As a result of issues generated in the ordinary course of business, the Companies are involved in legal proceedings before various courts and are periodically subject to governmental examinations (including by regulatory authorities), inquiries and investigations. Certain legal proceedings and governmental examinations involve demands for unspecified amounts of damages, are in an initial procedural phase, involve uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, or involve significant factual issues that need to be resolved, such that it is not possible for the Companies to estimate a range of possible loss. For such matters that the Companies cannot estimate, a statement to this effect is made in the description of the matter. Other matters may have progressed sufficiently through the litigation or investigative processes such that the Companies are able to estimate a range of possible loss. For legal proceedings and governmental examinations that the Companies are able to reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, an estimated range of possible loss is provided, in excess of the accrued liability (if any) for such matters. Any accrued liability is recorded on a gross basis with a receivable also recorded for any probable insurance recoveries. Estimated ranges of loss are inclusive of legal fees and net of any anticipated insurance recoveries. Any estimated range is based on currently available information and involves elements of judgment and significant uncertainties. Any estimated range of possible loss may not represent the Companies’ maximum possible loss exposure. The circumstances of such legal proceedings and governmental examinations will change from time to time and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. For current proceedings not specifically reported below, management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, arising from such proceedings would have a material effect on the Companies’ financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

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.

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 February 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule to reverse its previous finding that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutant emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric generating units. In May 2020, the EPA’s final rule became effective. The final rule is consistent with the EPA’s February 2019 proposal, and determines that it is not appropriate and necessary to regulate mercury and hazardous air pollutant emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric generating units. The final rule also states that the MATS rule remains in place and the emissions standards for affected coal- and oil-fired electric generating units will not change. The Companies are complying with the applicable requirements of the rule and do not expect any impacts to their operations.

The EPA published final non-attainment designations for the October 2015 ozone standard in June 2018. States have until August 2021 to develop plans to address the new standard. Until the states have developed implementation plans for the standard, the Companies are unable to predict whether or to what extent the new rules will ultimately require additional controls. The expenditures required to implement additional controls could have a material impact on the Companies’ results of operations and cash flows.

In August 2012, the EPA issued an NSPS impacting new and modified facilities in the natural gas production and gathering sectors and made revisions to the NSPS for natural gas processing and transmission facilities. These rules establish equipment performance specifications and emissions standards for control of VOC emissions for natural gas production wells, tanks, pneumatic controllers and compressors in the upstream sector. In June 2016, the EPA issued another NSPS regulation, for the oil and natural gas sector, to regulate methane and VOC emissions from new and modified facilities in transmission and storage, gathering and boosting, production and processing facilities. All projects which commenced construction after September 2015 are required to comply with this regulation. In October 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule reconsidering and amending portions of the 2016 rule, including but not limited to, the fugitive emissions requirements at well sites and compressor stations. The amended portions of the 2016 rule were effective immediately upon publication. In August 2020, the EPA issued two final amendments related to the reconsideration of the NSPS for the oil and natural gas sector applicable to VOC and methane emissions. Together, the two amendments have the effect of rescinding both the methane portion of the NSPS for all segments of the oil and natural gas sector, rescinding all NSPS for the transmission and storage segment, and modifying some of the NSPS VOC requirements for facilities in the production and processing segments. The two amendments have been challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit but remain in effect pending the outcome of the litigation. Dominion Energy is still evaluating whether potential impacts on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows related to this matter will be material.

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 applies to existing coal-fired power plants. The final rule includes unit-specific performance standards based on the degree of emission reduction levels achievable from unit efficiency improvements to be determined by the permitting agency. The ACE Rule requires states to develop plans by July 2022, to implement these performance standards. These state plans must be approved by the EPA by January 2024. 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.

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 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 the best operating practices.

In May 2019, VDEQ issued a final rule establishing a state carbon regulation program with a 28.0 million ton initial state-wide carbon cap in 2020. The cap was to be reduced by approximately three percent per year through 2030, resulting in an ultimate cap of 19.6 million tons. The final rule included a provision for VDEQ to delay implementation of the rule pending authorization from the General Assembly and Governor of Virginia. In April 2020, Virginia legislation was enacted authorizing VDEQ to implement the final rule. In June 2020, the VDEQ signed the CO₂ Budget Trading Program rule outlining the requirements for Virginia’s direct participation in RGGI starting in 2021. As a result of joining RGGI in 2021, Virginia’s allotment of the regional cap was adjusted to approximately 27.1 million tons, although Virginia Power may purchase additional allowances from the secondary market and other states. The regulatory framework in Virginia provides rate recovery mechanisms that are expected to substantially mitigate any such impact.

The legislation discussed above is considered related legislation to the VCEA as discussed in Note 13. The VCEA institutes a mandatory renewable portfolio standard, enhances renewable generation and energy storage development, requires the retirement of certain generation facilities, establishes energy efficiency targets, expands net metering and directs Virginia’s participation in a market-based carbon trading program through 2050.

The CWA, as amended, is a comprehensive program requiring a broad range of regulatory tools including a permit program to authorize and regulate discharges to surface waters with strong enforcement mechanisms. The Companies must comply with applicable aspects of the CWA programs at their operating facilities.

In October 2014, the final regulations under Section 316(b) of the CWA that govern existing facilities and new units at existing facilities that employ a cooling water intake structure and that have flow levels exceeding a minimum threshold became effective. The rule establishes a national standard for impingement based on seven compliance options, but forgoes the creation of a single technology standard for entrainment. Instead, the EPA has delegated entrainment technology decisions to state regulators. State regulators are to make case-by-case entrainment technology determinations after an examination of five mandatory facility-specific factors, including a social cost-benefit test, and six optional facility-specific factors. The rule governs all electric generating stations with water withdrawals above two MGD, with a heightened entrainment analysis for those facilities over 125 MGD. Dominion Energy and Virginia Power currently have 13 and seven 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 six hydroelectric facilities, including one Virginia Power facility. Dominion Energy anticipates that it 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, technology, cost and 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.

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.

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 11 sites associated with Dominion Energy, including certain sites acquired in the SCANA Combination, remediation work has been substantially completed under federal or state oversight. Where required, the sites are following state-approved groundwater monitoring programs. Dominion Energy has proposed or expects to propose remediation plans associated with three sites, including one at Virginia Power, and expects to conduct remediation activities primarily by the end of 2021. At both September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, Dominion Energy and Virginia Power have $30 million and $16 million, respectively, of reserves recorded. In addition, for one site associated with Dominion Energy, an updated work plan submitted to SCDHEC in September 2018, would increase costs by approximately $11 million if approved by federal and state agencies. In September 2020, this plan was submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers. Dominion Energy is associated with 13 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.

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.

The following describes certain legal proceedings involving Dominion Energy, SCANA or DESC relating 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 September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019 include reserves of $228 million and $696 million, respectively, and insurance receivables of $8 million and $111 million, respectively, included within other receivables. During both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income include charges of $44 million ($33 million after-tax) included within impairment of assets and other charges. In addition, Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income for the nine months ended September 30, 2020 include charges of $25 million ($25 million after-tax) included within other income (expense). During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019, Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income include charges of $38 million ($28 million after-tax) and $316 million ($236 million after-tax), respectively, included within impairment of assets and other charges.

In May 2018, a consolidated complaint against DESC, SCANA and the State of South Carolina was filed in the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the DESC Ratepayer Case). In September 2018, the court certified this case as a class action. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that DESC was negligent and unjustly enriched, breached alleged fiduciary and contractual duties and committed fraud and misrepresentation in failing to properly manage the NND Project, and that DESC committed unfair trade practices and violated state anti-trust laws. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that DESC may not charge its customers for any past or continuing costs of the NND Project, sought to have SCANA and DESC’s assets frozen and all monies recovered from Toshiba Corporation and other sources be placed in a constructive trust for the benefit of ratepayers and sought specific performance of the alleged implied contract to construct the NND Project.

In December 2018, the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County entered an order granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement and a stay of pre-trial proceedings in the DESC Ratepayer Case. The settlement agreement, contingent upon the closing of the SCANA Combination, provided that SCANA and DESC would establish an escrow account and proceeds from the escrow account would be distributed to the class members, after payment of certain taxes, attorneys' fees and other expenses and administrative costs. The escrow account would include (1) up to $2.0 billion, net of a credit of up to $2.0 billion in future electric bill relief, which would inure to the benefit of the escrow account in favor of class members over a period of time established by the South Carolina Commission in its order related to matters before the South Carolina Commission related to the NND Project, (2) a cash payment of $115 million and (3) the transfer of certain DESC-owned real estate or sales proceeds from the sale of such properties, which counsel for the DESC Ratepayer Class estimate to have an aggregate value between $60 million and $85 million. At the closing of the SCANA Combination, SCANA and DESC funded the cash payment portion of the escrow account. The court held a fairness hearing on the settlement in May 2019. In June 2019, the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, which order became effective July 2019. In July 2019, DESC transferred $117 million representing the cash payment, plus accrued interest, to the plaintiffs. Through August 2020, property, plant and equipment with a net recorded value of $27 million had been transferred to the plaintiffs in coordination with the court-appointed real estate trustee to satisfy the settlement agreement. In September 2020, the court entered an order approving a final resolution of the transfer of real estate or sales proceeds with a cash contribution of $38.5 million by DESC and the conveyance of property, plant and equipment with a net recorded value of $3 million. In October 2020, DESC completed the conveyance of property, plant and equipment and funded this cash contribution.

In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, DESC, Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case). The allegations are substantially similar to those in the DESC Ratepayer Case. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants may not charge the purported class for reimbursement for past or future costs of the NND Project. In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including as additional named defendants, including certain then current and former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA. In June 2018, Santee Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. In December 2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC, which was denied. In October 2019, Santee Cooper voluntarily consented to stay its cross claims against DESC pending the outcome of the trial of the underlying case. In November 2019, DESC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. In December 2019, the plaintiffs and

Santee Cooper filed a motion to remand the case to state court. In January 2020, the case was remanded to state court. In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement relating to this matter as well as the Luquire Case and the Glibowski Case described below. The settlement agreement provides that Dominion Energy and Santee Cooper will establish a fund for the benefit of class members in the amount of $520 million, of which Dominion Energy’s portion is $320 million of shares of Dominion Energy common stock. Also in March 2020, the court granted preliminary approval for the settlement agreement. In July 2020, the court issued a final approval of the settlement agreement. In September 2020, Dominion Energy issued $322 million of shares of Dominion Energy common stock to satisfy its obligation under the settlement agreement, including interest charges.

In July 2019, a similar purported class action was filed by certain Santee Cooper ratepayers against DESC, SCANA, Dominion Energy and former directors and officers of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Orangeburg, South Carolina (the Luquire Case). In August 2019, DESC, SCANA and Dominion Energy were voluntarily dismissed from the case. The claims are similar to the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case. In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement as described above relating to this matter as well as the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case and the Glibowski Case. This case was dismissed as part of the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case settlement described above.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and subsequently amended, against SCANA, DESC and certain former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (the Glibowski Case). The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCANA, DESC and the individual defendants participated in an unlawful racketeering enterprise in violation of RICO and conspired to violate RICO by fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate unlawful proceeds. The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement described previously contemplates dismissal of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case against DESC, SCANA and their officers. In August 2019, the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss. In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement as described above relating to this matter as well as the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case and the Luquire Case. This case was dismissed as part of the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case settlement described above.

In September 2017, a purported class action was filed against SCANA and certain former executive officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Subsequent additional purported class actions were separately filed against all or nearly all of these defendants (collectively the SCANA Securities Class Action). In January 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina consolidated these suits, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in March 2018. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants violated §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individually named defendants are liable under §20(a) of the same act. In June 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. In March 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. In December 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which SCANA will pay $192.5 million, up to $32.5 million of which can be satisfied through the issuance of shares of Dominion Energy common stock, subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. In February 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, pending a fairness hearing. In March 2020, SCANA funded an escrow account with $160 million in cash and the balance of the settlement will be paid upon final approval of the settlement by the court. In July 2020, the court granted final approval of the settlement agreement. In August 2020, SCANA paid the balance of $32.5 million in cash to satisfy the settlement.

In September 2017, a shareholder derivative action was filed against certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina. In September 2018, this action was consolidated with another action in the Business Court Pilot Program in Richland County. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by their gross mismanagement of the NND Project, and that the defendants were unjustly enriched by bonuses they were paid in connection with the project. 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. This case is pending.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA, Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County, South Carolina (the City of Warren Lawsuit). The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger agreement

that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin and/or rescind the merger. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In June 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County. Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was consolidated with a similar appeal in the Metzler Lawsuit discussed below. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order remanding the case to state court.

In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA and DESC in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina (the Metzler Lawsuit). The allegations made and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are substantially similar to that described for the City of Warren Lawsuit. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In August 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County. Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was consolidated with the City of Warren Lawsuit. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order remanding the case to state court.

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. 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. This case is pending.

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 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. This case is pending.

In August 2017, a case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of persons who were formerly employed at the NND Project. In July 2018, the court certified this case as a class action. In February 2019, certain of these plaintiffs filed an additional case, which case has been dismissed and the plaintiffs have joined the case filed August 2017. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that SCANA, DESC, Fluor Corporation and Fluor Enterprises, Inc. violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act in connection with the decision to stop construction at the NND Project. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to provide adequate advance written notice of their terminations of employment and are seeking damages, which could be as much as $100 million for 100% of the NND Project.

In September 2018, a case was filed in the State Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina by Fluor Enterprises, Inc. and Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc. against DESC and Santee Cooper. The plaintiffs make claims for indemnification, breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from, among other things, the defendants' alleged failure and refusal to defend and indemnify the Fluor defendants in the aforementioned case. These cases are pending.

In November 2017, Fairfield County filed a complaint and a motion for temporary injunction against DESC in the State Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina, making allegations of breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and unfair trade practices related to DESC’s termination of the FILOT agreement between DESC and Fairfield County related to the NND Project. The plaintiff sought a temporary and permanent injunction to prevent DESC from terminating the FILOT agreement. The plaintiff withdrew the motion for temporary injunction in December 2017. This case is pending.

In June 2018, DESC received a notice of proposed assessment of approximately $410 million, excluding interest, from the SCDOR following its audit of DESC’s sales and use tax returns for the periods September 1, 2008 through December 31, 2017. The proposed assessment, which includes 100% of the NND Project, is based on the SCDOR’s position that DESC’s sales and use tax exemption for the NND Project does not apply because the facility will not become operational. DESC has protested the proposed assessment, which remains pending.

In September and October 2017, SCANA was served with subpoenas issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina and the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement seeking documents related to the NND Project. In February 2020, the SEC filed a complaint against SCANA, two of its former executive officers and DESC in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina alleging that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements about the NND Project. In April 2020, SCANA and DESC reached an agreement in principle with the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement to settle, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint. The Staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement has not yet presented the proposed settlement to the SEC. The agreement in principle would, among other things, require SCANA to pay a civil monetary penalty totaling $25 million, and SCANA and DESC to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $112.5 million, which disgorgement and prejudgment interest amount will be deemed satisfied by the settlements in the SCANA Securities Class Action and the DESC Ratepayer Case. The proposed settlement is contingent on the review and approval of final documentation by SCANA, DESC and the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement and is subject to approval by the SEC and the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. In June 2020, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina filed a motion to intervene and stay the SEC civil action, which the court granted. The stay is currently in effect but does not preclude the SEC’s Division of Enforcement from presenting the proposed settlement with SCANA and DESC to the SEC. This matter is pending.

In addition, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is conducting a criminal investigation into the handling of the NND Project by SCANA and DESC. Dominion Energy is cooperating fully with the investigations by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, including responding to additional subpoenas and document requests. Dominion Energy has also entered into a cooperation agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office. The cooperation agreement provides that in consideration of its full cooperation with these investigations to the satisfaction of both agencies, neither such agency will criminally prosecute or bring any civil action against Dominion Energy or any of its current, previous, or future direct or indirect subsidiaries related to the NND Project. A former executive officer of SCANA entered a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office in June 2020 and entered a guilty plea with the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina in July 2020. These matters are pending.

In December 2018, arbitration proceedings commenced between DESC and Cameco Corporation related to a supply agreement signed in May 2008. This agreement provides the terms and conditions under which DESC agreed to purchase uranium hexafluoride from Cameco Corporation over a period from 2010 to 2020. Cameco Corporation alleges that DESC violated this agreement by failing to purchase the stated quantities of uranium hexafluoride for the 2017 and 2018 delivery years. DESC denies that it is in breach of the agreement and believes that it has reduced its purchase quantity within the terms of the agreement. This matter is pending.

DESC, for itself and as agent for Santee Cooper, entered into an engineering, construction and procurement contract with Westinghouse and WECTEC in 2008 for the design and construction of the NND Project, of which DESC’s ownership share is 55%. Various difficulties were encountered in connection with the project. The ability of Westinghouse and WECTEC to adhere to

established budgets and construction schedules was affected by many variables, including unanticipated difficulties encountered in connection with project engineering and the construction of project components, constrained financial resources of the contractors, regulatory, legal, training and construction processes associated with securing approvals, permits and licenses and necessary amendments to them within projected time frames, the availability of labor and materials at estimated costs and the efficiency of project labor. There were also contractor and supplier performance issues, difficulties in timely meeting critical regulatory requirements, contract disputes, and changes in key contractors or subcontractors. These matters preceded the filing for bankruptcy protection by Westinghouse and WECTEC in March 2017, and were the subject of comprehensive analyses performed by SCANA and Santee Cooper.

Based on the results of SCANA’s analysis, and in light of Santee Cooper's decision to suspend construction on the NND Project, in July 2017, SCANA determined to stop the construction of the units and to pursue recovery of costs incurred in connection with the construction under the abandonment provisions of the Base Load Review Act or through other means. This decision by SCANA became the focus of numerous legislative, regulatory and legal proceedings. Some of these proceedings remain unresolved and are described above.

In September 2017, DESC, for itself and as agent for Santee Cooper, filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York Proofs of Claim for unliquidated damages against each of Westinghouse and WECTEC. These Proofs of Claim were based upon the anticipatory repudiation and material breach by Westinghouse and WECTEC of the contract, and assert against Westinghouse and WECTEC any and all claims that are based thereon or that may be related thereto.

Westinghouse’s reorganization plan was confirmed by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and became effective in August 2018. In connection with the effectiveness of the reorganization plan, the contract associated with the NND Project was deemed rejected. DESC is contesting approximately $285 million of filed liens in Fairfield County, South Carolina. Most of these asserted liens are claims that relate to work performed by Westinghouse subcontractors before the Westinghouse bankruptcy, although some of them are claims arising from work performed after the Westinghouse bankruptcy.

Westinghouse has indicated that some unsecured creditors have sought or may seek amounts beyond what Westinghouse allocated when it submitted its reorganization plan to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. If any unsecured creditor is successful in its attempt to include its claim as part of the class of general unsecured creditors beyond the amounts in the bankruptcy reorganization plan allocated by Westinghouse, it is possible that the reorganization plan will not provide for payment in full or nearly in full to its pre-petition trade creditors. The shortfall could be significant.

DESC and Santee Cooper were responsible for amounts owed to Westinghouse for valid work performed by Westinghouse subcontractors on the NND Project after the Westinghouse bankruptcy filing until termination of the interim assessment agreement. In December 2019, DESC and Santee Cooper entered into a confidential settlement agreement with W Wind Down Co LLC resolving claims relating to the interim assessment agreement.

Further, some Westinghouse subcontractors who have made claims against Westinghouse in the bankruptcy proceeding also filed against DESC and Santee Cooper in South Carolina state court for damages. Many of these claimants have also asserted construction liens against the NND Project site. DESC also intends to oppose these claims and liens. With respect to claims of Westinghouse subcontractors, DESC believes there were sufficient amounts previously funded during the interim assessment agreement period to pay such validly asserted claims. With respect to the Westinghouse subcontractor claims which relate to other periods, DESC understands that such claims will be paid pursuant to Westinghouse’s confirmed bankruptcy reorganization plan. DESC further understands that the amounts paid under the plan may satisfy such claims in full. Therefore, DESC believes that the Westinghouse subcontractors may be paid substantially (and potentially in full) by Westinghouse. While Dominion Energy cannot be assured that it will not have any exposure on account of unpaid Westinghouse subcontractor claims, which DESC is presently disputing, Dominion Energy believes it is unlikely that it will be required to make payments on account of such claims.

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 resulted in significant nuclear safety reviews by the NRC and industry groups such as the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. Like other U.S. nuclear operators, Dominion Energy has gathered supporting data and participated 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. Tier 1 recommendations consisted of actions which the NRC staff determined should be started without unnecessary delay. Tier 2 and 3 items consisted of items which could not be

initiated in the near term because of resource restraints, the need for further technical assessment, or were dependent on activities related to the higher priority Tier 1 issues. 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 reactor licensees, construction permit holders and combined license holders based on the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi event. The orders applicable to Dominion Energy requiring implementation of safety enhancements related to mitigation strategies for responding 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 requested each reactor licensee to reevaluate the seismic and external flooding hazards at their facility using present-day methods and information, conduct walkdowns of their facility to ensure protection against these hazards in their current design basis, and to reevaluate their emergency communications systems and staffing levels. The walkdowns of each unit have been completed, audited by the NRC and found to be adequate. Reevaluation of the emergency communications systems and staffing levels was completed as part of the effort to comply with the orders. Reevaluation of the seismic hazards is complete and final with NRC acceptance received for all Dominion Energy facilities. Reevaluation of the external flooding hazards is complete for all Dominion Energy facilities. The NRC approved the external flooding hazards for Surry in May 2020 and Millstone in August 2020. The Companies 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 has resolved the Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations and no additional future actions on the part of Dominion Energy are anticipated with respect to these recommendations. Therefore, the Companies do not expect material financial impacts related to compliance with Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations.

During the second quarter of 2020, the total liability protection per nuclear incident available to all participants in the Secondary Financial Protection Program decreased from $13.9 billion to $13.8 billion. This decrease does not impact Dominion Energy’s responsibility per active unit under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988.

As discussed in Note 23 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Companies’ Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, 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.

In June 2018, a lawsuit for Kewaunee was filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for recovery of spent nuclear fuel storage costs incurred after 2013. In March 2019, Dominion Energy amended its filing for recovery of spent nuclear fuel storage to include costs incurred for the year ended December 31, 2018. This matter is pending.

Dominion Energy’s guarantee agreement to support a portion of Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s obligation under a revolving credit facility is described in Note 10. In addition, at September 30, 2020, Dominion Energy had issued an additional $10 million of guarantees, primarily to support third parties. No amounts related to the other guarantees have been recorded.

Dominion Energy also enters into guarantee arrangements on behalf of its consolidated subsidiaries, primarily to facilitate their commercial transactions with third parties. If any of these subsidiaries fail to perform or pay under the contracts and the counterparties seek performance or payment, Dominion Energy would be obligated to satisfy such obligation. To the extent that a liability subject to a guarantee has been incurred by one of Dominion Energy’s consolidated subsidiaries, that liability is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements. Dominion Energy is not required to recognize liabilities for guarantees issued on behalf of its subsidiaries unless it becomes probable that it will have to perform under the guarantees. Terms of the guarantees typically end once obligations have been paid. Dominion Energy currently believes it is unlikely that it would be required to perform or otherwise incur any losses associated with guarantees of its subsidiaries’ obligations.

At September 30, 2020, Dominion Energy had issued the following subsidiary guarantees:

	Maximum Exposure
(millions)
Commodity transactions⁽¹⁾	$	2,220
Nuclear obligations⁽²⁾		224
Cove Point⁽³⁾		1,900
Solar⁽⁴⁾		453
Other⁽⁵⁾		920
Total⁽⁶⁾	$	5,717

Additionally, at September 30, 2020, Dominion Energy had purchased $156 million of surety bonds, including $90 million at Virginia Power, and authorized the issuance of letters of credit by financial institutions of $96 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.