Exhibit 99.01

V. C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 & 3

Quarterly Report to the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff

Submitted by South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

Pursuant to Public Service Commission Order No. 2009-104(A)

Quarter Ending March 31, 2011

I.              Introduction and Summary

A.            Introduction

This quarterly report is submitted by South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G or the Company) to the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (the Commission) and the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS).  It is submitted in satisfaction of the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 58-33-277 (Supp. 2010) and the terms of Commission Order No. 2009-104(A).  This report provides updated information concerning the status of the construction of V. C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 & 3 (the Units) and updates the capital cost and construction schedules for the Units.  The Commission approved updated construction schedules for the Units in Order No. 2010-12.  The Commission approved updated capital cost schedules for the Units in Order No. 2011-345 issued in May of 2011.

Order No. 2011-345 was based on updated cost schedules that SCE&G filed with the Commission on November 15, 2010, and supplemented on March 8, 2011.  Those updated schedules removed $438,291,000 in owner’s capital cost contingencies in response to the South Carolina Supreme Court opinion in South Carolina Energy Users Comm. v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 388 S.C. 486, 697 S.E.2d 587 (2010) (the Opinion).  The updated schedules also included approximately $174 million in capital costs that the Company had identified and itemized to specific cost items for the project since Order No. 2009-104(A).  They further reflected all changes in the timing of cash flow requirements since Order No. 2010-12 was adopted.

B.            Structure of Report and Appendices

The current reporting period is the quarter ending March 31, 2011.  The report is divided into the following sections:

Section I:               Introduction and Summary;

Section II:              Progress of Construction of the Units;

1

Section III:             Anticipated Construction Schedules;

Section IV:             Schedules of the Capital Costs Incurred Including Updates to the Information Required by S.C. Code Ann. § 58-33-270(B)(6) (the Inflation Indices);

Section V:              Updated Schedule of Anticipated Capital Costs; and

Section VI:             Conclusion.

Appendices 1, 2, and 4 to this report contain detailed financial, milestone and other information updating the schedules approved by the Commission in Order No. 2010-12.  For reference purposes, Appendix 3 provides a copy of the approved capital cost schedule for the project without adjustments in the form approved in Order No. 2011-345.

A confidential and a public version of this report and its attachments are being provided.  All cost information presented reflects only SCE&G’s share of the project’s cost.  Attached to the end of the report is a glossary of acronyms and defined terms used in it.

C.            Construction Schedule and Milestones

As the report indicates, the Company has met all current construction milestones approved by the Commission in Order No. 2010-12, as adjusted pursuant to contingencies authorized in Order No. 2009-104(A).  There are 146 separate milestones.  Of these, 59 have been completed as of March 31, 2011.  Comparing the scheduled milestone completion dates as of the date of this report to the milestone completion dates approved by the Commission in Order No. 2010-12, the completion dates of 71 milestones have changed.  Of these, 29 have been accelerated and 42 have been delayed for between one and 12 months.

D.            Construction Costs and Cost Forecasts

As this report indicates, the Company is on track to complete the Units at the capital cost forecast of approximately $4.3 billion as approved in Order No. 2011-345.

In Order No. 2009-104(A), the Commission recognized that forecasts of AFUDC expense and escalation would vary over the course of the project and required those forecasts to be updated with each quarterly report.  New escalation indices were issued in May 2011 for the period of July-December of 2010 and those indices have been used in forecasting the construction costs for the project presented here.  Chart A below compares the current capital cost forecast to the forecast presented in the last quarterly report.

2

Chart A: Reconciliation of Capital Cost ($000)

Chart A shows that the forecasted capital cost of the Units in 2007 dollars has decreased by approximately $103,000.  This reduction reflects the voluntary decision by the Company, communicated to the Commission by letter dated April 25, 2011, that it would not to seek recovery for $103,000 in Community/Support Outreach costs that Westinghouse/Shaw had included in costs to be charged under the Engineering, Procurement and Construction Agreement (EPC Contract) for the Units.

Chart B compares the current forecast of gross construction costs, including current escalation, to the forecast on which the Commission relied in adopting Order No. 2011-345.  Due to the changes in forecasted escalation rates when netted against other changes as discussed more fully below the cost of the plant in future dollars has decreased by $163 million.

3

Chart B: Reconciliation of Capital Cost ($000)

As shown on Appendix 2, Chart B, the total capital cost of the Units in current dollars has increased by approximately $9 million compared to the adjusted target. This increase relates to cash flow timing matters exclusively and does not change the cost of the Units in 2007 dollars.

E.     Escalation Rates

As provided in Order No. 2009-104(A), the most current twelve-month inflation indices are used to escalate costs occurring in the twelve-month period after the date of each quarterly report.  As stated above, new escalation indices were last issued in May 2011 for the period of July-December of 2010 and those rates are reflected in this report.

As shown on Appendix 4, utility construction cost escalation rates were at historically high levels during the period 2005-2008, and since then have begun to drop.  The current one-year averages and five-year averages are now closer to historical ten-year rates than they have been in certain past periods.  Current escalation rates are shown on Chart C, below.

4

Chart C: Handy-Whitman Escalation Rates

January 2011 Update

F.             AFUDC

The AFUDC for the project is currently projected to be approximately $9 million lower than the forecast on which Order No. 2011-345 was based.  Consistent with Order No. 2009-104(A), SCE&G computes AFUDC based on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved methodology as applied to the balance of Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) that is outstanding between rate adjustments.  SCE&G’s AFUDC rate is currently 5.87% which is the same rate that applied when Order No. 2011-345 was issued.  Standing alone, the current AFUDC rate would produce no change in the forecasted amount of AFUDC.  However, lower escalation rates, as partially off-set by the effect of timing changes in the cash flows, have reduced the forecasted project cash flows for the project thereby producing the forecasted reduction in AFUDC for the project.

5

G.            Compliance with the Commission Approved Cumulative Project Cash Flow Target

The current approved Cumulative Project Cash Flow target for the project was adopted by the Commission in Order No. 2011-345.  In Order No. 2009-104(A), the Commission provided that the applicable Cumulative Project Cash Flow target would be adjusted with each quarterly report to reflect updated escalation data.

Appendix 2, Chart A provides the approved Cumulative Project Cash Flow target updated for current escalation data.  The cash flow targets up to December 31, 2010, have been updated to reflect actual escalation rates up to that date.  The cash flow targets for the first quarter of 2011 and beyond have been updated based on the most recently available inflation indices, which for purposes of this report are the indices provided in May of 2011 that are current through December 31, 2010.  When actual indices for the period January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011 become available, the cash flow data for the first quarter of 2011 will be revised to reflect the actual escalation rates.

Appendix 2, Chart B compares the approved Cumulative Project Cash Flow target to the current cumulative cash flow schedules for the project, which include actual costs where available and SCE&G’s working forecasts of annual cash flows for future years.  In addition, the figures presented on Appendix 2, Chart B for 2011 have been adjusted to reflect timing differences between the billing methodology under the EPC Contract and the calculation of the escalated cash flow targets under Order No. 2009-104(A).  Under the EPC Contract, for periods where actual escalation rates are not available, Westinghouse/Shaw bills SCE&G based on a rolling 2-year average of the applicable Handy-Whitman rate and provides adjustments in the following period to reflect the actual rate when it is known.  An adjustment has been made to Appendix 2, Chart B to offset the timing difference related to Westinghouse/Shaw’s approach to estimated billings and credits which applies to those EPC cost categories that are subject to indexed escalation.  As shown on Appendix 2, Chart B, the adjustment for calendar year 2011 is calculated to be approximately ($1.4) million based on data for the first quarter of 2011.

II.            Progress of Construction of the Units

Construction of the Units is progressing on schedule.  However, in light of the anticipated delay in the issuance of the Combined Operating License (COL), which is discussed in more detail below, the current construction plan will not allow Unit 2 to be completed by the substantial completion date set forth in the EPC Contract.  In response, in February of 2011, SCE&G approved Change Order 11 to the EPC Contract to provide for Westinghouse/Shaw to perform a COL Delay Impact Study to assess strategies for dealing with the delay.  The study initially presented two alternative approaches.  One scenario compressed the construction schedule for Unit 2 to retain the current substantial

6

completion date.  The second scenario pushed the substantial completion date for Unit 2 out by six months.  In March 2011, Westinghouse/Shaw submitted a preliminary draft of the study for review and critique by SCE&G.  Upon review of the draft, SCE&G requested that the study evaluate a third scenario.  That third scenario considers accelerating the substantial completion date for Unit 3 to determine whether such acceleration, when coupled with a delay in the Unit 2 substantial completion date, would create economies and efficiencies in the construction schedule.  The logic of this third scenario is discussed more fully below at section II.E.4.  A subsequent draft of the COL Delay Study Report has been provided to SCE&G for review and evaluation.

As discussed in more detail below, SCE&G does not have any information indicating that the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan will impact the construction or permitting schedules for the Units.

A more detailed presentation of the status of the project is addressed in Section II.A-Section II.G below.

A.            Licensing and Permitting Update

1.             The Combined Operating License Application (COLA)

a)             Design Control Document (DCD) Revisions

In December 2010, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff issued a favorable Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the Design Control Document (DCD) Revision 18.  During that same month, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) reviewed the SER and determined that the AP1000 design is fully adequate to protect public health and safety.  In response, Westinghouse (WEC) is preparing a conforming Revision 19 to the DCD amendment application to incorporate into the DCD information that WEC previously had provided the NRC through Requests for Additional Information (RAIs).  DCD Revision 19 will also include additional conforming amendments to the design that WEC has agreed to make as a result of the NRC’s safety evaluation.  WEC had previously committed to provide the NRC with DCD Revision 19 during the first quarter of 2011.  However, several issues remain open and await completion of NRC Staff review.  WEC is now expected to submit DCD Revision 19 to the NRC in June or July of 2011.  The impact of this delay on the final rulemaking schedule is not known at this time but a delay of a month or more is anticipated.

As a result, SCE&G anticipates NRC approval of the amended DCD in the second half of 2011.  The recent shift in the NRC schedule for DCD approval supports issuance of a COL for the Units in late 2011 or early 2012.

7

b)             Site-Specific COL and Reference Plant COL

As of January 2011, the NRC Staff completed both its Phase A and B reviews to support development of the Advanced Final Safety Evaluation Report (AFSER) for the site-specific COLA for the Units.  The second ACRS subcommittee meeting to review the remaining site specific information was held January 10 and 11, 2011.  No significant issues were identified.  In early February, the third and final full Committee ACRS meeting concluded favorably.  As a result, on February 17, 2011, the ACRS issued a letter to the NRC supporting approval of the final COLA approval process to be conducted by the NRC Commissioners.  On March 26, 2011, the NRC Staff completed Phase C of the safety review.

The NRC’s review of the Reference Plant COL submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company for its units at Vogtle is on a similar schedule as the Units.

c)             Environmental Review

In April 2011, subsequent to this reporting period, the NRC completed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Units.  This is a significant milestone for the project, and completes the review of environmental impacts of the project.  The approval of the FEIS in April 2011 supports the issuance of a COL for the Units in late 2011 or early 2012.

d)             Legal Review

As noted in previous filings, several parties sought to intervene to raise issues before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) in its review of SCE&G’s COLA.  These interventions were dismissed either because their contentions were deemed not to be admissible, or because the intervenors lacked standing.  As a result, there are no contentions associated with the COLA.

On April 15, 2011, subsequent to this reporting period, a number of individuals and environmental groups filed a petition before the NRC to suspend all pending reactor licensing decisions and related rulemaking decisions based on the events associated with the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan.  The NRC has taken no action with regard to this petition.

On March 21, 2011, the NRC established a senior level agency task force to conduct a comprehensive review of the NRC processes and regulations in light of the events in Japan.  The task force will brief the NRC on its review at 30,

8

60 and 90 day intervals and will issue a preliminary report at the 90 day interval.  The task force will complete a longer-term review six months from the beginning of the evaluation.  On May 12, 2011, the task force conducted its initial briefing with the NRC and did not express any concerns regarding the Units.

SCE&G has no reason to believe that this review will impact the schedule for issuance of the COL for the Units.  Initial reports indicate that the Japanese reactors withstood the effects of the massive earthquake and that the primary cause of the subsequent problems was the loss of power resulting from devastation of the site and its back-up power supplies caused by the tsunami.  The passive safety features of the AP1000 design specifically allow for the safe shut down and stabilization of the reactors even in the event of the total loss of power for an extended period of time.  Under the AP1000 design, back-up on-site power supplies are available as redundancy.  As part of the NRC review process, the AP1000 units have been successfully analyzed against multiple disaster scenarios.  In addition, the first of SCE&G’s units is not scheduled for commercial operation until 2016.  Any changes to plant safety procedures or standards that emerge from the NRC review of the events in Japan can be implemented prior to start-up of Unit 2 in 2016.

2.             Other Major Construction Permits

a)             SCDHEC Permits

i.      In February 2011, SCE&G received the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) Phase 5 Stormwater permit which allows clearing and grading of 16.1 acres from the 13.8 kV alternate A/C line to the Raw Water Intake Structure (RWS).

ii.     SCE&G submitted the Preliminary Engineering Report and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit application to SCDHEC for the Wastewater System to Parr Reservoir. This application is for a permit to return fully treated discharge water into the Parr Reservoir.  The application is under review with SCDHEC.

b)             401 Water Quality Certification and 404 Wetlands Permit

i.      A 404 Wetlands Permit is required before undertaking construction within wetlands which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government.  An accompanying 401 Water Quality Certification is required to assess whether

9

aquatic life/water quality is adversely impacted by construction activities associated with a 404 Wetlands Permit.  The 404 Wetlands Permit for the Units encompasses the Units’ cooling water intake and discharge structures, the cooling towers, and the permanent water treatment plant.  While not part of the 404 Wetlands Permit, the EIS on which the 404 is based covers the full extent of the plant, including the transmission lines.  During the fourth quarter of 2010, SCE&G revised its 404 Wetlands Permit application for the project to reflect the Company’s decision to use existing rights-of-way or to expand transmission corridors for the transmission lines to be constructed by SCE&G and Santee Cooper to serve the Units and has resubmitted that application to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE).  Approval of this permit is expected in 2011.  In April 2011, subsequent to this reporting period, the NRC issued the FEIS and SCE&G is now awaiting the ACOE permit and 401 Water Quality Certification.  The ACOE permit is anticipated to be placed on public notice by the end of May 2011.  Meanwhile, pending the issuance of the 401/404 permit for the project, Westinghouse/Shaw is working around the intermittent stream bank in the Cooling Towers area.  The timely issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification and the 404 Wetlands Permit is a focus area for the project.

c)             Other Permits

i.      In late 2010, SCE&G submitted to the FERC a License Amendment Application to authorize it to withdraw cooling and other water for the Units from the Monticello Reservoir and to authorize other construction activities within the project boundaries of the reservoir.  Approval for this license amendment is anticipated to be granted in June of 2011.

10

ii.     In March, SCE&G received approval from Norfolk Southern for the installation of 360 feet of 36-inch high-density polyethylene (HDPE) sanitary sewer pipe and one crossing in a 24-inch steel pipe under the Norfolk Railroad adjacent to Parr Reservoir for Units 2 & 3 Waste Water Discharge Blow Down Line.  A Master Easement Agreement must be signed and returned to Norfolk Southern to finalize approval.  This Agreement is under review with SCE&G.

3.             BLRA Regulatory Proceedings

On August 9, 2010, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued its opinion in South Carolina Energy Users Comm. v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 388 S.C. 486, 697 S.E.2d 587 (2010).  In the Opinion, the Court ruled that owner’s capital cost contingencies were not permitted as part of BLRA-approved capital cost forecasts under the Base Load Review Act until costs could be identified and itemized to specific cost items.  The Supreme Court’s decision left open to SCE&G the option to petition the Commission under S.C. Code Ann. §58-33-270(E) to update the approved cash flow projections for the project.  The Base Load Review Act requires such updates to be allowed unless the changes in the cash flow projections are proven to be the result of imprudence by the utility.  On November 15, 2010, the Company filed with the Commission its Petition for Updates and Revisions to Capital Cost Schedules in Docket No. 2010-376-E.  As set forth on Exhibit 1 to the Petition, the Company removed $438,291,000 in owner’s capital cost contingencies from its cost projections.  In addition, the Company identified and itemized approximately $174 million in costs to specific cost items in the capital cost forecast.  Furthermore, the Petition updated the cash flow projections for the project to take into account all changes in the timing of cash flow requirements resulting from changes in project construction schedules and shifts in milestone dates.  In May 2011, subsequent to this reporting period, the Commission issued Order No. 2011-345 approving the updated capital cost schedules for the project. Those schedules are incorporated in this report as the approved cost projections against which the project is measured for purposes of the Base Load Review Act.  Parties objecting to the order must file a petition for rehearing with the Commission within ten days of receipt of the order.

11

B.            Engineering Update

1.             Engineering Completion Status

The V.C. Summer Units 2 & 3 Total Plant Design Completion Status is 87.8%, which consists of the following:

The Engineering Completion Status as reported above reflects the work necessary to bring the design outputs to a point where they are sufficient to support procurement and construction planning.  Certified for Construction (CFC) design packages include all information necessary for construction of specific structures, systems or components.

2.             Site Specific Design Activities

Shaw Engineering continues to perform Site Specific Design work to support the permitting for Site Specific Systems, to include the Circulating Water System, Yard Fire System, Potable Water System, Raw Water System, Sanitary Drain System and Waste Water System, and the Switchyard.  There is a delay in Switchyard design progress, which is being tracked by SCE&G Engineering and Construction.

3.             Procurement/Fabrication Update

a)             During the last quarter of 2010, Shaw placed on hold all fabrication or rework activities related to the Units by Shaw Modular Solutions (SMS).  The purpose of the hold was to evaluate and correct quality assurance (QA) issues at SMS’s fabrication facility.  A root cause investigation was conducted.  On January 10, 2011, the NRC was unable to complete a vendor inspection audit at SMS due to the lack of actual production work ongoing.  The NRC then requested a plan of action from SMS addressing all issues identified since initiation of fabrication.  SMS responded to the NRC’s request, outlining corrective actions put in place to elevate SMS’s QA program implementation to the level of effectiveness required for fabrication of AP1000 modules.  In addition, the Consortium has increased its QA/QC oversight and presence at the SMS facility, and SMS has undertaken a broad-based program for improving its quality

12

control practices and procedures and strengthening the nuclear safety culture at its facility. As of the end of April 2011, SMS is demonstrating significant progress in implementing its plans and improving its QA program and culture.  On March 7, 2011, the Shaw Nuclear Quality Assurance annual implementation audit was performed.  At this time, SMS received approval to begin rework activities of floor submodules.  Phase I Prototype activities are on-going, and welding activities have begun for Module Prototype Phase II.  The on-hook dates of the CA20 and CA01 (i.e., the dates by which fabrication is complete and they are ready to be lifted into place) remain at March 2012 and June 2012, respectively.  Westinghouse/Shaw still must provide SCE&G with an updated and credible module fabrication and delivery schedule that takes into account recent delays and the schedule impacts that can be anticipated from SMS’s on-going implementation of its new processes and culture.  The production and review of this schedule remains a focus area.

b)             As previously reported, WEC identified QA deficiencies during an audit of its supplier, Mangiarotti, leading to a number of temporary manufacturing holds being invoked by WEC related to Mangiarotti’s sub-suppliers.  WEC conducted multiple observations and reviews at the various fabrication facilities in an effort to resolve the sub-supplier issues regarding production and fabrication of AP1000 components for SCE&G.  As a result of these efforts, two of the four BLRA milestones previously impacted by the hold were completed during the fourth quarter of 2010.  Completion dates for the other two impacted BLRA milestones (11-3Q-3 “Pressurizer Fabricator Notice to Contractor of Welding of Upper and Intermediate Shells Completion”, and 12-1Q-2 “Passive Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger Fabricator Notice to Contractor of Final Post Weld Heat Treatment”) remain within the BLRA milestone schedule contingency, as does the shipment of these components to the site. However, past Stop Work Orders and failed sub-supplier qualifications have impacted fabrication activities and delivery schedule.  There is a potential negative impact to the site delivery date regarding Accumulator Tanks; however, WEC is working with Mangiarotti to improve the schedule.  All Mangiarotti equipment is closely monitored by SCE&G and the Consortium to ensure that equipment delivery supports the schedule, and any related BLRA milestones remain within the specified contingency.

Additional tests were required on the Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) for the China AP1000 projects due to indications discovered during initial testing that warranted a root cause analysis by Westinghouse and the

13

manufacturer, EMD.  Improvements to the RCP in several areas were made.  A more extensive Engineering Test of the RCP began on December 22, 2010 and was successfully completed in January 2011.  The Endurance Test began on April 28, 2011, and will extend through July 2011.  All indications are that this test will conclude successfully.

c)             Doosan continues with the fabrication of the Reactor Vessel for Unit 2.  BLRA milestone “Reactor Vessel Fabricator Notice to Contractor of Outlet Nozzle Welding to Flange Nozzle Shell Completion Unit 2” (10-3Q-3) was completed on December 30, 2010, which supports the milestone date for the receipt of the Unit 2 Reactor Vessel on site (BLRA milestone 13-2Q-6).

d)             As previously reported, the Unit 2 Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL) Piping experienced delays in hot leg manufacturing due to issues with some of the mockup pieces exceeding the maximum wall thickness.  Although bending of the Hot Leg (HL) 6 section took place in December 2010 with no issues, RCS loop piping now is on hold, pending resolution of grain size deviations.  SCE&G and the Consortium are closely monitoring any potential impacts to BLRA milestone 11-4Q-5 regarding shipment of the Unit 2 RCL piping to the site.

e)             A Stop Work Order also has been put into effect for SPX, which manufactures Squib Valves for the Units.  Production will not resume until SPX demonstrates that all WEC Qualified Suppliers requirements are being met.  There currently is no projected date for manufacturing restart, but SCE&G is monitoring SPX’s progress in resolving its issues.  Potential schedule impacts also are being assessed.  This is a focus area.

f)             Equipment being manufactured in Japan is being closely monitored to determine any future schedule impacts.  This equipment includes the Turbine Generator, Main Transformer, and Containment Vessel.  Immediately following the March 2011 earthquake, the Consortium issued a Force Majeure letter informing SCE&G of possible effects to the manufacturing schedule.  At this time, however, no schedule impacts have been identified.  None of the suppliers or sub-supplier facilities for the project are located in the immediate area of the earthquake.  In addition, no suppliers or sub-suppliers have reported damage to equipment or work in progress.  As a result, the principal area of concern is the effect of limited supplies of electricity and diversion of engineering

14

resources to the recovery effort.  To date, no specific delays have been reported.

C.            Construction Update

1.             Preconstruction work in the Switchyard continues, with the final 22 caissons being poured.  However, due to weather delays, late issuance of documents for review, and delayed resolution of issues associated with design compliance to the approved Switchyard specification, work is approximately 2 months behind schedule.  A Switchyard status meeting was held in April to determine the path forward.  Shaw currently is developing an action plan to address open items that is due by May 13, 2011.

2.             The Unit 2 power block excavation continues on schedule.  Rock blasting and removal has been completed within the Nuclear Island, and an NRC inspection was conducted in April.  Unit 3 excavation began in January 2011, and installation of the first 20 feet of the retaining wall has been completed.

3.             Excavation for the first Cooling Tower foundation is complete.  Deep foundations (steel h-piles) are being installed to support the structure and these are 75% complete.

4.             The Module Assembly Building (MAB) structural work is complete and installation of permanent electrical power for the inside of the building is nearing completion.

5.             Foundation work for the Heavy Lift Derrick (HLD) was completed in February 2011.  Assembly of the carriage is underway, with parts arriving on site.

6.             The second batch plant is complete, with production of non-safety concrete ongoing.

7.             Preparation for Chicago Bridge & Iron (CB&I) mobilization continues, with assembly of the Containment Vessel Bottom Head (CVBH) support structure completed.  Alignment finalization of the support structure is anticipated to be completed in May 2011.  Assembly of the Containment Vessel (CV), however, remains on hold contingent upon resolution of previously reported CB&I QA program deficiencies identified at Vogtle.  WEC performed a detailed surveillance in April to assess the condition of the CB&I program at the V.C. Summer site.  As a result, additional corrective actions were given to CB&I to implement.  WEC is scheduled to perform a follow-up audit in May.  A Readiness

15

Review is also scheduled for May to determine whether or not CB&I will be released to work.  This is a focus area.

D.            Training Update

1.             The major focus for Units 2 & 3 Training is completion of a six (6) week systems refresher course and “spin up” training using AP1000 Abnormal Operating Procedures and Emergency Operating Procedures to prepare the first group of 13 (twelve instructors and one supervisor) to attend the 17-week simulator portion of Instructor Senior Reactor Operator Certification (SRO-C) training on the Training Development Simulator at WEC in Cranberry, PA.

2.             The Limited Scope Simulator (LSS) development remains on schedule to be operational in the first quarter of 2012; however, WEC recently informed SCE&G of a change in the schedule to conduct Integrated Systems Validation (ISV) testing on the LSS at WEC.  The change is due to incomplete design inputs, procedures, and Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA).  The proposal splits the tests into two phases, the first in 2011 and the second in the 2013/2014 timeframe.  These changes will impact SCE&G’s ability to support the test with operating crews and could affect the capability of the LSS delivered to V.C. Summer.  A meeting was held in April that addressed challenges associated with ISV schedule changes and LSS capabilities with WEC leadership.  This is a focus area.

E.             Change Control/Owners Cost Forecast Update

1.             In Order No. 2011-345, the Commission approved updated Owners Cost projections for the project.

2.             The process for approving Amendment No. 2 to the EPC Contract has been initiated.  Amendment No. 2 will incorporate Change Orders 3 and 5-11 into the body of the EPC Contract.

3.             Subsequent to this reporting period, SCE&G has provided a signed copy of Change Order 8 to WEC/Shaw.  Change Order 8 embodies the provisions referenced in the Agreement signed by both Parties in August 2010 for the transfer of 11 scopes of work totaling approximately $315 million from Target to Fixed/Firm cost categories.

4.             In February 2011, SCE&G approved Change Order 11, which initiated a study conducted by WEC/Shaw that analyzed potential impacts to the construction schedule due to the probable delay in receiving the COL.  The

16

original study considered two scenarios.  One involved compressing the construction schedule to maintain the April 1, 2016 substantial completion date for Unit 2.  The other involved delaying that date by 6 months.  SCE&G has recently requested that the study consider a third scenario, under which the substantial completion date of Unit 2 would be delayed by 6 months and the substantial completion date of Unit 3 would be accelerated.  By narrowing the gap between the Units, it may be possible to create construction efficiencies through avoiding demobilization and remobilization of crews as work progresses from one unit to another.  A preliminary draft report including the third scenario has been provided for SCE&G for initial validation and review.  There is no increase in EPC Contract cost associated with this change order.

F.             Transmission Update

1.             SCE&G’s Power Delivery group has resolved the routes for the four 230kV transmission lines associated with the Units, i.e., the VCS1 — Killian Line (Unit 2), the VCS2 — Lake Murray Line (Unit 2), and the VCS2 — St. George #1 and #2 Lines (Unit 3).  These new lines will now occupy existing transmission right of way (ROW) corridors except for a segment of approximately 6 miles of the VCS1-Killian Line that will be built on a new ROW.

2.             The VCS-Winnsboro segment and the Winnsboro-Blythewood segment of the VCS1- Killian Line will be constructed on existing ROW.

3.             The Blythewood-Killian segment of the VCS1- Killian Line will be constructed on new ROW.  The siting of the Blythewood-Killian segment was determined by a siting process that included public workshops.  Public workshops were held on October 29, 2009, and March 16, 2010, to receive public comments on proposed siting and alternate routes for this line.  A final route was identified and route notification letters have been mailed to all property owners in the study area with survey notifications included for property owners adjacent to the selected route.  The transmission line centerline has been surveyed and ROW easement drawings have been prepared.  SCE&G commenced ROW acquisition on March 22, 2011.  Of the 48 parcels involved, approximately 14 have been acquired as of the end of April 2011.

4.             A final letter was mailed the first week in January 2011 to all property owners within the study area of the Winnsboro-Blythewood section of the VCS1- Killian Line announcing the close out of the siting study based upon the decision to use the existing ROW corridor.  The property owners were informed that no further public workshops are planned as a result of our decision.

17

The remaining section (VCS-Winnsboro) as noted above will also occupy existing ROW, and no formal workshops are planned.

5.             SCE&G has completed initial inventory surveys of its existing ROW corridors for the VCS2 — Lake Murray Line and has conducted title searches of the existing properties.  Any questions related to the scope or suitability of the existing easements and encroachments are being identified and assessed with resolution expected in the coming months.

6.             SCE&G has completed acquisition of additional land in St. George, South Carolina, that will allow for installation of the breaker-and-a-half switchyard configuration needed to connect Unit 3 via two new VCS2 — St. George Lines.  The decision to utilize existing corridors to the fullest extent possible to construct the VCS2 — St. George Lines is expected to eliminate or minimize the need to acquire new or expanded right-of-way for this line.

7.             SCE&G and Pike Energy Solutions signed an engineering, procurement and construction contract on February 28, 2011, to provide for the permitting, engineering and design, procurement of material, and the construction of the four lines needed to connect the Units.

III.           Anticipated Construction Schedules

As of March 31, 2011, the Company and its contractors remain on schedule to complete all required milestones as adjusted pursuant to the milestone schedule contingencies approved by the Commission in Order No. 2009-104(A).  Each of those adjustments is itemized in the Milestone Update section that follows.  Accordingly, the project is in compliance with the construction schedules approved by the Commission in Order No. 2010-12 and with the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 58-33-275(A)(1).

A.            Construction Schedule Update

The Project Licensing and Permitting, Engineering, Procurement and Construction work remains on schedule to meet the Units’ Substantial Completion dates.  Rescheduling of the milestones is addressed in Section III.B.  The rescheduling of these milestones is within the approved schedule contingencies and has no adverse impact on the Units’ Substantial Completion dates.

B.            Milestone Update

Attached as Appendix 1 to this quarterly report is a spreadsheet that lists and updates each of the specific milestones constituting the anticipated construction schedule for the Units pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 58-33-270(B)(1) and Order No. 2010-12.

18

Comparing the milestone dates in this quarter to the reset milestone dates in Order No. 2010-12, 29 milestones have been advanced and 42 have been delayed.  All milestone adjustments are within the scope of the milestone schedule contingencies authorized by the Commission in Order No. 2009-104(A).  The milestone adjustments do not adversely affect the Substantial Completion dates for the Units.

IV.           Schedules of the Capital Costs Incurred Including Updates to the Information Required by S.C. Code Ann. § 58-33-270(B)(6) (the Inflation Indices)

The Capital Cost Update section of this report (Section IV.A) provides an update of the cumulative capital costs incurred and forecasted to be incurred in completing the project.  These costs are compared to the cumulative capital cost targets approved by the Commission in Order No. 2011-345.  The approved capital cost targets have been adjusted to reflect the currently reported historical escalation rates.  There has not been any use by the Company of the capital cost timing contingencies that were approved by the Commission in Order No. 2009-104(A).  The Inflation Indices Update section (Section IV.B) of this report provides updated information on inflation indices and the changes in them.

A.            Capital Costs Update

Chart A of Appendix 2 shows the Cumulative Project Cash Flow target as approved in Order No. 2011-345 and as updated for escalation and other Commission approved adjustments under the heading “Per Order 2011-345 Adjusted.”

Chart A of Appendix 2 also shows the cumulative cash flow for the project based on actual expenditures to date and the Company’s current forecast of cost and construction schedule under the heading “Actual Through March 2011, plus Projected.”

As shown on Appendix 2, Chart A, the actual expenditure for the project during the 12 months ended 2010 is approximately $399 million.  As shown on Appendix 2, Chart B, line 25, the cumulative amount projected to be spent on the project as of December 31, 2011 is $1.324 billion.  The Cumulative Project Cash Flow target approved by the Commission for year-end 2011 adjusted for current escalation and Westinghouse/Shaw billing differences is $1.343 billion.  As a result, the cumulative cash flow at year-end 2011 is forecasted to be approximately $19 million less than the target.

For comparison purposes, Appendix 3 sets out the cash flow schedule for the project as it was approved in Order No. 2011-345. Appendix 3 does not include any adjustments to the cash flow schedule for changes in inflation indices or adjustments in capital cost schedules made by the Company.  The AFUDC forecast presented on Appendix 3 is the AFUDC forecast that was current at the time of Order No. 2011-345.

19

B.            Inflation Indices Update

Appendix 4 shows the updated inflation indices approved in Order No. 2009-104(A).  Included is a history of the annual Handy Whitman All Steam Index, South Atlantic Region; the Handy Whitman All Steam and Nuclear Index, South Atlantic Region; Handy Whitman All Transmission Plant Index, South Atlantic Region; and the Chained GDP Index for the past 10 years.  The changes in these indices and the escalation-related effects of cost rescheduling resulted in a decrease in the projected cost of the Units in future dollars from $5.8 billion as forecast in Order No. 2011-345 to a forecast of $5.6 billion using current inflation data.

V.            Updated Schedule of Anticipated Capital Costs

The updated schedule of anticipated capital costs for Units 2 & 3 is reflected in Appendix 2, Chart A.

VI.           Conclusion

As indicated above, the scheduled completion dates for Units 2 & 3 remain unchanged.  The Units are on track to be completed within the approved cost of $4.3 billion in 2007 dollars.  The Company maintains an extensive staff of experts that monitors and oversees the work of its contractors and has identified and continues to monitor closely all areas of concern related to either cost or schedule for the project.  The Company will continue to update the Commission and ORS of progress and concerns as the project proceeds.

20

ATTACHMENT 1

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS OR DEFINED TERMS

21

22

APPENDIX 1

V. C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 & 3

Quarterly Report to the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff

Submitted by South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

Pursuant to Public Service Commission Order No. 2009-104(A)

Quarter Ending March 31, 2011

Appendix 1 lists and updates each of the milestones which the Commission adopted as the Approved Construction Schedule for the Units, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 58-33-270(B)(1) in Order No. 2010-12.  Appendix 1 provides columns with the following information:

1.             Milestone tracking ID number.

2.             The description of the milestone as updated in Order No. 2010-12.

3.             The BLRA milestone date, both by year and quarter and the specific calendar date for the milestone, as approved by the Commission in Order No. 2010-12.

4.             The current milestone date, both by year and quarter and the specific calendar date for the milestone.

5.             For each actual completed milestone, the date by which it was completed.  For completed milestones, the milestone entry is shaded in gray.

6.             Information showing the number of months, if any, by which a milestone has been shifted.

7.             Information as to whether any milestone has been shifted outside of the 18/24 Month Contingency approved by the Commission.

8.             Information as to whether any current change in this milestone is anticipated to impact the substantial completion date.

9.             Notes.

10.           On the final page of the document, there is a chart summarizing milestone completion and movement comparing the current milestone date to the milestone date approved in Order No. 2010-12.  This movement is shown for only the milestones that have not been completed.

23

1 of 13

2 of 13

3 of 13

4 of 13

5 of 13

6 of 13