SCC Facts
The SCC's regulatory functions affect every citizen in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Working within the framework of Virginia's laws and regulations, the SCC renders decisions to promote the overall public good. Commission rulings often mean no one is wholly satisfied with the outcome; such is the nature of the Commission's mission.
Information here is intended to provide some clarity on SCC's work to balance the interests of citizens, businesses, and customers in regulating Virginia’s business and economic concerns.
Printer-Friendly PDF: How the SCC Rider T1 Decision Protects Ratepayers
Background
On August 25, 2026, the Commission entered an order establishing a new docket for the purpose of receiving Dominion’s proposed amendments to its line extension policy.
This new docket was previewed in the Commission’s recent final order in Dominion’s Rider T1 case. In that case, the Commission addressed issues related to the allocation of transmission costs to Dominion’s retail customers. The Commission made several findings and determinations affecting the allocation of transmission-related costs.
Commission approves an amended cost allocation method
The Commission approved two amendments to the existing cost allocation methodology Dominion uses to allocate transmission related costs to its various rate classes. First, the Commission approved a forecast adjustment to align cost allocation with rapidly expanding growth in large-load customers. Second, the Commission approved an adjustment that incorporates the previously approved 85% transmission minimum demand charge applicable for certain large-load customers beginning January 1, 2027.
To illustrate the impact of the approved amended methodology, the Commission cited evidence that using it instead of the previous methodology would reduce by 67.5% the projected increase for Rider T1 costs to a typical residential customer using 1,000 kWh, from $2.90 to 94 cents per month.
Commission approves framework for direct assignment
In the 2026 Rider T1 case, the Commission approved a framework developed by SCC staff that will require modifications to Dominion’s line-extension policy. These modifications are designed to ensure that large-load customers fund the costs of “direct-connect” transmission facilities needed to serve new or expanding large-load customers. The new policy will apply prospectively in situations where direct-connect transmission facilities would not be built if not for the needs of a large-load customer.
At the hearing, all participants in the case agreed that supplemental proceedings would be needed to address the details of a modified line-extension policy. The Commission directed Dominion to coordinate with SCC staff to develop the required amendments to the line-extension policy. These amendments will be filed in the new docket.
Commission’s reforms protect existing customers
The Commission’s final order recognized that over the past two years it has explored and approved meaningful tariff reforms related to protecting existing customers from the risks associated with connecting new large-load customers. The record in the Rider T1 proceeding supported a pressing need for direct assignment of the costs for direct-connect facilities to large-load customers.
The Commission explained that if existing or new tariff reforms proved to be insufficient, it retains the tools necessary to make appropriate adjustments.
The Commission’s Rider T1 order was issued in case no. PUR-2026-00056. The Commission’s order establishing the new supplemental proceeding is docketed as case no. PUR-2026-00131.
Posted: 9-3-2026
Printer-Friendly PDF: Esurance Property Casualty Insurance Company Settlement
Background
The Bureau of Insurance of the State Corporation Commission is charged with the inspection, supervision and regulation of all companies transacting or licensed to transact the business of insurance in Virginia. In 2025, the bureau assisted in the recovery of $17.9 million for consumers and providers from insurers in the form of refunds, insurance benefits, interest payments, claim reimbursements and reinstated coverage.
The Settlement
In 2021, the Bureau of Insurance conducted an investigation into Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Company based on a voluntary self-report the company filed with the bureau.
Based on its investigation, the bureau alleged that Esurance incorrectly increased certain insureds’ premiums or charged points under a safe driver insurance plan as a result of a motor vehicle accident, after failing to provide a notice to the affected insureds.
Responding to this investigation, Esurance made a settlement offer to the bureau. Esurance agreed to:
- Pay restitution totaling approximately $2 million to 2,959 consumers, and
- Comply with a corrective action plan. The plan requires Esurance to complete an additional step in the impact analysis prior to deploying new or updated rate factors. Esurance must also continue to monitor notices and comply with all requirements of the relevant state law going forward.
The Commissioners’ Decision
On August 27, 2026, the Commission accepted Esurance’s settlement offer. Esurance has paid restitution totaling approximately $2 million to 2,959 consumers and committed to maintain its compliance with the corrective action plan.
Posted: September 2026
Printer-Friendly PDF: State Farm Companies Settlement
Background
The Bureau of Insurance of the State Corporation Commission is charged with the inspection, supervision and regulation of all companies transacting or licensed to transact the business of insurance in Virginia. In 2025, the bureau assisted in the recovery of $17.9 million for consumers and providers from insurers in the form of refunds, insurance benefits, interest payments, claim reimbursements and reinstated coverage.
The Settlement
In 2023, the Bureau of Insurance conducted an investigation into State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (collectively “State Farm Insurance Companies”) based on a voluntary self-report the companies filed with the bureau.
Based on its investigation, the bureau alleged that State Farm Insurance Companies issued insurance contracts or policies that were not in accordance with the rate and supplementary rate information filings in effect for the companies. By not using the information that was filed, State Farm Insurance Companies incorrectly charged insurance premiums for many personal auto policies.
Responding to the bureau’s investigation, State Farm Insurance Companies made a settlement offer to the bureau. They agreed to:
- Pay restitution totaling approximately $2.5 million to 91,696 consumers.
- Comply with a corrective action plan. The plan requires State Farm Insurance Companies to ensure they filed all rates and supplementary rating information accurately and according to state law, and to confirm use of the rules and rates on file with the bureau. State Farm Insurance Companies must also continue to monitor filings with the bureau and comply with all requirements of the relevant state law going forward.
The Commission's Decision
On May 20, 2026, the Commission accepted State Farm Insurance Companies’ settlement. State Farm Insurance Companies have paid restitution totaling approximately $2.5 million to 91,696 consumers and have committed to maintain their compliance with the corrective action plan.
Posted 5-26-2026
Printer-friendly PDF: Anthem Settlement
Background
The Bureau of Insurance of the State Corporation Commission is charged with the inspection, supervision and regulation of all companies transacting or licensed to transact the business of insurance in Virginia. In 2025, the bureau assisted in the recovery of $17.9 million for consumers and providers from insurers in the form of refunds, insurance benefits, interest payments, claim reimbursements and reinstated coverage.
The Settlement
In 2025, the Bureau of Insurance conducted an inspection of Anthem Health Plans of Virginia Inc. and HealthKeepers Inc. based on complaints regarding provider demographic and fee schedule errors involving Anthem and Carelon, an affiliate Anthem contracted with to provide services related to behavioral health providers.
Based on its inspection, the bureau alleged that Anthem and Carelon experienced difficulties involving contracting, credentialing, demographic information, network status and fee schedules. Delays and inaccurate information resulting from these issues may have led to providers being paid incorrect amounts or later than state law allows.
Responding to the bureau's investigation, Anthem made a settlement offer to the bureau. Anthem agreed to:
- Pay restitution totaling approximately $346,000 to 1,680 consumers and 586 providers.
- Pay the Treasury of Virginia $118,000.
- Comply with a corrective action plan. The plan requires Anthem to take steps to ensure that claims are paid accurately and according to state law, including claims in which Anthem contracts with vendors or affiliates. Anthem must also incorporate verification and/or testing of provider demographic and fee schedule data prior to implementation of new vendors or systems; and comply with all requirements of the relevant state law going forward.
The Commission's Decision
On March 24, 2026, the Commission accepted Anthem's settlement. Anthem has paid restitution totaling approximately $346,000 to 1,680 consumers and 586 providers as well as a payment to the Commonwealth of $118,000 and committed to maintain its compliance with the corrective action plan.
Case No. INS-2026-00016
Posted 5-15-2026
Printer-friendly PDF: Dominion Renewable Energy Portfolio Decision
Background
In 2025, Dominion Energy Virginia submitted its sixth renewable energy portfolio standard, or RPS, filing. This annual filing is required under the Virginia Clean Economy Act of 2020. The Commission heard the evidence in its courtroom from numerous interested parties in February 2026.
The Evidence
The Commission previously required the company to provide a scenario modeling the retirement of all fossil fuel generation by 2045. The evidence in the RPS filing showed that retiring all fossil fuel generation could cost almost three times as much as the company's preferred plan.
No participant disputed that the company has a need for additional resources to serve its growing energy and capacity needs, as well as renewable energy certificates to satisfy the RPS program's requirements.
The evidence showed that many of the projects proposed in Dominion's RPS filing would have significantly higher costs than previous clean-energy and other renewable energy filings. Some projects were forecasted to have negative economic impacts for customers after accounting for the value of the energy, capacity and renewable energy certificates.
The parties took varied positions on the projects projected to have negative economic impacts for customers. For example, the Sierra Club shared skepticism over projects that analysis showed would have more costs than benefits; Sierra Club also requested that the Commission approve all projects showing more benefits than costs, together with proposals that the Commission determines would reduce the social cost of carbon to counterbalance any negative impacts.
The Commission's Decision
Based on its review and analysis, the Commission:
- Recognized that forecasted energy use in Virginia over the next decade has increased “precipitously” since 2020, primarily because of data centers.
- Approved five of the eight proposed utility-scale solar and energy-storage projects – Bedford Solar, Hillandale Solar, Honeybee Solar, Pumpkinseed Solar and the Drake Storage project.
- Withheld approval of the three distributed solar projects, ruling that they would be too costly for ratepayers.
- Acknowledged that some of the projects it approved may have more costs than financial benefit, compared to forecasted market prices, after accounting for the value of the energy, capacity and renewable energy certificates associated with the projects. In these approvals, the Commission considered multiple factors including policies favoring deployment of new renewable and energy storage resources. The Commission opted to approve resources with relatively better economic projections to lessen the cost impact and promote affordability.
Case No. PUR-2025-00148
Posted 4-15-2026
Printer-friendly PDF: Golden-Mars Transmission Case Decision
Background
In March 2025, Dominion filed an application with the State Corporation Commission for approval of transmission facilities in Loudoun County. The Golden-Mars Project would build a new 500-kilovolt and several additional 230-kilovolt lines to support the electric-energy needs in Northern Virginia.
Public Input
The SCC held two public hearings in Loudoun County in September 2025. In addition, the Commission heard public comments in December 2025, calling more than 600 people who registered to speak, and received and reviewed hundreds of pages of written public comments.
Residents who commented almost universally advocated for placing portions of the proposed lines underground. Concerns raised by the public included a potential loss of value in homes, effects on the landscape and appearance of the area, and possible health effects of power lines. Most did not dispute the need for the lines themselves.
The Evidence
The Commission heard evidence presented by stakeholders including residents, county and officials, Dominion, homeowners associations, the Piedmont Environmental Council and SCC staff. After evaluating the evidence, the Commissioners found the following:
- The transmission lines are needed to meet energy needs in the area.
- Placing these lines underground is not feasible. The underground alternatives offered by participants in the case present significant obstacles such as delays, additional costs, and construction challenges including existing infrastructure and a geography known to contain exceptionally hard diabase rock.
- Environmental impacts of the project are mitigated through recommendations submitted by state agencies and adopted by the Commission.
- Electromagnetic fields near the lines would be well below standard limits set to protect public health.
- Dominion reasonably addressed environmental justice considerations.
The Commission’s Decision
The Commissioners approved the Golden-Mars Project as aboveground transmission lines. The Commissioners selected the proposed Route 4 path, which was determined to have the smallest impact on the community but would require approval by the Loudoun County School Board. If the school board declines to approve that route, an alternate could be Route 3A, which the Commission found would affect more properties and be less desirable.
Golden-Mars proposed transmission routes
Case No. PUR-2025-00056
Posted 4-9-2026
Printer-friendly PDF: Chesapeake Compressor Station
Background
In 2025, Virginia Natural Gas Inc. ("VNG") filed an application with the State Corporation Commission for approval and certification and authorization to construct the Chesapeake Compressor Station in the City of Chesapeake, Virginia (Case No. PUR-2025-00021 ). The compressor station site is located at 2512 South Military Highway, west of the existing Gidley Gate M&R Station, and will encompass approximately 4.5 acres located on an existing ground lease.
The Chesapeake Compressor Station was proposed to improve and maintain the reliability and resiliency of VNG's natural gas distribution service to all customers and to provide a higher volume of firm transportation service as requested by an existing interruptible customer. The Chesapeake Compressor Station is expected to increase the volume of natural gas that VNG can deliver from the southern portion of its distribution system to the northern portion of its distribution system, especially during constrained times.
A local public witness hearing on this matter was held on August 14, 2025, in Chesapeake, Virginia. A hearing examiner and counsel for both VNG and SCC staff were present; 30 public witnesses provided testimony on the proposed Chesapeake Compressor Station.
The SCC's Decision
After considering all record evidence, and applying the applicable laws, the Commission granted its approval of the Chesapeake Compressor Station. Some key findings from the Commission's decision included:
The Chesapeake Compressor Station is needed. The Commission cited evidence showing that the Station was needed to maintain reliability and resiliency on the Company's system, and also accommodate the interruptible customer's request to convert a portion of its current interruptible transportation capacity on the VNG distribution system to firm transportation capacity.
The cost was more affordable than alternative options. VNG calculated that the Chesapeake Compressor Station will result in an average monthly bill increase of approximately $1.96 for residential customers. VNG presented its consideration of two alternatives. The alternatives would have required the construction of a new natural gas pipeline with one alternative estimated to exceed $250 million and the other estimated to exceed $500 million. These alternatives represent approximate increases of either 181% or 462%, respectively, over the estimated $89 million for the Chesapeake Compressor Station.
The Commission considered environmental impacts. The Chesapeake Compressor Station would be co-located with existing utility facilities and requires no additional land or easements. The Station consists primarily of two electric compressors that will not emit carbon dioxide and VNG does not anticipate significant levels of sound. With respect to environmental justice, the Commission recognized that the proposed design using electric compressors that will not emit carbon dioxide demonstrates an awareness of, and a sensitivity to, environmental justice and fenceline communities.
The Commission acknowledged safety risks. The record showed that VNG operates similar facilities in Virginia and that the Compressor Station does not pose any unique safety risks that cannot be effectively managed through existing pipeline safety standards and the safety-related directives established in the Commission's Final Order.
Posted 3-5-2026
Printer-friendly PDF: SCC Data Center Initiatives
Data Center Q&A
- How has the SCC addressed cost concerns related to data centers?
The SCC made several determinations in Dominion’s most recent general rate proceeding, Case No. PUR-2025-00058, that, collectively, are designed to ensure that large load customers, such as hyperscale data centers, appropriately pay for the costs incurred to serve them. - What is the new GS-5 rate class and how will it be used?
Large load customers, such as hyperscale data centers, were placed into a new separate rate class, the “GS-5 rate class.” This means that the SCC will now set rates separately for these large customers to recover the unique costs of providing them with electric service, minimizing cost shifting to other customer classes. The GS-5 rate class will include all new or existing customers that meet or exceed certain capacity and energy usage thresholds. - Will the SCC further review how costs are recovered from large-load customers?
Yes. Costs that cannot be directly traced to specific customers are allocated to customers in SCC proceedings, using approved cost allocation methods. The SCC ordered Dominion to submit alternative cost allocation proposals in future proceedings to better reflect the growth of large load customers. Alternative cost allocation proposals will be submitted for both generation and transmission services. This will help to ensure that costs are appropriately allocated to those customers who cause the costs to be incurred, including hyperscale data centers. - Did the SCC make other determinations addressing cost risks?
Yes. The SCC approved several special tariff provisions that will apply to large load customers. Collectively, these provisions are designed to further minimize the risk that infrastructure costs incurred primarily to serve large load customers could be recovered from other customers. These provisions include minimum contract obligations, minimum charges, and collateral requirements. - What is the minimum contract obligation?
Large load customers such as hyperscale data centers will be obligated to take, and pay, for electric service for at least 14 years. This obligation will apply to new large load customers who contract for service on or after January 1, 2027. - What minimum charges will apply to large-load customers?
Large load customers, including hyperscale data centers, will be obligated to pay at least 85% of the transmission and distribution costs incurred to serve them each month, regardless of how much electricity the customer actually uses. This obligation will apply to new and existing large load customers. However, any customer who began service before January 1, 2016, will be exempt. - What collateral will be required from large-load customers?
Large load customers without sufficient credit may be obligated to guarantee funds intended to cover up to 60% of the customer’s minimum charges over their contract term. This obligation will apply to new large load customers who contract for service on or after January 1, 2027. - Did the SCC make determinations addressing transmission planning?
Yes. The SCC ordered Dominion to submit its process for interconnecting large load customers, such as hyperscale data centers, for the SCC’s review and approval in a future proceeding. Dominion is required to make this submission on or before February 2, 2026.
SCC Data Center Initiatives - Dominion Energy Virginia
- GS-5 Rate Class – Data centers will pay separate rates based on their unique costs, to avoid cost shifting.
Cost Allocation – Dominion must submit alternative cost allocation proposals to SCC to ensure data centers pay for the costs they cause. - Contract Obligation – Data centers must take, and pay for, electric service for at least 14 years.
- Minimum Charges – Data centers must pay at least 85% of their transmission and distribution costs, regardless of their electricity usage.
- Collateral Obligation – Data centers must guarantee up to 60% of their minimum contract charges. Reliability – Dominion’s process for connecting data centers to the grid must be submitted to the SCC for review and approval.
- Proactive – Virginia is one of the first states to adopt comprehensive safeguards.
SCC Technical Conferences
- 2025
- Examined how the SCC can utilize data centers for reliability and affordability.
- Included 10 expert panelists from around the industry.
- 2024
- Examined how the SCC can ensure data centers pay their own costs
- Included 16 expert panelists from around the industry.
- Additional Activities
- The SCC is reviewing proposed safeguards for Appalachian Power Company and electric cooperatives.
- Safeguards include new terms and conditions to prevent cost-shifting.
- New rate class for large-load customers
Posted 2-24-2026
Revised (add conference links) 3-26-2026