2.2.0.7 false Regulatory Matters 10301 - Disclosure - Regulatory Matters true false false false 1 USD false false Unit13 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 Unit12 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance pure xbrli 0 Unit1 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Unit14 Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 5 Regulatory Matters 3 us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureOfRegulatoryMattersPending us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 <div> 3. Regulatory Matters 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 Indiana Energy Efficiency. On June 17, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana withdrew its request to implement the save-a-watt energy efficiency model approved by the IURC on February 10, 2010. On September 28, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for new energy efficiency programs to enable meeting the IURC's energy efficiency mandates. Testimony in support of the petition will be filed in early November 2010. Duke Energy Kentucky Energy Efficiency. On January 27, 2010, Duke Energy Kentucky withdrew its application to implement save-a-watt and plans to file a revised portfolio in the future. Until that time, energy efficiency programs continue under Duke Energy Kentucky's existing demand-side management program. </div> Duke Energy Indiana Storm Cost Deferrals. On July 22, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed a request with the IURC to defer storm costs associated with a January 27, 2009 ice storm, which caused $14 million of damage primarily to its distribution system. Duke Energy Indiana has requested to defer the retail jurisdictional portion of the incremental storm costs, which would otherwise be charged as operating expense, until Duke Energy Indiana's next general rate proceeding. The costs at issue were charged to operating expense pending an IURC order in this proceeding. Duke Energy Indiana filed its case-in-chief testimony on August 27, 2009, and an evidentiary hearing was held on November 12, 2009. On July 14, 2010, the IURC approved the request to defer $12 million of retail jurisdictional storm expense until the next retail rate proceeding. On August 12, 2010, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) filed a notice of appeal with the IURC. The costs were deferred and operating expenses reduced in the third quarter of 2010. This request will be re-examined by the IURC as part of an IURC Investigation discussed further below. 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. A hearing was held in May 2010, and Duke Energy Ohio is awaiting the PUCO's decision. Duke Energy Carolinas Broad River Energy Center. On August 25, 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas experienced a disturbance on its bulk electric system which initiated at the Broad River Energy Center, a generating station owned and operated by a third party. The disturbance resulted in the tripping of six Duke Energy Carolinas generating units and the temporary opening of five 230 kilovolt (KV) transmission lines. The event resulted in no loss of load. In September 2008 the FERC initiated a preliminary, non-public investigation to determine if there were any potential violations by Duke Energy Carolinas of the North American Electric Reliability Council Reliability Standards. This investigation was coordinated with an ongoing Compliance Violation Investigation conducted by SERC Reliability Corporation. On March 5, 2009, FERC presented its preliminary findings about the event to Duke Energy Carolinas and solicited Duke Energy Carolinas' responsive views about the event and the findings. On March 27, 2009, Duke Energy Carolinas conveyed its responsive views to FERC Staff. This investigation could result in penalties being assessed. Capital Expansion Projects. <div> Overview. U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas is engaged in planning efforts to meet projected load growth in its service territories. Capacity additions may include new nuclear, IGCC, coal facilities or gas-fired generation units. Because of the long lead times required to develop such assets, U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas 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 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. Also in December 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas filed applications with the NCUC and the PSCSC for approval of Duke Energy Carolinas' decision to incur development costs associated with the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station. The PSCSC approved Duke Energy Carolinas' William States Lee III Nuclear project development cost application on June 9, 2008, and the NCUC issued its approval order on June 11, 2008. The approvals for the recovery of project development costs extended through 2009. 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 Department of Energy (DOE) for a federal loan guarantee, which has the potential to significantly lower financing costs associated with the proposed William States Lee III 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. </div> South Carolina passed energy legislation (S 431) which became effective May 3, 2007. The legislation includes provisions to provide assurance of cost recovery related to a utility's incurrence of project development costs associated with nuclear baseload generation, cost recovery assurance for construction costs associated with nuclear or coal baseload generation, and the ability to recover financing costs for new nuclear baseload generation in rates during construction through a rider. The North Carolina General Assembly also passed comprehensive energy legislation North Carolina Senate Bill 3 (SB 3) in July 2007 that was signed into law by the Governor on August 20, 2007. Like the South Carolina legislation, the North Carolina legislation provides cost recovery assurance, subject to prudency review, for nuclear project development costs as well as baseload generation construction costs. A utility may include financing costs related to construction work in progress for baseload plants in a rate case. Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Unit 6. On June 2, 2006, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the NCUC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct two 800 MW state of the art coal generation units at its existing Cliffside Steam Station in North Carolina. On March 21, 2007, the NCUC issued an Order allowing Duke Energy Carolinas to build one 800 MW unit. On February 27, 2009, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its latest updated cost estimate of $1.8 billion (excluding up to $0.6 billion of allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC)) for the approved new Cliffside Unit 6. In March 2010, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an updated cost estimate with the NCUC where it reduced the estimated AFUDC financing costs from $600 million 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 further below. On January 29, 2008, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued a final air permit for the new Cliffside Unit 6. In March 2008, four contested case petitions, which have since been consolidated, were filed appealing the final air permit. On May 12, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued rulings favorable to DENR and Duke Energy, dismissing several of petitioners' claims and granting summary judgment against petitioners on other claims, resulting in the dismissal of two petitions and leaving two for hearing. See Note 4 for a discussion of a lawsuit filed by 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) related to the construction of Cliffside Unit 6. On October 14, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas submitted revised hazardous air pollutant (HAPs) emissions determination documentation including revised emission source information to the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) indicating that no maximum achievable control technology (MACT) or MACT-like requirements apply since Cliffside Unit 6 has been demonstrated to be a minor source of HAPs. After issuing a draft permit and holding public hearings on that draft permit in January 2009, 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. In May 2009, four contested case petitions were filed appealing the March 13, 2009 final air permit. These four cases have been consolidated with each other and with the four consolidated cases filed in 2008, resulting in the dismissal of two of the four cases. The administrative law judge heard oral arguments on motions for summary judgment in July 2010. A decision on summary judgment is expected by the end of 2010. Construction of Cliffside Unit 6 is ongoing and is currently anticipated to be completed and in-service in 2012. Duke Energy Carolinas Dan River and Buck Combined Cycle Facilities. On June 29, 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas filed with the NCUC preliminary CPCN information to construct a 620 MW combined cycle natural gas-fired generating facility at its existing Dan River Steam Station, as well as updated preliminary CPCN information to construct a 620 MW combined cycle natural gas-fired generating facility at its existing Buck Steam Station. On December 14, 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas filed CPCN applications for the two combined cycle facilities. The NCUC consolidated its consideration of the two CPCN applications and held an evidentiary hearing on the applications on March 11, 2008. The NCUC issued its order approving the CPCN applications for the Buck and Dan River combined cycle projects on June 5, 2008. On November 5, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas notified the NCUC that since the issuance of the CPCN Order, recent economic factors have caused increased uncertainty with regard to forecasted load and near-term capital expenditures, resulting in a modification of the construction schedule. On September 1, 2009, Duke Energy Carolinas filed with the NCUC further information clarifying the construction schedule for the two projects. Under the revised schedule, the Buck project is expected to begin operation in combined cycle mode by the end of 2011, but without a phased-in simple cycle commercial operation. The Dan River project is expected to begin operation in combined cycle mode by the end of 2012, also without a phased-in simple cycle commercial operation. Based on the most updated cost estimates, total costs (including AFUDC) for the Buck and Dan River projects are $700 million and $710 million, respectively.   On October 15, 2008, the DAQ issued a final air permit authorizing construction of the Buck combined cycle natural gas-fired generating units, and on August 24, 2009, the DAQ issued a final air permit authorizing construction of the Dan River combined cycle natural gas-fired generation units. Duke Energy Indiana Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (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 $2 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. Duke Energy Indiana was required to file its plans for studying carbon storage related to the project within 60 days of the order. 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, or about 6.4% to the total IGCC project cost estimate, 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. Duke Energy Indiana filed a new cost estimate for the IGCC project reflecting an estimated cost increase of $530 million on April 16, 2010, with its case-in-chief testimony in the subdocket proceeding. Duke Energy Indiana is requesting approval of the new cost estimate of $2.88 billion, including AFUDC, and for continuation of the existing cost recovery treatment. A major driver of the cost increase includes 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 will 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 $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. An evidentiary hearing on the settlement is scheduled to begin November 29, 2010. Due to the IURC investigation discussed below, the IURC has scheduled a technical conference for November 3, 2010 related to the continuing need for the Edwardsport IGCC facility. Additionally, the IURC will re-review prior Edwardsport IGCC case approvals. <div> On June 2, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition for its fifth semi-annual IGCC rider in an ongoing review proceeding with the IURC. The evidentiary hearing is scheduled for December 2, 2010, and an order is expected in the first quarter of 2011. 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 the first quarter of 2011. Construction of the Edwardsport IGCC plant is underway and is currently expected to be completed and placed in-service in 2012. <div> IURC Investigation. On October 5, 2010, the Governor of Indiana terminated the employment of the Chairman of the IURC in connection with Duke Energy's hiring of a lawyer from the IURC staff. As requested by the governor, the Indiana Inspector General has initiated an investigation into the matter, and the IURC has announced it will internally audit the Duke Energy 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 has engaged an outside law firm to conduct its own investigation regarding Duke Energy's hiring of the attorney and Duke Energy's related hiring practices. On October 5, 2010, Duke Energy placed the attorney and President of Duke Energy Indiana on administrative leave. 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. </div></div> Other Matters. Duke Energy Indiana SmartGrid and Distributed Renewable Generation Demonstration Project. Duke Energy Indiana filed a petition and case-in-chief testimony supporting its request to build an intelligent distribution grid in Indiana. The proposal requested approval of distribution formula rates or, in the alternative, a SmartGrid rider to recover the return on and of the capital costs of the build-out and the recovery of incremental operating and maintenance expenses and lost revenues. The petition also included a pilot program for the installation of small solar photovoltaic and wind generation on customer sites, for $10 million over a three-year period. Duke Energy Indiana filed supplemental testimony in January 2009 to reflect the impacts of new favorable tax treatment on the cost/benefit analysis for SmartGrid. In response to issues raised by intervenors, Duke Energy Indiana filed rebuttal testimony agreeing to slow its deployment, and agreeing to work with the parties collaboratively to design time differentiated rate and energy management system pilots. On June 4, 2009, Duke Energy Indiana filed with the IURC a settlement agreement with the OUCC, the CAC, Nucor Corporation, and the Duke Energy Indiana Industrial Group which provided for a full deployment of Duke Energy Indiana's SmartGrid initiative at a slower pace, including cost recovery through a tracking mechanism. An evidentiary hearing was held on June 29, 2009. On November 4, 2009, the IURC issued an order that rejected the settlement agreement as incomplete and not in the public interest. The IURC cited the lack of defined benefits of the programs and encouraged the parties to continue the collaborative process outlined in the settlement or to consider smaller scale pilots or phased-in options. The IURC required the parties to present a procedural schedule within 10 days to address the underlying relief requested in the cause, and to supplement the record to address issues regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding recently awarded by the DOE. A technical conference was held at the IURC on December 1, 2009, wherein a procedural schedule was established for the IURC's continuing review of Duke Energy Indiana's SmartGrid proposal. On April 16, 2010, Duke Energy Indiana filed supplemental testimony in support of a revised SmartGrid proposal. An evidentiary hearing was held in July 2010, and an IURC order is anticipated in the first quarter of 2011. Duke Energy Ohio SmartGrid. Duke Energy Ohio filed an application on June 30, 2009, to establish rates for return of its SmartGrid net costs incurred for gas and electric distribution service through the end of 2008. The rider for recovering electric SmartGrid costs was approved by the PUCO in its order approving the ESP. Duke Energy Ohio proposed its gas SmartGrid rider as part of its most recent gas distribution rate case. The PUCO Staff has completed its audit and filed its comments. The PUCO Staff and intervenors, the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel (OCC) and Kroger Company, filed comments on October 8, 2009. The OCC and Duke Energy Ohio filed reply comments on October 15, 2009. A Stipulation and Recommendation was entered into by Duke Energy Ohio, Staff of the PUCO, Kroger Company, and Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, which provides for a revenue increase of $4.2 million under the electric rider and $590,000 under the natural gas rider. The OCC did not oppose the Stipulation and Recommendation. A hearing on the Stipulation and Recommendation occurred on November 20, 2009. Approval of the Stipulation and Recommendation occurred in May 2010. Duke Energy Ohio filed its application for 2009 cost recovery in July 2010 and is awaiting a PUCO order. <div> Pioneer Transmission LLC Joint Venture. In August 2008, Duke Energy announced the formation of a 50-50 joint venture, called Pioneer Transmission, LLC (Pioneer Transmission), with American Electric Power Company, Inc. (AEP) to build and operate 240 miles of extra-high-voltage 765 KV transmission lines and related facilities in Indiana. Pioneer Transmission will be regulated by the FERC and the IURC. Both Duke Energy and AEP own an equal interest in the joint venture and will share equally in the project costs, which are currently estimated at $1 billion, of which $500 million is anticipated to be financed by Pioneer Transmission and the remaining amount split equally between Duke Energy and AEP. The joint venture will operate in Indiana as a transmission utility. In March 2009, the FERC issued an order granting favorable rate treatment for the project, including requested rate incentives. That order was affirmed by a rehearing order issued by the FERC in January 2010. The IURC has appealed that order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On October 28, 2010, the IURC dropped its appeal to the Seventh Circuit. As is customary in formula rate cases, the FERC set the formula rate that transmission customers would pay for hearing and settlement procedures to address various challenges by intervenors to the inputs and calculations underlying the formula rate. These rate issues were resolved by a separate settlement among all parties, which was approved by the FERC on October 26, 2009. In December 2009, the MISO/PJM inter-Regional Planning Committee did not include the Pioneer Transmission project in the current regional transmission expansion plan. The Committee referred the project to the regional generation output study for possible inclusion in the next regional expansion plan. Duke Energy and AEP continue to work through the planning and regulatory processes in order to bring this project to commercial operation by year end 2015. Regional Transmission Organization. On May 20, 2010, Duke Energy Kentucky filed an application with the KPSC requesting permission to transfer control of certain of its transmission assets to effect a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) realignment from Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) to PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM). There may be significant costs associated with this transition. A hearing is scheduled to proceed on November 3, 2010, with an order expected by the end of 2010. Duke Energy Kentucky expects to join PJM on January 1, 2012. On June 25, 2010, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky submitted an Initial Filing to the FERC requesting that it issue an order by November 1, 2010 determining that the RTO realignment meets FERC standards for withdrawal from the RTO and approving the participation of Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky load and resources in certain PJM reliability pricing model auctions. The FERC issued an Order which approved Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky's 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. </div> 3. Regulatory Matters Rate Related Information. The NCUC, PSCSC, IURC and KPSC approve rates for retail electric and gas services within their states. The false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Describes all of the specific regulatory matters that are pending, including the regulatory authorities involved and the potential impacts. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) -Number 97-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 90 false 1 1 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true