COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]


	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Nuclear Insurance

Under Price-Anderson, SCE&G (for itself and on behalf of Santee Cooper, a one-third owner of Summer Station Unit 1) maintains agreements of indemnity with the NRC that, together with private insurance, cover third-party liability arising from any nuclear incident occurring at SCE&G's nuclear power plant. Price-Anderson provides funds up to $13.6 billion for public liability claims that could arise from a single nuclear incident. Each nuclear plant is insured against this liability to a maximum of $375 million by ANI with the remaining coverage provided by a mandatory program of deferred premiums that could be assessed, after a nuclear incident, against all owners of commercial nuclear reactors. Each reactor licensee is currently liable for up to $127.3 million per reactor owned for each nuclear incident occurring at any reactor in the United States, provided that not more than $18.9 million of the liability per reactor would be assessed per year. SCE&G’s maximum assessment, based on its two-thirds ownership of Summer Station Unit 1, would be $84.8 million per incident, but not more than $12.6 million per year. Both the maximum assessment per reactor and the maximum yearly assessment are adjusted for inflation at least every five years.

SCE&G currently maintains insurance policies (for itself and on behalf of Santee Cooper) with NEIL. The policies provide coverage to Summer Station Unit 1 for property damage and outage costs up to $2.75 billion resulting from an event of nuclear origin. In addition, a builder's risk insurance policy has been purchased from NEIL for the construction of the New Units. This policy provides the owners of the New Units up to $500 million in limits of accidental property damage occurring during construction. The NEIL policies, in the aggregate, are subject to a maximum loss of $2.75 billion for any single loss occurrence. All of the NEIL policies permit retrospective assessments under certain conditions to cover insurer’s losses. Based on the current annual premium, SCE&G’s portion of the retrospective premium assessment would not exceed $43.5 million.

To the extent that insurable claims for property damage, decontamination, repair and replacement and other costs and expenses arising from a nuclear incident at Summer Station Unit 1 exceed the policy limits of insurance, or to the extent such insurance becomes unavailable in the future, and to the extent that SCE&G's rates would not recover the cost of any purchased replacement power, SCE&G will retain the risk of loss as a self-insurer. SCE&G has no reason to anticipate a serious nuclear incident. However, if such an incident were to occur, it likely would have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

New Nuclear Construction

In 2008, SCE&G, on behalf of itself and as agent for Santee Cooper, contracted with the Consortium for the design and construction of the New Units at the site of Summer Station.

SCE&G's current ownership share in the New Units is 55%. As discussed below, under an agreement signed in January 2014 (and subject to customary closing conditions, including necessary regulatory approvals), SCE&G has agreed to acquire an additional 5% ownership in the New Units from Santee Cooper.

EPC Contract and BLRA Matters

The construction of the New Units and SCE&G’s related recovery of financing costs through rates is subject to review and approval by the SCPSC as provided for in the BLRA. Under the BLRA, the SCPSC has approved, among other things, a milestone schedule and a capital costs estimates schedule for the New Units. This approval constitutes a final and binding determination that the New Units are used and useful for utility purposes, and that the capital costs associated with the New Units are prudent utility costs and expenses and are properly included in rates, so long as the New Units are constructed or are being constructed within the parameters of the approved milestone schedule, including specified schedule contingencies, and the approved capital costs estimates schedule. Subject to the same conditions, the BLRA provides that SCE&G may apply to the SCPSC annually for an order to recover through revised rates SCE&G’s weighted average cost of capital applied to all or part of the outstanding balance of construction work in progress concerning the New Units. Such annual rate changes are described in Note 2. As of March 31, 2015, SCE&G’s investment in the New Units totaled $2.9 billion, for which the financing costs on $2.4 billion have been reflected in rates under the BLRA.

The SCPSC granted initial approval of the construction schedule, including 146 milestones within that schedule, and related forecasted capital costs in 2009. The NRC issued COLs in March 2012. In November 2012, the SCPSC approved an updated milestone schedule and additional updated capital costs for the New Units. In addition, the SCPSC approved revised substantial completion dates for the New Units based on that March 2012 issuance of the COL and the amounts agreed upon by SCE&G and the Consortium in July 2012 to resolve known claims by the Consortium for costs related to COL delays, design modifications of the shield building and certain prefabricated structural modules for the New Units and unanticipated rock conditions at the site. In October 2014, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the SCPSC's order on appeal.

The substantial completion dates currently approved by the SCPSC for Units 2 and 3 are March 15, 2017 and May 15, 2018. The SCPSC also approved an 18-month contingency period beyond each of these dates, and for each of the 146 milestones in the schedule.

Since the settlement of delay-related claims in 2012, the Consortium has continued to experience delays in the schedule, including those related to fabrication and delivery of sub-modules for the New Units. The fabrication and delivery of sub-modules have been and remain focus areas of the Consortium, including sub-modules for module CA01, which houses components inside the containment vessel. Module CA01 and shield building modules are considered critical path items for both New Units. The delivery schedule of sub-modules for CA01 is expected to support completion of on-site fabrication to allow CA01 to be ready for placement on the nuclear island of Unit 2 during the first half of 2015.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, the Consortium began a full re-baselining of the Unit 2 and Unit 3 construction schedules to incorporate a more detailed evaluation of the engineering and procurement activities necessary to accomplish the schedules and to provide a detailed reassessment of the impact of the revised Unit 2 and Unit 3 schedules on engineering and design resource allocations, procurement, construction work crew efficiencies, and other items. The result was a revised, fully integrated project schedule with timing of specific construction activities (Revised, Fully-Integrated Construction Schedule) along with related cost information.

The Revised, Fully-Integrated Construction Schedule indicated that the substantial completion of Unit 2 was expected to occur in mid-June 2019 and that the substantial completion of Unit 3 was expected to be approximately 12 months later. SCE&G has not, however, accepted the Consortium's contention that the new substantial completion dates are made necessary by delays that are excusable under the EPC Contract. The Consortium continues to refine and update the Revised, Fully-Integrated Construction Schedule as designs are finalized, as construction progresses, and as additional information is received.

As discussed above, the milestone schedule approved by the SCPSC in November 2012 provides for 146 milestone dates, each of which is subject to an 18-month schedule contingency. As of April 30, 2015, 105 milestones have been completed, and three of the remaining milestones have not been completed within their 18-month contingency periods. In light of the Revised, Fully Integrated Schedule, it is anticipated that the completion dates for a substantial number of the remaining milestone dates will also extend beyond their contingency periods. Further, capital costs (in 2007 dollars) and gross construction cost estimates (including escalation and AFC) are projected to exceed amounts currently approved by the SCPSC of $4.5 billion and $5.8 billion, respectively.

As such, in March 2015 SCE&G petitioned the SCPSC for an order to update the BLRA milestone schedule based on revised substantial completion dates for Units 2 and 3 of June 2019 and June 2020, respectively. In addition, that petition included certain updated owner's costs ($245 million) and other capital costs ($453 million) which, if approved, would reset projected capital costs (in 2007 dollars) and gross construction cost estimates (including escalation and AFC) to $5.2 billion and $6.8 billion, respectively. These projections include cost amounts related to the Revised, Fully-Integrated Construction Schedule for which SCE&G has not accepted responsibility and which may be the subject of dispute. As such, the petition does not reflect the resolution of negotiations.

The SCPSC will hold a public hearing related to the petition in July 2015. While the BLRA provides that the SCPSC shall grant the petition for modification if the record justifies a finding that the change is not the result of imprudence by SCE&G, SCE&G cannot predict the outcome of this regulatory process. As discussed in Note 2, SCE&G expects the SCPSC to issue its order on the petition in September 2015.

Additional claims by the Consortium or SCE&G involving the project schedule and budget may arise as the project continues. The parties to the EPC Contract have established both informal and formal dispute resolution procedures in order to resolve such issues. SCE&G expects to resolve all disputes (including any ultimate disagreements involving the preliminary cost estimates provided by the Consortium in the third quarter of 2014) through both the informal and formal procedures and anticipates that any costs that arise through such dispute resolution processes, as well as other costs identified from time to time, will be recoverable through rates.

Santee Cooper Matters

As noted above, SCE&G has agreed to acquire an additional 5% ownership in the New Units from Santee Cooper. Under the terms of this agreement, SCE&G will acquire a 1% ownership interest in the New Units at the commercial operation date of Unit 2, an additional 2% ownership interest no later than the first anniversary of such commercial operation date, and the final 2% no later than the second anniversary of such commercial operation date. SCE&G has agreed to pay an amount equal to Santee Cooper's actual cost of the percentage conveyed as of the date of each conveyance. In addition, the agreement provides that Santee Cooper will not transfer any of its remaining interest in the New Units to third parties until the New Units are complete. This transaction will not affect the payment obligations between the parties during construction for the New Units, nor is it anticipated that the payments for the additional ownership interest would be reflected in a revised rates filing under the BLRA. Based on the current milestone schedule and capital costs schedule approved by the SCPSC in November 2012, SCE&G’s estimated cost would be approximately $500 million for the additional 5% interest being acquired from Santee Cooper. This cost figure is expected to be higher in light of the delays and related costs discussed above.

Nuclear Production Tax Credits

The IRS has notified SCE&G that, subject to a national megawatt capacity limitation, the electricity to be produced by each of the New Units (advanced nuclear units, as defined) would qualify for nuclear production tax credits under Section 45J of the Internal Revenue Code to the extent that such New Unit is operational before January 1, 2021 and other eligibility requirements are met. These nuclear production tax credits (related to SCE&G's 55% share of both New Units) could total as much as approximately $1.4 billion. Such credits would be earned over the first eight years of each New Unit's operations and would be realized by SCE&G over those years or during allowable carry-forward periods. Based on the above substantial completion dates provided by the Consortium of June 2019 and June 2020 for Units 2 and 3, respectively, both New Units are expected to be operational and to qualify for the nuclear production tax credits; however, further delays in the schedule or changes in tax law could impact such conclusions. To the extent that production tax credits are realized, their benefits are expected to be provided directly to SCE&G's electric customers as so realized.

Other Project Matters

When the NRC issued the COLs for the New Units, two of the conditions that it imposed were requiring inspection and testing of certain components of the New Units' passive cooling system, and requiring the development of strategies to respond to extreme natural events resulting in the loss of power at the New Units. In addition, the NRC directed the Office of New Reactors to issue to SCE&G an order requiring enhanced, reliable spent fuel pool instrumentation. SCE&G prepared and submitted an integrated response plan for the New Units to the NRC in August 2013. That plan is currently under review by the NRC and SCE&G does not anticipate any additional regulatory actions as a result of that review, but it cannot predict future regulatory activities or how such initiatives would impact construction or operation of the New Units.

Environmental

The Company's operations are subject to extensive regulation by various federal and state authorities in the areas of air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes. Applicable statutes and rules include the CAA, CWA, Nuclear Waste Act and CERCLA, among others. In many cases, regulations proposed by such authorities could have a significant impact on the Company's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, the Company often cannot predict what conditions or requirements will be imposed by regulatory or legislative proposals. To the extent that compliance with environmental regulations or legislation results in capital expenditures or operating costs, the Company expects to recover such expenditures and costs through existing ratemaking provisions.

SCE&G

The EPA issued a revised carbon standard for new power plants by re-proposing NSPS under the CAA for emissions of carbon dioxide from newly constructed fossil fuel-fired units. The proposed rule was issued on January 8, 2014 and requires all new fossil fuel-fired power plants to meet the carbon dioxide emissions profile of a combined cycle natural gas plant. While most new natural gas plants will not be required to include any new technologies, no new coal-fired plants could be constructed without carbon capture and sequestration capabilities. The Company is evaluating the proposed rule, but does not plan to construct new coal-fired units in the near future. In addition, on June 2, 2014, the EPA issued proposed emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to address GHG emissions from existing units. These guidelines are expected to be made final in late summer 2015, and include state-specific rate based goals for carbon dioxide emissions.

From a regulatory perspective, SCANA, SCE&G and GENCO continually monitor and evaluate their current and projected emission levels and strive to comply with all state and federal regulations regarding those emissions. SCE&G and GENCO participate in the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission allowance programs with respect to coal plant emissions and also have constructed additional pollution control equipment at several larger coal-fired electric generating plants. Further, SCE&G is engaged in construction activities of the New Units which are expected to reduce GHG emission levels significantly once they are completed and dispatched by potentially displacing some of the current coal-fired generation sources. These actions are expected to address many of the rules and regulations discussed herein.

In July 2011, the EPA issued the CSAPR to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from power plants in the eastern half of the United States. A series of court actions stayed this rule until October 23, 2014, when the Court of Appeals granted a motion to lift the stay. On December 3, 2014, the EPA published an interim final rule that aligns the dates in the CSAPR text with the revised court-ordered schedule, thus delaying the implementation dates to 2015 for Phase 1 and to 2017 for Phase 2. The CSAPR replaces the CAIR and requires a total of 28 states to reduce annual sulfur dioxide emissions and annual or ozone season nitrogen oxide emissions to assist in attaining the ozone and fine particle NAAQS. The rule establishes an emissions cap for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide and limits the trading for emission allowances by separating affected states into two groups with no trading between the groups. Air quality control installations that SCE&G and GENCO have already completed have positioned them to comply with the allowances set by the CSAPR.

In April 2012, the EPA's MATS rule containing new standards for mercury and other specified air pollutants became effective. The rule provides up to four years for generating facilities to meet the standards, and the Company's evaluation of the rule is ongoing. The Company's decision to retire certain coal-fired units or convert them to burn natural gas and its project to build the New Units (see Note 1) along with other actions are expected to result in the Company's compliance with MATS. On November 19, 2014, the EPA finalized its reconsideration of certain provisions applicable during startup and shutdown of generating facilities. SCE&G and GENCO have received a one year extension (until April 2016) to comply with MATS at Cope, McMeekin, Wateree and Williams Stations. These extensions will allow time to convert McMeekin Station to burn natural gas and to install additional pollution control devices at the other plants that will enhance the control of certain MATS-regulated pollutants.

The CWA provides for the imposition of effluent limitations that require treatment for wastewater discharges. Under the CWA, compliance with applicable limitations is achieved under state-issued NPDES permits. As a facility’s NPDES permit is renewed (every five years), any new effluent limitations would be incorporated. The ELG Rule was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2013, and is expected to be finalized no later than September 30, 2015. Once the rule becomes effective, state regulators will modify facility NPDES permits to match more restrictive standards, thus requiring facilities to retrofit with new wastewater treatment technologies. Compliance dates will vary by type of wastewater, and some will be based on a facility's five year permit cycle and thus may range from 2018 to 2023. Based on the proposed rule, the Company expects that wastewater treatment technology retrofits will be required at Williams and Wateree Stations and may be required at other facilities.

The CWA Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule became effective on October 14, 2014. This rule establishes national requirements for the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures at existing facilities that reflect the best technology available for minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of impingement and entrainment. SCE&G and GENCO are conducting studies and implementing plans to ensure compliance with this rule. In addition, Congress is expected to consider further amendments to the CWA. Such legislation may include toxicity-based standards as well as limitations to mixing zones.

On April 17, 2015, the EPA's final rule for CCR was published in the Federal Register and will become effective in the fourth quarter of 2015. This rule regulates CCR as a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In addition, this rule imposes certain requirements on ash storage ponds at SCE&G's and GENCO's generating facilities. While this rule is still being evaluated, SCE&G and GENCO have already closed or have begun the process of closure of all of their ash storage ponds.

The Nuclear Waste Act required that the United States government accept and permanently dispose of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. The Nuclear Waste Act also imposed on utilities the primary responsibility for storage of their spent nuclear fuel until the repository is available. SCE&G entered into a Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste with the DOE in 1983. As of December 31, 2014, the federal government has not accepted any spent fuel from Summer Station Unit 1, and it remains unclear when the repository may become available. SCE&G has on-site spent nuclear fuel storage capability in its existing fuel pool until at least 2017 and is constructing a dry cask storage facility to accommodate the spent nuclear fuel output for the life of Summer Station Unit 1. SCE&G may evaluate other technology as it becomes available.

The provisions of CERCLA authorize the EPA to require the clean-up of hazardous waste sites. The states of South Carolina and North Carolina have similar laws. The Company maintains an environmental assessment program to identify and evaluate current and former operations sites that could require clean-up. In addition, regulators from the EPA and other federal or state agencies periodically notify the Company that it may be required to perform or participate in the investigation and remediation of a hazardous waste site. As site assessments are initiated, estimates are made of the amount of expenditures, if any, deemed necessary to investigate and remediate each site. These estimates are refined as additional information becomes available; therefore, actual expenditures may differ significantly from the original estimates. Amounts estimated and accrued to date for site assessments and clean-up relate solely to regulated operations. Such amounts are recorded in regulatory assets and amortized, with recovery provided through rates.

SCE&G is responsible for four decommissioned MGP sites in South Carolina which contain residues of by-product chemicals. These sites are in various stages of investigation, remediation and monitoring under work plans approved by DHEC and the EPA. SCE&G anticipates that major remediation activities at all these sites will continue at least through 2017 and will cost an additional $19.2 million, which is accrued in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. SCE&G expects to recover any cost arising from the remediation of MGP sites through rates. At March 31, 2015, deferred amounts, net of amounts previously recovered through rates and insurance settlements, totaled $35.2 million and are included in regulatory assets.

PSNC Energy

PSNC Energy is responsible for environmental clean-up at five sites in North Carolina on which MGP residuals are present or suspected. Actual remediation costs for these sites will depend on a number of factors, such as actual site conditions, third-party claims and recoveries from other potentially responsible parties. PSNC Energy has recorded a liability and associated regulatory asset of approximately $1.0 million, the estimated remaining liability at March 31, 2015. PSNC Energy expects to recover through rates any cost allocable to PSNC Energy arising from the remediation of these sites.

SCEG

Statement [Line Items]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]


	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Nuclear Insurance

To the extent that insurable claims for property damage, decontamination, repair and replacement and other costs and expenses arising from a nuclear incident at Summer Station Unit 1 exceed the policy limits of insurance, or to the extent such insurance becomes unavailable in the future, and to the extent that SCE&G's rates would not recover the cost of any purchased replacement power, SCE&G will retain the risk of loss as a self-insurer. SCE&G has no reason to anticipate a serious nuclear incident. However, if such an incident were to occur, it likely would have a material impact on Consolidated SCE&G’s results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

New Nuclear Construction

In 2008, SCE&G, on behalf of itself and as agent for Santee Cooper, contracted with the Consortium for the design and construction of the New Units at the site of Summer Station.

EPC Contract and BLRA Matters

The SCPSC will hold a public hearing related to the petition in July 2015. While the BLRA provides that the SCPSC shall grant the petition for modification if the record justifies a finding that the change is not the result of imprudence by SCE&G, SCE&G cannot predict the outcome of this regulatory process. As described in Note 2, SCE&G expects the SCPSC to issue its order on the petition in September 2015.

Santee Cooper Matters

Nuclear Production Tax Credits

Other Project Matters

Environmental

Consolidated SCE&G's operations are subject to extensive regulation by various federal and state authorities in the areas of air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes. Applicable statutes and rules include the CAA, CWA, Nuclear Waste Act and CERCLA, among others. In many cases, regulations proposed by such authorities could have a significant impact on Consolidated SCE&G's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, Consolidated SCE&G often cannot predict what conditions or requirements will be imposed by regulatory or legislative proposals. To the extent that compliance with environmental regulations or legislation results in capital expenditures or operating costs, Consolidated SCE&G expects to recover such expenditures and costs through existing ratemaking provisions.

The EPA issued a revised carbon standard for new power plants by re-proposing NSPS under the CAA for emissions of carbon dioxide from newly constructed fossil fuel-fired units. The proposed rule was issued on January 8, 2014 and requires all new fossil fuel-fired power plants to meet the carbon dioxide emissions profile of a combined cycle natural gas plant. While most new natural gas plants will not be required to include any new technologies, no new coal-fired plants could be constructed without carbon capture and sequestration capabilities. Consolidated SCE&G is evaluating the proposed rule, but does not plan to construct new coal-fired units in the near future. In addition, on June 2, 2014, the EPA issued proposed emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to address GHG emissions from existing units. These guidelines are expected to be made final in late summer 2015, and include state-specific rate based goals for carbon dioxide emissions.

From a regulatory perspective, SCE&G and GENCO continually monitor and evaluate their current and projected emission levels and strive to comply with all state and federal regulations regarding those emissions. SCE&G and GENCO participate in the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission allowance programs with respect to coal plant emissions and also have constructed additional pollution control equipment at several larger coal-fired electric generating plants. Further, SCE&G is engaged in construction activities of the New Units which are expected to reduce GHG emission levels significantly once they are completed and dispatched by potentially displacing some of the current coal-fired generation sources. These actions are expected to address many of the rules and regulations discussed herein.

In April 2012, the EPA's MATS rule containing new standards for mercury and other specified air pollutants became effective. The rule provides up to four years for generating facilities to meet the standards, and SCE&G and GENCO's evaluation of the rule is ongoing. SCE&G's decision to retire certain coal-fired units or convert them to burn natural gas and its project to build the New Units (see Note 1) along with other actions are expected to result in SCE&G's compliance with MATS. On November 19, 2014, the EPA finalized its reconsideration of certain provisions applicable during startup and shutdown of generating facilities. SCE&G and GENCO have received a one year extension (until April 2016) to comply with MATS at Cope, McMeekin, Wateree and Williams Stations. These extensions will allow time to convert McMeekin Station to burn natural gas and to install additional pollution control devices at the other plants that will enhance the control of certain MATS-regulated pollutants.

The CWA provides for the imposition of effluent limitations that require treatment for wastewater discharges. Under the CWA, compliance with applicable limitations is achieved under state-issued NPDES permits. As a facility’s NPDES permit is renewed (every five years), any new effluent limitations would be incorporated. The ELG Rule was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2013, and is expected to be finalized no later than September 30, 2015. Once the rule becomes effective, state regulators will modify facility NPDES permits to match more restrictive standards, thus requiring facilities to retrofit with new wastewater treatment technologies. Compliance dates will vary by type of wastewater, and some will be based on a facility's five year permit cycle and thus may range from 2018 to 2023. Based on the proposed rule, Consolidated SCE&G expects that wastewater treatment technology retrofits will be required at Williams and Wateree Stations and may be required at other facilities.

The provisions of CERCLA authorize the EPA to require the clean-up of hazardous waste sites. The state of South Carolina has similar laws. SCE&G maintains an environmental assessment program to identify and evaluate current and former operations sites that could require clean-up. In addition, regulators from the EPA and other federal or state agencies periodically notify SCE&G that it may be required to perform or participate in the investigation and remediation of a hazardous waste site. As site assessments are initiated, estimates are made of the amount of expenditures, if any, deemed necessary to investigate and remediate each site. These estimates are refined as additional information becomes available; therefore, actual expenditures may differ significantly from the original estimates. Amounts estimated and accrued to date for site assessments and clean-up relate solely to regulated operations. Such amounts are recorded in regulatory assets and amortized, with recovery provided through rates.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details