XML 101 R44.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.0.1
Asset Retirement Obligations (Tables)
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Asset Retirement Obligation Disclosure [Abstract]  
Schedule of Asset Retirement Obligations by Category
The following table presents the AROs recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
December 31, 2021
DukeDukeDukeDukeDuke
DukeEnergyProgressEnergyEnergyEnergyEnergy
(in millions) EnergyCarolinasEnergyProgressFloridaOhioIndianaPiedmont
Decommissioning of nuclear power facilities(a)
$7,046 $2,847 $4,156 $3,792 $364 $— $— $— 
Closure of ash impoundments5,293 2,390 1,872 1,839 33 82 949 — 
Other437 64 84 44 40 54 38 22 
Total asset retirement obligation$12,776 $5,301 $6,112 $5,675 $437 $136 $987 $22 
Less: Current portion647 249 275 274 1 13 110 — 
Total noncurrent asset retirement obligation$12,129 $5,052 $5,837 $5,401 $436 $123 $877 $22 
(a)    Duke Energy amount includes purchase accounting adjustments related to the merger with Progress Energy.
Public Utilities General Disclosures
The following table summarizes information about the most recent site-specific nuclear decommissioning cost studies. Decommissioning costs are stated in 2018 or 2019 dollars, depending on the year of the cost study, and include costs to decommission plant components not subject to radioactive contamination.
Annual FundingDecommissioning
(in millions)
Requirement(a)
Costs(a)
Year of Cost Study
Duke Energy$15 $9,105 2018 or 2019
Duke Energy Carolinas(b)(c)
— 4,365 2018
Duke Energy Progress(d)
15 4,181 2019
Duke Energy Florida(e)
— 559 N/A
(a)    Amount represents annual funding requirement for the current fiscal year. Amounts for Progress Energy equal the sum of Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida.
(b)    Decommissioning costs for Duke Energy Carolinas reflects its ownership interest in jointly owned reactors. Other joint owners are responsible for decommissioning costs related to their interest in the reactors.
(c)    Duke Energy Carolinas' site-specific nuclear decommissioning cost study completed in 2018 was filed with the NCUC and PSCSC in 2019. A new funding study was also completed and filed with the NCUC and PSCSC in 2019.
(d)    Duke Energy Progress' site-specific nuclear decommissioning cost study completed in 2019 was filed with the NCUC and PSCSC in March 2020. Duke Energy Progress also completed a funding study, which was filed with the NCUC and PSCSC in July 2020. In October 2021, Duke Energy Progress filed the 2019 nuclear decommissioning cost study with the FERC, as well as a revised rate schedule for decommissioning expense to be collected from wholesale customers. The FERC accepted the filing, as filed on December 9, 2021.
(e)    During 2019, Duke Energy Florida reached an agreement to transfer decommissioning work for Crystal River Unit 3 to a third party and decommissioning costs are based on the agreement with this third party rather than a cost study. Regulatory approval was received from the NRC and the FPSC in April 2020 and August 2020, respectively.
The following table presents the fair value of NDTF assets legally restricted for purposes of settling AROs associated with nuclear decommissioning. Duke Energy Florida entered into an agreement with a third party to decommission Crystal River Unit 3 and was granted an exemption from the NRC, which allows for use of the NDTF for all aspects of nuclear decommissioning. The entire balance of Duke Energy Florida's NDTF may be applied toward license termination, spent fuel and site restoration costs incurred to decommission Crystal River Unit 3 and is excluded from the table below. See Note 16 for additional information related to the fair value of the Duke Energy Registrants' NDTFs.
December 31,
(in millions)20212020
Duke Energy$8,933 $7,726 
Duke Energy Carolinas5,068 4,381 
Duke Energy Progress3,865 3,345 
The following table includes the current expiration of nuclear operating licenses.
UnitYear of Expiration
Duke Energy Carolinas
Catawba Units 1 and 22043
McGuire Unit 12041
McGuire Unit 22043
Oconee Units 1 and 22033
Oconee Unit 32034
Duke Energy Progress
Brunswick Unit 12036
Brunswick Unit 22034
Harris2046
Robinson2030
Rollforward Schedule of Asset Retirement Obligations
The following tables present changes in the liability associated with AROs.
DukeDukeDukeDukeDuke
DukeEnergyProgressEnergyEnergyEnergyEnergy
(in millions) EnergyCarolinasEnergyProgressFloridaOhioIndianaPiedmont
Balance at December 31, 2019$13,318 $5,734 $6,471 $5,893 $578 $80 $832 $17 
Accretion expense(a)
542 258 246 225 21 4 33 1 
Liabilities settled(b)
(724)(198)(451)(358)(93)(2)(74)— 
Liabilities incurred in the current year22 — 5 — 5 — — — 
Revisions in estimates of cash flows(c)
(154)(444)(122)(125)3 29 385 2 
Balance at December 31, 202013,004 5,350 6,149 5,635 514 111 1,176 20 
Accretion expense(a)
512 242 229 212 17 4 35 1 
Liabilities settled(b)
(613)(210)(324)(214)(110)(3)(77)— 
Liabilities incurred in the current year32 8 6 — 6 — — — 
Revisions in estimates of cash flows(c)
(159)(89)52 42 10 24 (147)1 
Balance at December 31, 2021$12,776 $5,301 $6,112 $5,675 $437 $136 $987 $22 
(a)    Substantially all accretion expense for the years ended December 31, 2021, and 2020, relates to Duke Energy’s regulated operations and has been deferred in accordance with regulatory accounting treatment.
(b)    Amounts primarily relate to ash impoundment closures and nuclear decommissioning.
(c)    Primarily relates to decreases due to revised basin closure cost estimates, partially offset by increases related to new closure plan approvals, post closure maintenance and beneficiation costs. Duke Energy Indiana estimates also include the impacts of closure estimates for certain ash impoundments due to the impact of Hoosier Environmental Council’s petition filed with the court challenging the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s partial approval of Duke Energy Indiana’s ash pond closure plan. See Note 4 for more information on Hoosier Environmental Council's petition. The amounts recorded represent the discounted cash flows for estimated closure costs based upon the probability weightings of the potential closure methods as evaluated on a site-by-site basis.