COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

INSURANCE

General Insurance

The Duke Energy Registrants have insurance and reinsurance coverage either directly or through indemnification from Duke Energy’s captive insurance company, Bison, and its affiliates, consistent with companies engaged in similar commercial operations with similar type properties. The Duke Energy Registrants’ coverage includes (i) commercial general liability coverage for liabilities arising to third parties for bodily injury and property damage; (ii) workers’ compensation; (iii) automobile liability coverage; and (iv) property coverage for all real and personal property damage. Real and personal property damage coverage excludes electric transmission and distribution lines, but includes damages arising from boiler and machinery breakdowns, earthquakes, flood damage and extra expense, but not outage or replacement power coverage. All coverage is subject to certain deductibles or retentions, sublimits, exclusions, terms and conditions common for companies with similar types of operations. The Duke Energy Registrants self-insure their electric transmission and distribution lines against loss due to storm damage and other natural disasters. As discussed further in Note 4, Duke Energy Florida maintains a storm damage reserve and has a regulatory mechanism to recover the cost of named storms on an expedited basis.

The cost of the Duke Energy Registrants’ coverage can fluctuate from year to year reflecting claims history and conditions of the insurance and reinsurance markets.

In the event of a loss, terms and amounts of insurance and reinsurance available might not be adequate to cover claims and other expenses incurred. Uninsured losses and other expenses, to the extent not recovered by other sources, could have a material effect on the Duke Energy Registrants’ results of operations, cash flows or financial position. Each company is responsible to the extent losses may be excluded or exceed limits of the coverage available.

Nuclear Insurance

Duke Energy Carolinas owns and operates 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 owns Crystal River Unit 3, which has been retired.

In the event of a loss, terms and amounts of insurance available might not be adequate to cover property damage and other expenses incurred. Uninsured losses and other expenses, to the extent not recovered by other sources, could have a material effect on Duke Energy Carolinas’, Duke Energy Progress’ and Duke Energy Florida’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position. Each company is responsible to the extent losses may be excluded or exceed limits of the coverage available.

Nuclear Liability Coverage

The Price-Anderson Act requires owners of nuclear reactors to provide for public nuclear liability protection per nuclear incident up to a maximum total financial protection liability. The maximum total financial protection liability, which is approximately $13.4 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 was $375 million per station. For incidents after January 1, 2017, this primary nuclear liability insurance limit increased to $450 million per station.

Excess Liability Program

This program provides $13 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 102 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 $50 million and is on an actual cash value basis. All nuclear facilities except for Catawba and Crystal River Unit 3 also share an additional $1.25 billion nuclear accident insurance limit above their dedicated underlying limit. This shared additional excess limit is not subject to reinstatement in the event of a loss. Catawba has a dedicated $1.25 billion of additional nuclear accident insurance limit above its dedicated underlying limit. Catawba and Oconee also have an additional $750 million of non-nuclear accident property damage limit. All coverages are subject to sublimits and significant deductibles.

NEIL’s Accidental Outage policy provides some 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, Brunswick and Harris, $464 million for Oconee and $404 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 $164 million, $104 million and $1 million, respectively. Duke Energy Carolinas' maximum assessment amount includes 100 percent of potential obligations to NEIL for jointly owned reactors. Duke Energy Carolinas would seek reimbursement from the joint owners for their portion of these assessment amounts.

ENVIRONMENTAL

The Duke Energy Registrants are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal 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 ARO recorded as a result of various environmental regulations, discussed in Note 9, the Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various sites. These include certain properties that are part of ongoing operations and sites formerly owned or used by Duke Energy entities. These sites are in various stages of investigation, remediation and monitoring. Managed in conjunction with relevant federal, state and local agencies, remediation activities vary based upon site conditions and location, remediation requirements, complexity and sharing of responsibility. If remediation activities involve joint and several liability provisions, strict liability, or cost recovery or contribution actions, the Duke Energy Registrants could potentially be held responsible for environmental impacts caused by other potentially responsible parties and may also benefit from insurance policies or contractual indemnities that cover some or all cleanup costs. Liabilities are recorded when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. The total costs that may be incurred cannot be estimated because the extent of environmental impact, allocation among potentially responsible parties, remediation alternatives and/or regulatory decisions have not yet been determined at all sites. Additional costs associated with remediation activities are likely to be incurred in the future and could be significant. Costs are typically expensed as Operation, maintenance and other in the Consolidated Statements of Operations unless regulatory recovery of the costs is deemed probable.

The following tables contain information regarding reserves for probable and estimable costs related to the various environmental sites. These reserves are recorded in Other within 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, 2013	$	74		$	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	92			10			17			5			12			54			10
Provisions/adjustments	11			1			4			—			4			1			5
Cash reductions	(9		)	(1		)	(4		)	(2		)	(2		)	(1		)	(3		)
Balance at December 31, 2015	94			10			17			3			14			54			12
Provisions/adjustments	19			4			7			2			4			7			1
Cash reductions	(15		)	(4		)	(6		)	(2		)	(4		)	(2		)	(3		)
Balance at December 31, 2016	$	98		$	10		$	18		$	3		$	14		$	59		$	10

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



(in millions)
Duke Energy	$	69
Duke Energy Carolinas	22
Duke Energy Ohio	36
Duke Energy Indiana	7

North Carolina and South Carolina Ash Basins

In February 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. 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. Future costs related to the Dan River release, including future state or federal civil enforcement proceedings, future regulatory directives, natural resources damages, future claims or litigation and long-term environmental impact costs, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) 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 ash release, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have been served with a higher level of NOVs, including assessed penalties for violations at L.V. Sutton Combined Cycle Plant (Sutton) and Dan River Steam Station. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict whether the NCDEQ will assess future penalties related to existing unresolved NOVs and if such penalties would be material. See "NCDEQ Notices of Violation" section below for additional discussion.

LITIGATION

Duke Energy

Duke Energy no longer has exposure to litigation matters related to the International Energy Disposal Group as a result of the divestiture of the business in December 2016. See Note 2 for additional information related to the sale of International 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 which was lifted on March 24, 2016. On April 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Amended Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint (Amended Complaint) making the same allegations as in the Consolidated Complaint. The Duke Energy Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 21, 2016. On December 14, 2016, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order dismissing the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court on January 9, 2017. Opening briefs were due by February 24, 2017, and a date for oral argument has not been set.

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, was 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 were named as nominal defendants. The Mesirov Complaint alleged 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 alleged that the Board of Directors sanctioned activities to avoid compliance with the law by allowing improper influence of the NCDEQ to minimize regulation and by opposing previously anticipated citizen suit litigation. The Mesirov Complaint sought 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 July 5, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, closing this matter.

In addition to the above derivative complaints, in 2014, Duke Energy received two shareholder litigation demand letters. The letters alleged 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 alleged 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 has responded to this request.

On October 30, 2015, shareholder Saul Bresalier filed a shareholder derivative complaint (Bresalier 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 (CEO) 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. In lieu of a response to the Motion to Dismiss, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Convert the Bresalier Defendants' Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment and also for limited discovery. Following a hearing on June 15, 2016, the court denied the plaintiff's Motion to Convert and is requiring the parties to complete briefing on the Bresalier Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. On July 29, 2016, the Bresalier Defendants filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss. Oral argument on the Amended Motion to Dismiss was heard on December 20, 2016. As discussed below, an agreement-in-principle has been reached to settle the merger related claims in the Bresalier Complaint.

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 were defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidated three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012. The plaintiffs alleged 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 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. 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. 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 (Merger Chancery 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.

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 against the Legacy Duke Energy Directors 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.

The Legacy Duke Energy Directors have reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the Merger Chancery Litigation, conditioned on dismissal as well, of the Tansey v. Rogers, et al case and the merger related claims in the Bresalier Complaint discussed above, for a total of $27 million. The entire settlement amount is to be funded by insurance. The settlement amount, less court-approved attorney fees, will be payable to Duke Energy. The settlement is subject to the execution of definitive settlement documents and court approval.

Price Reporting Cases

Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), a non-operating Duke Energy affiliate, was a defendant, along with numerous other energy companies, in four class-action lawsuits and a fifth single-plaintiff lawsuit in a consolidated federal court proceeding in Nevada. Each of these lawsuits contained 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 sought damages in unspecified amounts. In February 2016, DETM reached agreements in principle to settle all of the pending lawsuits. Settlement of the single-plaintiff settlement was finalized and paid in March 2016. The proposed settlement of the class-action lawsuits was submitted to the Court and preliminarily approved on January 26, 2017. The Court will consider final approval of the class settlement following notice to the class members. The settlement amounts are not material to Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress

NCDEQ Notice of Violation

In August 2014, NCDEQ issued an NOV for alleged groundwater violations at Duke Energy Progress' Sutton Plant. On March 10, 2015, NCDEQ issued a civil penalty of approximately $25 million to Duke Energy Progress for environmental damages related to alleged groundwater contamination at the 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 ALJ 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. On February 12, 2016, the ALJ entered a new order clarifying that the dismissal of the contested case only applied to the specific issues before the ALJ in the Petition for Contested Case. On March 10, 2016, the court dismissed the SELC lawsuit based on the ALJ's entry of the new order.

On February 8, 2016, the NCDEQ assessed a penalty of approximately $6.8 million, including enforcement costs, against Duke Energy Carolinas related to stormwater pipes and associated discharges at the Dan River Steam Station. Duke Energy Carolinas recorded a charge in December 2015 for this penalty. In March 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an appeal of this penalty. On September 23, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into a settlement agreement with the NCDEQ, without admission of liability, under which Duke Energy Carolinas agreed to a payment of $6 million to resolve allegations underlying the asserted civil penalty related to the Dan River coal ash release and a March 4, 2016, NOV alleging unpermitted discharges at the facility.

NCDEQ State Enforcement Actions

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

On August 16, 2013, the 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 is representing several environmental groups who have been permitted to intervene in these cases.

On July 10, 2015, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed two 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. On April 4, 2016, the court issued an order granting Duke Energy Progress' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for cases involving the H.F. Lee, Cape Fear and Weatherspoon plants. On June 1, 2016, the court issued an order granting Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for cases involving the Asheville, Dan River, Riverbend and Sutton plants. The litigation is concluded for these seven plants. Litigation continues for the remaining seven plants. In response to a motion for partial summary judgment on the groundwater claims filed by the environmental groups, on October 17, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the groundwater claims. On February 13, 2017, the court issued an order denying both the environmental groups' motion for partial summary judgment and Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress' cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

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.

Federal Citizens Suits

On June 13, 2016, the Roanoke River Basin Association filed a federal citizen suit in the Middle District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Mayo Plant. On August 19, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint and a decision is pending. It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy Progress will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, if any, they might incur in connection with this matter.

Five previously filed cases involving the Riverbend, Cape Fear, H.F. Lee, Sutton and Buck plants have been dismissed or settled during 2016.

North Carolina Ash Basin Grand Jury Investigation

As a result of the Dan River ash basin water release discussed above, NCDEQ issued a NOV 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 the NCDEQ advising them not to drink water from the private wells on their land tested by the 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 North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014, as amended, (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 basins, 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. In March 2016, DHHS rescinded the advisories.

Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have received formal demand letters from residents near Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress' coal ash basins. The residents claim damages for nuisance and diminution in property value, among other things. The parties held three days of mediation discussions which ended at impasse. On January 6, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress received the plaintiffs' notice of their intent to file suits should the matter not settle. The NCDEQ preliminarily approved Duke Energy’s permanent water solution plans on January 13, 2017, and as a result shortly thereafter, Duke Energy issued a press release, providing additional details regarding the homeowner compensation package. This package consists of three components: (i) a $5,000 goodwill payment to each eligible well owner to support the transition to a new water supply, (ii) where a public water supply is available and selected by the eligible well owner, a stipend to cover 25 years of water bills and (iii) the Property Value Protection Plan. The Property Value Protection Plan is a program offered by Duke Energy designed to guarantee eligible plant neighbors the fair market value of their residential property should they decide to sell their property during the time which the plan is offered. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress recognized charges of $18 million and $4 million, respectively, in Operation, maintenance and other on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income in December 2016.

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

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, 2016, there were 121 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $32 million and 58 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $16 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas’ experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $512 million and $536 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, 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 2036, 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 2036 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 $814 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $587 million and $599 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, 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 October 16, 2014, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida sued the U.S. 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, 2011 through December 31, 2013, of $48 million and $25 million, respectively. Claims for all periods prior to 2011 have been resolved. Additional claims are likely to be filed after the current litigation is resolved. Trial has been set for June 2017. Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy Florida

Class Action Lawsuit

On February 22, 2016, a lawsuit 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 FP&L’s customers in Florida. The suit alleges the State of Florida’s nuclear power plant cost recovery statutes (NCRS) are unconstitutional and pre-empted by federal law. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to repayment of all money paid by customers of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L as a result of the NCRS, as well as an injunction against any future charges under those statutes. The constitutionality of the NCRS has been challenged unsuccessfully in a number of prior cases on alternative grounds. Duke Energy Florida and FP&L filed motions to dismiss the complaint on May 5, 2016. On September 21, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. On January 4, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this appeal.

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. On July 11, 2016, Duke Energy Florida and Westinghouse filed separate Motions for Summary Judgment. On September 29, 2016, the court issued its ruling on the parties' respective Motions for Summary Judgment, ruling in favor of Westinghouse on a $30 million termination fee claim and dismissing Duke Energy Florida's $54 million refund claim, but stating that Duke Energy Florida could use the refund claim to offset any damages for termination costs. Westinghouse's claim for termination costs was unaffected by this ruling and continued to trial. At trial, Westinghouse reduced its claim for termination costs from $482 million to $424 million.

Following a trial on the matter, the court issued its final order in December 2016 denying Westinghouse’s claim for termination costs and re-affirming its earlier ruling in favor of Westinghouse on the $30 million termination fee and Duke Energy Florida’s refund claim. Judgment was entered against Duke Energy Florida in the amount of approximately $34 million, which includes pre-judgment interest. Westinghouse has appealed the trial court's order and Duke Energy Florida has cross-appealed.

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of the appeal of the trial court's order. 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.

MGP Cost Recovery Action

On December 30, 2011, Duke Energy Florida filed a lawsuit against FirstEnergy Corp. (FirstEnergy) to recover investigation and remediation costs incurred by Duke Energy Florida in connection with the restoration of two former MGP sites in Florida. Duke Energy Florida alleged that FirstEnergy, as the successor to Associated Gas & Electric Co., owes past and future contribution and response costs of up to $43 million for the investigation and remediation of MGP sites. On December 6, 2016, the trial court entered judgment against Duke Energy Florida in the case. In January 2017, Duke Energy Florida appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this appeal.

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 alleged claims of 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.

During 2015, the parties received preliminary court approval of a settlement agreement. Duke Energy Ohio recorded a litigation settlement reserve of $81 million classified in Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2015. Duke Energy Ohio also recognized a pretax charge of $81 million in (Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the year ended December 31, 2015. The settlement agreement was approved at a federal court hearing on April 19, 2016. Distribution of the settlement checks was approved by the court in January 2017. 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 issued a NOV related to the discharge. On November 22, 2016, Duke Energy Ohio entered into a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. Terms of the agreement include a misdemeanor violation of the CWA, a fine of $1 million and a $100 thousand contribution to the Foundation for Ohio River Education, which were paid in fourth quarter 2016. Duke Energy Ohio has also reimbursed government and private entities for approximately $1 million of costs incurred as a result of the fuel release.

Duke Energy Indiana

Benton County Wind Farm Dispute

On December 16, 2013, Benton County Wind Farm LLC (BCWF) filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Indiana seeking damages for past generation losses totaling approximately $16 million alleging Duke Energy Indiana violated its obligations under a 2006 PPA by refusing to offer electricity to the market at negative prices. Damage claims continue to increase during times that BCWF is not dispatched. Under 2013 revised MISO market rules, Duke Energy Indiana is required to make a price offer to MISO for the power it proposes to sell into MISO markets and MISO determines whether BCWF is dispatched. Because market prices would have been negative due to increased market participation, Duke Energy Indiana determined it would not bid at negative prices in order to balance customer needs against BCWF's need to run. BCWF contends Duke Energy Indiana must bid at the lowest negative price to ensure dispatch, while Duke Energy Indiana contends it is not obligated to bid at any particular price, that it cannot ensure dispatch with any bid and that is has reasonably balanced the parties' interests. On July 6, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana entered judgment against BCWF on all claims. BCWF appealed the decision and on December 9, 2016, the appeals court ruled in favor of BCWF. The matter has been remanded to a lower court to determine damages. Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of Duke Energy Indiana. However, appropriate regulatory recovery will be pursued for the retail portion of any costs incurred in connection with such resolution.

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)	2016		2015
Reserves for Legal Matters
Duke Energy	$	98	$	156
Duke Energy Carolinas	23		11
Progress Energy	59		54
Duke Energy Progress	14		6
Duke Energy Florida	28		31
Duke Energy Ohio	4		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, Duke Energy Florida and Duke Energy Ohio have ongoing purchased power contracts, including renewable energy contracts, with other utilities, wholesale marketers, co-generators and qualified facilities. These purchased power contracts generally provide for capacity and energy payments. In addition, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida have various contracts to secure transmission rights.

The following table presents executory purchased power contracts with terms exceeding one year, excluding contracts classified as leases.



		Minimum Purchase Amount at December 31, 2016
	Contract
(in millions)	Expiration	2017		2018		2019		2020		2021		Thereafter		Total
Duke Energy Progress^(a)	2019-2031	$	66	$	67	$	67	$	50	$	51	$	267	$	568
Duke Energy Florida^(b)	2021-2043	341		357		377		394		376		1,211		3,056
Duke Energy Ohio^(c)(d)	2018	203		89		—		—		—		—		292

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

(b) Contracts represent between 81 percent and 100 percent of net plant output.

(d) Excludes PPA with OVEC. See Note 17 for additional information.

Gas Supply and Capacity Contracts

Duke Energy and Duke Energy Ohio routinely enter into long-term gas supply commodity and capacity commitments and other agreements that commit future cash flows to acquire services needed in their businesses. These commitments include pipeline and storage capacity contracts and natural gas supply contracts to provide service to customers. Costs arising from the natural gas supply commodity and capacity commitments, while significant, are pass-through costs to customers and are generally fully recoverable through the fuel adjustment or PGA procedures and prudence reviews in North Carolina and South Carolina and under the Tennessee Incentive Plan in Tennessee. In the Midwest, these costs are recovered via the Gas Cost Recovery Rate in Ohio or the Gas Cost Adjustment Clause in Kentucky. The time periods for fixed payments under pipeline and storage capacity contracts are up to 19 years. The time periods for fixed payments under natural gas supply contracts are up to three years. The time period for the natural gas supply purchase commitments is up to 15 years.

Certain storage and pipeline capacity contracts require the payment of demand charges that are based on rates approved by the FERC in order to maintain rights to access the natural gas storage or pipeline capacity on a firm basis during the contract term. The demand charges that are incurred in each period are recognized in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income as part of natural gas purchases and are included in Cost of natural gas.

The following table presents future unconditional purchase obligations under natural gas supply and capacity contracts as of December 31, 2016.



(in millions)	Duke Energy		Duke Energy Ohio
2017	$	371	$	52
2018	308		35
2019	286		26
2020	269		22
2021	267		22
Thereafter	1,595		7
Total	$	3,096	$	164

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 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)	2016		2015		2014
Duke Energy	$	242	$	313	$	350
Duke Energy Carolinas	45		41		41
Progress Energy	140		230		257
Duke Energy Progress	68		149		161
Duke Energy Florida	72		81		96
Duke Energy Ohio	16		13		17
Duke Energy Indiana	23		20		21

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, 2016
			Duke				Duke		Duke		Duke		Duke
	Duke		Energy		Progress		Energy		Energy		Energy		Energy
(in millions)	Energy		Carolinas		Energy		Progress		Florida		Ohio		Indiana
2017	$	218	$	41	$	129	$	75	$	54	$	12	$	20
2018	205		35		126		73		53		11		17
2019	181		27		120		68		52		7		11
2020	164		23		109		58		51		6		10
2021	134		17		91		43		48		4		6
Thereafter	948		52		602		379		223		7		9
Total	$	1,850	$	195	$	1,177	$	696	$	481	$	47	$	73

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



	December 31, 2016
				Duke						Duke			Duke			Duke			Duke
	Duke			Energy			Progress			Energy			Energy			Energy			Energy
(in millions)	Energy			Carolinas			Energy			Progress			Florida			Ohio			Indiana
2017	$	148		$	6		$	46		$	21		$	25		$	4		$	1
2018	154			6			46			21			25			3			2
2019	154			6			45			20			25			1			1
2020	159			5			46			22			25			—			1
2021	163			1			45			20			25			—			1
Thereafter	784			30			322			250			71			—			41
Minimum annual payments	1,562			54			550			354			196			8			47
Less: amount representing interest	(462		)	(32		)	(265		)	(212		)	(53		)	(1		)	(36		)
Total	$	1,100		$	22		$	285		$	142		$	143		$	7		$	11