COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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 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 the McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire) and the Oconee Nuclear Station (Oconee) and operates and has a partial ownership interest in the Catawba Nuclear Station (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 the Robinson Nuclear Plant (Robinson), Brunswick and Harris. Robinson and Harris each have one reactor. Brunswick has two reactors.

Duke Energy Florida manages and has a partial ownership interest in Crystal River Unit 3, which has been retired. The other joint owner of Crystal River Unit 3 reimburses Duke Energy Florida for certain expenses associated with nuclear insurance per the Crystal River Unit 3 joint owner agreement.

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 currently $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 United States Congress could impose revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay claims.

Primary Liability Insurance

Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida have purchased the maximum reasonably available private primary nuclear liability insurance as required by law, which currently is $375 million per station.

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 $127 million times the current 103 licensed commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. Under this program, licensees could be assessed retrospective premiums to compensate for public nuclear liability damages in the event of a nuclear incident at any licensed facility in the U.S. Retrospective premiums may be assessed at a rate not to exceed $19 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 "all risk" property damage, 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 some replacement power cost insurance for each station for losses in the event of a major accidental outage at an insured nuclear station. NEIL requires its members to maintain an investment grade credit rating or to ensure collectability of their annual retrospective premium obligation by providing a financial guarantee, letter of credit, deposit premium or other means of assurance. The companies are required each year to report to the NRC the current levels and sources of insurance that demonstrate it possesses sufficient financial resources to stabilize and decontaminate its reactors and reactor station sites in the event of an accident.

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 $1.83 billion.

Each nuclear facility has accident property damage, 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 $1 billion and is on an actual cash value basis. NEIL coverage for Crystal River Unit 3 does not include property damage to or resulting from the containment structure although the coverage does apply to decontamination and debris removal, if required following an accident, to ensure public health and safety or if property damage results from a terrorism event. 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 replacement power cost insurance 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 percent of the available weekly limits for 52 weeks and 80 percent of the available weekly limits for the next 110 weeks. Coverage is provided until these available weekly periods are met where the accidental outage policy limit will not exceed $490 million for McGuire, Catawba, Oconee, Brunswick, and Harris and $457 million for Robinson. NEIL sublimits the accidental outage recovery 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 $159 million, $108 million and $7 million, respectively. The maximum assessment amounts include 100 percent of Duke Energy Carolinas’ and Duke Energy Florida’s potential obligations to NEIL for their share of jointly owned reactors.

ENVIRONMENTAL

Duke Energy is subject to international, federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental matters. The Subsidiary Registrants are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal 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 the Asset Retirement Obligations 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. 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 Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.



				Duke						Duke			Duke			Duke			Duke
	Duke			Energy			Progress			Energy			Energy			Energy			Energy
(in millions)	Energy			Carolinas			Energy			Progress			Florida			Ohio			Indiana
Balance at December 31, 2012	$	75		$	12		$	33		$	14		$	19		$	15		$	8
Provisions/adjustments	26			—			4			(1		)	5			20			1
Cash reductions	(22		)	(1		)	(10		)	(5		)	(5		)	(8		)	(2		)
Balance at December 31, 2013	79			11			27			8			19			27			7
Provisions/adjustments	32			(1		)	1			4			(3		)	28			4
Cash reductions	(14		)	—			(11		)	(7		)	(4		)	(1		)	(1		)
Balance at December 31, 2014	97			10			17			5			12			54			10
Provisions/adjustments	9			1			4			—			4			1			5
Cash reductions	(9		)	(1		)	(4		)	(2		)	(2		)	(1		)	(3		)
Balance at December 31, 2015	$	97		$	10		$	17		$	3		$	14		$	54		$	12

Additional losses in excess of recorded reserves that could be incurred for the stages of investigation, remediation and monitoring for environmental sites that have been evaluated at this time are not material except as presented in the table below.



(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	74
Duke Energy Carolinas	22
Duke Energy Ohio	42
Duke Energy Indiana	7

North Carolina and South Carolina Ash Basins

On February 2, 2014, a break in a stormwater pipe beneath an ash basin at Duke Energy Carolinas’ retired Dan River Steam Station caused a release of ash basin water and ash into the Dan River. On February 8, 2014, a permanent plug was installed in the stormwater pipe, stopping the release of materials into the river. Duke Energy Carolinas estimates 30,000 to 39,000 tons of ash and 24 million to 27 million gallons of basin water were released into the river. In July 2014, Duke Energy completed remediation work identified by the EPA and continues to cooperate with the EPA's civil enforcement process. During 2014, Duke Energy Carolinas incurred repairs and remediation expenses related to the release of approximately $24 million. No additional expenses were recorded in 2015. Duke Energy Carolinas will not seek recovery of these costs from customers. Other costs related to the Dan River release, including pending or future state or federal civil enforcement proceedings, future regulatory directives, natural resources damages, additional pending litigation, future claims or litigation and long-term environmental impact costs, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), formerly the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, has historically assessed Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress with Notice of Violations (NOV) for violations that were most often resolved through satisfactory corrective actions and minor, if any, fines or penalties. Subsequent to the Dan River matter discussed above, Duke Energy Carolina and Duke Energy Progress have been served with a higher level of NOVs, including for violations at L.V. Sutton Plant and Dan River Steam Station. In August 2014, NCDEQ issued an NOV for alleged groundwater violations at Duke Energy Progress' L.V. Sutton Plant. On March 10, 2015, NCDEQ issued a civil penalty of approximately $25 million to Duke Energy Progress for environmental damages related to groundwater contamination at the L.V. Sutton Plant. See "Litigation" section below for information related to the resolution of this civil penalty. On February 8, 2016, NCDEQ assessed a penalty of approximately $6.8 million, including enforcement costs, against Duke Energy Carolinas related to storm-water pipes and associated discharges at the Dan River Steam Station. Duke Energy Carolinas recorded a charge to Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income in December 2015. Duke Energy Carolinas is reviewing the NCDEQ action to determine next steps and cannot predict the outcome of this matter. These fines and penalties are unprecedented and were not consistent with historic enforcement practices of NCDEQ. Based on historic practices the expected liability of any existing notice of violations would not be material. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict whether the NCDEQ will assess future penalties related to existing NOVs and if such penalties would be material.

See the "Litigation" section below for additional information on litigation, investigations and enforcement actions related to ash basins, including the Memorandum of Plea Agreement (Plea Agreements) in connection to the North Carolina Ash Basin Grand Jury Investigation and NCDEQ matters.

Litigation

Duke Energy

Ash Basin Shareholder Derivative Litigation

Five shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court relating to the release at Dan River and to the management of Duke Energy’s ash basins. On October 31, 2014, the five lawsuits were consolidated in a single proceeding titled "In Re Duke Energy Corporation Coal Ash Derivative Litigation." On December 2, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint (Consolidated Complaint). The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants several current and former Duke Energy officers and directors (collectively, the “Duke Energy Defendants”). Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges the Duke Energy Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately oversee Duke Energy’s ash basins and that these breaches of fiduciary duty may have contributed to the incident at Dan River and continued thereafter. The lawsuit also asserts claims against the Duke Energy Defendants for corporate waste (relating to the money Duke Energy has spent and will spend as a result of the fines, penalties and coal ash removal) and unjust enrichment (relating to the compensation and director remuneration that was received despite these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty). The lawsuit seeks both injunctive relief against Duke Energy and restitution from the Duke Energy Defendants. On January 21, 2015, the Duke Energy Defendants filed a Motion to Stay and an alternative Motion to Dismiss. On August 31, 2015, the court issued an order staying the case through November 15, 2015. A ruling on defendants' motion to further extend the stay remains pending.

On March 5, 2015, shareholder Judy Mesirov filed a shareholder derivative complaint (Mesirov Complaint) in North Carolina state court. The lawsuit, styled Mesirov v. Good, is similar to the consolidated derivative action pending in Delaware Chancery Court and was filed against the same current directors and former directors and officers as the Delaware litigation. Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas are named as nominal defendants. The Mesirov Complaint alleges that the Duke Energy Board of Directors was aware of Clean Water Act (CWA) compliance issues and failures to maintain structures in ash basins, but that the Board of Directors did not require Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress to take action to remedy deficiencies. The Mesirov Complaint further alleges that the Board of Directors sanctioned activities to avoid compliance with the law by allowing improper influence of NCDEQ to minimize regulation and by opposing previously anticipated citizen suit litigation. The Mesirov Complaint seeks corporate governance reforms and damages relating to costs associated with the Dan River release, remediation of ash basins that are out of compliance with the CWA and defending and payment of fines, penalties and settlements relating to criminal and civil investigations and lawsuits. On December 7, 2015, the Duke Energy Defendants filed a Motion to Stay the proceedings. A hearing was held on February 17, 2016, and a ruling on this motion is pending.

In addition to the above derivative complaints, in 2014, Duke Energy also received two shareholder litigation demand letters. The letters allege that the members of the Board of Directors and certain officers breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the company to illegally dispose of and store coal ash pollutants. One of the letters also alleges a breach of fiduciary duty in the decision-making relating to the leadership changes following the close of the Progress Energy merger in July 2012.

By letter dated September 4, 2015, attorneys for the shareholders were informed that, on the recommendation of the Demand Review Committee formed to consider such matters, the Board of Directors concluded not to pursue potential claims against individuals. One of the shareholders, Mitchell Pinsly, sent a formal demand for records and Duke Energy is responding to this request.

On October 30, 2015, shareholder Saul Bresalier filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the U. S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that several current and former Duke Energy officers and directors (Bresalier Defendants) breached their fiduciary duties in connection with coal ash environmental issues, the post-merger change in Chief Executive Officer and oversight of political contributions. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The Bresalier Complaint contends that the Demand Review Committee failed to appropriately consider the shareholder’s earlier demand for litigation and improperly decided not to pursue claims against the Bresalier Defendants. The Bresalier Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Bresalier litigation on January 15, 2016.

It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with these matters.

Progress Energy Merger Shareholder Litigation

Duke Energy, the 11 members of the Board of Directors who were also members of the pre-merger Board of Directors (Legacy Duke Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy officers are defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidates three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012 and is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) claims based on allegations of materially false and misleading representations and omissions in the Registration Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly incorporated into other documents, all in connection with the post-merger change in Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

On August 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. On March 10, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. The court issued an order for preliminary approval of the settlement on March 25, 2015. Under the terms of the agreement, Duke Energy agreed to pay $146 million to settle the claim. On April 22, 2015, Duke Energy made a payment of $25 million into the settlement escrow account. The remainder of $121 million was paid by insurers into the settlement escrow account. Notice has been sent to members of the class and a final approval hearing was held on August 12, 2015. The final order approving the settlement was issued on November 2, 2015, thus closing the matter.

On May 31, 2013, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated four shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in 2012. The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel for plaintiffs and designated the case as In Re Duke Energy Corporation Derivative Litigation. The lawsuit names as defendants the Legacy Duke Energy Directors. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. The case alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and care in connection with the post-merger change in CEO. On December 10, 2015, the Duke Energy defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the litigation.

Two shareholder Derivative Complaints, filed in 2012 in federal district court in Delaware, were consolidated as Tansey v. Rogers, et al. The case alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets, as well as claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Duke Energy is named as a nominal defendant. On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint asserting the same claims contained in the original complaints. Duke Energy filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 19, 2016.

It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with the remaining litigation.

Price Reporting Cases

Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), a non-operating Duke Energy affiliate, is a defendant, along with numerous other energy companies, in four class-action lawsuits and a fifth single-plaintiff lawsuit pending in a consolidated federal court proceeding in Nevada. Each of these lawsuits contains similar claims that defendants allegedly manipulated natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.

On July 18, 2011, the judge granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in two of five cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed the lower court’s decision. On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals decision. The case has been reassigned to the same consolidated federal court proceeding in Nevada for further proceedings. In February 2016, DETM reached agreements in principle to settle all of the pending lawsuits. The class-action settlements will be subject to court approval, which is pending. The settlement amount is not material to Duke Energy.

Brazil Expansion Lawsuit

On August 9, 2011, the State of São Paulo sued Duke Energy International Geracao Paranapenema S.A. (DEIGP) in Brazilian state court. The lawsuit claims DEIGP is under a continuing obligation to expand installed generation capacity in the State of São Paulo by 15 percent pursuant to a stock purchase agreement under which DEIGP purchased generation assets from the state. On August 10, 2011, a judge granted an ex parte injunction ordering DEIGP to present a detailed expansion plan in satisfaction of the 15 percent obligation. DEIGP has previously taken a position that the expansion obligation is no longer viable given changes that have occurred in the electric energy sector since privatization. DEIGP submitted its proposed expansion plan on November 11, 2011, but reserved objections regarding enforceability. In January 2013, DEIGP filed appeals in the federal courts, which are still pending, regarding various procedural issues. A decision on the merits in the first instance court is also pending. It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with this matter.

Brazil Generation

Record drought conditions in Brazil continue to impact Duke Energy International, Geracao Paranapanema S.A. (DEIGP). A number of electric generators have filed lawsuits seeking relief in the Brazilian courts to mitigate hydrological exposure and diminishing dispatch levels. Some courts have granted injunction orders to limit the financial exposure of certain generators. The implication of these orders is that other electricity market participants not covered by the injunctions may be required to compensate for the financial impact of the liability limitations. The Independent Power Producer Association (APINE) filed one such lawsuit on behalf of DEIGP and other hydroelectric generators against the Brazilian electric regulatory agency. On July 2, 2015, an injunction was granted in favor of APINE limiting the financial exposure of DEIGP and the other plaintiff generators, until the merits of the lawsuit are determined. The APINE decision is subject to appeal and the outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain. It is not possible to predict the impact to Duke Energy from the outcome of these matters.

Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress

NCDEQ Notice of Violation (NOV)

In August 2014, NCDEQ issued an NOV for alleged groundwater violations at Duke Energy Progress' L.V. Sutton Plant. On March 10, 2015, NCDEQ issued a civil penalty of approximately $25 million to Duke Energy Progress for environmental damages related to the groundwater contamination at the L.V. Sutton Plant. On April 9, 2015, Duke Energy Progress filed a Petition for Contested Case hearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings. In February 2015, NCDEQ issued an NOV for alleged groundwater violations at Duke Energy Progress' Asheville Plant. Duke Energy Progress responded to NCDEQ regarding this NOV.

On September 29, 2015, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas entered into a settlement agreement with NCDEQ resolving all former, current and future groundwater penalties at all Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress coal facilities in North Carolina. Under the agreement, Duke Energy Progress paid approximately $6 million and Duke Energy Carolinas paid approximately $1 million. In addition to these payments, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas will accelerate remediation actions at the Sutton, Asheville, Belews Creek and H.F. Lee plants. The court entered a consent order resolving the contested case relating to the Sutton Plant and NCDEQ rescinded the NOVs relating to alleged groundwater violations at both the Sutton and Asheville plants.

On October 13, 2015, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), representing multiple conservation groups, filed a lawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court seeking judicial review of the order approving the settlement agreement with NCDEQ. The conservation groups contend that the Administrative Law Judge exceeded his statutory authority in approving a settlement that provided for past, present, and future resolution of groundwater issues at facilities which were not at issue in the penalty appeal. On December 18, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. At a hearing held on February 12, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress stated that a proposed revised order would be submitted to the Administrative Law Judge to address the court's and SELC's concerns. It is not possible to predict the outcome of this matter.

NCDEQ State Enforcement Actions

In the first quarter of 2013, SELC sent notices of intent to sue Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress related to alleged groundwater violations and CWA violations from coal ash basins at two of their coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. NCDEQ filed enforcement actions against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress alleging violations of water discharge permits and North Carolina groundwater standards. The cases have been consolidated and are being heard before a single judge.

On August 16, 2013, NCDEQ filed an enforcement action against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress related to their remaining plants in North Carolina, alleging violations of the CWA and violations of the North Carolina groundwater standards. Both of these cases have been assigned to the judge handling the enforcement actions discussed above. SELC, on behalf of several environmental groups, has been permitted to intervene in these cases.

On July 10, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment in the case on the basis that there is no longer either a genuine controversy or disputed material facts about the relief for seven of the 14 North Carolina plants with coal ash basins. On September 14, 2015, the court granted the Motions for Partial Summary Judgment pending court approval of the terms through an order. In November 2015, NCDEQ submitted a proposed order. On November 23, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and SELC filed separate objections to portions of the NCDEQ filing. The parties are drafting a consolidated order to comply with the ruling made by the judge at a hearing held on February 12, 2016.

It is not possible to predict any liability or estimate any damages Duke Energy Carolinas or Duke Energy Progress might incur in connection with these matters.

North Carolina Declaratory Judgment Action

On October 10, 2012, the SELC, on behalf of the same environmental groups that are involved in the state enforcement actions discussed above, filed a petition with the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) asking for a declaratory ruling seeking to clarify the application of the state’s groundwater protection rules to coal ash basins. The petition sought to change the interpretation of regulations that permitted NCDEQ to assess the extent, cause and significance of any groundwater contamination before ordering action to eliminate the source of contamination, among other issues. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress were both permitted to intervene in the matter. On December 3, 2012, the EMC affirmed this interpretation of the regulations.

On March 6, 2014, a North Carolina Superior Court judge overturned the ruling of the EMC holding that in the case of groundwater contamination, NCDEQ was required to issue an order to immediately eliminate the source of the contamination before an assessment of the nature, significance and extent of the contamination or the continuing damage to the groundwater was conducted. Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and the EMC appealed the ruling in April 2014. On May 16, 2014, the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied a petition to stay the case during the appeal. On October 10, 2014, the parties were notified the case has been transferred to the North Carolina Supreme Court (NCSC). Oral argument was held on March 16, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the NCSC issued its opinion in favor of Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and the EMC and remanded the matter to the state court judge with instructions to dismiss the case. This matter is now closed.

Federal Citizens Suits

There are currently five cases filed in various North Carolina federal courts related to the Riverbend, Sutton, Cape Fear, H.F. Lee and Buck plants.

On June 11, 2013, Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc. (Catawba Riverkeeper) filed a separate action in the United States Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The lawsuit contends the state enforcement action discussed above does not adequately address issues raised in Catawba Riverkeeper’s notice of intent to sue relating to the Riverbend Steam Station. On April 11, 2014, the Court denied Catawba Riverkeeper’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that plaintiff’s case be dismissed as well as Duke Energy Carolinas’ motion to dismiss. On August 13, 2015, the court issued an order suspending all proceedings until further order from the court.

On September 12, 2013, Cape Fear River Watch, Inc., Sierra Club and Waterkeeper Alliance filed a citizen suit in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Sutton Plant. On June 9, 2014, the court granted Duke Energy Progress' request to dismiss the groundwater claims but rejected its request to dismiss the surface water claims. In response to a motion filed by the SELC, on August 1, 2014, the court modified the original June 9order to dismiss only the plaintiff's federal law claim based on hydrologic connections at Sutton Lake. The claims related to the alleged state court violations of the permits are back in the case. On August 26, 2015, the court suspended the proceedings until further order from the court.

On September 3, 2014, three citizen suits were filed by various environmental groups: (i) a citizen suit in the United States Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Cape Fear Plant; (ii) in the United States Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the H.F. Lee Plant; and (iii) in the United States Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Buck Steam Station. Motions to Stay or Dismiss the proceedings were filed in each of the three cases. The proceedings related to Cape Fear and H.F. Lee have been stayed. On October 20, 2015, the court issued an order denying the motions in the Buck proceedings. Duke Energy Carolinas' motion seeking appellate review of the District Court's decision was denied on January 29, 2016.

It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy Carolinas or Duke Energy Progress will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, they might incur in connection with these matters.

North Carolina Ash Basin Grand Jury Investigation

As a result of the Dan River ash basin water release discussed above, NCDEQ issued a Notice of Violation and Recommendation of Assessment of Civil Penalties with respect to this matter on February 28, 2014, which the company responded to on March 13, 2014. Duke Energy and certain Duke Energy employees received subpoenas issued by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina in connection with a criminal investigation related to all 14 of the North Carolina facilities with ash basins and the nature of Duke Energy's contacts with NCDEQ with respect to those facilities. This was a multidistrict investigation that also involves state law enforcement authorities.

On February 20, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Business Services LLC (DEBS), a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, each entered into Plea Agreements in connection with the investigation initiated by the United States Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section and the United States Attorneys for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Middle District of North Carolina and the Western District of North Carolina (collectively, USDOJ). On May 14, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina approved the Plea Agreements.

Under the Plea Agreements, DEBS and Duke Energy Progress pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor CWA violations related to violations at Duke Energy Progress’ H.F. Lee Steam Electric Plant, Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant and Asheville Steam Electric Generating Plant. Duke Energy Carolinas and DEBS pleaded guilty to five misdemeanor CWA violations related to violations at Duke Energy Carolinas’ Dan River Steam Station and Riverbend Steam Station. DEBS, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress also agreed (i) to a five-year probation period, (ii) to pay a total of approximately $68 million in fines and restitution and $34 million for community service and mitigation (the Payments), (iii) to fund and establish environmental compliance plans subject to the oversight of a court-appointed monitor in addition to certain other conditions set out in the Plea Agreements. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress also agree to each maintain $250 million under their Master Credit Facility as security to meet their obligations under the Plea Agreements. Payments under the Plea Agreements will be borne by shareholders and are not tax deductible. Duke Energy Corporation has agreed to issue a guarantee of all payments and performance due from DEBS, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, including but not limited to payments for fines, restitution, community service, mitigation and the funding of, and obligations under, the environmental compliance plans. As a result of the Plea Agreements, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress recognized charges of $72 million and $30 million, respectively, in Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income during 2014. Payment of the amounts relating to fines and restitution were made between May and July 2015. The Plea Agreements do not cover pending civil claims related to the Dan River coal ash release and operations at other North Carolina coal plants.

On May 14, 2015, Duke Energy reached an Interim Administrative Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Suspension and Debarment that avoids debarment of DEBS, Duke Energy Carolinas or Duke Energy Progress with respect to all active generating facilities. The Interim Administrative Agreement imposes a number of requirements relating to environmental and ethical compliance, subject to the oversight of an independent monitor.

Potential Groundwater Contamination Claims

Beginning in May 2015, a number of residents living in the vicinity of the North Carolina facilities with ash basins received letters from NCDEQ advising them not to drink water from the private wells on their land tested by NCDEQ as the samples were found to have certain substances at levels higher than the criteria set by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The criteria, in some cases, are considerably more stringent than federal drinking water standards established to protect human health and welfare. The Coal Ash Act requires additional groundwater monitoring and assessments for each of the 14 coal-fired plants in North Carolina, including sampling of private water supply wells. The data gathered through these Comprehensive Site Assessments (CSAs) will be used by NCDEQ to determine whether the water quality of these private water supply wells has been adversely impacted by the ash basins. Duke Energy has submitted CSAs documenting the results of extensive groundwater monitoring around coal ash basins at all 14 of the plants with coal ash basins. Generally, the data gathered through the installation of new monitoring wells and soil and water samples across the state have been consistent with historical data provided to state regulators over many years. The DHHS and NCDEQ sent follow-up letters on October 15, 2015, to residents near coal ash basins who have had their wells tested, stating that private well samplings at a considerable distance from coal ash impoundments, as well as some municipal water supplies, contain similar levels of vanadium and hexavalent chromium which leads investigators to believe these constituents are naturally occurring. It is not possible to estimate the maximum exposure of loss, if any, that may occur in connection with claims which might be made by these residents.

Duke Energy Carolinas

New Source Review

In 1999-2000, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of the EPA filed a number of complaints and notices of violation against multiple utilities, including Duke Energy Carolinas, for alleged violations of the New Source Review (NSR) provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The government alleges the utilities violated the CAA when undertaking certain maintenance and repair projects at certain coal plants without (i) obtaining NSR permits and (ii) installing the best available emission controls for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. The complaints sought the installation of pollution control technology on generating units that allegedly violated the CAA, and unspecified civil penalties in amounts of up to $37,500 per day for each violation.

In 2000, the government sued Duke Energy Carolinas in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina, claiming NSR violations for 29 projects performed at 25 of Duke Energy Carolinas’ coal-fired units. Duke Energy Carolinas asserted there were no CAA violations because the applicable regulations do not require NSR permitting in cases where the projects undertaken are routine or otherwise do not result in an increase in emissions. In 2011, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to dismiss with prejudice all but 13 claims at 13 generating units, 11 of which have since been retired. On October 20, 2015, the Court approved and entered a consent decree to resolve this matter. Under the consent decree, Duke Energy Carolinas will retire by the end of 2024, the remaining units at the Allen plant that are part of the litigation as well as a third unit that is not part of the litigation. Prior to closure, Duke Energy Carolinas will comply with new, lower emissions limits at the Allen units named in the litigation. Additionally, Duke Energy Carolinas will spend approximately $4 million on environmental projects and donations and pay a civil penalty of $975 thousand. This matter is now closed.

Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of December 31, 2015, there were 156 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $37 million, and 70 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $11 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas’ experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $536 million and $575 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. These reserves are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. 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 2033 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas’ cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $847 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $599 million and $616 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. These amounts are classified in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida

Spent Nuclear Fuel Matters

On December 12, 2011, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida sued the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. 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. Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida asserted damages for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010. Claims for all periods prior to 2006 have been resolved. On March 24, 2014, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in favor of Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida on this matter, awarding amounts of $83 million and $21 million, respectively. The majority of the awards were recorded as a reduction to capital costs associated with construction of on-site storage facilities. Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida received payment of the award in September 2014. On October 16, 2014, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida filed a new action for costs incurred from 2011 through 2013 of $48 million and $25 million, respectively.

Duke Energy Florida

Class Action Lawsuit

On February 22, 2016, Newton, et al v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC and Florida Power & Light Company, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a putative class of Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light Company’s customers in Florida. Plaintiffs allege that Florida’s Nuclear Cost Recovery Statutes are unconstitutional and are pre-empted by federal law. Duke Energy Florida has not yet been served with the lawsuit.

Westinghouse Contract Litigation

On March 28, 2014, Duke Energy Florida filed a lawsuit against Westinghouse in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The lawsuit seeks recovery of $54 million in milestone payments in excess of work performed under the terminated EPC for Levy as well as a determination by the court of the amounts due to Westinghouse as a result of the termination of the EPC. Duke Energy Florida recognized an exit obligation as a result of the termination of the EPC contract.

On March 31, 2014, Westinghouse filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Florida in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania lawsuit alleged damages under the EPC in excess of $510 million for engineering and design work, costs to end supplier contracts and an alleged termination fee.

On June 9, 2014, the judge in the North Carolina case ruled that the litigation will proceed in the Western District of North Carolina. In November 2014, Westinghouse filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the pleadings, which was denied on March 30, 2015. The case is to be ready for trial on September 19, 2016. It is not possible to predict the outcome of the litigation, whether Duke Energy Florida will ultimately have any liability for terminating the EPC contract or to estimate the damages, if any, it might incur in connection with these matters. Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of Duke Energy Florida. However, appropriate regulatory recovery will be pursued for the retail portion of any costs incurred in connection with such resolution.

Duke Energy Ohio

Antitrust Lawsuit

In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into nonpublic option agreements in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio’s Rate Stabilization Plan implemented in early 2005. In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a class action. Plaintiffs allege claims for antitrust violations under the federal Robinson Patman Act as well as fraud and conspiracy allegations under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute and the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act.

On October 21, 2015, the parties received preliminary court approval for a settlement agreement. A litigation settlement reserve was recorded for the full amount of $81 million and classified in Other within Current Liabilities on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2015. Duke Energy Ohio recognized the full amount in (Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the twelve months ended December 31, 2015. A hearing to consider objections to the settlement is scheduled for April 2016.

See Note 2 for further discussion on the Midwest Generation Exit.

W.C. Beckjord Fuel Release

On August 18, 2014, approximately 9,000 gallons of fuel oil were inadvertently discharged into the Ohio River during a fuel oil transfer at the W.C. Beckjord generating station. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) issued a Notice of Violation related to the discharge. Duke Energy Ohio is cooperating with the Ohio EPA, the EPA and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. No Notice of Violation has been issued by the EPA and no penalty has been assessed. Total repair and remediation costs related to the release were not material. Other costs related to the release, including state or federal civil or criminal enforcement proceedings, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

Duke Energy Indiana

Edwardsport IGCC

On December 11, 2012, Duke Energy Indiana filed an arbitration action against General Electric Company and Bechtel Corporation in connection with their work at the Edwardsport IGCC facility. Duke Energy Indiana sought damages equaling some or all of the additional costs incurred in the construction of the project not recovered at the IURC. The arbitration hearing concluded in December 2014. On May 6, 2015, the arbitration panel issued its final decision unanimously dismissing all of Duke Energy Indiana’s claims. This ruling resolves all outstanding issues in the arbitration.

Other Litigation and Legal Proceedings

The Duke Energy Registrants are involved in other legal, tax and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve significant amounts. The Duke Energy Registrants believe the final disposition of these proceedings will not have a material effect on their results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

The table below presents recorded reserves based on management’s best estimate of probable loss for legal matters, excluding asbestos-related reserves and the exit obligation discussed above related to the termination of an EPC contract. Reserves are classified on the Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Accounts payable and Other within Current Liabilities. The reasonably possible range of loss in excess of recorded reserves is not material, other than as described above.



	December 31,
(in millions)	2015		2014
Reserves for Legal Matters
Duke Energy	$	166	$	323
Duke Energy Carolinas	11		72
Progress Energy	54		93
Duke Energy Progress	6		37
Duke Energy Florida	31		36
Duke Energy Ohio	80		—

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 unlimited maximum potential payments. However, the Duke Energy Registrants do not believe these guarantees will have a material effect on their results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Purchase Obligations

Purchased Power

Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida 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, 2015
	Contract
(in millions)	Expiration	2016		2017		2018		2019		2020		Thereafter		Total
Duke Energy Progress^(a)	2019-2031	$	54	$	60	$	61	$	62	$	49	$	363	$	649
Duke Energy Florida^(b)	2021-2043	305		345		360		377		394		1,591		3,372
Duke Energy Ohio^(c)(d)	2017-2018	236		195		59		—		—		—		490

(a) Contracts represent between 15 percent and 100 percent of net plant output.

(b) Contracts represent between 80 percent and 100 percent of net plant output.

(d) Excludes purchase power agreement with OVEC. See Note 17 for additional information.

Operating and Capital Lease Commitments

The Duke Energy Registrants lease office buildings, railcars, vehicles, computer equipment and other property and equipment with various terms and expiration dates. Additionally, Duke Energy Progress has a capital lease related to firm gas pipeline transportation capacity. Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida have entered into certain purchased power agreements, which are classified as leases. Consolidated capitalized lease obligations are classified as Long-Term Debt or Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Amortization of assets recorded under capital leases is included in Depreciation and amortization and Fuel used in electric generation – regulated on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The following table presents rental expense for operating leases. These amounts are included in Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.



	Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)	2015		2014		2013
Duke Energy	$	318	$	355	$	321
Duke Energy Carolinas	41		41		39
Progress Energy	230		257		225
Duke Energy Progress	149		161		153
Duke Energy Florida	81		96		72
Duke Energy Ohio	13		17		14
Duke Energy Indiana	20		21		22

The following table presents future minimum lease payments under operating leases, which at inception had a non-cancelable term of more than one year.



	December 31, 2015
			Duke				Duke		Duke		Duke		Duke
	Duke		Energy		Progress		Energy		Energy		Energy		Energy
(in millions)	Energy		Carolinas		Energy		Progress		Florida		Ohio		Indiana
2016	$	219	$	41	$	132	$	66	$	66	$	13	$	20
2017	182		33		111		63		48		9		15
2018	161		24		108		61		47		6		12
2019	146		21		102		56		46		4		8
2020	127		16		93		48		45		3		5
Thereafter	864		51		622		365		257		5		8
Total	$	1,699	$	186	$	1,168	$	659	$	509	$	40	$	68

The following table presents future minimum lease payments under capital leases.



	December 31, 2015
				Duke						Duke			Duke			Duke			Duke
	Duke			Energy			Progress			Energy			Energy			Energy			Energy
(in millions)	Energy			Carolinas			Energy			Progress			Florida			Ohio			Indiana
2016	$	173		$	6		$	46		$	20		$	26		$	7		$	3
2017	171			6			46			21			25			1			1
2018	180			6			46			21			25			5			2
2019	178			6			45			22			25			1			1
2020	182			5			46			21			25			—			1
Thereafter	1,176			30			367			272			95			1			43
Minimum annual payments	2,060			59			596			377			221			15			51
Less: amount representing interest	(724		)	(35		)	(295		)	(230		)	(65		)	(2		)	(38		)
Total	$	1,336		$	24		$	301		$	147		$	156		$	13		$	13