PG&E Corporation and the Utility have significant contingencies arising from their operations, including contingencies related to enforcement and litigation matters and environmental remediation. A provision for a loss contingency is recorded when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can reasonably be estimated. PG&E Corporation and the Utility evaluate which potential liabilities are probable and the related range of reasonably estimated losses and record a charge that reflects their best estimate or the lower end of the range, if there is no better estimate. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and whether the loss or a range of losses is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s provision for loss and expense excludes anticipated legal costs, which are expensed as incurred.

On August 9, 2016, the jury in the federal criminal trial against the Utility in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in San Francisco, found the Utility guilty on one count of obstructing a federal agency proceeding and five counts of violations of pipeline integrity management regulations of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act. On January 26, 2017, the court imposed a sentence on the Utility in connection with the conviction. The court sentenced the Utility to a five-year corporate probation period, oversight by the Monitor for a period of five years, with the ability to apply for early termination after three years, a fine of $3 million to be paid to the federal government, certain advertising requirements, and community service.

The probation includes a requirement that the Utility not commit any local, state, or federal crimes during the probation period. As part of the probation, the Utility has retained the Monitor at the Utility’s expense. The goal of the Monitor is to help ensure that the Utility takes reasonable and appropriate steps to maintain the safety of its gas and electric operations, and to maintain effective ethics, compliance and safety related incentive programs on a Utility-wide basis.

On November 27, 2018, the court overseeing the Utility’s probation issued an order requiring that the Utility, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California (the “USAO”) and the Monitor provide written answers to a series of questions regarding the Utility’s compliance with the terms of its probation, including what requirements of the Utility’s probation “might be implicated were any wildfire started by reckless operation or maintenance of PG&E power lines” or “might be implicated by any inaccurate, slow, or failed reporting of information about any wildfire by PG&E.” The court also ordered the Utility to provide “an accurate and complete statement of the role, if any, of PG&E in causing and reporting the recent 2018 Camp fire in Butte County and all other wildfires in California” since January 2017 (“Question 4 of the November 27 Order”). On December 5, 2018, the court issued an order requesting that the Office of the California Attorney General advise the court of its view on “the extent to which, if at all, the reckless operation or maintenance of PG&E power lines would constitute a crime under California law.” The responses of the Attorney General were submitted on December 28, 2018, and the responses of the Utility, the USAO and the Monitor were submitted on December 31, 2018.

On January 3, 2019, the court issued a new order requiring that the Utility provide further information regarding the 2017 Atlas fire. The court noted that “[t]his order postpones the question of the adequacy of PG&E’s response” to Question 4 of the November 27 Order. On January 4, 2019, the court issued another order requiring that the Utility provide, “with respect to each of the eighteen October 2017 Northern California wildfires that [Cal Fire] has attributed to [the Utility’s] facilities,” information regarding the wind conditions in the vicinity of each fire’s origin and information about the equipment allegedly involved in each fire’s ignition. The responses of the Utility were submitted on January 10, 2019.

On January 9, 2019, the court ordered the Utility to appear in court on January 30, 2019, as a result of the court’s finding that “there is probable cause to believe there has been a violation of the conditions of supervision” with respect to reporting requirements related to the 2017 Honey fire. In addition, on January 9, 2019, the court issued an order (the “January 9 Order”) proposing to add new conditions of probation that would require the Utility, among other things, to:

•prior to June 21, 2019, “re-inspect all of its electrical grid and remove or trim all trees that could fall onto its power lines, poles or equipment in high-wind conditions, . . . identify and fix all conductors that might swing together and arc due to slack and/or other circumstances under high-wind conditions[,] identify and fix damaged or weakened poles, transformers, fuses and other connectors [and] identify and fix any other condition anywhere in its grid similar to any condition that contributed to any previous wildfires,”

The Utility was ordered to show cause by January 23, 2019 as to why the Utility’s conditions of probation should not be modified as proposed. The Utility’s response was submitted on January 23, 2019. The court requested that Cal Fire file a public statement, and invited the CPUC to comment, by January 25, 2019. On January 30, 2019, the court found that the Utility had violated a condition of its probation with respect to reporting requirements related to the 2017 Honey fire. Also, on January 30, 2019, the court ordered the Utility to submit to the court on February 6, 2019 the 2019 Wildfire Mitigation Plan that the Utility was required to submit to the CPUC by February 6, 2019 in accordance with SB 901, and invited interested parties to comment on such plan by February 20, 2019. In addition, on February 14, 2019, the court ordered the Utility to provide additional information, including on its vegetation clearance requirements. The Utility submitted its response to the court on February 22, 2019.

The court ordered all parties to show cause by March 22, 2019, as to why the Utility’s conditions of probation should not be modified as proposed. The responses of the Utility, the USAO, Cal Fire, the CPUC, and non-party victims were filed on March 22, 2019. At a hearing on April 2, 2019, the court indicated it would impose the new conditions of probation proposed on March 5, 2019, on the Utility, and on April 3, 2019, the court issued an order imposing the new terms though amended the second condition to clarify that “[f]or purposes of this condition, the operative wildfire mitigation plan will be the plan ultimately approved by the CPUC.”

Also, on April 2, 2019, the court directed the parties to submit briefing by April 16, 2019, regarding whether the court can extend the term of probation beyond five years in light of the violation that has been adjudicated and whether the Monitor reports should be made public. The responses of the Utility, the USAO, and the Monitor were filed on April 16, 2019. The Utility’s response contended that the term of probation may not be extended beyond five years and the USAO’s response contended that whether the term of probation could be extended beyond five years was an open legal issue.

The court held a sentencing hearing on the probation violation related to reporting requirements in connection with the 2017 Honey fire on May 7, 2019. After that hearing, the court imposed two additional conditions of probation by order dated May 14, 2019: (1) requiring that PG&E Corporation’s Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer, senior executives, the Monitor and U.S. Probation Officer visit the towns of Paradise and San Bruno “to gain a firsthand understanding of the harm inflicted on those communities;” and (2) requiring that a committee of PG&E Corporation’s Board of Directors assume responsibility for tracking progress of the 2019 Wildfire Mitigation Plan and the additional terms of probation regarding wildfire safety, reporting in writing to the full Board at least quarterly. The court also stated that it was not going to rule at this time on whether the court has authority to extend probation and would leave that question “in abeyance.” The court did not discuss whether the Monitor reports should be made public. Members of PG&E Corporation’s Board of Directors and senior management attended site visits to the Town of Paradise on June 7, 2019 and the City of San Bruno on July 16, 2019, which were coordinated by the U.S. Probation Officer overseeing the Utility’s probation. In addition, the Compliance and Public Policy Committee, a committee of PG&E Corporation’s Board of Directors, will be responsible for tracking the Utility’s progress against the Utility’s wildfire mitigation plan, as approved by the CPUC, and compliance with the terms of the Utility’s probation regarding wildfire safety.

On July 10, 2019, the court ordered the Utility to respond to a Wall Street Journal article titled “PG&E Knew for Years Its Lines Could Spark Wildfires, and Didn’t Fix Them” on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, stating the extent to which each paragraph in the article is accurate. The court also ordered the Utility to disclose all political contributions made by the Utility since January 1, 2017, and provide additional explanations regarding those contributions and dividends distributed prior to filing the Chapter 11 Cases. The Utility filed its response with the court on July 31, 2019. In the response, the Utility disagreed with the Wall Street Journal article’s suggestion that the Utility knew of the specific maintenance conditions that caused the 2018 Camp fire and nonetheless deferred work that would have addressed those conditions.

On July 26, 2019, the Monitor submitted a letter to the court regarding its VM field inspections (“VM inspections”), which were designed to evaluate the Utility’s compliance with aspects of its publicly-filed Wildfire Mitigation Plan’s EVM. The Monitor’s letter, which was filed on the public docket on August 14, 2019, provided its preliminary observations and preliminary findings, which included that (1) the Utility’s contractors had missed trees that should have been identified and worked under the EVM program; and (2) the Utility’s systems for recording, tracking and assigning EVM work were inconsistent and may have been contributing to the missed work. In its September 3, 2019 response to the Monitor’s letter, the Utility detailed its plan to address the concerns raised by the Monitor. The Monitor’s concerns and the Utility’s response were discussed at a hearing on September 17, 2019.

During the September 17, 2019 hearing, the court asked the Utility to provide information about: (1) its preparation for high wind season; and (2) the number of fires 10 acres or greater allegedly caused by the Utility to date in 2019. The Utility responded on October 1, 2019 by describing its efforts to strengthen its programs and infrastructure to maximize safety and mitigate the potential wildfire risk during high wind season. The Utility also responded that as of September 17, 2019, the Utility’s equipment may have contributed to nine ignitions in 2019 that resulted in fires 10 acres or greater. Two of these fires were potentially caused by vegetation and one was potentially caused by equipment. On October 2, 2019, the court asked the Utility for further information regarding the three fires potentially caused by vegetation and equipment. In its response, which was filed on October 9, 2019, the Utility provided information regarding certain fires, including but not limited to total acreage of the fire, ignition date, and potential causes.

On October 14, 2019, the court issued a request for information in connection with the PSPS event the Utility initiated on October 9, 2019 that shut off power to approximately 738,000 customers in 34 counties across Northern and Central California, asking the Utility to file a statement setting forth, among other information, “how many trees and limbs fell or blew onto the deenergized lines and how many of those would likely have caused arcing had the power been left on.” The Utility’s response was filed on October 30, 2019.

On November 4, 2019, the court issued a request for information in connection with PSPS events the Utility initiated in late October of 2019, asking the Utility to file a statement setting forth, among other information, the same type of information requested on October 14, 2019 in connection with the PSPS event initiated on October 9, 2019. The Utility’s response is due on November 29, 2019.

On June 27, 2019, the CPUC issued an OII (the “2017 Northern California Wildfires OII”) to determine whether the Utility “violated any provision(s) of the California Public Utilities Code (PU Code), Commission General Orders (GO) or decisions, or other applicable rules or requirements pertaining to the maintenance and operation of its electric facilities that were involved in igniting fires in its service territory in 2017.”

The 2017 Northern California Wildfires OII discloses the findings of a June 13, 2019 report by the SED, which, among other things, alleges that the Utility committed 27 violations in connection with 12 of the 2017 Northern California wildfires (specifically, the Adobe, Atlas, Cascade, Norrbom, Nuns, Oakmont/Pythian, Partrick, Pocket, Point, Potter/Redwood, Sulphur and Youngs fires). As described in the OII, the 27 alleged violations include failure to maintain vegetation clearances, failure to identify and abate hazardous trees, improper record keeping, incomplete patrol prior to re-energizing a circuit, failure to retain evidence, failure to report an incident, and failure to maintain clearances between lines. No violations were identified by the SED in connection with the Cherokee, La Porte and Tubbs fires. The 37 fire was determined by the SED to not be a reportable incident. The SED report does not address the Lobo and McCourtney fires because Cal Fire referred its investigations into these fires to local law enforcement and the information contained in its investigation reports related to these fires remains confidential. On a status conference call before the assigned ALJ on July 29, 2019, the SED informed the parties that because the Nevada County District Attorney had decided not to pursue criminal charges in connection with the Lobo and McCourtney fires, the SED may add alleged violations related to those fires and the 2018 Camp fire to the OII.

The 2017 Northern California Wildfires OII required the Utility to (i) show cause by July 29, 2019 why it should not be sanctioned for the 27 violations alleged in the SED report and (ii) submit a report by August 5, 2019, responding to information requests relating to “matters of concern that […] warrant further investigation and possible charges for violations of law.” These latter matters include the following: (i) the Utility’s vegetation management procedures and practices, (ii) the Utility’s procedures and practices regarding use of “recloser” devices in fire risk areas and during fire season, (iii) the Utility’s lack of procedures or policies for proactive de-energization of power lines during times of extreme fire danger, and (iv) the Utility’s record-keeping and other practices. The Utility was also required to take certain corrective actions and provide information regarding the qualifications of vegetation management personnel within 30 days of the issuance of the 2017 Northern California Wildfires OII. The Utility was required to also file an application to develop an open source, publicly available asset management system/database and mobile app, the costs of development and continued operation of which would be at shareholder expense.

As required by the OII, on July 29, 2019, the Utility filed its initial response to the OII. In the initial response, the Utility indicated that it intends to fully cooperate with the CPUC but also stated that it disagreed with certain of the alleged violations set forth in the OII. The Utility also filed a Corrective Actions Report and an Application to Develop a Mobile Application and Supporting Systems, both as required by the OII. Also as required by the OII, on August 5, 2019, the Utility submitted a report to respond to the information requests contained in the OII, as explained above.

On October 9, 2019, the SED disclosed investigation reports, which, among other things, allege that the Utility committed five violations in connection with the Lobo and McCourtney fires. On October 17, 2019, the SED filed a motion to add the alleged violations related to the Lobo and McCourtney fires to the OII. The Utility does not intend to oppose the motion. The SED has disclosed that its investigation report for the 2018 Camp fire may be available by mid-November 2019. It is uncertain when the SED will file a motion to add alleged violations related to the 2018 Camp fire to the OII. The assigned ALJ has scheduled evidentiary hearings in the OII to take place on December 9-13, 2019.

The Utility, SED, PAO, CUE, TURN, OSA, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, Napa County, City and County of San Francisco, the City of Santa Rosa, and Thomas Del Monte have continued to engage in multilateral settlement discussions. The parties have not reached a settlement but have agreed to continue to engage in settlement discussions. The OII will continue to follow its procedural schedule.

Based on the information currently available, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is probable that the CPUC will impose penalties, including fines or other remedies, on the Utility. The Utility is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of future charges that could be incurred given the CPUC’s wide discretion and the number of factors that can be considered in determining penalties. The Utility is unable to predict the timing and outcome of this proceeding. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows could be materially affected if the Utility were required to pay a material amount of penalties or if the Utility were required to incur a material amount of costs that it cannot recover through rates.

On December 14, 2018, the CPUC issued an order instituting investigation and order to show cause (the “OII”) to assess the Utility’s practices and procedures related to the locating and marking of natural gas facilities. The OII directs the Utility to show cause as to why the CPUC should not find violations in this matter, and why the CPUC should not impose penalties, and/or any other forms of relief, if any violations are found. The Utility also is directed in the OII to provide a report on specific matters, including that it is conducting locate and mark programs in a safe manner.

The OII cites a report by the SED dated December 6, 2018, which alleges that the Utility violated the law pertaining to the locating and marking of its gas facilities and falsified records related to its locate and mark activities between 2012 and 2017. As described in the OII, the SED cites reports issued in this matter by two consultants retained by the Utility, that (i) included certain facts and conclusions about the extent of inaccuracies in the Utility’s late tickets and the reasons for the inaccuracies, and (ii) provided an analysis, based on the available data, of tickets that should be properly categorized as late, and identification of associated dig-ins. As a result, the OII will determine whether the Utility violated any provision of the Public Utilities Code, general orders, federal law adopted by California, other rules, or requirements, and/or other state or federal law, by its locate and mark policies, practices, and related issues, and the extent to which the Utility’s practices with regard to locate and mark may have diminished system safety.

The CPUC indicates that it has not concluded that the Utility has violated the law in any instance pertaining to late tickets, locating and marking, or any matter related to either, or to any other matter raised in this OII. However, if violations are found, the CPUC will consider what monetary fines and other remedies are appropriate, will review the duration of violations and, if supported by the evidence, it will consider ordering daily fines.

On March 14, 2019, as directed by the CPUC, the Utility submitted a report that addressed the SED report and responded to the order to show cause. A prehearing conference was held on April 4, 2019, to establish scope and a procedural schedule. The assigned commissioner and ALJ encouraged the SED and the Utility to engage in settlement discussions. On April 24, 2019, the Utility provided notice of a settlement conference and the parties began ongoing settlement discussions. On May 7, 2019, the assigned commissioner issued a scoping memo and ruling that included within the proceedings, in addition to the issues identified in the OII relating to the Utility’s locate and mark procedures, issues relating to locating and marking of the Utility’s electric distribution facilities and the use of “qualified electrical workers” for locating and marking underground infrastructure. On July 24, 2019, the SED submitted its opening testimony to the CPUC. A status conference with the ALJ was held on July 30, 2019. In accordance with the current procedural schedule issued by the ALJ on June 27, 2019, intervenor testimony was submitted on August 16, 2019, and the Utility’s reply testimony was submitted on September 18, 2019.

On October 3, 2019, the Utility, SED and CUE jointly submitted to the CPUC a proposed settlement agreement and jointly moved for its approval. The following parties have participated in the settlement negotiations but have not joined the settlement: PAO, TURN, OSA, and the City and County of San Francisco. The proposed settlement will be reviewed by the ALJ overseeing the proceeding, and these other parties will have an opportunity to provide comments on the proposed settlement agreement before a final CPUC decision is issued. On October 11, 2019, PAO, TURN, and OSA indicated that they intend to provide comments on the proposed settlement agreement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Utility agreed to a total financial remedy of $65 million, comprised of (i) a fine of $5 million funded by shareholders to be paid to the General Fund of the State of California pursuant to, and in accordance with, the time frame and other provisions governing distributions as set forth in the Chapter 11 plan of reorganization for the Utility as confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court; and (ii) $60 million in shareholder-funded initiatives undertaken to enhance, among other things, the Utility’s locate and mark compliance and capabilities and the reliability of the Underground Service Alert ticket management information that the Utility maintains in the ordinary course of its business.

In accordance with the settlement agreement, shareholder-funded system enhancements will include, among other things, locate and mark ticket compliance audits to verify accurate categorization of timeliness, compliance audits using field reviews of gas and electric locate and mark tickets to assess performance, procedure adherence and compliance, and additional locate and mark staff. The expenditure of any sums not fully expended within three years of the effective date of the settlement agreement will be subject to further agreement among the parties.

On October 4, 2019, the ALJ issued a ruling modifying the procedural schedule to focus the evidentiary hearings on the proposed settlement agreement. An evidentiary hearing was held on October 21, 2019; comments on the settlement agreement were submitted by certain other parties on November 4, 2019, and reply comments are due November 19, 2019.

Because the CPUC has wide discretion and there are a number of factors that can be considered in determining penalties, the Utility is unable to predict the timing and outcome of this proceeding. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows could be materially affected if the Utility were required to pay a material amount of penalties beyond the amount reserved, or if the Utility were required to incur a material amount of costs that it cannot recover through rates.

The decision resulted in a total penalty of $97.5 million comprised of: (1) a $12 million payment to the California General Fund, (2) forgoing collection of $63.5 million of GT&S revenue requirements for the years 2018 ($31.75 million) and 2019 ($31.75 million), (3) a $10 million one-time revenue requirement adjustment to be amortized in equivalent annual amounts over the Utility’s next GRC cycle (i.e., the 2020 GRC), and (4) compensation payments to the Cities of San Bruno and San Carlos in a total amount of $12 million ($6 million to each city). In addition, the settlement agreement provides for certain non-financial remedies, including enhanced noticing obligations between the Utility and CPUC decision-makers, as well as certification of employee training on the CPUC ex parte communication rules. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, customers will bear no costs associated with the financial remedies set forth above.

As a result of the CPUC’s April 26, 2018 decision, on May 17, 2018, the Utility made a $12 million payment to the California General Fund and $6 million payments to each of the Cities of San Bruno and San Carlos. At September 30, 2019, the Utility has refunded $24 million for a portion of the 2019 GT&S revenue requirement reduction. In accordance with accounting rules, adjustments related to revenue requirements are recorded in the periods in which they are incurred.

The CPUC also ordered a second phase in this proceeding to determine if any of the additional communications that the Utility reported to the CPUC on September 21, 2017, violate the CPUC ex parte rules. On June 28, 2019, the Cities of San Bruno and San Carlos, PAO, the SED, TURN, and the Utility filed a joint motion with the CPUC seeking approval of a comprehensive settlement agreement that addresses all issues in the second phase of this proceeding. The phase two settlement agreement proposed that the Utility pay a total penalty of $10 million comprised of: (1) a $2 million payment to the California General Fund, (2) forgoing collection of $5 million in revenue requirements during the term of its 2019 GT&S rate case, (3) forgoing collection of $1 million in revenue requirement during the term of its 2020 GRC cycle, and (4) compensation payments to the Cities of San Bruno and San Carlos in a total amount of $2 million ($1 million to each city). According to the terms of the phase two settlement, these payments and forgone collection would not take place until a plan of reorganization is approved in the Chapter 11 Cases. In accordance with accounting rules, adjustments related to forgone collections would be recorded in the periods in which they are incurred.

As of September 30, 2019, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Consolidated Balance Sheets include a $4 million accrual for the amounts payable to the California General Fund and the Cities of San Bruno and San Carlos. On September 20, 2019, the CPUC extended the statutory deadline until December 31, 2019 to review the phase two settlement agreement and to prepare a proposed decision. The Utility is unable to predict whether the CPUC will approve the settlement.

The FERC determines the amount of authorized revenue requirements, including the rate of return on electric transmission assets, that the Utility may collect in rates in the TO rate case. The FERC typically authorizes the Utility to charge new rates based on the requested revenue requirement, subject to refund, before the FERC has issued a final decision. The Utility bills and records revenue based on the amounts requested in its rate case filing and records a reserve for its estimate of the amounts that are probable of refund. Rates subject to refund went into effect on March 1, 2017, and March 1, 2018, for TO18 and TO19, respectively. Rates subject to refund for TO20 went into effect on May 1, 2019.

On October 1, 2018, the ALJ issued an initial decision in the TO18 rate case and the Utility filed initial briefs on October 31, 2018, in response to the ALJ’s recommendations. The Utility expects the FERC to issue a decision in the TO18 rate case by late-2019, however, that decision will likely be the subject of requests for rehearing and appeal.

On September 21, 2018, the Utility filed an all-party settlement with FERC, which was approved by FERC on December 20, 2018, in connection with TO19. As part of the settlement, the TO19 revenue requirement will be set at 98.85% of the revenue requirement for TO18 that will be determined upon issuance of a final unappealable decision in TO18.

On November 30, 2018, the FERC issued an order accepting the Utility’s October 2018 filing of its TO20 formula rate case, subject to hearings and refund, and established May 1, 2019, as the effective date for rate changes. FERC also ordered that the hearings will be held in abeyance pending settlement discussions among the parties.

In 2012, the Utility notified the CPUC and the SED that the Utility planned to complete a system-wide survey of its transmission pipelines in an effort to address a self-reported violation whereby the Utility did not properly identify encroachments (such as building structures and vegetation overgrowth) on the Utility’s pipeline rights-of-way. The Utility also submitted a proposed compliance plan that set forth the scope and timing of remedial work to remove identified encroachments over a multi-year period and to pay penalties if the proposed milestones were not met. In March 2014, the Utility informed the SED that the survey had been completed and that remediation work, including removal of the encroachments, was expected to continue for several years. The SED has not addressed the Utility’s proposed compliance plan, and it is reasonably possible that the SED will impose fines on the Utility in the future based on the Utility’s failure to continuously survey its system and remove encroachments. The Utility is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of future charges that could be incurred given the SED’s wide discretion and the number of factors that can be considered in determining penalties.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are subject to various claims, lawsuits, and regulatory proceedings that separately are not considered material. Accruals for contingencies related to such matters (excluding amounts related to the contingencies discussed above under “Enforcement and Litigation Matters”) totaled $98 million at December 31, 2018. These amounts were included in Other current liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. On the Petition Date, these amounts were moved to LSTC. PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not believe it is reasonably possible that the resolution of these matters will have a material impact on their financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

On June 23, 2016, the CPUC approved a final phase one decision in the Utility’s 2015 GT&S rate case. The phase one decision excluded from rate base $696 million of capital spending in 2011 through 2014 in excess of the amount adopted in the prior GT&S rate case. The decision permanently disallowed $120 million of that amount and ordered that the remaining $576 million be subject to an audit overseen by the CPUC staff, with the possibility that the Utility may seek recovery in a future proceeding. Additional charges may be required in the future based on the outcome of the CPUC’s audit of 2011 through 2014 capital spending. Capital disallowances are reflected in operating and maintenance expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. For more information, see Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2018 Form 10-K.


	Balance at
(in millions)	September 30, 2019		December 31, 2018
Topock natural gas compressor station	$	382	$	369
Hinkley natural gas compressor station	143		146
Former manufactured gas plant sites owned by the Utility or third parties ⁽¹⁾	586		520
Utility-owned generation facilities (other than fossil fuel-fired), other facilities, and third-party disposal sites ⁽²⁾	115		111
Fossil fuel-fired generation facilities and sites ⁽³⁾	116		137
Total environmental remediation liability	$	1,342	$	1,283

The Utility’s gas compressor stations, former manufactured gas plant sites, power plant sites, gas gathering sites, and sites used by the Utility for the storage, recycling, and disposal of potentially hazardous substances are subject to requirements issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in addition to other state hazardous waste laws. The Utility has a comprehensive program in place designed to comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to hazardous materials, waste, remediation activities, and other environmental requirements. The Utility assesses and monitors the environmental requirements on an ongoing basis, and implements changes to its program as deemed appropriate. The Utility’s remediation activities are overseen by the DTSC, several California regional water quality control boards, and various other federal, state, and local agencies.

The Utility’s environmental remediation liability at September 30, 2019, reflects its best estimate of probable future costs for remediation based on the current assessment data and regulatory obligations. Future costs will depend on many factors, including the extent of work necessary to implement final remediation plans and the Utility’s time frame for remediation. The Utility may incur actual costs in the future that are materially different than this estimate and such costs could have a material impact on results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows during the period in which they are recorded. At September 30, 2019, the Utility expected to recover $998 million of its environmental remediation liability for certain sites through various ratemaking mechanisms authorized by the CPUC.

The Utility’s remediation and abatement efforts at the Topock site are subject to the regulatory authority of the California DTSC and the U.S. Department of the Interior. On April 24, 2018, the DTSC authorized the Utility to build an in-situ groundwater treatment system to convert hexavalent chromium into a non-toxic and non-soluble form of chromium. Construction activities began in October 2018 and will continue for several years. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the Topock site may increase by as much as $207 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the Topock site are expected to be recovered primarily through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered in rates.

The Utility has been implementing remediation measures at the Hinkley site to reduce the mass of the chromium plume in groundwater and to monitor and control movement of the plume. The Utility’s remediation and abatement efforts at the Hinkley site are subject to the regulatory authority of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. In November 2015, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region adopted a clean-up and abatement order directing the Utility to contain and remediate the underground plume of hexavalent chromium and the potential environmental impacts. The final order states that the Utility must continue and improve its remediation efforts, define the boundaries of the chromium plume, and take other action. Additionally, the final order sets plume capture requirements, requires a monitoring and reporting program, and includes deadlines for the Utility to meet interim cleanup targets. The United States Geological Survey team is currently conducting a background study on the site to better define the chromium plume boundaries. A draft background study report is expected to be issued in 2020 and finalized thereafter. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the Hinkley site may increase by as much as $129 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the Hinkley site will not be recovered through rates.

Former MGPs used coal and oil to produce gas for use by the Utility’s customers before natural gas became available. The by-products and residues of this process were often disposed of at the MGPs themselves. The Utility has undertaken a program to manage the residues left behind as a result of the manufacturing process; many of the sites in the program have been addressed. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with MGP sites may increase by as much as $621 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the MGP sites are recovered through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered in rates.

Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites often involve long-term remediation. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites may increase by as much as $91 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The environmental remediation costs associated with the Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites are recovered through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered in rates.

In 1998, the Utility divested its generation power plant business as part of generation deregulation. Although the Utility sold its fossil-fueled power plants, the Utility retained the environmental remediation liability associated with each site. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with fossil fuel-fired generation sites may increase by as much as $80 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The environmental remediation costs associated with the fossil fuel-fired sites will not be recovered through rates.

In 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility renewed their liability insurance coverage for wildfire events in an aggregate amount of approximately $1.4 billion for the period from August 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019, comprised of $700 million for general wildfire liability in policies covering wildfire and non-wildfire events (subject to an initial self-insured retention of $10 million per occurrence), and $700 million for wildfire property damages only, which included approximately $200 million of coverage through the use of a catastrophe bond. In 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility has liability insurance coverage for wildfire events in an amount of $430 million (subject to an initial self-insured retention of $10 million per occurrence) for the period of August 1, 2019 through July 31, 2020, and $1 billion in liability insurance coverage for non-wildfire events (subject to an initial self-insured retention of $10 million per occurrence), comprised of $520 million for the period of August 1, 2019 through July 31, 2020 and $480 million for the period of September 3, 2019 through September 2, 2020. PG&E Corporation and the Utility continue to pursue additional insurance coverage. Various coverage limitations applicable to different insurance layers could result in uninsured costs in the future depending on the amount and type of damages resulting from covered events.

PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s cost of obtaining the wildfire and non-wildfire insurance coverage in place for the period of August 1, 2019 through September 2, 2020 is approximately $212 million, compared to the approximately $50 million that the Utility is currently recovering through rates through December 31, 2019. The Utility intends to seek recovery for the full amount of premium costs paid in excess of the amount the Utility currently is recovering from customers through the end of the current GRC period, which ends on December 31, 2019.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility record a receivable for insurance recoveries when it is deemed probable that recovery of a recorded loss will occur. Through September 30, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded $1.38 billion for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2018 Camp fire and $842 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2017 Northern California wildfires. These amounts reflect an assumption that the cause of each fire is deemed to be a separate occurrence under the insurance policies. The amount of the receivable is subject to change based on additional information. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to seek full recovery for all insured losses and believe it is reasonably possible that they will record a receivable for the full amount of the insurance limits in the future.

The Utility maintains multiple insurance policies through NEIL and European Mutual Association for Nuclear Insurance, covering nuclear or non-nuclear events at the Utility’s two nuclear generating units at Diablo Canyon and the retired Humboldt Bay Unit 3. If NEIL losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, the Utility could be subject to a retrospective assessment. If NEIL were to exercise this assessment, as of the policy renewal on April 1, 2020, the maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligation for the Utility would be approximately $41 million. If European Mutual Association for Nuclear Insurance losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, the Utility could be subject to a retrospective assessment of approximately $4 million, as of the policy renewal on April 1, 2020. For more information about the Utility’s nuclear insurance coverage, see Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2018 Form 10-K.

PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s unrecognized tax benefits may change significantly within the next 12 months due to the resolution of audits. As of September 30, 2019, it is reasonably possible that unrecognized tax benefits will decrease by approximately $10 million within the next 12 months. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe that the majority of the decrease will not impact net income.

In the ordinary course of business, the Utility enters into various agreements to purchase power and electric capacity; natural gas supply, transportation, and storage; nuclear fuel supply and services; and various other commitments. At December 31, 2018, the Utility had undiscounted future expected obligations of approximately $40 billion. (See Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2018 Form 10-K.) The Utility has not entered into any new material commitments during the nine months ended September 30, 2019.