XML 71 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2021
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 3, 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 achieved a SAFSTOR condition in July 2019. On October 1, 2020, Crystal River Unit 3 changed decommissioning strategies from SAFSTOR to DECON. 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 $13.5 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 $13.1 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 95 licensed commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. Under this program, operating unit 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 Catawba, $434 million for McGuire, $364 million for Harris, $336 million for Brunswick, $322 million for Oconee and $280 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 $140 million, $88 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 9, 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 Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(in millions) | December 31, 2021 |  | December 31, 2020 |
Reserves for Environmental Remediation |  |  |  |
Duke Energy | $ | 88 |  |  | $ | 75 |  |
Duke Energy Carolinas | 19 |  |  | 19 |  |
Progress Energy | 23 |  |  | 19 |  |
Duke Energy Progress | 11 |  |  | 6 |  |
Duke Energy Florida | 11 |  |  | 12 |  |
Duke Energy Ohio | 34 |  |  | 22 |  |
Duke Energy Indiana | 4 |  |  | 6 |  |
Piedmont | 9 |  |  | 10 |  |
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. LITIGATION Duke Energy Michael Johnson et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation et al. On September 23, 2020, plaintiff Michael Johnson, a former Duke Energy employee and participant in the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan (Plan) brought suit on his own behalf and on behalf of other participants and beneficiaries similarly situated against Duke Energy Corporation, the Duke Energy Benefits Committee, and other unnamed individual defendants. The complaint, which was subsequently amended to add a current participant as a plaintiff on November 23, 2020, alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to certain fees associated with the Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and seeks certification of a class of all individuals who were participants or beneficiaries of the Plan at any time on or after September 23, 2014. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint on December 18, 2020. On January 31, 2022, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. Duke Energy will be filing its answer to the amended complaint, following which discovery will commence. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Texas Storm Uri Tort Litigation Several Duke Energy renewables project companies, located in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) market, were named in lawsuits arising out of Texas Storm Uri in mid-February 2021. Several additional suits, where Duke Energy Corporation had been named, were dismissed The current lawsuits seek recovery for property damages, personal injury and for wrongful death allegedly caused by the power outages, which the plaintiffs claim was the result of collective failures of generators, transmission and distribution operators, retail energy providers and others including ERCOT. The cases have been consolidated into a Texas state court multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding for discovery purposes. With the exception of a few bellwether cases which are still being decided, all the lawsuits in the MDL will be stayed until motions to dismiss are filed and considered by the court in mid-2022. The bellwether cases will include those in which the Duke Energy entities are named. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcomes of these matters. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress Coal Ash Insurance Coverage Litigation In March 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a civil action in the North Carolina Business Court against various insurance providers. The lawsuit sought 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 sought 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 Sout h Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have now resolved claims against all of the insurers sued in this litigation and have dismissed their claims against all of the insurers. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have received approximately $418 million of coa l ash insurance litigation proceeds from settlements with insurer-defendants and the proceeds will be distributed in accordance with the terms of the CCR settlement agreement. Duke Energy Carolinas Ruben Villano, et al. v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC On June 16, 2021, a group of nine individuals went over a low head dam adjacent to the Dan River Steam Station in Eden, North Carolina, while water tubing. Emergency personnel rescued four people and five others were confirmed deceased. On August 11, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas was served with the complaint filed in Durham County Superior Court on behalf of four survivors, which was later amended to include all the decedents along with the survivors, except for one minor. The lawsuit alleges that Duke Energy Carolinas knew that the river was used for recreational purposes and that Duke Energy did not adequately warn about the dam. On September 30, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its motion to dismiss and motion for transfer of venue from Durham County to Rockingham County, both of which were denied on November 15, 2021. On November 15, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas was also served with Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, which added the final minor plaintiff and consolidated all the actions into one lawsuit. Duke Energy Carolinas has filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Second Amended Complaint. Discovery has now commenced. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter. NTE Carolinas II, LLC Litigation In November 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into a standard FERC large generator interconnection agreement (LGIA) with NTE Carolinas II, LLC (NTE), a company that proposed to build a combined-cycle natural gas plant in Rockingham County, North Carolina. On September 6, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a lawsuit in Mecklenburg County Superior Court against NTE for breach of contract, alleging that NTE's failure to pay benchmark payments for Duke Energy Carolinas' transmission system upgrades required under the interconnection agreement constituted a termination of the interconnection agreement. Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking a monetary judgment against NTE because NTE failed to make multiple milestone payments. The lawsuit was moved to federal court in North Carolina. NTE filed a motion to dismiss Duke Energy Carolinas’ complaint and brought counterclaims alleging anti-competitive conduct and violations of state and federal statutes. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion to dismiss NTE's counterclaims. On May 21, 2020, in response to a NTE petition challenging Duke Energy Carolinas' termination of the LGIA, FERC issued a ruling that 1) FERC has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a transmission provider may terminate a LGIA; 2) FERC approval is required to terminate a conforming LGIA if objected to by the interconnection customer; and 3) Duke Energy may not announce the termination of a conforming LGIA unless FERC has approved the termination. FERC's Office of Enforcement also initiated an investigation of Duke Energy Carolinas into matters pertaining to the LGIA. Duke Energy Carolinas is cooperating with the Office of Enforcement and cannot predict the outcome of this investigation. On August 17, 2020, the court denied both NTE’s and Duke Energy Carolinas’ motions to dismiss. In October 2021, NTE filed a Second Amended Counterclaim and Complaint, and in January 2022, NTE filed a Third Amended Counterclaim and Complaint. Duke Energy Carolinas has responded to these pleadings. On December 6, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an Amended Complaint. Discovery is scheduled to end by April 2022, after which the parties will file dispositive motions for the court's consideration. The case is scheduled to be trial ready by August 1, 2022. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter. 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. Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $501 million and $572 million at December 31, 2021, and 2020, respectively. These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The change in the reserves is a result of a third-party study completed in 2021 as well as settlements made throughout the year. These reserves are based upon Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future asbestos claims through 2041 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 2041 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. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $644 million and $704 million at December 31, 2021, and 2020, respectively. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. 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. As described in Note 1, Duke Energy adopted the new guidance for credit losses effective January 1, 2020, using the modified retrospective method of adoption, which does not require restatement of prior year reported results. The reserve for credit losses for insurance receivables for the asbestos-related injuries and damages based on adoption of the new standard is $12 million and $15 million for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas as of December 31, 2021, and December 31, 2020, respectively. The insurance receivable is evaluated based on the risk of default and the historical losses, current conditions and expected conditions around collectability. Management evaluates the risk of default annually based on payment history, credit rating and changes in the risk of default from credit agencies. 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 $200 million for Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida, respectively. The Department of Energy filed a motion for partial summary judgment relating to approximately $60 million of Duke Energy Florida’s claimed damages. A hearing on the motion was held on February 9, 2022. Trial is scheduled for April 2022. Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Duke Energy Florida Power Purchase Dispute Arbitration Duke Energy Florida, on behalf of its customers, entered into a PPA for the purchase of firm capacity and energy from a qualifying facility under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. Duke Energy Florida determined the qualifying facility did not perform in accordance with the PPA, and Duke Energy Florida terminated the PPA. The qualifying facility counterparty filed a confidential American Arbitration Association (AAA) arbitration demand, challenging the termination of the PPA and seeking damages. The final arbitration hearing occurred during the week of December 7, 202 0. An interim arbitral award was issued in March 2021, upholding Duke Energy Florida's positions on all issues and awarding the company termination costs. In May 2021, the final arbitral award was issued awarding Duke Energy Florida its claimed fees and costs. O n August 18, 2021, Duke Energy Florida filed a motion in Florida state court to confirm the arbitral award. On December 13, 2021, the court entered a final judgment confirming the arbitration award. Duke Energy Indiana Coal Ash Basin Closure Plan Appeal On January 27, 2020, Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) filed a Petition for Administrative Review with the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication challenging the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s (IDEM's) December 10, 2019 partial approval of Duke Energy Indiana’s ash pond closure plan at Gallagher. After hearing oral arguments in early April 2021 on Duke Energy Indiana's and HEC's competing Motions for Summary Judgment, on May 4, 2021, the administrative court rejected all of HEC’s claims and issued a ruling in favor of Duke Energy Indiana. On June 3, 2021, HEC filed an appeal in Superior Court to seek judicial review of the order. On June 25, 2021, Duke Energy Indiana filed its response to the Petition to Review. On August 30, 2021, HEC served Duke Energy Indiana with its Brief in Support of Petition for Judicial Review. On October 29, 2021, Duke Energy Indiana and IDEM filed their response briefs. On December 13, 2021, HEC filed and served its Reply Brief. On January 11, 2022, Duke Energy Indiana received a compliance obligation letter from the EPA notifying the company that the two basins at issue in the litigation are subject to requirements of the CCR Rule. The letter does not provide a deadline for compliance. Duke Energy Indiana is evaluating the EPA letter, its potential impacts on the litigation and the extent to which this letter could apply to CCR surface impoundments at its other Indiana sites. Following the January 11, 2022 EPA notice of compliance letter, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the litigation for 45 days, which was approved by the court. As a result, the oral argument scheduled for February 1, 2022, was postponed until the end of the 45-day stay. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter. 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 for the years presented. Reserves are classified on the Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities. 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 7 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, 2021
| Contract |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
(in millions) | Expiration |  | 2022 |  | 2023 |  | 2024 |  | 2025 |  | 2026 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Duke Energy Progress(a) | 2028-2032 |  | $ | 22 |  |  | $ | 22 |  |  | $ | 21 |  |  | $ | 22 |  |  | $ | 18 |  |  | $ | 45 |  |  | $ | 150 |
Duke Energy Florida(b) | 2023-2025 |  | 354 |  |  | 374 |  |  | 262 |  |  | 91 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 1,081 |
Duke Energy Ohio(c)(d) | 2023 |  | 53 |  |  | 34 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 87 |
(a) Contracts represent between 18% and 100% of net plant output. (b) Contracts represent 100% of net plant output. (c) Contracts represent 15% of net plant output. (d) Excludes PPA with OVEC. See Note 17 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 pro cedures 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 14 years. The time periods for fixed payments under natural gas supply contracts are up to five years. The time period for the natural gas supply purchase commitments is up to 10 years. Certai n 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, 2021.
(in millions) | 2022 |  | 2023 |  | 2024 |  | 2025 | 2026 | Thereafter | Total
Duke Energy Ohio | $ | 62 |  |  | $ | 37 |  |  | $ | 25 |  |  | $ | 16 |  | $ | 13 |  | $ | 47 |  | $ | 200 |
Piedmont | 324 |  |  | 272 |  |  | 225 |  |  | 134 |  | 122 |  | 503 |  | 1,580 |

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 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration