Duke Energy Corporation (holding Company) · NYSE:DUK

Duke Energy Corporation (holding Company) — Bernstein Environmental Utilities Conference 2011

17 slides from Duke Energy Corporation (holding Company)'s conference presentation, Apr 5, 2011

1. Slide 1: EPA's Cooling Water Intake Proposed Rule

   EPA’s Cooling Water Intake Proposed Rule John Roebel - SVP of Generation Support, Duke Energy April 5, 2011

2. Slide 2: Safe Harbor Statement; Reg G Disclosure

   SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT This document contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are typically identified by words or phrases such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,”

3. Slide 3: Duke Energy Overview

   Duke Energy Overview Regulated Businesses Commercial Businesses U.S. Franchised Electric & Gas Commercial Power International • ~27,000 MW of regulated generation • ~7,600 MW of unregulated • ~4,200 MW of Latin American • Electric transmission & distribution generation generation assets • Natural ga

4. Slide 4: Overview of Proposed 316(b) Rule

   Overview of Proposed 316(b) Rule  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed 316(b) cooling water intake rules on March 28, 2011  Subject to 90 day comment period after publication  Final rules anticipated in July 2012  Impingement requirements  Prevention of aquatic mortality due to c

5. Slide 5: Summary of the Four Options Presented for Comment

   Summary of the Four Options Presented for Comment Option 1 - EPA's Preferred Option Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 DIF Threshold for 50 MGD Impingement 2 MGD 2 MGD 2 MGD [BPJ between 2 and 50 MGD] Requirements DIF Threshold for Entrainment 2 MGD 125 MGD 2 MGD 2 MGD Requirements Mandatory impingement Man

6. Slide 6: 316(b): EPA's Preferred Option – Option 1

   316(b): EPA’s Preferred Option – “Option 1”  Impingement requirements  Affects all facilities >2 million gallons per day (MGD) of design intake flow (DIF) (which covers just about everyone, including combined cycle and “new” plants)  Attain mortality rates below a standard or achieve flow velocit

7. Slide 7: Duke's Interpretation of the Proposed Rule

   Duke’s Interpretation of the Proposed Rule  Impingement  Most likely involves modifications to intake screens  Closed cycle cooling retrofits should not be warranted  Documenting compliance could be challenging  If the mortality rates cannot be demonstrated, then the intake velocity limit could

8. Slide 8: How Will Duke Make Project Decisions?

   How Will Duke Make Project Decisions?  Duke uses a multi-step economic modeling and project development process to build information for decision making purposes  This includes a modeling process that combines all of the pending environmental requirements together  Air, water, waste  No individu

9. Slide 9: Will this Proposed Rule Ultimately Affect Duke's Decisions?

   Will this Proposed Rule Ultimately Affect Duke’s Decisions?  Impingement mortality controls alone are not expected to be costly enough to affect run/retire decisions  Those decisions will still be based on the sum total of all air, water, and waste requirements  Entrainment controls will be based

10. Slide 10: Duke Position Under the Proposed Rule

    Duke Position Under the Proposed Rule Duke Energy Domestic Steam Capacity, Share MW Total System (including capacity under construction) 27,681 Units With Closed-Cycle Cooling, or Not Affected by the Rule 42% Announced Retirements 4% Other Unscrubbed Coal Affected by the Rule 11% Scrubbed Coal & Nuc

11. Slide 11: Potential Impacts to Nuclear Units vs. Fossil Units

    Potential Impacts to Nuclear Units vs. Fossil Units  Special considerations for retrofitting cooling towers at existing nuclear plants  Interaction with safety related equipment  Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing  Refueling outage extensions for equipment tie-in  Costs of cooling tower re

12. Slide 12: Cost Recovery

    Cost Recovery  Regulated Units  Duke does not currently have Commission pre-approval for cost recovery of these types of projects in any of our regulated operating jurisdictions  Duke has strong historical experience with environmental cost recovery  Clean Air Rules resulted in costs of approxim

13. Slide 13: Appendix

    APPENDIX Pe Eneray.

14. Slide 14: Duke Facility Data

    Duke Energy Steam Capacity, Duke Units by Facility Share MW Type Structure Current Cooling Method Cayuga 1,005 Fossil Reg Once-Through Gibson 2,845 Fossil Reg Cooling Lake, No NPDES Permit Facility Wabash River 668 Fossil Reg Once-Through Edwardsport IGCC 617 Fossil Reg Closed Cycle - No Intake Gall

15. Slide 15: 15

    15

16. Slide 16: Duke Energy Corporation Non-GAAP Reconciliations

    Duke Energy Corporation Non-GAAP Reconciliations Bernstein Environmental Utilities Conference April 5, 2011 2011 Adjusted Diluted EPS Outlook The materials for Duke Energy’s Bernstein Environmental Utilities Conference presentation on April 5, 2011, include a discussion of the forecasted 2011 adjust

17. Slide 17: Adjusted segment EBIT non-GAAP measure

    Adjusted segment EBIT is a non-GAAP financial measure as it represents reported segment EBIT adjusted for the impact of special items and the mark-to market impacts of economic hedges in the Commercial Power segment. Special items represent certain charges and credits which management believes will

Duke Energy — Bernstein Environmental Utilities Conference 2011 on 6ix