Note 15. Commitments and Contingencies

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

Environmental Matters

The Companies are subject to costs resulting from a number of federal, state and local laws and regulations designed to protect human health and the environment. These laws and regulations affect future planning and existing operations. They can result in increased capital, operating and other costs as a result of compliance, remediation, containment and monitoring obligations.

Air

CAA

The CAA, as amended, is a comprehensive program utilizing a broad range of regulatory tools to protect and preserve the nation's air quality. At a minimum, states are required to establish regulatory programs to address all requirements of the CAA. However, states may choose to develop regulatory programs that are more restrictive. Many of the Companies' facilities are subject to the CAA's permitting and other requirements.

MATS

In December 2011, the EPA issued MATS for coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units. The rule establishes strict emission limits for mercury, particulate matter as a surrogate for toxic metals and hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid gases. The rule includes a limited use provision for oil-fired units with annual capacity factors under 8% that provides an exemption from emission limits, and allows compliance with operational work practice standards. Compliance was required by April 16, 2015, with certain limited exceptions. However, in June 2014, the VDEQ granted a one-year MATS compliance extension for two coal-fired units at Yorktown power station to defer planned retirements and allow for continued operation of the units to address reliability concerns while necessary electric transmission upgrades are being completed. These coal units needed to continue operating through at least April 2017 due to delays in transmission upgrades needed to maintain electric reliability. Therefore, in October 2015, Virginia Power submitted a request to the EPA for an additional one year compliance extension under an EPA Administrative Order. The order was signed by the EPA in April 2016 allowing the Yorktown power station units to operate for up to one additional year, as required to maintain reliable power availability while transmission upgrades are being made. Virginia Power ceased operating the coal units at Yorktown power station in April 2017 as planned.

In June 2017, the U.S. DOE issued an order to PJM to direct Dominion Energy to operate Yorktown power station’s Units 1 and 2 as needed to avoid reliability issues on the Virginia Peninsula. The order is effective for 90 days and can be reissued upon PJM’s request, if necessary, until required electricity transmission upgrades are completed approximately 18 to 20 months following receipt of final permits and approvals for construction in July 2017. In July 2017, the Sierra Club filed a motion for rehearing of the U.S. DOE order.

In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the EPA failed to take cost into account when the agency first decided to regulate the emissions from coal- and oil-fired plants, and remanded the MATS rule back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. However, the Supreme Court did not vacate or stay the effective date and implementation of the MATS rule. In November 2015, in response to the Supreme Court decision, the EPA proposed a supplemental finding that consideration of cost does not alter the agency’s previous conclusion that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units under Section 112 of the CAA. In December 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an order remanding the MATS rulemaking proceeding back to the EPA without setting aside judgment, noting that EPA had represented it was on track to issue a final finding regarding its consideration of cost. In April 2016, the EPA issued a final supplemental finding that consideration of costs does not alter its conclusion regarding appropriateness and necessity for the regulation. This regulation has been challenged in court. In April 2017, the EPA requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delay oral arguments in the case to allow agency review of the rule. Since the MATS rule remains in effect and Dominion Energy is complying with the requirements of the rule, Dominion Energy does not expect any adverse impacts to its operations at this time.

Ozone Standards

In October 2015, the EPA issued a final rule tightening the ozone standard from 75-ppb to 70-ppb. To comply with this standard, in April 2016 Virginia Power submitted the NO_X Reasonable Available Control Technology analysis for Unit 5 at Possum Point power station. In December 2016, the VDEQ determined that NO_X controls are required on Unit 5. Installation and operation of these NO_X controls including an associated water treatment system will be required by mid-2019 with an expected cost in the range of $25 million to $35 million.

The EPA is expected to complete attainment designations for a new standard by October 2018 and states will have until 2021 to develop plans to address the new standard. Until the states have developed implementation plans, the Companies are unable to predict whether or to what extent the new rules will ultimately require additional controls. However, if significant expenditures are required to implement additional controls, it could adversely affect the Companies’ results of operations and cash flows.

NSPS

In August 2012, the EPA issued the first NSPS impacting new and modified facilities in the natural gas production and gathering sectors and made revisions to the NSPS for natural gas processing and transmission facilities. These rules establish equipment performance specifications and emissions standards for control of VOC emissions for natural gas production wells, tanks, pneumatic controllers, and compressors in the upstream sector. In June 2016, the EPA issued a final 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 April 2017, the EPA issued a notice that it is reviewing and, if appropriate, will issue a rulemaking to suspend, revise or rescind the June 2016 final NSPS for certain oil and gas facilities. In June 2017, the EPA published notice of reconsideration and partial stay of the rule for 90 days and proposed extending the stay for two years. In July 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the 90-day stay. Dominion Energy and Dominion Energy Gas are implementing the final regulation. Dominion Energy and Dominion Energy Gas are still evaluating whether potential impacts on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows related to this matter will be material.

Climate Change Regulation

Carbon Regulations

In October 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted petitions filed by several industry groups, states, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeking review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s June 2012 decision upholding the EPA’s regulation of GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA’s permitting programs. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA lacked the authority under the CAA to require PSD or Title V permits for stationary sources based solely on GHG emissions. However, the Court upheld the EPA’s ability to require BACT for GHG for sources that are otherwise subject to PSD or Title V permitting for conventional pollutants. In August 2016, the EPA issued a draft rule proposing to reaffirm that a source’s obligation to obtain a PSD or Title V permit for GHGs is triggered only if such permitting requirements are first triggered by non-GHG, or conventional, pollutants that are regulated by the New Source Review program, and to set a significant emissions rate at 75,000 tons per year of CO₂ equivalent emissions under which a source would not be required to apply BACT for its GHG emissions. Until the EPA ultimately takes final action on this rulemaking, the Companies cannot predict the impact to their financial statements.

In July 2011, the EPA signed a final rule deferring the need for PSD and Title V permitting for CO₂ emissions for biomass projects. This rule temporarily deferred for a period of up to three years the consideration of CO₂ emissions from biomass projects when determining whether a stationary source meets the PSD and Title V applicability thresholds, including those for the application of BACT. The deferral policy expired in July 2014. In July 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated this rule; however, a mandate making this decision effective has not been issued. Virginia Power converted three coal-fired generating stations, Altavista, Hopewell and Southampton, to biomass during the CO₂ deferral period. It is unclear how the court's decision or the EPA's final policy regarding the treatment of specific feedstock will affect biomass sources that were permitted during the deferral period; however, the expenditures to comply with any new requirements could be material to Dominion Energy's and Virginia Power's financial statements.

Methane Emissions

In July 2015, the EPA announced the next generation of its voluntary Natural Gas STAR Program, the Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program. The program covers the entire natural gas sector from production to distribution, with more emphasis on transparency and increased reporting for both annual emissions and reductions achieved through implementation measures. In March 2016, East Ohio, Hope, DETI and Questar Gas (prior to the Dominion Energy Questar Combination) joined the EPA as founding partners in the new Methane Challenge program and submitted implementation plans in September 2016. DECG joined the EPA’s voluntary Natural Gas STAR Program in July 2016 and submitted an implementation plan in September 2016. Dominion Energy and Dominion Energy Gas do not expect the costs related to these programs to have a material impact on their results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

Water

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

In October 2014, the final regulations under Section 316(b) of the CWA that govern existing facilities and new units at existing facilities that employ a cooling water intake structure and that have flow levels exceeding a minimum threshold became effective. The rule establishes a national standard for impingement based on seven compliance options, but forgoes the creation of a single technology standard for entrainment. Instead, the EPA has delegated entrainment technology decisions to state regulators. State regulators are to make case-by-case entrainment technology determinations after an examination of five mandatory facility-specific factors, including a social cost-benefit test, and six optional facility-specific factors. The rule governs all electric generating stations with water withdrawals above two MGD, with a heightened entrainment analysis for those facilities over 125 MGD. Dominion Energy and Virginia Power have 14 and 11 facilities, respectively, that may be subject to the final regulations. Dominion Energy anticipates that it will have to install impingement control technologies at many of these stations that have once-through cooling systems. Dominion Energy and Virginia Power are currently evaluating the need or potential for entrainment controls under the final rule as these decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis after a thorough review of detailed biological, technology, cost and benefit studies. While the impacts of this rule could be material to Dominion Energy’s and Virginia Power’s results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory framework in Virginia provides rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for Virginia Power.

In September 2015, the EPA released a final rule to revise the Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Steam Electric Power Generating Category. The final rule establishes updated standards for wastewater discharges that apply primarily at coal and oil steam generating stations. Affected facilities are required to convert from wet to dry or closed cycle coal ash management, improve existing wastewater treatment systems and/or install new wastewater treatment technologies in order to meet the new discharge limits. Virginia Power has eight facilities that may be subject to additional wastewater treatment requirements associated with the final rule. 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 United States’ request for a stay of the pending consolidated litigation challenging the rule while the EPA addresses the petitions for reconsideration. While the impacts of this rule could be material to Dominion Energy’s and Virginia Power’s results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory framework in Virginia provides rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for Virginia Power.

Solid and Hazardous Waste

The CERCLA, as amended, provides for immediate response and removal actions coordinated by the EPA in the event of threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment and authorizes the U.S. government either to clean up sites at which hazardous substances have created actual or potential environmental hazards or to order persons responsible for the situation to do so. Under the CERCLA, as amended, generators and transporters of hazardous substances, as well as past and present owners and operators of contaminated sites, can be jointly, severally and strictly liable for the cost of cleanup. These potentially responsible parties can be ordered to perform a cleanup, be sued for costs associated with an EPA-directed cleanup, voluntarily settle with the U.S. government concerning their liability for cleanup costs, or voluntarily begin a site investigation and site remediation under state oversight.

From time to time, Dominion Energy, Virginia Power, or Dominion Energy Gas may be identified as a potentially responsible party to a Superfund site. The EPA (or a state) can either allow such a party to conduct and pay for a remedial investigation, feasibility study and remedial action or conduct the remedial investigation and action itself and then seek reimbursement from the potentially responsible parties. Each party can be held jointly, severally and strictly liable for the cleanup costs. These parties can also bring contribution actions against each other and seek reimbursement from their insurance companies. As a result, Dominion Energy, Virginia Power, or Dominion Energy Gas may be responsible for the costs of remedial investigation and actions under the Superfund law or other laws or regulations regarding the remediation of waste. The Companies do not believe these matters will have a material effect on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

Dominion Energy has determined that it is associated with 19 former manufactured gas plant sites, three of which pertain to Virginia Power and 12 of which pertain to Dominion Energy Gas. Studies conducted by other utilities at their former manufactured gas plant sites have indicated that those sites contain coal tar and other potentially harmful materials. None of the former sites with which the Companies are associated is under investigation by any state or federal environmental agency. At one of the former sites, Dominion Energy is conducting a state-approved post closure groundwater monitoring program and an environmental land use restriction has been recorded. Another site has been accepted into a state-based voluntary remediation program. Virginia Power is currently evaluating the nature and extent of the contamination from this site as well as potential remedial options. Preliminary costs for options under evaluation for the site range from $1 million to $22 million. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the other sites, the Companies are unable to make an estimate of the potential financial statement impacts.

See below for discussion on ash pond and landfill closure costs.

Other Legal Matters

The Companies are defendants in a number of lawsuits and claims involving unrelated incidents of property damage and personal injury. Due to the uncertainty surrounding these matters, the Companies are unable to make an estimate of the potential financial statement impacts; however, they could have a material impact on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

Appalachian Gateway

Pipeline Contractor Litigation

Following the completion of the Appalachian Gateway project in 2012, DETI received multiple change order requests and other claims for additional payments from a pipeline contractor for the project. In July 2013, DETI filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for breach of contract as well as accounting and declaratory relief. The contractor filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion to transfer venue to Pennsylvania and/or West Virginia, where the pipelines were constructed. DETI filed an opposition to the contractor’s motion in August 2013. In November 2013, the court granted the contractor’s motion on the basis that DETI must first comply with the dispute resolution process. In July 2015, the contractor filed a complaint against DETI in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In August 2015, DETI filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion to transfer venue to Virginia. In March 2016, the Pennsylvania court granted the motion to dismiss and transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In April 2016, the Virginia court issued an order staying the proceedings and ordering mediation. A mediation occurred in May 2016 but was unsuccessful. In July 2016, DETI filed a motion to dismiss. In March 2017, the court dismissed three of eight counts in the complaint. In May 2017, the contractor withdrew one of the counts in the complaint. This case is pending. DETI has accrued a liability of $6 million for this matter. Dominion Energy Gas cannot currently estimate additional financial statement impacts, but there could be a material impact to its financial condition and/or cash flows.

Gas Producers Litigation

In connection with the Appalachian Gateway project, Dominion Energy Field Services, Inc. (formerly known as Dominion Field Services, Inc.) entered into contracts for firm purchase rights with a group of small gas producers. In June 2016, certain of the gas producers filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia against Dominion Energy, DETI and Dominion Energy Field Services, Inc., among other defendants, claiming that the contracts are unenforceable and seeking compensatory and punitive damages. In the third quarter of 2016, Dominion Energy and DETI, with the consent of the other defendants, removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. In October 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. In February 2017, the U.S. District Court entered an order remanding the matter to the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia. In March 2017, Dominion Energy was voluntarily dismissed from the case; however, DETI and Dominion Energy Field Services, Inc. remain parties to the matter. In April 2017, the case was transferred to the Business Court Division of West Virginia. This case is pending. Dominion Energy and Dominion Energy Gas cannot currently estimate financial statement impacts, but there could be a material impact to their financial condition and/or cash flows.

Ash Pond and Landfill Closure Costs

In September 2014, Virginia Power received a notice from the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of the Potomac Riverkeeper and Sierra Club alleging CWA violations at Possum Point power station. The notice alleges unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater from Possum Point power station’s historical and active ash storage facilities. A similar notice from the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of the Sierra Club was subsequently received related to Chesapeake power station. In December 2014, Virginia Power offered to close all of its coal ash ponds and landfills at Possum Point power station, Chesapeake and Bremo power stations as settlement of the potential litigation. The Southern Environmental Law Center declined the offer as presented in January 2015 and, in March 2015, filed a lawsuit related to its claims of the alleged CWA violations at Chesapeake power station. In March 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that impacted groundwater associated with the on-site coal ash storage units was migrating to adjacent surface water, which constituted an unpermitted point source discharge in violation of the CWA. The court, however, rejected Sierra Club’s claims that Virginia Power had violated specific conditions of its water discharge permit. Finding no harm to the environment, the court further declined to impose civil penalties or require excavation of the ash from the site as Sierra Club had sought. On remedy, the court ordered the parties to submit within 30 days a remedial plan (or separate plans) incorporating certain prescribed sediment, water and aquatic life monitoring. The court also ordered Virginia Power to reopen its solid waste permit application for closure of the coal ash storage units at Chesapeake power station. In April 2017, Virginia Power submitted its remedial plan to the court, which included a timetable for submitting a revised solid waste permit application to the VDEQ. The revised application will include a proposed remedial alternative to address groundwater impacts associated with coal ash storage at Chesapeake power station. Sierra Club submitted a separate remedial plan to the court. In July 2017, the court issued a final order requiring Virginia Power to perform additional specific sediment, water and aquatic life monitoring at and around the Chesapeake power station for a period of at least two years. The court further directed Virginia Power to apply for a solid waste permit that includes corrective measures to address on-site groundwater impacts. Also in July 2017, appeals of the court’s March 2017 order filed by Virginia Power and Sierra Club in April 2017 were dismissed as premature by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Virginia Power subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court’s July 2017 final order.

In April 2015, the EPA’s final rule regulating the management of CCRs stored in impoundments (ash ponds) and landfills was published in the Federal Register. The final rule regulates CCR landfills, existing ash ponds that still receive and manage CCRs, and inactive ash ponds that do not receive, but still store CCRs. Virginia Power currently operates inactive ash ponds, existing ash ponds, and CCR landfills subject to the final rule at eight different facilities. The enactment of the final rule in April 2015 created a legal obligation for Virginia Power to retrofit or close all of its inactive and existing ash ponds over a certain period of time, as well as perform required monitoring, corrective action, and post-closure care activities as necessary. In April 2016, the EPA announced a partial settlement with certain environmental and industry organizations that had challenged the final CCR rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. As part of the settlement, certain exemptions included in the final rule for inactive ponds that closed by April 2018 will be removed, resulting in inactive ponds ultimately being subject to the same requirements as existing ponds. In June 2016, the court issued an order approving the settlement, which requires the EPA to modify provisions in the final CCR rule concerning inactive ponds. In August 2016, the EPA issued a final rule, effective October 2016, extending certain compliance deadlines in the final CCR rule for inactive ponds. Virginia Power does not believe these changes will substantially impact its closure plans for inactive ponds.

In December 2016, the U.S. Congress passed and the President signed legislation that creates a framework for EPA- approved state CCR permit programs. Under this legislation, an approved state CCR permit program functions in lieu of the self-implementing Federal CCR rule. The legislation allows states more flexibility in developing permit programs to implement the environmental criteria in the CCR rule. It is unknown how long it will take for the EPA to develop the framework for state program approvals. The EPA has enforcement authority until these new CCR rules are in place and state programs are approved. The EPA and states with approved programs both will have authority to enforce CCR requirements under their respective rules and programs. Dominion Energy cannot forecast potential incremental impacts or costs related to existing coal ash sites until rules implementing the 2016 CCR legislation are in place.

In April 2017, the Governor of Virginia signed legislation into law that places a moratorium on the VDEQ issuing solid waste permits for closure of ash ponds at Virginia Power’s Bremo, Chesapeake, Chesterfield and Possum Point power stations until May 2018. The law also requires Virginia Power to conduct an assessment of closure alternatives for the ash ponds at these four stations, to include an evaluation of excavation for recycling or off-site disposal, surface and groundwater conditions and safety. The assessments are due by December 1, 2017. Virginia Power has initiated a third-party evaluation of closure alternatives consistent with the legislation and is unable to estimate the potential financial statement impacts. The actual AROs related to the CCR rule may vary substantially from the estimates used to record the obligation.

Cove Point

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

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

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

In July 2017, Cove Point submitted an application for a temporary operating permit to the Maryland Department of the Environment, as required prior to the date of first production of LNG for commercial purposes of exporting LNG. This case is pending.

FERC

FERC staff in the Office of Enforcement, Division of Investigations, is conducting a non-public investigation of Virginia Power's offers of combustion turbines generators into the PJM day-ahead markets from April 2010 through September 2014. FERC staff notified Virginia Power of its preliminary findings relating to Virginia Power's alleged violation of FERC's rules in connection with these activities. Virginia Power has provided its response to FERC staff's preliminary findings letter explaining why Virginia Power's conduct was lawful and refuting any allegation of wrongdoing. Virginia Power is cooperating fully with the investigation; however, it cannot currently predict whether or to what extent it may incur a material liability.

Greensville County

Virginia Power is constructing Greensville County and related transmission interconnection facilities. In August 2016, the Sierra Club filed an administrative appeal in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond challenging certain provisions in Greensville County’s PSD air permit issued by the VDEQ in June 2016. In August 2017, the Circuit Court upheld the air permit. The Sierra Club has until late August to appeal the decision. Virginia Power is currently unable to make an estimate of the potential impacts to its consolidated financial statements related to this matter.

Nuclear Matters

In March 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami caused significant damage at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in northeast Japan. These events have resulted in significant nuclear safety reviews required by the NRC and industry groups such as the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. Like other U.S. nuclear operators, Dominion Energy has been gathering supporting data and participating in industry initiatives focused on the ability to respond to and mitigate the consequences of design-basis and beyond-design-basis events at its stations.

In July 2011, an NRC task force provided initial recommendations based on its review of the Fukushima Daiichi accident and in October 2011 the NRC staff prioritized these recommendations into Tiers 1, 2 and 3, with the Tier 1 recommendations consisting of actions which the staff determined should be started without unnecessary delay. In December 2011, the NRC Commissioners approved the agency staff's prioritization and recommendations, and that same month an appropriations act directed the NRC to require reevaluation of external hazards (not limited to seismic and flooding hazards) as soon as possible.

Based on the prioritized recommendations, in March 2012, the NRC issued orders and information requests requiring specific reviews and actions to all operating reactors, construction permit holders and combined license holders based on the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi event. The orders applicable to Dominion Energy requiring implementation of safety enhancements related to mitigation strategies to respond to extreme natural events resulting in the loss of power at plants, and enhancing spent fuel pool instrumentation have been implemented. The information requests issued by the NRC request each reactor to reevaluate the seismic and external flooding hazards at their site using present-day methods and information, conduct walkdowns of their facilities to ensure protection against the hazards in their current design basis, and to reevaluate their emergency communications systems and staffing levels. The walkdowns of each unit have been completed, audited by the NRC and found to be adequate. Reevaluation of the emergency communications systems and staffing levels was completed as part of the effort to comply with the orders. Reevaluation of the seismic and external flooding hazards is expected to continue through 2018. Dominion Energy and Virginia Power do not currently expect that compliance with the NRC's information requests will materially impact their financial position, results of operations or cash flows during the implementation period. The NRC staff is evaluating the implementation of the longer term Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations. Dominion Energy and Virginia Power do not expect material financial impacts related to compliance with Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations.

Guarantees, Surety Bonds and Letters of Credit

Dominion Energy

At June 30, 2017, Dominion Energy had issued $48 million of guarantees, primarily to support equity method investees. No significant amounts related to these 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 June 30, 2017, Dominion Energy had issued the following subsidiary guarantees:

	Maximum Exposure
(millions)
Commodity transactions⁽¹⁾	$	1,934
Nuclear obligations⁽²⁾		227
Cove Point⁽³⁾		1,900
Solar⁽⁴⁾		1,054
Other⁽⁵⁾		543
Total⁽⁶⁾	$	5,658

(1)	Guarantees related to commodity commitments of certain subsidiaries. These guarantees were provided to counterparties in order to facilitate physical and financial transaction-related commodities and services.

(2)	Guarantees related to certain DGI subsidiaries regarding all aspects of running a nuclear facility.

(3)	Guarantees related to Cove Point, in support of terminal services, transportation and construction.

(4)	Includes guarantees to facilitate the development of solar projects. Also includes guarantees entered into by DGI on behalf of certain subsidiaries to facilitate the acquisition and development of solar projects.

(5)

Guarantees related to other miscellaneous contractual obligations such as leases, environmental obligations, construction projects and insurance programs. Due to the uncertainty of workers’ compensation claims, the parental guarantee has no stated limit. Also included are guarantees related to certain DGI subsidiaries' obligations for equity capital contributions and energy generation associated with Fowler Ridge and NedPower. As of June 30, 2017, Dominion Energy's maximum remaining cumulative exposure under these equity funding agreements is $26 million through 2019 and its maximum annual future contributions could range from approximately $4 million to $19 million.

(6)	Excludes Dominion Energy's guarantee for the construction of a new corporate office property as discussed in Note 22 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Companies' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Additionally, at June 30, 2017, Dominion Energy had purchased $140 million of surety bonds, including $63 million at Virginia Power and $22 million at Dominion Energy Gas, and authorized the issuance of letters of credit by financial institutions of $72 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.