approximate fair values due to the short-term nature of these financial instruments. The interest rate swaps are recorded at fair value.
The valuation of our derivatives is determined using widely accepted valuation techniques including discounted cash flow analysis on the expected cash flows of each derivative, which reflects the contractual terms of the derivatives, including the period to maturity, and uses observable market-based inputs, including interest rate curves. We have determined that the majority of the inputs used to value our derivatives fall within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy; however, the credit valuation adjustments associated with our derivatives utilize Level 3 inputs, such as estimates of current credit spreads, to evaluate the likelihood of default by our Operating Partnership and its counterparties. As of September 30, 2021, we have assessed the significance of the impact of the credit valuation adjustments on the overall valuation of our derivative positions and have determined that the credit valuation adjustment is not significant to the overall valuation of our derivative portfolio. As a result, we classify our derivative valuation in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.
The total principal balance of our revolving credit facility, senior unsecured term loans, and senior unsecured notes was $1.8 billion and $1.7 billion as of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively, which approximates the fair value based on Level 3 inputs from the fair value hierarchy. Under the discounted cash flow method, the fair values of the revolving credit facility, the senior unsecured term loans, and the senior unsecured notes are based on our assumptions of market interest rates and terms available incorporating our credit risk for similar loan maturities.
Our lease liabilities are determined based on the estimated present value of our minimum lease payments under our lease agreements at lease commencement. The discount rate used to determine the lease liabilities is based on our estimated incremental borrowing rate at lease commencement, based on Level 3 inputs from the fair value hierarchy.
14. Commitments and Contingencies
Our properties require periodic investments of capital for general capital improvements and for tenant-related capital expenditures. We enter into various construction and equipment contracts with third parties for the development of our properties. At September 30, 2021, we had open commitments related to construction contracts of approximately $37.4 million.
Additionally, we have commitments related to telecommunications capacity used to connect data centers located within the same market or geographical area, power usage, including fuel cell commitments, and company-wide improvements that are ancillary to revenue generation. At September 30, 2021, we had open commitments related to these contracts of approximately $64.7 million, of which $1.9 million is scheduled to be met during the remainder of the year ending December 31, 2021.
In the ordinary course of business, we are subject to claims and administrative proceedings. Except as described below, we are not presently party to any proceeding, which we believe to be material or which we would expect to have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. The outcome of litigation and administrative proceedings is inherently uncertain. Therefore, if one or more legal or administrative matters are resolved against us in a reporting period for amounts in excess of management’s expectations, our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected.
On May 9, 2019, we filed suit against 32 Sixth Avenue Company LLC, the landlord of our NY1 facility (the “Landlord”), and Telx - New York 6th Ave. LLC, the building’s Hub operator (“Telx”), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, asserting claims concerning the pricing for cross-connections in the Hub of the NY1 building. We assert that Telx’s September 2018 price increase for new fiber cross-connections violates our lease with the Landlord, which we assert guarantees specific pricing for Hub cross-connections for the duration of the lease term. The Landlord has asserted a counterclaim against us for indemnification.
On February 9, 2021, Telx moved for leave to amend its answer to assert counterclaims against us, seeking a declaration that we are not entitled to such guaranteed pricing for cross-connections and claiming that we have been unjustly enriched by continuing to pay that guaranteed pricing after 2013, when Telx assumed operational control of the Hub and began billing us for Hub access. We have opposed Telx’s request for leave and are awaiting the Court’s decision. Meanwhile, the parties are engaged in discovery.