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.

DESC is 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.

From a regulatory perspective, DESC 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. DESC and GENCO participate in the SO₂and NO_X emission allowance programs with respect to coal plant emissions and also have constructed additional pollution control equipment at their coal-fired electric generating plants. These actions are expected to address many of the rules and regulations discussed herein.

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

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.

The EPA published final non-attainment designations for the October 2015 ozone standard in June 2018. States have until August 2021 to develop plans to address the new standard. Until the states have developed implementation plans for the standard, DESC is 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 DESC’s 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 applies to existing coal-fired power plants. The final 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. These state plans must be approved by the EPA by January 2024. While the impacts of this rule could be material to DESC’s results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory frameworks in South Carolina provide rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for DESC.

In August 2016, the EPA issued a draft rule proposing to reaffirm that a source’s obligation to obtain a PSD or Title V permit for GHGs is triggered only if such permitting requirements are first triggered by non-GHG, or conventional, pollutants that are regulated by the New Source Review program, and to set a significant emissions rate at 75,000 tons per year of CO2 equivalent emissions under which a source would not be required to apply BACT for its GHG emissions. Until the EPA ultimately takes final action on this rulemaking, DESC 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 the best operating practices.

In August 2012, the EPA issued an NSPS impacting new and modified facilities in the natural gas production and gathering sectors and made revisions to the NSPS for natural gas processing and transmission facilities. These rules establish equipment performance specifications and emissions standards for control of VOC emissions for natural gas production wells, tanks, pneumatic controllers, and compressors in the upstream sector. In June 2016, the EPA issued another NSPS regulation, for the oil and natural gas sector, to regulate methane and VOC emissions from new and modified facilities in transmission and storage, gathering and boosting, production and processing facilities. All projects which commenced construction after September 2015 are required to comply with this regulation. In October 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule reconsidering and amending portions of the 2016 rule, including but not limited to, the fugitive emissions requirements at well sites and compressor stations. The amended portions of the 2016 rule were effective immediately upon publication. Until the proposed rule regarding reconsideration is final, DESC is implementing the 2016 regulation. DESC is still evaluating whether potential impacts on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows related to this matter will be material.

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. DESC must comply with applicable aspects of the CWA programs at its 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. DESC has five facilities that are subject to the final regulations. DESC anticipates that it may have to install impingement control technologies at certain of these stations that have once-through cooling systems. DESC is currently evaluating the need or potential for entrainment controls under the final rule as these decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis after a thorough review of detailed biological, technology, cost and benefit studies. 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 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 for DESC.

In September 2015, the EPA released a final rule to revise the ELG Rule. The final rule establishes updated standards for wastewater discharges that apply primarily at coal and oil steam generating stations. Affected facilities are required to convert from wet to dry or closed cycle coal ash management, improve existing wastewater treatment systems and/or install new wastewater treatment technologies in order to meet the new discharge limits. In April 2017, the EPA granted two separate petitions for reconsideration of the final ELG 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 final ELG Rule from November 2018 to November 2020; however, the latest date for compliance for these regulations remains December 2023. While the impacts of this rule could be material to DESC’s results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, as DESC expects that wastewater treatment technology retrofits will be required at Williams and Wateree generating stations, the existing regulatory framework in South Carolina provides rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for DESC.

In December 2019, the EPA released proposed revisions to the ELG Rule that, if adopted, could extend the deadlines for compliance with certain standards at several facilities. While the impacts of this rule could be material to DESC’s results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory frameworks in South Carolina provide rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for the regulated electric utilities.

The operations of DESC 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, DESC 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, DESC 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. DESC also may identify, evaluate and remediate other potentially impacted sites under voluntary state programs. Remediation costs may be subject to reimbursement under DESC’s insurance policies, rate recovery mechanisms, or both. Except as described below, DESC does not believe these matters will have a material effect on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

DESC has four decommissioned MGP sites in South Carolina that are in various states of investigation, remediation and monitoring under work plans approved by, or under review by, the SCDHEC or the EPA. DESC anticipates that activities at these sites will continue through 2024 at an estimated cost of $10 million. In September 2018, DESC submitted an updated remediation work plan for one site to SCDHEC, which if approved, would increase costs by approximately $8 million. DESC expects to recover costs arising from the remediation work at all four sites through rate recovery mechanisms and as of December 31, 2019, deferred amounts, net of amounts previously recovered through rates and insurance settlements, totaled $23 million and are included in regulatory assets. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the other sites, DESC is unable to make an estimate of the potential financial statement impacts.

In April 2015, the EPA enacted a final rule regulating CCR landfills, existing ash ponds that still receive and manage CCRs, and inactive ash ponds that do not receive, but still store, CCRs. DESC currently has inactive and existing CCR ponds and CCR landfills subject to the final rule at 3 different facilities. This rule created a legal obligation for DESC to retrofit or close all of its inactive and existing ash ponds over a certain period of time, as well as perform required monitoring, corrective action, and post-closure care activities as necessary.

In December 2016, legislation was enacted that creates a framework for EPA- approved state CCR permit programs. In August 2017, the EPA issued interim guidance outlining the framework for state CCR program approval. The EPA has enforcement authority until state programs are approved. The EPA and states with approved programs both will have authority to enforce CCR requirements under their respective rules and programs. In September 2017, the EPA agreed to reconsider portions of the CCR rule in response to two petitions for reconsideration. In March 2018, the EPA proposed certain changes to the CCR rule related to issues remanded as part of the pending litigation and other issues the EPA is reconsidering. Several of the proposed changes would allow states with approved CCR permit programs additional flexibilities in implementing their programs. In July 2018, the EPA promulgated the first phase of changes to the CCR rule. Until all phases of the CCR rule are promulgated, DESC cannot forecast potential incremental impacts or costs related to existing coal ash sites in connection with future implementation of the 2016 CCR legislation and reconsideration of the CCR rule. In August 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in the pending challenges of the CCR rule, vacating and remanding to the EPA three provisions of the rule. Until regulatory action is taken to incorporate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision, DESC is unable to make an estimate of the potential financial statement impacts associated with any future changes to the CCR rule in connection with the court’s remand.

DESC, on behalf of itself and as agent for Santee Cooper, entered into an engineering, construction and procurement contract with the Consortium in 2008 for the design and construction of the NND Project. DESC’s ownership share in the NND Project is 55%. Various difficulties were encountered in connection with the project. The ability of the Consortium to adhere to established budgets and construction schedules was affected by many variables, including unanticipated difficulties encountered in connection with project engineering and the construction of project components, constrained financial resources of the contractors, regulatory, legal, training and construction processes associated with securing approvals, permits and licenses and necessary amendments to them within projected time frames, the availability of labor and materials at estimated costs and the efficiency of project labor. There were also contractor and supplier performance issues, difficulties in timely meeting critical regulatory requirements, contract disputes, and changes in key contractors or subcontractors. These matters preceded the filing for bankruptcy protection by the Consortium on March 29, 2017 (see Contractor Bankruptcy Proceedings below) and were the subject of comprehensive analyses performed by SCANA, DESC and Santee Cooper.

Santee Cooper decided to suspend construction on the NND Project, on July 31, 2017, and in light of this decision and based on the results of SCANA and DESC’s analysis, SCANA and DESC determined to stop the construction of the units and to pursue recovery of costs incurred in connection with the construction under the abandonment provisions of the BLRA or through other means. This decision by SCANA became the focus of numerous legislative, regulatory and legal proceedings, and led to DESC recording pre-tax impairment charges in 2017 totaling approximately $1.1 billion (approximately $690 million after-tax). An additional pre-tax impairment loss was recorded in the first quarter of 2018 of approximately $4 million (approximately $3 million after-tax) in order to further reduce to estimated fair value the carrying value of nuclear fuel which had been acquired for use in the NND Project. These proceedings continued in 2018, and some of them remain unresolved and are described below under Claims and Litigation. On December 21, 2018, the South Carolina Commission issued the SCANA Merger Approval Order, which, among other things, limited recovery of capital costs related to the NND Project to $2.8 billion. As a result, DESC concluded that the NND Project capital costs exceeding the amounts established in the SCANA Merger Approval Order were probable of loss, regardless of whether the SCANA Combination was completed, and recorded an impairment charge of $1.4 billion ($870 million after-tax) in the fourth quarter of 2018.

On January 2, 2018, SCANA and Dominion Energy entered into the SCANA Merger Agreement and sought the consents and approvals from governmental entities and the shareholders of SCANA required to consummate the merger. After all consents and approvals were obtained, the SCANA Combination was effective January 1, 2019.

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 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 3.

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 December 31, 2019, such investment in these assets included $345 million within utility plant, net and $37 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 up 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 ORS 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 $492 million and insurance receivables of $6 million included within other receivables at December 31, 2019. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2019, the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss includes charges of $590 million ($444 million after-tax), included within the Corporate and Other segment.

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 cost 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. In November 2019, DESC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. In December 2019, the plaintiffs and Santee Cooper filed a motion to remand the case to state court. In January 2020, the case was remanded to state court. In February 2020, the parties executed a preliminary settlement term sheet relating to this matter as well as the Luquire Case and the Glibowski Case described below. The proposed settlement is expected to be $520 million, of which DESC’s portion is $320 million. The parties are currently negotiating a settlement agreement based on the preliminary settlement term sheet that will be presented to the court for preliminary approval. 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 (the Luquire Case). In August 2019, DESC, SCANA and Dominion Energy were voluntarily dismissed from the case. The claims are similar to the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case. In February 2020, the parties executed a preliminary settlement term sheet as described above relating to this matter as well as the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case and the Glibowski 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 Glibowski Case). 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. In February 2020, the parties executed a preliminary settlement term sheet as described above relating to this matter as well as the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case and the Luquire Case. 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 are estimated to 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 February 2020, the SEC filed a complaint against SCANA, two of its former executive officers and DESC in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina alleging that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements about 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; however, Dominion Energy cannot currently predict whether or to what extent SCANA or DESC may incur a material liability.

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 were 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. In December 2019, DESC and Santee Cooper entered into a confidential settlement agreement with W Wind Down Co LLC resolving claims relating to 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.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required that the United States government accept and permanently dispose of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998, and it imposed on utilities the primary responsibility for storage of their spent nuclear fuel until the repository is available. DESC 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, 2019, the federal government has not accepted any spent fuel from Summer, and it remains unclear when the repository may become available. DESC has constructed an independent spent fuel storage installation to accommodate the spent nuclear fuel output for the life of Summer. DESC may evaluate other technology as it becomes available.

At December 31, 2019, DESC had the following long-term commitments that are noncancelable or cancelable only under certain conditions, and that a third party that will provide the contracted goods or services has used to secure financing.

(millions)		2020				2021				2022				2023				2024				Thereafter				Total
Purchased electric capacity⁽¹⁾		$	59			$	58			$	57			$	57			$	57			$	661			$	949

Commitments represent estimated amounts payable for energy under power purchase contracts with qualifying facilities which expire at various dates through 2046. Energy payments are generally based on fixed dollar amounts per month and totaled $37 million in 2019 and $24 million in 2018.