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

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 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 power station to defer planned retirements and allow for continued operation of the units to address reliability concerns while necessary electric transmission upgrades are being completed. These coal units will need to continue operating until at least April 2017 due to delays in transmission upgrades needed to maintain electric reliability. Therefore, in October 2015, Virginia Power submitted a request to the EPA for an additional one year compliance extension under an EPA Administrative Order. The order was signed by the EPA in April 2016 allowing the Yorktown power station units to operate for up to one additional year, as required to maintain reliable power availability while transmission upgrades are being made.

In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the EPA failed to take cost into account when the agency first decided to regulate the emissions from coal- and oil-fired plants, and remanded the MATS rule back to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. However, the Supreme Court did not vacate or stay the effective date and implementation of the MATS rule. In November 2015, in response to the Supreme Court decision, the EPA proposed a supplemental finding that consideration of cost does not alter the agency’s previous conclusion that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units under Section 112 of the CAA. In December 2015, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued an order remanding the MATS rulemaking proceeding back to the EPA without setting aside judgment, noting that EPA had represented it was on track to issue a final finding regarding its consideration of cost. In April 2016, the EPA issued a final supplemental finding that consideration of costs does not alter its conclusion regarding appropriateness and necessity for the regulation. These actions do not change Virginia Power’s plans to close coal units at Yorktown power station by April 2017 or the need to complete necessary electricity transmission upgrades which are expected to be in service approximately 20 months following receipt of all required permits and approvals for construction. Since the MATS rule remains in effect and Dominion is complying with the requirements of the rule, Dominion does not expect any adverse impacts to its operations at this time.

CAIR

The EPA established CAIR with the intent to require significant reductions in SO₂ and NO_X emissions from electric generating facilities. In July 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 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_X emissions 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.

CSAPR

Following numerous petitions by industry participants for review and a successful motion for stay, in October 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 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) applied in 2015 and 2016, and Phase 2 emissions budgets will apply in 2017 and beyond. CSAPR replaced CAIR beginning in January 2015. In September 2016, the EPA issued a revision to CSAPR that reduces the ozone season NO_X emission budgets in 22 states beginning in 2017. The cost to comply with CSAPR, including the recent revision to the CSAPR ozone season NOx program, is not expected to be material to Dominion’s or Virginia Power’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

Ozone Standards

In October 2015, the EPA issued a final rule tightening the ozone standard, set in 2008, from 75-ppb to 70-ppb. To comply with the 2008 standard, in April 2016 Virginia Power submitted the NO_X Reasonable Available Control Technology analysis for Unit 5 at Possum Point power station. The EPA is expected to complete attainment designations for a new standard by December 2017 and states will have until 2020 or 2021 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.

NO_x and VOC Emissions

In April 2014, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued proposed regulations to reduce NO_X and VOC emissions from combustion sources. The regulations were finalized in April 2016. To comply with the regulations, Dominion Gas anticipates installing emission control systems on existing engines at several compressor stations in Pennsylvania. The compliance costs associated with engineering and installation of controls and compliance demonstration with the regulation are expected to be approximately $25 million.

NSPS

In August 2012, the EPA issued the first 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 September 2015, the EPA issued a proposed NSPS (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. The proposed regulation was finalized in June 2016. All projects which commenced construction after September 2015 will be required to comply with this regulation. Dominion and Dominion Gas are implementing the final regulation. Dominion and Dominion Gas are still evaluating whether potential impacts on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows related to this matter will be material.

Methane Emissions

In January 2015, as part of its Climate Action Plan, the EPA announced plans to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector including natural gas processing and transmission sources. In July 2015, the EPA announced the next generation of its voluntary Natural Gas STAR program, the Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program. The proposed program covers the entire natural gas sector from production to distribution, with more emphasis on transparency and increased reporting for both annual emissions and reductions achieved through implementation measures. In March 2016, Dominion and Dominion Questar joined the EPA as founding partners in this program for its distribution companies, East Ohio and Hope, DTI and Questar Gas. In September 2016, Dominion and Dominion Questar, prior to the Dominion Questar Combination, submitted implementation plans for participation in the Methane Challenge Program to the EPA.

In March 2016, as part of its Climate Action Plan, the EPA began development of regulations for reducing methane emissions from existing sources in the oil and natural gas sectors. In June 2016 and September 2016, the EPA issued a draft Information Collection Request to collect information on existing sources upstream of distribution in this sector. The final Information Collection Request is expected in the fourth quarter of 2016. Depending on the results of this Information Collection Request effort, the EPA may propose new regulations on existing sources. Dominion and Dominion Gas cannot currently estimate the potential impacts on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows related to this matter.

Climate Change Legislation and Regulation

In October 2013, the United States Supreme Court granted petitions filed by several industry groups, states, and the United States Chamber of Commerce seeking review of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit'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 United States 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 August 2015, the EPA published a final rule rescinding the requirement for all new and modified major sources to obtain permits based solely on their GHG emissions. 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. 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 CO₂ 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 financial statements.

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 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 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.

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 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. Virginia Power has eight facilities that may be subject to additional wastewater treatment requirements associated with the final rule. The expenditures to comply with these new requirements are expected to be material.

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 United States 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 United States 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. The Companies do not believe these matters 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, pursuant to CERCLA, ordering specific remedial action of certain areas at the Ward Transformer Superfund site located in Raleigh, North Carolina. In September 2016, the United States, on behalf of the EPA, lodged a proposed Remedial Design/Remedial Action Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, settling claims related to the site between the EPA and a number of parties, including Virginia Power. The Consent Decree identifies Virginia Power as a non-performing cash-out party to the settlement and, once approved by the court, would resolve Virginia Power’s alleged liability under CERCLA with respect to the site, including liability pursuant to the UAO. The ultimate outcome of this matter depends on the approval of the Consent Decree by the Court, and cannot be predicted at this time; however, this matter is not expected to have a material effect on Virginia Power.

Dominion has determined that it is associated with 19 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.

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.

Appalachian Gateway

Pipeline Contractor Litigation

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 United States District Court for the 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. In July 2015, the contractor filed a complaint against DTI in United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In August 2015, DTI filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion to transfer venue to Virginia. In March 2016, the Pennsylvania court granted the motion to dismiss and transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In April 2016, the Virginia court issued an order staying the proceedings and ordering mediation. A mediation occurred in May 2016 but was unsuccessful. In July 2016, DTI filed a motion to dismiss. This case is pending. DTI has accrued a liability of $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.

Gas Producers Litigation

In connection with the Appalachian Gateway project, Dominion Field Services, Inc. entered into contracts for firm purchase rights with a group of small gas producers. In June 2016, the gas producers filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia against Dominion, DTI and Dominion Field Services, Inc., among other defendants, claiming that the contracts are unenforceable and seeking compensatory and punitive damages. During the third quarter of 2016, Dominion, DTI and Dominion Field Services, Inc. were served with the complaint. Also in the third quarter of 2016, Dominion and DTI, with the consent of the other defendants, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. In October 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. This case is pending. Dominion and Dominion Gas cannot currently estimate financial statement impacts, but there could be a material impact to their financial condition and/or cash flows.

Ash Pond and Landfill Closure Costs

In September 2014, Virginia Power received a notice from the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of the Potomac Riverkeeper and Sierra Club alleging CWA violations at Possum Point power station. The notice alleges unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater from Possum Point power station’s historical and active ash storage facilities. A similar notice from the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of the Sierra Club was subsequently received related to Chesapeake power station. In December 2014, Virginia Power offered to close all of its coal ash ponds and landfills at Possum Point power station, Chesapeake and Bremo power stations as settlement of the potential litigation. While the issue is open to potential further negotiations, the Southern Environmental Law Center 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 power station. Virginia Power filed a motion to dismiss in April 2015, which was denied in November 2015. A trial was held in June 2016. This case is pending. As a result of the December 2014 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.

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. The enactment of the final rule in April 2015 created 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. In April 2016, the EPA announced a partial settlement with certain environmental and industry organizations that had challenged the final CCR rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As part of the settlement, certain exemptions included in the final rule for inactive ponds that closed by April 2018 will be removed, resulting in inactive ponds ultimately being subject to the same requirements as existing ponds. In June 2016, the court issued an order approving the settlement, which requires the EPA to modify provisions in the final CCR rule concerning inactive ponds. In August 2016, the EPA issued a final rule, effective October 2016, extending certain compliance deadlines in the final CCR rule for inactive ponds. Virginia Power does not believe these changes will substantially impact its closure plans for inactive ponds.

In 2015, Virginia Power recorded a $386 million ARO related to future ash pond and landfill closure costs. Recognition of the ARO also resulted in a $99 million incremental charge recorded in other operations and maintenance expense in its Consolidated Statement of Income, a $166 million increase in property, plant, and equipment associated with asset retirement costs, and a $121 million reduction in other noncurrent liabilities related to reversal of the contingent liability described above since the ARO obligation created by the final CCR rule represents similar activities. Virginia Power is in the process of obtaining the necessary permits to complete the work. In February and March 2016, respectively, two parties filed administrative appeals in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond challenging certain provisions, relating to ash pond dewatering activities, of Possum Point power station’s wastewater discharge permit issued by the VDEQ in January 2016. One of those parties withdrew its appeal in June 2016. In November 2016, the court dismissed the remaining appeal. The actual AROs related to the CCR rule may vary substantially from the estimates used to record the increased obligation in 2015.

Cove Point

Dominion is constructing the Liquefaction Project at the Cove Point facility, which would enable the facility to liquefy domestically-produced natural gas and export it as LNG. In September 2014, FERC issued an order granting authorization for Cove Point to construct, modify and operate the Liquefaction Project. In October 2014, several parties filed a motion with FERC to stay the order and requested rehearing. In May 2015, FERC denied the requests for stay and rehearing.

Two parties have separately filed petitions for review of the FERC order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which petitions were consolidated. Separately, one party requested a stay of the FERC order until the judicial proceedings are complete, which the court denied in June 2015. In July 2016, the court denied one party’s petition for review of the FERC order authorizing the Liquefaction Project. The court also issued a decision remanding the other party’s petition for review of the FERC order to FERC for further explanation of FERC’s decision that a previous transaction with an existing import shipper was not unduly discriminatory. Cove Point believes that on remand FERC will be able to justify its decision.

In September 2013, the DOE granted Non-FTA Authorization approval for the export of up to 0.77 bcfe/day of natural gas to countries that do not have an FTA for trade in natural gas. In June 2016, a party filed a petition for review of this approval in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This case is pending.

FERC

The FERC staff in the Office of Enforcement, Division of Investigations, is conducting 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. The 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 has provided its response to the FERC staff's preliminary findings letter explaining why Virginia Power's conduct was lawful and refuting any allegation of wrongdoing. Virginia Power is cooperating fully with the investigation; however, it cannot currently predict whether or to what extent it may incur a material liability.

Greensville County

Virginia Power is constructing Greensville County and related transmission interconnection facilities. In July 2016, the Sierra Club filed an administrative appeal in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond challenging certain provisions in Greensville County’s PSD air permit issued by VDEQ in June 2016. Virginia Power is currently unable to make an estimate of the potential impacts to its consolidated financial statements related to this matter.

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 United States 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 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 and external flooding hazards is expected to continue through 2018. Dominion 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 and Virginia Power do not expect material financial impacts related to compliance with Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations.

Guarantees, Surety Bonds and Letters of Credit

Dominion

At September 30, 2016, Dominion had issued $73 million of guarantees, primarily to support equity method investees. No significant amounts related to these guarantees have been recorded. As of September 30, 2016, Dominion’s exposure under these guarantees was $43 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 September 30, 2016, Dominion had issued the following subsidiary guarantees:



	Stated Limit		Value⁽¹⁾
(millions)
Subsidiary debt⁽²⁾	$	27	$	27
Commodity transactions⁽³⁾	2,081		874
Nuclear obligations⁽⁴⁾	169		94
Cove Point⁽⁵⁾	1,900		—
Solar⁽⁶⁾	1,847		539
Other⁽⁷⁾	783		60
Total	$	6,807	$	1,594


(1)	Represents the estimated portion of the guarantee's stated limit that is utilized as of September 30, 2016 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 nuclear power station (in the event of a prolonged outage) and Kewaunee nuclear power station, respectively, as part of satisfying certain NRC requirements concerned with ensuring adequate funding for the operations of nuclear power stations. The agreement for Kewaunee nuclear power station 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 related to solar projects including guarantees that do not have stated limits. Also includes guarantees related to solar projects entered into by DEI on behalf of certain subsidiaries.

(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 September 30, 2016, Dominion's maximum remaining cumulative exposure under these equity funding agreements is $36 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 September 30, 2016, Dominion had purchased $147 million of surety bonds, including $70 million at Virginia Power and $21 million at Dominion Gas, and authorized the issuance of letters of credit by financial institutions of $60 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.