XML 56 R34.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | NOTE 23. 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. The Companies maintain various insurance programs, including general liability insurance coverage which provides coverage for personal injury or wrongful death cases. 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 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 meet applicable 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. Ozone Standards The EPA published final non-attainment designations for the October 2015 ozone standards in June 2018 with states required to develop plans to address the new standard. Certain states in which the Companies operate have developed plans, and had such plans approved or partially approved by the EPA, which are not expected to have a material impact on the Companies’ results of operations or cash flows. In March 2023, the EPA issued a final rule specifying an interstate federal implementation plan to comply with certain aspects of planning for the 2015 ozone standards which is applicable in August 2023 for certain states, including Virginia. The interstate federal implementation plan imposes tighter NO X emissions limits during the ozone season and includes provisions for the use of allowances to cover such emissions. Until implementation plans for the 2015 ozone standards are fully developed and approved for all states in which the Companies operate, 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, financial condition and/or cash flows. ACE Rule In July 2019, the EPA published the final rule informally referred to as the ACE Rule, as a replacement for the Clean Power Plan. The ACE Rule regulated GHG emissions from existing coal-fired power plants pursuant to Section 111(d) of the CAA and required states to develop plans by July 2022 establishing unit-specific performance standards for existing coal-fired power plants. In January 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the ACE Rule and remanded it to the EPA. This decision would take effect upon issuance of the court’s mandate. In March 2021, the court issued a partial mandate vacating and remanding all parts of the ACE Rule except for the portion of the ACE Rule that repealed the Clean Power Plan. In October 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision on the ACE Rule. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit’s decision on the ACE Rule and remanded the case back to the D.C. Circuit. In May 2023, the EPA proposed to repeal the ACE Rule as part of a package of proposed rules addressing CO 2 emissions from new and existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units. Until the EPA takes final action on this proposed rulemaking, the Companies cannot predict an impact to its operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. 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 exceed a significant emissions rate of 75,000 tons per year of CO 2 equivalent 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 December 2018, the EPA proposed revised Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources. The proposed rule would amend the previous determination that the best system of emission reduction for newly constructed coal-fired steam generating units is no longer partial carbon capture and storage. Instead, the proposed revised best system of emission reduction for this source category is the most efficient demonstrated steam cycle (e.g., supercritical steam conditions for large units and subcritical steam conditions for small units) in combination with best operating practices. The proposed revision to the performance standards for coal-fired steam generating units remains pending. 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. 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. Regulation 316(b) 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 15 and nine facilities, respectively, that are subject to the final regulations. Dominion Energy is also working with the EPA and state regulatory agencies to assess the applicability of Section 316(b) to eight hydroelectric facilities, including three Virginia Power facilities. The Companies anticipate that they may have to install impingement control technologies at certain of these stations that have once-through cooling systems. The Companies 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, technological, and cost benefit studies. DESC is conducting studies and implementing plans as required by the rule to determine appropriate intake structure modifications at certain facilities to ensure compliance with this rule. While the impacts of this rule could be material to the Companies’ 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. Effluent Limitations Guidelines 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 established 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 EPA’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 was December 2023. In October 2020, the EPA released the final rule that extends the latest dates for compliance. Individual facilities’ compliance dates will vary based on circumstances and the determination by state regulators and may range from 2021 to 2028. While the impacts of this rule could be material to the Companies’ 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 operations of the Companies are subject to a variety of state and federal laws and regulations governing the management and disposal of solid and hazardous waste, and release of hazardous substances associated with current and/or historical operations. The CERCLA, as amended, and similar state laws, may impose joint, several and strict liability for cleanup on potentially responsible parties who owned, operated or arranged for disposal at facilities affected by a release of hazardous substances. In addition, many states have created programs to incentivize voluntary remediation of sites where historical releases of hazardous substances are identified and property owners or responsible parties decide to initiate cleanups. From time to time, the Companies may be identified as a potentially responsible party in connection with the alleged release of hazardous substances or wastes at a site. Under applicable federal and state laws, the Companies could be responsible for costs associated with the investigation or remediation of impacted sites, or subject to contribution claims by other responsible parties for their costs incurred at such sites. The Companies also may identify, evaluate and remediate other potentially impacted sites under voluntary state programs. Remediation costs may be subject to reimbursement under the Companies’ insurance policies, rate recovery mechanisms, or both. Except as described below, 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 former manufactured gas plant sites, including certain sites associated with Virginia Power. At 14 sites associated with Dominion Energy, remediation work has been substantially completed under federal or state oversight. Where required, the sites are following state-approved groundwater monitoring programs. Dominion Energy commenced remediation activities at one site in the second quarter of 2022 and completed the majority of remediation activities at this site in the fourth quarter of 2023. In addition, Dominion Energy has proposed remediation plans for one site at Virginia Power and expects to commence remediation activities in 2024 depending on receipt of final permits and approvals. At December 31, 2023 and 2022, Dominion Energy had $32 million and $47 million, respectively, of reserves recorded. At both December 31, 2023 and 2022, Virginia Power had $25 million of reserves recorded. Dominion Energy is associated with 12 additional sites, including two associated with Virginia Power, which are not under investigation by any state or federal environmental agency nor the subject of any current or proposed plans to perform remediation activities. Due to the uncertainty surrounding such sites, the Companies are unable to make an estimate of the potential financial statement impacts. 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 primarily to events occurring before closing of the SCANA Combination. 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 at December 31, 2022 include reserves of $94 million, included in other current liabilities and insurance receivables of $68 million, included within other receivables. The balance at December 31, 2022 includes $68 million of offsetting reserves and insurance receivables related to personal injury or wrongful death cases which were pending. Dominion Energy's Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2023 included an inconsequential amount of reserves primarily related to personal injury or wrongful death cases. During the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, charges included in Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income were inconsequential. Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income for the year ended December 31, 2021 includes charges of $100 million ($75 million after-tax) within impairment of assets and other charges (reflected in the Corporate and Other segment). 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. In December 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle in the amount of $165 million to resolve this matter. In June 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement which allows DESC to fund the settlement amount through a combination of cash, shares of Dominion Energy common stock or real estate with an initial payment of at least $43 million in shares of Dominion Energy common stock. In August 2021, Dominion Energy issued 0.6 million shares of its common stock to satisfy DESC’s obligation for the initial payment under the settlement agreement. In May 2022, Dominion Energy issued an additional 0.9 million shares of its common stock to partially satisfy DESC’s remaining obligation under the settlement agreement. In June 2022, DESC requested approval from the South Carolina Commission to transfer certain real estate with a total settlement value of $51 million to satisfy its remaining obligation under the settlement agreement. In July 2022, the South Carolina Commission voted to approve the request and issued its final order in August 2022. In September 2022, DESC transferred certain non-utility property with a fair value of $28 million to the SCDOR under the settlement agreement, resulting in a gain of $18 million ($14 million after-tax) recorded in losses (gains) on sales of assets (reflected in Dominion Energy South Carolina) in Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income for the year ended December 31, 2022. In December 2022, DESC transferred additional utility property with a fair value of $3 million to the SCDOR, resulting in an inconsequential gain. In October 2022, DESC filed for approval to transfer the remaining real estate with FERC which was received in November 2022. In March 2023, DESC transferred utility property with a fair value of $10 million to the SCDOR resulting in a gain of $9 million ($7 million after-tax), recorded in losses (gains) on sales of assets (reflected in the Corporate and Other segment) in Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income for the year ended December 31, 2023. In June 2023, DESC transferred the remaining utility property with a fair value of $11 million to the SCDOR resulting in a gain of $11 million ($8 million after-tax), recorded in losses (gains) on sales of assets (reflected in the Corporate and Other segment) in Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income for the year ended December 31, 2023. In July 2023, DESC made a less than $1 million cash payment to the SCDOR to fully satisfy its remaining obligation, including applicable interest, under the settlement agreement. Matters Fully Resolved Prior to 2023 Impacting the Consolidated Financial Statements SCANA Shareholder Litigation 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 (the State Court Derivative Case). 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. In January 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action. In February 2019, one action was voluntarily dismissed. In March 2020, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In April 2020, the defendants filed a notice of appeal with the South Carolina Court of Appeals and a petition with the Supreme Court of South Carolina seeking appellate review of the denial of the motion to dismiss. In June 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal with the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which was granted in July 2020. In August 2020, the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied the defendants’ petition seeking appellate review. Also in August 2020, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing with the South Carolina Court of Appeals relating to the July 2020 ruling by the court, which was denied in October 2020. In November 2020, SCANA filed a petition of certiorari with the Supreme Court of South Carolina seeking appellate review of the denial of SCANA’s motion to dismiss. This petition was denied in June 2021. Also in June 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle in the amount of $33 million to resolve this matter, subject to court approval. This settlement was reached in contemplation of and to be utilized to satisfy a portion of the Federal Court Merger Case and the State Court Merger Case discussed below. In November 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement and filed with the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina for approval. In June 2022, the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina issued final approval of the settlement agreement with the funds utilized to satisfy a portion of the State Court Merger Case as discussed below. 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, 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 September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the City of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit (the Federal Court Merger Case). In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against certain former directors and executive officers of SCANA and DESC, which stated substantially similar allegations to those in the City of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit as well as an inseparable fraud claim. In November 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina denied the motion to dismiss. In May 2020, SCANA filed a motion to intervene, which was denied in August 2020. In September 2020, SCANA filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In June 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle in the amount of $63 million to resolve this matter as well as the State Court Merger Case described below, subject to court approval. This settlement was reached in contemplation of and to be partially satisfied by the State Court Derivative Case settlement described above. In November 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement, as described above relating to this matter as well as the State Court Derivative Case and the State Court Merger Case, and filed with the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina for approval. In June 2022, this case was dismissed in connection with the final approval by the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina of the settlement agreement. 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 State Court Merger Case). The plaintiff alleges, 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. In January 2020, the case was remanded to state court. In February 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In June 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle as described above relating to this matter as well as the Federal Court Merger Case and the State Court Derivative Case. In November 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement, as described above relating to this matter as well as the State Court Derivative Case and the Federal Court Merger Case, and filed with the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina for approval. In June 2022, the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina issued final approval of the settlement agreement. Also in June 2022, Dominion Energy utilized the $33 million of insurance proceeds from the State Court Derivative Case settlement, the issuance of 0.4 million shares of its common stock and the payment of $2 million in cash to satisfy its obligations under the settlement agreement. 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. In July 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement requiring DESC to pay $99 million, which could be satisfied in either cash or shares of Dominion Energy common stock. Also in July 2021, the State Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina approved the settlement. In July 2021, Dominion Energy issued 1.4 million shares of Dominion Energy common stock to satisfy DESC’s obligation under the settlement agreement. Nuclear Operations Nuclear Decommissioning – Minimum Financial Assurance The NRC requires nuclear power plant owners to annually update minimum financial assurance amounts for the future decommissioning of their nuclear facilities. Decommissioning involves the decontamination and removal of radioactive contaminants from a nuclear power station once operations have ceased, in accordance with standards established by the NRC. The 2023 calculation for the NRC minimum financial assurance amount, aggregated for Dominion Energy and Virginia Power’s nuclear units, excluding joint owners’ assurance amounts and Millstone Unit 1, as this unit is in a decommissioning state, was $3.6 billion and $2.1 billion, respectively, and has been satisfied by a combination of the funds being collected and deposited in the nuclear decommissioning trusts and the real annual rate of return growth of the funds allowed by the NRC. The 2023 NRC minimum financial assurance amounts above were calculated using preliminary December 31, 2023 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indices. Dominion Energy believes that decommissioning funds and their expected earnings will be sufficient to cover expected decommissioning costs for the Millstone units. In addition, Dominion Energy believes that the decommissioning funds and their expected earnings will be sufficient to cover expected decommissioning costs for the Summer unit, particularly when combined with future ratepayer collections and contributions. The Companies believe the decommissioning funds and their expected earnings for the Surry and North Anna units will be sufficient to cover decommissioning costs, particularly when combined with future ratepayer collections and contributions to these decommissioning trusts, if such future collections and contributions are required. This reflects a positive long-term outlook for trust fund investment returns as the decommissioning of the units will not be complete for decades. The Companies will continue to monitor these trusts to ensure they meet the NRC minimum financial assurance requirement, which may include, if needed, the use of parent company guarantees, surety bonding or other financial instruments recognized by the NRC. See Note 9 for additional information on nuclear decommissioning trust investments. Nuclear Insurance The Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 provides the public up to $16.2 billion of liability protection on a per site, per nuclear incident basis, via obligations required of owners of nuclear power plants, and allows for an inflationary provision adjustment every five years. During the fourth quarter of 2023, the total liability protection per nuclear incident available to all participants in the Secondary Financial Protection Program increased from $13.7 billion to $16.2 billion. This increase does not impact Dominion Energy’s responsibility per active unit under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988. The Companies have purchased $450 million of coverage from commercial insurance pools for Millstone, Summer, Surry and North Anna with the remainder provided through the mandatory industry retrospective rating plan. In the event of a nuclear incident at any licensed nuclear reactor in the U.S., the Companies could be assessed up to $166 million for each of their licensed reactors not to exceed $25 million per year per reactor. There is no limit to the number of incidents for which this retrospective premium can be assessed. The current levels of nuclear property insurance coverage for Millstone, Summer, Surry and North Anna are all $1.06 billion. The Companies’ nuclear property insurance coverage for Millstone, Summer, Surry and North Anna meets or exceeds the NRC minimum requirement for nuclear power plant licensees of $1.06 billion per reactor site. This includes coverage for premature decommissioning and functional total loss. The NRC requires that the proceeds from this insurance be used first, to return the reactor to and maintain it in a safe and stable condition and second, to decontaminate the reactor and station site in accordance with a plan approved by the NRC. Nuclear property insurance is provided by NEIL, a mutual insurance company, and is subject to retrospective premium assessments in any policy year in which losses exceed the funds available to the insurance company. Dominion Energy and Virginia Power’s maximum retrospective premium assessment for the current policy period is $67 million and $33 million, respectively. Based on the severity of the incident, the Board of Directors of the nuclear insurer has the discretion to lower or eliminate the maximum retrospective premium assessment. The Companies have the financial responsibility for any losses that exceed the limits or for which insurance proceeds are not available because they must first be used for stabilization and decontamination. Additionally, DESC maintains an excess property insurance policy with the European Mutual Association for Nuclear Insurance. The policy provides coverage to Summer for property damage and outage costs up to $1 million resulting from an event of a non-nuclear origin. The European Mutual Association for Nuclear Insurance policy permits retrospective assessments under certain conditions to cover insurer’s losses. Based on the current annual premium, DESC’s share of the retrospective premium assessment would not exceed an inconsequential amount. Millstone, Virginia Power and Summer also purchase accidental outage insurance from NEIL to mitigate certain expenses, including replacement power costs, associated with the prolonged outage of a nuclear unit due to direct physical damage. Under this program, the Companies are subject to a retrospective premium assessment for any policy year in which losses exceed funds available to NEIL. Dominion Energy and Virginia Power’s maximum retrospective premium assessment for the current policy period is $33 million and $9 million, respectively. ODEC, a part owner of North Anna, Santee Cooper, a part owner of Summer and Massachusetts Municipal and Green Mountain, part owners of Millstone’s Unit 3, are responsible to the Companies for their share of the nuclear decommissioning obligation and insurance premiums on applicable units, including any retrospective premium assessments and any losses not covered by insurance. Spent Nuclear Fuel The Companies entered into contracts with the DOE for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel under provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The DOE failed to begin accepting the spent fuel on January 31, 1998, the date provided by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and by the Companies’ contracts with the DOE. The Companies have previously received damages award payments and settlement payments related to these contracts. By mutual agreement of the parties, the settlement agreements are extendable to provide for resolution of damages incurred after 2013. The settlement agreements for the Surry, North Anna and Millstone nuclear power stations have been extended and provided for periodic payments for damages incurred through December 31, 2025 and future additional extensions are contemplated by the settlement agreements. A similar agreement for Summer extends until the DOE has accepted the same amount of spent fuel from the facility as if it has fully performed its contractual obligations. In 2023, Virginia Power received payments of $22 million for resolution of claims incurred at North Anna and Surry for the period of January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. In addition, Dominion Energy received payments of $8 million for resolution of claims incurred at Millstone for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 and $6 million for resolution of its share of claims incurred at Summer for the period of January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. In 2022, Virginia Power received payments of $17 million for resolution of claims incurred at North Anna and Surry for the period of January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. In addition, Dominion Energy received payments of $7 million for resolution of claims incurred at Millstone for the period of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and $1 million for resolution of its share of claims incurred at Summer for the period of January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. In 2021, Virginia Power received payments of $25 million for resolution of claims incurred at North Anna and Surry for the period of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. In addition, Dominion Energy received payments of $9 million for resolution of claims incurred at Millstone for the period of July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020 and $1 million for resolution of its share of claims incurred at Summer for the period of January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. The Companies continue to recognize receivables for certain spent nuclear fuel-related costs that they believe are probable of recovery from the DOE. Dominion Energy’s receivables for spent nuclear fuel-related costs totaled $62 million and $56 million at December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. Virginia Power’s receivables for spent nuclear fuel-related costs totaled $43 million and $37 million at December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. The Companies will continue to manage their spent fuel until it is accepted by the DOE. Long-Term Purchase Agreements At December 31, 2023, Dominion Energy had the following long-term commitments that are noncancelable or are cancelable only under certain conditions, and that a third party has used to secure financing for the facility that will provide the contracted goods or services:
|  | 2024 |  |  | 2025 |  |  | 2026 |  |  | 2027 |  |  | 2028 |  |  | Thereafter |  |  | Total |
(millions) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Purchased electric capacity(1) |  | $ | 62 |  |  | $ | 62 |  |  | $ | 64 |  |  | $ | 64 |  |  | $ | 64 |  |  | $ | 412 |  |  | $ | 728 |
(1) Commitments represent estimated amounts payable for energy under power purchase contracts with qualifying facilities which expire at various dates through 2040. Energy payments are generally based on fixed dollar amounts per month and totaled $58 million and $61 million for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. Guarantees, Surety Bonds and Letters of Credit At December 31, 2023, Dominion Energy had issued four guarantees related to Cove Point, previously an equity method investment, in support of terminal services, transportation and construction. Two of the Cove Point guarantees have a cumulative maximum exposure of $1.9 billion while the other two guarantees have no maximum limit. No amounts related to these guarantees have been recorded. In addition, at December 31, 2023, Dominion Energy had issued an additional $20 million of guarantees, primarily to support third parties. No amounts related to these 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 December 31, 2023, Dominion Energy had issued the following subsidiary guarantees:
|  | Maximum Exposure |
(millions) |  |  |
Commodity transactions(1) |  | $ | 2,854 |
Nuclear obligations(2) |  |  | 244 |
Solar(3) |  |  | 215 |
Other(4) |  |  | 1,193 |
Total(5)(6) |  | $ | 4,506 |
(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 primarily related to certain DGI subsidiaries regarding all aspects of running a nuclear facility. (3) Includes guarantees to facilitate the development of solar projects. (4) Guarantees related to other miscellaneous contractual obligations such as leases, environmental obligations, construction projects and insurance programs. Also includes guarantees entered into by Dominion Energy RNG Holdings, II, Inc. on behalf of a subsidiary to facilitate construction of renewable natural gas facilities. Due to the uncertainty of workers’ compensation claims, the parental guarantee has no stated limit. (5) Excludes Dominion Energy’s guarantee of an offshore wind installation vessel discussed in Note 15. (6) In July 2016, Dominion Energy signed an agreement with a lessor to construct and lease a new corporate office property in Richmond, Virginia. The lessor provided equity and obtained financing commitments from debt investors, totaling $365 million, which funded total project costs. The project became substantially complete in August 2019 at which point the facility was available for Dominion Energy’s use and the five-year lease term commenced. At the end of the initial lease term, Dominion Energy can (i) extend the term of the lease for an additional five years, subject to the approval of the participants, at current market terms, (ii) purchase the property for an amount equal to the project costs or, (iii) subject to certain terms and conditions, sell the property on behalf of the lessor to a third party using commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the highest cash purchase price for the property. If the project is sold and the proceeds from the sale are insufficient to repay the investors for the project costs, Dominion Energy may be required to make a payment to the lessor, up to 87% of project costs, for the difference between the project costs and sale proceeds. In December 2023, the agreement was amended to permit more than one renewal term and reduce the required term for a renewal from five years to at least one year. At December 31, 2023, no amounts have been recorded related to this guarantee. Additionally, at December 31, 2023, Dominion Energy had purchased $317 million of surety bonds, including $213 million at Virginia Power and $38 million related to entities held for sale, and authorized the issuance of letters of credit by financial institutions of $16 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. Indemnifications As part of commercial contract negotiations in the normal course of business, the Companies may sometimes agree to make payments to compensate or indemnify other parties for possible future unfavorable financial consequences resulting from specified events. The specified events may involve an adverse judgment in a lawsuit or the imposition of additional taxes due to a change in tax law or interpretation of the tax law. The Companies are unable to develop an estimate of the maximum potential amount of any other future payments under these contracts because events that would obligate them have not yet occurred or, if any such event has occurred, they have not been notified of its occurrence. However, at December 31, 2023, the Companies believe any other future payments, if any, that could ultimately become payable under these contract provisions, would not have a material impact on their results of operations, cash flows or financial position. Charitable Commitments In 2020, Dominion Energy made unconditional promises to several charitable organizations, including to support its commitment to diversity and social justice through scholarship programs and donations to historically black colleges and universities. As a result, Dominion Energy recorded charges totaling $80 million in other income in its Consolidated Statements of Income for the year ended December 31, 2020. These commitments are to be funded at various intervals through 2028. Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets include $8 million and $32 million in other deferred credits and other liabilities at December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively and $6 million and $11 million in other current liabilities at December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration