| Commitments and Contingencies | Note 17. Commitments and Contingencies As a result of issues generated in the ordinary course of business, the Companies are involved in legal proceedings before various courts and are 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 the Companies to estimate a range of possible loss. For such matters that the Companies 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 the Companies are able to estimate a range of possible loss. For legal proceedings and governmental examinations that the Companies are 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 the Companies’ 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 the Companies’ financial position, liquidity or results of operations. Environmental Matters The Companies are 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. Air CAA 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 the Companies’ facilities are subject to the CAA’s permitting and other requirements. MATS In February 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule to reverse its previous finding that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutant emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric generating units In May 2020, the EPA’s final rule became effective. The final rule is consistent with the EPA’s February 2019 proposal, and determines that it is not appropriate and necessary to regulate mercury and hazardous air pollutant emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric generating units. The final rule also states that the MATS rule remains in place and the emissions standards for affected coal- and oil-fired electric generating units will not change. Ozone Standards 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, the Companies are 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 the Companies’ results of operations and cash flows. Oil and Gas NSPS 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. In August 2020, the EPA issued two final amendments related to the reconsideration of the NSPS for the oil and natural gas sector applicable to VOC and methane emissions. Together, the two amendments have the effect of rescinding both the methane portion of the NSPS for all segments of the oil and natural gas sector, rescinding all NSPS for the transmission and storage segment, and modifying some of the NSPS VOC requirements for facilities in the production and processing segments. The two amendments have been challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit but remain in effect pending the outcome of the litigation. Dominion Energy is still evaluating whether potential impacts on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows related to this matter will be material. ACE Rule 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 the Companies’ results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory frameworks in South Carolina and Virginia provide rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for the regulated electric utilities. Carbon Regulations 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 CO 2 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. State Regulations In May 2019, VDEQ issued a final rule establishing a state carbon regulation program with a 28.0 million ton initial state-wide carbon cap in 2020. The cap was to be reduced by approximately three percent per year through 2030, resulting in an ultimate cap of 19.6 million tons. The final rule included a provision for VDEQ to delay implementation of the rule pending authorization from the General Assembly and Governor of Virginia. In April 2020, Virginia legislation was enacted authorizing VDEQ to implement the final rule. In June 2020, the VDEQ signed the CO 2 The legislation discussed above is considered related legislation to the VCEA as discussed in Note 13. The VCEA institutes a mandatory renewable portfolio standard, enhances renewable generation and energy storage development, requires the retirement of certain generation facilities, establishes energy efficiency targets, expands net metering and directs Virginia’s participation in a market-based carbon trading program through 2050. Water 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. The Companies must comply with applicable aspects of the CWA programs at their operating facilities. Regulation 316(b) 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 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 the Companies’ results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory frameworks in South Carolina and Virginia provide rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for the regulated electric utilities. Effluent Limitations Guidelines In September 2015, the EPA released a final rule to revise the Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Steam Electric Power Generating Category. 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 Effluent Limitations Guidelines final 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 Effluent Limitations Guidelines final rule from November 2018 to November 2020; however, the latest date for compliance for these regulations was December 2023 . . While the impacts of this rule could be material to the Companies’ results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows, the existing regulatory frameworks in South Carolina and Virginia provide rate recovery mechanisms that could substantially mitigate any such impacts for the regulated electric utilities. Waste Management and Remediation The operations of the Companies 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, the Companies 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, the Companies 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. The Companies also may identify, evaluate and remediate other potentially impacted sites under voluntary state programs. Remediation costs may be subject to reimbursement under the Companies’ insurance policies, rate recovery mechanisms, or both. Except as described below, the Companies do not believe these matters will have a material effect on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. Dominion Energy has determined that it is associated with former manufactured gas plant sites, including certain sites associated with Virginia Power. At 11 sites associated with Dominion Energy, including certain sites acquired in the SCANA Combination, remediation work has been substantially completed under federal or state oversight. Where required, the sites are following state-approved groundwater monitoring programs. Dominion Energy has proposed or expects to propose remediation plans associated with three sites, including one at Virginia Power, and expects to conduct remediation activities primarily by the end of 2021. At both September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, Dominion Energy and Virginia Power have $30 million and $16 million, respectively, of reserves recorded. In addition, for one site associated with Dominion Energy, an updated work plan submitted to SCDHEC in September 2018, would increase costs by approximately $11 million if approved by federal and state agencies. In September 2020, this plan was submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers. Dominion Energy is associated with 13 additional sites, including two associated with Virginia Power, which are not under investigation by any state or federal environmental agency nor the subject of any current or proposed plans to perform remediation activities. Due to the uncertainty surrounding such sites, the Companies are unable to make an estimate of the potential financial statement impacts. Other Legal Matters The Companies are defendants in a number of lawsuits and claims involving unrelated incidents of property damage and personal injury. Due to the uncertainty surrounding these matters, the Companies are unable to make an estimate of the potential financial statement impacts; however, they could have a material impact on results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. SCANA Legal Proceedings The following describes certain legal proceedings involving Dominion Energy, SCANA or DESC relating 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, Dominion Energy 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 Dominion Energy is able to reasonably estimate a probable loss, Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019 include reserves of $228 million and $696 million, respectively, and insurance receivables of $8 million and $111 million, respectively, included within other receivables. During both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income include charges of $44 million ($33 million after-tax) included within impairment of assets and other charges. In addition, Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income for the nine months ended September 30, 2020 include charges of $25 million ($25 million after-tax) included within other income (expense). During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019, Dominion Energy’s Consolidated Statements of Income include charges of $38 million ($28 million after-tax) and $316 million ($236 million after-tax), respectively, included within impairment of assets and other charges. Ratepayer Class Actions 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 Corporation 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. Through August 2020, property, plant and equipment with a net recorded value of $27 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. In October 2020, DESC completed the conveyance of property, plant and equipment and funded this cash contribution. 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, including 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. In December 2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC, which was denied. 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 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 provides that Dominion Energy and Santee Cooper will establish a fund for the benefit of class members in the amount of $ 520 million, of which Dominion Energy’s portion is $ 320 million of shares of Dominion Energy common stock . Also in March 2020, the court granted p reliminary approval for the settlement agreement . 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 are 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. RICO Class Action 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 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. SCANA Shareholder Litigation In September 2017, a purported class action was filed against SCANA and certain former executive officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Subsequent additional purported class actions were separately filed against all or nearly all of these defendants (collectively the SCANA Securities Class Action). In January 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina consolidated these suits, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in March 2018. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants violated §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule promulgated thereunder, and that the individually named defendants are liable under §20(a) of the same act. In June 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. In March 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. In December 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which SCANA will pay $192.5 million, up to $32.5 million of which can be satisfied through the issuance of shares of Dominion Energy common stock, subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. In February 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, pending a fairness hearing. In March 2020, SCANA funded an escrow account with $160 million in cash and the balance of the settlement will be paid upon final approval of the settlement by the court. In July 2020, the court granted final approval of the settlement agreement. In August 2020, SCANA paid the balance of $32.5 million in cash to satisfy the settlement. In September 2017, a shareholder derivative action was filed against certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina. In September 2018, this action was consolidated with another action in the Business Court Pilot Program in Richland County. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by their gross mismanagement of the NND Project, and that the defendants were unjustly enriched by bonuses they were paid in connection with the project. In January 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action. In February 2019, one action was voluntarily dismissed. In March 2020, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In April 2020, the defendants filed a notice of appeal with the South Carolina Court of Appeals and a petition with the Supreme Court of South Carolina seeking appellate review of the denial of the motion to dismiss. In June 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal with the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which was granted in July 2020. In August 2020, the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied the defendants’ petition seeking appellate review. Also in August 2020, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing with the South Carolina Court of Appeals relating to the July 2020 ruling by the court, which was denied in October 2020. This case is pending. In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA, Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County, South Carolina (the City of Warren 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 June 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington 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 a similar appeal in the Metzler Lawsuit discussed below. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order remanding the case to state court. 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 allegations made and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are substantially similar to that described for the City of Warren Lawsuit. 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 the City of Warren Lawsuit. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order remanding the case to state court. In September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the City of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit. In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against certain former directors and executive officers of SCANA and DESC, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina denied the motion to dismiss In May 2019, a case was filed against certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by their gross mismanagement of the NND Project, were unjustly enriched by the bonuses they were paid in connection with the project and breached their fiduciary duties to secure and obtain the best price for the sale of SCANA. Also in May 2019, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court of South Carolina by the non-South Carolina defendants. In June 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. In January 2020, the case was remanded to state court. In February 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. This case is pending. Employment Class Actions and Indemnification 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 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 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. FILOT Litigation and Related Matters 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 unfai |
