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

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

The CAA, as amended, is a comprehensive program utilizing a broad range of regulatory tools to protect and preserve the nation’s air quality. At a minimum, states are required to establish regulatory programs to meet applicable 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.

The EPA published final non-attainment designations for the October 2015 ozone standard in June 2018 with states required to develop plans to address the new standard. Certain states in which the Companies operate have developed plans, and had such plans approved or partially approved by the EPA, which are not expected to have a material impact on the Companies’ results of operations or cash flows. However, until implementation plans for the standard are developed and approved for all states in which the Companies operate, the Companies are unable to predict whether or to what extent the new rules will ultimately require additional controls. The expenditures required to implement additional controls could have a material impact on the Companies’ results of operations and cash flows.

In July 2019, the EPA published the final rule informally referred to as the ACE Rule, as a replacement for the Clean Power Plan. The ACE Rule regulated GHG emissions from existing coal-fired power plants pursuant to Section 111(d) of the CAA and required states to develop plans by July 2022 establishing unit-specific performance standards for existing coal-fired power plants. In January 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the ACE Rule and remanded it to the EPA. This decision would take effect upon issuance of the court’s mandate. In March 2021, the court issued a partial mandate vacating and remanding all parts of the ACE Rule except for the portion of the ACE Rule that repealed the Clean Power Plan. In October 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision on the ACE Rule. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit’s decision on the ACE Rule and remanded the case back to the D.C. Circuit. Until the case is resolved by the D.C. Circuit and/or the EPA issues new rulemaking, the Companies cannot predict an impact to its operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

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 exceed a significant emissions rate of 75,000 tons per year of CO₂ equivalent emissions. Until the EPA ultimately takes final action on this rulemaking, the Companies cannot predict the impact to their results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

In December 2018, the EPA proposed revised Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources. The proposed rule would amend the previous determination that the best system of emission reduction for newly constructed coal-fired steam generating units is no longer partial carbon capture and storage. Instead, the proposed revised best system of emission reduction for this source category is the most efficient demonstrated steam cycle (e.g., supercritical steam conditions for large units and subcritical steam conditions for small units) in combination with best operating practices. The proposed revision to the performance standards for coal-fired steam generating units remains pending. Until the EPA ultimately takes final action on this rulemaking, the Companies cannot predict the impact to their results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

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

In October 2014, the final regulations under Section 316(b) of the CWA that govern existing facilities and new units at existing facilities that employ a cooling water intake structure and that have flow levels exceeding a minimum threshold became effective. The rule establishes a national standard for impingement based on seven compliance options, but forgoes the creation of a single technology standard for entrainment. Instead, the EPA has delegated entrainment technology decisions to state regulators. State regulators are to make case-by-case entrainment technology determinations after an examination of five mandatory facility-specific factors, including a social cost-benefit test, and six optional facility-specific factors. The rule governs all electric generating stations with water withdrawals above two MGD, with a heightened entrainment analysis for those facilities over 125 MGD. Dominion Energy and Virginia Power currently have 15 and nine facilities, respectively, that are subject to the final regulations. Dominion Energy is also working with the EPA and state regulatory agencies to assess the applicability of Section 316(b) to eight hydroelectric facilities, including three Virginia Power facilities. The Companies anticipate that they may have to install impingement control technologies at certain of these stations that have once-through cooling systems. The Companies are currently evaluating the need or potential for entrainment controls under the final rule as these decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis after a thorough review of detailed biological, technological, and cost benefit studies. DESC is conducting studies and implementing plans as required by the rule to determine appropriate intake structure modifications at certain facilities to ensure compliance with this rule. While the impacts of this rule could be material to the Companies’ results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory frameworks in South Carolina and Virginia provide rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for the regulated electric utilities.

In September 2015, the EPA released a final rule to revise the Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Steam Electric Power Generating Category. The final rule established updated standards for wastewater discharges that apply primarily at coal and oil steam generating stations. Affected facilities are required to convert from wet to dry or closed cycle coal ash management, improve existing wastewater treatment systems and/or install new wastewater treatment technologies in order to meet the new discharge limits. In April 2017, the EPA granted two separate petitions for reconsideration of the Effluent Limitations Guidelines final rule and stayed future compliance dates in the rule. Also in April 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the EPA’s request for a stay of the pending consolidated litigation challenging the rule while the EPA addresses the petitions for reconsideration. In September 2017, the EPA signed a rule to postpone the earliest compliance dates for certain waste streams regulations in the Effluent Limitations Guidelines final rule from November 2018 to November 2020; however, the latest date for compliance for these regulations was December 2023. In October 2020, the EPA released the final rule that extends the latest dates for compliance. Individual facilities’ compliance dates will vary based on circumstances and the determination by state regulators and may range from 2021 to 2028. While the impacts of this rule could be material to the Companies’ results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory frameworks in South Carolina and Virginia provide rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for the regulated electric utilities.

The operations of the Companies are subject to a variety of state and federal laws and regulations governing the management and disposal of solid and hazardous waste, and release of hazardous substances associated with current and/or historical operations. The

CERCLA, as amended, and similar state laws, may impose joint, several and strict liability for cleanup on potentially responsible parties who owned, operated or arranged for disposal at facilities affected by a release of hazardous substances. In addition, many states have created programs to incentivize voluntary remediation of sites where historical releases of hazardous substances are identified and property owners or responsible parties decide to initiate cleanups.

From time to time, the Companies may be identified as a potentially responsible party in connection with the alleged release of hazardous substances or wastes at a site. Under applicable federal and state laws, the Companies could be responsible for costs associated with the investigation or remediation of impacted sites, or subject to contribution claims by other responsible parties for their costs incurred at such sites. The Companies also may identify, evaluate and remediate other potentially impacted sites under voluntary state programs. Remediation costs may be subject to reimbursement under the Companies’ insurance policies, rate recovery mechanisms, or both. Except as described below, the Companies do not believe these matters will have a material effect on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

Dominion Energy has determined that it is associated with former manufactured gas plant sites, including certain sites associated with Virginia Power. At 13 sites associated with Dominion Energy remediation work has been substantially completed under federal or state oversight. Where required, the sites are following state-approved groundwater monitoring programs. Dominion Energy commenced remediation activities at one site in the second quarter of 2022. In addition, Dominion Energy has proposed remediation plans with one site at Virginia Power and expects to commence remediation activities in 2023 depending on receipt of final permits and approvals. At June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, Dominion Energy had $52 million and $45 million, respectively, and Virginia Power had $25 million at both periods, of reserves recorded. Dominion Energy is associated with 12 additional sites, including two associated with Virginia Power, which are not under investigation by any state or federal environmental agency nor the subject of any current or proposed plans to perform remediation activities. Due to the uncertainty surrounding such sites, the Companies are unable to make an estimate of the potential financial statement impacts.

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

The following describes certain legal proceedings involving Dominion Energy, SCANA or DESC relating primarily to events occurring before closing of the SCANA Combination. In addition, certain legal matters which have been resolved are discussed in Note 23 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Companies’ Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021. No reference to, or disclosure of, any proceeding, item or matter described below shall be construed as an admission or indication that such proceeding, item or matter is material. For certain of these matters, and unless otherwise noted therein, Dominion Energy is unable to estimate a reasonable range of possible loss and the related financial statement impacts, but for any such matter there could be a material impact to its results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. For the matters for which Dominion Energy is able to reasonably estimate a probable loss, Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021 include reserves of $124 million and $274 million, respectively, included in other current liabilities, and insurance receivables of $68 million and $118 million, respectively, included within other receivables. These balances at June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021 include $68 million and $85 million, respectively, of offsetting reserves and insurance receivables related to personal injury or wrongful death cases which are currently pending. During both the three and six months ended June 30, 2022, charges included in Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income were inconsequential. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2021, Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income include charges of $40 million ($30 million after-tax) and $100 million ($75 million after-tax), respectively, included within impairment of assets and other charges.

In September 2017, a shareholder derivative action was filed against certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina (the State Court Derivative Case). In September 2018, this action was consolidated with another action in the Business Court Pilot Program in Richland County. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by their gross mismanagement of the NND Project, and that the defendants were unjustly enriched by bonuses they were paid in connection with the project. In January 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action. In February 2019, one action was voluntarily dismissed. In March 2020, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In April 2020, the defendants filed a notice of appeal with the South Carolina Court of Appeals and a petition with the Supreme Court of South Carolina seeking appellate review of the denial of the motion to dismiss. In June 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal with the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which was granted in July 2020. In August

2020, the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied the defendants’ petition seeking appellate review. Also in August 2020, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing with the South Carolina Court of Appeals relating to the July 2020 ruling by the court, which was denied in October 2020. In November 2020, SCANA filed a petition of certiorari with the Supreme Court of South Carolina seeking appellate review of the denial of SCANA’s motion to dismiss. This petition was denied in June 2021. Also in June 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle in the amount of $33 million to resolve this matter, subject to court approval. This settlement was reached in contemplation of and to be utilized to satisfy a portion of the Federal Court Merger Case and the State Court Merger Case discussed below. In November 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement and filed with the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina for approval. In June 2022, the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina issued final approval of the settlement agreement with the funds utilized to satisfy a portion of the State Court Merger Case as discussed below.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA, Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County, South Carolina (the City of Warren Lawsuit). The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin and/or rescind the merger.

In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA and DESC in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina (the Metzler Lawsuit). The allegations made and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are substantially similar to that described for the City of Warren Lawsuit.

In September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the City of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit (the Federal Court Merger Case). In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against certain former directors and executive officers of SCANA and DESC, which stated substantially similar allegations to those in the City of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit as well as an inseparable fraud claim. In November 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina denied the motion to dismiss. In May 2020, SCANA filed a motion to intervene, which was denied in August 2020. In September 2020, SCANA filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In June 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle in the amount of $63 million to resolve this matter as well as the State Court Merger Case described below, subject to court approval. This settlement was reached in contemplation of and to be partially satisfied by the State Court Derivative Case settlement described above. In November 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement, as described above relating to this matter as well as the State Court Derivative Case and the State Court Merger Case, and filed with the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina for approval. In June 2022, this case was dismissed in connection with the final approval by the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina of the settlement agreement.

In May 2019, a case was filed against certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina (the State Court Merger Case). The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by their gross mismanagement of the NND Project, were unjustly enriched by the bonuses they were paid in connection with the project and breached their fiduciary duties to secure and obtain the best price for the sale of SCANA. Also in May 2019, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court of South Carolina by the non-South Carolina defendants. In June 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. In January 2020, the case was remanded to state court. In February 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In June 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle as described above relating to this matter as well as the Federal Court Merger Case and the State Court Derivative Case. In November 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement, as described above relating to this matter as well as the State Court Derivative Case and the Federal Court Merger Case, and filed with the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina for approval. In June 2022, the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina issued final approval of the settlement agreement. Also in June 2022, Dominion Energy utilized the $33 million of insurance proceeds from the State Court Derivative Case settlement, the issuance of 0.4 million shares of its common stock and paid $2 million in cash to satisfy its obligations under the settlement agreement.

In August 2017, a case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of persons who were formerly employed at the NND Project. In July 2018, the court certified this case as a class action. In February 2019, certain of these plaintiffs filed an additional case, which case has been dismissed and the plaintiffs have joined the case filed August 2017. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that SCANA, DESC, Fluor Corporation and Fluor Enterprises, Inc. violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act in connection with the decision to stop construction at the NND Project. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to provide adequate advance written notice of their terminations of employment and are seeking damages, which could be as much as $100 million for 100% of the NND Project. In January 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of South

Carolina granted summary judgment in favor of SCANA, DESC, Fluor Corporation and Fluor Enterprises, Inc. In February 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In November 2021, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling. In March 2022, the deadline to file an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States expired.

In September 2018, a case was filed in the State Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina by Fluor Enterprises, Inc. and Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc. against DESC and Santee Cooper. The plaintiffs make claims for indemnification, breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from, among other things, the defendants' alleged failure and refusal to defend and indemnify the Fluor defendants in the aforementioned case. As a result of the ruling in favor of the defendants in the aforementioned case, DESC was able to resolve Fluor’s claims for an inconsequential amount.

In June 2018, DESC received a notice of proposed assessment of approximately $410 million, excluding interest, from the SCDOR following its audit of DESC’s sales and use tax returns for the periods September 1, 2008 through December 31, 2017. The proposed assessment, which includes 100% of the NND Project, is based on the SCDOR’s position that DESC’s sales and use tax exemption for the NND Project does not apply because the facility will not become operational. In December 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle in the amount of $165 million to resolve this matter. In June 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement which allows DESC to fund the settlement amount through a combination of cash, shares of Dominion Energy common stock or real estate with an initial payment of at least $43 million in shares of Dominion Energy common stock. In August 2021, Dominion Energy issued 0.6 million shares of its common stock to satisfy DESC’s obligation for the initial payment under the settlement agreement. In May 2022, Dominion Energy issued an additional 0.9 million shares of its common stock to partially satisfy DESC’s remaining obligation under the settlement agreement. In June 2022, DESC requested approval from the South Carolina Commission to transfer certain real estate with a total settlement value of $51 million to satisfy its remaining obligation under the settlement agreement. In July 2022, the South Carolina Commission voted to approve the request. A final order is pending. As a result, certain of the utility and non-utility properties representing $31 million of the value to be conveyed are expected to transfer by the end of 2022 and result in a gain of approximately $20 million. The transfer of the remaining real estate remains subject to the approval of FERC. If such approval is received, the transfer of such utility and non-utility properties is expected to result in a gain of approximately $20 million upon completion.

Other than the item discussed below, there have been no significant changes regarding the Companies’ nuclear insurance as described in Note 23 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Companies’ Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.

During the second quarter of 2022, Dominion Energy reduced the levels of nuclear property insurance coverage for the reactor site at Summer from $2.75 billion to the NRC minimum requirement of $1.06 billion. As a result of this reduction in nuclear property insurance coverage, Dominion Energy’s maximum retrospective premium assessment for the current annual policy period was reduced to $65 million. Additionally, DESC maintains an excess property insurance policy with the European Mutual Association for Nuclear Insurance which provides coverage to Summer for property damage and outage costs resulting from an event of a non-nuclear origin. Dominion Energy reduced the levels of coverage from $415 million to $1 million.

As discussed in Note 23 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Companies’ Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, the Companies entered into contracts with the DOE for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel under provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

At June 30, 2022, Dominion Energy had issued four guarantees related to Cove Point, an equity method investment, in support of terminal services, transportation and construction. Two of the Cove Point guarantees have a cumulative maximum exposure of $1.9 billion while the other two guarantees have no maximum limit. No amounts related to these guarantees have been recorded.

In addition, at June 30, 2022, Dominion Energy had issued an additional $20 million of guarantees, primarily to support third parties. No 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, 2022, Dominion Energy had issued the following subsidiary guarantees:

	Maximum Exposure
(millions)
Commodity transactions⁽¹⁾	$	2,258
Nuclear obligations⁽²⁾		245
Solar⁽³⁾		306
Other⁽⁴⁾		1,271
Total⁽⁵⁾⁽⁶⁾	$	4,080

(4)

Guarantees related to other miscellaneous contractual obligations such as leases, environmental obligations, construction projects and insurance programs. Also includes guarantees entered into by Dominion Energy RNG Holdings II, Inc. on behalf of a subsidiary to facilitate construction of renewable natural gas facilities. Due to the uncertainty of workers’ compensation claims, the parental guarantee has no stated limit.

(6)

In July 2016, Dominion Energy signed an agreement with a lessor to construct and lease a new corporate office property in Richmond, Virginia. The lessor provided equity and obtained financing commitments from debt investors, totaling $365 million, which funded total project costs. The project became substantially complete in August 2019 at which point the facility was available for Dominion Energy’s use and the five-year lease term commenced. At the end of the initial lease term, Dominion Energy can (i) extend the term of the lease for an additional five years, subject to the approval of the participants, at current market terms, (ii) purchase the property for an amount equal to the project costs or, (iii) subject to certain terms and conditions, sell the property on behalf of the lessor to a third party using commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the highest cash purchase price for the property. If the project is sold and the proceeds from the sale are insufficient to repay the investors for the project costs, Dominion Energy may be required to make a payment to the lessor, up to 87% of project costs, for the difference between the project costs and sale proceeds. At June 30, 2022, no amounts have been recorded related to this guarantee.

Additionally, at June 30, 2022, Dominion Energy had purchased $241 million of surety bonds, including $166 million at Virginia Power, and authorized the issuance of letters of credit by financial institutions of $217 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.