XML 62 R30.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3

Commitments and Contingencies | Nov. 18, 2019
--- | ---
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 18. Commitments and Contingencies As a result of issues generated in the ordinary course of business, the Companies are involved in legal proceedings before various courts and are periodically subject to governmental examinations (including by regulatory authorities), inquiries and investigations. Certain legal proceedings and governmental examinations involve demands for unspecified amounts of damages, are in an initial procedural phase, involve uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, or involve significant factual issues that need to be resolved, such that it is not possible for the Companies to estimate a range of possible loss. For such matters that the Companies cannot estimate, a statement to this effect is made in the description of the matter. Other matters may have progressed sufficiently through the litigation or investigative processes such that the Companies are able to estimate a range of possible loss. For legal proceedings and governmental examinations that the Companies are able to reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, an estimated range of possible loss is provided, in excess of the accrued liability (if any) for such matters. Any accrued liability is recorded on a gross basis with a receivable also recorded for any probable insurance recoveries. Estimated ranges of loss are inclusive of legal fees and net of any anticipated insurance recoveries. Any estimated range is based on currently available information and involves elements of judgment and significant uncertainties. Any estimated range of possible loss may not represent the Companies’ maximum possible loss exposure. The circumstances of such legal proceedings and governmental examinations will change from time to time and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. For current proceedings not specifically reported below, management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, arising from such proceedings would have a material effect on the Companies’ financial position, liquidity or results of operations. Environmental Matters The Companies are subject to costs resulting from a number of federal, state and local laws and regulations designed to protect human health and the environment. These laws and regulations affect future planning and existing operations. They can result in increased capital, operating and other costs as a result of compliance, remediation, containment and monitoring obligations. Air CAA The CAA, as amended, is a comprehensive program utilizing a broad range of regulatory tools to protect and preserve the nation’s air quality. At a minimum, states are required to establish regulatory programs to address all requirements of the CAA. However, states may choose to develop regulatory programs that are more restrictive. Many of the Companies’ facilities are subject to the CAA’s permitting and other requirements. MATS In February 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule to reverse its previous finding that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate toxic emissions from power plants. However, the emissions standards and other requirements of the MATS rule would remain in place as the EPA is not proposing to remove coal and oil fired power plants from the list of sources that are regulated under MATS. Although litigation of the MATS rule and the outcome of the EPA’s rulemaking are still pending, the regulation remains in effect and Virginia Power is complying with the applicable requirements of the rule and does not expect any adverse impacts to its operations at this time. Ozone Standards The EPA published final non-attainment designations for the October 2015 ozone standard in June 2018. States have until August 2021 to develop plans to address the new standard. Until the states have developed implementation plans for the standard, the Companies are unable to predict whether or to what extent the new rules will ultimately require additional controls. The expenditures required to implement additional controls could have a material impact on the Companies’ results of operations and cash flows. Oil and Gas NSPS In August 2012, the EPA issued an NSPS impacting new and modified facilities in the natural gas production and gathering sectors and made revisions to the NSPS for natural gas processing and transmission facilities. These rules establish equipment performance specifications and emissions standards for control of VOC emissions for natural gas production wells, tanks, pneumatic controllers, and compressors in the upstream sector. In June 2016, the EPA issued a new NSPS regulation, for the oil and natural gas sector, to regulate methane and VOC emissions from new and modified facilities in transmission and storage, gathering and boosting, production and processing facilities. All projects which commenced construction after September 2015 are required to comply with this regulation. In October 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule reconsidering and amending portions of the 2016 rule, including but not limited to, the fugitive emissions requirements at well sites and compressor stations. Until the proposed rule is final, Dominion Energy and Dominion Energy Gas are implementing the 2016 regulation. Dominion Energy and Dominion Energy Gas are still evaluating whether potential impacts on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows related to this matter will be material. ACE Rule In July 2019, the EPA published the ACE Rule, which repeals and replaces the Clean Power Plan. The final ACE Rule only applies to coal-fired steam electric generating units greater than or equal to 25 MW. The rule includes unit-specific performance standards based on the degree of emission reduction levels achievable from unit efficiency improvements to be determined by the permitting agency. The ACE Rule requires states to develop plans by July 2022 to implement these performance standards, which plans must be approved by the EPA. While the impacts of this rule could be material to Dominion Energy and Virginia Power’s results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory frameworks in South Carolina and Virginia provide rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for the regulated electric utilities. GHG Regulation Carbon Regulations In August 2016, the EPA issued a draft rule proposing to reaffirm that a source’s obligation to obtain a PSD or Title V permit for GHGs is triggered only if such permitting requirements are first triggered by non-GHG, or conventional, pollutants that are regulated by the New Source Review program, and to set a significant emissions rate at 75,000 tons per year of CO 2 equivalent emissions under which a source would not be required to apply BACT for its GHG emissions. Until the EPA ultimately takes final action on this rulemaking, the Companies cannot predict the impact to their results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. In addition, the EPA continues to evaluate its policy regarding the consideration of CO 2 emissions from biomass projects when determining whether a stationary source meets the PSD and Title V applicability thresholds, including those for the application of BACT. It is unclear how the final policy will affect Virginia Power’s Altavista, Hopewell and Southampton power stations which were converted from coal to biomass under the prior biomass deferral policy; however, the expenditures to comply with any new requirements could be material to Dominion Energy and Virginia Power’s results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. State Regulations In May 2019, VDEQ issued a final rule establishing a state carbon regulation program with a 28 million ton initial state-wide carbon cap in 2020. The cap is reduced by approximately three percent per year through 2030, resulting in an ultimate cap of 20 million tons. The final rule includes a provision that allows for delayed VDEQ implementation and possible adjustments to the baseline cap. While the impacts of this program could be material to Dominion Energy and Virginia Power’s results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory framework in Virginia provides rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impact. Water The CWA, as amended, is a comprehensive program requiring a broad range of regulatory tools including a permit program to authorize and regulate discharges to surface waters with strong enforcement mechanisms. The Companies must comply with applicable aspects of the CWA programs at their operating facilities. In October 2014, the final regulations under Section 316(b) of the CWA that govern existing facilities and new units at existing facilities that employ a cooling water intake structure and that have flow levels exceeding a minimum threshold became effective. The rule establishes a national standard for impingement based on seven compliance options, but forgoes the creation of a single technology standard for entrainment. Instead, the EPA has delegated entrainment technology decisions to state regulators. State regulators are to make case-by-case entrainment technology determinations after an examination of five mandatory facility-specific factors, including a social cost-benefit test, and six optional facility-specific factors. The rule governs all electric generating stations with water withdrawals above two​​​​​​​ MGD, with a heightened entrainment analysis for those facilities over 125 MGD. Dominion Energy and Virginia Power currently have 14 and eight facilities, respectively, that may be subject to the final regulations. Dominion Energy anticipates that it may have to install impingement control technologies at certain of these stations that have once-through cooling systems. Dominion Energy and Virginia Power are currently evaluating the need or potential for entrainment controls under the final rule as these decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis after a thorough review of detailed biological, technology, cost and benefit studies. While the impacts of this rule could be material to Dominion Energy and Virginia Power’s results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory frameworks in South Carolina and Virginia provide rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for the regulated electric utilities. In September 2015, the EPA released a final rule to revise the Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Steam Electric Power Generating Category. The final rule establishes updated standards for wastewater discharges that apply primarily at coal and oil steam generating stations. Affected facilities are required to convert from wet to dry or closed cycle coal ash management, improve existing wastewater treatment systems and/or install new wastewater treatment technologies in order to meet the new discharge limits. In April 2017, the EPA granted two separate petitions for reconsideration of the Effluent Limitations Guidelines final rule and stayed future compliance dates in the rule. Also in April 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the U.S.’s request for a stay of the pending consolidated litigation challenging the rule while the EPA addresses the petitions for reconsideration. In September 2017, the EPA signed a rule to postpone the earliest compliance dates for certain waste streams regulations in the Effluent Limitations Guidelines final rule from November 2018 to November 2020; however, the latest date for compliance for these regulations remains December 2023. The EPA is proposing to complete new rulemaking for these waste streams. While the impacts of this rule could be material to Dominion Energy and Virginia Power’s results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory frameworks in South Carolina and Virginia provide rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for the regulated electric utilities. Waste Management and Remediation The CERCLA, as amended, provides for immediate response and removal actions coordinated by the EPA in the event of threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment and authorizes the U.S. government either to clean up sites at which hazardous substances have created actual or potential environmental hazards or to order persons responsible for the situation to do so. Under the CERCLA, as amended, generators and transporters of hazardous substances, as well as past and present owners and operators of contaminated sites, can be jointly, severally and strictly liable for the cost of cleanup. These potentially responsible parties can be ordered to perform a cleanup, be sued for costs associated with an EPA-directed cleanup, voluntarily settle with the U.S. government concerning their liability for cleanup costs, or voluntarily begin a site investigation and site remediation under state oversight. From time to time, Dominion Energy, Virginia Power or Dominion Energy Gas may be identified as a potentially responsible party to a Superfund site. The EPA (or a state) can either allow such a party to conduct and pay for a remedial investigation, feasibility study and remedial action or conduct the remedial investigation and action itself and then seek reimbursement from the potentially responsible parties. These parties can also bring contribution actions against each other and seek reimbursement from their insurance companies. As a result, Dominion Energy, Virginia Power or Dominion Energy Gas may be responsible for the costs of remedial investigation and actions under the Superfund law or other laws or regulations regarding the remediation of waste. The Companies do not believe these matters will have a material effect on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. Dominion Energy has determined that it is associated with 22 former manufactured gas plant sites, three of which pertain to Virginia Power and 12 of which pertain to the discontinued operations of Dominion Energy Gas. Studies conducted by other utilities at their former manufactured gas plant sites have indicated that those sites contain coal tar and other potentially harmful materials. Except as disclosed below, none of the former sites with which the Companies are associated is under investigation by any state or federal environmental agency. At one of the former sites, Dominion Energy is conducting a state-approved post closure groundwater monitoring program and an environmental land use restriction has been recorded. In addition, a Virginia Power site has been accepted into a state-based voluntary remediation program. In June 2018, Virginia Power submitted a proposed remedial action plan to remove material from this site at an estimated cost of $18 million. Pending VDEQ approval, Virginia Power expects to begin remedial work at this site in late 2019. As a result, in June 2018, Virginia Power recorded a charge of $16 million ($12 million after-tax) in other operations and maintenance expense in the Consolidated Statements of Income. The four sites Dominion Energy acquired in the SCANA Combination associated with DESC are in various states of investigation, remediation and monitoring under work plans approved by, or under review by, the SCDHEC or the EPA. Dominion Energy anticipates that activities at these sites will continue through 2020 at an estimated cost of $10 million. In September 2018, DESC submitted an updated remediation work plan at one site to SCDHEC, which if approved, would increase costs by approximately $8 million. DESC expects to recover costs arising from the remediation work at all four​​​​​​​ sites through rate recovery mechanisms. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the other sites, the Companies are unable to make an estimate of the potential financial statement impacts. See below for discussion on ash pond and landfill closure costs. Other Legal Matters The Companies are defendants in a number of lawsuits and claims involving unrelated incidents of property damage and personal injury. Due to the uncertainty surrounding these matters, the Companies are unable to make an estimate of the potential financial statement impacts; however, they could have a material impact on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. SCANA Legal Proceedings The following describes certain legal proceedings involving Dominion Energy, SCANA or DESC relating to events occurring before closing of the SCANA Combination. Dominion Energy intends to vigorously contest the lawsuits, claims and assessments which have been filed or initiated against SCANA and DESC. No reference to, or disclosure of, any proceeding, item or matter described below shall be construed as an admission or indication that such proceeding, item or matter is material. For certain of these matters, and unless otherwise noted therein, Dominion Energy is unable to estimate a reasonable range of possible loss and the related financial statement impacts, but for any such matter there could be a material impact to its results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. For the matters for which Dominion Energy is able to reasonably estimate a probable loss, Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets include reserves of $291 million included within other current liabilities at June 30, 2019. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2019, Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income include charges of $100 million ($75 million after-tax) and $278 million ($208 million after-tax), respectively, included within impairment of assets and other charges. Ratepayer Class Actions In May 2018, a consolidated complaint against DESC, SCANA and the State of South Carolina was filed in the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the DESC Ratepayer Case). In September 2018, the court certified this case as a class action. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that DESC was negligent and unjustly enriched, breached alleged fiduciary and contractual duties and committed fraud and misrepresentation in failing to properly manage the NND Project, and that DESC committed unfair trade practices and violated state anti-trust laws. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that DESC may not charge its customers for any past or continuing costs of the NND Project, sought to have SCANA and DESC’s assets frozen and all monies recovered from Toshiba Corporation and other sources be placed in a constructive trust for the benefit of ratepayers and sought specific performance of the alleged implied contract to construct the NND Project. In December 2018, the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County entered an order granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement and a stay of pre-trial proceedings in the DESC Ratepayer Case. The settlement agreement, contingent upon the closing of the SCANA Combination, provided that SCANA and DESC would establish an escrow account and proceeds from the escrow account would be distributed to the class members, after payment of certain taxes, attorneys’ fees and other expenses and administrative costs. The escrow account would include (1) up to $2.0 billion, net of a credit of up to $2.0 billion in future electric bill relief, which would inure to the benefit of the escrow account in favor of class members over a period of time established by the South Carolina Commission in its order related to matters before the South Carolina Commission related to the NND Project, (2) a cash payment of $115 million and (3) the transfer of certain DESC-owned real estate or sales proceeds from the sale of such properties, which counsel for the DESC Ratepayer Class estimate to have an aggregate value between $60 million and $85 million. At the closing of the SCANA Combination, SCANA and DESC funded the cash payment portion of the escrow account. The court held a fairness hearing on the settlement in May 2019. In June 2019, the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, which order became effective July 2019. In July 2019, DESC transferred $117 million representing the cash payment, plus accrued interest, to the plaintiffs. In addition, property, plant and equipment with a net recorded value of $54 million will be transferred to the plaintiffs as soon as practicable to satisfy the settlement agreement. In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, DESC, Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case). The allegations are substantially similar to those in the DESC Ratepayer Case. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants may not charge the purported class for reimbursement for past or future costs of the NND Project. In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including as additional named defendants, including certain then current and former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA. In June 2018, Santee Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of South Carolina which was denied. In December 2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC. This case is pending. In July 2019, a similar purported class action was filed by certain Santee Cooper ratepayers against DESC, SCANA, Dominion Energy and former directors and officers of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Orangeburg, South Carolina. The claims are similar to the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case. This case is pending. RICO Class Action In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and subsequently amended, against SCANA, DESC and certain former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCANA, DESC and the individual defendants participated in an unlawful racketeering enterprise in violation of RICO and conspired to violate RICO by fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate unlawful proceeds. The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement described previously contemplates dismissal of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case against DESC, SCANA and their officers. This case is pending. SCANA Shareholder Litigation In September 2017, a purported class action was filed against SCANA and certain former executive officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Subsequent additional purported class actions were separately filed against all or nearly all of these defendants. In January 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina consolidated these suits, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in March 2018. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants violated §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individually named defendants are liable under §20(a) of the same act. In June 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. In March 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. This case is pending. In September 2017, a shareholder derivative action was filed against certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina. In September 2018, this action was consolidated with another action in the Business Court Pilot Program in Richland County. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by their gross mismanagement of the NND Project, and that the defendants were unjustly enriched by bonuses they were paid in connection with the project. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action in favor of the pending federal derivative action. In February 2019, one action was voluntarily dismissed. This case is pending. In November 2017, a shareholder derivative action was filed against SCANA and certain former executive officers and directors in the U.S. District Court of the District of South Carolina. Another purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the same court against nearly all of these defendants. In January 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina consolidated these suits, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by disseminating false and misleading information about the NND Project, failing to maintain proper internal controls, failing to properly oversee and manage SCANA and that the individual defendants were unjustly enriched in their compensation. In June 2018, the court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and in October 2018, the court denied SCANA’s motion to stay all proceedings pending investigation by a Special Litigation Committee, with leave to refile after the SCANA Merger Approval Order was issued. The plaintiffs have agreed to a stay of this action on the condition that defendants file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was filed in January 2019. This case is pending. In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA, Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County, South Carolina (the City of Warren Lawsuit). The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin and/or rescind the merger. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In June 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County. Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was consolidated with a similar appeal in the Metzler lawsuit discussed below. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order remanding the case to state court. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA and DESC in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina (the Metzler Lawsuit). The allegations made and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are substantially similar to that described for the City of Warren Lawsuit. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In August 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County. Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was consolidated with the City of Warren Lawsuit. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order remanding the case to state court. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. In May 2019, a case was filed against certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by their gross mismanagement of the NND Project, were unjustly enriched by the bonuses they were paid in connection with the project and breached their fiduciary duties to secure and obtain the best price for the sale of SCANA. Also in May 2019, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court of South Carolina by the non-South Carolina defendants. In June 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. This case is pending. Employment Class Actions and Indemnification In August 2017, a case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of persons who were formerly employed at the NND Project. In July 2018, the court certified this case as a class action. In February 2019, certain of these plaintiffs filed an additional case. In those cases, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that SCANA, Fluor Corporation and Fluor Enterprises, Inc. violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act in connection with the decision to stop construction at the NND Project. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to provide adequate advance written notice of their terminations of employment and are seeking damages, which are estimated to be as much as $75 million for 100% of the NND Project. In September 2018, a case was filed in the State Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina by Fluor Enterprises, Inc. and Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc. against DESC and Santee Cooper. The plaintiffs make claims for indemnification, breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from, among other things, the defendants’ alleged failure and refusal to defend and indemnify the Fluor defendants in the aforementioned case. These cases are pending. FILOT Litigation and Related Matters In November 2017, Fairfield County filed a complaint and a motion for temporary injunction against DESC in the State Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina, making allegations of breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and unfair trade practices related to DESC’s termination of the FILOT agreement between DESC and Fairfield County related to the NND Project. The plaintiff sought a temporary and permanent injunction to prevent DESC from terminating the FILOT agreement. The plaintiff withdrew the motion for temporary injunction in December 2017. This case is pending. Governmental Proceedings and Investigations In June 2018, DESC received a notice of proposed assessment of approximately $410 million, excluding interest, from the SCDOR following its audit of DESC’s sales and use tax returns for the periods September 1, 2008 through December 31, 2017. The proposed assessment, which includes 100% of the NND Project, is based on the SCDOR’s position that DESC’s sales and use tax exemption for the NND Project does not apply because the facility will not become operational. DESC has protested the proposed assessment, which remains pending. In September and October 2017, SCANA was served with subpoenas issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina and the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement seeking documents related to the NND Project. In addition, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is conducting a criminal investigation into the handling of the NND Project by SCANA and DESC. These matters are pending. SCANA and DESC are cooperating fully with the investigations, including responding to additional subpoenas and document requests. Other Litigation In December 2018, arbitration proceedings commenced between DESC and Cameco Corporation related to a supply agreement signed in May 2008. This agreement provides the terms and conditions under which DESC agreed to purchase uranium hexafluoride from Cameco Corporation over a period from 2010 to 2020. Cameco Corporation alleges that DESC violated this agreement by failing to purchase the stated quantities of uranium hexafluoride for the 2017 and 2018 delivery years. DESC denies that it is in breach of the agreement and believes that it has reduced its purchase quantity within the terms of the agreement. This matter is pending. Abandoned NND Project DESC, for itself and as agent for Santee Cooper, entered into an engineering, construction and procurement contract with Westinghouse and WECTEC in 2008 for the design and construction of the NND Project, of which DESC’s ownership share is 55%. Various difficulties were encountered in connection with the project. The ability of Westinghouse and WECTEC to adhere to established budgets and construction schedules was affected by many variables, including unanticipated difficulties encountered in connection with project engineering and the construction of project components, constrained financial resources of the contractors, regulatory, legal, training and construction processes associated with securing approvals, permits and licenses and necessary amendments to them within projected time frames, the availability of labor and materials at estimated costs and the efficiency of project labor. There were also contractor and supplier performance issues, difficulties in timely meeting critical regulatory requirements, contract disputes, and changes in key contractors or subcontractors. These matters preceded the filing for bankruptcy protection by Westinghouse and WECTEC in March 2017, and were the subject of comprehensive analyses performed by SCANA and Santee Cooper. Based on the results of SCANA’s analysis, and in light of Santee Cooper’s decision to suspend construction on the NND Project, in July 2017, SCANA determined to stop the construction of the units and to pursue recovery of costs incurred in connection with the construction under the abandonment provisions of the Base Load Review Act or through other means. This decision by SCANA became the focus of numerous legislative, regulatory and legal proceedings. Some of these proceedings remain unresolved and are described above. In September 2017, DESC, for itself and as agent for Santee Cooper, filed with the Bankruptcy Court Proofs of Claim for unliquidated damages against each of Westinghouse and WECTEC. These Proofs of Claim were based upon the anticipatory repudiation and material breach by Westinghouse and WECTEC of the contract, and assert against Westinghouse and WECTEC any and all claims that are based thereon or that may be related thereto. DESC and Santee Cooper remain responsible for any claims that may be made by Westinghouse and WECTEC against them relating to the contract. Westinghouse’s reorganization plan was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and became effective in August 2018. In connection with the effectiveness of the reorganization plan, the contract associated with the NND Project was deemed rejected. DESC is contesting approximately $285 million of filed liens in Fairfield County, South Carolina. Most of these asserted liens are claims that relate to work performed by Westinghouse subcontractors before the Westinghouse bankruptcy, although some of them are claims arising from work performed after the Westinghouse bankruptcy. Westinghouse has indicated that some unsecured creditors have sought or may seek amounts beyond what Westinghouse allocated when it submitted its reorganization plan to the Bankruptcy Court. If any unsecured creditor is successful in its attempt to include its claim as part of the class of general unsecured creditors beyond the amounts in the bankruptcy reorganization plan allocated by Westinghouse, it is possible that the reorganization plan will not provide for payment in full or nearly in full to its pre-petition trade creditors. The shortfall could be significant. DESC and Santee Cooper are responsible for amounts owed to Westinghouse for valid work performed by Westinghouse subcontractors on the NND Project after the Westinghouse bankruptcy filing until termination of the interim assessment agreement. DESC does not believe that the claims asserted related to the interim assessment agreement period will exceed the amounts previously funded, whether relating to claims already paid or those remaining to be paid. DESC intends to oppose any previously unasserted claim that is asserted against it, whether directly or indirectly by a claim through the interim assessment agreement. Further, some Westinghouse subcontractors who have made claims against Westinghouse in the bankruptcy proceeding also filed against DESC and Santee Cooper in South Carolina state court for damages. Many of these claimants have also asserted construction liens against the NND Project site. DESC also intends to oppose these claims and liens. With respect to claims of Westinghouse Subcontractors, DESC believes there were sufficient amounts previously funded during the interim assessment agreement period to pay such validly asserted claims. With respect to the Westinghouse subcontractor claims which relate to other periods, DESC understands that such claims will be paid pursuant to Westinghouse’s confirmed bankruptcy reorganization plan. DESC further understands that the amounts paid under the plan may satisfy such claims in full. Therefore, DESC believes that the Westinghouse subcontractors may be paid substantially (and potentially in full) by Westinghouse. While Dominion Energy cannot be assured that it will not have any exposure on account of unpaid Westinghouse subcontractor claims, which DESC is presently disputing, Dominion Energy believes it is unlikely that it will be required to make payments on account of such claims. Ash Pond and Landfill Closure Costs In April 2015, the EPA enacted a final rule regulating CCR landfills, existing ash ponds that still receive and manage CCRs, and inactive ash ponds that do not receive, but still store, CCRs. Dominion Energy currently operates inactive ash ponds, existing ash ponds and CCR landfills subject to the final rule at 11 different facilities, eight​​​​​​​ of which are at Virginia Power. This rule created a legal obligation for Dominion Energy and Virginia Power to retrofit or close all of its inactive and existing ash ponds over a certain period of time, as well as perform required monitoring, corrective action, and post-closure care activities as necessary. In December 2016, legislation was enacted that creates a framework ​​​​​​​for EPA- approved state CCR permit programs. In August 2017, the EPA issued interim guidance outlining the framework for state CCR program approval. The EPA has enforcement authority until state programs are approved. The EPA and states with approved programs both will have authority to enforce CCR requirements under their respective rules and programs. In September 2017, the EPA agreed to reconsider portions of the CCR rule in response to two​​​​​​​ petitions for reconsideration. In March 2018, the EPA proposed certain changes to the CCR rule related to issues remanded as part of the pending litigation and other issues the EPA is reconsidering. Several of the proposed changes would allow states with approved CCR permit programs additional flexibilities in implementing their programs. In July 2018, the EPA promulgated the first phase of changes to the CCR rule. Until all phases of the CCR rule are promulgated, Dominion Energy and Virginia Power cannot forecast potential incremental impacts or costs related to existing coal ash sites in connection with future implementation of the 2016 CCR legislation and reconsideration of the CCR rule. In August 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in the pending challenges of the CCR rule, vacating and remanding to the EPA three provisions of the rule. Dominion Energy and Virginia Power do not expect the scope of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision to impact their closure plans, but cannot forecast incremental impacts associated with any future changes to the CCR rule in connection with the court’s remand. In April 2017, the Governor of Virginia signed legislation into law that placed a moratorium on the VDEQ issuing solid waste permits for closure of ash ponds at Virginia Power’s Bremo, Chesapeake, Chesterfield and Possum Point power stations until May 2018. The law also required Virginia Power to conduct an assessment of closure alternatives for the ash ponds at these four stations, to include an evaluation of excavation for recycling or off-site disposal, surface and groundwater conditions and safety. Virginia Power completed the assessments and provided the report on December 1, 2017. In April 2018, the Governor of Virginia signed legislation into law extending the existing permit moratorium until July 2019. The legislation also required Virginia Power to solicit and compile by November 2018, information from third parties on the suitability, cost and market demand for beneficiation or recycling of coal ash from these units. The coal ash recycling business plan was submitted to the legislature in November 2018. The extended moratorium does not apply to a permit required for an impoundment where CCRs have already been removed and placed in another impoundment on-site, are being removed from an impoundment, or are being processed in connection with a recycling or beneficial use project. In connection with this legislation, in the second quarter of 2018, Virginia Power recorded an increase to its ARO and a related environmental liability related to future ash pond and landfill closure costs of $131 million, which resulted in an $81 million ($60 million after-tax) charge recorded in other operations and maintenance expense in its Consolidated Statement of Income, a $46 million increase in property, plant and equipment associated with asset retirement costs and a $4 million increase in regulatory assets. In March 2019, the Governor of Virginia signed into law legislation which requires any CCR unit located at Virginia Power’s Bremo, Chesapeake, Chesterfield or Possum Point power stations that stop accepting CCR prior to July 2019 be closed by removing the CCR to an approved landfill or through recycling for beneficial reuse. The legislation further requires that at least 6.8 million cubic yards of CCR be beneficially reused and that costs associated with the closure of these CCR units be recoverable through a rate adjustment clause approved by the Virginia Commission with a revenue requirement that cannot exceed $225 million in any 12-month period. In connection with this legislation, Virginia Power recorded a $2.4 billion ARO related to the cost of landfills and beneficial reuse, with an offsetting increase to property, plant and equipment of $1.3 billion for the Chesterfield power station and an increase primarily to regulatory assets for the remaining portion related to the Bremo, Chesapeake and Possum Point power stations during the first quarter of 2019. In addition, Virginia Power revised its estimated cash flows for the existing ARO related to future ash pond and landfill closure costs, which resulted in a decrease of $202 million and a corresponding $113 million ($84 million after-tax) benefit in other operations and maintenance expense in the Consolidated Statement of Income in the first quarter of 2019. The actual AROs related to CCRs may vary substantially from the estimates used to record the obligation. FERC FERC staff in the Office of Enforcement, Division of Investigations, conducted a non-public investigation of Virginia Power’s offers of combustion turbines generators into the PJM day-ahead markets from April 2010 through September 2014. FERC staff notified Virginia Power of its preliminary findings relating to Virginia Power’s alleged violation of FERC’s rules in connection with these activities. Virginia Power provided its response to FERC staff’s preliminary findings letter explaining why Virginia Power’s conduct was lawful and refuting any allegation of wrongdoing. In May 2019, FERC issued an order approving an agreement between Virginia Power and FERC staff that settled any and all potential claims relating to the types of activities that were the subject of the investigation, under which Virginia Power neither admits nor denies the alleged violations and paid $7 million in disgorgement to PJM and a $7 million penalty to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Nuclear Matters In March 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami caused significant damage at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in northeast Japan. These events have resulted in significant nuclear safety reviews required by the NRC and industry groups such as the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. Like other U.S. nuclear operators, Dominion Energy has been gathering supporting data and participating in industry initiatives focused on the ability to respond to and mitigate the consequences of design-basis and beyond-design-basis events at its stations. In July 2011, an NRC task force provided initial recommendations based on its review of the Fukushima Daiichi accident and in October 2011 the NRC staff prioritized these recommendations into Tiers 1, 2 and 3, with the Tier 1 recommendations consisting of actions which the staff determined should be started without unnecessary delay. In December 2011, the NRC Commissioners approved the agency staff’s prioritization and recommendations, and that same month an appropriations act directed the NRC to require reevaluation of external hazards (not limited to seismic and flooding hazards) as soon as possible. Based on the prioritized recommendations, in March 2012, the NRC issued orders and information requests requiring specific reviews and actions to all operating reactors, construction permit holders and combined license holders based on the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi event. The orders applicable to Dominion Energy requiring implementation of safety enhancements related to mitigation strategies to respond to extreme natural events resulting in the loss of power at plants, and enhancing spent fuel pool instrumentation have been implemented. The information requests issued by the NRC request each reactor to reevaluate the seismic and external flooding hazards at their site using present-day methods and information, conduct walkdowns of their facilities to ensure protection against the hazards in their current design basis, and to reevaluate their emergency communications systems and staffing levels. The walkdowns of each unit have been completed, audited by the NRC and found to be adequate. Reevaluation of the emergency communications systems and staffing levels was completed as part of the effort to comply with the orders. Reevaluation of the seismic hazards was completed or in review with the NRC in 2018. Reevaluation of the external flooding hazards is expected to continue through 2019. Dominion Energy and Virginia Power do not currently expect that compliance with the NRC’s information requests will materially impact their financial position, results of operations or cash flows during the implementation period. The NRC staff is evaluating the implementation of the longer term Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations. Dominion Energy and Virginia Power do not expect material financial impacts related to compliance with Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations. Nuclear Operations Nuclear Insurance During the second quarter of 2019, the total liability protection per nuclear incident available to all participants in the Secondary Financial Protection Program decreased from $14.1 billion to $13.9 billion. This decrease does not impact Dominion Energy’s responsibility per active unit under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988. Spent Nuclear Fuel As discussed in Notes 3 and 22 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Companies’ Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, as updated in Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 18, 2019, Dominion Energy, Virginia Power and DESC entered into contracts with the DOE for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel under provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. In June 2018, a lawsuit for Kewaunee was filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for recovery of spent nuclear fuel storage costs incurred for the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2017. In March 2019, Dominion Energy amended its filing for recovery of spent nuclear fuel storage to include costs incurred for the year ended December 31, 2018. This matter is pending. Guarantees, Surety Bonds and Letters of Credit Dominion Energy entered into a guarantee agreement to support a portion of Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s obligation under a $3.4 billion revolving credit facility with a stated maturity date of October 2021. Dominion Energy’s maximum potential loss exposure under the terms of the guarantee is limited to 48% of the outstanding borrowings under the revolving credit facility, an equal percentage to Dominion Energy’s ownership in Atlantic Coast Pipeline. As of June 30, 2019, Atlantic Coast Pipeline has borrowed $1.7 billion against the revolving credit facility. Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets include a liability of $17 million and $21 million associated with this guarantee agreement at June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. In addition, at June 30, 2019, Dominion Energy had issued an additional $27 million of guarantees, primarily to support other equity method investees. No amounts related to the other guarantees have been recorded. Dominion Energy also enters into guarantee arrangements on behalf of its consolidated subsidiaries, primarily to facilitate their commercial transactions with third parties. If any of these subsidiaries fail to perform or pay under the contracts and the counterparties seek performance or payment, Dominion Energy would be obligated to satisfy such obligation. To the extent that a liability subject to a guarantee has been incurred by one of Dominion Energy’s consolidated subsidiaries, that liability is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements. Dominion Energy is not required to recognize liabilities for guarantees issued on behalf of its subsidiaries unless it becomes probable that it will have to perform under the guarantees. Terms of the guarantees typically end once obligations have been paid. Dominion Energy currently believes it is unlikely that it would be required to perform or otherwise incur any losses associated with guarantees of its subsidiaries’ obligations. At June 30, 2019, Dominion Energy had issued the following subsidiary guarantees:
|  | Maximum Exposure |
(millions) |  |  |
Commodity transactions (1) |  | $ | 2,393 |
Nuclear obligations (2) |  |  | 182 |
Cove Point (3) |  |  | 1,900 |
Solar (4) |  |  | 659 |
Other (5) |  |  | 404 |
Total (6) |  | $ | 5,538 |
(1) | Guarantees related to commodity commitments of certain subsidiaries. These guarantees were provided to counterparties in order to facilitate physical and financial transaction related commodities and services.
(2) | Guarantees related to certain DGI subsidiaries regarding all aspects of running a nuclear facility.
(3) | Guarantees related to Cove Point, in support of terminal services, transportation and construction. Cove Point has two guarantees that have no maximum limit and, therefore, are not included in this amount.
(4) | Includes guarantees to facilitate the development of solar projects. Also includes guarantees entered into by DGI on behalf of certain subsidiaries to facilitate the acquisition and development of solar projects.
(5) | Guarantees related to other miscellaneous contractual obligations such as leases, environmental obligations, construction projects and insurance programs. Due to the uncertainty of workers’ compensation claims, the parental guarantee has no stated limit.
(6) | Excludes Dominion Energy’s guarantee for the construction of the new corporate office property discussed in Note 22 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Companies’ Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 , as updated in Curr ent Report on Form 8-K, filed November 18, 2019.
Additionally, at June 30, 2019, Dominion Energy had purchased $185 million of surety bonds, including $79 million at Virginia Power and $34 million at Dominion Energy Gas, and authorized the issuance of letters of credit by financial institutions of $91 million to facilitate commercial transactions by its subsidiaries with third parties. Under the terms of surety bonds, the Companies are obligated to indemnify the respective surety bond company for any amounts paid.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration