As a result of issues generated in the ordinary course of business, DESC is involved in legal proceedings before various courts and is 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 DESC to estimate a range of possible loss. For such matters that DESC 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 DESC is able to estimate a range of possible loss. For legal proceedings and governmental examinations that DESC is 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 DESC’s 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 DESC’s financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

In July 2019, the EPA published the ACE Rule, which repeals and replaces the Clean Power Plan. The ACE Rule became effective in September 2019. The final ACE Rule applies to coal-fired steam electric generating units greater than or equal to 25 MW. The rule includes unit-specific performance standards based on the degree of emission reduction levels achievable from unit efficiency improvements to be determined by the permitting agency. The ACE Rule requires states to develop plans by July 2022 to implement these performance standards, which plans must be approved by the EPA by January 2024. DESC is currently evaluating the ACE Rule for potential impact at its coal fired units and expects any costs incurred to comply with such rule to be recoverable through rates. While the impacts of this rule could be material to DESC’s results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory framework in South Carolina provides rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts.

In July 2011, the EPA issued the CSAPR to reduce emissions of SO₂and NO_X from power plants in the eastern half of the U.S. The CSAPR replaces the Clean Air Interstate Rule and requires a total of 28 states to reduce annual SO₂ emissions and annual ozone season NO_X emissions to assist in attaining the ozone and fine particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The rule establishes an emissions cap for SO₂and NO_X and limits the trading for emission allowances by separating affected states into two groups with no trading between the groups. The State of South Carolina has chosen to remain in the CSAPR program, even though recent court rulings exempted the state. This allows the state to remain compliant with regional haze standards. Air quality control installations that DESC has already completed have positioned them to comply with the existing allowances set by the CSAPR. Any costs incurred to comply with CSAPR are expected to be recoverable through rates.

In February 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule to reverse its previous finding that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate toxic emissions from power plants. However, the emissions standards and other requirements of the MATS rule would remain in place as the EPA is not proposing to remove coal and oil fired power plants from the list of sources that are regulated under MATS. Although litigation of the MATS rule and the outcome of the EPA’s rulemaking are still pending, the regulation remains in effect and DESC is complying with the applicable requirements of the rule and does not expect any adverse impacts to its operations at this time due to plant retirements, conversions and enhancements.

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 such that, as a facility’s NPDES permit is renewed, any new effluent limitations would be incorporated. The ELG Rule was final in September 2015, after which state regulators are required to modify facility NPDES permits to match more restrictive standards, which would require facilities to retrofit with new wastewater treatment technologies. Compliance dates varied by type of wastewater, and some were based on a facility's five-year permit cycle and thus could range from 2018 to 2023. However, the ELG Rule is under reconsideration by the EPA and has been stayed administratively. The EPA has decided to conduct a new rulemaking that could result in revisions to certain flue gas desulfurization wastewater and bottom ash transport water requirements in the ELG Rule. Accordingly, in September 2017 the EPA finalized a rule that postpones compliance dates under the ELG Rule to a range from November 2020 to December 2023. The EPA indicates that the new rulemaking process may take up to three years to complete, such that any revisions to the ELG Rule likely would not be final until the summer of 2020. While DESC expects that wastewater treatment technology retrofits will be required at Williams and Wateree generating stations, any costs incurred to comply with the ELG Rule are expected to be recoverable through rates.

The CWA Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule became effective in October 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. 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. Any costs incurred to comply with this rule are expected to be recoverable through rates.

The EPA's final rule for CCR became 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 and imposes certain requirements on ash storage ponds and other CCR management facilities at certain of DESC's coal-fired generating facilities. DESC has already closed or has begun the process of closure of all of its ash storage ponds and has previously recognized AROs for such ash storage ponds under existing requirements. DESC does not expect the incremental compliance costs associated with this rule to be significant and expect to recover such costs in future rates.

DESC 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 or under review by SCDHEC and the EPA. DESC anticipates that major remediation activities at all of these sites will continue at least through 2022 and will cost an additional $10 million. In February 2019, SCDHEC directed DESC to pursue a stakeholder-developed modified removal action plan for one site (Congaree River). DESC is developing an engineering design for this plan, which would require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others and further approvals before it could be implemented. If DESC receives the necessary permits and approvals for this plan, remediation cost for the Congaree River site would increase by $8 million. DESC cannot predict if or when such permits or approvals will be received. Major remediation activities are accrued in other within deferred credits and other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. DESC expects to recover any cost arising from the remediation of MGP sites through rates. At September 30, 2019, deferred amounts, net of amounts previously recovered through rates and insurance settlements, totaled $23 million and are included in regulatory assets.

A description of events and circumstances leading up to DESC's abandonment of the NND Project and subsequent regulatory, legislative, legal and investigative proceedings, as well as related impairments of NND Project and other costs are described in Note 11 in DESC's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018.

In accordance with the terms of the South Carolina Commission's SCANA Merger Approval Order, DESC adopted the Plan-B Levelized Customer Benefits Plan, effective February 2019, whereby the average bill for a DESC residential electric customer approximates that which resulted from the legislatively-mandated temporary reduction that had been put into effect by the South Carolina Commission in August 2018. DESC also recorded a significant impairment charge in the fourth quarter of 2018, which charge resulted from its conclusion that NND Project capital costs exceeding the amount established in the SCANA Merger Approval Order were probable of loss, regardless of whether the SCANA Combination was completed. In addition, in the first quarter of 2019, DESC recorded the following charges and liabilities which arose from or are related to provisions in the SCANA Merger Approval Order.

•	A charge of $105 million ($79 million after-tax) related to certain assets that had been constructed in connection with the NND Project for which DESC committed to forgo recovery.

•

A regulatory liability for refunds and restitution of amounts previously collected from retail electric customers of $1.0 billion ($756 million after-tax), recorded as a reduction in operating revenue, which will be credited to customers over an estimated 11 years. In addition, a previously existing regulatory liability of $1.0 billion will be credited to customers over 20 years, which reflects amounts to be refunded to customers related to the monetization of guaranty settlement described in Note 2.

•	A regulatory liability for refunds to natural gas customers totaling $2 million ($2 million after-tax).

•	A tax charge of $198 million related to $264 million of regulatory assets for which DESC committed to forgo recovery.

Further, except for rate adjustments for fuel and environmental costs, DSM costs, and other rates routinely adjusted on an annual or biannual basis, DESC will freeze retail electric base rates at current levels until January 1, 2021.

The South Carolina Commission order also approved the removal of DESC's investment in certain transmission assets that have not been abandoned from BLRA capital costs. As of September 30, 2019, such investment in these assets included $345 million within utility plant, net and $32 million within regulatory assets, which amount represents certain deferred operating costs. The South Carolina Commission approved deferral of these operating costs related to the investment until recovery of the transmission capital costs and associated deferred operating costs is addressed in a future rate proceeding. DESC believes these transmission capital and deferred operating costs are probable of recovery; however, if the South Carolina Commission were to disallow recovery of or a reasonable return on all or a portion of them, an impairment charge equal to the disallowed costs may be required.

Various parties filed petitions for rehearing or reconsideration of the SCANA Merger Approval Order. In January 2019, the South Carolina Commission issued an order (1) granting the request of various parties and finding that DESC was imprudent in its actions by not disclosing material information to the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff and the South Carolina Commission with regard to costs incurred subsequent to March 2015 and (2) denying the petitions for rehearing or consideration as to other issues raised in the various petitions. The deadline to appeal the SCANA Merger Approval Order and the order on rehearing expired in April 2019, and no party has sought appeal.

The following describes certain legal proceedings involving DESC relating to events occurring before closing of the SCANA Combination. Dominion Energy intends to vigorously contest the lawsuits, claims and assessments which have been filed or initiated against DESC. 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, DESC 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 DESC is able to reasonably estimate a probable loss, the Consolidated Balance Sheets include reserves of $181 million included within reserves for litigation and regulatory proceedings and insurance receivables of $18 million included within other receivables at September 30, 2019. During the nine months ended September 30, 2019, the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) includes charges of $266 million ($200 million after-tax), included within impairment of assets and other charges.

In May 2018, a consolidated complaint against DESC, SCANA and the State of South Carolina was filed in the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the DESC Ratepayer Case). In September 2018, the court certified this case as a class action. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that DESC was negligent and unjustly enriched, breached alleged fiduciary and contractual duties and committed fraud and misrepresentation in failing to properly manage the NND Project, and that DESC committed unfair trade practices and violated state anti-trust laws. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that DESC may not charge its customers for any past or continuing costs of the NND Project, sought to have SCANA and DESC’s assets frozen and all monies recovered from Toshiba and other sources be placed in a constructive trust for the benefit of ratepayers and sought specific performance of the alleged implied contract to construct the NND Project.

In December 2018, the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County entered an order granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement and a stay of pre-trial proceedings in the DESC Ratepayer Case. The settlement agreement, contingent upon the closing of the SCANA Combination, provided that SCANA and DESC would establish an escrow account and proceeds from the escrow account would be distributed to the class members, after payment of certain taxes, attorneys' fees and other expenses and administrative costs. The escrow account would include (1) up to $2.0 billion, net of a credit of up to $2.0 billion in future electric bill relief, which would inure to the benefit of the escrow account in favor of class members over a period of time established by the South Carolina Commission in its order related to matters before the South Carolina Commission related to the NND Project, (2) a cash payment of $115 million and (3) the transfer of certain DESC-owned real estate or sales proceeds from the sale of such properties, which counsel for the DESC Ratepayer Class estimate to have an aggregate value between $60 million and $85 million. At the closing of the SCANA Combination, SCANA and DESC funded the cash payment portion of the escrow account. The court held a fairness hearing on the settlement in May 2019. In June 2019, the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, which order became effective July 2019. In July 2019, DESC transferred $117 million representing the cash payment, plus accrued interest, to the plaintiffs. In addition, property with a net recorded value of $42 million is in the process of being transferred to the plaintiffs in coordination with the court-appointed real estate trustee to satisfy the settlement agreement.

In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, DESC, Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case). The allegations are substantially similar to those in the DESC Ratepayer Case. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants may not charge the purported class for reimbursement for past or future costs of the NND Project. In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including as additional named defendants certain then current and former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA. In June 2018, Santee Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of South Carolina which was denied. In December 2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC. In October 2019, Santee Cooper voluntarily consented to stay its cross claims against DESC pending the outcome of the trial of the underlying case. This case is pending.

In July 2019, a similar purported class action was filed by certain Santee Cooper ratepayers against DESC, SCANA, Dominion Energy and former directors and officers of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Orangeburg, South Carolina. In August 2019, DESC, SCANA and Dominion Energy were voluntarily dismissed from the case. The claims are similar to the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case. This case is pending.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and subsequently amended, against SCANA, DESC and certain former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCANA, DESC and the individual defendants participated in an unlawful racketeering enterprise in violation of RICO and conspired to violate RICO by fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate unlawful proceeds. The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement described previously contemplates dismissal of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case against DESC, SCANA and their officers. In August 2019, the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss. This case is pending.

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 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, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In August 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County. Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was consolidated with another lawsuit regarding the SCANA Merger Agreement to which DESC is not a party. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order remanding the case to state court. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

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 in 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 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. These cases are pending.

In November 2017, Fairfield County filed a complaint and a motion for temporary injunction against DESC in the State Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina, making allegations of breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and unfair trade practices related to DESC’s termination of the FILOT agreement between DESC and Fairfield County related to the NND Project. The plaintiff sought a temporary and permanent injunction to prevent DESC from terminating the FILOT agreement. The plaintiff withdrew the motion for temporary injunction in December 2017. This case is pending.

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. DESC has protested the proposed assessment, which remains pending.

In September and October 2017, SCANA was served with subpoenas issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina and the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement seeking documents related to the NND Project. In addition, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is conducting a criminal investigation into the handling of the NND Project by SCANA and DESC. These matters are pending. SCANA and DESC are cooperating fully with the investigations, including responding to additional subpoenas and document requests.

In December 2018, arbitration proceedings commenced between DESC and Cameco Corporation related to a supply agreement signed in May 2008. This agreement provides the terms and conditions under which DESC agreed to purchase uranium hexafluoride from Cameco Corporation over a period from 2010 to 2020. Cameco Corporation alleges that DESC violated this agreement by failing to purchase the stated quantities of uranium hexafluoride for the 2017 and 2018 delivery years. DESC denies that it is in breach of the agreement and believes that it has reduced its purchase quantity within the terms of the agreement. This matter is pending.

In September 2019, a South Carolina state court jury awarded a judgment to the estate of Jose Larios in a wrongful death suit filed in June 2017 against DESC, of which DESC was apportioned $19 million. DESC holds general liability insurance coverage which is expected to provide payment for substantially all DESC’s liability in this matter. In October 2019, DESC filed a motion requesting a reduction in the judgment or, in the alternative, a new trial. In November 2019, DESC’s motion for a new trial was granted, setting aside the entire verdict amount. This matter is pending.

Westinghouse’s Reorganization Plan became effective August 1, 2018. Initially, Westinghouse had projected that its Reorganization Plan would pay in full or nearly in full its pre-petition trade creditors, including several of the Westinghouse Subcontractors which have alleged non-payment by the Consortium for amounts owed for work performed on the NND Project and have filed liens on related property in Fairfield County, South Carolina. DESC is contesting approximately $285 million of such filed liens. Most of these asserted liens are “pre-petition” claims that relate to work performed by Westinghouse Subcontractors before the Westinghouse bankruptcy, although some of them are “post-petition” claims arising from work performed after the Westinghouse bankruptcy. It is possible that the Reorganization Plan will not provide for payment in full or nearly in full to its pre-petition trade creditors. The shortfall could be significant. In addition, payments under the Toshiba Settlement are subject to reduction if Westinghouse pays Westinghouse Subcontractors holding pre-petition liens directly. Under these circumstances, DESC and Santee Cooper, each in its pro rata share, would be required to make Citibank, N.A., which purchased the scheduled payments under the Toshiba Settlement, whole for reductions related to valid subcontractor and vendor pre-petition liens up to $60 million ($33 million for DESC's 55% share).

DESC and Santee Cooper are responsible for amounts owed to Westinghouse for valid work performed by Westinghouse Subcontractors on the NND Project after the Westinghouse bankruptcy filing (i.e., post-petition) until termination of the IAA (the IAA Period). In the Westinghouse bankruptcy proceeding, deadlines were established for creditors of Westinghouse to assert the amounts owed to such creditors prior to the Westinghouse bankruptcy filing and during the IAA Period. Many of the Westinghouse Subcontractors have filed such claims. DESC does not believe that the claims asserted related to the IAA Period will exceed the amounts previously funded for the currently asserted IAA-related claims, whether relating to claims already paid or those remaining to be paid. DESC intends to oppose any previously unasserted claim that is asserted against it, whether directly or indirectly by a claim through the IAA.

Further, some Westinghouse Subcontractors who have made claims against Westinghouse in the bankruptcy proceeding also filed against DESC and Santee Cooper in South Carolina state court for damages. The Westinghouse Subcontractor claims in South Carolina state court include common law claims for pre-petition work, IAA Period work, and work after the termination of the IAA. Many of these claimants have also asserted construction liens against the NND Project site. While DESC cannot be assured that it will not have any exposure on account of unpaid Westinghouse Subcontractor claims, which claims DESC is presently disputing, DESC believes it is unlikely that it will be required to make payments on account of such claims.

Under Price-Anderson, DESC (for itself and on behalf of Santee-Cooper) maintains agreements of indemnity with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that, together with private insurance, cover third-party liability arising from any nuclear incident occurring at Summer. Price-Anderson provides funds up to $14.0 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 $450 million by American Nuclear Insurers 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 liable for up to $138 million per reactor owned for each nuclear incident occurring at any reactor in the U.S., provided that not more than $21 million of the liability per reactor would be assessed per year. DESC’s maximum assessment, based on its two-thirds ownership of Summer, would be $92 million per incident, but not more than $14 million per year. Both the maximum assessment per reactor and the maximum yearly assessment are adjusted for inflation at least every five years.

DESC currently maintains insurance policies (for itself and on behalf of Santee Cooper) with NEIL. The policies provide coverage to Summer for property damage and outage costs up to $2.75 billion resulting from an event of nuclear origin and up to $2.33 billion resulting from an event of a non-nuclear origin. The NEIL policies in aggregate, are subject to a maximum loss of $2.75 billion for any single loss occurrence. The NEIL policies permit retrospective assessments under certain conditions to cover insurer’s losses. Based on the current annual premium, DESC’s portion of the retrospective premium assessment would not exceed $24 million. DESC currently maintains an excess property insurance policy (for itself and on behalf of Santee Cooper) with EMANI. The policy provides coverage to Summer for property damage and outage costs up to $415 million resulting from an event of a non-nuclear origin. The EMANI policy permits retrospective assessments under certain conditions to cover insurer's losses. Based on the current annual premium, DESC's portion of the retrospective premium assessment would not exceed $2 million.

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