v3.3.0.814

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES ENVIRONMENTAL Duke Energy is subject to international, federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal, and other environmental matters. The Subsidiary Registrants are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental matters. These regulations can be changed from time to time, imposing new obligations on the Duke Energy Registrants. The following environmental matters impact all of the Duke Energy Registrants. Remediation Activities The Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various contaminated sites. These include certain properties that are part of ongoing operations and sites formerly owned or used by Duke Energy entities. These sites are in various stages of investigation, remediation and monitoring. Managed in conjunction with relevant federal, state and local agencies, remediation activities vary based upon site conditions and location, remediation requirements, complexity and sharing of responsibility. If remediation activities involve joint and several liability provisions, strict liability, or cost recovery or contribution actions, the Duke Energy Registrants could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other potentially responsible parties, and may also benefit from insurance policies or contractual indemnities that cover some or all cleanup costs. Liabilities are recorded when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. The total costs that may be incurred cannot be estimated because the extent of environmental impact, allocation among potentially responsible parties, remediation alternatives and/or regulatory decisions have not yet been determined. Additional costs associated with remediation activities are likely to be incurred in the future and could be significant. Costs are typically expensed as Operation, maintenance and other in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations unless regulatory recovery of the costs is deemed probable. The following tables contain information regarding reserves for probable and estimable costs related to the various environmental sites. These reserves are recorded in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2015
|  |  | Duke |  |  |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |
| Duke |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |
(in millions) | Energy |  |  | Carolinas |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Florida |  |  | Ohio |  |  | Indiana |
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 97 |  |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 17 |  |  | $ | 5 |  |  | $ | 12 |  |  | $ | 54 |  |  | $ | 10 |
Provisions/adjustments | 4 |  |  | — |  |  | 3 |  |  | — |  |  | 3 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 3 |
Cash reductions | (4 | ) |  | — |  |  | (2 | ) |  | (1 | ) |  | (1 | ) |  | (1 | ) |  | (1 | )
Balance at end of period | $ | 97 |  |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 18 |  |  | $ | 4 |  |  | $ | 14 |  |  | $ | 54 |  |  | $ | 12 |
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2014
|  |  | Duke |  |  |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |
| Duke |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |
(in millions) | Energy |  |  | Carolinas |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Florida |  |  | Ohio |  |  | Indiana |
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 79 |  |  | $ | 11 |  |  | $ | 27 |  |  | $ | 8 |  |  | $ | 19 |  |  | $ | 27 |  |  | $ | 7 |
Provisions/adjustments | 34 |  |  | (1 | ) |  | 4 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 28 |  |  | 3 |
Cash reductions | (8 | ) |  | — |  |  | (6 | ) |  | (4 | ) |  | (2 | ) |  | (1 | ) |  | (1 | )
Balance at end of period | $ | 105 |  |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 25 |  |  | $ | 7 |  |  | $ | 18 |  |  | $ | 54 |  |  | $ | 9 |
Additional losses in excess of recorded reserves that could be incurred for the stages of investigation, remediation and monitoring for environmental sites that have been evaluated at this time are presented in the table below.
(in millions) |
Duke Energy | $ | 79 |
Duke Energy Carolinas | 25 |
Progress Energy | 4 |
Duke Energy Progress | 1 |
Duke Energy Florida | 3 |
Duke Energy Ohio | 43 |
Duke Energy Indiana | 7 |
North Carolina and South Carolina Ash Basins On February 2, 2014, a break in a stormwater pipe beneath an ash basin at Duke Energy Carolinas’ retired Dan River Steam Station caused a release of ash basin water and ash into the Dan River. On February 8, 2014, a permanent plug was installed in the stormwater pipe, stopping the release of materials into the river. Duke Energy Carolinas estimates 30,000 to 39,000 tons of ash and 24 million to 27 million gallons of basin water were released into the river. In July 2014, Duke Energy completed remediation work identified by the EPA and continues to cooperate with the EPA's civil enforcement process. Total repairs and remediation expenses incurred by Duke Energy Carolinas related to the release were approximately $24 million. No additional expenses were recorded in 2015. Duke Energy Carolinas will not seek recovery of these costs from ratepayers. See the "Litigation" section below for additional information on litigation, investigations and enforcement actions related to ash basins, including the Memorandum of Plea Agreement (Plea Agreements) in connection to the North Carolina Ash Basin Grand Jury Investigation. Other costs related to the Dan River release, including pending or future state or federal civil enforcement proceedings, future regulatory directives, natural resources damages, additional pending litigation, future claims or litigation and long-term environmental impact costs, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. On September 20, 2014, the Coal Ash Act became law and was amended on June 24, 2015, by the Mountain Energy Act. The Coal Ash Act, as amended, (i) establishes a Coal Ash Management Commission (Coal Ash Commission) to oversee handling of coal ash within the state; (ii) prohibits construction of new and expansion of existing ash impoundments and use of existing impoundments at retired facilities; (iii) requires closure of ash impoundments at Duke Energy Progress' Asheville and Sutton plants and Duke Energy Carolinas' Riverbend and Dan River stations no later than August 1, 2019 (the Mountain Energy Act provides for the potential extension of closure of the Asheville impoundment until 2022); (iv) requires dry disposal of fly ash at active plants, excluding the Asheville Plant, not retired by December 31, 2018; (v) requires dry disposal of bottom ash at active plants, excluding the Asheville Plant, by December 31, 2019, or retirement of active plants; (vi) requires all remaining ash impoundments in North Carolina to be categorized as high-risk, intermediate-risk or low-risk no later than December 31, 2015 by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), formerly the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, with the method of closure and timing to be based upon the assigned risk, with closure no later than December 31, 2029; (vii) establishes requirements to deal with groundwater and surface water impacts from impoundments; and (viii) increases the level of regulation for structural fills utilizing coal ash. The Coal Ash Act includes a variance procedure for compliance deadlines and modification of requirements regarding structural fills and compliance boundaries. Provisions of the Coal Ash Act prohibit cost recovery in customer rates for unlawful discharge of ash basin waters occurring after January 1, 2014. The Coal Ash Act leaves the decision on cost recovery determinations related to closure of coal combustion residual (CCR) surface impoundments (ash basins or impoundments) to the normal ratemaking processes before utility regulatory commissions. Duke Energy has and will periodically submit to NCDEQ site-specific coal ash impoundment closure plans or excavation plans in advance of closure plans. These plans and all associated permits must be approved by NCDEQ before any excavation or closure work can begin. In September 2014, Duke Energy Carolinas executed a consent agreement with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) requiring the excavation of an inactive ash basin and ash fill area at the W.S. Lee Steam Station. As part of this agreement, in December 2014, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an ash removal plan and schedule with SCDHEC. In April 2015, the federal CCR rules were published and Duke Energy Carolinas subsequently executed an agreement with the conservation groups Upstate Forever and Save Our Saluda that requires Duke Energy Carolinas to remediate all active and inactive ash storage areas at the W.S. Lee Steam Station. Coal-fired generation at W.S. Lee ceased in 2014 and unit 3 was converted to natural gas in March 2015. In July 2015, Duke Energy Progress executed a consent agreement with the SCDHEC requiring the excavation of an inactive ash fill area at the Robinson Plant within eight years. The Robinson Plant and W.S. Lee Station sites are required to be closed pursuant to the recently issued CCR rule and the provisions of these consent agreements are consistent with the federal CCR closure requirements. Asset retirement obligations recorded on the Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 include the legal obligation for closure of coal ash basins and the disposal of related ash as a result of the Coal Ash Act, the EPA's CCR rule and other agreements. Cost recovery for future expenditures will be pursued through the normal ratemaking process with federal and state utility commissions, which permit recovery of necessary and prudently incurred costs associated with Duke Energy’s regulated operations. See Note 7 for additional information. Coal Combustion Residuals On April 17, 2015, the EPA published in the Federal Register a rule to regulate the disposal of CCR from electric utilities as solid waste. The federal regulation classifies CCR as nonhazardous waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and allows beneficial use of CCRs with some restrictions. The regulation applies to all new and existing landfills, new and existing surface impoundments receiving CCR and existing surface impoundments that are no longer receiving CCR but contain liquid located at stations currently generating electricity (regardless of fuel source). The rule establishes requirements regarding landfill design, structural integrity design and assessment criteria for surface impoundments, groundwater monitoring and protection procedures and other operational and reporting procedures to ensure the safe disposal and management of CCR. In addition to the requirements of the federal CCR regulation, CCR landfills and surface impoundments will continue to be independently regulated by most states. Duke Energy records an asset retirement obligation when it has a legal obligation to incur retirement costs associated with the retirement of a long-lived asset and the obligation can be reasonably estimated. Duke Energy Carolinas, Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana recorded additional asset retirement obligation amounts in the second quarter of 2015 as a result of the EPA's CCR rule. Cost recovery for future expenditures will be pursued through the normal ratemaking process with federal and state utility commissions, which permit recovery of necessary and prudently incurred costs associated with Duke Energy’s regulated operations. See Note 7 for additional information. LITIGATION Duke Energy Ash Basin Shareholder Derivative Litigation Five shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court relating to the release at Dan River and to the management of Duke Energy’s ash basins. On October 31, 2014, the five lawsuits were consolidated in a single proceeding titled "In Re Duke Energy Corporation Coal Ash Derivative Litigation." On December 2, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint (Consolidated Complaint). The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants several current and former Duke Energy officers and directors (collectively, the “Duke Energy Defendants”). Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The Consolidated Complaint alleges the Duke Energy Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately oversee Duke Energy’s ash basins and that these breaches of fiduciary duty may have contributed to the incident at Dan River and continued thereafter. The lawsuit also asserts claims against the Duke Energy Defendants for corporate waste (relating to the money Duke Energy has spent and will spend as a result of the fines, penalties and coal ash removal) and unjust enrichment (relating to the compensation and director remuneration that was received despite these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty). The lawsuit seeks both injunctive relief against Duke Energy and restitution from the Duke Energy Defendants. On January 21, 2015, the Duke Energy Defendants filed a Motion to Stay and an alternative Motion to Dismiss. On August 31, 2015, the court issued an order staying the case through November 15, 2015. In October 2015, the Duke Energy Defendants provided an update to the court on the related coal ash litigation. On March 5, 2015, shareholder Judy Mesirov filed a shareholder derivative complaint (Mesirov Complaint) in North Carolina state court. The lawsuit, styled Mesirov v. Good, is similar to the consolidated derivative action pending in Delaware Chancery Court and was filed against the same current directors and former directors and officers as the Delaware litigation. Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas are named as nominal defendants. The Mesirov Complaint alleges that the Duke Energy Board of Directors was aware of Clean Water Act (CWA) compliance issues and failures to maintain structures in ash basins, but that the Board of Directors did not require Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress to take action to remedy deficiencies. The Mesirov Complaint further alleges that the Board of Directors sanctioned activities to avoid compliance with the law by allowing improper influence of NCDEQ to minimize regulation and by opposing previously anticipated citizen suit litigation. The Mesirov Complaint seeks corporate governance reforms and damages relating to costs associated with the Dan River release, remediation of ash basins that are out of compliance with the CWA and defending and payment of fines, penalties and settlements relating to criminal and civil investigations and lawsuits. In addition to the above derivative complaints, Duke Energy has also received two shareholder litigation demand letters. On May 28, 2014, Duke Energy received a shareholder litigation demand letter sent on behalf of shareholder Mitchell Pinsly. The letter alleges that the members of the Board of Directors and certain officers breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the company to illegally dispose of and store coal ash pollutants. The letter demands that the Board of Directors take action to recover damages associated with those breaches of fiduciary duty; otherwise, the attorney will file a shareholder derivative action. By letter dated July 3, 2014, counsel for the shareholder was informed that the Board of Directors appointed a Demand Review Committee to evaluate the allegations in the demand letter. On March 24, 2015, Duke Energy received a shareholder litigation demand letter sent on behalf of shareholder Saul Bresalier. The letter alleges that the members of the Board of Directors and certain officers breached their fiduciary duties in their management of Duke Energy's environmental practices, as well as in their decision-making relating to the leadership changes following the close of the Progress Energy merger in July 2012. The letter demands that the Board of Directors take action to recover damages associated with those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty; otherwise, the attorney will file a shareholder derivative action. In May 2015, counsel for the shareholder was informed that the matter had been referred to the Demand Review Committee. By letter dated September 4, 2015, attorneys for the shareholders were informed that, on the recommendation of the Demand Review Committee, the Board of Directors concluded not to pursue potential claims against individuals. Shareholder Mitchell Pinsly sent a formal demand for records and Duke Energy is responding to this request. On October 30, 2015, shareholder Saul Bresalier filed a shareholder derivative complaint (Bresalier Complaint) in the U. S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that the Duke Energy Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with coal ash environmental issues, the post-merger change in Chief Executive Officer and oversight of political contributions. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The Bresalier Complaint contends that the Demand Review Committee failed to appropriately consider the shareholder’s earlier demand for litigation and improperly decided not to pursue claims against the Duke Energy Defendants. It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with these matters. Ash Basin Shareholder Securities Litigation On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff E.F. Greenberg (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against the members of the Duke Energy Board of Directors (the Board) alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act for false or misleading statements contained in Duke Energy’s 2015 Proxy Statement. The plaintiff contends the Board caused Duke Energy to omit material facts from the 2015 Proxy Statement that a reasonable shareholder would consider important in casting a vote, especially with respect to the election of directors. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that shareholders were misled in casting their votes. Plaintiff seeks a determination that the 2015 Proxy Statement was false and misleading, an order from the court invalidating all votes from the Annual Meeting and requiring a revised 2015 Proxy Statement, as well as attorneys’ fees. On July 31, 2015, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the case. On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 30, 2015, the parties signed an agreement whereby the Plaintiff will voluntarily dismiss the case. The terms of the agreement are immaterial to Duke Energy. Progress Energy Merger Shareholder Litigation Duke Energy, the 11 members of the Board of Directors who were also members of the pre-merger Board of Directors (Legacy Duke Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy officers are defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidates three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012 and is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal Securities Act and Exchange Act claims based on allegations of materially false and misleading representations and omissions in the Registration Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly incorporated into other documents, all in connection with the post-merger change in Chief Executive Officer (CEO). On August 15, 2014 the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. On March 10, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. The court issued an order for preliminary approval of the settlement on March 25, 2015. Under the terms of the agreement, Duke Energy agreed to pay $146 million to settle the claim. On April 22, 2015, Duke Energy made a payment of $25 million into the settlement escrow account. The remainder of $121 million was paid by insurers into the settlement escrow account. Notice has been sent to members of the class and a final approval hearing was held on August 12, 2015. The final order approving the settlement was issued on November 2, 2015. On May 31, 2013, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated four shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in 2012. The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel for plaintiffs and designated the case as In Re Duke Energy Corporation Derivative Litigation. The lawsuit names as defendants the Legacy Duke Energy Directors. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The case alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and care in connection with the post-merger change in CEO. The case is stayed pending resolution of the Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al. case in North Carolina. Two shareholder Derivative Complaints, filed in 2012 in federal district court in Delaware, were consolidated as Tansey v. Rogers, et al. The case alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets, as well as claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. Pursuant to an order entered on September 2, 2014, the court administratively closed this consolidated derivative action. The parties filed a status report with the court on December 1, 2014, and will continue to do so every six months thereafter until the Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al. case in North Carolina has been resolved. It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with the remaining litigation. Price Reporting Cases Five lawsuits filed against a Duke Energy affiliate, Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC, and other energy companies remain pending in a consolidated, single federal court proceeding in Nevada. Each of these lawsuits contains similar claims that defendants allegedly manipulated natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. On July 18, 2011, the judge granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in two of five cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed the lower court’s decision. On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals decision. The case has been reassigned to the same consolidated federal court proceeding in Nevada for further proceedings. It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with the remaining matters. Brazil Expansion Lawsuit On August 9, 2011, the State of São Paulo sued Duke Energy International Geracao Paranapenema S.A. (DEIGP) in Brazilian state court. The lawsuit claims DEIGP is under a continuing obligation to expand installed generation capacity in the State of São Paulo by 15 percent pursuant to a stock purchase agreement under which DEIGP purchased generation assets from the state. On August 10, 2011, a judge granted an ex parte injunction ordering DEIGP to present a detailed expansion plan in satisfaction of the 15 percent obligation. DEIGP has previously taken a position that the expansion obligation is no longer viable given changes that have occurred in the electric energy sector since privatization. DEIGP submitted its proposed expansion plan on November 11, 2011, but reserved objections regarding enforceability. In January 2013, DEIGP filed appeals in the federal courts, which are still pending, regarding various procedural issues. A decision on the merits in the first instance court is also pending. It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with this matter. Brazil Generation Record drought conditions in Brazil continue to impact Duke Energy International, Geracao Paranapanema S.A. (DEIGP). A number of electric generators have filed lawsuits seeking relief in the Brazilian courts to mitigate hydrological exposure and diminishing dispatch levels. Some courts have granted injunction orders to limit the financial exposure of certain generators. The implication of these orders is that other electricity market participants not covered by the injunctions may be required to compensate for the financial impact of the liability limitations. The Independent Power Producer Association (APINE) filed one such lawsuit on behalf of DEIGP and other hydroelectric generators against the Brazilian electric regulatory agency. On July 2, 2015, an injunction was granted in favor of APINE limiting the financial exposure of DEIGP and the other plaintiff generators, until the merits of the lawsuit are determined. The APINE decision is subject to appeal and the outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain. It is not possible to predict the impact to Duke Energy from the outcome of these matters. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress NCDEQ Notices of Violation (NOV) In August 2014, NCDEQ issued an NOV for alleged groundwater violations at Duke Energy Progress' L.V. Sutton Plant. On March 10, 2015, NCDEQ issued a civil penalty of approximately $25 million to Duke Energy Progress for environmental damages related to the groundwater contamination at the L.V. Sutton Plant. On April 9, 2015, Duke Energy Progress filed a Petition for Contested Case hearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings. In February 2015, NCDEQ issued an NOV for alleged groundwater violations at Duke Energy Progress' Asheville Plant. Duke Energy Progress responded to NCDEQ regarding this NOV. On September 29, 2015, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas entered into a settlement agreement with NCDEQ resolving all former, current and future groundwater issues at all Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress coal facilities in North Carolina. Under the agreement, Duke Energy Progress will pay approximately $6 million and Duke Energy Carolinas will pay approximately $1 million. In addition to these payments, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas will accelerate remediation actions at the Sutton, Asheville, Belews Creek and H.F. Lee Plants. The court entered a consent order resolving the contested case relating to the Sutton plant and NCDEQ rescinded the NOVs relating to alleged groundwater violations at both the Sutton and Asheville plants. On October 13, 2015, the SELC, representing multiple conservation groups, filed a lawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court seeking judicial review of the order approving the settlement agreement with NCDEQ. The conservation groups contend that the Administrative Judge exceeded his statutory authority in approving a settlement that provided for past, present, and future resolution of groundwater issues at facilities which were not at issue in the penalty appeal. It is not possible to predict the outcome of this matter. NCDEQ State Enforcement Actions In the first quarter of 2013, non-government environmental organizations sent notices of intent to sue Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress related to alleged groundwater violations and CWA violations from coal ash basins at two of their coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. NCDEQ filed enforcement actions against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress alleging violations of water discharge permits and North Carolina groundwater standards. The case against Duke Energy Carolinas was filed in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. The case against Duke Energy Progress was filed in Wake County Superior Court. The cases are being heard before a single judge. On October 4, 2013, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and NCDEQ negotiated a proposed consent order covering these two plants. The consent order would have assessed civil penalties and imposed a compliance schedule requiring Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress to undertake monitoring and data collection activities toward making appropriate corrective action to address any substantiated violations. In light of the coal ash release that occurred at Dan River on February 2, 2014, on March 21, 2014, NCDEQ withdrew its support of the consent orders and requested that the court proceed with the litigation. On August 16, 2013, NCDEQ filed an enforcement action against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress related to their remaining plants in North Carolina, alleging violations of the CWA and violations of the North Carolina groundwater standards. The case against Duke Energy Carolinas was filed in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. The case against Duke Energy Progress was filed in Wake County Superior Court. Both of these cases have been assigned to the judge handling the enforcement actions discussed above. The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), on behalf of several environmental groups, has been permitted to intervene in these cases. On July 10, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment in the case on the basis that there is no longer either a genuine controversy or disputed material facts about the relief for seven of the 14 North Carolina plants with coal ash basins. On September 14, 2015, the court granted the Motions for Partial Summary Judgment pending court approval of the terms through an order. The court requested the parties reach agreement on the language of the order by October 30, 2015, or submit separate proposed orders and objections on November 2, 2015. Deadlines for discovery and motions for the remaining seven plants were extended by 180 days. It is not possible to predict any liability or estimate any damages Duke Energy Carolinas or Duke Energy Progress might incur in connection with these matters. North Carolina Declaratory Judgment Action On October 10, 2012, the SELC, on behalf of the same environmental groups that were permitted to challenge the consent decrees discussed above, filed a petition with the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) asking for a declaratory ruling seeking to clarify the application of the state’s groundwater protection rules to coal ash basins. The petition sought to change the interpretation of regulations that permitted NCDEQ to assess the extent, cause and significance of any groundwater contamination before ordering action to eliminate the source of contamination, among other issues. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress were both permitted to intervene in the matter. On December 3, 2012, the EMC affirmed this interpretation of the regulations. On March 6, 2014, the North Carolina State Court judge overturned the ruling of the EMC holding that in the case of groundwater contamination, NCDEQ was required to issue an order to immediately eliminate the source of the contamination before an assessment of the nature, significance and extent of the contamination or the continuing damage to the groundwater was conducted. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and the EMC appealed the ruling in April 2014. On May 16, 2014, the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied a petition to stay the case during the appeal. On October 10, 2014, the parties were notified the case has been transferred to the North Carolina Supreme Court (NCSC). Oral argument was held on March 16, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the NCSC issued its opinion in favor of Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and the EMC and remanded the matter to the state court judge with instructions to dismiss the case. Federal Citizens Suits There are currently five cases filed in various North Carolina federal courts contending that the NCDEQ state enforcement actions discussed above do not adequately address the issues raised in the notices of intent to sue related to the Riverbend, Sutton, Cape Fear, H.F. Lee and Buck plants. On June 11, 2013, Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc. (Catawba Riverkeeper) filed a separate action in the United States Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The lawsuit contends the state enforcement action discussed above does not adequately address issues raised in Catawba Riverkeeper’s notice of intent to sue relating to the Riverbend Steam Station. On April 11, 2014, the Court denied Catawba Riverkeeper’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that plaintiff’s case be dismissed as well as Duke Energy Carolinas’ motion to dismiss. The Court allowed limited discovery, after which Duke Energy Carolinas may file any renewed motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2015, the court issued an order suspending all proceedings until further order from the court. On September 12, 2013, Cape Fear River Watch, Inc., Sierra Club and Waterkeeper Alliance filed a citizen suit in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Sutton Plant. On June 9, 2014, the court granted Duke Energy Progress' request to dismiss the groundwater claims but rejected its request to dismiss the surface water claims. In response to a motion filed by the SELC, on August 1, 2014, the court modified the original June 9 order to dismiss only the plaintiff's federal law claim based on hydrologic connections at Sutton Lake. The claims related to the alleged state court violations of the permits are back in the case. On August 26, 2015, the court suspended the proceedings until further order from the court. On September 3, 2014, three cases were filed by various environmental groups: (i) a citizen suit in the United States Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Cape Fear Plant; (ii) a citizen suit in the United States Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the H.F. Lee Plant; and (iii) a citizen suit in the United States Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Buck Steam Station. Motions to Stay or Dismiss the proceedings were filed in each of the three cases. The proceedings related to Cape Fear and H.F. Lee have been stayed. On October 20, 2015, the court issued an order denying the motions in the Buck proceedings. It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy Carolinas or Duke Energy Progress will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, they might incur in connection with these matters. North Carolina Ash Basin Grand Jury Investigation As a result of the Dan River ash basin water release discussed above, NCDEQ issued a Notice of Violation and Recommendation of Assessment of Civil Penalties with respect to this matter on February 28, 2014, which the company responded to on March 13, 2014. Duke Energy and certain Duke Energy employees received subpoenas issued by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina in connection with a criminal investigation related to all 14 of the North Carolina facilities with ash basins and the nature of Duke Energy's contacts with NCDEQ with respect to those facilities. This is a multidistrict investigation that also involves state law enforcement authorities. On February 20, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Business Services LLC (DEBS), a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, each entered into Plea Agreements in connection with the investigation initiated by the United States Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section and the United States Attorneys for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Middle District of North Carolina and the Western District of North Carolina (collectively, USDOJ). On May 14, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina approved the Plea Agreements. Under the Plea Agreements, DEBS and Duke Energy Progress pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor CWA violations related to violations at Duke Energy Progress’ H.F. Lee Steam Electric Plant, Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant and Asheville Steam Electric Generating Plant. Duke Energy Carolinas and DEBS pleaded guilty to five misdemeanor CWA violations related to violations at Duke Energy Carolinas’ Dan River Steam Station and Riverbend Steam Station. DEBS, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress also agreed (i) to a five-year probation period, (ii) to pay a total of approximately $68 million in fines and restitution and $34 million for community service and mitigation (the Payments), (iii) to fund and establish environmental compliance plans subject to the oversight of a court-appointed monitor in addition to certain other conditions set out in the Plea Agreements. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress also agree to each maintain $250 million under their Master Credit Facility as security to meet their obligations under the Plea Agreements. Payments under the Plea Agreements will be borne by shareholders and are not tax deductible. Duke Energy Corporation has agreed to issue a guarantee of all payments and performance due from DEBS, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, including but not limited to payments for fines, restitution, community service, mitigation and the funding of, and obligations under, the environmental compliance plans. Payment of the amounts relating to fines and restitution were made between May and July 2015. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress each have a remaining liability of $5 million in Accounts payable within their respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2015. On May 14, 2015, Duke Energy reached an Interim Administrative Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Suspension and Debarment that avoids debarment of DEBS, Duke Energy Carolinas or Duke Energy Progress with respect to all active generating facilities. The Interim Administrative Agreement imposes a number of requirements relating to environmental and ethical compliance, subject to the oversight of an independent monitor. The Plea Agreements do not cover pending civil claims related to the Dan River coal ash release and operations at other North Carolina coal plants. Potential Groundwater Contamination Claims Beginning in May 2015, a number of residents living in the vicinity of the North Carolina facilities with ash basins received letters from NCDEQ advising them not to drink water from the private wells on their land tested by NCDEQ as the samples were found to have certain substances at levels higher than the criteria set by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The criteria, in some cases, are considerably more stringent than federal drinking water standards established to protect human health and welfare. The Coal Ash Act requires additional groundwater monitoring and assessments for each of the 14 coal-fired plants in North Carolina, including sampling of private water supply wells. The data gathered through these comprehensive groundwater assessments will be used to determine whether the water quality of these private water supply wells has been adversely impacted by the ash basins. Duke Energy has submitted Comprehensive Site Assessment Reports (CSAs) documenting the results of extensive groundwater monitoring around coal ash basins at all 14 of the plants with coal ash basins. CSAs are required by the Coal Ash Act for all North Carolina facilities with coal ash impoundments. Data from these reports will be used by NCDEQ to assess whether the private water supply wells have been impacted by contamination from ash basins. Generally, the data gathered through the installation of new monitoring wells and soil and water samples across the state have been consistent with historical data provided to state regulators over many years. The DHHS and NCDEQ sent follow-up letters on October 15, 2015 to residents near coal ash plants who have had their wells tested, stating that private well samplings at a considerable distance from coal ash impoundments, as well as some municipal water supplies, contain similar levels of vanadium and hexavalent chromium which leads investigators to believe these constituents are naturally occurring. It is not possible to estimate the maximum exposure of loss, if any, that may occur in connection with claims which might be made by these residents. Duke Energy Carolinas New Source Review In 1999-2000, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of the EPA filed a number of complaints and notices of violation against multiple utilities, including Duke Energy Carolinas, for alleged violations of the New Source Review (NSR) provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The government alleges the utilities violated the CAA when undertaking certain maintenance and repair projects at certain coal plants without (i) obtaining NSR permits and (ii) installing the best available emission controls for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. The complaints seek the installation of pollution control technology on generating units that allegedly violated the CAA, and unspecified civil penalties in amounts of up to $37,500 per day for each violation. In 2000, the government sued Duke Energy Carolinas in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina, claiming NSR violations for 29 projects performed at 25 of Duke Energy Carolinas’ coal-fired units. Duke Energy Carolinas asserts there were no CAA violations because the applicable regulations do not require NSR permitting in cases where the projects undertaken are routine or otherwise do not result in an increase in emissions. In 2011, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to dismiss with prejudice all but 13 claims at 13 generating units, 11 of which have since been retired. On October 20, 2015, the Court approved and entered a consent decree to resolve this matter. Under the consent decree, Duke Energy Carolinas will retire by the end of 2024 the remaining units at the Allen plant that are part of the litigation as well as a third unit that is not part of the litigation. Prior to closure, Duke Energy Carolinas will comply with new, lower emissions limits at the Allen units named in the litigation. Additionally, Duke Energy Carolinas will spend approximately $4 million on environmental projects and donations and pay a civil penalty of approximately $1 million. The Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income include a charge of $2 million in Operations, maintenance and other for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015. The Condensed Consolidated Balances Sheets include $3 million in Other within Investments and Other Assets and $5 million in Accounts payable within Current Liabilities as of September 30, 2015. Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September 30, 2015, there were 150 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $37 million, and 63 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $9 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas’ experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed. Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $551 million at September 30, 2015 and $575 million at December 31, 2014. These reserves are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2033 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas’ cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $847 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $599 million at September 30, 2015 and $616 million at December 31, 2014. These amounts are classified in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating. Duke Energy Florida Westinghouse Contract Litigation On March 28, 2014, Duke Energy Florida filed a lawsuit against Westinghouse in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The lawsuit seeks recovery of $54 million in milestone payments in excess of work performed under the terminated engineering, procurement and construction agreement (EPC) for Levy as well as a determination by the court of the amounts due to Westinghouse as a result of the termination of the EPC. On March 31, 2014, Westinghouse filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Florida in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania lawsuit alleged damages under the EPC in excess of $510 million for engineering and design work, costs to end supplier contracts and an alleged termination fee. On June 9, 2014, the judge in the North Carolina case ruled that the litigation will proceed in the Western District of North Carolina. In November 2014, Westinghouse filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the pleadings, which was denied on March 30, 2015. Trial is set for June 2016. It is not possible to predict the outcome of the litigation and whether Duke Energy Florida will incur any liability for terminating the EPC or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with these matters. Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of Duke Energy Florida. However, appropriate regulatory recovery will be pursued for the retail portion of any costs incurred in connection with such resolution. Duke Energy Ohio Antitrust Lawsuit In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into nonpublic option agreements in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio’s Rate Stabilization Plan implemented in early 2005. In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a class action. Plaintiffs allege claims for antitrust violations under the federal Robinson Patman Act as well as fraud and conspiracy allegations under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute and the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act. On October 21, 2015, the parties received preliminary court approval for a settlement agreement. A litigation settlement reserve was recorded for the full amount of $81 million and classified in Other within Current Liabilities on Duke Energy Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2015. Duke Energy Ohio recognized the full amount in (Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the nine months ended September 30, 2015. See Note 2 for further discussion on the Midwest Generation Exit. W.C. Beckjord Fuel Release On August 18, 2014, approximately 9,000 gallons of fuel oil were inadvertently discharged into the Ohio River during a fuel oil transfer at the W.C. Beckjord generating plant. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) issued a Notice of Violation related to the discharge. Duke Energy Ohio is cooperating with the Ohio EPA, the EPA and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. No Notice of Violation has been issued by the EPA and no civil or criminal penalty amount has been established. Total repair and remediation costs related to the release were not material. Other costs related to the release, including state or federal civil or criminal enforcement proceedings, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Duke Energy Indiana Edwardsport IGCC On December 11, 2012, Duke Energy Indiana filed an arbitration action against General Electric Company and Bechtel Corporation in connection with their work at the Edwardsport IGCC facility. Duke Energy Indiana sought damages equaling some or all of the additional costs incurred in the construction of the project not recovered at the IURC. The arbitration hearing concluded in December 2014. On May 6, 2015, the arbitration panel issued its final decision unanimously dismissing all of Duke Energy Indiana’s claims. This ruling resolves all outstanding issues in the arbitration. Other Litigation and Legal Proceedings The Duke Energy Registrants are involved in other legal, tax and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve significant amounts. The Duke Energy Registrants believe the final disposition of these proceedings will not have a material effect on their results of operations, cash flows or financial position. The table below presents recorded reserves based on management’s best estimate of probable loss for legal matters, excluding asbestos-related reserves. Reserves are classified on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Accounts payable and Other within Current Liabilities. The reasonably possible range of loss in excess of recorded reserves is not material, other than as described above.
(in millions) | September 30, 2015 |  |  | December 31, 2014 |
Reserves for Legal Matters |  |  |
Duke Energy | $ | 178 |  |  | $ | 323 |
Duke Energy Carolinas | 12 |  |  | 72 |
Progress Energy | 74 |  |  | 93 |
Duke Energy Progress | 17 |  |  | 37 |
Duke Energy Florida | 36 |  |  | 36 |
Duke Energy Ohio | 81 |  |  | — |
OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES General As part of their normal business, the Duke Energy Registrants are party to various financial guarantees, performance guarantees and other contractual commitments to extend guarantees of credit and other assistance to various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties. These guarantees involve elements of performance and credit risk, which are not fully recognized on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and have unlimited maximum potential payments. However, the Duke Energy Registrants do not believe these guarantees will have a material effect on their results of operations, cash flows or financial position. In addition, the Duke Energy Registrants enter into various fixed-price, noncancelable commitments to purchase or sell power, take-or-pay arrangements, transportation, or throughput agreements and other contracts that may or may not be recognized on their respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Some of these arrangements may be recognized at fair value on their respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets if such contracts meet the definition of a derivative and the normal purchase/normal sale (NPNS) exception does not apply. In most cases, the Duke Energy Registrants’ purchase obligation contracts contain provisions for price adjustments, minimum purchase levels and other financial commitments.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration