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. DESC maintains various insurance programs, including general liability insurance coverage which provides coverage for personal injury or wrongful death cases. Any accrued liability is recorded on a gross basis with a receivable also recorded for any probable insurance recoveries. Estimated ranges of loss are inclusive of legal fees and net of any anticipated insurance recoveries. Any estimated range is based on currently available information and involves elements of judgment and significant uncertainties. Any estimated range of possible loss may not represent 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 continually monitors and evaluates its current and projected emission levels and strives to comply with all state and federal regulations regarding those emissions. DESC participates in the SO₂and NO_X emission allowance programs with respect to coal plant emissions and also has constructed additional pollution control equipment at its 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 meet applicable 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.

The EPA published final non-attainment designations for the October 2015 ozone standard in June 2018 with states required to develop plans to address the new standard. In December 2021, the EPA approved the implementation plan developed for South Carolina. DESC does not expect compliance to have a material impact on its results of operations or cash flows.

In July 2019, the EPA published the final rule informally referred to as the ACE Rule, as a replacement for the Clean Power Plan. The ACE Rule regulated GHG emissions from existing coal-fired power plants pursuant to Section 111(d) of the CAA and required states to develop plans by July 2022 establishing unit-specific performance standards for existing coal-fired power plants. In January 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the ACE Rule and remanded it to the EPA. This decision would take effect upon issuance of the court’s mandate. In March 2021, the court issued a partial mandate vacating and remanding all parts of the ACE Rule except for the portion of the ACE Rule that repealed the Clean Power Plan. In October 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision on the ACE Rule. While the EPA has stated its intention to replace the ACE Rule, it is unknown at this time if or how the EPA will issue a replacement for the ACE Rule and how that replacement will affect DESC’s operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

In August 2016, the EPA issued a draft rule proposing to reaffirm that a source’s obligation to obtain a PSD or Title V permit for GHGs is triggered only if such permitting requirements are first triggered by non-GHG, or conventional, pollutants that are regulated by the New Source Review program, and exceed a significant emissions rate of 75,000 tons per year of CO2 equivalent emissions. Until the EPA ultimately takes final action on this rulemaking, DESC cannot predict the impact to its results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

In December 2018, the EPA proposed revised Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources. The proposed rule would amend the previous determination that the best system of emission reduction for newly constructed coal-fired steam generating units is no longer partial carbon capture and storage. Instead, the proposed revised best system of emission reduction for this source category is the most efficient demonstrated steam cycle (e.g., supercritical steam conditions for large units and subcritical steam conditions for small units) in combination with best operating practices. In January 2021, the EPA published a final rule affirming that fossil fuel-fired electric generating units meet the requirement that a source category “significantly contribute” to endangering air pollution for the purposes of regulating GHG emissions from new, modified and reconstructed stationary sources. The January 2021 rule also established a threshold for the “significant contribution” threshold that would have meant that no other source category, such as oil and gas facilities, petroleum refineries, and boilers, would meet that requirement at this time. In April 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted an unopposed motion by the EPA to vacate and remand the January 2021 rule. The proposed revision to the performance standards for coal-fired steam generating units remains pending. Until the EPA ultimately takes final action on this rulemaking, DESC cannot predict the impact to its results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

The CWA, as amended, is a comprehensive program requiring a broad range of regulatory tools including a permit program to authorize and regulate discharges to surface waters with strong enforcement mechanisms. 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 is also working with the EPA and state regulatory agencies to assess the applicability of Section 316(b) to five hydroelectric facilities. 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, technological, and cost benefit studies. DESC is conducting studies and implementing plans as required by the rule to determine appropriate intake structure modifications at certain facilities to ensure compliance with this rule. While the impacts of this rule could be material to 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 established updated standards for wastewater discharges that apply primarily at coal and oil steam generating stations. Affected facilities are required to convert from wet to dry or closed cycle coal ash management, improve existing wastewater treatment systems and/or install new wastewater treatment technologies in order to meet the new discharge limits. In April 2017, the EPA granted two separate petitions for reconsideration of the 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 was December 2023. In October 2020, the EPA released the final rule that extends the latest dates for compliance. Individual facilities’ compliance dates will vary based on circumstances and the determination by state regulators and may range from 2021 to 2028. While the impacts of this rule could be material to DESC’s results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, as DESC expects that wastewater treatment technology retrofits and modifications to the bottom ash handling systems at the Williams and Wateree generating stations will be required, the existing regulatory framework in South Carolina provides rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for DESC.

In November 2019, a new CUA was established in the counties surrounding the Cope Generating Station (Western Capacity Use Area) under the South Carolina Groundwater Use and Reporting Regulation. Under the regulation any groundwater well in a CUA that withdraws above three million gallons per month must be permitted. The Cope Generating Station is located within this new Western Capacity Use Area. Cope has been using four deep groundwater wells for cooling water and other house loads since 1996. Prior to designation of the new Western Capacity Use Area, the wells at Cope Station were only required to be registered not permitted. As a result of this designation, Cope will need to restore the surface water equipment to operable status to reduce reliance on groundwater wells. This includes completion of 316(b) requirements, (including SCDHEC BACT determination and modification of the station national pollutant discharge elimination system permit) and extensive inspection, repair and/or replacement of the associated surface water withdrawal equipment which has been idle since 1996. While the impacts of this rule change are 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.

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 2025 at an estimated cost of $19 million. In addition, for one site, final approval of an updated work plan was received from the Army Corps of Engineers in December 2021, resulting in an additional $11 million of reserves and corresponding regulatory assets. DESC expects to recover costs arising from the remediation work at all four sites through rate recovery mechanisms and as of December 31, 2021, deferred amounts, net of amounts previously recovered through rates and insurance settlements, totaled $31 million and are included in regulatory assets.

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 flexibility in implementing their programs. In July 2018, the EPA promulgated the first phase of changes to 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 this matter is resolved and all phases of the CCR rule are promulgated, DESC is unable to precisely estimate potential incremental impacts or costs related to existing coal ash sites in connection with future implementation of the final CCR rule. While such amounts may 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 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 effective February 2019. In addition, a previously existing regulatory liability of $1.0 billion will be credited to customers over 20 years ending 2039, 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. As discussed in Note 3, in April 2020, the South Carolina Commission issued an order vacating the portion of the SCANA Merger Approval Order requiring that new retail electric rates be implemented by 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. 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 was addressed in a future rate proceeding. These amounts were included in and approved as part of DESC’s electric base rate case filing discussed in Note 3.

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 primarily to events occurring before closing of the SCANA Combination. 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 at December 31, 2021 and 2020 include reserves of $211 million and $208 million, respectively, and insurance receivables of $85 million and $8 million, respectively, included within other receivables. These balances at December 31, 2021 and 2020 include $85 million and $8 million, respectively, of offsetting reserves and insurance receivables related to personal injury or wrongful death cases which are currently pending. DESC’s Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019 include charges of $70 million ($53 million after-tax), $97 million ($73 million after-tax) and $590 million ($444 million after-tax), respectively, within impairment of assets and other charges, reflected in 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). The plaintiffs alleged, 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. In December 2018, the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County entered an order granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement in June 2019, which became effective in July 2019. The settlement agreement, contingent upon the closing of the SCANA Combination, provided that SCANA and DESC establish an escrow account and proceeds from the escrow account would be distributed to the plaintiffs, 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 plaintiffs estimated 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. In July 2019, DESC transferred $117 million representing the cash payment, plus accrued interest, to the plaintiffs. Through August 2020, property, plant and equipment with a net recorded value of $22 million had been transferred to the plaintiffs in coordination with the court-appointed real estate trustee to satisfy the settlement agreement. In September 2020, the court entered an order approving a final resolution of the transfer of real estate or sales proceeds with a cash contribution of $38.5 million by DESC and the conveyance of property, plant and equipment with a net recorded value of $3 million, which was completed by DESC in October 2020. In December 2021, the court approved a motion for and DESC completed the repurchase of $8 million of property, plant and equipment previously transferred to the plaintiffs.

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 were substantially similar to those in the DESC Ratepayer Case. In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement relating to this matter as well as the Luquire Case and the Glibowski Case described below. The settlement agreement provided that Dominion Energy and Santee Cooper establish a fund for the benefit of class members in the amount of $520 million, of which Dominion Energy’s portion was $320 million of shares of Dominion Energy common stock. In July 2020, the court issued a final approval of the settlement agreement. In September 2020, Dominion Energy issued $322 million of shares of Dominion Energy common stock to satisfy its obligation under the settlement agreement, including interest charges.

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 were similar to the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case. In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement as described above relating to this matter as well as the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case and the Glibowski Case. This case was dismissed as part of the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case settlement described above.

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 alleged, 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. In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement as described above relating to this matter as well as the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case and the Luquire Case. This case was dismissed as part of the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case settlement described above.

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 September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the Metzler Lawsuit with another lawsuit regarding the SCANA Merger Agreement to which DESC is not a party. In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against certain former directors and executive officers of SCANA and DESC, which stated substantially similar allegations to those in the initial lawsuits as well as an inseparable fraud claim. In November 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina denied the motion to dismiss. In May 2020, SCANA filed a motion to intervene, which was denied in August 2020. In September 2020, SCANA filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In June 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this case, along with a related case to which DESC was not a party, subject to court approval, with no financial impact to DESC.

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 January 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment in favor of SCANA, DESC, Fluor Corporation and Fluor Enterprises, Inc. In February 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In November 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling.

In 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. This case is 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. In July 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement requiring DESC to pay $99 million, which could be satisfied in either cash or shares of Dominion Energy common stock. Also in July 2021, the State Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina approved the settlement. In July 2021, Dominion Energy issued 1.4 million shares of Dominion Energy common stock to satisfy DESC’s obligation under the settlement agreement.

In June 2018, DESC received a notice of proposed assessment of approximately $410 million, excluding interest, from the SCDOR following its audit of DESC’s sales and use tax returns for the periods September 1, 2008 through December 31, 2017. The proposed assessment, which includes 100% of the NND Project, is based on the SCDOR’s position that DESC’s sales and use tax exemption for the NND Project does not apply because the facility will not become operational. In December 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle in the amount of $165 million to resolve this matter. In June 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement which allows DESC to fund the settlement amount through a combination of cash, shares of Dominion Energy common stock or real estate with an initial payment of at least $43 million in shares of Dominion Energy common stock. In August 2021, Dominion Energy issued 0.6 million shares of its common stock to satisfy DESC’s obligation for the initial payment under the settlement agreement.

In 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 April 2020, SCANA and DESC reached an agreement in principle with the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement to settle, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint. In December 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina issued an order approving the settlement which required SCANA to pay a civil monetary penalty totaling $25 million, and SCANA and DESC to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $112.5 million, which disgorgement and prejudgment interest amount were deemed satisfied by the settlements in the SCANA Securities Class Action and the DESC Ratepayer Case. SCANA paid the civil penalty in December 2020. The SEC civil action against two former executive officers of SCANA remains pending and is currently subject to a stay granted by the court in June 2020 at the request of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina.

In addition, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is conducting a criminal investigation into the handling of the NND Project by SCANA and DESC. Dominion Energy is cooperating fully with the investigations by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, including responding to additional subpoenas and document requests. Dominion Energy has also entered into a cooperation agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office. The cooperation agreement provides that in consideration of its full cooperation with these investigations to the satisfaction of both agencies, neither such agency will criminally prosecute or bring any civil action against Dominion Energy or any of its current, previous, or future direct or indirect subsidiaries related to the NND Project. A former executive officer of SCANA entered a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office in June 2020 and entered a guilty plea with the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina in July 2020. Another former executive officer of SCANA entered a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the South Carolina Attorney General's Office in November 2020 and entered guilty pleas in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and in South Carolina state court in February 2021. As a result of the pleas, Dominion Energy has terminated indemnity for these former executive officers related to these two cases.

DESC, for itself and as agent for Santee Cooper, entered into an engineering, construction and procurement contract with Westinghouse and WECTEC in 2008 for the design and construction of the NND Project, of which DESC’s ownership share is 55%. Various difficulties were encountered in connection with the project. The ability of Westinghouse and WECTEC 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 Westinghouse and WECTEC in March 2017, and were the subject of comprehensive analyses performed by SCANA and Santee Cooper.

Based on the results of SCANA’s analysis, and in light of Santee Cooper's decision to suspend construction on the NND Project, in July 2017, SCANA 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 Base Load Review Act or through other means. This decision by SCANA became the focus of numerous legislative, regulatory and legal proceedings. Some of these proceedings are described above.

In September 2017, DESC, for itself and as agent for Santee Cooper, filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York Proofs of Claim for unliquidated damages against each of Westinghouse and WECTEC. These Proofs of Claim were based

upon the anticipatory repudiation and material breach by Westinghouse and WECTEC of the contract, and assert against Westinghouse and WECTEC any and all claims that are based thereon or that may be related thereto.

Westinghouse’s reorganization plan was confirmed by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and became effective in August 2018. In connection with the effectiveness of the reorganization plan, the contract associated with the NND Project was deemed rejected. DESC contested approximately $285 million of filed liens in Fairfield County, South Carolina. Most of these asserted liens were claims that relate to work performed by Westinghouse subcontractors before the Westinghouse bankruptcy, although some of them were claims arising from work performed after the Westinghouse bankruptcy.

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 until termination of the interim assessment agreement. In December 2019, DESC and Santee Cooper entered into a confidential settlement agreement with W Wind Down Co LLC resolving claims relating to the interim assessment agreement.

Further, some Westinghouse subcontractors that made claims against Westinghouse in the bankruptcy proceeding also filed claims against DESC and Santee Cooper in South Carolina state court for damages. Many of these claimants asserted construction liens against the NND Project site. In December 2021, settlements were reached to resolve all remaining claims made by Westinghouse subcontractors. All amounts for which Dominion Energy was ultimately responsible were funded utilizing, and did not exceed, the portion of the Toshiba Settlement allocated for such balances within the SCANA Merger Approval Order recorded in regulatory liabilities on DESC’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.

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 $13.5 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. By mutual agreement of the parties, damage award payments and settlement payments are made until the DOE has accepted the same amount of spent fuel from the facility as if it has fully performed its contractual obligations. In 2021, DESC received payment of $1 million for resolution of its share of claims incurred at Summer for the period of January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. In 2020, DESC received payment of $4 million for resolution of its share of claims incurred at Summer for the period of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. As of December 31, 2021, 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, 2021, 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)		2022				2023				2024				2025				2026				Thereafter				Total
Purchased electric capacity⁽¹⁾		$	83			$	82			$	82			$	83			$	86			$	834			$	1,250

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 $73 million in 2021, $64 million in 2020 and $37 million in 2019.