COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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 asset retirement obligations (AROs) recorded as a result of various environmental regulations, 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 Condensed 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 Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.



	Three Months Ended March 31, 2017
				Duke					Duke		Duke			Duke			Duke
	Duke			Energy		Progress			Energy		Energy			Energy			Energy
(in millions)	Energy			Carolinas		Energy			Progress		Florida			Ohio			Indiana			Piedmont
Balance at beginning of period	$	98		$	10	$	18		$	3	$	14		$	59		$	10		$	1
Provisions/adjustments	6			1		—			—		1			4			(1		)	1
Cash reductions	(6		)	—		(1		)	—		(1		)	(4		)	—			—
Balance at end of period	$	98		$	11	$	17		$	3	$	14		$	59		$	9		$	2



	Three Months Ended March 31, 2016
				Duke						Duke			Duke			Duke		Duke
	Duke			Energy			Progress			Energy			Energy			Energy		Energy
(in millions)	Energy			Carolinas			Energy			Progress			Florida			Ohio		Indiana		Piedmont
Balance at beginning of period	$	94		$	10		$	17		$	3		$	14		$	54	$	12	$	1
Provisions/adjustments	10			2			1			—			1			—		6		—
Cash reductions	(3		)	(1		)	(2		)	(1		)	(1		)	—		—		—
Balance at end of period	$	101		$	11		$	16		$	2		$	14		$	54	$	18	$	1

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	$	71
Duke Energy Carolinas	22
Duke Energy Ohio	36
Duke Energy Indiana	7
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 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 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. The parties have completed briefing in the case and a date for oral argument has not been set.

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 appointed 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. A notice of appeal has not been filed. As discussed below, an agreement-in-principle has been reached to settle the merger related claims in the Bresalier Complaint, and those claims were also dismissed subject to that agreement.

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

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. Settlement documents have been submitted to the court for approval and a hearing has been set for July 13, 2017.

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

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 North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014, as amended, (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 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.

The court issued orders in 2016 granting Motions' for Partial Summary Judgment for seven of the 14 North Carolina plants named in the enforcement actions. 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. On March 15, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Notice of Appeal to challenge the trial court’s denial of their cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The parties were unable to reach an agreement at mediation on April 18, 2017.

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. 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 permit provisions survived the motion to dismiss, and Duke Energy Progress’ response is due on May 10, 2017.

On March 16, 2017, the Roanoke River Basin Association served Duke Energy Progress with a 60-day notice of intent to bring suit pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the CWA for alleged violations of effluent standards and limitations at the Roxboro Plant.

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

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

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 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 that 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 received a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel indicating their intent to file suit on February 2, 2017, should a settlement not be reached by that date. Plaintiff’s counsel did not file suit upon the expiration of the tolling agreement on February 2, 2017, and no suit has been filed to date. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have recognized reserves of $18 million and $4 million, respectively.

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.

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 March 31, 2017, there were 111 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $29 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 $506 million at March 31, 2017 and $512 million at December 31, 2016. These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed 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 at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables on the Condensed 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 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. Plaintiffs filed an appellate brief on March 16, 2017, and Duke Energy Florida filed responses on April 17, 2017. 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 an 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.

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 prejudgment 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.

On March 29, 2017, Westinghouse filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York, which could delay the timing of the appeal. Additional impacts, if any, of this bankruptcy filing on the resolution of the pending appeal and cross-appeal are unknown at this time.

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 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. A settlement conference is scheduled on May 31, 2017. 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 Condensed 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.



(in millions)	March 31, 2017		December 31, 2016
Reserves for Legal Matters
Duke Energy	$	91	$	98
Duke Energy Carolinas	23		23
Progress Energy	57		59
Duke Energy Progress	13		14
Duke Energy Florida	27		28
Duke Energy Ohio	4		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 Condensed 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.

In addition, the Duke Energy Registrants enter into various fixed-price, noncancelable commitments to purchase or sell power or natural gas, take-or-pay arrangements, transportation, or throughput agreements and other contracts that may or may not be recognized on their respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Some of these arrangements may be recognized at fair value on their respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets if such contracts meet the definition of a derivative and the normal purchase/normal sale (NPNS) exception does not apply. In most cases, the Duke Energy Registrants’ purchase obligation contracts contain provisions for price adjustments, minimum purchase levels and other financial commitments.