Progress Energy presented on their smart grid initiatives including distribution system demand response. They discussed how their grid automation has evolved over time from the 1980s onwards to incorporate more advanced technologies like fault location systems and distribution management systems. They are now treating their distribution grid as a virtual generator through demand response. Progress Energy highlighted key lessons learned around not underestimating complexity, importance of data and systems integration, and the need for changes to roles and processes as the grid modernizes.

1. Transmission and Distribution Summit
Chicago, IL
November 2-4, 2011
The Grid Side of Smart Grid
Becky Harrison
Director, Smart Grid Technology and Outreach

2. 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

3. Progress Energy
• Fully integrated IOU
• 3.1 million customers with more
than 21,000 megawatts of
generation
• Progress Energy Carolinas Progress Energy
- 1.5 million customers
• Progress Energy Florida
- 1.6 million customers
3

4. The New “Duke Energy”
• 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
4 *** As of December 31, 2010

5. 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

6. How did the data change operations????
Alarms
DSCADA
Server Initiated to
Fault Occurs Substation RTU Download FMS Event Data
Dispatch Computer
Displays Fault Location
Next Day
Fault Automated
Location Trending
Restoration
6

7. What did we learn
• Business value of data Fault Location Accuracy
(Within 0.5 miles of Predicted Location)
changed over time 90%
• Innovation took place 85%
80%
85%
once the data was 75%
70% 72%
77%
available 65%
2004 2005 2006
• Use of data drove
better data
• Process change took
time
7

8. 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

9. Distribution System Demand Response
The “Next” Foundation
DSDR Substation
Voltage Feeder
Regulator Breaker
Distribution Feeder
S S VR
VRC SEL
Recloser
Cap Bank (may be sensors) Sensor Regulator
(Controllers)
Cap Bank
Gateway PQ Meter (Controllers)
Switch
Telecom PGN Wireless Commercial
Wireless
Cabinet Router
PGN/Carrier PGN Carrier
Network Network Network
Communications Communications Communications
EMS DSCADA VMS FMS DSM/AMI
DMS
9

10. DSDR - How Does it Work?
Flattened profile allows greater Voltage Reduction
Upper
Regulatory
Limit
Lower
Regulatory
Limit
Existing Lower Voltage to Reduce MWs
Flattened Profile
10

11. DSDR - Benefits
• Grid Side – Demand Response
– 310 MW
– 4-6 hours – sustainable
• Spinning reserves
• Line loss reductions
11

12. 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

13. 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
• OTIT
• Use and value of data will evolve
13

14. Q&A
Contact Information:
Becky.Harrison@pgnmail.com
14

15. 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

16. 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