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 for which the Companies cannot estimate a range of possible loss, 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 for which 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 financial position, liquidity or results of operations of the Companies.

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 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.

In December 2011, the EPA issued MATS for coal and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units. The rule establishes strict emission limits for mercury, particulate matter as a surrogate for toxic metals and hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid gases. The rule includes a limited use provision for oil-fired units with annual capacity factors under 8% that provides an exemption from emission limits, and allows compliance with operational work practice standards. Compliance was required by April 16, 2015, with certain limited exceptions. However, in June 2014, the VDEQ granted a one-year MATS compliance extension for two coal-fired units at Yorktown to defer planned retirements and allow for continued operation of the units to address reliability concerns while necessary electric transmission upgrades are being completed. Due to delays in transmission upgrades needed to maintain electric reliability, these coal units will need to continue operating until early 2017. Therefore, Virginia Power plans to request from the EPA an additional one year compliance extension under an EPA Administrative Order.

The EPA established CAIR with the intent to require significant reductions in SO₂ and NO_xemissions from electric generating facilities. In July 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a ruling vacating CAIR. In December 2008, the Court denied rehearing, but also issued a decision to remand CAIR to the EPA. In July 2011, the EPA issued a replacement rule for CAIR, called CSAPR, that required 28 states to reduce power plant emissions that cross state lines. CSAPR established new SO₂ and NO_xemissions cap and trade programs that were completely independent of the current ARP. Specifically, CSAPR required reductions in SO₂ and NO_x emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric generating units of 25 MW or more through annual NO_x emissions caps, NO_x emissions caps during the ozone season (May 1 through September 30) and annual SO₂ emission caps with differing requirements for two groups of affected states.

Following numerous petitions by industry participants for review and a successful motion for stay, in October 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered that the EPA's motion to lift the stay of CSAPR be granted. Further, the Court granted the EPA's request to shift the CSAPR compliance deadlines by three years, so that Phase 1 emissions budgets (which would have gone into effect in 2012 and 2013) will apply in 2015 and 2016, and Phase 2 emissions budgets will apply in 2017 and beyond. CSAPR replaced CAIR beginning in January 2015. The cost to comply is not expected to be material to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Future outcomes of any additional litigation and/or any action to issue a revised rule could affect the assessment regarding cost of compliance.

In May 2012, the EPA issued final designations for the 75-ppb ozone air quality standard. A number of the Companies' facilities are located in areas impacted by this standard. As part of the standard, states will be required to develop and implement plans to address sources emitting pollutants which contribute to the formation of ozone. In November 2014, the EPA issued a new proposal to revise the ozone standard and expects to finalize the rule in October 2015. The EPA is not expected to complete attainment designations for a new standard until 2017 and states will have until 2020 to develop plans to address the new standard. Until the states have developed implementation plans, the Companies are unable to predict whether or to what extent the new rules will ultimately require additional controls. However, if significant expenditures are required to implement additional controls, it could adversely affect the Companies' results of operations and cash flows.

In August 2010, the EPA issued revised National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. The rule was amended in March 2011 and January 2013. The rule establishes emission standards for control of hazardous air pollutants for engines at smaller facilities, known as area sources. As a result of these regulations, Dominion Gas installed emissions controls on several compressor engines. Dominion Gas has spent approximately $2 million to date and is evaluating further expenditures. Dominion Gas is unable to estimate the additional potential impacts on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows related to this matter.

In August 2012, the EPA issued the first NSPS impacting 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 volatile organic compound emissions for natural gas production wells, tanks, pneumatic controllers, and compressors in the upstream sector. Compliance with these rules is required for installations and wells constructed or reconstructed after August 23, 2011. The cost to comply with the NSPS will depend on the number of new wells and new equipment installations subject to the rule; therefore, Dominion Gas is unable to estimate the potential impacts on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows related to this matter.

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 and Virginia Power have 14 and 11 facilities, respectively, that may be subject to the final regulations. Dominion anticipates that it will have to install impingement control technologies at many of these stations that have once-through cooling systems. Dominion 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's 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 impacts for Virginia Power.

In September 2010, Millstone's NPDES permit was reissued under the CWA. The conditions of the permit require an evaluation of control technologies that could result in additional expenditures in the future. The report summarizing the results of the evaluation was submitted in August 2012 and is under review by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Dominion cannot currently predict the outcome of this review. In October 2010, the permit issuance was appealed to the state court by a private plaintiff. The permit is expected to remain in effect during the appeal. In February 2015, the NPDES permit renewal application was submitted to the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection along with a schedule to update the evaluation of control technologies consistent with the new federal 316(b) rule. Dominion is currently unable to make an estimate of the potential financial statement impacts related to this matter.

Solid and Hazardous Waste

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, Virginia Power, or Dominion 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. Each party can be held jointly, severally and strictly liable for the cleanup costs. These parties can also bring contribution actions against each other and seek reimbursement from their insurance companies. As a result, Dominion, Virginia Power, or Dominion 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. Except as noted below, the Companies do not believe this will have a material effect on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

In September 2011, the EPA issued a UAO to Virginia Power and 22 other parties, ordering specific remedial action of certain areas at the Ward Transformer Superfund site located in Raleigh, North Carolina. Virginia Power does not believe it is a liable party under CERCLA based on its alleged connection to the site. In November 2011, Virginia Power and a number of other parties notified the EPA that they are declining to undertake the work set forth in the UAO.

The EPA may seek to enforce a UAO in court pursuant to its enforcement authority under CERCLA, and may seek recovery of its costs in undertaking removal or remedial action. If the court determines that a respondent failed to comply with the UAO without sufficient cause, the EPA may also seek civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day for the violation and punitive damages of up to three times the costs incurred by the EPA as a result of the party's failure to comply with the UAO. Virginia Power is currently unable to make an estimate of the potential financial statement impacts related to the Ward Transformer matter.

Dominion has determined that it is associated with 17 former manufactured gas plant sites, three of which pertain to Virginia Power and 12 of which pertain to Dominion 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. 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 is conducting a state-approved post-closure groundwater monitoring program and an environmental land use restriction has been recorded. Another site has been accepted into a state-based voluntary remediation program. Virginia Power is currently evaluating the nature and extent of the contamination from this site as well as potential remedial options. Preliminary costs for options under evaluation for the site range from $1 million to $22 million. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the other sites, the Companies are unable to make an estimate of the potential financial statement impacts.

In April 2015, the EPA's final rule regulating the management of CCRs stored in impoundments (ash ponds) and landfills was published in the Federal Register. The final rule regulates CCR landfills, existing ash ponds that still receive and manage CCRs, and inactive ash ponds that do not receive, but still store CCRs. Virginia Power currently operates inactive ash ponds, existing ash ponds, and CCR landfills subject to the final rule at eight different facilities and is also evaluating other features at its facilities for potential applicability under the final CCR rule. The enactment of the final rule in April 2015 creates a legal obligation for 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. Virginia Power is evaluating the cost and timing of compliance under the final rule in order to establish applicable ARO balances in the second quarter of 2015, which could have a material impact to its financial position and cash flows. Virginia Power does not expect these AROs to have a significant impact on overall results of operations taking into consideration the ash pond related liability established in 2014 as described below, as well as the potential for mitigation through rate recovery mechanisms under the existing regulatory framework in Virginia.

Climate Change Legislation and Regulation

In October 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted petitions filed by several industry groups, states, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeking review of the D.C. Circuit Court's June 2012 decision upholding the EPA’s regulation of GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA's permitting programs. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA lacked the authority under the CAA to require PSD or Title V permits for stationary sources based solely on GHG emissions. However, the Court upheld the EPA’s ability to require BACT for GHG for sources that are otherwise subject to PSD or Title V permitting for conventional pollutants. In July 2014, the EPA issued a memorandum specifying that it will no longer apply or enforce federal regulations or EPA-approved PSD state implementation plan provisions that require new and modified stationary sources to obtain a PSD permit when GHGs are the only pollutant that would be emitted at levels that exceed the permitting thresholds. In addition, the EPA stated that it will continue to use the existing thresholds to apply to sources that are otherwise subject to PSD for conventional pollutants until it completes a new rulemaking either justifying and upholding those thresholds or setting new ones. Some states have issued interim guidance that follows the EPA guidance. Due to uncertainty regarding what additional actions states may take to amend their existing regulations and what action the EPA ultimately takes to address the court ruling under a new rulemaking, the Companies cannot predict the impact to their financial statements at this time.

In July 2011, the EPA signed a final rule deferring the need for PSD and Title V permitting for CO₂ emissions for biomass projects. This rule temporarily deferred for a period of up to three years the consideration of CO₂ 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. The deferral policy expired in July 2014. In July 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated this rule; however, a mandate making this decision effective has not been issued. Virginia Power converted three coal-fired generating stations, Altavista, Hopewell and Southampton, to biomass during the CO₂ deferral period. It is unclear how the court's decision or the EPA's final policy regarding the treatment of specific feedstock will affect biomass sources that were permitted during the deferral period; however, the expenditures to comply with any new requirements could be material to Dominion's and Virginia Power's financial statements.

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.

Appalachian Gateway

Following the completion of the Appalachian Gateway Project in 2012, DTI received multiple change order requests and other claims for additional payments from a pipeline contractor for the project. In July 2013, DTI filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia for breach of contract as well as accounting and declaratory relief. The contractor filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion to transfer venue to Pennsylvania and/or West Virginia, where the pipelines were constructed. DTI filed an opposition to the contractor’s motion in August 2013. In November 2013, the court granted the contractor’s motion on the basis that DTI must first comply with the dispute resolution process. Pursuant to the ruling, DTI intends to mediate the matter. This case is pending. DTI has accrued a liability of approximately $6 million for this matter. Dominion Gas cannot currently estimate additional financial statement impacts, but there could be a material impact to its financial condition and/or cash flows.

Ash Pond Closure Costs

In September 2014, Virginia Power received a notice from the SELC on behalf of the Potomac Riverkeeper and Sierra Club alleging CWA violations at Possum Point. The notice alleges unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater from Possum Point's historical and active ash storage facilities. A similar notice from the SELC on behalf of the Sierra Club was subsequently received related to Chesapeake. In December 2014, Virginia Power offered to close all of its coal ash ponds and landfills at Possum Point, Chesapeake and Bremo as settlement of the potential litigation. While the issue is open to potential further negotiations, the SELC declined the offer as presented in January 2015 and, in March 2015, filed a lawsuit related to its claims of the alleged CWA violations at Chesapeake. As a result of the settlement offer, Virginia Power recognized a charge of $121 million in other operations and maintenance expense in its Consolidated Statements of Income in the Companies' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014. Virginia Power expects to reverse this contingent liability and recognize the ARO in the second quarter of 2015 as described above, as the legal obligations created by the final CCR rule represent substantially the same activities contemplated by this settlement offer with respect to Possum Point, Chesapeake and Bremo. Any difference in measurement is not expected to be material to Virginia Power's results of operations.

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 INPO. Like other U.S. nuclear operators, Dominion 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 require 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. The orders require prompt implementation of the safety enhancements and completion of implementation within two refueling outages or by December 31, 2016, whichever comes first. Implementation of these enhancements is currently in progress. The information requests issued by the NRC request each reactor to reevaluate the seismic and 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. Dominion and Virginia Power do not currently expect that compliance with the NRC's March 2012 orders and information requests will materially impact their financial position, results of operations or cash flows during the approximately four-year implementation period. The NRC staff is evaluating the implementation of the longer-term Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations. Dominion and Virginia Power are currently unable to estimate the potential financial impacts related to compliance with Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations.

Guarantees, Surety Bonds and Letters of Credit

Dominion

At March 31, 2015, Dominion had issued $74 million of guarantees, primarily to support equity method investees. No significant amounts related to these guarantees have been recorded. As of March 31, 2015, Dominion’s exposure under these guarantees was $39 million, primarily related to certain reserve requirements associated with non-recourse financing.

Dominion also enters into guarantee arrangements on behalf of its consolidated subsidiaries, primarily to facilitate their commercial transactions with third parties. To the extent that a liability subject to a guarantee has been incurred by one of Dominion's consolidated subsidiaries, that liability is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements. Dominion 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 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 March 31, 2015, Dominion had issued the following subsidiary guarantees:



	Stated Limit		Value⁽¹⁾
(millions)
Subsidiary debt⁽²⁾	$	27	$	27
Commodity transactions⁽³⁾	2,816		1,075
Nuclear obligations⁽⁴⁾	199		79
Cove Point⁽⁵⁾	1,910		—
Solar⁽⁶⁾	531		171
Other⁽⁷⁾	528		36
Total	$	6,011	$	1,388


(1)	Represents the estimated portion of the guarantee's stated limit that is utilized as of March 31, 2015 based upon prevailing economic conditions and fact patterns specific to each guarantee arrangement. For those guarantees related to obligations that are recorded as liabilities by Dominion's subsidiaries, the value includes the recorded amount.


(2)	Guarantee of debt of a DEI subsidiary. In the event of default by the subsidiary, Dominion would be obligated to repay such amounts.

(3)

Guarantees related to commodity commitments of certain subsidiaries, including subsidiaries of Virginia Power, Dominion Gas and DEI. These guarantees were provided to counterparties in order to facilitate physical and financial transactions in gas, oil, electricity, pipeline capacity, transportation and related commodities and services. If any of these subsidiaries fail to perform or pay under the contracts and the counterparties seek performance or payment, Dominion would be obligated to satisfy such obligation. Dominion and its subsidiaries receive similar guarantees as collateral for credit extended to others. The value provided includes certain guarantees that do not have stated limits.

(4)

Guarantees related to certain DEI subsidiaries' potential retrospective premiums that could be assessed if there is a nuclear incident under Dominion's nuclear insurance programs and guarantees for a DEI subsidiary's and Virginia Power's commitment to buy nuclear fuel. Excludes Dominion's agreement to provide up to $150 million and $60 million to two DEI subsidiaries to pay the operating expenses of Millstone (in the event of a prolonged outage) and Kewaunee, respectively, as part of satisfying certain NRC requirements concerned with ensuring adequate funding for the operations of nuclear power stations. The agreement for Kewaunee also provides for funds through the completion of decommissioning.


(5)	Guarantees related to Cove Point, in support of terminal services, transportation and construction. Two of the guarantees have no stated limit, one guarantee has a $150 million limit, and one guarantee has a $1.75 billion aggregate limit with an annual draw limit of $175 million.


(6)	Includes guarantees to facilitate the development of solar projects including guarantees to support the issuance of full notice to proceed under EPC agreements. Includes certain guarantees that do not have stated limits. Also includes guarantees entered into by DEI on behalf of certain subsidiaries to facilitate the acquisition and development of solar projects.

(7)

Guarantees related to other miscellaneous contractual obligations such as leases, environmental obligations and construction projects. Also includes guarantees related to certain DEI subsidiaries' obligations for equity capital contributions and energy generation associated with Fowler Ridge and NedPower. As of March 31, 2015, Dominion's maximum remaining cumulative exposure under these equity funding agreements is $63 million through 2019 and its maximum annual future contributions could range from approximately $4 million to $19 million. The value provided includes certain guarantees that do not have stated limits.

Additionally, at March 31, 2015, Dominion had purchased $134 million of surety bonds, including $65 million at Virginia Power and $30 million at Dominion Gas, and authorized the issuance of letters of credit by financial institutions of $48 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.