The downside of the Commission approving the programs for six years is that they also approved a relatively rich financial incentive mechanism for six years. We advocated for a financial incentive that would provide the utility with a fair return on its low risk energy efficiency investment. However, the Commission was swayed by the utility's argument that it should be able to both earn a performance incentive on energy efficiency as well as amortize their energy efficiency program costs over five years, with "carrying costs" which are set at the Company's weighted average cost of capital. Duke Energy The Commission approved a revised Settlement Agreement on December 20th in South Carolina that is quite similar to the agreement that was struck between Duke Energy and several advocacy groups, including SACE, and approved in North Carolina. In South Carolina, the primary difference between the SCE&G incentive and Duke Energy's incentive is the recovery of program costs.