciation and amortization are from its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Segment Assets

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' assets are owned by its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Duke Energy Ohio

Duke Energy Ohio has two reportable operating segments, Franchised Electric and Gas and Commercial Power.

Franchised Electric and Gas transmits and distributes electricity in southwestern Ohio and generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity in northern Kentucky. Franchised Electric and Gas also transports and sells natural gas in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. It conducts operations primarily through Duke Energy Ohio and its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky.

Commercial Power owns, operates and manages power plants and engages in the wholesale marketing and procurement of electric power, fuel and emission allowances related to these plants, as well as other contractual positions. Duke Energy Ohio's Commercial Power reportable operating segment does not include the operations of DEGS or Duke Energy Retail, which is included in the Commercial Power reportable operating segment at Duke Energy.

The remainder of Duke Energy Ohio's operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Unaffiliated Revenues  (a)		Segment EBIT/ Consolidated Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	333	$	93		$	42
Commercial Power		505		44			41
Total reportable segments		838		137			83
Other		—		(16	)		—
Interest expense		—		(27	)		—
Interest income and other		—		3			—
Total consolidated	$	838	$	97		$	83
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	367	$	102		$	56
Commercial Power(c)		556		196			41
Total reportable segments		923		298			97
Other		—		(19	)		—
Interest expense		—		(26	)		—
Interest income and other		—		8			—
Total consolidated	$	923	$	261		$	97
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	1,112	$	251		$	133
Commercial Power		1,299		118			126
Total reportable segments		2,411		369			259
Other		—		(52	)		—
Interest expense		—		(78	)		—
Interest income and other		—		10			—
Total consolidated	$	2,411	$	249		$	259
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
Franchised Electric and Gas(b)	$	1,204	$	69		$	168
Commercial Power(c)		1,345		(273	)		132
Total reportable segments		2,549		(204	)		300
Other		—		(71	)		—
Interest expense		—		(84	)		—
Interest income and other		—		17			—
Total consolidated	$	2,549	$	(342	)	$	300

(a) There was an insignificant amount of intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

(b) In the second quarter of 2010, Franchised Electric and Gas recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $216 million related to the Ohio Transmission and Distribution (Ohio T&D) reporting unit. This impairment charge was not applicable to Duke Energy. See Note 7 for additional information.

(c) As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $621 million, which consisted of a $461 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

Segment Assets

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric and Gas	$	6,210		$	6,258
Commercial Power		4,573			4,821
Total reportable segments		10,783			11,079
Other		162			192
Eliminations and reclassifications		(286	)		(247	)
Total consolidated assets	$	10,659		$	11,024

Duke Energy Indiana

Duke Energy Indiana has one reportable operating segment, Franchised Electric, which generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity and conducts operations through Duke Energy Indiana, which consists of the regulated electric utility business in north central, central and southern Indiana.

The remainder of Duke Energy Indiana's operations is presented as Other. While it is not considered an operating segment, Other primarily includes certain governance costs allocated by its parent, Duke Energy (see Note 17).

Business Segment Data

	Segment EBIT/Consolidated (Loss)/Income Before Income Taxes
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)
Franchised Electric(a)	$	(6	)	$	178		$	295		$	484
Total reportable segment		(6	)		178			295			484
Other		(13	)		(15	)		(39	)		(65	)
Interest expense		(34	)		(32	)		(104	)		(99	)
Interest income and other		3			5			11			11
Total consolidated	$	(50	)	$	136		$	163		$	331

(a) As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

Unaffiliated Revenues

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana's revenues are from its Franchised Electric operating segment. There were no intersegment revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Depreciation and Amortization

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, substantially all of Duke Energy Indiana's depreciation and amortization are from its Franchised Electric operating segment.

Segment Assets

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, all of Duke Energy Indiana's assets are owned by its Franchised Electric operating segment.

XML

Related Party Transactions

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Related Party Transactions

17. Related Party Transactions

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas engages in related party transactions, which are generally performed at cost and in accordance with the applicable state and federal commission regulations. Balances due to or due from related parties included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Assets/(Liabilities)

	September  30, 2011(a)			December  31, 2010(a)
	(in millions)
Current assets (b)	$	82		$	293
Non-current assets(c)		110			104
Current liabilities(d)		(125	)		(195	)
Non-current liabilities(e)		(65	)		(93	)
Net deferred tax liabilities(f)		(4,442	)		(3,906	)

(a) Balances exclude assets or liabilities associated with accrued pension and other post-retirement benefits and with money pool arrangements as discussed below.

(b) Of the balances at September 30, 2011, $1 million is classified as Receivables and $81 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balances at December 31, 2010, $90 million is classified as Receivables and $203 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) The balances at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, are classified as Accounts payable on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(f) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(4,530) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $88 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(3,988) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $82 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As discussed further in Note 14, Duke Energy Carolinas participates in Duke Energy's qualified pension plan, non-qualified pension plan and other post-retirement benefit plans and is allocated its proportionate share of expenses associated with these plans. Additionally, Duke Energy Carolinas has been allocated accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations of $247 million at September 30, 2011 and $252 million at December 31, 2010. This amount has been classified in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Other current liabilities	$	10	$	10
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		237		242

Other Related Party Amounts

	Three months ended					Nine months ended
	September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010		September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010
	(in millions)
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)	$	265		$	276	$	769		$	744
Indemnification coverages(b)		5			7		15			19
Rental income and other charged expenses, net(c)		(1	)		1		(5	)		3

(a) Duke Energy Carolinas is charged its proportionate share of corporate governance and other costs by an unconsolidated affiliate that is a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. Corporate governance and other shared services costs are primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third party costs. These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(b) Duke Energy Carolinas incurs expenses related to certain indemnification coverages through Bison, Duke Energy's wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. These expenses are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(c) Duke Energy Carolinas records income associated with the rental of office space to a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy, as well as its proportionate share of certain charged expenses from affiliates of Duke Energy.

As discussed further in Note 6, Duke Energy Carolinas participates in a money pool arrangement with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Interest income associated with money pool activity is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, was insignificant for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Interest expense associated with money pool activity is recorded in Interest Expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations was insignificant for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

In February 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas made a $200 million distribution to its parent, Duke Energy. In June 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas made a $150 million distribution to its parent, Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Ohio

Duke Energy Ohio engages in related party transactions, which are generally performed at cost and in accordance with the applicable state and federal commission regulations. Balances due to or due from related parties included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Assets/(Liabilities)

	September  30, 2011(a)			December  31, 2010(a)
	(in millions)
Current assets (b)	$	84		$	82
Non-current assets(c)		12			15
Current liabilities(d)		(60	)		(86	)
Non-current liabilities(e)		—			(42	)
Net deferred tax liabilities(f)		(1,739	)		(1,579	)

(a) Balances exclude assets or liabilities associated with accrued pension and other post-retirement benefits, Cinergy Receivables and money pool arrangements as discussed below.

(b) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $17 million is classified as Receivables and $67 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $24 million is classified as Receivables and $58 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, ($54) million is classified as Accounts payable, ($4) million is classified as Taxes accrued and ($2) million is classified as Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(83) million is classified as Accounts payable and $(3) million is classified as Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, are classified as Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(f) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(1,755) million is classified as Deferred income taxes, and $16 million is classified as Other within Current Assets, on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(1,588) million is classified as Deferred income taxes, and $9 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As discussed further in Note 14, Duke Energy Ohio participates in Duke Energy's qualified pension plan, non-qualified pension plan and other post-retirement benefit plans and is allocated its proportionate share of expenses associated with these plans. Additionally, Duke Energy Ohio has been allocated accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations of $192 million at September 30, 2011 and $211 million at December 31, 2010. These amounts have been classified in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Other current liabilities	$	4	$	4
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		188		207

Other Related Party Amounts

	Three months ended					Nine months ended
	September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010		September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010
	(in millions)
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)	$	104		$	99	$	290		$	257
Indemnification coverages(b)		5			5		13			14
Rental income and other charged expenses, net(c)		—	(e)		3		—	(e)		5
Cinergy receivables interest income(d)		3			4		10			12

(a) Duke Energy Ohio is charged its proportionate share of corporate governance and other costs by an unconsolidated affiliate that is a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. Corporate governance and other shared services costs are primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third party costs. These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(b) Duke Energy Ohio incurs expenses related to certain indemnification coverages through Bison, Duke Energy's wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. These expenses are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(c) Duke Energy Ohio records income associated with the rental of office space to a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy, as well as its proportionate share of certain charged expenses from affiliates of Duke Energy.

(d) As discussed in Note 11, certain trade receivables have been sold by Duke Energy Ohio to Cinergy Receivables, a consolidated entity formed by Cinergy. The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price. The interest income associated with the subordinated note is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(e) For the three and six months ended September 30, 2011, net rental income was insignificant.

As discussed further in Note 6, Duke Energy Ohio participates in a money pool arrangement with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Interest income associated with money pool activity is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations was insignificant for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Interest expense associated with money pool activity is recorded in Interest Expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations was insignificant for each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Duke Energy Ohio enters into certain derivative positions on behalf of Duke Energy Retail, a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. These contracts are undesignated, thus the mark-to-market impacts of these contracts are reflected in Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. See Note 8 for additional information.

DECAM conducts hedging activities for certain of Duke Energy's non-regulated entities. DECAM meets its funding needs through an intercompany loan agreement from Duke Energy Ohio's parent entity, Cinergy. The intercompany loan was executed in February 2011. DECAM had no outstanding intercompany loan balance with Cinergy as of September 30, 2011.

In May 2011, Duke Energy Vermillion, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into an agreement to sell its 75% undivided ownership interest in the Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana and WVPA. Refer to Note 3 and Note 4 for further discussion.

In September 2011 and March 2011, Duke Energy Ohio paid dividends of $200 million and $285 million, respectively, to its parent, Cinergy.

Duke Energy Indiana

Duke Energy Indiana engages in related party transactions, which are generally performed at cost and in accordance with the applicable state and federal commission regulations. Balances due to or due from related parties included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Assets/(Liabilities)

	September  30, 2011(a)			December  31, 2010(a)
	(in millions)
Current assets(b)	$	27		$	51
Current liabilities(c)		(127	)		(69	)
Non-current liabilities(d)		(22	)		(20	)
Net deferred tax liabilities(e)		(872	)		(932	)

(a) Balances exclude assets or liabilities associated with accrued pension and other post-retirement benefits, Cinergy Receivables and money pool arrangements as discussed below.

(b) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $23 million is classified as Receivables and $4 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $27 million is classified as Receivables and $24 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(54) million is classified as Accounts payable and $(73) million is classified as Taxes accrued on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(67) million is classified as Accounts payable and $(2) million is classified as Taxes accrued on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(881) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $9 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(973) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $41 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As discussed further in Note 14, Duke Energy Indiana participates in Duke Energy's qualified pension plan, non-qualified pension plan and other post-retirement benefit plans and is allocated its proportionate share of expenses associated with these plans. Additionally, Duke Energy Indiana has been allocated accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations of $263 million at September 30, 2011 and $272 million at December 31, 2010. These amounts have been classified in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Other current liabilities	$	2	$	2
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		261		270

Other Related Party Amounts

	Three months ended				Nine months ended
	September 30, 2011		September 30, 2010		September 30, 2011		September 30, 2010
	(in millions)
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)	$	100	$	90	$	306	$	266
Indemnification coverages(b)		1		2		5		6
Rental income and other charged expenses, net(c)		1		2		4		6
Cinergy receivables interest income(d)		3		4		10		10

(a) Duke Energy Indiana is charged its proportionate share of corporate governance and other costs by an unconsolidated affiliate that is a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. Corporate governance and other shared services costs are primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third party costs. These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(b) Duke Energy Indiana incurs expenses related to certain indemnification coverages through Bison, Duke Energy's wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. These expenses are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(c) Duke Energy Indiana records income associated with the rental of office space to a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy, as well as its proportionate share of certain charged expenses from affiliates of Duke Energy.

(d) As discussed in Note 11, certain trade receivables have been sold by Duke Energy Indiana to Cinergy Receivables, a consolidated entity formed by Cinergy. The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price. The interest income associated with the subordinated note is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

As discussed further in Note 6, Duke Energy Indiana participates in a money pool arrangement with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Interest income associated with money pool activity is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and was insignificant for each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Interest expense associated with money pool activity is recorded in Interest Expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. For each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 interest expense was insignificant.

In May 2011, Duke Energy Vermillion, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into an agreement to sell its 75% undivided ownership interest in the Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana and WVPA. Refer to Note 3 and Note 4 for further discussion.

In February 2010, Duke Energy Indiana received a $225 million capital contribution from its parent, Cinergy. In June 2010, Duke Energy Indiana received a $125 million capital contribution from its parent, Cinergy.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Related Party Transactions

17. Related Party Transactions

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas engages in related party transactions, which are generally performed at cost and in accordance with the applicable state and federal commission regulations. Balances due to or due from related parties included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Assets/(Liabilities)

	September  30, 2011(a)			December  31, 2010(a)
	(in millions)
Current assets (b)	$	82		$	293
Non-current assets(c)		110			104
Current liabilities(d)		(125	)		(195	)
Non-current liabilities(e)		(65	)		(93	)
Net deferred tax liabilities(f)		(4,442	)		(3,906	)

(a) Balances exclude assets or liabilities associated with accrued pension and other post-retirement benefits and with money pool arrangements as discussed below.

(b) Of the balances at September 30, 2011, $1 million is classified as Receivables and $81 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balances at December 31, 2010, $90 million is classified as Receivables and $203 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) The balances at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, are classified as Accounts payable on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(f) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(4,530) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $88 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(3,988) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $82 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As discussed further in Note 14, Duke Energy Carolinas participates in Duke Energy's qualified pension plan, non-qualified pension plan and other post-retirement benefit plans and is allocated its proportionate share of expenses associated with these plans. Additionally, Duke Energy Carolinas has been allocated accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations of $247 million at September 30, 2011 and $252 million at December 31, 2010. This amount has been classified in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Other current liabilities	$	10	$	10
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		237		242

Other Related Party Amounts

	Three months ended					Nine months ended
	September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010		September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010
	(in millions)
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)	$	265		$	276	$	769		$	744
Indemnification coverages(b)		5			7		15			19
Rental income and other charged expenses, net(c)		(1	)		1		(5	)		3

(a) Duke Energy Carolinas is charged its proportionate share of corporate governance and other costs by an unconsolidated affiliate that is a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. Corporate governance and other shared services costs are primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third party costs. These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(b) Duke Energy Carolinas incurs expenses related to certain indemnification coverages through Bison, Duke Energy's wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. These expenses are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(c) Duke Energy Carolinas records income associated with the rental of office space to a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy, as well as its proportionate share of certain charged expenses from affiliates of Duke Energy.

As discussed further in Note 6, Duke Energy Carolinas participates in a money pool arrangement with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Interest income associated with money pool activity is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, was insignificant for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Interest expense associated with money pool activity is recorded in Interest Expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations was insignificant for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

In February 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas made a $200 million distribution to its parent, Duke Energy. In June 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas made a $150 million distribution to its parent, Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Ohio

Duke Energy Ohio engages in related party transactions, which are generally performed at cost and in accordance with the applicable state and federal commission regulations. Balances due to or due from related parties included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Assets/(Liabilities)

	September  30, 2011(a)			December  31, 2010(a)
	(in millions)
Current assets (b)	$	84		$	82
Non-current assets(c)		12			15
Current liabilities(d)		(60	)		(86	)
Non-current liabilities(e)		—			(42	)
Net deferred tax liabilities(f)		(1,739	)		(1,579	)

(a) Balances exclude assets or liabilities associated with accrued pension and other post-retirement benefits, Cinergy Receivables and money pool arrangements as discussed below.

(b) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $17 million is classified as Receivables and $67 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $24 million is classified as Receivables and $58 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, ($54) million is classified as Accounts payable, ($4) million is classified as Taxes accrued and ($2) million is classified as Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(83) million is classified as Accounts payable and $(3) million is classified as Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, are classified as Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(f) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(1,755) million is classified as Deferred income taxes, and $16 million is classified as Other within Current Assets, on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(1,588) million is classified as Deferred income taxes, and $9 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As discussed further in Note 14, Duke Energy Ohio participates in Duke Energy's qualified pension plan, non-qualified pension plan and other post-retirement benefit plans and is allocated its proportionate share of expenses associated with these plans. Additionally, Duke Energy Ohio has been allocated accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations of $192 million at September 30, 2011 and $211 million at December 31, 2010. These amounts have been classified in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Other current liabilities	$	4	$	4
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		188		207

Other Related Party Amounts

	Three months ended					Nine months ended
	September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010		September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010
	(in millions)
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)	$	104		$	99	$	290		$	257
Indemnification coverages(b)		5			5		13			14
Rental income and other charged expenses, net(c)		—	(e)		3		—	(e)		5
Cinergy receivables interest income(d)		3			4		10			12

(a) Duke Energy Ohio is charged its proportionate share of corporate governance and other costs by an unconsolidated affiliate that is a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. Corporate governance and other shared services costs are primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third party costs. These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(b) Duke Energy Ohio incurs expenses related to certain indemnification coverages through Bison, Duke Energy's wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. These expenses are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(c) Duke Energy Ohio records income associated with the rental of office space to a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy, as well as its proportionate share of certain charged expenses from affiliates of Duke Energy.

(d) As discussed in Note 11, certain trade receivables have been sold by Duke Energy Ohio to Cinergy Receivables, a consolidated entity formed by Cinergy. The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price. The interest income associated with the subordinated note is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(e) For the three and six months ended September 30, 2011, net rental income was insignificant.

As discussed further in Note 6, Duke Energy Ohio participates in a money pool arrangement with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Interest income associated with money pool activity is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations was insignificant for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Interest expense associated with money pool activity is recorded in Interest Expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations was insignificant for each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Duke Energy Ohio enters into certain derivative positions on behalf of Duke Energy Retail, a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. These contracts are undesignated, thus the mark-to-market impacts of these contracts are reflected in Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. See Note 8 for additional information.

DECAM conducts hedging activities for certain of Duke Energy's non-regulated entities. DECAM meets its funding needs through an intercompany loan agreement from Duke Energy Ohio's parent entity, Cinergy. The intercompany loan was executed in February 2011. DECAM had no outstanding intercompany loan balance with Cinergy as of September 30, 2011.

In May 2011, Duke Energy Vermillion, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into an agreement to sell its 75% undivided ownership interest in the Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana and WVPA. Refer to Note 3 and Note 4 for further discussion.

In September 2011 and March 2011, Duke Energy Ohio paid dividends of $200 million and $285 million, respectively, to its parent, Cinergy.

Duke Energy Indiana

Duke Energy Indiana engages in related party transactions, which are generally performed at cost and in accordance with the applicable state and federal commission regulations. Balances due to or due from related parties included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Assets/(Liabilities)

	September  30, 2011(a)			December  31, 2010(a)
	(in millions)
Current assets(b)	$	27		$	51
Current liabilities(c)		(127	)		(69	)
Non-current liabilities(d)		(22	)		(20	)
Net deferred tax liabilities(e)		(872	)		(932	)

(a) Balances exclude assets or liabilities associated with accrued pension and other post-retirement benefits, Cinergy Receivables and money pool arrangements as discussed below.

(b) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $23 million is classified as Receivables and $4 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $27 million is classified as Receivables and $24 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(54) million is classified as Accounts payable and $(73) million is classified as Taxes accrued on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(67) million is classified as Accounts payable and $(2) million is classified as Taxes accrued on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(881) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $9 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(973) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $41 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As discussed further in Note 14, Duke Energy Indiana participates in Duke Energy's qualified pension plan, non-qualified pension plan and other post-retirement benefit plans and is allocated its proportionate share of expenses associated with these plans. Additionally, Duke Energy Indiana has been allocated accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations of $263 million at September 30, 2011 and $272 million at December 31, 2010. These amounts have been classified in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Other current liabilities	$	2	$	2
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		261		270

Other Related Party Amounts

	Three months ended				Nine months ended
	September 30, 2011		September 30, 2010		September 30, 2011		September 30, 2010
	(in millions)
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)	$	100	$	90	$	306	$	266
Indemnification coverages(b)		1		2		5		6
Rental income and other charged expenses, net(c)		1		2		4		6
Cinergy receivables interest income(d)		3		4		10		10

(a) Duke Energy Indiana is charged its proportionate share of corporate governance and other costs by an unconsolidated affiliate that is a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. Corporate governance and other shared services costs are primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third party costs. These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(b) Duke Energy Indiana incurs expenses related to certain indemnification coverages through Bison, Duke Energy's wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. These expenses are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(c) Duke Energy Indiana records income associated with the rental of office space to a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy, as well as its proportionate share of certain charged expenses from affiliates of Duke Energy.

(d) As discussed in Note 11, certain trade receivables have been sold by Duke Energy Indiana to Cinergy Receivables, a consolidated entity formed by Cinergy. The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price. The interest income associated with the subordinated note is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

As discussed further in Note 6, Duke Energy Indiana participates in a money pool arrangement with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Interest income associated with money pool activity is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and was insignificant for each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Interest expense associated with money pool activity is recorded in Interest Expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. For each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 interest expense was insignificant.

In May 2011, Duke Energy Vermillion, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into an agreement to sell its 75% undivided ownership interest in the Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana and WVPA. Refer to Note 3 and Note 4 for further discussion.

In February 2010, Duke Energy Indiana received a $225 million capital contribution from its parent, Cinergy. In June 2010, Duke Energy Indiana received a $125 million capital contribution from its parent, Cinergy.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Related Party Transactions

17. Related Party Transactions

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas engages in related party transactions, which are generally performed at cost and in accordance with the applicable state and federal commission regulations. Balances due to or due from related parties included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Assets/(Liabilities)

	September  30, 2011(a)			December  31, 2010(a)
	(in millions)
Current assets (b)	$	82		$	293
Non-current assets(c)		110			104
Current liabilities(d)		(125	)		(195	)
Non-current liabilities(e)		(65	)		(93	)
Net deferred tax liabilities(f)		(4,442	)		(3,906	)

(a) Balances exclude assets or liabilities associated with accrued pension and other post-retirement benefits and with money pool arrangements as discussed below.

(b) Of the balances at September 30, 2011, $1 million is classified as Receivables and $81 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balances at December 31, 2010, $90 million is classified as Receivables and $203 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) The balances at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, are classified as Accounts payable on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(f) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(4,530) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $88 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(3,988) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $82 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As discussed further in Note 14, Duke Energy Carolinas participates in Duke Energy's qualified pension plan, non-qualified pension plan and other post-retirement benefit plans and is allocated its proportionate share of expenses associated with these plans. Additionally, Duke Energy Carolinas has been allocated accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations of $247 million at September 30, 2011 and $252 million at December 31, 2010. This amount has been classified in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Other current liabilities	$	10	$	10
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		237		242

Other Related Party Amounts

	Three months ended					Nine months ended
	September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010		September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010
	(in millions)
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)	$	265		$	276	$	769		$	744
Indemnification coverages(b)		5			7		15			19
Rental income and other charged expenses, net(c)		(1	)		1		(5	)		3

(a) Duke Energy Carolinas is charged its proportionate share of corporate governance and other costs by an unconsolidated affiliate that is a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. Corporate governance and other shared services costs are primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third party costs. These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(b) Duke Energy Carolinas incurs expenses related to certain indemnification coverages through Bison, Duke Energy's wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. These expenses are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(c) Duke Energy Carolinas records income associated with the rental of office space to a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy, as well as its proportionate share of certain charged expenses from affiliates of Duke Energy.

As discussed further in Note 6, Duke Energy Carolinas participates in a money pool arrangement with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Interest income associated with money pool activity is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, was insignificant for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Interest expense associated with money pool activity is recorded in Interest Expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations was insignificant for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

In February 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas made a $200 million distribution to its parent, Duke Energy. In June 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas made a $150 million distribution to its parent, Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Ohio

Duke Energy Ohio engages in related party transactions, which are generally performed at cost and in accordance with the applicable state and federal commission regulations. Balances due to or due from related parties included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Assets/(Liabilities)

	September  30, 2011(a)			December  31, 2010(a)
	(in millions)
Current assets (b)	$	84		$	82
Non-current assets(c)		12			15
Current liabilities(d)		(60	)		(86	)
Non-current liabilities(e)		—			(42	)
Net deferred tax liabilities(f)		(1,739	)		(1,579	)

(a) Balances exclude assets or liabilities associated with accrued pension and other post-retirement benefits, Cinergy Receivables and money pool arrangements as discussed below.

(b) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $17 million is classified as Receivables and $67 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $24 million is classified as Receivables and $58 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, ($54) million is classified as Accounts payable, ($4) million is classified as Taxes accrued and ($2) million is classified as Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(83) million is classified as Accounts payable and $(3) million is classified as Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, are classified as Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(f) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(1,755) million is classified as Deferred income taxes, and $16 million is classified as Other within Current Assets, on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(1,588) million is classified as Deferred income taxes, and $9 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As discussed further in Note 14, Duke Energy Ohio participates in Duke Energy's qualified pension plan, non-qualified pension plan and other post-retirement benefit plans and is allocated its proportionate share of expenses associated with these plans. Additionally, Duke Energy Ohio has been allocated accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations of $192 million at September 30, 2011 and $211 million at December 31, 2010. These amounts have been classified in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Other current liabilities	$	4	$	4
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		188		207

Other Related Party Amounts

	Three months ended					Nine months ended
	September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010		September 30, 2011			September 30, 2010
	(in millions)
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)	$	104		$	99	$	290		$	257
Indemnification coverages(b)		5			5		13			14
Rental income and other charged expenses, net(c)		—	(e)		3		—	(e)		5
Cinergy receivables interest income(d)		3			4		10			12

(a) Duke Energy Ohio is charged its proportionate share of corporate governance and other costs by an unconsolidated affiliate that is a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. Corporate governance and other shared services costs are primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third party costs. These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(b) Duke Energy Ohio incurs expenses related to certain indemnification coverages through Bison, Duke Energy's wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. These expenses are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(c) Duke Energy Ohio records income associated with the rental of office space to a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy, as well as its proportionate share of certain charged expenses from affiliates of Duke Energy.

(d) As discussed in Note 11, certain trade receivables have been sold by Duke Energy Ohio to Cinergy Receivables, a consolidated entity formed by Cinergy. The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price. The interest income associated with the subordinated note is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(e) For the three and six months ended September 30, 2011, net rental income was insignificant.

As discussed further in Note 6, Duke Energy Ohio participates in a money pool arrangement with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Interest income associated with money pool activity is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations was insignificant for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Interest expense associated with money pool activity is recorded in Interest Expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations was insignificant for each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

Duke Energy Ohio enters into certain derivative positions on behalf of Duke Energy Retail, a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. These contracts are undesignated, thus the mark-to-market impacts of these contracts are reflected in Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. See Note 8 for additional information.

DECAM conducts hedging activities for certain of Duke Energy's non-regulated entities. DECAM meets its funding needs through an intercompany loan agreement from Duke Energy Ohio's parent entity, Cinergy. The intercompany loan was executed in February 2011. DECAM had no outstanding intercompany loan balance with Cinergy as of September 30, 2011.

In May 2011, Duke Energy Vermillion, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into an agreement to sell its 75% undivided ownership interest in the Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana and WVPA. Refer to Note 3 and Note 4 for further discussion.

In September 2011 and March 2011, Duke Energy Ohio paid dividends of $200 million and $285 million, respectively, to its parent, Cinergy.

Duke Energy Indiana

Duke Energy Indiana engages in related party transactions, which are generally performed at cost and in accordance with the applicable state and federal commission regulations. Balances due to or due from related parties included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Assets/(Liabilities)

	September  30, 2011(a)			December  31, 2010(a)
	(in millions)
Current assets(b)	$	27		$	51
Current liabilities(c)		(127	)		(69	)
Non-current liabilities(d)		(22	)		(20	)
Net deferred tax liabilities(e)		(872	)		(932	)

(a) Balances exclude assets or liabilities associated with accrued pension and other post-retirement benefits, Cinergy Receivables and money pool arrangements as discussed below.

(b) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $23 million is classified as Receivables and $4 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $27 million is classified as Receivables and $24 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(54) million is classified as Accounts payable and $(73) million is classified as Taxes accrued on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(67) million is classified as Accounts payable and $(2) million is classified as Taxes accrued on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) The balances at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are classified as Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) Of the balance at September 30, 2011, $(881) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $9 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Of the balance at December 31, 2010, $(973) million is classified as Deferred income taxes and $41 million is classified as Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As discussed further in Note 14, Duke Energy Indiana participates in Duke Energy's qualified pension plan, non-qualified pension plan and other post-retirement benefit plans and is allocated its proportionate share of expenses associated with these plans. Additionally, Duke Energy Indiana has been allocated accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit obligations of $263 million at September 30, 2011 and $272 million at December 31, 2010. These amounts have been classified in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Other current liabilities	$	2	$	2
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs		261		270

Other Related Party Amounts

	Three months ended				Nine months ended
	September 30, 2011		September 30, 2010		September 30, 2011		September 30, 2010
	(in millions)
Corporate governance and shared service expenses(a)	$	100	$	90	$	306	$	266
Indemnification coverages(b)		1		2		5		6
Rental income and other charged expenses, net(c)		1		2		4		6
Cinergy receivables interest income(d)		3		4		10		10

(a) Duke Energy Indiana is charged its proportionate share of corporate governance and other costs by an unconsolidated affiliate that is a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy. Corporate governance and other shared services costs are primarily related to human resources, employee benefits, legal and accounting fees, as well as other third party costs. These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(b) Duke Energy Indiana incurs expenses related to certain indemnification coverages through Bison, Duke Energy's wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. These expenses are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(c) Duke Energy Indiana records income associated with the rental of office space to a consolidated affiliate of Duke Energy, as well as its proportionate share of certain charged expenses from affiliates of Duke Energy.

(d) As discussed in Note 11, certain trade receivables have been sold by Duke Energy Indiana to Cinergy Receivables, a consolidated entity formed by Cinergy. The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price. The interest income associated with the subordinated note is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

As discussed further in Note 6, Duke Energy Indiana participates in a money pool arrangement with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Interest income associated with money pool activity is recorded in Other Income and Expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and was insignificant for each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Interest expense associated with money pool activity is recorded in Interest Expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. For each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 interest expense was insignificant.

In May 2011, Duke Energy Vermillion, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into an agreement to sell its 75% undivided ownership interest in the Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana and WVPA. Refer to Note 3 and Note 4 for further discussion.

In February 2010, Duke Energy Indiana received a $225 million capital contribution from its parent, Cinergy. In June 2010, Duke Energy Indiana received a $125 million capital contribution from its parent, Cinergy.

XML

Severance (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Severance

Schedule Of Severance Liability

	Balance at December 31, 2010		Provision/ Adjustments			Cash Reductions			Balance at September 30, 2011
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	87	$	1		$	(52	)	$	36
Duke Energy Carolinas		21		(1	)		(18	)		2
Duke Energy Indiana		1		—			(1	)		—

XML

Investments In Debt And Equity Securities (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Investments In Debt And Equity Securities

Available-For-Sale Investments

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Gross Unrealized Holding Gains(a)		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses(a)			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains(a)		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses(a)			Estimated Fair Value
Short-term Investments(b)	$	—	$	—		$	146	$	—	$	—		$	—
Total short-term investments	$	—	$	—		$	146	$	—	$	—		$	—
Equity Securities	$	334	$	(60	)	$	1,261	$	481	$	(16	)	$	1,435
Corporate Debt Securities		8		(4	)		226		12		(3	)		270
Municipal Bonds		2		—			62		1		(9	)		69
U.S. Government Bonds		21		—			373		10		(1	)		235
Auction Rate Debt Securities(c)		—		(19	)		72		—		(31	)		118
Other		5		(2	)		243		11		(5	)		274
Total long-term investments	$	370	$	(85	)	$	2,237	$	515	$	(65	)	$	2,401

(a) The table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $364 million and $63 million, respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains and losses of $505 million and $32 million, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the NDTF. Additionally, the table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $2 million and $1 million respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains of $6 million and an insignificant amount of unrealized losses, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust. As discussed above, unrealized losses on investments within the NDTF and Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are deferred as a regulatory asset pursuant to regulatory accounting treatment.

(b) At September 30, 2011, auction rate securities estimated fair value of $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) At September 30, 2011, auction rate securities estimated fair value of $72 million are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Unrealized Losses Of Available-For-Sale Debt And Equity Securities In A Continuous Loss Position

	As of September 30, 2011								As of December 31, 2010
	Fair Value(a)		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months			Fair Value(a)		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months
Equity Securities	$	241	$	(13	)	$	(47	)	$	85	$	(11	)	$	(5	)
Corporate Debt Securities		195		(1	)		(3	)		73		(2	)		(2	)
Municipal Bonds		9		—			—			42		(8	)		(1	)
U.S. Government Bonds		84		—			—			38		—			(1	)
Auction Rate Debt Securities(b)		71		(19	)		—			118		(31	)		—
Other		115		(1	)		(1	)		84		(1	)		(3	)
Total long-term investments	$	715	$	(34	)	$	(51	)	$	440	$	(53	)	$	(12	)

(a) The table above includes fair values of $459 million and $226 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, associated with investments held in the NDTF. Additionally, the table above includes fair values of $15 million and $5 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, associated with investments held in the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust.

(b) See Note 9 for information about fair value measurements related to investments in auction rate debt securities.

XML

Severance

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Severance

15. Severance

2011 Severance Plans. In conjunction with the proposed merger with Progress Energy, in August 2011, Duke Energy announced plans to offer a voluntary severance plan to approximately 4,850 eligible employees. As this is a voluntary plan, all severance benefits offered under this plan are considered special termination benefits under GAAP. Special termination benefits are measured upon employee acceptance and recorded immediately absent a significant retention period. If a significant retention period exists, the cost of the special termination benefits are recorded ratably over the remaining service periods of the affected employees. The window for employees to request to voluntarily end their employment under this plan opened on November 7, 2011 and will close on November 30, 2011. Duke Energy is unable to estimate the amount of severance payments associated with this voluntary plan until the close of the window. Duke Energy reserves the right to reject any request to volunteer based on business needs and/or excessive participation. The voluntary severance plan is contingent upon the successful close of the proposed merger with Progress Energy.

2010 Severance Plans. During 2010, the majority of severance charges were related to a voluntary severance plan whereby eligible employees were provided a window during which to accept termination benefits. As this was a voluntary plan, all severance benefits offered under this plan were considered special termination benefits under GAAP. Special termination benefits are measured upon employee acceptance and recorded immediately absent a significant retention period. If a significant retention period exists, the cost of the special termination benefits are recorded ratably over the remaining service periods of the affected employees. Approximately 900 employees accepted the termination benefits during the voluntary window period, which closed March 31, 2010. Future severance costs under Duke Energy's ongoing severance plan, if any, are currently not estimable.

Amounts included in the table below represent severance expense recorded by the Duke Energy Registrants during 2010. The Duke Energy Registrants recorded insignificant amounts for severance expense during 2011.

	Three  Months Ended September  30, 2010(a)		Nine Months Ended September  30, 2010(a)
Duke Energy	$	20	$	164
Duke Energy Carolinas		13		98
Duke Energy Ohio		2		23
Duke Energy Indiana		3		29

(a) These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The severance costs discussed above for the Subsidiary Registrants include an allocation of their proportionate share of severance costs for employees of Duke Energy's shared services affiliate that provides support to the Subsidiary Registrants. Amounts included in the table below represent the severance liability recorded by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana for employees of those registrants, and excludes costs allocated from and paid by Duke Energy's shared services affiliate.

	Balance at December 31, 2010		Provision/ Adjustments			Cash Reductions			Balance at September 30, 2011
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	87	$	1		$	(52	)	$	36
Duke Energy Carolinas		21		(1	)		(18	)		2
Duke Energy Indiana		1		—			(1	)		—

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Severance

15. Severance

2011 Severance Plans. In conjunction with the proposed merger with Progress Energy, in August 2011, Duke Energy announced plans to offer a voluntary severance plan to approximately 4,850 eligible employees. As this is a voluntary plan, all severance benefits offered under this plan are considered special termination benefits under GAAP. Special termination benefits are measured upon employee acceptance and recorded immediately absent a significant retention period. If a significant retention period exists, the cost of the special termination benefits are recorded ratably over the remaining service periods of the affected employees. The window for employees to request to voluntarily end their employment under this plan opened on November 7, 2011 and will close on November 30, 2011. Duke Energy is unable to estimate the amount of severance payments associated with this voluntary plan until the close of the window. Duke Energy reserves the right to reject any request to volunteer based on business needs and/or excessive participation. The voluntary severance plan is contingent upon the successful close of the proposed merger with Progress Energy.

2010 Severance Plans. During 2010, the majority of severance charges were related to a voluntary severance plan whereby eligible employees were provided a window during which to accept termination benefits. As this was a voluntary plan, all severance benefits offered under this plan were considered special termination benefits under GAAP. Special termination benefits are measured upon employee acceptance and recorded immediately absent a significant retention period. If a significant retention period exists, the cost of the special termination benefits are recorded ratably over the remaining service periods of the affected employees. Approximately 900 employees accepted the termination benefits during the voluntary window period, which closed March 31, 2010. Future severance costs under Duke Energy's ongoing severance plan, if any, are currently not estimable.

Amounts included in the table below represent severance expense recorded by the Duke Energy Registrants during 2010. The Duke Energy Registrants recorded insignificant amounts for severance expense during 2011.

	Three  Months Ended September  30, 2010(a)		Nine Months Ended September  30, 2010(a)
Duke Energy	$	20	$	164
Duke Energy Carolinas		13		98
Duke Energy Ohio		2		23
Duke Energy Indiana		3		29

(a) These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The severance costs discussed above for the Subsidiary Registrants include an allocation of their proportionate share of severance costs for employees of Duke Energy's shared services affiliate that provides support to the Subsidiary Registrants. Amounts included in the table below represent the severance liability recorded by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana for employees of those registrants, and excludes costs allocated from and paid by Duke Energy's shared services affiliate.

	Balance at December 31, 2010		Provision/ Adjustments			Cash Reductions			Balance at September 30, 2011
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	87	$	1		$	(52	)	$	36
Duke Energy Carolinas		21		(1	)		(18	)		2
Duke Energy Indiana		1		—			(1	)		—

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Severance

15. Severance

2011 Severance Plans. In conjunction with the proposed merger with Progress Energy, in August 2011, Duke Energy announced plans to offer a voluntary severance plan to approximately 4,850 eligible employees. As this is a voluntary plan, all severance benefits offered under this plan are considered special termination benefits under GAAP. Special termination benefits are measured upon employee acceptance and recorded immediately absent a significant retention period. If a significant retention period exists, the cost of the special termination benefits are recorded ratably over the remaining service periods of the affected employees. The window for employees to request to voluntarily end their employment under this plan opened on November 7, 2011 and will close on November 30, 2011. Duke Energy is unable to estimate the amount of severance payments associated with this voluntary plan until the close of the window. Duke Energy reserves the right to reject any request to volunteer based on business needs and/or excessive participation. The voluntary severance plan is contingent upon the successful close of the proposed merger with Progress Energy.

2010 Severance Plans. During 2010, the majority of severance charges were related to a voluntary severance plan whereby eligible employees were provided a window during which to accept termination benefits. As this was a voluntary plan, all severance benefits offered under this plan were considered special termination benefits under GAAP. Special termination benefits are measured upon employee acceptance and recorded immediately absent a significant retention period. If a significant retention period exists, the cost of the special termination benefits are recorded ratably over the remaining service periods of the affected employees. Approximately 900 employees accepted the termination benefits during the voluntary window period, which closed March 31, 2010. Future severance costs under Duke Energy's ongoing severance plan, if any, are currently not estimable.

Amounts included in the table below represent severance expense recorded by the Duke Energy Registrants during 2010. The Duke Energy Registrants recorded insignificant amounts for severance expense during 2011.

	Three  Months Ended September  30, 2010(a)		Nine Months Ended September  30, 2010(a)
Duke Energy	$	20	$	164
Duke Energy Carolinas		13		98
Duke Energy Ohio		2		23
Duke Energy Indiana		3		29

(a) These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The severance costs discussed above for the Subsidiary Registrants include an allocation of their proportionate share of severance costs for employees of Duke Energy's shared services affiliate that provides support to the Subsidiary Registrants. Amounts included in the table below represent the severance liability recorded by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana for employees of those registrants, and excludes costs allocated from and paid by Duke Energy's shared services affiliate.

	Balance at December 31, 2010		Provision/ Adjustments			Cash Reductions			Balance at September 30, 2011
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	87	$	1		$	(52	)	$	36
Duke Energy Carolinas		21		(1	)		(18	)		2
Duke Energy Indiana		1		—			(1	)		—

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Severance

15. Severance

2011 Severance Plans. In conjunction with the proposed merger with Progress Energy, in August 2011, Duke Energy announced plans to offer a voluntary severance plan to approximately 4,850 eligible employees. As this is a voluntary plan, all severance benefits offered under this plan are considered special termination benefits under GAAP. Special termination benefits are measured upon employee acceptance and recorded immediately absent a significant retention period. If a significant retention period exists, the cost of the special termination benefits are recorded ratably over the remaining service periods of the affected employees. The window for employees to request to voluntarily end their employment under this plan opened on November 7, 2011 and will close on November 30, 2011. Duke Energy is unable to estimate the amount of severance payments associated with this voluntary plan until the close of the window. Duke Energy reserves the right to reject any request to volunteer based on business needs and/or excessive participation. The voluntary severance plan is contingent upon the successful close of the proposed merger with Progress Energy.

2010 Severance Plans. During 2010, the majority of severance charges were related to a voluntary severance plan whereby eligible employees were provided a window during which to accept termination benefits. As this was a voluntary plan, all severance benefits offered under this plan were considered special termination benefits under GAAP. Special termination benefits are measured upon employee acceptance and recorded immediately absent a significant retention period. If a significant retention period exists, the cost of the special termination benefits are recorded ratably over the remaining service periods of the affected employees. Approximately 900 employees accepted the termination benefits during the voluntary window period, which closed March 31, 2010. Future severance costs under Duke Energy's ongoing severance plan, if any, are currently not estimable.

Amounts included in the table below represent severance expense recorded by the Duke Energy Registrants during 2010. The Duke Energy Registrants recorded insignificant amounts for severance expense during 2011.

	Three  Months Ended September  30, 2010(a)		Nine Months Ended September  30, 2010(a)
Duke Energy	$	20	$	164
Duke Energy Carolinas		13		98
Duke Energy Ohio		2		23
Duke Energy Indiana		3		29

(a) These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The severance costs discussed above for the Subsidiary Registrants include an allocation of their proportionate share of severance costs for employees of Duke Energy's shared services affiliate that provides support to the Subsidiary Registrants. Amounts included in the table below represent the severance liability recorded by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana for employees of those registrants, and excludes costs allocated from and paid by Duke Energy's shared services affiliate.

	Balance at December 31, 2010		Provision/ Adjustments			Cash Reductions			Balance at September 30, 2011
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	87	$	1		$	(52	)	$	36
Duke Energy Carolinas		21		(1	)		(18	)		2
Duke Energy Indiana		1		—			(1	)		—

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Severance

15. Severance

2011 Severance Plans. In conjunction with the proposed merger with Progress Energy, in August 2011, Duke Energy announced plans to offer a voluntary severance plan to approximately 4,850 eligible employees. As this is a voluntary plan, all severance benefits offered under this plan are considered special termination benefits under GAAP. Special termination benefits are measured upon employee acceptance and recorded immediately absent a significant retention period. If a significant retention period exists, the cost of the special termination benefits are recorded ratably over the remaining service periods of the affected employees. The window for employees to request to voluntarily end their employment under this plan opened on November 7, 2011 and will close on November 30, 2011. Duke Energy is unable to estimate the amount of severance payments associated with this voluntary plan until the close of the window. Duke Energy reserves the right to reject any request to volunteer based on business needs and/or excessive participation. The voluntary severance plan is contingent upon the successful close of the proposed merger with Progress Energy.

2010 Severance Plans. During 2010, the majority of severance charges were related to a voluntary severance plan whereby eligible employees were provided a window during which to accept termination benefits. As this was a voluntary plan, all severance benefits offered under this plan were considered special termination benefits under GAAP. Special termination benefits are measured upon employee acceptance and recorded immediately absent a significant retention period. If a significant retention period exists, the cost of the special termination benefits are recorded ratably over the remaining service periods of the affected employees. Approximately 900 employees accepted the termination benefits during the voluntary window period, which closed March 31, 2010. Future severance costs under Duke Energy's ongoing severance plan, if any, are currently not estimable.

Amounts included in the table below represent severance expense recorded by the Duke Energy Registrants during 2010. The Duke Energy Registrants recorded insignificant amounts for severance expense during 2011.

	Three  Months Ended September  30, 2010(a)		Nine Months Ended September  30, 2010(a)
Duke Energy	$	20	$	164
Duke Energy Carolinas		13		98
Duke Energy Ohio		2		23
Duke Energy Indiana		3		29

(a) These amounts are recorded in Operation, Maintenance and Other within Operating Expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The severance costs discussed above for the Subsidiary Registrants include an allocation of their proportionate share of severance costs for employees of Duke Energy's shared services affiliate that provides support to the Subsidiary Registrants. Amounts included in the table below represent the severance liability recorded by Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana for employees of those registrants, and excludes costs allocated from and paid by Duke Energy's shared services affiliate.

	Balance at December 31, 2010		Provision/ Adjustments			Cash Reductions			Balance at September 30, 2011
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	87	$	1		$	(52	)	$	36
Duke Energy Carolinas		21		(1	)		(18	)		2
Duke Energy Indiana		1		—			(1	)		—

XML

Goodwill, Intangible Assets And Impairments

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Goodwill, Intangible Assets And Impairments

7. Goodwill, Intangible Assets and Impairments

Goodwill

The following table shows goodwill by reportable operating segment for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010:

	USFE&G		Commercial Power			International			Total
	(in millions)
Duke Energy
Balance at December 31, 2010:
Goodwill	$	3,483	$	940		$	306		$	4,729
Accumulated Impairment Charges		—		(871	)		—			(871	)
Balance at December 31, 2010, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges		3,483		69			306			3,858
Foreign Exchange and Other Changes		—		—			(11	)		(11	)
Balance as of September 30, 2011:
Goodwill		3,483		940			295			4,718
Accumulated Impairment Charges		—		(871	)		—			(871	)
Balance at September 30, 2011, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges, foreign exchange and other charges	$	3,483	$	69		$	295		$	3,847

	USFE&G			Commercial Power			Total
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio
Balance at December 31, 2010:
Goodwill	$	1,137		$	1,188		$	2,325
Accumulated Impairment Charges		(216	)		(1,188	)		(1,404	)
Balance at December 31, 2010, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges		921			—			921

	USFE&G			Commercial Power			Total
	(in millions)
Balance as of September 30, 2011:
Goodwill		1,137			1,188			2,325
Accumulated Impairment Charges		(216	)		(1,188	)		(1,404	)
Balance at September 30, 2011, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges	$	921		$	—		$	921

Duke Energy. Duke Energy is required to perform an annual goodwill impairment test as of the same date each year and, accordingly, performs its annual impairment testing of goodwill as of August 31. Duke Energy updates the test between annual tests if events or circumstances occur that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value.

Duke Energy early adopted the revised goodwill impairment accounting guidance during the third quarter of 2011 and applied this revised guidance to its August 31, 2011 annual goodwill impairment test. Pursuant to the revised guidance an entity may first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is necessary to perform the two step goodwill impairment test. If deemed necessary, the two-step impairment test shall be used to identify potential goodwill impairment and measure the amount of a goodwill impairment loss, if any, to be recognized. Duke Energy's qualitative assessment included, among other things, reviews of current forecasts and recent fair value calculations, updates to weighted average cost of capital calculations and consideration of overall economic factors and recent financial performance. Duke Energy determined it was more likely than not that the fair value of each of its reporting units exceeded their carrying value at August 31, 2011 and that the two step goodwill impairment test was not required.

In the second quarter of 2010, based on circumstances discussed below, management determined that it was more likely than not that the fair value of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit was below its respective carrying value. Accordingly, an interim impairment test was performed for this reporting unit. Determination of reporting unit fair value was based on a combination of the income approach, which estimates the fair value of Duke Energy's reporting units based on discounted future cash flows, and the market approach, which estimates the fair value of Duke Energy's reporting units based on market comparables within the utility and energy industries. Based on completion of step one of the second quarter 2010 impairment analysis, management determined that the fair value of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit was less than its carrying value, which included goodwill of $500 million.

Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit includes nearly 4,000 MW of primarily coal-fired generation capacity in Ohio which is dedicated under the ESP through December 31, 2011. These assets also generate revenues through sales outside the ESP load customer base if circumstances arise that result in availability of excess capacity. Additionally, this reporting unit has approximately 3,600 MW of gas-fired generation capacity in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Indiana which provides generation to unregulated energy markets in the Midwest. The businesses within Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit operate in market structures that are, to a degree, unregulated and allow for customer choice among suppliers. As a result, the operations within this reporting unit are subjected to competitive pressures that do not exist in any of Duke Energy's regulated jurisdictions.

Commercial Power's other businesses, including the renewable generation assets, are in a separate reporting unit for goodwill impairment testing purposes. No impairment existed with respect to Commercial Power's renewable generation assets.

The fair value of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit is impacted by a multitude of factors, including current and forecasted customer demand, forecasted power and commodity prices, uncertainty of environmental costs, competition, the cost of capital, valuation of peer companies and regulatory and legislative developments. Management's assumptions and views of these factors continually evolve, and certain views and assumptions used in determining the fair value of the reporting unit in the 2010 interim impairment test changed significantly from those used in the 2009 annual impairment test. These factors had a significant impact on the valuation of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit. More specifically, the following factors significantly impacted management's valuation of the reporting unit:

• Sustained lower forward power prices—In Ohio, Duke Energy provides power to retail customers under the ESP, which utilizes rates approved by the PUCO through 2011. These rates in 2010 were above market prices for generation services, resulting in customers switching to other generation providers. As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy Ohio will establish a new SSO for retail load customers for generation after the current ESP expires on December 31, 2011. Given forward power prices, which declined from the time of the 2009 impairment, significant uncertainty existed with respect to the generation margin that would be earned under the new SSO.

• Potentially more stringent environmental regulations from the U.S. EPA—In May and July of 2010, the EPA issued proposed rules associated with the regulation of CCRs to address risks from the disposal of CCRs (e.g., ash ponds) and to limit the interstate transport of emissions of NO_x and SO₂. These proposed regulations, along with other pending EPA regulations, could result in significant expenditures for coal fired generation plants, and could result in the early retirement of certain generation assets, which do not currently have control equipment for NO_x and SO₂, as soon as 2015.

• Customer switching—ESP customers have increasingly selected alternative generation service providers, as allowed by Ohio legislation, which further erodes margins on sales. In the second quarter of 2010, Duke Energy Ohio's residential class became the target of an intense marketing campaign offering significant discounts to residential customers that switch to alternate power suppliers. Customer switching levels were at approximately 55% at June 30, 2010 compared to approximately 29% in the third quarter of 2009.

As a result of the factors above, a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $500 million was recorded during the second quarter of 2010. This impairment charge represented the entire remaining goodwill balance for Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit. In addition to the goodwill impairment charge, and as a result of factors similar to those described above, Commercial Power recorded $160 million of pre-tax impairment charges related to certain generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets in the Midwest to write-down the value of these assets to their estimated fair value. The generation assets that were subject to this impairment charge were those coal-fired generating assets that do not have certain environmental emissions control equipment, causing these generation assets to be heavily impacted by the EPA's proposed rules on emissions of NO_x and SO₂. These impairment charges are recorded in Goodwill and Other Impairment Charges on Duke Energy's Consolidated Statement of Operations.

The fair values of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit and generating assets for which impairments were recorded were determined using significant unobservable inputs (i.e., Level 3 inputs) as defined by the accounting guidance for fair value measurements.

Duke Energy Ohio. Duke Energy Ohio early adopted the revised goodwill impairment accounting guidance, discussed above, during the third quarter of 2011 and applied this revised guidance to its August 31, 2011 annual goodwill impairment test. Duke Energy Ohio's qualitative assessment included, among other things, reviews of current forecasts and recent fair value calculations, updates to weighted average cost of capital calculations and consideration of overall economic factors and recent financial performance. Duke Energy Ohio determined it was more likely than not that the fair value of each of its reporting units exceeded their carrying value at August 31, 2011 and that the two step goodwill impairment test was not required.

In the second quarter of 2010, based on circumstances discussed above for Duke Energy, management determined that is was more likely than not that the fair value of Duke Energy Ohio's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit was less than its carrying value. Accordingly, Duke Energy Ohio also impaired its entire goodwill balance of $461 million related to this reporting unit during the second quarter of 2010. Also, as discussed above, Duke Energy Ohio recorded $160 million of pre-tax impairment charges related to certain generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets in the Midwest to write-down the value of these assets to their estimated fair value.

In the second quarter of 2010, goodwill for Ohio Transmission and Distribution (Ohio T&D) was also analyzed. The fair value of the Ohio T&D reporting unit is impacted by a multitude of factors, including current and forecasted customer demand, discount rates, valuation of peer companies, and regulatory and legislative developments. Management periodically updates the load forecasts to reflect current trends and expectations based on the current environment and future assumptions. The spring and summer 2010 load forecast indicated that load would not return to 2007 weather-normalized levels for several more years. Based on the results of the second quarter 2010 impairment analysis, the fair value of the Ohio T&D reporting unit was $216 million below its book value at Duke Energy Ohio and $40 million higher than its book value at Duke Energy. Accordingly, this goodwill impairment charge was only recorded by Duke Energy Ohio.

The fair value of Duke Energy Ohio's Ohio T&D reporting unit for which an impairment was recorded was determined using significant unobservable inputs (i.e., Level 3 inputs) as defined by the accounting guidance for fair value measurements.

As management is not aware of any recent market transactions for comparable assets with sufficient transparency to develop a market approach fair value, Duke Energy Ohio relied heavily on the income approach to estimate the fair value of the impaired assets.

All of the above impairment charges are recorded in Goodwill and Other Impairment Charges on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Intangible Assets. On August 8, 2011, the EPA's final rule to replace CAIR was published in the Federal Register. As further discussed in Note 5, the CSAPR establishes state-level annual SO₂ and NO_x caps that take effect on January 1, 2012, and state-level ozone-season NO_x caps that take effect on May 1, 2012. The cap levels decline in 2014 for most states, including each state in which Duke Energy operates, except for South Carolina where the cap levels remain constant. The CSAPR will not utilize CAA emission allowances as the original CAIR provided. The EPA will issue new emission allowances to be used exclusively for purposes of complying with the CSAPR cap-and-trade program. Duke Energy has evaluated the effect of the CSAPR on the carrying value of emission allowances recorded at its USFE&G and Commercial Power segments. Based on the provisions of the CSAPR, Duke Energy Ohio has more SO₂ allowances than will be needed to comply with the continuing CAA acid rain cap-and-trade program (excess emission allowances). Duke Energy Ohio incurred a pre-tax impairment of $79 million in the third quarter of 2011 to write down the carrying value of excess emission allowances held by Commercial Power to fair value. The charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. This amount is based on the fair value of total allowances held by Commercial Power for compliance under the continuing CAA acid rain cap-and-trade program as of September 30, 2011.

The changes in net carrying amounts of intangible assets during the nine months ended September 30, 2011 relates primarily to the CSAPR impairments discussed above, as well as the consumption, purchases and/or sales of emission allowances.

Other Impairments. As a result of project cost overages related to the Edwardsport IGCC plant, Duke Energy Indiana recorded pre-tax charges to earnings of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and $44 million in the third quarter of 2010.

Refer to Note 4 for a further discussion of the Edwardsport IGCC project.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Goodwill, Intangible Assets And Impairments

7. Goodwill, Intangible Assets and Impairments

Goodwill

The following table shows goodwill by reportable operating segment for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010:

	USFE&G		Commercial Power			International			Total
	(in millions)
Duke Energy
Balance at December 31, 2010:
Goodwill	$	3,483	$	940		$	306		$	4,729
Accumulated Impairment Charges		—		(871	)		—			(871	)
Balance at December 31, 2010, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges		3,483		69			306			3,858
Foreign Exchange and Other Changes		—		—			(11	)		(11	)
Balance as of September 30, 2011:
Goodwill		3,483		940			295			4,718
Accumulated Impairment Charges		—		(871	)		—			(871	)
Balance at September 30, 2011, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges, foreign exchange and other charges	$	3,483	$	69		$	295		$	3,847

	USFE&G			Commercial Power			Total
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio
Balance at December 31, 2010:
Goodwill	$	1,137		$	1,188		$	2,325
Accumulated Impairment Charges		(216	)		(1,188	)		(1,404	)
Balance at December 31, 2010, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges		921			—			921

	USFE&G			Commercial Power			Total
	(in millions)
Balance as of September 30, 2011:
Goodwill		1,137			1,188			2,325
Accumulated Impairment Charges		(216	)		(1,188	)		(1,404	)
Balance at September 30, 2011, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges	$	921		$	—		$	921

Duke Energy. Duke Energy is required to perform an annual goodwill impairment test as of the same date each year and, accordingly, performs its annual impairment testing of goodwill as of August 31. Duke Energy updates the test between annual tests if events or circumstances occur that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value.

Duke Energy early adopted the revised goodwill impairment accounting guidance during the third quarter of 2011 and applied this revised guidance to its August 31, 2011 annual goodwill impairment test. Pursuant to the revised guidance an entity may first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is necessary to perform the two step goodwill impairment test. If deemed necessary, the two-step impairment test shall be used to identify potential goodwill impairment and measure the amount of a goodwill impairment loss, if any, to be recognized. Duke Energy's qualitative assessment included, among other things, reviews of current forecasts and recent fair value calculations, updates to weighted average cost of capital calculations and consideration of overall economic factors and recent financial performance. Duke Energy determined it was more likely than not that the fair value of each of its reporting units exceeded their carrying value at August 31, 2011 and that the two step goodwill impairment test was not required.

In the second quarter of 2010, based on circumstances discussed below, management determined that it was more likely than not that the fair value of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit was below its respective carrying value. Accordingly, an interim impairment test was performed for this reporting unit. Determination of reporting unit fair value was based on a combination of the income approach, which estimates the fair value of Duke Energy's reporting units based on discounted future cash flows, and the market approach, which estimates the fair value of Duke Energy's reporting units based on market comparables within the utility and energy industries. Based on completion of step one of the second quarter 2010 impairment analysis, management determined that the fair value of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit was less than its carrying value, which included goodwill of $500 million.

Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit includes nearly 4,000 MW of primarily coal-fired generation capacity in Ohio which is dedicated under the ESP through December 31, 2011. These assets also generate revenues through sales outside the ESP load customer base if circumstances arise that result in availability of excess capacity. Additionally, this reporting unit has approximately 3,600 MW of gas-fired generation capacity in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Indiana which provides generation to unregulated energy markets in the Midwest. The businesses within Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit operate in market structures that are, to a degree, unregulated and allow for customer choice among suppliers. As a result, the operations within this reporting unit are subjected to competitive pressures that do not exist in any of Duke Energy's regulated jurisdictions.

Commercial Power's other businesses, including the renewable generation assets, are in a separate reporting unit for goodwill impairment testing purposes. No impairment existed with respect to Commercial Power's renewable generation assets.

The fair value of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit is impacted by a multitude of factors, including current and forecasted customer demand, forecasted power and commodity prices, uncertainty of environmental costs, competition, the cost of capital, valuation of peer companies and regulatory and legislative developments. Management's assumptions and views of these factors continually evolve, and certain views and assumptions used in determining the fair value of the reporting unit in the 2010 interim impairment test changed significantly from those used in the 2009 annual impairment test. These factors had a significant impact on the valuation of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit. More specifically, the following factors significantly impacted management's valuation of the reporting unit:

• Sustained lower forward power prices—In Ohio, Duke Energy provides power to retail customers under the ESP, which utilizes rates approved by the PUCO through 2011. These rates in 2010 were above market prices for generation services, resulting in customers switching to other generation providers. As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy Ohio will establish a new SSO for retail load customers for generation after the current ESP expires on December 31, 2011. Given forward power prices, which declined from the time of the 2009 impairment, significant uncertainty existed with respect to the generation margin that would be earned under the new SSO.

• Potentially more stringent environmental regulations from the U.S. EPA—In May and July of 2010, the EPA issued proposed rules associated with the regulation of CCRs to address risks from the disposal of CCRs (e.g., ash ponds) and to limit the interstate transport of emissions of NO_x and SO₂. These proposed regulations, along with other pending EPA regulations, could result in significant expenditures for coal fired generation plants, and could result in the early retirement of certain generation assets, which do not currently have control equipment for NO_x and SO₂, as soon as 2015.

• Customer switching—ESP customers have increasingly selected alternative generation service providers, as allowed by Ohio legislation, which further erodes margins on sales. In the second quarter of 2010, Duke Energy Ohio's residential class became the target of an intense marketing campaign offering significant discounts to residential customers that switch to alternate power suppliers. Customer switching levels were at approximately 55% at June 30, 2010 compared to approximately 29% in the third quarter of 2009.

As a result of the factors above, a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $500 million was recorded during the second quarter of 2010. This impairment charge represented the entire remaining goodwill balance for Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit. In addition to the goodwill impairment charge, and as a result of factors similar to those described above, Commercial Power recorded $160 million of pre-tax impairment charges related to certain generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets in the Midwest to write-down the value of these assets to their estimated fair value. The generation assets that were subject to this impairment charge were those coal-fired generating assets that do not have certain environmental emissions control equipment, causing these generation assets to be heavily impacted by the EPA's proposed rules on emissions of NO_x and SO₂. These impairment charges are recorded in Goodwill and Other Impairment Charges on Duke Energy's Consolidated Statement of Operations.

The fair values of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit and generating assets for which impairments were recorded were determined using significant unobservable inputs (i.e., Level 3 inputs) as defined by the accounting guidance for fair value measurements.

Duke Energy Ohio. Duke Energy Ohio early adopted the revised goodwill impairment accounting guidance, discussed above, during the third quarter of 2011 and applied this revised guidance to its August 31, 2011 annual goodwill impairment test. Duke Energy Ohio's qualitative assessment included, among other things, reviews of current forecasts and recent fair value calculations, updates to weighted average cost of capital calculations and consideration of overall economic factors and recent financial performance. Duke Energy Ohio determined it was more likely than not that the fair value of each of its reporting units exceeded their carrying value at August 31, 2011 and that the two step goodwill impairment test was not required.

In the second quarter of 2010, based on circumstances discussed above for Duke Energy, management determined that is was more likely than not that the fair value of Duke Energy Ohio's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit was less than its carrying value. Accordingly, Duke Energy Ohio also impaired its entire goodwill balance of $461 million related to this reporting unit during the second quarter of 2010. Also, as discussed above, Duke Energy Ohio recorded $160 million of pre-tax impairment charges related to certain generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets in the Midwest to write-down the value of these assets to their estimated fair value.

In the second quarter of 2010, goodwill for Ohio Transmission and Distribution (Ohio T&D) was also analyzed. The fair value of the Ohio T&D reporting unit is impacted by a multitude of factors, including current and forecasted customer demand, discount rates, valuation of peer companies, and regulatory and legislative developments. Management periodically updates the load forecasts to reflect current trends and expectations based on the current environment and future assumptions. The spring and summer 2010 load forecast indicated that load would not return to 2007 weather-normalized levels for several more years. Based on the results of the second quarter 2010 impairment analysis, the fair value of the Ohio T&D reporting unit was $216 million below its book value at Duke Energy Ohio and $40 million higher than its book value at Duke Energy. Accordingly, this goodwill impairment charge was only recorded by Duke Energy Ohio.

The fair value of Duke Energy Ohio's Ohio T&D reporting unit for which an impairment was recorded was determined using significant unobservable inputs (i.e., Level 3 inputs) as defined by the accounting guidance for fair value measurements.

As management is not aware of any recent market transactions for comparable assets with sufficient transparency to develop a market approach fair value, Duke Energy Ohio relied heavily on the income approach to estimate the fair value of the impaired assets.

All of the above impairment charges are recorded in Goodwill and Other Impairment Charges on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Intangible Assets. On August 8, 2011, the EPA's final rule to replace CAIR was published in the Federal Register. As further discussed in Note 5, the CSAPR establishes state-level annual SO₂ and NO_x caps that take effect on January 1, 2012, and state-level ozone-season NO_x caps that take effect on May 1, 2012. The cap levels decline in 2014 for most states, including each state in which Duke Energy operates, except for South Carolina where the cap levels remain constant. The CSAPR will not utilize CAA emission allowances as the original CAIR provided. The EPA will issue new emission allowances to be used exclusively for purposes of complying with the CSAPR cap-and-trade program. Duke Energy has evaluated the effect of the CSAPR on the carrying value of emission allowances recorded at its USFE&G and Commercial Power segments. Based on the provisions of the CSAPR, Duke Energy Ohio has more SO₂ allowances than will be needed to comply with the continuing CAA acid rain cap-and-trade program (excess emission allowances). Duke Energy Ohio incurred a pre-tax impairment of $79 million in the third quarter of 2011 to write down the carrying value of excess emission allowances held by Commercial Power to fair value. The charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. This amount is based on the fair value of total allowances held by Commercial Power for compliance under the continuing CAA acid rain cap-and-trade program as of September 30, 2011.

The changes in net carrying amounts of intangible assets during the nine months ended September 30, 2011 relates primarily to the CSAPR impairments discussed above, as well as the consumption, purchases and/or sales of emission allowances.

Other Impairments. As a result of project cost overages related to the Edwardsport IGCC plant, Duke Energy Indiana recorded pre-tax charges to earnings of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and $44 million in the third quarter of 2010.

Refer to Note 4 for a further discussion of the Edwardsport IGCC project.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Goodwill, Intangible Assets And Impairments

7. Goodwill, Intangible Assets and Impairments

Goodwill

The following table shows goodwill by reportable operating segment for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010:

	USFE&G		Commercial Power			International			Total
	(in millions)
Duke Energy
Balance at December 31, 2010:
Goodwill	$	3,483	$	940		$	306		$	4,729
Accumulated Impairment Charges		—		(871	)		—			(871	)
Balance at December 31, 2010, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges		3,483		69			306			3,858
Foreign Exchange and Other Changes		—		—			(11	)		(11	)
Balance as of September 30, 2011:
Goodwill		3,483		940			295			4,718
Accumulated Impairment Charges		—		(871	)		—			(871	)
Balance at September 30, 2011, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges, foreign exchange and other charges	$	3,483	$	69		$	295		$	3,847

	USFE&G			Commercial Power			Total
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio
Balance at December 31, 2010:
Goodwill	$	1,137		$	1,188		$	2,325
Accumulated Impairment Charges		(216	)		(1,188	)		(1,404	)
Balance at December 31, 2010, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges		921			—			921

	USFE&G			Commercial Power			Total
	(in millions)
Balance as of September 30, 2011:
Goodwill		1,137			1,188			2,325
Accumulated Impairment Charges		(216	)		(1,188	)		(1,404	)
Balance at September 30, 2011, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges	$	921		$	—		$	921

Duke Energy. Duke Energy is required to perform an annual goodwill impairment test as of the same date each year and, accordingly, performs its annual impairment testing of goodwill as of August 31. Duke Energy updates the test between annual tests if events or circumstances occur that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value.

Duke Energy early adopted the revised goodwill impairment accounting guidance during the third quarter of 2011 and applied this revised guidance to its August 31, 2011 annual goodwill impairment test. Pursuant to the revised guidance an entity may first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is necessary to perform the two step goodwill impairment test. If deemed necessary, the two-step impairment test shall be used to identify potential goodwill impairment and measure the amount of a goodwill impairment loss, if any, to be recognized. Duke Energy's qualitative assessment included, among other things, reviews of current forecasts and recent fair value calculations, updates to weighted average cost of capital calculations and consideration of overall economic factors and recent financial performance. Duke Energy determined it was more likely than not that the fair value of each of its reporting units exceeded their carrying value at August 31, 2011 and that the two step goodwill impairment test was not required.

In the second quarter of 2010, based on circumstances discussed below, management determined that it was more likely than not that the fair value of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit was below its respective carrying value. Accordingly, an interim impairment test was performed for this reporting unit. Determination of reporting unit fair value was based on a combination of the income approach, which estimates the fair value of Duke Energy's reporting units based on discounted future cash flows, and the market approach, which estimates the fair value of Duke Energy's reporting units based on market comparables within the utility and energy industries. Based on completion of step one of the second quarter 2010 impairment analysis, management determined that the fair value of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit was less than its carrying value, which included goodwill of $500 million.

Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit includes nearly 4,000 MW of primarily coal-fired generation capacity in Ohio which is dedicated under the ESP through December 31, 2011. These assets also generate revenues through sales outside the ESP load customer base if circumstances arise that result in availability of excess capacity. Additionally, this reporting unit has approximately 3,600 MW of gas-fired generation capacity in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Indiana which provides generation to unregulated energy markets in the Midwest. The businesses within Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit operate in market structures that are, to a degree, unregulated and allow for customer choice among suppliers. As a result, the operations within this reporting unit are subjected to competitive pressures that do not exist in any of Duke Energy's regulated jurisdictions.

Commercial Power's other businesses, including the renewable generation assets, are in a separate reporting unit for goodwill impairment testing purposes. No impairment existed with respect to Commercial Power's renewable generation assets.

The fair value of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit is impacted by a multitude of factors, including current and forecasted customer demand, forecasted power and commodity prices, uncertainty of environmental costs, competition, the cost of capital, valuation of peer companies and regulatory and legislative developments. Management's assumptions and views of these factors continually evolve, and certain views and assumptions used in determining the fair value of the reporting unit in the 2010 interim impairment test changed significantly from those used in the 2009 annual impairment test. These factors had a significant impact on the valuation of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit. More specifically, the following factors significantly impacted management's valuation of the reporting unit:

• Sustained lower forward power prices—In Ohio, Duke Energy provides power to retail customers under the ESP, which utilizes rates approved by the PUCO through 2011. These rates in 2010 were above market prices for generation services, resulting in customers switching to other generation providers. As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy Ohio will establish a new SSO for retail load customers for generation after the current ESP expires on December 31, 2011. Given forward power prices, which declined from the time of the 2009 impairment, significant uncertainty existed with respect to the generation margin that would be earned under the new SSO.

• Potentially more stringent environmental regulations from the U.S. EPA—In May and July of 2010, the EPA issued proposed rules associated with the regulation of CCRs to address risks from the disposal of CCRs (e.g., ash ponds) and to limit the interstate transport of emissions of NO_x and SO₂. These proposed regulations, along with other pending EPA regulations, could result in significant expenditures for coal fired generation plants, and could result in the early retirement of certain generation assets, which do not currently have control equipment for NO_x and SO₂, as soon as 2015.

• Customer switching—ESP customers have increasingly selected alternative generation service providers, as allowed by Ohio legislation, which further erodes margins on sales. In the second quarter of 2010, Duke Energy Ohio's residential class became the target of an intense marketing campaign offering significant discounts to residential customers that switch to alternate power suppliers. Customer switching levels were at approximately 55% at June 30, 2010 compared to approximately 29% in the third quarter of 2009.

As a result of the factors above, a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $500 million was recorded during the second quarter of 2010. This impairment charge represented the entire remaining goodwill balance for Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit. In addition to the goodwill impairment charge, and as a result of factors similar to those described above, Commercial Power recorded $160 million of pre-tax impairment charges related to certain generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets in the Midwest to write-down the value of these assets to their estimated fair value. The generation assets that were subject to this impairment charge were those coal-fired generating assets that do not have certain environmental emissions control equipment, causing these generation assets to be heavily impacted by the EPA's proposed rules on emissions of NO_x and SO₂. These impairment charges are recorded in Goodwill and Other Impairment Charges on Duke Energy's Consolidated Statement of Operations.

The fair values of Commercial Power's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit and generating assets for which impairments were recorded were determined using significant unobservable inputs (i.e., Level 3 inputs) as defined by the accounting guidance for fair value measurements.

Duke Energy Ohio. Duke Energy Ohio early adopted the revised goodwill impairment accounting guidance, discussed above, during the third quarter of 2011 and applied this revised guidance to its August 31, 2011 annual goodwill impairment test. Duke Energy Ohio's qualitative assessment included, among other things, reviews of current forecasts and recent fair value calculations, updates to weighted average cost of capital calculations and consideration of overall economic factors and recent financial performance. Duke Energy Ohio determined it was more likely than not that the fair value of each of its reporting units exceeded their carrying value at August 31, 2011 and that the two step goodwill impairment test was not required.

In the second quarter of 2010, based on circumstances discussed above for Duke Energy, management determined that is was more likely than not that the fair value of Duke Energy Ohio's non-regulated Midwest generation reporting unit was less than its carrying value. Accordingly, Duke Energy Ohio also impaired its entire goodwill balance of $461 million related to this reporting unit during the second quarter of 2010. Also, as discussed above, Duke Energy Ohio recorded $160 million of pre-tax impairment charges related to certain generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets in the Midwest to write-down the value of these assets to their estimated fair value.

In the second quarter of 2010, goodwill for Ohio Transmission and Distribution (Ohio T&D) was also analyzed. The fair value of the Ohio T&D reporting unit is impacted by a multitude of factors, including current and forecasted customer demand, discount rates, valuation of peer companies, and regulatory and legislative developments. Management periodically updates the load forecasts to reflect current trends and expectations based on the current environment and future assumptions. The spring and summer 2010 load forecast indicated that load would not return to 2007 weather-normalized levels for several more years. Based on the results of the second quarter 2010 impairment analysis, the fair value of the Ohio T&D reporting unit was $216 million below its book value at Duke Energy Ohio and $40 million higher than its book value at Duke Energy. Accordingly, this goodwill impairment charge was only recorded by Duke Energy Ohio.

The fair value of Duke Energy Ohio's Ohio T&D reporting unit for which an impairment was recorded was determined using significant unobservable inputs (i.e., Level 3 inputs) as defined by the accounting guidance for fair value measurements.

As management is not aware of any recent market transactions for comparable assets with sufficient transparency to develop a market approach fair value, Duke Energy Ohio relied heavily on the income approach to estimate the fair value of the impaired assets.

All of the above impairment charges are recorded in Goodwill and Other Impairment Charges on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Intangible Assets. On August 8, 2011, the EPA's final rule to replace CAIR was published in the Federal Register. As further discussed in Note 5, the CSAPR establishes state-level annual SO₂ and NO_x caps that take effect on January 1, 2012, and state-level ozone-season NO_x caps that take effect on May 1, 2012. The cap levels decline in 2014 for most states, including each state in which Duke Energy operates, except for South Carolina where the cap levels remain constant. The CSAPR will not utilize CAA emission allowances as the original CAIR provided. The EPA will issue new emission allowances to be used exclusively for purposes of complying with the CSAPR cap-and-trade program. Duke Energy has evaluated the effect of the CSAPR on the carrying value of emission allowances recorded at its USFE&G and Commercial Power segments. Based on the provisions of the CSAPR, Duke Energy Ohio has more SO₂ allowances than will be needed to comply with the continuing CAA acid rain cap-and-trade program (excess emission allowances). Duke Energy Ohio incurred a pre-tax impairment of $79 million in the third quarter of 2011 to write down the carrying value of excess emission allowances held by Commercial Power to fair value. The charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. This amount is based on the fair value of total allowances held by Commercial Power for compliance under the continuing CAA acid rain cap-and-trade program as of September 30, 2011.

The changes in net carrying amounts of intangible assets during the nine months ended September 30, 2011 relates primarily to the CSAPR impairments discussed above, as well as the consumption, purchases and/or sales of emission allowances.

Other Impairments. As a result of project cost overages related to the Edwardsport IGCC plant, Duke Energy Indiana recorded pre-tax charges to earnings of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and $44 million in the third quarter of 2010.

Refer to Note 4 for a further discussion of the Edwardsport IGCC project.

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements Of Common Stockholder's Equity And Comprehensive Income - Ohio (USD $) In Millions		Duke Energy Ohio [Member] Common Stock [Member]	Duke Energy Ohio [Member] Additional Paid-In Capital [Member]	Duke Energy Ohio [Member] Retained Earnings [Member]	Duke Energy Ohio [Member] Net (Losses) Gains On Cash Flow Hedges [Member]		Duke Energy Ohio [Member] Pension And OPEB Related Adjustments To AOCI [Member]		Duke Energy Ohio [Member]		Retained Earnings [Member]	Net (Losses) Gains On Cash Flow Hedges [Member]		Pension And OPEB Related Adjustments To AOCI [Member]		Total
Balance at Dec. 31, 2009		$ 762	$ 5,570	$ (405)	$ 1		$ (30)		$ 5,898
Net income (loss)				(453)					(453)		893					894
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges					(1)	[1]			(1)	[1]		(2)	[2]			(2)	[2]
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI							1	[3]	1	[3]				19	[4]	19	[4]
Total comprehensive income (loss)									(453)							971
Dividends to parent
Balance at Sep. 30, 2010		762	5,570	(858)			(29)		5,445
Balance at Jun. 30, 2010
Net income (loss)									176							666
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI	[5]															4
Total comprehensive income (loss)																765
Balance at Sep. 30, 2010		762	5,570						5,445
Balance at Dec. 31, 2010		762	5,570	(846)			(22)		5,464							22,522
Net income (loss)									157		1,418					1,424
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges	[2]											(3)				(3)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI	[4]													(6)		(6)
Total comprehensive income (loss)																1,226
Net income and total comprehensive income				157					157
Dividends to parent			(485)						(485)
Balance at Sep. 30, 2011		762	5,085	(689)			(22)		5,136							22,794
Balance at Jun. 30, 2011
Net income (loss)									51							470
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges	[6]															1
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI	[6]															1
Total comprehensive income (loss)																182
Balance at Sep. 30, 2011		$ 762					$ (22)		$ 5,136							$ 22,794

[1] Net of insignificant tax benefit in 2010.

[2] Net of $1 tax expense in 2011 and insignificant tax benefit in 2010.

[3] Net of insignificant tax expense in 2010.

[4] Net of $3 tax benefit in 2011 and $5 tax expense in 2010.

[5] Net of $5 million tax expense.

[6] Net of insignificant tax expense.

XML

Goodwill, Intangible Assets And Impairments (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Goodwill, Intangible Assets And Impairments

Goodwill By Reportable Operating Segment

	USFE&G		Commercial Power			International			Total
	(in millions)
Duke Energy
Balance at December 31, 2010:
Goodwill	$	3,483	$	940		$	306		$	4,729
Accumulated Impairment Charges		—		(871	)		—			(871	)
Balance at December 31, 2010, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges		3,483		69			306			3,858
Foreign Exchange and Other Changes		—		—			(11	)		(11	)
Balance as of September 30, 2011:
Goodwill		3,483		940			295			4,718
Accumulated Impairment Charges		—		(871	)		—			(871	)
Balance at September 30, 2011, as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges, foreign exchange and other charges	$	3,483	$	69		$	295		$	3,847

XML

Regulatory Matters

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Regulatory Matters

4. Regulatory Matters

Progress Energy Merger. See Note 3 for information regarding Duke Energy's pending merger with Progress Energy.

Rate Related Information. The NCUC, PSCSC, IURC and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and gas services within their states. The PUCO approves rates for retail gas and electric service within Ohio, except that non-regulated sellers of gas and electric generation also are allowed to operate in Ohio. The FERC approves rates for electric sales to wholesale customers served under cost-based rates, as well as sales of transmission service.

Duke Energy Ohio Standard Service Offer (SSO). Ohio law provides the PUCO authority to approve an electric utility's generation SSO. A SSO may include an Electric Security Plan (ESP), which would allow for the pricing structures used by Duke Energy Ohio since 2004, or a Market Rate Offer (MRO), in which pricing is determined through a competitive bidding process. On November 15, 2010, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval of its next SSO to replace the existing ESP that expires on December 31, 2011. The filing requested approval of a MRO. On February 23, 2011, the PUCO stated that Duke Energy Ohio did not file an application for a five-year MRO as required under Ohio statute. On June 20, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO for approval of an ESP for its customers beginning January 1, 2012, with rates in effect through May 31, 2021.

On October 24, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and most intervenors, including the PUCO Staff, entered into a settlement stipulation. If approved by the PUCO, the stipulation would establish an ESP with competitive auctions for a term of January 1, 2012 through May 31, 2015. The stipulation also includes provision for a non-bypassable stability charge of $110 million per year to be collected from 2012-2014 and requires Duke Energy Ohio to transfer its generation assets to a non-regulated affiliate on or before December 31, 2014. The stipulation requests that the PUCO approve the settlement on or before November 15, 2011, to allow Duke Energy Ohio to conduct auctions to serve SSO customers effective January 1, 2012. A hearing on the stipulation occured on November 3, 2011.

Duke Energy Carolinas North Carolina Rate Case. On July 1, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a rate case with the NCUC to request an average 15% increase in retail revenues, or approximately $646 million, with a rate of return on equity of 11.5%. The increase is designed to recover the cost of the ongoing generation fleet modernization program, environmental compliance and other capital investments made since 2009.

On November 1, 2011, the NC Public Staff filed testimony to limit Duke Energy Carolinas to an average 4.8% increase in retail rates, or approximately $211 million, with a rate of return on equity of 9.25%.

A hearing is scheduled to begin with the NCUC on November 28, 2011. Duke Energy Carolinas expects revised rates would likely go into effect in February 2012.

Duke Energy Carolinas South Carolina Rate Case. On August 5, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a rate case with the PSCSC to request an average 15% increase in retail revenues, or approximately $216 million, with a rate of return on equity of 11.5%. The increase is designed to recover the cost of the ongoing generation fleet modernization program, environmental compliance and other capital investments made since 2009. A hearing is scheduled with the PSCSC on December 7, 2011. If approved by the PSCSC, rates would likely go into effect in February 2012.

Duke Energy Indiana Energy Efficiency. On September 28, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for new energy efficiency programs to enable meeting the IURC's energy efficiency mandates. Duke Energy Indiana's proposal requests recovery of costs through a rider including lost revenues and incentives for core plus energy efficiency programs and lost revenues and cost recovery for core energy efficiency programs. The hearing occurred in July 2011 and an order is expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Duke Energy Indiana Storm Cost Deferrals. On July 14, 2010, the IURC approved Duke Energy Indiana's deferral of $12 million of retail jurisdictional storm expense until the next retail rate proceeding. This amount represents a portion of costs associated with a January 27, 2009 ice storm, which damaged Duke Energy Indiana's distribution system. On August 12, 2010, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) filed a notice of appeal with the IURC. On December 7, 2010, the IURC issued an order reopening this proceeding for review in consideration of the evidence presented as a result of an internal audit performed as part of an IURC investigation of Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an attorney from the IURC staff which resulted in the IURC's termination of the employment of the Chairman of the IURC. The audit did not find that the order conflicted with the staff report; however, it did note that the staff report offered no specific recommendation to either approve or deny the requested relief, and that the original order was appealed. The IURC set a new procedural schedule to take supplemental testimony and an evidentiary hearing was held in June 2011. On October 19, 2011, the IURC issued an order denying Duke Energy Indiana the right to defer the storm expense discussed above.

Duke Energy Ohio Storm Cost Recovery. On December 11, 2009, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO to recover Hurricane Ike storm restoration costs of $31 million through a discrete rider. The PUCO granted the request to defer the costs associated with the storm recovery; however, they further ordered Duke Energy Ohio to file a separate action pursuant to which the actual amount of recovery would be determined. On January 11, 2011, the PUCO approved recovery of $14 million plus carrying costs which will be spread over a three-year period. Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for rehearing on February 10, 2011, as did the consumer advocate, the office of the Ohio Consumers' Council (OCC). On March 9, 2011, the PUCO denied the rehearing requests of Duke Energy Ohio and the OCC. Duke Energy Ohio filed a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court on May 6, 2011 and briefs have been filed by Duke Energy Ohio and the PUCO. Oral arguments are to be scheduled by the Court.

Capital Expansion Projects.

Overview. USFE&G is engaged in planning efforts to meet projected load growth in its service territories. Capacity additions may include new nuclear, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), coal facilities or gas-fired generation units. Because of the long lead times required to develop such assets, USFE&G is taking steps now to ensure those options are available.

Duke Energy Carolinas William States Lee III Nuclear Station. In December 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NRC, which has been docketed for review, for a combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for two Westinghouse AP1000 (advanced passive) reactors for the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) at a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina. Each reactor is capable of producing 1,117 MW. Submitting the COL application does not commit Duke Energy Carolinas to build nuclear units. Duke Energy Carolinas had previously received approval to incur project development costs associated with Lee Nuclear Station from both the NCUC and the PSCSC. Through several separate orders, the NCUC and PSCSC have deemed Duke Energy's decision to incur project development and pre-construction costs for the project as reasonable and prudent through December 31, 2009 and up to an aggregate maximum amount of $230 million. On November 15, 2010 and January 7, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed amended project development applications with the NCUC and PSCSC, respectively. These applications request approval of Duke Energy Carolinas' decision to continue to incur project development and pre-construction costs for the project through December 31, 2013, and up to $459 million. The hearing before the NCUC occurred March 15, 2011. The PSCSC hearing occurred on May 16 and May 17, 2011.

On July 1, 2011, the PSCSC issued an order stating Duke Energy Carolinas must incur only those costs necessary to keep the project available as an option in the 2021 time frame, not to exceed South Carolina's allocable share of $120 million, including allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC), for the period of January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. Also, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Duke Energy Carolinas shall provide certain monthly reports to the PSCSC and the Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS). Duke Energy Carolinas has also agreed to provide a monthly report to certain parties on the progress of negotiations to acquire an interest in the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station (refer to discussion below) expansion being developed by South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G). Any change in ownership interest, output allocation, sharing of costs or control and any future option agreements concerning Lee Nuclear Station shall be subject to prior approval of the PSCSC.

On August 5, 2011, the NCUC issued an order approving Duke Energy's decision to incur project development costs up to North Carolina's allocable share of $120 million and subject to the limitation that it is only appropriate to incur such costs necessary to maintain the status quo with respect to the Lee Nuclear Station, including the COL application at the NRC.

On April 18, 2011, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) filed a petition requesting that the NRC suspend all pending reactor licensing decisions pending the investigation of lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident in Japan. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a response opposing this petition. In addition to its emergency petition, on August 11, 2011, BREDL also filed a "Motion to Admit new Contention Regarding the Safety and Environmental Implications of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Task Force Report on the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident." Duke Energy Carolinas filed a response opposing admission of this new contention. On September 9, 2011, the NRC issued a decision denying BREDL's emergency petition, and on October 18, 2011, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a decision denying admission of the new contention.

The NRC review of the COL application continues and the estimated receipt of the COL is in mid 2013. Duke Energy Carolinas filed with the DOE for a federal loan guarantee, which has the potential to significantly lower financing costs associated with the proposed Lee Nuclear Station; however, it was not among the four projects selected by the DOE for the final phase of due diligence for the federal loan guarantee program. The project could be selected in the future if the program funding is expanded or if any of the current finalists drop out of the program.

Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking partners for Lee Nuclear Station by issuing options to purchase an ownership interest in the plant. In the first quarter of 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into an agreement with JEA that provides JEA with an option to purchase up to a 20% undivided ownership interest in Lee Nuclear Station. JEA has 90 days following Duke Energy Carolinas' receipt of the COL to exercise the option.

Duke Energy Carolinas V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Letter of Intent. In July 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas signed a letter of intent with Santee Cooper related to the potential acquisition by Duke Energy Carolinas of a five percent to ten percent ownership interest in the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station being developed by Santee Cooper and SCE&G near Jenkinsville, South Carolina. The letter of intent provides a path for Duke Energy Carolinas to conduct the necessary due diligence to determine if future participation in this project is beneficial for its customers.

Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Unit 6. On March 21, 2007, the NCUC issued an order allowing Duke Energy Carolinas to build one 800 MW coal-fired unit. Following final equipment selection and the completion of detailed engineering, Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to have a net output of 825 MW. On January 31, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its updated cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC of $600 million) for the approved new Cliffside Unit 6. In March 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an update to the cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC) with the NCUC where it reduced the estimated AFUDC financing costs to $400 million as a result of the December 2009 rate case settlement with the NCUC that allowed the inclusion of construction work in progress in rate base prospectively. Duke Energy Carolinas believes that the overall cost of Cliffside Unit 6 will be reduced by $125 million in federal advanced clean coal tax credits, as discussed in Note 5. Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to begin operation by the end of 2012. Also, see Note 5 for information related to the Cliffside Unit 6 air permit.

Duke Energy Carolinas Dan River and Buck Combined Cycle Facilities. In June 2008, the NCUC issued its order approving the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) applications to construct a 620 MW combined cycle natural gas fired generating facility at each of Duke Energy Carolinas' existing Dan River Steam Station and Buck Steam Station. The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) issued a final air permit authorizing construction of the Buck and Dan River combined cycle natural gas-fired generating units in October 2008 and August 2009, respectively.

The Buck project is expected to begin operation by the end of 2011. The Dan River project is expected to begin operation by the end of 2012. Based on the most updated cost estimates, total costs (including AFUDC) for the Buck and Dan River projects are $700 million and $716 million, respectively.

Duke Energy Indiana Edwardsport IGCC Plant. On September 7, 2006, Duke Energy Indiana and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana (Vectren) filed a joint petition with the IURC seeking a CPCN for the construction of a 618 MW IGCC power plant at Duke Energy Indiana's Edwardsport Generating Station in Knox County, Indiana. The facility was initially estimated to cost approximately $1.985 billion (including $120 million of AFUDC). In August 2007, Vectren formally withdrew its participation in the IGCC plant and a hearing was conducted on the CPCN petition based on Duke Energy Indiana owning 100% of the project. On November 20, 2007, the IURC issued an order granting Duke Energy Indiana a CPCN for the proposed IGCC project, approved the cost estimate of $1.985 billion and approved the timely recovery of costs related to the project. On January 25, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana received the final air permit from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. The Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. (CAC), Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc., all intervenors in the CPCN proceeding, have appealed the air permit.

On May 1, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana filed its first semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC as required under the CPCN order issued by the IURC. In its filing, Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of a new cost estimate for the IGCC project of $2.35 billion (including $125 million of AFUDC) and for approval of plans to study carbon capture as required by the IURC's CPCN order. On January 7, 2009, the IURC approved Duke Energy Indiana's request, including the new cost estimate of $2.35 billion, and cost recovery associated with a study on carbon capture. On November 3, 2008 and May 1, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed its second and third semi-annual IGCC riders, respectively, both of which were approved by the IURC in full.

On November 24, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for its fourth semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC. As Duke Energy Indiana experienced design modifications and scope growth above what was anticipated from the preliminary engineering design, capital costs to the IGCC project were anticipated to increase. Duke Energy Indiana forecasted that the additional capital cost items would use the remaining contingency and escalation amounts in the current $2.35 billion cost estimate and add $150 million, excluding the impact associated with the need to add more contingency. Duke Energy Indiana did not request approval of an increased cost estimate in the fourth semi-annual update proceeding; rather, Duke Energy Indiana requested, and the IURC approved, a subdocket proceeding in which Duke Energy Indiana would present additional evidence regarding an updated estimated cost for the IGCC project and in which a more comprehensive review of the IGCC project could occur. The evidentiary hearing for the fourth semi-annual update proceeding was held April 6, 2010, and an interim order was received on July 28, 2010. The order approves the implementation of an updated IGCC rider to recover costs incurred through September 30, 2009, effective immediately. The approvals are on an interim basis pending the outcome of the sub-docket proceeding involving the revised cost estimate as discussed further below.

On April 16, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed a revised cost estimate for the IGCC project reflecting an estimated cost increase of $530 million. Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of the revised cost estimate of $2.88 billion (including $160 million of AFUDC), and for continuation of the existing cost recovery treatment. A major driver of the cost increase included design changes reflected in the final engineering leading to increased scope and complexity. On September 17, 2010 an agreement was reached with the OUCC, Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Nucor Steel – Indiana to increase the authorized cost estimate of $2.35 billion to $2.76 billion, and to cap the project's costs that could be passed on to customers at $2.975 billion. Any construction cost amounts above $2.76 billion would be subject to a prudence review similar to most other rate base investments in Duke Energy Indiana's next general rate increase request before the IURC. Duke Energy Indiana agreed to accept a 150 basis point reduction in the equity return for any project construction costs greater than $2.35 billion. Additionally, Duke Energy Indiana agreed not to file for a general rate case increase before March 2012. Duke Energy Indiana also agreed to reduce depreciation rates earlier than would otherwise be required and to forego a deferred tax incentive related to the IGCC project. As a result of the settlement, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax charge to earnings of approximately $44 million in the third quarter of 2010 to reflect the impact of the reduction in the return on equity. The charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. This charge is recorded in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Due to the IURC investigation discussed below, the IURC convened a technical conference on November 3, 2010 related to the continuing need for the Edwardsport IGCC facility. On December 9, 2010, the parties to the settlement withdrew the settlement agreement to provide an opportunity to assess whether and to what extent the settlement agreement remained a reasonable allocation of risks and rewards and whether modifications to the settlement agreement were appropriate. Management determined that the approximate $44 million charge discussed above was not impacted by the withdrawal of the settlement agreement.

Additionally, the CAC, Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc. filed motions for two subdocket proceedings alleging improper communications, undue influence, fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement, and a request for field hearing in this proceeding. Duke Energy Indiana opposed the requests. During 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed petitions for its fifth and sixth semi-annual IGCC riders. Evidentiary hearings are set for November 17, 2011 and November 21, 2011, respectively.

On February 25, 2011, the IURC issued an order which denied the request for a subdocket to investigate the allegations of improper communications and undue influence at this time, finding there were other agencies better suited for such investigation. The IURC also found that allegations of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement related to the IGCC project should be heard in a Phase II proceeding of the cost estimate subdocket and set evidentiary hearings on both Phase I (cost estimate increase) and Phase II beginning in August 2011. In April 2011, after an attorneys' conference, and in response to the other parties' request for more time, the IURC scheduled hearings for Phase I to begin October 26, 2011 and Phase II hearings to begin November 3, 2011.

On March 10, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC proposing a framework designed to mitigate customer rate impacts associated with the Edwardsport IGCC project. Duke Energy Indiana's filing proposed a cap on the project's construction costs, (excluding financing costs), which can be recovered through rates at $2.72 billion. It also proposed rate-related adjustments that will lower the overall customer rate increase related to the project from an average of 19% to approximately 16%. The proposal is subject to the approval of the IURC in the Phase I hearings.

On June 27, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC in connection with its seventh semi-annual rider request which included an update on the current cost forecast of the Edwardsport project. The evidentiary hearing is set for December 13, 2011. The updated forecast excluding AFUDC increased from $2.72 billion to $2.82 billion, not including any contingency for unexpected start-up events. On June 30, 2011, the OUCC and intervenors filed testimony in Phase I recommending that Duke Energy Indiana be disallowed cost recovery of any of the additional cost estimate increase above the previously approved cost estimate of $2.35 billion. Duke Energy Indiana filed rebuttal testimony on August 3, 2011.

On July 14, 2011, the OUCC and certain intervenors filed testimony in Phase II alleging that Duke Energy Indiana concealed information and grossly mismanaged the project, and therefore Duke Energy Indiana should only be permitted to recover from customers $1.985 billion, the original IGCC project cost estimate approved by the IURC. Other intervenors recommended that Duke Energy Indiana not be able to rely on any cost recovery granted under the CPCN or the first cost increase order. Duke Energy Indiana believes it has diligently and prudently managed the project. On September 9, 2011, Duke Energy defended against the allegations in its responsive testimony. The OUCC and intervenors filed their final rebuttal testimony in Phase II on or before October 7, 2011, making similar claims of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement and recommending the same outcome of limiting Duke Energy Indiana's recovery to the $1.985 billion initial cost estimate. Additionally, the CAC parties recommended that recovery be limited to the costs incurred on the IGCC project as of November 30, 2009 (Duke Energy Indiana estimates it had committed costs of $1.6 billion), with further IURC proceedings to be held to determine the financial consequences of this recommendation.

On October 19, 2011, Duke Energy revised its project cost estimate from approximately $2.72 billion, excluding financing costs, to approximately $2.98 billion, excluding financing costs. The revised estimate reflects additional cost pressures resulting from unfavorable labor productivity trends and incremental material quantity and scope changes. Duke Energy Indiana previously proposed to the IURC a cost cap of approximately $2.72 billion, plus the actual AFUDC that accrues on that amount. As a result, for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $222 million related to costs expected to be incurred above the cost cap. This charge is in addition to a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $44 million recorded in the third quarter of 2010 as discussed above. The approximate $222 million charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations, and in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The cost cap, if approved by the IURC, limits the amount of project construction costs that may be incorporated into customer rates in Indiana. As a result of the proposed cost cap, recovery of these cost increases is not considered probable. Additional updates to the cost estimate could occur through the completion of the plant in 2012.

On October 26, 2011, hearings before the IURC commenced pursuant to the previously established schedule and will continue until all evidence is presented for both Phase I and Phase II.

Duke Energy is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings. In the event the IURC disallows a portion of the plant costs, including financing costs, additional charges to expense could occur. An order is expected in the first quarter of 2012.

Construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant is ongoing and is currently expected to be completed and placed in-service in 2012.

Duke Energy Indiana Carbon Sequestration. Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition with the IURC requesting approval of its plans for studying carbon storage, sequestration and/or enhanced oil recovery for the carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) from the Edwardsport IGCC facility on March 6, 2009. On July 7, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed its case-in-chief testimony requesting approval for cost recovery of a $121 million site assessment and characterization plan for CO₂ sequestration options including deep saline sequestration, depleted oil and gas sequestration and enhanced oil recovery for the CO₂ from the Edwardsport IGCC facility. The OUCC filed testimony supportive of the continuing study of carbon storage, but recommended that Duke Energy Indiana break its plan into phases, recommending approval of only $33 million in expenditures at this time and deferral of expenditures rather than cost recovery through a tracking mechanism as proposed by Duke Energy Indiana. The CAC, an intervenor, recommended against approval of the carbon storage plan stating customers should not be required to pay for research and development costs. Duke Energy Indiana's rebuttal testimony was filed October 30, 2009, wherein it amended its request to seek deferral of $42 million to cover the carbon storage site assessment and characterization activities scheduled to occur through the end of 2010, with further required study expenditures subject to future IURC proceedings. An evidentiary hearing was held on November 9, 2009, and an order is expected by the end of 2011.

Duke Energy Indiana IURC Investigation. On October 5, 2010, the Governor of Indiana terminated the employment of the Chairman of the IURC in connection with Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an attorney from the IURC staff. As requested by the governor, the Indiana Inspector General initiated an investigation into whether the IURC attorney violated any state ethics rules, and the IURC announced it would internally audit the Duke Energy Indiana cases dating from January 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010, on which this attorney worked while at the IURC, which includes the Indiana storm costs deferral request discussed above, as well as all Edwardsport IGCC cases dating back to 2006. Duke Energy Indiana engaged an outside law firm to conduct its own investigation regarding Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an IURC attorney and Duke Energy Indiana's related hiring practices. On October 5, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana placed the attorney and President of Duke Energy Indiana on administrative leave. They were subsequently terminated on November 8, 2010. On December 7, 2010, the IURC released its internal audit findings concluding that the previous rulings were supported by sound, legal reasoning consistent with the Indiana Rules of Evidence and historical practice and procedures of the IURC and that the previous rulings appeared to be balanced and consistent among the parties. The audit concluded it did not reveal any bias or a resultant unfair advantage obtained by Duke Energy Indiana as a result of the evidentiary rulings of the former IURC attorney. As noted above, in the storm cost deferral case, the IURC found no conflict between the order and the staff report; however, the audit report noted the staff report offered no specific recommendation to either approve or deny the requested relief and that this was the only order that was subject to an appeal. As such, the IURC reopened that proceeding for further review and consideration of the evidence presented. The Inspector General's investigation into whether the former IURC attorney violated any state ethics rules was the subject of an Indiana Ethics Commission hearing that was held on April 14, 2011, and a final report was issued on May 14, 2011. The final report pertained only to the conduct of the former IURC attorney as Duke Energy Indiana was not a subject of the investigation.

Other Matters.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky Regional Transmission Organization Realignment. Duke Energy Ohio, which includes its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky, is in the advanced planning stages to transfer control of its transmission assets to effect a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) realignment from the Midwest ISO to PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), effective January 1, 2012.

The FERC issued an order which approved Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky's RTO realignment request on October 21, 2010, and authorized Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky to terminate their existing obligations to the Midwest ISO, subject to certain conditions.

In a related FERC proceeding, on December 16, 2010, FERC issued an order related to the Midwest ISO's cost allocation methodology surrounding Multi-Value Projects (MVP), a type of Midwest ISO transmission expansion cost. The Midwest ISO expects that MVP will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring renewable generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the eastern portion of the Midwest ISO footprint. It is expected that the Midwest ISO will approve MVP proposals with estimated project costs in excess of $5 billion by the date of Duke Energy Ohio's planned exit from the Midwest ISO on December 31, 2011. These projects are expected to be undertaken by the constructing transmission owners from 2012 through 2020 with costs recovered through the Midwest ISO over the useful life of the projects. The order provides that a withdrawing transmission owner shall remain responsible for all financial obligations incurred while it was a member for the allocation of MVP costs to withdrawing transmission owners for projects approved by the Midwest ISO up to the date of the withdrawing transmission owners' exit from the Midwest ISO. The basis for allocating such MVP costs will be the withdrawing transmission owners' historical usage of the Midwest ISO system. Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, has historically represented approximately five-percent of the Midwest ISO system. The impact of this order could result in a substantial increase in the Midwest ISO transmission expansion costs allocated to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky subsequent to a withdrawal from the Midwest ISO. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky, among other parties, sought rehearing of the FERC MVP order. On October 21, 2011, the FERC issued an order on rehearing in this matter largely affirming its original MVP order and conditionally accepting Midwest ISO's compliance filing as well as determining that the MVP allocation methodology is consistent with cost causation principles and FERC precedent. The FERC also reiterated that it will not prejudge any settlement agreement between an RTO and a withdrawing transmission owner for fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to the RTO. The order further states that any such fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to an RTO are a matter for those parties to negotiate, subject to review by the FERC. The FERC also ruled that Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky's challenge of the Midwest ISO's ability to allocate MVP costs to a withdrawing transmission owner is beyond the scope of this proceeding. The Order further stated that Midwest ISO's tariff withdrawal language establishes that once cost responsibility for transmission upgrades is determined, withdrawing transmission owners retain any costs incurred prior to the withdrawal date. Duke Energy will continue to pursue its challenge in regards to this issue in the appropriate proceeding.

On October 14, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky filed an application with the FERC to establish new rates for transmission service under PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff. The new rates are expected to go into effect, subject to refund, on January 1, 2012. The FERC has not yet established a procedural schedule to review the filing but is expected to do so in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky have entered into settlements or have received state regulatory approvals associated with the RTO realignment, including the recovery of MVP costs, if ultimately allocated to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky. On December 22, 2010, the KPSC issued an order granting approval of Duke Energy Kentucky's request to effect the RTO realignment, subject to several conditions. The conditions accepted by Duke Energy Kentucky include a commitment to not seek to double-recover in a future rate case the transmission expansion fees that may be charged by the Midwest ISO and PJM in the same period or overlapping periods. On January 25, 2011, the KPSC issued an order stating that the order had been satisfied and is now unconditional. The order further requires Duke Energy Kentucky to submit to the KPSC internal procedures for the receipt and tracking of notices from PJM regarding customer requests to participate in PJM demand-response programs. Duke Energy Kentucky submitted its filing describing these internal procedures on March 30, 2011.

On April 26, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio, Ohio Energy Group, The Office of Ohio Consumers' Counsel and the Commission Staff filed an Application and a Stipulation with the PUCO regarding Duke Energy Ohio's recovery of certain costs related to its proposed RTO realignment. Under the Stipulation, Duke Energy Ohio would recover through retail rates all Midwest ISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) costs, including but not limited to MVP costs, directly or indirectly charged to Duke Energy Ohio via a non-bypassable rider. Duke Energy Ohio would not seek to recover any portion of the Midwest ISO exit obligation, PJM integration fees, or internal costs associated with the RTO realignment. Also, Duke Energy Ohio would not seek to recover the first $121 million of PJM transmission expansion costs from Ohio retail customers. On May 25, 2011, the Stipulation was approved by the PUCO. An application for rehearing filed by Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy was denied by the PUCO on July 15, 2011.

Duke Energy Ohio currently estimates the liability for its Midwest ISO exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP, will be approximately $90 million. The liability will be recorded within Other in Deferred credits and other liabilities on Duke Energy Ohio's consolidated balance sheet upon exit from the Midwest ISO on December 31, 2011. Approximately $60 million of this amount will be recorded as a regulatory asset while the remainder will be recorded to Operation, maintenance and other in Duke Energy Ohio's consolidated statement of operations. In addition to the above amounts, Duke Energy Ohio may also be responsible for costs associated with the Midwest ISO MVP projects. Duke Energy Ohio is contesting its obligation to pay for such costs. However, depending on the final outcome of this matter, Duke Energy Ohio could incur significant costs associated with MVP projects. The appropriate regulatory treatment will be pursued for any costs incurred in connection with the resolution of this matter.

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Regulatory Matters

4. Regulatory Matters

Progress Energy Merger. See Note 3 for information regarding Duke Energy's pending merger with Progress Energy.

Rate Related Information. The NCUC, PSCSC, IURC and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and gas services within their states. The PUCO approves rates for retail gas and electric service within Ohio, except that non-regulated sellers of gas and electric generation also are allowed to operate in Ohio. The FERC approves rates for electric sales to wholesale customers served under cost-based rates, as well as sales of transmission service.

Duke Energy Ohio Standard Service Offer (SSO). Ohio law provides the PUCO authority to approve an electric utility's generation SSO. A SSO may include an Electric Security Plan (ESP), which would allow for the pricing structures used by Duke Energy Ohio since 2004, or a Market Rate Offer (MRO), in which pricing is determined through a competitive bidding process. On November 15, 2010, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval of its next SSO to replace the existing ESP that expires on December 31, 2011. The filing requested approval of a MRO. On February 23, 2011, the PUCO stated that Duke Energy Ohio did not file an application for a five-year MRO as required under Ohio statute. On June 20, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO for approval of an ESP for its customers beginning January 1, 2012, with rates in effect through May 31, 2021.

On October 24, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and most intervenors, including the PUCO Staff, entered into a settlement stipulation. If approved by the PUCO, the stipulation would establish an ESP with competitive auctions for a term of January 1, 2012 through May 31, 2015. The stipulation also includes provision for a non-bypassable stability charge of $110 million per year to be collected from 2012-2014 and requires Duke Energy Ohio to transfer its generation assets to a non-regulated affiliate on or before December 31, 2014. The stipulation requests that the PUCO approve the settlement on or before November 15, 2011, to allow Duke Energy Ohio to conduct auctions to serve SSO customers effective January 1, 2012. A hearing on the stipulation occured on November 3, 2011.

Duke Energy Carolinas North Carolina Rate Case. On July 1, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a rate case with the NCUC to request an average 15% increase in retail revenues, or approximately $646 million, with a rate of return on equity of 11.5%. The increase is designed to recover the cost of the ongoing generation fleet modernization program, environmental compliance and other capital investments made since 2009.

On November 1, 2011, the NC Public Staff filed testimony to limit Duke Energy Carolinas to an average 4.8% increase in retail rates, or approximately $211 million, with a rate of return on equity of 9.25%.

A hearing is scheduled to begin with the NCUC on November 28, 2011. Duke Energy Carolinas expects revised rates would likely go into effect in February 2012.

Duke Energy Carolinas South Carolina Rate Case. On August 5, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a rate case with the PSCSC to request an average 15% increase in retail revenues, or approximately $216 million, with a rate of return on equity of 11.5%. The increase is designed to recover the cost of the ongoing generation fleet modernization program, environmental compliance and other capital investments made since 2009. A hearing is scheduled with the PSCSC on December 7, 2011. If approved by the PSCSC, rates would likely go into effect in February 2012.

Duke Energy Indiana Energy Efficiency. On September 28, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for new energy efficiency programs to enable meeting the IURC's energy efficiency mandates. Duke Energy Indiana's proposal requests recovery of costs through a rider including lost revenues and incentives for core plus energy efficiency programs and lost revenues and cost recovery for core energy efficiency programs. The hearing occurred in July 2011 and an order is expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Duke Energy Indiana Storm Cost Deferrals. On July 14, 2010, the IURC approved Duke Energy Indiana's deferral of $12 million of retail jurisdictional storm expense until the next retail rate proceeding. This amount represents a portion of costs associated with a January 27, 2009 ice storm, which damaged Duke Energy Indiana's distribution system. On August 12, 2010, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) filed a notice of appeal with the IURC. On December 7, 2010, the IURC issued an order reopening this proceeding for review in consideration of the evidence presented as a result of an internal audit performed as part of an IURC investigation of Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an attorney from the IURC staff which resulted in the IURC's termination of the employment of the Chairman of the IURC. The audit did not find that the order conflicted with the staff report; however, it did note that the staff report offered no specific recommendation to either approve or deny the requested relief, and that the original order was appealed. The IURC set a new procedural schedule to take supplemental testimony and an evidentiary hearing was held in June 2011. On October 19, 2011, the IURC issued an order denying Duke Energy Indiana the right to defer the storm expense discussed above.

Duke Energy Ohio Storm Cost Recovery. On December 11, 2009, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO to recover Hurricane Ike storm restoration costs of $31 million through a discrete rider. The PUCO granted the request to defer the costs associated with the storm recovery; however, they further ordered Duke Energy Ohio to file a separate action pursuant to which the actual amount of recovery would be determined. On January 11, 2011, the PUCO approved recovery of $14 million plus carrying costs which will be spread over a three-year period. Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for rehearing on February 10, 2011, as did the consumer advocate, the office of the Ohio Consumers' Council (OCC). On March 9, 2011, the PUCO denied the rehearing requests of Duke Energy Ohio and the OCC. Duke Energy Ohio filed a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court on May 6, 2011 and briefs have been filed by Duke Energy Ohio and the PUCO. Oral arguments are to be scheduled by the Court.

Capital Expansion Projects.

Overview. USFE&G is engaged in planning efforts to meet projected load growth in its service territories. Capacity additions may include new nuclear, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), coal facilities or gas-fired generation units. Because of the long lead times required to develop such assets, USFE&G is taking steps now to ensure those options are available.

Duke Energy Carolinas William States Lee III Nuclear Station. In December 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NRC, which has been docketed for review, for a combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for two Westinghouse AP1000 (advanced passive) reactors for the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) at a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina. Each reactor is capable of producing 1,117 MW. Submitting the COL application does not commit Duke Energy Carolinas to build nuclear units. Duke Energy Carolinas had previously received approval to incur project development costs associated with Lee Nuclear Station from both the NCUC and the PSCSC. Through several separate orders, the NCUC and PSCSC have deemed Duke Energy's decision to incur project development and pre-construction costs for the project as reasonable and prudent through December 31, 2009 and up to an aggregate maximum amount of $230 million. On November 15, 2010 and January 7, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed amended project development applications with the NCUC and PSCSC, respectively. These applications request approval of Duke Energy Carolinas' decision to continue to incur project development and pre-construction costs for the project through December 31, 2013, and up to $459 million. The hearing before the NCUC occurred March 15, 2011. The PSCSC hearing occurred on May 16 and May 17, 2011.

On July 1, 2011, the PSCSC issued an order stating Duke Energy Carolinas must incur only those costs necessary to keep the project available as an option in the 2021 time frame, not to exceed South Carolina's allocable share of $120 million, including allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC), for the period of January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. Also, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Duke Energy Carolinas shall provide certain monthly reports to the PSCSC and the Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS). Duke Energy Carolinas has also agreed to provide a monthly report to certain parties on the progress of negotiations to acquire an interest in the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station (refer to discussion below) expansion being developed by South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G). Any change in ownership interest, output allocation, sharing of costs or control and any future option agreements concerning Lee Nuclear Station shall be subject to prior approval of the PSCSC.

On August 5, 2011, the NCUC issued an order approving Duke Energy's decision to incur project development costs up to North Carolina's allocable share of $120 million and subject to the limitation that it is only appropriate to incur such costs necessary to maintain the status quo with respect to the Lee Nuclear Station, including the COL application at the NRC.

On April 18, 2011, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) filed a petition requesting that the NRC suspend all pending reactor licensing decisions pending the investigation of lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident in Japan. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a response opposing this petition. In addition to its emergency petition, on August 11, 2011, BREDL also filed a "Motion to Admit new Contention Regarding the Safety and Environmental Implications of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Task Force Report on the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident." Duke Energy Carolinas filed a response opposing admission of this new contention. On September 9, 2011, the NRC issued a decision denying BREDL's emergency petition, and on October 18, 2011, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a decision denying admission of the new contention.

The NRC review of the COL application continues and the estimated receipt of the COL is in mid 2013. Duke Energy Carolinas filed with the DOE for a federal loan guarantee, which has the potential to significantly lower financing costs associated with the proposed Lee Nuclear Station; however, it was not among the four projects selected by the DOE for the final phase of due diligence for the federal loan guarantee program. The project could be selected in the future if the program funding is expanded or if any of the current finalists drop out of the program.

Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking partners for Lee Nuclear Station by issuing options to purchase an ownership interest in the plant. In the first quarter of 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into an agreement with JEA that provides JEA with an option to purchase up to a 20% undivided ownership interest in Lee Nuclear Station. JEA has 90 days following Duke Energy Carolinas' receipt of the COL to exercise the option.

Duke Energy Carolinas V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Letter of Intent. In July 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas signed a letter of intent with Santee Cooper related to the potential acquisition by Duke Energy Carolinas of a five percent to ten percent ownership interest in the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station being developed by Santee Cooper and SCE&G near Jenkinsville, South Carolina. The letter of intent provides a path for Duke Energy Carolinas to conduct the necessary due diligence to determine if future participation in this project is beneficial for its customers.

Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Unit 6. On March 21, 2007, the NCUC issued an order allowing Duke Energy Carolinas to build one 800 MW coal-fired unit. Following final equipment selection and the completion of detailed engineering, Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to have a net output of 825 MW. On January 31, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its updated cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC of $600 million) for the approved new Cliffside Unit 6. In March 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an update to the cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC) with the NCUC where it reduced the estimated AFUDC financing costs to $400 million as a result of the December 2009 rate case settlement with the NCUC that allowed the inclusion of construction work in progress in rate base prospectively. Duke Energy Carolinas believes that the overall cost of Cliffside Unit 6 will be reduced by $125 million in federal advanced clean coal tax credits, as discussed in Note 5. Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to begin operation by the end of 2012. Also, see Note 5 for information related to the Cliffside Unit 6 air permit.

Duke Energy Carolinas Dan River and Buck Combined Cycle Facilities. In June 2008, the NCUC issued its order approving the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) applications to construct a 620 MW combined cycle natural gas fired generating facility at each of Duke Energy Carolinas' existing Dan River Steam Station and Buck Steam Station. The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) issued a final air permit authorizing construction of the Buck and Dan River combined cycle natural gas-fired generating units in October 2008 and August 2009, respectively.

The Buck project is expected to begin operation by the end of 2011. The Dan River project is expected to begin operation by the end of 2012. Based on the most updated cost estimates, total costs (including AFUDC) for the Buck and Dan River projects are $700 million and $716 million, respectively.

Duke Energy Indiana Edwardsport IGCC Plant. On September 7, 2006, Duke Energy Indiana and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana (Vectren) filed a joint petition with the IURC seeking a CPCN for the construction of a 618 MW IGCC power plant at Duke Energy Indiana's Edwardsport Generating Station in Knox County, Indiana. The facility was initially estimated to cost approximately $1.985 billion (including $120 million of AFUDC). In August 2007, Vectren formally withdrew its participation in the IGCC plant and a hearing was conducted on the CPCN petition based on Duke Energy Indiana owning 100% of the project. On November 20, 2007, the IURC issued an order granting Duke Energy Indiana a CPCN for the proposed IGCC project, approved the cost estimate of $1.985 billion and approved the timely recovery of costs related to the project. On January 25, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana received the final air permit from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. The Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. (CAC), Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc., all intervenors in the CPCN proceeding, have appealed the air permit.

On May 1, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana filed its first semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC as required under the CPCN order issued by the IURC. In its filing, Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of a new cost estimate for the IGCC project of $2.35 billion (including $125 million of AFUDC) and for approval of plans to study carbon capture as required by the IURC's CPCN order. On January 7, 2009, the IURC approved Duke Energy Indiana's request, including the new cost estimate of $2.35 billion, and cost recovery associated with a study on carbon capture. On November 3, 2008 and May 1, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed its second and third semi-annual IGCC riders, respectively, both of which were approved by the IURC in full.

On November 24, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for its fourth semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC. As Duke Energy Indiana experienced design modifications and scope growth above what was anticipated from the preliminary engineering design, capital costs to the IGCC project were anticipated to increase. Duke Energy Indiana forecasted that the additional capital cost items would use the remaining contingency and escalation amounts in the current $2.35 billion cost estimate and add $150 million, excluding the impact associated with the need to add more contingency. Duke Energy Indiana did not request approval of an increased cost estimate in the fourth semi-annual update proceeding; rather, Duke Energy Indiana requested, and the IURC approved, a subdocket proceeding in which Duke Energy Indiana would present additional evidence regarding an updated estimated cost for the IGCC project and in which a more comprehensive review of the IGCC project could occur. The evidentiary hearing for the fourth semi-annual update proceeding was held April 6, 2010, and an interim order was received on July 28, 2010. The order approves the implementation of an updated IGCC rider to recover costs incurred through September 30, 2009, effective immediately. The approvals are on an interim basis pending the outcome of the sub-docket proceeding involving the revised cost estimate as discussed further below.

On April 16, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed a revised cost estimate for the IGCC project reflecting an estimated cost increase of $530 million. Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of the revised cost estimate of $2.88 billion (including $160 million of AFUDC), and for continuation of the existing cost recovery treatment. A major driver of the cost increase included design changes reflected in the final engineering leading to increased scope and complexity. On September 17, 2010 an agreement was reached with the OUCC, Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Nucor Steel – Indiana to increase the authorized cost estimate of $2.35 billion to $2.76 billion, and to cap the project's costs that could be passed on to customers at $2.975 billion. Any construction cost amounts above $2.76 billion would be subject to a prudence review similar to most other rate base investments in Duke Energy Indiana's next general rate increase request before the IURC. Duke Energy Indiana agreed to accept a 150 basis point reduction in the equity return for any project construction costs greater than $2.35 billion. Additionally, Duke Energy Indiana agreed not to file for a general rate case increase before March 2012. Duke Energy Indiana also agreed to reduce depreciation rates earlier than would otherwise be required and to forego a deferred tax incentive related to the IGCC project. As a result of the settlement, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax charge to earnings of approximately $44 million in the third quarter of 2010 to reflect the impact of the reduction in the return on equity. The charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. This charge is recorded in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Due to the IURC investigation discussed below, the IURC convened a technical conference on November 3, 2010 related to the continuing need for the Edwardsport IGCC facility. On December 9, 2010, the parties to the settlement withdrew the settlement agreement to provide an opportunity to assess whether and to what extent the settlement agreement remained a reasonable allocation of risks and rewards and whether modifications to the settlement agreement were appropriate. Management determined that the approximate $44 million charge discussed above was not impacted by the withdrawal of the settlement agreement.

Additionally, the CAC, Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc. filed motions for two subdocket proceedings alleging improper communications, undue influence, fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement, and a request for field hearing in this proceeding. Duke Energy Indiana opposed the requests. During 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed petitions for its fifth and sixth semi-annual IGCC riders. Evidentiary hearings are set for November 17, 2011 and November 21, 2011, respectively.

On February 25, 2011, the IURC issued an order which denied the request for a subdocket to investigate the allegations of improper communications and undue influence at this time, finding there were other agencies better suited for such investigation. The IURC also found that allegations of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement related to the IGCC project should be heard in a Phase II proceeding of the cost estimate subdocket and set evidentiary hearings on both Phase I (cost estimate increase) and Phase II beginning in August 2011. In April 2011, after an attorneys' conference, and in response to the other parties' request for more time, the IURC scheduled hearings for Phase I to begin October 26, 2011 and Phase II hearings to begin November 3, 2011.

On March 10, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC proposing a framework designed to mitigate customer rate impacts associated with the Edwardsport IGCC project. Duke Energy Indiana's filing proposed a cap on the project's construction costs, (excluding financing costs), which can be recovered through rates at $2.72 billion. It also proposed rate-related adjustments that will lower the overall customer rate increase related to the project from an average of 19% to approximately 16%. The proposal is subject to the approval of the IURC in the Phase I hearings.

On June 27, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC in connection with its seventh semi-annual rider request which included an update on the current cost forecast of the Edwardsport project. The evidentiary hearing is set for December 13, 2011. The updated forecast excluding AFUDC increased from $2.72 billion to $2.82 billion, not including any contingency for unexpected start-up events. On June 30, 2011, the OUCC and intervenors filed testimony in Phase I recommending that Duke Energy Indiana be disallowed cost recovery of any of the additional cost estimate increase above the previously approved cost estimate of $2.35 billion. Duke Energy Indiana filed rebuttal testimony on August 3, 2011.

On July 14, 2011, the OUCC and certain intervenors filed testimony in Phase II alleging that Duke Energy Indiana concealed information and grossly mismanaged the project, and therefore Duke Energy Indiana should only be permitted to recover from customers $1.985 billion, the original IGCC project cost estimate approved by the IURC. Other intervenors recommended that Duke Energy Indiana not be able to rely on any cost recovery granted under the CPCN or the first cost increase order. Duke Energy Indiana believes it has diligently and prudently managed the project. On September 9, 2011, Duke Energy defended against the allegations in its responsive testimony. The OUCC and intervenors filed their final rebuttal testimony in Phase II on or before October 7, 2011, making similar claims of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement and recommending the same outcome of limiting Duke Energy Indiana's recovery to the $1.985 billion initial cost estimate. Additionally, the CAC parties recommended that recovery be limited to the costs incurred on the IGCC project as of November 30, 2009 (Duke Energy Indiana estimates it had committed costs of $1.6 billion), with further IURC proceedings to be held to determine the financial consequences of this recommendation.

On October 19, 2011, Duke Energy revised its project cost estimate from approximately $2.72 billion, excluding financing costs, to approximately $2.98 billion, excluding financing costs. The revised estimate reflects additional cost pressures resulting from unfavorable labor productivity trends and incremental material quantity and scope changes. Duke Energy Indiana previously proposed to the IURC a cost cap of approximately $2.72 billion, plus the actual AFUDC that accrues on that amount. As a result, for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $222 million related to costs expected to be incurred above the cost cap. This charge is in addition to a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $44 million recorded in the third quarter of 2010 as discussed above. The approximate $222 million charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations, and in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The cost cap, if approved by the IURC, limits the amount of project construction costs that may be incorporated into customer rates in Indiana. As a result of the proposed cost cap, recovery of these cost increases is not considered probable. Additional updates to the cost estimate could occur through the completion of the plant in 2012.

On October 26, 2011, hearings before the IURC commenced pursuant to the previously established schedule and will continue until all evidence is presented for both Phase I and Phase II.

Duke Energy is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings. In the event the IURC disallows a portion of the plant costs, including financing costs, additional charges to expense could occur. An order is expected in the first quarter of 2012.

Construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant is ongoing and is currently expected to be completed and placed in-service in 2012.

Duke Energy Indiana Carbon Sequestration. Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition with the IURC requesting approval of its plans for studying carbon storage, sequestration and/or enhanced oil recovery for the carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) from the Edwardsport IGCC facility on March 6, 2009. On July 7, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed its case-in-chief testimony requesting approval for cost recovery of a $121 million site assessment and characterization plan for CO₂ sequestration options including deep saline sequestration, depleted oil and gas sequestration and enhanced oil recovery for the CO₂ from the Edwardsport IGCC facility. The OUCC filed testimony supportive of the continuing study of carbon storage, but recommended that Duke Energy Indiana break its plan into phases, recommending approval of only $33 million in expenditures at this time and deferral of expenditures rather than cost recovery through a tracking mechanism as proposed by Duke Energy Indiana. The CAC, an intervenor, recommended against approval of the carbon storage plan stating customers should not be required to pay for research and development costs. Duke Energy Indiana's rebuttal testimony was filed October 30, 2009, wherein it amended its request to seek deferral of $42 million to cover the carbon storage site assessment and characterization activities scheduled to occur through the end of 2010, with further required study expenditures subject to future IURC proceedings. An evidentiary hearing was held on November 9, 2009, and an order is expected by the end of 2011.

Duke Energy Indiana IURC Investigation. On October 5, 2010, the Governor of Indiana terminated the employment of the Chairman of the IURC in connection with Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an attorney from the IURC staff. As requested by the governor, the Indiana Inspector General initiated an investigation into whether the IURC attorney violated any state ethics rules, and the IURC announced it would internally audit the Duke Energy Indiana cases dating from January 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010, on which this attorney worked while at the IURC, which includes the Indiana storm costs deferral request discussed above, as well as all Edwardsport IGCC cases dating back to 2006. Duke Energy Indiana engaged an outside law firm to conduct its own investigation regarding Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an IURC attorney and Duke Energy Indiana's related hiring practices. On October 5, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana placed the attorney and President of Duke Energy Indiana on administrative leave. They were subsequently terminated on November 8, 2010. On December 7, 2010, the IURC released its internal audit findings concluding that the previous rulings were supported by sound, legal reasoning consistent with the Indiana Rules of Evidence and historical practice and procedures of the IURC and that the previous rulings appeared to be balanced and consistent among the parties. The audit concluded it did not reveal any bias or a resultant unfair advantage obtained by Duke Energy Indiana as a result of the evidentiary rulings of the former IURC attorney. As noted above, in the storm cost deferral case, the IURC found no conflict between the order and the staff report; however, the audit report noted the staff report offered no specific recommendation to either approve or deny the requested relief and that this was the only order that was subject to an appeal. As such, the IURC reopened that proceeding for further review and consideration of the evidence presented. The Inspector General's investigation into whether the former IURC attorney violated any state ethics rules was the subject of an Indiana Ethics Commission hearing that was held on April 14, 2011, and a final report was issued on May 14, 2011. The final report pertained only to the conduct of the former IURC attorney as Duke Energy Indiana was not a subject of the investigation.

Other Matters.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky Regional Transmission Organization Realignment. Duke Energy Ohio, which includes its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky, is in the advanced planning stages to transfer control of its transmission assets to effect a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) realignment from the Midwest ISO to PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), effective January 1, 2012.

The FERC issued an order which approved Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky's RTO realignment request on October 21, 2010, and authorized Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky to terminate their existing obligations to the Midwest ISO, subject to certain conditions.

In a related FERC proceeding, on December 16, 2010, FERC issued an order related to the Midwest ISO's cost allocation methodology surrounding Multi-Value Projects (MVP), a type of Midwest ISO transmission expansion cost. The Midwest ISO expects that MVP will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring renewable generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the eastern portion of the Midwest ISO footprint. It is expected that the Midwest ISO will approve MVP proposals with estimated project costs in excess of $5 billion by the date of Duke Energy Ohio's planned exit from the Midwest ISO on December 31, 2011. These projects are expected to be undertaken by the constructing transmission owners from 2012 through 2020 with costs recovered through the Midwest ISO over the useful life of the projects. The order provides that a withdrawing transmission owner shall remain responsible for all financial obligations incurred while it was a member for the allocation of MVP costs to withdrawing transmission owners for projects approved by the Midwest ISO up to the date of the withdrawing transmission owners' exit from the Midwest ISO. The basis for allocating such MVP costs will be the withdrawing transmission owners' historical usage of the Midwest ISO system. Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, has historically represented approximately five-percent of the Midwest ISO system. The impact of this order could result in a substantial increase in the Midwest ISO transmission expansion costs allocated to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky subsequent to a withdrawal from the Midwest ISO. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky, among other parties, sought rehearing of the FERC MVP order. On October 21, 2011, the FERC issued an order on rehearing in this matter largely affirming its original MVP order and conditionally accepting Midwest ISO's compliance filing as well as determining that the MVP allocation methodology is consistent with cost causation principles and FERC precedent. The FERC also reiterated that it will not prejudge any settlement agreement between an RTO and a withdrawing transmission owner for fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to the RTO. The order further states that any such fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to an RTO are a matter for those parties to negotiate, subject to review by the FERC. The FERC also ruled that Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky's challenge of the Midwest ISO's ability to allocate MVP costs to a withdrawing transmission owner is beyond the scope of this proceeding. The Order further stated that Midwest ISO's tariff withdrawal language establishes that once cost responsibility for transmission upgrades is determined, withdrawing transmission owners retain any costs incurred prior to the withdrawal date. Duke Energy will continue to pursue its challenge in regards to this issue in the appropriate proceeding.

On October 14, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky filed an application with the FERC to establish new rates for transmission service under PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff. The new rates are expected to go into effect, subject to refund, on January 1, 2012. The FERC has not yet established a procedural schedule to review the filing but is expected to do so in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky have entered into settlements or have received state regulatory approvals associated with the RTO realignment, including the recovery of MVP costs, if ultimately allocated to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky. On December 22, 2010, the KPSC issued an order granting approval of Duke Energy Kentucky's request to effect the RTO realignment, subject to several conditions. The conditions accepted by Duke Energy Kentucky include a commitment to not seek to double-recover in a future rate case the transmission expansion fees that may be charged by the Midwest ISO and PJM in the same period or overlapping periods. On January 25, 2011, the KPSC issued an order stating that the order had been satisfied and is now unconditional. The order further requires Duke Energy Kentucky to submit to the KPSC internal procedures for the receipt and tracking of notices from PJM regarding customer requests to participate in PJM demand-response programs. Duke Energy Kentucky submitted its filing describing these internal procedures on March 30, 2011.

On April 26, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio, Ohio Energy Group, The Office of Ohio Consumers' Counsel and the Commission Staff filed an Application and a Stipulation with the PUCO regarding Duke Energy Ohio's recovery of certain costs related to its proposed RTO realignment. Under the Stipulation, Duke Energy Ohio would recover through retail rates all Midwest ISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) costs, including but not limited to MVP costs, directly or indirectly charged to Duke Energy Ohio via a non-bypassable rider. Duke Energy Ohio would not seek to recover any portion of the Midwest ISO exit obligation, PJM integration fees, or internal costs associated with the RTO realignment. Also, Duke Energy Ohio would not seek to recover the first $121 million of PJM transmission expansion costs from Ohio retail customers. On May 25, 2011, the Stipulation was approved by the PUCO. An application for rehearing filed by Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy was denied by the PUCO on July 15, 2011.

Duke Energy Ohio currently estimates the liability for its Midwest ISO exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP, will be approximately $90 million. The liability will be recorded within Other in Deferred credits and other liabilities on Duke Energy Ohio's consolidated balance sheet upon exit from the Midwest ISO on December 31, 2011. Approximately $60 million of this amount will be recorded as a regulatory asset while the remainder will be recorded to Operation, maintenance and other in Duke Energy Ohio's consolidated statement of operations. In addition to the above amounts, Duke Energy Ohio may also be responsible for costs associated with the Midwest ISO MVP projects. Duke Energy Ohio is contesting its obligation to pay for such costs. However, depending on the final outcome of this matter, Duke Energy Ohio could incur significant costs associated with MVP projects. The appropriate regulatory treatment will be pursued for any costs incurred in connection with the resolution of this matter.

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Regulatory Matters

4. Regulatory Matters

Progress Energy Merger. See Note 3 for information regarding Duke Energy's pending merger with Progress Energy.

Rate Related Information. The NCUC, PSCSC, IURC and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and gas services within their states. The PUCO approves rates for retail gas and electric service within Ohio, except that non-regulated sellers of gas and electric generation also are allowed to operate in Ohio. The FERC approves rates for electric sales to wholesale customers served under cost-based rates, as well as sales of transmission service.

Duke Energy Ohio Standard Service Offer (SSO). Ohio law provides the PUCO authority to approve an electric utility's generation SSO. A SSO may include an Electric Security Plan (ESP), which would allow for the pricing structures used by Duke Energy Ohio since 2004, or a Market Rate Offer (MRO), in which pricing is determined through a competitive bidding process. On November 15, 2010, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval of its next SSO to replace the existing ESP that expires on December 31, 2011. The filing requested approval of a MRO. On February 23, 2011, the PUCO stated that Duke Energy Ohio did not file an application for a five-year MRO as required under Ohio statute. On June 20, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO for approval of an ESP for its customers beginning January 1, 2012, with rates in effect through May 31, 2021.

On October 24, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and most intervenors, including the PUCO Staff, entered into a settlement stipulation. If approved by the PUCO, the stipulation would establish an ESP with competitive auctions for a term of January 1, 2012 through May 31, 2015. The stipulation also includes provision for a non-bypassable stability charge of $110 million per year to be collected from 2012-2014 and requires Duke Energy Ohio to transfer its generation assets to a non-regulated affiliate on or before December 31, 2014. The stipulation requests that the PUCO approve the settlement on or before November 15, 2011, to allow Duke Energy Ohio to conduct auctions to serve SSO customers effective January 1, 2012. A hearing on the stipulation occured on November 3, 2011.

Duke Energy Carolinas North Carolina Rate Case. On July 1, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a rate case with the NCUC to request an average 15% increase in retail revenues, or approximately $646 million, with a rate of return on equity of 11.5%. The increase is designed to recover the cost of the ongoing generation fleet modernization program, environmental compliance and other capital investments made since 2009.

On November 1, 2011, the NC Public Staff filed testimony to limit Duke Energy Carolinas to an average 4.8% increase in retail rates, or approximately $211 million, with a rate of return on equity of 9.25%.

A hearing is scheduled to begin with the NCUC on November 28, 2011. Duke Energy Carolinas expects revised rates would likely go into effect in February 2012.

Duke Energy Carolinas South Carolina Rate Case. On August 5, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a rate case with the PSCSC to request an average 15% increase in retail revenues, or approximately $216 million, with a rate of return on equity of 11.5%. The increase is designed to recover the cost of the ongoing generation fleet modernization program, environmental compliance and other capital investments made since 2009. A hearing is scheduled with the PSCSC on December 7, 2011. If approved by the PSCSC, rates would likely go into effect in February 2012.

Duke Energy Indiana Energy Efficiency. On September 28, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for new energy efficiency programs to enable meeting the IURC's energy efficiency mandates. Duke Energy Indiana's proposal requests recovery of costs through a rider including lost revenues and incentives for core plus energy efficiency programs and lost revenues and cost recovery for core energy efficiency programs. The hearing occurred in July 2011 and an order is expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Duke Energy Indiana Storm Cost Deferrals. On July 14, 2010, the IURC approved Duke Energy Indiana's deferral of $12 million of retail jurisdictional storm expense until the next retail rate proceeding. This amount represents a portion of costs associated with a January 27, 2009 ice storm, which damaged Duke Energy Indiana's distribution system. On August 12, 2010, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) filed a notice of appeal with the IURC. On December 7, 2010, the IURC issued an order reopening this proceeding for review in consideration of the evidence presented as a result of an internal audit performed as part of an IURC investigation of Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an attorney from the IURC staff which resulted in the IURC's termination of the employment of the Chairman of the IURC. The audit did not find that the order conflicted with the staff report; however, it did note that the staff report offered no specific recommendation to either approve or deny the requested relief, and that the original order was appealed. The IURC set a new procedural schedule to take supplemental testimony and an evidentiary hearing was held in June 2011. On October 19, 2011, the IURC issued an order denying Duke Energy Indiana the right to defer the storm expense discussed above.

Duke Energy Ohio Storm Cost Recovery. On December 11, 2009, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO to recover Hurricane Ike storm restoration costs of $31 million through a discrete rider. The PUCO granted the request to defer the costs associated with the storm recovery; however, they further ordered Duke Energy Ohio to file a separate action pursuant to which the actual amount of recovery would be determined. On January 11, 2011, the PUCO approved recovery of $14 million plus carrying costs which will be spread over a three-year period. Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for rehearing on February 10, 2011, as did the consumer advocate, the office of the Ohio Consumers' Council (OCC). On March 9, 2011, the PUCO denied the rehearing requests of Duke Energy Ohio and the OCC. Duke Energy Ohio filed a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court on May 6, 2011 and briefs have been filed by Duke Energy Ohio and the PUCO. Oral arguments are to be scheduled by the Court.

Capital Expansion Projects.

Overview. USFE&G is engaged in planning efforts to meet projected load growth in its service territories. Capacity additions may include new nuclear, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), coal facilities or gas-fired generation units. Because of the long lead times required to develop such assets, USFE&G is taking steps now to ensure those options are available.

Duke Energy Carolinas William States Lee III Nuclear Station. In December 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NRC, which has been docketed for review, for a combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for two Westinghouse AP1000 (advanced passive) reactors for the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) at a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina. Each reactor is capable of producing 1,117 MW. Submitting the COL application does not commit Duke Energy Carolinas to build nuclear units. Duke Energy Carolinas had previously received approval to incur project development costs associated with Lee Nuclear Station from both the NCUC and the PSCSC. Through several separate orders, the NCUC and PSCSC have deemed Duke Energy's decision to incur project development and pre-construction costs for the project as reasonable and prudent through December 31, 2009 and up to an aggregate maximum amount of $230 million. On November 15, 2010 and January 7, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed amended project development applications with the NCUC and PSCSC, respectively. These applications request approval of Duke Energy Carolinas' decision to continue to incur project development and pre-construction costs for the project through December 31, 2013, and up to $459 million. The hearing before the NCUC occurred March 15, 2011. The PSCSC hearing occurred on May 16 and May 17, 2011.

On July 1, 2011, the PSCSC issued an order stating Duke Energy Carolinas must incur only those costs necessary to keep the project available as an option in the 2021 time frame, not to exceed South Carolina's allocable share of $120 million, including allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC), for the period of January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. Also, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Duke Energy Carolinas shall provide certain monthly reports to the PSCSC and the Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS). Duke Energy Carolinas has also agreed to provide a monthly report to certain parties on the progress of negotiations to acquire an interest in the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station (refer to discussion below) expansion being developed by South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G). Any change in ownership interest, output allocation, sharing of costs or control and any future option agreements concerning Lee Nuclear Station shall be subject to prior approval of the PSCSC.

On August 5, 2011, the NCUC issued an order approving Duke Energy's decision to incur project development costs up to North Carolina's allocable share of $120 million and subject to the limitation that it is only appropriate to incur such costs necessary to maintain the status quo with respect to the Lee Nuclear Station, including the COL application at the NRC.

On April 18, 2011, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) filed a petition requesting that the NRC suspend all pending reactor licensing decisions pending the investigation of lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident in Japan. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a response opposing this petition. In addition to its emergency petition, on August 11, 2011, BREDL also filed a "Motion to Admit new Contention Regarding the Safety and Environmental Implications of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Task Force Report on the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident." Duke Energy Carolinas filed a response opposing admission of this new contention. On September 9, 2011, the NRC issued a decision denying BREDL's emergency petition, and on October 18, 2011, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a decision denying admission of the new contention.

The NRC review of the COL application continues and the estimated receipt of the COL is in mid 2013. Duke Energy Carolinas filed with the DOE for a federal loan guarantee, which has the potential to significantly lower financing costs associated with the proposed Lee Nuclear Station; however, it was not among the four projects selected by the DOE for the final phase of due diligence for the federal loan guarantee program. The project could be selected in the future if the program funding is expanded or if any of the current finalists drop out of the program.

Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking partners for Lee Nuclear Station by issuing options to purchase an ownership interest in the plant. In the first quarter of 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into an agreement with JEA that provides JEA with an option to purchase up to a 20% undivided ownership interest in Lee Nuclear Station. JEA has 90 days following Duke Energy Carolinas' receipt of the COL to exercise the option.

Duke Energy Carolinas V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Letter of Intent. In July 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas signed a letter of intent with Santee Cooper related to the potential acquisition by Duke Energy Carolinas of a five percent to ten percent ownership interest in the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station being developed by Santee Cooper and SCE&G near Jenkinsville, South Carolina. The letter of intent provides a path for Duke Energy Carolinas to conduct the necessary due diligence to determine if future participation in this project is beneficial for its customers.

Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Unit 6. On March 21, 2007, the NCUC issued an order allowing Duke Energy Carolinas to build one 800 MW coal-fired unit. Following final equipment selection and the completion of detailed engineering, Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to have a net output of 825 MW. On January 31, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its updated cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC of $600 million) for the approved new Cliffside Unit 6. In March 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an update to the cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC) with the NCUC where it reduced the estimated AFUDC financing costs to $400 million as a result of the December 2009 rate case settlement with the NCUC that allowed the inclusion of construction work in progress in rate base prospectively. Duke Energy Carolinas believes that the overall cost of Cliffside Unit 6 will be reduced by $125 million in federal advanced clean coal tax credits, as discussed in Note 5. Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to begin operation by the end of 2012. Also, see Note 5 for information related to the Cliffside Unit 6 air permit.

Duke Energy Carolinas Dan River and Buck Combined Cycle Facilities. In June 2008, the NCUC issued its order approving the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) applications to construct a 620 MW combined cycle natural gas fired generating facility at each of Duke Energy Carolinas' existing Dan River Steam Station and Buck Steam Station. The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) issued a final air permit authorizing construction of the Buck and Dan River combined cycle natural gas-fired generating units in October 2008 and August 2009, respectively.

The Buck project is expected to begin operation by the end of 2011. The Dan River project is expected to begin operation by the end of 2012. Based on the most updated cost estimates, total costs (including AFUDC) for the Buck and Dan River projects are $700 million and $716 million, respectively.

Duke Energy Indiana Edwardsport IGCC Plant. On September 7, 2006, Duke Energy Indiana and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana (Vectren) filed a joint petition with the IURC seeking a CPCN for the construction of a 618 MW IGCC power plant at Duke Energy Indiana's Edwardsport Generating Station in Knox County, Indiana. The facility was initially estimated to cost approximately $1.985 billion (including $120 million of AFUDC). In August 2007, Vectren formally withdrew its participation in the IGCC plant and a hearing was conducted on the CPCN petition based on Duke Energy Indiana owning 100% of the project. On November 20, 2007, the IURC issued an order granting Duke Energy Indiana a CPCN for the proposed IGCC project, approved the cost estimate of $1.985 billion and approved the timely recovery of costs related to the project. On January 25, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana received the final air permit from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. The Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. (CAC), Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc., all intervenors in the CPCN proceeding, have appealed the air permit.

On May 1, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana filed its first semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC as required under the CPCN order issued by the IURC. In its filing, Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of a new cost estimate for the IGCC project of $2.35 billion (including $125 million of AFUDC) and for approval of plans to study carbon capture as required by the IURC's CPCN order. On January 7, 2009, the IURC approved Duke Energy Indiana's request, including the new cost estimate of $2.35 billion, and cost recovery associated with a study on carbon capture. On November 3, 2008 and May 1, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed its second and third semi-annual IGCC riders, respectively, both of which were approved by the IURC in full.

On November 24, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for its fourth semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC. As Duke Energy Indiana experienced design modifications and scope growth above what was anticipated from the preliminary engineering design, capital costs to the IGCC project were anticipated to increase. Duke Energy Indiana forecasted that the additional capital cost items would use the remaining contingency and escalation amounts in the current $2.35 billion cost estimate and add $150 million, excluding the impact associated with the need to add more contingency. Duke Energy Indiana did not request approval of an increased cost estimate in the fourth semi-annual update proceeding; rather, Duke Energy Indiana requested, and the IURC approved, a subdocket proceeding in which Duke Energy Indiana would present additional evidence regarding an updated estimated cost for the IGCC project and in which a more comprehensive review of the IGCC project could occur. The evidentiary hearing for the fourth semi-annual update proceeding was held April 6, 2010, and an interim order was received on July 28, 2010. The order approves the implementation of an updated IGCC rider to recover costs incurred through September 30, 2009, effective immediately. The approvals are on an interim basis pending the outcome of the sub-docket proceeding involving the revised cost estimate as discussed further below.

On April 16, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed a revised cost estimate for the IGCC project reflecting an estimated cost increase of $530 million. Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of the revised cost estimate of $2.88 billion (including $160 million of AFUDC), and for continuation of the existing cost recovery treatment. A major driver of the cost increase included design changes reflected in the final engineering leading to increased scope and complexity. On September 17, 2010 an agreement was reached with the OUCC, Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Nucor Steel – Indiana to increase the authorized cost estimate of $2.35 billion to $2.76 billion, and to cap the project's costs that could be passed on to customers at $2.975 billion. Any construction cost amounts above $2.76 billion would be subject to a prudence review similar to most other rate base investments in Duke Energy Indiana's next general rate increase request before the IURC. Duke Energy Indiana agreed to accept a 150 basis point reduction in the equity return for any project construction costs greater than $2.35 billion. Additionally, Duke Energy Indiana agreed not to file for a general rate case increase before March 2012. Duke Energy Indiana also agreed to reduce depreciation rates earlier than would otherwise be required and to forego a deferred tax incentive related to the IGCC project. As a result of the settlement, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax charge to earnings of approximately $44 million in the third quarter of 2010 to reflect the impact of the reduction in the return on equity. The charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. This charge is recorded in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Due to the IURC investigation discussed below, the IURC convened a technical conference on November 3, 2010 related to the continuing need for the Edwardsport IGCC facility. On December 9, 2010, the parties to the settlement withdrew the settlement agreement to provide an opportunity to assess whether and to what extent the settlement agreement remained a reasonable allocation of risks and rewards and whether modifications to the settlement agreement were appropriate. Management determined that the approximate $44 million charge discussed above was not impacted by the withdrawal of the settlement agreement.

Additionally, the CAC, Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc. filed motions for two subdocket proceedings alleging improper communications, undue influence, fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement, and a request for field hearing in this proceeding. Duke Energy Indiana opposed the requests. During 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed petitions for its fifth and sixth semi-annual IGCC riders. Evidentiary hearings are set for November 17, 2011 and November 21, 2011, respectively.

On February 25, 2011, the IURC issued an order which denied the request for a subdocket to investigate the allegations of improper communications and undue influence at this time, finding there were other agencies better suited for such investigation. The IURC also found that allegations of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement related to the IGCC project should be heard in a Phase II proceeding of the cost estimate subdocket and set evidentiary hearings on both Phase I (cost estimate increase) and Phase II beginning in August 2011. In April 2011, after an attorneys' conference, and in response to the other parties' request for more time, the IURC scheduled hearings for Phase I to begin October 26, 2011 and Phase II hearings to begin November 3, 2011.

On March 10, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC proposing a framework designed to mitigate customer rate impacts associated with the Edwardsport IGCC project. Duke Energy Indiana's filing proposed a cap on the project's construction costs, (excluding financing costs), which can be recovered through rates at $2.72 billion. It also proposed rate-related adjustments that will lower the overall customer rate increase related to the project from an average of 19% to approximately 16%. The proposal is subject to the approval of the IURC in the Phase I hearings.

On June 27, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC in connection with its seventh semi-annual rider request which included an update on the current cost forecast of the Edwardsport project. The evidentiary hearing is set for December 13, 2011. The updated forecast excluding AFUDC increased from $2.72 billion to $2.82 billion, not including any contingency for unexpected start-up events. On June 30, 2011, the OUCC and intervenors filed testimony in Phase I recommending that Duke Energy Indiana be disallowed cost recovery of any of the additional cost estimate increase above the previously approved cost estimate of $2.35 billion. Duke Energy Indiana filed rebuttal testimony on August 3, 2011.

On July 14, 2011, the OUCC and certain intervenors filed testimony in Phase II alleging that Duke Energy Indiana concealed information and grossly mismanaged the project, and therefore Duke Energy Indiana should only be permitted to recover from customers $1.985 billion, the original IGCC project cost estimate approved by the IURC. Other intervenors recommended that Duke Energy Indiana not be able to rely on any cost recovery granted under the CPCN or the first cost increase order. Duke Energy Indiana believes it has diligently and prudently managed the project. On September 9, 2011, Duke Energy defended against the allegations in its responsive testimony. The OUCC and intervenors filed their final rebuttal testimony in Phase II on or before October 7, 2011, making similar claims of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement and recommending the same outcome of limiting Duke Energy Indiana's recovery to the $1.985 billion initial cost estimate. Additionally, the CAC parties recommended that recovery be limited to the costs incurred on the IGCC project as of November 30, 2009 (Duke Energy Indiana estimates it had committed costs of $1.6 billion), with further IURC proceedings to be held to determine the financial consequences of this recommendation.

On October 19, 2011, Duke Energy revised its project cost estimate from approximately $2.72 billion, excluding financing costs, to approximately $2.98 billion, excluding financing costs. The revised estimate reflects additional cost pressures resulting from unfavorable labor productivity trends and incremental material quantity and scope changes. Duke Energy Indiana previously proposed to the IURC a cost cap of approximately $2.72 billion, plus the actual AFUDC that accrues on that amount. As a result, for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $222 million related to costs expected to be incurred above the cost cap. This charge is in addition to a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $44 million recorded in the third quarter of 2010 as discussed above. The approximate $222 million charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations, and in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The cost cap, if approved by the IURC, limits the amount of project construction costs that may be incorporated into customer rates in Indiana. As a result of the proposed cost cap, recovery of these cost increases is not considered probable. Additional updates to the cost estimate could occur through the completion of the plant in 2012.

On October 26, 2011, hearings before the IURC commenced pursuant to the previously established schedule and will continue until all evidence is presented for both Phase I and Phase II.

Duke Energy is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings. In the event the IURC disallows a portion of the plant costs, including financing costs, additional charges to expense could occur. An order is expected in the first quarter of 2012.

Construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant is ongoing and is currently expected to be completed and placed in-service in 2012.

Duke Energy Indiana Carbon Sequestration. Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition with the IURC requesting approval of its plans for studying carbon storage, sequestration and/or enhanced oil recovery for the carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) from the Edwardsport IGCC facility on March 6, 2009. On July 7, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed its case-in-chief testimony requesting approval for cost recovery of a $121 million site assessment and characterization plan for CO₂ sequestration options including deep saline sequestration, depleted oil and gas sequestration and enhanced oil recovery for the CO₂ from the Edwardsport IGCC facility. The OUCC filed testimony supportive of the continuing study of carbon storage, but recommended that Duke Energy Indiana break its plan into phases, recommending approval of only $33 million in expenditures at this time and deferral of expenditures rather than cost recovery through a tracking mechanism as proposed by Duke Energy Indiana. The CAC, an intervenor, recommended against approval of the carbon storage plan stating customers should not be required to pay for research and development costs. Duke Energy Indiana's rebuttal testimony was filed October 30, 2009, wherein it amended its request to seek deferral of $42 million to cover the carbon storage site assessment and characterization activities scheduled to occur through the end of 2010, with further required study expenditures subject to future IURC proceedings. An evidentiary hearing was held on November 9, 2009, and an order is expected by the end of 2011.

Duke Energy Indiana IURC Investigation. On October 5, 2010, the Governor of Indiana terminated the employment of the Chairman of the IURC in connection with Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an attorney from the IURC staff. As requested by the governor, the Indiana Inspector General initiated an investigation into whether the IURC attorney violated any state ethics rules, and the IURC announced it would internally audit the Duke Energy Indiana cases dating from January 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010, on which this attorney worked while at the IURC, which includes the Indiana storm costs deferral request discussed above, as well as all Edwardsport IGCC cases dating back to 2006. Duke Energy Indiana engaged an outside law firm to conduct its own investigation regarding Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an IURC attorney and Duke Energy Indiana's related hiring practices. On October 5, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana placed the attorney and President of Duke Energy Indiana on administrative leave. They were subsequently terminated on November 8, 2010. On December 7, 2010, the IURC released its internal audit findings concluding that the previous rulings were supported by sound, legal reasoning consistent with the Indiana Rules of Evidence and historical practice and procedures of the IURC and that the previous rulings appeared to be balanced and consistent among the parties. The audit concluded it did not reveal any bias or a resultant unfair advantage obtained by Duke Energy Indiana as a result of the evidentiary rulings of the former IURC attorney. As noted above, in the storm cost deferral case, the IURC found no conflict between the order and the staff report; however, the audit report noted the staff report offered no specific recommendation to either approve or deny the requested relief and that this was the only order that was subject to an appeal. As such, the IURC reopened that proceeding for further review and consideration of the evidence presented. The Inspector General's investigation into whether the former IURC attorney violated any state ethics rules was the subject of an Indiana Ethics Commission hearing that was held on April 14, 2011, and a final report was issued on May 14, 2011. The final report pertained only to the conduct of the former IURC attorney as Duke Energy Indiana was not a subject of the investigation.

Other Matters.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky Regional Transmission Organization Realignment. Duke Energy Ohio, which includes its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky, is in the advanced planning stages to transfer control of its transmission assets to effect a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) realignment from the Midwest ISO to PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), effective January 1, 2012.

The FERC issued an order which approved Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky's RTO realignment request on October 21, 2010, and authorized Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky to terminate their existing obligations to the Midwest ISO, subject to certain conditions.

In a related FERC proceeding, on December 16, 2010, FERC issued an order related to the Midwest ISO's cost allocation methodology surrounding Multi-Value Projects (MVP), a type of Midwest ISO transmission expansion cost. The Midwest ISO expects that MVP will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring renewable generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the eastern portion of the Midwest ISO footprint. It is expected that the Midwest ISO will approve MVP proposals with estimated project costs in excess of $5 billion by the date of Duke Energy Ohio's planned exit from the Midwest ISO on December 31, 2011. These projects are expected to be undertaken by the constructing transmission owners from 2012 through 2020 with costs recovered through the Midwest ISO over the useful life of the projects. The order provides that a withdrawing transmission owner shall remain responsible for all financial obligations incurred while it was a member for the allocation of MVP costs to withdrawing transmission owners for projects approved by the Midwest ISO up to the date of the withdrawing transmission owners' exit from the Midwest ISO. The basis for allocating such MVP costs will be the withdrawing transmission owners' historical usage of the Midwest ISO system. Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, has historically represented approximately five-percent of the Midwest ISO system. The impact of this order could result in a substantial increase in the Midwest ISO transmission expansion costs allocated to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky subsequent to a withdrawal from the Midwest ISO. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky, among other parties, sought rehearing of the FERC MVP order. On October 21, 2011, the FERC issued an order on rehearing in this matter largely affirming its original MVP order and conditionally accepting Midwest ISO's compliance filing as well as determining that the MVP allocation methodology is consistent with cost causation principles and FERC precedent. The FERC also reiterated that it will not prejudge any settlement agreement between an RTO and a withdrawing transmission owner for fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to the RTO. The order further states that any such fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to an RTO are a matter for those parties to negotiate, subject to review by the FERC. The FERC also ruled that Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky's challenge of the Midwest ISO's ability to allocate MVP costs to a withdrawing transmission owner is beyond the scope of this proceeding. The Order further stated that Midwest ISO's tariff withdrawal language establishes that once cost responsibility for transmission upgrades is determined, withdrawing transmission owners retain any costs incurred prior to the withdrawal date. Duke Energy will continue to pursue its challenge in regards to this issue in the appropriate proceeding.

On October 14, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky filed an application with the FERC to establish new rates for transmission service under PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff. The new rates are expected to go into effect, subject to refund, on January 1, 2012. The FERC has not yet established a procedural schedule to review the filing but is expected to do so in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky have entered into settlements or have received state regulatory approvals associated with the RTO realignment, including the recovery of MVP costs, if ultimately allocated to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky. On December 22, 2010, the KPSC issued an order granting approval of Duke Energy Kentucky's request to effect the RTO realignment, subject to several conditions. The conditions accepted by Duke Energy Kentucky include a commitment to not seek to double-recover in a future rate case the transmission expansion fees that may be charged by the Midwest ISO and PJM in the same period or overlapping periods. On January 25, 2011, the KPSC issued an order stating that the order had been satisfied and is now unconditional. The order further requires Duke Energy Kentucky to submit to the KPSC internal procedures for the receipt and tracking of notices from PJM regarding customer requests to participate in PJM demand-response programs. Duke Energy Kentucky submitted its filing describing these internal procedures on March 30, 2011.

On April 26, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio, Ohio Energy Group, The Office of Ohio Consumers' Counsel and the Commission Staff filed an Application and a Stipulation with the PUCO regarding Duke Energy Ohio's recovery of certain costs related to its proposed RTO realignment. Under the Stipulation, Duke Energy Ohio would recover through retail rates all Midwest ISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) costs, including but not limited to MVP costs, directly or indirectly charged to Duke Energy Ohio via a non-bypassable rider. Duke Energy Ohio would not seek to recover any portion of the Midwest ISO exit obligation, PJM integration fees, or internal costs associated with the RTO realignment. Also, Duke Energy Ohio would not seek to recover the first $121 million of PJM transmission expansion costs from Ohio retail customers. On May 25, 2011, the Stipulation was approved by the PUCO. An application for rehearing filed by Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy was denied by the PUCO on July 15, 2011.

Duke Energy Ohio currently estimates the liability for its Midwest ISO exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP, will be approximately $90 million. The liability will be recorded within Other in Deferred credits and other liabilities on Duke Energy Ohio's consolidated balance sheet upon exit from the Midwest ISO on December 31, 2011. Approximately $60 million of this amount will be recorded as a regulatory asset while the remainder will be recorded to Operation, maintenance and other in Duke Energy Ohio's consolidated statement of operations. In addition to the above amounts, Duke Energy Ohio may also be responsible for costs associated with the Midwest ISO MVP projects. Duke Energy Ohio is contesting its obligation to pay for such costs. However, depending on the final outcome of this matter, Duke Energy Ohio could incur significant costs associated with MVP projects. The appropriate regulatory treatment will be pursued for any costs incurred in connection with the resolution of this matter.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Regulatory Matters

4. Regulatory Matters

Progress Energy Merger. See Note 3 for information regarding Duke Energy's pending merger with Progress Energy.

Rate Related Information. The NCUC, PSCSC, IURC and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and gas services within their states. The PUCO approves rates for retail gas and electric service within Ohio, except that non-regulated sellers of gas and electric generation also are allowed to operate in Ohio. The FERC approves rates for electric sales to wholesale customers served under cost-based rates, as well as sales of transmission service.

Duke Energy Ohio Standard Service Offer (SSO). Ohio law provides the PUCO authority to approve an electric utility's generation SSO. A SSO may include an Electric Security Plan (ESP), which would allow for the pricing structures used by Duke Energy Ohio since 2004, or a Market Rate Offer (MRO), in which pricing is determined through a competitive bidding process. On November 15, 2010, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval of its next SSO to replace the existing ESP that expires on December 31, 2011. The filing requested approval of a MRO. On February 23, 2011, the PUCO stated that Duke Energy Ohio did not file an application for a five-year MRO as required under Ohio statute. On June 20, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO for approval of an ESP for its customers beginning January 1, 2012, with rates in effect through May 31, 2021.

On October 24, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and most intervenors, including the PUCO Staff, entered into a settlement stipulation. If approved by the PUCO, the stipulation would establish an ESP with competitive auctions for a term of January 1, 2012 through May 31, 2015. The stipulation also includes provision for a non-bypassable stability charge of $110 million per year to be collected from 2012-2014 and requires Duke Energy Ohio to transfer its generation assets to a non-regulated affiliate on or before December 31, 2014. The stipulation requests that the PUCO approve the settlement on or before November 15, 2011, to allow Duke Energy Ohio to conduct auctions to serve SSO customers effective January 1, 2012. A hearing on the stipulation occured on November 3, 2011.

Duke Energy Carolinas North Carolina Rate Case. On July 1, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a rate case with the NCUC to request an average 15% increase in retail revenues, or approximately $646 million, with a rate of return on equity of 11.5%. The increase is designed to recover the cost of the ongoing generation fleet modernization program, environmental compliance and other capital investments made since 2009.

On November 1, 2011, the NC Public Staff filed testimony to limit Duke Energy Carolinas to an average 4.8% increase in retail rates, or approximately $211 million, with a rate of return on equity of 9.25%.

A hearing is scheduled to begin with the NCUC on November 28, 2011. Duke Energy Carolinas expects revised rates would likely go into effect in February 2012.

Duke Energy Carolinas South Carolina Rate Case. On August 5, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a rate case with the PSCSC to request an average 15% increase in retail revenues, or approximately $216 million, with a rate of return on equity of 11.5%. The increase is designed to recover the cost of the ongoing generation fleet modernization program, environmental compliance and other capital investments made since 2009. A hearing is scheduled with the PSCSC on December 7, 2011. If approved by the PSCSC, rates would likely go into effect in February 2012.

Duke Energy Indiana Energy Efficiency. On September 28, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for new energy efficiency programs to enable meeting the IURC's energy efficiency mandates. Duke Energy Indiana's proposal requests recovery of costs through a rider including lost revenues and incentives for core plus energy efficiency programs and lost revenues and cost recovery for core energy efficiency programs. The hearing occurred in July 2011 and an order is expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Duke Energy Indiana Storm Cost Deferrals. On July 14, 2010, the IURC approved Duke Energy Indiana's deferral of $12 million of retail jurisdictional storm expense until the next retail rate proceeding. This amount represents a portion of costs associated with a January 27, 2009 ice storm, which damaged Duke Energy Indiana's distribution system. On August 12, 2010, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) filed a notice of appeal with the IURC. On December 7, 2010, the IURC issued an order reopening this proceeding for review in consideration of the evidence presented as a result of an internal audit performed as part of an IURC investigation of Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an attorney from the IURC staff which resulted in the IURC's termination of the employment of the Chairman of the IURC. The audit did not find that the order conflicted with the staff report; however, it did note that the staff report offered no specific recommendation to either approve or deny the requested relief, and that the original order was appealed. The IURC set a new procedural schedule to take supplemental testimony and an evidentiary hearing was held in June 2011. On October 19, 2011, the IURC issued an order denying Duke Energy Indiana the right to defer the storm expense discussed above.

Duke Energy Ohio Storm Cost Recovery. On December 11, 2009, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO to recover Hurricane Ike storm restoration costs of $31 million through a discrete rider. The PUCO granted the request to defer the costs associated with the storm recovery; however, they further ordered Duke Energy Ohio to file a separate action pursuant to which the actual amount of recovery would be determined. On January 11, 2011, the PUCO approved recovery of $14 million plus carrying costs which will be spread over a three-year period. Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for rehearing on February 10, 2011, as did the consumer advocate, the office of the Ohio Consumers' Council (OCC). On March 9, 2011, the PUCO denied the rehearing requests of Duke Energy Ohio and the OCC. Duke Energy Ohio filed a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court on May 6, 2011 and briefs have been filed by Duke Energy Ohio and the PUCO. Oral arguments are to be scheduled by the Court.

Capital Expansion Projects.

Overview. USFE&G is engaged in planning efforts to meet projected load growth in its service territories. Capacity additions may include new nuclear, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), coal facilities or gas-fired generation units. Because of the long lead times required to develop such assets, USFE&G is taking steps now to ensure those options are available.

Duke Energy Carolinas William States Lee III Nuclear Station. In December 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NRC, which has been docketed for review, for a combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for two Westinghouse AP1000 (advanced passive) reactors for the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) at a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina. Each reactor is capable of producing 1,117 MW. Submitting the COL application does not commit Duke Energy Carolinas to build nuclear units. Duke Energy Carolinas had previously received approval to incur project development costs associated with Lee Nuclear Station from both the NCUC and the PSCSC. Through several separate orders, the NCUC and PSCSC have deemed Duke Energy's decision to incur project development and pre-construction costs for the project as reasonable and prudent through December 31, 2009 and up to an aggregate maximum amount of $230 million. On November 15, 2010 and January 7, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed amended project development applications with the NCUC and PSCSC, respectively. These applications request approval of Duke Energy Carolinas' decision to continue to incur project development and pre-construction costs for the project through December 31, 2013, and up to $459 million. The hearing before the NCUC occurred March 15, 2011. The PSCSC hearing occurred on May 16 and May 17, 2011.

On July 1, 2011, the PSCSC issued an order stating Duke Energy Carolinas must incur only those costs necessary to keep the project available as an option in the 2021 time frame, not to exceed South Carolina's allocable share of $120 million, including allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC), for the period of January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. Also, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Duke Energy Carolinas shall provide certain monthly reports to the PSCSC and the Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS). Duke Energy Carolinas has also agreed to provide a monthly report to certain parties on the progress of negotiations to acquire an interest in the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station (refer to discussion below) expansion being developed by South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G). Any change in ownership interest, output allocation, sharing of costs or control and any future option agreements concerning Lee Nuclear Station shall be subject to prior approval of the PSCSC.

On August 5, 2011, the NCUC issued an order approving Duke Energy's decision to incur project development costs up to North Carolina's allocable share of $120 million and subject to the limitation that it is only appropriate to incur such costs necessary to maintain the status quo with respect to the Lee Nuclear Station, including the COL application at the NRC.

On April 18, 2011, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) filed a petition requesting that the NRC suspend all pending reactor licensing decisions pending the investigation of lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident in Japan. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a response opposing this petition. In addition to its emergency petition, on August 11, 2011, BREDL also filed a "Motion to Admit new Contention Regarding the Safety and Environmental Implications of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Task Force Report on the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident." Duke Energy Carolinas filed a response opposing admission of this new contention. On September 9, 2011, the NRC issued a decision denying BREDL's emergency petition, and on October 18, 2011, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a decision denying admission of the new contention.

The NRC review of the COL application continues and the estimated receipt of the COL is in mid 2013. Duke Energy Carolinas filed with the DOE for a federal loan guarantee, which has the potential to significantly lower financing costs associated with the proposed Lee Nuclear Station; however, it was not among the four projects selected by the DOE for the final phase of due diligence for the federal loan guarantee program. The project could be selected in the future if the program funding is expanded or if any of the current finalists drop out of the program.

Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking partners for Lee Nuclear Station by issuing options to purchase an ownership interest in the plant. In the first quarter of 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into an agreement with JEA that provides JEA with an option to purchase up to a 20% undivided ownership interest in Lee Nuclear Station. JEA has 90 days following Duke Energy Carolinas' receipt of the COL to exercise the option.

Duke Energy Carolinas V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Letter of Intent. In July 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas signed a letter of intent with Santee Cooper related to the potential acquisition by Duke Energy Carolinas of a five percent to ten percent ownership interest in the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station being developed by Santee Cooper and SCE&G near Jenkinsville, South Carolina. The letter of intent provides a path for Duke Energy Carolinas to conduct the necessary due diligence to determine if future participation in this project is beneficial for its customers.

Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Unit 6. On March 21, 2007, the NCUC issued an order allowing Duke Energy Carolinas to build one 800 MW coal-fired unit. Following final equipment selection and the completion of detailed engineering, Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to have a net output of 825 MW. On January 31, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its updated cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC of $600 million) for the approved new Cliffside Unit 6. In March 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an update to the cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC) with the NCUC where it reduced the estimated AFUDC financing costs to $400 million as a result of the December 2009 rate case settlement with the NCUC that allowed the inclusion of construction work in progress in rate base prospectively. Duke Energy Carolinas believes that the overall cost of Cliffside Unit 6 will be reduced by $125 million in federal advanced clean coal tax credits, as discussed in Note 5. Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to begin operation by the end of 2012. Also, see Note 5 for information related to the Cliffside Unit 6 air permit.

Duke Energy Carolinas Dan River and Buck Combined Cycle Facilities. In June 2008, the NCUC issued its order approving the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) applications to construct a 620 MW combined cycle natural gas fired generating facility at each of Duke Energy Carolinas' existing Dan River Steam Station and Buck Steam Station. The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) issued a final air permit authorizing construction of the Buck and Dan River combined cycle natural gas-fired generating units in October 2008 and August 2009, respectively.

The Buck project is expected to begin operation by the end of 2011. The Dan River project is expected to begin operation by the end of 2012. Based on the most updated cost estimates, total costs (including AFUDC) for the Buck and Dan River projects are $700 million and $716 million, respectively.

Duke Energy Indiana Edwardsport IGCC Plant. On September 7, 2006, Duke Energy Indiana and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana (Vectren) filed a joint petition with the IURC seeking a CPCN for the construction of a 618 MW IGCC power plant at Duke Energy Indiana's Edwardsport Generating Station in Knox County, Indiana. The facility was initially estimated to cost approximately $1.985 billion (including $120 million of AFUDC). In August 2007, Vectren formally withdrew its participation in the IGCC plant and a hearing was conducted on the CPCN petition based on Duke Energy Indiana owning 100% of the project. On November 20, 2007, the IURC issued an order granting Duke Energy Indiana a CPCN for the proposed IGCC project, approved the cost estimate of $1.985 billion and approved the timely recovery of costs related to the project. On January 25, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana received the final air permit from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. The Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. (CAC), Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc., all intervenors in the CPCN proceeding, have appealed the air permit.

On May 1, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana filed its first semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC as required under the CPCN order issued by the IURC. In its filing, Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of a new cost estimate for the IGCC project of $2.35 billion (including $125 million of AFUDC) and for approval of plans to study carbon capture as required by the IURC's CPCN order. On January 7, 2009, the IURC approved Duke Energy Indiana's request, including the new cost estimate of $2.35 billion, and cost recovery associated with a study on carbon capture. On November 3, 2008 and May 1, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed its second and third semi-annual IGCC riders, respectively, both of which were approved by the IURC in full.

On November 24, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for its fourth semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC. As Duke Energy Indiana experienced design modifications and scope growth above what was anticipated from the preliminary engineering design, capital costs to the IGCC project were anticipated to increase. Duke Energy Indiana forecasted that the additional capital cost items would use the remaining contingency and escalation amounts in the current $2.35 billion cost estimate and add $150 million, excluding the impact associated with the need to add more contingency. Duke Energy Indiana did not request approval of an increased cost estimate in the fourth semi-annual update proceeding; rather, Duke Energy Indiana requested, and the IURC approved, a subdocket proceeding in which Duke Energy Indiana would present additional evidence regarding an updated estimated cost for the IGCC project and in which a more comprehensive review of the IGCC project could occur. The evidentiary hearing for the fourth semi-annual update proceeding was held April 6, 2010, and an interim order was received on July 28, 2010. The order approves the implementation of an updated IGCC rider to recover costs incurred through September 30, 2009, effective immediately. The approvals are on an interim basis pending the outcome of the sub-docket proceeding involving the revised cost estimate as discussed further below.

On April 16, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed a revised cost estimate for the IGCC project reflecting an estimated cost increase of $530 million. Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of the revised cost estimate of $2.88 billion (including $160 million of AFUDC), and for continuation of the existing cost recovery treatment. A major driver of the cost increase included design changes reflected in the final engineering leading to increased scope and complexity. On September 17, 2010 an agreement was reached with the OUCC, Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Nucor Steel – Indiana to increase the authorized cost estimate of $2.35 billion to $2.76 billion, and to cap the project's costs that could be passed on to customers at $2.975 billion. Any construction cost amounts above $2.76 billion would be subject to a prudence review similar to most other rate base investments in Duke Energy Indiana's next general rate increase request before the IURC. Duke Energy Indiana agreed to accept a 150 basis point reduction in the equity return for any project construction costs greater than $2.35 billion. Additionally, Duke Energy Indiana agreed not to file for a general rate case increase before March 2012. Duke Energy Indiana also agreed to reduce depreciation rates earlier than would otherwise be required and to forego a deferred tax incentive related to the IGCC project. As a result of the settlement, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax charge to earnings of approximately $44 million in the third quarter of 2010 to reflect the impact of the reduction in the return on equity. The charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. This charge is recorded in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Due to the IURC investigation discussed below, the IURC convened a technical conference on November 3, 2010 related to the continuing need for the Edwardsport IGCC facility. On December 9, 2010, the parties to the settlement withdrew the settlement agreement to provide an opportunity to assess whether and to what extent the settlement agreement remained a reasonable allocation of risks and rewards and whether modifications to the settlement agreement were appropriate. Management determined that the approximate $44 million charge discussed above was not impacted by the withdrawal of the settlement agreement.

Additionally, the CAC, Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc. filed motions for two subdocket proceedings alleging improper communications, undue influence, fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement, and a request for field hearing in this proceeding. Duke Energy Indiana opposed the requests. During 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed petitions for its fifth and sixth semi-annual IGCC riders. Evidentiary hearings are set for November 17, 2011 and November 21, 2011, respectively.

On February 25, 2011, the IURC issued an order which denied the request for a subdocket to investigate the allegations of improper communications and undue influence at this time, finding there were other agencies better suited for such investigation. The IURC also found that allegations of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement related to the IGCC project should be heard in a Phase II proceeding of the cost estimate subdocket and set evidentiary hearings on both Phase I (cost estimate increase) and Phase II beginning in August 2011. In April 2011, after an attorneys' conference, and in response to the other parties' request for more time, the IURC scheduled hearings for Phase I to begin October 26, 2011 and Phase II hearings to begin November 3, 2011.

On March 10, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC proposing a framework designed to mitigate customer rate impacts associated with the Edwardsport IGCC project. Duke Energy Indiana's filing proposed a cap on the project's construction costs, (excluding financing costs), which can be recovered through rates at $2.72 billion. It also proposed rate-related adjustments that will lower the overall customer rate increase related to the project from an average of 19% to approximately 16%. The proposal is subject to the approval of the IURC in the Phase I hearings.

On June 27, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC in connection with its seventh semi-annual rider request which included an update on the current cost forecast of the Edwardsport project. The evidentiary hearing is set for December 13, 2011. The updated forecast excluding AFUDC increased from $2.72 billion to $2.82 billion, not including any contingency for unexpected start-up events. On June 30, 2011, the OUCC and intervenors filed testimony in Phase I recommending that Duke Energy Indiana be disallowed cost recovery of any of the additional cost estimate increase above the previously approved cost estimate of $2.35 billion. Duke Energy Indiana filed rebuttal testimony on August 3, 2011.

On July 14, 2011, the OUCC and certain intervenors filed testimony in Phase II alleging that Duke Energy Indiana concealed information and grossly mismanaged the project, and therefore Duke Energy Indiana should only be permitted to recover from customers $1.985 billion, the original IGCC project cost estimate approved by the IURC. Other intervenors recommended that Duke Energy Indiana not be able to rely on any cost recovery granted under the CPCN or the first cost increase order. Duke Energy Indiana believes it has diligently and prudently managed the project. On September 9, 2011, Duke Energy defended against the allegations in its responsive testimony. The OUCC and intervenors filed their final rebuttal testimony in Phase II on or before October 7, 2011, making similar claims of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement and recommending the same outcome of limiting Duke Energy Indiana's recovery to the $1.985 billion initial cost estimate. Additionally, the CAC parties recommended that recovery be limited to the costs incurred on the IGCC project as of November 30, 2009 (Duke Energy Indiana estimates it had committed costs of $1.6 billion), with further IURC proceedings to be held to determine the financial consequences of this recommendation.

On October 19, 2011, Duke Energy revised its project cost estimate from approximately $2.72 billion, excluding financing costs, to approximately $2.98 billion, excluding financing costs. The revised estimate reflects additional cost pressures resulting from unfavorable labor productivity trends and incremental material quantity and scope changes. Duke Energy Indiana previously proposed to the IURC a cost cap of approximately $2.72 billion, plus the actual AFUDC that accrues on that amount. As a result, for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $222 million related to costs expected to be incurred above the cost cap. This charge is in addition to a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $44 million recorded in the third quarter of 2010 as discussed above. The approximate $222 million charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations, and in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The cost cap, if approved by the IURC, limits the amount of project construction costs that may be incorporated into customer rates in Indiana. As a result of the proposed cost cap, recovery of these cost increases is not considered probable. Additional updates to the cost estimate could occur through the completion of the plant in 2012.

On October 26, 2011, hearings before the IURC commenced pursuant to the previously established schedule and will continue until all evidence is presented for both Phase I and Phase II.

Duke Energy is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings. In the event the IURC disallows a portion of the plant costs, including financing costs, additional charges to expense could occur. An order is expected in the first quarter of 2012.

Construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant is ongoing and is currently expected to be completed and placed in-service in 2012.

Duke Energy Indiana Carbon Sequestration. Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition with the IURC requesting approval of its plans for studying carbon storage, sequestration and/or enhanced oil recovery for the carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) from the Edwardsport IGCC facility on March 6, 2009. On July 7, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed its case-in-chief testimony requesting approval for cost recovery of a $121 million site assessment and characterization plan for CO₂ sequestration options including deep saline sequestration, depleted oil and gas sequestration and enhanced oil recovery for the CO₂ from the Edwardsport IGCC facility. The OUCC filed testimony supportive of the continuing study of carbon storage, but recommended that Duke Energy Indiana break its plan into phases, recommending approval of only $33 million in expenditures at this time and deferral of expenditures rather than cost recovery through a tracking mechanism as proposed by Duke Energy Indiana. The CAC, an intervenor, recommended against approval of the carbon storage plan stating customers should not be required to pay for research and development costs. Duke Energy Indiana's rebuttal testimony was filed October 30, 2009, wherein it amended its request to seek deferral of $42 million to cover the carbon storage site assessment and characterization activities scheduled to occur through the end of 2010, with further required study expenditures subject to future IURC proceedings. An evidentiary hearing was held on November 9, 2009, and an order is expected by the end of 2011.

Duke Energy Indiana IURC Investigation. On October 5, 2010, the Governor of Indiana terminated the employment of the Chairman of the IURC in connection with Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an attorney from the IURC staff. As requested by the governor, the Indiana Inspector General initiated an investigation into whether the IURC attorney violated any state ethics rules, and the IURC announced it would internally audit the Duke Energy Indiana cases dating from January 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010, on which this attorney worked while at the IURC, which includes the Indiana storm costs deferral request discussed above, as well as all Edwardsport IGCC cases dating back to 2006. Duke Energy Indiana engaged an outside law firm to conduct its own investigation regarding Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an IURC attorney and Duke Energy Indiana's related hiring practices. On October 5, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana placed the attorney and President of Duke Energy Indiana on administrative leave. They were subsequently terminated on November 8, 2010. On December 7, 2010, the IURC released its internal audit findings concluding that the previous rulings were supported by sound, legal reasoning consistent with the Indiana Rules of Evidence and historical practice and procedures of the IURC and that the previous rulings appeared to be balanced and consistent among the parties. The audit concluded it did not reveal any bias or a resultant unfair advantage obtained by Duke Energy Indiana as a result of the evidentiary rulings of the former IURC attorney. As noted above, in the storm cost deferral case, the IURC found no conflict between the order and the staff report; however, the audit report noted the staff report offered no specific recommendation to either approve or deny the requested relief and that this was the only order that was subject to an appeal. As such, the IURC reopened that proceeding for further review and consideration of the evidence presented. The Inspector General's investigation into whether the former IURC attorney violated any state ethics rules was the subject of an Indiana Ethics Commission hearing that was held on April 14, 2011, and a final report was issued on May 14, 2011. The final report pertained only to the conduct of the former IURC attorney as Duke Energy Indiana was not a subject of the investigation.

Other Matters.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky Regional Transmission Organization Realignment. Duke Energy Ohio, which includes its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky, is in the advanced planning stages to transfer control of its transmission assets to effect a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) realignment from the Midwest ISO to PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), effective January 1, 2012.

The FERC issued an order which approved Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky's RTO realignment request on October 21, 2010, and authorized Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky to terminate their existing obligations to the Midwest ISO, subject to certain conditions.

In a related FERC proceeding, on December 16, 2010, FERC issued an order related to the Midwest ISO's cost allocation methodology surrounding Multi-Value Projects (MVP), a type of Midwest ISO transmission expansion cost. The Midwest ISO expects that MVP will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring renewable generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the eastern portion of the Midwest ISO footprint. It is expected that the Midwest ISO will approve MVP proposals with estimated project costs in excess of $5 billion by the date of Duke Energy Ohio's planned exit from the Midwest ISO on December 31, 2011. These projects are expected to be undertaken by the constructing transmission owners from 2012 through 2020 with costs recovered through the Midwest ISO over the useful life of the projects. The order provides that a withdrawing transmission owner shall remain responsible for all financial obligations incurred while it was a member for the allocation of MVP costs to withdrawing transmission owners for projects approved by the Midwest ISO up to the date of the withdrawing transmission owners' exit from the Midwest ISO. The basis for allocating such MVP costs will be the withdrawing transmission owners' historical usage of the Midwest ISO system. Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, has historically represented approximately five-percent of the Midwest ISO system. The impact of this order could result in a substantial increase in the Midwest ISO transmission expansion costs allocated to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky subsequent to a withdrawal from the Midwest ISO. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky, among other parties, sought rehearing of the FERC MVP order. On October 21, 2011, the FERC issued an order on rehearing in this matter largely affirming its original MVP order and conditionally accepting Midwest ISO's compliance filing as well as determining that the MVP allocation methodology is consistent with cost causation principles and FERC precedent. The FERC also reiterated that it will not prejudge any settlement agreement between an RTO and a withdrawing transmission owner for fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to the RTO. The order further states that any such fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to an RTO are a matter for those parties to negotiate, subject to review by the FERC. The FERC also ruled that Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky's challenge of the Midwest ISO's ability to allocate MVP costs to a withdrawing transmission owner is beyond the scope of this proceeding. The Order further stated that Midwest ISO's tariff withdrawal language establishes that once cost responsibility for transmission upgrades is determined, withdrawing transmission owners retain any costs incurred prior to the withdrawal date. Duke Energy will continue to pursue its challenge in regards to this issue in the appropriate proceeding.

On October 14, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky filed an application with the FERC to establish new rates for transmission service under PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff. The new rates are expected to go into effect, subject to refund, on January 1, 2012. The FERC has not yet established a procedural schedule to review the filing but is expected to do so in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky have entered into settlements or have received state regulatory approvals associated with the RTO realignment, including the recovery of MVP costs, if ultimately allocated to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky. On December 22, 2010, the KPSC issued an order granting approval of Duke Energy Kentucky's request to effect the RTO realignment, subject to several conditions. The conditions accepted by Duke Energy Kentucky include a commitment to not seek to double-recover in a future rate case the transmission expansion fees that may be charged by the Midwest ISO and PJM in the same period or overlapping periods. On January 25, 2011, the KPSC issued an order stating that the order had been satisfied and is now unconditional. The order further requires Duke Energy Kentucky to submit to the KPSC internal procedures for the receipt and tracking of notices from PJM regarding customer requests to participate in PJM demand-response programs. Duke Energy Kentucky submitted its filing describing these internal procedures on March 30, 2011.

On April 26, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio, Ohio Energy Group, The Office of Ohio Consumers' Counsel and the Commission Staff filed an Application and a Stipulation with the PUCO regarding Duke Energy Ohio's recovery of certain costs related to its proposed RTO realignment. Under the Stipulation, Duke Energy Ohio would recover through retail rates all Midwest ISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) costs, including but not limited to MVP costs, directly or indirectly charged to Duke Energy Ohio via a non-bypassable rider. Duke Energy Ohio would not seek to recover any portion of the Midwest ISO exit obligation, PJM integration fees, or internal costs associated with the RTO realignment. Also, Duke Energy Ohio would not seek to recover the first $121 million of PJM transmission expansion costs from Ohio retail customers. On May 25, 2011, the Stipulation was approved by the PUCO. An application for rehearing filed by Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy was denied by the PUCO on July 15, 2011.

Duke Energy Ohio currently estimates the liability for its Midwest ISO exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP, will be approximately $90 million. The liability will be recorded within Other in Deferred credits and other liabilities on Duke Energy Ohio's consolidated balance sheet upon exit from the Midwest ISO on December 31, 2011. Approximately $60 million of this amount will be recorded as a regulatory asset while the remainder will be recorded to Operation, maintenance and other in Duke Energy Ohio's consolidated statement of operations. In addition to the above amounts, Duke Energy Ohio may also be responsible for costs associated with the Midwest ISO MVP projects. Duke Energy Ohio is contesting its obligation to pay for such costs. However, depending on the final outcome of this matter, Duke Energy Ohio could incur significant costs associated with MVP projects. The appropriate regulatory treatment will be pursued for any costs incurred in connection with the resolution of this matter.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Regulatory Matters

4. Regulatory Matters

Progress Energy Merger. See Note 3 for information regarding Duke Energy's pending merger with Progress Energy.

Rate Related Information. The NCUC, PSCSC, IURC and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and gas services within their states. The PUCO approves rates for retail gas and electric service within Ohio, except that non-regulated sellers of gas and electric generation also are allowed to operate in Ohio. The FERC approves rates for electric sales to wholesale customers served under cost-based rates, as well as sales of transmission service.

Duke Energy Ohio Standard Service Offer (SSO). Ohio law provides the PUCO authority to approve an electric utility's generation SSO. A SSO may include an Electric Security Plan (ESP), which would allow for the pricing structures used by Duke Energy Ohio since 2004, or a Market Rate Offer (MRO), in which pricing is determined through a competitive bidding process. On November 15, 2010, Duke Energy Ohio filed for approval of its next SSO to replace the existing ESP that expires on December 31, 2011. The filing requested approval of a MRO. On February 23, 2011, the PUCO stated that Duke Energy Ohio did not file an application for a five-year MRO as required under Ohio statute. On June 20, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO for approval of an ESP for its customers beginning January 1, 2012, with rates in effect through May 31, 2021.

On October 24, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and most intervenors, including the PUCO Staff, entered into a settlement stipulation. If approved by the PUCO, the stipulation would establish an ESP with competitive auctions for a term of January 1, 2012 through May 31, 2015. The stipulation also includes provision for a non-bypassable stability charge of $110 million per year to be collected from 2012-2014 and requires Duke Energy Ohio to transfer its generation assets to a non-regulated affiliate on or before December 31, 2014. The stipulation requests that the PUCO approve the settlement on or before November 15, 2011, to allow Duke Energy Ohio to conduct auctions to serve SSO customers effective January 1, 2012. A hearing on the stipulation occured on November 3, 2011.

Duke Energy Carolinas North Carolina Rate Case. On July 1, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a rate case with the NCUC to request an average 15% increase in retail revenues, or approximately $646 million, with a rate of return on equity of 11.5%. The increase is designed to recover the cost of the ongoing generation fleet modernization program, environmental compliance and other capital investments made since 2009.

On November 1, 2011, the NC Public Staff filed testimony to limit Duke Energy Carolinas to an average 4.8% increase in retail rates, or approximately $211 million, with a rate of return on equity of 9.25%.

A hearing is scheduled to begin with the NCUC on November 28, 2011. Duke Energy Carolinas expects revised rates would likely go into effect in February 2012.

Duke Energy Carolinas South Carolina Rate Case. On August 5, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a rate case with the PSCSC to request an average 15% increase in retail revenues, or approximately $216 million, with a rate of return on equity of 11.5%. The increase is designed to recover the cost of the ongoing generation fleet modernization program, environmental compliance and other capital investments made since 2009. A hearing is scheduled with the PSCSC on December 7, 2011. If approved by the PSCSC, rates would likely go into effect in February 2012.

Duke Energy Indiana Energy Efficiency. On September 28, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for new energy efficiency programs to enable meeting the IURC's energy efficiency mandates. Duke Energy Indiana's proposal requests recovery of costs through a rider including lost revenues and incentives for core plus energy efficiency programs and lost revenues and cost recovery for core energy efficiency programs. The hearing occurred in July 2011 and an order is expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Duke Energy Indiana Storm Cost Deferrals. On July 14, 2010, the IURC approved Duke Energy Indiana's deferral of $12 million of retail jurisdictional storm expense until the next retail rate proceeding. This amount represents a portion of costs associated with a January 27, 2009 ice storm, which damaged Duke Energy Indiana's distribution system. On August 12, 2010, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) filed a notice of appeal with the IURC. On December 7, 2010, the IURC issued an order reopening this proceeding for review in consideration of the evidence presented as a result of an internal audit performed as part of an IURC investigation of Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an attorney from the IURC staff which resulted in the IURC's termination of the employment of the Chairman of the IURC. The audit did not find that the order conflicted with the staff report; however, it did note that the staff report offered no specific recommendation to either approve or deny the requested relief, and that the original order was appealed. The IURC set a new procedural schedule to take supplemental testimony and an evidentiary hearing was held in June 2011. On October 19, 2011, the IURC issued an order denying Duke Energy Indiana the right to defer the storm expense discussed above.

Duke Energy Ohio Storm Cost Recovery. On December 11, 2009, Duke Energy Ohio filed an application with the PUCO to recover Hurricane Ike storm restoration costs of $31 million through a discrete rider. The PUCO granted the request to defer the costs associated with the storm recovery; however, they further ordered Duke Energy Ohio to file a separate action pursuant to which the actual amount of recovery would be determined. On January 11, 2011, the PUCO approved recovery of $14 million plus carrying costs which will be spread over a three-year period. Duke Energy Ohio filed an application for rehearing on February 10, 2011, as did the consumer advocate, the office of the Ohio Consumers' Council (OCC). On March 9, 2011, the PUCO denied the rehearing requests of Duke Energy Ohio and the OCC. Duke Energy Ohio filed a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court on May 6, 2011 and briefs have been filed by Duke Energy Ohio and the PUCO. Oral arguments are to be scheduled by the Court.

Capital Expansion Projects.

Overview. USFE&G is engaged in planning efforts to meet projected load growth in its service territories. Capacity additions may include new nuclear, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), coal facilities or gas-fired generation units. Because of the long lead times required to develop such assets, USFE&G is taking steps now to ensure those options are available.

Duke Energy Carolinas William States Lee III Nuclear Station. In December 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NRC, which has been docketed for review, for a combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for two Westinghouse AP1000 (advanced passive) reactors for the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Lee Nuclear Station) at a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina. Each reactor is capable of producing 1,117 MW. Submitting the COL application does not commit Duke Energy Carolinas to build nuclear units. Duke Energy Carolinas had previously received approval to incur project development costs associated with Lee Nuclear Station from both the NCUC and the PSCSC. Through several separate orders, the NCUC and PSCSC have deemed Duke Energy's decision to incur project development and pre-construction costs for the project as reasonable and prudent through December 31, 2009 and up to an aggregate maximum amount of $230 million. On November 15, 2010 and January 7, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas filed amended project development applications with the NCUC and PSCSC, respectively. These applications request approval of Duke Energy Carolinas' decision to continue to incur project development and pre-construction costs for the project through December 31, 2013, and up to $459 million. The hearing before the NCUC occurred March 15, 2011. The PSCSC hearing occurred on May 16 and May 17, 2011.

On July 1, 2011, the PSCSC issued an order stating Duke Energy Carolinas must incur only those costs necessary to keep the project available as an option in the 2021 time frame, not to exceed South Carolina's allocable share of $120 million, including allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC), for the period of January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. Also, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Duke Energy Carolinas shall provide certain monthly reports to the PSCSC and the Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS). Duke Energy Carolinas has also agreed to provide a monthly report to certain parties on the progress of negotiations to acquire an interest in the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station (refer to discussion below) expansion being developed by South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G). Any change in ownership interest, output allocation, sharing of costs or control and any future option agreements concerning Lee Nuclear Station shall be subject to prior approval of the PSCSC.

On August 5, 2011, the NCUC issued an order approving Duke Energy's decision to incur project development costs up to North Carolina's allocable share of $120 million and subject to the limitation that it is only appropriate to incur such costs necessary to maintain the status quo with respect to the Lee Nuclear Station, including the COL application at the NRC.

On April 18, 2011, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) filed a petition requesting that the NRC suspend all pending reactor licensing decisions pending the investigation of lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident in Japan. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a response opposing this petition. In addition to its emergency petition, on August 11, 2011, BREDL also filed a "Motion to Admit new Contention Regarding the Safety and Environmental Implications of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Task Force Report on the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident." Duke Energy Carolinas filed a response opposing admission of this new contention. On September 9, 2011, the NRC issued a decision denying BREDL's emergency petition, and on October 18, 2011, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a decision denying admission of the new contention.

The NRC review of the COL application continues and the estimated receipt of the COL is in mid 2013. Duke Energy Carolinas filed with the DOE for a federal loan guarantee, which has the potential to significantly lower financing costs associated with the proposed Lee Nuclear Station; however, it was not among the four projects selected by the DOE for the final phase of due diligence for the federal loan guarantee program. The project could be selected in the future if the program funding is expanded or if any of the current finalists drop out of the program.

Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking partners for Lee Nuclear Station by issuing options to purchase an ownership interest in the plant. In the first quarter of 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into an agreement with JEA that provides JEA with an option to purchase up to a 20% undivided ownership interest in Lee Nuclear Station. JEA has 90 days following Duke Energy Carolinas' receipt of the COL to exercise the option.

Duke Energy Carolinas V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Letter of Intent. In July 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas signed a letter of intent with Santee Cooper related to the potential acquisition by Duke Energy Carolinas of a five percent to ten percent ownership interest in the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station being developed by Santee Cooper and SCE&G near Jenkinsville, South Carolina. The letter of intent provides a path for Duke Energy Carolinas to conduct the necessary due diligence to determine if future participation in this project is beneficial for its customers.

Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Unit 6. On March 21, 2007, the NCUC issued an order allowing Duke Energy Carolinas to build one 800 MW coal-fired unit. Following final equipment selection and the completion of detailed engineering, Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to have a net output of 825 MW. On January 31, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its updated cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC of $600 million) for the approved new Cliffside Unit 6. In March 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an update to the cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding AFUDC) with the NCUC where it reduced the estimated AFUDC financing costs to $400 million as a result of the December 2009 rate case settlement with the NCUC that allowed the inclusion of construction work in progress in rate base prospectively. Duke Energy Carolinas believes that the overall cost of Cliffside Unit 6 will be reduced by $125 million in federal advanced clean coal tax credits, as discussed in Note 5. Cliffside Unit 6 is expected to begin operation by the end of 2012. Also, see Note 5 for information related to the Cliffside Unit 6 air permit.

Duke Energy Carolinas Dan River and Buck Combined Cycle Facilities. In June 2008, the NCUC issued its order approving the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) applications to construct a 620 MW combined cycle natural gas fired generating facility at each of Duke Energy Carolinas' existing Dan River Steam Station and Buck Steam Station. The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) issued a final air permit authorizing construction of the Buck and Dan River combined cycle natural gas-fired generating units in October 2008 and August 2009, respectively.

The Buck project is expected to begin operation by the end of 2011. The Dan River project is expected to begin operation by the end of 2012. Based on the most updated cost estimates, total costs (including AFUDC) for the Buck and Dan River projects are $700 million and $716 million, respectively.

Duke Energy Indiana Edwardsport IGCC Plant. On September 7, 2006, Duke Energy Indiana and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana (Vectren) filed a joint petition with the IURC seeking a CPCN for the construction of a 618 MW IGCC power plant at Duke Energy Indiana's Edwardsport Generating Station in Knox County, Indiana. The facility was initially estimated to cost approximately $1.985 billion (including $120 million of AFUDC). In August 2007, Vectren formally withdrew its participation in the IGCC plant and a hearing was conducted on the CPCN petition based on Duke Energy Indiana owning 100% of the project. On November 20, 2007, the IURC issued an order granting Duke Energy Indiana a CPCN for the proposed IGCC project, approved the cost estimate of $1.985 billion and approved the timely recovery of costs related to the project. On January 25, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana received the final air permit from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. The Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. (CAC), Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc., all intervenors in the CPCN proceeding, have appealed the air permit.

On May 1, 2008, Duke Energy Indiana filed its first semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC as required under the CPCN order issued by the IURC. In its filing, Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of a new cost estimate for the IGCC project of $2.35 billion (including $125 million of AFUDC) and for approval of plans to study carbon capture as required by the IURC's CPCN order. On January 7, 2009, the IURC approved Duke Energy Indiana's request, including the new cost estimate of $2.35 billion, and cost recovery associated with a study on carbon capture. On November 3, 2008 and May 1, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed its second and third semi-annual IGCC riders, respectively, both of which were approved by the IURC in full.

On November 24, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for its fourth semi-annual IGCC rider and ongoing review proceeding with the IURC. As Duke Energy Indiana experienced design modifications and scope growth above what was anticipated from the preliminary engineering design, capital costs to the IGCC project were anticipated to increase. Duke Energy Indiana forecasted that the additional capital cost items would use the remaining contingency and escalation amounts in the current $2.35 billion cost estimate and add $150 million, excluding the impact associated with the need to add more contingency. Duke Energy Indiana did not request approval of an increased cost estimate in the fourth semi-annual update proceeding; rather, Duke Energy Indiana requested, and the IURC approved, a subdocket proceeding in which Duke Energy Indiana would present additional evidence regarding an updated estimated cost for the IGCC project and in which a more comprehensive review of the IGCC project could occur. The evidentiary hearing for the fourth semi-annual update proceeding was held April 6, 2010, and an interim order was received on July 28, 2010. The order approves the implementation of an updated IGCC rider to recover costs incurred through September 30, 2009, effective immediately. The approvals are on an interim basis pending the outcome of the sub-docket proceeding involving the revised cost estimate as discussed further below.

On April 16, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed a revised cost estimate for the IGCC project reflecting an estimated cost increase of $530 million. Duke Energy Indiana requested approval of the revised cost estimate of $2.88 billion (including $160 million of AFUDC), and for continuation of the existing cost recovery treatment. A major driver of the cost increase included design changes reflected in the final engineering leading to increased scope and complexity. On September 17, 2010 an agreement was reached with the OUCC, Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group and Nucor Steel – Indiana to increase the authorized cost estimate of $2.35 billion to $2.76 billion, and to cap the project's costs that could be passed on to customers at $2.975 billion. Any construction cost amounts above $2.76 billion would be subject to a prudence review similar to most other rate base investments in Duke Energy Indiana's next general rate increase request before the IURC. Duke Energy Indiana agreed to accept a 150 basis point reduction in the equity return for any project construction costs greater than $2.35 billion. Additionally, Duke Energy Indiana agreed not to file for a general rate case increase before March 2012. Duke Energy Indiana also agreed to reduce depreciation rates earlier than would otherwise be required and to forego a deferred tax incentive related to the IGCC project. As a result of the settlement, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax charge to earnings of approximately $44 million in the third quarter of 2010 to reflect the impact of the reduction in the return on equity. The charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. This charge is recorded in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Due to the IURC investigation discussed below, the IURC convened a technical conference on November 3, 2010 related to the continuing need for the Edwardsport IGCC facility. On December 9, 2010, the parties to the settlement withdrew the settlement agreement to provide an opportunity to assess whether and to what extent the settlement agreement remained a reasonable allocation of risks and rewards and whether modifications to the settlement agreement were appropriate. Management determined that the approximate $44 million charge discussed above was not impacted by the withdrawal of the settlement agreement.

Additionally, the CAC, Sierra Club, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc. filed motions for two subdocket proceedings alleging improper communications, undue influence, fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement, and a request for field hearing in this proceeding. Duke Energy Indiana opposed the requests. During 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed petitions for its fifth and sixth semi-annual IGCC riders. Evidentiary hearings are set for November 17, 2011 and November 21, 2011, respectively.

On February 25, 2011, the IURC issued an order which denied the request for a subdocket to investigate the allegations of improper communications and undue influence at this time, finding there were other agencies better suited for such investigation. The IURC also found that allegations of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement related to the IGCC project should be heard in a Phase II proceeding of the cost estimate subdocket and set evidentiary hearings on both Phase I (cost estimate increase) and Phase II beginning in August 2011. In April 2011, after an attorneys' conference, and in response to the other parties' request for more time, the IURC scheduled hearings for Phase I to begin October 26, 2011 and Phase II hearings to begin November 3, 2011.

On March 10, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC proposing a framework designed to mitigate customer rate impacts associated with the Edwardsport IGCC project. Duke Energy Indiana's filing proposed a cap on the project's construction costs, (excluding financing costs), which can be recovered through rates at $2.72 billion. It also proposed rate-related adjustments that will lower the overall customer rate increase related to the project from an average of 19% to approximately 16%. The proposal is subject to the approval of the IURC in the Phase I hearings.

On June 27, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony with the IURC in connection with its seventh semi-annual rider request which included an update on the current cost forecast of the Edwardsport project. The evidentiary hearing is set for December 13, 2011. The updated forecast excluding AFUDC increased from $2.72 billion to $2.82 billion, not including any contingency for unexpected start-up events. On June 30, 2011, the OUCC and intervenors filed testimony in Phase I recommending that Duke Energy Indiana be disallowed cost recovery of any of the additional cost estimate increase above the previously approved cost estimate of $2.35 billion. Duke Energy Indiana filed rebuttal testimony on August 3, 2011.

On July 14, 2011, the OUCC and certain intervenors filed testimony in Phase II alleging that Duke Energy Indiana concealed information and grossly mismanaged the project, and therefore Duke Energy Indiana should only be permitted to recover from customers $1.985 billion, the original IGCC project cost estimate approved by the IURC. Other intervenors recommended that Duke Energy Indiana not be able to rely on any cost recovery granted under the CPCN or the first cost increase order. Duke Energy Indiana believes it has diligently and prudently managed the project. On September 9, 2011, Duke Energy defended against the allegations in its responsive testimony. The OUCC and intervenors filed their final rebuttal testimony in Phase II on or before October 7, 2011, making similar claims of fraud, concealment and gross mismanagement and recommending the same outcome of limiting Duke Energy Indiana's recovery to the $1.985 billion initial cost estimate. Additionally, the CAC parties recommended that recovery be limited to the costs incurred on the IGCC project as of November 30, 2009 (Duke Energy Indiana estimates it had committed costs of $1.6 billion), with further IURC proceedings to be held to determine the financial consequences of this recommendation.

On October 19, 2011, Duke Energy revised its project cost estimate from approximately $2.72 billion, excluding financing costs, to approximately $2.98 billion, excluding financing costs. The revised estimate reflects additional cost pressures resulting from unfavorable labor productivity trends and incremental material quantity and scope changes. Duke Energy Indiana previously proposed to the IURC a cost cap of approximately $2.72 billion, plus the actual AFUDC that accrues on that amount. As a result, for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana recorded a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $222 million related to costs expected to be incurred above the cost cap. This charge is in addition to a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $44 million recorded in the third quarter of 2010 as discussed above. The approximate $222 million charge is recorded in Goodwill and other impairment charges on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations, and in Impairment charges on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The cost cap, if approved by the IURC, limits the amount of project construction costs that may be incorporated into customer rates in Indiana. As a result of the proposed cost cap, recovery of these cost increases is not considered probable. Additional updates to the cost estimate could occur through the completion of the plant in 2012.

On October 26, 2011, hearings before the IURC commenced pursuant to the previously established schedule and will continue until all evidence is presented for both Phase I and Phase II.

Duke Energy is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings. In the event the IURC disallows a portion of the plant costs, including financing costs, additional charges to expense could occur. An order is expected in the first quarter of 2012.

Construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant is ongoing and is currently expected to be completed and placed in-service in 2012.

Duke Energy Indiana Carbon Sequestration. Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition with the IURC requesting approval of its plans for studying carbon storage, sequestration and/or enhanced oil recovery for the carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) from the Edwardsport IGCC facility on March 6, 2009. On July 7, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed its case-in-chief testimony requesting approval for cost recovery of a $121 million site assessment and characterization plan for CO₂ sequestration options including deep saline sequestration, depleted oil and gas sequestration and enhanced oil recovery for the CO₂ from the Edwardsport IGCC facility. The OUCC filed testimony supportive of the continuing study of carbon storage, but recommended that Duke Energy Indiana break its plan into phases, recommending approval of only $33 million in expenditures at this time and deferral of expenditures rather than cost recovery through a tracking mechanism as proposed by Duke Energy Indiana. The CAC, an intervenor, recommended against approval of the carbon storage plan stating customers should not be required to pay for research and development costs. Duke Energy Indiana's rebuttal testimony was filed October 30, 2009, wherein it amended its request to seek deferral of $42 million to cover the carbon storage site assessment and characterization activities scheduled to occur through the end of 2010, with further required study expenditures subject to future IURC proceedings. An evidentiary hearing was held on November 9, 2009, and an order is expected by the end of 2011.

Duke Energy Indiana IURC Investigation. On October 5, 2010, the Governor of Indiana terminated the employment of the Chairman of the IURC in connection with Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an attorney from the IURC staff. As requested by the governor, the Indiana Inspector General initiated an investigation into whether the IURC attorney violated any state ethics rules, and the IURC announced it would internally audit the Duke Energy Indiana cases dating from January 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010, on which this attorney worked while at the IURC, which includes the Indiana storm costs deferral request discussed above, as well as all Edwardsport IGCC cases dating back to 2006. Duke Energy Indiana engaged an outside law firm to conduct its own investigation regarding Duke Energy Indiana's hiring of an IURC attorney and Duke Energy Indiana's related hiring practices. On October 5, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana placed the attorney and President of Duke Energy Indiana on administrative leave. They were subsequently terminated on November 8, 2010. On December 7, 2010, the IURC released its internal audit findings concluding that the previous rulings were supported by sound, legal reasoning consistent with the Indiana Rules of Evidence and historical practice and procedures of the IURC and that the previous rulings appeared to be balanced and consistent among the parties. The audit concluded it did not reveal any bias or a resultant unfair advantage obtained by Duke Energy Indiana as a result of the evidentiary rulings of the former IURC attorney. As noted above, in the storm cost deferral case, the IURC found no conflict between the order and the staff report; however, the audit report noted the staff report offered no specific recommendation to either approve or deny the requested relief and that this was the only order that was subject to an appeal. As such, the IURC reopened that proceeding for further review and consideration of the evidence presented. The Inspector General's investigation into whether the former IURC attorney violated any state ethics rules was the subject of an Indiana Ethics Commission hearing that was held on April 14, 2011, and a final report was issued on May 14, 2011. The final report pertained only to the conduct of the former IURC attorney as Duke Energy Indiana was not a subject of the investigation.

Other Matters.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky Regional Transmission Organization Realignment. Duke Energy Ohio, which includes its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky, is in the advanced planning stages to transfer control of its transmission assets to effect a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) realignment from the Midwest ISO to PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), effective January 1, 2012.

The FERC issued an order which approved Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky's RTO realignment request on October 21, 2010, and authorized Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky to terminate their existing obligations to the Midwest ISO, subject to certain conditions.

In a related FERC proceeding, on December 16, 2010, FERC issued an order related to the Midwest ISO's cost allocation methodology surrounding Multi-Value Projects (MVP), a type of Midwest ISO transmission expansion cost. The Midwest ISO expects that MVP will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring renewable generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the eastern portion of the Midwest ISO footprint. It is expected that the Midwest ISO will approve MVP proposals with estimated project costs in excess of $5 billion by the date of Duke Energy Ohio's planned exit from the Midwest ISO on December 31, 2011. These projects are expected to be undertaken by the constructing transmission owners from 2012 through 2020 with costs recovered through the Midwest ISO over the useful life of the projects. The order provides that a withdrawing transmission owner shall remain responsible for all financial obligations incurred while it was a member for the allocation of MVP costs to withdrawing transmission owners for projects approved by the Midwest ISO up to the date of the withdrawing transmission owners' exit from the Midwest ISO. The basis for allocating such MVP costs will be the withdrawing transmission owners' historical usage of the Midwest ISO system. Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, has historically represented approximately five-percent of the Midwest ISO system. The impact of this order could result in a substantial increase in the Midwest ISO transmission expansion costs allocated to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky subsequent to a withdrawal from the Midwest ISO. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky, among other parties, sought rehearing of the FERC MVP order. On October 21, 2011, the FERC issued an order on rehearing in this matter largely affirming its original MVP order and conditionally accepting Midwest ISO's compliance filing as well as determining that the MVP allocation methodology is consistent with cost causation principles and FERC precedent. The FERC also reiterated that it will not prejudge any settlement agreement between an RTO and a withdrawing transmission owner for fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to the RTO. The order further states that any such fees that a withdrawing transmission owner owes to an RTO are a matter for those parties to negotiate, subject to review by the FERC. The FERC also ruled that Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky's challenge of the Midwest ISO's ability to allocate MVP costs to a withdrawing transmission owner is beyond the scope of this proceeding. The Order further stated that Midwest ISO's tariff withdrawal language establishes that once cost responsibility for transmission upgrades is determined, withdrawing transmission owners retain any costs incurred prior to the withdrawal date. Duke Energy will continue to pursue its challenge in regards to this issue in the appropriate proceeding.

On October 14, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky filed an application with the FERC to establish new rates for transmission service under PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff. The new rates are expected to go into effect, subject to refund, on January 1, 2012. The FERC has not yet established a procedural schedule to review the filing but is expected to do so in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky have entered into settlements or have received state regulatory approvals associated with the RTO realignment, including the recovery of MVP costs, if ultimately allocated to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky. On December 22, 2010, the KPSC issued an order granting approval of Duke Energy Kentucky's request to effect the RTO realignment, subject to several conditions. The conditions accepted by Duke Energy Kentucky include a commitment to not seek to double-recover in a future rate case the transmission expansion fees that may be charged by the Midwest ISO and PJM in the same period or overlapping periods. On January 25, 2011, the KPSC issued an order stating that the order had been satisfied and is now unconditional. The order further requires Duke Energy Kentucky to submit to the KPSC internal procedures for the receipt and tracking of notices from PJM regarding customer requests to participate in PJM demand-response programs. Duke Energy Kentucky submitted its filing describing these internal procedures on March 30, 2011.

On April 26, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio, Ohio Energy Group, The Office of Ohio Consumers' Counsel and the Commission Staff filed an Application and a Stipulation with the PUCO regarding Duke Energy Ohio's recovery of certain costs related to its proposed RTO realignment. Under the Stipulation, Duke Energy Ohio would recover through retail rates all Midwest ISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) costs, including but not limited to MVP costs, directly or indirectly charged to Duke Energy Ohio via a non-bypassable rider. Duke Energy Ohio would not seek to recover any portion of the Midwest ISO exit obligation, PJM integration fees, or internal costs associated with the RTO realignment. Also, Duke Energy Ohio would not seek to recover the first $121 million of PJM transmission expansion costs from Ohio retail customers. On May 25, 2011, the Stipulation was approved by the PUCO. An application for rehearing filed by Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy was denied by the PUCO on July 15, 2011.

Duke Energy Ohio currently estimates the liability for its Midwest ISO exit obligation and share of MTEP costs, excluding MVP, will be approximately $90 million. The liability will be recorded within Other in Deferred credits and other liabilities on Duke Energy Ohio's consolidated balance sheet upon exit from the Midwest ISO on December 31, 2011. Approximately $60 million of this amount will be recorded as a regulatory asset while the remainder will be recorded to Operation, maintenance and other in Duke Energy Ohio's consolidated statement of operations. In addition to the above amounts, Duke Energy Ohio may also be responsible for costs associated with the Midwest ISO MVP projects. Duke Energy Ohio is contesting its obligation to pay for such costs. However, depending on the final outcome of this matter, Duke Energy Ohio could incur significant costs associated with MVP projects. The appropriate regulatory treatment will be pursued for any costs incurred in connection with the resolution of this matter.

XML

Fair Value Of Financial Assets And Liabilities

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Fair Value Of Financial Assets And Liabilities

9. Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities

Under existing accounting guidance, fair value is considered to be the exchange price in an orderly transaction between market participants to sell an asset or transfer a liability at the measurement date. The fair value definition focuses on an exit price, which is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability versus an entry price, which would be the price paid to acquire an asset or received to assume a liability.

The Duke Energy Registrants classify recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements based on the following fair value hierarchy, as prescribed by the accounting guidance for fair value, which prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three levels:

Level 1—unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that Duke Energy has the ability to access. An active market for the asset or liability is one in which transactions for the asset or liability occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide ongoing pricing information. Duke Energy does not adjust quoted market prices on Level 1 for any blockage factor.

Level 2—a fair value measurement utilizing inputs other than a quoted market price that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for the asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include, but are not limited to, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in an active market, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active and inputs other than quoted market prices that are observable for the asset or liability, such as interest rate curves and yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals, volatilities, credit risk and default rates. A Level 2 measurement cannot have more than an insignificant portion of the valuation based on unobservable inputs.

Level 3—any fair value measurements which include unobservable inputs for the asset or liability for more than an insignificant portion of the valuation. A Level 3 measurement may be based primarily on level 2 inputs.

The fair value accounting guidance for financial instruments permits entities to elect to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value that are not required to be accounted for at fair value under other GAAP. There are no financial assets or financial liabilities that are not required to be accounted for at fair value under GAAP for which the option to record at fair value has been elected by the Duke Energy Registrants. However, in the future, the Duke Energy Registrants may elect to measure certain financial instruments at fair value in accordance with this accounting guidance.

The Duke Energy Registrant's Policy for the recognition of transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy is to recognize the transfer at the end of the period.

Valuation methods of the primary fair value measurements disclosed below are as follows:

Investments in equity securities. Investments in equity securities are typically valued at the closing price in the principal active market as of the last business day of the quarter. Principal active markets for equity prices include published exchanges such as NASDAQ and NYSE. Foreign equity prices are translated from their trading currency using the currency exchange rate in effect at the close of the principal active market. Prices have not been adjusted to reflect for after-hours market activity. The majority of investments in equity securities are valued using Level 1 measurements.

Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities. Duke Energy held $115 million par value ($97 million carrying value) and $149 million par value ($118 million carrying value) as of September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively of auction rate securities for which an active market does not currently exist. During the nine months ended September 30, 2011, $34 million of these investments in auction rate securities were redeemed by the issuer at full par value plus accrued interest. Duke Energy Carolinas held $16 million par value ($12 million carrying value) of these auction rate securities at both September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The vast majority of these auction rate securities are AAA rated student loan securities for which substantially all the values are ultimately backed by the U.S. government. Those auction rate securities which are classified as long-term investments are valued using Level 3 measurements. The methods and significant assumptions used to determine the fair values of the investment in auction rate debt securities represent estimations of fair value using internal discounted cash flow models which incorporate primarily management's own assumptions as to the term over which such investments will be recovered at par, the current level of interest rates, and the appropriate risk-adjusted discount rates when relevant observable inputs are not available to determine the present value of such cash flows. In preparing the valuations, all significant value drivers were considered, including the underlying collateral. Those auction rate securities which are classified as Short-term investments are valued using Level 2 measurements, as they are valued at par based on a commitment by the issuer to redeem at par value. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy held $25 million of auction rate securities classified as short-term investments. In October 2011, Duke Energy received $25 million from the issuer who redeemed the securities at par value. As a result, at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy recorded the fair value equal to the par value and transferred these securities from Level 3 to Level 2.

There were no other-than-temporary impairments associated with investments in auction rate debt securities during the nine months ended September 30, 2011 or 2010.

Investments in debt securities. Most debt investments (including those held in the Nuclear Decomissioning Trust Funds (NDTF) are valued based on a calculation using interest rate curves and credit spreads applied to the terms of the debt instrument (maturity and coupon interest rate) and consider the counterparty credit rating. Most debt valuations are Level 2 measurements. If the market for a particular fixed income security is relatively inactive or illiquid, the measurement is a Level 3 measurement. U.S. Treasury debt is typically a Level 1 measurement.

Commodity derivatives. The pricing for commodity derivatives is primarily a calculated value which incorporates the forward price and is adjusted for liquidity (bid-ask spread), credit or non-performance risk (after reflecting credit enhancements such as collateral) and discounted to present value. The primary difference between a Level 2 and a Level 3 measurement has to do with the level of activity in forward markets for the commodity. If the market is relatively inactive, the measurement is deemed to be a Level 3 measurement. Some commodity derivatives are exchange traded contracts, which are classified as Level 1 measurements.

Duke Energy

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Derivative amounts in the table below exclude cash collateral amounts which are disclosed in Note 8. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	97		$	—		$	25		$	72
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,206			1,154			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		718			151			519			48
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(b)		62			55			7			—
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities(c)		330			27			303			—
Derivative assets(d)		89			15			9			65
Total Assets	$	2,502		$	1,402		$	909		$	191
Derivative liabilities(e)		(349	)		(57	)		(203	)		(89	)
Net Assets	$	2,153		$	1,345		$	706		$	102

(a) $72 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) $209 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $121 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	118		$	—		$	—		$	118
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,365			1,313			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		649			35			573			41
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(a)		164			157			7			—
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale debt securities(a)		221			10			211			—
Derivative assets(b)		186			21			81			84
Total Assets	$	2,703		$	1,536		$	918		$	249
Derivative liabilities(c)		(132	)		(8	)		(21	)		(103	)
Net Assets	$	2,571		$	1,528		$	897		$	146

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments		Derivatives (net)			Total
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	90		$	53	$	(22	)	$	121
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—		8			8
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		8			—		—			8
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			—		8			8
Settlements		(1	)		—		(2	)		(3	)
Total gains (losses) included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			1		(16	)		(15	)
Transfers out of Level 3		(25	)							(25	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54	$	(24	)	$	102
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights.
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	178		$	48	$	(7	)	$	219

Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(15	)		(15	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			—			(3	)		(3	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		2			—			—			2
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(3	)		(4	)		2			(5	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			2			1			3
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Derivatives (net)			Total
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	118		$	47		$	(19	)	$	146
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—			8			8
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(19	)		(19	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		13			—			—			13
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			7			8			15
Sales		—			(3	)		—			(3	)
Settlements		(25	)		—			(5	)		(30	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			3			3			6
Transfers out of Level 3		(34	)								(34	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54		$	(24	)	$	102
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2011:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
Total	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	198		$	—		$	25		$	223
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(44	)		(44	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(14	)		(14	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		12			—			—			12
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlement		(33	)		44			(5	)		6
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			2			16			18
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201

Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2010:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—	$	—	$	15		$	15
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—		—		(1	)		(1	)
Total	$	—	$	—	$	14		$	14

Duke Energy Carolinas

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	12		$	—	$	—		$	12
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,206			1,154		46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		718			151		519			48
Derivative assets(b)		1			—		1			—
Total assets		1,937			1,305		566			66
Derivative liabilities(c)		(92	)		—		(92	)		—
Net Assets	$	1,845		$	1,305	$	474		$	66

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2		Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	12		$	—		$	—	$	12
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,365			1,313			46		6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		649			35			573		41
Derivative assets(b)		62			1			61		—
Total assets		2,088			1,349			680		59
Derivative liabilities(c)		(1	)		(1	)		—		—
Net Assets	$	2,087		$	1,348		$	680	$	59

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities		Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	12	$	53		$	65
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—		1			1
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	12	$	54		$	66
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities		Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	60	$	48		$	108
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		1		—			1
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		—		(4	)		(4	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—		2			2
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	61	$	46		$	107

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	12		$	47		$	59
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases		—			7			7
Sales		—			(3	)		(3	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			3			3
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	12		$	54		$	66
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	66		$	—		$	66
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		3			—			3
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		—			44			44
Total gains (losses) included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		(8	)		2			(6	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	61		$	46		$	107

Duke Energy Ohio

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts which are disclosed separately in Note 8.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Derivative assets(a)	$	34		$	11		$	8		$	15
Derivative liabilities(b)		(27	)		(11	)		(8	)		(8	)
Net Assets	$	7		$	—		$	—		$	7

(a) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Derivative assets(a)	$	59		$	20		$	6		$	33
Derivative liabilities(b)		(32	)		(7	)		(5	)		(20	)
Net Assets	$	27		$	13		$	1		$	13

(a) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Derivatives (net)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	7
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		(1	)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Settlements		(1	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		2
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	7
Three Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	(4	)
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		29
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(2	)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		9
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	32
	Derivatives (net)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	13
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		(7	)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Settlements		(2	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		3
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	7
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2011:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	1
Total	$	1

	Derivatives (net)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	7
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		27
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(13	)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		8
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		3
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	32
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2010:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	31
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(1	)
Total	$	30

Duke Energy Indiana

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Available-for-sale equity securities(a)	$	42		$	42	$	—		$	—
Available-for-sale debt securities(a)		28			—		28			—
Derivative assets(b)		6			—		—			6
Total Assets		76			42		28			6
Derivative liabilities(c)		(62	)		—		(62	)		—
Net Assets	$	14		$	42	$	(34	)	$	6

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Available-for-sale equity securities(a)	$	47		$	47	$	—		$	—
Available-for-sale debt securities(a)		26			—		26			—
Derivative assets(b)		4			—		—			4
Total Assets		77			47		26			4
Derivative liabilities(c)		(2	)		—		(2	)		—
Net Assets	$	75		$	47	$	24		$	4

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 measurements

	Derivatives (net)
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	10
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		8
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		8
Settlements		(2	)
Total losses included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		(18	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	6
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	7
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(3	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	4

(a) Amounts relate to financial transmission rights.

	Derivatives (net)
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	4
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		8
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		8
Settlements		(14	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	6
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	4
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(12	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		12
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	4

(a) Amounts relate to financial transmission rights.

Additional Fair Value Disclosures - Long-term debt: The fair value of long-term debt is summarized in the following table. Judgment is required in interpreting market data to develop the estimates of fair value. Accordingly, the estimates determined as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of the amounts the Duke Energy Registrants could have settled in current markets.

	As of September 30, 2011
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value(a)		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	19,111	$	21,346	$	8,273	$	9,469	$	2,558	$	2,685	$	3,469	$	3,977

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $959 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

	As of December 31, 2010
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	18,210	$	19,484	$	7,770	$	8,376	$	2,564	$	2,614	$	3,472	$	3,746

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $976 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

At both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the fair value of cash and cash equivalents, accounts and notes receivable, accounts payable, commercial paper and non-recourse notes payables of variable interest entities are not materially different from their carrying amounts because of the short-term nature of these instruments and/or because the stated rates approximate market rates.

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Fair Value Of Financial Assets And Liabilities

9. Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities

Under existing accounting guidance, fair value is considered to be the exchange price in an orderly transaction between market participants to sell an asset or transfer a liability at the measurement date. The fair value definition focuses on an exit price, which is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability versus an entry price, which would be the price paid to acquire an asset or received to assume a liability.

The Duke Energy Registrants classify recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements based on the following fair value hierarchy, as prescribed by the accounting guidance for fair value, which prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three levels:

Level 1—unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that Duke Energy has the ability to access. An active market for the asset or liability is one in which transactions for the asset or liability occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide ongoing pricing information. Duke Energy does not adjust quoted market prices on Level 1 for any blockage factor.

Level 2—a fair value measurement utilizing inputs other than a quoted market price that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for the asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include, but are not limited to, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in an active market, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active and inputs other than quoted market prices that are observable for the asset or liability, such as interest rate curves and yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals, volatilities, credit risk and default rates. A Level 2 measurement cannot have more than an insignificant portion of the valuation based on unobservable inputs.

Level 3—any fair value measurements which include unobservable inputs for the asset or liability for more than an insignificant portion of the valuation. A Level 3 measurement may be based primarily on level 2 inputs.

The fair value accounting guidance for financial instruments permits entities to elect to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value that are not required to be accounted for at fair value under other GAAP. There are no financial assets or financial liabilities that are not required to be accounted for at fair value under GAAP for which the option to record at fair value has been elected by the Duke Energy Registrants. However, in the future, the Duke Energy Registrants may elect to measure certain financial instruments at fair value in accordance with this accounting guidance.

The Duke Energy Registrant's Policy for the recognition of transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy is to recognize the transfer at the end of the period.

Valuation methods of the primary fair value measurements disclosed below are as follows:

Investments in equity securities. Investments in equity securities are typically valued at the closing price in the principal active market as of the last business day of the quarter. Principal active markets for equity prices include published exchanges such as NASDAQ and NYSE. Foreign equity prices are translated from their trading currency using the currency exchange rate in effect at the close of the principal active market. Prices have not been adjusted to reflect for after-hours market activity. The majority of investments in equity securities are valued using Level 1 measurements.

Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities. Duke Energy held $115 million par value ($97 million carrying value) and $149 million par value ($118 million carrying value) as of September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively of auction rate securities for which an active market does not currently exist. During the nine months ended September 30, 2011, $34 million of these investments in auction rate securities were redeemed by the issuer at full par value plus accrued interest. Duke Energy Carolinas held $16 million par value ($12 million carrying value) of these auction rate securities at both September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The vast majority of these auction rate securities are AAA rated student loan securities for which substantially all the values are ultimately backed by the U.S. government. Those auction rate securities which are classified as long-term investments are valued using Level 3 measurements. The methods and significant assumptions used to determine the fair values of the investment in auction rate debt securities represent estimations of fair value using internal discounted cash flow models which incorporate primarily management's own assumptions as to the term over which such investments will be recovered at par, the current level of interest rates, and the appropriate risk-adjusted discount rates when relevant observable inputs are not available to determine the present value of such cash flows. In preparing the valuations, all significant value drivers were considered, including the underlying collateral. Those auction rate securities which are classified as Short-term investments are valued using Level 2 measurements, as they are valued at par based on a commitment by the issuer to redeem at par value. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy held $25 million of auction rate securities classified as short-term investments. In October 2011, Duke Energy received $25 million from the issuer who redeemed the securities at par value. As a result, at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy recorded the fair value equal to the par value and transferred these securities from Level 3 to Level 2.

There were no other-than-temporary impairments associated with investments in auction rate debt securities during the nine months ended September 30, 2011 or 2010.

Investments in debt securities. Most debt investments (including those held in the Nuclear Decomissioning Trust Funds (NDTF) are valued based on a calculation using interest rate curves and credit spreads applied to the terms of the debt instrument (maturity and coupon interest rate) and consider the counterparty credit rating. Most debt valuations are Level 2 measurements. If the market for a particular fixed income security is relatively inactive or illiquid, the measurement is a Level 3 measurement. U.S. Treasury debt is typically a Level 1 measurement.

Commodity derivatives. The pricing for commodity derivatives is primarily a calculated value which incorporates the forward price and is adjusted for liquidity (bid-ask spread), credit or non-performance risk (after reflecting credit enhancements such as collateral) and discounted to present value. The primary difference between a Level 2 and a Level 3 measurement has to do with the level of activity in forward markets for the commodity. If the market is relatively inactive, the measurement is deemed to be a Level 3 measurement. Some commodity derivatives are exchange traded contracts, which are classified as Level 1 measurements.

Duke Energy

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Derivative amounts in the table below exclude cash collateral amounts which are disclosed in Note 8. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	97		$	—		$	25		$	72
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,206			1,154			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		718			151			519			48
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(b)		62			55			7			—
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities(c)		330			27			303			—
Derivative assets(d)		89			15			9			65
Total Assets	$	2,502		$	1,402		$	909		$	191
Derivative liabilities(e)		(349	)		(57	)		(203	)		(89	)
Net Assets	$	2,153		$	1,345		$	706		$	102

(a) $72 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) $209 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $121 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	118		$	—		$	—		$	118
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,365			1,313			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		649			35			573			41
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(a)		164			157			7			—
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale debt securities(a)		221			10			211			—
Derivative assets(b)		186			21			81			84
Total Assets	$	2,703		$	1,536		$	918		$	249
Derivative liabilities(c)		(132	)		(8	)		(21	)		(103	)
Net Assets	$	2,571		$	1,528		$	897		$	146

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments		Derivatives (net)			Total
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	90		$	53	$	(22	)	$	121
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—		8			8
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		8			—		—			8
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			—		8			8
Settlements		(1	)		—		(2	)		(3	)
Total gains (losses) included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			1		(16	)		(15	)
Transfers out of Level 3		(25	)							(25	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54	$	(24	)	$	102
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights.
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	178		$	48	$	(7	)	$	219

Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(15	)		(15	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			—			(3	)		(3	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		2			—			—			2
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(3	)		(4	)		2			(5	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			2			1			3
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Derivatives (net)			Total
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	118		$	47		$	(19	)	$	146
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—			8			8
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(19	)		(19	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		13			—			—			13
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			7			8			15
Sales		—			(3	)		—			(3	)
Settlements		(25	)		—			(5	)		(30	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			3			3			6
Transfers out of Level 3		(34	)								(34	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54		$	(24	)	$	102
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2011:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
Total	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	198		$	—		$	25		$	223
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(44	)		(44	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(14	)		(14	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		12			—			—			12
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlement		(33	)		44			(5	)		6
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			2			16			18
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201

Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2010:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—	$	—	$	15		$	15
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—		—		(1	)		(1	)
Total	$	—	$	—	$	14		$	14

Duke Energy Carolinas

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	12		$	—	$	—		$	12
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,206			1,154		46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		718			151		519			48
Derivative assets(b)		1			—		1			—
Total assets		1,937			1,305		566			66
Derivative liabilities(c)		(92	)		—		(92	)		—
Net Assets	$	1,845		$	1,305	$	474		$	66

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2		Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	12		$	—		$	—	$	12
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,365			1,313			46		6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		649			35			573		41
Derivative assets(b)		62			1			61		—
Total assets		2,088			1,349			680		59
Derivative liabilities(c)		(1	)		(1	)		—		—
Net Assets	$	2,087		$	1,348		$	680	$	59

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities		Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	12	$	53		$	65
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—		1			1
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	12	$	54		$	66
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities		Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	60	$	48		$	108
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		1		—			1
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		—		(4	)		(4	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—		2			2
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	61	$	46		$	107

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	12		$	47		$	59
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases		—			7			7
Sales		—			(3	)		(3	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			3			3
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	12		$	54		$	66
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	66		$	—		$	66
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		3			—			3
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		—			44			44
Total gains (losses) included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		(8	)		2			(6	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	61		$	46		$	107

Duke Energy Ohio

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts which are disclosed separately in Note 8.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Derivative assets(a)	$	34		$	11		$	8		$	15
Derivative liabilities(b)		(27	)		(11	)		(8	)		(8	)
Net Assets	$	7		$	—		$	—		$	7

(a) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Derivative assets(a)	$	59		$	20		$	6		$	33
Derivative liabilities(b)		(32	)		(7	)		(5	)		(20	)
Net Assets	$	27		$	13		$	1		$	13

(a) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Derivatives (net)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	7
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		(1	)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Settlements		(1	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		2
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	7
Three Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	(4	)
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		29
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(2	)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		9
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	32
	Derivatives (net)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	13
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		(7	)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Settlements		(2	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		3
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	7
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2011:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	1
Total	$	1

	Derivatives (net)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	7
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		27
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(13	)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		8
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		3
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	32
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2010:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	31
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(1	)
Total	$	30

Duke Energy Indiana

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Available-for-sale equity securities(a)	$	42		$	42	$	—		$	—
Available-for-sale debt securities(a)		28			—		28			—
Derivative assets(b)		6			—		—			6
Total Assets		76			42		28			6
Derivative liabilities(c)		(62	)		—		(62	)		—
Net Assets	$	14		$	42	$	(34	)	$	6

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Available-for-sale equity securities(a)	$	47		$	47	$	—		$	—
Available-for-sale debt securities(a)		26			—		26			—
Derivative assets(b)		4			—		—			4
Total Assets		77			47		26			4
Derivative liabilities(c)		(2	)		—		(2	)		—
Net Assets	$	75		$	47	$	24		$	4

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 measurements

	Derivatives (net)
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	10
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		8
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		8
Settlements		(2	)
Total losses included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		(18	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	6
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	7
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(3	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	4

(a) Amounts relate to financial transmission rights.

	Derivatives (net)
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	4
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		8
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		8
Settlements		(14	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	6
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	4
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(12	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		12
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	4

(a) Amounts relate to financial transmission rights.

Additional Fair Value Disclosures - Long-term debt: The fair value of long-term debt is summarized in the following table. Judgment is required in interpreting market data to develop the estimates of fair value. Accordingly, the estimates determined as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of the amounts the Duke Energy Registrants could have settled in current markets.

	As of September 30, 2011
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value(a)		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	19,111	$	21,346	$	8,273	$	9,469	$	2,558	$	2,685	$	3,469	$	3,977

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $959 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

	As of December 31, 2010
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	18,210	$	19,484	$	7,770	$	8,376	$	2,564	$	2,614	$	3,472	$	3,746

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $976 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

At both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the fair value of cash and cash equivalents, accounts and notes receivable, accounts payable, commercial paper and non-recourse notes payables of variable interest entities are not materially different from their carrying amounts because of the short-term nature of these instruments and/or because the stated rates approximate market rates.

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Fair Value Of Financial Assets And Liabilities

9. Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities

Under existing accounting guidance, fair value is considered to be the exchange price in an orderly transaction between market participants to sell an asset or transfer a liability at the measurement date. The fair value definition focuses on an exit price, which is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability versus an entry price, which would be the price paid to acquire an asset or received to assume a liability.

The Duke Energy Registrants classify recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements based on the following fair value hierarchy, as prescribed by the accounting guidance for fair value, which prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three levels:

Level 1—unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that Duke Energy has the ability to access. An active market for the asset or liability is one in which transactions for the asset or liability occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide ongoing pricing information. Duke Energy does not adjust quoted market prices on Level 1 for any blockage factor.

Level 2—a fair value measurement utilizing inputs other than a quoted market price that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for the asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include, but are not limited to, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in an active market, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active and inputs other than quoted market prices that are observable for the asset or liability, such as interest rate curves and yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals, volatilities, credit risk and default rates. A Level 2 measurement cannot have more than an insignificant portion of the valuation based on unobservable inputs.

Level 3—any fair value measurements which include unobservable inputs for the asset or liability for more than an insignificant portion of the valuation. A Level 3 measurement may be based primarily on level 2 inputs.

The fair value accounting guidance for financial instruments permits entities to elect to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value that are not required to be accounted for at fair value under other GAAP. There are no financial assets or financial liabilities that are not required to be accounted for at fair value under GAAP for which the option to record at fair value has been elected by the Duke Energy Registrants. However, in the future, the Duke Energy Registrants may elect to measure certain financial instruments at fair value in accordance with this accounting guidance.

The Duke Energy Registrant's Policy for the recognition of transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy is to recognize the transfer at the end of the period.

Valuation methods of the primary fair value measurements disclosed below are as follows:

Investments in equity securities. Investments in equity securities are typically valued at the closing price in the principal active market as of the last business day of the quarter. Principal active markets for equity prices include published exchanges such as NASDAQ and NYSE. Foreign equity prices are translated from their trading currency using the currency exchange rate in effect at the close of the principal active market. Prices have not been adjusted to reflect for after-hours market activity. The majority of investments in equity securities are valued using Level 1 measurements.

Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities. Duke Energy held $115 million par value ($97 million carrying value) and $149 million par value ($118 million carrying value) as of September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively of auction rate securities for which an active market does not currently exist. During the nine months ended September 30, 2011, $34 million of these investments in auction rate securities were redeemed by the issuer at full par value plus accrued interest. Duke Energy Carolinas held $16 million par value ($12 million carrying value) of these auction rate securities at both September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The vast majority of these auction rate securities are AAA rated student loan securities for which substantially all the values are ultimately backed by the U.S. government. Those auction rate securities which are classified as long-term investments are valued using Level 3 measurements. The methods and significant assumptions used to determine the fair values of the investment in auction rate debt securities represent estimations of fair value using internal discounted cash flow models which incorporate primarily management's own assumptions as to the term over which such investments will be recovered at par, the current level of interest rates, and the appropriate risk-adjusted discount rates when relevant observable inputs are not available to determine the present value of such cash flows. In preparing the valuations, all significant value drivers were considered, including the underlying collateral. Those auction rate securities which are classified as Short-term investments are valued using Level 2 measurements, as they are valued at par based on a commitment by the issuer to redeem at par value. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy held $25 million of auction rate securities classified as short-term investments. In October 2011, Duke Energy received $25 million from the issuer who redeemed the securities at par value. As a result, at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy recorded the fair value equal to the par value and transferred these securities from Level 3 to Level 2.

There were no other-than-temporary impairments associated with investments in auction rate debt securities during the nine months ended September 30, 2011 or 2010.

Investments in debt securities. Most debt investments (including those held in the Nuclear Decomissioning Trust Funds (NDTF) are valued based on a calculation using interest rate curves and credit spreads applied to the terms of the debt instrument (maturity and coupon interest rate) and consider the counterparty credit rating. Most debt valuations are Level 2 measurements. If the market for a particular fixed income security is relatively inactive or illiquid, the measurement is a Level 3 measurement. U.S. Treasury debt is typically a Level 1 measurement.

Commodity derivatives. The pricing for commodity derivatives is primarily a calculated value which incorporates the forward price and is adjusted for liquidity (bid-ask spread), credit or non-performance risk (after reflecting credit enhancements such as collateral) and discounted to present value. The primary difference between a Level 2 and a Level 3 measurement has to do with the level of activity in forward markets for the commodity. If the market is relatively inactive, the measurement is deemed to be a Level 3 measurement. Some commodity derivatives are exchange traded contracts, which are classified as Level 1 measurements.

Duke Energy

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Derivative amounts in the table below exclude cash collateral amounts which are disclosed in Note 8. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	97		$	—		$	25		$	72
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,206			1,154			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		718			151			519			48
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(b)		62			55			7			—
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities(c)		330			27			303			—
Derivative assets(d)		89			15			9			65
Total Assets	$	2,502		$	1,402		$	909		$	191
Derivative liabilities(e)		(349	)		(57	)		(203	)		(89	)
Net Assets	$	2,153		$	1,345		$	706		$	102

(a) $72 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) $209 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $121 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	118		$	—		$	—		$	118
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,365			1,313			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		649			35			573			41
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(a)		164			157			7			—
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale debt securities(a)		221			10			211			—
Derivative assets(b)		186			21			81			84
Total Assets	$	2,703		$	1,536		$	918		$	249
Derivative liabilities(c)		(132	)		(8	)		(21	)		(103	)
Net Assets	$	2,571		$	1,528		$	897		$	146

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments		Derivatives (net)			Total
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	90		$	53	$	(22	)	$	121
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—		8			8
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		8			—		—			8
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			—		8			8
Settlements		(1	)		—		(2	)		(3	)
Total gains (losses) included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			1		(16	)		(15	)
Transfers out of Level 3		(25	)							(25	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54	$	(24	)	$	102
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights.
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	178		$	48	$	(7	)	$	219

Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(15	)		(15	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			—			(3	)		(3	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		2			—			—			2
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(3	)		(4	)		2			(5	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			2			1			3
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Derivatives (net)			Total
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	118		$	47		$	(19	)	$	146
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—			8			8
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(19	)		(19	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		13			—			—			13
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			7			8			15
Sales		—			(3	)		—			(3	)
Settlements		(25	)		—			(5	)		(30	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			3			3			6
Transfers out of Level 3		(34	)								(34	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54		$	(24	)	$	102
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2011:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
Total	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	198		$	—		$	25		$	223
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(44	)		(44	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(14	)		(14	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		12			—			—			12
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlement		(33	)		44			(5	)		6
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			2			16			18
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201

Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2010:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—	$	—	$	15		$	15
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—		—		(1	)		(1	)
Total	$	—	$	—	$	14		$	14

Duke Energy Carolinas

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	12		$	—	$	—		$	12
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,206			1,154		46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		718			151		519			48
Derivative assets(b)		1			—		1			—
Total assets		1,937			1,305		566			66
Derivative liabilities(c)		(92	)		—		(92	)		—
Net Assets	$	1,845		$	1,305	$	474		$	66

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2		Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	12		$	—		$	—	$	12
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,365			1,313			46		6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		649			35			573		41
Derivative assets(b)		62			1			61		—
Total assets		2,088			1,349			680		59
Derivative liabilities(c)		(1	)		(1	)		—		—
Net Assets	$	2,087		$	1,348		$	680	$	59

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities		Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	12	$	53		$	65
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—		1			1
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	12	$	54		$	66
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities		Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	60	$	48		$	108
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		1		—			1
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		—		(4	)		(4	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—		2			2
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	61	$	46		$	107

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	12		$	47		$	59
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases		—			7			7
Sales		—			(3	)		(3	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			3			3
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	12		$	54		$	66
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	66		$	—		$	66
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		3			—			3
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		—			44			44
Total gains (losses) included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		(8	)		2			(6	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	61		$	46		$	107

Duke Energy Ohio

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts which are disclosed separately in Note 8.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Derivative assets(a)	$	34		$	11		$	8		$	15
Derivative liabilities(b)		(27	)		(11	)		(8	)		(8	)
Net Assets	$	7		$	—		$	—		$	7

(a) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Derivative assets(a)	$	59		$	20		$	6		$	33
Derivative liabilities(b)		(32	)		(7	)		(5	)		(20	)
Net Assets	$	27		$	13		$	1		$	13

(a) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Derivatives (net)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	7
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		(1	)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Settlements		(1	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		2
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	7
Three Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	(4	)
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		29
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(2	)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		9
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	32
	Derivatives (net)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	13
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		(7	)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Settlements		(2	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		3
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	7
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2011:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	1
Total	$	1

	Derivatives (net)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	7
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		27
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(13	)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		8
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		3
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	32
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2010:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	31
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(1	)
Total	$	30

Duke Energy Indiana

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Available-for-sale equity securities(a)	$	42		$	42	$	—		$	—
Available-for-sale debt securities(a)		28			—		28			—
Derivative assets(b)		6			—		—			6
Total Assets		76			42		28			6
Derivative liabilities(c)		(62	)		—		(62	)		—
Net Assets	$	14		$	42	$	(34	)	$	6

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Available-for-sale equity securities(a)	$	47		$	47	$	—		$	—
Available-for-sale debt securities(a)		26			—		26			—
Derivative assets(b)		4			—		—			4
Total Assets		77			47		26			4
Derivative liabilities(c)		(2	)		—		(2	)		—
Net Assets	$	75		$	47	$	24		$	4

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 measurements

	Derivatives (net)
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	10
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		8
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		8
Settlements		(2	)
Total losses included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		(18	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	6
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	7
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(3	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	4

(a) Amounts relate to financial transmission rights.

	Derivatives (net)
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	4
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		8
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		8
Settlements		(14	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	6
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	4
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(12	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		12
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	4

(a) Amounts relate to financial transmission rights.

Additional Fair Value Disclosures - Long-term debt: The fair value of long-term debt is summarized in the following table. Judgment is required in interpreting market data to develop the estimates of fair value. Accordingly, the estimates determined as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of the amounts the Duke Energy Registrants could have settled in current markets.

	As of September 30, 2011
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value(a)		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	19,111	$	21,346	$	8,273	$	9,469	$	2,558	$	2,685	$	3,469	$	3,977

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $959 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

	As of December 31, 2010
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	18,210	$	19,484	$	7,770	$	8,376	$	2,564	$	2,614	$	3,472	$	3,746

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $976 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

At both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the fair value of cash and cash equivalents, accounts and notes receivable, accounts payable, commercial paper and non-recourse notes payables of variable interest entities are not materially different from their carrying amounts because of the short-term nature of these instruments and/or because the stated rates approximate market rates.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Fair Value Of Financial Assets And Liabilities

9. Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities

Under existing accounting guidance, fair value is considered to be the exchange price in an orderly transaction between market participants to sell an asset or transfer a liability at the measurement date. The fair value definition focuses on an exit price, which is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability versus an entry price, which would be the price paid to acquire an asset or received to assume a liability.

The Duke Energy Registrants classify recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements based on the following fair value hierarchy, as prescribed by the accounting guidance for fair value, which prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three levels:

Level 1—unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that Duke Energy has the ability to access. An active market for the asset or liability is one in which transactions for the asset or liability occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide ongoing pricing information. Duke Energy does not adjust quoted market prices on Level 1 for any blockage factor.

Level 2—a fair value measurement utilizing inputs other than a quoted market price that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for the asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include, but are not limited to, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in an active market, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active and inputs other than quoted market prices that are observable for the asset or liability, such as interest rate curves and yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals, volatilities, credit risk and default rates. A Level 2 measurement cannot have more than an insignificant portion of the valuation based on unobservable inputs.

Level 3—any fair value measurements which include unobservable inputs for the asset or liability for more than an insignificant portion of the valuation. A Level 3 measurement may be based primarily on level 2 inputs.

The fair value accounting guidance for financial instruments permits entities to elect to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value that are not required to be accounted for at fair value under other GAAP. There are no financial assets or financial liabilities that are not required to be accounted for at fair value under GAAP for which the option to record at fair value has been elected by the Duke Energy Registrants. However, in the future, the Duke Energy Registrants may elect to measure certain financial instruments at fair value in accordance with this accounting guidance.

The Duke Energy Registrant's Policy for the recognition of transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy is to recognize the transfer at the end of the period.

Valuation methods of the primary fair value measurements disclosed below are as follows:

Investments in equity securities. Investments in equity securities are typically valued at the closing price in the principal active market as of the last business day of the quarter. Principal active markets for equity prices include published exchanges such as NASDAQ and NYSE. Foreign equity prices are translated from their trading currency using the currency exchange rate in effect at the close of the principal active market. Prices have not been adjusted to reflect for after-hours market activity. The majority of investments in equity securities are valued using Level 1 measurements.

Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities. Duke Energy held $115 million par value ($97 million carrying value) and $149 million par value ($118 million carrying value) as of September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively of auction rate securities for which an active market does not currently exist. During the nine months ended September 30, 2011, $34 million of these investments in auction rate securities were redeemed by the issuer at full par value plus accrued interest. Duke Energy Carolinas held $16 million par value ($12 million carrying value) of these auction rate securities at both September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The vast majority of these auction rate securities are AAA rated student loan securities for which substantially all the values are ultimately backed by the U.S. government. Those auction rate securities which are classified as long-term investments are valued using Level 3 measurements. The methods and significant assumptions used to determine the fair values of the investment in auction rate debt securities represent estimations of fair value using internal discounted cash flow models which incorporate primarily management's own assumptions as to the term over which such investments will be recovered at par, the current level of interest rates, and the appropriate risk-adjusted discount rates when relevant observable inputs are not available to determine the present value of such cash flows. In preparing the valuations, all significant value drivers were considered, including the underlying collateral. Those auction rate securities which are classified as Short-term investments are valued using Level 2 measurements, as they are valued at par based on a commitment by the issuer to redeem at par value. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy held $25 million of auction rate securities classified as short-term investments. In October 2011, Duke Energy received $25 million from the issuer who redeemed the securities at par value. As a result, at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy recorded the fair value equal to the par value and transferred these securities from Level 3 to Level 2.

There were no other-than-temporary impairments associated with investments in auction rate debt securities during the nine months ended September 30, 2011 or 2010.

Investments in debt securities. Most debt investments (including those held in the Nuclear Decomissioning Trust Funds (NDTF) are valued based on a calculation using interest rate curves and credit spreads applied to the terms of the debt instrument (maturity and coupon interest rate) and consider the counterparty credit rating. Most debt valuations are Level 2 measurements. If the market for a particular fixed income security is relatively inactive or illiquid, the measurement is a Level 3 measurement. U.S. Treasury debt is typically a Level 1 measurement.

Commodity derivatives. The pricing for commodity derivatives is primarily a calculated value which incorporates the forward price and is adjusted for liquidity (bid-ask spread), credit or non-performance risk (after reflecting credit enhancements such as collateral) and discounted to present value. The primary difference between a Level 2 and a Level 3 measurement has to do with the level of activity in forward markets for the commodity. If the market is relatively inactive, the measurement is deemed to be a Level 3 measurement. Some commodity derivatives are exchange traded contracts, which are classified as Level 1 measurements.

Duke Energy

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Derivative amounts in the table below exclude cash collateral amounts which are disclosed in Note 8. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	97		$	—		$	25		$	72
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,206			1,154			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		718			151			519			48
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(b)		62			55			7			—
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities(c)		330			27			303			—
Derivative assets(d)		89			15			9			65
Total Assets	$	2,502		$	1,402		$	909		$	191
Derivative liabilities(e)		(349	)		(57	)		(203	)		(89	)
Net Assets	$	2,153		$	1,345		$	706		$	102

(a) $72 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) $209 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $121 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	118		$	—		$	—		$	118
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,365			1,313			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		649			35			573			41
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(a)		164			157			7			—
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale debt securities(a)		221			10			211			—
Derivative assets(b)		186			21			81			84
Total Assets	$	2,703		$	1,536		$	918		$	249
Derivative liabilities(c)		(132	)		(8	)		(21	)		(103	)
Net Assets	$	2,571		$	1,528		$	897		$	146

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments		Derivatives (net)			Total
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	90		$	53	$	(22	)	$	121
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—		8			8
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		8			—		—			8
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			—		8			8
Settlements		(1	)		—		(2	)		(3	)
Total gains (losses) included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			1		(16	)		(15	)
Transfers out of Level 3		(25	)							(25	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54	$	(24	)	$	102
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights.
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	178		$	48	$	(7	)	$	219

Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(15	)		(15	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			—			(3	)		(3	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		2			—			—			2
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(3	)		(4	)		2			(5	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			2			1			3
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Derivatives (net)			Total
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	118		$	47		$	(19	)	$	146
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—			8			8
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(19	)		(19	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		13			—			—			13
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			7			8			15
Sales		—			(3	)		—			(3	)
Settlements		(25	)		—			(5	)		(30	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			3			3			6
Transfers out of Level 3		(34	)								(34	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54		$	(24	)	$	102
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2011:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
Total	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	198		$	—		$	25		$	223
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(44	)		(44	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(14	)		(14	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		12			—			—			12
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlement		(33	)		44			(5	)		6
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			2			16			18
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201

Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2010:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—	$	—	$	15		$	15
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—		—		(1	)		(1	)
Total	$	—	$	—	$	14		$	14

Duke Energy Carolinas

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	12		$	—	$	—		$	12
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,206			1,154		46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		718			151		519			48
Derivative assets(b)		1			—		1			—
Total assets		1,937			1,305		566			66
Derivative liabilities(c)		(92	)		—		(92	)		—
Net Assets	$	1,845		$	1,305	$	474		$	66

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2		Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	12		$	—		$	—	$	12
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,365			1,313			46		6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		649			35			573		41
Derivative assets(b)		62			1			61		—
Total assets		2,088			1,349			680		59
Derivative liabilities(c)		(1	)		(1	)		—		—
Net Assets	$	2,087		$	1,348		$	680	$	59

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities		Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	12	$	53		$	65
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—		1			1
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	12	$	54		$	66
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities		Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	60	$	48		$	108
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		1		—			1
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		—		(4	)		(4	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—		2			2
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	61	$	46		$	107

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	12		$	47		$	59
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases		—			7			7
Sales		—			(3	)		(3	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			3			3
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	12		$	54		$	66
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	66		$	—		$	66
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		3			—			3
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		—			44			44
Total gains (losses) included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		(8	)		2			(6	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	61		$	46		$	107

Duke Energy Ohio

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts which are disclosed separately in Note 8.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Derivative assets(a)	$	34		$	11		$	8		$	15
Derivative liabilities(b)		(27	)		(11	)		(8	)		(8	)
Net Assets	$	7		$	—		$	—		$	7

(a) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Derivative assets(a)	$	59		$	20		$	6		$	33
Derivative liabilities(b)		(32	)		(7	)		(5	)		(20	)
Net Assets	$	27		$	13		$	1		$	13

(a) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Derivatives (net)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	7
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		(1	)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Settlements		(1	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		2
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	7
Three Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	(4	)
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		29
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(2	)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		9
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	32
	Derivatives (net)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	13
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		(7	)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Settlements		(2	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		3
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	7
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2011:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	1
Total	$	1

	Derivatives (net)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	7
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		27
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(13	)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		8
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		3
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	32
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2010:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	31
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(1	)
Total	$	30

Duke Energy Indiana

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Available-for-sale equity securities(a)	$	42		$	42	$	—		$	—
Available-for-sale debt securities(a)		28			—		28			—
Derivative assets(b)		6			—		—			6
Total Assets		76			42		28			6
Derivative liabilities(c)		(62	)		—		(62	)		—
Net Assets	$	14		$	42	$	(34	)	$	6

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Available-for-sale equity securities(a)	$	47		$	47	$	—		$	—
Available-for-sale debt securities(a)		26			—		26			—
Derivative assets(b)		4			—		—			4
Total Assets		77			47		26			4
Derivative liabilities(c)		(2	)		—		(2	)		—
Net Assets	$	75		$	47	$	24		$	4

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 measurements

	Derivatives (net)
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	10
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		8
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		8
Settlements		(2	)
Total losses included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		(18	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	6
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	7
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(3	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	4

(a) Amounts relate to financial transmission rights.

	Derivatives (net)
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	4
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		8
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		8
Settlements		(14	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	6
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	4
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(12	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		12
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	4

(a) Amounts relate to financial transmission rights.

Additional Fair Value Disclosures - Long-term debt: The fair value of long-term debt is summarized in the following table. Judgment is required in interpreting market data to develop the estimates of fair value. Accordingly, the estimates determined as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of the amounts the Duke Energy Registrants could have settled in current markets.

	As of September 30, 2011
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value(a)		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	19,111	$	21,346	$	8,273	$	9,469	$	2,558	$	2,685	$	3,469	$	3,977

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $959 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

	As of December 31, 2010
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	18,210	$	19,484	$	7,770	$	8,376	$	2,564	$	2,614	$	3,472	$	3,746

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $976 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

At both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the fair value of cash and cash equivalents, accounts and notes receivable, accounts payable, commercial paper and non-recourse notes payables of variable interest entities are not materially different from their carrying amounts because of the short-term nature of these instruments and/or because the stated rates approximate market rates.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Fair Value Of Financial Assets And Liabilities

9. Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities

Under existing accounting guidance, fair value is considered to be the exchange price in an orderly transaction between market participants to sell an asset or transfer a liability at the measurement date. The fair value definition focuses on an exit price, which is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability versus an entry price, which would be the price paid to acquire an asset or received to assume a liability.

The Duke Energy Registrants classify recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements based on the following fair value hierarchy, as prescribed by the accounting guidance for fair value, which prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three levels:

Level 1—unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that Duke Energy has the ability to access. An active market for the asset or liability is one in which transactions for the asset or liability occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide ongoing pricing information. Duke Energy does not adjust quoted market prices on Level 1 for any blockage factor.

Level 2—a fair value measurement utilizing inputs other than a quoted market price that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for the asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include, but are not limited to, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in an active market, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active and inputs other than quoted market prices that are observable for the asset or liability, such as interest rate curves and yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals, volatilities, credit risk and default rates. A Level 2 measurement cannot have more than an insignificant portion of the valuation based on unobservable inputs.

Level 3—any fair value measurements which include unobservable inputs for the asset or liability for more than an insignificant portion of the valuation. A Level 3 measurement may be based primarily on level 2 inputs.

The fair value accounting guidance for financial instruments permits entities to elect to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value that are not required to be accounted for at fair value under other GAAP. There are no financial assets or financial liabilities that are not required to be accounted for at fair value under GAAP for which the option to record at fair value has been elected by the Duke Energy Registrants. However, in the future, the Duke Energy Registrants may elect to measure certain financial instruments at fair value in accordance with this accounting guidance.

The Duke Energy Registrant's Policy for the recognition of transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy is to recognize the transfer at the end of the period.

Valuation methods of the primary fair value measurements disclosed below are as follows:

Investments in equity securities. Investments in equity securities are typically valued at the closing price in the principal active market as of the last business day of the quarter. Principal active markets for equity prices include published exchanges such as NASDAQ and NYSE. Foreign equity prices are translated from their trading currency using the currency exchange rate in effect at the close of the principal active market. Prices have not been adjusted to reflect for after-hours market activity. The majority of investments in equity securities are valued using Level 1 measurements.

Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities. Duke Energy held $115 million par value ($97 million carrying value) and $149 million par value ($118 million carrying value) as of September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively of auction rate securities for which an active market does not currently exist. During the nine months ended September 30, 2011, $34 million of these investments in auction rate securities were redeemed by the issuer at full par value plus accrued interest. Duke Energy Carolinas held $16 million par value ($12 million carrying value) of these auction rate securities at both September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The vast majority of these auction rate securities are AAA rated student loan securities for which substantially all the values are ultimately backed by the U.S. government. Those auction rate securities which are classified as long-term investments are valued using Level 3 measurements. The methods and significant assumptions used to determine the fair values of the investment in auction rate debt securities represent estimations of fair value using internal discounted cash flow models which incorporate primarily management's own assumptions as to the term over which such investments will be recovered at par, the current level of interest rates, and the appropriate risk-adjusted discount rates when relevant observable inputs are not available to determine the present value of such cash flows. In preparing the valuations, all significant value drivers were considered, including the underlying collateral. Those auction rate securities which are classified as Short-term investments are valued using Level 2 measurements, as they are valued at par based on a commitment by the issuer to redeem at par value. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy held $25 million of auction rate securities classified as short-term investments. In October 2011, Duke Energy received $25 million from the issuer who redeemed the securities at par value. As a result, at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy recorded the fair value equal to the par value and transferred these securities from Level 3 to Level 2.

There were no other-than-temporary impairments associated with investments in auction rate debt securities during the nine months ended September 30, 2011 or 2010.

Investments in debt securities. Most debt investments (including those held in the Nuclear Decomissioning Trust Funds (NDTF) are valued based on a calculation using interest rate curves and credit spreads applied to the terms of the debt instrument (maturity and coupon interest rate) and consider the counterparty credit rating. Most debt valuations are Level 2 measurements. If the market for a particular fixed income security is relatively inactive or illiquid, the measurement is a Level 3 measurement. U.S. Treasury debt is typically a Level 1 measurement.

Commodity derivatives. The pricing for commodity derivatives is primarily a calculated value which incorporates the forward price and is adjusted for liquidity (bid-ask spread), credit or non-performance risk (after reflecting credit enhancements such as collateral) and discounted to present value. The primary difference between a Level 2 and a Level 3 measurement has to do with the level of activity in forward markets for the commodity. If the market is relatively inactive, the measurement is deemed to be a Level 3 measurement. Some commodity derivatives are exchange traded contracts, which are classified as Level 1 measurements.

Duke Energy

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Derivative amounts in the table below exclude cash collateral amounts which are disclosed in Note 8. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	97		$	—		$	25		$	72
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,206			1,154			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		718			151			519			48
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(b)		62			55			7			—
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities(c)		330			27			303			—
Derivative assets(d)		89			15			9			65
Total Assets	$	2,502		$	1,402		$	909		$	191
Derivative liabilities(e)		(349	)		(57	)		(203	)		(89	)
Net Assets	$	2,153		$	1,345		$	706		$	102

(a) $72 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) $209 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $121 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	118		$	—		$	—		$	118
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,365			1,313			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		649			35			573			41
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(a)		164			157			7			—
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale debt securities(a)		221			10			211			—
Derivative assets(b)		186			21			81			84
Total Assets	$	2,703		$	1,536		$	918		$	249
Derivative liabilities(c)		(132	)		(8	)		(21	)		(103	)
Net Assets	$	2,571		$	1,528		$	897		$	146

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments		Derivatives (net)			Total
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	90		$	53	$	(22	)	$	121
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—		8			8
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		8			—		—			8
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			—		8			8
Settlements		(1	)		—		(2	)		(3	)
Total gains (losses) included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			1		(16	)		(15	)
Transfers out of Level 3		(25	)							(25	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54	$	(24	)	$	102
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights.
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	178		$	48	$	(7	)	$	219

Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(15	)		(15	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			—			(3	)		(3	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		2			—			—			2
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(3	)		(4	)		2			(5	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			2			1			3
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Derivatives (net)			Total
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	118		$	47		$	(19	)	$	146
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—			8			8
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(19	)		(19	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		13			—			—			13
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			7			8			15
Sales		—			(3	)		—			(3	)
Settlements		(25	)		—			(5	)		(30	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			3			3			6
Transfers out of Level 3		(34	)								(34	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54		$	(24	)	$	102
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2011:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
Total	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	198		$	—		$	25		$	223
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(44	)		(44	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(14	)		(14	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		12			—			—			12
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlement		(33	)		44			(5	)		6
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			2			16			18
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201

Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2010:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—	$	—	$	15		$	15
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—		—		(1	)		(1	)
Total	$	—	$	—	$	14		$	14

Duke Energy Carolinas

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	12		$	—	$	—		$	12
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,206			1,154		46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		718			151		519			48
Derivative assets(b)		1			—		1			—
Total assets		1,937			1,305		566			66
Derivative liabilities(c)		(92	)		—		(92	)		—
Net Assets	$	1,845		$	1,305	$	474		$	66

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2		Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	12		$	—		$	—	$	12
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,365			1,313			46		6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		649			35			573		41
Derivative assets(b)		62			1			61		—
Total assets		2,088			1,349			680		59
Derivative liabilities(c)		(1	)		(1	)		—		—
Net Assets	$	2,087		$	1,348		$	680	$	59

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities		Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	12	$	53		$	65
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—		1			1
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	12	$	54		$	66
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities		Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	60	$	48		$	108
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		1		—			1
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		—		(4	)		(4	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—		2			2
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	61	$	46		$	107

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	12		$	47		$	59
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases		—			7			7
Sales		—			(3	)		(3	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			3			3
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	12		$	54		$	66
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Total
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	66		$	—		$	66
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		3			—			3
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		—			44			44
Total gains (losses) included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		(8	)		2			(6	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	61		$	46		$	107

Duke Energy Ohio

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts which are disclosed separately in Note 8.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Derivative assets(a)	$	34		$	11		$	8		$	15
Derivative liabilities(b)		(27	)		(11	)		(8	)		(8	)
Net Assets	$	7		$	—		$	—		$	7

(a) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Derivative assets(a)	$	59		$	20		$	6		$	33
Derivative liabilities(b)		(32	)		(7	)		(5	)		(20	)
Net Assets	$	27		$	13		$	1		$	13

(a) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements

	Derivatives (net)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	7
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		(1	)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Settlements		(1	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		2
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	7
Three Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	(4	)
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		29
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(2	)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		9
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	32
	Derivatives (net)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	13
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		(7	)
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Settlements		(2	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		3
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	7
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2011:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	1
Total	$	1

	Derivatives (net)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	7
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other		27
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(13	)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		8
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		3
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	32
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2010:
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	31
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		(1	)
Total	$	30

Duke Energy Indiana

The following tables provide the fair value measurement amounts for assets and liabilities recorded on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts presented in the tables below exclude cash collateral amounts. See Note 10 for additional information related to investments by major security type.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Available-for-sale equity securities(a)	$	42		$	42	$	—		$	—
Available-for-sale debt securities(a)		28			—		28			—
Derivative assets(b)		6			—		—			6
Total Assets		76			42		28			6
Derivative liabilities(c)		(62	)		—		(62	)		—
Net Assets	$	14		$	42	$	(34	)	$	6

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1		Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Available-for-sale equity securities(a)	$	47		$	47	$	—		$	—
Available-for-sale debt securities(a)		26			—		26			—
Derivative assets(b)		4			—		—			4
Total Assets		77			47		26			4
Derivative liabilities(c)		(2	)		—		(2	)		—
Net Assets	$	75		$	47	$	24		$	4

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The following table provides a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis where the determination of fair value includes significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

Rollforward of Level 3 measurements

	Derivatives (net)
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	10
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		8
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		8
Settlements		(2	)
Total losses included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		(18	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	6
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	7
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(3	)
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	4

(a) Amounts relate to financial transmission rights.

	Derivatives (net)
	(in millions)
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	4
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		8
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		8
Settlements		(14	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	6
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	4
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(12	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		12
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	4

(a) Amounts relate to financial transmission rights.

Additional Fair Value Disclosures - Long-term debt: The fair value of long-term debt is summarized in the following table. Judgment is required in interpreting market data to develop the estimates of fair value. Accordingly, the estimates determined as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of the amounts the Duke Energy Registrants could have settled in current markets.

	As of September 30, 2011
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value(a)		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	19,111	$	21,346	$	8,273	$	9,469	$	2,558	$	2,685	$	3,469	$	3,977

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $959 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

	As of December 31, 2010
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	18,210	$	19,484	$	7,770	$	8,376	$	2,564	$	2,614	$	3,472	$	3,746

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $976 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

At both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the fair value of cash and cash equivalents, accounts and notes receivable, accounts payable, commercial paper and non-recourse notes payables of variable interest entities are not materially different from their carrying amounts because of the short-term nature of these instruments and/or because the stated rates approximate market rates.

XML

Stock-Based Compensation (Details) (USD $) In Millions	3 Months Ended				9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011		Sep. 30, 2010		Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010
Stock-based compensation	$ 12	[1]	$ 19	[1]	$ 39	$ 47	[1]
Tax benefit associated with stock-based compensation	5		7		16	18
Stock Options [Member]
Stock-based compensation					2	2	[1]
Phantom Awards [Member]
Stock-based compensation	6	[1]	7	[1]	20	21	[1]
Performance Awards [Member]
Stock-based compensation	6	[1]	11	[1]	17	23	[1]
Other Stock Awards [Member]
Stock-based compensation			1	[1]		1	[1]
Stock Compensation Plan [Member]
Stock-based compensation cost capitalized	$ 1		$ 1		$ 3	$ 3

[1] Excludes stock-based compensation cost capitalized of approximately $1 million and $3 million for each of the three and nine months, respectively, ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

XML

Commitments And Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Commitments And Contingencies

5. Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental

Duke Energy is subject to international, federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental matters. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal 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 of the Duke Energy Registrants.

Remediation Activities. The Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various contaminated sites. These include some properties that are part of ongoing operations and sites formerly owned or used by Duke Energy entities, such as historic manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. Most of these sites were decommissioned in the 1960s. While a majority of the MGP by-products were sold off-site during the time period when the plants operated, some residuals remained on-site during plant decommissioning. Remediation activities typically focus on the containment, removal and/or the management of these by-products. In some cases, Duke Energy no longer owns the property. Managed in conjunction with relevant federal, state and local agencies, activities vary with site conditions and locations, remediation requirements, complexity and sharing of responsibility. If remediation activities involve statutory joint and several liability provisions, strict liability, or cost recovery or contribution actions, the Duke Energy Registrants could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other parties. In some instances, the Duke Energy Registrants may share liability associated with contamination with other potentially responsible parties, and may also benefit from insurance policies or contractual indemnities that cover some or all cleanup costs. Reserves associated with remediation activities at certain sites have been recorded and it is anticipated that additional costs associated with remediation activities at certain sites will be incurred in the future. All of these sites generally are managed in the normal course of business or affiliate operations.

The Duke Energy Registrants have accrued costs associated with remediation activities at some of its current and former sites, as well as other relevant environmental contingent liabilities. Management, in the normal course of business, continually assesses the nature and extent of known or potential environmental-related contingencies and records liabilities when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. Costs associated with remediation activities within the Duke Energy Registrants' operations are typically expensed unless regulatory recovery of the costs is deemed probable.

As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio had a total reserve of $36 million, related to remediation work at certain MGP sites. Duke Energy Ohio has received an order from the PUCO to defer the costs incurred. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio has deferred $64 million of costs related to the MGP sites. The PUCO will rule on the recovery of these costs at a future proceeding. Management believes it is probable that additional liabilities will be incurred as work progresses at Ohio MGP sites; however, costs associated with future remediation cannot currently be reasonably estimated.

Clean Water Act 316(b). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposed cooling water intake structures rule on April 20, 2011. Duke Energy submitted comments on the proposed rule on August 16, 2011. The proposed rule advances one main approach and three alternatives. The main approach establishes aquatic protection requirements for existing facilities and new on-site facility additions that withdraw 2 million gallons or more of water per day from rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, oceans, or other U.S. waters for cooling purposes. Based on the main approach proposed, most, if not all of the 23 coal and nuclear-fueled generating facilities in which the Duke Energy Registrants are either a whole or partial owner are likely affected sources. Additional sources, including some combined-cycle combustion turbine facilities, may also be impacted, at least for intake modifications.

The EPA has plans to finalize the 316(b) rule in July 2012. Compliance with portions of the rule could begin as early as 2015. Because of the wide range of potential outcomes, including the other three alternative proposals, the Duke Energy Registrants are unable to estimate its costs to comply at this time.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). On August 8, 2011, the EPA published its final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in the Federal Register. The CSAPR establishes state-level annual SO₂ and NO_x budgets that take effect on January 1, 2012, and state-level ozone-season NO_x budgets that take effect on May 1, 2012, and allocates emission allowances to affected sources in each state equal to the state budget less an allowance set-aside for new sources. The budget levels decline in 2014 for most states, including each state that the Duke Energy Registrants operate in, except for South Carolina where the budget levels remain constant. The rule allows intrastate and interstate allowance trading.

The stringency of the 2012 and 2014 CSAPR requirements vary among the Duke Energy Registrants and each is currently evaluating options for achieving the CSAPR requirements. Where the CSAPR requirements will be constraining, activities being evaluated to meet the requirements include purchasing emission allowances, power purchases, curtailing generation and utilizing low sulfur fuel to reduce levels of SO₂ or NO_x emissions. Technical adjustments to CSAPR proposed by the EPA in October 2011, if finalized, are not expected to materially impact the Duke Energy Registrants. See Note 7 for further information regarding impairment of emissions allowances as a result of the CSAPR.

Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Management. Duke Energy currently estimates that it will spend $369 million ($131 million at Duke Energy Carolinas, $70 million at Duke Energy Ohio and $168 million at Duke Energy Indiana) over the period 2011-2015 to install synthetic caps and liners at existing and new CCP landfills and to convert some of its CCP handling systems from wet to dry systems to comply with current regulations. The EPA and a number of states are considering additional regulatory measures that will contain specific and more detailed requirements for the management and disposal of CCPs, primarily ash, from the Duke Energy Registrants' coal-fired power plants.

On June 21, 2010, the EPA issued a proposal to regulate, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, coal combustion residuals (CCR), a term the EPA uses to describe the CCPs associated with the generation of electricity. The EPA proposal contains two regulatory options whereby CCRs not employed in approved beneficial use applications would either be regulated as hazardous waste or would continue to be regulated as non-hazardous waste. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking. However, based on the proposal, the cost of complying with the final regulation will be significant. The EPA is not expected to issue a final rule until 2012 or later.

Utility Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards. On May 3, 2011, the proposed Utility MACT Standards rule was published in the Federal Register. The rule proposes to establish emission limits for hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired electric generating units, including mercury. On October 24, 2011, the Court modified its earlier consent decree, giving the EPA until December 16, 2011, to finalize the MACT rule. Based on this date, compliance with the final emission limits will be required in early 2015, three years after the rule takes effect. The proposed rule gives permitting authorities the discretion to grant up to a 1-year compliance extension, on a case-by-case basis, to sources that are unable to install emission controls before the three year compliance deadline. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking. However, based on the proposal, the cost of complying with the final regulation will be significant.

Litigation

Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana

New Source Review (NSR). In 1999-2000, the DOJ, acting on behalf of the EPA and joined by various citizen groups and states, filed a number of complaints and notices of violation against multiple utilities across the country for alleged violations of the NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Generally, the government alleges that projects performed at various coal-fired units were major modifications, as defined in the CAA, and that the utilities violated the CAA when they undertook those projects without obtaining permits and installing the best available emission controls for SO₂, NO_x and particulate matter. The complaints seek injunctive relief to require installation of pollution control technology on various generating units that allegedly violated the CAA, and unspecified civil penalties in amounts of up to $32,500 per day for each violation. A number of the Duke Energy Registrants' plants have been subject to these allegations. The Duke Energy Registrants assert that there were no CAA violations because the applicable regulations do not require permitting in cases where the projects undertaken are "routine" or otherwise do not result in a net increase in emissions.

In 2000, the government brought a lawsuit against Duke Energy Carolinas in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina. The EPA claims that 29 projects performed at 25 of Duke Energy Carolinas' coal-fired units violate these NSR provisions. Three environmental groups have intervened in the case. In August 2003, the trial court issued a summary judgment opinion adopting Duke Energy Carolinas' legal positions on the standard to be used for measuring an increase in emissions, and granted judgment in favor of Duke Energy Carolinas. The trial court's decision was appealed and ultimately reversed and remanded for trial by the U.S. Supreme Court. At trial, Duke Energy Carolinas will continue to assert that the projects were routine or not projected to increase emissions. On July 29, 2010, the district court issued an order on outstanding motions for summary judgment filed in response to the Supreme Court remand. The court vacated large portions of the previous trial court's opinion in light of the Supreme Court ruling and found that Duke Energy Carolinas has the burden of proof for the Routine Maintenance Repair and Replacement exclusion, but that the exception must be viewed in light of industry practice, not only in light of an individual unit. The court also clarified that it will apply the "actual-to-projected-actual" emissions test to determine whether Duke Energy Carolinas should reasonably have sought a pre-project permit for any of the projects at issue. On February 11, 2011, the trial judge held an initial status conference and on March 22, 2011, the judge entered an interim scheduling order. The parties have filed a stipulation in which the United States and Plaintiff-Intervenors have dismissed with prejudice 16 claims. In exchange, Duke Energy Carolinas dismissed certain affirmative defenses. The parties have filed motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. No trial date has been set, but a trial is not expected in 2011.

In November 1999, the U.S. brought a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Cinergy, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana alleging various violations of the CAA for various projects at six owned and co-owned generating stations in the Midwest. Three northeast states and two environmental groups intervened in the case. A jury verdict was returned on May 22, 2008. The jury found in favor of Cinergy, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana on all but three units at Duke Energy Indiana's Wabash River Station, including Duke Energy Indiana's Gallagher Station units discussed below. Additionally, the plaintiffs had claimed that these were a violation of an Administrative Consent Order entered into in 1998 between the EPA and Cinergy relating to alleged violations of Ohio's State Implementation Plan provisions governing particulate matter at Duke Energy Ohio's W.C. Beckjord Station. On May 29, 2009, the court issued its remedy ruling for violations previously established at the Wabash River and W.C. Beckjord Stations and ordered the following relief: (i) Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 to be permanently retired by September 30, 2009; (ii) surrender of SO₂ allowances equal to the emissions from Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 from May 22, 2008 through September 30, 2009; (iii) civil penalty in the amount of $687,500 for W.C. Beckjord violations; and (iv) installation of a particulate continuous emissions monitoring system at W.C. Beckjord Units 1 and 2. The civil penalty has been paid. On October 12, 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing the trial court and ordered issuance of judgment in favor of Cinergy (USA v. Cinergy), which includes Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The plaintiff's motion for rehearing was denied on December 29, 2010. On January 6, 2011, the mandate from the Seventh Circuit was issued returning the case to the District Court and on April 15, 2011, the District Court issued its Final Amended Judgment in favor of Cinergy. Plaintiffs did not file a petition for certiorari with the United State Supreme Court prior to the March 29, 2011 filing deadline. This ruling allowed Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 to be placed back into service.

Regarding the Gallagher Station units, on October 21, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new liability trial claiming that defendants misled the plaintiffs and the jury by, among other things, not disclosing a consulting agreement with a fact witness and by referring to that witness as "retired" during the liability trial when in fact he was working for Duke Energy Indiana under the referenced consulting agreement in connection with the trial. On December 18, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new liability trial on claims for which Duke Energy Indiana was not previously found liable. On May 19, 2009, the jury announced its verdict finding in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on four of the remaining six projects at issue. The two projects in which the jury found violations were undertaken at Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3. The parties to the remedy trial reached a negotiated agreement on those issues and filed a proposed consent decree with the court, which was approved and entered on March 18, 2010. The substantive terms of the proposed consent decree require: (i) conversion of Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3 to natural gas combustion by 2013 (or retirement of the units by February 2012); (ii) installation of additional pollution controls at Gallagher Station Units 2 and 4 by 2011; and (iii) additional environmental projects, payments and penalties. Duke Energy Indiana estimates that these and other actions in the settlement will cost $88 million. Due to the NSR remedy order and consent decree, Duke Energy Indiana requested several approvals from the IURC including approval to add a dry sorbent injection system on Gallagher Station Units 2 and 4, approval to convert to natural gas or retire Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3, and approval to recover expenses for certain SO₂ emission allowance expenses required to be surrendered. On September 8, 2010, the IURC approved the implementation of the dry sorbent injection system. On September 28, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition requesting the recovery of costs associated with the Gallagher consent decree. Testimony in support of the petition was filed in early December 2010. Duke Energy Indiana subsequently requested the IURC suspend the procedural schedule to allow it time to do a solicitation for capacity options to compare to the proposed conversion of Gallagher Units 1 and 3 to natural gas.

On May 26, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony seeking approval of the purchase of a portion of the Vermillion Generating Station from its affiliate, Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio. Refer to Note 3 for further information on the Vermillion transaction. As a result of the proposed purchase, Duke Energy Indiana may retire Gallagher Units 1 and 3. The approval of the Vermillion transaction by the FERC and IURC under terms acceptable to Duke Energy Indiana is a condition to the closing of the transaction and the option of converting Gallagher Units 1 and 3 to gas is being preserved until such approvals have been obtained. On August 12, 2011, the FERC approved the Vermillion transaction. An IURC hearing was held in September 2011 with an order expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

On April 3, 2008, the Sierra Club filed another lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Duke Energy Indiana and certain affiliated companies alleging CAA violations at Edwardsport Station. On October 20, 2009, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the applicable statute of limitations bars all of the plaintiffs' claims. On September 14, 2010, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety; however, entry of final judgment was stayed pending a decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in USA v. Cinergy, referenced above, on a similar and potentially dispositive statute of limitations issue pending before that court. On October 12, 2010, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in USA v. Cinergy in which the court ruled in favor of Cinergy and declined to address the referenced statute of limitations issue. The Seventh circuit issued its mandate on January 6, 2011 and the District Court issued final judgment in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on March 1, 2011. On March 2, 2011, the Sierra Club agreed not to pursue an appeal of the case in exchange for Duke Energy Indiana's waiver of its right to seek reimbursement of costs.

It is not possible to estimate the damages, if any, that might be incurred in connection with the unresolved matters discussed above. Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Duke Energy Registrants' consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. However, the appropriate regulatory treatment will be pursued for any costs incurred in connection with such resolution.

Duke Energy

CO₂ Litigation. In July 2004, the states of Connecticut, New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the City of New York brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Cinergy, AEP, American Electric Power Service Corporation, Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Xcel Energy Inc. A similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same companies by Open Space Institute, Inc., Open Space Conservancy, Inc., and The Audubon Society of New Hampshire. These lawsuits allege that the defendants' emissions of CO₂ from the combustion of fossil fuels at electric generating facilities contribute to global warming and amount to a public nuisance. The complaints also allege that the defendants could generate the same amount of electricity while emitting significantly less CO₂. The plaintiffs were seeking an injunction requiring each defendant to cap its CO₂ emissions and then reduce them by a specified percentage each year for at least a decade. In September 2005, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 7, 2006. In September 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the district court and reinstating the lawsuit. Defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was subsequently denied. Defendants filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on August 2, 2010. On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Argument on this matter was held on April 19, 2011. On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court held that the Second Court of Appeals decision should be reversed on the basis that plaintiffs' claims cannot proceed under federal common law, which was displaced by the CAA and actual or potential EPA regulations. The Court's decision did not address plaintiffs' state law claims as those claims had not been presented. On September 2, 2011, plaintiffs notified the Court that they had decided to withdraw their complaints. This effectively ends the proceedings in this case.

Alaskan Global Warming Lawsuit. On February 26, 2008, plaintiffs, the governing bodies of an Inupiat village in Alaska, filed suit in the U.S. Federal Court for the Northern District of California against Peabody Coal and various oil and power company defendants, including Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on behalf of the village's 400 residents. The lawsuit alleges that defendants' emissions of CO₂ contributed to global warming and constitute a private and public nuisance. Plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants, including Duke Energy, conspired to mislead the public with respect to global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, attorney's fees and expenses. On June 30, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, together with a motion to dismiss the conspiracy claims. On October 15, 2009, the District Court granted defendants motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and briefing is complete. By Order dated February 23, 2011, the Court stayed oral argument in this case pending the Supreme Court's ruling in the CO₂ litigation discussed above. Following the Supreme Court's June 20, 2011 decision the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set the case for argument on November 28, 2011. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with this matter.

Price Reporting Cases. A total of five lawsuits were filed against Duke Energy affiliates and other energy companies and remain pending in a consolidated, single federal court proceeding in Nevada.

In November 2009, the judge granted defendants' motion for reconsideration of the denial of defendants' summary judgment motion in two of the remaining five cases to which Duke Energy affiliates are a party. A hearing on that motion occurred on July 15, 2011, and on July 19, 2011, the judge granted the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In December 2009, plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed a motion to amend their complaints in the individual cases to add a claim for treble damages under the Sherman Act, including additional factual allegations regarding fraudulent concealment of defendants' allegedly conspiratorial conduct. Those motions were denied on October 29, 2010.

Each of these cases contains similar claims, that the respective plaintiffs, and the classes they claim to represent, were harmed by the defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with the remaining matters.

Duke Energy International Paranapanema Lawsuit. On July 16, 2008, Duke Energy International Geracao Paranapanema S.A. (DEIGP) filed a lawsuit in the Brazilian federal court challenging transmission fee assessments imposed under two new resolutions promulgated by the Brazilian electricity regulatory agency (ANEEL) (collectively, the Resolutions). The Resolutions purport to impose additional transmission fees (retroactive to July 1, 2004 and effective through June 30, 2009) on generation companies located in the State of São Paulo for utilization of the electric transmission system. The new charges are based upon a flat-fee that fails to take into account the locational usage by each generator. DEIGP's additional assessment under these Resolutions amounts to approximately $69 million, inclusive of interest, through September 2011. Based on DEIGP's continuing refusal to tender payment of the disputed sums, on April 1, 2009, ANEEL imposed an additional fine against DEIGP in the amount of $9 million. DEIGP filed a request to enjoin payment of the fine and for an expedited decision on the merits or, alternatively, an order requiring that all disputed sums be deposited in the court's registry in lieu of direct payment to the distribution companies.

On June 30, 2009, the court issued a ruling in which it granted DEIGP's request for injunction regarding the additional fine, but denied DEIGP's request for an expedited decision on the original assessment or payment into the court registry. Under the court's order, DEIGP was required to make installment payments on the original assessment directly to the distribution companies pending resolution on the merits. DEIGP filed an appeal and on August 28, 2009, the order was modified to allow DEIGP to deposit the disputed portion of each installment, which was most of the assessed amount, into an escrow account pending resolution on the merits. In the second quarter of 2009, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $33 million associated with this matter.

Brazil Expansion Lawsuit. On August 9, 2011, the State of São Paulo filed a lawsuit in Brazilian state court against DEIGP based upon a claim that DEIGP is under a continuing obligation to expand installed generation capacity by 15% pursuant to a stock purchase agreement under which DEIGP purchased generation assets from the state. On August 10, 2011, a judge granted an ex parte injunction ordering DEIGP to present, within 60 days of service, a detailed expansion plan in satisfaction of the 15% obligation or face civil penalties in the amount of approximately $16,000 per day. Both DEIGP and ANEEL have previously taken a position that the 15% expansion obligation is no longer viable given the changes that have occurred in the electric energy sector since privatization of that sector. ANEEL has also stated that it is not within its jurisdiction to apply sanctions for failure to comply with the alleged expansion obligation. In September, 2011, DEIGP filed (i) a request for reconsideration of the injunction order with the original court; (ii) a request for stay of the order with the appellate court; (iii) an appeal of the order; and (iv) a substantive defense of the lawsuit in the original court. On September 29, 2011, DEIGP's request for stay of the injunction was denied. The remaining requests for relief are pending. DEIGP's plans to submit an expansion plan by the court ordered deadline of November 11, 2011.

Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in South Carolina against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). These allegations arise out of the conversion of the Duke Energy Company Employees' Retirement Plan into the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. The case also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging errors in the application of Plan provisions (i.e., the calculation of interest rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the calculation of lump-sum distributions). Six causes of action were alleged, ranging from age discrimination, to various alleged ERISA violations, to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs sought a broad array of remedies, including a retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and a recalculation of participants'/ beneficiaries' benefits under the revised and reformed plan. Duke Energy filed its answer in March 2006. A portion of this contingent liability was assigned to Spectra Energy Corp (Spectra Energy) in connection with the spin-off in January 2007. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add an additional age discrimination claim, defendant's motion to dismiss and the respective motions for summary judgment was held in December 2007. On June 2, 2008, the court issued its ruling denying plaintiffs' motion to add the additional claim and dismissing a number of plaintiffs' claims, including the claims for ERISA age discrimination. Subsequently, plaintiffs notified Duke Energy that they were withdrawing their ADEA claim. On September 4, 2009, the court issued its order certifying classes for three of the remaining claims but not certifying their claims as to plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims. At an unsuccessful mediation in September 2008, Plaintiffs quantified their claims as being in excess of $150 million. After mediation on September 21, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit, subject to execution of a definitive settlement agreement, notice to the class members and approval of the settlement by the Court. In the third quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a provision related to the settlement agreement. At a hearing on May 16, 2011, the court issued its final confirmation order and payments have been made in accordance with the settlement agreement.

Crescent Litigation. On September 3, 2010, the Crescent Resources Litigation Trust filed suit against Duke Energy along with various affiliates and several individuals, including current and former employees of Duke Energy, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. The Crescent Resources Litigation Trust was established in May, 2010 pursuant to the plan of reorganization approved in the Crescent bankruptcy proceedings in the same court. The complaint alleges that in 2006 the defendants caused Crescent to borrow approximately $1.2 billion from a consortium of banks and immediately thereafter distribute most of the loan proceeds to Crescent's parent company without benefit to Crescent. The complaint further alleges that Crescent was rendered insolvent by the transactions, and that the distribution is subject to recovery by the Crescent bankruptcy estate as an alleged fraudulent transfer. The plaintiff requests return of the funds as well as other statutory and equitable relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Duke Energy and its affiliated defendants believe that the referenced 2006 transactions were legitimate and did not violate any state or federal law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in December 2010. On March 21, 2011, the plaintiff filed a response to the defendant's motion to dismiss and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which was granted. The Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss in response to plaintiffs' amended complaint.

A hearing on the motion was held on August 31, 2011. No trial date has been set. It is not possible to predict at this time whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with this lawsuit.

On October 14, 2010, a suit was filed in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina by a group of Duke Energy shareholders alleging breach of duty of loyalty and good faith by certain Duke Energy directors who were directors at the time of the 2006 Crescent transaction. On January 5, 2011, defendants filed a Notice of Designation of this case for the North Carolina Business Court. On July 22, 2011, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit and the plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling.

Progress Energy Merger Litigation. Duke Energy and Diamond Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy have been named as defendants in 10 purported shareholder actions filed in North Carolina state court and two cases filed in federal court in North Carolina. The actions, which contain similar allegations, were brought by individual shareholders against the following defendants: Progress Energy, Duke Energy, Diamond Acquisition Corporation and Directors of Progress Energy. The lawsuits allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Progress Energy shareholders and that Duke Energy and Diamond Acquisition Corporation, aided and abetted the individual defendants. The plaintiffs seek damages and to enjoin the merger. One of the state court cases was voluntarily dismissed. On July 11, 2011, the parties to the remaining nine state court cases entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for a disclosure-based settlement of the litigation. On August 2, 2011, preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the Court. An order approving the proposed settlement is expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

The plaintiff in one of the federal court lawsuits filed a motion for voluntary withdrawal, leaving one federal case pending. The complaint in the federal action includes allegations that defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with the statements contained in Duke Energy's Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, and is now subject to the notice requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiff's counsel in the federal case have sent a total of four derivative demand letters to Progress Energy demanding that Progress Energy's board of directors make certain disclosures, desist from moving forward with the merger and engage in an auction of the company. Progress Energy has indicated that it is evaluating those demands. On August 3, 2011, the Court issued a scheduling order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On October 27, 2011, a hearing regarding the final approval of the proposed settlement was held.

Federal Advanced Clean Coal Tax Credits. Duke Energy has been awarded $125 million of federal advanced clean coal tax credits associated with its construction of Cliffside Unit 6 and $134 million of federal advanced clean coal tax credits associated with its construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant. In March, 2008, two environmental groups, Appalachian Voices and the Canary Coalition, filed suit against the Federal government challenging the tax credits awarded to incentivize certain clean coal projects. Although Duke Energy was not a party to the case, the allegations center on the tax incentives provided for the Cliffside and Edwardsport projects. The initial complaint alleged a failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The first amended complaint, filed in August 2008, added an Endangered Species Act claim and also sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOE and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In 2008, the District Court dismissed the case. On September 23, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and denying, as moot, the motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs have filed their second amended complaint. The Federal government has moved to dismiss the second amended complaint; the motion is pending. On July 26, 2010, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction seeking to halt the issuance of the tax credits.

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Unit 6 Permit. On July 16, 2008, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Environmental Defense Fund, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defenses Council, and Sierra Club (collectively referred to as Citizen Groups) filed suit in U.S District Court for the Western District of North Carolina alleging that Duke Energy Carolinas violated the CAA when it commenced construction of Cliffside Unit 6 without obtaining a determination that the MACT emission limits will be met for all prospective hazardous air emissions at that plant. The Citizen Groups claim the right to injunctive relief against further construction at the plant as well as civil penalties in the amount of up to $32,500 per day for each alleged violation. In July 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas voluntarily performed a MACT assessment of air emission controls planned for Cliffside Unit 6 and submitted the results to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). On December 2, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and entered judgment ordering Duke Energy Carolinas to initiate a MACT process before the DAQ. The court did not order an injunction against further construction, but retained jurisdiction to monitor the MACT proceedings. On December 4, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas submitted its MACT filing and supporting information to the DAQ specifically seeking DAQ's concurrence as a threshold matter that construction of Cliffside Unit 6 is not a major source subject to section 112 of the CAA and submitting a MACT determination application. Concurrent with the initiation of the MACT process, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the Court's December 2, 2008 order to reverse the Court's determination that Duke Energy Carolinas violated the CAA. The DAQ issued the revised permit on March 13, 2009, finding that Cliffside Unit 6 is a minor source of HAPs and imposing operating conditions to assure that emissions stay below the major source threshold. Based upon DAQ's minor-source determination, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion requesting that the court abstain from further action on the matter and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The court granted Duke Energy Carolinas motion to abstain and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice, but also ordered Duke Energy Carolinas to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. On August 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order and Duke Energy Carolinas likewise appealed on the grounds, among others, that the dismissal should have been with prejudice and the court should not have ordered payment of attorneys' fees. The appeals have been consolidated. On April 14, 2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling awarding fees to defendants. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a request for rehearing, which was denied, on May 10, 2011.

Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims. Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September 30, 2011, there were 271 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $57 million, and 53 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $14 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke Energy Carolinas in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled $815 million and $853 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, and are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount in Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2030. Management believes that it is possible there will be additional claims filed against Duke Energy Carolinas after 2030. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe that they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2030 related to such potential claims. Asbestos-related loss estimates incorporate anticipated inflation, if applicable, and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. These reserves are based upon current estimates and are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. A significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims filed, the nature of the alleged injury, and the average cost of resolving each such claim could change our estimated liability, as could any substantial adverse or favorable verdict at trial. A federal legislative solution, further state tort reform or structured settlement transactions could also change the estimated liability. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting matters into the future and numerous other factors outside our control, management believes that it is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self insurance retention on its insurance policy during the second quarter of 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by Duke Energy Carolinas' third party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $968 million in excess of the self insured retention. Insurance recoveries of $813 million and $850 million related to this policy are classified in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Management believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Ohio

Antitrust Lawsuit. In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that Duke Energy Ohio (then The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company), conspired to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into non-public option agreements with such consumers in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's pending RSP, which was implemented in early 2005. On March 31, 2009, the District Court granted Duke Energy Ohio's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or set aside the judgment, which was denied by an order dated March 31, 2010. In April 2010, the plaintiffs filed their appeal of that order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The matter is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting the scheduling of oral argument. It is not possible to predict at this time whether Duke Energy Ohio will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy Ohio might incur in connection with this lawsuit.

Duke Energy Indiana

Prosperity Mine, LLC. On October 12, 2009, Prosperity Mine, LLC (Prosperity) filed for arbitration under an Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Coal dated October 30, 2008. The Agreement provided for sale by Prosperity and purchase by Duke Energy Indiana of 500,000 tons of coal per year, commencing on January 1, 2009 and continuing until December 31, 2014, unless sooner terminated under the terms of the Agreement. Duke Energy Indiana could terminate the Agreement if a force majeure event lasted more than three months. Prosperity declared a force majeure event on February 13, 2010 and, when Prosperity did not notify Duke Energy Indiana that the force majeure had ended; Duke Energy Indiana sent written notice of termination on May 14, 2010. Prosperity contends that the termination was improper and that it is owed damages, quantified at $88 million, for the full contractual volumes through 2014. On November 17, 2010, the arbitrators issued their decision, ruling in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on all counts. On January 7, 2011, Prosperity filed a lawsuit in Indiana state court alleging that the arbitrators exceeded their power and acted without authority and asking that the arbitrators' award be vacated. The parties reached a commercial arrangement pursuant to which Prosperity agreed to dismiss the lawsuit.

Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims. Duke Energy Indiana has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in lawsuits related to asbestos at its electric generating stations. The impact on Duke Energy Indiana's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of these cases to date has not been material. Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerning uncertainties, such as, among others: (i) the number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos during construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Indiana generating plants; (ii) the possible incidence of various illnesses among exposed workers, and (iii) the potential settlement costs without federal or other legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions, Duke Energy Indiana estimates that the range of reasonably possible exposure in existing and future suits over the foreseeable future is not material. This estimated range of exposure may change as additional settlements occur and claims are made and more case law is established.

Other Litigation and Legal Proceedings

The Duke Energy Registrants are involved in other legal, tax and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts. Management believes that the final disposition of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

The Duke Energy Registrants have exposure to certain legal matters that are described herein. Duke Energy has recorded reserves, including reserves related to the aforementioned asbestos-related injuries and damages claims, of $830 million and $900 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, for these proceedings and exposures (the total of which is primarily related to Duke Energy Carolinas). These reserves represent management's best estimate of probable loss as defined in the accounting guidance for contingencies. Duke Energy has insurance coverage for certain of these losses incurred. As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Duke Energy recognized $813 million and $850 million, respectively, of probable insurance recoveries related to these losses (the total of which is related to Duke Energy Carolinas).

The Duke Energy Registrants expense legal costs related to the defense of loss contingencies as incurred.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

General. As part of its normal business, the Duke Energy Registrants are a party to various financial guarantees, performance guarantees and other contractual commitments to extend guarantees of credit and other assistance to various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties. To varying degrees, these guarantees involve elements of performance and credit risk, which are not included on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The possibility of any of the Duke Energy Registrants having to honor their contingencies is largely dependent upon future operations of various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties, or the occurrence of certain future events.

In addition, the Duke Energy Registrants enter into various fixed-price, non-cancelable commitments to purchase or sell power (tolling arrangements or power purchase contracts), take-or-pay arrangements, transportation or throughput agreements and other contracts that may or may not be recognized on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Some of these arrangements may be recognized at fair value on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets if such contracts meet the definition of a derivative and the NPNS exception does not apply.

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Commitments And Contingencies

5. Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental

Duke Energy is subject to international, federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental matters. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal 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 of the Duke Energy Registrants.

Remediation Activities. The Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various contaminated sites. These include some properties that are part of ongoing operations and sites formerly owned or used by Duke Energy entities, such as historic manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. Most of these sites were decommissioned in the 1960s. While a majority of the MGP by-products were sold off-site during the time period when the plants operated, some residuals remained on-site during plant decommissioning. Remediation activities typically focus on the containment, removal and/or the management of these by-products. In some cases, Duke Energy no longer owns the property. Managed in conjunction with relevant federal, state and local agencies, activities vary with site conditions and locations, remediation requirements, complexity and sharing of responsibility. If remediation activities involve statutory joint and several liability provisions, strict liability, or cost recovery or contribution actions, the Duke Energy Registrants could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other parties. In some instances, the Duke Energy Registrants may share liability associated with contamination with other potentially responsible parties, and may also benefit from insurance policies or contractual indemnities that cover some or all cleanup costs. Reserves associated with remediation activities at certain sites have been recorded and it is anticipated that additional costs associated with remediation activities at certain sites will be incurred in the future. All of these sites generally are managed in the normal course of business or affiliate operations.

The Duke Energy Registrants have accrued costs associated with remediation activities at some of its current and former sites, as well as other relevant environmental contingent liabilities. Management, in the normal course of business, continually assesses the nature and extent of known or potential environmental-related contingencies and records liabilities when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. Costs associated with remediation activities within the Duke Energy Registrants' operations are typically expensed unless regulatory recovery of the costs is deemed probable.

As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio had a total reserve of $36 million, related to remediation work at certain MGP sites. Duke Energy Ohio has received an order from the PUCO to defer the costs incurred. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio has deferred $64 million of costs related to the MGP sites. The PUCO will rule on the recovery of these costs at a future proceeding. Management believes it is probable that additional liabilities will be incurred as work progresses at Ohio MGP sites; however, costs associated with future remediation cannot currently be reasonably estimated.

Clean Water Act 316(b). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposed cooling water intake structures rule on April 20, 2011. Duke Energy submitted comments on the proposed rule on August 16, 2011. The proposed rule advances one main approach and three alternatives. The main approach establishes aquatic protection requirements for existing facilities and new on-site facility additions that withdraw 2 million gallons or more of water per day from rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, oceans, or other U.S. waters for cooling purposes. Based on the main approach proposed, most, if not all of the 23 coal and nuclear-fueled generating facilities in which the Duke Energy Registrants are either a whole or partial owner are likely affected sources. Additional sources, including some combined-cycle combustion turbine facilities, may also be impacted, at least for intake modifications.

The EPA has plans to finalize the 316(b) rule in July 2012. Compliance with portions of the rule could begin as early as 2015. Because of the wide range of potential outcomes, including the other three alternative proposals, the Duke Energy Registrants are unable to estimate its costs to comply at this time.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). On August 8, 2011, the EPA published its final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in the Federal Register. The CSAPR establishes state-level annual SO₂ and NO_x budgets that take effect on January 1, 2012, and state-level ozone-season NO_x budgets that take effect on May 1, 2012, and allocates emission allowances to affected sources in each state equal to the state budget less an allowance set-aside for new sources. The budget levels decline in 2014 for most states, including each state that the Duke Energy Registrants operate in, except for South Carolina where the budget levels remain constant. The rule allows intrastate and interstate allowance trading.

The stringency of the 2012 and 2014 CSAPR requirements vary among the Duke Energy Registrants and each is currently evaluating options for achieving the CSAPR requirements. Where the CSAPR requirements will be constraining, activities being evaluated to meet the requirements include purchasing emission allowances, power purchases, curtailing generation and utilizing low sulfur fuel to reduce levels of SO₂ or NO_x emissions. Technical adjustments to CSAPR proposed by the EPA in October 2011, if finalized, are not expected to materially impact the Duke Energy Registrants. See Note 7 for further information regarding impairment of emissions allowances as a result of the CSAPR.

Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Management. Duke Energy currently estimates that it will spend $369 million ($131 million at Duke Energy Carolinas, $70 million at Duke Energy Ohio and $168 million at Duke Energy Indiana) over the period 2011-2015 to install synthetic caps and liners at existing and new CCP landfills and to convert some of its CCP handling systems from wet to dry systems to comply with current regulations. The EPA and a number of states are considering additional regulatory measures that will contain specific and more detailed requirements for the management and disposal of CCPs, primarily ash, from the Duke Energy Registrants' coal-fired power plants.

On June 21, 2010, the EPA issued a proposal to regulate, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, coal combustion residuals (CCR), a term the EPA uses to describe the CCPs associated with the generation of electricity. The EPA proposal contains two regulatory options whereby CCRs not employed in approved beneficial use applications would either be regulated as hazardous waste or would continue to be regulated as non-hazardous waste. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking. However, based on the proposal, the cost of complying with the final regulation will be significant. The EPA is not expected to issue a final rule until 2012 or later.

Utility Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards. On May 3, 2011, the proposed Utility MACT Standards rule was published in the Federal Register. The rule proposes to establish emission limits for hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired electric generating units, including mercury. On October 24, 2011, the Court modified its earlier consent decree, giving the EPA until December 16, 2011, to finalize the MACT rule. Based on this date, compliance with the final emission limits will be required in early 2015, three years after the rule takes effect. The proposed rule gives permitting authorities the discretion to grant up to a 1-year compliance extension, on a case-by-case basis, to sources that are unable to install emission controls before the three year compliance deadline. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking. However, based on the proposal, the cost of complying with the final regulation will be significant.

Litigation

Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana

New Source Review (NSR). In 1999-2000, the DOJ, acting on behalf of the EPA and joined by various citizen groups and states, filed a number of complaints and notices of violation against multiple utilities across the country for alleged violations of the NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Generally, the government alleges that projects performed at various coal-fired units were major modifications, as defined in the CAA, and that the utilities violated the CAA when they undertook those projects without obtaining permits and installing the best available emission controls for SO₂, NO_x and particulate matter. The complaints seek injunctive relief to require installation of pollution control technology on various generating units that allegedly violated the CAA, and unspecified civil penalties in amounts of up to $32,500 per day for each violation. A number of the Duke Energy Registrants' plants have been subject to these allegations. The Duke Energy Registrants assert that there were no CAA violations because the applicable regulations do not require permitting in cases where the projects undertaken are "routine" or otherwise do not result in a net increase in emissions.

In 2000, the government brought a lawsuit against Duke Energy Carolinas in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina. The EPA claims that 29 projects performed at 25 of Duke Energy Carolinas' coal-fired units violate these NSR provisions. Three environmental groups have intervened in the case. In August 2003, the trial court issued a summary judgment opinion adopting Duke Energy Carolinas' legal positions on the standard to be used for measuring an increase in emissions, and granted judgment in favor of Duke Energy Carolinas. The trial court's decision was appealed and ultimately reversed and remanded for trial by the U.S. Supreme Court. At trial, Duke Energy Carolinas will continue to assert that the projects were routine or not projected to increase emissions. On July 29, 2010, the district court issued an order on outstanding motions for summary judgment filed in response to the Supreme Court remand. The court vacated large portions of the previous trial court's opinion in light of the Supreme Court ruling and found that Duke Energy Carolinas has the burden of proof for the Routine Maintenance Repair and Replacement exclusion, but that the exception must be viewed in light of industry practice, not only in light of an individual unit. The court also clarified that it will apply the "actual-to-projected-actual" emissions test to determine whether Duke Energy Carolinas should reasonably have sought a pre-project permit for any of the projects at issue. On February 11, 2011, the trial judge held an initial status conference and on March 22, 2011, the judge entered an interim scheduling order. The parties have filed a stipulation in which the United States and Plaintiff-Intervenors have dismissed with prejudice 16 claims. In exchange, Duke Energy Carolinas dismissed certain affirmative defenses. The parties have filed motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. No trial date has been set, but a trial is not expected in 2011.

In November 1999, the U.S. brought a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Cinergy, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana alleging various violations of the CAA for various projects at six owned and co-owned generating stations in the Midwest. Three northeast states and two environmental groups intervened in the case. A jury verdict was returned on May 22, 2008. The jury found in favor of Cinergy, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana on all but three units at Duke Energy Indiana's Wabash River Station, including Duke Energy Indiana's Gallagher Station units discussed below. Additionally, the plaintiffs had claimed that these were a violation of an Administrative Consent Order entered into in 1998 between the EPA and Cinergy relating to alleged violations of Ohio's State Implementation Plan provisions governing particulate matter at Duke Energy Ohio's W.C. Beckjord Station. On May 29, 2009, the court issued its remedy ruling for violations previously established at the Wabash River and W.C. Beckjord Stations and ordered the following relief: (i) Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 to be permanently retired by September 30, 2009; (ii) surrender of SO₂ allowances equal to the emissions from Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 from May 22, 2008 through September 30, 2009; (iii) civil penalty in the amount of $687,500 for W.C. Beckjord violations; and (iv) installation of a particulate continuous emissions monitoring system at W.C. Beckjord Units 1 and 2. The civil penalty has been paid. On October 12, 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing the trial court and ordered issuance of judgment in favor of Cinergy (USA v. Cinergy), which includes Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The plaintiff's motion for rehearing was denied on December 29, 2010. On January 6, 2011, the mandate from the Seventh Circuit was issued returning the case to the District Court and on April 15, 2011, the District Court issued its Final Amended Judgment in favor of Cinergy. Plaintiffs did not file a petition for certiorari with the United State Supreme Court prior to the March 29, 2011 filing deadline. This ruling allowed Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 to be placed back into service.

Regarding the Gallagher Station units, on October 21, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new liability trial claiming that defendants misled the plaintiffs and the jury by, among other things, not disclosing a consulting agreement with a fact witness and by referring to that witness as "retired" during the liability trial when in fact he was working for Duke Energy Indiana under the referenced consulting agreement in connection with the trial. On December 18, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new liability trial on claims for which Duke Energy Indiana was not previously found liable. On May 19, 2009, the jury announced its verdict finding in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on four of the remaining six projects at issue. The two projects in which the jury found violations were undertaken at Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3. The parties to the remedy trial reached a negotiated agreement on those issues and filed a proposed consent decree with the court, which was approved and entered on March 18, 2010. The substantive terms of the proposed consent decree require: (i) conversion of Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3 to natural gas combustion by 2013 (or retirement of the units by February 2012); (ii) installation of additional pollution controls at Gallagher Station Units 2 and 4 by 2011; and (iii) additional environmental projects, payments and penalties. Duke Energy Indiana estimates that these and other actions in the settlement will cost $88 million. Due to the NSR remedy order and consent decree, Duke Energy Indiana requested several approvals from the IURC including approval to add a dry sorbent injection system on Gallagher Station Units 2 and 4, approval to convert to natural gas or retire Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3, and approval to recover expenses for certain SO₂ emission allowance expenses required to be surrendered. On September 8, 2010, the IURC approved the implementation of the dry sorbent injection system. On September 28, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition requesting the recovery of costs associated with the Gallagher consent decree. Testimony in support of the petition was filed in early December 2010. Duke Energy Indiana subsequently requested the IURC suspend the procedural schedule to allow it time to do a solicitation for capacity options to compare to the proposed conversion of Gallagher Units 1 and 3 to natural gas.

On May 26, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony seeking approval of the purchase of a portion of the Vermillion Generating Station from its affiliate, Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio. Refer to Note 3 for further information on the Vermillion transaction. As a result of the proposed purchase, Duke Energy Indiana may retire Gallagher Units 1 and 3. The approval of the Vermillion transaction by the FERC and IURC under terms acceptable to Duke Energy Indiana is a condition to the closing of the transaction and the option of converting Gallagher Units 1 and 3 to gas is being preserved until such approvals have been obtained. On August 12, 2011, the FERC approved the Vermillion transaction. An IURC hearing was held in September 2011 with an order expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

On April 3, 2008, the Sierra Club filed another lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Duke Energy Indiana and certain affiliated companies alleging CAA violations at Edwardsport Station. On October 20, 2009, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the applicable statute of limitations bars all of the plaintiffs' claims. On September 14, 2010, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety; however, entry of final judgment was stayed pending a decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in USA v. Cinergy, referenced above, on a similar and potentially dispositive statute of limitations issue pending before that court. On October 12, 2010, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in USA v. Cinergy in which the court ruled in favor of Cinergy and declined to address the referenced statute of limitations issue. The Seventh circuit issued its mandate on January 6, 2011 and the District Court issued final judgment in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on March 1, 2011. On March 2, 2011, the Sierra Club agreed not to pursue an appeal of the case in exchange for Duke Energy Indiana's waiver of its right to seek reimbursement of costs.

It is not possible to estimate the damages, if any, that might be incurred in connection with the unresolved matters discussed above. Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Duke Energy Registrants' consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. However, the appropriate regulatory treatment will be pursued for any costs incurred in connection with such resolution.

Duke Energy

CO₂ Litigation. In July 2004, the states of Connecticut, New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the City of New York brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Cinergy, AEP, American Electric Power Service Corporation, Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Xcel Energy Inc. A similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same companies by Open Space Institute, Inc., Open Space Conservancy, Inc., and The Audubon Society of New Hampshire. These lawsuits allege that the defendants' emissions of CO₂ from the combustion of fossil fuels at electric generating facilities contribute to global warming and amount to a public nuisance. The complaints also allege that the defendants could generate the same amount of electricity while emitting significantly less CO₂. The plaintiffs were seeking an injunction requiring each defendant to cap its CO₂ emissions and then reduce them by a specified percentage each year for at least a decade. In September 2005, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 7, 2006. In September 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the district court and reinstating the lawsuit. Defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was subsequently denied. Defendants filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on August 2, 2010. On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Argument on this matter was held on April 19, 2011. On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court held that the Second Court of Appeals decision should be reversed on the basis that plaintiffs' claims cannot proceed under federal common law, which was displaced by the CAA and actual or potential EPA regulations. The Court's decision did not address plaintiffs' state law claims as those claims had not been presented. On September 2, 2011, plaintiffs notified the Court that they had decided to withdraw their complaints. This effectively ends the proceedings in this case.

Alaskan Global Warming Lawsuit. On February 26, 2008, plaintiffs, the governing bodies of an Inupiat village in Alaska, filed suit in the U.S. Federal Court for the Northern District of California against Peabody Coal and various oil and power company defendants, including Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on behalf of the village's 400 residents. The lawsuit alleges that defendants' emissions of CO₂ contributed to global warming and constitute a private and public nuisance. Plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants, including Duke Energy, conspired to mislead the public with respect to global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, attorney's fees and expenses. On June 30, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, together with a motion to dismiss the conspiracy claims. On October 15, 2009, the District Court granted defendants motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and briefing is complete. By Order dated February 23, 2011, the Court stayed oral argument in this case pending the Supreme Court's ruling in the CO₂ litigation discussed above. Following the Supreme Court's June 20, 2011 decision the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set the case for argument on November 28, 2011. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with this matter.

Price Reporting Cases. A total of five lawsuits were filed against Duke Energy affiliates and other energy companies and remain pending in a consolidated, single federal court proceeding in Nevada.

In November 2009, the judge granted defendants' motion for reconsideration of the denial of defendants' summary judgment motion in two of the remaining five cases to which Duke Energy affiliates are a party. A hearing on that motion occurred on July 15, 2011, and on July 19, 2011, the judge granted the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In December 2009, plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed a motion to amend their complaints in the individual cases to add a claim for treble damages under the Sherman Act, including additional factual allegations regarding fraudulent concealment of defendants' allegedly conspiratorial conduct. Those motions were denied on October 29, 2010.

Each of these cases contains similar claims, that the respective plaintiffs, and the classes they claim to represent, were harmed by the defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with the remaining matters.

Duke Energy International Paranapanema Lawsuit. On July 16, 2008, Duke Energy International Geracao Paranapanema S.A. (DEIGP) filed a lawsuit in the Brazilian federal court challenging transmission fee assessments imposed under two new resolutions promulgated by the Brazilian electricity regulatory agency (ANEEL) (collectively, the Resolutions). The Resolutions purport to impose additional transmission fees (retroactive to July 1, 2004 and effective through June 30, 2009) on generation companies located in the State of São Paulo for utilization of the electric transmission system. The new charges are based upon a flat-fee that fails to take into account the locational usage by each generator. DEIGP's additional assessment under these Resolutions amounts to approximately $69 million, inclusive of interest, through September 2011. Based on DEIGP's continuing refusal to tender payment of the disputed sums, on April 1, 2009, ANEEL imposed an additional fine against DEIGP in the amount of $9 million. DEIGP filed a request to enjoin payment of the fine and for an expedited decision on the merits or, alternatively, an order requiring that all disputed sums be deposited in the court's registry in lieu of direct payment to the distribution companies.

On June 30, 2009, the court issued a ruling in which it granted DEIGP's request for injunction regarding the additional fine, but denied DEIGP's request for an expedited decision on the original assessment or payment into the court registry. Under the court's order, DEIGP was required to make installment payments on the original assessment directly to the distribution companies pending resolution on the merits. DEIGP filed an appeal and on August 28, 2009, the order was modified to allow DEIGP to deposit the disputed portion of each installment, which was most of the assessed amount, into an escrow account pending resolution on the merits. In the second quarter of 2009, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $33 million associated with this matter.

Brazil Expansion Lawsuit. On August 9, 2011, the State of São Paulo filed a lawsuit in Brazilian state court against DEIGP based upon a claim that DEIGP is under a continuing obligation to expand installed generation capacity by 15% pursuant to a stock purchase agreement under which DEIGP purchased generation assets from the state. On August 10, 2011, a judge granted an ex parte injunction ordering DEIGP to present, within 60 days of service, a detailed expansion plan in satisfaction of the 15% obligation or face civil penalties in the amount of approximately $16,000 per day. Both DEIGP and ANEEL have previously taken a position that the 15% expansion obligation is no longer viable given the changes that have occurred in the electric energy sector since privatization of that sector. ANEEL has also stated that it is not within its jurisdiction to apply sanctions for failure to comply with the alleged expansion obligation. In September, 2011, DEIGP filed (i) a request for reconsideration of the injunction order with the original court; (ii) a request for stay of the order with the appellate court; (iii) an appeal of the order; and (iv) a substantive defense of the lawsuit in the original court. On September 29, 2011, DEIGP's request for stay of the injunction was denied. The remaining requests for relief are pending. DEIGP plans to submit an expansion plan by the court ordered deadline of November 11, 2011.

Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in South Carolina against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). These allegations arise out of the conversion of the Duke Energy Company Employees' Retirement Plan into the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. The case also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging errors in the application of Plan provisions (i.e., the calculation of interest rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the calculation of lump-sum distributions). Six causes of action were alleged, ranging from age discrimination, to various alleged ERISA violations, to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs sought a broad array of remedies, including a retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and a recalculation of participants'/ beneficiaries' benefits under the revised and reformed plan. Duke Energy filed its answer in March 2006. A portion of this contingent liability was assigned to Spectra Energy Corp (Spectra Energy) in connection with the spin-off in January 2007. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add an additional age discrimination claim, defendant's motion to dismiss and the respective motions for summary judgment was held in December 2007. On June 2, 2008, the court issued its ruling denying plaintiffs' motion to add the additional claim and dismissing a number of plaintiffs' claims, including the claims for ERISA age discrimination. Subsequently, plaintiffs notified Duke Energy that they were withdrawing their ADEA claim. On September 4, 2009, the court issued its order certifying classes for three of the remaining claims but not certifying their claims as to plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims. At an unsuccessful mediation in September 2008, Plaintiffs quantified their claims as being in excess of $150 million. After mediation on September 21, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit, subject to execution of a definitive settlement agreement, notice to the class members and approval of the settlement by the Court. In the third quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a provision related to the settlement agreement. At a hearing on May 16, 2011, the court issued its final confirmation order and payments have been made in accordance with the settlement agreement.

Crescent Litigation. On September 3, 2010, the Crescent Resources Litigation Trust filed suit against Duke Energy along with various affiliates and several individuals, including current and former employees of Duke Energy, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. The Crescent Resources Litigation Trust was established in May, 2010 pursuant to the plan of reorganization approved in the Crescent bankruptcy proceedings in the same court. The complaint alleges that in 2006 the defendants caused Crescent to borrow approximately $1.2 billion from a consortium of banks and immediately thereafter distribute most of the loan proceeds to Crescent's parent company without benefit to Crescent. The complaint further alleges that Crescent was rendered insolvent by the transactions, and that the distribution is subject to recovery by the Crescent bankruptcy estate as an alleged fraudulent transfer. The plaintiff requests return of the funds as well as other statutory and equitable relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Duke Energy and its affiliated defendants believe that the referenced 2006 transactions were legitimate and did not violate any state or federal law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in December 2010. On March 21, 2011, the plaintiff filed a response to the defendant's motion to dismiss and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which was granted. The Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss in response to plaintiffs' amended complaint.

A hearing on the motion was held on August 31, 2011. No trial date has been set. It is not possible to predict at this time whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with this lawsuit.

On October 14, 2010, a suit was filed in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina by a group of Duke Energy shareholders alleging breach of duty of loyalty and good faith by certain Duke Energy directors who were directors at the time of the 2006 Crescent transaction. On January 5, 2011, defendants filed a Notice of Designation of this case for the North Carolina Business Court. On July 22, 2011, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit and the plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling.

Progress Energy Merger Litigation. Duke Energy and Diamond Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy have been named as defendants in 10 purported shareholder actions filed in North Carolina state court and two cases filed in federal court in North Carolina. The actions, which contain similar allegations, were brought by individual shareholders against the following defendants: Progress Energy, Duke Energy, Diamond Acquisition Corporation and Directors of Progress Energy. The lawsuits allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Progress Energy shareholders and that Duke Energy and Diamond Acquisition Corporation, aided and abetted the individual defendants. The plaintiffs seek damages and to enjoin the merger. One of the state court cases was voluntarily dismissed. On July 11, 2011, the parties to the remaining nine state court cases entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for a disclosure-based settlement of the litigation. On August 2, 2011, preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the Court. An order approving the proposed settlement is expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

The plaintiff in one of the federal court lawsuits filed a motion for voluntary withdrawal, leaving one federal case pending. The complaint in the federal action includes allegations that defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with the statements contained in Duke Energy's Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, and is now subject to the notice requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiff's counsel in the federal case have sent a total of four derivative demand letters to Progress Energy demanding that Progress Energy's board of directors make certain disclosures, desist from moving forward with the merger and engage in an auction of the company. Progress Energy has indicated that it is evaluating those demands. On August 3, 2011, the Court issued a scheduling order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On October 27, 2011, a hearing regarding the final approval of the proposed settlement was held.

Federal Advanced Clean Coal Tax Credits. Duke Energy has been awarded $125 million of federal advanced clean coal tax credits associated with its construction of Cliffside Unit 6 and $134 million of federal advanced clean coal tax credits associated with its construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant. In March, 2008, two environmental groups, Appalachian Voices and the Canary Coalition, filed suit against the Federal government challenging the tax credits awarded to incentivize certain clean coal projects. Although Duke Energy was not a party to the case, the allegations center on the tax incentives provided for the Cliffside and Edwardsport projects. The initial complaint alleged a failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The first amended complaint, filed in August 2008, added an Endangered Species Act claim and also sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOE and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In 2008, the District Court dismissed the case. On September 23, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and denying, as moot, the motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs have filed their second amended complaint. The Federal government has moved to dismiss the second amended complaint; the motion is pending. On July 26, 2010, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction seeking to halt the issuance of the tax credits.

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Unit 6 Permit. On July 16, 2008, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Environmental Defense Fund, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defenses Council, and Sierra Club (collectively referred to as Citizen Groups) filed suit in U.S District Court for the Western District of North Carolina alleging that Duke Energy Carolinas violated the CAA when it commenced construction of Cliffside Unit 6 without obtaining a determination that the MACT emission limits will be met for all prospective hazardous air emissions at that plant. The Citizen Groups claim the right to injunctive relief against further construction at the plant as well as civil penalties in the amount of up to $32,500 per day for each alleged violation. In July 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas voluntarily performed a MACT assessment of air emission controls planned for Cliffside Unit 6 and submitted the results to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). On December 2, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and entered judgment ordering Duke Energy Carolinas to initiate a MACT process before the DAQ. The court did not order an injunction against further construction, but retained jurisdiction to monitor the MACT proceedings. On December 4, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas submitted its MACT filing and supporting information to the DAQ specifically seeking DAQ's concurrence as a threshold matter that construction of Cliffside Unit 6 is not a major source subject to section 112 of the CAA and submitting a MACT determination application. Concurrent with the initiation of the MACT process, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the Court's December 2, 2008 order to reverse the Court's determination that Duke Energy Carolinas violated the CAA. The DAQ issued the revised permit on March 13, 2009, finding that Cliffside Unit 6 is a minor source of HAPs and imposing operating conditions to assure that emissions stay below the major source threshold. Based upon DAQ's minor-source determination, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion requesting that the court abstain from further action on the matter and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The court granted Duke Energy Carolinas motion to abstain and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice, but also ordered Duke Energy Carolinas to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. On August 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order and Duke Energy Carolinas likewise appealed on the grounds, among others, that the dismissal should have been with prejudice and the court should not have ordered payment of attorneys' fees. The appeals have been consolidated. On April 14, 2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling awarding fees to defendants. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a request for rehearing, which was denied, on May 10, 2011.

Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims. Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September 30, 2011, there were 271 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $57 million, and 53 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $14 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke Energy Carolinas in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled $815 million and $853 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, and are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount in Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2030. Management believes that it is possible there will be additional claims filed against Duke Energy Carolinas after 2030. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe that they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2030 related to such potential claims. Asbestos-related loss estimates incorporate anticipated inflation, if applicable, and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. These reserves are based upon current estimates and are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. A significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims filed, the nature of the alleged injury, and the average cost of resolving each such claim could change our estimated liability, as could any substantial adverse or favorable verdict at trial. A federal legislative solution, further state tort reform or structured settlement transactions could also change the estimated liability. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting matters into the future and numerous other factors outside our control, management believes that it is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self insurance retention on its insurance policy during the second quarter of 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by Duke Energy Carolinas' third party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $968 million in excess of the self insured retention. Insurance recoveries of $813 million and $850 million related to this policy are classified in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Management believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Ohio

Antitrust Lawsuit. In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that Duke Energy Ohio (then The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company), conspired to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into non-public option agreements with such consumers in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's pending RSP, which was implemented in early 2005. On March 31, 2009, the District Court granted Duke Energy Ohio's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or set aside the judgment, which was denied by an order dated March 31, 2010. In April 2010, the plaintiffs filed their appeal of that order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The matter is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting the scheduling of oral argument. It is not possible to predict at this time whether Duke Energy Ohio will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy Ohio might incur in connection with this lawsuit.

Duke Energy Indiana

Prosperity Mine, LLC. On October 12, 2009, Prosperity Mine, LLC (Prosperity) filed for arbitration under an Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Coal dated October 30, 2008. The Agreement provided for sale by Prosperity and purchase by Duke Energy Indiana of 500,000 tons of coal per year, commencing on January 1, 2009 and continuing until December 31, 2014, unless sooner terminated under the terms of the Agreement. Duke Energy Indiana could terminate the Agreement if a force majeure event lasted more than three months. Prosperity declared a force majeure event on February 13, 2010 and, when Prosperity did not notify Duke Energy Indiana that the force majeure had ended; Duke Energy Indiana sent written notice of termination on May 14, 2010. Prosperity contends that the termination was improper and that it is owed damages, quantified at $88 million, for the full contractual volumes through 2014. On November 17, 2010, the arbitrators issued their decision, ruling in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on all counts. On January 7, 2011, Prosperity filed a lawsuit in Indiana state court alleging that the arbitrators exceeded their power and acted without authority and asking that the arbitrators' award be vacated. The parties reached a commercial arrangement pursuant to which Prosperity agreed to dismiss the lawsuit.

Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims. Duke Energy Indiana has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in lawsuits related to asbestos at its electric generating stations. The impact on Duke Energy Indiana's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of these cases to date has not been material. Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerning uncertainties, such as, among others: (i) the number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos during construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Indiana generating plants; (ii) the possible incidence of various illnesses among exposed workers, and (iii) the potential settlement costs without federal or other legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions, Duke Energy Indiana estimates that the range of reasonably possible exposure in existing and future suits over the foreseeable future is not material. This estimated range of exposure may change as additional settlements occur and claims are made and more case law is established.

Other Litigation and Legal Proceedings

The Duke Energy Registrants are involved in other legal, tax and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts. Management believes that the final disposition of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

The Duke Energy Registrants have exposure to certain legal matters that are described herein. Duke Energy has recorded reserves, including reserves related to the aforementioned asbestos-related injuries and damages claims, of $830 million and $900 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, for these proceedings and exposures (the total of which is primarily related to Duke Energy Carolinas). These reserves represent management's best estimate of probable loss as defined in the accounting guidance for contingencies. Duke Energy has insurance coverage for certain of these losses incurred. As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Duke Energy recognized $813 million and $850 million, respectively, of probable insurance recoveries related to these losses (the total of which is related to Duke Energy Carolinas).

The Duke Energy Registrants expense legal costs related to the defense of loss contingencies as incurred.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

General. As part of its normal business, the Duke Energy Registrants are a party to various financial guarantees, performance guarantees and other contractual commitments to extend guarantees of credit and other assistance to various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties. To varying degrees, these guarantees involve elements of performance and credit risk, which are not included on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The possibility of any of the Duke Energy Registrants having to honor their contingencies is largely dependent upon future operations of various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties, or the occurrence of certain future events.

In addition, the Duke Energy Registrants enter into various fixed-price, non-cancelable commitments to purchase or sell power (tolling arrangements or power purchase contracts), take-or-pay arrangements, transportation or throughput agreements and other contracts that may or may not be recognized on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Some of these arrangements may be recognized at fair value on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets if such contracts meet the definition of a derivative and the NPNS exception does not apply.

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Commitments And Contingencies

5. Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental

Duke Energy is subject to international, federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental matters. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal 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 of the Duke Energy Registrants.

Remediation Activities. The Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various contaminated sites. These include some properties that are part of ongoing operations and sites formerly owned or used by Duke Energy entities, such as historic manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. Most of these sites were decommissioned in the 1960s. While a majority of the MGP by-products were sold off-site during the time period when the plants operated, some residuals remained on-site during plant decommissioning. Remediation activities typically focus on the containment, removal and/or the management of these by-products. In some cases, Duke Energy no longer owns the property. Managed in conjunction with relevant federal, state and local agencies, activities vary with site conditions and locations, remediation requirements, complexity and sharing of responsibility. If remediation activities involve statutory joint and several liability provisions, strict liability, or cost recovery or contribution actions, the Duke Energy Registrants could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other parties. In some instances, the Duke Energy Registrants may share liability associated with contamination with other potentially responsible parties, and may also benefit from insurance policies or contractual indemnities that cover some or all cleanup costs. Reserves associated with remediation activities at certain sites have been recorded and it is anticipated that additional costs associated with remediation activities at certain sites will be incurred in the future. All of these sites generally are managed in the normal course of business or affiliate operations.

The Duke Energy Registrants have accrued costs associated with remediation activities at some of its current and former sites, as well as other relevant environmental contingent liabilities. Management, in the normal course of business, continually assesses the nature and extent of known or potential environmental-related contingencies and records liabilities when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. Costs associated with remediation activities within the Duke Energy Registrants' operations are typically expensed unless regulatory recovery of the costs is deemed probable.

As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio had a total reserve of $36 million, related to remediation work at certain MGP sites. Duke Energy Ohio has received an order from the PUCO to defer the costs incurred. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio has deferred $64 million of costs related to the MGP sites. The PUCO will rule on the recovery of these costs at a future proceeding. Management believes it is probable that additional liabilities will be incurred as work progresses at Ohio MGP sites; however, costs associated with future remediation cannot currently be reasonably estimated.

Clean Water Act 316(b). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposed cooling water intake structures rule on April 20, 2011. Duke Energy submitted comments on the proposed rule on August 16, 2011. The proposed rule advances one main approach and three alternatives. The main approach establishes aquatic protection requirements for existing facilities and new on-site facility additions that withdraw 2 million gallons or more of water per day from rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, oceans, or other U.S. waters for cooling purposes. Based on the main approach proposed, most, if not all of the 23 coal and nuclear-fueled generating facilities in which the Duke Energy Registrants are either a whole or partial owner are likely affected sources. Additional sources, including some combined-cycle combustion turbine facilities, may also be impacted, at least for intake modifications.

The EPA has plans to finalize the 316(b) rule in July 2012. Compliance with portions of the rule could begin as early as 2015. Because of the wide range of potential outcomes, including the other three alternative proposals, the Duke Energy Registrants are unable to estimate its costs to comply at this time.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). On August 8, 2011, the EPA published its final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in the Federal Register. The CSAPR establishes state-level annual SO₂ and NO_x budgets that take effect on January 1, 2012, and state-level ozone-season NO_x budgets that take effect on May 1, 2012, and allocates emission allowances to affected sources in each state equal to the state budget less an allowance set-aside for new sources. The budget levels decline in 2014 for most states, including each state that the Duke Energy Registrants operate in, except for South Carolina where the budget levels remain constant. The rule allows intrastate and interstate allowance trading.

The stringency of the 2012 and 2014 CSAPR requirements vary among the Duke Energy Registrants and each is currently evaluating options for achieving the CSAPR requirements. Where the CSAPR requirements will be constraining, activities being evaluated to meet the requirements include purchasing emission allowances, power purchases, curtailing generation and utilizing low sulfur fuel to reduce levels of SO₂ or NO_x emissions. Technical adjustments to CSAPR proposed by the EPA in October 2011, if finalized, are not expected to materially impact the Duke Energy Registrants. See Note 7 for further information regarding impairment of emissions allowances as a result of the CSAPR.

Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Management. Duke Energy currently estimates that it will spend $369 million ($131 million at Duke Energy Carolinas, $70 million at Duke Energy Ohio and $168 million at Duke Energy Indiana) over the period 2011-2015 to install synthetic caps and liners at existing and new CCP landfills and to convert some of its CCP handling systems from wet to dry systems to comply with current regulations. The EPA and a number of states are considering additional regulatory measures that will contain specific and more detailed requirements for the management and disposal of CCPs, primarily ash, from the Duke Energy Registrants' coal-fired power plants.

On June 21, 2010, the EPA issued a proposal to regulate, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, coal combustion residuals (CCR), a term the EPA uses to describe the CCPs associated with the generation of electricity. The EPA proposal contains two regulatory options whereby CCRs not employed in approved beneficial use applications would either be regulated as hazardous waste or would continue to be regulated as non-hazardous waste. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking. However, based on the proposal, the cost of complying with the final regulation will be significant. The EPA is not expected to issue a final rule until 2012 or later.

Utility Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards. On May 3, 2011, the proposed Utility MACT Standards rule was published in the Federal Register. The rule proposes to establish emission limits for hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired electric generating units, including mercury. On October 24, 2011, the Court modified its earlier consent decree, giving the EPA until December 16, 2011, to finalize the MACT rule. Based on this date, compliance with the final emission limits will be required in early 2015, three years after the rule takes effect. The proposed rule gives permitting authorities the discretion to grant up to a 1-year compliance extension, on a case-by-case basis, to sources that are unable to install emission controls before the three year compliance deadline. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking. However, based on the proposal, the cost of complying with the final regulation will be significant.

Litigation

Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana

New Source Review (NSR). In 1999-2000, the DOJ, acting on behalf of the EPA and joined by various citizen groups and states, filed a number of complaints and notices of violation against multiple utilities across the country for alleged violations of the NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Generally, the government alleges that projects performed at various coal-fired units were major modifications, as defined in the CAA, and that the utilities violated the CAA when they undertook those projects without obtaining permits and installing the best available emission controls for SO₂, NO_x and particulate matter. The complaints seek injunctive relief to require installation of pollution control technology on various generating units that allegedly violated the CAA, and unspecified civil penalties in amounts of up to $32,500 per day for each violation. A number of the Duke Energy Registrants' plants have been subject to these allegations. The Duke Energy Registrants assert that there were no CAA violations because the applicable regulations do not require permitting in cases where the projects undertaken are "routine" or otherwise do not result in a net increase in emissions.

In 2000, the government brought a lawsuit against Duke Energy Carolinas in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina. The EPA claims that 29 projects performed at 25 of Duke Energy Carolinas' coal-fired units violate these NSR provisions. Three environmental groups have intervened in the case. In August 2003, the trial court issued a summary judgment opinion adopting Duke Energy Carolinas' legal positions on the standard to be used for measuring an increase in emissions, and granted judgment in favor of Duke Energy Carolinas. The trial court's decision was appealed and ultimately reversed and remanded for trial by the U.S. Supreme Court. At trial, Duke Energy Carolinas will continue to assert that the projects were routine or not projected to increase emissions. On July 29, 2010, the district court issued an order on outstanding motions for summary judgment filed in response to the Supreme Court remand. The court vacated large portions of the previous trial court's opinion in light of the Supreme Court ruling and found that Duke Energy Carolinas has the burden of proof for the Routine Maintenance Repair and Replacement exclusion, but that the exception must be viewed in light of industry practice, not only in light of an individual unit. The court also clarified that it will apply the "actual-to-projected-actual" emissions test to determine whether Duke Energy Carolinas should reasonably have sought a pre-project permit for any of the projects at issue. On February 11, 2011, the trial judge held an initial status conference and on March 22, 2011, the judge entered an interim scheduling order. The parties have filed a stipulation in which the United States and Plaintiff-Intervenors have dismissed with prejudice 16 claims. In exchange, Duke Energy Carolinas dismissed certain affirmative defenses. The parties have filed motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. No trial date has been set, but a trial is not expected in 2011.

In November 1999, the U.S. brought a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Cinergy, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana alleging various violations of the CAA for various projects at six owned and co-owned generating stations in the Midwest. Three northeast states and two environmental groups intervened in the case. A jury verdict was returned on May 22, 2008. The jury found in favor of Cinergy, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana on all but three units at Duke Energy Indiana's Wabash River Station, including Duke Energy Indiana's Gallagher Station units discussed below. Additionally, the plaintiffs had claimed that these were a violation of an Administrative Consent Order entered into in 1998 between the EPA and Cinergy relating to alleged violations of Ohio's State Implementation Plan provisions governing particulate matter at Duke Energy Ohio's W.C. Beckjord Station. On May 29, 2009, the court issued its remedy ruling for violations previously established at the Wabash River and W.C. Beckjord Stations and ordered the following relief: (i) Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 to be permanently retired by September 30, 2009; (ii) surrender of SO₂ allowances equal to the emissions from Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 from May 22, 2008 through September 30, 2009; (iii) civil penalty in the amount of $687,500 for W.C. Beckjord violations; and (iv) installation of a particulate continuous emissions monitoring system at W.C. Beckjord Units 1 and 2. The civil penalty has been paid. On October 12, 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing the trial court and ordered issuance of judgment in favor of Cinergy (USA v. Cinergy), which includes Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The plaintiff's motion for rehearing was denied on December 29, 2010. On January 6, 2011, the mandate from the Seventh Circuit was issued returning the case to the District Court and on April 15, 2011, the District Court issued its Final Amended Judgment in favor of Cinergy. Plaintiffs did not file a petition for certiorari with the United State Supreme Court prior to the March 29, 2011 filing deadline. This ruling allowed Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 to be placed back into service.

Regarding the Gallagher Station units, on October 21, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new liability trial claiming that defendants misled the plaintiffs and the jury by, among other things, not disclosing a consulting agreement with a fact witness and by referring to that witness as "retired" during the liability trial when in fact he was working for Duke Energy Indiana under the referenced consulting agreement in connection with the trial. On December 18, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new liability trial on claims for which Duke Energy Indiana was not previously found liable. On May 19, 2009, the jury announced its verdict finding in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on four of the remaining six projects at issue. The two projects in which the jury found violations were undertaken at Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3. The parties to the remedy trial reached a negotiated agreement on those issues and filed a proposed consent decree with the court, which was approved and entered on March 18, 2010. The substantive terms of the proposed consent decree require: (i) conversion of Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3 to natural gas combustion by 2013 (or retirement of the units by February 2012); (ii) installation of additional pollution controls at Gallagher Station Units 2 and 4 by 2011; and (iii) additional environmental projects, payments and penalties. Duke Energy Indiana estimates that these and other actions in the settlement will cost $88 million. Due to the NSR remedy order and consent decree, Duke Energy Indiana requested several approvals from the IURC including approval to add a dry sorbent injection system on Gallagher Station Units 2 and 4, approval to convert to natural gas or retire Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3, and approval to recover expenses for certain SO₂ emission allowance expenses required to be surrendered. On September 8, 2010, the IURC approved the implementation of the dry sorbent injection system. On September 28, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition requesting the recovery of costs associated with the Gallagher consent decree. Testimony in support of the petition was filed in early December 2010. Duke Energy Indiana subsequently requested the IURC suspend the procedural schedule to allow it time to do a solicitation for capacity options to compare to the proposed conversion of Gallagher Units 1 and 3 to natural gas.

On May 26, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony seeking approval of the purchase of a portion of the Vermillion Generating Station from its affiliate, Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio. Refer to Note 3 for further information on the Vermillion transaction. As a result of the proposed purchase, Duke Energy Indiana may retire Gallagher Units 1 and 3. The approval of the Vermillion transaction by the FERC and IURC under terms acceptable to Duke Energy Indiana is a condition to the closing of the transaction and the option of converting Gallagher Units 1 and 3 to gas is being preserved until such approvals have been obtained. On August 12, 2011, the FERC approved the Vermillion transaction. An IURC hearing was held in September 2011 with an order expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

On April 3, 2008, the Sierra Club filed another lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Duke Energy Indiana and certain affiliated companies alleging CAA violations at Edwardsport Station. On October 20, 2009, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the applicable statute of limitations bars all of the plaintiffs' claims. On September 14, 2010, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety; however, entry of final judgment was stayed pending a decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in USA v. Cinergy, referenced above, on a similar and potentially dispositive statute of limitations issue pending before that court. On October 12, 2010, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in USA v. Cinergy in which the court ruled in favor of Cinergy and declined to address the referenced statute of limitations issue. The Seventh circuit issued its mandate on January 6, 2011 and the District Court issued final judgment in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on March 1, 2011. On March 2, 2011, the Sierra Club agreed not to pursue an appeal of the case in exchange for Duke Energy Indiana's waiver of its right to seek reimbursement of costs.

It is not possible to estimate the damages, if any, that might be incurred in connection with the unresolved matters discussed above. Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Duke Energy Registrants' consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. However, the appropriate regulatory treatment will be pursued for any costs incurred in connection with such resolution.

Duke Energy

CO₂ Litigation. In July 2004, the states of Connecticut, New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the City of New York brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Cinergy, AEP, American Electric Power Service Corporation, Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Xcel Energy Inc. A similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same companies by Open Space Institute, Inc., Open Space Conservancy, Inc., and The Audubon Society of New Hampshire. These lawsuits allege that the defendants' emissions of CO₂ from the combustion of fossil fuels at electric generating facilities contribute to global warming and amount to a public nuisance. The complaints also allege that the defendants could generate the same amount of electricity while emitting significantly less CO₂. The plaintiffs were seeking an injunction requiring each defendant to cap its CO₂ emissions and then reduce them by a specified percentage each year for at least a decade. In September 2005, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 7, 2006. In September 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the district court and reinstating the lawsuit. Defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was subsequently denied. Defendants filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on August 2, 2010. On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Argument on this matter was held on April 19, 2011. On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court held that the Second Court of Appeals decision should be reversed on the basis that plaintiffs' claims cannot proceed under federal common law, which was displaced by the CAA and actual or potential EPA regulations. The Court's decision did not address plaintiffs' state law claims as those claims had not been presented. On September 2, 2011, plaintiffs notified the Court that they had decided to withdraw their complaints. This effectively ends the proceedings in this case.

Alaskan Global Warming Lawsuit. On February 26, 2008, plaintiffs, the governing bodies of an Inupiat village in Alaska, filed suit in the U.S. Federal Court for the Northern District of California against Peabody Coal and various oil and power company defendants, including Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on behalf of the village's 400 residents. The lawsuit alleges that defendants' emissions of CO₂ contributed to global warming and constitute a private and public nuisance. Plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants, including Duke Energy, conspired to mislead the public with respect to global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, attorney's fees and expenses. On June 30, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, together with a motion to dismiss the conspiracy claims. On October 15, 2009, the District Court granted defendants motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and briefing is complete. By Order dated February 23, 2011, the Court stayed oral argument in this case pending the Supreme Court's ruling in the CO₂ litigation discussed above. Following the Supreme Court's June 20, 2011 decision the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set the case for argument on November 28, 2011. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with this matter.

Price Reporting Cases. A total of five lawsuits were filed against Duke Energy affiliates and other energy companies and remain pending in a consolidated, single federal court proceeding in Nevada.

In November 2009, the judge granted defendants' motion for reconsideration of the denial of defendants' summary judgment motion in two of the remaining five cases to which Duke Energy affiliates are a party. A hearing on that motion occurred on July 15, 2011, and on July 19, 2011, the judge granted the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In December 2009, plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed a motion to amend their complaints in the individual cases to add a claim for treble damages under the Sherman Act, including additional factual allegations regarding fraudulent concealment of defendants' allegedly conspiratorial conduct. Those motions were denied on October 29, 2010.

Each of these cases contains similar claims, that the respective plaintiffs, and the classes they claim to represent, were harmed by the defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with the remaining matters.

Duke Energy International Paranapanema Lawsuit. On July 16, 2008, Duke Energy International Geracao Paranapanema S.A. (DEIGP) filed a lawsuit in the Brazilian federal court challenging transmission fee assessments imposed under two new resolutions promulgated by the Brazilian electricity regulatory agency (ANEEL) (collectively, the Resolutions). The Resolutions purport to impose additional transmission fees (retroactive to July 1, 2004 and effective through June 30, 2009) on generation companies located in the State of São Paulo for utilization of the electric transmission system. The new charges are based upon a flat-fee that fails to take into account the locational usage by each generator. DEIGP's additional assessment under these Resolutions amounts to approximately $69 million, inclusive of interest, through September 2011. Based on DEIGP's continuing refusal to tender payment of the disputed sums, on April 1, 2009, ANEEL imposed an additional fine against DEIGP in the amount of $9 million. DEIGP filed a request to enjoin payment of the fine and for an expedited decision on the merits or, alternatively, an order requiring that all disputed sums be deposited in the court's registry in lieu of direct payment to the distribution companies.

On June 30, 2009, the court issued a ruling in which it granted DEIGP's request for injunction regarding the additional fine, but denied DEIGP's request for an expedited decision on the original assessment or payment into the court registry. Under the court's order, DEIGP was required to make installment payments on the original assessment directly to the distribution companies pending resolution on the merits. DEIGP filed an appeal and on August 28, 2009, the order was modified to allow DEIGP to deposit the disputed portion of each installment, which was most of the assessed amount, into an escrow account pending resolution on the merits. In the second quarter of 2009, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $33 million associated with this matter.

Brazil Expansion Lawsuit. On August 9, 2011, the State of São Paulo filed a lawsuit in Brazilian state court against DEIGP based upon a claim that DEIGP is under a continuing obligation to expand installed generation capacity by 15% pursuant to a stock purchase agreement under which DEIGP purchased generation assets from the state. On August 10, 2011, a judge granted an ex parte injunction ordering DEIGP to present, within 60 days of service, a detailed expansion plan in satisfaction of the 15% obligation or face civil penalties in the amount of approximately $16,000 per day. Both DEIGP and ANEEL have previously taken a position that the 15% expansion obligation is no longer viable given the changes that have occurred in the electric energy sector since privatization of that sector. ANEEL has also stated that it is not within its jurisdiction to apply sanctions for failure to comply with the alleged expansion obligation. In September, 2011, DEIGP filed (i) a request for reconsideration of the injunction order with the original court; (ii) a request for stay of the order with the appellate court; (iii) an appeal of the order; and (iv) a substantive defense of the lawsuit in the original court. On September 29, 2011, DEIGP's request for stay of the injunction was denied. The remaining requests for relief are pending. DEIGP plans to submit an expansion plan by the court ordered deadline of November 11, 2011.

Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in South Carolina against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). These allegations arise out of the conversion of the Duke Energy Company Employees' Retirement Plan into the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. The case also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging errors in the application of Plan provisions (i.e., the calculation of interest rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the calculation of lump-sum distributions). Six causes of action were alleged, ranging from age discrimination, to various alleged ERISA violations, to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs sought a broad array of remedies, including a retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and a recalculation of participants'/ beneficiaries' benefits under the revised and reformed plan. Duke Energy filed its answer in March 2006. A portion of this contingent liability was assigned to Spectra Energy Corp (Spectra Energy) in connection with the spin-off in January 2007. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add an additional age discrimination claim, defendant's motion to dismiss and the respective motions for summary judgment was held in December 2007. On June 2, 2008, the court issued its ruling denying plaintiffs' motion to add the additional claim and dismissing a number of plaintiffs' claims, including the claims for ERISA age discrimination. Subsequently, plaintiffs notified Duke Energy that they were withdrawing their ADEA claim. On September 4, 2009, the court issued its order certifying classes for three of the remaining claims but not certifying their claims as to plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims. At an unsuccessful mediation in September 2008, Plaintiffs quantified their claims as being in excess of $150 million. After mediation on September 21, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit, subject to execution of a definitive settlement agreement, notice to the class members and approval of the settlement by the Court. In the third quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a provision related to the settlement agreement. At a hearing on May 16, 2011, the court issued its final confirmation order and payments have been made in accordance with the settlement agreement.

Crescent Litigation. On September 3, 2010, the Crescent Resources Litigation Trust filed suit against Duke Energy along with various affiliates and several individuals, including current and former employees of Duke Energy, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. The Crescent Resources Litigation Trust was established in May, 2010 pursuant to the plan of reorganization approved in the Crescent bankruptcy proceedings in the same court. The complaint alleges that in 2006 the defendants caused Crescent to borrow approximately $1.2 billion from a consortium of banks and immediately thereafter distribute most of the loan proceeds to Crescent's parent company without benefit to Crescent. The complaint further alleges that Crescent was rendered insolvent by the transactions, and that the distribution is subject to recovery by the Crescent bankruptcy estate as an alleged fraudulent transfer. The plaintiff requests return of the funds as well as other statutory and equitable relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Duke Energy and its affiliated defendants believe that the referenced 2006 transactions were legitimate and did not violate any state or federal law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in December 2010. On March 21, 2011, the plaintiff filed a response to the defendant's motion to dismiss and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which was granted. The Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss in response to plaintiffs' amended complaint.

A hearing on the motion was held on August 31, 2011. No trial date has been set. It is not possible to predict at this time whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with this lawsuit.

On October 14, 2010, a suit was filed in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina by a group of Duke Energy shareholders alleging breach of duty of loyalty and good faith by certain Duke Energy directors who were directors at the time of the 2006 Crescent transaction. On January 5, 2011, defendants filed a Notice of Designation of this case for the North Carolina Business Court. On July 22, 2011, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit and the plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling.

Progress Energy Merger Litigation. Duke Energy and Diamond Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy have been named as defendants in 10 purported shareholder actions filed in North Carolina state court and two cases filed in federal court in North Carolina. The actions, which contain similar allegations, were brought by individual shareholders against the following defendants: Progress Energy, Duke Energy, Diamond Acquisition Corporation and Directors of Progress Energy. The lawsuits allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Progress Energy shareholders and that Duke Energy and Diamond Acquisition Corporation, aided and abetted the individual defendants. The plaintiffs seek damages and to enjoin the merger. One of the state court cases was voluntarily dismissed. On July 11, 2011, the parties to the remaining nine state court cases entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for a disclosure-based settlement of the litigation. On August 2, 2011, preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the Court. An order approving the proposed settlement is expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

The plaintiff in one of the federal court lawsuits filed a motion for voluntary withdrawal, leaving one federal case pending. The complaint in the federal action includes allegations that defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with the statements contained in Duke Energy's Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, and is now subject to the notice requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiff's counsel in the federal case have sent a total of four derivative demand letters to Progress Energy demanding that Progress Energy's board of directors make certain disclosures, desist from moving forward with the merger and engage in an auction of the company. Progress Energy has indicated that it is evaluating those demands. On August 3, 2011, the Court issued a scheduling order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On October 27, 2011, a hearing regarding the final approval of the proposed settlement was held.

Federal Advanced Clean Coal Tax Credits. Duke Energy has been awarded $125 million of federal advanced clean coal tax credits associated with its construction of Cliffside Unit 6 and $134 million of federal advanced clean coal tax credits associated with its construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant. In March, 2008, two environmental groups, Appalachian Voices and the Canary Coalition, filed suit against the Federal government challenging the tax credits awarded to incentivize certain clean coal projects. Although Duke Energy was not a party to the case, the allegations center on the tax incentives provided for the Cliffside and Edwardsport projects. The initial complaint alleged a failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The first amended complaint, filed in August 2008, added an Endangered Species Act claim and also sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOE and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In 2008, the District Court dismissed the case. On September 23, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and denying, as moot, the motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs have filed their second amended complaint. The Federal government has moved to dismiss the second amended complaint; the motion is pending. On July 26, 2010, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction seeking to halt the issuance of the tax credits.

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Unit 6 Permit. On July 16, 2008, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Environmental Defense Fund, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defenses Council, and Sierra Club (collectively referred to as Citizen Groups) filed suit in U.S District Court for the Western District of North Carolina alleging that Duke Energy Carolinas violated the CAA when it commenced construction of Cliffside Unit 6 without obtaining a determination that the MACT emission limits will be met for all prospective hazardous air emissions at that plant. The Citizen Groups claim the right to injunctive relief against further construction at the plant as well as civil penalties in the amount of up to $32,500 per day for each alleged violation. In July 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas voluntarily performed a MACT assessment of air emission controls planned for Cliffside Unit 6 and submitted the results to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). On December 2, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and entered judgment ordering Duke Energy Carolinas to initiate a MACT process before the DAQ. The court did not order an injunction against further construction, but retained jurisdiction to monitor the MACT proceedings. On December 4, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas submitted its MACT filing and supporting information to the DAQ specifically seeking DAQ's concurrence as a threshold matter that construction of Cliffside Unit 6 is not a major source subject to section 112 of the CAA and submitting a MACT determination application. Concurrent with the initiation of the MACT process, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the Court's December 2, 2008 order to reverse the Court's determination that Duke Energy Carolinas violated the CAA. The DAQ issued the revised permit on March 13, 2009, finding that Cliffside Unit 6 is a minor source of HAPs and imposing operating conditions to assure that emissions stay below the major source threshold. Based upon DAQ's minor-source determination, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion requesting that the court abstain from further action on the matter and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The court granted Duke Energy Carolinas motion to abstain and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice, but also ordered Duke Energy Carolinas to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. On August 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order and Duke Energy Carolinas likewise appealed on the grounds, among others, that the dismissal should have been with prejudice and the court should not have ordered payment of attorneys' fees. The appeals have been consolidated. On April 14, 2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling awarding fees to defendants. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a request for rehearing, which was denied, on May 10, 2011.

Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims. Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September 30, 2011, there were 271 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $57 million, and 53 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $14 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke Energy Carolinas in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled $815 million and $853 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, and are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount in Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2030. Management believes that it is possible there will be additional claims filed against Duke Energy Carolinas after 2030. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe that they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2030 related to such potential claims. Asbestos-related loss estimates incorporate anticipated inflation, if applicable, and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. These reserves are based upon current estimates and are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. A significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims filed, the nature of the alleged injury, and the average cost of resolving each such claim could change our estimated liability, as could any substantial adverse or favorable verdict at trial. A federal legislative solution, further state tort reform or structured settlement transactions could also change the estimated liability. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting matters into the future and numerous other factors outside our control, management believes that it is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self insurance retention on its insurance policy during the second quarter of 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by Duke Energy Carolinas' third party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $968 million in excess of the self insured retention. Insurance recoveries of $813 million and $850 million related to this policy are classified in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Management believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Ohio

Antitrust Lawsuit. In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that Duke Energy Ohio (then The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company), conspired to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into non-public option agreements with such consumers in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's pending RSP, which was implemented in early 2005. On March 31, 2009, the District Court granted Duke Energy Ohio's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or set aside the judgment, which was denied by an order dated March 31, 2010. In April 2010, the plaintiffs filed their appeal of that order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The matter is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting the scheduling of oral argument. It is not possible to predict at this time whether Duke Energy Ohio will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy Ohio might incur in connection with this lawsuit.

Duke Energy Indiana

Prosperity Mine, LLC. On October 12, 2009, Prosperity Mine, LLC (Prosperity) filed for arbitration under an Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Coal dated October 30, 2008. The Agreement provided for sale by Prosperity and purchase by Duke Energy Indiana of 500,000 tons of coal per year, commencing on January 1, 2009 and continuing until December 31, 2014, unless sooner terminated under the terms of the Agreement. Duke Energy Indiana could terminate the Agreement if a force majeure event lasted more than three months. Prosperity declared a force majeure event on February 13, 2010 and, when Prosperity did not notify Duke Energy Indiana that the force majeure had ended; Duke Energy Indiana sent written notice of termination on May 14, 2010. Prosperity contends that the termination was improper and that it is owed damages, quantified at $88 million, for the full contractual volumes through 2014. On November 17, 2010, the arbitrators issued their decision, ruling in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on all counts. On January 7, 2011, Prosperity filed a lawsuit in Indiana state court alleging that the arbitrators exceeded their power and acted without authority and asking that the arbitrators' award be vacated. The parties reached a commercial arrangement pursuant to which Prosperity agreed to dismiss the lawsuit.

Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims. Duke Energy Indiana has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in lawsuits related to asbestos at its electric generating stations. The impact on Duke Energy Indiana's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of these cases to date has not been material. Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerning uncertainties, such as, among others: (i) the number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos during construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Indiana generating plants; (ii) the possible incidence of various illnesses among exposed workers, and (iii) the potential settlement costs without federal or other legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions, Duke Energy Indiana estimates that the range of reasonably possible exposure in existing and future suits over the foreseeable future is not material. This estimated range of exposure may change as additional settlements occur and claims are made and more case law is established.

Other Litigation and Legal Proceedings

The Duke Energy Registrants are involved in other legal, tax and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts. Management believes that the final disposition of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

The Duke Energy Registrants have exposure to certain legal matters that are described herein. Duke Energy has recorded reserves, including reserves related to the aforementioned asbestos-related injuries and damages claims, of $830 million and $900 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, for these proceedings and exposures (the total of which is primarily related to Duke Energy Carolinas). These reserves represent management's best estimate of probable loss as defined in the accounting guidance for contingencies. Duke Energy has insurance coverage for certain of these losses incurred. As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Duke Energy recognized $813 million and $850 million, respectively, of probable insurance recoveries related to these losses (the total of which is related to Duke Energy Carolinas).

The Duke Energy Registrants expense legal costs related to the defense of loss contingencies as incurred.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

General. As part of its normal business, the Duke Energy Registrants are a party to various financial guarantees, performance guarantees and other contractual commitments to extend guarantees of credit and other assistance to various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties. To varying degrees, these guarantees involve elements of performance and credit risk, which are not included on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The possibility of any of the Duke Energy Registrants having to honor their contingencies is largely dependent upon future operations of various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties, or the occurrence of certain future events.

In addition, the Duke Energy Registrants enter into various fixed-price, non-cancelable commitments to purchase or sell power (tolling arrangements or power purchase contracts), take-or-pay arrangements, transportation or throughput agreements and other contracts that may or may not be recognized on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Some of these arrangements may be recognized at fair value on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets if such contracts meet the definition of a derivative and the NPNS exception does not apply.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Commitments And Contingencies

5. Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental

Duke Energy is subject to international, federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental matters. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal 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 of the Duke Energy Registrants.

Remediation Activities. The Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various contaminated sites. These include some properties that are part of ongoing operations and sites formerly owned or used by Duke Energy entities, such as historic manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. Most of these sites were decommissioned in the 1960s. While a majority of the MGP by-products were sold off-site during the time period when the plants operated, some residuals remained on-site during plant decommissioning. Remediation activities typically focus on the containment, removal and/or the management of these by-products. In some cases, Duke Energy no longer owns the property. Managed in conjunction with relevant federal, state and local agencies, activities vary with site conditions and locations, remediation requirements, complexity and sharing of responsibility. If remediation activities involve statutory joint and several liability provisions, strict liability, or cost recovery or contribution actions, the Duke Energy Registrants could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other parties. In some instances, the Duke Energy Registrants may share liability associated with contamination with other potentially responsible parties, and may also benefit from insurance policies or contractual indemnities that cover some or all cleanup costs. Reserves associated with remediation activities at certain sites have been recorded and it is anticipated that additional costs associated with remediation activities at certain sites will be incurred in the future. All of these sites generally are managed in the normal course of business or affiliate operations.

The Duke Energy Registrants have accrued costs associated with remediation activities at some of its current and former sites, as well as other relevant environmental contingent liabilities. Management, in the normal course of business, continually assesses the nature and extent of known or potential environmental-related contingencies and records liabilities when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. Costs associated with remediation activities within the Duke Energy Registrants' operations are typically expensed unless regulatory recovery of the costs is deemed probable.

As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio had a total reserve of $36 million, related to remediation work at certain MGP sites. Duke Energy Ohio has received an order from the PUCO to defer the costs incurred. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio has deferred $64 million of costs related to the MGP sites. The PUCO will rule on the recovery of these costs at a future proceeding. Management believes it is probable that additional liabilities will be incurred as work progresses at Ohio MGP sites; however, costs associated with future remediation cannot currently be reasonably estimated.

Clean Water Act 316(b). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposed cooling water intake structures rule on April 20, 2011. Duke Energy submitted comments on the proposed rule on August 16, 2011. The proposed rule advances one main approach and three alternatives. The main approach establishes aquatic protection requirements for existing facilities and new on-site facility additions that withdraw 2 million gallons or more of water per day from rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, oceans, or other U.S. waters for cooling purposes. Based on the main approach proposed, most, if not all of the 23 coal and nuclear-fueled generating facilities in which the Duke Energy Registrants are either a whole or partial owner are likely affected sources. Additional sources, including some combined-cycle combustion turbine facilities, may also be impacted, at least for intake modifications.

The EPA has plans to finalize the 316(b) rule in July 2012. Compliance with portions of the rule could begin as early as 2015. Because of the wide range of potential outcomes, including the other three alternative proposals, the Duke Energy Registrants are unable to estimate its costs to comply at this time.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). On August 8, 2011, the EPA published its final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in the Federal Register. The CSAPR establishes state-level annual SO₂ and NO_x budgets that take effect on January 1, 2012, and state-level ozone-season NO_x budgets that take effect on May 1, 2012, and allocates emission allowances to affected sources in each state equal to the state budget less an allowance set-aside for new sources. The budget levels decline in 2014 for most states, including each state that the Duke Energy Registrants operate in, except for South Carolina where the budget levels remain constant. The rule allows intrastate and interstate allowance trading.

The stringency of the 2012 and 2014 CSAPR requirements vary among the Duke Energy Registrants and each is currently evaluating options for achieving the CSAPR requirements. Where the CSAPR requirements will be constraining, activities being evaluated to meet the requirements include purchasing emission allowances, power purchases, curtailing generation and utilizing low sulfur fuel to reduce levels of SO₂ or NO_x emissions. Technical adjustments to CSAPR proposed by the EPA in October 2011, if finalized, are not expected to materially impact the Duke Energy Registrants. See Note 7 for further information regarding impairment of emissions allowances as a result of the CSAPR.

Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Management. Duke Energy currently estimates that it will spend $369 million ($131 million at Duke Energy Carolinas, $70 million at Duke Energy Ohio and $168 million at Duke Energy Indiana) over the period 2011-2015 to install synthetic caps and liners at existing and new CCP landfills and to convert some of its CCP handling systems from wet to dry systems to comply with current regulations. The EPA and a number of states are considering additional regulatory measures that will contain specific and more detailed requirements for the management and disposal of CCPs, primarily ash, from the Duke Energy Registrants' coal-fired power plants.

On June 21, 2010, the EPA issued a proposal to regulate, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, coal combustion residuals (CCR), a term the EPA uses to describe the CCPs associated with the generation of electricity. The EPA proposal contains two regulatory options whereby CCRs not employed in approved beneficial use applications would either be regulated as hazardous waste or would continue to be regulated as non-hazardous waste. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking. However, based on the proposal, the cost of complying with the final regulation will be significant. The EPA is not expected to issue a final rule until 2012 or later.

Utility Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards. On May 3, 2011, the proposed Utility MACT Standards rule was published in the Federal Register. The rule proposes to establish emission limits for hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired electric generating units, including mercury. On October 24, 2011, the Court modified its earlier consent decree, giving the EPA until December 16, 2011, to finalize the MACT rule. Based on this date, compliance with the final emission limits will be required in early 2015, three years after the rule takes effect. The proposed rule gives permitting authorities the discretion to grant up to a 1-year compliance extension, on a case-by-case basis, to sources that are unable to install emission controls before the three year compliance deadline. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking. However, based on the proposal, the cost of complying with the final regulation will be significant.

Litigation

Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana

New Source Review (NSR). In 1999-2000, the DOJ, acting on behalf of the EPA and joined by various citizen groups and states, filed a number of complaints and notices of violation against multiple utilities across the country for alleged violations of the NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Generally, the government alleges that projects performed at various coal-fired units were major modifications, as defined in the CAA, and that the utilities violated the CAA when they undertook those projects without obtaining permits and installing the best available emission controls for SO₂, NO_x and particulate matter. The complaints seek injunctive relief to require installation of pollution control technology on various generating units that allegedly violated the CAA, and unspecified civil penalties in amounts of up to $32,500 per day for each violation. A number of the Duke Energy Registrants' plants have been subject to these allegations. The Duke Energy Registrants assert that there were no CAA violations because the applicable regulations do not require permitting in cases where the projects undertaken are "routine" or otherwise do not result in a net increase in emissions.

In 2000, the government brought a lawsuit against Duke Energy Carolinas in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina. The EPA claims that 29 projects performed at 25 of Duke Energy Carolinas' coal-fired units violate these NSR provisions. Three environmental groups have intervened in the case. In August 2003, the trial court issued a summary judgment opinion adopting Duke Energy Carolinas' legal positions on the standard to be used for measuring an increase in emissions, and granted judgment in favor of Duke Energy Carolinas. The trial court's decision was appealed and ultimately reversed and remanded for trial by the U.S. Supreme Court. At trial, Duke Energy Carolinas will continue to assert that the projects were routine or not projected to increase emissions. On July 29, 2010, the district court issued an order on outstanding motions for summary judgment filed in response to the Supreme Court remand. The court vacated large portions of the previous trial court's opinion in light of the Supreme Court ruling and found that Duke Energy Carolinas has the burden of proof for the Routine Maintenance Repair and Replacement exclusion, but that the exception must be viewed in light of industry practice, not only in light of an individual unit. The court also clarified that it will apply the "actual-to-projected-actual" emissions test to determine whether Duke Energy Carolinas should reasonably have sought a pre-project permit for any of the projects at issue. On February 11, 2011, the trial judge held an initial status conference and on March 22, 2011, the judge entered an interim scheduling order. The parties have filed a stipulation in which the United States and Plaintiff-Intervenors have dismissed with prejudice 16 claims. In exchange, Duke Energy Carolinas dismissed certain affirmative defenses. The parties have filed motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. No trial date has been set, but a trial is not expected in 2011.

In November 1999, the U.S. brought a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Cinergy, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana alleging various violations of the CAA for various projects at six owned and co-owned generating stations in the Midwest. Three northeast states and two environmental groups intervened in the case. A jury verdict was returned on May 22, 2008. The jury found in favor of Cinergy, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana on all but three units at Duke Energy Indiana's Wabash River Station, including Duke Energy Indiana's Gallagher Station units discussed below. Additionally, the plaintiffs had claimed that these were a violation of an Administrative Consent Order entered into in 1998 between the EPA and Cinergy relating to alleged violations of Ohio's State Implementation Plan provisions governing particulate matter at Duke Energy Ohio's W.C. Beckjord Station. On May 29, 2009, the court issued its remedy ruling for violations previously established at the Wabash River and W.C. Beckjord Stations and ordered the following relief: (i) Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 to be permanently retired by September 30, 2009; (ii) surrender of SO₂ allowances equal to the emissions from Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 from May 22, 2008 through September 30, 2009; (iii) civil penalty in the amount of $687,500 for W.C. Beckjord violations; and (iv) installation of a particulate continuous emissions monitoring system at W.C. Beckjord Units 1 and 2. The civil penalty has been paid. On October 12, 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing the trial court and ordered issuance of judgment in favor of Cinergy (USA v. Cinergy), which includes Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The plaintiff's motion for rehearing was denied on December 29, 2010. On January 6, 2011, the mandate from the Seventh Circuit was issued returning the case to the District Court and on April 15, 2011, the District Court issued its Final Amended Judgment in favor of Cinergy. Plaintiffs did not file a petition for certiorari with the United State Supreme Court prior to the March 29, 2011 filing deadline. This ruling allowed Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 to be placed back into service.

Regarding the Gallagher Station units, on October 21, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new liability trial claiming that defendants misled the plaintiffs and the jury by, among other things, not disclosing a consulting agreement with a fact witness and by referring to that witness as "retired" during the liability trial when in fact he was working for Duke Energy Indiana under the referenced consulting agreement in connection with the trial. On December 18, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new liability trial on claims for which Duke Energy Indiana was not previously found liable. On May 19, 2009, the jury announced its verdict finding in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on four of the remaining six projects at issue. The two projects in which the jury found violations were undertaken at Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3. The parties to the remedy trial reached a negotiated agreement on those issues and filed a proposed consent decree with the court, which was approved and entered on March 18, 2010. The substantive terms of the proposed consent decree require: (i) conversion of Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3 to natural gas combustion by 2013 (or retirement of the units by February 2012); (ii) installation of additional pollution controls at Gallagher Station Units 2 and 4 by 2011; and (iii) additional environmental projects, payments and penalties. Duke Energy Indiana estimates that these and other actions in the settlement will cost $88 million. Due to the NSR remedy order and consent decree, Duke Energy Indiana requested several approvals from the IURC including approval to add a dry sorbent injection system on Gallagher Station Units 2 and 4, approval to convert to natural gas or retire Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3, and approval to recover expenses for certain SO₂ emission allowance expenses required to be surrendered. On September 8, 2010, the IURC approved the implementation of the dry sorbent injection system. On September 28, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition requesting the recovery of costs associated with the Gallagher consent decree. Testimony in support of the petition was filed in early December 2010. Duke Energy Indiana subsequently requested the IURC suspend the procedural schedule to allow it time to do a solicitation for capacity options to compare to the proposed conversion of Gallagher Units 1 and 3 to natural gas.

On May 26, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony seeking approval of the purchase of a portion of the Vermillion Generating Station from its affiliate, Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio. Refer to Note 3 for further information on the Vermillion transaction. As a result of the proposed purchase, Duke Energy Indiana may retire Gallagher Units 1 and 3. The approval of the Vermillion transaction by the FERC and IURC under terms acceptable to Duke Energy Indiana is a condition to the closing of the transaction and the option of converting Gallagher Units 1 and 3 to gas is being preserved until such approvals have been obtained. On August 12, 2011, the FERC approved the Vermillion transaction. An IURC hearing was held in September 2011 with an order expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

On April 3, 2008, the Sierra Club filed another lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Duke Energy Indiana and certain affiliated companies alleging CAA violations at Edwardsport Station. On October 20, 2009, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the applicable statute of limitations bars all of the plaintiffs' claims. On September 14, 2010, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety; however, entry of final judgment was stayed pending a decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in USA v. Cinergy, referenced above, on a similar and potentially dispositive statute of limitations issue pending before that court. On October 12, 2010, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in USA v. Cinergy in which the court ruled in favor of Cinergy and declined to address the referenced statute of limitations issue. The Seventh circuit issued its mandate on January 6, 2011 and the District Court issued final judgment in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on March 1, 2011. On March 2, 2011, the Sierra Club agreed not to pursue an appeal of the case in exchange for Duke Energy Indiana's waiver of its right to seek reimbursement of costs.

It is not possible to estimate the damages, if any, that might be incurred in connection with the unresolved matters discussed above. Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Duke Energy Registrants' consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. However, the appropriate regulatory treatment will be pursued for any costs incurred in connection with such resolution.

Duke Energy

CO₂ Litigation. In July 2004, the states of Connecticut, New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the City of New York brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Cinergy, AEP, American Electric Power Service Corporation, Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Xcel Energy Inc. A similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same companies by Open Space Institute, Inc., Open Space Conservancy, Inc., and The Audubon Society of New Hampshire. These lawsuits allege that the defendants' emissions of CO₂ from the combustion of fossil fuels at electric generating facilities contribute to global warming and amount to a public nuisance. The complaints also allege that the defendants could generate the same amount of electricity while emitting significantly less CO₂. The plaintiffs were seeking an injunction requiring each defendant to cap its CO₂ emissions and then reduce them by a specified percentage each year for at least a decade. In September 2005, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 7, 2006. In September 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the district court and reinstating the lawsuit. Defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was subsequently denied. Defendants filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on August 2, 2010. On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Argument on this matter was held on April 19, 2011. On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court held that the Second Court of Appeals decision should be reversed on the basis that plaintiffs' claims cannot proceed under federal common law, which was displaced by the CAA and actual or potential EPA regulations. The Court's decision did not address plaintiffs' state law claims as those claims had not been presented. On September 2, 2011, plaintiffs notified the Court that they had decided to withdraw their complaints. This effectively ends the proceedings in this case.

Alaskan Global Warming Lawsuit. On February 26, 2008, plaintiffs, the governing bodies of an Inupiat village in Alaska, filed suit in the U.S. Federal Court for the Northern District of California against Peabody Coal and various oil and power company defendants, including Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on behalf of the village's 400 residents. The lawsuit alleges that defendants' emissions of CO₂ contributed to global warming and constitute a private and public nuisance. Plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants, including Duke Energy, conspired to mislead the public with respect to global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, attorney's fees and expenses. On June 30, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, together with a motion to dismiss the conspiracy claims. On October 15, 2009, the District Court granted defendants motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and briefing is complete. By Order dated February 23, 2011, the Court stayed oral argument in this case pending the Supreme Court's ruling in the CO₂ litigation discussed above. Following the Supreme Court's June 20, 2011 decision the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set the case for argument on November 28, 2011. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with this matter.

Price Reporting Cases. A total of five lawsuits were filed against Duke Energy affiliates and other energy companies and remain pending in a consolidated, single federal court proceeding in Nevada.

In November 2009, the judge granted defendants' motion for reconsideration of the denial of defendants' summary judgment motion in two of the remaining five cases to which Duke Energy affiliates are a party. A hearing on that motion occurred on July 15, 2011, and on July 19, 2011, the judge granted the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In December 2009, plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed a motion to amend their complaints in the individual cases to add a claim for treble damages under the Sherman Act, including additional factual allegations regarding fraudulent concealment of defendants' allegedly conspiratorial conduct. Those motions were denied on October 29, 2010.

Each of these cases contains similar claims, that the respective plaintiffs, and the classes they claim to represent, were harmed by the defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with the remaining matters.

Duke Energy International Paranapanema Lawsuit. On July 16, 2008, Duke Energy International Geracao Paranapanema S.A. (DEIGP) filed a lawsuit in the Brazilian federal court challenging transmission fee assessments imposed under two new resolutions promulgated by the Brazilian electricity regulatory agency (ANEEL) (collectively, the Resolutions). The Resolutions purport to impose additional transmission fees (retroactive to July 1, 2004 and effective through June 30, 2009) on generation companies located in the State of São Paulo for utilization of the electric transmission system. The new charges are based upon a flat-fee that fails to take into account the locational usage by each generator. DEIGP's additional assessment under these Resolutions amounts to approximately $69 million, inclusive of interest, through September 2011. Based on DEIGP's continuing refusal to tender payment of the disputed sums, on April 1, 2009, ANEEL imposed an additional fine against DEIGP in the amount of $9 million. DEIGP filed a request to enjoin payment of the fine and for an expedited decision on the merits or, alternatively, an order requiring that all disputed sums be deposited in the court's registry in lieu of direct payment to the distribution companies.

On June 30, 2009, the court issued a ruling in which it granted DEIGP's request for injunction regarding the additional fine, but denied DEIGP's request for an expedited decision on the original assessment or payment into the court registry. Under the court's order, DEIGP was required to make installment payments on the original assessment directly to the distribution companies pending resolution on the merits. DEIGP filed an appeal and on August 28, 2009, the order was modified to allow DEIGP to deposit the disputed portion of each installment, which was most of the assessed amount, into an escrow account pending resolution on the merits. In the second quarter of 2009, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $33 million associated with this matter.

Brazil Expansion Lawsuit. On August 9, 2011, the State of São Paulo filed a lawsuit in Brazilian state court against DEIGP based upon a claim that DEIGP is under a continuing obligation to expand installed generation capacity by 15% pursuant to a stock purchase agreement under which DEIGP purchased generation assets from the state. On August 10, 2011, a judge granted an ex parte injunction ordering DEIGP to present, within 60 days of service, a detailed expansion plan in satisfaction of the 15% obligation or face civil penalties in the amount of approximately $16,000 per day. Both DEIGP and ANEEL have previously taken a position that the 15% expansion obligation is no longer viable given the changes that have occurred in the electric energy sector since privatization of that sector. ANEEL has also stated that it is not within its jurisdiction to apply sanctions for failure to comply with the alleged expansion obligation. In September, 2011, DEIGP filed (i) a request for reconsideration of the injunction order with the original court; (ii) a request for stay of the order with the appellate court; (iii) an appeal of the order; and (iv) a substantive defense of the lawsuit in the original court. On September 29, 2011, DEIGP's request for stay of the injunction was denied. The remaining requests for relief are pending. DEIGP plans to submit an expansion plan by the court ordered deadline of November 11, 2011.

Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in South Carolina against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). These allegations arise out of the conversion of the Duke Energy Company Employees' Retirement Plan into the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. The case also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging errors in the application of Plan provisions (i.e., the calculation of interest rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the calculation of lump-sum distributions). Six causes of action were alleged, ranging from age discrimination, to various alleged ERISA violations, to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs sought a broad array of remedies, including a retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and a recalculation of participants'/ beneficiaries' benefits under the revised and reformed plan. Duke Energy filed its answer in March 2006. A portion of this contingent liability was assigned to Spectra Energy Corp (Spectra Energy) in connection with the spin-off in January 2007. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add an additional age discrimination claim, defendant's motion to dismiss and the respective motions for summary judgment was held in December 2007. On June 2, 2008, the court issued its ruling denying plaintiffs' motion to add the additional claim and dismissing a number of plaintiffs' claims, including the claims for ERISA age discrimination. Subsequently, plaintiffs notified Duke Energy that they were withdrawing their ADEA claim. On September 4, 2009, the court issued its order certifying classes for three of the remaining claims but not certifying their claims as to plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims. At an unsuccessful mediation in September 2008, Plaintiffs quantified their claims as being in excess of $150 million. After mediation on September 21, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit, subject to execution of a definitive settlement agreement, notice to the class members and approval of the settlement by the Court. In the third quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a provision related to the settlement agreement. At a hearing on May 16, 2011, the court issued its final confirmation order and payments have been made in accordance with the settlement agreement.

Crescent Litigation. On September 3, 2010, the Crescent Resources Litigation Trust filed suit against Duke Energy along with various affiliates and several individuals, including current and former employees of Duke Energy, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. The Crescent Resources Litigation Trust was established in May, 2010 pursuant to the plan of reorganization approved in the Crescent bankruptcy proceedings in the same court. The complaint alleges that in 2006 the defendants caused Crescent to borrow approximately $1.2 billion from a consortium of banks and immediately thereafter distribute most of the loan proceeds to Crescent's parent company without benefit to Crescent. The complaint further alleges that Crescent was rendered insolvent by the transactions, and that the distribution is subject to recovery by the Crescent bankruptcy estate as an alleged fraudulent transfer. The plaintiff requests return of the funds as well as other statutory and equitable relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Duke Energy and its affiliated defendants believe that the referenced 2006 transactions were legitimate and did not violate any state or federal law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in December 2010. On March 21, 2011, the plaintiff filed a response to the defendant's motion to dismiss and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which was granted. The Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss in response to plaintiffs' amended complaint.

A hearing on the motion was held on August 31, 2011. No trial date has been set. It is not possible to predict at this time whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with this lawsuit.

On October 14, 2010, a suit was filed in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina by a group of Duke Energy shareholders alleging breach of duty of loyalty and good faith by certain Duke Energy directors who were directors at the time of the 2006 Crescent transaction. On January 5, 2011, defendants filed a Notice of Designation of this case for the North Carolina Business Court. On July 22, 2011, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit and the plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling.

Progress Energy Merger Litigation. Duke Energy and Diamond Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy have been named as defendants in 10 purported shareholder actions filed in North Carolina state court and two cases filed in federal court in North Carolina. The actions, which contain similar allegations, were brought by individual shareholders against the following defendants: Progress Energy, Duke Energy, Diamond Acquisition Corporation and Directors of Progress Energy. The lawsuits allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Progress Energy shareholders and that Duke Energy and Diamond Acquisition Corporation, aided and abetted the individual defendants. The plaintiffs seek damages and to enjoin the merger. One of the state court cases was voluntarily dismissed. On July 11, 2011, the parties to the remaining nine state court cases entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for a disclosure-based settlement of the litigation. On August 2, 2011, preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the Court. An order approving the proposed settlement is expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

The plaintiff in one of the federal court lawsuits filed a motion for voluntary withdrawal, leaving one federal case pending. The complaint in the federal action includes allegations that defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with the statements contained in Duke Energy's Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, and is now subject to the notice requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiff's counsel in the federal case have sent a total of four derivative demand letters to Progress Energy demanding that Progress Energy's board of directors make certain disclosures, desist from moving forward with the merger and engage in an auction of the company. Progress Energy has indicated that it is evaluating those demands. On August 3, 2011, the Court issued a scheduling order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On October 27, 2011, a hearing regarding the final approval of the proposed settlement was held.

Federal Advanced Clean Coal Tax Credits. Duke Energy has been awarded $125 million of federal advanced clean coal tax credits associated with its construction of Cliffside Unit 6 and $134 million of federal advanced clean coal tax credits associated with its construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant. In March, 2008, two environmental groups, Appalachian Voices and the Canary Coalition, filed suit against the Federal government challenging the tax credits awarded to incentivize certain clean coal projects. Although Duke Energy was not a party to the case, the allegations center on the tax incentives provided for the Cliffside and Edwardsport projects. The initial complaint alleged a failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The first amended complaint, filed in August 2008, added an Endangered Species Act claim and also sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOE and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In 2008, the District Court dismissed the case. On September 23, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and denying, as moot, the motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs have filed their second amended complaint. The Federal government has moved to dismiss the second amended complaint; the motion is pending. On July 26, 2010, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction seeking to halt the issuance of the tax credits.

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Unit 6 Permit. On July 16, 2008, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Environmental Defense Fund, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defenses Council, and Sierra Club (collectively referred to as Citizen Groups) filed suit in U.S District Court for the Western District of North Carolina alleging that Duke Energy Carolinas violated the CAA when it commenced construction of Cliffside Unit 6 without obtaining a determination that the MACT emission limits will be met for all prospective hazardous air emissions at that plant. The Citizen Groups claim the right to injunctive relief against further construction at the plant as well as civil penalties in the amount of up to $32,500 per day for each alleged violation. In July 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas voluntarily performed a MACT assessment of air emission controls planned for Cliffside Unit 6 and submitted the results to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). On December 2, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and entered judgment ordering Duke Energy Carolinas to initiate a MACT process before the DAQ. The court did not order an injunction against further construction, but retained jurisdiction to monitor the MACT proceedings. On December 4, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas submitted its MACT filing and supporting information to the DAQ specifically seeking DAQ's concurrence as a threshold matter that construction of Cliffside Unit 6 is not a major source subject to section 112 of the CAA and submitting a MACT determination application. Concurrent with the initiation of the MACT process, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the Court's December 2, 2008 order to reverse the Court's determination that Duke Energy Carolinas violated the CAA. The DAQ issued the revised permit on March 13, 2009, finding that Cliffside Unit 6 is a minor source of HAPs and imposing operating conditions to assure that emissions stay below the major source threshold. Based upon DAQ's minor-source determination, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion requesting that the court abstain from further action on the matter and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The court granted Duke Energy Carolinas motion to abstain and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice, but also ordered Duke Energy Carolinas to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. On August 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order and Duke Energy Carolinas likewise appealed on the grounds, among others, that the dismissal should have been with prejudice and the court should not have ordered payment of attorneys' fees. The appeals have been consolidated. On April 14, 2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling awarding fees to defendants. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a request for rehearing, which was denied, on May 10, 2011.

Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims. Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September 30, 2011, there were 271 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $57 million, and 53 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $14 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke Energy Carolinas in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled $815 million and $853 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, and are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount in Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2030. Management believes that it is possible there will be additional claims filed against Duke Energy Carolinas after 2030. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe that they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2030 related to such potential claims. Asbestos-related loss estimates incorporate anticipated inflation, if applicable, and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. These reserves are based upon current estimates and are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. A significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims filed, the nature of the alleged injury, and the average cost of resolving each such claim could change our estimated liability, as could any substantial adverse or favorable verdict at trial. A federal legislative solution, further state tort reform or structured settlement transactions could also change the estimated liability. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting matters into the future and numerous other factors outside our control, management believes that it is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self insurance retention on its insurance policy during the second quarter of 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by Duke Energy Carolinas' third party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $968 million in excess of the self insured retention. Insurance recoveries of $813 million and $850 million related to this policy are classified in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Management believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Ohio

Antitrust Lawsuit. In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that Duke Energy Ohio (then The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company), conspired to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into non-public option agreements with such consumers in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's pending RSP, which was implemented in early 2005. On March 31, 2009, the District Court granted Duke Energy Ohio's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or set aside the judgment, which was denied by an order dated March 31, 2010. In April 2010, the plaintiffs filed their appeal of that order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The matter is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting the scheduling of oral argument. It is not possible to predict at this time whether Duke Energy Ohio will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy Ohio might incur in connection with this lawsuit.

Duke Energy Indiana

Prosperity Mine, LLC. On October 12, 2009, Prosperity Mine, LLC (Prosperity) filed for arbitration under an Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Coal dated October 30, 2008. The Agreement provided for sale by Prosperity and purchase by Duke Energy Indiana of 500,000 tons of coal per year, commencing on January 1, 2009 and continuing until December 31, 2014, unless sooner terminated under the terms of the Agreement. Duke Energy Indiana could terminate the Agreement if a force majeure event lasted more than three months. Prosperity declared a force majeure event on February 13, 2010 and, when Prosperity did not notify Duke Energy Indiana that the force majeure had ended; Duke Energy Indiana sent written notice of termination on May 14, 2010. Prosperity contends that the termination was improper and that it is owed damages, quantified at $88 million, for the full contractual volumes through 2014. On November 17, 2010, the arbitrators issued their decision, ruling in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on all counts. On January 7, 2011, Prosperity filed a lawsuit in Indiana state court alleging that the arbitrators exceeded their power and acted without authority and asking that the arbitrators' award be vacated. The parties reached a commercial arrangement pursuant to which Prosperity agreed to dismiss the lawsuit.

Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims. Duke Energy Indiana has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in lawsuits related to asbestos at its electric generating stations. The impact on Duke Energy Indiana's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of these cases to date has not been material. Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerning uncertainties, such as, among others: (i) the number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos during construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Indiana generating plants; (ii) the possible incidence of various illnesses among exposed workers, and (iii) the potential settlement costs without federal or other legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions, Duke Energy Indiana estimates that the range of reasonably possible exposure in existing and future suits over the foreseeable future is not material. This estimated range of exposure may change as additional settlements occur and claims are made and more case law is established.

Other Litigation and Legal Proceedings

The Duke Energy Registrants are involved in other legal, tax and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts. Management believes that the final disposition of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

The Duke Energy Registrants have exposure to certain legal matters that are described herein. Duke Energy has recorded reserves, including reserves related to the aforementioned asbestos-related injuries and damages claims, of $830 million and $900 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, for these proceedings and exposures (the total of which is primarily related to Duke Energy Carolinas). These reserves represent management's best estimate of probable loss as defined in the accounting guidance for contingencies. Duke Energy has insurance coverage for certain of these losses incurred. As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Duke Energy recognized $813 million and $850 million, respectively, of probable insurance recoveries related to these losses (the total of which is related to Duke Energy Carolinas).

The Duke Energy Registrants expense legal costs related to the defense of loss contingencies as incurred.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

General. As part of its normal business, the Duke Energy Registrants are a party to various financial guarantees, performance guarantees and other contractual commitments to extend guarantees of credit and other assistance to various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties. To varying degrees, these guarantees involve elements of performance and credit risk, which are not included on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The possibility of any of the Duke Energy Registrants having to honor their contingencies is largely dependent upon future operations of various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties, or the occurrence of certain future events.

In addition, the Duke Energy Registrants enter into various fixed-price, non-cancelable commitments to purchase or sell power (tolling arrangements or power purchase contracts), take-or-pay arrangements, transportation or throughput agreements and other contracts that may or may not be recognized on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Some of these arrangements may be recognized at fair value on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets if such contracts meet the definition of a derivative and the NPNS exception does not apply.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Commitments And Contingencies

5. Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental

Duke Energy is subject to international, federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental matters. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal 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 of the Duke Energy Registrants.

Remediation Activities. The Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various contaminated sites. These include some properties that are part of ongoing operations and sites formerly owned or used by Duke Energy entities, such as historic manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. Most of these sites were decommissioned in the 1960s. While a majority of the MGP by-products were sold off-site during the time period when the plants operated, some residuals remained on-site during plant decommissioning. Remediation activities typically focus on the containment, removal and/or the management of these by-products. In some cases, Duke Energy no longer owns the property. Managed in conjunction with relevant federal, state and local agencies, activities vary with site conditions and locations, remediation requirements, complexity and sharing of responsibility. If remediation activities involve statutory joint and several liability provisions, strict liability, or cost recovery or contribution actions, the Duke Energy Registrants could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other parties. In some instances, the Duke Energy Registrants may share liability associated with contamination with other potentially responsible parties, and may also benefit from insurance policies or contractual indemnities that cover some or all cleanup costs. Reserves associated with remediation activities at certain sites have been recorded and it is anticipated that additional costs associated with remediation activities at certain sites will be incurred in the future. All of these sites generally are managed in the normal course of business or affiliate operations.

The Duke Energy Registrants have accrued costs associated with remediation activities at some of its current and former sites, as well as other relevant environmental contingent liabilities. Management, in the normal course of business, continually assesses the nature and extent of known or potential environmental-related contingencies and records liabilities when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. Costs associated with remediation activities within the Duke Energy Registrants' operations are typically expensed unless regulatory recovery of the costs is deemed probable.

As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio had a total reserve of $36 million, related to remediation work at certain MGP sites. Duke Energy Ohio has received an order from the PUCO to defer the costs incurred. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio has deferred $64 million of costs related to the MGP sites. The PUCO will rule on the recovery of these costs at a future proceeding. Management believes it is probable that additional liabilities will be incurred as work progresses at Ohio MGP sites; however, costs associated with future remediation cannot currently be reasonably estimated.

Clean Water Act 316(b). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposed cooling water intake structures rule on April 20, 2011. Duke Energy submitted comments on the proposed rule on August 16, 2011. The proposed rule advances one main approach and three alternatives. The main approach establishes aquatic protection requirements for existing facilities and new on-site facility additions that withdraw 2 million gallons or more of water per day from rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, oceans, or other U.S. waters for cooling purposes. Based on the main approach proposed, most, if not all of the 23 coal and nuclear-fueled generating facilities in which the Duke Energy Registrants are either a whole or partial owner are likely affected sources. Additional sources, including some combined-cycle combustion turbine facilities, may also be impacted, at least for intake modifications.

The EPA has plans to finalize the 316(b) rule in July 2012. Compliance with portions of the rule could begin as early as 2015. Because of the wide range of potential outcomes, including the other three alternative proposals, the Duke Energy Registrants are unable to estimate its costs to comply at this time.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). On August 8, 2011, the EPA published its final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in the Federal Register. The CSAPR establishes state-level annual SO₂ and NO_x budgets that take effect on January 1, 2012, and state-level ozone-season NO_x budgets that take effect on May 1, 2012, and allocates emission allowances to affected sources in each state equal to the state budget less an allowance set-aside for new sources. The budget levels decline in 2014 for most states, including each state that the Duke Energy Registrants operate in, except for South Carolina where the budget levels remain constant. The rule allows intrastate and interstate allowance trading.

The stringency of the 2012 and 2014 CSAPR requirements vary among the Duke Energy Registrants and each is currently evaluating options for achieving the CSAPR requirements. Where the CSAPR requirements will be constraining, activities being evaluated to meet the requirements include purchasing emission allowances, power purchases, curtailing generation and utilizing low sulfur fuel to reduce levels of SO₂ or NO_x emissions. Technical adjustments to CSAPR proposed by the EPA in October 2011, if finalized, are not expected to materially impact the Duke Energy Registrants. See Note 7 for further information regarding impairment of emissions allowances as a result of the CSAPR.

Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Management. Duke Energy currently estimates that it will spend $369 million ($131 million at Duke Energy Carolinas, $70 million at Duke Energy Ohio and $168 million at Duke Energy Indiana) over the period 2011-2015 to install synthetic caps and liners at existing and new CCP landfills and to convert some of its CCP handling systems from wet to dry systems to comply with current regulations. The EPA and a number of states are considering additional regulatory measures that will contain specific and more detailed requirements for the management and disposal of CCPs, primarily ash, from the Duke Energy Registrants' coal-fired power plants.

On June 21, 2010, the EPA issued a proposal to regulate, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, coal combustion residuals (CCR), a term the EPA uses to describe the CCPs associated with the generation of electricity. The EPA proposal contains two regulatory options whereby CCRs not employed in approved beneficial use applications would either be regulated as hazardous waste or would continue to be regulated as non-hazardous waste. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking. However, based on the proposal, the cost of complying with the final regulation will be significant. The EPA is not expected to issue a final rule until 2012 or later.

Utility Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards. On May 3, 2011, the proposed Utility MACT Standards rule was published in the Federal Register. The rule proposes to establish emission limits for hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired electric generating units, including mercury. On October 24, 2011, the Court modified its earlier consent decree, giving the EPA until December 16, 2011, to finalize the MACT rule. Based on this date, compliance with the final emission limits will be required in early 2015, three years after the rule takes effect. The proposed rule gives permitting authorities the discretion to grant up to a 1-year compliance extension, on a case-by-case basis, to sources that are unable to install emission controls before the three year compliance deadline. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking. However, based on the proposal, the cost of complying with the final regulation will be significant.

Litigation

Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana

New Source Review (NSR). In 1999-2000, the DOJ, acting on behalf of the EPA and joined by various citizen groups and states, filed a number of complaints and notices of violation against multiple utilities across the country for alleged violations of the NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Generally, the government alleges that projects performed at various coal-fired units were major modifications, as defined in the CAA, and that the utilities violated the CAA when they undertook those projects without obtaining permits and installing the best available emission controls for SO₂, NO_x and particulate matter. The complaints seek injunctive relief to require installation of pollution control technology on various generating units that allegedly violated the CAA, and unspecified civil penalties in amounts of up to $32,500 per day for each violation. A number of the Duke Energy Registrants' plants have been subject to these allegations. The Duke Energy Registrants assert that there were no CAA violations because the applicable regulations do not require permitting in cases where the projects undertaken are "routine" or otherwise do not result in a net increase in emissions.

In 2000, the government brought a lawsuit against Duke Energy Carolinas in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina. The EPA claims that 29 projects performed at 25 of Duke Energy Carolinas' coal-fired units violate these NSR provisions. Three environmental groups have intervened in the case. In August 2003, the trial court issued a summary judgment opinion adopting Duke Energy Carolinas' legal positions on the standard to be used for measuring an increase in emissions, and granted judgment in favor of Duke Energy Carolinas. The trial court's decision was appealed and ultimately reversed and remanded for trial by the U.S. Supreme Court. At trial, Duke Energy Carolinas will continue to assert that the projects were routine or not projected to increase emissions. On July 29, 2010, the district court issued an order on outstanding motions for summary judgment filed in response to the Supreme Court remand. The court vacated large portions of the previous trial court's opinion in light of the Supreme Court ruling and found that Duke Energy Carolinas has the burden of proof for the Routine Maintenance Repair and Replacement exclusion, but that the exception must be viewed in light of industry practice, not only in light of an individual unit. The court also clarified that it will apply the "actual-to-projected-actual" emissions test to determine whether Duke Energy Carolinas should reasonably have sought a pre-project permit for any of the projects at issue. On February 11, 2011, the trial judge held an initial status conference and on March 22, 2011, the judge entered an interim scheduling order. The parties have filed a stipulation in which the United States and Plaintiff-Intervenors have dismissed with prejudice 16 claims. In exchange, Duke Energy Carolinas dismissed certain affirmative defenses. The parties have filed motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. No trial date has been set, but a trial is not expected in 2011.

In November 1999, the U.S. brought a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Cinergy, Duke Energy Ohio, and Duke Energy Indiana alleging various violations of the CAA for various projects at six owned and co-owned generating stations in the Midwest. Three northeast states and two environmental groups intervened in the case. A jury verdict was returned on May 22, 2008. The jury found in favor of Cinergy, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana on all but three units at Duke Energy Indiana's Wabash River Station, including Duke Energy Indiana's Gallagher Station units discussed below. Additionally, the plaintiffs had claimed that these were a violation of an Administrative Consent Order entered into in 1998 between the EPA and Cinergy relating to alleged violations of Ohio's State Implementation Plan provisions governing particulate matter at Duke Energy Ohio's W.C. Beckjord Station. On May 29, 2009, the court issued its remedy ruling for violations previously established at the Wabash River and W.C. Beckjord Stations and ordered the following relief: (i) Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 to be permanently retired by September 30, 2009; (ii) surrender of SO₂ allowances equal to the emissions from Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 from May 22, 2008 through September 30, 2009; (iii) civil penalty in the amount of $687,500 for W.C. Beckjord violations; and (iv) installation of a particulate continuous emissions monitoring system at W.C. Beckjord Units 1 and 2. The civil penalty has been paid. On October 12, 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing the trial court and ordered issuance of judgment in favor of Cinergy (USA v. Cinergy), which includes Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The plaintiff's motion for rehearing was denied on December 29, 2010. On January 6, 2011, the mandate from the Seventh Circuit was issued returning the case to the District Court and on April 15, 2011, the District Court issued its Final Amended Judgment in favor of Cinergy. Plaintiffs did not file a petition for certiorari with the United State Supreme Court prior to the March 29, 2011 filing deadline. This ruling allowed Wabash River Units 2, 3 and 5 to be placed back into service.

Regarding the Gallagher Station units, on October 21, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new liability trial claiming that defendants misled the plaintiffs and the jury by, among other things, not disclosing a consulting agreement with a fact witness and by referring to that witness as "retired" during the liability trial when in fact he was working for Duke Energy Indiana under the referenced consulting agreement in connection with the trial. On December 18, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new liability trial on claims for which Duke Energy Indiana was not previously found liable. On May 19, 2009, the jury announced its verdict finding in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on four of the remaining six projects at issue. The two projects in which the jury found violations were undertaken at Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3. The parties to the remedy trial reached a negotiated agreement on those issues and filed a proposed consent decree with the court, which was approved and entered on March 18, 2010. The substantive terms of the proposed consent decree require: (i) conversion of Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3 to natural gas combustion by 2013 (or retirement of the units by February 2012); (ii) installation of additional pollution controls at Gallagher Station Units 2 and 4 by 2011; and (iii) additional environmental projects, payments and penalties. Duke Energy Indiana estimates that these and other actions in the settlement will cost $88 million. Due to the NSR remedy order and consent decree, Duke Energy Indiana requested several approvals from the IURC including approval to add a dry sorbent injection system on Gallagher Station Units 2 and 4, approval to convert to natural gas or retire Gallagher Station Units 1 and 3, and approval to recover expenses for certain SO₂ emission allowance expenses required to be surrendered. On September 8, 2010, the IURC approved the implementation of the dry sorbent injection system. On September 28, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition requesting the recovery of costs associated with the Gallagher consent decree. Testimony in support of the petition was filed in early December 2010. Duke Energy Indiana subsequently requested the IURC suspend the procedural schedule to allow it time to do a solicitation for capacity options to compare to the proposed conversion of Gallagher Units 1 and 3 to natural gas.

On May 26, 2011, Duke Energy Indiana filed testimony seeking approval of the purchase of a portion of the Vermillion Generating Station from its affiliate, Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio. Refer to Note 3 for further information on the Vermillion transaction. As a result of the proposed purchase, Duke Energy Indiana may retire Gallagher Units 1 and 3. The approval of the Vermillion transaction by the FERC and IURC under terms acceptable to Duke Energy Indiana is a condition to the closing of the transaction and the option of converting Gallagher Units 1 and 3 to gas is being preserved until such approvals have been obtained. On August 12, 2011, the FERC approved the Vermillion transaction. An IURC hearing was held in September 2011 with an order expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

On April 3, 2008, the Sierra Club filed another lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Duke Energy Indiana and certain affiliated companies alleging CAA violations at Edwardsport Station. On October 20, 2009, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the applicable statute of limitations bars all of the plaintiffs' claims. On September 14, 2010, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety; however, entry of final judgment was stayed pending a decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in USA v. Cinergy, referenced above, on a similar and potentially dispositive statute of limitations issue pending before that court. On October 12, 2010, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in USA v. Cinergy in which the court ruled in favor of Cinergy and declined to address the referenced statute of limitations issue. The Seventh circuit issued its mandate on January 6, 2011 and the District Court issued final judgment in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on March 1, 2011. On March 2, 2011, the Sierra Club agreed not to pursue an appeal of the case in exchange for Duke Energy Indiana's waiver of its right to seek reimbursement of costs.

It is not possible to estimate the damages, if any, that might be incurred in connection with the unresolved matters discussed above. Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Duke Energy Registrants' consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. However, the appropriate regulatory treatment will be pursued for any costs incurred in connection with such resolution.

Duke Energy

CO₂ Litigation. In July 2004, the states of Connecticut, New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the City of New York brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Cinergy, AEP, American Electric Power Service Corporation, Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Xcel Energy Inc. A similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same companies by Open Space Institute, Inc., Open Space Conservancy, Inc., and The Audubon Society of New Hampshire. These lawsuits allege that the defendants' emissions of CO₂ from the combustion of fossil fuels at electric generating facilities contribute to global warming and amount to a public nuisance. The complaints also allege that the defendants could generate the same amount of electricity while emitting significantly less CO₂. The plaintiffs were seeking an injunction requiring each defendant to cap its CO₂ emissions and then reduce them by a specified percentage each year for at least a decade. In September 2005, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 7, 2006. In September 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the district court and reinstating the lawsuit. Defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was subsequently denied. Defendants filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on August 2, 2010. On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Argument on this matter was held on April 19, 2011. On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court held that the Second Court of Appeals decision should be reversed on the basis that plaintiffs' claims cannot proceed under federal common law, which was displaced by the CAA and actual or potential EPA regulations. The Court's decision did not address plaintiffs' state law claims as those claims had not been presented. On September 2, 2011, plaintiffs notified the Court that they had decided to withdraw their complaints. This effectively ends the proceedings in this case.

Alaskan Global Warming Lawsuit. On February 26, 2008, plaintiffs, the governing bodies of an Inupiat village in Alaska, filed suit in the U.S. Federal Court for the Northern District of California against Peabody Coal and various oil and power company defendants, including Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on behalf of the village's 400 residents. The lawsuit alleges that defendants' emissions of CO₂ contributed to global warming and constitute a private and public nuisance. Plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants, including Duke Energy, conspired to mislead the public with respect to global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, attorney's fees and expenses. On June 30, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, together with a motion to dismiss the conspiracy claims. On October 15, 2009, the District Court granted defendants motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and briefing is complete. By Order dated February 23, 2011, the Court stayed oral argument in this case pending the Supreme Court's ruling in the CO₂ litigation discussed above. Following the Supreme Court's June 20, 2011 decision the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set the case for argument on November 28, 2011. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with this matter.

Price Reporting Cases. A total of five lawsuits were filed against Duke Energy affiliates and other energy companies and remain pending in a consolidated, single federal court proceeding in Nevada.

In November 2009, the judge granted defendants' motion for reconsideration of the denial of defendants' summary judgment motion in two of the remaining five cases to which Duke Energy affiliates are a party. A hearing on that motion occurred on July 15, 2011, and on July 19, 2011, the judge granted the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In December 2009, plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed a motion to amend their complaints in the individual cases to add a claim for treble damages under the Sherman Act, including additional factual allegations regarding fraudulent concealment of defendants' allegedly conspiratorial conduct. Those motions were denied on October 29, 2010.

Each of these cases contains similar claims, that the respective plaintiffs, and the classes they claim to represent, were harmed by the defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with the remaining matters.

Duke Energy International Paranapanema Lawsuit. On July 16, 2008, Duke Energy International Geracao Paranapanema S.A. (DEIGP) filed a lawsuit in the Brazilian federal court challenging transmission fee assessments imposed under two new resolutions promulgated by the Brazilian electricity regulatory agency (ANEEL) (collectively, the Resolutions). The Resolutions purport to impose additional transmission fees (retroactive to July 1, 2004 and effective through June 30, 2009) on generation companies located in the State of São Paulo for utilization of the electric transmission system. The new charges are based upon a flat-fee that fails to take into account the locational usage by each generator. DEIGP's additional assessment under these Resolutions amounts to approximately $69 million, inclusive of interest, through September 2011. Based on DEIGP's continuing refusal to tender payment of the disputed sums, on April 1, 2009, ANEEL imposed an additional fine against DEIGP in the amount of $9 million. DEIGP filed a request to enjoin payment of the fine and for an expedited decision on the merits or, alternatively, an order requiring that all disputed sums be deposited in the court's registry in lieu of direct payment to the distribution companies.

On June 30, 2009, the court issued a ruling in which it granted DEIGP's request for injunction regarding the additional fine, but denied DEIGP's request for an expedited decision on the original assessment or payment into the court registry. Under the court's order, DEIGP was required to make installment payments on the original assessment directly to the distribution companies pending resolution on the merits. DEIGP filed an appeal and on August 28, 2009, the order was modified to allow DEIGP to deposit the disputed portion of each installment, which was most of the assessed amount, into an escrow account pending resolution on the merits. In the second quarter of 2009, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $33 million associated with this matter.

Brazil Expansion Lawsuit. On August 9, 2011, the State of São Paulo filed a lawsuit in Brazilian state court against DEIGP based upon a claim that DEIGP is under a continuing obligation to expand installed generation capacity by 15% pursuant to a stock purchase agreement under which DEIGP purchased generation assets from the state. On August 10, 2011, a judge granted an ex parte injunction ordering DEIGP to present, within 60 days of service, a detailed expansion plan in satisfaction of the 15% obligation or face civil penalties in the amount of approximately $16,000 per day. Both DEIGP and ANEEL have previously taken a position that the 15% expansion obligation is no longer viable given the changes that have occurred in the electric energy sector since privatization of that sector. ANEEL has also stated that it is not within its jurisdiction to apply sanctions for failure to comply with the alleged expansion obligation. In September, 2011, DEIGP filed (i) a request for reconsideration of the injunction order with the original court; (ii) a request for stay of the order with the appellate court; (iii) an appeal of the order; and (iv) a substantive defense of the lawsuit in the original court. On September 29, 2011, DEIGP's request for stay of the injunction was denied. The remaining requests for relief are pending. DEIGP plans to submit an expansion plan by the court ordered deadline of November 11, 2011.

Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in South Carolina against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). These allegations arise out of the conversion of the Duke Energy Company Employees' Retirement Plan into the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. The case also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging errors in the application of Plan provisions (i.e., the calculation of interest rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the calculation of lump-sum distributions). Six causes of action were alleged, ranging from age discrimination, to various alleged ERISA violations, to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs sought a broad array of remedies, including a retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and a recalculation of participants'/ beneficiaries' benefits under the revised and reformed plan. Duke Energy filed its answer in March 2006. A portion of this contingent liability was assigned to Spectra Energy Corp (Spectra Energy) in connection with the spin-off in January 2007. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add an additional age discrimination claim, defendant's motion to dismiss and the respective motions for summary judgment was held in December 2007. On June 2, 2008, the court issued its ruling denying plaintiffs' motion to add the additional claim and dismissing a number of plaintiffs' claims, including the claims for ERISA age discrimination. Subsequently, plaintiffs notified Duke Energy that they were withdrawing their ADEA claim. On September 4, 2009, the court issued its order certifying classes for three of the remaining claims but not certifying their claims as to plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims. At an unsuccessful mediation in September 2008, Plaintiffs quantified their claims as being in excess of $150 million. After mediation on September 21, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit, subject to execution of a definitive settlement agreement, notice to the class members and approval of the settlement by the Court. In the third quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a provision related to the settlement agreement. At a hearing on May 16, 2011, the court issued its final confirmation order and payments have been made in accordance with the settlement agreement.

Crescent Litigation. On September 3, 2010, the Crescent Resources Litigation Trust filed suit against Duke Energy along with various affiliates and several individuals, including current and former employees of Duke Energy, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. The Crescent Resources Litigation Trust was established in May, 2010 pursuant to the plan of reorganization approved in the Crescent bankruptcy proceedings in the same court. The complaint alleges that in 2006 the defendants caused Crescent to borrow approximately $1.2 billion from a consortium of banks and immediately thereafter distribute most of the loan proceeds to Crescent's parent company without benefit to Crescent. The complaint further alleges that Crescent was rendered insolvent by the transactions, and that the distribution is subject to recovery by the Crescent bankruptcy estate as an alleged fraudulent transfer. The plaintiff requests return of the funds as well as other statutory and equitable relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Duke Energy and its affiliated defendants believe that the referenced 2006 transactions were legitimate and did not violate any state or federal law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in December 2010. On March 21, 2011, the plaintiff filed a response to the defendant's motion to dismiss and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which was granted. The Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss in response to plaintiffs' amended complaint.

A hearing on the motion was held on August 31, 2011. No trial date has been set. It is not possible to predict at this time whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy might incur in connection with this lawsuit.

On October 14, 2010, a suit was filed in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina by a group of Duke Energy shareholders alleging breach of duty of loyalty and good faith by certain Duke Energy directors who were directors at the time of the 2006 Crescent transaction. On January 5, 2011, defendants filed a Notice of Designation of this case for the North Carolina Business Court. On July 22, 2011, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit and the plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling.

Progress Energy Merger Litigation. Duke Energy and Diamond Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy have been named as defendants in 10 purported shareholder actions filed in North Carolina state court and two cases filed in federal court in North Carolina. The actions, which contain similar allegations, were brought by individual shareholders against the following defendants: Progress Energy, Duke Energy, Diamond Acquisition Corporation and Directors of Progress Energy. The lawsuits allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Progress Energy shareholders and that Duke Energy and Diamond Acquisition Corporation, aided and abetted the individual defendants. The plaintiffs seek damages and to enjoin the merger. One of the state court cases was voluntarily dismissed. On July 11, 2011, the parties to the remaining nine state court cases entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for a disclosure-based settlement of the litigation. On August 2, 2011, preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the Court. An order approving the proposed settlement is expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

The plaintiff in one of the federal court lawsuits filed a motion for voluntary withdrawal, leaving one federal case pending. The complaint in the federal action includes allegations that defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with the statements contained in Duke Energy's Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, and is now subject to the notice requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiff's counsel in the federal case have sent a total of four derivative demand letters to Progress Energy demanding that Progress Energy's board of directors make certain disclosures, desist from moving forward with the merger and engage in an auction of the company. Progress Energy has indicated that it is evaluating those demands. On August 3, 2011, the Court issued a scheduling order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On October 27, 2011, a hearing regarding the final approval of the proposed settlement was held.

Federal Advanced Clean Coal Tax Credits. Duke Energy has been awarded $125 million of federal advanced clean coal tax credits associated with its construction of Cliffside Unit 6 and $134 million of federal advanced clean coal tax credits associated with its construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant. In March, 2008, two environmental groups, Appalachian Voices and the Canary Coalition, filed suit against the Federal government challenging the tax credits awarded to incentivize certain clean coal projects. Although Duke Energy was not a party to the case, the allegations center on the tax incentives provided for the Cliffside and Edwardsport projects. The initial complaint alleged a failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The first amended complaint, filed in August 2008, added an Endangered Species Act claim and also sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOE and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In 2008, the District Court dismissed the case. On September 23, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and denying, as moot, the motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs have filed their second amended complaint. The Federal government has moved to dismiss the second amended complaint; the motion is pending. On July 26, 2010, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction seeking to halt the issuance of the tax credits.

Duke Energy Carolinas

Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Unit 6 Permit. On July 16, 2008, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Environmental Defense Fund, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defenses Council, and Sierra Club (collectively referred to as Citizen Groups) filed suit in U.S District Court for the Western District of North Carolina alleging that Duke Energy Carolinas violated the CAA when it commenced construction of Cliffside Unit 6 without obtaining a determination that the MACT emission limits will be met for all prospective hazardous air emissions at that plant. The Citizen Groups claim the right to injunctive relief against further construction at the plant as well as civil penalties in the amount of up to $32,500 per day for each alleged violation. In July 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas voluntarily performed a MACT assessment of air emission controls planned for Cliffside Unit 6 and submitted the results to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). On December 2, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and entered judgment ordering Duke Energy Carolinas to initiate a MACT process before the DAQ. The court did not order an injunction against further construction, but retained jurisdiction to monitor the MACT proceedings. On December 4, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas submitted its MACT filing and supporting information to the DAQ specifically seeking DAQ's concurrence as a threshold matter that construction of Cliffside Unit 6 is not a major source subject to section 112 of the CAA and submitting a MACT determination application. Concurrent with the initiation of the MACT process, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the Court's December 2, 2008 order to reverse the Court's determination that Duke Energy Carolinas violated the CAA. The DAQ issued the revised permit on March 13, 2009, finding that Cliffside Unit 6 is a minor source of HAPs and imposing operating conditions to assure that emissions stay below the major source threshold. Based upon DAQ's minor-source determination, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion requesting that the court abstain from further action on the matter and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The court granted Duke Energy Carolinas motion to abstain and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice, but also ordered Duke Energy Carolinas to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. On August 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order and Duke Energy Carolinas likewise appealed on the grounds, among others, that the dismissal should have been with prejudice and the court should not have ordered payment of attorneys' fees. The appeals have been consolidated. On April 14, 2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling awarding fees to defendants. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a request for rehearing, which was denied, on May 10, 2011.

Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims. Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September 30, 2011, there were 271 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $57 million, and 53 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $14 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke Energy Carolinas in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled $815 million and $853 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, and are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount in Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2030. Management believes that it is possible there will be additional claims filed against Duke Energy Carolinas after 2030. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe that they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2030 related to such potential claims. Asbestos-related loss estimates incorporate anticipated inflation, if applicable, and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. These reserves are based upon current estimates and are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. A significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims filed, the nature of the alleged injury, and the average cost of resolving each such claim could change our estimated liability, as could any substantial adverse or favorable verdict at trial. A federal legislative solution, further state tort reform or structured settlement transactions could also change the estimated liability. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting matters into the future and numerous other factors outside our control, management believes that it is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self insurance retention on its insurance policy during the second quarter of 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by Duke Energy Carolinas' third party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $968 million in excess of the self insured retention. Insurance recoveries of $813 million and $850 million related to this policy are classified in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Management believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Ohio

Antitrust Lawsuit. In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that Duke Energy Ohio (then The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company), conspired to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into non-public option agreements with such consumers in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's pending RSP, which was implemented in early 2005. On March 31, 2009, the District Court granted Duke Energy Ohio's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or set aside the judgment, which was denied by an order dated March 31, 2010. In April 2010, the plaintiffs filed their appeal of that order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The matter is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting the scheduling of oral argument. It is not possible to predict at this time whether Duke Energy Ohio will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy Ohio might incur in connection with this lawsuit.

Duke Energy Indiana

Prosperity Mine, LLC. On October 12, 2009, Prosperity Mine, LLC (Prosperity) filed for arbitration under an Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Coal dated October 30, 2008. The Agreement provided for sale by Prosperity and purchase by Duke Energy Indiana of 500,000 tons of coal per year, commencing on January 1, 2009 and continuing until December 31, 2014, unless sooner terminated under the terms of the Agreement. Duke Energy Indiana could terminate the Agreement if a force majeure event lasted more than three months. Prosperity declared a force majeure event on February 13, 2010 and, when Prosperity did not notify Duke Energy Indiana that the force majeure had ended; Duke Energy Indiana sent written notice of termination on May 14, 2010. Prosperity contends that the termination was improper and that it is owed damages, quantified at $88 million, for the full contractual volumes through 2014. On November 17, 2010, the arbitrators issued their decision, ruling in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on all counts. On January 7, 2011, Prosperity filed a lawsuit in Indiana state court alleging that the arbitrators exceeded their power and acted without authority and asking that the arbitrators' award be vacated. The parties reached a commercial arrangement pursuant to which Prosperity agreed to dismiss the lawsuit.

Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims. Duke Energy Indiana has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in lawsuits related to asbestos at its electric generating stations. The impact on Duke Energy Indiana's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of these cases to date has not been material. Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerning uncertainties, such as, among others: (i) the number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos during construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Indiana generating plants; (ii) the possible incidence of various illnesses among exposed workers, and (iii) the potential settlement costs without federal or other legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions, Duke Energy Indiana estimates that the range of reasonably possible exposure in existing and future suits over the foreseeable future is not material. This estimated range of exposure may change as additional settlements occur and claims are made and more case law is established.

Other Litigation and Legal Proceedings

The Duke Energy Registrants are involved in other legal, tax and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts. Management believes that the final disposition of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

The Duke Energy Registrants have exposure to certain legal matters that are described herein. Duke Energy has recorded reserves, including reserves related to the aforementioned asbestos-related injuries and damages claims, of $830 million and $900 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, for these proceedings and exposures (the total of which is primarily related to Duke Energy Carolinas). These reserves represent management's best estimate of probable loss as defined in the accounting guidance for contingencies. Duke Energy has insurance coverage for certain of these losses incurred. As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Duke Energy recognized $813 million and $850 million, respectively, of probable insurance recoveries related to these losses (the total of which is related to Duke Energy Carolinas).

The Duke Energy Registrants expense legal costs related to the defense of loss contingencies as incurred.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

General. As part of its normal business, the Duke Energy Registrants are a party to various financial guarantees, performance guarantees and other contractual commitments to extend guarantees of credit and other assistance to various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties. To varying degrees, these guarantees involve elements of performance and credit risk, which are not included on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The possibility of any of the Duke Energy Registrants having to honor their contingencies is largely dependent upon future operations of various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties, or the occurrence of certain future events.

In addition, the Duke Energy Registrants enter into various fixed-price, non-cancelable commitments to purchase or sell power (tolling arrangements or power purchase contracts), take-or-pay arrangements, transportation or throughput agreements and other contracts that may or may not be recognized on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Some of these arrangements may be recognized at fair value on the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets if such contracts meet the definition of a derivative and the NPNS exception does not apply.

XML

Organization And Basis Of Presentation (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Organization And Basis Of Presentation

Disclosure Of Unbilled Revenues Within Restricted Receivables Of Variable Interest Entities And Receivables

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	599	$	751
Duke Energy Carolinas		265		322
Duke Energy Ohio(a)		46		54
Duke Energy Indiana		6		12

(a) Primarily relates to wholesale sales within the Commercial Power segment.

XML

Acquisitions And Sales Of Other Assets

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Acquisitions And Sales Of Other Assets

3. Acquisitions and Sales of Other Assets

Acquisitions. The Duke Energy Registrants consolidate assets and liabilities from acquisitions as of the purchase date, and include earnings from acquisitions in consolidated earnings after the purchase date.

Duke Energy

On January 8, 2011, Duke Energy entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) among Diamond Acquisition Corporation, a North Carolina corporation and Duke Energy's wholly-owned subsidiary (Merger Sub) and Progress Energy, a North Carolina corporation. Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Progress Energy with Progress Energy continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, upon the closing of the merger, each issued and outstanding share of Progress Energy common stock will automatically be cancelled and converted into the right to receive 2.6125 shares of common stock of Duke Energy, subject to appropriate adjustment for a reverse stock split of the Duke Energy common stock as contemplated in the Merger Agreement and except that any shares of Progress Energy common stock that are owned by Progress Energy or Duke Energy, other than in a fiduciary capacity, will be cancelled without any consideration therefor. Each outstanding option to acquire, and each outstanding equity award relating to, one share of Progress Energy common stock will be converted into an option to acquire, or an equity award relating to 2.6125 shares of Duke Energy common stock, as applicable, subject to appropriate adjustment for the reverse stock split. Based on Progress Energy shares outstanding at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy would issue 771 million shares of common stock to convert the Progress Energy common shares in the merger under the unadjusted exchange ratio of 2.6125. The exchange ratio will be adjusted proportionately to reflect a 1-for-3 reverse stock split with respect to the issued and outstanding Duke Energy common stock that Duke Energy plans to implement prior to, and conditioned on, the completion of the merger. The resulting adjusted exchange ratio is 0.87083 of a share of Duke Energy common stock for each share of Progress Energy common stock. Based on Progress Energy shares outstanding at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy would issue 257 million shares of common stock, after the effect of the 1-for-3 reverse stock split, to convert the Progress Energy common shares in the merger. The merger will be accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting with Duke Energy treated as the acquirer, for accounting purposes. Based on the market price of Duke Energy common stock on September 30, 2011, the transaction would be valued at $15.4 billion and would result in incremental recorded goodwill to Duke Energy of $9.3 billion, according to current estimates. Duke Energy would also assume all of Progress Energy's outstanding debt, which is estimated to be $15.1 billion based on the approximate fair value of Progress Energy's outstanding indebtedness at September 30, 2011. The Merger Agreement has been unanimously approved by both companies' Boards of Directors.

The merger is conditioned upon, among other things, approval by the shareholders of both companies, as well as expiration or termination of any applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 and approval by the FERC, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the NRC, the NCUC, and the KPSC. Duke Energy and Progress Energy also are seeking review of the merger by the PSCSC and approval of the joint dispatch agreement by the PSCSC. Although there are no merger-specific regulatory approvals required in Indiana, Ohio or Florida, the companies will continue to update the public services commissions in those states on the merger, as applicable and as required. The status of these matters is as follows:

• On March 17, 2011, Duke Energy filed an initial registration statement on Form S-4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for shares to be issued to consummate the merger with Progress Energy. On July 7, 2011, the Form S-4 was declared effective by the SEC, and the joint proxy statement/prospectus contained in the Form S-4 was mailed to the shareholders of both companies thereafter. On August 23, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy shareholders approved the proposed merger. In addition, Duke Energy shareholders approved a 1-for-3 reverse stock split.

• On March 28, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy submitted Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust filings to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The parties have met their obligations under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, which is no longer a bar to closing the transaction.

• On March 30, 2011, Progress Energy made filings with the NRC for approval for indirect transfer of control of licenses for Progress Energy's nuclear facilities to include Duke Energy as the ultimate parent corporation on these licenses.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a merger application and joint dispatch agreement with the NCUC. On September 2, 2011, Duke Energy, Progress Energy and the NC Public Staff filed a settlement agreement with the NCUC. Under the settlement agreement, the companies will guarantee North Carolina customers their allocable share of $650 million in savings related to fuel and joint dispatch of generation assets over the first five years after the merger closes, continue community financial support for a minimum of four years, contribute to weatherization efforts of low-income customers and workforce development and agree not to recover direct merger-related costs. A public hearing occurred September 20-22, 2011 and proposed orders and/or briefs must be filed by November 14, 2011.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a merger application with the KPSC. On June 24, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a settlement agreement with the Attorney General. A public hearing occurred on July 8, 2011. An order conditionally approving the merger was issued on August 2, 2011. The KPSC required Duke Energy and Progress Energy to accept all the conditions contained in the order within seven days of the order. After seeking an extension, on August 19, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed for clarification of one of the merger conditions. On September 15, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed for approval of a stipulation revising the merger condition. On October 28, 2011, the KPSC issued an order approving the stipulation and merger.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy, jointly filed applications with the FERC for the approval of the merger, the Joint Dispatch Agreement and the joint Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). On September 30, 2011, the FERC conditionally approved the merger, subject to approval of mitigation measures to address its finding that the combined company could have an adverse effect on competition in wholesale power markets in the Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas East balancing authority areas. On October 17, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed their plan for mitigating the FERC's concerns by proposing to offer on a daily basis a certain quantity of power during summer and winter periods to the extent it is available after serving native load and existing firm obligations. The price will be incremental cost, plus 10 percent. Intervenors may comment on the plan by November 16, 2011, after which time, the FERC will rule on whether the mitigation plan adequately addresses the market power issues. FERC has not yet ruled on the Joint Dispatch Agreement or the joint OATT. On October 31, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a request for rehearing with the FERC. The request states that the FERC applied a more stringent analysis to the proposed merger than required by its current rules. Duke Energy and Progress Energy also requested that the FERC address the companies' previously filed mitigation plan no later than December 15, 2011.

• On April 25, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy, on behalf of their utility companies Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas, filed an application requesting the PSCSC to review the merger and approve the proposed Joint Dispatch Agreement and the prospective future merger of Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas. On September 13, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy withdrew their application seeking approval for the future merger of their Carolinas utility companies, Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas, as the merger of these entities is not likely to occur for several years after the close of the merger. On October 13, 2011 the PSCSC issued an order suspending all scheduled deadlines and the hearing date until Duke Energy and Progress Energy file their proposed mitigation measures with the FERC and the PSCSC. Duke Energy and Progress Energy made that filing on October 17, 2011. On November 2, 2011, the PSCSC adopted a revised procedural schedule for its review of the merger. Hearings are scheduled to begin the week of December 12, 2011. The docket will remain open pending FERC issuance of its final orders on the merger related actions before the FERC.

• On July 12, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed an application with the FCC for approval of radio system license transfers. The FCC approved the transfers on July 27, 2011.

Duke Energy is targeting completion of the merger by the end of 2011, however no assurances can be given as to the timing of the satisfaction of all closing conditions or that all required approvals will be received.

The Merger Agreement contains certain termination rights for both Duke Energy and Progress Energy, and further provides for the payment of a termination fee of $400 million by Progress Energy under specified circumstances and a termination fee of $675 million by Duke Energy under specified circumstances.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy incurred transaction and integration costs related to the Progress Energy merger of $13 million and $29 million, respectively, which are recorded within Operating Expenses in Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

See Note 5 for information regarding litigation related to the pending merger with Progress Energy.

Vermillion Generating Station.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana

In May 2011, Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC (Duke Energy Vermillion), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into an agreement to sell its 75% undivided ownership interest in the Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana and Wabash Valley Power Association (WVPA). On August 12, 2011, the FERC approved the Vermillion transaction. An IURC hearing was held in September 2011 with an order expected in the fourth quarter of 2011. If approved by the IURC, Duke Energy Indiana and WVPA will acquire 62.5% and 12.5% interests in the Vermillion Generating Station, respectively. As Duke Energy Indiana is an affiliate of Duke Energy Vermillion the transaction will be accounted for as a transfer between entities under common control with no gain or loss recorded and is not expected to have a significant impact to Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana's results of operations. At June 30, 2011, the carrying value of the proportionate share of Vermillion Generating Station which is expected to be sold to WVPA exceeded its estimated fair value. The estimated fair value was determined based on the expected proceeds to be received from WVPA less costs to sell. Accordingly, Duke Energy Ohio's Commercial Power segment recorded an impairment of $9 million in the second quarter of 2011. This amount is presented in Goodwill and other impairment charges in Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's condensed consolidated statements of operations. See Note 5 for further discussion of the Vermillion transaction.

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Acquisitions And Sales Of Other Assets

3. Acquisitions and Sales of Other Assets

Acquisitions. The Duke Energy Registrants consolidate assets and liabilities from acquisitions as of the purchase date, and include earnings from acquisitions in consolidated earnings after the purchase date.

Duke Energy

On January 8, 2011, Duke Energy entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) among Diamond Acquisition Corporation, a North Carolina corporation and Duke Energy's wholly-owned subsidiary (Merger Sub) and Progress Energy, a North Carolina corporation. Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Progress Energy with Progress Energy continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, upon the closing of the merger, each issued and outstanding share of Progress Energy common stock will automatically be cancelled and converted into the right to receive 2.6125 shares of common stock of Duke Energy, subject to appropriate adjustment for a reverse stock split of the Duke Energy common stock as contemplated in the Merger Agreement and except that any shares of Progress Energy common stock that are owned by Progress Energy or Duke Energy, other than in a fiduciary capacity, will be cancelled without any consideration therefor. Each outstanding option to acquire, and each outstanding equity award relating to, one share of Progress Energy common stock will be converted into an option to acquire, or an equity award relating to 2.6125 shares of Duke Energy common stock, as applicable, subject to appropriate adjustment for the reverse stock split. Based on Progress Energy shares outstanding at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy would issue 771 million shares of common stock to convert the Progress Energy common shares in the merger under the unadjusted exchange ratio of 2.6125. The exchange ratio will be adjusted proportionately to reflect a 1-for-3 reverse stock split with respect to the issued and outstanding Duke Energy common stock that Duke Energy plans to implement prior to, and conditioned on, the completion of the merger. The resulting adjusted exchange ratio is 0.87083 of a share of Duke Energy common stock for each share of Progress Energy common stock. Based on Progress Energy shares outstanding at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy would issue 257 million shares of common stock, after the effect of the 1-for-3 reverse stock split, to convert the Progress Energy common shares in the merger. The merger will be accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting with Duke Energy treated as the acquirer, for accounting purposes. Based on the market price of Duke Energy common stock on September 30, 2011, the transaction would be valued at $15.4 billion and would result in incremental recorded goodwill to Duke Energy of $9.3 billion, according to current estimates. Duke Energy would also assume all of Progress Energy's outstanding debt, which is estimated to be $15.1 billion based on the approximate fair value of Progress Energy's outstanding indebtedness at September 30, 2011. The Merger Agreement has been unanimously approved by both companies' Boards of Directors.

The merger is conditioned upon, among other things, approval by the shareholders of both companies, as well as expiration or termination of any applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 and approval by the FERC, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the NRC, the NCUC, and the KPSC. Duke Energy and Progress Energy also are seeking review of the merger by the PSCSC and approval of the joint dispatch agreement by the PSCSC. Although there are no merger-specific regulatory approvals required in Indiana, Ohio or Florida, the companies will continue to update the public services commissions in those states on the merger, as applicable and as required. The status of these matters is as follows:

• On March 17, 2011, Duke Energy filed an initial registration statement on Form S-4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for shares to be issued to consummate the merger with Progress Energy. On July 7, 2011, the Form S-4 was declared effective by the SEC, and the joint proxy statement/prospectus contained in the Form S-4 was mailed to the shareholders of both companies thereafter. On August 23, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy shareholders approved the proposed merger. In addition, Duke Energy shareholders approved a 1-for-3 reverse stock split.

• On March 28, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy submitted Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust filings to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The parties have met their obligations under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, which is no longer a bar to closing the transaction.

• On March 30, 2011, Progress Energy made filings with the NRC for approval for indirect transfer of control of licenses for Progress Energy's nuclear facilities to include Duke Energy as the ultimate parent corporation on these licenses.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a merger application and joint dispatch agreement with the NCUC. On September 2, 2011, Duke Energy, Progress Energy and the NC Public Staff filed a settlement agreement with the NCUC. Under the settlement agreement, the companies will guarantee North Carolina customers their allocable share of $650 million in savings related to fuel and joint dispatch of generation assets over the first five years after the merger closes, continue community financial support for a minimum of four years, contribute to weatherization efforts of low-income customers and workforce development and agree not to recover direct merger-related costs. A public hearing occurred September 20-22, 2011 and proposed orders and/or briefs must be filed by November 14, 2011.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a merger application with the KPSC. On June 24, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a settlement agreement with the Attorney General. A public hearing occurred on July 8, 2011. An order conditionally approving the merger was issued on August 2, 2011. The KPSC required Duke Energy and Progress Energy to accept all the conditions contained in the order within seven days of the order. After seeking an extension, on August 19, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed for clarification of one of the merger conditions. On September 15, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed for approval of a stipulation revising the merger condition. On October 28, 2011, the KPSC issued an order approving the stipulation and merger.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy, jointly filed applications with the FERC for the approval of the merger, the Joint Dispatch Agreement and the joint Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). On September 30, 2011, the FERC conditionally approved the merger, subject to approval of mitigation measures to address its finding that the combined company could have an adverse effect on competition in wholesale power markets in the Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas East balancing authority areas. On October 17, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed their plan for mitigating the FERC's concerns by proposing to offer on a daily basis a certain quantity of power during summer and winter periods to the extent it is available after serving native load and existing firm obligations. The price will be incremental cost, plus 10 percent. Intervenors may comment on the plan by November 16, 2011, after which time, the FERC will rule on whether the mitigation plan adequately addresses the market power issues. FERC has not yet ruled on the Joint Dispatch Agreement or the joint OATT. On October 31, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a request for rehearing with the FERC. The request states that the FERC applied a more stringent analysis to the proposed merger than required by its current rules. Duke Energy and Progress Energy also requested that the FERC address the companies' previously filed mitigation plan no later than December 15, 2011.

• On April 25, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy, on behalf of their utility companies Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas, filed an application requesting the PSCSC to review the merger and approve the proposed Joint Dispatch Agreement and the prospective future merger of Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas. On September 13, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy withdrew their application seeking approval for the future merger of their Carolinas utility companies, Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas, as the merger of these entities is not likely to occur for several years after the close of the merger. On October 13, 2011 the PSCSC issued an order suspending all scheduled deadlines and the hearing date until Duke Energy and Progress Energy file their proposed mitigation measures with the FERC and the PSCSC. Duke Energy and Progress Energy made that filing on October 17, 2011. On November 2, 2011, the PSCSC adopted a revised procedural schedule for its review of the merger. Hearings are scheduled to begin the week of December 12, 2011. The docket will remain open pending FERC issuance of its final orders on the merger related actions before the FERC.

• On July 12, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed an application with the FCC for approval of radio system license transfers. The FCC approved the transfers on July 27, 2011.

Duke Energy is targeting completion of the merger by the end of 2011, however no assurances can be given as to the timing of the satisfaction of all closing conditions or that all required approvals will be received.

The Merger Agreement contains certain termination rights for both Duke Energy and Progress Energy, and further provides for the payment of a termination fee of $400 million by Progress Energy under specified circumstances and a termination fee of $675 million by Duke Energy under specified circumstances.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy incurred transaction and integration costs related to the Progress Energy merger of $13 million and $29 million, respectively, which are recorded within Operating Expenses in Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

See Note 5 for information regarding litigation related to the pending merger with Progress Energy.

Vermillion Generating Station.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana

In May 2011, Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC (Duke Energy Vermillion), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into an agreement to sell its 75% undivided ownership interest in the Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana and Wabash Valley Power Association (WVPA). On August 12, 2011, the FERC approved the Vermillion transaction. An IURC hearing was held in September 2011 with an order expected in the fourth quarter of 2011. If approved by the IURC, Duke Energy Indiana and WVPA will acquire 62.5% and 12.5% interests in the Vermillion Generating Station, respectively. As Duke Energy Indiana is an affiliate of Duke Energy Vermillion the transaction will be accounted for as a transfer between entities under common control with no gain or loss recorded and is not expected to have a significant impact to Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana's results of operations. At June 30, 2011, the carrying value of the proportionate share of Vermillion Generating Station which is expected to be sold to WVPA exceeded its estimated fair value. The estimated fair value was determined based on the expected proceeds to be received from WVPA less costs to sell. Accordingly, Duke Energy Ohio's Commercial Power segment recorded an impairment of $9 million in the second quarter of 2011. This amount is presented in Goodwill and other impairment charges in Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's condensed consolidated statements of operations. See Note 5 for further discussion of the Vermillion transaction.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Acquisitions And Sales Of Other Assets

3. Acquisitions and Sales of Other Assets

Acquisitions. The Duke Energy Registrants consolidate assets and liabilities from acquisitions as of the purchase date, and include earnings from acquisitions in consolidated earnings after the purchase date.

Duke Energy

On January 8, 2011, Duke Energy entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) among Diamond Acquisition Corporation, a North Carolina corporation and Duke Energy's wholly-owned subsidiary (Merger Sub) and Progress Energy, a North Carolina corporation. Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Progress Energy with Progress Energy continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, upon the closing of the merger, each issued and outstanding share of Progress Energy common stock will automatically be cancelled and converted into the right to receive 2.6125 shares of common stock of Duke Energy, subject to appropriate adjustment for a reverse stock split of the Duke Energy common stock as contemplated in the Merger Agreement and except that any shares of Progress Energy common stock that are owned by Progress Energy or Duke Energy, other than in a fiduciary capacity, will be cancelled without any consideration therefor. Each outstanding option to acquire, and each outstanding equity award relating to, one share of Progress Energy common stock will be converted into an option to acquire, or an equity award relating to 2.6125 shares of Duke Energy common stock, as applicable, subject to appropriate adjustment for the reverse stock split. Based on Progress Energy shares outstanding at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy would issue 771 million shares of common stock to convert the Progress Energy common shares in the merger under the unadjusted exchange ratio of 2.6125. The exchange ratio will be adjusted proportionately to reflect a 1-for-3 reverse stock split with respect to the issued and outstanding Duke Energy common stock that Duke Energy plans to implement prior to, and conditioned on, the completion of the merger. The resulting adjusted exchange ratio is 0.87083 of a share of Duke Energy common stock for each share of Progress Energy common stock. Based on Progress Energy shares outstanding at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy would issue 257 million shares of common stock, after the effect of the 1-for-3 reverse stock split, to convert the Progress Energy common shares in the merger. The merger will be accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting with Duke Energy treated as the acquirer, for accounting purposes. Based on the market price of Duke Energy common stock on September 30, 2011, the transaction would be valued at $15.4 billion and would result in incremental recorded goodwill to Duke Energy of $9.3 billion, according to current estimates. Duke Energy would also assume all of Progress Energy's outstanding debt, which is estimated to be $15.1 billion based on the approximate fair value of Progress Energy's outstanding indebtedness at September 30, 2011. The Merger Agreement has been unanimously approved by both companies' Boards of Directors.

The merger is conditioned upon, among other things, approval by the shareholders of both companies, as well as expiration or termination of any applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 and approval by the FERC, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the NRC, the NCUC, and the KPSC. Duke Energy and Progress Energy also are seeking review of the merger by the PSCSC and approval of the joint dispatch agreement by the PSCSC. Although there are no merger-specific regulatory approvals required in Indiana, Ohio or Florida, the companies will continue to update the public services commissions in those states on the merger, as applicable and as required. The status of these matters is as follows:

• On March 17, 2011, Duke Energy filed an initial registration statement on Form S-4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for shares to be issued to consummate the merger with Progress Energy. On July 7, 2011, the Form S-4 was declared effective by the SEC, and the joint proxy statement/prospectus contained in the Form S-4 was mailed to the shareholders of both companies thereafter. On August 23, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy shareholders approved the proposed merger. In addition, Duke Energy shareholders approved a 1-for-3 reverse stock split.

• On March 28, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy submitted Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust filings to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The parties have met their obligations under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, which is no longer a bar to closing the transaction.

• On March 30, 2011, Progress Energy made filings with the NRC for approval for indirect transfer of control of licenses for Progress Energy's nuclear facilities to include Duke Energy as the ultimate parent corporation on these licenses.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a merger application and joint dispatch agreement with the NCUC. On September 2, 2011, Duke Energy, Progress Energy and the NC Public Staff filed a settlement agreement with the NCUC. Under the settlement agreement, the companies will guarantee North Carolina customers their allocable share of $650 million in savings related to fuel and joint dispatch of generation assets over the first five years after the merger closes, continue community financial support for a minimum of four years, contribute to weatherization efforts of low-income customers and workforce development and agree not to recover direct merger-related costs. A public hearing occurred September 20-22, 2011 and proposed orders and/or briefs must be filed by November 14, 2011.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a merger application with the KPSC. On June 24, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a settlement agreement with the Attorney General. A public hearing occurred on July 8, 2011. An order conditionally approving the merger was issued on August 2, 2011. The KPSC required Duke Energy and Progress Energy to accept all the conditions contained in the order within seven days of the order. After seeking an extension, on August 19, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed for clarification of one of the merger conditions. On September 15, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed for approval of a stipulation revising the merger condition. On October 28, 2011, the KPSC issued an order approving the stipulation and merger.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy, jointly filed applications with the FERC for the approval of the merger, the Joint Dispatch Agreement and the joint Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). On September 30, 2011, the FERC conditionally approved the merger, subject to approval of mitigation measures to address its finding that the combined company could have an adverse effect on competition in wholesale power markets in the Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas East balancing authority areas. On October 17, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed their plan for mitigating the FERC's concerns by proposing to offer on a daily basis a certain quantity of power during summer and winter periods to the extent it is available after serving native load and existing firm obligations. The price will be incremental cost, plus 10 percent. Intervenors may comment on the plan by November 16, 2011, after which time, the FERC will rule on whether the mitigation plan adequately addresses the market power issues. FERC has not yet ruled on the Joint Dispatch Agreement or the joint OATT. On October 31, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a request for rehearing with the FERC. The request states that the FERC applied a more stringent analysis to the proposed merger than required by its current rules. Duke Energy and Progress Energy also requested that the FERC address the companies' previously filed mitigation plan no later than December 15, 2011.

• On April 25, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy, on behalf of their utility companies Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas, filed an application requesting the PSCSC to review the merger and approve the proposed Joint Dispatch Agreement and the prospective future merger of Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas. On September 13, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy withdrew their application seeking approval for the future merger of their Carolinas utility companies, Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas, as the merger of these entities is not likely to occur for several years after the close of the merger. On October 13, 2011 the PSCSC issued an order suspending all scheduled deadlines and the hearing date until Duke Energy and Progress Energy file their proposed mitigation measures with the FERC and the PSCSC. Duke Energy and Progress Energy made that filing on October 17, 2011. On November 2, 2011, the PSCSC adopted a revised procedural schedule for its review of the merger. Hearings are scheduled to begin the week of December 12, 2011. The docket will remain open pending FERC issuance of its final orders on the merger related actions before the FERC.

• On July 12, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed an application with the FCC for approval of radio system license transfers. The FCC approved the transfers on July 27, 2011.

Duke Energy is targeting completion of the merger by the end of 2011, however no assurances can be given as to the timing of the satisfaction of all closing conditions or that all required approvals will be received.

The Merger Agreement contains certain termination rights for both Duke Energy and Progress Energy, and further provides for the payment of a termination fee of $400 million by Progress Energy under specified circumstances and a termination fee of $675 million by Duke Energy under specified circumstances.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy incurred transaction and integration costs related to the Progress Energy merger of $13 million and $29 million, respectively, which are recorded within Operating Expenses in Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

See Note 5 for information regarding litigation related to the pending merger with Progress Energy.

Vermillion Generating Station.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana

In May 2011, Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC (Duke Energy Vermillion), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into an agreement to sell its 75% undivided ownership interest in the Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana and Wabash Valley Power Association (WVPA). On August 12, 2011, the FERC approved the Vermillion transaction. An IURC hearing was held in September 2011 with an order expected in the fourth quarter of 2011. If approved by the IURC, Duke Energy Indiana and WVPA will acquire 62.5% and 12.5% interests in the Vermillion Generating Station, respectively. As Duke Energy Indiana is an affiliate of Duke Energy Vermillion the transaction will be accounted for as a transfer between entities under common control with no gain or loss recorded and is not expected to have a significant impact to Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana's results of operations. At June 30, 2011, the carrying value of the proportionate share of Vermillion Generating Station which is expected to be sold to WVPA exceeded its estimated fair value. The estimated fair value was determined based on the expected proceeds to be received from WVPA less costs to sell. Accordingly, Duke Energy Ohio's Commercial Power segment recorded an impairment of $9 million in the second quarter of 2011. This amount is presented in Goodwill and other impairment charges in Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's condensed consolidated statements of operations. See Note 5 for further discussion of the Vermillion transaction.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Acquisitions And Sales Of Other Assets

3. Acquisitions and Sales of Other Assets

Acquisitions. The Duke Energy Registrants consolidate assets and liabilities from acquisitions as of the purchase date, and include earnings from acquisitions in consolidated earnings after the purchase date.

Duke Energy

On January 8, 2011, Duke Energy entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) among Diamond Acquisition Corporation, a North Carolina corporation and Duke Energy's wholly-owned subsidiary (Merger Sub) and Progress Energy, a North Carolina corporation. Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Progress Energy with Progress Energy continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, upon the closing of the merger, each issued and outstanding share of Progress Energy common stock will automatically be cancelled and converted into the right to receive 2.6125 shares of common stock of Duke Energy, subject to appropriate adjustment for a reverse stock split of the Duke Energy common stock as contemplated in the Merger Agreement and except that any shares of Progress Energy common stock that are owned by Progress Energy or Duke Energy, other than in a fiduciary capacity, will be cancelled without any consideration therefor. Each outstanding option to acquire, and each outstanding equity award relating to, one share of Progress Energy common stock will be converted into an option to acquire, or an equity award relating to 2.6125 shares of Duke Energy common stock, as applicable, subject to appropriate adjustment for the reverse stock split. Based on Progress Energy shares outstanding at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy would issue 771 million shares of common stock to convert the Progress Energy common shares in the merger under the unadjusted exchange ratio of 2.6125. The exchange ratio will be adjusted proportionately to reflect a 1-for-3 reverse stock split with respect to the issued and outstanding Duke Energy common stock that Duke Energy plans to implement prior to, and conditioned on, the completion of the merger. The resulting adjusted exchange ratio is 0.87083 of a share of Duke Energy common stock for each share of Progress Energy common stock. Based on Progress Energy shares outstanding at September 30, 2011, Duke Energy would issue 257 million shares of common stock, after the effect of the 1-for-3 reverse stock split, to convert the Progress Energy common shares in the merger. The merger will be accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting with Duke Energy treated as the acquirer, for accounting purposes. Based on the market price of Duke Energy common stock on September 30, 2011, the transaction would be valued at $15.4 billion and would result in incremental recorded goodwill to Duke Energy of $9.3 billion, according to current estimates. Duke Energy would also assume all of Progress Energy's outstanding debt, which is estimated to be $15.1 billion based on the approximate fair value of Progress Energy's outstanding indebtedness at September 30, 2011. The Merger Agreement has been unanimously approved by both companies' Boards of Directors.

The merger is conditioned upon, among other things, approval by the shareholders of both companies, as well as expiration or termination of any applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 and approval by the FERC, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the NRC, the NCUC, and the KPSC. Duke Energy and Progress Energy also are seeking review of the merger by the PSCSC and approval of the joint dispatch agreement by the PSCSC. Although there are no merger-specific regulatory approvals required in Indiana, Ohio or Florida, the companies will continue to update the public services commissions in those states on the merger, as applicable and as required. The status of these matters is as follows:

• On March 17, 2011, Duke Energy filed an initial registration statement on Form S-4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for shares to be issued to consummate the merger with Progress Energy. On July 7, 2011, the Form S-4 was declared effective by the SEC, and the joint proxy statement/prospectus contained in the Form S-4 was mailed to the shareholders of both companies thereafter. On August 23, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy shareholders approved the proposed merger. In addition, Duke Energy shareholders approved a 1-for-3 reverse stock split.

• On March 28, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy submitted Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust filings to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The parties have met their obligations under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, which is no longer a bar to closing the transaction.

• On March 30, 2011, Progress Energy made filings with the NRC for approval for indirect transfer of control of licenses for Progress Energy's nuclear facilities to include Duke Energy as the ultimate parent corporation on these licenses.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a merger application and joint dispatch agreement with the NCUC. On September 2, 2011, Duke Energy, Progress Energy and the NC Public Staff filed a settlement agreement with the NCUC. Under the settlement agreement, the companies will guarantee North Carolina customers their allocable share of $650 million in savings related to fuel and joint dispatch of generation assets over the first five years after the merger closes, continue community financial support for a minimum of four years, contribute to weatherization efforts of low-income customers and workforce development and agree not to recover direct merger-related costs. A public hearing occurred September 20-22, 2011 and proposed orders and/or briefs must be filed by November 14, 2011.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a merger application with the KPSC. On June 24, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a settlement agreement with the Attorney General. A public hearing occurred on July 8, 2011. An order conditionally approving the merger was issued on August 2, 2011. The KPSC required Duke Energy and Progress Energy to accept all the conditions contained in the order within seven days of the order. After seeking an extension, on August 19, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed for clarification of one of the merger conditions. On September 15, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed for approval of a stipulation revising the merger condition. On October 28, 2011, the KPSC issued an order approving the stipulation and merger.

• On April 4, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy, jointly filed applications with the FERC for the approval of the merger, the Joint Dispatch Agreement and the joint Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). On September 30, 2011, the FERC conditionally approved the merger, subject to approval of mitigation measures to address its finding that the combined company could have an adverse effect on competition in wholesale power markets in the Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas East balancing authority areas. On October 17, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed their plan for mitigating the FERC's concerns by proposing to offer on a daily basis a certain quantity of power during summer and winter periods to the extent it is available after serving native load and existing firm obligations. The price will be incremental cost, plus 10 percent. Intervenors may comment on the plan by November 16, 2011, after which time, the FERC will rule on whether the mitigation plan adequately addresses the market power issues. FERC has not yet ruled on the Joint Dispatch Agreement or the joint OATT. On October 31, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed a request for rehearing with the FERC. The request states that the FERC applied a more stringent analysis to the proposed merger than required by its current rules. Duke Energy and Progress Energy also requested that the FERC address the companies' previously filed mitigation plan no later than December 15, 2011.

• On April 25, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy, on behalf of their utility companies Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas, filed an application requesting the PSCSC to review the merger and approve the proposed Joint Dispatch Agreement and the prospective future merger of Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas. On September 13, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy withdrew their application seeking approval for the future merger of their Carolinas utility companies, Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas, as the merger of these entities is not likely to occur for several years after the close of the merger. On October 13, 2011 the PSCSC issued an order suspending all scheduled deadlines and the hearing date until Duke Energy and Progress Energy file their proposed mitigation measures with the FERC and the PSCSC. Duke Energy and Progress Energy made that filing on October 17, 2011. On November 2, 2011, the PSCSC adopted a revised procedural schedule for its review of the merger. Hearings are scheduled to begin the week of December 12, 2011. The docket will remain open pending FERC issuance of its final orders on the merger related actions before the FERC.

• On July 12, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy filed an application with the FCC for approval of radio system license transfers. The FCC approved the transfers on July 27, 2011.

Duke Energy is targeting completion of the merger by the end of 2011, however no assurances can be given as to the timing of the satisfaction of all closing conditions or that all required approvals will be received.

The Merger Agreement contains certain termination rights for both Duke Energy and Progress Energy, and further provides for the payment of a termination fee of $400 million by Progress Energy under specified circumstances and a termination fee of $675 million by Duke Energy under specified circumstances.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy incurred transaction and integration costs related to the Progress Energy merger of $13 million and $29 million, respectively, which are recorded within Operating Expenses in Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

See Note 5 for information regarding litigation related to the pending merger with Progress Energy.

Vermillion Generating Station.

Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana

In May 2011, Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC (Duke Energy Vermillion), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Ohio, entered into an agreement to sell its 75% undivided ownership interest in the Vermillion Generating Station to Duke Energy Indiana and Wabash Valley Power Association (WVPA). On August 12, 2011, the FERC approved the Vermillion transaction. An IURC hearing was held in September 2011 with an order expected in the fourth quarter of 2011. If approved by the IURC, Duke Energy Indiana and WVPA will acquire 62.5% and 12.5% interests in the Vermillion Generating Station, respectively. As Duke Energy Indiana is an affiliate of Duke Energy Vermillion the transaction will be accounted for as a transfer between entities under common control with no gain or loss recorded and is not expected to have a significant impact to Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana's results of operations. At June 30, 2011, the carrying value of the proportionate share of Vermillion Generating Station which is expected to be sold to WVPA exceeded its estimated fair value. The estimated fair value was determined based on the expected proceeds to be received from WVPA less costs to sell. Accordingly, Duke Energy Ohio's Commercial Power segment recorded an impairment of $9 million in the second quarter of 2011. This amount is presented in Goodwill and other impairment charges in Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's condensed consolidated statements of operations. See Note 5 for further discussion of the Vermillion transaction.

XML

Commitments And Contingencies (Details) (USD $)	0 Months Ended		1 Months Ended		3 Months Ended	9 Months Ended	12 Months Ended			60 Months Ended						9 Months Ended
	Sep. 03, 2010	Jun. 30, 2009	Jul. 31, 2010 gal	Sep. 30, 2008	Mar. 31, 2009	Sep. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2009	Dec. 31, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Ohio [Member] Reserve For Environmental Costs [Member]	Dec. 31, 2015 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] Coal Combustion Product Management [Member]	Dec. 31, 2015 Duke Energy Ohio [Member] Coal Combustion Product Management [Member]	Dec. 31, 2015 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] Coal Combustion Product Management [Member]	Dec. 31, 2015 Coal Combustion Product Management [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Litigation And Legal Proceedings [Member]	Dec. 31, 2010 Litigation And Legal Proceedings [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Federal Advance Clean Coal Tax Credits Associated With Its Construction Of Cliffside Unit6 [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Federal Advance Clean Coal Tax Credits Associated With Its Construction Of Edwardsport IGCC Plant [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Ohio [Member]
Remediation reserve									$ 36,000,000
Aquatic protection requirements for existing facilities, in gallons			2,000,000
Environmental exit costs, anticipated cost										131,000,000	70,000,000	168,000,000	369,000,000					90,000,000
DEIGP electric transmission charges promulgated by ANEEL		69,000,000
Additional electric transmission fine assessed					9,000,000
Pre-tax charge recorded associated with the resolutions							33,000,000
DEIGP's obligation to expand installed generation capacity, percent						15.00%
Daily penalty faced if DEIGP fails to present a detailed expansion plan						16,000
Alleged amount borrowed from a consortium of banks	1,200,000,000
Litigation settlement, gross				150,000,000
Probable insurance recoveries						813,000,000		850,000,000
Investment tax credit																125,000,000	134,000,000
Related injuries and damages claims														830,000,000	900,000,000
Deferred Costs									$ 64,000,000

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements Of Equity And Comprehensive Income (USD $) In Millions, except Share data		Common Stock [Member]	Additional Paid-In Capital [Member]	Retained Earnings [Member]	Foreign Currency Adjustments [Member]	Net (Losses) Gains On Cash Flow Hedges [Member]	Other Equity [Member]	Pension And OPEB Related Adjustments To AOCI [Member]	Common Stockholders' Equity [Member]	Noncontrolling Interests [Member]	Total
Balance at Dec. 31, 2009		$ 1	$ 20,661	$ 1,460	$ 17	$ (22)	$ (31)	$ (336)	$ 21,750	$ 136	$ 21,886
Balance (in shares) at Dec. 31, 2009		1,309,000,000
Net income (loss)				893					893	1	894
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Foreign currency translation adjustments					58				58	(1)	57
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI	[1]							19	19		19
Net unrealized gains (losses) on cash flow hedges	[2]					(9)			(9)		(9)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges	[3]					2			2		2
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities	[4]						8		8		8
Total comprehensive income (loss)									971		971
Common stock issuances, including dividend reinvestment and employee benefits			251						251		251
Common stock issuances, including dividend reinvestment and employee benefits (in shares)		15,000,000
Common stock dividends				(957)					(957)		(957)
Changes in noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries										(2)	(2)
Balance at Sep. 30, 2010		1	20,912	1,396	75	(29)	(23)	(317)	22,015	134	22,149
Balance (in shares) at Sep. 30, 2010		1,324,000,000
Balance at Jun. 30, 2010
Net income (loss)									670	(4)	666
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Foreign currency translation adjustments									88	4	92
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI	[5]								4		4
Net unrealized gains (losses) on cash flow hedges	[6]								1		1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities	[6]								2		2
Total comprehensive income (loss)									765		765
Balance at Sep. 30, 2010									22,015	134	22,149
Balance at Dec. 31, 2010		1	21,023	1,496	97	(18)	(17)	(60)	22,522	131	22,653
Balance (in shares) at Dec. 31, 2010		1,329,000,000									1,329,000,000
Net income (loss)				1,418					1,418	6	1,424
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Foreign currency translation adjustments					(142)				(142)	(8)	(150)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI	[1]							(6)	(6)		(6)
Net unrealized gains (losses) on cash flow hedges	[2]					(52)			(52)		(52)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges	[3]					3			3		3
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities	[4]						7		7		7
Total comprehensive income (loss)									1,228	(2)	1,226
Common stock issuances, including dividend reinvestment and employee benefits			38						38		38
Common stock issuances, including dividend reinvestment and employee benefits (in shares)		3,000,000
Common stock dividends				(994)					(994)		(994)
Changes in noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries	[7]									(24)	(24)
Balance at Sep. 30, 2011		1	21,061	1,920	(45)	(67)	(10)	(66)	22,794	105	22,899
Balance (in shares) at Sep. 30, 2011		1,332,000,000									1,332,000,000
Balance at Jun. 30, 2011
Net income (loss)									472	(2)	470
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Foreign currency translation adjustments									(235)	(11)	(246)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI	[6]								1		1
Net unrealized gains (losses) on cash flow hedges	[8]								(47)		(47)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges	[6]								(1)		(1)
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities	[5]								3		3
Total comprehensive income (loss)									195	(13)	182
Balance at Sep. 30, 2011									$ 22,794	$ 105	$ 22,899
Balance (in shares) at Sep. 30, 2011											1,332,000,000

[1] Net of $3 tax benefit in 2011 and $5 tax expense in 2010.

[2] Net of $28 tax benefit in 2011 and $3 tax benefit in 2010.

[3] Net of $1 tax expense in 2011 and insignificant tax benefit in 2010.

[4] Net of $6 tax expense in 2011 and $4 tax expense in 2010.

[5] Net of $5 million tax expense.

[6] Net of insignificant tax expense.

[7] Includes $19M in cash distributions to noncontrolling interests

[8] Net of $26 million tax benefit.

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements Of Common Stockholder's Equity And Comprehensive Income - Indiana (USD $) In Millions		Duke Energy Indiana [Member] Common Stock [Member]	Duke Energy Indiana [Member] Additional Paid-In Capital [Member]	Duke Energy Indiana [Member] Retained Earnings [Member]	Duke Energy Indiana [Member] Net (Losses) Gains On Cash Flow Hedges [Member]		Duke Energy Indiana [Member]		Retained Earnings [Member]	Net (Losses) Gains On Cash Flow Hedges [Member]		Total
Balance at Dec. 31, 2009		$ 1	$ 1,008	$ 1,915	$ 10		$ 2,934
Net income (loss)				219			219		893			894
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges					(2)	[1]	(2)	[1]		(2)	[2]	(2)	[2]
Total comprehensive income (loss)							217					971
Capital contribution from parent			350				350
Balance at Sep. 30, 2010		1	1,358	2,134	8		3,501
Balance at Jun. 30, 2010
Net income (loss)							92					666
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Total comprehensive income (loss)												765
Balance at Sep. 30, 2010		1					3,501
Balance at Dec. 31, 2010		1	1,358	2,200	8		3,567					22,522
Net income (loss)				113			113		1,418			1,424
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges					(1)		(1)			(3)	[2]	(3)	[2]
Total comprehensive income (loss)							112					1,226
Balance at Sep. 30, 2011		1	1,358	2,313	7		3,679					22,794
Balance at Jun. 30, 2011
Net income (loss)							(31)					470
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges	[3]											1
Total comprehensive income (loss)												182
Balance at Sep. 30, 2011		$ 1	$ 1,358				$ 3,679					$ 22,794

[1] Net of $1 tax benefit in 2011 and 2010.

[2] Net of $1 tax expense in 2011 and insignificant tax benefit in 2010.

[3] Net of insignificant tax expense.

XML

Earnings Per Common Share (EPS) (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Earnings Per Common Share (EPS)

Schedule Of Earnings Per Share, Basic, By Common Class

	Income		Average Shares		EPS
	(in millions, except per- share amounts)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—basic	$	471		1,332	$	0.35
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options, performance and restricted stock				1
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—diluted	$	471		1,333	$	0.35
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—basic	$	669		1,320	$	0.51
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options, performance and restricted stock				2
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—diluted	$	669		1,322	$	0.51

	Income		Average Shares		EPS
	(in millions, except per- share amounts)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—basic	$	1,415		1,331	$	1.06
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options, performance and restricted stock				1
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—diluted	$	1,415		1,332	$	1.06
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—basic	$	891		1,315	$	0.68
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options, performance and restricted stock				1
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—diluted	$	891		1,316	$	0.68

XML

Organization And Basis Of Presentation (Policy)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Organization And Basis Of Presentation

Basis Of Presentation

Basis of Presentation. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the U.S. for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Regulation S-X. Accordingly, these Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements. Because the interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements, the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and other information included in this quarterly report should be read in conjunction with the respective Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes in Duke Energy's, Duke Energy Carolinas', Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's respective Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements reflect all normal recurring adjustments that are, in the opinion of the respective company's management, necessary to fairly present the financial position and results of operations of each Duke Energy Registrant. Amounts reported in each Duke Energy Registrants' interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations are not necessarily indicative of amounts expected for the respective annual periods due to the effects of seasonal temperature variations on energy consumption, regulatory rulings, the timing of maintenance on electric generating units, changes in mark-to-market valuations, changing commodity prices and other factors.

These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include, after eliminating intercompany transactions and balances, the accounts of the Duke Energy Registrants and all majority-owned subsidiaries where the respective Duke Energy Registrants have control and those variable interest entities (VIEs) where the respective Duke Energy Registrants are the primary beneficiary. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements also reflect Duke Energy Carolinas' approximate 19.25% proportionate share of the Catawba Nuclear Station, as well as Duke Energy Ohio's proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky and Duke Energy Indiana's proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities.

Use Of Estimates

Use of Estimates. To conform to GAAP in the U.S., management makes estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes. Although these estimates are based on management's best available information at the time, actual results could differ.

Unbilled Revenue

Unbilled Revenue. Revenues on sales of electricity and gas are recognized when either the service is provided or the product is delivered. Unbilled retail revenues are estimated by applying average revenue per kilowatt-hour or per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) for all customer classes to the number of estimated kilowatt-hours or Mcfs delivered but not billed. Unbilled wholesale energy revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt-hour (MWh) to the number of estimated MWh delivered but not yet billed. Unbilled wholesale demand revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt (MW) to the MW volume delivered but not yet billed. The amount of unbilled revenues can vary significantly from period to period as a result of numerous factors, including seasonality, weather, customer usage patterns and customer mix.

XML

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities (Location And Fair Value Amounts Of Derivatives Reflected In The Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets) (Details) (USD $)	Sep. 30, 2011		Sep. 30, 2010
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Asset)	$ 149,000,000		$ 322,000,000
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Liability)	409,000,000		268,000,000
Designated As Hedging Instrument [Member] | Interest Rate Contracts [Member]
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Asset)	9,000,000.00		21,000,000
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Liability)	84,000,000.00		13,000,000
Designated As Hedging Instrument [Member] | Interest Rate Contracts [Member] | Current Assets, Other [Member]
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Asset)	5,000,000.00		5,000,000
Designated As Hedging Instrument [Member] | Interest Rate Contracts [Member] | Investments And Other Assets, Other [Member]
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Asset)	4,000,000.00		16,000,000
Designated As Hedging Instrument [Member] | Interest Rate Contracts [Member] | Current Liabilities, Other [Member]
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Liability)	13,000,000.00		13,000,000
Designated As Hedging Instrument [Member] | Interest Rate Contracts [Member] | Deferred Credits And Other Liabilities, Other [Member]
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Liability)	71,000,000.00
Not Designated As Hedging Instrument [Member]
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Asset)	140,000,000.00		301,000,000.00
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Liability)	325,000,000.00		255,000,000.00
Not Designated As Hedging Instrument [Member] | Interest Rate Contracts [Member] | Investments And Other Assets, Other [Member]
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Asset)			60,000,000.00	[1]
Not Designated As Hedging Instrument [Member] | Interest Rate Contracts [Member] | Current Liabilities, Other [Member]
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Liability)	94,000,000.00	[1],[2]	2,000,000.00	[1],[2]
Not Designated As Hedging Instrument [Member] | Interest Rate Contracts [Member] | Deferred Credits And Other Liabilities, Other [Member]
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Liability)	68,000,000.00	[3]	5,000,000.00	[3]
Not Designated As Hedging Instrument [Member] | Commodity Contracts [Member] | Current Assets, Other [Member]
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Asset)	73,000,000.00		108,000,000.00
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Liability)	30,000,000.00		54,000,000.00
Not Designated As Hedging Instrument [Member] | Commodity Contracts [Member] | Investments And Other Assets, Other [Member]
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Asset)	43,000,000.00		55,000,000.00
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Liability)	6,000,000.00		4,000,000.00
Not Designated As Hedging Instrument [Member] | Commodity Contracts [Member] | Current Liabilities, Other [Member]
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Asset)	15,000,000.00		75,000,000.00
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Liability)	50,000,000.00		118,000,000.00
Not Designated As Hedging Instrument [Member] | Commodity Contracts [Member] | Deferred Credits And Other Liabilities, Other [Member]
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Asset)	9,000,000.00		3,000,000.00
Location and fair value amounts of derivatives (Liability)	$ 77,000,000.00		$ 72,000,000.00

[1] As of December 31, 2010, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

[2] As of September 30, 2011, includes $92 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

[3] As of September 30, 2011, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

XML

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities (Information Regarding Derivative Instruments That Contain Credit-Risk Related Contingent Features) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	Sep. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$ 66	$ 148
Collateral Already Posted	25	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$ 4	$ 14

XML

Regulatory Matters (Details) (USD $)	1 Months Ended				3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended		0 Months Ended				1 Months Ended		3 Months Ended		0 Months Ended				1 Months Ended	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended	1 Months Ended	9 Months Ended		0 Months Ended	1 Months Ended	9 Months Ended	1 Months Ended	9 Months Ended	12 Months Ended					3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended		3 Months Ended	9 Months Ended
	Nov. 30, 2011	Aug. 31, 2011	Jul. 31, 2011	Jan. 31, 2008	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010	Nov. 24, 2009 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] IGCC Power Plan [Member]	May 01, 2008 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] IGCC Power Plan [Member]	Nov. 20, 2007 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] IGCC Power Plan [Member]	Sep. 07, 2006 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] IGCC Power Plan [Member]	Sep. 30, 2010 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] IGCC Power Plan [Member]	Apr. 30, 2010 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] IGCC Power Plan [Member]	Sep. 30, 2010 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] IGCC Power Plan [Member]	Aug. 31, 2007 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] IGCC Power Plan [Member]	Apr. 26, 2011 Duke Energy Ohio [Member] PJM Transmission Expansion Cost [Member]	Oct. 30, 2009 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] Edwardsport IGCC Plant [Member]	Jul. 07, 2009 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] Edwardsport IGCC Plant [Member]	Sep. 07, 2006 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] Edwardsport IGCC Plant [Member] mW	Jul. 31, 2011 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] Edwardsport IGCC Plant [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] Edwardsport IGCC Plant [Member]	Sep. 30, 2010 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] Edwardsport IGCC Plant [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] Edwardsport IGCC Plant [Member]	Jun. 30, 2008 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] Dan River Facility [Member] mW	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] Dan River Facility [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] Buck Facility [Member]	Mar. 21, 2007 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] Cliffside Unit 6 [Member] mW	Mar. 31, 2010 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] Cliffside Unit 6 [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] Cliffside Unit 6 [Member]	Dec. 31, 2007 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] William State Lee III Nuclear Station [Member] mW	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] William State Lee III Nuclear Station [Member]	Dec. 31, 2013 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] William State Lee III Nuclear Station [Member]	Dec. 31, 2009 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] William State Lee III Nuclear Station [Member]	Jul. 14, 2010 Duke Energy Indiana [Member] Storm Cost Deferrals [Member]	Jan. 11, 2011 Duke Energy Ohio [Member] Storm Cost Recovery [Member]	Dec. 11, 2009 Duke Energy Ohio [Member] Storm Cost Recovery [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Indiana [Member]	Sep. 30, 2010 Duke Energy Indiana [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Indiana [Member]	Sep. 30, 2010 Duke Energy Indiana [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Ohio [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Ohio [Member]	Sep. 30, 2010 Duke Energy Ohio [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]	Sep. 30, 2010 Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]
Non-bypassable stability charge							$ 110,000,000
Request for rate increase, expressed as a percentage	4.80%	15.00%	15.00%
Request for rate increase, amount	211,000,000	216,000,000	646,000,000
Return on equity	9.25%	11.50%	11.50%
Deferral storm expense																																			12,000,000	14,000,000	31,000,000
Estimated capital cost										2,350,000,000
Plant capacity																				618					620			800
Estimated allowance for funds used during construction										125,000,000		120,000,000		160,000,000
Costs necessary to keep project available, not to exceed			120,000,000.00
Ownership of project																100.00%
Approved estimated capital cost											1,985,000,000
Additional capital cost									150,000,000
Revised estimated capital cost														530,000,000							2,820,000,000
Requested revised estimated capital cost included AFUDC, and continuation of the existing cost recovery treatment														2,880,000,000
Original cost estimate													2,350,000,000
Authorized estimated capital cost													2,760,000,000
Increase in AFUDC financing costs resulting from delay in CWIP							193,000,000	173,000,000																																64,000,000	40,000,000				125,000,000	129,000,000
Pre-tax impairment charge					300,000,000	44,000,000	309,000,000	700,000,000														222,000,000	44,000,000															222,000,000	44,000,000	222,000,000	44,000,000	79,000,000	88,000,000	837,000,000
Cap project cost that could be passed on to customers													2,975,000,000
Pre-tax charge to earnings due to reduction in the return of equity															44,000,000
Plant capacity of each reactor																															1,117
Aggregate maximum amount of project development and pre-construction costs																																		230,000,000
Basis point reduction in the equity return for project construction costs													150
Request approval to continue to incur project development and pre-construction costs																																	459,000,000
Counterparty option to purchase maximum ownership interest																																20.00%
Estimated plant cost excluding allowance for funds used during construction																													1,800,000,000
Expected net output of plant capacity																												825
Estimated reduction in AFUDC financing costs																													400,000,000
AFUDC excluded from cost estimate				600,000,000
Estimated reduction in plant cost due to federal tax credits																														125,000,000
Estimated plant cost including allowance for funds used during construction																										716,000,000	700,000,000
Proposed construction costs cap																								2,720,000,000
Original customer rate increase																								19.00%
Recovery costs that would not be sought																	121,000,000
Requested amount of environmental cost recovery																			121,000,000
Revised customer rate increase																								16.00%
Recommended approval amount of environmental cost recovery																			33,000,000
Committee Costs																								1,600,000,000
Amended deferral amount to cover environmental cost																		42,000,000
Excess estimated project costs, expected to be approved							5,000,000,000
Estimated liability for Midwest ISO exit obligation																																											90,000,000
Exit costs recorded as a regulatory asset																																										$ 60,000,000	$ 60,000,000

XML

Fair Value Of Financial Assets And Liabilities (Reconciliation Of Assets And Liabilities Measured At Fair Value On A Recurring Basis Using Unobservable Inputs) (Details) (USD $)	3 Months Ended			9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011		Sep. 30, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011		Sep. 30, 2010
Beginning balance	$ 121,000,000		$ 219,000,000	$ 146,000,000		$ 223,000,000
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated, fair value						(14,000,000)
Gains (losses) on available for sale securities and other	8,000,000		2,000,000	13,000,000		12,000,000
Purchases	8,000,000	[1]		15,000,000	[1]
Sales				(3,000,000)
Settlements	(3,000,000)			(30,000,000)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements			(5,000,000)			6,000,000
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability	(15,000,000)		3,000,000	6,000,000		18,000,000
Transfers out of Level 3	(25,000,000)			(34,000,000)
Ending Balance	102,000,000		201,000,000	102,000,000		201,000,000
Pre-tax revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other				(12,000,000)
Pre-tax fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated			(3,000,000)
Total				(12,000,000)
Regulated Operation [Member]
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	8,000,000	[1]		8,000,000	[1]
Regulated Operation [Member] | Derivatives, Net [Member]
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	8,000,000	[1]		8,000,000.00	[1]
Unregulated Operation [Member]
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other				(19,000,000)		(44,000,000)
Pre-tax revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other			(15,000,000)
Unregulated Operation [Member] | Derivatives, Net [Member]
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other				(19,000,000.00)		(44,000,000.00)
Pre-tax revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other			(15,000,000.00)
Available-For-Sale Auction Rate Securities [Member]
Beginning balance	90,000,000		178,000,000	118,000,000.00		198,000,000.00
Gains (losses) on available for sale securities and other	8,000,000		2,000,000.00	13,000,000.00		12,000,000.00
Settlements	(1,000,000)			(25,000,000.00)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements			(3,000,000.00)			(33,000,000.00)
Transfers out of Level 3	(25,000,000)			(34,000,000.00)
Ending Balance	72,000,000		177,000,000.00	72,000,000		177,000,000.00
Available-For-Sale NDTF Investments [Member]
Beginning balance	53,000,000		48,000,000	47,000,000.00
Purchases				7,000,000.00	[1]
Sales				(3,000,000.00)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements			(4,000,000.00)			44,000,000.00
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability	1,000,000		2,000,000.00	3,000,000.00		2,000,000.00
Ending Balance	54,000,000.00		46,000,000.00	54,000,000.00		46,000,000.00
Derivatives, Net [Member]
Beginning balance	(22,000,000)		(7,000,000)	(19,000,000.00)		25,000,000.00
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated, fair value						(14,000,000.00)
Purchases	8,000,000	[1]		8,000,000.00	[1]
Settlements	(2,000,000)			(5,000,000.00)
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements			2,000,000.00			(5,000,000.00)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability	(16,000,000)		1,000,000.00	3,000,000.00		16,000,000.00
Ending Balance	(24,000,000.00)		(22,000,000.00)	(24,000,000.00)		(22,000,000.00)
Pre-tax revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other				(12,000,000.00)
Pre-tax fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated			(3,000,000.00)
Total				$ (12,000,000.00)

[1] Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights.

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements Of Equity And Comprehensive Income (Parenthetical) (USD $) In Millions	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities, tax benefit (expense)	$ (6)	$ (4)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI, tax benefit (expense)	3	(5)
Net unrealized gains (losses) on cash flow hedges, tax benefit (expense)	28	3
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges, tax benefit (expense)	(1)
Cash distributions paid to noncontrolling interests	19
Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities, tax benefit (expense)		(1)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges, tax benefit (expense)	(1)	(1)
Duke Energy Indiana [Member]
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges, tax benefit (expense)	$ 1	$ 1

XML

Income Taxes And Other Taxes (Narrative) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	3 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2010
Income Taxes And Other Taxes
Non-deductible goodwill impairment charge	$ 500

XML

Employee Benefit Obligations (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Employee Benefit Obligations

Schedule Of Defined Benefit Plans Disclosures

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011								Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	24		$	—	$	1		$	24		$	—	$	1
Interest cost on benefit obligation		58			2		8			62			2		9
Expected return on plan assets		(96	)		—		(3	)		(94	)		—		(3	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		1			—		(2	)		1			1		(2	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		2			—			—		4
Amortization of loss (gain)		20			1		—			12			—		(2	)
Other		4			—		—			5			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	11		$	3	$	6		$	10		$	3	$	7

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $4 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011								Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	72		$	1	$	5		$	72		$	1	$	5
Interest cost on benefit obligation		174			6		26			186			6		29
Expected return on plan assets		(288	)		—		(11	)		(283	)		—		(11	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		4			1		(6	)		4			2		(6	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		7			—			—		8
Amortization of loss (gain)		58			1		(2	)		37			—		(4	)
Contractual termination benefit cost		—			—		—			10			—		—
Other		13			—		—			14			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	33		$	9	$	19		$	40		$	9	$	21

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $11 million and $12 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $6 million and $7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

XML

New Accounting Standards

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

New Accounting Standards

18. New Accounting Standards

The following new accounting standards were adopted by the Duke Energy Registrants subsequent to September 30, 2010 and the impact of such adoption, if applicable, has been presented in the respective Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Duke Energy Registrants:

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 605—Revenue Recognition (ASC 605). In October 2009, the FASB issued new revenue recognition accounting guidance in response to practice concerns related to the accounting for revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables. This new accounting guidance primarily applies to all contractual arrangements in which a vendor will perform multiple revenue generating activities and addresses the unit of accounting for arrangements involving multiple deliverables, as well as how arrangement consideration should be allocated to the separate units of accounting. For the Duke Energy Registrants, the new accounting guidance was effective January 1, 2011 and applied on a prospective basis. This new accounting guidance did not have a material impact to the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Duke Energy Registrants.

ASC 805—Business Combinations (ASC 805). In November 2010, the FASB issued new accounting guidance in response to diversity in the interpretation of pro forma information disclosure requirements for business combinations. The new accounting guidance requires an entity to present pro forma financial information as if a business combination occurred at the beginning of the earliest period presented as well as additional disclosures describing the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments. This new accounting guidance was effective January 1, 2011 and will be applied to all business combinations consummated after that date.

ASC 820—Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). In January 2010, the FASB amended existing fair value measurements and disclosures accounting guidance to clarify certain existing disclosure requirements and to require a number of additional disclosures, including amounts and reasons for significant transfers between the three levels of the fair value hierarchy, and presentation of certain information in the reconciliation of recurring Level 3 measurements on a gross basis. For the Duke Energy Registrants, certain portions of this revised accounting guidance were effective on January 1, 2010, with additional disclosures effective for periods beginning January 1, 2011. The adoption of this accounting guidance resulted in additional disclosure in the notes to the consolidated financial statements but did not have an impact on the Duke Energy Registrants' consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. See note 9 for additional disclosures required by the revised accounting guidance in ASC 820.

ASC 350–Intangibles–Goodwill and Other. In September 2011, the FASB amended existing goodwill impairment testing accounting guidance to provide an entity testing goodwill for impairment with the option of performing a qualitative assessment prior to calculating the fair value of a reporting unit in step one of a goodwill impairment test. Under this revised guidance, a qualitative assessment would require an evaluation of economic, industry, and company-specific considerations. If an entity determines, on a basis of such qualitative factors, that the fair value of a reporting unit is more likely than not less than the carrying value of a reporting unit, the two-step impairment test, as currently required under existing applicable accounting guidance, would be required. Otherwise, no further impairment testing would be required. The revised goodwill impairment testing accounting guidance is effective for the Duke Energy Registrants' annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning January 1, 2012, with early adoption of this revised guidance permitted for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed as of a date before September 15, 2011. Since annual goodwill impairment tests are performed by Duke Energy as of August 31, the Duke Energy Registrants early adopted this revised accounting guidance during the third quarter of 2011 and applied that guidance to their annual goodwill impairment tests for 2011.

The following new Accounting Standards Updates (ASU) have been issued, but have not yet been adopted by Duke Energy, as of September 30, 2011:

ASC 820—Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). In May 2011, the FASB amended existing requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. This revised guidance results in a consistent definition of fair value, as well as common requirements for measurement and disclosure of fair value information between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). In addition, the amendments set forth enhanced disclosure requirements with respect to recurring Level 3 measurements, nonfinancial assets measured or disclosed at fair value, transfers between levels in the fair value hierarchy, and assets and liabilities disclosed but not recorded at fair value. For the Duke Energy Registrants, the revised fair value measurement guidance is effective on a prospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the potential impact of the adoption of this revised guidance and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

ASC 220—Comprehensive Income (ASC 220). In June 2011, the FASB amended the existing requirements for presenting comprehensive income in financial statements primarily to increase the prominence of items reported in other comprehensive income (OCI) and to facilitate the convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS. Specifically, the revised guidance eliminates the option currently provided under existing requirements to present components of OCI as part of the statement of changes in stockholders' equity. Accordingly, all non-owner changes in stockholders' equity will be required to be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive financial statements. For the Duke Energy Registrants, this revised guidance is effective on a retrospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Early adoption of this revised guidance is permitted. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the revised requirements for presenting comprehensive income in its financial statements and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption of this revised guidance on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

New Accounting Standards

18. New Accounting Standards

The following new accounting standards were adopted by the Duke Energy Registrants subsequent to September 30, 2010 and the impact of such adoption, if applicable, has been presented in the respective Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Duke Energy Registrants:

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 605—Revenue Recognition (ASC 605). In October 2009, the FASB issued new revenue recognition accounting guidance in response to practice concerns related to the accounting for revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables. This new accounting guidance primarily applies to all contractual arrangements in which a vendor will perform multiple revenue generating activities and addresses the unit of accounting for arrangements involving multiple deliverables, as well as how arrangement consideration should be allocated to the separate units of accounting. For the Duke Energy Registrants, the new accounting guidance was effective January 1, 2011 and applied on a prospective basis. This new accounting guidance did not have a material impact to the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Duke Energy Registrants.

ASC 805—Business Combinations (ASC 805). In November 2010, the FASB issued new accounting guidance in response to diversity in the interpretation of pro forma information disclosure requirements for business combinations. The new accounting guidance requires an entity to present pro forma financial information as if a business combination occurred at the beginning of the earliest period presented as well as additional disclosures describing the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments. This new accounting guidance was effective January 1, 2011 and will be applied to all business combinations consummated after that date.

ASC 820—Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). In January 2010, the FASB amended existing fair value measurements and disclosures accounting guidance to clarify certain existing disclosure requirements and to require a number of additional disclosures, including amounts and reasons for significant transfers between the three levels of the fair value hierarchy, and presentation of certain information in the reconciliation of recurring Level 3 measurements on a gross basis. For the Duke Energy Registrants, certain portions of this revised accounting guidance were effective on January 1, 2010, with additional disclosures effective for periods beginning January 1, 2011. The adoption of this accounting guidance resulted in additional disclosure in the notes to the consolidated financial statements but did not have an impact on the Duke Energy Registrants' consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. See note 9 for additional disclosures required by the revised accounting guidance in ASC 820.

ASC 350–Intangibles–Goodwill and Other. In September 2011, the FASB amended existing goodwill impairment testing accounting guidance to provide an entity testing goodwill for impairment with the option of performing a qualitative assessment prior to calculating the fair value of a reporting unit in step one of a goodwill impairment test. Under this revised guidance, a qualitative assessment would require an evaluation of economic, industry, and company-specific considerations. If an entity determines, on a basis of such qualitative factors, that the fair value of a reporting unit is more likely than not less than the carrying value of a reporting unit, the two-step impairment test, as currently required under existing applicable accounting guidance, would be required. Otherwise, no further impairment testing would be required. The revised goodwill impairment testing accounting guidance is effective for the Duke Energy Registrants' annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning January 1, 2012, with early adoption of this revised guidance permitted for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed as of a date before September 15, 2011. Since annual goodwill impairment tests are performed by Duke Energy as of August 31, the Duke Energy Registrants early adopted this revised accounting guidance during the third quarter of 2011 and applied that guidance to their annual goodwill impairment tests for 2011.

The following new Accounting Standards Updates (ASU) have been issued, but have not yet been adopted by Duke Energy, as of September 30, 2011:

ASC 820—Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). In May 2011, the FASB amended existing requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. This revised guidance results in a consistent definition of fair value, as well as common requirements for measurement and disclosure of fair value information between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). In addition, the amendments set forth enhanced disclosure requirements with respect to recurring Level 3 measurements, nonfinancial assets measured or disclosed at fair value, transfers between levels in the fair value hierarchy, and assets and liabilities disclosed but not recorded at fair value. For the Duke Energy Registrants, the revised fair value measurement guidance is effective on a prospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the potential impact of the adoption of this revised guidance and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

ASC 220—Comprehensive Income (ASC 220). In June 2011, the FASB amended the existing requirements for presenting comprehensive income in financial statements primarily to increase the prominence of items reported in other comprehensive income (OCI) and to facilitate the convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS. Specifically, the revised guidance eliminates the option currently provided under existing requirements to present components of OCI as part of the statement of changes in stockholders' equity. Accordingly, all non-owner changes in stockholders' equity will be required to be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive financial statements. For the Duke Energy Registrants, this revised guidance is effective on a retrospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Early adoption of this revised guidance is permitted. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the revised requirements for presenting comprehensive income in its financial statements and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption of this revised guidance on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

New Accounting Standards

18. New Accounting Standards

The following new accounting standards were adopted by the Duke Energy Registrants subsequent to September 30, 2010 and the impact of such adoption, if applicable, has been presented in the respective Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Duke Energy Registrants:

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 605—Revenue Recognition (ASC 605). In October 2009, the FASB issued new revenue recognition accounting guidance in response to practice concerns related to the accounting for revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables. This new accounting guidance primarily applies to all contractual arrangements in which a vendor will perform multiple revenue generating activities and addresses the unit of accounting for arrangements involving multiple deliverables, as well as how arrangement consideration should be allocated to the separate units of accounting. For the Duke Energy Registrants, the new accounting guidance was effective January 1, 2011 and applied on a prospective basis. This new accounting guidance did not have a material impact to the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Duke Energy Registrants.

ASC 805—Business Combinations (ASC 805). In November 2010, the FASB issued new accounting guidance in response to diversity in the interpretation of pro forma information disclosure requirements for business combinations. The new accounting guidance requires an entity to present pro forma financial information as if a business combination occurred at the beginning of the earliest period presented as well as additional disclosures describing the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments. This new accounting guidance was effective January 1, 2011 and will be applied to all business combinations consummated after that date.

ASC 820—Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). In January 2010, the FASB amended existing fair value measurements and disclosures accounting guidance to clarify certain existing disclosure requirements and to require a number of additional disclosures, including amounts and reasons for significant transfers between the three levels of the fair value hierarchy, and presentation of certain information in the reconciliation of recurring Level 3 measurements on a gross basis. For the Duke Energy Registrants, certain portions of this revised accounting guidance were effective on January 1, 2010, with additional disclosures effective for periods beginning January 1, 2011. The adoption of this accounting guidance resulted in additional disclosure in the notes to the consolidated financial statements but did not have an impact on the Duke Energy Registrants' consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. See note 9 for additional disclosures required by the revised accounting guidance in ASC 820.

ASC 350–Intangibles–Goodwill and Other. In September 2011, the FASB amended existing goodwill impairment testing accounting guidance to provide an entity testing goodwill for impairment with the option of performing a qualitative assessment prior to calculating the fair value of a reporting unit in step one of a goodwill impairment test. Under this revised guidance, a qualitative assessment would require an evaluation of economic, industry, and company-specific considerations. If an entity determines, on a basis of such qualitative factors, that the fair value of a reporting unit is more likely than not less than the carrying value of a reporting unit, the two-step impairment test, as currently required under existing applicable accounting guidance, would be required. Otherwise, no further impairment testing would be required. The revised goodwill impairment testing accounting guidance is effective for the Duke Energy Registrants' annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning January 1, 2012, with early adoption of this revised guidance permitted for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed as of a date before September 15, 2011. Since annual goodwill impairment tests are performed by Duke Energy as of August 31, the Duke Energy Registrants early adopted this revised accounting guidance during the third quarter of 2011 and applied that guidance to their annual goodwill impairment tests for 2011.

The following new Accounting Standards Updates (ASU) have been issued, but have not yet been adopted by Duke Energy, as of September 30, 2011:

ASC 820—Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). In May 2011, the FASB amended existing requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. This revised guidance results in a consistent definition of fair value, as well as common requirements for measurement and disclosure of fair value information between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). In addition, the amendments set forth enhanced disclosure requirements with respect to recurring Level 3 measurements, nonfinancial assets measured or disclosed at fair value, transfers between levels in the fair value hierarchy, and assets and liabilities disclosed but not recorded at fair value. For the Duke Energy Registrants, the revised fair value measurement guidance is effective on a prospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the potential impact of the adoption of this revised guidance and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

ASC 220—Comprehensive Income (ASC 220). In June 2011, the FASB amended the existing requirements for presenting comprehensive income in financial statements primarily to increase the prominence of items reported in other comprehensive income (OCI) and to facilitate the convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS. Specifically, the revised guidance eliminates the option currently provided under existing requirements to present components of OCI as part of the statement of changes in stockholders' equity. Accordingly, all non-owner changes in stockholders' equity will be required to be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive financial statements. For the Duke Energy Registrants, this revised guidance is effective on a retrospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Early adoption of this revised guidance is permitted. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the revised requirements for presenting comprehensive income in its financial statements and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption of this revised guidance on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

New Accounting Standards

18. New Accounting Standards

The following new accounting standards were adopted by the Duke Energy Registrants subsequent to September 30, 2010 and the impact of such adoption, if applicable, has been presented in the respective Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Duke Energy Registrants:

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 605—Revenue Recognition (ASC 605). In October 2009, the FASB issued new revenue recognition accounting guidance in response to practice concerns related to the accounting for revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables. This new accounting guidance primarily applies to all contractual arrangements in which a vendor will perform multiple revenue generating activities and addresses the unit of accounting for arrangements involving multiple deliverables, as well as how arrangement consideration should be allocated to the separate units of accounting. For the Duke Energy Registrants, the new accounting guidance was effective January 1, 2011 and applied on a prospective basis. This new accounting guidance did not have a material impact to the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Duke Energy Registrants.

ASC 805—Business Combinations (ASC 805). In November 2010, the FASB issued new accounting guidance in response to diversity in the interpretation of pro forma information disclosure requirements for business combinations. The new accounting guidance requires an entity to present pro forma financial information as if a business combination occurred at the beginning of the earliest period presented as well as additional disclosures describing the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments. This new accounting guidance was effective January 1, 2011 and will be applied to all business combinations consummated after that date.

ASC 820—Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). In January 2010, the FASB amended existing fair value measurements and disclosures accounting guidance to clarify certain existing disclosure requirements and to require a number of additional disclosures, including amounts and reasons for significant transfers between the three levels of the fair value hierarchy, and presentation of certain information in the reconciliation of recurring Level 3 measurements on a gross basis. For the Duke Energy Registrants, certain portions of this revised accounting guidance were effective on January 1, 2010, with additional disclosures effective for periods beginning January 1, 2011. The adoption of this accounting guidance resulted in additional disclosure in the notes to the consolidated financial statements but did not have an impact on the Duke Energy Registrants' consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. See note 9 for additional disclosures required by the revised accounting guidance in ASC 820.

ASC 350–Intangibles–Goodwill and Other. In September 2011, the FASB amended existing goodwill impairment testing accounting guidance to provide an entity testing goodwill for impairment with the option of performing a qualitative assessment prior to calculating the fair value of a reporting unit in step one of a goodwill impairment test. Under this revised guidance, a qualitative assessment would require an evaluation of economic, industry, and company-specific considerations. If an entity determines, on a basis of such qualitative factors, that the fair value of a reporting unit is more likely than not less than the carrying value of a reporting unit, the two-step impairment test, as currently required under existing applicable accounting guidance, would be required. Otherwise, no further impairment testing would be required. The revised goodwill impairment testing accounting guidance is effective for the Duke Energy Registrants' annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning January 1, 2012, with early adoption of this revised guidance permitted for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed as of a date before September 15, 2011. Since annual goodwill impairment tests are performed by Duke Energy as of August 31, the Duke Energy Registrants early adopted this revised accounting guidance during the third quarter of 2011 and applied that guidance to their annual goodwill impairment tests for 2011.

The following new Accounting Standards Updates (ASU) have been issued, but have not yet been adopted by Duke Energy, as of September 30, 2011:

ASC 820—Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). In May 2011, the FASB amended existing requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. This revised guidance results in a consistent definition of fair value, as well as common requirements for measurement and disclosure of fair value information between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). In addition, the amendments set forth enhanced disclosure requirements with respect to recurring Level 3 measurements, nonfinancial assets measured or disclosed at fair value, transfers between levels in the fair value hierarchy, and assets and liabilities disclosed but not recorded at fair value. For the Duke Energy Registrants, the revised fair value measurement guidance is effective on a prospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the potential impact of the adoption of this revised guidance and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

ASC 220—Comprehensive Income (ASC 220). In June 2011, the FASB amended the existing requirements for presenting comprehensive income in financial statements primarily to increase the prominence of items reported in other comprehensive income (OCI) and to facilitate the convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS. Specifically, the revised guidance eliminates the option currently provided under existing requirements to present components of OCI as part of the statement of changes in stockholders' equity. Accordingly, all non-owner changes in stockholders' equity will be required to be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive financial statements. For the Duke Energy Registrants, this revised guidance is effective on a retrospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Early adoption of this revised guidance is permitted. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the revised requirements for presenting comprehensive income in its financial statements and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption of this revised guidance on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

New Accounting Standards

18. New Accounting Standards

The following new accounting standards were adopted by the Duke Energy Registrants subsequent to September 30, 2010 and the impact of such adoption, if applicable, has been presented in the respective Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Duke Energy Registrants:

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 605—Revenue Recognition (ASC 605). In October 2009, the FASB issued new revenue recognition accounting guidance in response to practice concerns related to the accounting for revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables. This new accounting guidance primarily applies to all contractual arrangements in which a vendor will perform multiple revenue generating activities and addresses the unit of accounting for arrangements involving multiple deliverables, as well as how arrangement consideration should be allocated to the separate units of accounting. For the Duke Energy Registrants, the new accounting guidance was effective January 1, 2011 and applied on a prospective basis. This new accounting guidance did not have a material impact to the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Duke Energy Registrants.

ASC 805—Business Combinations (ASC 805). In November 2010, the FASB issued new accounting guidance in response to diversity in the interpretation of pro forma information disclosure requirements for business combinations. The new accounting guidance requires an entity to present pro forma financial information as if a business combination occurred at the beginning of the earliest period presented as well as additional disclosures describing the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments. This new accounting guidance was effective January 1, 2011 and will be applied to all business combinations consummated after that date.

ASC 820—Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). In January 2010, the FASB amended existing fair value measurements and disclosures accounting guidance to clarify certain existing disclosure requirements and to require a number of additional disclosures, including amounts and reasons for significant transfers between the three levels of the fair value hierarchy, and presentation of certain information in the reconciliation of recurring Level 3 measurements on a gross basis. For the Duke Energy Registrants, certain portions of this revised accounting guidance were effective on January 1, 2010, with additional disclosures effective for periods beginning January 1, 2011. The adoption of this accounting guidance resulted in additional disclosure in the notes to the consolidated financial statements but did not have an impact on the Duke Energy Registrants' consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. See note 9 for additional disclosures required by the revised accounting guidance in ASC 820.

ASC 350–Intangibles–Goodwill and Other. In September 2011, the FASB amended existing goodwill impairment testing accounting guidance to provide an entity testing goodwill for impairment with the option of performing a qualitative assessment prior to calculating the fair value of a reporting unit in step one of a goodwill impairment test. Under this revised guidance, a qualitative assessment would require an evaluation of economic, industry, and company-specific considerations. If an entity determines, on a basis of such qualitative factors, that the fair value of a reporting unit is more likely than not less than the carrying value of a reporting unit, the two-step impairment test, as currently required under existing applicable accounting guidance, would be required. Otherwise, no further impairment testing would be required. The revised goodwill impairment testing accounting guidance is effective for the Duke Energy Registrants' annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning January 1, 2012, with early adoption of this revised guidance permitted for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed as of a date before September 15, 2011. Since annual goodwill impairment tests are performed by Duke Energy as of August 31, the Duke Energy Registrants early adopted this revised accounting guidance during the third quarter of 2011 and applied that guidance to their annual goodwill impairment tests for 2011.

The following new Accounting Standards Updates (ASU) have been issued, but have not yet been adopted by Duke Energy, as of September 30, 2011:

ASC 820—Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). In May 2011, the FASB amended existing requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. This revised guidance results in a consistent definition of fair value, as well as common requirements for measurement and disclosure of fair value information between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). In addition, the amendments set forth enhanced disclosure requirements with respect to recurring Level 3 measurements, nonfinancial assets measured or disclosed at fair value, transfers between levels in the fair value hierarchy, and assets and liabilities disclosed but not recorded at fair value. For the Duke Energy Registrants, the revised fair value measurement guidance is effective on a prospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the potential impact of the adoption of this revised guidance and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

ASC 220—Comprehensive Income (ASC 220). In June 2011, the FASB amended the existing requirements for presenting comprehensive income in financial statements primarily to increase the prominence of items reported in other comprehensive income (OCI) and to facilitate the convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS. Specifically, the revised guidance eliminates the option currently provided under existing requirements to present components of OCI as part of the statement of changes in stockholders' equity. Accordingly, all non-owner changes in stockholders' equity will be required to be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive financial statements. For the Duke Energy Registrants, this revised guidance is effective on a retrospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2012. Early adoption of this revised guidance is permitted. Duke Energy is currently evaluating the revised requirements for presenting comprehensive income in its financial statements and is unable to estimate at this time the impact of adoption of this revised guidance on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

XML

Investments In Debt And Equity Securities (Narrative) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	Sep. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Long-term investments, carrying value		$ 118
Long-term investments, par value	90	149
Debt securities less than one year	115
Debt securities one to five years	292
Debt securities six to 10 years	235
Debt securities thereafter	383
Debt And Equity Securities in Grantor Trusts [Member]
Fair value of investments	30	29
Auction Rate Securities [Member]
Long-term investments, carrying value	72
Windstream Corp [Member]
Fair value of investments		$ 87

XML

Income Taxes And Other Taxes (Schedule Of Effective Tax Rates) (Details)	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010
Income Taxes And Other Taxes
Effective tax rate	30.70%	31.20%	30.80%	41.90%

XML

Fair Value Of Financial Assets And Liabilities (Narrative) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	1 Months Ended
	Oct. 31, 2011	Sep. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Investments in auction rate securities sold		$ 34
Auction rate securities classified as short term investments		146
Auction Rate Securities [Member]
Investments in available-for-sale securities, fair value		115	149
Available-for-sale auction rate securities, carrying value		97	118
Auction rate securities classified as short term investments		25
Auction rate securities redeemed at par value	$ 25

XML

Business Segments (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Business Segments

Total Revenues By Segments

	Unaffiliated Revenues			Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	2,917		$	9		$	2,926		$	721		$	352
Commercial Power		684			3			687			67			56
International Energy		360			—			360			168			23
Total reportable segments		3,961			12			3,973			956			431
Other		3			11			14			(74	)		24
Eliminations		—			(23	)		(23	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(213	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			7			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			1			—
Total consolidated	$	3,964		$	—		$	3,964		$	677		$	455
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	2,934		$	10		$	2,944		$	946		$	350
Commercial Power		736			1			737			188			54
International Energy		273			—			273			110			21
Total reportable segments		3,943			11			3,954			1,244			425
Other(c)		3			14			17			(100	)		22
Eliminations		—			(25	)		(25	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(202	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			25			—
Total consolidated	$	3,946		$	—		$	3,946		$	967		$	447
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
USFE&G(a)	$	8,131		$	27		$	8,158		$	2,052		$	1,032
Commercial Power		1,918			8			1,926			217			173
International Energy		1,114			—			1,114			527			66
Total reportable segments		11,163			35			11,198			2,796			1,271
Other		(2	)		36			34			(176	)		75
Eliminations		—			(71	)		(71	)		—			—
Interest expense		—			—			—			(635	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—			—			—			53			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—			—			—			18			—
Total consolidated	$	11,161		$	—		$	11,161		$	2,056		$	1,346

	Unaffiliated Revenues		Intersegment Revenues			Total Revenues			Segment EBIT / Consolidated Income From Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes			Depreciation and Amortization
	(in millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
USFE&G(a)	$	8,017	$	25		$	8,042		$	2,361		$	1,033
Commercial Power(b)		1,850		6			1,856			(287	)		167
International Energy		919		—			919			376			63
Total reportable segments		10,786		31			10,817			2,450			1,263
Other(c)		41		41			82			(368	)		66
Eliminations		—		(72	)		(72	)		—			—
Interest expense		—		—			—			(624	)		—
Interest income and other(d)		—		—			—			62			—
Add back of noncontrolling interest component of reportable segment and Other EBIT		—		—			—			16			—
Total consolidated	$	10,827	$	—		$	10,827		$	1,536		$	1,329

(a) As discussed in Note 4, Duke Energy recorded a pre-tax charge of $222 million in the third quarter of 2011 and a $44 million pre-tax charge in the third quarter of 2010 related to the Edwardsport IGCC project.

(b) As discussed in Note 7, in the second quarter of 2010, Commercial Power recorded impairment charges of $660 million, which consisted of a $500 million goodwill impairment charge associated with the non-regulated Midwest generation operations and a $160 million charge to write-down the value of certain non-regulated Midwest generating assets and emission allowances primarily associated with these generation assets.

(c) During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Other recorded a $20 million and $164 million expense, respectively, related to the 2010 voluntary severance plan and the consolidation of certain corporate office functions from the Midwest to Charlotte, North Carolina (See Note 15).

(d) Other within Interest Income and Other includes foreign currency transaction gains and losses and additional noncontrolling interest amounts not allocated to the reportable segments and Other results.

Reconciliation Of Segment Assets To Consolidated Assets

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
USFE&G	$	46,827	$	45,210
Commercial Power		6,739		6,704
International Energy		4,379		4,310
Total reportable segments		57,945		56,224
Other		2,730		2,845
Reclassifications(a)		101		21
Total consolidated assets	$	60,776	$	59,090

(a) Primarily represents reclassification of federal tax balances in consolidation.

XML

Stock-Based Compensation (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Stock-Based Compensation

Disclosure Of Share-Based Compensation Arrangements By Share-Based Payment Award

Three Months Ended September 30,					Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011(a)		2010(a)			2011(a)		2010(a)
	(in millions)					(in millions)
Stock Options	$	—	$	—		$	2	$	2
Phantom Awards		6		7			20		21
Performance Awards		6		11			17		23
Other Stock Awards		—		1			—		1
Total	$	12	$	19		$	39	$	47

(a) Excludes stock-based compensation cost capitalized of approximately $1 million and $3 million for each of the three and nine months, respectively, ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

XML

Subsequent Events

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Subsequent Events

20. Subsequent Events

For information on subsequent events related to acquisitions and sales of other assets, regulatory matters, commitments and contingencies, debt and credit facilities, fair value of financial asset and liabilities, variable interest entities and severance, see Notes 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 15, respectively.

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Subsequent Events

20. Subsequent Events

For information on subsequent events related to acquisitions and sales of other assets, regulatory matters, commitments and contingencies, debt and credit facilities, fair value of financial asset and liabilities, variable interest entities and severance, see Notes 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 15, respectively.

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Subsequent Events

20. Subsequent Events

For information on subsequent events related to acquisitions and sales of other assets, regulatory matters, commitments and contingencies, debt and credit facilities, fair value of financial asset and liabilities, variable interest entities and severance, see Notes 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 15, respectively.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Subsequent Events

20. Subsequent Events

For information on subsequent events related to acquisitions and sales of other assets, regulatory matters, commitments and contingencies, debt and credit facilities, fair value of financial asset and liabilities, variable interest entities and severance, see Notes 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 15, respectively.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Subsequent Events

20. Subsequent Events

For information on subsequent events related to acquisitions and sales of other assets, regulatory matters, commitments and contingencies, debt and credit facilities, fair value of financial asset and liabilities, variable interest entities and severance, see Notes 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 15, respectively.

XML

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities

8. Risk Management, Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

The Duke Energy Registrants utilize various derivative instruments to manage risks primarily associated with commodity prices and interest rates. The primary use of energy commodity derivatives is to hedge the generation portfolio against exposure to changes in the prices of power and fuel. Interest rate derivatives are entered into to manage interest rate risk associated with variable-rate and fixed-rate borrowings.

Certain derivative instruments qualify for hedge accounting and are designated as either cash flow hedges or fair value hedges, while others either do not qualify as accounting hedges (such as economic hedges) or have not been designated as accounting hedges (hereinafter referred to as undesignated contracts). All derivative instruments not meeting the criteria for the normal purchase normal sale (NPNS) exception are recognized as either assets or liabilities at fair value in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As the regulated operations of the Duke Energy Registrants meet the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment, the majority of the derivative contracts entered into by the regulated operations are not designated as hedges since gains and losses on such contracts are deferred as regulatory liabilities and assets, respectively, thus there is no immediate earnings impact associated with changes in fair values of such derivative contracts.

For derivative instruments that qualify and are designated as cash flow hedges, the effective portion of the gain or loss is reported as a component of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) and reclassified into earnings in the same period or periods during which the hedged transaction affects earnings. Any gains or losses on the derivative that represent either hedge ineffectiveness or hedge components excluded from the assessment of effectiveness are recognized in current earnings. For derivative instruments that qualify and are designated as a fair value hedge, the gain or loss on the derivative as well as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item are recognized in earnings in the current period. Any gains or losses on the derivative are included in the same line item as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Regulatory accounting treatment is applied to substantially all of the derivative instruments at Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana.

Commodity Price Risk

The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to the impact of market changes in the future prices of electricity (energy, capacity and financial transmission rights), coal, natural gas and emission allowances (SO₂, seasonal NO_X and annual NO_X) as a result of their energy operations such as electricity generation and the transportation and sale of natural gas. With respect to commodity price risks associated with electricity generation, the Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to changes including, but not limited to, the cost of the coal and natural gas used to generate electricity, the prices of electricity in wholesale markets, the cost of capacity required to purchase and sell electricity in wholesale markets and the cost of emission allowances primarily at the Duke Energy Registrants' coal fired power plants. Risks associated with commodity price changes on future operations are closely monitored and, where appropriate, various commodity contracts are used to mitigate the effect of such fluctuations on operations. Exposure to commodity price risk is influenced by a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the term of the contract, the liquidity of the market and delivery location.

Commodity Fair Value Hedges. At September 30, 2011, there were no open commodity derivative instruments that were designated as fair value hedges.

Commodity Cash Flow Hedges. At September 30, 2011, there were no open commodity derivative instruments that were designated as cash flow hedges.

Undesignated Contracts. The Duke Energy Registrants use derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from providing electricity generation and capacity to large energy customers, energy aggregators, retail customers and other wholesale companies. Undesignated contracts may include contracts not designated as a hedge, contracts that do not qualify for hedge accounting, derivatives that do not or no longer qualify for the NPNS scope exception, and de-designated hedge contracts. Undesignated contracts also include contracts associated with operations that Duke Energy continues to wind down or has included as discontinued operations. As these undesignated contracts expire as late as 2021, Duke Energy has entered into economic hedges that leave it minimally exposed to changes in prices over the duration of these contracts.

Duke Energy Carolinas uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from electricity generation. At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas does not have any undesignated commodity contracts.

Duke Energy Ohio uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from providing electricity generation and capacity to large energy customers, energy aggregators, retail customers and other wholesale companies. Undesignated contracts at September 30, 2011 are primarily associated with forward sales and purchases of power, coal and emission allowances, for the Commercial Power segment.

Duke Energy Indiana uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from electricity generation. Undesignated contracts at September 30, 2011 are primarily associated with forward purchases and sales of power, financial transmission rights and emission allowances.

Interest Rate Risk

The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to risk resulting from changes in interest rates as a result of their issuance or anticipated issuance of variable and fixed-rate debt and commercial paper. Interest rate exposure is managed by limiting variable-rate exposures to a percentage of total debt and by monitoring the effects of market changes in interest rates. To manage risk associated with changes in interest rates, the Duke Energy Registrants may enter into financial contracts; primarily interest rate swaps and U.S. Treasury lock agreements. Additionally, in anticipation of certain fixed-rate debt issuances, a series of forward starting interest rate swaps may be executed to lock in components of the market interest rates at the time and terminated prior to or upon the issuance of the corresponding debt. When these transactions occur within a business that meets the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment, these contracts may be treated as undesignated and any pre-tax gain or loss recognized from inception to termination of the hedges would be recorded as a regulatory liability or asset and amortized as a component of interest expense over the life of the debt. Alternatively, these derivatives may be designated as hedges whereby, any pre-tax gain or loss recognized from inception to termination of the hedges would be recorded in AOCI and amortized as a component of interest expense over the life of the debt.

The following table shows the notional amounts for derivatives related to interest rate risk at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments Related to Interest Rate Risk

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	846	$	—	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		748		500		27		200
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250		—
Total Notional Amount at September 30, 2011	$	1,869	$	525	$	277	$	200

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	492	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		561		500		27
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250
Total Notional Amount at December 31, 2010	$	1,328	$	525	$	277

(a) Includes amounts related to non-recourse variable rate long-term debt of VIEs of $470 million at September 30, 2011 and $492 million at December 31, 2010.

Volumes

The following tables show information relating to the volume of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's commodity derivative activity outstanding as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts disclosed represent the notional volumes of commodities contracts accounted for at fair value. For option contracts, notional amounts include only the delta-equivalent volumes which represent the notional volumes times the probability of exercising the option based on current price volatility. Volumes associated with contracts qualifying for the NPNS exception have been excluded from the table below. Amounts disclosed represent the absolute value of notional amounts. Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio have netted contractual amounts where offsetting purchase and sale contracts exist with identical delivery locations and times of delivery. Where all commodity positions are perfectly offset, no quantities are shown below. For additional information on notional dollar amounts of debt subject to derivative contracts accounted for at fair value, see "Interest Rate Risk" section above.

Underlying Notional Amounts for Derivative Instruments Accounted for At Fair Value

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)		7,048		8,200
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		58
Emission allowances: SO2 (thousands of tons)		8		8
Natural gas (millions of decatherms)		37		37
Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)(a)		11,947		13,183
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		60

(a) Amounts include intercompany positions that are eliminated at Duke Energy.

The following table shows fair value amounts of derivative contracts as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, and the line item(s) in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in which such amounts are included. The fair values of derivative contracts are presented on a gross basis, even when the derivative instruments are subject to master netting arrangements where Duke Energy nets the fair value of derivative contracts subject to master netting arrangements with the same counterparty on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Cash collateral payables and receivables associated with the derivative contracts have not been netted against the fair value amounts.

Location and Fair Value Amounts of Derivatives Reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

Balance Sheet Location

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Asset		Liability		Asset		Liability
	(in millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate contracts
Current Assets: Other		5		—		5		—
Investments and Other Assets: Other		4		—		16		—
Current Liabilities: Other		—		13		—		13
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		—		71		—		—
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	9	$	84	$	21	$	13

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Commodity contracts
Current Assets: Other	$	73	$	30	$	108	$	54
Investments and Other Assets: Other		43		6		55		4
Current Liabilities: Other		15		50		75		118
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		9		77		3		72
Interest rate contracts
Investments and Other Assets: Other(a)		—		—		60		—
Current Liabilities: Other(a)(b)		—		94		—		2
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other(c)		—		68		—		5
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	140	$	325	$	301	$	255
Total Derivatives	$	149	$	409	$	322	$	268

(a) As of December 31, 2010, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(b) As of September 30, 2011, includes $92 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(c) As of September 30, 2011, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Asset		Liability		Asset		Liability
	(in millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate contracts
Current Assets: Other		4		—		4		—
Investments and Other Assets: Other		4		—		2		—
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	8	$	—	$	6	$	—

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Commodity contracts
Current Assets: Other	$	55	$	34	$	106	$	57
Investments and Other Assets: Other		7		2		6		2
Current Liabilities: Other		16		30		75		98
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		12		17		3		7
Interest rate contracts
Current Liabilities: Other		—		1		—		1
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		—		7		—		4
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	90	$	91	$	190	$	169
Total Derivatives	$	98	$	91	$	196	$	169

The following table shows the amount of the gains and losses recognized on derivative instruments designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges by type of derivative contract during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations line items in which such gains and losses are included.

Cash Flow Hedges—Location and Amount of Pre-Tax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in Comprehensive Income

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings(a)
Commodity contracts
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			1			—			1
Interest rate contracts
Interest expense		(1	)		(2	)		(4	)		(4	)
Total Pre-tax Losses Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$	(1	)	$	(1	)	$	(4	)	$	(3	)

Duke Energy Ohio	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Location of Pre-tax Gains Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings(a)
Commodity contracts
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—		1		—		1
Total Pre-tax Gains Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$	—	$	1	$	—	$	1

(a) Represents the gains and losses on cash flow hedges previously recorded in AOCI during the term of the hedging relationship and reclassified into earnings during the current period.

Duke Energy's effective portion of losses on cash flow hedges that were recognized in AOCI during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 were pre-tax losses of $73 million and $80 million, respectively, and pre-tax losses of $1 million and $14 million, respectively, during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010. In addition, there was no hedge ineffectiveness during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and no gains or losses have been excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness during the same periods for all Duke Energy Registrants.

Duke Energy. At September 30, 2011, $108 million of pre-tax deferred net losses on derivative instruments related to interest rate cash flow hedges remains in AOCI, and a $7 million pre-tax gain is expected to be recognized in earnings during the next 12 months as the hedged transactions occur.

Duke Energy Ohio. At September 30, 2011, there were no pre-tax deferred net gains or losses on derivative instruments related to cash flow hedges remaining in AOCI.

The following table shows the amount of the pre-tax gains and losses recognized on undesignated contracts by type of derivative instrument during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and the line item(s) in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in which such gains and losses are included or deferred on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as regulatory assets or liabilities.

Undesignated Contracts—Location and Amount of Pre-Tax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in

Income or as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings
Commodity contracts
Revenue, regulated electric	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	1
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas and other		—			3			(25	)		(31	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(1	)		6
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings	$	—		$	3		$	(26	)	$	(24	)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities
Commodity contracts
Regulatory Asset	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	2
Regulatory Liability		2			(2	)		12			10
Interest rate contracts
Regulatory Asset(a)		(146	)		(6	)		(155	)		(8	)
Regulatory Liability(b)		(60	)		—			(60	)		—
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities	$	(202	)	$	(8	)	$	(202	)	$	4

(a) Includes amounts related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 of $82 million and $91 million, respectively, and includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011.

(b) Amounts relate to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas.

Duke Energy Ohio	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings
Commodity contracts
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	(6	)	$	46		$	(28	)	$	28
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(1	)		6
Interest rate contracts
Interest expense		—			(1	)		(1	)		(1	)
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings(a)	$	(6	)	$	45		$	(30	)	$	33
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets
Commodity contracts
Regulatory Asset	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	2
Interest rate contracts
Regulatory Asset		(4	)		(2	)		(4	)		(4	)
Total Pre-tax Losses Recognized as Regulatory Assets	$	(2	)	$	(2	)	$	(3	)	$	(2	)

(a) Amounts include intercompany positions that are eliminated at Duke Energy.

Credit Risk

Certain of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's derivative contracts contain contingent credit features, such as material adverse change clauses or payment acceleration clauses that could result in immediate payments, the posting of letters of credit or the termination of the derivative contract before maturity if specific events occur, such as a downgrade of Duke Energy or Duke Energy Ohio's credit rating below investment grade.

The following table shows information with respect to derivative contracts that are in a net liability position and contain objective credit-risk related payment provisions. The amounts disclosed in the table below represent the aggregate fair value amounts of such derivative instruments at the end of the reporting period, the aggregate fair value of assets that are already posted as collateral under such derivative instruments at the end of the reporting period, and the aggregate fair value of additional assets that would be required to be transferred in the event that credit-risk-related contingent features were triggered at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Information Regarding Derivative Instruments that Contain Credit-risk Related Contingent Features

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$	66	$	148
Collateral Already Posted	$	25	$	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$	4	$	14
Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$	65	$	147
Collateral Already Posted	$	25	$	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$	4	$	14

Netting of Cash Collateral and Derivative Assets and Liabilities Under Master Netting Arrangements. In accordance with applicable accounting rules, Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio have elected to offset fair value amounts (or amounts that approximate fair value) recognized on their Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to cash collateral amounts receivable or payable against fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under the same master netting agreement. The amounts disclosed in the table below represent the receivables related to the right to reclaim cash collateral and payables related to the obligation to return cash collateral under master netting arrangements as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. See Note 9 for additional information on fair value disclosures related to derivatives.

Information Regarding Cash Collateral under Master Netting Arrangements

	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy	Receivables		Payables		Receivables		Payables
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	7		—	$	2		—
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets(a)	$	28		—	$	2	$	3
	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio	Receivables		Payables		Receivables		Payables
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	7		—	$	2		—
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (a)	$	16	$	—		—	$	3

(a) Amounts for payables primarily represent margin deposits related to futures contracts.

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities

8. Risk Management, Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

The Duke Energy Registrants utilize various derivative instruments to manage risks primarily associated with commodity prices and interest rates. The primary use of energy commodity derivatives is to hedge the generation portfolio against exposure to changes in the prices of power and fuel. Interest rate derivatives are entered into to manage interest rate risk associated with variable-rate and fixed-rate borrowings.

Certain derivative instruments qualify for hedge accounting and are designated as either cash flow hedges or fair value hedges, while others either do not qualify as accounting hedges (such as economic hedges) or have not been designated as accounting hedges (hereinafter referred to as undesignated contracts). All derivative instruments not meeting the criteria for the normal purchase normal sale (NPNS) exception are recognized as either assets or liabilities at fair value in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As the regulated operations of the Duke Energy Registrants meet the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment, the majority of the derivative contracts entered into by the regulated operations are not designated as hedges since gains and losses on such contracts are deferred as regulatory liabilities and assets, respectively, thus there is no immediate earnings impact associated with changes in fair values of such derivative contracts.

For derivative instruments that qualify and are designated as cash flow hedges, the effective portion of the gain or loss is reported as a component of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) and reclassified into earnings in the same period or periods during which the hedged transaction affects earnings. Any gains or losses on the derivative that represent either hedge ineffectiveness or hedge components excluded from the assessment of effectiveness are recognized in current earnings. For derivative instruments that qualify and are designated as a fair value hedge, the gain or loss on the derivative as well as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item are recognized in earnings in the current period. Any gains or losses on the derivative are included in the same line item as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Regulatory accounting treatment is applied to substantially all of the derivative instruments at Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana.

Commodity Price Risk

The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to the impact of market changes in the future prices of electricity (energy, capacity and financial transmission rights), coal, natural gas and emission allowances (SO₂, seasonal NO_X and annual NO_X) as a result of their energy operations such as electricity generation and the transportation and sale of natural gas. With respect to commodity price risks associated with electricity generation, the Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to changes including, but not limited to, the cost of the coal and natural gas used to generate electricity, the prices of electricity in wholesale markets, the cost of capacity required to purchase and sell electricity in wholesale markets and the cost of emission allowances primarily at the Duke Energy Registrants' coal fired power plants. Risks associated with commodity price changes on future operations are closely monitored and, where appropriate, various commodity contracts are used to mitigate the effect of such fluctuations on operations. Exposure to commodity price risk is influenced by a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the term of the contract, the liquidity of the market and delivery location.

Commodity Fair Value Hedges. At September 30, 2011, there were no open commodity derivative instruments that were designated as fair value hedges.

Commodity Cash Flow Hedges. At September 30, 2011, there were no open commodity derivative instruments that were designated as cash flow hedges.

Undesignated Contracts. The Duke Energy Registrants use derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from providing electricity generation and capacity to large energy customers, energy aggregators, retail customers and other wholesale companies. Undesignated contracts may include contracts not designated as a hedge, contracts that do not qualify for hedge accounting, derivatives that do not or no longer qualify for the NPNS scope exception, and de-designated hedge contracts. Undesignated contracts also include contracts associated with operations that Duke Energy continues to wind down or has included as discontinued operations. As these undesignated contracts expire as late as 2021, Duke Energy has entered into economic hedges that leave it minimally exposed to changes in prices over the duration of these contracts.

Duke Energy Carolinas uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from electricity generation. At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas does not have any undesignated commodity contracts.

Duke Energy Ohio uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from providing electricity generation and capacity to large energy customers, energy aggregators, retail customers and other wholesale companies. Undesignated contracts at September 30, 2011 are primarily associated with forward sales and purchases of power, coal and emission allowances, for the Commercial Power segment.

Duke Energy Indiana uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from electricity generation. Undesignated contracts at September 30, 2011 are primarily associated with forward purchases and sales of power, financial transmission rights and emission allowances.

Interest Rate Risk

The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to risk resulting from changes in interest rates as a result of their issuance or anticipated issuance of variable and fixed-rate debt and commercial paper. Interest rate exposure is managed by limiting variable-rate exposures to a percentage of total debt and by monitoring the effects of market changes in interest rates. To manage risk associated with changes in interest rates, the Duke Energy Registrants may enter into financial contracts; primarily interest rate swaps and U.S. Treasury lock agreements. Additionally, in anticipation of certain fixed-rate debt issuances, a series of forward starting interest rate swaps may be executed to lock in components of the market interest rates at the time and terminated prior to or upon the issuance of the corresponding debt. When these transactions occur within a business that meets the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment, these contracts may be treated as undesignated and any pre-tax gain or loss recognized from inception to termination of the hedges would be recorded as a regulatory liability or asset and amortized as a component of interest expense over the life of the debt. Alternatively, these derivatives may be designated as hedges whereby, any pre-tax gain or loss recognized from inception to termination of the hedges would be recorded in AOCI and amortized as a component of interest expense over the life of the debt.

The following table shows the notional amounts for derivatives related to interest rate risk at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments Related to Interest Rate Risk

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	846	$	—	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		748		500		27		200
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250		—
Total Notional Amount at September 30, 2011	$	1,869	$	525	$	277	$	200

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	492	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		561		500		27
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250
Total Notional Amount at December 31, 2010	$	1,328	$	525	$	277

(a) Includes amounts related to non-recourse variable rate long-term debt of VIEs of $470 million at September 30, 2011 and $492 million at December 31, 2010.

Volumes

The following tables show information relating to the volume of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's commodity derivative activity outstanding as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts disclosed represent the notional volumes of commodities contracts accounted for at fair value. For option contracts, notional amounts include only the delta-equivalent volumes which represent the notional volumes times the probability of exercising the option based on current price volatility. Volumes associated with contracts qualifying for the NPNS exception have been excluded from the table below. Amounts disclosed represent the absolute value of notional amounts. Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio have netted contractual amounts where offsetting purchase and sale contracts exist with identical delivery locations and times of delivery. Where all commodity positions are perfectly offset, no quantities are shown below. For additional information on notional dollar amounts of debt subject to derivative contracts accounted for at fair value, see "Interest Rate Risk" section above.

Underlying Notional Amounts for Derivative Instruments Accounted for At Fair Value

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)		7,048		8,200
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		58
Emission allowances: SO2 (thousands of tons)		8		8
Natural gas (millions of decatherms)		37		37
Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)(a)		11,947		13,183
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		60

(a) Amounts include intercompany positions that are eliminated at Duke Energy.

The following table shows fair value amounts of derivative contracts as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, and the line item(s) in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in which such amounts are included. The fair values of derivative contracts are presented on a gross basis, even when the derivative instruments are subject to master netting arrangements where Duke Energy nets the fair value of derivative contracts subject to master netting arrangements with the same counterparty on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Cash collateral payables and receivables associated with the derivative contracts have not been netted against the fair value amounts.

Location and Fair Value Amounts of Derivatives Reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

Balance Sheet Location

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Asset		Liability		Asset		Liability
	(in millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate contracts
Current Assets: Other		5		—		5		—
Investments and Other Assets: Other		4		—		16		—
Current Liabilities: Other		—		13		—		13
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		—		71		—		—
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	9	$	84	$	21	$	13

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Commodity contracts
Current Assets: Other	$	73	$	30	$	108	$	54
Investments and Other Assets: Other		43		6		55		4
Current Liabilities: Other		15		50		75		118
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		9		77		3		72
Interest rate contracts
Investments and Other Assets: Other(a)		—		—		60		—
Current Liabilities: Other(a)(b)		—		94		—		2
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other(c)		—		68		—		5
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	140	$	325	$	301	$	255
Total Derivatives	$	149	$	409	$	322	$	268

(a) As of December 31, 2010, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(b) As of September 30, 2011, includes $92 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(c) As of September 30, 2011, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Asset		Liability		Asset		Liability
	(in millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate contracts
Current Assets: Other		4		—		4		—
Investments and Other Assets: Other		4		—		2		—
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	8	$	—	$	6	$	—

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Commodity contracts
Current Assets: Other	$	55	$	34	$	106	$	57
Investments and Other Assets: Other		7		2		6		2
Current Liabilities: Other		16		30		75		98
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		12		17		3		7
Interest rate contracts
Current Liabilities: Other		—		1		—		1
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		—		7		—		4
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	90	$	91	$	190	$	169
Total Derivatives	$	98	$	91	$	196	$	169

The following table shows the amount of the gains and losses recognized on derivative instruments designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges by type of derivative contract during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations line items in which such gains and losses are included.

Cash Flow Hedges—Location and Amount of Pre-Tax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in Comprehensive Income

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings(a)
Commodity contracts
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			1			—			1
Interest rate contracts
Interest expense		(1	)		(2	)		(4	)		(4	)
Total Pre-tax Losses Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$	(1	)	$	(1	)	$	(4	)	$	(3	)

Duke Energy Ohio	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Location of Pre-tax Gains Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings(a)
Commodity contracts
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—		1		—		1
Total Pre-tax Gains Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$	—	$	1	$	—	$	1

(a) Represents the gains and losses on cash flow hedges previously recorded in AOCI during the term of the hedging relationship and reclassified into earnings during the current period.

Duke Energy's effective portion of losses on cash flow hedges that were recognized in AOCI during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 were pre-tax losses of $73 million and $80 million, respectively, and pre-tax losses of $1 million and $14 million, respectively, during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010. In addition, there was no hedge ineffectiveness during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and no gains or losses have been excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness during the same periods for all Duke Energy Registrants.

Duke Energy. At September 30, 2011, $108 million of pre-tax deferred net losses on derivative instruments related to interest rate cash flow hedges remains in AOCI, and a $7 million pre-tax gain is expected to be recognized in earnings during the next 12 months as the hedged transactions occur.

Duke Energy Ohio. At September 30, 2011, there were no pre-tax deferred net gains or losses on derivative instruments related to cash flow hedges remaining in AOCI.

The following table shows the amount of the pre-tax gains and losses recognized on undesignated contracts by type of derivative instrument during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and the line item(s) in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in which such gains and losses are included or deferred on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as regulatory assets or liabilities.

Undesignated Contracts—Location and Amount of Pre-Tax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in

Income or as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings
Commodity contracts
Revenue, regulated electric	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	1
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas and other		—			3			(25	)		(31	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(1	)		6
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings	$	—		$	3		$	(26	)	$	(24	)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities
Commodity contracts
Regulatory Asset	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	2
Regulatory Liability		2			(2	)		12			10
Interest rate contracts
Regulatory Asset(a)		(146	)		(6	)		(155	)		(8	)
Regulatory Liability(b)		(60	)		—			(60	)		—
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities	$	(202	)	$	(8	)	$	(202	)	$	4

(a) Includes amounts related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 of $82 million and $91 million, respectively, and includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011.

(b) Amounts relate to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas.

Duke Energy Ohio	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings
Commodity contracts
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	(6	)	$	46		$	(28	)	$	28
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(1	)		6
Interest rate contracts
Interest expense		—			(1	)		(1	)		(1	)
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings(a)	$	(6	)	$	45		$	(30	)	$	33
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets
Commodity contracts
Regulatory Asset	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	2
Interest rate contracts
Regulatory Asset		(4	)		(2	)		(4	)		(4	)
Total Pre-tax Losses Recognized as Regulatory Assets	$	(2	)	$	(2	)	$	(3	)	$	(2	)

(a) Amounts include intercompany positions that are eliminated at Duke Energy.

Credit Risk

Certain of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's derivative contracts contain contingent credit features, such as material adverse change clauses or payment acceleration clauses that could result in immediate payments, the posting of letters of credit or the termination of the derivative contract before maturity if specific events occur, such as a downgrade of Duke Energy or Duke Energy Ohio's credit rating below investment grade.

The following table shows information with respect to derivative contracts that are in a net liability position and contain objective credit-risk related payment provisions. The amounts disclosed in the table below represent the aggregate fair value amounts of such derivative instruments at the end of the reporting period, the aggregate fair value of assets that are already posted as collateral under such derivative instruments at the end of the reporting period, and the aggregate fair value of additional assets that would be required to be transferred in the event that credit-risk-related contingent features were triggered at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Information Regarding Derivative Instruments that Contain Credit-risk Related Contingent Features

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$	66	$	148
Collateral Already Posted	$	25	$	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$	4	$	14
Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$	65	$	147
Collateral Already Posted	$	25	$	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$	4	$	14

Netting of Cash Collateral and Derivative Assets and Liabilities Under Master Netting Arrangements. In accordance with applicable accounting rules, Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio have elected to offset fair value amounts (or amounts that approximate fair value) recognized on their Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to cash collateral amounts receivable or payable against fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under the same master netting agreement. The amounts disclosed in the table below represent the receivables related to the right to reclaim cash collateral and payables related to the obligation to return cash collateral under master netting arrangements as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. See Note 9 for additional information on fair value disclosures related to derivatives.

Information Regarding Cash Collateral under Master Netting Arrangements

	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy	Receivables		Payables		Receivables		Payables
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	7		—	$	2		—
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets(a)	$	28		—	$	2	$	3
	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio	Receivables		Payables		Receivables		Payables
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	7		—	$	2		—
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (a)	$	16	$	—		—	$	3

(a) Amounts for payables primarily represent margin deposits related to futures contracts.

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities

8. Risk Management, Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

The Duke Energy Registrants utilize various derivative instruments to manage risks primarily associated with commodity prices and interest rates. The primary use of energy commodity derivatives is to hedge the generation portfolio against exposure to changes in the prices of power and fuel. Interest rate derivatives are entered into to manage interest rate risk associated with variable-rate and fixed-rate borrowings.

Certain derivative instruments qualify for hedge accounting and are designated as either cash flow hedges or fair value hedges, while others either do not qualify as accounting hedges (such as economic hedges) or have not been designated as accounting hedges (hereinafter referred to as undesignated contracts). All derivative instruments not meeting the criteria for the normal purchase normal sale (NPNS) exception are recognized as either assets or liabilities at fair value in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As the regulated operations of the Duke Energy Registrants meet the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment, the majority of the derivative contracts entered into by the regulated operations are not designated as hedges since gains and losses on such contracts are deferred as regulatory liabilities and assets, respectively, thus there is no immediate earnings impact associated with changes in fair values of such derivative contracts.

For derivative instruments that qualify and are designated as cash flow hedges, the effective portion of the gain or loss is reported as a component of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) and reclassified into earnings in the same period or periods during which the hedged transaction affects earnings. Any gains or losses on the derivative that represent either hedge ineffectiveness or hedge components excluded from the assessment of effectiveness are recognized in current earnings. For derivative instruments that qualify and are designated as a fair value hedge, the gain or loss on the derivative as well as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item are recognized in earnings in the current period. Any gains or losses on the derivative are included in the same line item as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Regulatory accounting treatment is applied to substantially all of the derivative instruments at Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana.

Commodity Price Risk

The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to the impact of market changes in the future prices of electricity (energy, capacity and financial transmission rights), coal, natural gas and emission allowances (SO₂, seasonal NO_X and annual NO_X) as a result of their energy operations such as electricity generation and the transportation and sale of natural gas. With respect to commodity price risks associated with electricity generation, the Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to changes including, but not limited to, the cost of the coal and natural gas used to generate electricity, the prices of electricity in wholesale markets, the cost of capacity required to purchase and sell electricity in wholesale markets and the cost of emission allowances primarily at the Duke Energy Registrants' coal fired power plants. Risks associated with commodity price changes on future operations are closely monitored and, where appropriate, various commodity contracts are used to mitigate the effect of such fluctuations on operations. Exposure to commodity price risk is influenced by a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the term of the contract, the liquidity of the market and delivery location.

Commodity Fair Value Hedges. At September 30, 2011, there were no open commodity derivative instruments that were designated as fair value hedges.

Commodity Cash Flow Hedges. At September 30, 2011, there were no open commodity derivative instruments that were designated as cash flow hedges.

Undesignated Contracts. The Duke Energy Registrants use derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from providing electricity generation and capacity to large energy customers, energy aggregators, retail customers and other wholesale companies. Undesignated contracts may include contracts not designated as a hedge, contracts that do not qualify for hedge accounting, derivatives that do not or no longer qualify for the NPNS scope exception, and de-designated hedge contracts. Undesignated contracts also include contracts associated with operations that Duke Energy continues to wind down or has included as discontinued operations. As these undesignated contracts expire as late as 2021, Duke Energy has entered into economic hedges that leave it minimally exposed to changes in prices over the duration of these contracts.

Duke Energy Carolinas uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from electricity generation. At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas does not have any undesignated commodity contracts.

Duke Energy Ohio uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from providing electricity generation and capacity to large energy customers, energy aggregators, retail customers and other wholesale companies. Undesignated contracts at September 30, 2011 are primarily associated with forward sales and purchases of power, coal and emission allowances, for the Commercial Power segment.

Duke Energy Indiana uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from electricity generation. Undesignated contracts at September 30, 2011 are primarily associated with forward purchases and sales of power, financial transmission rights and emission allowances.

Interest Rate Risk

The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to risk resulting from changes in interest rates as a result of their issuance or anticipated issuance of variable and fixed-rate debt and commercial paper. Interest rate exposure is managed by limiting variable-rate exposures to a percentage of total debt and by monitoring the effects of market changes in interest rates. To manage risk associated with changes in interest rates, the Duke Energy Registrants may enter into financial contracts; primarily interest rate swaps and U.S. Treasury lock agreements. Additionally, in anticipation of certain fixed-rate debt issuances, a series of forward starting interest rate swaps may be executed to lock in components of the market interest rates at the time and terminated prior to or upon the issuance of the corresponding debt. When these transactions occur within a business that meets the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment, these contracts may be treated as undesignated and any pre-tax gain or loss recognized from inception to termination of the hedges would be recorded as a regulatory liability or asset and amortized as a component of interest expense over the life of the debt. Alternatively, these derivatives may be designated as hedges whereby, any pre-tax gain or loss recognized from inception to termination of the hedges would be recorded in AOCI and amortized as a component of interest expense over the life of the debt.

The following table shows the notional amounts for derivatives related to interest rate risk at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments Related to Interest Rate Risk

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	846	$	—	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		748		500		27		200
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250		—
Total Notional Amount at September 30, 2011	$	1,869	$	525	$	277	$	200

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	492	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		561		500		27
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250
Total Notional Amount at December 31, 2010	$	1,328	$	525	$	277

(a) Includes amounts related to non-recourse variable rate long-term debt of VIEs of $470 million at September 30, 2011 and $492 million at December 31, 2010.

Volumes

The following tables show information relating to the volume of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's commodity derivative activity outstanding as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts disclosed represent the notional volumes of commodities contracts accounted for at fair value. For option contracts, notional amounts include only the delta-equivalent volumes which represent the notional volumes times the probability of exercising the option based on current price volatility. Volumes associated with contracts qualifying for the NPNS exception have been excluded from the table below. Amounts disclosed represent the absolute value of notional amounts. Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio have netted contractual amounts where offsetting purchase and sale contracts exist with identical delivery locations and times of delivery. Where all commodity positions are perfectly offset, no quantities are shown below. For additional information on notional dollar amounts of debt subject to derivative contracts accounted for at fair value, see "Interest Rate Risk" section above.

Underlying Notional Amounts for Derivative Instruments Accounted for At Fair Value

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)		7,048		8,200
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		58
Emission allowances: SO2 (thousands of tons)		8		8
Natural gas (millions of decatherms)		37		37
Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)(a)		11,947		13,183
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		60

(a) Amounts include intercompany positions that are eliminated at Duke Energy.

The following table shows fair value amounts of derivative contracts as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, and the line item(s) in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in which such amounts are included. The fair values of derivative contracts are presented on a gross basis, even when the derivative instruments are subject to master netting arrangements where Duke Energy nets the fair value of derivative contracts subject to master netting arrangements with the same counterparty on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Cash collateral payables and receivables associated with the derivative contracts have not been netted against the fair value amounts.

Location and Fair Value Amounts of Derivatives Reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

Balance Sheet Location

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Asset		Liability		Asset		Liability
	(in millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate contracts
Current Assets: Other		5		—		5		—
Investments and Other Assets: Other		4		—		16		—
Current Liabilities: Other		—		13		—		13
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		—		71		—		—
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	9	$	84	$	21	$	13

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Commodity contracts
Current Assets: Other	$	73	$	30	$	108	$	54
Investments and Other Assets: Other		43		6		55		4
Current Liabilities: Other		15		50		75		118
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		9		77		3		72
Interest rate contracts
Investments and Other Assets: Other(a)		—		—		60		—
Current Liabilities: Other(a)(b)		—		94		—		2
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other(c)		—		68		—		5
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	140	$	325	$	301	$	255
Total Derivatives	$	149	$	409	$	322	$	268

(a) As of December 31, 2010, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(b) As of September 30, 2011, includes $92 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(c) As of September 30, 2011, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Asset		Liability		Asset		Liability
	(in millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate contracts
Current Assets: Other		4		—		4		—
Investments and Other Assets: Other		4		—		2		—
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	8	$	—	$	6	$	—

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Commodity contracts
Current Assets: Other	$	55	$	34	$	106	$	57
Investments and Other Assets: Other		7		2		6		2
Current Liabilities: Other		16		30		75		98
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		12		17		3		7
Interest rate contracts
Current Liabilities: Other		—		1		—		1
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		—		7		—		4
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	90	$	91	$	190	$	169
Total Derivatives	$	98	$	91	$	196	$	169

The following table shows the amount of the gains and losses recognized on derivative instruments designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges by type of derivative contract during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations line items in which such gains and losses are included.

Cash Flow Hedges—Location and Amount of Pre-Tax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in Comprehensive Income

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings(a)
Commodity contracts
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			1			—			1
Interest rate contracts
Interest expense		(1	)		(2	)		(4	)		(4	)
Total Pre-tax Losses Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$	(1	)	$	(1	)	$	(4	)	$	(3	)

Duke Energy Ohio	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Location of Pre-tax Gains Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings(a)
Commodity contracts
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—		1		—		1
Total Pre-tax Gains Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$	—	$	1	$	—	$	1

(a) Represents the gains and losses on cash flow hedges previously recorded in AOCI during the term of the hedging relationship and reclassified into earnings during the current period.

Duke Energy's effective portion of losses on cash flow hedges that were recognized in AOCI during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 were pre-tax losses of $73 million and $80 million, respectively, and pre-tax losses of $1 million and $14 million, respectively, during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010. In addition, there was no hedge ineffectiveness during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and no gains or losses have been excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness during the same periods for all Duke Energy Registrants.

Duke Energy. At September 30, 2011, $108 million of pre-tax deferred net losses on derivative instruments related to interest rate cash flow hedges remains in AOCI, and a $7 million pre-tax gain is expected to be recognized in earnings during the next 12 months as the hedged transactions occur.

Duke Energy Ohio. At September 30, 2011, there were no pre-tax deferred net gains or losses on derivative instruments related to cash flow hedges remaining in AOCI.

The following table shows the amount of the pre-tax gains and losses recognized on undesignated contracts by type of derivative instrument during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and the line item(s) in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in which such gains and losses are included or deferred on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as regulatory assets or liabilities.

Undesignated Contracts—Location and Amount of Pre-Tax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in

Income or as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings
Commodity contracts
Revenue, regulated electric	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	1
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas and other		—			3			(25	)		(31	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(1	)		6
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings	$	—		$	3		$	(26	)	$	(24	)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities
Commodity contracts
Regulatory Asset	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	2
Regulatory Liability		2			(2	)		12			10
Interest rate contracts
Regulatory Asset(a)		(146	)		(6	)		(155	)		(8	)
Regulatory Liability(b)		(60	)		—			(60	)		—
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities	$	(202	)	$	(8	)	$	(202	)	$	4

(a) Includes amounts related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 of $82 million and $91 million, respectively, and includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011.

(b) Amounts relate to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas.

Duke Energy Ohio	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings
Commodity contracts
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	(6	)	$	46		$	(28	)	$	28
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(1	)		6
Interest rate contracts
Interest expense		—			(1	)		(1	)		(1	)
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings(a)	$	(6	)	$	45		$	(30	)	$	33
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets
Commodity contracts
Regulatory Asset	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	2
Interest rate contracts
Regulatory Asset		(4	)		(2	)		(4	)		(4	)
Total Pre-tax Losses Recognized as Regulatory Assets	$	(2	)	$	(2	)	$	(3	)	$	(2	)

(a) Amounts include intercompany positions that are eliminated at Duke Energy.

Credit Risk

Certain of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's derivative contracts contain contingent credit features, such as material adverse change clauses or payment acceleration clauses that could result in immediate payments, the posting of letters of credit or the termination of the derivative contract before maturity if specific events occur, such as a downgrade of Duke Energy or Duke Energy Ohio's credit rating below investment grade.

The following table shows information with respect to derivative contracts that are in a net liability position and contain objective credit-risk related payment provisions. The amounts disclosed in the table below represent the aggregate fair value amounts of such derivative instruments at the end of the reporting period, the aggregate fair value of assets that are already posted as collateral under such derivative instruments at the end of the reporting period, and the aggregate fair value of additional assets that would be required to be transferred in the event that credit-risk-related contingent features were triggered at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Information Regarding Derivative Instruments that Contain Credit-risk Related Contingent Features

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$	66	$	148
Collateral Already Posted	$	25	$	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$	4	$	14
Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$	65	$	147
Collateral Already Posted	$	25	$	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$	4	$	14

Netting of Cash Collateral and Derivative Assets and Liabilities Under Master Netting Arrangements. In accordance with applicable accounting rules, Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio have elected to offset fair value amounts (or amounts that approximate fair value) recognized on their Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to cash collateral amounts receivable or payable against fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under the same master netting agreement. The amounts disclosed in the table below represent the receivables related to the right to reclaim cash collateral and payables related to the obligation to return cash collateral under master netting arrangements as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. See Note 9 for additional information on fair value disclosures related to derivatives.

Information Regarding Cash Collateral under Master Netting Arrangements

	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy	Receivables		Payables		Receivables		Payables
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	7		—	$	2		—
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets(a)	$	28		—	$	2	$	3
	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio	Receivables		Payables		Receivables		Payables
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	7		—	$	2		—
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (a)	$	16	$	—		—	$	3

(a) Amounts for payables primarily represent margin deposits related to futures contracts.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities

8. Risk Management, Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

The Duke Energy Registrants utilize various derivative instruments to manage risks primarily associated with commodity prices and interest rates. The primary use of energy commodity derivatives is to hedge the generation portfolio against exposure to changes in the prices of power and fuel. Interest rate derivatives are entered into to manage interest rate risk associated with variable-rate and fixed-rate borrowings.

Certain derivative instruments qualify for hedge accounting and are designated as either cash flow hedges or fair value hedges, while others either do not qualify as accounting hedges (such as economic hedges) or have not been designated as accounting hedges (hereinafter referred to as undesignated contracts). All derivative instruments not meeting the criteria for the normal purchase normal sale (NPNS) exception are recognized as either assets or liabilities at fair value in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As the regulated operations of the Duke Energy Registrants meet the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment, the majority of the derivative contracts entered into by the regulated operations are not designated as hedges since gains and losses on such contracts are deferred as regulatory liabilities and assets, respectively, thus there is no immediate earnings impact associated with changes in fair values of such derivative contracts.

For derivative instruments that qualify and are designated as cash flow hedges, the effective portion of the gain or loss is reported as a component of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) and reclassified into earnings in the same period or periods during which the hedged transaction affects earnings. Any gains or losses on the derivative that represent either hedge ineffectiveness or hedge components excluded from the assessment of effectiveness are recognized in current earnings. For derivative instruments that qualify and are designated as a fair value hedge, the gain or loss on the derivative as well as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item are recognized in earnings in the current period. Any gains or losses on the derivative are included in the same line item as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Regulatory accounting treatment is applied to substantially all of the derivative instruments at Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana.

Commodity Price Risk

The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to the impact of market changes in the future prices of electricity (energy, capacity and financial transmission rights), coal, natural gas and emission allowances (SO₂, seasonal NO_X and annual NO_X) as a result of their energy operations such as electricity generation and the transportation and sale of natural gas. With respect to commodity price risks associated with electricity generation, the Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to changes including, but not limited to, the cost of the coal and natural gas used to generate electricity, the prices of electricity in wholesale markets, the cost of capacity required to purchase and sell electricity in wholesale markets and the cost of emission allowances primarily at the Duke Energy Registrants' coal fired power plants. Risks associated with commodity price changes on future operations are closely monitored and, where appropriate, various commodity contracts are used to mitigate the effect of such fluctuations on operations. Exposure to commodity price risk is influenced by a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the term of the contract, the liquidity of the market and delivery location.

Commodity Fair Value Hedges. At September 30, 2011, there were no open commodity derivative instruments that were designated as fair value hedges.

Commodity Cash Flow Hedges. At September 30, 2011, there were no open commodity derivative instruments that were designated as cash flow hedges.

Undesignated Contracts. The Duke Energy Registrants use derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from providing electricity generation and capacity to large energy customers, energy aggregators, retail customers and other wholesale companies. Undesignated contracts may include contracts not designated as a hedge, contracts that do not qualify for hedge accounting, derivatives that do not or no longer qualify for the NPNS scope exception, and de-designated hedge contracts. Undesignated contracts also include contracts associated with operations that Duke Energy continues to wind down or has included as discontinued operations. As these undesignated contracts expire as late as 2021, Duke Energy has entered into economic hedges that leave it minimally exposed to changes in prices over the duration of these contracts.

Duke Energy Carolinas uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from electricity generation. At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas does not have any undesignated commodity contracts.

Duke Energy Ohio uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from providing electricity generation and capacity to large energy customers, energy aggregators, retail customers and other wholesale companies. Undesignated contracts at September 30, 2011 are primarily associated with forward sales and purchases of power, coal and emission allowances, for the Commercial Power segment.

Duke Energy Indiana uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from electricity generation. Undesignated contracts at September 30, 2011 are primarily associated with forward purchases and sales of power, financial transmission rights and emission allowances.

Interest Rate Risk

The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to risk resulting from changes in interest rates as a result of their issuance or anticipated issuance of variable and fixed-rate debt and commercial paper. Interest rate exposure is managed by limiting variable-rate exposures to a percentage of total debt and by monitoring the effects of market changes in interest rates. To manage risk associated with changes in interest rates, the Duke Energy Registrants may enter into financial contracts; primarily interest rate swaps and U.S. Treasury lock agreements. Additionally, in anticipation of certain fixed-rate debt issuances, a series of forward starting interest rate swaps may be executed to lock in components of the market interest rates at the time and terminated prior to or upon the issuance of the corresponding debt. When these transactions occur within a business that meets the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment, these contracts may be treated as undesignated and any pre-tax gain or loss recognized from inception to termination of the hedges would be recorded as a regulatory liability or asset and amortized as a component of interest expense over the life of the debt. Alternatively, these derivatives may be designated as hedges whereby, any pre-tax gain or loss recognized from inception to termination of the hedges would be recorded in AOCI and amortized as a component of interest expense over the life of the debt.

The following table shows the notional amounts for derivatives related to interest rate risk at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments Related to Interest Rate Risk

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	846	$	—	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		748		500		27		200
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250		—
Total Notional Amount at September 30, 2011	$	1,869	$	525	$	277	$	200

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	492	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		561		500		27
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250
Total Notional Amount at December 31, 2010	$	1,328	$	525	$	277

(a) Includes amounts related to non-recourse variable rate long-term debt of VIEs of $470 million at September 30, 2011 and $492 million at December 31, 2010.

Volumes

The following tables show information relating to the volume of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's commodity derivative activity outstanding as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts disclosed represent the notional volumes of commodities contracts accounted for at fair value. For option contracts, notional amounts include only the delta-equivalent volumes which represent the notional volumes times the probability of exercising the option based on current price volatility. Volumes associated with contracts qualifying for the NPNS exception have been excluded from the table below. Amounts disclosed represent the absolute value of notional amounts. Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio have netted contractual amounts where offsetting purchase and sale contracts exist with identical delivery locations and times of delivery. Where all commodity positions are perfectly offset, no quantities are shown below. For additional information on notional dollar amounts of debt subject to derivative contracts accounted for at fair value, see "Interest Rate Risk" section above.

Underlying Notional Amounts for Derivative Instruments Accounted for At Fair Value

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)		7,048		8,200
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		58
Emission allowances: SO2 (thousands of tons)		8		8
Natural gas (millions of decatherms)		37		37
Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)(a)		11,947		13,183
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		60

(a) Amounts include intercompany positions that are eliminated at Duke Energy.

The following table shows fair value amounts of derivative contracts as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, and the line item(s) in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in which such amounts are included. The fair values of derivative contracts are presented on a gross basis, even when the derivative instruments are subject to master netting arrangements where Duke Energy nets the fair value of derivative contracts subject to master netting arrangements with the same counterparty on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Cash collateral payables and receivables associated with the derivative contracts have not been netted against the fair value amounts.

Location and Fair Value Amounts of Derivatives Reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

Balance Sheet Location

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Asset		Liability		Asset		Liability
	(in millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate contracts
Current Assets: Other		5		—		5		—
Investments and Other Assets: Other		4		—		16		—
Current Liabilities: Other		—		13		—		13
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		—		71		—		—
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	9	$	84	$	21	$	13

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Commodity contracts
Current Assets: Other	$	73	$	30	$	108	$	54
Investments and Other Assets: Other		43		6		55		4
Current Liabilities: Other		15		50		75		118
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		9		77		3		72
Interest rate contracts
Investments and Other Assets: Other(a)		—		—		60		—
Current Liabilities: Other(a)(b)		—		94		—		2
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other(c)		—		68		—		5
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	140	$	325	$	301	$	255
Total Derivatives	$	149	$	409	$	322	$	268

(a) As of December 31, 2010, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(b) As of September 30, 2011, includes $92 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(c) As of September 30, 2011, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Asset		Liability		Asset		Liability
	(in millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate contracts
Current Assets: Other		4		—		4		—
Investments and Other Assets: Other		4		—		2		—
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	8	$	—	$	6	$	—

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Commodity contracts
Current Assets: Other	$	55	$	34	$	106	$	57
Investments and Other Assets: Other		7		2		6		2
Current Liabilities: Other		16		30		75		98
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		12		17		3		7
Interest rate contracts
Current Liabilities: Other		—		1		—		1
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		—		7		—		4
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	90	$	91	$	190	$	169
Total Derivatives	$	98	$	91	$	196	$	169

The following table shows the amount of the gains and losses recognized on derivative instruments designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges by type of derivative contract during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations line items in which such gains and losses are included.

Cash Flow Hedges—Location and Amount of Pre-Tax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in Comprehensive Income

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings(a)
Commodity contracts
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			1			—			1
Interest rate contracts
Interest expense		(1	)		(2	)		(4	)		(4	)
Total Pre-tax Losses Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$	(1	)	$	(1	)	$	(4	)	$	(3	)

Duke Energy Ohio	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Location of Pre-tax Gains Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings(a)
Commodity contracts
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—		1		—		1
Total Pre-tax Gains Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$	—	$	1	$	—	$	1

(a) Represents the gains and losses on cash flow hedges previously recorded in AOCI during the term of the hedging relationship and reclassified into earnings during the current period.

Duke Energy's effective portion of losses on cash flow hedges that were recognized in AOCI during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 were pre-tax losses of $73 million and $80 million, respectively, and pre-tax losses of $1 million and $14 million, respectively, during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010. In addition, there was no hedge ineffectiveness during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and no gains or losses have been excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness during the same periods for all Duke Energy Registrants.

Duke Energy. At September 30, 2011, $108 million of pre-tax deferred net losses on derivative instruments related to interest rate cash flow hedges remains in AOCI, and a $7 million pre-tax gain is expected to be recognized in earnings during the next 12 months as the hedged transactions occur.

Duke Energy Ohio. At September 30, 2011, there were no pre-tax deferred net gains or losses on derivative instruments related to cash flow hedges remaining in AOCI.

The following table shows the amount of the pre-tax gains and losses recognized on undesignated contracts by type of derivative instrument during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and the line item(s) in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in which such gains and losses are included or deferred on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as regulatory assets or liabilities.

Undesignated Contracts—Location and Amount of Pre-Tax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in

Income or as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings
Commodity contracts
Revenue, regulated electric	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	1
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas and other		—			3			(25	)		(31	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(1	)		6
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings	$	—		$	3		$	(26	)	$	(24	)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities
Commodity contracts
Regulatory Asset	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	2
Regulatory Liability		2			(2	)		12			10
Interest rate contracts
Regulatory Asset(a)		(146	)		(6	)		(155	)		(8	)
Regulatory Liability(b)		(60	)		—			(60	)		—
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities	$	(202	)	$	(8	)	$	(202	)	$	4

(a) Includes amounts related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 of $82 million and $91 million, respectively, and includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011.

(b) Amounts relate to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas.

Duke Energy Ohio	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings
Commodity contracts
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	(6	)	$	46		$	(28	)	$	28
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(1	)		6
Interest rate contracts
Interest expense		—			(1	)		(1	)		(1	)
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings(a)	$	(6	)	$	45		$	(30	)	$	33
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets
Commodity contracts
Regulatory Asset	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	2
Interest rate contracts
Regulatory Asset		(4	)		(2	)		(4	)		(4	)
Total Pre-tax Losses Recognized as Regulatory Assets	$	(2	)	$	(2	)	$	(3	)	$	(2	)

(a) Amounts include intercompany positions that are eliminated at Duke Energy.

Credit Risk

Certain of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's derivative contracts contain contingent credit features, such as material adverse change clauses or payment acceleration clauses that could result in immediate payments, the posting of letters of credit or the termination of the derivative contract before maturity if specific events occur, such as a downgrade of Duke Energy or Duke Energy Ohio's credit rating below investment grade.

The following table shows information with respect to derivative contracts that are in a net liability position and contain objective credit-risk related payment provisions. The amounts disclosed in the table below represent the aggregate fair value amounts of such derivative instruments at the end of the reporting period, the aggregate fair value of assets that are already posted as collateral under such derivative instruments at the end of the reporting period, and the aggregate fair value of additional assets that would be required to be transferred in the event that credit-risk-related contingent features were triggered at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Information Regarding Derivative Instruments that Contain Credit-risk Related Contingent Features

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$	66	$	148
Collateral Already Posted	$	25	$	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$	4	$	14
Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$	65	$	147
Collateral Already Posted	$	25	$	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$	4	$	14

Netting of Cash Collateral and Derivative Assets and Liabilities Under Master Netting Arrangements. In accordance with applicable accounting rules, Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio have elected to offset fair value amounts (or amounts that approximate fair value) recognized on their Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to cash collateral amounts receivable or payable against fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under the same master netting agreement. The amounts disclosed in the table below represent the receivables related to the right to reclaim cash collateral and payables related to the obligation to return cash collateral under master netting arrangements as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. See Note 9 for additional information on fair value disclosures related to derivatives.

Information Regarding Cash Collateral under Master Netting Arrangements

	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy	Receivables		Payables		Receivables		Payables
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	7		—	$	2		—
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets(a)	$	28		—	$	2	$	3
	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio	Receivables		Payables		Receivables		Payables
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	7		—	$	2		—
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (a)	$	16	$	—		—	$	3

(a) Amounts for payables primarily represent margin deposits related to futures contracts.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities

8. Risk Management, Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

The Duke Energy Registrants utilize various derivative instruments to manage risks primarily associated with commodity prices and interest rates. The primary use of energy commodity derivatives is to hedge the generation portfolio against exposure to changes in the prices of power and fuel. Interest rate derivatives are entered into to manage interest rate risk associated with variable-rate and fixed-rate borrowings.

Certain derivative instruments qualify for hedge accounting and are designated as either cash flow hedges or fair value hedges, while others either do not qualify as accounting hedges (such as economic hedges) or have not been designated as accounting hedges (hereinafter referred to as undesignated contracts). All derivative instruments not meeting the criteria for the normal purchase normal sale (NPNS) exception are recognized as either assets or liabilities at fair value in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As the regulated operations of the Duke Energy Registrants meet the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment, the majority of the derivative contracts entered into by the regulated operations are not designated as hedges since gains and losses on such contracts are deferred as regulatory liabilities and assets, respectively, thus there is no immediate earnings impact associated with changes in fair values of such derivative contracts.

For derivative instruments that qualify and are designated as cash flow hedges, the effective portion of the gain or loss is reported as a component of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) and reclassified into earnings in the same period or periods during which the hedged transaction affects earnings. Any gains or losses on the derivative that represent either hedge ineffectiveness or hedge components excluded from the assessment of effectiveness are recognized in current earnings. For derivative instruments that qualify and are designated as a fair value hedge, the gain or loss on the derivative as well as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item are recognized in earnings in the current period. Any gains or losses on the derivative are included in the same line item as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Regulatory accounting treatment is applied to substantially all of the derivative instruments at Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana.

Commodity Price Risk

The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to the impact of market changes in the future prices of electricity (energy, capacity and financial transmission rights), coal, natural gas and emission allowances (SO₂, seasonal NO_X and annual NO_X) as a result of their energy operations such as electricity generation and the transportation and sale of natural gas. With respect to commodity price risks associated with electricity generation, the Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to changes including, but not limited to, the cost of the coal and natural gas used to generate electricity, the prices of electricity in wholesale markets, the cost of capacity required to purchase and sell electricity in wholesale markets and the cost of emission allowances primarily at the Duke Energy Registrants' coal fired power plants. Risks associated with commodity price changes on future operations are closely monitored and, where appropriate, various commodity contracts are used to mitigate the effect of such fluctuations on operations. Exposure to commodity price risk is influenced by a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the term of the contract, the liquidity of the market and delivery location.

Commodity Fair Value Hedges. At September 30, 2011, there were no open commodity derivative instruments that were designated as fair value hedges.

Commodity Cash Flow Hedges. At September 30, 2011, there were no open commodity derivative instruments that were designated as cash flow hedges.

Undesignated Contracts. The Duke Energy Registrants use derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from providing electricity generation and capacity to large energy customers, energy aggregators, retail customers and other wholesale companies. Undesignated contracts may include contracts not designated as a hedge, contracts that do not qualify for hedge accounting, derivatives that do not or no longer qualify for the NPNS scope exception, and de-designated hedge contracts. Undesignated contracts also include contracts associated with operations that Duke Energy continues to wind down or has included as discontinued operations. As these undesignated contracts expire as late as 2021, Duke Energy has entered into economic hedges that leave it minimally exposed to changes in prices over the duration of these contracts.

Duke Energy Carolinas uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from electricity generation. At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas does not have any undesignated commodity contracts.

Duke Energy Ohio uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from providing electricity generation and capacity to large energy customers, energy aggregators, retail customers and other wholesale companies. Undesignated contracts at September 30, 2011 are primarily associated with forward sales and purchases of power, coal and emission allowances, for the Commercial Power segment.

Duke Energy Indiana uses derivative contracts as economic hedges to manage the market risk exposures that arise from electricity generation. Undesignated contracts at September 30, 2011 are primarily associated with forward purchases and sales of power, financial transmission rights and emission allowances.

Interest Rate Risk

The Duke Energy Registrants are exposed to risk resulting from changes in interest rates as a result of their issuance or anticipated issuance of variable and fixed-rate debt and commercial paper. Interest rate exposure is managed by limiting variable-rate exposures to a percentage of total debt and by monitoring the effects of market changes in interest rates. To manage risk associated with changes in interest rates, the Duke Energy Registrants may enter into financial contracts; primarily interest rate swaps and U.S. Treasury lock agreements. Additionally, in anticipation of certain fixed-rate debt issuances, a series of forward starting interest rate swaps may be executed to lock in components of the market interest rates at the time and terminated prior to or upon the issuance of the corresponding debt. When these transactions occur within a business that meets the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment, these contracts may be treated as undesignated and any pre-tax gain or loss recognized from inception to termination of the hedges would be recorded as a regulatory liability or asset and amortized as a component of interest expense over the life of the debt. Alternatively, these derivatives may be designated as hedges whereby, any pre-tax gain or loss recognized from inception to termination of the hedges would be recorded in AOCI and amortized as a component of interest expense over the life of the debt.

The following table shows the notional amounts for derivatives related to interest rate risk at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments Related to Interest Rate Risk

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	846	$	—	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		748		500		27		200
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250		—
Total Notional Amount at September 30, 2011	$	1,869	$	525	$	277	$	200

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	492	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		561		500		27
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250
Total Notional Amount at December 31, 2010	$	1,328	$	525	$	277

(a) Includes amounts related to non-recourse variable rate long-term debt of VIEs of $470 million at September 30, 2011 and $492 million at December 31, 2010.

Volumes

The following tables show information relating to the volume of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's commodity derivative activity outstanding as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts disclosed represent the notional volumes of commodities contracts accounted for at fair value. For option contracts, notional amounts include only the delta-equivalent volumes which represent the notional volumes times the probability of exercising the option based on current price volatility. Volumes associated with contracts qualifying for the NPNS exception have been excluded from the table below. Amounts disclosed represent the absolute value of notional amounts. Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio have netted contractual amounts where offsetting purchase and sale contracts exist with identical delivery locations and times of delivery. Where all commodity positions are perfectly offset, no quantities are shown below. For additional information on notional dollar amounts of debt subject to derivative contracts accounted for at fair value, see "Interest Rate Risk" section above.

Underlying Notional Amounts for Derivative Instruments Accounted for At Fair Value

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)		7,048		8,200
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		58
Emission allowances: SO2 (thousands of tons)		8		8
Natural gas (millions of decatherms)		37		37
Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)(a)		11,947		13,183
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		60

(a) Amounts include intercompany positions that are eliminated at Duke Energy.

The following table shows fair value amounts of derivative contracts as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, and the line item(s) in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in which such amounts are included. The fair values of derivative contracts are presented on a gross basis, even when the derivative instruments are subject to master netting arrangements where Duke Energy nets the fair value of derivative contracts subject to master netting arrangements with the same counterparty on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Cash collateral payables and receivables associated with the derivative contracts have not been netted against the fair value amounts.

Location and Fair Value Amounts of Derivatives Reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

Balance Sheet Location

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Asset		Liability		Asset		Liability
	(in millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate contracts
Current Assets: Other		5		—		5		—
Investments and Other Assets: Other		4		—		16		—
Current Liabilities: Other		—		13		—		13
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		—		71		—		—
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	9	$	84	$	21	$	13

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Commodity contracts
Current Assets: Other	$	73	$	30	$	108	$	54
Investments and Other Assets: Other		43		6		55		4
Current Liabilities: Other		15		50		75		118
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		9		77		3		72
Interest rate contracts
Investments and Other Assets: Other(a)		—		—		60		—
Current Liabilities: Other(a)(b)		—		94		—		2
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other(c)		—		68		—		5
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	140	$	325	$	301	$	255
Total Derivatives	$	149	$	409	$	322	$	268

(a) As of December 31, 2010, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(b) As of September 30, 2011, includes $92 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(c) As of September 30, 2011, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Asset		Liability		Asset		Liability
	(in millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate contracts
Current Assets: Other		4		—		4		—
Investments and Other Assets: Other		4		—		2		—
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	8	$	—	$	6	$	—

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Commodity contracts
Current Assets: Other	$	55	$	34	$	106	$	57
Investments and Other Assets: Other		7		2		6		2
Current Liabilities: Other		16		30		75		98
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		12		17		3		7
Interest rate contracts
Current Liabilities: Other		—		1		—		1
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		—		7		—		4
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	90	$	91	$	190	$	169
Total Derivatives	$	98	$	91	$	196	$	169

The following table shows the amount of the gains and losses recognized on derivative instruments designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges by type of derivative contract during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations line items in which such gains and losses are included.

Cash Flow Hedges—Location and Amount of Pre-Tax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in Comprehensive Income

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings(a)
Commodity contracts
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			1			—			1
Interest rate contracts
Interest expense		(1	)		(2	)		(4	)		(4	)
Total Pre-tax Losses Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$	(1	)	$	(1	)	$	(4	)	$	(3	)

Duke Energy Ohio	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Location of Pre-tax Gains Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings(a)
Commodity contracts
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—		1		—		1
Total Pre-tax Gains Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$	—	$	1	$	—	$	1

(a) Represents the gains and losses on cash flow hedges previously recorded in AOCI during the term of the hedging relationship and reclassified into earnings during the current period.

Duke Energy's effective portion of losses on cash flow hedges that were recognized in AOCI during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 were pre-tax losses of $73 million and $80 million, respectively, and pre-tax losses of $1 million and $14 million, respectively, during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010. In addition, there was no hedge ineffectiveness during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and no gains or losses have been excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness during the same periods for all Duke Energy Registrants.

Duke Energy. At September 30, 2011, $108 million of pre-tax deferred net losses on derivative instruments related to interest rate cash flow hedges remains in AOCI, and a $7 million pre-tax gain is expected to be recognized in earnings during the next 12 months as the hedged transactions occur.

Duke Energy Ohio. At September 30, 2011, there were no pre-tax deferred net gains or losses on derivative instruments related to cash flow hedges remaining in AOCI.

The following table shows the amount of the pre-tax gains and losses recognized on undesignated contracts by type of derivative instrument during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and the line item(s) in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in which such gains and losses are included or deferred on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as regulatory assets or liabilities.

Undesignated Contracts—Location and Amount of Pre-Tax Gains and (Losses) Recognized in

Income or as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings
Commodity contracts
Revenue, regulated electric	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	1
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas and other		—			3			(25	)		(31	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(1	)		6
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings	$	—		$	3		$	(26	)	$	(24	)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities
Commodity contracts
Regulatory Asset	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	2
Regulatory Liability		2			(2	)		12			10
Interest rate contracts
Regulatory Asset(a)		(146	)		(6	)		(155	)		(8	)
Regulatory Liability(b)		(60	)		—			(60	)		—
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities	$	(202	)	$	(8	)	$	(202	)	$	4

(a) Includes amounts related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 of $82 million and $91 million, respectively, and includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011.

(b) Amounts relate to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas.

Duke Energy Ohio	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings
Commodity contracts
Revenue, non-regulated electric and other	$	(6	)	$	46		$	(28	)	$	28
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(1	)		6
Interest rate contracts
Interest expense		—			(1	)		(1	)		(1	)
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings(a)	$	(6	)	$	45		$	(30	)	$	33
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets
Commodity contracts
Regulatory Asset	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	2
Interest rate contracts
Regulatory Asset		(4	)		(2	)		(4	)		(4	)
Total Pre-tax Losses Recognized as Regulatory Assets	$	(2	)	$	(2	)	$	(3	)	$	(2	)

(a) Amounts include intercompany positions that are eliminated at Duke Energy.

Credit Risk

Certain of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio's derivative contracts contain contingent credit features, such as material adverse change clauses or payment acceleration clauses that could result in immediate payments, the posting of letters of credit or the termination of the derivative contract before maturity if specific events occur, such as a downgrade of Duke Energy or Duke Energy Ohio's credit rating below investment grade.

The following table shows information with respect to derivative contracts that are in a net liability position and contain objective credit-risk related payment provisions. The amounts disclosed in the table below represent the aggregate fair value amounts of such derivative instruments at the end of the reporting period, the aggregate fair value of assets that are already posted as collateral under such derivative instruments at the end of the reporting period, and the aggregate fair value of additional assets that would be required to be transferred in the event that credit-risk-related contingent features were triggered at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Information Regarding Derivative Instruments that Contain Credit-risk Related Contingent Features

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$	66	$	148
Collateral Already Posted	$	25	$	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$	4	$	14
Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$	65	$	147
Collateral Already Posted	$	25	$	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$	4	$	14

Netting of Cash Collateral and Derivative Assets and Liabilities Under Master Netting Arrangements. In accordance with applicable accounting rules, Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio have elected to offset fair value amounts (or amounts that approximate fair value) recognized on their Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to cash collateral amounts receivable or payable against fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under the same master netting agreement. The amounts disclosed in the table below represent the receivables related to the right to reclaim cash collateral and payables related to the obligation to return cash collateral under master netting arrangements as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. See Note 9 for additional information on fair value disclosures related to derivatives.

Information Regarding Cash Collateral under Master Netting Arrangements

	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy	Receivables		Payables		Receivables		Payables
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	7		—	$	2		—
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets(a)	$	28		—	$	2	$	3
	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio	Receivables		Payables		Receivables		Payables
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	7		—	$	2		—
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (a)	$	16	$	—		—	$	3

(a) Amounts for payables primarily represent margin deposits related to futures contracts.

XML

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities (Narrative) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010
Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities
Pre-tax deferred net losses on derivative instruments in AOCI	$ 73	$ 1	$ 80	$ 14
Gains or losses excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness	0	0	0	0
Pre-tax deferred net losses on interest rate cash flow hedges in AOCI			108
Loss expected to be recognized in earnings during the next 12 months	$ 7		$ 7

XML

Employee Benefit Obligations (Details) (USD $) In Millions	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010
Pre-tax employer contributions to employee savings plan	$ 18	$ 18	$ 68	$ 67
Duke Energy Ohio [Member] | Qualified Pension Plans [Member]
Regulatory asset amortization			5	2
Duke Energy Ohio [Member] | Other Post-Retirement Benefit Plans [Member]
Regulatory asset amortization	1			6
Qualified Pension Plans [Member]
Regulatory asset amortization		4
Other Post-Retirement Benefit Plans [Member]
Regulatory asset amortization				$ 2

XML

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities (Information Regarding Cash Collateral Under Master Netting Arrangements) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	Sep. 30, 2011		Dec. 31, 2010
Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, Receivables	$ 7		$ 2
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, Receivables	28	[1]	2	[1]
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, Payable
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, Payables			$ 3	[1]

[1] Amounts for payables primarily represent margin deposits related to futures contracts.

XML

Organization And Basis Of Presentation

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Organization And Basis Of Presentation

1. Organization and Basis of Presentation

Organization. Duke Energy Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, Duke Energy) is an energy company primarily located in the Americas. Duke Energy operates in the United States (U.S.) primarily through its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio), which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy Kentucky), and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana), as well as in South and Central America through International Energy. When discussing Duke Energy's condensed consolidated financial information, it necessarily includes the results of its three separate subsidiary registrants, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana (collectively referred to as the Subsidiary Registrants), which, along with Duke Energy, are collectively referred to as the Duke Energy Registrants. The information in these combined notes relates to each of the Duke Energy Registrants as noted in the Index to the Combined Notes. However, none of the registrants makes any representation as to information related solely to Duke Energy or the subsidiaries of Duke Energy other than itself. See Note 2 for information related to reportable operating segments for each of the Duke Energy Registrants.

Duke Energy Carolinas generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas is subject to the regulatory provisions of the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC), the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.

Duke Energy Ohio is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy Corp. (Cinergy), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. Duke Energy Ohio is a combination electric and gas public utility that provides service in the southwestern portion of Ohio and in northern Kentucky through its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky, as well as electric generation in parts of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania. Duke Energy Ohio's principal lines of business include generation, transmission and distribution of electricity and the sale of and/or transportation of natural gas. Duke Energy Ohio is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), the Kentucky Public Service Commission (KPSC) and the FERC. Duke Energy Ohio applies regulatory accounting treatment to substantially all of the operations of its U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas operating segment and to certain rate riders associated with retail generation of its Commercial Power operating segment. See Note 2 for information about business segments.

Duke Energy Indiana is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy. Duke Energy Indiana is an electric utility that provides service in north central, central, and southern Indiana. Its primary line of business is generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. Duke Energy Indiana is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) and the FERC. The substantial majority of Duke Energy Indiana's operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.

See Note 3 for information regarding Duke Energy's pending merger with Progress Energy, Inc (Progress Energy).

Basis of Presentation. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the U.S. for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Regulation S-X. Accordingly, these Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements. Because the interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements, the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and other information included in this quarterly report should be read in conjunction with the respective Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes in Duke Energy's, Duke Energy Carolinas', Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's respective Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements reflect all normal recurring adjustments that are, in the opinion of the respective company's management, necessary to fairly present the financial position and results of operations of each Duke Energy Registrant. Amounts reported in each Duke Energy Registrants' interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations are not necessarily indicative of amounts expected for the respective annual periods due to the effects of seasonal temperature variations on energy consumption, regulatory rulings, the timing of maintenance on electric generating units, changes in mark-to-market valuations, changing commodity prices and other factors.

These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include, after eliminating intercompany transactions and balances, the accounts of the Duke Energy Registrants and all majority-owned subsidiaries where the respective Duke Energy Registrants have control and those variable interest entities (VIEs) where the respective Duke Energy Registrants are the primary beneficiary. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements also reflect Duke Energy Carolinas' approximate 19.25% proportionate share of the Catawba Nuclear Station, as well as Duke Energy Ohio's proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky and Duke Energy Indiana's proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities.

Use of Estimates. To conform to GAAP in the U.S., management makes estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes. Although these estimates are based on management's best available information at the time, actual results could differ.

Unbilled Revenue. Revenues on sales of electricity and gas are recognized when either the service is provided or the product is delivered. Unbilled retail revenues are estimated by applying average revenue per kilowatt-hour or per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) for all customer classes to the number of estimated kilowatt-hours or Mcfs delivered but not billed. Unbilled wholesale energy revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt-hour (MWh) to the number of estimated MWh delivered but not yet billed. Unbilled wholesale demand revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt (MW) to the MW volume delivered but not yet billed. The amount of unbilled revenues can vary significantly from period to period as a result of numerous factors, including seasonality, weather, customer usage patterns and customer mix.

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana had unbilled revenues within Restricted Receivables of Variable Interest Entities and Receivables on their respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	599	$	751
Duke Energy Carolinas		265		322
Duke Energy Ohio(a)		46		54
Duke Energy Indiana		6		12

(a) Primarily relates to wholesale sales within the Commercial Power segment.

Additionally, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell, on a revolving basis, a portion of their retail and wholesale accounts receivable to Cinergy Receivables. These transfers meet sales/derecognition criteria and therefore, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, account for the transfers of receivables to Cinergy Receivables as sales, and accordingly the receivables sold are not reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Amounts for unbilled revenues related to retail and wholesale accounts receivable at Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana included in the sales of accounts receivable to Cinergy Receivables at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 were as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio	$	61	$	112
Duke Energy Indiana		98		125

See Note 11 for additional information.

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Organization And Basis Of Presentation

1. Organization and Basis of Presentation

Organization. Duke Energy Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, Duke Energy) is an energy company primarily located in the Americas. Duke Energy operates in the United States (U.S.) primarily through its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio), which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy Kentucky), and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana), as well as in South and Central America through International Energy. When discussing Duke Energy's condensed consolidated financial information, it necessarily includes the results of its three separate subsidiary registrants, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana (collectively referred to as the Subsidiary Registrants), which, along with Duke Energy, are collectively referred to as the Duke Energy Registrants. The information in these combined notes relates to each of the Duke Energy Registrants as noted in the Index to the Combined Notes. However, none of the registrants makes any representation as to information related solely to Duke Energy or the subsidiaries of Duke Energy other than itself. See Note 2 for information related to reportable operating segments for each of the Duke Energy Registrants.

Duke Energy Carolinas generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas is subject to the regulatory provisions of the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC), the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.

Duke Energy Ohio is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy Corp. (Cinergy), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. Duke Energy Ohio is a combination electric and gas public utility that provides service in the southwestern portion of Ohio and in northern Kentucky through its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky, as well as electric generation in parts of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania. Duke Energy Ohio's principal lines of business include generation, transmission and distribution of electricity and the sale of and/or transportation of natural gas. Duke Energy Ohio is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), the Kentucky Public Service Commission (KPSC) and the FERC. Duke Energy Ohio applies regulatory accounting treatment to substantially all of the operations of its U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas operating segment and to certain rate riders associated with retail generation of its Commercial Power operating segment. See Note 2 for information about business segments.

Duke Energy Indiana is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy. Duke Energy Indiana is an electric utility that provides service in north central, central, and southern Indiana. Its primary line of business is generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. Duke Energy Indiana is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) and the FERC. The substantial majority of Duke Energy Indiana's operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.

See Note 3 for information regarding Duke Energy's pending merger with Progress Energy, Inc (Progress Energy).

Basis of Presentation. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the U.S. for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Regulation S-X. Accordingly, these Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements. Because the interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements, the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and other information included in this quarterly report should be read in conjunction with the respective Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes in Duke Energy's, Duke Energy Carolinas', Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's respective Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements reflect all normal recurring adjustments that are, in the opinion of the respective company's management, necessary to fairly present the financial position and results of operations of each Duke Energy Registrant. Amounts reported in each Duke Energy Registrants' interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations are not necessarily indicative of amounts expected for the respective annual periods due to the effects of seasonal temperature variations on energy consumption, regulatory rulings, the timing of maintenance on electric generating units, changes in mark-to-market valuations, changing commodity prices and other factors.

These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include, after eliminating intercompany transactions and balances, the accounts of the Duke Energy Registrants and all majority-owned subsidiaries where the respective Duke Energy Registrants have control and those variable interest entities (VIEs) where the respective Duke Energy Registrants are the primary beneficiary. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements also reflect Duke Energy Carolinas' approximate 19.25% proportionate share of the Catawba Nuclear Station, as well as Duke Energy Ohio's proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky and Duke Energy Indiana's proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities.

Use of Estimates. To conform to GAAP in the U.S., management makes estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes. Although these estimates are based on management's best available information at the time, actual results could differ.

Unbilled Revenue. Revenues on sales of electricity and gas are recognized when either the service is provided or the product is delivered. Unbilled retail revenues are estimated by applying average revenue per kilowatt-hour or per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) for all customer classes to the number of estimated kilowatt-hours or Mcfs delivered but not billed. Unbilled wholesale energy revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt-hour (MWh) to the number of estimated MWh delivered but not yet billed. Unbilled wholesale demand revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt (MW) to the MW volume delivered but not yet billed. The amount of unbilled revenues can vary significantly from period to period as a result of numerous factors, including seasonality, weather, customer usage patterns and customer mix.

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana had unbilled revenues within Restricted Receivables of Variable Interest Entities and Receivables on their respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	599	$	751
Duke Energy Carolinas		265		322
Duke Energy Ohio(a)		46		54
Duke Energy Indiana		6		12

(a) Primarily relates to wholesale sales within the Commercial Power segment.

Additionally, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell, on a revolving basis, a portion of their retail and wholesale accounts receivable to Cinergy Receivables. These transfers meet sales/derecognition criteria and therefore, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, account for the transfers of receivables to Cinergy Receivables as sales, and accordingly the receivables sold are not reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Amounts for unbilled revenues related to retail and wholesale accounts receivable at Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana included in the sales of accounts receivable to Cinergy Receivables at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 were as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio	$	61	$	112
Duke Energy Indiana		98		125

See Note 11 for additional information.

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Organization And Basis Of Presentation

1. Organization and Basis of Presentation

Organization. Duke Energy Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, Duke Energy) is an energy company primarily located in the Americas. Duke Energy operates in the United States (U.S.) primarily through its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio), which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy Kentucky), and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana), as well as in South and Central America through International Energy. When discussing Duke Energy's condensed consolidated financial information, it necessarily includes the results of its three separate subsidiary registrants, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana (collectively referred to as the Subsidiary Registrants), which, along with Duke Energy, are collectively referred to as the Duke Energy Registrants. The information in these combined notes relates to each of the Duke Energy Registrants as noted in the Index to the Combined Notes. However, none of the registrants makes any representation as to information related solely to Duke Energy or the subsidiaries of Duke Energy other than itself. See Note 2 for information related to reportable operating segments for each of the Duke Energy Registrants.

Duke Energy Carolinas generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas is subject to the regulatory provisions of the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC), the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.

Duke Energy Ohio is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy Corp. (Cinergy), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. Duke Energy Ohio is a combination electric and gas public utility that provides service in the southwestern portion of Ohio and in northern Kentucky through its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky, as well as electric generation in parts of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania. Duke Energy Ohio's principal lines of business include generation, transmission and distribution of electricity and the sale of and/or transportation of natural gas. Duke Energy Ohio is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), the Kentucky Public Service Commission (KPSC) and the FERC. Duke Energy Ohio applies regulatory accounting treatment to substantially all of the operations of its U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas operating segment and to certain rate riders associated with retail generation of its Commercial Power operating segment. See Note 2 for information about business segments.

Duke Energy Indiana is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy. Duke Energy Indiana is an electric utility that provides service in north central, central, and southern Indiana. Its primary line of business is generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. Duke Energy Indiana is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) and the FERC. The substantial majority of Duke Energy Indiana's operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.

See Note 3 for information regarding Duke Energy's pending merger with Progress Energy, Inc (Progress Energy).

Basis of Presentation. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the U.S. for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Regulation S-X. Accordingly, these Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements. Because the interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements, the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and other information included in this quarterly report should be read in conjunction with the respective Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes in Duke Energy's, Duke Energy Carolinas', Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's respective Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements reflect all normal recurring adjustments that are, in the opinion of the respective company's management, necessary to fairly present the financial position and results of operations of each Duke Energy Registrant. Amounts reported in each Duke Energy Registrants' interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations are not necessarily indicative of amounts expected for the respective annual periods due to the effects of seasonal temperature variations on energy consumption, regulatory rulings, the timing of maintenance on electric generating units, changes in mark-to-market valuations, changing commodity prices and other factors.

These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include, after eliminating intercompany transactions and balances, the accounts of the Duke Energy Registrants and all majority-owned subsidiaries where the respective Duke Energy Registrants have control and those variable interest entities (VIEs) where the respective Duke Energy Registrants are the primary beneficiary. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements also reflect Duke Energy Carolinas' approximate 19.25% proportionate share of the Catawba Nuclear Station, as well as Duke Energy Ohio's proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky and Duke Energy Indiana's proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities.

Use of Estimates. To conform to GAAP in the U.S., management makes estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes. Although these estimates are based on management's best available information at the time, actual results could differ.

Unbilled Revenue. Revenues on sales of electricity and gas are recognized when either the service is provided or the product is delivered. Unbilled retail revenues are estimated by applying average revenue per kilowatt-hour or per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) for all customer classes to the number of estimated kilowatt-hours or Mcfs delivered but not billed. Unbilled wholesale energy revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt-hour (MWh) to the number of estimated MWh delivered but not yet billed. Unbilled wholesale demand revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt (MW) to the MW volume delivered but not yet billed. The amount of unbilled revenues can vary significantly from period to period as a result of numerous factors, including seasonality, weather, customer usage patterns and customer mix.

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana had unbilled revenues within Restricted Receivables of Variable Interest Entities and Receivables on their respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	599	$	751
Duke Energy Carolinas		265		322
Duke Energy Ohio(a)		46		54
Duke Energy Indiana		6		12

(a) Primarily relates to wholesale sales within the Commercial Power segment.

Additionally, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell, on a revolving basis, a portion of their retail and wholesale accounts receivable to Cinergy Receivables. These transfers meet sales/derecognition criteria and therefore, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, account for the transfers of receivables to Cinergy Receivables as sales, and accordingly the receivables sold are not reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Amounts for unbilled revenues related to retail and wholesale accounts receivable at Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana included in the sales of accounts receivable to Cinergy Receivables at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 were as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio	$	61	$	112
Duke Energy Indiana		98		125

See Note 11 for additional information.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Organization And Basis Of Presentation

1. Organization and Basis of Presentation

Organization. Duke Energy Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, Duke Energy) is an energy company primarily located in the Americas. Duke Energy operates in the United States (U.S.) primarily through its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio), which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy Kentucky), and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana), as well as in South and Central America through International Energy. When discussing Duke Energy's condensed consolidated financial information, it necessarily includes the results of its three separate subsidiary registrants, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana (collectively referred to as the Subsidiary Registrants), which, along with Duke Energy, are collectively referred to as the Duke Energy Registrants. The information in these combined notes relates to each of the Duke Energy Registrants as noted in the Index to the Combined Notes. However, none of the registrants makes any representation as to information related solely to Duke Energy or the subsidiaries of Duke Energy other than itself. See Note 2 for information related to reportable operating segments for each of the Duke Energy Registrants.

Duke Energy Carolinas generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas is subject to the regulatory provisions of the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC), the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.

Duke Energy Ohio is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy Corp. (Cinergy), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. Duke Energy Ohio is a combination electric and gas public utility that provides service in the southwestern portion of Ohio and in northern Kentucky through its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky, as well as electric generation in parts of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania. Duke Energy Ohio's principal lines of business include generation, transmission and distribution of electricity and the sale of and/or transportation of natural gas. Duke Energy Ohio is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), the Kentucky Public Service Commission (KPSC) and the FERC. Duke Energy Ohio applies regulatory accounting treatment to substantially all of the operations of its U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas operating segment and to certain rate riders associated with retail generation of its Commercial Power operating segment. See Note 2 for information about business segments.

Duke Energy Indiana is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy. Duke Energy Indiana is an electric utility that provides service in north central, central, and southern Indiana. Its primary line of business is generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. Duke Energy Indiana is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) and the FERC. The substantial majority of Duke Energy Indiana's operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.

See Note 3 for information regarding Duke Energy's pending merger with Progress Energy, Inc (Progress Energy).

Basis of Presentation. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the U.S. for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Regulation S-X. Accordingly, these Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements. Because the interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements, the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and other information included in this quarterly report should be read in conjunction with the respective Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes in Duke Energy's, Duke Energy Carolinas', Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's respective Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements reflect all normal recurring adjustments that are, in the opinion of the respective company's management, necessary to fairly present the financial position and results of operations of each Duke Energy Registrant. Amounts reported in each Duke Energy Registrants' interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations are not necessarily indicative of amounts expected for the respective annual periods due to the effects of seasonal temperature variations on energy consumption, regulatory rulings, the timing of maintenance on electric generating units, changes in mark-to-market valuations, changing commodity prices and other factors.

These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include, after eliminating intercompany transactions and balances, the accounts of the Duke Energy Registrants and all majority-owned subsidiaries where the respective Duke Energy Registrants have control and those variable interest entities (VIEs) where the respective Duke Energy Registrants are the primary beneficiary. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements also reflect Duke Energy Carolinas' approximate 19.25% proportionate share of the Catawba Nuclear Station, as well as Duke Energy Ohio's proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky and Duke Energy Indiana's proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities.

Use of Estimates. To conform to GAAP in the U.S., management makes estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes. Although these estimates are based on management's best available information at the time, actual results could differ.

Unbilled Revenue. Revenues on sales of electricity and gas are recognized when either the service is provided or the product is delivered. Unbilled retail revenues are estimated by applying average revenue per kilowatt-hour or per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) for all customer classes to the number of estimated kilowatt-hours or Mcfs delivered but not billed. Unbilled wholesale energy revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt-hour (MWh) to the number of estimated MWh delivered but not yet billed. Unbilled wholesale demand revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt (MW) to the MW volume delivered but not yet billed. The amount of unbilled revenues can vary significantly from period to period as a result of numerous factors, including seasonality, weather, customer usage patterns and customer mix.

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana had unbilled revenues within Restricted Receivables of Variable Interest Entities and Receivables on their respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	599	$	751
Duke Energy Carolinas		265		322
Duke Energy Ohio(a)		46		54
Duke Energy Indiana		6		12

(a) Primarily relates to wholesale sales within the Commercial Power segment.

Additionally, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell, on a revolving basis, a portion of their retail and wholesale accounts receivable to Cinergy Receivables. These transfers meet sales/derecognition criteria and therefore, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, account for the transfers of receivables to Cinergy Receivables as sales, and accordingly the receivables sold are not reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Amounts for unbilled revenues related to retail and wholesale accounts receivable at Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana included in the sales of accounts receivable to Cinergy Receivables at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 were as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio	$	61	$	112
Duke Energy Indiana		98		125

See Note 11 for additional information.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Organization And Basis Of Presentation

1. Organization and Basis of Presentation

Organization. Duke Energy Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, Duke Energy) is an energy company primarily located in the Americas. Duke Energy operates in the United States (U.S.) primarily through its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio), which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy Kentucky), and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana), as well as in South and Central America through International Energy. When discussing Duke Energy's condensed consolidated financial information, it necessarily includes the results of its three separate subsidiary registrants, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana (collectively referred to as the Subsidiary Registrants), which, along with Duke Energy, are collectively referred to as the Duke Energy Registrants. The information in these combined notes relates to each of the Duke Energy Registrants as noted in the Index to the Combined Notes. However, none of the registrants makes any representation as to information related solely to Duke Energy or the subsidiaries of Duke Energy other than itself. See Note 2 for information related to reportable operating segments for each of the Duke Energy Registrants.

Duke Energy Carolinas generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas is subject to the regulatory provisions of the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC), the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Substantially all of Duke Energy Carolinas' operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.

Duke Energy Ohio is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy Corp. (Cinergy), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. Duke Energy Ohio is a combination electric and gas public utility that provides service in the southwestern portion of Ohio and in northern Kentucky through its wholly-owned subsidiary Duke Energy Kentucky, as well as electric generation in parts of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania. Duke Energy Ohio's principal lines of business include generation, transmission and distribution of electricity and the sale of and/or transportation of natural gas. Duke Energy Ohio is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), the Kentucky Public Service Commission (KPSC) and the FERC. Duke Energy Ohio applies regulatory accounting treatment to substantially all of the operations of its U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas operating segment and to certain rate riders associated with retail generation of its Commercial Power operating segment. See Note 2 for information about business segments.

Duke Energy Indiana is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy. Duke Energy Indiana is an electric utility that provides service in north central, central, and southern Indiana. Its primary line of business is generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. Duke Energy Indiana is subject to the regulatory provisions of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) and the FERC. The substantial majority of Duke Energy Indiana's operations are regulated and qualify for regulatory accounting treatment.

See Note 3 for information regarding Duke Energy's pending merger with Progress Energy, Inc (Progress Energy).

Basis of Presentation. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the U.S. for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Regulation S-X. Accordingly, these Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements. Because the interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP in the U.S. for annual financial statements, the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and other information included in this quarterly report should be read in conjunction with the respective Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes in Duke Energy's, Duke Energy Carolinas', Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's respective Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements reflect all normal recurring adjustments that are, in the opinion of the respective company's management, necessary to fairly present the financial position and results of operations of each Duke Energy Registrant. Amounts reported in each Duke Energy Registrants' interim Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations are not necessarily indicative of amounts expected for the respective annual periods due to the effects of seasonal temperature variations on energy consumption, regulatory rulings, the timing of maintenance on electric generating units, changes in mark-to-market valuations, changing commodity prices and other factors.

These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include, after eliminating intercompany transactions and balances, the accounts of the Duke Energy Registrants and all majority-owned subsidiaries where the respective Duke Energy Registrants have control and those variable interest entities (VIEs) where the respective Duke Energy Registrants are the primary beneficiary. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements also reflect Duke Energy Carolinas' approximate 19.25% proportionate share of the Catawba Nuclear Station, as well as Duke Energy Ohio's proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky and Duke Energy Indiana's proportionate share of certain generation and transmission facilities.

Use of Estimates. To conform to GAAP in the U.S., management makes estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes. Although these estimates are based on management's best available information at the time, actual results could differ.

Unbilled Revenue. Revenues on sales of electricity and gas are recognized when either the service is provided or the product is delivered. Unbilled retail revenues are estimated by applying average revenue per kilowatt-hour or per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) for all customer classes to the number of estimated kilowatt-hours or Mcfs delivered but not billed. Unbilled wholesale energy revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt-hour (MWh) to the number of estimated MWh delivered but not yet billed. Unbilled wholesale demand revenues are calculated by applying the contractual rate per megawatt (MW) to the MW volume delivered but not yet billed. The amount of unbilled revenues can vary significantly from period to period as a result of numerous factors, including seasonality, weather, customer usage patterns and customer mix.

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana had unbilled revenues within Restricted Receivables of Variable Interest Entities and Receivables on their respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	599	$	751
Duke Energy Carolinas		265		322
Duke Energy Ohio(a)		46		54
Duke Energy Indiana		6		12

(a) Primarily relates to wholesale sales within the Commercial Power segment.

Additionally, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell, on a revolving basis, a portion of their retail and wholesale accounts receivable to Cinergy Receivables. These transfers meet sales/derecognition criteria and therefore, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana, account for the transfers of receivables to Cinergy Receivables as sales, and accordingly the receivables sold are not reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Amounts for unbilled revenues related to retail and wholesale accounts receivable at Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana included in the sales of accounts receivable to Cinergy Receivables at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 were as follows:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Ohio	$	61	$	112
Duke Energy Indiana		98		125

See Note 11 for additional information.

XML

Variable Interest Entities

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Variable Interest Entities

11. Variable Interest Entities

A VIE is an entity that is evaluated for consolidation using more than a simple analysis of voting control. The analysis to determine whether an entity is a VIE considers contracts with an entity, credit support for an entity, the adequacy of the equity investment of an entity and the relationship of voting power to the amount of equity invested in an entity. This analysis is performed either upon the creation of a legal entity or upon the occurrence of an event requiring reevaluation, such as a significant change in an entity's assets or activities. If an entity is determined to be a VIE, a qualitative analysis of control determines the party that consolidates a VIE based on what party has the power to direct the most significant activities of the VIE that impact its economic performance as well as what party has rights to receive benefits or is obligated to absorb losses that are significant to the VIE. The analysis of the party that consolidates a VIE is a continual reassessment.

CONSOLIDATED VIEs

The table below shows the VIEs that Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas consolidate and how these entities impact Duke Energy's and Duke Energy Carolinas' respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. None of these entities is consolidated by Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana.

Other than the discussion below related to Cinergy Receivables, no financial support was provided to any of the consolidated VIEs during the three or nine months ended September 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, respectively, or is expected to be provided in the future, that was not previously contractually required.

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other		Total
	(in millions)
At September 30, 2011
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	492	$	13	$	7		$	3	$	1,152
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		82			8		94
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		12			—		12
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		67		48			61		176
Other Assets		—		—		21		—			—		21
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		921			—		921
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(53	)		—		(53	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		25			9		34
Total Assets		637		492		105		1,042			81		2,357
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		1			2		3
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		275		—		—			—		275
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		3			—		3
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		10		57			5		72
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		57			—		62
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		63		533			63		959
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		173			—		173
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—		12
Other Liabilities		—		—		20		37			1		58
Total Liabilities		300		275		98		873			71		1,617
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			2		2
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	337	$	217	$	7	$	169		$	8	$	738

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other			Total
	(in millions)
At December 31, 2010
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	629	$	12	$	20		$	4		$	1,302
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		282			8			294
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		13			—			13
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		76		(2	)		65			139
Other Assets		—		—		23		—			—			23
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		892			50			942
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(26	)		(29	)		(55	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		24			(3	)		21
Total Assets		637		629		115		1,203			95			2,679
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		2			2			4
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		216		—		—			—			216
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		1			—			1
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		9		45			7			61
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		16			—			21
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		71		518			87			976
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		191			—			191
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—			12
Other Liabilities		—		—		22		4			—			26
Total Liabilities		300		216		107		789			96			1,508
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			1			1
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	337	$	413	$	8	$	414		$	(2	)	$	1,170

DERF. Duke Energy Carolinas securitizes certain accounts receivable through DERF, a bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiary. DERF is a wholly-owned limited liability company of Duke Energy Carolinas with a separate legal existence from its parent, and its assets are not intended to be generally available to creditors of Duke Energy Carolinas. As a result of the securitization, on a daily basis Duke Energy Carolinas sells certain accounts receivable, arising from the sale of electricity and/or related services as part of Duke Energy Carolinas' franchised electric business, to DERF. In order to fund its purchases of accounts receivable, DERF has a $300 million secured credit facility with a commercial paper conduit, which expires in August 2013. Duke Energy Carolinas provides the servicing for the receivables (collecting and applying the cash to the appropriate receivables). Duke Energy Carolinas' borrowing under the credit facility is limited to the amount of qualified receivables sold, which has been and is expected to be in excess of the amount borrowed, which is maintained at $300 million. The debt is classified as long-term since the facility has an expiration date of greater than one year from the balance sheet date.

The obligations of DERF under the facility are non-recourse to Duke Energy Carolinas. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity, purchase assets of DERF or guarantee performance. DERF is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. If deficiencies in the net worth of DERF were to occur, those deficiencies would be cured through funding from Duke Energy Carolinas. In addition, the most significant activity of DERF relates to the decisions made with respect to the management of delinquent receivables. Since those decisions are made by Duke Energy Carolinas and any net worth deficiencies of DERF would be cured through funding from Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Carolinas consolidates DERF.

Cinergy Receivables. Cinergy Receivables was formed in order to secure low cost financing for Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell on a revolving basis at a discount, nearly all of their customer accounts receivable and related collections to Cinergy Receivables. The receivables which are sold are selected in order to avoid any significant concentration of credit risk and exclude delinquent receivables. The receivables sold are securitized by Cinergy Receivables through a facility managed by two unrelated third parties and the receivables are used as collateral for commercial paper issued by the unrelated third parties. These loans provide the cash portion of the proceeds paid by Cinergy Receivables to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The proceeds obtained by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana from the sales of receivables are cash and a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables (subordinated retained interest in the sold receivables) for a portion of the purchase price (typically approximates 25% of the total proceeds). The amount borrowed by Cinergy Receivables against these receivables is non-recourse to the general credit of Duke Energy, and the associated cash collections from the accounts receivable sold is the sole source of funds to satisfy the related debt obligation. Borrowing is limited to approximately 75% of the transferred receivables. Losses on collection in excess of the discount are first absorbed by the equity of Cinergy Receivables and next by the subordinated retained interests held by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The discount on the receivables reflects interest expense plus an allowance for bad debts net of a servicing fee charged by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are responsible for the servicing of the receivables (collecting and applying the cash to the appropriate receivables). Depending on the experience with collections, additional equity infusions to Cinergy Receivables may be required to be made by Duke Energy in order to maintain a minimum equity balance of $3 million. For the nine months ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy infused $6 million of equity to Cinergy Receivables to remedy net worth deficiencies. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Duke Energy infused $4 million and $10 million, respectively, of equity to Cinergy Receivables to remedy net worth deficiencies. The amount borrowed fluctuates based on the amount of receivables sold. The debt is short-term because the facility has an expiration date of less than one year from the balance sheet date. The current expiration date is October 2011; however, Duke Energy extended the expiration date to October 2012 subsequent to September 30, 2011. Cinergy Receivables is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations, the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity are not performed by the equity holder, Cinergy, and deficiencies in the net worth of Cinergy Receivables are not funded by Cinergy, but by Duke Energy. The most significant activity of Cinergy Receivables relates to the decisions made with respect to the management of delinquent receivables. These decisions, as well as the requirement to make up deficiencies in net worth, are made by Duke Energy and not by Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Kentucky or Duke Energy Indiana. Thus, Duke Energy consolidates Cinergy Receivables. Neither Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana consolidate Cinergy Receivables.

CinCap V. CinCap V was created to finance and execute a power sale agreement with Central Maine Power Company for approximately 35 MW of capacity and energy. This agreement expires in 2016. CinCap V is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. As Duke Energy has the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity, which are the decisions to hedge and finance the power sales agreement, CinCap V is consolidated by Duke Energy.

Renewables. Duke Energy's renewable energy facilities include Green Frontier Windpower, LLC, Top of The World Wind Energy LLC and various solar projects, all subsidiaries of DEGS, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

These renewable energy facilities are VIEs due to power purchase agreements with terms that approximate the expected life of the projects. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer the commodity price risk to the buyer of the power. Duke Energy has consolidated these entities since inception because the most significant activities that impact the economic performance of these renewable energy facilities were the decisions associated with the siting, negotiation of the purchase power agreement, engineering, procurement and construction, and decisions associated with ongoing operations and maintenance related activities, all of which were made solely by Duke Energy.

The debt held by these renewable energy facilities is non-recourse to the general credit of Duke Energy. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity or purchase the assets of these renewable energy facilities. Duke Energy does not guarantee performance except for an immaterial multi-purpose letter of credit and various immaterial debt service reserve and operations and maintenance reserve guarantees. The assets are restricted and they cannot be pledged as collateral or sold to third parties without the prior approval of the debt holders.

Other. Duke Energy has other VIEs with restricted assets and non-recourse debt. These VIEs include certain on-site power generation facilities. Duke Energy consolidates these particular on-site power generation entities because Duke Energy has the power to direct the majority of the most significant activities, which, most notably involve the oversight of operation and maintenance related activities that impact the economic performance of these entities.

During the second quarter of 2011, the customer for an on-site generation facility cancelled its contract. As a result, the entity providing the on-site generation services no longer has any activity or assets, other than a receivable with payments to be collected through 2017. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy no longer consolidates this entity.

NON-CONSOLIDATED VIEs

The table below shows the VIEs that the Duke Energy Registrants do not consolidate and how these entities impact Duke Energy's, Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As discussed above, while Duke Energy consolidates Cinergy Receivables, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana do not consolidate Cinergy Receivables as they are not the primary beneficiary.

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At September 30, 2011 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	87	$	122	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		130		84		25		239
Intangibles		113		—		—		—		113		113
Total Assets		200		122		130		84		138		352
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		1		1
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		18		18
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		19		19
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	200	$	122	$	130	$	84	$	119	$	333

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At December 31, 2010 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	216	$	192	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		137		95		23		255
Intangibles		119		—		—		—		119		119
Total Assets		335		192		137		95		142		374
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		3		3
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		28		28
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		31		31
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	335	$	192	$	137	$	95	$	111	$	343

No financial support that was not previously contractually required was provided to any of the unconsolidated VIEs during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, respectively, or is expected to be provided in the future.

With the exception of the power purchase agreement with the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC), which is discussed below, and various guarantees, reflected in the table above as "Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities", the Duke Energy Registrants are not aware of any situations where the maximum exposure to loss significantly exceeds the carrying values shown above.

Cinergy Receivables. As discussed above, Cinergy Receivables is consolidated only by Duke Energy. Accordingly, the retained interest in the sold receivables recorded on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are eliminated in consolidation at Duke Energy.

The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price (typically approximates 25% of the total proceeds). The subordinated note is a retained interest (right to receive a specified portion of cash flows from the sold assets) and is classified within Receivables in Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The retained interests reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana approximate fair value.

The carrying values of the retained interests are determined by allocating the carrying value of the receivables between the assets sold and the interests retained based on relative fair value. Because the receivables generally turnover in less than two months, credit losses are reasonably predictable due to the broad customer base and lack of significant concentration, and the purchased beneficial interest (equity in Cinergy Receivables) is subordinate to all retained interests and thus would absorb losses first, the allocated basis of the subordinated notes are not materially different than their face value. The hypothetical effect on the fair value of the retained interests assuming both a 10% and a 20% unfavorable variation in credit losses or discount rates is not material due to the short turnover of receivables and historically low credit loss history. Interest accrues to Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Kentucky on the retained interests using the accretable yield method, which generally approximates the stated rate on the notes since the allocated basis and the face value are nearly equivalent. An impairment charge is recorded against the carrying value of both the retained interests and purchased beneficial interest whenever it is determined that an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred. The key assumptions used in estimating the fair value in 2011 and 2010 is detailed in the following table:

	2011			2010
Duke Energy Ohio
Anticipated credit loss ratio		0.8	%		0.8	%
Discount rate		2.6	%		2.7	%
Receivable turnover rate		12.7	%		12.6	%
Duke Energy Indiana
Anticipated credit loss ratio		0.4	%		0.5	%
Discount rate		2.6	%		2.7	%
Receivable turnover rate		10.2	%		10.2	%

The following table shows the gross and net receivables sold as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively:

	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Receivables sold as of September 30, 2011	$	262	$	262
Less: Retained interests		87		122
Net receivables sold as of September 30, 2011	$	175	$	140

	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Receivables sold as of December 31, 2010	$	373	$	284
Less: Retained interests		216		192
Net receivables sold as of December 31, 2010	$	157	$	92

The following table shows the retained interests, sales, and cash flows during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively:

Three Months Ended September 30, 2011	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	592	$	711
Loss recognized on sale		5		5
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	615	$	696
Return received on retained interests		3		3
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	672	$	686
Loss recognized on sale		5		5
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	707	$	704
Collection fees received		—		1
Return received on retained interests		4		3
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	1,832	$	2,009
Loss recognized on sale		16		13
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	1,952	$	2,051
Collection fees received		1		1
Return received on retained interests		10		10
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	2,178	$	1,893
Loss recognized on sale		19		13
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	2,236	$	1,904
Collection fees received		1		1
Return received on retained interests		12		10

Cash flows from the sale of receivables are reflected within Operating Activities on Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

Collection fees received in connection with the servicing of transferred accounts receivable are included in Operation, Maintenance and Other on Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The loss recognized on the sale of receivables is calculated monthly by multiplying the receivables sold during the month by the required discount which is derived monthly utilizing a three year weighted average formula that considers charge-off history, late charge history, and turnover history on the sold receivables, as well as a component for the time value of money. The discount rate, or component for the time value of money, is calculated monthly by summing the prior month-end LIBOR plus a fixed rate of 2.39%.

DukeNet. In 2010, Duke Energy sold a 50% ownership interest in DukeNet to Alinda. The sale resulted in DukeNet becoming a joint venture with Duke Energy and Alinda each owning a 50% interest. In connection with the formation of the new DukeNet joint venture, a five-year, $150 million senior secured credit facility was executed with a syndicate of ten external financial institutions. This credit facility is non-recourse to Duke Energy. DukeNet is considered a VIE because it has entered into certain contractual arrangements that provide DukeNet with additional forms of subordinated financial support. The most significant activities that impact DukeNet's economic performance relate to its business development and fiber optic capacity marketing and management activities. The power to direct these activities is jointly and equally shared by Duke Energy and Alinda. As a result, Duke Energy does not consolidate the DukeNet joint venture. Accordingly, DukeNet is a non-consolidated VIE that is reported as an equity method investment.

Unless consent by Duke Energy is given otherwise, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity, purchase the assets of DukeNet, or guarantee performance.

Renewables. Duke Energy's Commercial Power business segment has investments in various entities that generate electricity through the use of renewable energy technology. Some of these entities are VIEs which are not consolidated due to the joint ownership of the entities when they were created. Instead, Duke Energy's investment is recorded under the equity method of accounting. These entities are VIEs due to power purchase agreements with terms that approximate the expected life of the project. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer the commodity price risk to the buyer of the power.

Other. Duke Energy's Commercial Power business segment has investments in various other entities that are VIEs which are not consolidated. The most significant of these investments is Duke Energy Ohio's 9% ownership interest in OVEC. Through its ownership interest in OVEC, Duke Energy Ohio has a contractual arrangement through June 2040 to buy power from OVEC's power plants. The proceeds from the sale of power by OVEC to its power purchase agreement counterparties, including Duke Energy Ohio, are designed to be sufficient for OVEC to meet its operating expenses, fixed costs, debt amortization and interest expense, as well as earn a return on equity. Accordingly, the value of this contract is subject to variability due to fluctuations in power prices and changes in OVEC's costs of business, including costs associated with its 2,256 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity. As discussed in Note 5, the proposed rulemaking on cooling water intake structures, utility boiler MACT, CSAPR and CCP's could increase the costs of OVEC which would be passed through to Duke Energy Ohio. The initial carrying value of this contract was recorded as an intangible asset when Duke Energy acquired Cinergy in April 2006.

In addition, the company has guaranteed the performance of certain entities in which the company no longer has an equity interest. As a result, the company has a variable interest in certain other VIEs that are non-consolidated.

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Variable Interest Entities

11. Variable Interest Entities

A VIE is an entity that is evaluated for consolidation using more than a simple analysis of voting control. The analysis to determine whether an entity is a VIE considers contracts with an entity, credit support for an entity, the adequacy of the equity investment of an entity and the relationship of voting power to the amount of equity invested in an entity. This analysis is performed either upon the creation of a legal entity or upon the occurrence of an event requiring reevaluation, such as a significant change in an entity's assets or activities. If an entity is determined to be a VIE, a qualitative analysis of control determines the party that consolidates a VIE based on what party has the power to direct the most significant activities of the VIE that impact its economic performance as well as what party has rights to receive benefits or is obligated to absorb losses that are significant to the VIE. The analysis of the party that consolidates a VIE is a continual reassessment.

CONSOLIDATED VIEs

The table below shows the VIEs that Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas consolidate and how these entities impact Duke Energy's and Duke Energy Carolinas' respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. None of these entities is consolidated by Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana.

Other than the discussion below related to Cinergy Receivables, no financial support was provided to any of the consolidated VIEs during the three or nine months ended September 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, respectively, or is expected to be provided in the future, that was not previously contractually required.

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other		Total
	(in millions)
At September 30, 2011
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	492	$	13	$	7		$	3	$	1,152
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		82			8		94
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		12			—		12
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		67		48			61		176
Other Assets		—		—		21		—			—		21
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		921			—		921
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(53	)		—		(53	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		25			9		34
Total Assets		637		492		105		1,042			81		2,357
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		1			2		3
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		275		—		—			—		275
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		3			—		3
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		10		57			5		72
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		57			—		62
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		63		533			63		959
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		173			—		173
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—		12
Other Liabilities		—		—		20		37			1		58
Total Liabilities		300		275		98		873			71		1,617
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			2		2
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	337	$	217	$	7	$	169		$	8	$	738

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other			Total
	(in millions)
At December 31, 2010
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	629	$	12	$	20		$	4		$	1,302
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		282			8			294
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		13			—			13
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		76		(2	)		65			139
Other Assets		—		—		23		—			—			23
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		892			50			942
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(26	)		(29	)		(55	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		24			(3	)		21
Total Assets		637		629		115		1,203			95			2,679
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		2			2			4
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		216		—		—			—			216
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		1			—			1
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		9		45			7			61
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		16			—			21
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		71		518			87			976
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		191			—			191
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—			12
Other Liabilities		—		—		22		4			—			26
Total Liabilities		300		216		107		789			96			1,508
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			1			1
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	337	$	413	$	8	$	414		$	(2	)	$	1,170

DERF. Duke Energy Carolinas securitizes certain accounts receivable through DERF, a bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiary. DERF is a wholly-owned limited liability company of Duke Energy Carolinas with a separate legal existence from its parent, and its assets are not intended to be generally available to creditors of Duke Energy Carolinas. As a result of the securitization, on a daily basis Duke Energy Carolinas sells certain accounts receivable, arising from the sale of electricity and/or related services as part of Duke Energy Carolinas' franchised electric business, to DERF. In order to fund its purchases of accounts receivable, DERF has a $300 million secured credit facility with a commercial paper conduit, which expires in August 2013. Duke Energy Carolinas provides the servicing for the receivables (collecting and applying the cash to the appropriate receivables). Duke Energy Carolinas' borrowing under the credit facility is limited to the amount of qualified receivables sold, which has been and is expected to be in excess of the amount borrowed, which is maintained at $300 million. The debt is classified as long-term since the facility has an expiration date of greater than one year from the balance sheet date.

The obligations of DERF under the facility are non-recourse to Duke Energy Carolinas. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity, purchase assets of DERF or guarantee performance. DERF is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. If deficiencies in the net worth of DERF were to occur, those deficiencies would be cured through funding from Duke Energy Carolinas. In addition, the most significant activity of DERF relates to the decisions made with respect to the management of delinquent receivables. Since those decisions are made by Duke Energy Carolinas and any net worth deficiencies of DERF would be cured through funding from Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Carolinas consolidates DERF.

Cinergy Receivables. Cinergy Receivables was formed in order to secure low cost financing for Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell on a revolving basis at a discount, nearly all of their customer accounts receivable and related collections to Cinergy Receivables. The receivables which are sold are selected in order to avoid any significant concentration of credit risk and exclude delinquent receivables. The receivables sold are securitized by Cinergy Receivables through a facility managed by two unrelated third parties and the receivables are used as collateral for commercial paper issued by the unrelated third parties. These loans provide the cash portion of the proceeds paid by Cinergy Receivables to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The proceeds obtained by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana from the sales of receivables are cash and a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables (subordinated retained interest in the sold receivables) for a portion of the purchase price (typically approximates 25% of the total proceeds). The amount borrowed by Cinergy Receivables against these receivables is non-recourse to the general credit of Duke Energy, and the associated cash collections from the accounts receivable sold is the sole source of funds to satisfy the related debt obligation. Borrowing is limited to approximately 75% of the transferred receivables. Losses on collection in excess of the discount are first absorbed by the equity of Cinergy Receivables and next by the subordinated retained interests held by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The discount on the receivables reflects interest expense plus an allowance for bad debts net of a servicing fee charged by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are responsible for the servicing of the receivables (collecting and applying the cash to the appropriate receivables). Depending on the experience with collections, additional equity infusions to Cinergy Receivables may be required to be made by Duke Energy in order to maintain a minimum equity balance of $3 million. For the nine months ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy infused $6 million of equity to Cinergy Receivables to remedy net worth deficiencies. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Duke Energy infused $4 million and $10 million, respectively, of equity to Cinergy Receivables to remedy net worth deficiencies. The amount borrowed fluctuates based on the amount of receivables sold. The debt is short-term because the facility has an expiration date of less than one year from the balance sheet date. The current expiration date is October 2011; however, Duke Energy extended the expiration date to October 2012 subsequent to September 30, 2011. Cinergy Receivables is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations, the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity are not performed by the equity holder, Cinergy, and deficiencies in the net worth of Cinergy Receivables are not funded by Cinergy, but by Duke Energy. The most significant activity of Cinergy Receivables relates to the decisions made with respect to the management of delinquent receivables. These decisions, as well as the requirement to make up deficiencies in net worth, are made by Duke Energy and not by Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Kentucky or Duke Energy Indiana. Thus, Duke Energy consolidates Cinergy Receivables. Neither Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana consolidate Cinergy Receivables.

CinCap V. CinCap V was created to finance and execute a power sale agreement with Central Maine Power Company for approximately 35 MW of capacity and energy. This agreement expires in 2016. CinCap V is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. As Duke Energy has the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity, which are the decisions to hedge and finance the power sales agreement, CinCap V is consolidated by Duke Energy.

Renewables. Duke Energy's renewable energy facilities include Green Frontier Windpower, LLC, Top of The World Wind Energy LLC and various solar projects, all subsidiaries of DEGS, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

These renewable energy facilities are VIEs due to power purchase agreements with terms that approximate the expected life of the projects. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer the commodity price risk to the buyer of the power. Duke Energy has consolidated these entities since inception because the most significant activities that impact the economic performance of these renewable energy facilities were the decisions associated with the siting, negotiation of the purchase power agreement, engineering, procurement and construction, and decisions associated with ongoing operations and maintenance related activities, all of which were made solely by Duke Energy.

The debt held by these renewable energy facilities is non-recourse to the general credit of Duke Energy. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity or purchase the assets of these renewable energy facilities. Duke Energy does not guarantee performance except for an immaterial multi-purpose letter of credit and various immaterial debt service reserve and operations and maintenance reserve guarantees. The assets are restricted and they cannot be pledged as collateral or sold to third parties without the prior approval of the debt holders.

Other. Duke Energy has other VIEs with restricted assets and non-recourse debt. These VIEs include certain on-site power generation facilities. Duke Energy consolidates these particular on-site power generation entities because Duke Energy has the power to direct the majority of the most significant activities, which, most notably involve the oversight of operation and maintenance related activities that impact the economic performance of these entities.

During the second quarter of 2011, the customer for an on-site generation facility cancelled its contract. As a result, the entity providing the on-site generation services no longer has any activity or assets, other than a receivable with payments to be collected through 2017. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy no longer consolidates this entity.

NON-CONSOLIDATED VIEs

The table below shows the VIEs that the Duke Energy Registrants do not consolidate and how these entities impact Duke Energy's, Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As discussed above, while Duke Energy consolidates Cinergy Receivables, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana do not consolidate Cinergy Receivables as they are not the primary beneficiary.

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At September 30, 2011 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	87	$	122	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		130		84		25		239
Intangibles		113		—		—		—		113		113
Total Assets		200		122		130		84		138		352
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		1		1
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		18		18
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		19		19
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	200	$	122	$	130	$	84	$	119	$	333

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At December 31, 2010 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	216	$	192	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		137		95		23		255
Intangibles		119		—		—		—		119		119
Total Assets		335		192		137		95		142		374
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		3		3
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		28		28
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		31		31
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	335	$	192	$	137	$	95	$	111	$	343

No financial support that was not previously contractually required was provided to any of the unconsolidated VIEs during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, respectively, or is expected to be provided in the future.

With the exception of the power purchase agreement with the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC), which is discussed below, and various guarantees, reflected in the table above as "Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities", the Duke Energy Registrants are not aware of any situations where the maximum exposure to loss significantly exceeds the carrying values shown above.

Cinergy Receivables. As discussed above, Cinergy Receivables is consolidated only by Duke Energy. Accordingly, the retained interest in the sold receivables recorded on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are eliminated in consolidation at Duke Energy.

The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price (typically approximates 25% of the total proceeds). The subordinated note is a retained interest (right to receive a specified portion of cash flows from the sold assets) and is classified within Receivables in Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The retained interests reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana approximate fair value.

The carrying values of the retained interests are determined by allocating the carrying value of the receivables between the assets sold and the interests retained based on relative fair value. Because the receivables generally turnover in less than two months, credit losses are reasonably predictable due to the broad customer base and lack of significant concentration, and the purchased beneficial interest (equity in Cinergy Receivables) is subordinate to all retained interests and thus would absorb losses first, the allocated basis of the subordinated notes are not materially different than their face value. The hypothetical effect on the fair value of the retained interests assuming both a 10% and a 20% unfavorable variation in credit losses or discount rates is not material due to the short turnover of receivables and historically low credit loss history. Interest accrues to Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Kentucky on the retained interests using the accretable yield method, which generally approximates the stated rate on the notes since the allocated basis and the face value are nearly equivalent. An impairment charge is recorded against the carrying value of both the retained interests and purchased beneficial interest whenever it is determined that an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred. The key assumptions used in estimating the fair value in 2011 and 2010 is detailed in the following table:

	2011			2010
Duke Energy Ohio
Anticipated credit loss ratio		0.8	%		0.8	%
Discount rate		2.6	%		2.7	%
Receivable turnover rate		12.7	%		12.6	%
Duke Energy Indiana
Anticipated credit loss ratio		0.4	%		0.5	%
Discount rate		2.6	%		2.7	%
Receivable turnover rate		10.2	%		10.2	%

The following table shows the gross and net receivables sold as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively:

	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Receivables sold as of September 30, 2011	$	262	$	262
Less: Retained interests		87		122
Net receivables sold as of September 30, 2011	$	175	$	140

	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Receivables sold as of December 31, 2010	$	373	$	284
Less: Retained interests		216		192
Net receivables sold as of December 31, 2010	$	157	$	92

The following table shows the retained interests, sales, and cash flows during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively:

Three Months Ended September 30, 2011	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	592	$	711
Loss recognized on sale		5		5
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	615	$	696
Return received on retained interests		3		3
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	672	$	686
Loss recognized on sale		5		5
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	707	$	704
Collection fees received		—		1
Return received on retained interests		4		3
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	1,832	$	2,009
Loss recognized on sale		16		13
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	1,952	$	2,051
Collection fees received		1		1
Return received on retained interests		10		10
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	2,178	$	1,893
Loss recognized on sale		19		13
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	2,236	$	1,904
Collection fees received		1		1
Return received on retained interests		12		10

Cash flows from the sale of receivables are reflected within Operating Activities on Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

Collection fees received in connection with the servicing of transferred accounts receivable are included in Operation, Maintenance and Other on Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The loss recognized on the sale of receivables is calculated monthly by multiplying the receivables sold during the month by the required discount which is derived monthly utilizing a three year weighted average formula that considers charge-off history, late charge history, and turnover history on the sold receivables, as well as a component for the time value of money. The discount rate, or component for the time value of money, is calculated monthly by summing the prior month-end LIBOR plus a fixed rate of 2.39%.

DukeNet. In 2010, Duke Energy sold a 50% ownership interest in DukeNet to Alinda. The sale resulted in DukeNet becoming a joint venture with Duke Energy and Alinda each owning a 50% interest. In connection with the formation of the new DukeNet joint venture, a five-year, $150 million senior secured credit facility was executed with a syndicate of ten external financial institutions. This credit facility is non-recourse to Duke Energy. DukeNet is considered a VIE because it has entered into certain contractual arrangements that provide DukeNet with additional forms of subordinated financial support. The most significant activities that impact DukeNet's economic performance relate to its business development and fiber optic capacity marketing and management activities. The power to direct these activities is jointly and equally shared by Duke Energy and Alinda. As a result, Duke Energy does not consolidate the DukeNet joint venture. Accordingly, DukeNet is a non-consolidated VIE that is reported as an equity method investment.

Unless consent by Duke Energy is given otherwise, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity, purchase the assets of DukeNet, or guarantee performance.

Renewables. Duke Energy's Commercial Power business segment has investments in various entities that generate electricity through the use of renewable energy technology. Some of these entities are VIEs which are not consolidated due to the joint ownership of the entities when they were created. Instead, Duke Energy's investment is recorded under the equity method of accounting. These entities are VIEs due to power purchase agreements with terms that approximate the expected life of the project. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer the commodity price risk to the buyer of the power.

Other. Duke Energy's Commercial Power business segment has investments in various other entities that are VIEs which are not consolidated. The most significant of these investments is Duke Energy Ohio's 9% ownership interest in OVEC. Through its ownership interest in OVEC, Duke Energy Ohio has a contractual arrangement through June 2040 to buy power from OVEC's power plants. The proceeds from the sale of power by OVEC to its power purchase agreement counterparties, including Duke Energy Ohio, are designed to be sufficient for OVEC to meet its operating expenses, fixed costs, debt amortization and interest expense, as well as earn a return on equity. Accordingly, the value of this contract is subject to variability due to fluctuations in power prices and changes in OVEC's costs of business, including costs associated with its 2,256 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity. As discussed in Note 5, the proposed rulemaking on cooling water intake structures, utility boiler MACT, CSAPR and CCP's could increase the costs of OVEC which would be passed through to Duke Energy Ohio. The initial carrying value of this contract was recorded as an intangible asset when Duke Energy acquired Cinergy in April 2006.

In addition, the company has guaranteed the performance of certain entities in which the company no longer has an equity interest. As a result, the company has a variable interest in certain other VIEs that are non-consolidated.

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Variable Interest Entities

11. Variable Interest Entities

A VIE is an entity that is evaluated for consolidation using more than a simple analysis of voting control. The analysis to determine whether an entity is a VIE considers contracts with an entity, credit support for an entity, the adequacy of the equity investment of an entity and the relationship of voting power to the amount of equity invested in an entity. This analysis is performed either upon the creation of a legal entity or upon the occurrence of an event requiring reevaluation, such as a significant change in an entity's assets or activities. If an entity is determined to be a VIE, a qualitative analysis of control determines the party that consolidates a VIE based on what party has the power to direct the most significant activities of the VIE that impact its economic performance as well as what party has rights to receive benefits or is obligated to absorb losses that are significant to the VIE. The analysis of the party that consolidates a VIE is a continual reassessment.

CONSOLIDATED VIEs

The table below shows the VIEs that Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas consolidate and how these entities impact Duke Energy's and Duke Energy Carolinas' respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. None of these entities is consolidated by Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana.

Other than the discussion below related to Cinergy Receivables, no financial support was provided to any of the consolidated VIEs during the three or nine months ended September 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, respectively, or is expected to be provided in the future, that was not previously contractually required.

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other		Total
	(in millions)
At September 30, 2011
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	492	$	13	$	7		$	3	$	1,152
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		82			8		94
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		12			—		12
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		67		48			61		176
Other Assets		—		—		21		—			—		21
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		921			—		921
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(53	)		—		(53	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		25			9		34
Total Assets		637		492		105		1,042			81		2,357
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		1			2		3
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		275		—		—			—		275
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		3			—		3
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		10		57			5		72
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		57			—		62
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		63		533			63		959
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		173			—		173
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—		12
Other Liabilities		—		—		20		37			1		58
Total Liabilities		300		275		98		873			71		1,617
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			2		2
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	337	$	217	$	7	$	169		$	8	$	738

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other			Total
	(in millions)
At December 31, 2010
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	629	$	12	$	20		$	4		$	1,302
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		282			8			294
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		13			—			13
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		76		(2	)		65			139
Other Assets		—		—		23		—			—			23
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		892			50			942
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(26	)		(29	)		(55	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		24			(3	)		21
Total Assets		637		629		115		1,203			95			2,679
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		2			2			4
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		216		—		—			—			216
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		1			—			1
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		9		45			7			61
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		16			—			21
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		71		518			87			976
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		191			—			191
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—			12
Other Liabilities		—		—		22		4			—			26
Total Liabilities		300		216		107		789			96			1,508
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			1			1
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	337	$	413	$	8	$	414		$	(2	)	$	1,170

DERF. Duke Energy Carolinas securitizes certain accounts receivable through DERF, a bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiary. DERF is a wholly-owned limited liability company of Duke Energy Carolinas with a separate legal existence from its parent, and its assets are not intended to be generally available to creditors of Duke Energy Carolinas. As a result of the securitization, on a daily basis Duke Energy Carolinas sells certain accounts receivable, arising from the sale of electricity and/or related services as part of Duke Energy Carolinas' franchised electric business, to DERF. In order to fund its purchases of accounts receivable, DERF has a $300 million secured credit facility with a commercial paper conduit, which expires in August 2013. Duke Energy Carolinas provides the servicing for the receivables (collecting and applying the cash to the appropriate receivables). Duke Energy Carolinas' borrowing under the credit facility is limited to the amount of qualified receivables sold, which has been and is expected to be in excess of the amount borrowed, which is maintained at $300 million. The debt is classified as long-term since the facility has an expiration date of greater than one year from the balance sheet date.

The obligations of DERF under the facility are non-recourse to Duke Energy Carolinas. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity, purchase assets of DERF or guarantee performance. DERF is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. If deficiencies in the net worth of DERF were to occur, those deficiencies would be cured through funding from Duke Energy Carolinas. In addition, the most significant activity of DERF relates to the decisions made with respect to the management of delinquent receivables. Since those decisions are made by Duke Energy Carolinas and any net worth deficiencies of DERF would be cured through funding from Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Carolinas consolidates DERF.

Cinergy Receivables. Cinergy Receivables was formed in order to secure low cost financing for Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell on a revolving basis at a discount, nearly all of their customer accounts receivable and related collections to Cinergy Receivables. The receivables which are sold are selected in order to avoid any significant concentration of credit risk and exclude delinquent receivables. The receivables sold are securitized by Cinergy Receivables through a facility managed by two unrelated third parties and the receivables are used as collateral for commercial paper issued by the unrelated third parties. These loans provide the cash portion of the proceeds paid by Cinergy Receivables to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The proceeds obtained by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana from the sales of receivables are cash and a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables (subordinated retained interest in the sold receivables) for a portion of the purchase price (typically approximates 25% of the total proceeds). The amount borrowed by Cinergy Receivables against these receivables is non-recourse to the general credit of Duke Energy, and the associated cash collections from the accounts receivable sold is the sole source of funds to satisfy the related debt obligation. Borrowing is limited to approximately 75% of the transferred receivables. Losses on collection in excess of the discount are first absorbed by the equity of Cinergy Receivables and next by the subordinated retained interests held by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The discount on the receivables reflects interest expense plus an allowance for bad debts net of a servicing fee charged by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are responsible for the servicing of the receivables (collecting and applying the cash to the appropriate receivables). Depending on the experience with collections, additional equity infusions to Cinergy Receivables may be required to be made by Duke Energy in order to maintain a minimum equity balance of $3 million. For the nine months ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy infused $6 million of equity to Cinergy Receivables to remedy net worth deficiencies. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Duke Energy infused $4 million and $10 million, respectively, of equity to Cinergy Receivables to remedy net worth deficiencies. The amount borrowed fluctuates based on the amount of receivables sold. The debt is short-term because the facility has an expiration date of less than one year from the balance sheet date. The current expiration date is October 2011; however, Duke Energy extended the expiration date to October 2012 subsequent to September 30, 2011. Cinergy Receivables is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations, the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity are not performed by the equity holder, Cinergy, and deficiencies in the net worth of Cinergy Receivables are not funded by Cinergy, but by Duke Energy. The most significant activity of Cinergy Receivables relates to the decisions made with respect to the management of delinquent receivables. These decisions, as well as the requirement to make up deficiencies in net worth, are made by Duke Energy and not by Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Kentucky or Duke Energy Indiana. Thus, Duke Energy consolidates Cinergy Receivables. Neither Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana consolidate Cinergy Receivables.

CinCap V. CinCap V was created to finance and execute a power sale agreement with Central Maine Power Company for approximately 35 MW of capacity and energy. This agreement expires in 2016. CinCap V is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. As Duke Energy has the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity, which are the decisions to hedge and finance the power sales agreement, CinCap V is consolidated by Duke Energy.

Renewables. Duke Energy's renewable energy facilities include Green Frontier Windpower, LLC, Top of The World Wind Energy LLC and various solar projects, all subsidiaries of DEGS, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

These renewable energy facilities are VIEs due to power purchase agreements with terms that approximate the expected life of the projects. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer the commodity price risk to the buyer of the power. Duke Energy has consolidated these entities since inception because the most significant activities that impact the economic performance of these renewable energy facilities were the decisions associated with the siting, negotiation of the purchase power agreement, engineering, procurement and construction, and decisions associated with ongoing operations and maintenance related activities, all of which were made solely by Duke Energy.

The debt held by these renewable energy facilities is non-recourse to the general credit of Duke Energy. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity or purchase the assets of these renewable energy facilities. Duke Energy does not guarantee performance except for an immaterial multi-purpose letter of credit and various immaterial debt service reserve and operations and maintenance reserve guarantees. The assets are restricted and they cannot be pledged as collateral or sold to third parties without the prior approval of the debt holders.

Other. Duke Energy has other VIEs with restricted assets and non-recourse debt. These VIEs include certain on-site power generation facilities. Duke Energy consolidates these particular on-site power generation entities because Duke Energy has the power to direct the majority of the most significant activities, which, most notably involve the oversight of operation and maintenance related activities that impact the economic performance of these entities.

During the second quarter of 2011, the customer for an on-site generation facility cancelled its contract. As a result, the entity providing the on-site generation services no longer has any activity or assets, other than a receivable with payments to be collected through 2017. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy no longer consolidates this entity.

NON-CONSOLIDATED VIEs

The table below shows the VIEs that the Duke Energy Registrants do not consolidate and how these entities impact Duke Energy's, Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As discussed above, while Duke Energy consolidates Cinergy Receivables, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana do not consolidate Cinergy Receivables as they are not the primary beneficiary.

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At September 30, 2011 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	87	$	122	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		130		84		25		239
Intangibles		113		—		—		—		113		113
Total Assets		200		122		130		84		138		352
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		1		1
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		18		18
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		19		19
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	200	$	122	$	130	$	84	$	119	$	333

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At December 31, 2010 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	216	$	192	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		137		95		23		255
Intangibles		119		—		—		—		119		119
Total Assets		335		192		137		95		142		374
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		3		3
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		28		28
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		31		31
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	335	$	192	$	137	$	95	$	111	$	343

No financial support that was not previously contractually required was provided to any of the unconsolidated VIEs during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, respectively, or is expected to be provided in the future.

With the exception of the power purchase agreement with the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC), which is discussed below, and various guarantees, reflected in the table above as "Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities", the Duke Energy Registrants are not aware of any situations where the maximum exposure to loss significantly exceeds the carrying values shown above.

Cinergy Receivables. As discussed above, Cinergy Receivables is consolidated only by Duke Energy. Accordingly, the retained interest in the sold receivables recorded on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are eliminated in consolidation at Duke Energy.

The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price (typically approximates 25% of the total proceeds). The subordinated note is a retained interest (right to receive a specified portion of cash flows from the sold assets) and is classified within Receivables in Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The retained interests reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana approximate fair value.

The carrying values of the retained interests are determined by allocating the carrying value of the receivables between the assets sold and the interests retained based on relative fair value. Because the receivables generally turnover in less than two months, credit losses are reasonably predictable due to the broad customer base and lack of significant concentration, and the purchased beneficial interest (equity in Cinergy Receivables) is subordinate to all retained interests and thus would absorb losses first, the allocated basis of the subordinated notes are not materially different than their face value. The hypothetical effect on the fair value of the retained interests assuming both a 10% and a 20% unfavorable variation in credit losses or discount rates is not material due to the short turnover of receivables and historically low credit loss history. Interest accrues to Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Kentucky on the retained interests using the accretable yield method, which generally approximates the stated rate on the notes since the allocated basis and the face value are nearly equivalent. An impairment charge is recorded against the carrying value of both the retained interests and purchased beneficial interest whenever it is determined that an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred. The key assumptions used in estimating the fair value in 2011 and 2010 is detailed in the following table:

	2011			2010
Duke Energy Ohio
Anticipated credit loss ratio		0.8	%		0.8	%
Discount rate		2.6	%		2.7	%
Receivable turnover rate		12.7	%		12.6	%
Duke Energy Indiana
Anticipated credit loss ratio		0.4	%		0.5	%
Discount rate		2.6	%		2.7	%
Receivable turnover rate		10.2	%		10.2	%

The following table shows the gross and net receivables sold as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively:

	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Receivables sold as of September 30, 2011	$	262	$	262
Less: Retained interests		87		122
Net receivables sold as of September 30, 2011	$	175	$	140

	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Receivables sold as of December 31, 2010	$	373	$	284
Less: Retained interests		216		192
Net receivables sold as of December 31, 2010	$	157	$	92

The following table shows the retained interests, sales, and cash flows during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively:

Three Months Ended September 30, 2011	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	592	$	711
Loss recognized on sale		5		5
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	615	$	696
Return received on retained interests		3		3
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	672	$	686
Loss recognized on sale		5		5
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	707	$	704
Collection fees received		—		1
Return received on retained interests		4		3
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	1,832	$	2,009
Loss recognized on sale		16		13
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	1,952	$	2,051
Collection fees received		1		1
Return received on retained interests		10		10
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	2,178	$	1,893
Loss recognized on sale		19		13
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	2,236	$	1,904
Collection fees received		1		1
Return received on retained interests		12		10

Cash flows from the sale of receivables are reflected within Operating Activities on Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

Collection fees received in connection with the servicing of transferred accounts receivable are included in Operation, Maintenance and Other on Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The loss recognized on the sale of receivables is calculated monthly by multiplying the receivables sold during the month by the required discount which is derived monthly utilizing a three year weighted average formula that considers charge-off history, late charge history, and turnover history on the sold receivables, as well as a component for the time value of money. The discount rate, or component for the time value of money, is calculated monthly by summing the prior month-end LIBOR plus a fixed rate of 2.39%.

DukeNet. In 2010, Duke Energy sold a 50% ownership interest in DukeNet to Alinda. The sale resulted in DukeNet becoming a joint venture with Duke Energy and Alinda each owning a 50% interest. In connection with the formation of the new DukeNet joint venture, a five-year, $150 million senior secured credit facility was executed with a syndicate of ten external financial institutions. This credit facility is non-recourse to Duke Energy. DukeNet is considered a VIE because it has entered into certain contractual arrangements that provide DukeNet with additional forms of subordinated financial support. The most significant activities that impact DukeNet's economic performance relate to its business development and fiber optic capacity marketing and management activities. The power to direct these activities is jointly and equally shared by Duke Energy and Alinda. As a result, Duke Energy does not consolidate the DukeNet joint venture. Accordingly, DukeNet is a non-consolidated VIE that is reported as an equity method investment.

Unless consent by Duke Energy is given otherwise, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity, purchase the assets of DukeNet, or guarantee performance.

Renewables. Duke Energy's Commercial Power business segment has investments in various entities that generate electricity through the use of renewable energy technology. Some of these entities are VIEs which are not consolidated due to the joint ownership of the entities when they were created. Instead, Duke Energy's investment is recorded under the equity method of accounting. These entities are VIEs due to power purchase agreements with terms that approximate the expected life of the project. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer the commodity price risk to the buyer of the power.

Other. Duke Energy's Commercial Power business segment has investments in various other entities that are VIEs which are not consolidated. The most significant of these investments is Duke Energy Ohio's 9% ownership interest in OVEC. Through its ownership interest in OVEC, Duke Energy Ohio has a contractual arrangement through June 2040 to buy power from OVEC's power plants. The proceeds from the sale of power by OVEC to its power purchase agreement counterparties, including Duke Energy Ohio, are designed to be sufficient for OVEC to meet its operating expenses, fixed costs, debt amortization and interest expense, as well as earn a return on equity. Accordingly, the value of this contract is subject to variability due to fluctuations in power prices and changes in OVEC's costs of business, including costs associated with its 2,256 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity. As discussed in Note 5, the proposed rulemaking on cooling water intake structures, utility boiler MACT, CSAPR and CCP's could increase the costs of OVEC which would be passed through to Duke Energy Ohio. The initial carrying value of this contract was recorded as an intangible asset when Duke Energy acquired Cinergy in April 2006.

In addition, the company has guaranteed the performance of certain entities in which the company no longer has an equity interest. As a result, the company has a variable interest in certain other VIEs that are non-consolidated.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Variable Interest Entities

11. Variable Interest Entities

A VIE is an entity that is evaluated for consolidation using more than a simple analysis of voting control. The analysis to determine whether an entity is a VIE considers contracts with an entity, credit support for an entity, the adequacy of the equity investment of an entity and the relationship of voting power to the amount of equity invested in an entity. This analysis is performed either upon the creation of a legal entity or upon the occurrence of an event requiring reevaluation, such as a significant change in an entity's assets or activities. If an entity is determined to be a VIE, a qualitative analysis of control determines the party that consolidates a VIE based on what party has the power to direct the most significant activities of the VIE that impact its economic performance as well as what party has rights to receive benefits or is obligated to absorb losses that are significant to the VIE. The analysis of the party that consolidates a VIE is a continual reassessment.

CONSOLIDATED VIEs

The table below shows the VIEs that Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas consolidate and how these entities impact Duke Energy's and Duke Energy Carolinas' respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. None of these entities is consolidated by Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana.

Other than the discussion below related to Cinergy Receivables, no financial support was provided to any of the consolidated VIEs during the three or nine months ended September 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, respectively, or is expected to be provided in the future, that was not previously contractually required.

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other		Total
	(in millions)
At September 30, 2011
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	492	$	13	$	7		$	3	$	1,152
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		82			8		94
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		12			—		12
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		67		48			61		176
Other Assets		—		—		21		—			—		21
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		921			—		921
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(53	)		—		(53	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		25			9		34
Total Assets		637		492		105		1,042			81		2,357
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		1			2		3
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		275		—		—			—		275
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		3			—		3
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		10		57			5		72
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		57			—		62
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		63		533			63		959
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		173			—		173
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—		12
Other Liabilities		—		—		20		37			1		58
Total Liabilities		300		275		98		873			71		1,617
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			2		2
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	337	$	217	$	7	$	169		$	8	$	738

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other			Total
	(in millions)
At December 31, 2010
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	629	$	12	$	20		$	4		$	1,302
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		282			8			294
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		13			—			13
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		76		(2	)		65			139
Other Assets		—		—		23		—			—			23
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		892			50			942
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(26	)		(29	)		(55	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		24			(3	)		21
Total Assets		637		629		115		1,203			95			2,679
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		2			2			4
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		216		—		—			—			216
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		1			—			1
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		9		45			7			61
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		16			—			21
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		71		518			87			976
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		191			—			191
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—			12
Other Liabilities		—		—		22		4			—			26
Total Liabilities		300		216		107		789			96			1,508
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			1			1
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	337	$	413	$	8	$	414		$	(2	)	$	1,170

DERF. Duke Energy Carolinas securitizes certain accounts receivable through DERF, a bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiary. DERF is a wholly-owned limited liability company of Duke Energy Carolinas with a separate legal existence from its parent, and its assets are not intended to be generally available to creditors of Duke Energy Carolinas. As a result of the securitization, on a daily basis Duke Energy Carolinas sells certain accounts receivable, arising from the sale of electricity and/or related services as part of Duke Energy Carolinas' franchised electric business, to DERF. In order to fund its purchases of accounts receivable, DERF has a $300 million secured credit facility with a commercial paper conduit, which expires in August 2013. Duke Energy Carolinas provides the servicing for the receivables (collecting and applying the cash to the appropriate receivables). Duke Energy Carolinas' borrowing under the credit facility is limited to the amount of qualified receivables sold, which has been and is expected to be in excess of the amount borrowed, which is maintained at $300 million. The debt is classified as long-term since the facility has an expiration date of greater than one year from the balance sheet date.

The obligations of DERF under the facility are non-recourse to Duke Energy Carolinas. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity, purchase assets of DERF or guarantee performance. DERF is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. If deficiencies in the net worth of DERF were to occur, those deficiencies would be cured through funding from Duke Energy Carolinas. In addition, the most significant activity of DERF relates to the decisions made with respect to the management of delinquent receivables. Since those decisions are made by Duke Energy Carolinas and any net worth deficiencies of DERF would be cured through funding from Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Carolinas consolidates DERF.

Cinergy Receivables. Cinergy Receivables was formed in order to secure low cost financing for Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell on a revolving basis at a discount, nearly all of their customer accounts receivable and related collections to Cinergy Receivables. The receivables which are sold are selected in order to avoid any significant concentration of credit risk and exclude delinquent receivables. The receivables sold are securitized by Cinergy Receivables through a facility managed by two unrelated third parties and the receivables are used as collateral for commercial paper issued by the unrelated third parties. These loans provide the cash portion of the proceeds paid by Cinergy Receivables to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The proceeds obtained by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana from the sales of receivables are cash and a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables (subordinated retained interest in the sold receivables) for a portion of the purchase price (typically approximates 25% of the total proceeds). The amount borrowed by Cinergy Receivables against these receivables is non-recourse to the general credit of Duke Energy, and the associated cash collections from the accounts receivable sold is the sole source of funds to satisfy the related debt obligation. Borrowing is limited to approximately 75% of the transferred receivables. Losses on collection in excess of the discount are first absorbed by the equity of Cinergy Receivables and next by the subordinated retained interests held by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The discount on the receivables reflects interest expense plus an allowance for bad debts net of a servicing fee charged by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are responsible for the servicing of the receivables (collecting and applying the cash to the appropriate receivables). Depending on the experience with collections, additional equity infusions to Cinergy Receivables may be required to be made by Duke Energy in order to maintain a minimum equity balance of $3 million. For the nine months ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy infused $6 million of equity to Cinergy Receivables to remedy net worth deficiencies. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Duke Energy infused $4 million and $10 million, respectively, of equity to Cinergy Receivables to remedy net worth deficiencies. The amount borrowed fluctuates based on the amount of receivables sold. The debt is short-term because the facility has an expiration date of less than one year from the balance sheet date. The current expiration date is October 2011; however, Duke Energy extended the expiration date to October 2012 subsequent to September 30, 2011. Cinergy Receivables is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations, the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity are not performed by the equity holder, Cinergy, and deficiencies in the net worth of Cinergy Receivables are not funded by Cinergy, but by Duke Energy. The most significant activity of Cinergy Receivables relates to the decisions made with respect to the management of delinquent receivables. These decisions, as well as the requirement to make up deficiencies in net worth, are made by Duke Energy and not by Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Kentucky or Duke Energy Indiana. Thus, Duke Energy consolidates Cinergy Receivables. Neither Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana consolidate Cinergy Receivables.

CinCap V. CinCap V was created to finance and execute a power sale agreement with Central Maine Power Company for approximately 35 MW of capacity and energy. This agreement expires in 2016. CinCap V is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. As Duke Energy has the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity, which are the decisions to hedge and finance the power sales agreement, CinCap V is consolidated by Duke Energy.

Renewables. Duke Energy's renewable energy facilities include Green Frontier Windpower, LLC, Top of The World Wind Energy LLC and various solar projects, all subsidiaries of DEGS, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

These renewable energy facilities are VIEs due to power purchase agreements with terms that approximate the expected life of the projects. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer the commodity price risk to the buyer of the power. Duke Energy has consolidated these entities since inception because the most significant activities that impact the economic performance of these renewable energy facilities were the decisions associated with the siting, negotiation of the purchase power agreement, engineering, procurement and construction, and decisions associated with ongoing operations and maintenance related activities, all of which were made solely by Duke Energy.

The debt held by these renewable energy facilities is non-recourse to the general credit of Duke Energy. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity or purchase the assets of these renewable energy facilities. Duke Energy does not guarantee performance except for an immaterial multi-purpose letter of credit and various immaterial debt service reserve and operations and maintenance reserve guarantees. The assets are restricted and they cannot be pledged as collateral or sold to third parties without the prior approval of the debt holders.

Other. Duke Energy has other VIEs with restricted assets and non-recourse debt. These VIEs include certain on-site power generation facilities. Duke Energy consolidates these particular on-site power generation entities because Duke Energy has the power to direct the majority of the most significant activities, which, most notably involve the oversight of operation and maintenance related activities that impact the economic performance of these entities.

During the second quarter of 2011, the customer for an on-site generation facility cancelled its contract. As a result, the entity providing the on-site generation services no longer has any activity or assets, other than a receivable with payments to be collected through 2017. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy no longer consolidates this entity.

NON-CONSOLIDATED VIEs

The table below shows the VIEs that the Duke Energy Registrants do not consolidate and how these entities impact Duke Energy's, Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As discussed above, while Duke Energy consolidates Cinergy Receivables, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana do not consolidate Cinergy Receivables as they are not the primary beneficiary.

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At September 30, 2011 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	87	$	122	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		130		84		25		239
Intangibles		113		—		—		—		113		113
Total Assets		200		122		130		84		138		352
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		1		1
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		18		18
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		19		19
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	200	$	122	$	130	$	84	$	119	$	333

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At December 31, 2010 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	216	$	192	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		137		95		23		255
Intangibles		119		—		—		—		119		119
Total Assets		335		192		137		95		142		374
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		3		3
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		28		28
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		31		31
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	335	$	192	$	137	$	95	$	111	$	343

No financial support that was not previously contractually required was provided to any of the unconsolidated VIEs during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, respectively, or is expected to be provided in the future.

With the exception of the power purchase agreement with the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC), which is discussed below, and various guarantees, reflected in the table above as "Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities", the Duke Energy Registrants are not aware of any situations where the maximum exposure to loss significantly exceeds the carrying values shown above.

Cinergy Receivables. As discussed above, Cinergy Receivables is consolidated only by Duke Energy. Accordingly, the retained interest in the sold receivables recorded on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are eliminated in consolidation at Duke Energy.

The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price (typically approximates 25% of the total proceeds). The subordinated note is a retained interest (right to receive a specified portion of cash flows from the sold assets) and is classified within Receivables in Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The retained interests reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana approximate fair value.

The carrying values of the retained interests are determined by allocating the carrying value of the receivables between the assets sold and the interests retained based on relative fair value. Because the receivables generally turnover in less than two months, credit losses are reasonably predictable due to the broad customer base and lack of significant concentration, and the purchased beneficial interest (equity in Cinergy Receivables) is subordinate to all retained interests and thus would absorb losses first, the allocated basis of the subordinated notes are not materially different than their face value. The hypothetical effect on the fair value of the retained interests assuming both a 10% and a 20% unfavorable variation in credit losses or discount rates is not material due to the short turnover of receivables and historically low credit loss history. Interest accrues to Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Kentucky on the retained interests using the accretable yield method, which generally approximates the stated rate on the notes since the allocated basis and the face value are nearly equivalent. An impairment charge is recorded against the carrying value of both the retained interests and purchased beneficial interest whenever it is determined that an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred. The key assumptions used in estimating the fair value in 2011 and 2010 is detailed in the following table:

	2011			2010
Duke Energy Ohio
Anticipated credit loss ratio		0.8	%		0.8	%
Discount rate		2.6	%		2.7	%
Receivable turnover rate		12.7	%		12.6	%
Duke Energy Indiana
Anticipated credit loss ratio		0.4	%		0.5	%
Discount rate		2.6	%		2.7	%
Receivable turnover rate		10.2	%		10.2	%

The following table shows the gross and net receivables sold as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively:

	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Receivables sold as of September 30, 2011	$	262	$	262
Less: Retained interests		87		122
Net receivables sold as of September 30, 2011	$	175	$	140

	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Receivables sold as of December 31, 2010	$	373	$	284
Less: Retained interests		216		192
Net receivables sold as of December 31, 2010	$	157	$	92

The following table shows the retained interests, sales, and cash flows during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively:

Three Months Ended September 30, 2011	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	592	$	711
Loss recognized on sale		5		5
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	615	$	696
Return received on retained interests		3		3
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	672	$	686
Loss recognized on sale		5		5
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	707	$	704
Collection fees received		—		1
Return received on retained interests		4		3
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	1,832	$	2,009
Loss recognized on sale		16		13
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	1,952	$	2,051
Collection fees received		1		1
Return received on retained interests		10		10
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	2,178	$	1,893
Loss recognized on sale		19		13
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	2,236	$	1,904
Collection fees received		1		1
Return received on retained interests		12		10

Cash flows from the sale of receivables are reflected within Operating Activities on Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

Collection fees received in connection with the servicing of transferred accounts receivable are included in Operation, Maintenance and Other on Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The loss recognized on the sale of receivables is calculated monthly by multiplying the receivables sold during the month by the required discount which is derived monthly utilizing a three year weighted average formula that considers charge-off history, late charge history, and turnover history on the sold receivables, as well as a component for the time value of money. The discount rate, or component for the time value of money, is calculated monthly by summing the prior month-end LIBOR plus a fixed rate of 2.39%.

DukeNet. In 2010, Duke Energy sold a 50% ownership interest in DukeNet to Alinda. The sale resulted in DukeNet becoming a joint venture with Duke Energy and Alinda each owning a 50% interest. In connection with the formation of the new DukeNet joint venture, a five-year, $150 million senior secured credit facility was executed with a syndicate of ten external financial institutions. This credit facility is non-recourse to Duke Energy. DukeNet is considered a VIE because it has entered into certain contractual arrangements that provide DukeNet with additional forms of subordinated financial support. The most significant activities that impact DukeNet's economic performance relate to its business development and fiber optic capacity marketing and management activities. The power to direct these activities is jointly and equally shared by Duke Energy and Alinda. As a result, Duke Energy does not consolidate the DukeNet joint venture. Accordingly, DukeNet is a non-consolidated VIE that is reported as an equity method investment.

Unless consent by Duke Energy is given otherwise, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity, purchase the assets of DukeNet, or guarantee performance.

Renewables. Duke Energy's Commercial Power business segment has investments in various entities that generate electricity through the use of renewable energy technology. Some of these entities are VIEs which are not consolidated due to the joint ownership of the entities when they were created. Instead, Duke Energy's investment is recorded under the equity method of accounting. These entities are VIEs due to power purchase agreements with terms that approximate the expected life of the project. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer the commodity price risk to the buyer of the power.

Other. Duke Energy's Commercial Power business segment has investments in various other entities that are VIEs which are not consolidated. The most significant of these investments is Duke Energy Ohio's 9% ownership interest in OVEC. Through its ownership interest in OVEC, Duke Energy Ohio has a contractual arrangement through June 2040 to buy power from OVEC's power plants. The proceeds from the sale of power by OVEC to its power purchase agreement counterparties, including Duke Energy Ohio, are designed to be sufficient for OVEC to meet its operating expenses, fixed costs, debt amortization and interest expense, as well as earn a return on equity. Accordingly, the value of this contract is subject to variability due to fluctuations in power prices and changes in OVEC's costs of business, including costs associated with its 2,256 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity. As discussed in Note 5, the proposed rulemaking on cooling water intake structures, utility boiler MACT, CSAPR and CCP's could increase the costs of OVEC which would be passed through to Duke Energy Ohio. The initial carrying value of this contract was recorded as an intangible asset when Duke Energy acquired Cinergy in April 2006.

In addition, the company has guaranteed the performance of certain entities in which the company no longer has an equity interest. As a result, the company has a variable interest in certain other VIEs that are non-consolidated.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Variable Interest Entities

11. Variable Interest Entities

A VIE is an entity that is evaluated for consolidation using more than a simple analysis of voting control. The analysis to determine whether an entity is a VIE considers contracts with an entity, credit support for an entity, the adequacy of the equity investment of an entity and the relationship of voting power to the amount of equity invested in an entity. This analysis is performed either upon the creation of a legal entity or upon the occurrence of an event requiring reevaluation, such as a significant change in an entity's assets or activities. If an entity is determined to be a VIE, a qualitative analysis of control determines the party that consolidates a VIE based on what party has the power to direct the most significant activities of the VIE that impact its economic performance as well as what party has rights to receive benefits or is obligated to absorb losses that are significant to the VIE. The analysis of the party that consolidates a VIE is a continual reassessment.

CONSOLIDATED VIEs

The table below shows the VIEs that Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas consolidate and how these entities impact Duke Energy's and Duke Energy Carolinas' respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. None of these entities is consolidated by Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana.

Other than the discussion below related to Cinergy Receivables, no financial support was provided to any of the consolidated VIEs during the three or nine months ended September 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, respectively, or is expected to be provided in the future, that was not previously contractually required.

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other		Total
	(in millions)
At September 30, 2011
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	492	$	13	$	7		$	3	$	1,152
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		82			8		94
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		12			—		12
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		67		48			61		176
Other Assets		—		—		21		—			—		21
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		921			—		921
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(53	)		—		(53	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		25			9		34
Total Assets		637		492		105		1,042			81		2,357
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		1			2		3
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		275		—		—			—		275
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		3			—		3
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		10		57			5		72
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		57			—		62
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		63		533			63		959
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		173			—		173
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—		12
Other Liabilities		—		—		20		37			1		58
Total Liabilities		300		275		98		873			71		1,617
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			2		2
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	337	$	217	$	7	$	169		$	8	$	738

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other			Total
	(in millions)
At December 31, 2010
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	629	$	12	$	20		$	4		$	1,302
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		282			8			294
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		13			—			13
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		76		(2	)		65			139
Other Assets		—		—		23		—			—			23
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		892			50			942
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(26	)		(29	)		(55	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		24			(3	)		21
Total Assets		637		629		115		1,203			95			2,679
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		2			2			4
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		216		—		—			—			216
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		1			—			1
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		9		45			7			61
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		16			—			21
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		71		518			87			976
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		191			—			191
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—			12
Other Liabilities		—		—		22		4			—			26
Total Liabilities		300		216		107		789			96			1,508
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			1			1
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	337	$	413	$	8	$	414		$	(2	)	$	1,170

DERF. Duke Energy Carolinas securitizes certain accounts receivable through DERF, a bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiary. DERF is a wholly-owned limited liability company of Duke Energy Carolinas with a separate legal existence from its parent, and its assets are not intended to be generally available to creditors of Duke Energy Carolinas. As a result of the securitization, on a daily basis Duke Energy Carolinas sells certain accounts receivable, arising from the sale of electricity and/or related services as part of Duke Energy Carolinas' franchised electric business, to DERF. In order to fund its purchases of accounts receivable, DERF has a $300 million secured credit facility with a commercial paper conduit, which expires in August 2013. Duke Energy Carolinas provides the servicing for the receivables (collecting and applying the cash to the appropriate receivables). Duke Energy Carolinas' borrowing under the credit facility is limited to the amount of qualified receivables sold, which has been and is expected to be in excess of the amount borrowed, which is maintained at $300 million. The debt is classified as long-term since the facility has an expiration date of greater than one year from the balance sheet date.

The obligations of DERF under the facility are non-recourse to Duke Energy Carolinas. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity, purchase assets of DERF or guarantee performance. DERF is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. If deficiencies in the net worth of DERF were to occur, those deficiencies would be cured through funding from Duke Energy Carolinas. In addition, the most significant activity of DERF relates to the decisions made with respect to the management of delinquent receivables. Since those decisions are made by Duke Energy Carolinas and any net worth deficiencies of DERF would be cured through funding from Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Carolinas consolidates DERF.

Cinergy Receivables. Cinergy Receivables was formed in order to secure low cost financing for Duke Energy Ohio, including Duke Energy Kentucky, and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana sell on a revolving basis at a discount, nearly all of their customer accounts receivable and related collections to Cinergy Receivables. The receivables which are sold are selected in order to avoid any significant concentration of credit risk and exclude delinquent receivables. The receivables sold are securitized by Cinergy Receivables through a facility managed by two unrelated third parties and the receivables are used as collateral for commercial paper issued by the unrelated third parties. These loans provide the cash portion of the proceeds paid by Cinergy Receivables to Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The proceeds obtained by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana from the sales of receivables are cash and a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables (subordinated retained interest in the sold receivables) for a portion of the purchase price (typically approximates 25% of the total proceeds). The amount borrowed by Cinergy Receivables against these receivables is non-recourse to the general credit of Duke Energy, and the associated cash collections from the accounts receivable sold is the sole source of funds to satisfy the related debt obligation. Borrowing is limited to approximately 75% of the transferred receivables. Losses on collection in excess of the discount are first absorbed by the equity of Cinergy Receivables and next by the subordinated retained interests held by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. The discount on the receivables reflects interest expense plus an allowance for bad debts net of a servicing fee charged by Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana. Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are responsible for the servicing of the receivables (collecting and applying the cash to the appropriate receivables). Depending on the experience with collections, additional equity infusions to Cinergy Receivables may be required to be made by Duke Energy in order to maintain a minimum equity balance of $3 million. For the nine months ended September 30, 2011, Duke Energy infused $6 million of equity to Cinergy Receivables to remedy net worth deficiencies. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Duke Energy infused $4 million and $10 million, respectively, of equity to Cinergy Receivables to remedy net worth deficiencies. The amount borrowed fluctuates based on the amount of receivables sold. The debt is short-term because the facility has an expiration date of less than one year from the balance sheet date. The current expiration date is October 2011; however, Duke Energy extended the expiration date to October 2012 subsequent to September 30, 2011. Cinergy Receivables is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations, the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity are not performed by the equity holder, Cinergy, and deficiencies in the net worth of Cinergy Receivables are not funded by Cinergy, but by Duke Energy. The most significant activity of Cinergy Receivables relates to the decisions made with respect to the management of delinquent receivables. These decisions, as well as the requirement to make up deficiencies in net worth, are made by Duke Energy and not by Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Kentucky or Duke Energy Indiana. Thus, Duke Energy consolidates Cinergy Receivables. Neither Duke Energy Ohio or Duke Energy Indiana consolidate Cinergy Receivables.

CinCap V. CinCap V was created to finance and execute a power sale agreement with Central Maine Power Company for approximately 35 MW of capacity and energy. This agreement expires in 2016. CinCap V is considered a VIE because the equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. As Duke Energy has the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity, which are the decisions to hedge and finance the power sales agreement, CinCap V is consolidated by Duke Energy.

Renewables. Duke Energy's renewable energy facilities include Green Frontier Windpower, LLC, Top of The World Wind Energy LLC and various solar projects, all subsidiaries of DEGS, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

These renewable energy facilities are VIEs due to power purchase agreements with terms that approximate the expected life of the projects. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer the commodity price risk to the buyer of the power. Duke Energy has consolidated these entities since inception because the most significant activities that impact the economic performance of these renewable energy facilities were the decisions associated with the siting, negotiation of the purchase power agreement, engineering, procurement and construction, and decisions associated with ongoing operations and maintenance related activities, all of which were made solely by Duke Energy.

The debt held by these renewable energy facilities is non-recourse to the general credit of Duke Energy. Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity or purchase the assets of these renewable energy facilities. Duke Energy does not guarantee performance except for an immaterial multi-purpose letter of credit and various immaterial debt service reserve and operations and maintenance reserve guarantees. The assets are restricted and they cannot be pledged as collateral or sold to third parties without the prior approval of the debt holders.

Other. Duke Energy has other VIEs with restricted assets and non-recourse debt. These VIEs include certain on-site power generation facilities. Duke Energy consolidates these particular on-site power generation entities because Duke Energy has the power to direct the majority of the most significant activities, which, most notably involve the oversight of operation and maintenance related activities that impact the economic performance of these entities.

During the second quarter of 2011, the customer for an on-site generation facility cancelled its contract. As a result, the entity providing the on-site generation services no longer has any activity or assets, other than a receivable with payments to be collected through 2017. As of September 30, 2011, Duke Energy no longer consolidates this entity.

NON-CONSOLIDATED VIEs

The table below shows the VIEs that the Duke Energy Registrants do not consolidate and how these entities impact Duke Energy's, Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As discussed above, while Duke Energy consolidates Cinergy Receivables, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana do not consolidate Cinergy Receivables as they are not the primary beneficiary.

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At September 30, 2011 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	87	$	122	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		130		84		25		239
Intangibles		113		—		—		—		113		113
Total Assets		200		122		130		84		138		352
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		1		1
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		18		18
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		19		19
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	200	$	122	$	130	$	84	$	119	$	333

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At December 31, 2010 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	216	$	192	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		137		95		23		255
Intangibles		119		—		—		—		119		119
Total Assets		335		192		137		95		142		374
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		3		3
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		28		28
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		31		31
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	335	$	192	$	137	$	95	$	111	$	343

No financial support that was not previously contractually required was provided to any of the unconsolidated VIEs during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, respectively, or is expected to be provided in the future.

With the exception of the power purchase agreement with the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC), which is discussed below, and various guarantees, reflected in the table above as "Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities", the Duke Energy Registrants are not aware of any situations where the maximum exposure to loss significantly exceeds the carrying values shown above.

Cinergy Receivables. As discussed above, Cinergy Receivables is consolidated only by Duke Energy. Accordingly, the retained interest in the sold receivables recorded on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana are eliminated in consolidation at Duke Energy.

The proceeds obtained from the sales of receivables are largely cash but do include a subordinated note from Cinergy Receivables for a portion of the purchase price (typically approximates 25% of the total proceeds). The subordinated note is a retained interest (right to receive a specified portion of cash flows from the sold assets) and is classified within Receivables in Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The retained interests reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana approximate fair value.

The carrying values of the retained interests are determined by allocating the carrying value of the receivables between the assets sold and the interests retained based on relative fair value. Because the receivables generally turnover in less than two months, credit losses are reasonably predictable due to the broad customer base and lack of significant concentration, and the purchased beneficial interest (equity in Cinergy Receivables) is subordinate to all retained interests and thus would absorb losses first, the allocated basis of the subordinated notes are not materially different than their face value. The hypothetical effect on the fair value of the retained interests assuming both a 10% and a 20% unfavorable variation in credit losses or discount rates is not material due to the short turnover of receivables and historically low credit loss history. Interest accrues to Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Kentucky on the retained interests using the accretable yield method, which generally approximates the stated rate on the notes since the allocated basis and the face value are nearly equivalent. An impairment charge is recorded against the carrying value of both the retained interests and purchased beneficial interest whenever it is determined that an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred. The key assumptions used in estimating the fair value in 2011 and 2010 is detailed in the following table:

	2011			2010
Duke Energy Ohio
Anticipated credit loss ratio		0.8	%		0.8	%
Discount rate		2.6	%		2.7	%
Receivable turnover rate		12.7	%		12.6	%
Duke Energy Indiana
Anticipated credit loss ratio		0.4	%		0.5	%
Discount rate		2.6	%		2.7	%
Receivable turnover rate		10.2	%		10.2	%

The following table shows the gross and net receivables sold as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively:

	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Receivables sold as of September 30, 2011	$	262	$	262
Less: Retained interests		87		122
Net receivables sold as of September 30, 2011	$	175	$	140

	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Receivables sold as of December 31, 2010	$	373	$	284
Less: Retained interests		216		192
Net receivables sold as of December 31, 2010	$	157	$	92

The following table shows the retained interests, sales, and cash flows during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively:

Three Months Ended September 30, 2011	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	592	$	711
Loss recognized on sale		5		5
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	615	$	696
Return received on retained interests		3		3
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	672	$	686
Loss recognized on sale		5		5
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	707	$	704
Collection fees received		—		1
Return received on retained interests		4		3
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	1,832	$	2,009
Loss recognized on sale		16		13
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	1,952	$	2,051
Collection fees received		1		1
Return received on retained interests		10		10
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
Sales
Receivables sold	$	2,178	$	1,893
Loss recognized on sale		19		13
Cash flows
Cash proceeds from receivables sold	$	2,236	$	1,904
Collection fees received		1		1
Return received on retained interests		12		10

Cash flows from the sale of receivables are reflected within Operating Activities on Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

Collection fees received in connection with the servicing of transferred accounts receivable are included in Operation, Maintenance and Other on Duke Energy Ohio's and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The loss recognized on the sale of receivables is calculated monthly by multiplying the receivables sold during the month by the required discount which is derived monthly utilizing a three year weighted average formula that considers charge-off history, late charge history, and turnover history on the sold receivables, as well as a component for the time value of money. The discount rate, or component for the time value of money, is calculated monthly by summing the prior month-end LIBOR plus a fixed rate of 2.39%.

DukeNet. In 2010, Duke Energy sold a 50% ownership interest in DukeNet to Alinda. The sale resulted in DukeNet becoming a joint venture with Duke Energy and Alinda each owning a 50% interest. In connection with the formation of the new DukeNet joint venture, a five-year, $150 million senior secured credit facility was executed with a syndicate of ten external financial institutions. This credit facility is non-recourse to Duke Energy. DukeNet is considered a VIE because it has entered into certain contractual arrangements that provide DukeNet with additional forms of subordinated financial support. The most significant activities that impact DukeNet's economic performance relate to its business development and fiber optic capacity marketing and management activities. The power to direct these activities is jointly and equally shared by Duke Energy and Alinda. As a result, Duke Energy does not consolidate the DukeNet joint venture. Accordingly, DukeNet is a non-consolidated VIE that is reported as an equity method investment.

Unless consent by Duke Energy is given otherwise, Duke Energy and its subsidiaries have no requirement to provide liquidity, purchase the assets of DukeNet, or guarantee performance.

Renewables. Duke Energy's Commercial Power business segment has investments in various entities that generate electricity through the use of renewable energy technology. Some of these entities are VIEs which are not consolidated due to the joint ownership of the entities when they were created. Instead, Duke Energy's investment is recorded under the equity method of accounting. These entities are VIEs due to power purchase agreements with terms that approximate the expected life of the project. These fixed price agreements effectively transfer the commodity price risk to the buyer of the power.

Other. Duke Energy's Commercial Power business segment has investments in various other entities that are VIEs which are not consolidated. The most significant of these investments is Duke Energy Ohio's 9% ownership interest in OVEC. Through its ownership interest in OVEC, Duke Energy Ohio has a contractual arrangement through June 2040 to buy power from OVEC's power plants. The proceeds from the sale of power by OVEC to its power purchase agreement counterparties, including Duke Energy Ohio, are designed to be sufficient for OVEC to meet its operating expenses, fixed costs, debt amortization and interest expense, as well as earn a return on equity. Accordingly, the value of this contract is subject to variability due to fluctuations in power prices and changes in OVEC's costs of business, including costs associated with its 2,256 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity. As discussed in Note 5, the proposed rulemaking on cooling water intake structures, utility boiler MACT, CSAPR and CCP's could increase the costs of OVEC which would be passed through to Duke Energy Ohio. The initial carrying value of this contract was recorded as an intangible asset when Duke Energy acquired Cinergy in April 2006.

In addition, the company has guaranteed the performance of certain entities in which the company no longer has an equity interest. As a result, the company has a variable interest in certain other VIEs that are non-consolidated.

XML

Fair Value Of Financial Assets And Liabilities (Additional Fair Value Disclosure) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	Sep. 30, 2011		Dec. 31, 2010
Variable Interest Entity [Member]
Long-term debt, including current maturities	$ 959		$ 976
Book Value [Member]
Long-term debt, including current maturities	19,111	[1]	18,210	[2]
Fair Value [Member]
Long-term debt, including current maturities	$ 21,346		$ 19,484	[2]

[1] Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $959 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

[2] Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $976 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

XML

Fair Value Of Financial Assets And Liabilities (Fair Value Measurement Amounts For Assets And Liabilities) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	Sep. 30, 2011		Dec. 31, 2010
Short-term investments	$ 146
Auction Rate Securities [Member]
Investments in available-for-sale securities, fair value	115		149
Securities included in investments and other assets	72
Short-term investments	25
Auction Rate Securities [Member] | Fair Value [Member]
Investments in available-for-sale securities, fair value	97	[1]	118	[2]
Auction Rate Securities [Member] | Level 2 [Member]
Investments in available-for-sale securities, fair value	25	[1]
Auction Rate Securities [Member] | Level 3 [Member]
Investments in available-for-sale securities, fair value	72	[1]	118	[2]
Equity Securities [Member] | Fair Value [Member]
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale securities	62	[3]	164	[2]
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities	1,206		1,365
Equity Securities [Member] | Level 1 [Member]
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale securities	55	[3]	157	[2]
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities	1,154		1,313
Equity Securities [Member] | Level 2 [Member]
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale securities	7	[3]	7	[2]
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities	46		46
Equity Securities [Member] | Level 3 [Member]
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities	6		6
Debt Securities [Member]
Securities included in investments and other assets	209
Short-term investments	121
Debt Securities [Member] | Fair Value [Member]
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale securities	330	[4]	221	[2]
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities	718		649
Debt Securities [Member] | Level 1 [Member]
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale securities	27	[4]	10	[2]
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities	151		35
Debt Securities [Member] | Level 2 [Member]
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale securities	303	[4]	211	[2]
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities	519		573
Debt Securities [Member] | Level 3 [Member]
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities	48		41
Fair Value [Member]
Derivative assets	89	[3]	186	[3]
Total Assets	2,502		2,703
Derivative liabilities	(349)	[5]	(132)	[5]
Net Assets	2,153		2,571
Level 1 [Member]
Derivative assets	15	[3]	21	[3]
Total Assets	1,402		1,536
Derivative liabilities	(57)	[5]	(8)	[5]
Net Assets	1,345		1,528
Level 2 [Member]
Derivative assets	9	[3]	81	[3]
Total Assets	909		918
Derivative liabilities	(203)	[5]	(21)	[5]
Net Assets	706		897
Level 3 [Member]
Derivative assets	65	[3]	84	[3]
Total Assets	191		249
Derivative liabilities	(89)	[5]	(103)	[5]
Net Assets	$ 102		$ 146

[1] $72 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

[2] Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

[3] Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

[4] $209 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $121 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

[5] Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

XML

Variable Interest Entities (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Variable Interest Entities

Consolidated VIEs

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other		Total
	(in millions)
At September 30, 2011
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	492	$	13	$	7		$	3	$	1,152
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		82			8		94
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		12			—		12
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		67		48			61		176
Other Assets		—		—		21		—			—		21
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		921			—		921
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(53	)		—		(53	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		25			9		34
Total Assets		637		492		105		1,042			81		2,357
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		1			2		3
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		275		—		—			—		275
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		3			—		3
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		10		57			5		72
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		57			—		62
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		63		533			63		959
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		173			—		173
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—		12
Other Liabilities		—		—		20		37			1		58
Total Liabilities		300		275		98		873			71		1,617
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			2		2
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	337	$	217	$	7	$	169		$	8	$	738

	Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Carolinas
	Duke Energy Receivables Financing LLC (DERF)		Cinergy Receivables		CinCap V		Renewables			Other			Total
	(in millions)
At December 31, 2010
VIE Balance Sheets
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$	637	$	629	$	12	$	20		$	4		$	1,302
Other Current Assets		—		—		4		282			8			294
Intangibles, net		—		—		—		13			—			13
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs		—		—		76		(2	)		65			139
Other Assets		—		—		23		—			—			23
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		—		—		—		892			50			942
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		—		—		—		(26	)		(29	)		(55	)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits		—		—		—		24			(3	)		21
Total Assets		637		629		115		1,203			95			2,679
Accounts Payable		—		—		—		2			2			4
Non-Recourse Notes Payable		—		216		—		—			—			216
Taxes Accrued		—		—		—		1			—			1
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt		—		—		9		45			7			61
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		5		16			—			21
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt		300		—		71		518			87			976
Deferred Income Taxes		—		—		—		191			—			191
Asset Retirement Obligation		—		—		—		12			—			12
Other Liabilities		—		—		22		4			—			26
Total Liabilities		300		216		107		789			96			1,508
Noncontrolling interests		—		—		—		—			1			1
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	337	$	413	$	8	$	414		$	(2	)	$	1,170

Non-Consolidated VIEs

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At September 30, 2011 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	87	$	122	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		130		84		25		239
Intangibles		113		—		—		—		113		113
Total Assets		200		122		130		84		138		352
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		1		1
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		18		18
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		19		19
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	200	$	122	$	130	$	84	$	119	$	333

					Duke Energy
	Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana		DukeNet		Renewables		Other		Total
At December 31, 2010 Consolidated Balance Sheets
Receivables	$	216	$	192	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Investments in equity method unconsolidated affiliates		—		—		137		95		23		255
Intangibles		119		—		—		—		119		119
Total Assets		335		192		137		95		142		374
Other Current Liabilities		—		—		—		—		3		3
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities		—		—		—		—		28		28
Total Liabilities		—		—		—		—		31		31
Net Duke Energy Corporation Shareholders' Equity	$	335	$	192	$	137	$	95	$	111	$	343

XML

Variable Interest Entities (Consolidated VIEs) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	Sep. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	$ 1,152	$ 1,302
Other Current Assets	758	1,078
Intangibles, net	371	467
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs	176	139
Other Assets	2,236	2,300
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs	921	942
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization	(18,905)	(18,195)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits	2,479	2,233
Accounts payable	1,080	1,587
Non-Recourse Notes Payable	275	216
Taxes accrued	438	412
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt	1,527	275
Other Current Liabilities	1,046	1,170
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt	959	976
Deferred Income Taxes	7,466	6,978
Asset Retirement Obligation	1,905	1,816
Other Liabilities	5,430	5,452
Noncontrolling interests	105	131
Total common stockholder's equity	22,794	22,522
DERF [Member] | Consolidated VIEs [Member]
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	637	637
Total Assets	637	637
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt	300	300
Total Liabilities	300	300
Total common stockholder's equity	337	337
Consolidated VIEs [Member]
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	1,152	1,302
Other Current Assets	94	294
Intangibles, net	12	13
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs	176	139
Other Assets	21	23
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs	921	942
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization	(53)	(55)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits	34	21
Total Assets	2,357	2,679
Accounts payable	3	4
Non-Recourse Notes Payable	275	216
Taxes accrued	3	1
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt	72	61
Other Current Liabilities	62	21
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt	959	976
Deferred Income Taxes	173	191
Asset Retirement Obligation	12	12
Other Liabilities	58	26
Total Liabilities	1,617	1,508
Noncontrolling interests	2	1
Total common stockholder's equity	738	1,170
Consolidated VIEs [Member] | Cinergy Receivables [Member]
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	492	629
Total Assets	492	629
Non-Recourse Notes Payable	275	216
Total Liabilities	275	216
Total common stockholder's equity	217	413
Consolidated VIEs [Member] | CinCap V [Member]
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	13	12
Other Current Assets	4	4
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs	67	76
Other Assets	21	23
Total Assets	105	115
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt	10	9
Other Current Liabilities	5	5
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt	63	71
Other Liabilities	20	22
Total Liabilities	98	107
Total common stockholder's equity	7	8
Consolidated VIEs [Member] | Renewables [Member]
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	7	20
Other Current Assets	82	282
Intangibles, net	12	13
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs	48	(2)
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs	921	892
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization	(53)	(26)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits	25	24
Total Assets	1,042	1,203
Accounts payable	1	2
Taxes accrued	3	1
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt	57	45
Other Current Liabilities	57	16
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt	533	518
Deferred Income Taxes	173	191
Asset Retirement Obligation	12	12
Other Liabilities	37	4
Total Liabilities	873	789
Total common stockholder's equity	169	414
Consolidated VIEs [Member] | Other VIEs [Member]
Restricted Receivables of VIEs	3	4
Other Current Assets	8	8
Restricted Other Assets of VIEs	61	65
Property, Plant and Equipment Cost, VIEs		50
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization		(29)
Other Assets and Deferred Debits	9	(3)
Total Assets	81	95
Accounts payable	2	2
Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt	5	7
Non-Recourse Long-Term Debt	63	87
Other Liabilities	1
Total Liabilities	71	96
Noncontrolling interests	2	1
Total common stockholder's equity	8	(2)
Non-Consolidated VIEs [Member]
Intangibles, net	113	119
Other Current Liabilities	1	3
Total common stockholder's equity	333	343
Non-Consolidated VIEs [Member] | Renewables [Member]
Total common stockholder's equity	84	95
Non-Consolidated VIEs [Member] | Other VIEs [Member]
Intangibles, net	113	119
Other Current Liabilities	1	3
Total common stockholder's equity	$ 119	$ 111

XML

Comprehensive Income And Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Comprehensive Income And Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

19. Comprehensive Income and Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Comprehensive income (loss) for the Duke Energy Registrants includes net income and all other non-owner changes in equity. The tables below provide the components of other comprehensive income (loss) and total comprehensive income (loss) for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Components of other comprehensive income (loss) and total comprehensive income (loss) for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 are presented in the respective Condensed Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income.

Duke Energy

	Common Stockholders' Equity			Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Net Income	$	472		$	(2	)	$	470
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		(235	)		(11	)		(246	)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		1			—			1
Net unrealized loss on cash flow hedges (b)		(47	)		—			(47	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(c)		1			—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(d)		3			—			3
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		(277	)		(11	)		(288	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	195		$	(13	)	$	182

(a) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(b) Net of $26 million tax benefit.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(d) Net of $5 million tax expense.

	Common Stockholders' Equity		Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Net Income (Loss)	$	670	$	(4	)	$	666
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		88		4			92
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		4		—			4
Net unrealized gain on cash flow hedges (b)		1		—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(c)		2		—			2
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		95		4			99
Total Comprehensive Income	$	765	$	—		$	765

(a) Net of $5 million tax expense.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010
	(in millions)
Net Income	$	311	$	315
Other comprehensive income
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		2		1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(b)		—		1
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		2		2
Total Comprehensive Income	$	313	$	317

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Ohio

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
	(in millions)
Net Income	$	51		$	176
Other comprehensive loss
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		(1	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(b)		—			(1	)
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(1	)		(1	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	50		$	175

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011.

(b) Net of insignificant tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Indiana

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
	(in millions)
Net (Loss) Income	$	(31	)	$	92
Other comprehensive loss
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		(1	)		(1	)
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(1	)		(1	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	(32	)	$	91

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011 September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Comprehensive Income And Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

19. Comprehensive Income and Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Comprehensive income (loss) for the Duke Energy Registrants includes net income and all other non-owner changes in equity. The tables below provide the components of other comprehensive income (loss) and total comprehensive income (loss) for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Components of other comprehensive income (loss) and total comprehensive income (loss) for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 are presented in the respective Condensed Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income.

Duke Energy

	Common Stockholders' Equity			Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Net Income	$	472		$	(2	)	$	470
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		(235	)		(11	)		(246	)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		1			—			1
Net unrealized loss on cash flow hedges (b)		(47	)		—			(47	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(c)		1			—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(d)		3			—			3
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		(277	)		(11	)		(288	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	195		$	(13	)	$	182

(a) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(b) Net of $26 million tax benefit.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(d) Net of $5 million tax expense.

	Common Stockholders' Equity		Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Net Income (Loss)	$	670	$	(4	)	$	666
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		88		4			92
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		4		—			4
Net unrealized gain on cash flow hedges (b)		1		—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(c)		2		—			2
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		95		4			99
Total Comprehensive Income	$	765	$	—		$	765

(a) Net of $5 million tax expense.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010
	(in millions)
Net Income	$	311	$	315
Other comprehensive income
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		2		1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(b)		—		1
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		2		2
Total Comprehensive Income	$	313	$	317

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Ohio

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
	(in millions)
Net Income	$	51		$	176
Other comprehensive loss
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		(1	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(b)		—			(1	)
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(1	)		(1	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	50		$	175

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011.

(b) Net of insignificant tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Indiana

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
	(in millions)
Net (Loss) Income	$	(31	)	$	92
Other comprehensive loss
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		(1	)		(1	)
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(1	)		(1	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	(32	)	$	91

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011 September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Comprehensive Income And Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

19. Comprehensive Income and Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Comprehensive income (loss) for the Duke Energy Registrants includes net income and all other non-owner changes in equity. The tables below provide the components of other comprehensive income (loss) and total comprehensive income (loss) for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Components of other comprehensive income (loss) and total comprehensive income (loss) for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 are presented in the respective Condensed Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income.

Duke Energy

	Common Stockholders' Equity			Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Net Income	$	472		$	(2	)	$	470
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		(235	)		(11	)		(246	)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		1			—			1
Net unrealized loss on cash flow hedges (b)		(47	)		—			(47	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(c)		1			—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(d)		3			—			3
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		(277	)		(11	)		(288	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	195		$	(13	)	$	182

(a) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(b) Net of $26 million tax benefit.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(d) Net of $5 million tax expense.

	Common Stockholders' Equity		Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Net Income (Loss)	$	670	$	(4	)	$	666
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		88		4			92
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		4		—			4
Net unrealized gain on cash flow hedges (b)		1		—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(c)		2		—			2
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		95		4			99
Total Comprehensive Income	$	765	$	—		$	765

(a) Net of $5 million tax expense.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010
	(in millions)
Net Income	$	311	$	315
Other comprehensive income
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		2		1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(b)		—		1
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		2		2
Total Comprehensive Income	$	313	$	317

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Ohio

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
	(in millions)
Net Income	$	51		$	176
Other comprehensive loss
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		(1	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(b)		—			(1	)
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(1	)		(1	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	50		$	175

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011.

(b) Net of insignificant tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Indiana

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
	(in millions)
Net (Loss) Income	$	(31	)	$	92
Other comprehensive loss
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		(1	)		(1	)
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(1	)		(1	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	(32	)	$	91

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011 September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Comprehensive Income And Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

19. Comprehensive Income and Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Comprehensive income (loss) for the Duke Energy Registrants includes net income and all other non-owner changes in equity. The tables below provide the components of other comprehensive income (loss) and total comprehensive income (loss) for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Components of other comprehensive income (loss) and total comprehensive income (loss) for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 are presented in the respective Condensed Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income.

Duke Energy

	Common Stockholders' Equity			Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Net Income	$	472		$	(2	)	$	470
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		(235	)		(11	)		(246	)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		1			—			1
Net unrealized loss on cash flow hedges (b)		(47	)		—			(47	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(c)		1			—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(d)		3			—			3
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		(277	)		(11	)		(288	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	195		$	(13	)	$	182

(a) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(b) Net of $26 million tax benefit.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(d) Net of $5 million tax expense.

	Common Stockholders' Equity		Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Net Income (Loss)	$	670	$	(4	)	$	666
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		88		4			92
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		4		—			4
Net unrealized gain on cash flow hedges (b)		1		—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(c)		2		—			2
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		95		4			99
Total Comprehensive Income	$	765	$	—		$	765

(a) Net of $5 million tax expense.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010
	(in millions)
Net Income	$	311	$	315
Other comprehensive income
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		2		1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(b)		—		1
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		2		2
Total Comprehensive Income	$	313	$	317

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Ohio

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
	(in millions)
Net Income	$	51		$	176
Other comprehensive loss
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		(1	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(b)		—			(1	)
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(1	)		(1	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	50		$	175

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011.

(b) Net of insignificant tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Indiana

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
	(in millions)
Net (Loss) Income	$	(31	)	$	92
Other comprehensive loss
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		(1	)		(1	)
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(1	)		(1	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	(32	)	$	91

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011 September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Comprehensive Income And Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

19. Comprehensive Income and Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Comprehensive income (loss) for the Duke Energy Registrants includes net income and all other non-owner changes in equity. The tables below provide the components of other comprehensive income (loss) and total comprehensive income (loss) for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Components of other comprehensive income (loss) and total comprehensive income (loss) for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 are presented in the respective Condensed Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income.

Duke Energy

	Common Stockholders' Equity			Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Net Income	$	472		$	(2	)	$	470
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		(235	)		(11	)		(246	)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		1			—			1
Net unrealized loss on cash flow hedges (b)		(47	)		—			(47	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(c)		1			—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(d)		3			—			3
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		(277	)		(11	)		(288	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	195		$	(13	)	$	182

(a) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(b) Net of $26 million tax benefit.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(d) Net of $5 million tax expense.

	Common Stockholders' Equity		Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Net Income (Loss)	$	670	$	(4	)	$	666
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		88		4			92
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		4		—			4
Net unrealized gain on cash flow hedges (b)		1		—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(c)		2		—			2
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		95		4			99
Total Comprehensive Income	$	765	$	—		$	765

(a) Net of $5 million tax expense.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010
	(in millions)
Net Income	$	311	$	315
Other comprehensive income
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		2		1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(b)		—		1
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		2		2
Total Comprehensive Income	$	313	$	317

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and insignificant tax expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Ohio

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
	(in millions)
Net Income	$	51		$	176
Other comprehensive loss
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		(1	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(b)		—			(1	)
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(1	)		(1	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	50		$	175

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011.

(b) Net of insignificant tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2010.

Duke Energy Indiana

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010
	(in millions)
Net (Loss) Income	$	(31	)	$	92
Other comprehensive loss
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(a)		(1	)		(1	)
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(1	)		(1	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	(32	)	$	91

(a) Net of $1 million tax benefit for the three months ended September 30, 2011 September 30, 2010.

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements Of Cash Flows (USD $) In Millions	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income (loss)	$ 1,424	$ 894
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities
Depreciation and amortization (including amortization of nuclear fuel)	1,508	1,481
Equity component of AFUDC	(193)	(173)
Severance expense		77
Impairment charges	309	700
Gains on sale of other assets	(19)	(10)
Impairment of goodwill and other long-lived assets	309	703
Deferred income taxes	526	527
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates	(123)	(86)
(Increase) decrease in
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions	37	44
Receivables	115	87
Inventory	(87)	289
Other current assets	248	123
Increase (decrease) in
Accounts payable	(455)	(100)
Taxes accrued	30	(76)
Other current liabilities	(172)	(94)
Other assets	91	30
Other liabilities	(212)	(55)
Net cash provided by operating activities	3,027	3,661
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Capital expenditures	(2,990)	(3,481)
Investment expenditures	(36)	(61)
Acquisitions	(50)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities	(2,409)	(1,742)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities	2,313	1,773
Net proceeds from the sales of other assets, and sales of and collections on notes receivable	115	8
Purchases of emission allowances	(6)	(11)
Sales of emission allowances	8	20
Change in restricted cash	(19)	(29)
Other	4	(2)
Net cash used in investing activities	(3,070)	(3,525)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt	1,015	2,450
Issuance of common stock related to employee benefit plans	13	215
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt	(179)	(1,599)
Notes payable and commercial paper	537	16
Distributions to noncontrolling interests	(19)	(5)
Dividends paid	(994)	(957)
Other	32	10
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	405	130
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents	362	266
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	1,670	1,542
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	2,032	1,808
Significant non-cash transactions:
Accrued capital expenditures	276	524
Debt associated with the consolidation of variable interest entities		342
Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income (loss)	709	709
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities
Depreciation and amortization (including amortization of nuclear fuel)	752	730
Equity component of AFUDC	(125)	(129)
Severance expense		61
Gains on sale of other assets	(2)	(7)
Deferred income taxes	498	260
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs	25	26
(Increase) decrease in
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions	2
Receivables	96	(37)
Inventory	(25)	217
Other current assets	122	(1)
Increase (decrease) in
Accounts payable	(288)	42
Taxes accrued	18	4
Other current liabilities	(34)	(50)
Other assets	25	26
Other liabilities	(206)	(117)
Net cash provided by operating activities	1,567	1,734
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Capital expenditures	(1,604)	(1,737)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities	(1,598)	(871)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities	1,561	845
Sales of emission allowances	2	7
Notes due from affiliate	(250)	267
Change in restricted cash	2	7
Other	(9)	(8)
Net cash used in investing activities	(1,896)	(1,490)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt	499	692
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt	(2)	(602)
Distributions/Dividends to parent		(350)
Other	(3)	(4)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	494	(264)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents	165	(20)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	153	394
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	318	374
Significant non-cash transactions:
Accrued capital expenditures	122	212
Duke Energy Ohio [Member]
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income (loss)	157	(453)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities
Depreciation and amortization (including amortization of nuclear fuel)	261	301
Severance expense		23
Impairment charges	88	837
Gains on sale of other assets	(4)	(3)
Impairment of goodwill and other long-lived assets	88	837
Deferred income taxes	165	28
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs	11	11
(Increase) decrease in
Net realized and unrealized mark-to-market and hedging transactions	15	(34)
Receivables	170	56
Inventory	(29)	1
Other current assets	(35)	66
Increase (decrease) in
Accounts payable	(150)	(217)
Taxes accrued	2	(2)
Other current liabilities	18	(17)
Other assets	9	15
Other liabilities	(55)	(31)
Net cash provided by operating activities	623	581
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Capital expenditures	(344)	(242)
Purchases of emission allowances	(5)	(10)
Sales of emission allowances	6	10
Notes due from affiliate	221	(113)
Change in restricted cash	(18)
Other	(3)
Net cash used in investing activities	(143)	(355)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt		7
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt	(7)	(7)
Notes payable and commercial paper		(12)
Distributions/Dividends to parent	(485)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	(492)	(12)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents	(12)	214
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	228	127
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	216	341
Significant non-cash transactions:
Accrued capital expenditures	18	92
Duke Energy Indiana [Member]
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income (loss)	113	219
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities
Depreciation and amortization (including amortization of nuclear fuel)	301	285
Equity component of AFUDC	(64)	(40)
Severance expense		26
Impairment charges	222	44
Deferred income taxes	(67)	82
Accrued pension and other post-retirement benefit costs	16	18
(Increase) decrease in
Receivables	97	(2)
Inventory	(17)	66
Other current assets	18	8
Increase (decrease) in
Accounts payable	(35)	(98)
Taxes accrued	76	1
Other current liabilities	(9)	(21)
Other assets	19	4
Other liabilities	(47)	(38)
Net cash provided by operating activities	623	554
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Capital expenditures	(783)	(922)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities	(7)	(17)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities	5	19
Purchases of emission allowances		(1)
Sales of emission allowances	1	3
Notes due from affiliate	115	(160)
Change in restricted cash	6	(5)
Other	(3)
Net cash used in investing activities	(666)	(1,083)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt		571
Payments for the redemption of long-term debt	(4)	(197)
Capital contribution from parent		350
Notes payable and commercial paper	14
Other		(3)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	10	721
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents	(33)	192
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	54	20
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	21	212
Significant non-cash transactions:
Accrued capital expenditures	$ 127	$ 155

XML

Earnings Per Common Share (EPS) (Duke Energy Corp [Member])

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Earnings Per Common Share (EPS)

12. Earnings Per Common Share (EPS)

Basic EPS is computed by dividing net income attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, adjusted for distributed and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities, by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted EPS is computed by dividing net income attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for distributed and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities, by the diluted weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur if securities or other agreements to issue common stock, such as stock options, phantom shares and stock-based performance unit awards were exercised or settled.

The following table illustrates Duke Energy's basic and diluted EPS calculations and reconciles the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding to the diluted weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

	Income		Average Shares		EPS
	(in millions, except per- share amounts)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—basic	$	471		1,332	$	0.35
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options, performance and restricted stock				1
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—diluted	$	471		1,333	$	0.35
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—basic	$	669		1,320	$	0.51
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options, performance and restricted stock				2
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—diluted	$	669		1,322	$	0.51

	Income		Average Shares		EPS
	(in millions, except per- share amounts)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—basic	$	1,415		1,331	$	1.06
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options, performance and restricted stock				1
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—diluted	$	1,415		1,332	$	1.06
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—basic	$	891		1,315	$	0.68
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options, performance and restricted stock				1
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities—diluted	$	891		1,316	$	0.68

As of September 30, 2011 and 2010, 11 million and 16 million, respectively, of stock options and performance and unvested stock awards were not included in the "effect of dilutive securities" in the above table because either the option exercise prices were greater than the average market price of the common shares during those periods, or performance measures related to the awards had not yet been met.

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Duke Energy received proceeds of $98 million and $205 million, respectively, from the sale of common stock issued to fulfill obligations under its Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) and other internal plans, including 401(k) plans.

XML

Income Taxes And Other Taxes (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Income Taxes And Other Taxes

Schedule Of Unrecognized Tax Benefits

September 30, 2011	Duke Energy		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
	(in millions)
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)	$	392	$	262	$	33	$	22
Amount that if recognized, would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability(b)		121		113		—		—
Amount that if recognized, would be recorded as a component of discontinued operations		11		—		—		—
December 31, 2010
Unrecognized tax benefits(a)		342		217		29		21

(a) The Duke Registrants do not anticipate a significant increase or decrease in unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months.

(b) Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas are unable to estimate the specific amounts that would affect the effective tax rate or regulatory liability.

Schedule Of Effective Tax Rates

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
Duke Energy		30.7	%		31.2	%		30.8	%		41.9	%
Duke Energy Carolinas		37.0	%		33.8	%		36.1	%		33.9	%
Duke Energy Ohio		47.3	%		32.6	%		36.9	%		(32.6	)%
Duke Energy Indiana		37.2	%		32.2	%		30.8	%		33.8	%

Schedule Of Excise Taxes

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	45	$	47	$	118	$	123
Duke Energy Ohio		27		28		86		90
Duke Energy Indiana		9		8		24		22
Total Duke Energy	$	81	$	83	$	228	$	235

XML

Employee Benefit Obligations

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Employee Benefit Obligations

14. Employee Benefit Obligations

Net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below for the qualified pension, non-qualified pension and other post-retirement benefit plans represent the cost of the respective benefit plan to the Duke Energy Registrants for the periods presented. However, portions of the net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below have been capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment.

Duke Energy

The following table shows the components of the net periodic benefit costs for the Duke Energy U.S. qualified and non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans.

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011								Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	24		$	—	$	1		$	24		$	—	$	1
Interest cost on benefit obligation		58			2		8			62			2		9
Expected return on plan assets		(96	)		—		(3	)		(94	)		—		(3	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		1			—		(2	)		1			1		(2	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		2			—			—		4
Amortization of loss (gain)		20			1		—			12			—		(2	)
Other		4			—		—			5			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	11		$	3	$	6		$	10		$	3	$	7

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $4 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011								Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	72		$	1	$	5		$	72		$	1	$	5
Interest cost on benefit obligation		174			6		26			186			6		29
Expected return on plan assets		(288	)		—		(11	)		(283	)		—		(11	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		4			1		(6	)		4			2		(6	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		7			—			—		8
Amortization of loss (gain)		58			1		(2	)		37			—		(4	)
Contractual termination benefit cost		—			—		—			10			—		—
Other		13			—		—			14			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	33		$	9	$	19		$	40		$	9	$	21

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $11 million and $12 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $6 million and $7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

Each of the Subsidiary Registrants participate in qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans sponsored by Duke Energy. The net periodic benefit costs shown in the tables below represent the allocated cost of the respective benefit plan for the periods presented. Additionally, the Subsidiary Registrants are allocated their proportionate share of pension and other post-retirement benefit cost for employees of Duke Energy's shared services affiliate that provide support to the respective Subsidiary Registrant. These allocated amounts are included in the governance and shared services costs for each Subsidiary Registrant discussed in Note 17.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011								Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	9		$	—	$	—		$	9		$	—	$	1
Interest cost on benefit obligation		21			—		4			23			—		4
Expected return on plan assets		(37	)		—		(2	)		(37	)		—		(3	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		1			—		(1	)		1			1		(1	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		2			—			—		2
Amortization of loss		9			—		1			6			—		1
Other		1			—		—			2			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	4		$	—	$	4		$	4		$	1	$	4

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011								Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	28		$	—	$	1		$	27		$	—	$	2
Interest cost on benefit obligation		64			1		12			68			1		13
Expected return on plan assets		(112	)		—		(7	)		(110	)		—		(8	)
Amortization of prior service credit		1			—		(4	)		1			1		(4	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		7			—			—		7
Amortization of loss		27			—		2			20			—		2
Other		5			—		—			6			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	13		$	1	$	11		$	12		$	2	$	12

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Carolinas by Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Ohio

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011						Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	2		$	1		$	2		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		8			1			8			2
Expected return on plan assets		(11	)		—			(11	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost		—			(1	)		1			(1	)
Amortization of loss (gain)		2			(1	)		1			(1	)
Other		1			—			—			—
Net periodic costs	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	—

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $1 million and $2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011						Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	5		$	1		$	5		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		24			2			25			3
Expected return on plan assets		(33	)		—			(32	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost		—			(1	)		1			(1	)
Amortization of loss (gain)		6			(2	)		3			(2	)
Other		2			—			1			—
Net periodic costs	$	4		$	—		$	3		$	—

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $5 million and $6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

Components of net periodic costs for Duke Energy Ohio's non-qualified pension plans were an insignificant amount for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Ohio by Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Indiana

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011						Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	3		$	1		$	3		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		8			1			8			2
Expected return on plan assets		(12	)		—			(11	)		—
Amortization of prior service cost		—			—			1			—
Amortization of loss		3			—			3			—
Other		1			—			—			—
Net periodic costs	$	3		$	2		$	4		$	3
	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011						Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	8		$	1		$	8		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		23			5			24			6
Expected return on plan assets		(34	)		(1	)		(33	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service cost		1			—			2			—
Amortization of loss		10			1			9			1
Other		2			—			1			—
Net periodic costs	$	10		$	6		$	11		$	7

Components of net periodic costs for Duke Energy Indiana's non-qualified pension plans were an insignificant amount for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Indiana by Duke Energy.

Employee Savings Plan

Duke Energy sponsors employee savings plans that cover substantially all U.S. employees. Duke Energy made pre-tax employer matching contributions of $18 million and $68 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Duke Energy made pre-tax employer matching contributions of $18 million and $67 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

The Subsidiary Registrants participate in Duke Energy sponsored employee savings plans. The following table shows the respective Subsidiary Registrants' expense related to its proportionate share of pre-tax employer matching contributions.

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	8	$	8	$	28	$	28
Duke Energy Ohio		1		—		3		3
Duke Energy Indiana		1		—		6		4

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Employee Benefit Obligations

14. Employee Benefit Obligations

Net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below for the qualified pension, non-qualified pension and other post-retirement benefit plans represent the cost of the respective benefit plan to the Duke Energy Registrants for the periods presented. However, portions of the net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below have been capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment.

Duke Energy

The following table shows the components of the net periodic benefit costs for the Duke Energy U.S. qualified and non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans.

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011								Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	24		$	—	$	1		$	24		$	—	$	1
Interest cost on benefit obligation		58			2		8			62			2		9
Expected return on plan assets		(96	)		—		(3	)		(94	)		—		(3	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		1			—		(2	)		1			1		(2	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		2			—			—		4
Amortization of loss (gain)		20			1		—			12			—		(2	)
Other		4			—		—			5			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	11		$	3	$	6		$	10		$	3	$	7

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $4 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011								Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	72		$	1	$	5		$	72		$	1	$	5
Interest cost on benefit obligation		174			6		26			186			6		29
Expected return on plan assets		(288	)		—		(11	)		(283	)		—		(11	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		4			1		(6	)		4			2		(6	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		7			—			—		8
Amortization of loss (gain)		58			1		(2	)		37			—		(4	)
Contractual termination benefit cost		—			—		—			10			—		—
Other		13			—		—			14			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	33		$	9	$	19		$	40		$	9	$	21

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $11 million and $12 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $6 million and $7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

Each of the Subsidiary Registrants participate in qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans sponsored by Duke Energy. The net periodic benefit costs shown in the tables below represent the allocated cost of the respective benefit plan for the periods presented. Additionally, the Subsidiary Registrants are allocated their proportionate share of pension and other post-retirement benefit cost for employees of Duke Energy's shared services affiliate that provide support to the respective Subsidiary Registrant. These allocated amounts are included in the governance and shared services costs for each Subsidiary Registrant discussed in Note 17.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011								Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	9		$	—	$	—		$	9		$	—	$	1
Interest cost on benefit obligation		21			—		4			23			—		4
Expected return on plan assets		(37	)		—		(2	)		(37	)		—		(3	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		1			—		(1	)		1			1		(1	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		2			—			—		2
Amortization of loss		9			—		1			6			—		1
Other		1			—		—			2			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	4		$	—	$	4		$	4		$	1	$	4

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011								Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	28		$	—	$	1		$	27		$	—	$	2
Interest cost on benefit obligation		64			1		12			68			1		13
Expected return on plan assets		(112	)		—		(7	)		(110	)		—		(8	)
Amortization of prior service credit		1			—		(4	)		1			1		(4	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		7			—			—		7
Amortization of loss		27			—		2			20			—		2
Other		5			—		—			6			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	13		$	1	$	11		$	12		$	2	$	12

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Carolinas by Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Ohio

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011						Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	2		$	1		$	2		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		8			1			8			2
Expected return on plan assets		(11	)		—			(11	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost		—			(1	)		1			(1	)
Amortization of loss (gain)		2			(1	)		1			(1	)
Other		1			—			—			—
Net periodic costs	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	—

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $1 million and $2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011						Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	5		$	1		$	5		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		24			2			25			3
Expected return on plan assets		(33	)		—			(32	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost		—			(1	)		1			(1	)
Amortization of loss (gain)		6			(2	)		3			(2	)
Other		2			—			1			—
Net periodic costs	$	4		$	—		$	3		$	—

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $5 million and $6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

Components of net periodic costs for Duke Energy Ohio's non-qualified pension plans were an insignificant amount for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Ohio by Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Indiana

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011						Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	3		$	1		$	3		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		8			1			8			2
Expected return on plan assets		(12	)		—			(11	)		—
Amortization of prior service cost		—			—			1			—
Amortization of loss		3			—			3			—
Other		1			—			—			—
Net periodic costs	$	3		$	2		$	4		$	3
	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011						Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	8		$	1		$	8		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		23			5			24			6
Expected return on plan assets		(34	)		(1	)		(33	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service cost		1			—			2			—
Amortization of loss		10			1			9			1
Other		2			—			1			—
Net periodic costs	$	10		$	6		$	11		$	7

Components of net periodic costs for Duke Energy Indiana's non-qualified pension plans were an insignificant amount for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Indiana by Duke Energy.

Employee Savings Plan

Duke Energy sponsors employee savings plans that cover substantially all U.S. employees. Duke Energy made pre-tax employer matching contributions of $18 million and $68 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Duke Energy made pre-tax employer matching contributions of $18 million and $67 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

The Subsidiary Registrants participate in Duke Energy sponsored employee savings plans. The following table shows the respective Subsidiary Registrants' expense related to its proportionate share of pre-tax employer matching contributions.

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	8	$	8	$	28	$	28
Duke Energy Ohio		1		—		3		3
Duke Energy Indiana		1		—		6		4

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Employee Benefit Obligations

14. Employee Benefit Obligations

Net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below for the qualified pension, non-qualified pension and other post-retirement benefit plans represent the cost of the respective benefit plan to the Duke Energy Registrants for the periods presented. However, portions of the net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below have been capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment.

Duke Energy

The following table shows the components of the net periodic benefit costs for the Duke Energy U.S. qualified and non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans.

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011								Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	24		$	—	$	1		$	24		$	—	$	1
Interest cost on benefit obligation		58			2		8			62			2		9
Expected return on plan assets		(96	)		—		(3	)		(94	)		—		(3	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		1			—		(2	)		1			1		(2	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		2			—			—		4
Amortization of loss (gain)		20			1		—			12			—		(2	)
Other		4			—		—			5			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	11		$	3	$	6		$	10		$	3	$	7

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $4 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011								Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	72		$	1	$	5		$	72		$	1	$	5
Interest cost on benefit obligation		174			6		26			186			6		29
Expected return on plan assets		(288	)		—		(11	)		(283	)		—		(11	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		4			1		(6	)		4			2		(6	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		7			—			—		8
Amortization of loss (gain)		58			1		(2	)		37			—		(4	)
Contractual termination benefit cost		—			—		—			10			—		—
Other		13			—		—			14			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	33		$	9	$	19		$	40		$	9	$	21

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $11 million and $12 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $6 million and $7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

Each of the Subsidiary Registrants participate in qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans sponsored by Duke Energy. The net periodic benefit costs shown in the tables below represent the allocated cost of the respective benefit plan for the periods presented. Additionally, the Subsidiary Registrants are allocated their proportionate share of pension and other post-retirement benefit cost for employees of Duke Energy's shared services affiliate that provide support to the respective Subsidiary Registrant. These allocated amounts are included in the governance and shared services costs for each Subsidiary Registrant discussed in Note 17.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011								Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	9		$	—	$	—		$	9		$	—	$	1
Interest cost on benefit obligation		21			—		4			23			—		4
Expected return on plan assets		(37	)		—		(2	)		(37	)		—		(3	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		1			—		(1	)		1			1		(1	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		2			—			—		2
Amortization of loss		9			—		1			6			—		1
Other		1			—		—			2			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	4		$	—	$	4		$	4		$	1	$	4

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011								Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	28		$	—	$	1		$	27		$	—	$	2
Interest cost on benefit obligation		64			1		12			68			1		13
Expected return on plan assets		(112	)		—		(7	)		(110	)		—		(8	)
Amortization of prior service credit		1			—		(4	)		1			1		(4	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		7			—			—		7
Amortization of loss		27			—		2			20			—		2
Other		5			—		—			6			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	13		$	1	$	11		$	12		$	2	$	12

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Carolinas by Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Ohio

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011						Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	2		$	1		$	2		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		8			1			8			2
Expected return on plan assets		(11	)		—			(11	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost		—			(1	)		1			(1	)
Amortization of loss (gain)		2			(1	)		1			(1	)
Other		1			—			—			—
Net periodic costs	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	—

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $1 million and $2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011						Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	5		$	1		$	5		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		24			2			25			3
Expected return on plan assets		(33	)		—			(32	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost		—			(1	)		1			(1	)
Amortization of loss (gain)		6			(2	)		3			(2	)
Other		2			—			1			—
Net periodic costs	$	4		$	—		$	3		$	—

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $5 million and $6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

Components of net periodic costs for Duke Energy Ohio's non-qualified pension plans were an insignificant amount for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Ohio by Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Indiana

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011						Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	3		$	1		$	3		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		8			1			8			2
Expected return on plan assets		(12	)		—			(11	)		—
Amortization of prior service cost		—			—			1			—
Amortization of loss		3			—			3			—
Other		1			—			—			—
Net periodic costs	$	3		$	2		$	4		$	3
	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011						Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	8		$	1		$	8		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		23			5			24			6
Expected return on plan assets		(34	)		(1	)		(33	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service cost		1			—			2			—
Amortization of loss		10			1			9			1
Other		2			—			1			—
Net periodic costs	$	10		$	6		$	11		$	7

Components of net periodic costs for Duke Energy Indiana's non-qualified pension plans were an insignificant amount for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Indiana by Duke Energy.

Employee Savings Plan

Duke Energy sponsors employee savings plans that cover substantially all U.S. employees. Duke Energy made pre-tax employer matching contributions of $18 million and $68 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Duke Energy made pre-tax employer matching contributions of $18 million and $67 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

The Subsidiary Registrants participate in Duke Energy sponsored employee savings plans. The following table shows the respective Subsidiary Registrants' expense related to its proportionate share of pre-tax employer matching contributions.

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	8	$	8	$	28	$	28
Duke Energy Ohio		1		—		3		3
Duke Energy Indiana		1		—		6		4

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Employee Benefit Obligations

14. Employee Benefit Obligations

Net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below for the qualified pension, non-qualified pension and other post-retirement benefit plans represent the cost of the respective benefit plan to the Duke Energy Registrants for the periods presented. However, portions of the net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below have been capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment.

Duke Energy

The following table shows the components of the net periodic benefit costs for the Duke Energy U.S. qualified and non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans.

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011								Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	24		$	—	$	1		$	24		$	—	$	1
Interest cost on benefit obligation		58			2		8			62			2		9
Expected return on plan assets		(96	)		—		(3	)		(94	)		—		(3	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		1			—		(2	)		1			1		(2	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		2			—			—		4
Amortization of loss (gain)		20			1		—			12			—		(2	)
Other		4			—		—			5			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	11		$	3	$	6		$	10		$	3	$	7

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $4 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011								Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	72		$	1	$	5		$	72		$	1	$	5
Interest cost on benefit obligation		174			6		26			186			6		29
Expected return on plan assets		(288	)		—		(11	)		(283	)		—		(11	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		4			1		(6	)		4			2		(6	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		7			—			—		8
Amortization of loss (gain)		58			1		(2	)		37			—		(4	)
Contractual termination benefit cost		—			—		—			10			—		—
Other		13			—		—			14			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	33		$	9	$	19		$	40		$	9	$	21

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $11 million and $12 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $6 million and $7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

Each of the Subsidiary Registrants participate in qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans sponsored by Duke Energy. The net periodic benefit costs shown in the tables below represent the allocated cost of the respective benefit plan for the periods presented. Additionally, the Subsidiary Registrants are allocated their proportionate share of pension and other post-retirement benefit cost for employees of Duke Energy's shared services affiliate that provide support to the respective Subsidiary Registrant. These allocated amounts are included in the governance and shared services costs for each Subsidiary Registrant discussed in Note 17.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011								Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	9		$	—	$	—		$	9		$	—	$	1
Interest cost on benefit obligation		21			—		4			23			—		4
Expected return on plan assets		(37	)		—		(2	)		(37	)		—		(3	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		1			—		(1	)		1			1		(1	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		2			—			—		2
Amortization of loss		9			—		1			6			—		1
Other		1			—		—			2			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	4		$	—	$	4		$	4		$	1	$	4

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011								Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	28		$	—	$	1		$	27		$	—	$	2
Interest cost on benefit obligation		64			1		12			68			1		13
Expected return on plan assets		(112	)		—		(7	)		(110	)		—		(8	)
Amortization of prior service credit		1			—		(4	)		1			1		(4	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		7			—			—		7
Amortization of loss		27			—		2			20			—		2
Other		5			—		—			6			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	13		$	1	$	11		$	12		$	2	$	12

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Carolinas by Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Ohio

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011						Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	2		$	1		$	2		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		8			1			8			2
Expected return on plan assets		(11	)		—			(11	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost		—			(1	)		1			(1	)
Amortization of loss (gain)		2			(1	)		1			(1	)
Other		1			—			—			—
Net periodic costs	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	—

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $1 million and $2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011						Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	5		$	1		$	5		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		24			2			25			3
Expected return on plan assets		(33	)		—			(32	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost		—			(1	)		1			(1	)
Amortization of loss (gain)		6			(2	)		3			(2	)
Other		2			—			1			—
Net periodic costs	$	4		$	—		$	3		$	—

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $5 million and $6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

Components of net periodic costs for Duke Energy Ohio's non-qualified pension plans were an insignificant amount for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Ohio by Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Indiana

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011						Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	3		$	1		$	3		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		8			1			8			2
Expected return on plan assets		(12	)		—			(11	)		—
Amortization of prior service cost		—			—			1			—
Amortization of loss		3			—			3			—
Other		1			—			—			—
Net periodic costs	$	3		$	2		$	4		$	3
	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011						Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	8		$	1		$	8		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		23			5			24			6
Expected return on plan assets		(34	)		(1	)		(33	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service cost		1			—			2			—
Amortization of loss		10			1			9			1
Other		2			—			1			—
Net periodic costs	$	10		$	6		$	11		$	7

Components of net periodic costs for Duke Energy Indiana's non-qualified pension plans were an insignificant amount for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Indiana by Duke Energy.

Employee Savings Plan

Duke Energy sponsors employee savings plans that cover substantially all U.S. employees. Duke Energy made pre-tax employer matching contributions of $18 million and $68 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Duke Energy made pre-tax employer matching contributions of $18 million and $67 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

The Subsidiary Registrants participate in Duke Energy sponsored employee savings plans. The following table shows the respective Subsidiary Registrants' expense related to its proportionate share of pre-tax employer matching contributions.

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	8	$	8	$	28	$	28
Duke Energy Ohio		1		—		3		3
Duke Energy Indiana		1		—		6		4

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Employee Benefit Obligations

14. Employee Benefit Obligations

Net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below for the qualified pension, non-qualified pension and other post-retirement benefit plans represent the cost of the respective benefit plan to the Duke Energy Registrants for the periods presented. However, portions of the net periodic benefit costs disclosed in the tables below have been capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment.

Duke Energy

The following table shows the components of the net periodic benefit costs for the Duke Energy U.S. qualified and non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans.

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011								Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	24		$	—	$	1		$	24		$	—	$	1
Interest cost on benefit obligation		58			2		8			62			2		9
Expected return on plan assets		(96	)		—		(3	)		(94	)		—		(3	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		1			—		(2	)		1			1		(2	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		2			—			—		4
Amortization of loss (gain)		20			1		—			12			—		(2	)
Other		4			—		—			5			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	11		$	3	$	6		$	10		$	3	$	7

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $4 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011								Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	72		$	1	$	5		$	72		$	1	$	5
Interest cost on benefit obligation		174			6		26			186			6		29
Expected return on plan assets		(288	)		—		(11	)		(283	)		—		(11	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		4			1		(6	)		4			2		(6	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		7			—			—		8
Amortization of loss (gain)		58			1		(2	)		37			—		(4	)
Contractual termination benefit cost		—			—		—			10			—		—
Other		13			—		—			14			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	33		$	9	$	19		$	40		$	9	$	21

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $11 million and $12 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $6 million and $7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

Each of the Subsidiary Registrants participate in qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans sponsored by Duke Energy. The net periodic benefit costs shown in the tables below represent the allocated cost of the respective benefit plan for the periods presented. Additionally, the Subsidiary Registrants are allocated their proportionate share of pension and other post-retirement benefit cost for employees of Duke Energy's shared services affiliate that provide support to the respective Subsidiary Registrant. These allocated amounts are included in the governance and shared services costs for each Subsidiary Registrant discussed in Note 17.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011								Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	9		$	—	$	—		$	9		$	—	$	1
Interest cost on benefit obligation		21			—		4			23			—		4
Expected return on plan assets		(37	)		—		(2	)		(37	)		—		(3	)
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)		1			—		(1	)		1			1		(1	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		2			—			—		2
Amortization of loss		9			—		1			6			—		1
Other		1			—		—			2			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	4		$	—	$	4		$	4		$	1	$	4

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011								Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Non- Qualified pension plans		Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	28		$	—	$	1		$	27		$	—	$	2
Interest cost on benefit obligation		64			1		12			68			1		13
Expected return on plan assets		(112	)		—		(7	)		(110	)		—		(8	)
Amortization of prior service credit		1			—		(4	)		1			1		(4	)
Amortization of net transition liability		—			—		7			—			—		7
Amortization of loss		27			—		2			20			—		2
Other		5			—		—			6			—		—
Net periodic costs	$	13		$	1	$	11		$	12		$	2	$	12

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Carolinas by Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Ohio

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011						Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	2		$	1		$	2		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		8			1			8			2
Expected return on plan assets		(11	)		—			(11	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost		—			(1	)		1			(1	)
Amortization of loss (gain)		2			(1	)		1			(1	)
Other		1			—			—			—
Net periodic costs	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	—

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $1 million and $2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011						Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)			Qualified pension plans(a)			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans(b)
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	5		$	1		$	5		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		24			2			25			3
Expected return on plan assets		(33	)		—			(32	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service (credit) cost		—			(1	)		1			(1	)
Amortization of loss (gain)		6			(2	)		3			(2	)
Other		2			—			1			—
Net periodic costs	$	4		$	—		$	3		$	—

(a) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $5 million and $6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

(b) Excludes regulatory asset amortization of $2 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, resulting from purchase accounting adjustments associated with Duke Energy's merger with Cinergy in April 2006.

Components of net periodic costs for Duke Energy Ohio's non-qualified pension plans were an insignificant amount for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Ohio by Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Indiana

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011						Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	3		$	1		$	3		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		8			1			8			2
Expected return on plan assets		(12	)		—			(11	)		—
Amortization of prior service cost		—			—			1			—
Amortization of loss		3			—			3			—
Other		1			—			—			—
Net periodic costs	$	3		$	2		$	4		$	3
	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011						Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010
	Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans			Qualified pension plans			Other Post- Retirement Benefit plans
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	8		$	1		$	8		$	1
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation		23			5			24			6
Expected return on plan assets		(34	)		(1	)		(33	)		(1	)
Amortization of prior service cost		1			—			2			—
Amortization of loss		10			1			9			1
Other		2			—			1			—
Net periodic costs	$	10		$	6		$	11		$	7

Components of net periodic costs for Duke Energy Indiana's non-qualified pension plans were an insignificant amount for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

See Note 17 for additional information related to amounts reflected on Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with obligations related to qualified pension plans, non-qualified pension plans and other post-retirement benefit plans, which are allocated to Duke Energy Indiana by Duke Energy.

Employee Savings Plan

Duke Energy sponsors employee savings plans that cover substantially all U.S. employees. Duke Energy made pre-tax employer matching contributions of $18 million and $68 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Duke Energy made pre-tax employer matching contributions of $18 million and $67 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

The Subsidiary Registrants participate in Duke Energy sponsored employee savings plans. The following table shows the respective Subsidiary Registrants' expense related to its proportionate share of pre-tax employer matching contributions.

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	8	$	8	$	28	$	28
Duke Energy Ohio		1		—		3		3
Duke Energy Indiana		1		—		6		4

XML

Earnings Per Common Share (EPS) (Details) (USD $)	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010
Average shares, basic	1,332,000,000	1,320,000,000	1,331,000,000	1,315,000,000
Average shares, diluted	1,333,000,000	1,322,000,000	1,332,000,000	1,316,000,000
EPS, basic	$ 0.35	$ 0.51	$ 1.06	$ 0.68
EPS, diluted	$ 0.35	$ 0.51	$ 1.06	$ 0.68
Value of stock options, performance and unvested stock awards not included in the effect of dilutive securities			11,000,000	16,000,000
Proceeds from sale of common stock		$ 98,000,000		$ 205,000,000
Income [Member]
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities - basic	471,000,000.00	669,000,000.00	1,415,000,000	891,000,000
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy common stockholders, as adjusted for participating securities - diluted	$ 471,000,000.00	$ 669,000,000.00	$ 1,415,000,000	$ 891,000,000
Average Shares [Member]
Average shares, basic	1,332,000,000.00	1,320,000,000.00	1,331,000,000	1,315,000,000
Average shares, diluted	1,333,000,000.00		1,332,000,000	1,316,000,000
Average shares, basic and diluted		1,322,000,000.00		1,322,000,000.00
Stock options, performance and restricted stock	1,000,000.00	2,000,000.00	1,000,000	1,000,000
EPS [Member]
EPS, basic	$ 0.35	$ 0.51	$ 1.06	$ 0.68
EPS, diluted	$ 0.35		$ 1.06	$ 0.68
EPS, basic and diluted		$ 0.51

XML

Investments In Debt And Equity Securities (Unrealized Losses Of Available-For-Sale Debt And Equity Securities In A Continuous Loss Position) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	Sep. 30, 2011		Dec. 31, 2010
Fair Value	$ 715		$ 440
Unrealized Loss Position greater than 12 months	(34)		(53)
Unrealized Loss Position less than 12 months	(51)		(12)
Equity Securities [Member]
Fair Value	241		85
Unrealized Loss Position greater than 12 months	(13)		(11)
Unrealized Loss Position less than 12 months	(47)		(5)
Corporate Debt Securities [Member]
Fair Value	195		73
Unrealized Loss Position greater than 12 months	(1)		(2)
Unrealized Loss Position less than 12 months	(3)		(2)
Municipal Bonds [Member]
Fair Value	9		42
Unrealized Loss Position greater than 12 months			(8)
Unrealized Loss Position less than 12 months			(1)
NDTF [Member]
Fair value of investments	459		226
U.S. Government Bonds [Member]
Fair Value	84		38
Unrealized Loss Position less than 12 months			(1)
Auction Rate Securities [Member]
Fair Value	71	[1]	118	[1]
Unrealized Loss Position greater than 12 months	(19)	[1]	(31)	[1]
Other Debt Securities [Member]
Fair Value	115		84
Unrealized Loss Position greater than 12 months	(1)		(1)
Unrealized Loss Position less than 12 months	(1)		(3)
Duke Energy Indiana Grantor Trust [Member]
Fair value of investments	$ 15		$ 5

[1] The table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $364 million and $63 million, respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains and losses of $505 million and $32 million, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the NDTF. Additionally, the table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $2 million and $1 million respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains of $6 million and an insignificant amount of unrealized losses, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust. As discussed above, unrealized losses on investments within the NDTF and Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are deferred as a regulatory asset pursuant to regulatory accounting treatment.

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements Of Member's Equity and Comprehensive Income - Carolinas (USD $) In Millions		Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] Member's Equity [Member]	Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] Net (Losses) Gains On Cash Flow Hedges [Member]		Duke Energy Carolinas [Member] Other Equity [Member]		Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]		Net (Losses) Gains On Cash Flow Hedges [Member]		Other Equity [Member]		Total
Balance at Dec. 31, 2009		$ 8,304	$ (24)		$ (9)		$ 8,271
Net income (loss)		709					709						894
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges			2	[1]			2	[1]	(2)	[2]			(2)	[2]
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities					2	[3]	2	[3]			8	[4]	8	[4]
Total comprehensive income (loss)							713						971
Dividends to parent		(350)					(350)
Balance at Sep. 30, 2010		8,663	(22)		(7)		8,634
Balance at Jun. 30, 2010
Net income (loss)							315						666
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities	[5]												2
Total comprehensive income (loss)													765
Balance at Sep. 30, 2010							8,634
Balance at Dec. 31, 2010		8,938	(20)		(2)		8,916
Net income (loss)		709					709						1,424
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges			3	[1]			3	[1]	(3)	[2]			(3)	[2]
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities	[4]										7		7
Total comprehensive income (loss)							712						1,226
Balance at Sep. 30, 2011		9,647	(17)		(2)		9,628
Balance at Jun. 30, 2011
Net income (loss)							311						470
Other comprehensive income (loss)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges	[5]												1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities	[6]												3
Total comprehensive income (loss)													182
Balance at Sep. 30, 2011					$ (2)		$ 9,628

[1] Net of $1 tax expense in 2011 and 2010.

[2] Net of $1 tax expense in 2011 and insignificant tax benefit in 2010.

[3] Net of $1 tax expense in 2010.

[4] Net of $6 tax expense in 2011 and $4 tax expense in 2010.

[5] Net of insignificant tax expense.

[6] Net of $5 million tax expense.

XML

Debt And Credit Facilities

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Debt And Credit Facilities

6. Debt and Credit Facilities

Significant changes to the Duke Energy Registrants' debt and credit facilities since December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Unsecured Debt. In August 2011, Duke Energy issued $500 million principal amount of senior notes, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.55% and mature September 15, 2021. Proceeds from the issuance will be used to repay a portion of Duke Energy's commercial paper as it matures, to fund capital expenditures in Duke Energy's unregulated businesses in the U.S. and for general corporate purposes.

First Mortgage Bonds. In May 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas issued $500 million principal amount of first mortgage bonds, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.90% and mature June 15, 2021. Proceeds from this issuance were used to fund capital expenditures and for general corporate purposes.

Other Debt. In April 2011, Duke Energy filed a registration statement (Form S-3) with the SEC to sell up to $1 billion of variable denomination floating rate demand notes, called PremierNotes. The Form S-3 states that no more than $500 million of the notes will be outstanding at any particular time. The notes are offered on a continuous basis and bear interest at a floating rate per annum determined by the Duke Energy PremierNotes Committee, or its designee, on a weekly basis. The interest rate payable on notes held by an investor may vary based on the principal amount of the investment. The notes have no stated maturity date, but may be redeemed in whole or in part by Duke Energy at any time. The notes are non-transferable and may be redeemed in whole or in part at the investor's option. Proceeds from the sale of the notes will be used for general corporate purposes. The balance as of September 30, 2011 is $30 million. The notes reflect a short-term debt obligation of Duke Energy and are reflected as Notes payable on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas had $750 million principal amount of 6.25% senior unsecured notes due January 2012 classified as Current maturities of long-term debt on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2010, these notes were classified as Long-term Debt on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas currently anticipates satisfying this obligation with proceeds from additional borrowings.

At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio had $500 million principal amount of 5.70% debentures due September 2012 classified as Current maturities of long-term debt on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2010, these notes were classified as Long-term Debt on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Ohio currently anticipates satisfying this obligation with proceeds from additional borrowings.

As discussed below, Duke Energy also issued an additional $450 million in Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011, for general corporate purposes, which is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Non-Recourse Notes Payable of VIEs. To fund the purchase of receivables, Cinergy Receivables borrows from third parties and such borrowings fluctuate based on the amount of receivables sold to Cinergy Receivables. The borrowings are secured by the assets of Cinergy Receivables and are non-recourse to Duke Energy. The debt is recorded as short-term and Duke Energy extended the expiration date to October 2012 subsequent to September 30, 2011. At September 30, 2011, Cinergy Receivables borrowings were $275 million and are reflected as Non-Recourse Notes Payable of VIEs on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Money Pool. The Subsidiary Registrants receive support for their short-term borrowing needs through participation with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries in a money pool arrangement. Under this arrangement, those companies with short-term funds may provide short-term loans to affiliates participating under this arrangement. The money pool is structured such that the Subsidiary Registrants separately manage their cash needs and working capital requirements. Accordingly, there is no net settlement of receivables and payables related to the money pool between the money pool participants. Per the terms of the money pool arrangement, the parent companies, Duke Energy and Cinergy may loan funds to its participating subsidiaries, but may not borrow funds through the money pool. Accordingly, as the money pool activity is between Duke Energy and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, all money pool balances are eliminated within Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following table shows the Subsidiary Registrants' money pool balances and classification within their respective Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:

	September 30, 2011						December 31, 2010
	Receivables		Notes Payable		Long-term Debt		Receivables		Long-term Debt
					(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	589	$	—	$	300	$	339	$	300
Duke Energy Ohio		259		—		—		480		—
Duke Energy Indiana		—		14		150		115		150

Increases or decreases in money pool receivables are reflected within investing activities on the respective Subsidiary Registrants' Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, while increases or decreases in money pool borrowings are reflected within financing activities on the respective Subsidiary Registrants Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

Available Credit Facilities. The total capacity under Duke Energy's master credit facility, which expires in June 2012, is $3.14 billion. The credit facility contains an option allowing borrowing up to the full amount of the facility on the day of initial expiration for up to one year. The Duke Energy Registrants each have borrowing capacity under the master credit facility up to specified sub limits for each borrower. However, Duke Energy has the unilateral ability at any time to increase or decrease the borrowing sub limits of each borrower, subject to a maximum sub limit for each borrower. See the table below for the borrowing sub limits for each of the borrowers as of September 30, 2011. The amount available under the master credit facility has been reduced, as indicated in the table below, by the use of the master credit facility to backstop the issuances of commercial paper, letters of credit and certain tax-exempt bonds. As indicated, borrowing sub limits for the Subsidiary Registrants are also reduced for amounts outstanding under the money pool arrangement.

Master Credit Facility Summary as of September 30, 2011 (in millions)^(a)(b)

	Duke Energy			Duke Energy Carolinas			Duke Energy Ohio			Duke Energy Indiana			Total
Facility Size(c)	$	1,097		$	840		$	750		$	450		$	3,137
Less:
Notes Payable and Commercial Paper(d)		(450	)		(300	)		—			(150	)		(900	)
Outstanding Letters of Credit		(46	)		(7	)		(27	)		—			(80	)
Tax-Exempt Bonds		(25	)		(95	)		(84	)		(81	)		(285	)
Available Capacity	$	576		$	438		$	639		$	219		$	1,872

(a) This summary only includes Duke Energy's master credit facility and, accordingly, excludes certain demand facilities and committed facilities that are insignificant in size or which generally support very specific requirements, which primarily include facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds. These facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds generally have non-cancelable terms in excess of one year from the balance sheet date, such that the Duke Energy Registrants have the ability to refinance such borrowings on a long-term basis. Accordingly, such borrowings are reflected as Long-term Debt on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of the respective Duke Energy Registrant.

(b) Credit facility contains a covenant requiring the debt-to-total capitalization ratio to not exceed 65% for each borrower.

(c) Represents the sub limit of each borrower at September 30, 2011. The Duke Energy Ohio sub limit includes $100 million for Duke Energy Kentucky.

(d) Duke Energy issued $450 million of Commercial Paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana (see money pool table above). The balances are classified as long-term borrowings within Long-term Debt in Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy issued an additional $450 million of Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011. The balance is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Duke Energy began negotiating a replacement of its master credit facility in October 2011. Duke Energy expects to execute a new five-year $6 billion master credit facility in the fourth quarter of 2011, with $4 billion available at closing and the remaining $2 billion available on or soon after the closing of the proposed merger with Progress Energy. The master credit facility will include borrowing sub limits for certain subsidiaries, similar to the current facility.

Restrictive Debt Covenants. The Duke Energy Registrants' debt and credit agreements contain various financial and other covenants. Failure to meet those covenants beyond applicable grace periods could result in accelerated due dates and/or termination of the agreements. As of September 30, 2011, each of the Duke Energy Registrants was in compliance with all covenants related to its significant debt agreements. In addition, some credit agreements may allow for acceleration of payments or termination of the agreements due to nonpayment, or the acceleration of other significant indebtedness of the borrower or some of its subsidiaries. None of the significant debt or credit agreements contain material adverse change clauses.

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Debt And Credit Facilities

6. Debt and Credit Facilities

Significant changes to the Duke Energy Registrants' debt and credit facilities since December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Unsecured Debt. In August 2011, Duke Energy issued $500 million principal amount of senior notes, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.55% and mature September 15, 2021. Proceeds from the issuance will be used to repay a portion of Duke Energy's commercial paper as it matures, to fund capital expenditures in Duke Energy's unregulated businesses in the U.S. and for general corporate purposes.

First Mortgage Bonds. In May 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas issued $500 million principal amount of first mortgage bonds, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.90% and mature June 15, 2021. Proceeds from this issuance were used to fund capital expenditures and for general corporate purposes.

Other Debt. In April 2011, Duke Energy filed a registration statement (Form S-3) with the SEC to sell up to $1 billion of variable denomination floating rate demand notes, called PremierNotes. The Form S-3 states that no more than $500 million of the notes will be outstanding at any particular time. The notes are offered on a continuous basis and bear interest at a floating rate per annum determined by the Duke Energy PremierNotes Committee, or its designee, on a weekly basis. The interest rate payable on notes held by an investor may vary based on the principal amount of the investment. The notes have no stated maturity date, but may be redeemed in whole or in part by Duke Energy at any time. The notes are non-transferable and may be redeemed in whole or in part at the investor's option. Proceeds from the sale of the notes will be used for general corporate purposes. The balance as of September 30, 2011 is $30 million. The notes reflect a short-term debt obligation of Duke Energy and are reflected as Notes payable on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas had $750 million principal amount of 6.25% senior unsecured notes due January 2012 classified as Current maturities of long-term debt on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2010, these notes were classified as Long-term Debt on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas currently anticipates satisfying this obligation with proceeds from additional borrowings.

At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio had $500 million principal amount of 5.70% debentures due September 2012 classified as Current maturities of long-term debt on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2010, these notes were classified as Long-term Debt on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Ohio currently anticipates satisfying this obligation with proceeds from additional borrowings.

As discussed below, Duke Energy also issued an additional $450 million in Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011, for general corporate purposes, which is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Non-Recourse Notes Payable of VIEs. To fund the purchase of receivables, Cinergy Receivables borrows from third parties and such borrowings fluctuate based on the amount of receivables sold to Cinergy Receivables. The borrowings are secured by the assets of Cinergy Receivables and are non-recourse to Duke Energy. The debt is recorded as short-term and Duke Energy extended the expiration date to October 2012 subsequent to September 30, 2011. At September 30, 2011, Cinergy Receivables borrowings were $275 million and are reflected as Non-Recourse Notes Payable of VIEs on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Money Pool. The Subsidiary Registrants receive support for their short-term borrowing needs through participation with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries in a money pool arrangement. Under this arrangement, those companies with short-term funds may provide short-term loans to affiliates participating under this arrangement. The money pool is structured such that the Subsidiary Registrants separately manage their cash needs and working capital requirements. Accordingly, there is no net settlement of receivables and payables related to the money pool between the money pool participants. Per the terms of the money pool arrangement, the parent companies, Duke Energy and Cinergy may loan funds to its participating subsidiaries, but may not borrow funds through the money pool. Accordingly, as the money pool activity is between Duke Energy and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, all money pool balances are eliminated within Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following table shows the Subsidiary Registrants' money pool balances and classification within their respective Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:

	September 30, 2011						December 31, 2010
	Receivables		Notes Payable		Long-term Debt		Receivables		Long-term Debt
					(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	589	$	—	$	300	$	339	$	300
Duke Energy Ohio		259		—		—		480		—
Duke Energy Indiana		—		14		150		115		150

Increases or decreases in money pool receivables are reflected within investing activities on the respective Subsidiary Registrants' Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, while increases or decreases in money pool borrowings are reflected within financing activities on the respective Subsidiary Registrants Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

Available Credit Facilities. The total capacity under Duke Energy's master credit facility, which expires in June 2012, is $3.14 billion. The credit facility contains an option allowing borrowing up to the full amount of the facility on the day of initial expiration for up to one year. The Duke Energy Registrants each have borrowing capacity under the master credit facility up to specified sub limits for each borrower. However, Duke Energy has the unilateral ability at any time to increase or decrease the borrowing sub limits of each borrower, subject to a maximum sub limit for each borrower. See the table below for the borrowing sub limits for each of the borrowers as of September 30, 2011. The amount available under the master credit facility has been reduced, as indicated in the table below, by the use of the master credit facility to backstop the issuances of commercial paper, letters of credit and certain tax-exempt bonds. As indicated, borrowing sub limits for the Subsidiary Registrants are also reduced for amounts outstanding under the money pool arrangement.

Master Credit Facility Summary as of September 30, 2011 (in millions)^(a)(b)

	Duke Energy			Duke Energy Carolinas			Duke Energy Ohio			Duke Energy Indiana			Total
Facility Size(c)	$	1,097		$	840		$	750		$	450		$	3,137
Less:
Notes Payable and Commercial Paper(d)		(450	)		(300	)		—			(150	)		(900	)
Outstanding Letters of Credit		(46	)		(7	)		(27	)		—			(80	)
Tax-Exempt Bonds		(25	)		(95	)		(84	)		(81	)		(285	)
Available Capacity	$	576		$	438		$	639		$	219		$	1,872

(a) This summary only includes Duke Energy's master credit facility and, accordingly, excludes certain demand facilities and committed facilities that are insignificant in size or which generally support very specific requirements, which primarily include facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds. These facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds generally have non-cancelable terms in excess of one year from the balance sheet date, such that the Duke Energy Registrants have the ability to refinance such borrowings on a long-term basis. Accordingly, such borrowings are reflected as Long-term Debt on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of the respective Duke Energy Registrant.

(b) Credit facility contains a covenant requiring the debt-to-total capitalization ratio to not exceed 65% for each borrower.

(c) Represents the sub limit of each borrower at September 30, 2011. The Duke Energy Ohio sub limit includes $100 million for Duke Energy Kentucky.

(d) Duke Energy issued $450 million of Commercial Paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana (see money pool table above). The balances are classified as long-term borrowings within Long-term Debt in Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy issued an additional $450 million of Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011. The balance is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Duke Energy began negotiating a replacement of its master credit facility in October 2011. Duke Energy expects to execute a new five-year $6 billion master credit facility in the fourth quarter of 2011, with $4 billion available at closing and the remaining $2 billion available on or soon after the closing of the proposed merger with Progress Energy. The master credit facility will include borrowing sub limits for certain subsidiaries, similar to the current facility.

Restrictive Debt Covenants. The Duke Energy Registrants' debt and credit agreements contain various financial and other covenants. Failure to meet those covenants beyond applicable grace periods could result in accelerated due dates and/or termination of the agreements. As of September 30, 2011, each of the Duke Energy Registrants was in compliance with all covenants related to its significant debt agreements. In addition, some credit agreements may allow for acceleration of payments or termination of the agreements due to nonpayment, or the acceleration of other significant indebtedness of the borrower or some of its subsidiaries. None of the significant debt or credit agreements contain material adverse change clauses.

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Debt And Credit Facilities

6. Debt and Credit Facilities

Significant changes to the Duke Energy Registrants' debt and credit facilities since December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Unsecured Debt. In August 2011, Duke Energy issued $500 million principal amount of senior notes, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.55% and mature September 15, 2021. Proceeds from the issuance will be used to repay a portion of Duke Energy's commercial paper as it matures, to fund capital expenditures in Duke Energy's unregulated businesses in the U.S. and for general corporate purposes.

First Mortgage Bonds. In May 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas issued $500 million principal amount of first mortgage bonds, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.90% and mature June 15, 2021. Proceeds from this issuance were used to fund capital expenditures and for general corporate purposes.

Other Debt. In April 2011, Duke Energy filed a registration statement (Form S-3) with the SEC to sell up to $1 billion of variable denomination floating rate demand notes, called PremierNotes. The Form S-3 states that no more than $500 million of the notes will be outstanding at any particular time. The notes are offered on a continuous basis and bear interest at a floating rate per annum determined by the Duke Energy PremierNotes Committee, or its designee, on a weekly basis. The interest rate payable on notes held by an investor may vary based on the principal amount of the investment. The notes have no stated maturity date, but may be redeemed in whole or in part by Duke Energy at any time. The notes are non-transferable and may be redeemed in whole or in part at the investor's option. Proceeds from the sale of the notes will be used for general corporate purposes. The balance as of September 30, 2011 is $30 million. The notes reflect a short-term debt obligation of Duke Energy and are reflected as Notes payable on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas had $750 million principal amount of 6.25% senior unsecured notes due January 2012 classified as Current maturities of long-term debt on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2010, these notes were classified as Long-term Debt on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas currently anticipates satisfying this obligation with proceeds from additional borrowings.

At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio had $500 million principal amount of 5.70% debentures due September 2012 classified as Current maturities of long-term debt on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2010, these notes were classified as Long-term Debt on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Ohio currently anticipates satisfying this obligation with proceeds from additional borrowings.

As discussed below, Duke Energy also issued an additional $450 million in Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011, for general corporate purposes, which is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Non-Recourse Notes Payable of VIEs. To fund the purchase of receivables, Cinergy Receivables borrows from third parties and such borrowings fluctuate based on the amount of receivables sold to Cinergy Receivables. The borrowings are secured by the assets of Cinergy Receivables and are non-recourse to Duke Energy. The debt is recorded as short-term and Duke Energy extended the expiration date to October 2012 subsequent to September 30, 2011. At September 30, 2011, Cinergy Receivables borrowings were $275 million and are reflected as Non-Recourse Notes Payable of VIEs on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Money Pool. The Subsidiary Registrants receive support for their short-term borrowing needs through participation with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries in a money pool arrangement. Under this arrangement, those companies with short-term funds may provide short-term loans to affiliates participating under this arrangement. The money pool is structured such that the Subsidiary Registrants separately manage their cash needs and working capital requirements. Accordingly, there is no net settlement of receivables and payables related to the money pool between the money pool participants. Per the terms of the money pool arrangement, the parent companies, Duke Energy and Cinergy may loan funds to its participating subsidiaries, but may not borrow funds through the money pool. Accordingly, as the money pool activity is between Duke Energy and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, all money pool balances are eliminated within Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following table shows the Subsidiary Registrants' money pool balances and classification within their respective Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:

	September 30, 2011						December 31, 2010
	Receivables		Notes Payable		Long-term Debt		Receivables		Long-term Debt
					(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	589	$	—	$	300	$	339	$	300
Duke Energy Ohio		259		—		—		480		—
Duke Energy Indiana		—		14		150		115		150

Increases or decreases in money pool receivables are reflected within investing activities on the respective Subsidiary Registrants' Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, while increases or decreases in money pool borrowings are reflected within financing activities on the respective Subsidiary Registrants Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

Available Credit Facilities. The total capacity under Duke Energy's master credit facility, which expires in June 2012, is $3.14 billion. The credit facility contains an option allowing borrowing up to the full amount of the facility on the day of initial expiration for up to one year. The Duke Energy Registrants each have borrowing capacity under the master credit facility up to specified sub limits for each borrower. However, Duke Energy has the unilateral ability at any time to increase or decrease the borrowing sub limits of each borrower, subject to a maximum sub limit for each borrower. See the table below for the borrowing sub limits for each of the borrowers as of September 30, 2011. The amount available under the master credit facility has been reduced, as indicated in the table below, by the use of the master credit facility to backstop the issuances of commercial paper, letters of credit and certain tax-exempt bonds. As indicated, borrowing sub limits for the Subsidiary Registrants are also reduced for amounts outstanding under the money pool arrangement.

Master Credit Facility Summary as of September 30, 2011 (in millions)^(a)(b)

	Duke Energy			Duke Energy Carolinas			Duke Energy Ohio			Duke Energy Indiana			Total
Facility Size(c)	$	1,097		$	840		$	750		$	450		$	3,137
Less:
Notes Payable and Commercial Paper(d)		(450	)		(300	)		—			(150	)		(900	)
Outstanding Letters of Credit		(46	)		(7	)		(27	)		—			(80	)
Tax-Exempt Bonds		(25	)		(95	)		(84	)		(81	)		(285	)
Available Capacity	$	576		$	438		$	639		$	219		$	1,872

(a) This summary only includes Duke Energy's master credit facility and, accordingly, excludes certain demand facilities and committed facilities that are insignificant in size or which generally support very specific requirements, which primarily include facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds. These facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds generally have non-cancelable terms in excess of one year from the balance sheet date, such that the Duke Energy Registrants have the ability to refinance such borrowings on a long-term basis. Accordingly, such borrowings are reflected as Long-term Debt on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of the respective Duke Energy Registrant.

(b) Credit facility contains a covenant requiring the debt-to-total capitalization ratio to not exceed 65% for each borrower.

(c) Represents the sub limit of each borrower at September 30, 2011. The Duke Energy Ohio sub limit includes $100 million for Duke Energy Kentucky.

(d) Duke Energy issued $450 million of Commercial Paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana (see money pool table above). The balances are classified as long-term borrowings within Long-term Debt in Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy issued an additional $450 million of Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011. The balance is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Duke Energy began negotiating a replacement of its master credit facility in October 2011. Duke Energy expects to execute a new five-year $6 billion master credit facility in the fourth quarter of 2011, with $4 billion available at closing and the remaining $2 billion available on or soon after the closing of the proposed merger with Progress Energy. The master credit facility will include borrowing sub limits for certain subsidiaries, similar to the current facility.

Restrictive Debt Covenants. The Duke Energy Registrants' debt and credit agreements contain various financial and other covenants. Failure to meet those covenants beyond applicable grace periods could result in accelerated due dates and/or termination of the agreements. As of September 30, 2011, each of the Duke Energy Registrants was in compliance with all covenants related to its significant debt agreements. In addition, some credit agreements may allow for acceleration of payments or termination of the agreements due to nonpayment, or the acceleration of other significant indebtedness of the borrower or some of its subsidiaries. None of the significant debt or credit agreements contain material adverse change clauses.

Duke Energy Ohio [Member]

Debt And Credit Facilities

6. Debt and Credit Facilities

Significant changes to the Duke Energy Registrants' debt and credit facilities since December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Unsecured Debt. In August 2011, Duke Energy issued $500 million principal amount of senior notes, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.55% and mature September 15, 2021. Proceeds from the issuance will be used to repay a portion of Duke Energy's commercial paper as it matures, to fund capital expenditures in Duke Energy's unregulated businesses in the U.S. and for general corporate purposes.

First Mortgage Bonds. In May 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas issued $500 million principal amount of first mortgage bonds, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.90% and mature June 15, 2021. Proceeds from this issuance were used to fund capital expenditures and for general corporate purposes.

Other Debt. In April 2011, Duke Energy filed a registration statement (Form S-3) with the SEC to sell up to $1 billion of variable denomination floating rate demand notes, called PremierNotes. The Form S-3 states that no more than $500 million of the notes will be outstanding at any particular time. The notes are offered on a continuous basis and bear interest at a floating rate per annum determined by the Duke Energy PremierNotes Committee, or its designee, on a weekly basis. The interest rate payable on notes held by an investor may vary based on the principal amount of the investment. The notes have no stated maturity date, but may be redeemed in whole or in part by Duke Energy at any time. The notes are non-transferable and may be redeemed in whole or in part at the investor's option. Proceeds from the sale of the notes will be used for general corporate purposes. The balance as of September 30, 2011 is $30 million. The notes reflect a short-term debt obligation of Duke Energy and are reflected as Notes payable on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas had $750 million principal amount of 6.25% senior unsecured notes due January 2012 classified as Current maturities of long-term debt on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2010, these notes were classified as Long-term Debt on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas currently anticipates satisfying this obligation with proceeds from additional borrowings.

At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio had $500 million principal amount of 5.70% debentures due September 2012 classified as Current maturities of long-term debt on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2010, these notes were classified as Long-term Debt on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Ohio currently anticipates satisfying this obligation with proceeds from additional borrowings.

As discussed below, Duke Energy also issued an additional $450 million in Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011, for general corporate purposes, which is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Non-Recourse Notes Payable of VIEs. To fund the purchase of receivables, Cinergy Receivables borrows from third parties and such borrowings fluctuate based on the amount of receivables sold to Cinergy Receivables. The borrowings are secured by the assets of Cinergy Receivables and are non-recourse to Duke Energy. The debt is recorded as short-term and Duke Energy extended the expiration date to October 2012 subsequent to September 30, 2011. At September 30, 2011, Cinergy Receivables borrowings were $275 million and are reflected as Non-Recourse Notes Payable of VIEs on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Money Pool. The Subsidiary Registrants receive support for their short-term borrowing needs through participation with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries in a money pool arrangement. Under this arrangement, those companies with short-term funds may provide short-term loans to affiliates participating under this arrangement. The money pool is structured such that the Subsidiary Registrants separately manage their cash needs and working capital requirements. Accordingly, there is no net settlement of receivables and payables related to the money pool between the money pool participants. Per the terms of the money pool arrangement, the parent companies, Duke Energy and Cinergy may loan funds to its participating subsidiaries, but may not borrow funds through the money pool. Accordingly, as the money pool activity is between Duke Energy and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, all money pool balances are eliminated within Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following table shows the Subsidiary Registrants' money pool balances and classification within their respective Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:

	September 30, 2011						December 31, 2010
	Receivables		Notes Payable		Long-term Debt		Receivables		Long-term Debt
					(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	589	$	—	$	300	$	339	$	300
Duke Energy Ohio		259		—		—		480		—
Duke Energy Indiana		—		14		150		115		150

Increases or decreases in money pool receivables are reflected within investing activities on the respective Subsidiary Registrants' Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, while increases or decreases in money pool borrowings are reflected within financing activities on the respective Subsidiary Registrants Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

Available Credit Facilities. The total capacity under Duke Energy's master credit facility, which expires in June 2012, is $3.14 billion. The credit facility contains an option allowing borrowing up to the full amount of the facility on the day of initial expiration for up to one year. The Duke Energy Registrants each have borrowing capacity under the master credit facility up to specified sub limits for each borrower. However, Duke Energy has the unilateral ability at any time to increase or decrease the borrowing sub limits of each borrower, subject to a maximum sub limit for each borrower. See the table below for the borrowing sub limits for each of the borrowers as of September 30, 2011. The amount available under the master credit facility has been reduced, as indicated in the table below, by the use of the master credit facility to backstop the issuances of commercial paper, letters of credit and certain tax-exempt bonds. As indicated, borrowing sub limits for the Subsidiary Registrants are also reduced for amounts outstanding under the money pool arrangement.

Master Credit Facility Summary as of September 30, 2011 (in millions)^(a)(b)

	Duke Energy			Duke Energy Carolinas			Duke Energy Ohio			Duke Energy Indiana			Total
Facility Size(c)	$	1,097		$	840		$	750		$	450		$	3,137
Less:
Notes Payable and Commercial Paper(d)		(450	)		(300	)		—			(150	)		(900	)
Outstanding Letters of Credit		(46	)		(7	)		(27	)		—			(80	)
Tax-Exempt Bonds		(25	)		(95	)		(84	)		(81	)		(285	)
Available Capacity	$	576		$	438		$	639		$	219		$	1,872

(a) This summary only includes Duke Energy's master credit facility and, accordingly, excludes certain demand facilities and committed facilities that are insignificant in size or which generally support very specific requirements, which primarily include facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds. These facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds generally have non-cancelable terms in excess of one year from the balance sheet date, such that the Duke Energy Registrants have the ability to refinance such borrowings on a long-term basis. Accordingly, such borrowings are reflected as Long-term Debt on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of the respective Duke Energy Registrant.

(b) Credit facility contains a covenant requiring the debt-to-total capitalization ratio to not exceed 65% for each borrower.

(c) Represents the sub limit of each borrower at September 30, 2011. The Duke Energy Ohio sub limit includes $100 million for Duke Energy Kentucky.

(d) Duke Energy issued $450 million of Commercial Paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana (see money pool table above). The balances are classified as long-term borrowings within Long-term Debt in Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy issued an additional $450 million of Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011. The balance is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Duke Energy began negotiating a replacement of its master credit facility in October 2011. Duke Energy expects to execute a new five-year $6 billion master credit facility in the fourth quarter of 2011, with $4 billion available at closing and the remaining $2 billion available on or soon after the closing of the proposed merger with Progress Energy. The master credit facility will include borrowing sub limits for certain subsidiaries, similar to the current facility.

Restrictive Debt Covenants. The Duke Energy Registrants' debt and credit agreements contain various financial and other covenants. Failure to meet those covenants beyond applicable grace periods could result in accelerated due dates and/or termination of the agreements. As of September 30, 2011, each of the Duke Energy Registrants was in compliance with all covenants related to its significant debt agreements. In addition, some credit agreements may allow for acceleration of payments or termination of the agreements due to nonpayment, or the acceleration of other significant indebtedness of the borrower or some of its subsidiaries. None of the significant debt or credit agreements contain material adverse change clauses.

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Debt And Credit Facilities

6. Debt and Credit Facilities

Significant changes to the Duke Energy Registrants' debt and credit facilities since December 31, 2010 are as follows:

Unsecured Debt. In August 2011, Duke Energy issued $500 million principal amount of senior notes, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.55% and mature September 15, 2021. Proceeds from the issuance will be used to repay a portion of Duke Energy's commercial paper as it matures, to fund capital expenditures in Duke Energy's unregulated businesses in the U.S. and for general corporate purposes.

First Mortgage Bonds. In May 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas issued $500 million principal amount of first mortgage bonds, which carry a fixed interest rate of 3.90% and mature June 15, 2021. Proceeds from this issuance were used to fund capital expenditures and for general corporate purposes.

Other Debt. In April 2011, Duke Energy filed a registration statement (Form S-3) with the SEC to sell up to $1 billion of variable denomination floating rate demand notes, called PremierNotes. The Form S-3 states that no more than $500 million of the notes will be outstanding at any particular time. The notes are offered on a continuous basis and bear interest at a floating rate per annum determined by the Duke Energy PremierNotes Committee, or its designee, on a weekly basis. The interest rate payable on notes held by an investor may vary based on the principal amount of the investment. The notes have no stated maturity date, but may be redeemed in whole or in part by Duke Energy at any time. The notes are non-transferable and may be redeemed in whole or in part at the investor's option. Proceeds from the sale of the notes will be used for general corporate purposes. The balance as of September 30, 2011 is $30 million. The notes reflect a short-term debt obligation of Duke Energy and are reflected as Notes payable on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas had $750 million principal amount of 6.25% senior unsecured notes due January 2012 classified as Current maturities of long-term debt on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2010, these notes were classified as Long-term Debt on Duke Energy Carolinas' Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas currently anticipates satisfying this obligation with proceeds from additional borrowings.

At September 30, 2011, Duke Energy Ohio had $500 million principal amount of 5.70% debentures due September 2012 classified as Current maturities of long-term debt on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2010, these notes were classified as Long-term Debt on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Ohio currently anticipates satisfying this obligation with proceeds from additional borrowings.

As discussed below, Duke Energy also issued an additional $450 million in Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011, for general corporate purposes, which is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Non-Recourse Notes Payable of VIEs. To fund the purchase of receivables, Cinergy Receivables borrows from third parties and such borrowings fluctuate based on the amount of receivables sold to Cinergy Receivables. The borrowings are secured by the assets of Cinergy Receivables and are non-recourse to Duke Energy. The debt is recorded as short-term and Duke Energy extended the expiration date to October 2012 subsequent to September 30, 2011. At September 30, 2011, Cinergy Receivables borrowings were $275 million and are reflected as Non-Recourse Notes Payable of VIEs on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Money Pool. The Subsidiary Registrants receive support for their short-term borrowing needs through participation with Duke Energy and certain of its subsidiaries in a money pool arrangement. Under this arrangement, those companies with short-term funds may provide short-term loans to affiliates participating under this arrangement. The money pool is structured such that the Subsidiary Registrants separately manage their cash needs and working capital requirements. Accordingly, there is no net settlement of receivables and payables related to the money pool between the money pool participants. Per the terms of the money pool arrangement, the parent companies, Duke Energy and Cinergy may loan funds to its participating subsidiaries, but may not borrow funds through the money pool. Accordingly, as the money pool activity is between Duke Energy and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, all money pool balances are eliminated within Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following table shows the Subsidiary Registrants' money pool balances and classification within their respective Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:

	September 30, 2011						December 31, 2010
	Receivables		Notes Payable		Long-term Debt		Receivables		Long-term Debt
					(in millions)
Duke Energy Carolinas	$	589	$	—	$	300	$	339	$	300
Duke Energy Ohio		259		—		—		480		—
Duke Energy Indiana		—		14		150		115		150

Increases or decreases in money pool receivables are reflected within investing activities on the respective Subsidiary Registrants' Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, while increases or decreases in money pool borrowings are reflected within financing activities on the respective Subsidiary Registrants Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

Available Credit Facilities. The total capacity under Duke Energy's master credit facility, which expires in June 2012, is $3.14 billion. The credit facility contains an option allowing borrowing up to the full amount of the facility on the day of initial expiration for up to one year. The Duke Energy Registrants each have borrowing capacity under the master credit facility up to specified sub limits for each borrower. However, Duke Energy has the unilateral ability at any time to increase or decrease the borrowing sub limits of each borrower, subject to a maximum sub limit for each borrower. See the table below for the borrowing sub limits for each of the borrowers as of September 30, 2011. The amount available under the master credit facility has been reduced, as indicated in the table below, by the use of the master credit facility to backstop the issuances of commercial paper, letters of credit and certain tax-exempt bonds. As indicated, borrowing sub limits for the Subsidiary Registrants are also reduced for amounts outstanding under the money pool arrangement.

Master Credit Facility Summary as of September 30, 2011 (in millions)^(a)(b)

	Duke Energy			Duke Energy Carolinas			Duke Energy Ohio			Duke Energy Indiana			Total
Facility Size(c)	$	1,097		$	840		$	750		$	450		$	3,137
Less:
Notes Payable and Commercial Paper(d)		(450	)		(300	)		—			(150	)		(900	)
Outstanding Letters of Credit		(46	)		(7	)		(27	)		—			(80	)
Tax-Exempt Bonds		(25	)		(95	)		(84	)		(81	)		(285	)
Available Capacity	$	576		$	438		$	639		$	219		$	1,872

(a) This summary only includes Duke Energy's master credit facility and, accordingly, excludes certain demand facilities and committed facilities that are insignificant in size or which generally support very specific requirements, which primarily include facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds. These facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds generally have non-cancelable terms in excess of one year from the balance sheet date, such that the Duke Energy Registrants have the ability to refinance such borrowings on a long-term basis. Accordingly, such borrowings are reflected as Long-term Debt on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of the respective Duke Energy Registrant.

(b) Credit facility contains a covenant requiring the debt-to-total capitalization ratio to not exceed 65% for each borrower.

(c) Represents the sub limit of each borrower at September 30, 2011. The Duke Energy Ohio sub limit includes $100 million for Duke Energy Kentucky.

(d) Duke Energy issued $450 million of Commercial Paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana (see money pool table above). The balances are classified as long-term borrowings within Long-term Debt in Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy issued an additional $450 million of Commercial Paper in the third quarter of 2011. The balance is classified as Notes payable and commercial paper on Duke Energy's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Duke Energy began negotiating a replacement of its master credit facility in October 2011. Duke Energy expects to execute a new five-year $6 billion master credit facility in the fourth quarter of 2011, with $4 billion available at closing and the remaining $2 billion available on or soon after the closing of the proposed merger with Progress Energy. The master credit facility will include borrowing sub limits for certain subsidiaries, similar to the current facility.

Restrictive Debt Covenants. The Duke Energy Registrants' debt and credit agreements contain various financial and other covenants. Failure to meet those covenants beyond applicable grace periods could result in accelerated due dates and/or termination of the agreements. As of September 30, 2011, each of the Duke Energy Registrants was in compliance with all covenants related to its significant debt agreements. In addition, some credit agreements may allow for acceleration of payments or termination of the agreements due to nonpayment, or the acceleration of other significant indebtedness of the borrower or some of its subsidiaries. None of the significant debt or credit agreements contain material adverse change clauses.

XML

Goodwill, Intangible Assets And Impairments (Goodwill By Reportable Operating Segment) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011
Goodwill before accumulated impairment charges	$ 4,729	$ 4,718
Goodwill accumulated impairment charges	(871)	(871)
Foreign Exchange and Other Changes	(11)
Goodwill as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges	3,858	3,847
USFE&G [Member]
Goodwill before accumulated impairment charges	3,483	3,483
Goodwill accumulated impairment charges
Foreign Exchange and Other Changes
Goodwill as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges	3,483	3,483
Commercial Power [Member]
Goodwill before accumulated impairment charges	940	940
Goodwill accumulated impairment charges	(871)	(871)
Foreign Exchange and Other Changes
Goodwill as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges	69	69
International [Member]
Goodwill before accumulated impairment charges	306	295
Goodwill accumulated impairment charges
Foreign Exchange and Other Changes	(11)
Goodwill as adjusted for accumulated impairment charges	$ 306	$ 295

XML

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities (Cash Flow Hedges - Location And Amount Of Pre-Tax Losses Recognized In Comprehensive Income) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010
Total Pre-tax Losses Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$ (1)	$ (1)	$ (4)	$ (3)
Interest Expense [Member]
Total Pre-tax Losses Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	(1)	(2)	(4)	(4)
Commodity Contracts [Member]
Total Pre-tax Losses Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings		$ 1		$ 1

XML

Variable Interest Entities (Narrative) (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011 Minimum [Member]	Sep. 30, 2011 Maximum [Member]	Dec. 31, 2010 DERF [Member]	Dec. 31, 2010 Duke Energy Corp [Member]	Dec. 31, 2010 DukeNet And Alinda Capital Partners LLC Ownership In The New Joint Venture [Member]	Dec. 31, 2010 DukeNet [Member]
Subordinated retained interest limitation of the total proceeds		25.00%
Receivables to maintain minimum equity balance	$ 3	$ 3
Equity infusion to Cinergy Receivables	4	6	10
Borrowing limitation		75.00%
Secured credit facility of VIEs						300
Proceeds received for sale of receivables, portion received as note payable	25.00%	25.00%
Assumptions used in an unfavorable effect on the fair value of retained interests				10.00%	20.00%
Fixed rate used when selling receivables		2.39%
Equity ownership interest rate							50.00%	50.00%
Senior secured credit facility									$ 150

XML

Debt And Credit Facilities (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Debt And Credit Facilities

Schedule Of Line Of Credit Facilities

	Duke Energy			Duke Energy Carolinas			Duke Energy Ohio			Duke Energy Indiana			Total
Facility Size(c)	$	1,097		$	840		$	750		$	450		$	3,137
Less:
Notes Payable and Commercial Paper(d)		(450	)		(300	)		—			(150	)		(900	)
Outstanding Letters of Credit		(46	)		(7	)		(27	)		—			(80	)
Tax-Exempt Bonds		(25	)		(95	)		(84	)		(81	)		(285	)
Available Capacity	$	576		$	438		$	639		$	219		$	1,872

(a) This summary only includes Duke Energy's master credit facility and, accordingly, excludes certain demand facilities and committed facilities that are insignificant in size or which generally support very specific requirements, which primarily include facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds. These facilities that backstop various outstanding tax-exempt bonds generally have non-cancelable terms in excess of one year from the balance sheet date, such that the Duke Energy Registrants have the ability to refinance such borrowings on a long-term basis. Accordingly, such borrowings are reflected as Long-term Debt on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of the respective Duke Energy Registrant.

(b) Credit facility contains a covenant requiring the debt-to-total capitalization ratio to not exceed 65% for each borrower.

(c) Represents the sub limit of each borrower at September 30, 2011. The Duke Energy Ohio sub limit includes $100 million for Duke Energy Kentucky.

(d) Duke Energy issued $450 million of Commercial Paper and loaned the proceeds through the money pool to Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana (see money pool table above). The balances are classified as long-term borrowings within Long-term Debt in Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Indiana's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

XML

Investments In Debt And Equity Securities

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Duke Energy Corp [Member]

Investments In Debt And Equity Securities

10. Investments in Debt and Equity Securities

The Duke Energy Registrants classify their investments in debt and equity securities into two categories – trading and available-for-sale. Investments in debt and equity securities held in grantor trusts associated with certain deferred compensation plans and certain other investments are classified as trading securities and are reported at fair value in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets with net realized and unrealized gains and losses included in earnings each period. All other investments in debt and equity securities are classified as available-for-sale securities, which are also reported at fair value on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets with unrealized gains and losses excluded from earnings and reported either as a regulatory asset or liability, as discussed further below, or as a component of other comprehensive income until realized.

Trading Securities. Duke Energy holds investments in debt and equity securities in grantor trusts that are associated with certain deferred compensation plans. At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the fair value of these investments was $30 million and $29 million, respectively. Additionally, at December 31, 2010, Duke Energy held Windstream Corp. (Windstream) equity securities, which were received as proceeds from the sale of Duke Energy's equity investment in Q-Comm Corporation during the fourth quarter of 2010. The fair value of these securities at December 31, 2010 was $87 million. Duke Energy subsequently sold these securities in the first quarter of 2011. Proceeds received from the sale of Windstream equity securities are reflected in Net proceeds from the sale of equity investments and other assets, and sales of and collections on notes receivable in the Duke Energy Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows.

Available for Sale Securities. Duke Energy's available-for-sale securities are primarily comprised of investments held in the NDTF at Duke Energy Carolinas, investments in a grantor trust at Duke Energy Indiana related to other post-retirement benefit plans as required by the IURC, Duke Energy captive insurance investment portfolio, investments in short-term securities at Duke Energy International and investments of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas in auction rate debt securities. The investments within the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are managed by independent investment managers with discretion to buy, sell and invest pursuant to the objectives set forth by the trust agreements. Therefore, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana have limited oversight of the day-to-day management of these investments. Since day-to-day investment decisions, including buy and sell decisions, are made by the investment manager, the ability to hold investments in unrealized loss positions is outside the control of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana. Accordingly, all unrealized gains and losses associated with equity securities within the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are considered other-than-temporary and are recognized immediately when the fair value of individual investments is less than the cost basis of the investment. Pursuant to regulatory accounting, substantially all unrealized losses associated with investments in debt and equity securities within the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are deferred as a regulatory asset or liability. As a result there is no immediate impact on the earnings of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana. For investments in debt and equity securities held in the captive insurance investment portfolio investments in short-term securities at Duke Energy International and investments in auction rate debt securities, unrealized gains and losses are included in other comprehensive income until realized, unless it is determined that the carrying value of an investment is other-than-temporarily impaired. If so, the write-down to fair value may be included in earnings based on the criteria discussed below.

For available-for-sale securities outside of the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust, which are discussed separately above, Duke Energy analyzes all investment holdings each reporting period to determine whether a decline in fair value should be considered other-than-temporary. Criteria used to evaluate whether an impairment associated with equity securities is other-than-temporary includes, but is not limited to, the length of time over which the market value has been lower than the cost basis of the investment, the percentage decline compared to the cost of the investment and management's intent and ability to retain its investment in the issuer for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in market value. If a decline in fair value is determined to be other-than-temporary, the investment is written down to its fair value through a charge to earnings.

With respect to investments in debt securities, under the accounting guidance for other-than-temporary impairment, if the entity does not have an intent to sell the security and it is not more likely than not that management will be required to sell the debt security before the recovery of its cost basis, the impairment write-down to fair value would be recorded as a component of other comprehensive income, except for when it is determined that a credit loss exists. In determining whether a credit loss exists, management considers, among other things, the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than the amortized cost basis, changes in the financial condition of the issuer of the security, or in the case of an asset backed security, the financial condition of the underlying loan obligors, consideration of underlying collateral and guarantees of amounts by government entities, ability of the issuer of the security to make scheduled interest or principal payments and any changes to the rating of the security by rating agencies. If it is determined that a credit loss exists, the amount of impairment write-down to fair value would be split between the credit loss, which would be recognized in earnings, and the amount attributable to all other factors, which would be recognized in other comprehensive income. Management believes, based on consideration of the criteria above that no credit loss exists as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Management does not have the intent to sell such investments in auction rate debt securities and the investments in debt securities within its captive insurance investment portfolio, and it is not more likely than not that management will be required to sell these securities before the anticipated recovery of their cost basis. Therefore, management has concluded that there were no other-than-temporary impairments necessary as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Accordingly, all changes in the market value of investments in auction rate debt securities, short-term investments at Duke Energy International and captive insurance investments were reflected as a component of other comprehensive income in 2011 and 2010.

See Note 9 for additional information related to fair value measurements for investments in auction rate debt securities.

Management will continue to monitor the carrying value of its entire portfolio of investments in the future to determine if any other-than-temporary impairment losses should be recognized.

Investments in debt and equity securities are classified as either short-term investments or long-term investments based on management's intent and ability to sell these securities, taking into consideration illiquidity factors in the current markets.

Short-term and Long-term investments. Duke Energy classifies its investments in debt and equity securities held in the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF (see Note 9 for further information), the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust and the captive insurance investment portfolio as long-term. Investments at Duke Energy International are classified as short-term and are available for current operations. Additionally, Duke Energy has classified $72 million carrying value ($90 million par value) and $118 million carrying value ($149 million par value) of investments in auction rate debt securities as long-term at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, due to market illiquidity factors as a result of continued failed auctions. All of these investments are classified as available-for-sale and, therefore, are reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at estimated fair value based on either quoted market prices or management's best estimate of fair value based on expected future cash flow using appropriate risk-adjusted discount rates. Since management does not intend to use these investments in current operations, these investments are classified as long-term.

The estimated fair values of short-term and long-term investments classified as available-for-sale for Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana are as follows (in millions):

Duke Energy

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Gross Unrealized Holding Gains(a)		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses(a)			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains(a)		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses(a)			Estimated Fair Value
Short-term Investments(b)	$	—	$	—		$	146	$	—	$	—		$	—
Total short-term investments	$	—	$	—		$	146	$	—	$	—		$	—
Equity Securities	$	334	$	(60	)	$	1,261	$	481	$	(16	)	$	1,435
Corporate Debt Securities		8		(4	)		226		12		(3	)		270
Municipal Bonds		2		—			62		1		(9	)		69
U.S. Government Bonds		21		—			373		10		(1	)		235
Auction Rate Debt Securities(c)		—		(19	)		72		—		(31	)		118
Other		5		(2	)		243		11		(5	)		274
Total long-term investments	$	370	$	(85	)	$	2,237	$	515	$	(65	)	$	2,401

(a) The table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $364 million and $63 million, respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains and losses of $505 million and $32 million, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the NDTF. Additionally, the table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $2 million and $1 million respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains of $6 million and an insignificant amount of unrealized losses, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust. As discussed above, unrealized losses on investments within the NDTF and Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are deferred as a regulatory asset pursuant to regulatory accounting treatment.

(b) At September 30, 2011, auction rate securities estimated fair value of $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) At September 30, 2011, auction rate securities estimated fair value of $72 million are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Debt securities held at September 30, 2011, which excludes auction rate securities based on the stated maturity date, mature as follows: $115 million in less than one year, $292 million in one to five years, $235 million in six to 10 years and $383 million thereafter.

The fair values and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt and equity securities which are in an unrealized loss position for which other-than-temporary impairment losses have not been recorded, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are presented in the table below as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

	As of September 30, 2011								As of December 31, 2010
	Fair Value(a)		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months			Fair Value(a)		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months
Equity Securities	$	241	$	(13	)	$	(47	)	$	85	$	(11	)	$	(5	)
Corporate Debt Securities		195		(1	)		(3	)		73		(2	)		(2	)
Municipal Bonds		9		—			—			42		(8	)		(1	)
U.S. Government Bonds		84		—			—			38		—			(1	)
Auction Rate Debt Securities(b)		71		(19	)		—			118		(31	)		—
Other		115		(1	)		(1	)		84		(1	)		(3	)
Total long-term investments	$	715	$	(34	)	$	(51	)	$	440	$	(53	)	$	(12	)

(a) The table above includes fair values of $459 million and $226 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, associated with investments held in the NDTF. Additionally, the table above includes fair values of $15 million and $5 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, associated with investments held in the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust.

(b) See Note 9 for information about fair value measurements related to investments in auction rate debt securities.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Estimated Fair Value
Equity Securities	$	333	$	(57	)	$	1,206	$	475	$	(16	)	$	1,365
Corporate Debt Securities		6		(3	)		174		10		(3	)		227
Municipal Bonds		1		—			34		1		(9	)		43
U.S. Government Bonds		20		—			346		10		—			224
Auction Rate Debt Securities		—		(3	)		12		—		(3	)		12
Other		4		(3	)		164		9		(4	)		155
Total long-term investments	$	364	$	(66	)	$	1,936	$	505	$	(35	)	$	2,026

Debt securities held at September 30, 2011, which excludes auction rate securities based on the stated maturity date, mature as follows: $83 million in less than one year, $131 million in one to five years, $202 million in six to 10 years and $302 million thereafter.

The fair values and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt and equity securities which are in an unrealized loss position for which other-than-temporary impairment losses have not been recorded, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are presented in the table below as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

	As of September 30, 2011								As of December 31, 2010
	Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months			Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months
Equity Securities	$	220	$	(13	)	$	(44	)	$	79	$	(11	)	$	(5	)
Corporate Debt Securities		60		(1	)		(2	)		59		(2	)		(1	)
Municipal Bonds		2		—			—			28		(8	)		(1	)
U.S. Government Bonds		76		—			—			33		—			—
Auction Rate Debt Securities(a)		12		(3	)		—			12		(3	)		—
Other		101		(1	)		(2	)		27		(1	)		(3	)
Total long-term investments	$	471	$	(18	)	$	(48	)	$	238	$	(25	)	$	(10	)

(a) See Note 9 for information about fair value measurements related to investments in auction rate debt securities.

Duke Energy Indiana

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses		Estimated Fair Value
Equity Securities	$	1	$	(1	)	$	42	$	6	$	—	$	47
Municipal Bonds		1		—			28		—		—		26
Total long-term investments	$	2	$	(1	)	$	70	$	6	$	—	$	73

Debt securities held at September 30, 2011 mature as follows: $1 million in less than one year, $19 million in one to five years, $7 million in six to 10 years and $1 million thereafter.

The fair values and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt and equity securities which are in an unrealized loss position for which other-than-temporary impairment losses have not been recorded, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are presented in the table below as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

	As of September 30, 2011							As of December 31, 2010
	Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months		Unrealized Loss Position <12 months			Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months		Unrealized Loss Position <12 months
Equity Securities	$	8	$	—	$	(1	)	$	—	$	—	$	—
Municipal Bonds		7		—		—			14		—		—
Total long-term investments	$	15	$	—	$	(1	)	$	14	$	—	$	—

Duke Energy Indiana [Member]

Investments In Debt And Equity Securities

10. Investments in Debt and Equity Securities

The Duke Energy Registrants classify their investments in debt and equity securities into two categories – trading and available-for-sale. Investments in debt and equity securities held in grantor trusts associated with certain deferred compensation plans and certain other investments are classified as trading securities and are reported at fair value in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets with net realized and unrealized gains and losses included in earnings each period. All other investments in debt and equity securities are classified as available-for-sale securities, which are also reported at fair value on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets with unrealized gains and losses excluded from earnings and reported either as a regulatory asset or liability, as discussed further below, or as a component of other comprehensive income until realized.

Trading Securities. Duke Energy holds investments in debt and equity securities in grantor trusts that are associated with certain deferred compensation plans. At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the fair value of these investments was $30 million and $29 million, respectively. Additionally, at December 31, 2010, Duke Energy held Windstream Corp. (Windstream) equity securities, which were received as proceeds from the sale of Duke Energy's equity investment in Q-Comm Corporation during the fourth quarter of 2010. The fair value of these securities at December 31, 2010 was $87 million. Duke Energy subsequently sold these securities in the first quarter of 2011. Proceeds received from the sale of Windstream equity securities are reflected in Net proceeds from the sale of equity investments and other assets, and sales of and collections on notes receivable in the Duke Energy Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows.

Available for Sale Securities. Duke Energy's available-for-sale securities are primarily comprised of investments held in the NDTF at Duke Energy Carolinas, investments in a grantor trust at Duke Energy Indiana related to other post-retirement benefit plans as required by the IURC, Duke Energy captive insurance investment portfolio, investments in short-term securities at Duke Energy International and investments of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas in auction rate debt securities. The investments within the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are managed by independent investment managers with discretion to buy, sell and invest pursuant to the objectives set forth by the trust agreements. Therefore, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana have limited oversight of the day-to-day management of these investments. Since day-to-day investment decisions, including buy and sell decisions, are made by the investment manager, the ability to hold investments in unrealized loss positions is outside the control of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana. Accordingly, all unrealized gains and losses associated with equity securities within the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are considered other-than-temporary and are recognized immediately when the fair value of individual investments is less than the cost basis of the investment. Pursuant to regulatory accounting, substantially all unrealized losses associated with investments in debt and equity securities within the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are deferred as a regulatory asset or liability. As a result there is no immediate impact on the earnings of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana. For investments in debt and equity securities held in the captive insurance investment portfolio investments in short-term securities at Duke Energy International and investments in auction rate debt securities, unrealized gains and losses are included in other comprehensive income until realized, unless it is determined that the carrying value of an investment is other-than-temporarily impaired. If so, the write-down to fair value may be included in earnings based on the criteria discussed below.

For available-for-sale securities outside of the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust, which are discussed separately above, Duke Energy analyzes all investment holdings each reporting period to determine whether a decline in fair value should be considered other-than-temporary. Criteria used to evaluate whether an impairment associated with equity securities is other-than-temporary includes, but is not limited to, the length of time over which the market value has been lower than the cost basis of the investment, the percentage decline compared to the cost of the investment and management's intent and ability to retain its investment in the issuer for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in market value. If a decline in fair value is determined to be other-than-temporary, the investment is written down to its fair value through a charge to earnings.

With respect to investments in debt securities, under the accounting guidance for other-than-temporary impairment, if the entity does not have an intent to sell the security and it is not more likely than not that management will be required to sell the debt security before the recovery of its cost basis, the impairment write-down to fair value would be recorded as a component of other comprehensive income, except for when it is determined that a credit loss exists. In determining whether a credit loss exists, management considers, among other things, the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than the amortized cost basis, changes in the financial condition of the issuer of the security, or in the case of an asset backed security, the financial condition of the underlying loan obligors, consideration of underlying collateral and guarantees of amounts by government entities, ability of the issuer of the security to make scheduled interest or principal payments and any changes to the rating of the security by rating agencies. If it is determined that a credit loss exists, the amount of impairment write-down to fair value would be split between the credit loss, which would be recognized in earnings, and the amount attributable to all other factors, which would be recognized in other comprehensive income. Management believes, based on consideration of the criteria above that no credit loss exists as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Management does not have the intent to sell such investments in auction rate debt securities and the investments in debt securities within its captive insurance investment portfolio, and it is not more likely than not that management will be required to sell these securities before the anticipated recovery of their cost basis. Therefore, management has concluded that there were no other-than-temporary impairments necessary as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Accordingly, all changes in the market value of investments in auction rate debt securities, short-term investments at Duke Energy International and captive insurance investments were reflected as a component of other comprehensive income in 2011 and 2010.

See Note 9 for additional information related to fair value measurements for investments in auction rate debt securities.

Management will continue to monitor the carrying value of its entire portfolio of investments in the future to determine if any other-than-temporary impairment losses should be recognized.

Investments in debt and equity securities are classified as either short-term investments or long-term investments based on management's intent and ability to sell these securities, taking into consideration illiquidity factors in the current markets.

Short-term and Long-term investments. Duke Energy classifies its investments in debt and equity securities held in the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF (see Note 9 for further information), the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust and the captive insurance investment portfolio as long-term. Investments at Duke Energy International are classified as short-term and are available for current operations. Additionally, Duke Energy has classified $72 million carrying value ($90 million par value) and $118 million carrying value ($149 million par value) of investments in auction rate debt securities as long-term at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, due to market illiquidity factors as a result of continued failed auctions. All of these investments are classified as available-for-sale and, therefore, are reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at estimated fair value based on either quoted market prices or management's best estimate of fair value based on expected future cash flow using appropriate risk-adjusted discount rates. Since management does not intend to use these investments in current operations, these investments are classified as long-term.

The estimated fair values of short-term and long-term investments classified as available-for-sale for Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana are as follows (in millions):

Duke Energy

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Gross Unrealized Holding Gains(a)		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses(a)			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains(a)		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses(a)			Estimated Fair Value
Short-term Investments(b)	$	—	$	—		$	146	$	—	$	—		$	—
Total short-term investments	$	—	$	—		$	146	$	—	$	—		$	—
Equity Securities	$	334	$	(60	)	$	1,261	$	481	$	(16	)	$	1,435
Corporate Debt Securities		8		(4	)		226		12		(3	)		270
Municipal Bonds		2		—			62		1		(9	)		69
U.S. Government Bonds		21		—			373		10		(1	)		235
Auction Rate Debt Securities(c)		—		(19	)		72		—		(31	)		118
Other		5		(2	)		243		11		(5	)		274
Total long-term investments	$	370	$	(85	)	$	2,237	$	515	$	(65	)	$	2,401

(a) The table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $364 million and $63 million, respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains and losses of $505 million and $32 million, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the NDTF. Additionally, the table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $2 million and $1 million respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains of $6 million and an insignificant amount of unrealized losses, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust. As discussed above, unrealized losses on investments within the NDTF and Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are deferred as a regulatory asset pursuant to regulatory accounting treatment.

(b) At September 30, 2011, auction rate securities estimated fair value of $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) At September 30, 2011, auction rate securities estimated fair value of $72 million are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Debt securities held at September 30, 2011, which excludes auction rate securities based on the stated maturity date, mature as follows: $115 million in less than one year, $292 million in one to five years, $235 million in six to 10 years and $383 million thereafter.

The fair values and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt and equity securities which are in an unrealized loss position for which other-than-temporary impairment losses have not been recorded, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are presented in the table below as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

	As of September 30, 2011								As of December 31, 2010
	Fair Value(a)		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months			Fair Value(a)		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months
Equity Securities	$	241	$	(13	)	$	(47	)	$	85	$	(11	)	$	(5	)
Corporate Debt Securities		195		(1	)		(3	)		73		(2	)		(2	)
Municipal Bonds		9		—			—			42		(8	)		(1	)
U.S. Government Bonds		84		—			—			38		—			(1	)
Auction Rate Debt Securities(b)		71		(19	)		—			118		(31	)		—
Other		115		(1	)		(1	)		84		(1	)		(3	)
Total long-term investments	$	715	$	(34	)	$	(51	)	$	440	$	(53	)	$	(12	)

(a) The table above includes fair values of $459 million and $226 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, associated with investments held in the NDTF. Additionally, the table above includes fair values of $15 million and $5 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, associated with investments held in the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust.

(b) See Note 9 for information about fair value measurements related to investments in auction rate debt securities.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Estimated Fair Value
Equity Securities	$	333	$	(57	)	$	1,206	$	475	$	(16	)	$	1,365
Corporate Debt Securities		6		(3	)		174		10		(3	)		227
Municipal Bonds		1		—			34		1		(9	)		43
U.S. Government Bonds		20		—			346		10		—			224
Auction Rate Debt Securities		—		(3	)		12		—		(3	)		12
Other		4		(3	)		164		9		(4	)		155
Total long-term investments	$	364	$	(66	)	$	1,936	$	505	$	(35	)	$	2,026

Debt securities held at September 30, 2011, which excludes auction rate securities based on the stated maturity date, mature as follows: $83 million in less than one year, $131 million in one to five years, $202 million in six to 10 years and $302 million thereafter.

The fair values and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt and equity securities which are in an unrealized loss position for which other-than-temporary impairment losses have not been recorded, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are presented in the table below as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

	As of September 30, 2011								As of December 31, 2010
	Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months			Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months
Equity Securities	$	220	$	(13	)	$	(44	)	$	79	$	(11	)	$	(5	)
Corporate Debt Securities		60		(1	)		(2	)		59		(2	)		(1	)
Municipal Bonds		2		—			—			28		(8	)		(1	)
U.S. Government Bonds		76		—			—			33		—			—
Auction Rate Debt Securities(a)		12		(3	)		—			12		(3	)		—
Other		101		(1	)		(2	)		27		(1	)		(3	)
Total long-term investments	$	471	$	(18	)	$	(48	)	$	238	$	(25	)	$	(10	)

(a) See Note 9 for information about fair value measurements related to investments in auction rate debt securities.

Duke Energy Indiana

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses		Estimated Fair Value
Equity Securities	$	1	$	(1	)	$	42	$	6	$	—	$	47
Municipal Bonds		1		—			28		—		—		26
Total long-term investments	$	2	$	(1	)	$	70	$	6	$	—	$	73

Debt securities held at September 30, 2011 mature as follows: $1 million in less than one year, $19 million in one to five years, $7 million in six to 10 years and $1 million thereafter.

The fair values and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt and equity securities which are in an unrealized loss position for which other-than-temporary impairment losses have not been recorded, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are presented in the table below as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

	As of September 30, 2011							As of December 31, 2010
	Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months		Unrealized Loss Position <12 months			Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months		Unrealized Loss Position <12 months
Equity Securities	$	8	$	—	$	(1	)	$	—	$	—	$	—
Municipal Bonds		7		—		—			14		—		—
Total long-term investments	$	15	$	—	$	(1	)	$	14	$	—	$	—

Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]

Investments In Debt And Equity Securities

10. Investments in Debt and Equity Securities

The Duke Energy Registrants classify their investments in debt and equity securities into two categories – trading and available-for-sale. Investments in debt and equity securities held in grantor trusts associated with certain deferred compensation plans and certain other investments are classified as trading securities and are reported at fair value in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets with net realized and unrealized gains and losses included in earnings each period. All other investments in debt and equity securities are classified as available-for-sale securities, which are also reported at fair value on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets with unrealized gains and losses excluded from earnings and reported either as a regulatory asset or liability, as discussed further below, or as a component of other comprehensive income until realized.

Trading Securities. Duke Energy holds investments in debt and equity securities in grantor trusts that are associated with certain deferred compensation plans. At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the fair value of these investments was $30 million and $29 million, respectively. Additionally, at December 31, 2010, Duke Energy held Windstream Corp. (Windstream) equity securities, which were received as proceeds from the sale of Duke Energy's equity investment in Q-Comm Corporation during the fourth quarter of 2010. The fair value of these securities at December 31, 2010 was $87 million. Duke Energy subsequently sold these securities in the first quarter of 2011. Proceeds received from the sale of Windstream equity securities are reflected in Net proceeds from the sale of equity investments and other assets, and sales of and collections on notes receivable in the Duke Energy Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows.

Available for Sale Securities. Duke Energy's available-for-sale securities are primarily comprised of investments held in the NDTF at Duke Energy Carolinas, investments in a grantor trust at Duke Energy Indiana related to other post-retirement benefit plans as required by the IURC, Duke Energy captive insurance investment portfolio, investments in short-term securities at Duke Energy International and investments of Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas in auction rate debt securities. The investments within the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are managed by independent investment managers with discretion to buy, sell and invest pursuant to the objectives set forth by the trust agreements. Therefore, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana have limited oversight of the day-to-day management of these investments. Since day-to-day investment decisions, including buy and sell decisions, are made by the investment manager, the ability to hold investments in unrealized loss positions is outside the control of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana. Accordingly, all unrealized gains and losses associated with equity securities within the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are considered other-than-temporary and are recognized immediately when the fair value of individual investments is less than the cost basis of the investment. Pursuant to regulatory accounting, substantially all unrealized losses associated with investments in debt and equity securities within the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are deferred as a regulatory asset or liability. As a result there is no immediate impact on the earnings of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana. For investments in debt and equity securities held in the captive insurance investment portfolio investments in short-term securities at Duke Energy International and investments in auction rate debt securities, unrealized gains and losses are included in other comprehensive income until realized, unless it is determined that the carrying value of an investment is other-than-temporarily impaired. If so, the write-down to fair value may be included in earnings based on the criteria discussed below.

For available-for-sale securities outside of the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF and the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust, which are discussed separately above, Duke Energy analyzes all investment holdings each reporting period to determine whether a decline in fair value should be considered other-than-temporary. Criteria used to evaluate whether an impairment associated with equity securities is other-than-temporary includes, but is not limited to, the length of time over which the market value has been lower than the cost basis of the investment, the percentage decline compared to the cost of the investment and management's intent and ability to retain its investment in the issuer for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in market value. If a decline in fair value is determined to be other-than-temporary, the investment is written down to its fair value through a charge to earnings.

With respect to investments in debt securities, under the accounting guidance for other-than-temporary impairment, if the entity does not have an intent to sell the security and it is not more likely than not that management will be required to sell the debt security before the recovery of its cost basis, the impairment write-down to fair value would be recorded as a component of other comprehensive income, except for when it is determined that a credit loss exists. In determining whether a credit loss exists, management considers, among other things, the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than the amortized cost basis, changes in the financial condition of the issuer of the security, or in the case of an asset backed security, the financial condition of the underlying loan obligors, consideration of underlying collateral and guarantees of amounts by government entities, ability of the issuer of the security to make scheduled interest or principal payments and any changes to the rating of the security by rating agencies. If it is determined that a credit loss exists, the amount of impairment write-down to fair value would be split between the credit loss, which would be recognized in earnings, and the amount attributable to all other factors, which would be recognized in other comprehensive income. Management believes, based on consideration of the criteria above that no credit loss exists as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Management does not have the intent to sell such investments in auction rate debt securities and the investments in debt securities within its captive insurance investment portfolio, and it is not more likely than not that management will be required to sell these securities before the anticipated recovery of their cost basis. Therefore, management has concluded that there were no other-than-temporary impairments necessary as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Accordingly, all changes in the market value of investments in auction rate debt securities, short-term investments at Duke Energy International and captive insurance investments were reflected as a component of other comprehensive income in 2011 and 2010.

See Note 9 for additional information related to fair value measurements for investments in auction rate debt securities.

Management will continue to monitor the carrying value of its entire portfolio of investments in the future to determine if any other-than-temporary impairment losses should be recognized.

Investments in debt and equity securities are classified as either short-term investments or long-term investments based on management's intent and ability to sell these securities, taking into consideration illiquidity factors in the current markets.

Short-term and Long-term investments. Duke Energy classifies its investments in debt and equity securities held in the Duke Energy Carolinas NDTF (see Note 9 for further information), the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust and the captive insurance investment portfolio as long-term. Investments at Duke Energy International are classified as short-term and are available for current operations. Additionally, Duke Energy has classified $72 million carrying value ($90 million par value) and $118 million carrying value ($149 million par value) of investments in auction rate debt securities as long-term at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, due to market illiquidity factors as a result of continued failed auctions. All of these investments are classified as available-for-sale and, therefore, are reflected on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at estimated fair value based on either quoted market prices or management's best estimate of fair value based on expected future cash flow using appropriate risk-adjusted discount rates. Since management does not intend to use these investments in current operations, these investments are classified as long-term.

The estimated fair values of short-term and long-term investments classified as available-for-sale for Duke Energy, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Indiana are as follows (in millions):

Duke Energy

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Gross Unrealized Holding Gains(a)		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses(a)			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains(a)		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses(a)			Estimated Fair Value
Short-term Investments(b)	$	—	$	—		$	146	$	—	$	—		$	—
Total short-term investments	$	—	$	—		$	146	$	—	$	—		$	—
Equity Securities	$	334	$	(60	)	$	1,261	$	481	$	(16	)	$	1,435
Corporate Debt Securities		8		(4	)		226		12		(3	)		270
Municipal Bonds		2		—			62		1		(9	)		69
U.S. Government Bonds		21		—			373		10		(1	)		235
Auction Rate Debt Securities(c)		—		(19	)		72		—		(31	)		118
Other		5		(2	)		243		11		(5	)		274
Total long-term investments	$	370	$	(85	)	$	2,237	$	515	$	(65	)	$	2,401

(a) The table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $364 million and $63 million, respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains and losses of $505 million and $32 million, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the NDTF. Additionally, the table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $2 million and $1 million respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains of $6 million and an insignificant amount of unrealized losses, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust. As discussed above, unrealized losses on investments within the NDTF and Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are deferred as a regulatory asset pursuant to regulatory accounting treatment.

(b) At September 30, 2011, auction rate securities estimated fair value of $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) At September 30, 2011, auction rate securities estimated fair value of $72 million are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Debt securities held at September 30, 2011, which excludes auction rate securities based on the stated maturity date, mature as follows: $115 million in less than one year, $292 million in one to five years, $235 million in six to 10 years and $383 million thereafter.

The fair values and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt and equity securities which are in an unrealized loss position for which other-than-temporary impairment losses have not been recorded, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are presented in the table below as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

	As of September 30, 2011								As of December 31, 2010
	Fair Value(a)		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months			Fair Value(a)		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months
Equity Securities	$	241	$	(13	)	$	(47	)	$	85	$	(11	)	$	(5	)
Corporate Debt Securities		195		(1	)		(3	)		73		(2	)		(2	)
Municipal Bonds		9		—			—			42		(8	)		(1	)
U.S. Government Bonds		84		—			—			38		—			(1	)
Auction Rate Debt Securities(b)		71		(19	)		—			118		(31	)		—
Other		115		(1	)		(1	)		84		(1	)		(3	)
Total long-term investments	$	715	$	(34	)	$	(51	)	$	440	$	(53	)	$	(12	)

(a) The table above includes fair values of $459 million and $226 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, associated with investments held in the NDTF. Additionally, the table above includes fair values of $15 million and $5 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, associated with investments held in the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust.

(b) See Note 9 for information about fair value measurements related to investments in auction rate debt securities.

Duke Energy Carolinas

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Estimated Fair Value
Equity Securities	$	333	$	(57	)	$	1,206	$	475	$	(16	)	$	1,365
Corporate Debt Securities		6		(3	)		174		10		(3	)		227
Municipal Bonds		1		—			34		1		(9	)		43
U.S. Government Bonds		20		—			346		10		—			224
Auction Rate Debt Securities		—		(3	)		12		—		(3	)		12
Other		4		(3	)		164		9		(4	)		155
Total long-term investments	$	364	$	(66	)	$	1,936	$	505	$	(35	)	$	2,026

Debt securities held at September 30, 2011, which excludes auction rate securities based on the stated maturity date, mature as follows: $83 million in less than one year, $131 million in one to five years, $202 million in six to 10 years and $302 million thereafter.

The fair values and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt and equity securities which are in an unrealized loss position for which other-than-temporary impairment losses have not been recorded, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are presented in the table below as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

	As of September 30, 2011								As of December 31, 2010
	Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months			Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months			Unrealized Loss Position <12 months
Equity Securities	$	220	$	(13	)	$	(44	)	$	79	$	(11	)	$	(5	)
Corporate Debt Securities		60		(1	)		(2	)		59		(2	)		(1	)
Municipal Bonds		2		—			—			28		(8	)		(1	)
U.S. Government Bonds		76		—			—			33		—			—
Auction Rate Debt Securities(a)		12		(3	)		—			12		(3	)		—
Other		101		(1	)		(2	)		27		(1	)		(3	)
Total long-term investments	$	471	$	(18	)	$	(48	)	$	238	$	(25	)	$	(10	)

(a) See Note 9 for information about fair value measurements related to investments in auction rate debt securities.

Duke Energy Indiana

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses		Estimated Fair Value
Equity Securities	$	1	$	(1	)	$	42	$	6	$	—	$	47
Municipal Bonds		1		—			28		—		—		26
Total long-term investments	$	2	$	(1	)	$	70	$	6	$	—	$	73

Debt securities held at September 30, 2011 mature as follows: $1 million in less than one year, $19 million in one to five years, $7 million in six to 10 years and $1 million thereafter.

The fair values and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt and equity securities which are in an unrealized loss position for which other-than-temporary impairment losses have not been recorded, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are presented in the table below as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

	As of September 30, 2011							As of December 31, 2010
	Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months		Unrealized Loss Position <12 months			Fair Value		Unrealized Loss Position >12 months		Unrealized Loss Position <12 months
Equity Securities	$	8	$	—	$	(1	)	$	—	$	—	$	—
Municipal Bonds		7		—		—			14		—		—
Total long-term investments	$	15	$	—	$	(1	)	$	14	$	—	$	—

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements Of Operations (USD $) In Millions, except Share data	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010
Operating Revenues
Regulated electric	$ 3,016	$ 3,077	$ 8,165	$ 8,233
Non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	867	791	2,586	2,159
Regulated natural gas	81	78	410	435
Total operating revenues	3,964	3,946	11,161	10,827
Operating Expenses
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power - regulated	957	990	2,603	2,598
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power - non-regulated	383	335	1,147	895
Cost of natural gas and coal sold	48	36	262	272
Operation, maintenance and other	866	881	2,705	2,724
Depreciation and amortization	455	447	1,346	1,329
Property and other taxes	183	182	538	538
Goodwill and other impairment charges	300	44	309	700
Total operating expenses	3,192	2,915	8,910	9,056
(Losses) Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net	(5)	2	9	9
Operating Income (Loss)	767	1,033	2,260	1,780
Other Income and Expenses
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates	43	21	123	86
(Losses) gains on sales of unconsolidated affiliates	(3)	(1)	11	(3)
Other income and expenses, net	83	116	297	297
Total other income and expenses	123	136	431	380
Interest Expense	213	202	635	624
Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	677	967	2,056	1,536
Income Tax Expense (Benefit) from Continuing Operations	208	301	633	643
Income From Continuing Operations	469	666	1,423	893
Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax	1		1	1
Net Income (Loss)	470	666	1,424	894
Less: Net (Loss) Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests	(2)	(4)	6	1
Net Income Attributable to Duke Energy Corporation	472	670	1,418	893
Income from continuing operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders
Basic	$ 0.35	$ 0.51	$ 1.06	$ 0.68
Diluted	$ 0.35	$ 0.51	$ 1.06	$ 0.68
Income from discontinued operations attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders
Basic
Diluted
Net income attributable to Duke Energy Corporation common shareholders
Basic	$ 0.35	$ 0.51	$ 1.06	$ 0.68
Diluted	$ 0.35	$ 0.51	$ 1.06	$ 0.68
Dividends declared per share			$ 0.74	$ 0.725
Weighted-average shares outstanding
Basic	1,332,000,000.00	1,320,000,000.00	1,331,000,000.00	1,315,000,000.00
Diluted	1,333,000,000.00	1,322,000,000.00	1,332,000,000.00	1,316,000,000.00
Duke Energy Carolinas [Member]
Operating Revenues
Regulated electric	1,868	1,877	5,027	4,935
Operating Expenses
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power - regulated	577	594	1,557	1,506
Operation, maintenance and other	447	471	1,377	1,401
Depreciation and amortization	210	200	601	585
Property and other taxes	94	93	259	269
Total operating expenses	1,328	1,358	3,794	3,761
(Losses) Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net	1	2	2	7
Operating Income (Loss)	541	521	1,235	1,181
Other Income and Expenses
Other income and expenses, net	47	51	139	163
Interest Expense	93	95	264	271
Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	495	477	1,110	1,073
Income Tax Expense (Benefit) from Continuing Operations	184	162	401	364
Net Income (Loss)	311	315	709	709
Duke Energy Ohio [Member]
Operating Revenues
Regulated electric	442	520	1,175	1,449
Non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	315	325	825	664
Regulated natural gas	81	78	411	436
Total operating revenues	838	923	2,411	2,549
Operating Expenses
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power - regulated	111	140	299	410
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power - non-regulated	189	138	500	319
Cost of natural gas and coal sold	12	13	153	191
Operation, maintenance and other	186	191	606	577
Depreciation and amortization	83	97	259	300
Property and other taxes	64	65	200	198
Goodwill and other impairment charges	79		88	837
Total operating expenses	724	644	2,105	2,832
(Losses) Gains on Sales of Other Assets and Other, net	2		4	3
Operating Income (Loss)	116	279	310	(280)
Other Income and Expenses
Other income and expenses, net	8	8	17	22
Interest Expense	27	26	78	84
Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	97	261	249	(342)
Income Tax Expense (Benefit) from Continuing Operations	46	85	92	111
Net Income (Loss)	51	176	157	(453)
Duke Energy Indiana [Member]
Operating Revenues
Regulated electric	718	694	1,997	1,883
Operating Expenses
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power - regulated	270	256	748	682
Operation, maintenance and other	148	131	472	445
Depreciation and amortization	100	95	297	281
Property and other taxes	20	19	61	52
Goodwill and other impairment charges	222	44	222	44
Total operating expenses	760	545	1,800	1,504
Operating Income (Loss)	(42)	149	197	379
Other Income and Expenses
Other income and expenses, net	26	19	70	51
Interest Expense	34	32	104	99
Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes	(50)	136	163	331
Income Tax Expense (Benefit) from Continuing Operations	(19)	44	50	112
Net Income (Loss)	$ (31)	$ 92	$ 113	$ 219

XML

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities

Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments Related to Interest Rate Risk

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio		Duke Energy Indiana
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	846	$	—	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		748		500		27		200
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250		—
Total Notional Amount at September 30, 2011	$	1,869	$	525	$	277	$	200

	Duke Energy Corporation		Duke Energy Carolinas		Duke Energy Ohio
			(in millions)
Cash Flow Hedges(a)	$	492	$	—	$	—
Undesignated Contracts		561		500		27
Fair Value Hedges		275		25		250
Total Notional Amount at December 31, 2010	$	1,328	$	525	$	277

(a) Includes amounts related to non-recourse variable rate long-term debt of VIEs of $470 million at September 30, 2011 and $492 million at December 31, 2010.

Underlying Notional Amounts For Derivative Instruments Accounted For At Fair Value

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)		7,048		8,200
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		58
Emission allowances: SO2 (thousands of tons)		8		8
Natural gas (millions of decatherms)		37		37
Duke Energy Ohio	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Commodity contracts
Electricity-energy (Gigawatt-hours)(a)		11,947		13,183
Electricity-capacity (Gigawatt-months)		—		60

(a) Amounts include intercompany positions that are eliminated at Duke Energy.

Location And Fair Value Amounts Of Derivatives Reflected In The Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Asset		Liability		Asset		Liability
	(in millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate contracts
Current Assets: Other		5		—		5		—
Investments and Other Assets: Other		4		—		16		—
Current Liabilities: Other		—		13		—		13
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		—		71		—		—
Total Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	9	$	84	$	21	$	13

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Commodity contracts
Current Assets: Other	$	73	$	30	$	108	$	54
Investments and Other Assets: Other		43		6		55		4
Current Liabilities: Other		15		50		75		118
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other		9		77		3		72
Interest rate contracts
Investments and Other Assets: Other(a)		—		—		60		—
Current Liabilities: Other(a)(b)		—		94		—		2
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities: Other(c)		—		68		—		5
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments	$	140	$	325	$	301	$	255
Total Derivatives	$	149	$	409	$	322	$	268

(a) As of December 31, 2010, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(b) As of September 30, 2011, includes $92 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Carolinas which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

(c) As of September 30, 2011, includes $60 million related to interest rate swaps at Duke Energy Indiana which receive regulatory accounting treatment.

Cash Flow Hedges-Location And Amount Of Pre-Tax Gains and (Losses) Recognized In Comprehensive Income

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings(a)
Commodity contracts
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			1			—			1
Interest rate contracts
Interest expense		(1	)		(2	)		(4	)		(4	)
Total Pre-tax Losses Reclassified from AOCI into Earnings	$	(1	)	$	(1	)	$	(4	)	$	(3	)

(a) Represents the gains and losses on cash flow hedges previously recorded in AOCI during the term of the hedging relationship and reclassified into earnings during the current period.

Undesignated Contracts - Location And Amount Of Pre-Tax Gains And (Losses) Recognized In Income Or As Regulatory Assets Or Liabilities

Duke Energy	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(in millions)						(in millions)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings
Commodity contracts
Revenue, regulated electric	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	1
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas and other		—			3			(25	)		(31	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(1	)		6
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized in Earnings	$	—		$	3		$	(26	)	$	(24	)
Location of Pre-Tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities
Commodity contracts
Regulatory Asset	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	2
Regulatory Liability		2			(2	)		12			10
Interest rate contracts
Regulatory Asset(a)		(146	)		(6	)		(155	)		(8	)
Regulatory Liability(b)		(60	)		—			(60	)		—
Total Pre-tax Gains (Losses) Recognized as Regulatory Assets or Liabilities	$	(202	)	$	(8	)	$	(202	)	$	4

Information Regarding Derivative Instruments That Contain Credit-Risk Related Contingent Features

Duke Energy	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(in millions)
Aggregate Fair Value Amounts of Derivative Instruments in a Net Liability Position	$	66	$	148
Collateral Already Posted	$	24	$	2
Additional Cash Collateral or Letters of Credit in the Event Credit-risk-related Contingent Features were Triggered at the End of the Reporting Period	$	4	$	14

Information Regarding Cash Collateral Under Master Netting Arrangements

	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	(in millions)				(in millions)
Duke Energy	Receivables		Payables		Receivables		Payables
Amounts offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	7		—	$	2		—
Amounts not offset against net derivative positions on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets(a)	$	28		—	$	2	$	3

(a) Amounts for payables primarily represent margin deposits related to futures contracts.

XML

Income Taxes And Other Taxes (Schedule Of Excise Taxes) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010
Income Taxes And Other Taxes
Excise taxes	$ 81	$ 83	$ 228	$ 235

XML

Severance (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended	9 Months Ended		3 Months Ended	9 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010	Sep. 30, 2010 Duke Energy Corp [Member]	Sep. 30, 2010 Duke Energy Corp [Member]
Number of employees that accepted the termination benefits	900
Restructuring reserve, beginning balance		$ 87
Provision/Adjustments to severance liability		1
Cash reductions to severance liability		(52)
Restructuring reserve, ending balance		36
Severance expense			$ 77	$ 20	$ 164

XML

Business Segments (Reconciliation Of Segment Assets To Consolidated Assets) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	Sep. 30, 2011		Dec. 31, 2010
Total consolidated assets	$ 60,776		$ 59,090
USFE&G [Member]
Total consolidated assets	46,827		45,210
Commercial Power [Member]
Total consolidated assets	6,739		6,704
International Energy [Member]
Total consolidated assets	4,379		4,310
Total Reportable Segments [Member]
Total consolidated assets	57,945		56,224
Other Adjustments [Member]
Total consolidated assets	2,730		2,845
Reclassifications [Member]
Total consolidated assets	$ 101	[1]	$ 21	[1]

[1] Primarily represents reclassification of federal tax balances in consolidation.

XML

Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities (Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments Related to Interest Rate Risk) (Details) (USD $)	Sep. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Risk Management, Derivative Instruments And Hedging Activities
Cash Flow Hedges	$ 846,000,000.00	$ 492,000,000	[1]
Undesignated Contracts	748,000,000.00	561,000,000
Fair Value Hedges	275,000,000.00	275,000,000
Total Notional Amount	$ 1,869,000,000.00	$ 1,328,000,000

[1] Includes amounts related to non-recourse variable rate long-term debt of VIEs of $470 million at September 30, 2011 and $492 million at December 31, 2010.

XML

Investments In Debt And Equity Securities (Available-For-Sale Investments) (Details) (USD $) In Millions	Sep. 30, 2011		Dec. 31, 2010
Current [Member]
Estimated Fair Value	$ 146
Current [Member] | Short-term Investments [Member]
Estimated Fair Value	146	[1]
Auction Rate Securities [Member] | Non-current [Member]
Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		[2],[3]		[2],[3]
Gross Unrealized Holding Losses	(19)	[2],[3]	(31)	[2],[3]
Estimated Fair Value	72	[2]	118	[2]
Non-current [Member]
Gross Unrealized Holding Gains	370	[3]	515	[3]
Gross Unrealized Holding Losses	(85)	[3]	(65)	[3]
Estimated Fair Value	2,237		2,401
Non-current [Member] | Equity Securities [Member]
Gross Unrealized Holding Gains	334	[3]	481	[3]
Gross Unrealized Holding Losses	(60)	[3]	(16)	[3]
Estimated Fair Value	1,261		1,435
Non-current [Member] | Corporate Debt Securities [Member]
Gross Unrealized Holding Gains	8	[3]	12	[3]
Gross Unrealized Holding Losses	(4)	[3]	(3)	[3]
Estimated Fair Value	226		270
Non-current [Member] | Municipal Bonds [Member]
Gross Unrealized Holding Gains	2	[3]	1	[3]
Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			(9)	[3]
Estimated Fair Value	62		69
Non-current [Member] | U.S. Government Bonds [Member]
Gross Unrealized Holding Gains	21	[3]	10	[3]
Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			(1)	[3]
Estimated Fair Value	373		235
Non-current [Member] | Other Debt Securities [Member]
Gross Unrealized Holding Gains	5	[3]	11	[3]
Gross Unrealized Holding Losses	(2)	[3]	(5)	[3]
Estimated Fair Value	243		274
NDTF [Member]
Gross Unrealized Holding Gains	364		505
Gross Unrealized Holding Losses	63		32
Auction Rate Securities [Member]
Other	72
Other short-term investments	25
Duke Energy Indiana Grantor Trust [Member]
Gross Unrealized Holding Gains	2		6
Gross Unrealized Holding Losses	$ 1

[1] At September 30, 2011, auction rate securities estimated fair value of $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

[2] At September 30, 2011, auction rate securities estimated fair value of $72 million are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

[3] The table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $364 million and $63 million, respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains and losses of $505 million and $32 million, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the NDTF. Additionally, the table above includes unrealized gains and losses of $2 million and $1 million respectively, at September 30, 2011 and unrealized gains of $6 million and an insignificant amount of unrealized losses, respectively, at December 31, 2010 associated with investments held in the Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust. As discussed above, unrealized losses on investments within the NDTF and Duke Energy Indiana grantor trust are deferred as a regulatory asset pursuant to regulatory accounting treatment.

XML

Comprehensive Income And Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Comprehensive Income And Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Components Of Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

	Common Stockholders' Equity			Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Net Income	$	472		$	(2	)	$	470
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		(235	)		(11	)		(246	)
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		1			—			1
Net unrealized loss on cash flow hedges (b)		(47	)		—			(47	)
Reclassification into earnings from cash flow hedges(c)		1			—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(d)		3			—			3
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		(277	)		(11	)		(288	)
Total Comprehensive Income	$	195		$	(13	)	$	182

(a) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(b) Net of $26 million tax benefit.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(d) Net of $5 million tax expense.

	Common Stockholders' Equity		Noncontrolling Interests			Total Equity
	(in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Net Income (Loss)	$	670	$	(4	)	$	666
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments		88		4			92
Pension and OPEB related adjustments to AOCI(a)		4		—			4
Net unrealized gain on cash flow hedges (b)		1		—			1
Unrealized gain on investments in auction rate securities(c)		2		—			2
Other comprehensive income, net of tax		95		4			99
Total Comprehensive Income	$	765	$	—		$	765

(a) Net of $5 million tax expense.

(b) Net of insignificant tax expense.

(c) Net of insignificant tax expense.

XML

Organization And Basis Of Presentation (Details) (USD $) In Millions	Sep. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Organization And Basis Of Presentation
Unbilled revenues within restricted receivables of variable interest entities and receivables	$ 599	$ 751

XML

Goodwill, Intangible Assets And Impairments (Narrative) (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended			9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010	Jun. 30, 2010	Sep. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2010
Goodwill impairment charge			$ 500
Pre-tax impairment charge	300	44		309	700
Duke Energy Indiana [Member] | Edwardsport IGCC Plant [Member]
Pre-tax impairment charge	222	44
Commercial Power [Member]
Goodwill impairment charge			500	500
Pre-tax impairment charges related to certain generating assets and emission allowances			160
Pre-tax impairment charge			660
Coal-fired generation capacity, in megawatts				4,000
Gas-fired generation capacity, in megawatts				3,600
Duke Energy Ohio [Member]
Pre-tax impairment charge	79			88	837
Duke Energy Indiana [Member]
Pre-tax impairment charge	$ 222	$ 44		$ 222	$ 44

XML

Fair Value Of Financial Assets And Liabilities (Tables)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Fair Value Of Financial Assets And Liabilities

Fair Value Measurement Amounts For Assets And Liabilities

	Total Fair Value Amounts at September 30, 2011			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	97		$	—		$	25		$	72
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,206			1,154			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		718			151			519			48
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(b)		62			55			7			—
Other trading and available-for-sale debt securities(c)		330			27			303			—
Derivative assets(d)		89			15			9			65
Total Assets	$	2,502		$	1,402		$	909		$	191
Derivative liabilities(e)		(349	)		(57	)		(203	)		(89	)
Net Assets	$	2,153		$	1,345		$	706		$	102

(a) $72 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $25 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) $209 million of these securities are included in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $121 million are classified as Short-Term Investments on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(e) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

	Total Fair Value Amounts at December 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
	(in millions)
Description
Investments in available-for-sale auction rate securities(a)	$	118		$	—		$	—		$	118
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund equity securities		1,365			1,313			46			6
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund debt securities		649			35			573			41
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale equity securities(a)		164			157			7			—
Other long-term trading and available-for-sale debt securities(a)		221			10			211			—
Derivative assets(b)		186			21			81			84
Total Assets	$	2,703		$	1,536		$	918		$	249
Derivative liabilities(c)		(132	)		(8	)		(21	)		(103	)
Net Assets	$	2,571		$	1,528		$	897		$	146

(a) Included in Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b) Included in Other within Current Assets and Other within Investments and Other Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(c) Included in Other within Current Liabilities and Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Reconciliation Of Assets And Liabilities Measured At Fair Value On A Recurring Basis Using Unobservable Inputs

	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments		Derivatives (net)			Total
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at July 1, 2011	$	90		$	53	$	(22	)	$	121
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—		8			8
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		8			—		—			8
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			—		8			8
Settlements		(1	)		—		(2	)		(3	)
Total gains (losses) included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			1		(16	)		(15	)
Transfers out of Level 3		(25	)							(25	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54	$	(24	)	$	102
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights.
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at July 1, 2010	$	178		$	48	$	(7	)	$	219

Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(15	)		(15	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power—non-regulated		—			—			(3	)		(3	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		2			—			—			2
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements		(3	)		(4	)		2			(5	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability		—			2			1			3
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201
	Available-for- Sale Auction Rate Securities			Available-for- Sale NDTF Investments			Derivatives (net)			Total
Nine months Ended September 30, 2011
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	118		$	47		$	(19	)	$	146
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings:
Revenue, regulated electric(a)		—			—			8			8
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(19	)		(19	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		13			—			—			13
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlements:
Purchases(a)		—			7			8			15
Sales		—			(3	)		—			(3	)
Settlements		(25	)		—			(5	)		(30	)
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			3			3			6
Transfers out of Level 3		(34	)								(34	)
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	72		$	54		$	(24	)	$	102
Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2011:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
Total	$	—		$	—		$	(12	)	$	(12	)
(a)    Derivative amounts relate to financial transmission rights
Nine months Ended September 30, 2010
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	198		$	—		$	25		$	223
Total pre-tax realized or unrealized losses included in earnings:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other		—			—			(44	)		(44	)
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—			—			(14	)		(14	)
Total pre-tax gains included in other comprehensive income:
Gains on available for sale securities and other		12			—			—			12
Net purchases, sales, issuances and settlement		(33	)		44			(5	)		6
Total gains included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as regulatory asset or liability or as non-current liability		—			2			16			18
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	177		$	46		$	(22	)	$	201

Pre-tax amounts included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to Level 3 measurements outstanding at September 30, 2010:
Revenue, non-regulated electric, natural gas, and other	$	—	$	—	$	15		$	15
Fuel used in electric generation and purchased power-non-regulated		—		—		(1	)		(1	)
Total	$	—	$	—	$	14		$	14

Additional Fair Value Disclosure

	As of September 30, 2011
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value(a)		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	19,111	$	21,346	$	8,273	$	9,469	$	2,558	$	2,685	$	3,469	$	3,977

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $959 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.

	As of December 31, 2010
	Duke Energy				Duke Energy Carolinas				Duke Energy Ohio				Duke Energy Indiana
	Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value		Book Value		Fair Value
	(in millions)
Long-term debt, including current maturities(a)	$	18,210	$	19,484	$	7,770	$	8,376	$	2,564	$	2,614	$	3,472	$	3,746

(a) Includes Non-recourse long-term debt of variable interest entities of $976 million for Duke Energy and $300 million for Duke Energy Carolinas.