XML 263 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3.a.u2

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES INSURANCE General Insurance The Duke Energy Registrants have insurance and reinsurance coverage either directly or through indemnification from Duke Energy’s captive insurance company, Bison, and its affiliates, consistent with companies engaged in similar commercial operations with similar type properties. The Duke Energy Registrants’ coverage includes (i) commercial general liability coverage for liabilities arising to third parties for bodily injury and property damage; (ii) workers’ compensation; (iii) automobile liability coverage; and (iv) property coverage for all real and personal property damage. Real and personal property damage coverage excludes electric transmission and distribution lines, but includes damages arising from boiler and machinery breakdowns, earthquakes, flood damage and extra expense, but not outage or replacement power coverage. All coverage is subject to certain deductibles or retentions, sublimits, exclusions, terms and conditions common for companies with similar types of operations. The Duke Energy Registrants self-insure their electric transmission and distribution lines against loss due to storm damage and other natural disasters. As discussed further in Note 4, Duke Energy Florida maintains a storm damage reserve and has a regulatory mechanism to recover the cost of named storms on an expedited basis. The cost of the Duke Energy Registrants’ coverage can fluctuate from year to year reflecting claims history and conditions of the insurance and reinsurance markets. In the event of a loss, terms and amounts of insurance and reinsurance available might not be adequate to cover claims and other expenses incurred. Uninsured losses and other expenses, to the extent not recovered by other sources, could have a material effect on the Duke Energy Registrants’ results of operations, cash flows or financial position. Each company is responsible to the extent losses may be excluded or exceed limits of the coverage available. Nuclear Insurance Duke Energy Carolinas owns and operates McGuire and Oconee and operates and has a partial ownership interest in Catawba. McGuire and Catawba each have two reactors. Oconee has three reactors. The other joint owners of Catawba reimburse Duke Energy Carolinas for certain expenses associated with nuclear insurance per the Catawba joint owner agreements. Duke Energy Progress owns and operates Robinson, Brunswick and Harris. Robinson and Harris each have one reactor. Brunswick has two reactors. Duke Energy Florida owns Crystal River Unit 3, which permanently ceased operation in 2013 and reached a SAFSTOR condition in January 2018 after the successful transfer of all used nuclear fuel assemblies to an on-site dry cask storage facility. In the event of a loss, terms and amounts of insurance available might not be adequate to cover property damage and other expenses incurred. Uninsured losses and other expenses, to the extent not recovered by other sources, could have a material effect on Duke Energy Carolinas’, Duke Energy Progress’ and Duke Energy Florida’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position. Each company is responsible to the extent losses may be excluded or exceed limits of the coverage available. Nuclear Liability Coverage The Price-Anderson Act requires owners of nuclear reactors to provide for public nuclear liability protection per nuclear incident up to a maximum total financial protection liability. The maximum total financial protection liability, which is approximately $13.9 billion, is subject to change every five years for inflation and for the number of licensed reactors. Total nuclear liability coverage consists of a combination of private primary nuclear liability insurance coverage and a mandatory industry risk-sharing program to provide for excess nuclear liability coverage above the maximum reasonably available private primary coverage. The U.S. Congress could impose revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay claims. Primary Liability Insurance Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have purchased the maximum reasonably available private primary nuclear liability insurance as required by law, which is $450 million per station. Duke Energy Florida has purchased $100 million primary nuclear liability insurance in compliance with the law. Excess Liability Program This program provides $13.5 billion of coverage per incident through the Price-Anderson Act’s mandatory industrywide excess secondary financial protection program of risk pooling. This amount is the product of potential cumulative retrospective premium assessments of $138 million times the current 98 licensed commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. Under this program, licensees could be assessed retrospective premiums to compensate for public nuclear liability damages in the event of a nuclear incident at any licensed facility in the U.S. Retrospective premiums may be assessed at a rate not to exceed $20.5 million per year per licensed reactor for each incident. The assessment may be subject to state premium taxes. Nuclear Property and Accidental Outage Coverage Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida are members of Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), an industry mutual insurance company, which provides property damage, nuclear accident decontamination and premature decommissioning insurance for each station for losses resulting from damage to its nuclear plants, either due to accidents or acts of terrorism. Additionally, NEIL provides accidental outage coverage for losses in the event of a major accidental outage at an insured nuclear station. Pursuant to regulations of the NRC, each company’s property damage insurance policies provide that all proceeds from such insurance be applied, first, to place the plant in a safe and stable condition after a qualifying accident and second, to decontaminate the plant before any proceeds can be used for decommissioning, plant repair or restoration. Losses resulting from acts of terrorism are covered as common occurrences, such that if terrorist acts occur against one or more commercial nuclear power plants insured by NEIL within a 12-month period, they would be treated as one event and the owners of the plants where the act occurred would share one full limit of liability. The full limit of liability is currently $3.2 billion. NEIL sublimits the total aggregate for all of their policies for non-nuclear terrorist events to approximately $1.8 billion. Each nuclear facility has accident property damage, nuclear accident decontamination and premature decommissioning liability insurance from NEIL with limits of $1.5 billion, except for Crystal River Unit 3. Crystal River Unit 3’s limit is $50 million and is on an actual cash value basis. All nuclear facilities except for Catawba and Crystal River Unit 3 also share an additional $1.25 billion nuclear accident insurance limit above their dedicated underlying limit. This shared additional excess limit is not subject to reinstatement in the event of a loss. Catawba has a dedicated $1.25 billion of additional nuclear accident insurance limit above its dedicated underlying limit. Catawba and Oconee also have an additional $750 million of non-nuclear accident property damage limit. All coverages are subject to sublimits and significant deductibles. NEIL’s Accidental Outage policy provides some coverage, similar to business interruption, for losses in the event of a major accident property damage outage of a nuclear unit. Coverage is provided on a weekly limit basis after a significant waiting period deductible and at 100% of the applicable weekly limits for 52 weeks and 80% of the applicable weekly limits for up to the next 110 weeks. Coverage is provided until these applicable weekly periods are met, where the accidental outage policy limit will not exceed $490 million for McGuire and Catawba, $462 million for Brunswick and Harris, $406 million for Oconee and $364 million for Robinson. NEIL sublimits the accidental outage recovery up to the first 104 weeks of coverage not to exceed $328 million from non-nuclear accidental property damage. Coverage amounts decrease in the event more than one unit at a station is out of service due to a common accident. All coverages are subject to sublimits and significant deductibles. Potential Retroactive Premium Assessments In the event of NEIL losses, NEIL’s board of directors may assess member companies' retroactive premiums of amounts up to 10 times their annual premiums for up to six years after a loss. NEIL has never exercised this assessment. The maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligations for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida are $155 million, $94 million and $1 million, respectively. Duke Energy Carolinas' maximum assessment amount includes 100% of potential obligations to NEIL for jointly owned reactors. Duke Energy Carolinas would seek reimbursement from the joint owners for their portion of these assessment amounts. ENVIRONMENTAL The Duke Energy Registrants are subject to federal, state and local laws regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal, coal ash and other environmental matters. These laws 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 In addition to the ARO recorded as a result of various environmental regulations, discussed in Note 10, 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 in the 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 Consolidated Balance Sheets.
|  |  | Duke |  |  |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |
| Duke |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |
(in millions) | Energy |  |  | Carolinas |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Florida |  |  | Ohio |  |  | Indiana |  | Piedmont |
Balance at December 31, 2016 | $ | 98 |  |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 18 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 14 |  |  | $ | 59 |  |  | $ | 10 |  | $ | 1 |
Provisions/adjustments | 8 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 3 |  |  | (4 | ) | 1 |
Cash reductions | (25 | ) |  | (3 | ) |  | (6 | ) |  | (2 | ) |  | (4 | ) |  | (15 | ) |  | (1 | ) | — |
Balance at December 31, 2017 | 81 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 15 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 12 |  |  | 47 |  |  | 5 |  | 2 |
Provisions/adjustments | 26 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 3 |  |  | (2 | ) |  | 21 |  |  | 1 |  | 1 |
Cash reductions | (30 | ) |  | (2 | ) |  | (6 | ) |  | (2 | ) |  | (4 | ) |  | (20 | ) |  | (1 | ) | (1 | )
Balance at December 31, 2018 | 77 |  |  | 11 |  |  | 11 |  |  | 4 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 48 |  |  | 5 |  | 2 |
Provisions/adjustments | 33 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 9 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 5 |  |  | 11 |  |  | — |  | 7 |
Cash reductions | (52 | ) |  | (6 | ) |  | (4 | ) |  | (2 | ) |  | (2 | ) |  | (40 | ) |  | (1 | ) | (1 | )
Balance at December 31, 2019 | $ | 58 |  |  | $ | 11 |  |  | $ | 16 |  |  | $ | 4 |  |  | $ | 9 |  |  | $ | 19 |  |  | $ | 4 |  | $ | 8 |
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 | $ | 59 |
Duke Energy Carolinas | 11 |
Duke Energy Ohio | 42 |
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. The Coal Ash Act allowed a range of closure options for low risk rated basins. 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 December 31, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement resolving the closure method for each of these sites. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress agreed to excavate seven of the nine remaining coal ash basins at these sites with ash moved to on-site lined landfills, including two at Allen, one at Belews Creek, one at Mayo, one at Roxboro, and two at Rogers. At the two remaining basins at Marshall and Roxboro, uncapped basin ash will be excavated and moved to lined landfills. Those portions of the basins at Marshall and Roxboro, which were previously filled with ash and on which permitted facilities were constructed, will not be disturbed and will be closed pursuant to other state regulations. On February 5, 2020, the North Carolina Superior court entered a consent order, after which this litigation was dismissed on February 11, 2020. Coal Ash Insurance Coverage Litigation In March 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a civil action in the 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. Despite a stay of the litigation from May 2019 through September 2019 to allow the parties to discuss potential resolution, no resolution was reached, and litigation resumed. In February and March 2020, the Court will hear arguments on numerous cross motions filed by the parties to seek legal determinations concerning, among other issues, the appropriate insurance allocation methods, the trigger of the applicable coverages and several coverage defenses raised by the insurance providers. Trial is 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, 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 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 the remaining coal-fired power 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 with coal ash basins 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. Pursuant to the terms of the December 31, 2019, settlement agreement, discussed above, between Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, NCDEQ and the community groups represented by the SELC, this litigation was dismissed on February 5, 2020, upon entry of the consent order in the North Carolina Superior Court. Federal Citizens Suits On June 13, 2016, Roanoke River Basin Association (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 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (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. 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. 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. 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. On December 31, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, the NCDEQ and various community groups including RRBA entered into a comprehensive settlement that, among other things, resolves the method of closure at the Mayo, Roxboro and Belews Creek ash basins. On February 5, 2020, the North Carolina Superior Court entered a consent order confirming the terms of the settlement agreement, upon which RRBA filed stipulations on February 11, 2020 voluntarily dismissing all three of these federal citizen suits with prejudice. Duke Energy Carolinas 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 December 31, 2019, there were 123 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $32 million and 49 asserted claims for malignant cases with the 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 $604 million and $630 million at December 31, 2019, and 2018, respectively. These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future asbestos claims through 2039 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 2039 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 $747 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $742 million and $739 million at December 31, 2019, and 2018, respectively. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the 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 early 2021. 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 CC 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. 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 CC. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Fluor filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, and on August 27, 2019, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. As a result of the settlement with Fluor, Duke Energy Florida recorded a $36 million reduction to a prior-year impairment within Impairment charges on Duke Energy's Consolidated Statements of Operations in 2019. 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 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.
| December 31,
(in millions) | 2019 |  |  | 2018 |
Reserves for Legal Matters |  |  |
Duke Energy | $ | 62 |  |  | $ | 65 |
Duke Energy Carolinas | 2 |  |  | 9 |
Progress Energy | 55 |  |  | 54 |
Duke Energy Progress | 12 |  |  | 12 |
Duke Energy Florida | 22 |  |  | 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 Consolidated Balance Sheets and have uncapped maximum potential payments. See Note 8 for more information. Purchase Obligations Purchased Power Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida and Duke Energy Ohio have ongoing purchased power contracts, including renewable energy contracts, with other utilities, wholesale marketers, co-generators and qualified facilities. These purchased power contracts generally provide for capacity and energy payments. In addition, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida have various contracts to secure transmission rights. The following table presents executory purchased power contracts with terms exceeding one year, excluding contracts classified as leases.
|  |  | Minimum Purchase Amount at December 31, 2019
| Contract |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
(in millions) | Expiration |  | 2020 |  |  | 2021 |  |  | 2022 |  |  | 2023 |  |  | 2024 |  |  | Thereafter |  |  | Total |
Duke Energy Progress(a) | 2021-2032 |  | $ | 46 |  |  | $ | 66 |  |  | $ | 63 |  |  | $ | 55 |  |  | $ | 56 |  |  | $ | 123 |  |  | $ | 409 |
Duke Energy Florida(b) | 2021-2025 |  | 374 |  |  | 356 |  |  | 354 |  |  | 374 |  |  | 262 |  |  | 91 |  |  | 1,811 |
Duke Energy Ohio(c)(d) | 2021-2022 |  | 132 |  |  | 107 |  |  | 32 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 271 |
(a) | Contracts represent either 100% of net plant output or vary.
(b) | Contracts represent between 81% and 100% of net plant output.
(c) | Contracts represent between 1% and 9% of net plant output.
(d) | Excludes PPA with OVEC. See Note 18 for additional information.
Gas Supply and Capacity Contracts Duke Energy Ohio and Piedmont routinely enter into long-term natural gas supply commodity and capacity commitments and other agreements that commit future cash flows to acquire services needed in their businesses. These commitments include pipeline and storage capacity contracts and natural gas supply contracts to provide service to customers. Costs arising from the natural gas supply commodity and capacity commitments, while significant, are pass-through costs to customers and are generally fully recoverable through the fuel adjustment or PGA procedures and prudence reviews in North Carolina and South Carolina and under the Tennessee Incentive Plan in Tennessee. In the Midwest, these costs are recovered via the Gas Cost Recovery Rate in Ohio or the Gas Cost Adjustment Clause in Kentucky. The time periods for fixed payments under pipeline and storage capacity contracts are up to 15 years. The time periods for fixed payments under natural gas supply contracts are up to six years. The time period for the natural gas supply purchase commitments is up to 11 years. Certain storage and pipeline capacity contracts require the payment of demand charges that are based on rates approved by the FERC in order to maintain rights to access the natural gas storage or pipeline capacity on a firm basis during the contract term. The demand charges that are incurred in each period are recognized in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income as part of natural gas purchases and are included in Cost of natural gas. The following table presents future unconditional purchase obligations under natural gas supply and capacity contracts as of December 31, 2019.
(in millions) | Duke Energy | Duke Energy Ohio | Piedmont
2020 | $ | 297 |  | $ | 39 |  | $ | 258 |
2021 | 280 |  | 33 |  | 247 |
2022 | 225 |  | 14 |  | 211 |
2023 | 129 |  | 3 |  | 126 |
2024 | 118 |  | — |  | 118 |
Thereafter | 714 |  | — |  | 714 |
Total | $ | 1,763 |  | $ | 89 |  | $ | 1,674 |

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