2.2.0.7 false Regulatory Matters 120 - Disclosure - Regulatory Matters true false false false 1 USD false false iso4217_USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 iso4217_USD_per_shares Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares 0 pure Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance pure 0 shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares 0 $ 5 Regulatory Matters 3 d_RateMattersDisclosureTextBlock d false na duration Describes all of the specific events that have or may impact rates and amortization of regulatory assets and liabilities (for... false false false false false false false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 <div> Note 12. Regulatory Matters Other than the following matters, there have been no significant developments regarding the pending regulatory matters disclosed in Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Dominion’s and Virginia Power’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 and Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Dominion’s and Virginia Power’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2010 and June 30, 2010. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ODEC and NCEMC Complaint In March 2010, ODEC and NCEMC filed a complaint against Virginia Power at FERC claiming that approximately $223 million in transmission costs related to specific projects were unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory or preferential and should be excluded from Virginia Power’s transmission formula rate. ODEC and NCEMC requested that FERC establish procedures to determine the amount of costs for each applicable project that should be excluded from Virginia Power’s rates. In October 2010, FERC issued an order dismissing the complaint in part and established hearings and settlement procedures on the remaining part of the complaint. Virginia Power cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. Virginia Regulation Virginia Fuel Expenses In April 2010, Virginia Power filed its Virginia fuel factor application with the Virginia Commission. The application requested an annual decrease in fuel expense recovery of approximately $82 million for the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. The proposed fuel factor went into effect on July 1, 2010 on an interim basis. An evidentiary hearing on Virginia Power’s application was held in September 2010, and in October 2010, the Virginia Commission issued its final order approving the reduction in Virginia Power’s fuel factor as proposed in its application. Generation Riders R and S In June 2010, Virginia Power filed annual updates for Riders R and S with the Virginia Commission. The proposed revenue requirements under Riders R and S, effective April 1, 2011, for the rate year ending March 31, 2012 are approximately $86 million and $200 million, respectively. The ROE included in both rider filings is 12.3%, consistent with the terms of the rate settlement approved by the Virginia Commission in March 2010. In July 2010, the Commission issued an order with respect to Riders R and S, which adopted a placeholder ROE of 11.3% (not including the 100 basis point statutory enhancement) for use until the ROE is determined in the context of Virginia Power’s 2011 biennial review. The Commission scheduled public hearings on Riders R and S for December and November 2010, respectively.   North Anna Power Station Virginia Power is considering the construction of a third nuclear unit at a site located at North Anna, which Virginia Power owns along with ODEC. Virginia Power and ODEC have obtained an Early Site Permit for the North Anna site from the NRC. In November 2007, Virginia Power, along with ODEC, filed an application with the NRC for a COL to build and operate a new nuclear unit at North Anna. Following a competitive process, in May 2010, Virginia Power announced its selection of US-APWR technology for the potential third nuclear unit. In June 2010, Virginia Power and ODEC amended the COL application to reflect the selection of the US-APWR technology. Virginia Power has a cooperative agreement with the DOE to share equally the cost of developing a COL that references the technology previously selected by Virginia Power. Funding is not available under the agreement for activities related to the US-APWR technology. DOE funding of program activities to close out the cooperative agreement will end during the fourth quarter of 2010, at which time the agreement will be terminated. In July 2010, Virginia Power filed several applications for environmental permits that would be needed to support future construction and operation of a third nuclear unit at North Anna. Virginia Power expects to submit additional environmental permit applications during 2010. Virginia Power has not yet committed to building a new nuclear unit at North Anna. If Virginia Power decides to build the new unit, it must first receive a COL from the NRC, the approval of the Virginia Commission and certain environmental permits and other approvals. The US-APWR design is currently undergoing a separate NRC certification process. Although the NRC completed its final supplemental environmental impact statement in March 2010 with respect to the November 2007 COL application, finding that there are no environmental impacts that would preclude issuing a COL, further safety and environmental review by the NRC is now taking place as a result of the subsequent selection of the US-APWR technology. The NRC is required to conduct a hearing in all COL proceedings. In August 2008, the ASLB of the NRC permitted BREDL to intervene in the proceeding. All of BREDL’s previous contentions in this proceeding have been dismissed, but the ASLB set a deadline of October 4, 2010 for the filing of new proposed contentions based on new information contained in the June 2010 amendment to the COL application. BREDL timely submitted two new contentions that it seeks to litigate. No other persons sought to intervene in the proceeding. Virginia Power’s response to BREDL’s new proposed contentions is expected to be filed in the fourth quarter of 2010. The ASLB will thereafter rule on the admissibility of the proposed contentions. Absent additional admitted contentions, the mandatory NRC hearing will be uncontested with respect to other issues. North Carolina Base Rate and Fuel Cases In February 2010, in preparation for the end of the five-year base rate moratorium, Virginia Power filed an application to increase its base and fuel rates. Virginia Power’s application included a proposal to recover more of its purchased power energy costs through fuel rates, which are adjusted annually, instead of being recovered in base rates. In August 2010, Virginia Power filed its annual application for a change in its fuel rates, which updated the fuel application of February 2010 to reflect a proposed decrease of approximately $28 million when compared to current fuel rates. Also in August 2010, Virginia Power updated its base rate application to seek a $27 million increase. In September 2010 all parties to the base rate and fuel case except one, which does not oppose the settlement, filed an Agreement and Stipulation of Settlement and requested approval from the North Carolina Commission. The stipulation provides for an increase in base revenues of approximately $8 million and a decrease in combined fuel revenues of approximately $32 million when compared to revenues produced from current rates. In addition, the stipulation entails a recovery through fuel rates of 85% of the net energy costs of power purchases from both PJM and other wholesale suppliers and from the non-utility generators subject to economic dispatch that do not provide actual cost data. An evidentiary hearing was conducted in October 2010 and the North Carolina Commission is expected to issue an order on the stipulation in the base rate and fuel case proceeding during the fourth quarter of 2010. Should the North Carolina Commission approve the stipulation, the new rates are anticipated to go into effect on January 1, 2011.   Ohio Pipeline Infrastructure Replacement In October 2008, the Ohio Commission approved cost recovery for an initial five-year period of East Ohio’s 25-year PIR program to replace approximately 20% of its 21,000-mile pipeline system. In August 2010, East Ohio filed its second annual application to adjust the cost recovery charge associated with its PIR program for actual costs and a return related to investments made through June 30, 2010. The application reflected a revenue requirement of approximately $28 million. In October 2010, East Ohio and the staff of the Ohio Commission filed a settlement agreement with the Commission reflecting a revenue requirement of approximately $27 million. Other interested parties to the case neither supported nor objected to the settlement agreement. </div> Note 12. Regulatory Matters Other than the following matters, there have been no significant developments regarding the pending regulatory matters false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Describes all of the specific events that have or may impact rates and amortization of regulatory assets and liabilities (for example, pending or recently concluded regulatory proceedings, environmental requirements). Specifics may include quantifications related to rates, costs, and earnings. Events may relate to rate moratoriums or price caps. No authoritative reference available. false 1 1 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true