XML 101 R44.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.10.0.1
Asset Retirement Obligations (Tables)
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
Asset Retirement Obligations [Line Items]  
Schedule of Asset Retirement Obligations by Category
The following table presents the AROs recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
 
December 31, 2018
 
 
 
Duke

 
 
 
Duke

 
Duke

 
Duke

 
Duke

 
 
 
Duke

 
Energy

 
Progress

 
Energy

 
Energy

 
Energy

 
Energy

 
 
(in millions)
Energy

 
Carolinas

 
Energy

 
Progress

 
Florida

 
Ohio

 
Indiana

 
Piedmont

Decommissioning of nuclear power facilities(a)
$
5,696

 
$
2,335

 
$
3,209

 
$
2,679

 
$
530

 
$
—

 
$
—

 
$
—

Closure of ash impoundments
4,446

 
1,568

 
2,123

 
2,103

 
20

 
52

 
702

 
—

Other(b)
325

 
46

 
79

 
38

 
41

 
41

 
20

 
19

Total asset retirement obligation
$
10,467

 
$
3,949

 
$
5,411

 
$
4,820

 
$
591

 
$
93

 
$
722


$
19

Less: current portion
919

 
290

 
514

 
509

 
5

 
6

 
109

 
—

Total noncurrent asset retirement obligation
$
9,548

 
$
3,659

 
$
4,897

 
$
4,311

 
$
586

 
$
87

 
$
613


$
19

(a)
Duke Energy amount includes purchase accounting adjustments related to the merger with Progress Energy.
(b)
Primarily includes obligations related to asbestos removal. Duke Energy Ohio and Piedmont also include AROs related to the retirement of natural gas mains and services. Duke Energy includes AROs related to the removal of renewable energy generation assets.
Public Utilities General Disclosures
The following table includes the current expiration of nuclear operating licenses.
Unit
Year of Expiration
Duke Energy Carolinas
 
Catawba Units 1 and 2
2043
McGuire Unit 1
2041
McGuire Unit 2
2043
Oconee Units 1 and 2
2033
Oconee Unit 3
2034
Duke Energy Progress
 
Brunswick Unit 1
2036
Brunswick Unit 2
2034
Harris
2046
Robinson
2030
The following table presents the fair value of NDTF assets legally restricted for purposes of settling AROs associated with nuclear decommissioning. Duke Energy Florida is actively decommissioning 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)
2018
 
2017
Duke Energy
$
5,579

 
$
5,864

Duke Energy Carolinas
3,133

 
3,321

Duke Energy Progress
2,446

 
2,543

The following table summarizes information about the most recent site-specific nuclear decommissioning cost studies. Decommissioning costs are stated in 2018 dollars for Duke Energy Carolinas, 2017 dollars for Duke Energy Florida and 2014 dollars for Duke Energy Progress, and include costs to decommission plant components not subject to radioactive contamination.
 
Annual Funding

 
Decommissioning

 
 
(in millions)
Requirement(a)

 
Costs(a)

 
Year of Cost Study
Duke Energy
$
24

 
$
8,737


2014 and 2018
Duke Energy Carolinas(b)(c)
—

 
4,291


2018
Duke Energy Progress
24

 
3,550


2014
Duke Energy Florida(d)
—

 
896


2018
(a)
Amounts for Progress Energy equal the sum of Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida.
(b)
Decommissioning cost 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 is expected to be filed with the NCUC and PSCSC by the second quarter 2019. Duke Energy Carolinas will also complete a new funding study, which will be completed and filed with the NCUC and PSCSC in 2019.
(d)
Duke Energy Florida's site-specific nuclear decommissioning cost study and a new funding study were completed and filed with the FPSC in 2018.
Rollforward Schedule of Asset Retirement Obligations
The following tables present changes in the liability associated with AROs.
 
 
 
Duke

 
 
 
Duke

 
Duke

 
Duke

 
Duke

 
 
 
Duke

 
Energy

 
Progress

 
Energy

 
Energy

 
Energy

 
Energy

 
 
(in millions)
Energy

 
Carolinas

 
Energy

 
Progress

 
Florida

 
Ohio

 
Indiana

 
Piedmont

Balance at December 31, 2016
$
10,611

 
$
3,895

 
$
5,475

 
$
4,697

 
$
778

 
$
77

 
$
866

 
$
14

Accretion expense(a)
435

 
184

 
228

 
195

 
33

 
3

 
32

 
1

Liabilities settled(b)  
(619
)
 
(282
)
 
(270
)
 
(204
)
 
(65
)
 
(7
)
 
(49
)
 
(8
)
Liabilities incurred in the current year(c)
51

 
5

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
7

 
29

 
8

Revisions in estimates of cash flows
(303
)
 
(192
)
 
(19
)
 
(15
)
 
(4
)
 
4

 
(97
)
 
—

Balance at December 31, 2017
10,175


3,610


5,414


4,673


742


84


781

 
15

Accretion expense(a)
427

 
179

 
225

 
196

 
29

 
4

 
29

 
1

Liabilities settled(b)  
(638
)
 
(281
)
 
(272
)
 
(227
)
 
(45
)
 
(5
)
 
(79
)
 
—

Liabilities incurred in the current year(c)
39

 
8

 
5

 
—

 
5

 
—

 
25

 
—

Revisions in estimates of cash flows(d)
464

 
433

 
39

 
178

 
(140
)
 
10

 
(34
)
 
3

Balance at December 31, 2018
$
10,467


$
3,949


$
5,411


$
4,820


$
591


$
93


$
722

 
$
19

(a)
Substantially all accretion expense for the years ended December 31, 2018, and 2017 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 of Crystal River Unit 3.
(c)
Amounts primarily relate to AROs recorded as a result of state agency closure requirements at Duke Energy Indiana.
(d)
Amounts primarily relate to increases in groundwater monitoring estimates for closure of ash impoundments and an increase for nuclear decommissioning costs at Duke Energy Carolinas' nuclear sites compared to original estimates, partially offset by a reduction for nuclear decommissioning at Crystal River Unit 3 compared to original estimates and modifications to the timing of expected cash flows for coal ash AROs.