Transmission and Distribution SummitChicago, IL

November 2-4, 2011

The Grid Side of Smart Grid

Becky HarrisonDirector, Smart Grid Technology and Outreach

Overview

• Who we are, who we will be• Our evolution in Grid Automation• Our “Smart Grid” – Distribution System

Demand Response• What have we learned

2

Progress Energy

3

• Fully integrated IOU

• 3.1 million customers with more than 21,000 megawatts of generation

• Progress Energy Carolinas - 1.5 million customers

• Progress Energy Florida - 1.6 million customers

Progress Energy

The New “Duke Energy”

4

• Will be the largest utility in the US

• Operations in 6 states• Market Capitalization: $36.5

billion***• Total Assets: $90.6 billion*• Revenues: $22.7 billion**• Customers: 7.1 million electric

and 500,000 gas• Generating Capacity: 57,200

megawatts* As of stock close September 30, 2010 ** As of December 31, 2009 *** As of December 31, 2010

Evolution of Our Grid Automation

● 1980’s – First GIS developed & DSCADA Piloted

● Mid 1990’s – ● Radio Controlled Capacitor System

● Outage Management System (OMS)

● Feeder Monitoring System (FMS)

● DSCADA fully deployed

● Late 1990’s –Distribution faults located using FMS event data

● Early 2000’s - Fault location integrated into OMS

5

Substation RTUServer Initiated to

Download FMS Event DataFault Occurs

Dispatch Computer Displays Fault Location

Automated Trending

Fault Location

Restoration

AlarmsDSCADA

Next Day

How did the data change operations????

6

What did we learn

72%77%

85%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

2004 2005 2006

Fault Location Accuracy(Within 0.5 miles of Predicted Location)

7

• Business value of data changed over time

• Innovation took place once the data was available

• Use of data drove better data

• Process change took time

Evolution of Our Grid Automation

● 1980’s – First GIS developed & DSCADA Piloted

● Mid 1990’s – ● Radio Controlled Capacitor System

● Outage Management System (OMS)

● Feeder Monitoring System (FMS)

● DSCADA fully deployed

● Late 1990’s –Distribution faults located using FMS event data

● Early 2000’s - Fault location integrated into OMS

• 2008-2012 - Distribution System Demand Response• Upgrade DSCADA

• Two Way Cellular Controlled Capacitors

• Replace FMS functionality

• Deploy Distribution Management System (DMS)

8

Distribution System Demand Response The “Next” Foundation

9

CarrierNetwork

Communications

PGNNetwork

Communications

PGN Wireless Commercial Wireless

Switch

Router

Distribution Feeder

Cap Bank(Controllers)

Recloser(may be sensors)

VR

Regulator (Controllers)

S

Sensor

DSDR Substation

Cap Bank

SEL

Feeder Breaker

S

Voltage Regulator

VRC

Gateway

DMS

VMSDSCADAEMS FMS DSM/AMI

PGN/CarrierNetwork

Communications

Telecom

Cabinet

PQ Meter

DSDR - How Does it Work?

10

Lower Regulatory Limit

Upper Regulatory Limit

Flattened profile allows greater Voltage Reduction

Existing

Flattened Profile

Lower Voltage to Reduce MWs

DSDR - Benefits

• Grid Side – Demand Response– 310 MW– 4-6 hours – sustainable

• Spinning reserves• Line loss reductions

11

Implications for changing our operations

• Grid is now a virtual generator– Employees have to think differently

• The data– Load flows analysis 5 years 15 minutes

• Data integrity critical– Define system of record– Integration of critical systems

12

What have we learned

• Don’t underestimate • the complexity, scale and pace of these

projects• the people and process change

• Remember you are building the foundation• Changing roles and interfaces

• OTIT

• Use and value of data will evolve

13

Q&A

14

Contact Information:Becky.Harrison@pgnmail.com

DOE SGIG Funding Acknowledgement

Acknowledgment: This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number OE0000213.

Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Referenced herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinion of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

15

Cautionary Statements Regarding Forward-Looking Information

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,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “target,” “forecast,” and other words and terms of similar meaning. Forward-looking statements involve estimates, expectations, projections, goals, forecasts, assumptions, risks and uncertainties. Duke Energy and Progress Energy caution readers that any forward-looking statement is not a guarantee of future performance and that actual results could differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statement. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about the benefits of the proposed merger involving Duke Energy and Progress Energy, including future financial and operating results, Progress Energy’s or Duke Energy’s plans, objectives, expectations and intentions, the expected timing of completion of the transaction, and other statements that are not historical facts. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements include risks and uncertainties relating to: the ability to obtain the requisite Duke Energy and Progress Energy shareholder approvals; the risk that Progress Energy or Duke Energy may be unable to obtain governmental and regulatory approvals required for the merger, or required governmental and regulatory approvals may delay the merger or result in the imposition of conditions that could cause the parties to abandon the merger; the risk that a condition to closing of the merger may not be satisfied; the timing to consummate the proposed merger; the risk that the businesses will not be integrated successfully; the risk that the cost savings and any other synergies from the transaction may not be fully realized or may take longer to realize than expected; disruption from the transaction making it more difficult to maintain relationships with customers, employees or suppliers; the diversion of management time on merger-related issues; general worldwide economic conditions and related uncertainties; the effect of changes in governmental regulations; and other factors discussed or referred to in the “Risk Factors” section of each of Duke Energy’s and Progress Energy’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These risks, as well as other risks associated with the merger, are more fully discussed in the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus that is included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that was filed by Duke Energy with the SEC on March 17, 2011 in connection with the merger as well as in any amendments to that Registration Statement filed after that date. Additional risks and uncertainties are identified and discussed in Progress Energy’s and Duke Energy’s reports filed with the SEC and available at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of the particular statement and neither Progress Energy nor Duke Energy undertakes any obligation to update or revise its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

16