The Duke Energy Registrants are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal, coal ash 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 Duke Energy Registrants.

In addition to 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 on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations unless regulatory recovery of the costs is deemed probable.

On September 23, 2020, plaintiff Michael Johnson, a former Duke Energy employee and participant in the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan (Plan) brought suit on his own behalf and on behalf of other participants and beneficiaries similarly situated against Duke Energy Corporation, the Duke Energy Benefits Committee, and other unnamed individual defendants. The complaint, which was subsequently amended to add a current participant as a plaintiff on November 23, 2020, alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to certain fees associated with the Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and seeks certification of a class of all individuals who were participants or beneficiaries of the Plan at any time on or after September 23, 2014. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint on December 18, 2020. On January 31, 2022, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. On February 28, 2022, Duke Energy responded to the amended complaint. Discovery commenced and the parties exchanged preliminary disclosures. After review of these disclosures, the plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss its suit and the parties subsequently filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice on April 29, 2022, ending this litigation.

Several Duke Energy renewables project companies, located in the ERCOT market, were named in lawsuits arising out of Texas Storm Uri in mid-February 2021. Duke Energy Corporation, which had originally been named in several suits, was dismissed from the lawsuits. The lawsuits against the Duke Energy renewables project companies seek recovery for property damages, personal injury and for wrongful death allegedly caused by the power outages, which the plaintiffs claim was the result of collective failures of generators, transmission and distribution operators, retail energy providers and others, including ERCOT. The cases have been consolidated into a Texas state court multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding for discovery and pre-litigation purposes. Five MDL cases have been designated for motions to dismiss while all other cases are stayed. Duke Energy renewables projects are named as defendants in three of these five cases. Plaintiffs in these five cases have filed amended petitions, which are subject to renewed omnibus motions to dismiss. The parties' briefing on omnibus motions to dismiss should be completed by September 2022 and will focus on lack of duty, tariff defenses and sovereign immunity. Decisions on these motions will be applicable to all of the stayed cases. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcomes of these matters.

On June 16, 2021, a group of nine individuals went over a low head dam adjacent to the Dan River Steam Station in Eden, North Carolina, while water tubing. Emergency personnel rescued four people and five others were confirmed deceased. On August 11, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas was served with the complaint filed in Durham County Superior Court on behalf of four survivors, which was later amended to include all the decedents along with the survivors, except for one minor. The lawsuit alleges that Duke Energy Carolinas knew that the river was used for recreational purposes and that Duke Energy did not adequately warn about the dam, and that Duke Energy Carolinas created a dangerous and hidden hazard on the Dan River in building and maintaining the low head dam. On September 30, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas filed its motion to dismiss and motion for transfer of venue from Durham County to Rockingham County, both of which were denied on November 15, 2021. On November 15, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas was also served with Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, which added the final minor plaintiff and consolidated all the actions into one lawsuit. Duke Energy Carolinas has filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Second Amended Complaint. Mediation is scheduled for December 2022. Discovery has commenced and is scheduled to be completed on or before February 28, 2023. The case is scheduled to be trial-ready by April 24, 2023. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

In November 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into a standard FERC large generator interconnection agreement (LGIA) with NTE Carolinas II, LLC (NTE), a company that proposed to build a combined-cycle natural gas plant in Rockingham County, North Carolina. On September 6, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a lawsuit in Mecklenburg County Superior Court against NTE for breach of contract, alleging that NTE's failure to pay benchmark payments for Duke Energy Carolinas' transmission system upgrades required under the interconnection agreement constituted a termination of the interconnection agreement. Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking a monetary judgment against NTE because NTE failed to make multiple milestone payments. The lawsuit was moved to federal court in North Carolina. NTE filed a motion to dismiss Duke Energy Carolinas’ complaint and brought counterclaims alleging anti-competitive conduct and violations of state and federal statutes. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion to dismiss NTE's counterclaims.

On May 21, 2020, in response to a NTE petition challenging Duke Energy Carolinas' termination of the LGIA, FERC issued a ruling that 1) it has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a transmission provider may terminate a LGIA; 2) FERC approval is required to terminate a conforming LGIA if objected to by the interconnection customer; and 3) Duke Energy may not announce the termination of a conforming LGIA unless FERC has approved the termination. FERC's Office of Enforcement also initiated an investigation of Duke Energy Carolinas into matters pertaining to the LGIA. Duke Energy Carolinas is cooperating with the Office of Enforcement but cannot predict the outcome of this investigation.

On August 17, 2020, the court denied both NTE’s and Duke Energy Carolinas’ motions to dismiss. In October 2021, NTE filed a Second Amended Counterclaim and Complaint, and in January 2022, NTE filed a Third Amended Counterclaim and Complaint. Duke Energy Carolinas has responded to these pleadings. On December 6, 2021, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an Amended Complaint. Following completion of discovery, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling in its favor as to some of its affirmative claims against NTE and to all of NTE’s counterclaims. On June 24, 2022, the court issued an order partially granting Duke Energy Carolinas' motion by dismissing NTE's counterclaims that Duke Energy Carolinas engaged in anti-competitive behavior that violated various federal and state antitrust and deceptive trade practices statutes. The remaining claims in the litigation are Duke Energy Carolinas' original claims against NTE and NTE's claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. Trial on these remaining claims is scheduled to begin on October 11, 2022. Duke Energy Carolinas cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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.

Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $488 million at June 30, 2022, and $501 million at December 31, 2021. 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 Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future asbestos claims through 2041 and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. 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 2041 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. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $644 million at June 30, 2022, and $644 million at December 31, 2021. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. 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.

The reserve for credit losses for insurance receivables is $12 million for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas as of June 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021. The insurance receivable is evaluated based on the risk of default and the historical losses, current conditions and expected conditions around collectability. Management evaluates the risk of default annually based on payment history, credit rating and changes in the risk of default from credit agencies.

On June 18, 2018, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida sued the U.S. in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for damages incurred for the period 2014 through 2018. The lawsuit claimed the DOE 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 in the amount of $100 million and $200 million for Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida, respectively.

On March 30, 2022, the DOE and Duke Energy Progress executed a settlement agreement, pursuant to which Duke Energy Progress will receive damages for costs incurred between 2014 and 2018, and will be able to submit future costs on a defined schedule. In April 2022, Duke Energy Progress received $87 million in proceeds that related to damages incurred in 2014 through 2018.

On May 2, 2022, the DOE and Duke Energy Florida executed a settlement agreement, pursuant to which Duke Energy Florida will receive damages for costs incurred between 2014 and 2018, and will be able to submit costs incurred in 2019 and 2020 pursuant to an audit process. In June 2022, Duke Energy Florida received $180 million in proceeds that related to damages incurred in 2014 through 2018.

On January 27, 2020, Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) filed a Petition for Administrative Review with the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication challenging the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s (IDEM's) December 10, 2019, partial approval of Duke Energy Indiana’s ash pond closure plan at Duke Energy's Gallagher power station. After hearing oral arguments in early April 2021 on Duke Energy Indiana's and HEC's competing Motions for Summary Judgment, on May 4, 2021, the administrative court rejected all of HEC’s claims and issued a ruling in favor of Duke Energy Indiana. On June 3, 2021, HEC filed an appeal in Superior Court to seek judicial review of the order. On June 25, 2021, Duke Energy Indiana filed its response to the Petition to Review. On August 30, 2021, HEC served Duke Energy Indiana with its Brief in Support of Petition for Judicial Review. On October 29, 2021, Duke Energy Indiana and IDEM filed their response briefs. On December 13, 2021, HEC filed and served its Reply Brief.

On January 11, 2022, Duke Energy Indiana received a compliance obligation letter from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notifying the company that the two basins at issue in the litigation are subject to requirements of the CCR Rule. The letter does not provide a deadline for compliance. Duke Energy Indiana is evaluating the EPA letter, its potential impacts on the litigation and the extent to which this letter could apply to CCR surface impoundments at its other Indiana sites.

Following the January 11, 2022 EPA notice of compliance letter, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the litigation for 45 days, which was approved by the court. As a result, the oral argument scheduled for February 1, 2022, was postponed. Duke Energy Indiana and HEC engaged in settlement discussions, but the parties were unable to reach resolution. On April 21, 2022, HEC filed a Motion to Lift Stay and Motion for Judicial Notice. HEC also requested that the court hold a hearing within 45 days and also take judicial notice of the EPA's January 11, 2022 letter. On April 22, 2022, Duke Energy Indiana sent IDEM a letter withdrawing the closure plans for the Gallagher North Ash Pond and Primary Pond Ash Fill. After acknowledgment by IDEM of withdrawal of these closure plans, Duke Energy Indiana filed a Motion to Dismiss the litigation as moot on April 28, 2022, which IDEM supported, and the court granted the Motion to Dismiss on July 8, 2022.

In June 2022, Duke Energy Indiana filed a civil action in Indiana Superior Court against various insurance companies seeking declaratory relief with respect to insurance coverage for coal combustion residuals-related expenses and liabilities covered by third-party liability insurance policies. The insurance policies cover the 1969-1972 and 1984-1985 periods and provide third-party liability insurance for claims and suits alleging property damage, bodily injury and personal injury (or a combination thereof). Duke Energy Indiana cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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. Reserves are classified on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities.

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 uncapped 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 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.