XML 54 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES ENVIRONMENTAL The Duke Energy Registrants are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal, coal ash 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 Duke Energy Registrants. Remediation Activities In addition to AROs recorded as a result of various environmental regulations, the Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various 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 environmental impacts 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 at all sites. 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 on 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 Accounts Payable within Current Liabilities and Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
| Six Months Ended June 30, 2019
|  |  | Duke |  |  |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  |
| Duke |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  |
(in millions) | Energy |  |  | Carolinas |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Florida |  |  | Ohio |  |  | Indiana |  |  | Piedmont |
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 77 |  |  | $ | 11 |  |  | $ | 11 |  |  | $ | 4 |  |  | $ | 6 |  |  | $ | 48 |  |  | $ | 5 |  |  | $ | 2 |
Provisions/adjustments | 9 |  |  | 4 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 2 |  |  | — |  |  | — |
Cash reductions | (22 | ) |  | (3 | ) |  | (1 | ) |  | (1 | ) |  | — |  |  | (18 | ) |  | — |  |  | — |
Balance at end of period | $ | 64 |  |  | $ | 12 |  |  | $ | 13 |  |  | $ | 5 |  |  | $ | 7 |  |  | $ | 32 |  |  | $ | 5 |  |  | $ | 2 |
| Six Months Ended June 30, 2018
|  |  | Duke |  |  |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  |
| Duke |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  |
(in millions) | Energy |  |  | Carolinas |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Florida |  |  | Ohio |  |  | Indiana |  |  | Piedmont |
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 81 |  |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 15 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 12 |  |  | $ | 47 |  |  | $ | 5 |  |  | $ | 2 |
Provisions/adjustments | 1 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 2 |  |  | (1 | ) |  | (3 | ) |  | 1 |  |  | — |
Cash reductions | (14 | ) |  | (1 | ) |  | (2 | ) |  | (1 | ) |  | (1 | ) |  | (9 | ) |  | (1 | ) |  | — |
Balance at end of period | $ | 68 |  |  | $ | 11 |  |  | $ | 15 |  |  | $ | 4 |  |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 35 |  |  | $ | 5 |  |  | $ | 2 |
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 not material except as presented in the table below.
(in millions) |
Duke Energy | $ | 51 |
Duke Energy Carolinas | 12 |
Duke Energy Ohio | 29 |
Piedmont | 2 |
LITIGATION Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress NCDEQ Closure Litigation The Coal Ash Act requires CCR surface impoundments in North Carolina to be closed, with the closure method and timing based on a risk ranking classification determined by legislation or state regulators. The NCDEQ previously classified the impoundments at Allen, Belews Creek, Rogers, Marshall, Mayo and Roxboro as low risk and Duke Energy expected to close those sites through a combination of a cap system and a groundwater monitoring system. However, on April 1, 2019, NCDEQ issued a closure determination (NCDEQ's April 1 Order) requiring Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress to excavate all remaining coal ash impoundments at these facilities. On April 26, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed Petitions for Contested Case Hearings in the Office of Administrative Hearings to challenge NCDEQ's April 1 Order. On May 9, 2019, NCDEQ issued a supplemental order requiring that closure plans be submitted on December 31, 2019, but providing that the corrective action plans are not due until March 31, 2020. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed amended petitions on May 24, 2019, incorporating the May 9, 2019 order. On June 14, 2019, NCDEQ filed a motion to dismiss several claims in Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress' appeals. On August 2, 2019, the court entered an order granting NCDEQ's motion to dismiss several of the claims. The lawsuit will proceed on the remaining issues, including whether the NCDEQ's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Coal Ash Insurance Coverage Litigation In March 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a civil action in North Carolina Superior Court against various insurance providers. The lawsuit seeks payment for coal ash-related liabilities covered by third-party liability insurance policies. The insurance policies were issued between 1971 and 1986 and provide third-party liability insurance for property damage. The civil action seeks damages for breach of contract and indemnification for costs arising from the Coal Ash Act and the EPA CCR rule at 15 coal-fired plants in North Carolina and South Carolina. On May 14, 2019, the court granted an extension of stay, until September 15, 2019, to allow the parties to discuss potential resolution. If the case is not fully resolved at that time, litigation will resume. The trial is now scheduled for February 2021. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter. NCDEQ State Enforcement Actions In the first quarter of 2013, the SELC sent notices of intent to sue Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress related to alleged CWA violations from coal ash basins at two of their coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. The NCDEQ filed enforcement actions against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress alleging violations of water discharge permits and North Carolina groundwater standards. The cases have been consolidated and are being heard before a single judge in the North Carolina Superior Court. On August 16, 2013, the 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. Both of these cases have been assigned to the judge handling the enforcement actions discussed above. SELC is representing several environmental groups who have been permitted to intervene in these cases. The court issued orders in 2016 granting Motions for Partial Summary Judgment for seven of the 14 North Carolina plants named in the enforcement actions. On February 13, 2017, the court issued an order denying motions for partial summary judgment brought by both the environmental groups and Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress for the remaining seven plants. On March 15, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Notice of Appeal with the North Carolina Court of Appeals to challenge the trial court’s order. The parties were unable to reach an agreement at mediation in April 2017 and submitted briefs to the trial court on remaining issues to be tried. On August 1, 2018, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and the matter is proceeding before the trial court. In light of the NCDEQ's April 1 Order, on April 29, 2019, the court decided to stay any activity in the case until August 2019, at which time the court will hold another status conference. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Federal Citizens Suits On June 13, 2016, the RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the Middle District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Mayo Plant. On August 19, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a Motion to Dismiss. On April 26, 2017, the court entered an order dismissing four of the claims in the federal citizen suit. Two claims relating to alleged violations of NPDES permit provisions survived the motion to dismiss, and Duke Energy Progress filed its response on May 10, 2017. Duke Energy Progress and RRBA each filed motions for summary judgment on March 23, 2018. The court has not yet ruled on these motions. On May 16, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, which asserts two claims relating to alleged violations of NPDES permit provisions at the Roxboro Plant and one claim relating to the use of nearby water bodies. Duke Energy Progress and RRBA each filed motions for summary judgment on April 17, 2018, and the court has not yet ruled on these motions. On May 8, 2018, on motion from Duke Energy Progress, the court ordered trial in both of the above matters to be consolidated. On April 5, 2019, Duke Energy Progress filed a motion to stay the case following the NCDEQ’s April 1 Order. On August 2, 2019, the court ordered that this case is stayed and shall remain stayed pending further order from the court. On December 5, 2017, various parties filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina for alleged violations at Duke Energy Carolinas' Belews Creek under the CWA. Duke Energy Carolinas' answer to the complaint was filed on August 27, 2018. On October 10, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas filed Motions to Dismiss for lack of standing, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to Stay Discovery. On January 9, 2019, the court entered an order denying Duke Energy Carolinas' motion to stay discovery. There has been no ruling on the other pending motions. On April 5, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion to stay the case following the NCDEQ’s April 1 Order. On August 2, 2019, the court ordered that this case is stayed and shall remain stayed pending further order from the court. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of these matters. 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 June 30, 2019, there were 145 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with cumulative relief sought of up to $38 million, and 50 asserted claims for malignant cases with cumulative relief sought of up to $16 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 $607 million at June 30, 2019, and $630 million at December 31, 2018. These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future asbestos claims through 2038 and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. 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 2038 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-insured 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 $764 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $739 million at June 30, 2019, and December 31, 2018. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets 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 Progress and Duke Energy Florida Spent Nuclear Fuel Matters On June 18, 2018, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida sued the U.S. in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for damages incurred for the period 2014 through 2018. The lawsuit claimed the Department of Energy breached a contract in failing to accept spent nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and asserted damages for the cost of on-site storage in the amount of $100 million and $203 million for Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida, respectively. Discovery is ongoing and a trial is expected to occur in 2020. Duke Energy Florida Fluor Contract Litigation On January 29, 2019, Fluor filed a breach of contract lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Duke Energy Florida related to an EPC agreement for the combined-cycle natural gas plant in Citrus County, Florida. Fluor filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2019. Fluor’s multicount complaint seeks civil, statutory and contractual remedies related to Duke Energy Florida’s $67 million draw in early 2019, on Fluor’s letter of credit and offset of invoiced amounts. Duke Energy Florida moved to dismiss all counts of Fluor's amended complaint, and on April 16, 2019, the court dismissed Fluor's complaint without prejudice. On April 26, 2019, Fluor filed a second amended complaint. Duke Energy Florida is attempting to recover from Fluor $110 million in additional costs incurred by Duke Energy Florida. On August 1, 2019, Duke Energy Florida and Fluor reached a settlement to resolve the pending litigation and other outstanding issues related to completing the Citrus County combined-cycle plant. The terms of the settlement will not have a material impact on Duke Energy Florida's results of operations, cash flows or financial position. 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 discussed above. Reserves are classified on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities 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) | June 30, 2019 |  |  | December 31, 2018 |
Reserves for Legal Matters |  |  |
Duke Energy | $ | 64 |  |  | $ | 65 |
Duke Energy Carolinas | 7 |  |  | 9 |
Progress Energy | 55 |  |  | 54 |
Duke Energy Progress | 14 |  |  | 12 |
Duke Energy Florida | 24 |  |  | 24 |
Piedmont | 1 |  |  | 1 |
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 or natural gas, 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 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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration