Regulatory Matters

Regulatory Matters Involving Potential Loss Contingencies

As a result of issues generated in the ordinary course of business, Dominion and Virginia Power are involved in various regulatory matters. Certain regulatory matters may ultimately result in a loss; however, as such matters are in an initial procedural phase, involve uncertainty as to the outcome of pending reviews or orders, and/or involve significant factual issues that need to be resolved, it is not possible for the Companies to estimate a range of possible loss. For 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 regulatory process such that the Companies are able to estimate a range of possible loss. For regulatory matters 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 estimated range is based on currently available information, involves elements of judgment and significant uncertainties and may not represent the Companies' maximum possible loss exposure. The circumstances of such regulatory matters will change from time to time and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. For current matters not specifically reported below, management does not anticipate that the outcome from such matters would have a material effect on Dominion's or Virginia Power's financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

FERC - Electric

Under the Federal Power Act, FERC regulates wholesale sales and transmission of electricity in interstate commerce by public utilities. Dominion's merchant generators sell electricity in the PJM, MISO and ISO-NE wholesale markets under Dominion's market-based sales tariffs authorized by FERC. Virginia Power purchases and, under its FERC market-based rate authority, sells electricity in the wholesale market. In addition, Virginia Power has FERC approval of a tariff to sell wholesale power at capped rates based on its embedded cost of generation. This cost-based sales tariff could be used to sell to loads within or outside Virginia Power's service territory. Any such sales would be voluntary.

Rates

In April 2008, FERC granted an application for Virginia Power's electric transmission operations to establish a forward-looking formula rate mechanism that updates transmission rates on an annual basis and approved an ROE of 11.4%, effective as of January 1, 2008. The formula rate is designed to recover the expected revenue requirement for each calendar year and is updated based on actual costs. The FERC-approved formula method, which is based on projected costs, allows Virginia Power to earn a current return on its growing investment in electric transmission infrastructure.

In March 2010, ODEC and NCEMC filed a complaint with FERC against Virginia Power claiming that approximately $223 million in transmission costs related to specific projects were unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory or preferential and should be excluded from Virginia Power's transmission formula rate. In October 2010, FERC issued an order dismissing the complaint in part and established hearings and settlement procedures on the remaining part of the complaint. In February 2012, Virginia Power submitted to FERC a settlement agreement to resolve all issues set for hearing. The settlement was accepted by FERC in May 2012 and provides for payment by Virginia Power to the transmission customer parties collectively of $250,000 per year for ten years and resolves all matters other than allocation of the incremental cost of certain underground transmission facilities.

In March 2014, FERC issued an order excluding from Virginia Power’s transmission rates for wholesale transmission customers located outside Virginia the incremental costs of undergrounding certain transmission line projects. FERC found it is not just and reasonable for non-Virginia wholesale transmission customers to be allocated the incremental costs of undergrounding the facilities because the projects are a direct result of Virginia legislation and Virginia Commission pilot programs intended to benefit the citizens of Virginia. The order is retroactively effective as of March 2010 and will cause the reallocation of the costs charged to wholesale transmission customers outside Virginia to wholesale transmission customers in Virginia. FERC determined that there was not sufficient evidence on the record to determine the magnitude of the underground increment and ordered a hearing to determine the appropriate amount of undergrounding cost to be allocated to each wholesale transmission customer in Virginia. The hearing is held in abeyance pending settlement proceedings ordered by FERC. While Virginia Power cannot predict the outcome of the hearing and settlement proceedings, it is not expected to have a material effect on results of operations.

Other Regulatory Matters

Other than the following matters, there have been no significant developments regarding the pending regulatory matters disclosed in Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Dominion's and Virginia Power's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013.

Virginia Regulation

Rate Adjustment Clauses

Below are developments to significant riders associated with various Virginia Power projects:


•	The Virginia Commission previously approved Rider B in conjunction with the conversion of three power stations to biomass. In February 2014, the Virginia Commission approved an approximately $15 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning April 1, 2014, which represents a $3 million increase to the revenue requirement over the previous year.


•	The Virginia Commission previously approved Rider S in conjunction with the Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center. In March 2014, the Virginia Commission approved an approximately $239 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning April 1, 2014, which represents a $9 million decrease to the revenue requirement versus the previous year.


•	The Virginia Commission previously approved Rider W in conjunction with Warren County. In February 2014, the Virginia Commission approved an approximately $98 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning April 1, 2014, which represents a $15 million increase to the revenue requirement over the previous year.

North Anna COL

Virginia Power is considering the construction of a third nuclear unit at a site located at North Anna. If Virginia Power decides to build a new unit, it must first receive a COL from the NRC, approval of the Virginia Commission and certain environmental permits and other approvals. In April 2013, Virginia Power decided to replace the reactor design previously selected for a potential unit with ESBWR technology. Virginia Power filed the first of its two-part amendment to the COL application with the NRC in July 2013 to reflect the ESBWR technology and filed the second part of the amendment in December 2013. The COL is expected in 2016. Virginia Power has not yet committed to building a new nuclear unit at North Anna.

In February 2014, BREDL filed a petition with NRC seeking to stay final decision making in the COL proceeding until a rulemaking petition filed by a number of environmental groups several weeks earlier is resolved. The suspension request and underlying petition for rulemaking are based on analyses of the consequences of a spent fuel pool fire, but none of the analyses relates specifically to the ESBWR design. Substantially identical suspension petitions and contentions were filed by various intervenor groups in other licensing proceedings pending before the NRC. In March 2014, BREDL filed a motion to reopen the COL proceeding on seismic issues under a previous ruling of the ASLB. No other issues were raised by BREDL in its filing. Virginia Power and the NRC Staff have filed answers opposing both the motion and petition.

North Anna and Offshore Wind Legislation

In April 2014, the Virginia Governor signed legislation into law that permits Virginia Power to recover 70% of the costs previously deferred or capitalized related to the development of a third nuclear unit located at North Anna and the development of offshore wind facilities through December 31, 2013 as part of the 2013 and 2014 base rates. Virginia Power has deferred or capitalized costs totaling $577 million for these projects as of December 31, 2013, substantially all of which relate to North Anna. For the portion of these previously deferred or capitalized costs allocable to customers in Virginia, Virginia Power will recognize 70% as a charge against net income in 2014. The remaining deferred or capitalized costs, as well as costs incurred after December 31, 2013, continue to be eligible for inclusion in a future rate adjustment clause. The legislation goes into effect July 1, 2014.

Ohio Regulation

PIR Program

In 2008, East Ohio began PIR, aimed at replacing approximately 20% of its pipeline. In February 2014, East Ohio filed an application with the Ohio Commission requesting approval to adjust the PIR cost recovery rates for 2013 costs. The application includes a gross plant investment for 2013 of $164 million, a cumulative gross plant investment of $674 million and an estimated revenue requirement of $89 million. This application was approved by the Ohio Commission in April 2014.

FERC Regulation

DTI Settlement

In mid-2013, DTI received concerns about its fuel retainage percentages and apparent over-recovery of fuel costs during certain time periods reflected in its annual fuel reports. In December 2013, DTI submitted for FERC approval of a stipulation and agreement addressing, among other things, reductions in its fuel retainage percentages and a rate moratorium through 2016. In February 2014, FERC approved the stipulation and agreement.

The revised fuel retainage percentages became effective January 1, 2014. DTI began assessing the reduced fuel retainage percentages on March 1, 2014, and as a result provided refunds totaling nearly $10 million. The refunds reflect, with interest, the value of the difference between the actual quantities of fuel retained for the months of January and February and the quantities that would have been retained using the reduced percentages. The reduction in fuel retention is expected to reduce DTI’s revenues by approximately $35 million in 2014.