Regulatory Matters

Regulatory Matters Involving Potential Loss Contingencies

As a result of issues generated in the ordinary course of business, the Companies 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 the Companies’ 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, CAISO and ISO-NE wholesale markets, and to wholesale purchasers in the states of Tennessee, Georgia, California and Utah, 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, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation filed a complaint with FERC against Virginia Power claiming, among other issues, that the incremental costs of undergrounding certain transmission line projects were unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory or preferential and should be excluded from Virginia Power’s transmission formula rate. A settlement of the other issues raised in the complaint was approved by FERC in May 2012.

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 with loads outside Virginia to wholesale transmission customers with loads in Virginia. FERC determined that there was not sufficient evidence on the record to determine the magnitude of the underground increment and held a hearing to determine the appropriate amount of undergrounding cost to be allocated to each wholesale transmission customer in Virginia. While Virginia Power cannot predict the outcome of the hearing, it is not expected to have a material effect on results of operations.

PJM Transmission Rates

In April 2007, FERC issued an order regarding its transmission rate design for the allocation of costs among PJM transmission customers, including Virginia Power, for transmission service provided by PJM. For new PJM-planned transmission facilities that operate at or above 500 kV, FERC established a PJM regional rate design where customers pay according to each customer’s share of the region’s load. For recovery of costs of existing facilities, FERC approved the existing methodology whereby a customer pays the cost of facilities located in the same zone as the customer. A number of parties appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In August 2009, the court issued its decision affirming the FERC order with regard to the existing facilities, but remanded to FERC the issue of the cost allocation associated with the new facilities 500 kV and above for further consideration by FERC. On remand, FERC reaffirmed its earlier decision to allocate the costs of new facilities 500 kV and above according to the customer’s share of the region’s load. A number of parties filed appeals of the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In June 2014, the court again remanded the cost allocation issue to FERC. In December 2014, FERC issued an order setting an evidentiary hearing and settlement proceeding regarding the cost allocation issue. The hearing only concerns the costs of new facilities approved by PJM prior to February 1, 2013. Transmission facilities approved after February 1, 2013 are allocated on a hybrid cost allocation method approved by FERC and not subject to any court review.

In June 2016, PJM, the PJM transmission owners and state commissions representing substantially all of the load in the PJM market submitted a settlement to FERC to resolve the outstanding issues regarding this matter. Under the terms of the settlement, Virginia Power would be required to pay approximately $200 million to PJM over the next 10 years. Although the settlement agreement has not been accepted by FERC, and the settlement is opposed by a small group of parties to the proceeding, Virginia Power believes it is probable it will be required to make payment as an outcome of the settlement. Accordingly, as of September 30, 2016, Virginia Power has recorded a contingent liability of $200 million in other deferred credits and other liabilities, which is offset by a $192 million regulatory asset for the amount that will be recovered through retail rates in Virginia. The remaining $8 million was recorded in other operations and maintenance expense in the Consolidated Statement of Income for the year ended December 31, 2015.

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 the Companies’ Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 and Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Companies’ Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2016 and June 30, 2016.

Virginia Regulation

Virginia Fuel Expenses

In May 2016, Virginia Power submitted its annual fuel factor to the Virginia Commission to recover an estimated $1.4 billion in Virginia jurisdictional projected fuel expenses for the rate year beginning July 1, 2016. Virginia Power’s proposed fuel rate represents a fuel revenue decrease of $286 million when applied to projected kilowatt-hour sales for the period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017. In October 2016, the Virginia Commission approved Virginia Power's proposed fuel rate.

Rate Adjustment Clauses

Below is a discussion of significant riders associated with various Virginia Power projects:


•	The Virginia Commission previously approved Rider BW in conjunction with Brunswick County. In October 2016, Virginia Power proposed a $134 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning September 1, 2017, which represents a $14 million increase over the previous year. This case is pending.


•	The Virginia Commission previously approved Rider US-2 in conjunction with the Scott Solar, Whitehouse, and Woodland solar facilities. In October 2016, Virginia Power proposed a $10 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning September 1, 2017, which represents a $6 million increase over the previous year. This case is pending.

•

The Virginia Commission previously approved Riders C1A and C2A in connection with cost recovery for DSM programs. In October 2016, Virginia Power proposed a total revenue requirement of $45 million for the rate year beginning July 1, 2017. Virginia Power also proposed two new energy efficiency programs for Virginia Commission approval with a requested five-year cost cap of $178 million for those programs. Virginia Power further proposed to extend an existing energy efficiency program for an additional two years under current funding, and an existing peak shaving program for an additional five years with an additional $5 million cost cap. This case is pending.

•

Virginia Power previously filed for Virginia Commission approval of a revised Rider U in conjunction with cost recovery to move certain electric distribution facilities underground as authorized by prior Virginia legislation. In August 2016, the Virginia Commission approved a net $20 million revenue requirement and a 9.6% ROE for the rate year beginning September 1, 2016, and an additional $2 million in credits for each of the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 rate years. The order limited the total investment in Phase One of Virginia Power’s proposed program to $140 million, with $123 million recoverable through Rider U.

Electric Transmission Project

Virginia Power previously filed an application with the Virginia Commission for a CPCN to construct and operate in Loudoun County, Virginia, a new approximately 230 kV Poland Road substation, and a new approximately four mile overhead 230 kV double circuit transmission line between the existing 230 kV Loudoun-Brambleton line and the Poland Road substation. In August 2016, the Virginia Commission granted a CPCN to construct and operate the project along a revised route.

North Anna

Virginia Power is considering the construction of a third nuclear unit at a site located at North Anna nuclear power station. 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. The COL is expected in 2017. Virginia Power has not yet committed to building a new nuclear unit at North Anna nuclear power station.

Requests by BREDL for a contested NRC hearing on Virginia Power’s COL application have been dismissed, and in September 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed with prejudice petitions for judicial review that BREDL and other organizations had filed challenging the NRC’s reliance on a rule generically assessing the environmental impacts of continued onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel in various licensing proceedings, including Virginia Power’s COL proceeding. This dismissal followed the Court’s June 2016 decision in New York v. NRC, upholding the NRC’s continued storage rule and August 2016 denial of requests for rehearing en banc. Therefore, the contested portion of the COL proceeding is closed. The NRC is required to conduct a hearing in all COL proceedings. This mandatory NRC hearing will be uncontested.

In August 2016, Virginia Power received a 60-day notice of intent to sue from the Sierra Club alleging Endangered Species Act violations. The notice alleges that the United States Army Corps of Engineers failed to conduct adequate environmental and consultation reviews, related to a potential third nuclear unit located at North Anna, prior to issuing a CWA section 404 permit to Virginia Power in September 2011. Virginia Power is currently unable to make an estimate of the potential impacts to its consolidated financial statements related to this matter.

North Carolina Regulation

In March 2016, Virginia Power filed its base rate case and schedules with the North Carolina Commission. Virginia Power proposed a non-fuel, base rate increase of $51 million effective November 1, 2016 with an ROE of 10.5%. In October 2016, Virginia Power entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement for a non-fuel, base rate increase of $35 million with an ROE of 9.9% effective November 1, 2016, on a temporary basis subject to refund, with any permanent rates ordered by the North Carolina Commission effective January 1, 2017. This case is pending.

In August 2016, Virginia Power submitted its annual filing to the North Carolina Commission to adjust the fuel component of its electric rates. Virginia Power proposed a total $36 million decrease to the fuel component of its electric rates for the rate year beginning January 1, 2017. This case is pending.

Ohio Regulation

PIR

In 2008, East Ohio began PIR, aimed at replacing approximately 25% of its pipeline system. In March 2015, East Ohio filed an application with the Ohio Commission requesting approval to extend the PIR program for an additional five years and to increase the annual capital investment, with corresponding increases in the annual rate-increase caps. In September 2016, the Ohio Commission approved a stipulation filed jointly by East Ohio and the Staff of the Ohio Commission to settle East Ohio’s pending application. As requested, the PIR Program and associated cost recovery will continue for another five-year term, calendar years 2017 through 2021, and East Ohio will be permitted to increase its annual capital expenditures to $200 million by 2018 and 3% per year thereafter subject to the cost recovery rate increase caps proposed by East Ohio. Costs associated with calendar year 2016 investment will be recovered under the existing terms.

PSMP

In November 2016, the Ohio Commission approved East Ohio’s request to defer the operation and maintenance costs associated with implementing PSMP of up to $15 million per year.

West Virginia Regulation

In May 2016, Hope filed a PREP application with the West Virginia Commission requesting approval of a projected capital investment for 2017 of $27 million as part of a total five-year projected capital investment of $152 million. In September 2016, Hope reached a settlement with all parties to the case agreeing to new PREP customer rates, for the year beginning November 1, 2016, that provide for projected revenue of $2 million related to capital investments of $20 million and $27 million for 2016 and 2017, respectively. In October 2016, the West Virginia Commission approved the settlement.

FERC - Gas

In August 2016, Dominion Gas received FERC authorization to construct and operate the Leidy South Project facilities. Service under the 20-year contracts is expected to commence in the fourth quarter of 2017. The project is expected to cost approximately $210 million and provide 155,000 Dths per day of firm transportation service from Clinton County, Pennsylvania to Loudoun County, Virginia.