Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Line Items]
Commitments and Contingencies	14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Contingencies and significant changes to the commitments discussed in Note 22 in the 2011 Form 10-K are described below. A. PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS As part of our ordinary course of business, we and the Utilities enter into various long- and short-term contracts for fuel requirements at our generating plants. Significant changes from the commitment amounts reported in Note 22A in the 2011 Form 10-K can result from new contracts, changes in existing contracts along with the impact of fluctuations in current estimates of future market prices for those contracts that are market price indexed. In most cases, these contracts contain provisions for price adjustments, minimum purchase levels, and other financial commitments. Additional commitments for fuel and related transportation will be required to supply the Utilities' future needs. At June 30, 2012, our and the Utilities' contractual cash obligations and other commercial commitments have not changed materially from what was reported in the 2011 Form 10-K. B. GUARANTEES As a part of normal business, we enter into various agreements providing future financial or performance assurances to third parties. Such agreements include guarantees, standby letters of credit and surety bonds. At June 30, 2012, we do not believe conditions are likely for significant performance under these guarantees. To the extent liabilities are incurred as a result of the activities covered by the guarantees, such liabilities are included in the accompanying Balance Sheets. At June 30, 2012, we have issued guarantees and indemnifications of and for certain asset performance, legal, tax and environmental matters to third parties, including indemnifications made in connection with sales of businesses. At June 30, 2012, our estimated maximum exposure for guarantees and indemnifications for which a maximum exposure is determinable was $222 million, including $48 million at PEF. Related to the sales of businesses, the latest specified notice period extends until 2013 for the majority of legal, tax and environmental matters provided for in the indemnification provisions. Indemnifications for the performance of assets extend to 2016. For certain matters for which we receive timely notice, our indemnity obligations may extend beyond the notice period. Certain indemnifications related to discontinued operations have no limitations as to time or maximum potential future payments. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had recorded liabilities related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties of $31 million and $63 million, respectively. These amounts included $23 million and $37 million for PEF at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Our liabilities decreased primarily due to the reversal of certain environmental indemnification liabilities for which the indemnification period has expired (See Note 4) and the adjustment to the indemnification for the estimated future years' joint owner replacement power costs related to CR3 (See Note 12). PEF's liabilities decreased primarily due to the previously mentioned indemnification adjustment related to CR3. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, our and the Utilities' accruals and expenditures related to guarantees and indemnifications were not material. As current estimates change, additional losses related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties, which could be material, may be recorded in the future. In addition, the Parent has issued $300 million in guarantees for certain payments of two wholly owned indirect subsidiaries (See Note 15). Furthermore, effective with the consummation of the merger with Duke Energy on July 2, 2012, Progress Energy and Duke Energy have guaranteed to provide $650 million in system fuel savings for retail customers in North Carolina and South Carolina (See Note 2). C. OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES MERGER On August 3, 2012, Duke Energy was served with a shareholder Derivative Complaint, which has been transferred to the North Carolina Business Court (Krieger v. Johnson, et al). The lawsuit names as defendants, William D. Johnson, James E. Rogers and the ten other members of the Duke Energy board of directors who were also members of the pre-merger Duke Energy board of directors. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty in granting excessive compensation to Mr. Johnson. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter. ENVIRONMENTAL We are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding environmental matters (See Note 13). Water Discharge Permit In October 2011, Earthjustice, on behalf of the Sierra Club and Florida Wildlife Federation, filed a petition seeking review of the water discharge permit issued to CR1, CR2 and CR3 raising a number of technical and legal issues with respect to the permit. In March 2012, a settlement was reached providing for the withdrawal of the petition and issuance by the FDEP of a revised water discharge permit identical in form to the one under appeal but with an 18-month term rather than the standard five-year term. The settlement fully resolved the current dispute. SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MATTERS Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Utilities entered into contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under which the DOE agreed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by no later than January 31, 1998. All similarly situated utilities were required to sign the same Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. The DOE failed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. In January 2004, the Utilities filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the DOE, claiming that the DOE breached the standard contract and asserting damages incurred through 2005. In 2011, the judge in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a ruling to award PEC substantially all their asserted damages. As a result, PEC recorded the award as an offset for past spent fuel storage costs incurred. On December 12, 2011, the Utilities filed another complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the DOE, claiming damages incurred from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. The damages stem from the same breach of contract asserted in the previous litigation. On March 23, 2012, the Utilities filed their initial disclosure of $113 million damages with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the DOE. The total amount of damages could change during discovery, which is set to end on January 31, 2013. The Utilities may file subsequent damage claims as they incur additional costs. The next status conference to discuss trial dates is scheduled for January 10, 2013. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter. SYNTHETIC FUELS MATTERS In October 2009, a jury delivered a verdict in a lawsuit against Progress Energy and a number of our subsidiaries and affiliates arising out of an Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of October 19, 1999, and amended as of August 23, 2000 (the Asset Purchase Agreement) by and among U.S. Global, LLC (Global); Earthco synthetic fuels facilities (Earthco); certain affiliates of Earthco; EFC Synfuel LLC (which was owned indirectly by Progress Energy, Inc.) and certain of its affiliates, including Solid Energy LLC; Solid Fuel LLC; Ceredo Synfuel LLC; Gulf Coast Synfuel LLC (renamed Sandy River Synfuel LLC) (collectively, the Progress Affiliates), as amended by an amendment to the Asset Purchase Agreement. In a case filed in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Fla., in March 2003 (the Florida Global Case), Global requested an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as declaratory relief. Global asserted (1) that pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, it was entitled to an interest in two synthetic fuels facilities previously owned by the Progress Affiliates and an option to purchase additional interests in the two synthetic fuels facilities and (2) that it was entitled to damages because the Progress Affiliates prohibited it from procuring purchasers for the synthetic fuels facilities. As a result of the 2007 expiration of the Internal Revenue Code Section 29 tax credit program, all of our synthetic fuels businesses were abandoned and we reclassified our synthetic fuels businesses as discontinued operations. The jury awarded Global $78 million. In November 2009, the court assessed $55 million in prejudgment interest and entered judgment in favor of Global in a total amount of $133 million. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we recorded an after-tax charge of $74 million to discontinued operations. In December 2009, we appealed the Broward County judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals. Also in December 2009, we made a $154 million payment, which represented payment of the total judgment and a required premium equivalent to two years of interest, to the Broward County Clerk of Court bond account. We continue to accrue interest related to this judgment. The appellate briefing process has been completed. Oral argument was held on September 27, 2011. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter. In a second suit filed in the Superior Court for Wake County, N.C., Progress Synfuel Holdings, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Global, LLC (the North Carolina Global Case), the Progress Affiliates seek declaratory relief consistent with our interpretation of the Asset Purchase Agreement. Global was served with the North Carolina Global Case on April 17, 2003. In May 2003, Global moved to dismiss the North Carolina Global Case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Global. In the alternative, Global requested that the court decline to exercise its discretion to hear the Progress Affiliates' declaratory judgment action. In August 2003, the Wake County Superior Court denied Global's motion to dismiss, but stayed the North Carolina Global Case, pending the outcome of the Florida Global Case. The Progress Affiliates appealed the superior court's order staying the case. By order dated September 7, 2004, the North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the Progress Affiliates' appeal. Based upon the verdict in the Florida Global Case, we anticipate dismissal of the North Carolina Global Case. OTHER LITIGATION MATTERS We and our subsidiaries are involved in various litigation matters in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts. While the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe the reasonably possible losses of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not material. Additionally, we believe the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
PEC
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Line Items]
Commitments and Contingencies	14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Contingencies and significant changes to the commitments discussed in Note 22 in the 2011 Form 10-K are described below. A. PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS As part of our ordinary course of business, we and the Utilities enter into various long- and short-term contracts for fuel requirements at our generating plants. Significant changes from the commitment amounts reported in Note 22A in the 2011 Form 10-K can result from new contracts, changes in existing contracts along with the impact of fluctuations in current estimates of future market prices for those contracts that are market price indexed. In most cases, these contracts contain provisions for price adjustments, minimum purchase levels, and other financial commitments. Additional commitments for fuel and related transportation will be required to supply the Utilities' future needs. At June 30, 2012, our and the Utilities' contractual cash obligations and other commercial commitments have not changed materially from what was reported in the 2011 Form 10-K. B. GUARANTEES As a part of normal business, we enter into various agreements providing future financial or performance assurances to third parties. Such agreements include guarantees, standby letters of credit and surety bonds. At June 30, 2012, we do not believe conditions are likely for significant performance under these guarantees. To the extent liabilities are incurred as a result of the activities covered by the guarantees, such liabilities are included in the accompanying Balance Sheets. At June 30, 2012, we have issued guarantees and indemnifications of and for certain asset performance, legal, tax and environmental matters to third parties, including indemnifications made in connection with sales of businesses. At June 30, 2012, our estimated maximum exposure for guarantees and indemnifications for which a maximum exposure is determinable was $222 million, including $48 million at PEF. Related to the sales of businesses, the latest specified notice period extends until 2013 for the majority of legal, tax and environmental matters provided for in the indemnification provisions. Indemnifications for the performance of assets extend to 2016. For certain matters for which we receive timely notice, our indemnity obligations may extend beyond the notice period. Certain indemnifications related to discontinued operations have no limitations as to time or maximum potential future payments. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had recorded liabilities related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties of $31 million and $63 million, respectively. These amounts included $23 million and $37 million for PEF at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Our liabilities decreased primarily due to the reversal of certain environmental indemnification liabilities for which the indemnification period has expired (See Note 4) and the adjustment to the indemnification for the estimated future years' joint owner replacement power costs related to CR3 (See Note 12). PEF's liabilities decreased primarily due to the previously mentioned indemnification adjustment related to CR3. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, our and the Utilities' accruals and expenditures related to guarantees and indemnifications were not material. As current estimates change, additional losses related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties, which could be material, may be recorded in the future. In addition, the Parent has issued $300 million in guarantees for certain payments of two wholly owned indirect subsidiaries (See Note 15). Furthermore, effective with the consummation of the merger with Duke Energy on July 2, 2012, Progress Energy and Duke Energy have guaranteed to provide $650 million in system fuel savings for retail customers in North Carolina and South Carolina (See Note 2). C. OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES MERGER On August 3, 2012, Duke Energy was served with a shareholder Derivative Complaint, which has been transferred to the North Carolina Business Court (Krieger v. Johnson, et al). The lawsuit names as defendants, William D. Johnson, James E. Rogers and the ten other members of the Duke Energy board of directors who were also members of the pre-merger Duke Energy board of directors. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty in granting excessive compensation to Mr. Johnson. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter. ENVIRONMENTAL We are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding environmental matters (See Note 13). SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MATTERS Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Utilities entered into contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under which the DOE agreed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by no later than January 31, 1998. All similarly situated utilities were required to sign the same Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. The DOE failed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. In January 2004, the Utilities filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the DOE, claiming that the DOE breached the standard contract and asserting damages incurred through 2005. In 2011, the judge in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a ruling to award PEC substantially all their asserted damages. As a result, PEC recorded the award as an offset for past spent fuel storage costs incurred. On December 12, 2011, the Utilities filed another complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the DOE, claiming damages incurred from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. The damages stem from the same breach of contract asserted in the previous litigation. On March 23, 2012, the Utilities filed their initial disclosure of $113 million damages with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the DOE. The total amount of damages could change during discovery, which is set to end on January 31, 2013. The Utilities may file subsequent damage claims as they incur additional costs. The next status conference to discuss trial dates is scheduled for January 10, 2013. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter. OTHER LITIGATION MATTERS We and our subsidiaries are involved in various litigation matters in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts. While the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe the reasonably possible losses of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not material. Additionally, we believe the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
PEF
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Line Items]
Commitments and Contingencies	14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Contingencies and significant changes to the commitments discussed in Note 22 in the 2011 Form 10-K are described below. A. PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS As part of our ordinary course of business, we and the Utilities enter into various long- and short-term contracts for fuel requirements at our generating plants. Significant changes from the commitment amounts reported in Note 22A in the 2011 Form 10-K can result from new contracts, changes in existing contracts along with the impact of fluctuations in current estimates of future market prices for those contracts that are market price indexed. In most cases, these contracts contain provisions for price adjustments, minimum purchase levels, and other financial commitments. Additional commitments for fuel and related transportation will be required to supply the Utilities' future needs. At June 30, 2012, our and the Utilities' contractual cash obligations and other commercial commitments have not changed materially from what was reported in the 2011 Form 10-K. B. GUARANTEES As a part of normal business, we enter into various agreements providing future financial or performance assurances to third parties. Such agreements include guarantees, standby letters of credit and surety bonds. At June 30, 2012, we do not believe conditions are likely for significant performance under these guarantees. To the extent liabilities are incurred as a result of the activities covered by the guarantees, such liabilities are included in the accompanying Balance Sheets. At June 30, 2012, we have issued guarantees and indemnifications of and for certain asset performance, legal, tax and environmental matters to third parties, including indemnifications made in connection with sales of businesses. At June 30, 2012, our estimated maximum exposure for guarantees and indemnifications for which a maximum exposure is determinable was $222 million, including $48 million at PEF. Related to the sales of businesses, the latest specified notice period extends until 2013 for the majority of legal, tax and environmental matters provided for in the indemnification provisions. Indemnifications for the performance of assets extend to 2016. For certain matters for which we receive timely notice, our indemnity obligations may extend beyond the notice period. Certain indemnifications related to discontinued operations have no limitations as to time or maximum potential future payments. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had recorded liabilities related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties of $31 million and $63 million, respectively. These amounts included $23 million and $37 million for PEF at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Our liabilities decreased primarily due to the reversal of certain environmental indemnification liabilities for which the indemnification period has expired (See Note 4) and the adjustment to the indemnification for the estimated future years' joint owner replacement power costs related to CR3 (See Note 12). PEF's liabilities decreased primarily due to the previously mentioned indemnification adjustment related to CR3. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, our and the Utilities' accruals and expenditures related to guarantees and indemnifications were not material. As current estimates change, additional losses related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties, which could be material, may be recorded in the future. In addition, the Parent has issued $300 million in guarantees for certain payments of two wholly owned indirect subsidiaries (See Note 15). Furthermore, effective with the consummation of the merger with Duke Energy on July 2, 2012, Progress Energy and Duke Energy have guaranteed to provide $650 million in system fuel savings for retail customers in North Carolina and South Carolina (See Note 2). C. OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES MERGER On August 3, 2012, Duke Energy was served with a shareholder Derivative Complaint, which has been transferred to the North Carolina Business Court (Krieger v. Johnson, et al). The lawsuit names as defendants, William D. Johnson, James E. Rogers and the ten other members of the Duke Energy board of directors who were also members of the pre-merger Duke Energy board of directors. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty in granting excessive compensation to Mr. Johnson. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter. ENVIRONMENTAL We are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding environmental matters (See Note 13). Water Discharge Permit In October 2011, Earthjustice, on behalf of the Sierra Club and Florida Wildlife Federation, filed a petition seeking review of the water discharge permit issued to CR1, CR2 and CR3 raising a number of technical and legal issues with respect to the permit. In March 2012, a settlement was reached providing for the withdrawal of the petition and issuance by the FDEP of a revised water discharge permit identical in form to the one under appeal but with an 18-month term rather than the standard five-year term. The settlement fully resolved the current dispute. SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MATTERS Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Utilities entered into contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under which the DOE agreed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by no later than January 31, 1998. All similarly situated utilities were required to sign the same Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. The DOE failed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. In January 2004, the Utilities filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the DOE, claiming that the DOE breached the standard contract and asserting damages incurred through 2005. In 2011, the judge in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a ruling to award PEC substantially all their asserted damages. As a result, PEC recorded the award as an offset for past spent fuel storage costs incurred. On December 12, 2011, the Utilities filed another complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the DOE, claiming damages incurred from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. The damages stem from the same breach of contract asserted in the previous litigation. On March 23, 2012, the Utilities filed their initial disclosure of $113 million damages with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the DOE. The total amount of damages could change during discovery, which is set to end on January 31, 2013. The Utilities may file subsequent damage claims as they incur additional costs. The next status conference to discuss trial dates is scheduled for January 10, 2013. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter. OTHER LITIGATION MATTERS We and our subsidiaries are involved in various litigation matters in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts. While the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe the reasonably possible losses of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not material. Additionally, we believe the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contingencies and significant changes to the commitments discussed in Note 22 in the 2011 Form 10-K are described below.

A. PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS

As part of our ordinary course of business, we and the Utilities enter into various long- and short-term contracts for fuel requirements at our generating plants. Significant changes from the commitment amounts reported in Note 22A in the 2011 Form 10-K can result from new contracts, changes in existing contracts along with the impact of fluctuations in current estimates of future market prices for those contracts that are market price indexed. In most cases, these contracts contain provisions for price adjustments, minimum purchase levels, and other financial commitments. Additional commitments for fuel and related transportation will be required to supply the Utilities' future needs. At June 30, 2012, our and the Utilities' contractual cash obligations and other commercial commitments have not changed materially from what was reported in the 2011 Form 10-K.

B. GUARANTEES

As a part of normal business, we enter into various agreements providing future financial or performance assurances to third parties. Such agreements include guarantees, standby letters of credit and surety bonds. At June 30, 2012, we do not believe conditions are likely for significant performance under these guarantees. To the extent liabilities are incurred as a result of the activities covered by the guarantees, such liabilities are included in the accompanying Balance Sheets.

At June 30, 2012, we have issued guarantees and indemnifications of and for certain asset performance, legal, tax and environmental matters to third parties, including indemnifications made in connection with sales of businesses. At June 30, 2012, our estimated maximum exposure for guarantees and indemnifications for which a maximum exposure is determinable was $222 million, including $48 million at PEF. Related to the sales of businesses, the latest specified notice period extends until 2013 for the majority of legal, tax and environmental matters provided for in the indemnification provisions. Indemnifications for the performance of assets extend to 2016. For certain matters for which we receive timely notice, our indemnity obligations may extend beyond the notice period. Certain indemnifications related to discontinued operations have no limitations as to time or maximum potential future payments. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had recorded liabilities related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties of $31 million and $63 million, respectively. These amounts included $23 million and $37 million for PEF at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Our liabilities decreased primarily due to the reversal of certain environmental indemnification liabilities for which the indemnification period has expired (See Note 4) and the adjustment to the indemnification for the estimated future years' joint owner replacement power costs related to CR3 (See Note 12). PEF's liabilities decreased primarily due to the previously mentioned indemnification adjustment related to CR3. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, our and the Utilities' accruals and expenditures related to guarantees and indemnifications were not material. As current estimates change, additional losses related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties, which could be material, may be recorded in the future.

In addition, the Parent has issued $300 million in guarantees for certain payments of two wholly owned indirect subsidiaries (See Note 15).

Furthermore, effective with the consummation of the merger with Duke Energy on July 2, 2012, Progress Energy and Duke Energy have guaranteed to provide $650 million in system fuel savings for retail customers in North Carolina and South Carolina (See Note 2).

C. OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

MERGER

On August 3, 2012, Duke Energy was served with a shareholder Derivative Complaint, which has been transferred to the North Carolina Business Court (Krieger v. Johnson, et al). The lawsuit names as defendants, William D. Johnson, James E. Rogers and the ten other members of the Duke Energy board of directors who were also members of the pre-merger Duke Energy board of directors. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty in granting excessive compensation to Mr. Johnson. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

ENVIRONMENTAL

We are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding environmental matters (See Note 13).

Water Discharge Permit

In October 2011, Earthjustice, on behalf of the Sierra Club and Florida Wildlife Federation, filed a petition seeking review of the water discharge permit issued to CR1, CR2 and CR3 raising a number of technical and legal issues with respect to the permit. In March 2012, a settlement was reached providing for the withdrawal of the petition and issuance by the FDEP of a revised water discharge permit identical in form to the one under appeal but with an 18-month term rather than the standard five-year term. The settlement fully resolved the current dispute.

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MATTERS

Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Utilities entered into contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under which the DOE agreed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by no later than January 31, 1998. All similarly situated utilities were required to sign the same Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel.

The DOE failed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. In January 2004, the Utilities filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the DOE, claiming that the DOE breached the standard contract and asserting damages incurred through 2005. In 2011, the judge in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a ruling to award PEC substantially all their asserted damages. As a result, PEC recorded the award as an offset for past spent fuel storage costs incurred.

On December 12, 2011, the Utilities filed another complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the DOE, claiming damages incurred from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. The damages stem from the same breach of contract asserted in the previous litigation. On March 23, 2012, the Utilities filed their initial disclosure of $113 million damages with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the DOE. The total amount of damages could change during discovery, which is set to end on January 31, 2013. The Utilities may file subsequent damage claims as they incur additional costs. The next status conference to discuss trial dates is scheduled for January 10, 2013. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

SYNTHETIC FUELS MATTERS

In October 2009, a jury delivered a verdict in a lawsuit against Progress Energy and a number of our subsidiaries and affiliates arising out of an Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of October 19, 1999, and amended as of August 23, 2000 (the Asset Purchase Agreement) by and among U.S. Global, LLC (Global); Earthco synthetic fuels facilities (Earthco); certain affiliates of Earthco; EFC Synfuel LLC (which was owned indirectly by Progress Energy, Inc.) and certain of its affiliates, including Solid Energy LLC; Solid Fuel LLC; Ceredo Synfuel LLC; Gulf Coast Synfuel LLC (renamed Sandy River Synfuel LLC) (collectively, the Progress Affiliates), as amended by an amendment to the Asset Purchase Agreement. In a case filed in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Fla., in March 2003 (the Florida Global Case), Global requested an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as declaratory relief. Global asserted (1) that pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, it was entitled to an interest in two synthetic fuels facilities previously owned by the Progress Affiliates and an option to purchase additional interests in the two synthetic fuels facilities and (2) that it was entitled to damages because the Progress Affiliates prohibited it from procuring purchasers for the synthetic fuels facilities. As a result of the 2007 expiration of the Internal Revenue Code Section 29 tax credit program, all of our synthetic fuels businesses were abandoned and we reclassified our synthetic fuels businesses as discontinued operations.

The jury awarded Global $78 million. In November 2009, the court assessed $55 million in prejudgment interest and entered judgment in favor of Global in a total amount of $133 million. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we recorded an after-tax charge of $74 million to discontinued operations. In December 2009, we appealed the Broward County judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals. Also in December 2009, we made a $154 million payment, which represented payment of the total judgment and a required premium equivalent to two years of interest, to the Broward County Clerk of Court bond account. We continue to accrue interest related to this judgment. The appellate briefing process has been completed. Oral argument was held on September 27, 2011. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

In a second suit filed in the Superior Court for Wake County, N.C., Progress Synfuel Holdings, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Global, LLC (the North Carolina Global Case), the Progress Affiliates seek declaratory relief consistent with our interpretation of the Asset Purchase Agreement. Global was served with the North Carolina Global Case on April 17, 2003. In May 2003, Global moved to dismiss the North Carolina Global Case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Global. In the alternative, Global requested that the court decline to exercise its discretion to hear the Progress Affiliates' declaratory judgment action. In August 2003, the Wake County Superior Court denied Global's motion to dismiss, but stayed the North Carolina Global Case, pending the outcome of the Florida Global Case. The Progress Affiliates appealed the superior court's order staying the case. By order dated September 7, 2004, the North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the Progress Affiliates' appeal. Based upon the verdict in the Florida Global Case, we anticipate dismissal of the North Carolina Global Case.

OTHER LITIGATION MATTERS

We and our subsidiaries are involved in various litigation matters in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts. While the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe the reasonably possible losses of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not material. Additionally, we believe the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Line Items]

Commitments and Contingencies

14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contingencies and significant changes to the commitments discussed in Note 22 in the 2011 Form 10-K are described below.

A. PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS

As part of our ordinary course of business, we and the Utilities enter into various long- and short-term contracts for fuel requirements at our generating plants. Significant changes from the commitment amounts reported in Note 22A in the 2011 Form 10-K can result from new contracts, changes in existing contracts along with the impact of fluctuations in current estimates of future market prices for those contracts that are market price indexed. In most cases, these contracts contain provisions for price adjustments, minimum purchase levels, and other financial commitments. Additional commitments for fuel and related transportation will be required to supply the Utilities' future needs. At June 30, 2012, our and the Utilities' contractual cash obligations and other commercial commitments have not changed materially from what was reported in the 2011 Form 10-K.

B. GUARANTEES

As a part of normal business, we enter into various agreements providing future financial or performance assurances to third parties. Such agreements include guarantees, standby letters of credit and surety bonds. At June 30, 2012, we do not believe conditions are likely for significant performance under these guarantees. To the extent liabilities are incurred as a result of the activities covered by the guarantees, such liabilities are included in the accompanying Balance Sheets.

At June 30, 2012, we have issued guarantees and indemnifications of and for certain asset performance, legal, tax and environmental matters to third parties, including indemnifications made in connection with sales of businesses. At June 30, 2012, our estimated maximum exposure for guarantees and indemnifications for which a maximum exposure is determinable was $222 million, including $48 million at PEF. Related to the sales of businesses, the latest specified notice period extends until 2013 for the majority of legal, tax and environmental matters provided for in the indemnification provisions. Indemnifications for the performance of assets extend to 2016. For certain matters for which we receive timely notice, our indemnity obligations may extend beyond the notice period. Certain indemnifications related to discontinued operations have no limitations as to time or maximum potential future payments. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had recorded liabilities related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties of $31 million and $63 million, respectively. These amounts included $23 million and $37 million for PEF at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Our liabilities decreased primarily due to the reversal of certain environmental indemnification liabilities for which the indemnification period has expired (See Note 4) and the adjustment to the indemnification for the estimated future years' joint owner replacement power costs related to CR3 (See Note 12). PEF's liabilities decreased primarily due to the previously mentioned indemnification adjustment related to CR3. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, our and the Utilities' accruals and expenditures related to guarantees and indemnifications were not material. As current estimates change, additional losses related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties, which could be material, may be recorded in the future.

In addition, the Parent has issued $300 million in guarantees for certain payments of two wholly owned indirect subsidiaries (See Note 15).

Furthermore, effective with the consummation of the merger with Duke Energy on July 2, 2012, Progress Energy and Duke Energy have guaranteed to provide $650 million in system fuel savings for retail customers in North Carolina and South Carolina (See Note 2).

C. OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

MERGER

On August 3, 2012, Duke Energy was served with a shareholder Derivative Complaint, which has been transferred to the North Carolina Business Court (Krieger v. Johnson, et al). The lawsuit names as defendants, William D. Johnson, James E. Rogers and the ten other members of the Duke Energy board of directors who were also members of the pre-merger Duke Energy board of directors. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty in granting excessive compensation to Mr. Johnson. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

ENVIRONMENTAL

We are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding environmental matters (See Note 13).

Water Discharge Permit

In October 2011, Earthjustice, on behalf of the Sierra Club and Florida Wildlife Federation, filed a petition seeking review of the water discharge permit issued to CR1, CR2 and CR3 raising a number of technical and legal issues with respect to the permit. In March 2012, a settlement was reached providing for the withdrawal of the petition and issuance by the FDEP of a revised water discharge permit identical in form to the one under appeal but with an 18-month term rather than the standard five-year term. The settlement fully resolved the current dispute.

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MATTERS

Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Utilities entered into contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under which the DOE agreed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by no later than January 31, 1998. All similarly situated utilities were required to sign the same Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel.

The DOE failed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. In January 2004, the Utilities filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the DOE, claiming that the DOE breached the standard contract and asserting damages incurred through 2005. In 2011, the judge in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a ruling to award PEC substantially all their asserted damages. As a result, PEC recorded the award as an offset for past spent fuel storage costs incurred.

On December 12, 2011, the Utilities filed another complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the DOE, claiming damages incurred from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. The damages stem from the same breach of contract asserted in the previous litigation. On March 23, 2012, the Utilities filed their initial disclosure of $113 million damages with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the DOE. The total amount of damages could change during discovery, which is set to end on January 31, 2013. The Utilities may file subsequent damage claims as they incur additional costs. The next status conference to discuss trial dates is scheduled for January 10, 2013. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

OTHER LITIGATION MATTERS

We and our subsidiaries are involved in various litigation matters in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts. While the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe the reasonably possible losses of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not material. Additionally, we believe the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.