XML 117 R55.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2024
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 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 $16.2 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 $500 million per station. Duke Energy Florida has purchased $100 million primary nuclear liability insurance for Crystal River in compliance with the law. Excess Liability Program This program provides $15.8 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 $166 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 $24.7 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 each nuclear plant. NEIL sublimits the accidental outage recovery up to the first 104 weeks of coverage not to exceed $291 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 current year policies' annual retrospective premium obligations for Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida are $162 million, $99 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 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 of the Duke Energy Registrants. Remediation Activities In addition to AROs 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 table contains information regarding reserves for probable and estimable costs related to the various environmental sites. These reserves are recorded in Accounts Payable within Other Current Liabilities and Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(in millions) | December 31, 2024 |  | December 31, 2023 |
Reserves for Environmental Remediation |  |  |  |
Duke Energy | $ | 73 |  |  | $ | 88 |  |
Duke Energy Carolinas | 24 |  |  | 23 |  |
Progress Energy | 19 |  |  | 19 |  |
Duke Energy Progress | 9 |  |  | 9 |  |
Duke Energy Florida | 10 |  |  | 10 |  |
Duke Energy Ohio | 21 |  |  | 36 |  |
Duke Energy Indiana | 2 |  |  | 2 |  |
Piedmont | 7 |  |  | 7 |  |
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 For open litigation, unless otherwise noted, Duke Energy and the Subsidiary Registrants cannot predict the outcome or ultimate resolution of their respective matters. Duke Energy Texas Storm Uri Tort Litigation Duke Energy (Parent), several Duke Energy renewables project companies, and others in the ERCOT market were named in multiple lawsuits arising out of Texas Storm Uri, which occurred in February 20 21. These lawsuits sought recovery for property damage, personal injury and wrongful death allegedly caused by the power outages that plaintiffs claim were the collective failure of generators including entities owned by Duke Energy at the time, transmission and distribution operators (TDUs), retail energy providers, and all others, including ERCOT. The cases were consolidated into a Texas state court multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding for discovery and pre-trial motions. Five MDL cases were designated as lead cases in which motions to dismiss were filed and all other cases were stayed. In the cases against the generators, the plaintiffs dismissed the claims against Duke Energy (Parent). I n October 2023, in conjunction with the closing of the sale of the utility-scale solar and wind group, all but one of the project company lawsuits transferred to Brookfield. In May 2024, the remaining project company claim in the lawsuit was transferred to the buyer in connection with the sale of a portion of the remaining Commercial Renewables assets. With the transfer of the remaining project company lawsuits now complete, the matter is closed as it relates to the Duke Energy Registrants. See Note 2 for more information related to the sale of the Commercial Renewables Disposal Groups. Mooresville Coal Ash Class Action Litigation On December 20, 2024, 15 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Iredell County, North Carolina, against Duke Energy (Parent), Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress (collectively “Duke Energy”) on behalf of a putative class alleging past and ongoing environmental contamination in the Mooresville area of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that Duke Energy disposed of and sold coal ash as structural fill resulting in the contamination of soil, groundwater and Lake Norman. Plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy failed to properly remediate the contamination and continues to pollute, and they assert that the contamination has negatively impacted property values and led to elevated cancer rates and other health issues. The complaint asserts claims for negligence, nuisance, violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities and trespass. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief to stop further contamination, remediation of contaminated areas and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company is evaluating the complaint and will respond by the court's deadline in March 2025. Duke Energy Carolinas 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. In September 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 sought 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. Both NTE's and Duke Energy Carolinas' motions to dismiss were subsequently denied by the court. On May 21, 2020, in response to a NTE petition challenging Duke Energy Carolinas' termination of the LGIA, FERC issued a ruling that 1) it has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a transmission provider may terminate an 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. In April 2023, Duke Energy Carolinas received notice from the FERC Office of Enforcement that they have closed their non-public investigation with no further action recommended. Following completion of discovery, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling in its favor as to some of its affirmative claims against NTE and to all of NTE’s counterclaims. On June 24, 2022, the court issued an order partially granting Duke Energy Carolinas' motion by dismissing NTE's counterclaims that Duke Energy Carolinas engaged in anti-competitive behavior in violation of state and federal statutes. In October 2022, the parties executed a settlement agreement with respect to the remaining breach of contract claims in the litigation and a Stipulation of Dismissal was filed with the court. In November 2022, NTE filed its Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as to the district court's summary judgment ruling in Duke Energy Carolinas' favor on NTE's antitrust and unfair competition claims. Briefing on NTE's appeal was completed in June 2023 and oral argument took place in May 2024. On August 5, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. In August 2024, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a petition for rehe aring, which was denied on November 26, 2024. On February 21, 2025, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a petition seeking review by the United States Supreme Court. 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 reserv es of $396 million and $423 million at December 31, 2024, and 2023, 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 2044 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 2044 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 $539 million and $572 million at December 31, 2024, and 2023, 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. The reserve for credit losses for insurance receivables for the asbestos-related injuries and dama ges is $9 million as of December 31, 2024, and December 31, 2023, for both Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas. The insurance receivable is eva luated 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 Indiana Coal Ash Insurance Coverage Litigation In June 2022, Duke Energy Indiana filed a civil action in Indiana Superior Court against various insurance companies seeking declaratory relief with respect to insurance coverage for CCR-related expenses and liabilities covered by third-party liability insurance policies. The insurance policies cover the 1969-1972 and 1984-1985 periods and provide third-party liability insurance for claims and suits alleging property damage, bodily injury and personal injury (or a combination thereof). A trial date has not yet been set. In June 2023, Duke Energy Indiana and Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services (AEGIS) reached a confidential settlement, the results of which were not material to Duke Energy, and as a result, AEGIS was dismissed from the litigation in July 2023. Duke Energy In diana has also reached confidential settlements with other various insurance companies, the results of which were not material. In June 2024, Duke Energy Indiana filed an amended complaint adding several additional insurance companies as defendants to the litigati on. The litigation is currently stayed until February 28, 2025, while Duke Energy continues to negotiate with the remaining insurance company defendants. 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. 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. 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. See Notes 2 and 8 for more information. Purchase Obligations Purchased Power Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Indiana have ongoing purchased power 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, 2024
| Contract |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
(in millions) | Expiration |  | 2025 |  | 2026 |  | 2027 |  | 2028 |  | 2029 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Duke Energy Progress(a) | 2028-2042 |  | $ | 22 |  |  | $ | 18 |  |  | $ | 19 |  |  | $ | 18 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 31 |  |  | $ | 111 |
Duke Energy Indiana(b) | 2026 |  | 33 |  |  | 12 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 45 |
(a) Contracts represent between 18% and 100% of net plant output. (b) Share of net plant output varies. 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 specific fuel rate components operating in conjunction with PGA pro cedures, and subject to periodic prudence reviews in North Carolina and South Carolina and the Performance 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 18 years. The time periods for fixed payments under natural gas supply contracts is up to three years. The time periods for the natural gas supply purchase commitments is up to six 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, 2024.
(in millions) | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | Thereafter | Total
Duke Energy Ohio | $ | 104 |  | $ | 75 |  | $ | 71 |  | $ | 69 |  | $ | 65 |  | $ | 554 |  | $ | 938 |
Piedmont | 369 |  | 366 |  | 322 |  | 241 |  | 233 |  | 695 |  | 2,226 |

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/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration