Dominion and NextEra's Proposed $68 Billion Merger: A Virginia Regulatory Overview

On May 18, 2026, Virginia’s biggest energy supplier, Dominion Energy, announced a proposed $68 billion merger with energy giant NextEra Energy, kicking off a deal that would create the world’s largest regulated electric utility. The merger has drawn skepticism and vast media attention as the proposed deal sits at the critical intersection of the Commonwealth’s most pressing issues: energy security, grid resiliency, ratepayer affordability, and – controversially – the growing data center industry.

Merger Terms

Dominion and NextEra agreed to a series of pre- and post-merger commitments to benefit consumers, employees, and shareholders, which are summarized below. (See the State Corporation Commission filing for the full list of commitments.)

Customers:

• $2,250,000,000 provided to customers across Dominion’s service territory in the form of rate credits, estimated to average about $10 per month in a 24-month rate cycle.
• Customers held harmless from the expenses of the merger.

Charitable Giving:

• $10,000,000 of additional charitable giving, bringing Dominion’s charitable total to $23,000,000.

Operations:

• Dominion-NextEra to utilize a dual corporate headquarter structure, maintaining Dominion’s Richmond, Virginia headquarters and NextEra’s Juno Beach, Florida headquarters.
• Dominion Energy to exist as a separate legal entity post-merger.
• NextEra to maintain Dominion’s “commitment to customer service quality at no less than current levels.”
• Dominion and NextEra to keep separate books and records.
• Virginia SCC will continue to exercise regulatory authority over Dominion Energy.

Employee Protections:

• 18-month job protection for Dominion employees.
• 24-month compensation and benefit protection “that are no less favorable in aggregate than those in effect immediately prior to the closing of the Merger.”

Regulatory Proceedings and Timelines

The deal must be approved by regulatory bodies in each state of the affected service areas – North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia – and faces federal oversight from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Pursuant to Code § 56-88.1, Virginia’s SCC traditionally completes such reviews and approvals within a 60-day timeframe. However, given the magnitude of the proposed merger, the Commission has opted to extend the review timeline by an additional 120 days. The review includes evidentiary hearings, electronic public comment, and telephonic public testimony opportunities.

Due to the nature of this merger’s potential impact on ratepayers, several state lawmakers and legislators have advocated for a further extension, which would need to be accomplished via legislation during the General Assembly session. This would prove difficult, however, since the 180-day application review ends on January 11, 2027 – two days before the General Assembly convenes on January 13, 2027.

The timeline of the proceedings is as follows:

• September 11, 2026: Deadline to File Notice of Participation as a Respondent
• October 19, 2026: Deadline to File Testimony and Exhibits for Respondents to Establish Case; Staff to Investigate Joint Petition and File Testimony and Exhibits
• November 2, 2026: Petitioners to File Rebuttal Testimony and Exhibits with Clerk of the Commission; Deadline to Provide Contact Information to Offer Public Testimony
• November 5, 2026 (8:30AM-11:00AM); November 9, 2026 (4:00PM - 7:00PM); November 10, 2026 (4:00PM - 7:00PM): Hearings for the Receipt of Testimony from Public Witnesses
• November 9, 2026: Deadline to Submit Written Public Comments
• November 17, 2026: Evidentiary Portion of the Hearing on the Joint Petition
• January 11, 2027: Anticipated Issuance of SCC’s Final Order

Standard of Review

Many of the arguments in opposition of the merger center around the previously rejected merger proposals in Texas and Hawaii, where NextEra attempted similar acquisitions. These criticisms, however, neglect differing standards of review.

Virginia’s SCC uses a minimum adequate service model, colloquially known as a “do-no-harm” standard. The Code of Virginia § 56-90 simply requires the SCC to be “satisfied that adequate service to the public at just and reasonable rates will not be impaired or jeopardized by granting the prayer of the petition.”

In Hawaii and Texas, however, regulatory bodies responsible for the oversight of such mergers are code-bound to determine whether the proposal is beneficial to the public or, in other words, demonstrates “affirmative benefit”. The proposals in both states failed to meet the “affirmative benefit” standard, but it remains to be seen whether the proposals would have passed under the less stringent “do-no-harm standard.” This distinction may be the linchpin in this merger.

Willcox Savage Consulting is tracking the merger closely. For further questions or information, please reach out to us at plyons@wilsavconsulting.com.