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 permanently ceased operation in 2013 and reached a SAFSTOR condition in January 2018 after the successful transfer of all used nuclear fuel assemblies to an onsite dry cask storage facility.

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 U.S. 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 is $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 property damage, nuclear accident decontamination and premature decommissioning insurance for each station for losses resulting from damage to its nuclear plants, either due to accidents or acts of terrorism. Additionally, NEIL provides accidental outage coverage for each station for losses in the event of a major accidental outage at an insured nuclear station.

Pursuant to regulations of the NRC, each company’s property damage insurance policies provide that all proceeds from such insurance be applied, first, to place the plant in a safe and stable condition after a qualifying accident and second, to decontaminate the plant before any proceeds can be used for decommissioning, plant repair or restoration.

Losses resulting from acts of terrorism are covered as common occurrences, such that if terrorist acts occur against one or more commercial nuclear power plants insured by NEIL within a 12-month period, they would be treated as one event and the owners of the plants where the act occurred would share one full limit of liability. The full limit of liability is currently $3.2 billion. NEIL sublimits the total aggregate for all of their policies for non-nuclear terrorist events to approximately $1.83 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 coverage, such as business interruption, for losses in the event of a major accident property damage outage of a nuclear unit. Coverage is provided on a weekly limit basis after a significant waiting period deductible and at 100 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 and Catawba, $462 million for Brunswick, $448 million for Harris, $434 million for Oconee and $378 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 $146 million, $96 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 Accounts payable within Current Liabilities and Other within Other Noncurrent 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, 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
Provisions/adjustments	8			3			3			2			2			3			(4		)
Cash reductions	(25		)	(3		)	(6		)	(2		)	(4		)	(15		)	(1		)
Balance at December 31, 2017	$	81		$	10		$	15		$	3		$	12		$	47		$	5

As of December 31, 2016, October 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, Piedmont's environmental reserve was $1 million. In 2017, a $1 million provision was recorded, resulting in a reserve balance of $2 million at December 31, 2017.

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	$	56
Duke Energy Carolinas	19
Duke Energy Ohio	30
Piedmont	2

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 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, which the court granted. The stay was lifted on March 24, 2016, after which 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, which was granted by the Court on December 14, 2016. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court on January 9, 2017. Oral argument was held on September 27, 2017. On December 15, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Chancery Court's order of dismissal.

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. There was no follow-up after the records were provided; therefore, this matter has been resolved.

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. On March 30, 2017, the court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on the claims relating to coal ash environmental issues and political contributions. As discussed below, a settlement agreement was approved for the merger-related claims in the Bresalier Complaint, and those claims were dismissed. On September 8, 2017, Bresalier filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit Court) challenging the dismissal of his coal ash and political contribution claims. On January 19 2018, Bresalier filed a stipulation of dismissal, closing this case.

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, which was approved by the Delaware Chancery Court on July 13, 2017. The entire settlement amount was funded by insurance. The settlement amount, less court-approved attorney fees, totaled $20 million and was paid to Duke Energy in 2017.

Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress

Coal Ash Insurance Coverage Litigation

In March 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a civil action in North Carolina Superior Court against various insurance providers. The lawsuit seeks payment for coal ash-related liabilities covered by third-party liability insurance policies. The insurance policies were issued between 1971 and 1986 and provide third-party liability insurance for property damage. The civil action seeks damages for breach of contract and indemnification for costs arising from the Coal Ash Act and the EPA CCR rule at 15 coal-fired plants in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

NCDEQ Notice of Violation

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, Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) sent notices of intent to sue Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress related to alleged Clean Water Act (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 in the North Carolina Superior Court.

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.

The court issued orders in 2016 granting Motions for Partial Summary Judgment for seven of the 14 North Carolina plants with coal ash basins named in the enforcement actions. On February 13, 2017, the court issued an order denying motions for partial summary judgment brought by both the environmental groups and Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress for the remaining seven plants. On March 15, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Notice of Appeal to challenge the trial court’s order. The parties were unable to reach an agreement at mediation in April 2017. The parties submitted briefs to the court on remaining issues to be tried and a ruling is pending. On August 22, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Petition for Discretionary Review, requesting the North Carolina Supreme Court to accept the appeal. On August 24, 2017, SELC filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress’ opening appellate briefs were filed on October 12, 2017, and briefing is now complete. Argument was held on February 8, 2018.

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 (RRBA) 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. On April 26, 2017, the court entered an order dismissing four of the claims in the federal citizen suit. Two claims relating to alleged violations of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit provisions survived the motion to dismiss, and Duke Energy Progress filed its response on May 10, 2017. The parties are engaged in pre-trial discovery. Trial has been scheduled for July 9, 2018.

On March 16, 2017, RRBA served Duke Energy Progress with a Notice of Intent to Sue under the CWA for alleged violations of effluent standards and limitations at the Roxboro Plant. In anticipation of litigation, Duke Energy Progress filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia on May 11, 2017, which was subsequently dismissed. On May 16, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina which asserts two claims relating to alleged violations of NPDES permit provisions and one claim relating to the use of nearby water bodies. The parties are engaged in pre-trial discovery. Trial has been scheduled for October 1, 2018.

On June 20, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the closure plans at the Mayo Plant under the EPA CCR Rule. Duke Energy Progress filed a motion to dismiss, which was argued on January 30, 2018.

On August 2, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the closure plans at the Roxboro Plant under the EPA CCR Rule. Duke Energy Progress filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 2017.

On December 6, 2017, various parties filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina for alleged violations at Duke Energy Carolinas' Belews Creek Steam Station (Belews Creek) under the CWA. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion to dismiss on February 5, 2018.

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.

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

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). Results of Comprehensive Site Assessments (CSAs) testing performed by Duke Energy under the Coal Ash Act 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 led 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 that the plan is offered. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress recognized reserves of $19 million and $4 million, respectively.

On August 23, 2017, a class-action suit was filed in Wake County Superior Court, North Carolina, against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on behalf of certain property owners living near coal ash impoundments at Allen, Asheville, Belews Creek, Buck, Cliffside, Lee, Marshall, Mayo and Roxboro. The class is defined as those who are well-eligible under the Coal Ash Act or those to whom Duke Energy has promised a permanent replacement water supply and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, along with compensatory damages. Plaintiffs allege that Duke Energy’s improper maintenance of coal ash impoundments caused harm, particularly through groundwater contamination. Despite NCDEQ’s preliminary approval, Plaintiffs contend that Duke Energy’s proposed permanent water solutions plan fails to comply with the Coal Ash Act. On September 28, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike the class designation. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on January 24, 2018, which resulted in the dismissal of the underlying class action on January 25, 2018.

On September 14, 2017, a complaint was filed against Duke Energy Progress in New Hanover County Superior Court by a group of homeowners residing approximately 1 mile from Duke Energy Progress' Sutton Steam Plant. The homeowners allege that coal ash constituents have been migrating from ash impoundments at Sutton into their groundwater for decades and that in 2015, Duke Energy Progress discovered these releases of coal ash, but failed to notify any officials or neighbors and failed to take remedial action. The homeowners claim unspecified physical and mental injuries as a result of consuming their well water and seek actual damages for personal injury, medical monitoring and punitive damages. Duke Energy filed its Motion to Dismiss on October 27, 2017, and the hearing is scheduled for March 7, 2018.

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, 2017, there were 161 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $42 million and 54 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 $489 million and $512 million at December 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively. These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2037, 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 2037 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 $797 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $585 million and $587 million at December 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets 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. On November 17, 2017, the Court awarded Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida $48 million and $21 million, respectively, subject to appeal. No appeals were filed and Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida will recognize the recoveries in the first quarter of 2018. Claims for all periods through 2013 have been resolved. Additional claims will be filed in 2018.

Duke Energy Progress

Gypsum Supply Agreements Matter

On June 30, 2017, CertainTeed Gypsum NC, Inc. (CertainTeed) filed a declaratory judgment action against Duke Energy Progress in the North Carolina Business Court relating to a gypsum supply agreement. In its complaint, CertainTeed seeks an order from the court declaring that the minimum amount of gypsum Duke Energy Progress must provide to CertainTeed under the supply agreement is 50,000 tons per month through 2029. On September 28, 2017, the Court denied CertainTeed's motion for summary judgment. Discovery in the case is underway and a trial date has not been set. In light of the volatility in future production of gypsum, Duke Energy Progress 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 to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The appeal, which has been fully briefed, was heard on August 22, 2017, and a decision is pending. 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. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the appeal of the trial court's order.

On March 29, 2017, Westinghouse filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York, which automatically stayed the appeal. On May 23, 2017, the bankruptcy court entered an order lifting the stay with respect to the appeal. Briefing of the appeal concluded on October 20, 2017. Oral argument in the appeal was originally set for March 2018 but has tentatively been rescheduled to May 2018, due to scheduling conflicts.

Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of Duke Energy Florida. See discussion of the 2017 Settlement and the Levy Nuclear Project in Note 4 for additional information regarding recovery of costs related to Westinghouse. The 2017 Settlement does not permit recovery of any amounts paid to resolve this contract litigation.

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 Sixth Circuit, which has been fully briefed and argued. 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 and all settlement amounts have been paid. See Note 2 for further discussion on the Midwest Generation Exit.

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 Other Noncurrent 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)	2017		2016
Reserves for Legal Matters
Duke Energy	$	88	$	98
Duke Energy Carolinas	30		23
Progress Energy	55		59
Duke Energy Progress	13		14
Duke Energy Florida	24		28
Duke Energy Ohio	—		4
Piedmont	2		2

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. Amounts at Duke Energy Ohio were immaterial.



		Minimum Purchase Amount at December 31, 2017
	Contract
(in millions)	Expiration	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		Thereafter		Total
Duke Energy Progress^(a)	2019-2031	$	68	$	68	$	51	$	52	$	30	$	239	$	508
Duke Energy Florida^(b)	2021-2043	357		374		394		378		376		770		2,649

(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.

Gas Supply and Capacity Contracts

Duke Energy Ohio and Piedmont routinely enter into long-term natural gas supply commodity and capacity commitments and other agreements that commit future cash flows to acquire services needed in their businesses. These commitments include pipeline and storage capacity contracts and natural gas supply contracts to provide service to customers. Costs arising from the natural gas supply commodity and capacity commitments, while significant, are pass-through costs to customers and are generally fully recoverable through 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, 2017.



(in millions)	Duke Energy		Duke Energy Ohio		Piedmont
2018	$	314	$	37	$	277
2019	280		28		252
2020	252		25		227
2021	249		26		223
2022	226		11		215
Thereafter	1,121		3		1,118
Total	$	2,442	$	130	$	2,312

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 natural 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 tables present 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)	2017		2016		2015
Duke Energy	$	241	$	242	$	313
Duke Energy Carolinas	44		45		41
Progress Energy	130		140		230
Duke Energy Progress	75		68		149
Duke Energy Florida	55		72		81
Duke Energy Ohio	15		16		13
Duke Energy Indiana	23		23		20



	Year Ended		Two Months Ended		Years Ended October 31,
(in millions)	December 31, 2017		December 31, 2016		2016		2015
Piedmont	$	7	$	1	$	5	$	5

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, 2017
			Duke				Duke		Duke		Duke		Duke
	Duke		Energy		Progress		Energy		Energy		Energy		Energy
(in millions)	Energy		Carolinas		Energy		Progress		Florida		Ohio		Indiana		Piedmont
2018	$	233	$	36	$	133	$	77	$	56	$	20	$	22	$	6
2019	203		29		126		72		54		12		14		5
2020	183		25		117		62		55		10		10		5
2021	150		19		97		48		49		7		8		6
2022	135		16		90		42		48		4		5		6
Thereafter	882		52		525		344		181		5		7		16
Total	$	1,786	$	177	$	1,088	$	645	$	443	$	58	$	66	$	44

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



	December 31, 2017
				Duke						Duke			Duke			Duke		Duke
	Duke			Energy			Progress			Energy			Energy			Energy		Energy
(in millions)	Energy			Carolinas			Energy			Progress			Florida			Ohio		Indiana
2018	$	168		$	13		$	46		$	21		$	25		$	3	$	2
2019	169			13			45			20			25			1		1
2020	174			13			47			21			26			—		1
2021	176			8			45			22			25			—		1
2022	169			8			45			21			24			—		1
Thereafter	745			109			323			227			95			—		38
Minimum annual payments	1,601			164			551			332			220			4		44
Less: amount representing interest	(601		)	(103		)	(283		)	(192		)	(91		)	—		(33		)
Total	$	1,000		$	61		$	268		$	140		$	129		$	4	$	11