ML19308A788

Annual Financial Rept 1974

ML19308A788
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee, Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire, Perkins, Cherokee
Issue date:	04/02/1975
From:	DUKE POWER CO.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7912110778
Download: ML19308A788 (27)

Text

.

DUKE POV7ER ANNUAL REPORT 1974 v.a.->s-To Our Shareholders:

Although the year 1974 may be remembered by many as a time of doubt and disillusionment, the lessons it offered should now provide the foundation for rational solutions to the challenges which confront our Company and the electric utility industry.

Throughout this report. we will be discussing some of those challenges. their causes and the realities we believe must be faced to over-COme CIlem.

Among the realities . . .

7912110 7,), *

/ .e #

To Our Shareholders (from the cover)

. brought into focus by the events of 1974 are many sating environmental benefits.

directly related to our industry's efforts to meet the . Utilities charged with the responsibility of assuring a nation's growing energy requirements. Here are a few reliable source of electric power must not be deprived of which will be discussed in detail later in this report: the economic means by which to meet that responsibility.

. The national goal of energy self-sufficiency demands The emphasis of this report on problem-solving, rather an immediate relaxation of unreasonable domestic restric- than operations. is not without basis. While we realize that tions which limit the availability of our own energy management's objective is to produce and sell electric-resounes. ity for the highest benefit of shareholders and customers.

In view of the anticipated diversion of coal to other we also realize that successful management depends industries for conversion to petroleum products nuclear largely on its ability to interpret and respond to changing power repre- ents the best alternative for meeting the social. political and economic conditions.

nation's long-range energy requirements. Following this summary of 1974 operations, we will ex-

. The consumer must not be further burdened by piore some of those conditions, their impact on our environmental expenditures which do not offer compen- Company and how we're responding to meet the Highlights of the Year 1974 1973 .73/Je (Decreasel Electric Revenues:

Total. S822,921,000 5600.681.000 37.0 Regular Sales. 3810,209,000 5593.570.000 36.5 Earnings for Common Stock. . S 76,562,000 5 72.106.000 6.2 Per Share of Common Stock:

Earnings. . S1.80 $ 1.87 (3.7)

Dividends Daid. S1.40 $1.40 -

Average Common Shares Outstanding. 42.618.000 38.465.000 10.8 Plant Construction Costs. .

SS10,752,000 $478.953.000 66 Kilowatthour Sales (thousands):

Total. . . 42,344,000 43.159.000 (1.9)

Regular Sales. . 41,678,000 42.669.000 (2.3)

Peak Load (KW). 8,057,625 8.235.585 (2.2)

Customers. 1,105,680 1.083.152 2.1

challenges. Earnings for common stock rose to 877 million in 1974

. a six per cent increase over 1973. u hile earnings per share l',.inancial Operat.ions declined from s1.87 to s1.80.

.\lany of t he challenges facing our Company are reflee-Among the factors adversely affecting earnings in 1974 tions of the broader national dilemma. Double-digit was a Februarv 3.1975. order bv the North Carolina inflation remains the critical issue and continues to offset Utilities Commission temporarily limiting to 75 per cent major gains in revenues.

the amount of fuel cost adjustment charges that can be Electric revenues for 1974 were $823 million. an increasa passed on to the Company's retail residential customers of $222 million or 37 per cent over 1973. It should be in that state. Under that order. the Company was not per-notal. however, that $151 million of 1974 revenues was mitted to bill approximately s1.123.000 of revenues which recorded through fuel cost adjustment charges which.

had twen accrual on an estimated basis for December.1974.

by allowing the Company to pass directly to customers thereby reducing 1974 net income and earnings for com-increases in fuel costs without markup. resulted in no mon stock by about 8526.000 and earnings per share of additional earnings.

common stock by one cent. The effects of the onler will be discussed further in this letter under Raic .4crivities.

Earnings also were adversely affected by ( 1) a two per cent declinein kilowatthour sales resulting primarily from Earnmgs and Dividends Per Share Common Stock mild weather conditions. energy conservation efforts and s2 :a the general slowdown of the economy, and ( 2) higher actua'. l costs than the historic costs on which 1974 rates were 2N based, including the addition of $682 million in new faci -

'" ities placed in service in 1974 but not yet included in rates EARNINGS Itetail rates under which customers were billed in 1974

,g were based on the Company's operations in 1973. The problem of " regulatory lag" will be discussed later in i 4e '

this report.

j h  %% $ @ h M, Earnings per share were further affected by$lilution re- l 1m ,

e4 A y  ; .s

- 7 m sulting from the sale of over nine million additional shares

' kk h N of common stock at levels below lumk value. The increase l h,g[% (  % * %j;- [Ip in common equity without a compensating increase in y1 7; @f QQ- fe $;; Q ':. t, 4 earnings reduced the return on common equity to 8.8 per W. N W. Q 99 ,p x1 m., c a D a; #

4 u lN ru .

• h? cent, far short of what regulatory agencies have found to be just and reasonable in the Company's rate cases. The c~n ' N i $ i N i N 2 c1 , j , y ,3 ,[3 'f2 return on total capitalization in 1974 was 7A per cent.

x ms i co e te i :o i 30 t 40 t40 i 40 i 40 i 4c $ 40 For the sixth straight year. the annual cash dividend

..,~ . - m - . r,m..- . m ..-i on common stock has remained at 61.40 per share. All 1 1

l l

l of the 1974 dividend is considered a return of capital In addition, the Company received siti million from and is non. taxable for Federal income tax purposes. bond anticipation notes for certain pollution control However, dividends on preference und preferred stock facilities at the Oconee Nuclear Station. 318.5 million are fully taxable. from nuclear term notes, and approximately $341 million Financing from the sale and sale-lease-back of certain assets.  !

Intermediate and long-term financing in 1974 included in 1975. the Company plans to sell approximately l the sale of 8100 million in first and refunding mortgage $100 million in assets. including certain non-utility bonds (9 3/eu. $ 100 million in five-year notes ( 13'U. and assets, to help reduce capital requirements from con-two common stock issues totaling 8.Too.000 shares. The ventional outside sources. The sale of non-utility assets l first public offering of 4.500.000 shares was priced at will help reduce the dilutive effeet on earnings per share j

$1'i375 per share and resulted in proceeds to the Company of issuing new common stock at levels below took of $72 million: the second offering, of 4.000.000 shares, value.

was priced at 811.ti25 per share and resulted in proceeds Although the issuance of new shares at below book of $43 million. An additional 585.387 shares of common value creates a dilutive effect within itself, periodic issues stock were issued through the Company's Dividend are required to maintain a favorable debt-equity ratio lleinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan and the Stock while financing the Company's construction program. Of Purchas-Savings Program for employees. with total long-term financing. fiist mortgage innds are the most l proceeds of $7.fi million. economical. If the debt portion of the capital structure l Capitalization Mdhons of Dollars l

Common Eauity C Preference and Preferred Stock Long-Term Cebt

\

1974 55 % 32% S29704 )

! l l

l 1969 55% 32% 31.204 9 i

i 1964 50% 45% $6614  !

ss ,

, I M '

4

)- -

N

l+comes excessive, the Company's bond credit rating unit of the coal-firal Belews Creek Steam Station.

couhl be reduced, forcing interest rates up even further. Each of the three Oconee units is rated at 871.000 kilo-In addition to incrcasing the cost of financing, such a re- watts. giving the station a total capability of 2.613.000 duction could seriously jeopardize the Company's ability kilowatts, or 24 per cent of the system's capability at year to sell bonds and impair its ability to meet future capital end. In 1975. the first year all three Oconee units will be rectuirements. m.% _ operating at full capability, the sta-Since the cost of financing is a 4 tion is expected to account for 31 direct function of the market's rigor- ., per cent of total system production.

ous demands for adequate earnings. The completed Belews Creek unit it is not surprising that Duke's em- W**# 43 is ratal at 1.060.000 kilowatts. An luided cost of long-term debt has . **I # IC identical unit is schedulal for comple-risen sharply since 1969. With in- -  %* W 4 mi tion in late 1975. Also schaluted for creasingly higher interest rates, the ,

A D 95M M' completion in 1975 are the final two embeddal cost of long term debt has >y as units of the.h>cassee flydroelectric increased from 5.09 per cent in 1969 n @* @# m@ 'ww T/ Station. which will add 305.000 kilo-to 7.30 per cent in 1974. The em- C; A F  %  % watts of pumpal storage capability.

g W*r  % M Icidal cost of preference and pre ferred stock has climiel from 6.00 per cent to 7.22 per cent. At the same "TG7 kb[

$f ph { p @g ,

,w Two identical units at Jocassee be-came operational in December.1973.

time, the return on average common . . , ~ e.n w w . . .

equity has declinal from 12.6 per cent =;===;=,;r Construction Cutback

~ ~' * "* ""'~""" ~

to 8.8 per cent. The current economic situation has improved earnings. of course, are placed a particularly heavy a necessary ingredient in any formula to hold capital costs burden on the capital-intensive electric down and to restore investor confidence in utility common utility industry. Charged by law with the responsibility stock. In addition, changes in the Federal tax laws are of providing a reliable source of power for their customers.

nenled to remove built.in penalties against the formation many companies now find themselves in the position of of new capital. Notable among the neatal changes are being economically deprived of the means by which to elimination of the double taxation of dividends and reduc- meet that responsibility.

tion of the corporate income mx rate. Duke Power was one of many utilities forced to make significant cutbacks in expansion efforts during the year.

After thoroughly investigating all available means of Plant Additions financing. we concluded that critical conditions existing System generating capability on January 1.19,.>. was m the financial markets made it impossible to maintain 10.923.000 kilowatts, boosted in 1974 by completion of - the former construction schedule.

Units 2 and 3 of the Oconee Nuclear Station, and the first The revised construction schedule reduced Duke's 3

capital expenditues by about 8150 Generating Capability reserves in the early 19sys instead of million tbrough 1975 and resulted in a ii M'Hions of Kdowatts the 12 to 13 per cent reserve that would total capital rnluction of almost $1.5

'cU ,*d3R,, s, MT result from unmanaged load growth.

billion through 1979.The construction pgz A partiallist of activities in this area program for 1975 is now budgetal at 9 includes:

8502 million. Construction costs for the F,W. E

+ Encouraging higher levels of in-g period 1975 79 are estimated at 83 bil- gg sulation in existing and new homes in lion. Under the new schalule. the two 7

. v order to reduce air-conditioning loads.

units of the William IL .\lcGuire # d, %y + Assisting commercial and indus-e Nuclear Station, previously plannal for operation in 1976 and 1977. will 5 N $N trial design teams in achieving task-become operational m 1978 and 1979.

ggg gp oriented lightinglevels. with a 4 R consequent reduction m mr condit,on-Nd m n Work on the Catawba Nuclear Sta ion MfM., MA ing requirements.

3 has tren delayed and the two units $vp) gyjygt {p4d Assisting large industrial cus-have tren reschaluled for operation 2,..  ; m tomers in the development of in house in 1981 and 1982. two vears later than i M, E load management programs for the previously Schululed[ Start of con- M @hd $d purpose of shifting certain power re-struction on the Perkins Nuclear 1964 1969 1974 q menb bm onpak to OWak Station and Cherokee Nuclear Station, times.

each consisting of three identical units, has twen moved Promoting heat recovery energy systems.

back two years. The first unit of the six, originally plannal . Working with architects and engineers in optimizing for operation in 1981 is now scheduks! for completion in energy utilization by use of computer techniques.

1983 u ith the five remaining units to follow at one year Among other possibilities being explored are various intervals. pricing incentives which could potentially further reduce lead Management the peak by shifting portions of the peak-causing demand Although load growt h forecasts have been revised to off-peak hours.

downwant to reflect current energy conservation efforts We're also studying the feasibility of installing elec-an.1 the general slowdown of the economy, the reduced tmnic controls which would permit the shedding of water-construction schalule would, by the early 19Ms. result heating and air-cc,nditioning loads during high peak in a level of generating reserves below that which we con- conditions as an alternative to buildine expensive new sider necessary for nMiability. generating equipment.

To help offset possible future pmblems in meeting de- While working to raluce the peak in accordance with mands. the Company has launchal a comprehensive the cutback in planned generating additions. we are con-program of load management directal toward further vinced t hat the demand for electricity will, by the mid-n<lucing the growth of peak demand. This program has 19Ms. continue its steady climb upward despite the best as its goal the achievement of a 16 to 17 per cent margin of conservation and energy utilization efforts. Indeed.

4

electricity must supply a growing pro- ""a**** a c-""a c~~* burnal was 812..w. A year later. in portion of t he nation's energ~v December.1974. t he price had in-

-! /

requirements if the national eoal of creasal to 827.64. At a time u hen energy self sufficiency is to be reached.  ! i utdities and or her industrie . u ere re-

'Ib reduce the nation's dependence i I l ,

i quiring more coal. safety and environ-on petroleum pnxiucts, whose price ,

, mental restriction . were makine less and availability are dictated largely

. coal obtainable. With the demand up 1 ,','.! and supply d< m n. costs have soared.

by forcien governments. we believe , j l that many users of these pnxlucts ' I

! The supply of coal has been drastic-must develop the necessary technology _I  !  !  ! ally affected by strineent reclamation for converting to ehrtrical energy ,

i  ; j laws which have forced the shutdown systems. When these systems are developui. the eh etricity to power

j j of some mines and curtailment of operations at orhers. New mine safety

I them must be available. I I ' regulations have been the major factor l l i l l l in reducine underground coal produc-Project Independence tion from 16 tons per man-day in 1969 l One of the realities which must be J -

~ ' "~

- to ll tons in 1971.

accepted is that the goal of energy At the same time there has leen self sufficiency cannot be reached so long as domestic increased competition for the limited supply of low-sulfur i rest rictions limit the availability of our own energy coal resulting from ensironmental restrictions which pro-resources. hibit burning of normal sulfur coal. Competition also has Only two basic fuels-coal and uranium-are available been accelerated by economic and political pressures in sufficient quantities to fuel the generation of the vast which have forced mimy utilities that previously burnal l amounts of electricity that nill be required to help meet oil to switch to coal.

this goal. Over the long run it seems inevitable that coal costs will Although Duke's future generating additions will be go even higher as additional restrictions become effective.

primarily nuclear t with some hydro additions for in- Rouchly one third of the nation's coal supply contains creased peaking capability). our system will rely heavily too much sulfur to be used by utilities under proposed new on coal for some time as the main source of energy for environmental regulations. Another 20 to 30 million tons generating electricity. Both the availabdity and cost of may be lost annually by the shutdown of additional mines coal have been severely affected by well intentioned safety as a result of new health and safety requirements for un-and environmental regulations which. if unaltered, may derground mining. Although the President has vetoed a seriously jeopardize the reliability of service and place bill which would have further reducal the available supply additional hardships on both utility investors and utility of coal from curface mining, efforts to revive the measure customers. have already resumed in the new Coneress.

In December.1973. Duke's average price per ton of coal While Duke expects to supply about half of its 1975-b

1979 coal mjuirements from its own mines and other min- levels of radioactivity found in the natural environment.

ing operatias in w hich Duke has investments, the same Insofar as radioactivity is concerned, the most sensitive i factors which have forced production down and costs up monitoring devices have been unable to detect any in-t on the national scene also affect the production and cost of creases in radioactivity at the Oconee Nuclear Station coal from our own mines. site above that which existed before the plant was built.

If the goals of " Project Independence" are to be realized. The safety record of the nuclear industry is just as and the cost of eketricity is to remain ca.e em impressive. During an accumulated within the means of the ordinary , , ,""** *"""" 250 reactor years of successful opera-citizen, the nation's coal reserves must , tions no employ ee nor any munber of he fully utilized. To achieve these ,. the public has ever received a radiaticn j goals. we need reasonable laws that , e injury from a licensed nuclear power will strike a balance between the need a plant in this country.

for environmental protection and the  :- Nuclear power has two additional nealof society for more energy. I wl advantays which make it clearly the j

q best choice of available energy The Role of Nuclear wy sources.

Although coal will remain a vital '

gg First are its favorable effects on fuel for many decades, we are con- '"

, y; both current and future operating f, , g vinced that the best solution to the a

- .  % costs. In 1974. the spiraling cost of 4 ,

energy pmblem lies in nuclear power.

Despite its impeccable safety record. .

99 (y, .

1' fo,,sil fuels was painfully felt by our customers in the form of a fuel cost 4

however. development of the nuclear >

I Q"1:* ,7 ,i adjustment charge which. at year-end, industry continues to be blunted by ns, ,m y' "w" m -=

amounted to about a half-cent per kih>-

i " "" " " ' "

mounting regulation. intervention. watthour. If the Oconee Nuclear and problems of financing. Station, which accounted for 15 per cent of generation.

Due primarily to the staggering proliferation of regula- had been a coal burning plant, an additional 827 million tions. the lead time from initial design to start up of in charges to customers would have been requiral in 1974 nuclear units has now increasal to ten years. That time to recover the higher fuel costs. These hypothetical must be reduced if future units are to become operational charges take into consideration the lower capital costs of in time to meet the predicted. if not inevitable, increases a coal burning plant of the same size and vintage.

in electric consumption. An even more vivid illustration of the economics of The environmental advantages of nuclear power are nuclear is the comparison of the projected capital and self. evident. Since no combustion products are involved. operating costs for the Cherokee and Perkins stations.

- there are no releases of smoke or other combustion gases Althouuh the capital investments in these plants are ex-to the atmosphere. The minute amounts of radioactivity pected to be around 8841 million higher than comparably-ruutinely releasal to the environment are well below the sized coal-burning plants. their lower operating costs are I

($

i expectui to result in a net sasings to customers of $8 burden on Duke Power customers. In recently-issued dis- i billion over the 25-30 years useful lives of the plants. These charge permits for a number of Duke steam stations. the projections are based on early 1974 estimates of antici- EPA has set standards for thermal discharges which. if pated capital and operating costs. not modified. would either severely restrict the operation ,

What shouki he the condncing argument for nuclear is of these plants or require the construction of expensive l its vital role in achievint, ;he go:ds of " Project Indepen- cooling towers.

dence." For utilities which rely heavily noc,,,, ,,_ po,,,, In either case, the cost of electricity on oil. increasal utilization of nuclear c-: ~ .w, produced by the affected plants would power results in a direct reduction of rise sharply.

oil consumption. In our own case, the We have asked for public hearings use of nuclear makes possible the e,, omm before the EPA and. in the event the diversion of coal to utilities currently c= C" permits are upheld, intend to take dependent on oil, and to ot her indus- whatever legal recourse that is avail-tries for conversion to a number of able to avoid these unnecessary petmleum. based products historically expenditures.

derived from oil. c ,,,, Our resistance to the EPA permits Witn the three units of the Oconee c shouki in no way be interpreted as an c

Nuclear Station operating at full capa- c,,,,

effort by Duke Power to avoid its en-bility. t he nuclear generation displaces vironmental responsibilities. On the roughly 21.000 tons of coal per day- contrary, we feel that in most cases the the equivalent of 100.000 barrels of oil. installation of cooling towers would

_ , , have greater adverse impact on the Environmental Costs --, _ ._.~. _ .- envimnment than take or river cooling.

Duke Power has long recognized its ZCMO ~ While we fully recognize that responsibility to protect the erwironment, and over the thermal discharges may alter iand in some cases, enhance) years has spent millions of dollars on pollution control the lake ecology in the discharge areas. our long experience equipment and related activities. This work has included with operating steam stations on the lakes and rivers of a 370 million air pollution control program completed in the Pialmont Carolinas has given no indication that such 1973, that has virtually eliminated flyash emissions from alterations warrant the vast expenditures required to our coal burning plants. comply with the EPA permits. This belief is supp'orted by We believe these expenditures bave tven justified and years of environmental studies by our own scientists and we consider them a necessary expense involved in meet- by consulting scientists from leading colleges and ing our customers' requirements for electricity. universities.

However. we are particularly concerned over recent In addition to requiring the unnecessary expenditure Em ironmental Protection Agency I EPA) actions u hich. of millions of additional dollars, the construction of cool-we feel, would place an unnecessary additional financial ing towers would essentially nullify the capital invest-7

i 1

i i

1 i

ment s already made in certain of our lakes u hich. in addi. coincide with the test period of the North Carolina filing.

tion to pmsiding a valuable water resource and recrea. The South Camlina raiuest would pnxtuce additional tional asset. are already providing the necessary cooling, annual revenues of approximately 857 million.

Cooling towers also would substantially reduce the The North Camlina filing also reipsested that $108 efficiency of the plants, which would be plainly contrary million in interim relief be grantal. but hearings previously to the national effort to conserve basic energy resources. scheduled for mid. February have twen delayed.

Even in t he best of times. envimnmental expenditures Essentially. the use of a forward test period makes it l without compensating emimnmental benefits must be possible to design rates that will reflect expenses antici-j avoidal. In view of the financial bunlen already placalon pated to be incurred at the time the requested rates j consumers by the rising costs of virtually all necessities. become effective.

j such expenditures must now be fully resisted by industries Decisions on previous filings were handed down by both i

n hich pmvide those necessities, state agencies during the year. Ilot h commissions granted 100 per cent of rate requests in effeet on an interim basis Rate Activities since April.1974, which together would pnxluce additional -

, in a period of continuing inflation, the most crucial annual revenues of about 887.9 million based on 1974 i problem facine a gnm th utility is achieving rates t hat will levels of business. In Imth orders. the Company was produce revenues sufficient to offset increases in expenses. directed to restructure the retail rate design. shifting more

This is the issue upon which all other activity hinges. of the increase to industrial customers and lessening the Solutions to the problems of financing, service and even impact of the increase on residential customers.

t he rising cost of electricity all depend on the Company's lloth agencies also gave final approval to a " coal cost -

ability to maintain financial stability. ~

adjustment charge" that had ten in effect in both states The matching of revenues with current expenses has since January,1974. and which accounted for 8120 million been hampered largely by the problem of regulatory lag. of 1974 revenues i881 million applicable to N.C.). The North Traditionally, requests for rate relief have been based on - Carolina commission altered the charge to include all fos.

historic expenses. Lly the time the requests are compiled. sil fuels, and a request for a similar alteration is includal beard. studial and actal upon by the regulatory agencies, in the pending South Camlina case. An additional 831 mil-the requestal rates. even if appmved in their entirety. are lion was recorded during the par thmuch a fuel cost ad-

no longer sufficient to recover the higher expenses bmught justm-t charge on wholesale business.

on by inflationary pressures. T - .. orth Carolina decision, however, has been appealal Under a new state law permitting the use of forward by the State Attorney General, who contends that auto-test perimis in rate filings, the Company in late November. matic rate adjustments violate the statutory requirement -

, 1974. askal the North Camlina Utilities Commission of advance approval of rate increases. The appeal also i NCUCI for permission to increase rates approximately contends that refunds should be made in accordance with 4

8131 million basal on projected operations for the test the new rate design included in the NCUC's order approv-period ending December 31.1975.The Company subse. ing the general rate increases.

quently amendal a pending request in South Carolina to On February 3.1975. the Company received a new order 8

from the NCUC w hich temporarily lim- Tota Revenues ws a oms the interests to be mutual.

ital to TT) p3r cent the amount of fuel Successful opposition to rate in-

" 23 cost adjustment charges that can be o,,, creases could result in an immediate passed on to retail residential custom- *= and direct savings to the rate-payer.

ers in North Carolina.The order. which O ^j"Le % , thus satisfying his short-term interest was to remain in effect a maximum of keeping the size of his pmver bill G) days beginning February 1.1975. Y-n down. Over the long run. however.

followed public hearings on fuel cost ssca m this would have potentially disas-adjustment charges previously granted s,s2 . trous effects on the customer. the to Duke and two other electric utilities serving North Carolina. The hearines M  : gy i

J l

least of which is even higher electric bills than he otherwise would have j

were to be resumed on February 18 ,

< experienced.

1975. at u hich time the companies ' j i , As mentioned previously. inatk quate wouki be given the opportunity to j j j >

earnings could seriously jeopardize the present evidence in support of the fuel ,a 1 '

Company's ability to market securities cost adjustment charges. ~j l d uj y and impair its ability to meet future The February 3 order affected 1974 d .a electrical requirements. A power short-operations because of the rodaylag an m72 1973 a74 age, of course, wouki weaken the econ-between t he time fuel costs are incurred and the time such omy of the region we serve and result ultimately in a loss increases are actually bilkxi to customers. To properly of income for those whose jobs would be affected by re-match increasal fuel costs and revenues, the Company duced productivity.

accrues monthly the estimated revenues that will be sub- Inadequate earnings also tend to have a greater detri-sequently billed. In this case, the limiting of fuel charges mental effect on the cost of electricity titan the rate in-raluced the amount of revenues the Company had accrued creases necessary to achieve adequate earnings. As shown on av estimatal basis for December,1974, with the pre- earlier, inadequate earn ngs generally result in higher viously mentional effect on net income, earnings for com- financing costs. These insts, like the cost of labor. mate-mon stock and earnings per share of common stock. rials and aiuipment ar a necessary expense associated In a separate order. the commission approved the with prmiding electric service and an expense which Company's accounting procedures related to unbilkxl eventually must be borne by the rate-payers. For example, revenues resulting from fuel cost adjustment charges. debt expenses in 1974 amcunted to 8111 million. or nearly With the average cost per kilowatthour c'imbing half of the Company's income before interest deductions.

steadily to reflect higher operating and capital costs, it Unlike fuel and other vanable costs. the cost of debt is not surprising that rate increases air the dominant capital. once incurred, remains constant and has the same l cause of customer discontent. While the interests of the influence on rates for the life of the securities on which 1 Company and its customers may seem at cross-purposes the costs were incurred.

over the matter of rates, basic utility economics prove A failure on our part to vigorously pursue adequate j i

a

l l

l I

r carnings w,uld. consequently, result Average Cost Per Residential KWH Expenses also have been reduced by in even h;gher costs to the consumer. crus Per KWH such actions as the temporary closine of training facilities.the discontinuance of media advertising and reductions in Co ,t Cutting 27e travel expenses and overtime.

Additional rate increases are inevi- 2 s2c- While these ef forts have direct cost-2 3 '* savings benefits, the greatest savings

le to help ctfset continued inflation 2 09* continue to be realized through im-m tne co t of pmver production. The '8*

Company, however, is not relying sole- .- i 72c proved efficiency and increased pro-ly on rate relief in the fight against ,

ductivity. In : !! areas of Cornpany op-inflation. Every effort to reluce costs erations. innovative mana ement is being made to help reduce the size m a techniques and advanced 3,mputer and frequency of rate requests. 5 $ 5m applications are t, ing err ployed to help A nxluction of about 1.400 employees W 3 .y 3 y 3 hold the cost line against inflation.

was made in the latter half of 1974. 8 I 8 y 8 1 Indicative of the Company's com-with most of the layoffs occurring mitment to efficiency is the unprece-as a natural adjunct to the cutback '964 1969 1974 dented operating record of Alarshall in construction. Further reductions  %~a.o oc'ot- 2' '974 Steam Station, recently declared the are expected through attrition. nation's most efficient coal-burning I)istribution costs have been substantially lowered by plant for the eighth consecutive, war. An even higher a reduction in the number of people performing this work level of efficiency was achieved by Unit l of the new Belews by over .too. Creek Steam Station durme the first six months of the The const ruction of transmission lines has been sharply unit's operating life.

curtailed and we have reduced the use of older. less While we will continue to look for ways to blunt the efficient ; enerating units to help lower operating effects of inflation, we realize that the only real solution cost s. lies with a curbing of deficit government spending.

In this report, we have attempted to give you a straight forward appraisal of the problems and challenges facing our Company. Overall, w e believe the future to be bright. This optimism is based on the most significant reality of all - the increasingly important role of electricity in meeting the nation's energy requirements.

To successfully meet the challenges, however, we will need the continued support and understanding of the public, the government, our dedicated employees, and our shareholders. Your support is essential to the task.

For the Board of Directors C. art llorn. Jr. President February 17,1975 10

State of the Union- -

The President's Recommendations In his State of the Union message to Congress on January 15.1975. President Foni spoke to many of the problems and challenees outlined in this report. I!is recommendations to the Congress included:

+ Completion of 200 major new nuclear p>wer plants and 150 major new coal fired power plants by 19R

+ Licensing and financial reforms to spel up siting and construction of nuclear plants.

• Amendments to the Energy Supply anc'. Environ-mental Coordination Act to greatly increase the number of power plants, now fueled by oil or natural gas, that can be converted to burn coal. ,,

+ Amendments to the Clean Air Act to allow greater use of the nation's coal reserves.

In an outline of energy questions and answers accom-panying the President's message. the Administration said proposed legislation would require state regulatory agencies to permit utilities to generate sufficient revenues "to cover costs during a period of rapid inflation and heavy ,

capital expansion requirements." The Administration also ]

rejected public ownership as a solution to the problems of j utility financing, pointing out that "there is no consensus that publicly owmi power is cheaper than privately owned power. .except to the extent that it receives subsidization thi sugh cheaper capital and lower taxes.'

V 'e applaud the Pmsident's recommendations and urge

- their prompt approval by Congress.

1 l

l l

4 11

Statement of Source of Funds for D! ant Construction Costs vey e~,eac w. w a, l')7) 1970 SOURCE OF FUNDS:

Funds from operations-Net encome. S105,096.000 $ 99.562.000 Non-cash items (decrease).

Depreciation and amortization 96,846,000 76.300.000 Deferred income taxes. net. 43,885,000 25.272.000 Common equity component of the allowance for funds used dunng construction. (29.644,000) (29.492.000)

Other net. 7,187.000 (797.000)

Funds from operations. 223,370,000 170.845.000 Dividends paid on common stock (59,263,000) (54.036.000)

Dividends paid on preference and preferred stock. . (26 534,000) (27.456 000)

Funds retained in the business 135.573,000 89 353 000 Funds from financing-net proceeds-Common stock 122,658.000 72.001.000 Term notes 116,982.000 30.499.000 First mortgage bonds. 97,730,000 198 823.000 Sale of assets 53,784.000 -

Preferred stock. -

59.759.000 increase (decrease) in notes payable. 72,790,000 (26.704.000)

Decrease in long-term debt. (4.190.000) f 1250 000)

Funds from financing. 459,754.000 333 128 000 Total available funds. 595,327,000 422.481.000 Decrease (increase) in working capital. etc.-

Matenals and supplies. (61,460,000) 6.578.000 Other current assets . (56,426,000) (7.227.000)

Current liabilities . 34,612,000 22.399.000 investments in and advances to subsidianes . (13,437,000) 62.000 Other. net . (17,508.000) 5.168.000 PLANT CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES. 481.108.000 449.461.000 Common equity component of De allowance for funds used dunng construction. 29.644.000 29.492.000 Plant construction costs. SS10,752.000 $478.953 000 See notes to financiae s'atements Statement of lietained Earnint s ves, e~,mmem, u 1974 1973 RETAINED EARNINGS-Beginning of year. S104.629,000 $ 88.918.000 ADD-Net income. 105.096,000 99 562 000 Total. 209,725.000 188 480.000 DEDUCT:

Cash dividends-Common stock ($ 1.40 per share). 59,263,000 54.006.000 Preference stock (56.75 per share). 3,375,000 3.375.000 Preferred stock-Series C (S4.50 per share). 1,575.000 1.575.000 Senes D(55.72 per share). 2,002,000 2.002.000 Senes E (56 72 per share). 2,352,000 2.352.000 Series F ($8.70 per share). 5,220,000 5.220.000 Series G ($8.20 per share). 4.920,000 4.920.000 Senes H (S 7.80 per share) 4,680,000 4.680.000 Series I ($7 35 eer share) 4,410,000 3.332.000 Capital stock expense. . 7.355.000 2.359 000 Total deductions. - 95.152.000 83.851.000 RETAINED EARNINGS-End of war. . S114,573.000 $104 629 000 See notes to heattmal statomente, 12

1 Statement of Income . . . e ,.. c s.m., 3 1974 1973 ELECTRIC REVENUES (Note 21. S822.921.000 5600.681.000 ELECTRIC EXPENSES ANDTAXES:

Operation-Fuel used in electric generation- 333.399.000 191.861.000 Purchased power. 8.495.000 28.575 000 Waqes. benefits and matenais . 92,732,000 78.580.000 Maintenance of plant facilities-wages and matenals. 33,527,000 28.886.000 Depreciation. 33.914,000 70 459.000 Taxes (Notes 1 and 7)-

General. 64,871,000 50.054.000 Federalincome. 13.021,000 13.900.000 ~

State income. 1,732,000 1.969.000 Deferred income taxes. net. 43.885,000 25.272.000 Investment tax credit:

Tax credit deferred. -

178.000 Amortization of deferments (credit). (949.000) f 4 058 000)

Total electnc expenses and taxes. 674.627.000 485.676.000 Electnc operating income. 148.294.000 115.005.000 OTHER INCOME:

Allowance for funds used dunng construction (Note 1) 62,159,000 59 459.000 Earnings of subsidiaries from operations. net. 299.000 r8F000 Dividends and interest. 2,406,000 1.fjl f .000 Other. net (deduction) (Note 10) 2.381.000 (1.10! 000)

Income tax-credit. 16.094.000 15 40UX_)0 Total other income. 83,339.000 75.951 000 Income before interest dedugons. 231,633.000 190 963 000 IN7EREST DEDUCTIONS:

Interest on long-term debt. 110,777,000 85.659.000 Other interest. 15,407,000 5.465.000 Amortization of debt discount, premium and expense. 353.000 277.000 Total interest deductions. 126.537.000 91.401 000 Net income. 105.096,000 99.562.000 I DIVIDENDS ON PREFERENCE AND PREFERRED STOCK. 28.534.000 27 456.000 Earnings for common stock. S 76,562.000 s 72.106.000

- AVERAGE COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING. 42,618,000 38.465.000 I EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK. S1.80 $ 1.87 s.. , -i. to vin.ac,.i m.<n.ms I

The 1974 Revenue Dollar )

l 34% 41%

Residential Fuel costs J 18%

i% Cost of Capital 33% baferiais Industnal Purchased Power

& Other Wilere it came from 10%

Hou it um umi

" E * ' " "

Commercial 38% w gesa senefits 13%

M Other Electnc . 15%

Revenues Taxes g3

Balance Sheet m . o. 3, 1974 1973 Assets ELECTRIC PLANT Electric plant in service S3,146,529,000 $2.489.371.000 (At original cost--Note 1) Less-accumulated depreciation and amortization. 727,878,000 652.922.000 Electric plant in service. net . 2,418,651,000 1.836.449.000 Construction work in progress (includes in 1974 $547.274.000 of generating facilities). 637,248,000 866 021.000 3.055,899,000 2.702.470.000 OTHER PROPERTY Other property - at cost (less depreciation: -

AND 1974-$3.395.000: 1973-SO,106.000) . 22,043,000 20.819.000 INVESTMENTS Investments in and advances to subsidiaries at equity (Note 3) . 39,633,000 30.626.000 Other secunties-at cost or less . 8,330,000 8.328.000 70.006,000 59.773 000 CURRENT ASSETS Cash. 18,643,000 14.563.000 Receivables less allowance for losses . 76,255,000 60,148.000 Fuel clause revenues accrued (Note 1) . 36,239,000 -

Materials and supplies-at average cost:

Fuel. 68,428,000 24,611.000 Other. 56.568,000 38.925.000 256.133,000 138.247.000 DEFERRED DEBITS, ETC. Debt expense, being amortized over terms of related debt . 10,964,000 8.010.000 Other . 19,017,000 5.518.000 29,981,000 13,528.000 S3,412,019,000 $2.914 018.000 Liabilities CAPITALIZATION Total capitalization . S2,970,438.000 $2.696.904.000 CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable . 64,957,000 39,128.000 Interest accrued . 33,755,000 27,288.000 Taxes accrued . 9,258,000 8.181,000 Other . 9,968,000 8.729 000 117,938,000 83.326.000 Notes payable for construction-pending permanent financing (Notes 8 and 9). 142,092,000 69.296.000 Current portion of long-term debt . 83,500.000 -

343,530,000 152.622.000 DEFERRED CREDITS, ETC Accumulated deferred income taxes (Note 1) . 90,073,000 56,438,000 investment tax credit (Note 1) . 2,796,000 3,746.000 Other . 5.182.000 4.308.000 98.051,000 64.492.000 S3,412,019.000 $2.914.018.000 se. notes to e.aaeec um.m..ms 14

blatenient O[ CapitaliZalion Decerneer 31 Per Cent of Per Cent of Common Stock Equity (Notes 3 and 4): 1974 Capitalization 1973 Capitalization Common stock no par. 70,000.000 shares authorized; 47.836.059 and 38.750.672 shares outstanding for 1974 and 1973. resoectively . S 822,113.000 $ 692.101.000 Retained earnings . 114,573,000 104 629 000 Total common stock equity. 936,686.000 31.5 796 730 000 29.5 Preference and Preferred Stock (Note 4):

Preference stock. $100 par. 6 3/4%

Convertible Senes AA. 1.500.000 shares authonzed. 500.000 shares outstanding . 50.000,000 50.000.000 Preferred stock. $100 par,5.000.000 shares authonzed: _

Series Shares outstanding 4.50% C 350.000 35,000.000 35.000.000 5.72% D 350.000 35,000,000 35.000.000 6 72% E 350.000 35,000,000 35.000.000 8.70% F 600.000 60,000.000 60.000,000 8.20% G 600.000 60,000,000 60.000.000 7.80% H 600.000 60,000,00n 60.000.000 7.35% 1 600.000 60.000.000 60.000.000 Preferred stock A. $25 par.10.000,000 shares authonzed, none outstanding - -

Total preference and preferred stock. 395,000.000 13.3 395.000.000 14.7 Long Term Debt (Note 5):

First and refunding mortgage bonds:

Series Year Due 3% 1975 40.000.000 40.000.000 2 65% 1977 40.000,000 40.000.000 27/8% 1979 40,000,000 40.000.000 31/4% 1981 35.000,000 35.000,000 35/8% 1986 30,000.000 30.000.000 41/2% 1992 50.000,000 50,000.000 41/4% B 1992 50,000,000 50.000.000 41/2% 1995 40,000,000 40.000.000 53/8% 1997 75,000,000 75.000.000 63/8% 1998 75,000,000 75.000.000 7% 1999 75.000.000 75.000.000 8% B 1999 75,000,000 75.000.000 81/2% 2000 75.000,000 75.000.000 8 5/8% B 2000 100.000.000 100.000.000 71/2% 2001 100,000,000 100.000.000 7 3/8% B 2001 40,000,000 40.000.000 73/4% 2002 100,000.000 100,000.000 7 3/8% B 2002 75,000,000 75.000.000 73/4% 2003 100,000,000 100.000.000 81/8% B 2003 100,000,000 100.000,000 93/4% 2004 100,000,000 -

Sinking fund debentures. 4 7/8% 1982 32,500,000 33.750.000 Term notes: 61/2%-7% 1975-1978 111,000,000 111.000.000 Floating pnme 1975-1976 49,000,000 30.500.000 13% 1979 100,000,000 -

Turbine generator leases (Note 6) 12,626,000 12.380.000 Unamortized debt discount and premium. net 2,126.000 2,544.000 Less current portion of long-term debt (83.500.000) -

Totallong-term debt . 1.638.752.000 55.2 1.505.174 000 55 8 Total capitalization . S2.970,438.000 100.0 $2.696.904.000 1000 see ner.. to onncia eatemem 15

, Notes to Financial Statements

1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies. principally from the tax deductions related to interest l A. Additiom to E/cciric /Lur. The Company charges expense arising from investments in non utility properties, to construction all direct labor and materials, as well as mainly construction work in progress.

relatal indirect construction costs including general engi. Income tax reductions arising from the 4?o Job neering. taxes and the cost of money iallowance for funds Development investment tax credit placed in effect during used during construction). 1971 are being amortized over the depreciable lives of the Allowance for funds used during construction ( ADC) related property, and those arising from the 3"c invest-is an accounting procedure whereby the net composite ment tax credit in effect until 1969 are being amortized.

interest and equity costs of capital funds used to finance as approved by regulatory authority over a five-year construction are transferred fmm the income statement to period. The unused investment tax credits available construction work in progress in the balance sheet and, for carryover to future years were 835.739.000 and accordingly, are capitalized in the same manner as con. 317.944.000 at December 31.1974 and 1973. respectively.

struction labor and material costs. This item is recognized D. Retirement I%m Cmi.The Company has a non-con-as a cost of " Electric Plant". with an off-setting credit to tributory retirement plan for the benefit of its employees.

"Other Income".because under established regulatory rate The Company's policy is to fund pension costs accrued practices, a utility is permitted to include a fair return on. which amounted to $6.040.000 in 1974 and $5.783.000 in and the recovery of. these capital costs through their 1973. During 1973 the plan was amended, raising the level inclusion in the rate base and in the provision for depre. of benefits for employees and retirees. and the assumed ciation. ADC has been calculated using the rates. net of earnings rate was increased from 31/2"c to 41/4% The applicable income taxes, of 71/27e through June 30.1974 changes had no material effect on annual costs for the and 8% thereafter, plan. The unfunded prior service cost, which is being II. Defireciation a.id Amorri:arion. Provisions for amortized over a ten-year period, was 84.152.000 at depreciation are recorded using the straight-line method. December 31.1974. Amendment of the retirement plan The year end composite average rate was 3.257c for 1974 to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security and 3.20"e for 1973. Provisions for amortization of nuclear Act of 1974 will not significantly affect the ultimate cost fuel, which are included in " Fuel used in electric genera. of the plan: however, it is expected to have some impact tion." are recorded using the unit of production method. on theinitial funding requirement.

C. Inctmie 7axet The Company provides deferred in. E. Fuel Clume Rerenne Accnied. The Company has come taxes under normalization accounting for differences fuel cost adjustment clauses pertaining to both wholesale in book and tax depreciation arising from the use of and retail business. These clauses pmvide for a 60-day accelerated tax depreciation, except for certain plant ad. time lag from the date increases in fuel costs are incurred ditions in 1968 and 1969. The Company accrues the future until the date such increases are billed to customers. To income tax benefits attlibutable to the carry forward of pmperly match increased fuel costs and revenues, the income tax operating losses arising from such accelerated Company. beginning in 1974, is accruing monthly the tax depreciation and othe' r book tax differences. At estimated revenues that will be subsequently billed. The December 31.1974. $11.394.000 of such benefits for the amounts involved prior to January 1.1974 were immaterial years 1973 and 1974 have been recorded by reducing the and no accruals were recorded (See Note 2).

accumulated deferred income tax liability. 2. Rate Matters. Rate increases granted since January 1.

Income taxes are allocated to electric operating expense 1973. which are included in " Electric Revenues" in the and to non-electric operations under "Other Income." The accompanying Statement of Income are summarized in income tax-credit classified under -Other Income" results the table below:

Itate Increaws Appmsimate Revenue Increnws War Ended December 31 Per Cent Elfertive Annualised on Itaic Schedules increaw Date 1974 Sales 1974 1973 Wholesalei ll 1Go April 2ti.1973 $ 10.900.000 $10.900.000 $ 6.Nwwoo North Camlina itet ail (2) 16.bo April 15.1974 60J00.000 M.400.000 3.Wwtono Sout h Camlina llet ail 12) 1630 April 15.1974 27 200.000 2smoo.oon i.mumo Total. 698.W m.ooo 690.300.000 $ 12.400.000 t 11 Subject to refund with interest.

l f 2i Thew increases consist of an ei interim increase effective November 15.1973. an additional 2.25% effective January 19.1974 and the remaindercffretne April 15.1974. nit oppmved by orders dated October 10.1974. for North Caro:ina and November 8.1974.

!nr South Camlina.

16

In addition. fossil fuel cost adjustment clauses applica- 2005.

ble to w holesale customers since August 23.1972. and t

6. Leases. Rentals incurred in 1974 and 1973. and rental retail customers since January 19.1974. have been commitments at December 31.1974. under all non-granted by the regulatory authorities. Total revenues cancelable leases ( substantially all non-capitalized financ-accrued under these fuel clauses have amounted to ing leases) are as follows:

S151.500.000 and $7.500.000 for the years 1974 and 1973. Psoa roial respectively. Includal in the above amount for the war ~

[ "" '"'"'"*

1974 is $36.200.000 which is accrued but unbilled. ,,,,gg The revenues fmm the rate increase and fuel cost ad- ign i ,nn ,,,,o justment clause applicable to wholesale customers, all of itental commanwnts:

which are subjwt to refund with interest. amountal to n,73 an. in7.m,o S42.500.000 in 1974. 314.300.000 in 1973 and S1.900.000 n>76 2mawm in 1972. See " Rate Activities" on page 8 concerning other uiT7 26.270mi -

revenue contingencies. ',[" ,

3. Subsidiaries. At December 31.1974. retained earnings n,.,n. n,s, a,. ng,n,,,

included S2.356.000 of undistributed subsidiary earnings. nsa.nm, 2s.i3o m >

Cash dividends of $1.000.000 were received from subsidi- n'9"- m9 12x9am aries during the year 1973. He*"i"d" '^"713 '""

4. Capital Stock. See Statement of Capitalization on page Amounts in 1974 and 1973 include $11.765.000 and

15. In 1974.9.085.387 shares of common stock were issued $11.147.000, respectively, charged to operating expenses.

for a consideration of 8130.012.000. In 1973.3.257.229 Substantially all leases require the Company to pay shares of common stock were issued for a consideration taxes and operation and maintenance expenses. Rentals of S74.119.000, and 600.000 shares of 7.359 Series I and rental commitments under certain combustion turbine Preferred Stock for 860.000.000. In February 1975, the generator leases include accruals in excess of current pay-Company sold 2.400.000 shares of 10.769 Iheferred Stock ments in amounts required to equalize annual rent expense A.1975 Series for $60,000.000, and satisfy the obligations of the leases. net of salvage.

The outstanding Preference Stock. 6 3/4% Convertible at the end of the estimated usefullife of the generators.

Series AA. is convertible into shares of common stock at Such leases contain options to purchase beginning in 1981 the adjusted conversion price of $27.73 per share, each at the lessors' unrecovered cost. Rentals under nuclear share of such Preference Stock being taken at 8100 for fuel leases are based on usage. Other leases generally l such purpose. The conversion price is subject to certain contain options to purchase at the lessors' unrecovered adjustments designed to protect the conversion privilege cost or fair market value.

against dilution. 7. Income Tax Expense. Income taxes differ fmm amounts ,

j At December 31.1974 certain shares of conunon stock computal by applying the statutory tax rates to adjusted were reserved for issuance as follows: pre-tax income as follows:

Share, Income taxes on income gg74 tg73 "C"""'"'#"" -'-

Com ersion of Preference Stack tro.L101 Stock Purchase-Sasines Program ""*I"'" "'"'"'"ry Foleral and staw tax mw of 51.124 $74.93 , .m 862Jhioj u n)

! tor Fmployees sixt327

.\diustments to abne:

i Dividend Iteim est ment anal

.\llowanw for funds used Stock Purchaw 1%n 67.147 i.

durine omstruction. t 31.776m 4 4an.395 m u Total 2.273.775 Pensions and tases capitalized on in>ks. 15.201m 0 (5.779mn The outstanding preference and preferred capital stocks \nwrtizations of investment [

are callable at various redemption prices not exceeding *ax cmiit dernrais. ois9mn 4 i.ossm o q sither items, net. 4.533m) 19J m

! $110 a share plus accumulated dividends to redemption date. Itecorded inconw tax expense

1. "'"""'"'"' d'f""I

5. long. Term Debt. See Statement of Capitalization on ino>me taxes. inwstnwnt tax page 15. Substantially all electric plant is mortgaged at credit, and iacome tax crediti $41.595a m s21. G5J m December 31.1974. The annual amounts of long term debt maturities (including sinking fund requirernentsi 8. Short. Term Borrowings. The Company has bank through 1979 are $84,750.000 in 1975. S29.800.000 in 1976. lines of credit with 69 commercial banks and uses these S69.200.000 in 1977. 861.250.000 in 1978 and 8141.250.000 lines plus commercial paper to finance its current cash i- in 1979. In February 1975 the Company sold $100.000.000 requirements. At December 31.1974. the aggregate lines of First and Refunding Alortgage Bonds. 91/2c'c Due of credit were S163 million.

17

During 1974. the maximum outstanding short. term bor- $19 million.

row.ngs, including commercial paper, were S193 million, 9. Commitments. See page 4 for the Company's commit-and the average was $124 million. Ilank loans are for 90 ments under its construction program.

days or less and are at the lending banks' commercial 10. Other Income net. The Company is disposing of cer-prime interest rate. The daily weighted average interest tain properties to augment its sources of funds. Gains and rate of all short term borrowings during the year was 11'7o. losses on such transactions to date are included in "Other At December 31,1974, the notes payable for construe. income, net". The transactions for 1974 resulted in aggre-tion consisted of $55 million of bank loans at interest rates gate gains of $9.000.000 t related income taxes of ranging from 107o to 101/?7c and $71 million of commer. $4.5(0.000 have been included in the " Income tax-credit")

cial paper at 93/47c to 103/4% Additionally, at December and a provision for loss of $5.000.000(on an equity basis.

31.1974. notes payable for construction included $1f; net of income taxes) in connection with the disposition of a subsidiary project.

million of pollution control bond anticipation notes at -

5 3/4"c maturing Alarch 11.1975. 11. Reclassifications. As prescribed by the Uniform Sys-

The Company's practice is to maintain bank balances tem of Accounts. " Contributions in Aid of Construction"

' with all banks providing services to it, including those has been reclassitied to" Electric Plant"and" Unamortized with lines of credit. At December 31.1974, there were Debt Discount and Premium" has been reclassified to 4

agreements requiring compensating balances of S3.5 "leng Term Debt". Certain other immaterial amounts million. The average daily bank balance during 1974, as have been reclassified to conform with the current year's determined from bank statements, was approximately presentation.

I 1

1 Auditors' Opinion

. HASKINS & SELLS Certified Public Accountants DUKE POWER C051PANY:

We have examined the bd.mce sheet and the statement of capitalization of Duke Power Company as of December 31.1974 and 1973 and the related statements of income, retained earnings, and source of funds for

. plant construction costs for the >vars then ended. Our examinations were made in accordance with generally accepted auditira stan ards and accordingly included such tests of the accounting records and such other -

1' auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

As explained in Note 2 to the financial statements electric revenues include amounts allowed subject to

refund pending fmal settlement of certain rate matters.

In our opinion. subject to final settlement of the rate matters referred to in the preceding paragraph the

! accompanying financial statements present fairly the financial position of the Company at December 31.1974 and 1973 and the results of its operations and the source of its funds for plant construction costs for the years

then ended. in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis.

Charlotte. North Carolina j February 17,1975 J_

• _ e"

e. .

a 18

SuNidiaries Crescent Land & Timber Corp. The 1974 production from operating mines was

('rescent Land & Timber Corp. is a land management approximately 1.2th).tN)0 tons. Production was restricted subsidiary organized in 1961 to manage the Company's during the year due to a UllWA strike which had idlal non-utility land. Timber harvesting and reforestation are the Brookside Aline from July,1971 until settlement of the primary activities of this subsidiary. the stnke in August.1974. Excessive loss of production in 1974. Crescent harvested over 25 million Imard feet was avoided. however. by transferring much of the Brook-of timber and 56.m0 cords of pulpwood. Nearly 46 mil- side mining equipment to other Eastover mines.

lion seedlings have been plantal on Company land since When the mines being developed by Eastover reach the beginning of the reforestation program in 1939. full production. they are expected to prmide three and a Crescent is currently pianting new trees at the rate of half to four million tons of coal a year to Duke Power's 1.5 million per. war. steam-ekttric generating stations.

Crescent's equity interest in Carowinds, a theme Duke also has made capital investments in two addi- _

amusement park on the North Carolina-South Carolina tional mining properties now being developed by other line, will be terminated in 1975 with the park's sale to coal companies. These are expectal to provide an addi-Family Leisure Centers. Inc. Crescent will continue to tional three to four million tons of coal per y ar when have an equity interest in adjacent land which will be full production is reached.

devoted to industrial development.

MiH Power Supply Company The oldest of Duke's subsidiaries. Alill Power Supply Company, was chartered on June 7.1910. to buy. warehouse E,astover M. .mmg Company and sell electrical equipment to mills and other indus-Eastover Land Company tries that were converting to eketrJty from other sources The Eastover companies were organized in 1970 to of energy. Today, it is the authorizal distributor for many purchaw and develop coal properties and reserves in of the largest electrical equipment manufacturers in Virginia and eastern Kentucky. On December 31,1974, the country.

Eastover owned or had controlling interest in approxi. In addition to selling items to Duke and others as a mately 30.600 acres of coal reserves with an estimated wholesale distributor. Still. Power purchases virtually all 250.000.000 tons of recoverable coal. supplies, equipment and fuel required by the Company.

Subsidiaries-Financial Highlights Financial highlights of subsidiaries of Duke Power Company for the year ended December 31,1974. are as follows:

EARNINGS FROM OPERATIONS Electrical wholesale distnbution . S 1,145,000 Forestry, recreational and land developments . (574,000)

Coal mining-under development . -

Gross earnings from operations . 571,000 Intercompany profit elimination . (272,000)

Earnings from operations to parent company, net . S 299,000 NET ASSETS Property and investments-at cost:

Real estate, recreational and land development . S 55,330,000 Coal mining . 67,000,000 Net current assets, pnncipally receivables and inventories . 10,555,000 Total assets . 132,885,000 Long-term debt-Life insurance company. (6.222,000)

Bank. etc.-secured by recreational facilities

($ 16.1 million guaran eed by Crescent) . (26,188,000)

Coal production commitments . (34,000,000)

Deferred income taxes . (26.842,000)

Parent company investment and advances . 39,633,000 Advances from parent at prime rate of interest . (10,855,000)

Net assets . S 28.778.000 19

l Summary of Operat. ions CONDENSED STATEMENT OF INCOME (50001 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1964 Electric revenues Residential sales 3 279.724 5 212.213 $ 184.581 s 166 442 $ 140 281 $ 83.757 Commercial sales . 162.775 122.788 104 479 91.183 75 951 41.317 Industrial sales . . 267.723 189 879 157.407 139.560 118 811 68.983 Other energy sales . 109.294 72 629 57.258 49.796 47.565 19 986 Other revenues . 3.405 3 172 4 507 4 560 3 530 2 730 Total electric revenues . 822.921 600 681 508 232 451.541 386.138 216 773 Electric expenses and taxes' Fuel .

333.399 191.861 172 072 161.087 140.526 45.288 Operation and maintenance . 134.754 136 041 124 687 100.091 81.781 43 775 Deoreciation . 83.914 70 459 59 923 53.062 48.427 27.693 Tames-income . 57.689 37.261 18 075 16.020 11.942 35.078 -

Ta s es-general . 64.871 50 054 44 421 39 226 35163 19 084 Total electric empenses and taxes . 674.627 465 676 419.178 369 486 317.839 171 818 Electric operating incorre 148.294 116.005 89 054 82.055 68.299 44 955 Other income:

Allowance for funds used during construction . 62,159 59 459 51.185 37.676 24 342 2.488 Other income. net . 5,086 1 093 1.511 4 966 1.847 1.823 income tax-credit 16.094 15 406 13 035 9 553 8.247 (129)

Interest deductions . (126 537) 91 401) i74 4181 62 3951 (51 5571 f13 594)

Net mcome . . . .. .. 105.096 99562 80 367 71.855 51.178 35.543 Dividends on preference and preferred stock . 28 534 27 456 21 901 16341 11 177 1 553 Earnings for common stock . 76.562 72.106 58.466 55 514 40.001 33.990 Dividends on common stock 59.263 54 036 47 758 40 763 35 271 21 768 Earnmos retained for use in the business . S 17.299 5 18 070 $ 10.708 s 14 751 5 4.730 $ 12 222 COMMON STOCK DATA Shares o1 common stock-year end (thousands) 47.836 38 751 35 493 30.229 25.932 22.935

-average lthousands) 42,618 38 465 34.592 29.482 25.413 22.915 Per share of common stock laverage sharesi Earnings for common stock . . S 1.80 5 187 5 1 69 s 1 82 5 1.57 s 1.48 Dividends declared and paid . 1.40 1 40 1 40 1.40 1 40 .95

Mark et value-high-low . 20 % 10 23416 254-21 27% -20% 29%-20% 37-31M i -year end . . . . . 105s 1 714 23h 23% 24% 369 BALANCE SHEET DATA ($000)

Electric plant (onginal cost) (a) $ 3.783.777 53 355.392 s2.903.710 $2.459.572 52.110 380 s973.121

< Accumulated depreciation . 727.878 652.922 584,748 534.216 492.083 302.251 l Capitalizabon and short-term notes:

i Common stock equity . 936.686 796.730 706.899 580.025 457.319 296.404 I Preference stock . 50.000 50.000 50.000 50.000 50.000 -

i Preferted stock . . . 345.000 345.000 285.000 225.000 165 000 35.000 t Long-term debt!al .... 1.638.752 1.505.174 1.270.224 1.040.891 837.500 330.000 l

Short-term notes payable ....- 142,092 69.296 96.000 119.343 189 806 30.700

, ELECTRIC AND OTHER STATISTICS i

Kilowarthour sales (milhonst l Residential . 10.325 10.186 9.237 8.780 8.126 4.503

' Commercial 7.053 - 7.287 6.515 5.938 5.391 2.509 industrial . 17,881 18.848 17.778 16.357 15.140 9.041

( Other . 7.085 6.838 6.158 5.838 6.631 2 536 Total kilowatthour sales 42,344 43.159 39 688 36 913 35 288 18 589 Number of customers (year end):

t Residential . 951.459 931.020 895.488 864.381 835.706 691.492

( Other . 154.221 152 132 144 939 137 090 129 871 103 715 Total customers. 1,105.680 1 083 152 1.040 427 1.001 451 965 577 79" 207 Residential customer data:

Average annua 6 KWH use . . 10.927 11.072 10.447 10.299 9.864 6.590 Average revenue cer KWH . . . . . . 2.61s 2 08C 2.00C 1.90C 1.73C 1.86C Number of employees (year end):

Operating and maintenance . .... 8,103 7.938 7.721 7.392 7.363 5.671 Generating olant construction and engineering . 4.240 5.125 4.780 3.910 3.210 750 Source of energy (milhons of KWH):

Generated-Steara-Fossil . 35.538 38.604 37.736 35.393 34.212 17.736

'-Steam-Nuclear . 6.761 2.402 - - - -

-Hydro . .. . 2.320 2.377 1.961 2.028 1.491 2.126

-Combusson turbme generators . 508 650 869 726 837 -

Purchased and net interchange. 503 2.469 2.607 1.789 1.728 461 i Loss and company use . 3.286 3.343 3.485 3.023 2.979 1.734

% loss and company use . 7.2% 72% 81% 75% 78% 85%

)

System average heat rate , 9.780 9.713 9.702 9.728 9.784 9.649 i System load factor . 64.1% 642% 65 7% 682% 66 6% 65 7% j

.at TFe amounts in 1973 and 1974 Dave been adlusted to conform ein revisions in the FPC chart of accounts I

I i i

I

Management's Discussion and Analysis of the Summary of Operations The following factors had a significant effect upon the 43.92c : 1973-47.27c. and 1974 -91.69e.

3 Company's results of operations during the pars 1970 cc) As a result of delays in the start up of the Oconee through 1971: Nuclear Station. purchasal power expense reached a high Ial Electric revenues increami primarily because of of 830.5 million in 1972. The addition of new generating rate increases, including a fuel adjustment clause with units since 1972 has raluced the need for purchasal power. _

respect to wholes:de customers placed into effect begin. (di Inflationary pressures on wages and material costs ning August 23.1972. and fuel adjustment clauses with have resultal in increases in ek etric operation and main-respect to North Carolin.i and South Carolina retail tenance expenses. Because of regulatory lag in obtaining customers placal into effect beginning .lanuary 19.1974 adequate and timely rate relief. these increasing costs

I see Note 2 to the Financial Statementsi. Electric revenues have had an adverse impact on earnings.

i also were affected by increases in kilowatthour sales (et Depreciation increasal as additional facilities were during 197n.1971.1972 and 1973. As a result of reduced placal in service.

mdustnal and commercial activity, energy conservation I f) The Comp;my,s annual construction costs and mild weather conditions. kilowatthour sales declinal alx>ut *.M in 1974 from thosein 1973. The decline in kilowatt-have increasal to their present level of approximately hour saks has twen most pronouncal in the textile indus- 8 a) million. rmuiring substantial external financing try, which accountal for approximately Tre of electric through the sale of debt and equity securities. While these financings re<ulted m sigmficant increases in lxith interest industrial revenues in 1974.

ibi Earnings during the pars 1970 through 1974 were expense and prtierred dividends, a substantial amount of adversely affectal by increasing fuel costs to the extent such costs has twen capitalimi through allowance for that such increases { tere not offset by fuel adjustment funds usal during construction (see Note I to the Finan-clauses referral to in (a) alxwe. Fuel expenses have risen cial Statementsi.

]

significantly as system generation has increased and as (g) Earnings per share of conunon stock have fluctuated fuel costs have risen. The cost per million BTU of coal due primarily to regulatory lag in granting rates necessary burned by the Company increased during the period to produce revenue levels sufficient to offset rising capital  ;

1970-1974 as follows: 1970-40.52c : 1971-44.56c : 1972- and operating costs. l l

l The price range of Duke Power Common Stock and the dividends paid on Common Stock for each quarter of 1974 and 1973 are shown below:

1974 1st 2nd 3rd 4th  !

Price Range 5 20h - 16N 517M - 12M $ 13M- 10 513% - 1OM Dividends 5 .35 S .35 S .35 $ .35 1973 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Price Range S 234 - 20% S 22h - 20M $ 21M - 184 5 20h - 16 Dividends $ .35 S .35 S .35 $ .35 l

r 21 i

l

~

l bh TOC [()T5 i

CARL HORN JR * , RICHARD B HENNEYt l q Presinent '

Trwee and E secut ve Dume Power Campany .i Oir ec t or s

g The Duke Endowraent 4

3

--e

$ p B B PARKER" t HOWARD HOLDERNESSt E=ecutsve vice Pres, dent Cha.rman of the Board

' and Generm Maaager Je"erson Standard Lete er l

Dume Power Campiny 6-- Insurance Comisany and

! Jetterson Pilot Corporation N

t g, 4k -

DOUGLAS W BOOTH

• Sen.or vice President Aet a.1 Ooer ations HERMAN W LAYt Chaerman of the E =ecutive Committee

- 1 Duae Power Company ,

Pers'C0 inc a-i

. ._ ,= , ..e-C ] 3 s ,

i C -3 WILLIAM H GRIGG* q J PAUL LUCAS. JR senior v.ce P esideni #' . v.ce President-Puoiic Attairs h Dume Power Company L

5' .

e, Du egal and F.comoan, e Power nance i A

3 i WILLIAM S LEE

• h WILLIAM B McGUIREt i p* Senior Vece President O , Trustee Enwneer n and Curistruction the Duke Endowment y Duke Powe'r omcany

/

A, t AUSTIN C THIES* 2 MARSHALL 1 PICKENSt Seaior vice P esi*nt Chairman of sne Trustees eg Production and Transmissino p The Duke Encowment

.- Duke Power Company A r

-m *j h e. .}

JOHN D HlCKS" ) _ ADDISON H REESE

s. vice P esident-Corporate Attairs , s ,

Chairman of the Finance Committee Du me Power Company NortM Carotena National Bank 4.( %  %.

j J

6 $ NCNB Corporation

-.$j g

.e L

.J M.% '

saA; i ROBERT C EDWARDSt CHAS B WADE. JR t

,,. Prescent ,

Senior Vice Prestcent

.. Clemson University _ R J Reynoics induceses Inc a f . , == g ..y

\

• VemDer of tae E =ecuove Committee ai vtg and dist :t soft crmas snack foods soorting goods transcortation and teasing service

• • 4emDer of f*e Aud.t Commettee

. b Mtg and dist of toDacco tood ar um num and petrcieum products container' zed snepoing i_'

i

'l-.. .

I Officers -

CARL HORN. JR. RO KEITH ARLEDGE EDWARD D POWELL Pres. dent v.c BERT L. DICK President Vece Presrdent Assistant vice Pres. dent Construcnon .Vestern Div.sion Product.on and transmissson B B PARKER oecut.ve vice President JOHN D HICKS HENRY L. CRANFORD STEVE C GRIFFITH JR and Geeerat Manager v co President Vice Pres. dent Generes Counset Corporate Attairs Centras Division i DOUGLAS W BOOTH WILLIAM R ST' MART sen.o.:r vicecres.

PATRICK D HUFF A MELL DOOLITTLE freasurer a eta ooer w ons dent v.c. President v.ce Pres. dent D.streout*on Eng neenna Southern Dw.s.on S7EWART F CAMPBELL .

WILLIAM H GRIGG As w enttreasurer [

senior v.c. Pres. dent FRANK A. JENKINS JOSEPH G MANN ,

t 9si and F.nence vice Pres sent vice Presioent 1/ PRUCE SHANNON i transm.ss.on and Nortriern Division  % sun' Yreasurer  !

WILLIAM S LEE Erectnc Instastations j sen.or v.ca President T PORTER A. HAUSER Eng.neer ng and Construction J WESLEY LEWIS v.HOMAS ce PresidentM PATRICK. JR curoner 1

vice Pres. dent Eastern Divis.on AU Davmon operations KENNETH C. STONEBR AKER Sen.STIN C THIES or vice Prevdent LLOYD P JULIAN Assistant Controuer Product.on and Transmiss.on J PAUL LUCAS, JR. Assistant %.ce President v.c Pres. dent. operai on GEORGE W FERGUSON, JR FRANZ W BEYER Pupc Affairs geret vice President SAMUEL T LATTIMORE ,.moc.ary are and oenerai Counsei system Pianning JOE S MAJOR. JR. Assistant v.ce Presadent, vice Pres. dent Computer services J.'JHN F DAY CARLJ BLADES v ce prevdent Personnet f4g,stant secretary ROBERT J. ASHMORE Real Estate WARREN H OWEN A JOHN C. GOODMAN. JR.

vice President V.ssesi.mt to the sen.or ce Presedent Assistant Secretary WILLIAM J BURTON Devon Eng neering Legal and Finance Nr*o$tYCo"bunicanons WILLIAM O PARKER. JR v.ce president RICHARD R PIERCE Ass.stant v.ce President D,R,pn c.Ep,tg,yNM E ROBERT DAVIS Steam Peoduction CotDof are Cornmun Canons

' Vice Pre.sident Marbetit g Management Changes Addison IL Reese. former chairman of the board . and associate general counsel, was elected General Coun-and chief executive officer of the NCNB Corporation. sel. Sin Griffith was succeeded as Secretary by George W.

was elected to the Duke Power Board of Directors on ~ Ferguson. Jr.. who also remains an associate general '

Odolx r 29.1974. Air. Rwse currently serves as chairnmn counsel. Also in 1974. Henry L. Cranford was elected of theFinanceCommitteeof theNCNBCorporationand Vice President-Central Division. succeeding J.D. Sk>an.

of its major subsidiary. North Carolina National Bank. who retired: E. Robert Davis was elected Vice President-On December 2.1974. the Board approved major changes Alarketing, succeeding Henry it Orn who also retired:

in the legal and financial administration of the Company and William O. Parken Jr., was elected to the new posi.

to coincide with the departure on January 1.1975.' of tion of Vice President-Steam Production. Also retiring Robert E. Frazen director and vice president finance. who - during the par was W.J. Wortman. Assistant Vice resigned to become president of The Dayton Power and President. Relay. Aleters and Communications, who had Light Company of Dayton. Ohio. William H. Grigg, served the Company for more than 40 years.

formerly vice president and general counsel. was elected The Company was saddened by the death on Novem-Senior Vice President Legal and Finance. with responsi- ber 2.1974. of former Duke President Norman A. Cocke. i bilities encompassing both legal and financial activities - Alr. Cocke served as president of the Company from . ,

of the Company. Steve C. Griffith. Jr.. formerly secretary 1953 to 1959. '

' 23 4

--- - - - - + ,. ,, ~, ,- . . + , ., -

]

I 1

> VIRGINIA , ,

j

[ '.< s. A s . ,

kL? YOUN' AfN t;tsg g

{ } VAD' SON DA4 river

. .s . .. .

ot a AL ** Au AAiNb CC.E 1 .

[ %ALPE$ HCG) GREENS 80R0 ButtimGTON l S e

/ ...E.L.E.W 5..C.R

. . E.E..E., e - - VE9ANE

• m. .A;., . E , ,,s_ .

4

.i s / .

2 .A. A a n=00*iss gg 0 0=

-..& N ,

..sm

, .; sr0 iAu- as~a -'"' Tl,;;,.

.s. ,01.,c v :AN aAwLtvaN-

'M 3 t00mour r ayg,.ta

• /^

• e

/ ~

,, VCRGA*4TCP4 e y A.,

. ..Am.

MICR0ny asd.

g

. ,, n. A, 5At'ssuav e SUCK I

l OLD FCR' uAssnatt h , g,g0 A .W ',E i / . u.E 8E L C0=Aas sc;LN?ON . 50= m 0 .- *%E" McGuiAE NUCLEAR STAfl0N

'i ryggge]euT= tar oyc=e Rive 4 B E se0 I"**"8'"'8'"*

( 3 1 5 pin; AL E *ESStVE# 0:ir '

MTN ISLAND AL B E V'8'E

~f Z.. v%%f

' %Cl#LONCLLE . /

, voc cE piceO * .acL L v

ruAE00 m A e g t e'u=N' Nwaro -

I egot,Aso '8' CLIFF $lCE  % *4,. Gas 108s Attg h O

P,CN l CMA#LOTTE i

40CA55EE

• 1. L A .c w v NVAN.c,d .EE GASMCALS BLACn'58URG N *'LUE'*

• VAf f eat h s ft0h t na., ce.see i es ,/* g .. Ops CATA*S\ ten .eAc .NUCL.E nstr. cts AR $TA.mi

• E 'pa tLEa 5 stST $PAAfAh8URG HISLAN05 WYLiE *FT V'L{

I OCOne t t g MEQEE , PIE R . '#D i NORTH CAROUNA NUCLEAR STAfl04 8 '

• E ** '

G GREENviLLE

• LrfGT**

SALVOA Q 2Y P'>C'4 0 L L C

• t aE5 f te (

• SOUTH CAROUNA F15MthG CREEN @ 'ANC'W" f.d.CN*

A At % A mvw. .

. A.xceerr caE Ar F Ato;., *.tas A*

l f tNJd?G . rxa.' A3 .Ng GAEAT FALL 5 G C DEAR 8084 LEE CEDAA CREE

, q g 3 MOLL 10Ar5 teioCE j Ah0E850m . . a,.it y at

nCNE A PATM LAURENS IA LREENA000 "AIWI vstr, s.,

pn g GEORGIA au22An0's ROOli 1

i N. C.

S Disf alCT OFFICE

- .. A.C 0F,,o s. c.

j U stEAu ELECiniC stat:0=

1 G av0 eof tECtait s7AriOm 0 utua.EaCr.Ciratio-

=l Duke Power Service Area

, Duke Power Company is an investor-owned electric utility serving approxi-l mately 1.100.000 customers in North and South Carolina. Its 56-county service area encompasses some 20.000 square miles through the mdustrial Piedmont sections of the two states. Generating capability on January 1.1975. of 10.923.000 kilowatts was comprised of 6.555.000 kilowatts from fossil-fueled steam stations.

2.613.000 from nuclear fueled steam stations. 1.147.000 kilowatts from hydroelectric stations, and 608.000 kilowatts from combustion turbines and other sources.

i Retail customers are sermi locally through 98 district and branch offices.

24 1

ee o s Transfer Agents for Common Stock Morgan Guaranty Trust Company.

New York, N Y North Carolina National Bank.

Charlotte. N C-Registrars for Common Stock First Nationc. City Bank.

New York. N Y Wachovia Bank and Trust Company.

Charlotte. N C.

Stock Exchange Listing and Trading Duke Power Common Stock is listed on the New York Stock Excnange The trading symbol of Duke Power Common Stock is CUK.

General Offices 422 South Church Street P O Box 2178 Charlotte. N C 28242

( 704 /37140 t1i Notice of 1975 Annual Meeting The Annual Meeting of holders of Duke Power Common Stock will be held at the princioal office of the Company. 422 S Church Street.

Charlotte. N. C.. on Aord 29.1975, at 10 a m. (Eastern Daylight Savings Timet Upon written request, the Company will provide without charge a copy of its 1974 annual report Form 10-K as filed with the Secunties and Exchange Commission. P! ease direct Such requests to Mr. J. C. Goodman, Duke Power Co.,

investor Relations Dept., P. O. Box 2178, Charlotte, N. C. 28242.

l

,e . ae-l l

l A

THE ATTACHED FILES ARE OFFI BEEN CHARGED TO YOU FOR A

. THEY HAVE PERIOD ANS MUSTIMITED BE TIME RETURN CENTRAL RECORDS STATION 008ED TO THE REMOVED FOR REPRODUCTION M. ANY PAG TO ITS/THEIR ORIGINAL

. ORDER UST BE RETURNED g DEADLINE RETURN DATE o- 2 x- C

_ _ ::1 0

_m MARY JINKS, CHIEF CENTRAL RECORDS STATION  !

l l

l l

l

!