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 Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Connecticut, Tennessee, Georgia, California and Utah, under Dominion’s market-based sales tariffs authorized by FERC or pursuant to FERC authority to sell as a qualified facility. 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 North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation filed a complaint with FERC against Virginia Power claiming that $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 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 December 31, 2016, Virginia Power has 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, during 2015, in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

Other Regulatory Matters

Electric Regulation in Virginia

The Regulation Act enacted in 2007 instituted a cost-of-service rate model, ending Virginia's planned transition to retail competition for electric supply service to most classes of customers.

The Regulation Act authorizes stand-alone rate adjustment clauses for recovery of costs for new generation projects, FERC-approved transmission costs, underground distribution lines, environmental compliance, conservation and energy efficiency programs and renewable energy programs, and also contains statutory provisions directing Virginia Power to file annual fuel cost recovery cases with the Virginia Commission. As amended, it provides for enhanced returns on capital expenditures on specific newly-proposed generation projects.

If the Virginia Commission's future rate decisions, including actions relating to Virginia Power's rate adjustment clause filings, differ materially from Virginia Power's expectations, it may adversely affect its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Regulation Act Legislation

In February 2015, the Virginia Governor signed legislation into law which will keep Virginia Power’s base rates unchanged until at least December 1, 2022. In addition, no biennial reviews will be conducted by the Virginia Commission for the five successive 12-month test periods beginning January 1, 2015, and ending December 31, 2019. The legislation states that Virginia Power’s 2015 biennial review, filed in March 2015, would proceed for the sole purpose of reviewing and determining whether any refunds are due to customers based on earnings performance for generation and distribution services during the 2013 and 2014 test periods. In addition the legislation requires the Virginia Commission to conduct proceedings in 2017 and 2019 to determine the utility’s ROE for use in connection with rate adjustment clauses and requires utilities to file integrated resource plans annually rather than biennially. In November 2015, the Virginia Commission ordered testimony, briefs and a separate bifurcated hearing in Virginia Power's then-pending Rider B, R, S, and W cases on whether the Virginia Commission can adjust the ROE applicable to these rate adjustment clauses prior to 2017. In February 2016, the Virginia Commission issued final orders in these cases, stating that it could adjust the ROE and setting a base ROE of 9.6% for the projects. After separate, additional bifurcated hearings, the Virginia Commission issued final orders setting base ROEs of 9.6% in March 2016 for Rider GV, in April 2016 for Riders C1A and C2A, in June 2016 for Riders BW and US-2, and in August 2016 for Rider U. In February 2017, the Virginia Commission issued final orders setting base ROEs of 9.4% for Riders B, R, S, W, and GV effective April 1, 2017.

In February 2016, certain industrial customers of APCo petitioned the Virginia Commission to issue a declaratory judgment that Virginia legislation enacted in 2015 keeping APCo's base rates unchanged until at least 2020 (and Virginia Power's base rates unchanged until at least 2022) is unconstitutional, and to require APCo to make biennial review filings in 2016 and 2018. Virginia Power intervened to support the constitutionality of this legislation. In July 2016, the Virginia Commission held in a divided opinion that this legislation is constitutional, and the industrial customers appealed this order to the Supreme Court of Virginia. In November 2016, the Supreme Court of Virginia granted the appeal as a matter of right and consolidated it for oral argument with other similar appeals from the Virginia Commission’s order. These appeals are pending.

2015 Biennial Review

Pursuant to the Regulation Act, in March 2015, Virginia Power filed its base rate case and schedules for the Virginia Commission’s 2015 biennial review of Virginia Power’s rates, terms and conditions. Per legislation enacted in February 2015, this biennial review was limited to reviewing Virginia Power’s earnings on rates for generation and distribution services for the combined 2013 and 2014 test period, and determining whether credits are due to customers in the event Virginia Power’s earnings exceeded the earnings band determined in the 2013 Biennial Review Order. In November 2015, the Virginia Commission issued the 2015 Biennial Review Order.

After deciding several contested regulatory earnings adjustments, the Virginia Commission ruled that Virginia Power earned on average an ROE of approximately 10.89% on its generation and distribution services for the combined 2013 and 2014 test periods. Because this ROE was more than 70 basis points above Virginia Power’s authorized ROE of 10.0%, the Virginia Commission ordered that approximately $20 million in excess earnings be credited to customer bills based on usage in 2013 and 2014 over a six-month period beginning within 60 days of the 2015 Biennial Review Order. Based upon 2015 legislation keeping Virginia Power’s base rates unchanged until at least December 1, 2022, the Virginia Commission did not order certain existing rate adjustment clauses to be combined with Virginia Power’s base rates. The Virginia Commission did not determine whether Virginia Power had a revenue deficiency or sufficiency when projecting the annual revenues generated by base rates to the revenues required to recover costs of service and earn a fair return. In December 2015, a group of large industrial customers filed notices of appeal with the Supreme Court of Virginia from both the 2015 Biennial Review Order and the Virginia Commission’s order denying their petition for rehearing or reconsideration. In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Virginia granted these appeals as a matter of right. Also in April 2016, the Attorney General filed an unopposed motion to suspend appellate briefing pending the outcome of a separate case at the Virginia Commission raising the same issues. In May 2016, the Supreme Court of Virginia denied the Attorney General’s unopposed motion to suspend briefing in the previously granted appeals from the Virginia Commission’s orders. The Supreme Court of Virginia later granted leave for the industrial customer appellants to withdraw their appeals, thus concluding this matter.

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 represented 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.

Solar Facility Projects

In February 2017, Virginia Power received approval from the Virginia Commission for a CPCN to construct and operate the Remington solar facility and related distribution interconnection facilities. The total estimated cost of the Remington solar facility is approximately $47 million, excluding financing costs. The facility is now the subject of a public-private partnership whereby the Commonwealth of Virginia, a non-jurisdictional customer, will compensate Virginia Power for the facility's net electrical energy output, and Microsoft Corporation will purchase all environmental attributes (including renewable energy certificates) generated by the facility. There is no rate adjustment clause associated with this CPCN, nor will any costs of the project be recovered from jurisdictional customers.

In October 2015, Virginia Power filed an application with the Virginia Commission for CPCNs to construct and operate the Scott Solar, Whitehouse, and Woodland solar facilities and related distribution-level interconnection facilities. Virginia Power also applied for approval of Rider US-2 to recover the costs of these projects. In June 2016, the Virginia Commission granted the requested CPCNs and approved a $4 million revenue requirement, subject to true-up on a cost-of-service basis using a 9.6% ROE for Rider US-2 for the rate year beginning September 1, 2016. These projects were placed into service in December 2016, and increased Dominion’s renewable generation by a combined 56 MW at a total cost of approximately $130 million, excluding financing costs. See below for further information on Rider US-2.

In August 2016, Virginia Power filed an application with the Virginia Commission for a CPCN to construct and operate the Oceana solar facility and related distribution interconnection facilities on land owned by the U.S. Navy. The facility would begin commercial operations in late 2017 and increase Dominion's renewable generation by approximately 18 MW at an estimated cost of approximately $40 million, excluding financing costs. The facility is the subject of a public-private partnership whereby the Commonwealth of Virginia, a non-jurisdictional customer, will compensate Virginia Power for the facility’s net electrical energy output. Virginia Power will retire renewable energy certificates on the Commonwealth's behalf in an amount equal to those generated by the facility. There is no rate adjustment clause associated with this CPCN filing, nor will any costs of the project be recovered from jurisdictional customers. This case is pending.

Rate Adjustment Clauses

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

•

The Virginia Commission previously approved Rider T1 concerning transmission rates. In May 2016, Virginia Power proposed a $639 million total revenue requirement for the rate year beginning September 1, 2016, which represents a $1 million increase over the revenues projected to be produced during the rate year under current rates. In July 2016, the Virginia Commission approved Virginia Power's proposed total revenue requirement.

•

The Virginia Commission previously approved Rider S in conjunction with the Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center. In February 2016, the Virginia Commission approved a $251 million revenue requirement, subject to true-up, for the rate year beginning April 1, 2016. It also established a 10.6% ROE for Rider S effective April 1, 2016. In June 2016, Virginia Power proposed a $254 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning April 1, 2017, which represents a $3 million increase over the previous year. In February 2017, the Virginia Commission established a 10.4% ROE for Rider S effective April 1, 2017. This case is pending.

•

The Virginia Commission previously approved Rider W in conjunction with Warren County. In February 2016, the Virginia Commission approved a $118 million revenue requirement, subject to true-up, for the rate year beginning April 1, 2016. It also established a 10.6% ROE for Rider W effective April 1, 2016. In June 2016, Virginia Power proposed a $126 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning April 1, 2017, which represents an $8 million increase over the previous year. In February 2017, the Virginia Commission established a 10.4% ROE for Rider W effective April 1, 2017. This case is pending.

•

The Virginia Commission previously approved Rider R in conjunction with Bear Garden. In February 2016, the Virginia Commission approved a $74 million revenue requirement, subject to true-up, for the rate year beginning April 1, 2016. It also established a 10.6% ROE for Rider R effective April 1, 2016. In June 2016, Virginia Power proposed a $75 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning April 1, 2017, which represents a $1 million increase over the previous year. In February 2017, the Virginia Commission established a 10.4% ROE for Rider R effective April 1, 2017. This case is pending.

•

The Virginia Commission previously approved Rider B in conjunction with the conversion of three power stations to biomass. In February 2016, the Virginia Commission approved a $30 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning April 1, 2016. It also established an 11.6% ROE for Rider B effective April 1, 2016. In June 2016, Virginia Power proposed a $28 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning April 1, 2017, which represents a $2 million decrease versus the previous year. In February 2017, the Virginia Commission established an 11.4% ROE for Rider B effective April 1, 2017. This case is pending.

•

The Virginia Commission previously approved 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 to offset approved revenue requirements for Phase One 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. In December 2016, Virginia Power proposed a total $31 million revenue requirement for Phase One and Phase Two costs for the rate year beginning September 1, 2017. Virginia Power’s estimated total investment in Phase Two is $110 million. This case is pending.

•

The Virginia Commission previously approved Riders C1A and C2A in connection with cost recovery for DSM programs. In April 2016, the Virginia Commission approved a $46 million revenue requirement, subject to true-up, for the rate year beginning May 1, 2016. It also established a 9.6% ROE for Riders C1A and C2A effective May 1, 2016. The Virginia Commission approved one new energy efficiency program at a reduced cost cap, denied a second energy efficiency program, and approved the extension of an existing peak shaving program recovered in base rates at no additional incremental cost. 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. 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.

•

The Virginia Commission previously approved Rider BW in conjunction with Brunswick County. In June 2016, the Virginia Commission approved a $119 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning September 1, 2016. It also established a 10.6% ROE for Rider BW effective September 1, 2016. In October 2016, Virginia Power proposed a $134 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning September 1, 2017, which represents a $15 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 June 2016, the Virginia Commission approved a $4 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning September 1, 2016. It also established a 9.6% ROE for Rider US-2 effective September 1, 2016. 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.

•

In July 2015, Virginia Power filed an application with the Virginia Commission for a CPCN to construct and operate Greensville County and related transmission interconnection facilities. Virginia Power also applied for approval of Rider GV to recover the costs of Greensville County. In March 2016, the Virginia Commission granted the requested CPCN and approved a $40 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning April 1, 2016. It also established a 9.6% ROE for Rider GV effective April 1, 2016. In June 2016, Virginia Power proposed an $89 million revenue requirement for the rate year beginning April 1, 2017, which represents a $49 million increase over the previous year. In February 2017, the Virginia Commission established a 9.4% ROE for Rider GV effective April 1, 2017. This matter is pending.

Electric Transmission Projects

In November 2013, the Virginia Commission issued an order granting Virginia Power a CPCN to construct approximately 7 miles of new overhead 500 kV transmission line from the existing Surry switching station in Surry County to a new Skiffes Creek switching station in James City County, and approximately 20 miles of new 230 kV transmission line in James City County, York County, and the City of Newport News from the proposed new Skiffes Creek switching station to Virginia Power’s existing Whealton substation in the City of Hampton. In February 2014, the Virginia Commission granted reconsideration requested by Virginia Power and issued an Order Amending Certificate. Several appeals were filed with the Supreme Court of Virginia. In April 2015, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued its opinion in the consolidated appeals of the Virginia Commission’s order granting a CPCN for the Skiffes Creek transmission line and related facilities. The Supreme Court of Virginia unanimously affirmed all but one of the alleged grounds for appeal. The court approved the proposed project including the proposed route for a 500 kV overhead transmission line from Surry to the Skiffes Creek switching station site. The court reversed and remanded the Virginia Commission’s determination in one set of appeals that the Skiffes Creek switching station was a transmission line for purposes of statutory exemption from local zoning ordinances. In May 2015, the Supreme Court of Virginia denied separate petitions filed by Virginia Power and the Virginia Commission to rehear its ruling regarding the Skiffes Creek switching station. Pending receipt of remaining required permits and approvals, Virginia Power expects to construct the 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. The total estimated cost of the project is approximately $55 million.

In November 2015, Virginia Power filed an application with the Virginia Commission for a CPCN to convert an existing transmission line to 230 kV in Prince William County, Virginia, and Loudoun County, Virginia, and to construct and operate a new approximately five mile overhead 230 kV double circuit transmission line between a tap point near the Gainesville substation and a new to-be-constructed Haymarket substation. The total estimated cost of the project is approximately $55 million. This case is pending.

In November 2015, Virginia Power filed an application with the Virginia Commission for a CPCN to construct and operate in multiple Virginia counties an approximately 38 mile overhead 230 kV transmission line between the Remington and Gordonsville substations, along with associated facilities. The total estimated cost of the project is approximately $105 million. This case is pending.

In February 2016, the Virginia Commission issued an order granting Virginia Power a CPCN to construct and operate the Remington CT-Warrenton 230 kV double circuit transmission line, the Vint Hill-Wheeler and Wheeler-Gainesville 230 kV lines and the 230 kV Vint Hill and Wheeler switching stations along Virginia Power’s proposed route. The total estimated cost of the project is approximately $110 million.

In March 2016, Virginia Power filed an application with the Virginia Commission for a CPCN to rebuild and operate in multiple Virginia counties approximately 33 miles of the existing 500 kV transmission line between the Cunningham switching station and the Dooms substation, along with associated station work. The total estimated cost of the project is approximately $60 million. This case is pending.

In August 2016, Virginia Power filed an application with the Virginia Commission for a CPCN to rebuild and operate in multiple Virginia counties approximately 28 miles of the existing 500 kV transmission line between the Carson switching station and a terminus located near the Rogers Road switching station under construction in Greensville County, Virginia, along with associated work at the Carson switching station. The total estimated cost of the project is approximately $55 million. This case is pending.

In January 2017, Virginia Power filed an application with the Virginia Commission for a CPCN to rebuild and rearrange its Idylwood substation in Fairfax County, Virginia. The total estimated cost of the project is approximately $110 million. This case is pending.

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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 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 is anticipated to occur in the first half of 2017 and 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 U.S. 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. No lawsuit has been filed and in November 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers suspended the section 404 permit while it gathers additional information. This permitting issue is not expected to affect the NRC’s issuance of the COL. 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. In December 2016, the North Carolina Commission approved the stipulation and settlement agreement.

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. In December 2016, the North Carolina Commission approved the requested decrease and an additional $1 million reduction to Virginia Power’s fuel rates.

Ohio Regulation

PIR Program

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.

In February 2016, East Ohio filed an application to adjust the PIR cost recovery for 2015 costs. The filing reflects gross plant investment for 2015 of $171 million, cumulative gross plant investment of $1 billion and a revenue requirement of $131 million. This application was approved by the Ohio Commission in April 2016.

AMR Program

In 2007, East Ohio began installing automated meter reading technology for its 1.2 million customers in Ohio. The AMR program approved by the Ohio Commission was completed in 2012. Although no further capital investment will be added, East Ohio is approved to recover depreciation, property taxes, carrying charges and a return until East Ohio has another rate case.

In February 2016, East Ohio filed an application to adjust the AMR cost recovery for costs incurred during the calendar year 2015. The filing reflects a revenue requirement of approximately $7 million. This application was approved by the Ohio Commission in April 2016.

PIPP Plus Program

Under the Ohio PIPP Plus Program, eligible customers can make reduced payments based on their ability to pay their bill. The difference between the customer’s total bill and the PIPP amount is deferred and collected under the PIPP Rider in accordance with the rules of the Ohio Commission. In July 2016, East Ohio’s annual update of the PIPP Rider was automatically approved by the Ohio Commission after a 45-day waiting period from the date of the filing. The revised rider rate reflects the recovery over the twelve-month period from July 2016 through June 2017 of projected deferred program costs of approximately $32 million from April 2016 through June 2017, net of a refund for over-recovery of accumulated arrearages of approximately $28 million as of March 31, 2016.

UEX Rider

East Ohio has approval for a UEX Rider through which it recovers the bad debt expense of most customers not participating in the PIPP Plus Program. The UEX Rider is adjusted annually to achieve dollar for dollar recovery of East Ohio’s actual write-offs of uncollectible amounts. In August 2016, the Ohio Commission approved an increase to East Ohio's UEX Rider, which reflects a refund of over-recovered accumulated bad debt expense of approximately $8 million as of March 31, 2016, and recovery of prospective net bad debt expense projected to total approximately $19 million for the twelve-month period from April 2016 to March 2017.

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 annual 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

Cove Point

In November 2016, pursuant to the terms of a previous settlement, Cove Point filed a general rate case for its FERC-jurisdictional services, with proposed rates to be effective January 1, 2017. Cove Point proposed an annual cost-of-service of approximately $140 million. In December 2016, FERC accepted a January 1, 2017 effective date for all proposed rates but five which were suspended to be effective June 1, 2017.