OTHER CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

OTHER CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS

WILDFIRE-RELATED CONTINGENCIESPG&E Corporation and the Utility have significant contingencies arising from their operations, including contingencies related to wildfires. 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 be reasonably 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. Loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly, and estimates are adjusted to reflect the impact of all known information, such as negotiations, discovery, settlements and payments, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s provision for loss and expense excludes anticipated legal costs, which are expensed as incurred. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows may be materially affected by the outcome of the following matters.

Restructuring Support Agreement with the TCC

On December 6, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility entered into the TCC RSA. The TCC RSA (as incorporated into the Plan) provides for, among other things, a combination of cash and common stock of the reorganized PG&E Corporation to be provided by PG&E Corporation and the Utility pursuant to the Plan (together with certain additional rights, the “Aggregate Fire Victim Consideration”) in order to settle and discharge the Fire Victim Claims, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the TCC RSA and the Plan. The Aggregate Fire Victim Consideration that has funded and will fund the Fire Victim Trust pursuant to the Plan for the benefit of holders of the Fire Victim Claims consists of (a) $5.4 billion in cash that was contributed on the Effective Date of the Plan, (b) $1.35 billion in cash consisting of (i) $758 million that was paid in cash on January 15, 2021 and (ii) the remaining balance of $592 million to be paid in cash on or before January 15, 2022, in each case pursuant to the terms of the Tax Benefits Payment Agreement (as defined below), and (c) an amount of common stock of the reorganized PG&E Corporation valued at 14.9 times Normalized Estimated Net Income (as defined in the TCC RSA), except that the Fire Victim Trust’s share ownership of the reorganized PG&E Corporation would not be less than 20.9% based on the number of fully diluted shares of the reorganized PG&E Corporation outstanding as of the Effective Date of the Plan, assuming the Utility’s allowed ROE as of the date of the TCC RSA. Pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Bankruptcy Court on June 12, 2020, PG&E Corporation, the Utility, the TCC, and the trustee of the Fire Victim Trust agreed that the percentage ownership of the Fire Victim Trust would be 22.19% of the outstanding shares of PG&E Corporation on the Effective Date, subject to potential adjustments.

On the Effective Date, pursuant to the Plan, the Utility entered into a tax benefits payment agreement (the “Tax Benefits Payment Agreement”) with the Fire Victim Trust, pursuant to which the Utility agreed to pay to the Fire Victim Trust in cash an aggregate amount of $1.35 billion, comprising (i) at least $650 million of tax benefits arising from certain tax deductions related to pre-petition wildfires (“Tax Benefits”) for fiscal year 2020 to be paid on or before January 15, 2021 and (ii) of the remainder of $1.35 billion of Tax Benefits for fiscal year 2021 to be paid on or before January 15, 2022. On January 15, 2021, the Utility paid the first tranche of tax benefits of approximately $758 million pursuant to the Tax Benefits Payment Agreement, leaving approximately $592 million to be paid.

2019 Kincade Fire

According to Cal Fire, on October 23, 2019 at approximately 9:27 p.m., a wildfire began northeast of Geyserville in Sonoma County, California (the “2019 Kincade fire”), located in the service territory of the Utility. The Cal Fire Kincade Fire Incident Update dated November 20, 2019, 11:02 a.m. Pacific Time (the “incident update”), indicated that the 2019 Kincade fire had consumed 77,758 acres. In the incident update, Cal Fire reported no fatalities and four first responder injuries. The incident update also indicates the following: structures destroyed, 374 (consisting of 174 residential structures, 11 commercial structures and 189 other structures); and structures damaged, 60 (consisting of 35 residential structures, one commercial structure and 24 other structures). In connection with the 2019 Kincade fire, state and local officials issued numerous mandatory evacuation orders and evacuation warnings at various times for certain areas of the region. Based on County of Sonoma information, PG&E Corporation and the Utility understand that the geographic zones subject to either a mandatory evacuation order or an evacuation warning between October 23, 2019 and November 4, 2019 included approximately 200,000 persons.

On October 23, 2019, by 3:00 p.m. Pacific Time, the Utility had conducted a PSPS event and turned off the power to approximately 27,837 customers in Sonoma County, including Geyserville and the surrounding area. As part of the PSPS, the Utility’s distribution lines in these areas were deenergized. Following the Utility’s established and CPUC-approved PSPS protocols and procedures, transmission lines in these areas remained energized.

The Utility submitted electric incident reports to the CPUC indicating that:

•at approximately 9:19 p.m. Pacific Time on October 23, 2019, the Utility became aware of a transmission level outage on the Geysers #9 Lakeville 230 kV line when the line relayed and did not reclose;

•various generating facilities on the Geysers #9 Lakeville 230 kV line detected the disturbance and separated at approximately the same time;

•at approximately 9:21 p.m. Pacific Time, the PG&E Grid Control Center received a report that a fire had started in an area near transmission tower 001/006;

•at approximately 7:30 a.m. Pacific Time on October 24, 2019, a responding Utility troubleman patrolling the Geysers #9 Lakeville 230 kV line observed that Cal Fire had taped off the area around the base of transmission tower 001/006 in the area of the 2019 Kincade fire; and

•on site Cal Fire personnel brought to the troubleman’s attention what appeared to be a broken jumper on the same tower.

On July 16, 2020, Cal Fire issued a press release addressing the cause of the 2019 Kincade fire. The press release stated that Cal Fire had determined that “the Kincade Fire was caused by electrical transmission lines owned and operated by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) located northeast of Geyserville. Tinder dry vegetation and strong winds combined with low humidity and warm temperatures contributed to extreme rates of fire spread.”

On April 6, 2021, the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office filed a criminal complaint (the “Complaint”) charging the Utility with 5 felonies and 28 misdemeanors related to the 2019 Kincade fire. The Complaint alleges three felony counts of recklessly causing a fire that caused great bodily injury to six firefighters and/or burned inhabited and other structures, inhabited property, forest land and personal property, in violation of Penal Code section 452; two felony counts of reckless emission of air contaminants that caused great bodily injury to two minors, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 42400.3(c); one misdemeanor count of carelessly or negligently throwing or placing substances that may cause a fire, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 13001; one misdemeanor count of negligently causing fire, in violation of Public Resources Code section 4421; three misdemeanor counts of violation by a public utility, in violation of Public Utilities Code section 2110; and 23 misdemeanor counts of recklessly or negligently emitting air contaminants, in violation of Health and Safety Code sections 42400.3(b) and 42400.1(a). If convicted of any of the charges in the Complaint, the Utility could be subject to fines, penalties, and restitution to victims for their economic losses (including property damage, medical and mental health expenses, lost wages, lost profits, attorney's fees and interest), as well as non-monetary remedies such as oversight requirements.

On April 6, 2021, PG&E Corporation announced that it disputed the charges in the Complaint. It further announced that it will accept Cal Fire’s finding that a PG&E transmission line caused the 2019 Kincade fire, even though PG&E Corporation does not have access to the evidence that Cal Fire gathered. On April 20, 2021, the court held an initial hearing in the case.

Potential liabilities related to the 2019 Kincade fire depend on various factors, including but not limited to the cause of the fire, contributing causes of the fire (including alternative potential origins, weather- and climate-related issues), the number, size and type of structures damaged or destroyed, the contents of such structures and other personal property damage, the number and types of trees damaged or destroyed, attorneys’ fees for claimants, the nature and extent of any personal injuries, the amount of fire suppression and clean-up costs, other damages the Utility may be responsible for if found negligent, and the amount of any penalties, fines, or restitution that may be imposed by courts or other governmental entities.

If the Utility’s facilities, such as its electric distribution and transmission lines, are judicially determined to be the substantial cause of the 2019 Kincade fire, and the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies, the Utility could be liable for property damage, business interruption, interest and attorneys’ fees without having been found negligent. California courts have imposed liability under the doctrine of inverse condemnation in legal actions brought by property holders against utilities on the grounds that losses borne by the person whose property was damaged through a public use undertaking should be spread across the community that benefited from such undertaking, and based on the assumption that utilities have the ability to recover these costs from their customers. Further, California courts have determined that the doctrine of inverse condemnation is applicable regardless of whether the CPUC ultimately allows recovery by the utility for any such costs. The CPUC may decide not to authorize cost recovery even if a court decision were to determine that the Utility is liable as a result of the application of the doctrine of inverse condemnation. (See “Loss Recoveries – Regulatory Recovery” below for further information regarding potential cost recovery related to the wildfires.)

In light of the current state of the law concerning inverse condemnation and the information currently available to PG&E Corporation and the Utility, including the information contained in the electric incident reports, Cal Fire’s determination of the cause, other information gathered as part of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s investigation, and the charges filed by the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is probable that they will incur a loss in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a charge in the aggregate amount of $625 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 (before available insurance). Based on additional facts and circumstances available to the Utility as of the date of this filing, including the status of negotiations with certain subrogation entities and certain county and local agencies, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded an additional charge for potential losses in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire of $175 million for the three months ended March 31, 2021, for an aggregate liability of $800 million (before available insurance).

The aggregate liability of $800 million for claims in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire (before available insurance) corresponds to the lower end of the range of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s reasonably estimable range of losses and is subject to change based on additional information. The $800 million estimate does not include, among other things: (i) any amounts for potential penalties, fines, or restitution that may be imposed by courts or other governmental entities on PG&E Corporation or the Utility, (ii) any punitive damages, (iii) any amounts in respect of compensation claims by Federal or state agencies other than state fire suppression costs, (iv) evacuation costs or (v) any other amounts that are not reasonably estimable.

Under California law (including Penal Code section 1202.4), if the Utility were convicted of any of the charges in the Complaint, the sentencing court must order the Utility to “make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order” that is “sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of” the Utility’s underlying conduct, in addition to interest and the victim’s or victims’ attorneys’ fees. This requirement for full reimbursement of economic loss is not waivable by either the government or the victim and is not offset by any compensation that the victims have received or may receive from their insurance carriers. In the event that the Utility were convicted of certain charges in the Complaint, the Utility currently believes that, depending on which charges it were to be convicted of, its total losses associated with the 2019 Kincade fire would materially exceed the $800 million aggregate liability that PG&E Corporation and the Utility have recorded to reflect the lower end of the range of the reasonably estimable range of losses for the 2019 Kincade fire civil claims. The Utility is currently unable to determine a reasonable estimate of the amount of such additional losses. The Utility does not expect that any of its liability insurance would be available to cover restitution payments ordered by the court presiding over the criminal proceeding.

The Utility believes it will continue to receive additional information from potential claimants as litigation or resolution efforts progress. Any such additional information may potentially allow PG&E Corporation and the Utility to refine such estimate and may result in changes to the accrual depending on the information provided.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility currently believe that it is reasonably possible that the amount of loss could be greater than $800 million (before available insurance) but are unable to reasonably estimate the additional loss and the upper end of the range because, as described above, there are a number of unknown facts and legal considerations that may impact the amount of any potential liability, including the total scope and nature of claims that may be asserted against PG&E Corporation and the Utility and the outcome of the criminal proceedings initiated against the Utility by the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office. If the liability for the 2019 Kincade fire were to exceed $1.0 billion, it is possible the Utility would be eligible to make a claim to the Wildfire Fund under AB 1054 for such excess amount, subject to the 40% limitation on claims arising before emergence from bankruptcy. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to continue to review the available information and other information as it becomes available, including evidence in the possession of Cal Fire or the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office, evidence from or held by other parties, claims that have not yet been submitted, and additional information about the nature and extent of potential damages.

The process for estimating losses associated with potential claims related to the 2019 Kincade fire requires management to exercise significant judgment based on a number of assumptions and subjective factors, including the factors identified above and estimates based on currently available information and prior experience with wildfires. As more information becomes available, management estimates and assumptions regarding the potential financial impact of the 2019 Kincade fire may change.

The Utility has liability insurance from various insurers, which provides coverage for third-party liability attributable to the 2019 Kincade fire in an aggregate amount of $430 million. The Utility records insurance recoveries when it is deemed probable that recovery will occur, and the Utility can reasonably estimate the amount or its range. As of March 31, 2021, the Utility has recorded an insurance receivable for the full amount of the $430 million. While the Utility plans to seek recovery of all insured losses, it is unable to predict the ultimate amount and timing of such insurance recoveries.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility have received data requests from the SED relating to the 2019 Kincade fire and have responded to all data requests received to date, and various other entities may also be investigating the fire. It is uncertain when any such investigations will be complete.

As of April 28, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of 25 complaints on behalf of approximately 535 plaintiffs related to the 2019 Kincade fire and expect that they may receive further such complaints. The complaints were filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Sonoma and the California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco and include claims based on multiple theories of liability, including inverse condemnation, negligence, violations of the Public Utilities Code, violations of the Health & Safety Code, premises liability, trespass, public nuisance and private nuisance. The plaintiffs in each action principally assert that PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s alleged failure to properly maintain, inspect and de-energize their transmission lines was the cause of the 2019 Kincade fire. On December 3, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a petition with the California Judicial Council to coordinate the litigation. On April 8, 2021, the coordination motion judge ordered that the cases be coordinated, and on April 16, 2021, the San Francisco County Superior Court was selected as the site of the coordinated proceeding.

In addition to claims for property damage, business interruption, interest and attorneys’ fees, PG&E Corporation and the Utility could be liable for fire suppression costs, evacuation costs, medical expenses, personal injury damages, punitive damages and other damages under other theories of liability in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire, including if PG&E Corporation or the Utility were found to have been negligent.

2020 Zogg Fire

According to Cal Fire, on September 27, 2020, a wildfire began in the area of Zogg Mine Road and Jenny Bird Lane, north of Igo in Shasta County, California (the “2020 Zogg fire”), located in the service territory of the Utility. The Cal Fire Zogg fire Incident Update dated October 16, 2020, 3:08 p.m. Pacific Time (the “incident update”), indicated that the 2020 Zogg fire had consumed 56,338 acres. The incident update reported four fatalities and one injury. The incident update also indicated that 27 structures were damaged and 204 structures were destroyed. Of the 204 structures destroyed, 63 were single family homes, according to a damage inspection report available from the Shasta County Department of Resource Management.

On October 9, 2020, the Utility submitted an electric incident report to the CPUC indicating that:

•wildfire camera and satellite data on September 27, 2020 show smoke, heat or signs of fire in the area of Zogg Mine Road and Jenny Bird Lane between approximately 2:43 p.m. and 2:46 p.m. Pacific Time;

•according to Utility records, on September 27, 2020, a SmartMeter and a line recloser serving the area of Zogg Mine Road and Jenny Bird Lane reported alarms and other activity starting at approximately 2:40 p.m. until 3:06 p.m. Pacific Time when the line recloser de-energized a portion of the Girvan 1101 12 kV circuit, a distribution line that serves that area; and

•the data currently available to the Utility do not establish the causes of the activity on the Girvan 1101 circuit or the locations of these causes.

On March 22, 2021, Cal Fire issued a press release with its determination that the 2020 Zogg fire was caused by a pine tree contacting electrical facilities owned and operated by the Utility located north of the community of Igo.

Cal Fire also indicated that its investigative report has been forwarded to the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office, which is investigating the matter. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have received and are responding to data requests from the SED and document requests from the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office relating to the 2020 Zogg fire, and various other entities, which may include other law enforcement agencies, may also be investigating the fire. It is uncertain when any such investigations will be complete. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are also conducting their own investigation into the cause of the 2020 Zogg fire. This investigation is preliminary, and PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not have access to the evidence in the possession of Cal Fire or other third parties.

Potential liabilities related to the 2020 Zogg fire depend on various factors, including but not limited to the cause of the fire, contributing causes of the fire (including alternative potential origins, weather- and climate-related issues), the number, size and type of structures damaged or destroyed, the contents of such structures and other personal property damage, the number and types of trees damaged or destroyed, attorneys’ fees for claimants, the nature and extent of any personal injuries, including the loss of lives, the amount of fire suppression and clean-up costs, other damages the Utility may be responsible for if found negligent, and the amount of any penalties, fines, or restitution that may be imposed by governmental entities.

Based on the current state of the law concerning inverse condemnation in California and the facts and circumstances available to PG&E Corporation and the Utility as of the date of this filing, including the information gathered as part of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s investigation, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is probable that they will incur a loss in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a charge in the aggregate amount of $275 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 (before available insurance). Based on additional facts and circumstances available to the Utility as of the date of this filing, including the status of negotiations with certain agencies and additional damages information from certain plaintiffs, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded an additional charge for potential losses in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire in the amount of $25 million for the three months ended March 31, 2021, for an aggregate liability of $300 million (before available insurance). If the Utility’s facilities, such as its electric distribution lines, are judicially determined to be the substantial cause of the Zogg fire, and the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies, the Utility could be liable for property damage, business interruption, interest and attorneys’ fees without having been found negligent. For more information regarding the inverse condemnation doctrine, see “2019 Kincade Fire” above.

The aggregate liability of $300 million for claims in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire (before available insurance) corresponds to the lower end of the range of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s reasonably estimable range of losses, and is subject to change based on additional information. This $300 million estimate does not include, among other things: (i) any amounts for potential penalties, fines or restitution that may be imposed by governmental entities on PG&E Corporation or the Utility, (ii) any punitive damages, (iii) any amounts in respect of compensation claims by Federal or state agencies other than state fire suppression costs, or (iv) any other amounts that are not reasonably estimable.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility currently believe that it is reasonably possible that the amount of the loss will be greater than $300 million and are unable to reasonably estimate the additional loss and the upper end of the range because, as described above, there are a number of unknown facts and legal considerations that may impact the amount of any potential liability, including the total scope and nature of claims that may be asserted against PG&E Corporation and the Utility. If the liability for the 2020 Zogg fire were to exceed $1.0 billion, it is possible the Utility would be eligible to make a claim to the Wildfire Fund under AB 1054 for such excess amount. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to continue to review the available information and other information as it becomes available, including evidence in Cal Fire’s possession, evidence from or held by other parties, claims that have not yet been submitted, and additional information about the nature and extent of personal and business property damages and losses, the nature, number and severity of personal injuries, and information made available through the discovery process. In particular, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have not had access to all of the evidence obtained by Cal Fire or other third parties.

The process for estimating losses associated with potential claims related to the 2020 Zogg fire requires management to exercise significant judgment based on a number of assumptions and subjective factors, including the factors identified above and estimates based on currently available information and prior experience with wildfires. As more information becomes available, management estimates and assumptions regarding the potential financial impact of the 2020 Zogg fire may change.

The Utility has liability insurance from various insurers, which provides coverage for third-party liability attributable to the 2020 Zogg fire in an aggregate amount of $611 million. This amount is reduced from the $867.5 million of coverage disclosed in the 2020 Form 10-K due to the Utility’s commuting certain insurance policies in connection with its April 2021 wildfire liability insurance renewal. The Utility records insurance recoveries when it is deemed probable that recovery will occur, and the Utility can reasonably estimate the amount or its range. As of March 31, 2021, the Utility has recorded an insurance receivable for $247 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire, which equals the $300 million probable loss estimate less an initial self-insured retention of $60 million, plus $7 million in legal fees incurred. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to seek full recovery for all insured losses. If PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to recover the full amount of their insurance, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows could be materially affected.

As of April 28, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of 7 complaints on behalf of approximately 266 plaintiffs related to the 2020 Zogg fire and expect that they may receive further such complaints. The complaints were filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Shasta and the California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco and include claims based on multiple theories of liability, including inverse condemnation, negligence, violations of the Public Utilities Code, violations of the Health & Safety Code, premises liability, trespass, public nuisance and private nuisance. The plaintiffs in each action principally assert that PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s alleged failure to properly maintain, inspect and de-energize their distribution lines was the cause of the 2020 Zogg fire. The plaintiffs seek damages that include wrongful death, property damage, economic loss, punitive damages, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and other damages. On February 5, 2021, certain plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Judicial Council to coordinate five civil cases filed against the Utility and PG&E Corporation in the Superior Courts of Shasta and San Francisco counties. The petition requests that the cases be coordinated in San Francisco Superior Court. On March 15, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a brief that supported coordination but requested that the cases be coordinated in Shasta County Superior Court or, in the alternative, Sacramento County Superior Court. On March 24, 2021, pursuant to authorization from the California Judicial Council, a judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court was assigned to serve as the coordination motion judge to decide whether the aforementioned actions should be coordinated and, if so, recommend where the coordinated proceeding should take place. A hearing is scheduled for May 12, 2021.

In addition to claims for property damage, business interruption, interest and attorneys’ fees, PG&E Corporation and the Utility could be liable for fire suppression costs, evacuation costs, medical expenses, wrongful death and personal injury damages, punitive damages and other damages under other theories of liability in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire, including if PG&E Corporation and the Utility were found to have been negligent.

Loss Recoveries

PG&E Corporation and the Utility have insurance coverage for liabilities, including wildfire. Additionally, there are several mechanisms that allow for recovery of costs from customers. Potential for recovery is described below. Failure to obtain a substantial or full recovery of costs related to wildfires or any conclusion that such recovery is no longer probable could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows. In addition, the inability to recover costs in a timely manner could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows.

Insurance

Insurance Coverage

In April 2021, the Utility purchased approximately $268 million in wildfire liability insurance coverage for the period of April 12, 2021 to April 1, 2022, and approximately $32 million in wildfire liability reinsurance for the period of April 1, 2021 to April 1, 2022 at a cost of approximately $220 million. This coverage is in addition to approximately $11 million in existing wildfire reinsurance for the period of July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021 and approximately $600 million in existing wildfire liability insurance purchased by the Utility in August 2020 for the period of August 1, 2020 to August 1, 2021. On August 1, 2021, this existing wildfire liability coverage is scheduled to renew for the period of August 1, 2021 to August 1, 2022 at a cost of approximately $516 million pursuant to multi-year policy terms. The Utility’s wildfire liability insurance is subject to an initial self-insured retention of $60 million. For non-wildfire events, the Utility carries approximately $700 million in coverage for the period of August 1, 2020 to August 1, 2021 at a cost of approximately $152 million. At March 31, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility had prepaid insurance of $313 million, reflected in Other current assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Various coverage limitations applicable to different insurance layers could result in material uninsured costs in the future depending on the amount and type of damages resulting from covered events.

In the Utility’s 2020 GRC proceeding, the CPUC also approved a settlement agreement provision that allows the Utility to recover annual insurance costs for up to $1.4 billion in general liability insurance coverage. An advice letter is required for additional coverage purchased by the Utility in excess of $1.4 billion in coverage.

The Utility will not be able to obtain any recovery from the Wildfire Fund for wildfire-related losses in any year that do not exceed the greater of $1.0 billion in the aggregate and the amount of insurance coverage required under AB 1054. (See “Wildfire Fund under AB 1054” below.)

Insurance Receivable

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 March 31, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded $430 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire, and $247 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have recovered all of the insurance except for $25 million for the 2017 Northern California wildfires. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to seek full recovery for all insured losses.

If PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to recover the full amount of their insurance, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows could be materially affected.

The balances for insurance receivables with respect to wildfires are included in Other accounts receivable in PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets:

Insurance Receivable (in millions)	2020 Zogg fire		2019 Kincade fire		2017 Northern California wildfires		Total
Balance at December 31, 2020	$	219	$	430	$	25	$	674
Accrued insurance recoveries	28		—		—		28
Reimbursements	—		—		—		—
Balance at March 31, 2021	$	247	$	430	$	25	$	702

Regulatory Recovery

SB 901, signed into law on September 21, 2018, requires the CPUC to establish a CHT, directing the CPUC to limit certain disallowances in the aggregate, so that they do not exceed the maximum amount that the Utility can pay without harming customers or materially impacting its ability to provide adequate and safe service. SB 901 also authorizes the CPUC to issue a financing order that permits recovery, through the issuance of recovery bonds (also referred to as “securitization”), of wildfire-related costs found to be just and reasonable by the CPUC and, only for the 2017 Northern California wildfires, any amounts in excess of the CHT.

Pursuant to SB 901 and the CPUC’s methodology adopted in the CHT OIR, on April 30, 2020, the Utility filed an application with the CPUC seeking authorization for a post-emergence transaction to securitize $7.5 billion of 2017 wildfire claims costs that is designed to not impact amounts billed to customers, with the proceeds used to pay or reimburse the Utility for the payment of wildfire claims costs associated with the 2017 Northern California wildfires. In connection with the proposed transaction, the Utility would retire $6.0 billion of Utility debt and accelerate the remaining $592 million payment due to the Fire Victim Trust (see “Restructuring Support Agreement with the TCC” above). On April 23, 2021, the CPUC issued a decision granting the Utility’s application for a $7.5 billion rate neutral securitization.

On April 5, 2021, the ALJ issued a PD granting the Utility’s application for a financing order authorizing the issuance of recovery bonds in connection with a post-emergence transaction. On April 26, 2021, the Utility filed opening comments on the PD. The Utility’s reply comments are due on May 3, 2021. The Utility expects a CPUC decision on the financing order by May 6, 2021.

Failure to obtain a substantial or full recovery of costs related to wildfires could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows.

For more information see Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K.

Wildfire-Related Derivative Litigation

Two purported derivative lawsuits alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment were filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court on November 16, 2017 and November 20, 2017, respectively, naming as defendants certain then-current and former members of the Board of Directors and certain then-current and former officers of PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are named as nominal defendants. These lawsuits were consolidated by the court on February 14, 2018 and denominated In Re California North Bay Fire Derivative Litigation (now re-captioned Trotter v. Williams et al.). On April 13, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. After the parties reached an agreement regarding a stay of the derivative proceeding pending resolution of the tort actions described above and any regulatory proceeding relating to the 2017 Northern California wildfires, on April 24, 2018, the court entered a stipulation and order to stay. The stay was subject to certain conditions regarding the plaintiffs’ access to discovery in other actions. On January 28, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a request to lift the stay for the purposes of amending their complaint to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire. Prior to resolution of the plaintiffs’ request to lift the stay, this matter was automatically stayed by PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, as discussed below. On November 12, 2020, the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust filed a motion to intervene to substitute as the plaintiff in the matter, to which the parties later stipulated. On March 8, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to substitute the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust as the plaintiff. Separately, on February 24, 2021, the trustee filed an amended complaint in one of the pending state court derivative actions, the Trotter v. Chew action discussed below, asserting two claims for breach of fiduciary duty against certain of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s former directors and officers. The amended complaint was further amended to correct certain procedural flaws on March 24, 2021. Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility is a party to the action. A case management conference was held on March 18, 2021 and the two actions were consolidated on March 30, 2021. A hearing on the defendants’ demurrer and a further case management conference is scheduled for July 15, 2021. Trial is set for June 27, 2022.

On August 3, 2018, a third purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Chew, et al. (now captioned Trotter v. PG&E Corp., et al.), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants certain then-current and former members of the Board of Directors and certain then-current and former officers of PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation is named as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment as well as a claim under section 14(a) of the Exchange Act alleging that PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s 2017 proxy statement contained misrepresentations regarding the companies’ risk management and safety programs. On October 15, 2018, PG&E Corporation filed a motion to stay the litigation. Prior to the scheduled hearing on this motion, this matter was automatically stayed by PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, as discussed below. On December 14, 2020, the court entered a stipulation and order to substitute the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust as the plaintiff. On March 10, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice.

On October 23, 2018, a fourth purported derivative lawsuit, entitled City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Chew, et al., was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment. It named as defendants certain then-current and former members of the Board of Directors and certain then-current and former officers of PG&E Corporation, and named PG&E Corporation as a nominal defendant. The matter was consolidated with In Re California North Bay Fire Derivative Litigation on December 3, 2018. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this matter without prejudice on January 23, 2019.

On November 21, 2018, a fifth purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Williams v. Earley, Jr., et al. (now captioned Trotter v. Earley, et al.), was filed in federal court in San Francisco, alleging claims identical to those alleged in the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Chew, et al. lawsuit listed above against certain then-current and former officers and directors, and naming PG&E Corporation and the Utility as nominal defendants. This lawsuit includes allegations related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2018 Camp fire. This action was stayed by stipulation of the parties and order of the court on December 21, 2018, subject to resolution of the pending securities class action. On January 7, 2021, the court entered a stipulation and order to substitute the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust as the plaintiff. On March 3, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice.

On December 24, 2018, a sixth purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Bowlinger v. Chew, et al. (now captioned Trotter v. Chew, et al.), was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment in connection with the 2018 Camp fire against certain then-current and former officers and directors, and naming PG&E Corporation and the Utility as nominal defendants. On February 5, 2019, the plaintiff filed a response to the notice asserting that the automatic stay did not apply to his claims. PG&E Corporation and the Utility accordingly filed a Motion to Enforce the Automatic Stay with the Bankruptcy Court as to the Bowlinger action, which was granted. On November 5, 2020, the court entered a stipulation and order to substitute the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust as the plaintiff. On February 24, 2021, the trustee filed an amended complaint, which was amended on March 24, 2021 to correct certain procedural flaws, alleging two causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty against certain former officers and directors. The first cause of action alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the 2017 Northern California wildfires, and the second cause of action alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the 2018 Camp fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are no longer named as nominal defendants. A case management conference was held on March 18, 2021. On March 30, 2021, this action was consolidated with In Re California North Bay Fire Derivative Litigation. A hearing on the defendants’ demurrer and a further case management conference are scheduled for July 15, 2021. Trial is set for June 27, 2022.

On January 25, 2019, a seventh purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Hagberg v. Chew, et al., was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment in connection with the 2018 Camp fire against certain then-current and former officers and directors, and naming PG&E Corporation and the Utility as nominal defendants. A case management conference is set for July 7, 2021.

On January 28, 2019, an eighth purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Blackburn v. Meserve, et al. (now captioned Trotter v. Meserve, et al.), was filed in federal court alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets in connection with the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2018 Camp fire against certain then-current and former officers and directors, and naming PG&E Corporation as a nominal defendant. On January 8, 2021, the court entered a stipulation and order to substitute the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust as the plaintiff. On March 10, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice.

Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed notices in each of these proceedings on February 1, 2019, reflecting that the proceedings were automatically stayed through the Effective Date pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s rights with respect to the derivative claims asserted against former officers and directors of PG&E Corporation and the Utility were assigned to the Fire Victim Trust under the TCC RSA. The assignment became effective as of the Effective Date of the Plan.

The above purported derivative lawsuits were brought against the named defendants on behalf of PG&E Corporation or the Utility. As a result of the assignment of these claims to the Fire Victim Trust, any recovery based on these claims would be paid to the Fire Victim Trust. Any such recovery is limited to the extent of any director and officer insurance policy proceeds paid by any insurance carrier to reimburse PG&E Corporation or the Utility for amounts paid pursuant to their indemnification obligations in connection with such causes of action.

Securities Class Action Litigation

Wildfire-Related Class Action

In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its then-current and former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et al., respectively.  The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions related to, among other things, vegetation management and transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public disclosures. The complaints asserted claims under section 10(b) and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29, 2015 to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases, and the litigation is now denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico (“PERA”) as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018. After the plaintiff requested leave to amend its complaint to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, the plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint on December 14, 2018.

Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, the proceedings were automatically stayed as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility. On February 15, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a complaint in Bankruptcy Court against the plaintiff seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to extend the stay to the claims alleged against the individual officer defendants.

On February 22, 2019, a third purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled York County on behalf of the York County Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the “York County Action”). The complaint names as defendants certain then-current and former officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018. Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility is named as a defendant. The complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the note offerings related to, among other things, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s vegetation management and wildfire safety measures. The complaint asserts claims under section 11 and section 15 of the Securities Act, and seeks unspecified monetary relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs, and injunctive relief. On May 7, 2019, the York County Action was consolidated with In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation.

On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint, which includes the claims asserted in the previously filed actions and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, the Utility, certain current and former officers and former directors, and the underwriters. On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court denied PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s request to extend the stay to the claims against the officer, director, and underwriter defendants. On October 4, 2019, the officer, director, and underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint, which motions are under submission with the District Court. The securities actions have been enjoined as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility pursuant to the Plan with such claims to be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court as part of the claims reconciliation process in the Chapter 11 Cases.

Satisfaction of HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims and Subordinated Debt Claims

Claims against PG&E Corporation and the Utility relating to, among others, the three purported securities class actions (described above) that have been consolidated and denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 18-03509, will be resolved pursuant to the Plan. As described above, these claims consist of pre-petition claims under the federal securities laws related to, among other things, allegedly misleading statements or omissions with respect to vegetation management and wildfire safety disclosures, and are classified into separate categories under the Plan, each of which is subject to subordination under the Bankruptcy Code. The first category of claims consists of pre-petition claims arising from or related to the common stock of PG&E Corporation (such claims, with certain other similar claims against PG&E Corporation, the “HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims”). The second category of pre-petition claims, which comprises two separate classes under the Plan, consists of claims arising from debt securities issued by PG&E Corporation and the Utility (such claims, with certain other similar claims against PG&E Corporation and the Utility, the “Subordinated Debt Claims,” and together with the HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims, the “Subordinated Claims”).

While PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe they have defenses to the Subordinated Claims, as well as insurance coverage that may be available with respect to the Subordinated Claims, these defenses may not prevail and any such insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover the full amount of the allowed claims. In that case, PG&E Corporation and the Utility will be required, pursuant to the Plan, to satisfy such claims as follows:

•each holder of an allowed HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claim will receive a number of shares of common stock of PG&E Corporation equal to such holder’s HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claim Share (as such term is defined in the Plan); and

•each holder of an allowed Subordinated Debt Claim will receive payment in full in cash.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility have been engaged in settlement efforts with respect to the Subordinated Claims. If the Subordinated Claims are not settled (with any such resolution being subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court), PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect that the Subordinated Claims will be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court in the claims reconciliation process and treated as described above under the Plan. Under the Plan, after the Effective Date, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have the authority to compromise, settle, object to, or otherwise resolve proofs of claim, and the Bankruptcy Court retains jurisdiction to hear disputes arising in connection with disputed claims. With respect to the Subordinated Claims, the claims reconciliation process may include litigation of the merits of such claims, including the filing of motions, fact discovery, and expert discovery. The total number and amount of allowed Subordinated Claims, if any, was not determined at the Effective Date. To the extent any such claims are allowed, the total amount of such claims could be material, and therefore could result in (a) the issuance of a material number of shares of common stock of PG&E Corporation with respect to allowed HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims, or (b) the payment of a material amount of cash with respect to allowed Subordinated Debt Claims. There can be no assurance that such claims will not have a material adverse impact on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Further, if shares are issued in respect of allowed HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims, it may be determined that under the Plan, the Fire Victim Trust should receive additional shares of common stock of PG&E Corporation (assuming, for this purpose, that shares issued in respect of the HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims were issued on the Effective Date).

The named plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed proofs of claim with the Bankruptcy Court on or before the bar date that reflect their securities litigation claims against PG&E Corporation and the Utility. On December 9, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities actions filed a motion seeking approval from the Bankruptcy Court to treat its proof of claim as a class proof of claim. On February 27, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying the motion, but extending the bar date for putative class members to file proofs of claim until April 16, 2020. On March 6, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal regarding the denial of its motion. On March 8, 2021, the District Court issued an order dismissing the appeal.

On July 2, 2020, PERA filed a notice of appeal of the Confirmation Order to the District Court, solely to the extent of seeking review of that part of the Confirmation Order approving the Insurance Deduction (as defined in the Plan) with respect to the formula for the determination of the HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims Share. The merits of the appeal are fully briefed. On February 16, 2021, the Committee of Tort Claimants filed a motion to dismiss PERA’s appeal. On March 9, 2021, PERA filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a statement with respect to the motion to dismiss. The motion is scheduled to be heard on May 13, 2021.

On September 1, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a motion (the “Securities Claims Procedures Motion”) with the Bankruptcy Court to approve procedures to help facilitate the resolution of the Subordinated Claims. The motion, among other things, requested approval of procedures which allow PG&E Corporation and the Utility to collect certain trading information with respect to the Subordinated Claims, to engage in an alternative dispute resolution process for resolving disputed Subordinated Claims, and to file certain omnibus claim objections with respect to the Subordinated Claims. PERA and a number of other parties filed objections to the Securities Claims Procedures Motion.

On September 28, 2020, PERA filed a second motion under Bankruptcy Rule 7023 requesting that the Bankruptcy Court allow PERA to file a class proof of claim on behalf of the holders of Subordinated Claims (the “Renewed 7023 Motion”) seeking to position its motion as an alternative to the Securities Claims Procedures Motion. On December 4, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court issued an oral decision approving PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Securities Claims Procedures Motion and denying PERA’s Renewed 7023 Motion. On January 25, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting the Securities Claims Procedures Motion. On January 26, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered a written order denying the Renewed 7023 Motion.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility have been working to resolve the Subordinated Claims in accordance with the procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court, including by requesting information from Subordinated Claimants. On March 17, 2021, pursuant to the Securities Claims Procedures, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed in the Bankruptcy Court certain omnibus objections to certain of the Subordinated Claims. On April 26, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered orders disallowing and expunging the Subordinated Claims that were the subject of two of the three omnibus objections, and certain Subordinated Claims with respect to the third omnibus objection. The remaining Subordinated Claims in the third omnibus objection are subject to additional briefing.

De-energization Class Action

On October 25, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Vataj v. Johnson et al. The complaint named as defendants a then-current director and certain then-current and former officers of PG&E Corporation. Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged materially false and misleading statements regarding PG&E Corporation’s wildfire prevention and safety protocols and policies, including regarding the Utility’s public safety power shutoffs, that allegedly resulted in losses and damages to holders of PG&E Corporation’s securities. The complaint asserted claims under section 10(b) and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. On February 3, 2020, the District Court granted a stipulation appointing Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds and Robert Allustiarti co-lead plaintiffs and approving the selection of the plaintiffs’ counsel, and further ordered the parties to submit a proposed schedule by February 13, 2020.

On April 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims. The amended complaint added PG&E Corporation and a current officer of PG&E Corporation as defendants, and no longer asserts claims against certain current and former officers of PG&E Corporation previously named in the action.

On May 15, 2020, the officer defendants filed their motion to dismiss in Vataj. On June 19, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss. On July 10, 2020 the officer defendants filed their reply. In October 2020, the parties reached a settlement agreement in principle, and on October 29, 2020, filed a joint notice of settlement, informing the District Court that they have agreed in principle to settle the matter.

On February 16, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the District Court, and the District Court issued an order terminating as moot the pending motion to dismiss, without prejudice. Pursuant to the settlement stipulation, subject to certain conditions: (1) PG&E Corporation will pay $10 million into an interest-bearing escrow account within 14 days after the District Court’s preliminary approval of the settlement; and (2) plaintiffs and the Settlement Class (as defined in the stipulation of settlement) will release the Released Persons (as defined the stipulation of settlement, including PG&E Corporation and the Utility, and each of their officers, directors, as well as the current and former officers named in both the original and amended complaints) from all claims that have been or could have been asserted by or on behalf of PG&E Corporation shareholders that relate to (a) allegations that were asserted or could have been asserted in either of the complaints in Vataj, and (b) investments in PG&E Corporation’s stock during the relevant period specified in the stipulated settlement.

The settlement is subject to the District Court’s approval and its terms may change as a result of the settlement approval process. The preliminary settlement approval hearing was held on March 11, 2021, where the District Court requested certain supplemental filings, which the parties filed on March 18, 2021. On April 20, 2021, the District Court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On April 27, 2021, the parties requested September 7, 2021 for the final fairness and approval hearing. If the District Court approves the settlement and enters a judgment substantially in the form requested by the parties, the settlement will become effective when certain conditions specified in the settlement stipulation are satisfied, including the expiration of any right to appeal the judgment.

Indemnification Obligations and Directors’ and Officers’ Insurance Coverage

To the extent permitted by law, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have obligations to indemnify directors and officers for certain events or occurrences while a director or officer is or was serving in such capacity, which indemnification obligations extend to the claims asserted against certain directors and officers in the securities class actions and in the litigation matters enumerated above in Note 10 under the heading, “Wildfire-Related Derivative Litigation.” PG&E Corporation and the Utility maintain directors’ and officers’ insurance coverage to reduce their exposure to such indemnification obligations. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have provided notice to their insurance carriers of the claims asserted in the litigation matters enumerated in Note 10 above under the headings “Wildfire-Related Securities Litigation” and “Wildfire-Related Derivative Litigation,” and are in arbitration with the carriers regarding, among other things, the applicability of multiple years of directors’ and officers’ insurance policies to those matters. Recovery under the directors’ and officers’ insurance policies in one such litigation matter may impact the directors’ and officers’ insurance proceeds available in the other matters.

On March 17, 2021, the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust filed a lawsuit entitled, Trotter v. PG&E Corporation, et al., in San Francisco Superior Court, seeking, among other things, a declaration that the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust be permitted to participate in the arbitration with the carriers. The trustee named PG&E Corporation, the Utility, and the insurance carriers as defendants. On March 25, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility removed the action to the Bankruptcy Court. On March 29, 2021, the Fire Victim Trust made a motion to remand the lawsuit back to state court, which the Bankruptcy Court denied on April 20, 2021.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility additionally have potential indemnification obligations to the underwriters for the Utility’s note offerings, pursuant to the underwriting agreements associated with those offerings. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s indemnification obligations to the officers, directors and underwriters may be limited or affected by the Chapter 11 Cases, among other things.

The extent of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s recovery of the directors’ and officers’ insurance proceeds could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows.

District Attorneys’ Offices Investigations

Following the 2018 Camp fire, the Butte County District Attorney’s Office and the California Attorney General’s Office opened a criminal investigation of the 2018 Camp fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility were informed by the Butte County District Attorney’s Office and the California Attorney General’s Office that a grand jury had been empaneled in Butte County.

On March 17, 2020, the Utility entered into the Plea Agreement and Settlement (the “Plea Agreement”) with the People of the State of California, by and through the Butte County District Attorney’s office (the “People” and the “Butte DA,” respectively) to resolve the criminal prosecution of the Utility in connection with the 2018 Camp fire. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Plea Agreement, the Utility agreed to plead guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter in violation of Penal Code section 192(b) and one count of unlawfully causing a fire in violation of Penal Code section 452, and to admit special allegations pursuant to Penal Code sections 452.1(a)(2), 452.1(a)(3) and 452.1(a)(4).

On January 15, 2021, the Butte County Superior Court held a brief hearing on the status of restitution, which involves distribution of funds from the Fire Victim Trust, which was established under the Company’s Plan of Reorganization in Bankruptcy Court and is managed by a trustee and a claims administrator. The Court continued the hearing to August 20, 2021 for a further update.

Following the 2019 Kincade fire, the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office opened a criminal investigation of the 2019 Kincade fire. On April 6, 2021, the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office filed a criminal complaint (the “Complaint”) against the Utility related to the 2019 Kincade fire. For more information see “2019 Kincade Fire” above.

On March 22, 2021, Cal Fire issued a press release with its determination that the 2020 Zogg fire was caused by a pine tree contacting electrical facilities owned and operated by the Utility located north of the community of Igo. Cal Fire also indicated that its investigative report has been forwarded to the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office, which is investigating the matter. For more information, see “2020 Zogg Fire” above.

Additional investigations and other actions may arise out of the 2019 Kincade fire or the 2020 Zogg fire. The timing and outcome for resolution of any such investigations are uncertain.

SEC Investigation

On March 20, 2019, PG&E Corporation learned that the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office was conducting an investigation related to PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s public disclosures and accounting for losses associated with the 2018 Camp fire, the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2015 Butte fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to predict the timing and outcome of the investigation.

Wildfire Fund under AB 1054

On July 12, 2019, the California governor signed into law AB 1054, a bill which provides for the establishment of a statewide fund that will be available for eligible electric utility companies to pay eligible claims for liabilities arising from wildfires occurring after July 12, 2019 that are caused by the applicable electric utility company’s equipment, subject to the terms and conditions of AB 1054. Eligible claims are claims for third party damages resulting from any such wildfires, limited to the portion of such claims that exceeds the greater of (i) $1.0 billion in the aggregate in any year and (ii) the amount of insurance coverage required to be in place for the electric utility company pursuant to section 3293 of the Public Utilities Code, added by AB 1054.

Electric utility companies that draw from the Wildfire Fund will only be required to repay amounts that are determined by the CPUC in an application for cost recovery not to be just and reasonable, subject to a disallowance cap equal to 20% of the IOU’s transmission and distribution equity rate base. For the Utility, the disallowance cap would be approximately $2.7 billion based on 2020 equity rate base, and is subject to adjustment based on changes in the Utility’s total transmission and distribution equity rate base and would apply for a three calendar year period. The disallowance cap is inapplicable in certain circumstances, including if the Wildfire Fund administrator determines that the electric utility company’s actions or inactions that resulted in the applicable wildfire constituted “conscious or willful disregard for the rights and safety of others,” or the electric utility company fails to maintain a valid safety certification. Costs that the CPUC determines to be just and reasonable will not need to be repaid to the Wildfire Fund, resulting in a draw-down of the Wildfire Fund.

The Utility is required to attain a safety certification from the CPUC every 12 months, which will be issued within 90 days if the Utility has provided documentation that it has satisfied the requirements for the safety certification pursuant to section 8389(e) of the Public Utilities Code, added by AB 1054. On January 14, 2021, the WSD approved the Utility’s 2020 application and issued the Utility’s 2020 Safety Certification pursuant to the requirements of AB 1054. The safety certification is separate from the CPUC’s enforcement authority and does not preclude the CPUC from pursuing remedies for safety or other applicable violations. The 2020 Safety Certification is valid for 12 months or until a timely request for a new safety certification is acted upon, whichever occurs later. On January 26, 2021, TURN filed with the CPUC a request for review of WSD’s issuance of the safety certification, which the CPUC declined to provide on April 14, 2021.

The Wildfire Fund and disallowance cap will be terminated when the amounts therein are exhausted. The Wildfire Fund is expected to be capitalized with (i) $10.5 billion of proceeds of bonds supported by a 15-year extension of the Department of Water Resources charge to customers, (ii) $7.5 billion in initial contributions from California’s three large electric IOUs and (iii) $300 million in annual contributions paid by California’s three large electric IOUs for at least a 10 year period. For more information regarding contributions to the Wildfire Fund, see Note 3 above.

The Wildfire Fund will only be available for payment of eligible claims so long as there are sufficient funds remaining in the Wildfire Fund. Such funds could be depleted more quickly than expected, including as a result of claims made by California’s other participating electric utility companies. The Wildfire Fund is available to pay for the Utility’s eligible claims arising as of July 12, 2019, the effective date of AB 1054, subject to a limit of 40% of the amount of such claims arising between the effective date of AB 1054 and the Utility’s emergence from Chapter 11. The 40% limit does not apply to eligible claims that arise after the Utility’s emergence from Chapter 11. The Wildfire Fund is additionally limited to the portion of such claims that exceeds the greater of (i) $1.0 billion in the aggregate in any year and (ii) the amount of insurance coverage required to be in place for the electric utility company pursuant to section 3293 of the Public Utilities Code, added by AB 1054.

AB 1054 also provides that the first $5.0 billion expended in the aggregate by California’s three large electric IOUs on fire risk mitigation capital expenditures included in their respective approved WMPs will be excluded from their respective equity rate bases. The $5.0 billion of capital expenditures were allocated among the IOUs in accordance with their Wildfire Fund allocation metrics. The Utility’s allocation is $3.21 billion. For more information on the Wildfire Fund allocation metrics, see Note 3 above. AB 1054 contemplates that such capital expenditures may be securitized through a customer charge.

For more information see “Regulatory Recovery” above, Note 3 above and Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K.

OTHER CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS

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 loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. PG&E Corporation and the Utility evaluate the range of reasonably estimated losses and record a provision based on the lower end of the range, unless an amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and estimates are adjusted to reflect the impact of all known information, such as negotiations, discovery, settlements and payments, rulings, penalties related to regulatory compliance, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s policy is to exclude anticipated legal costs from the provision for loss and expense these costs as incurred.

The Utility also has substantial financial commitments in connection with agreements entered into to support its operating activities.  See “Purchase Commitments” below.

PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows may be materially affected by the outcome of the following matters.

Enforcement Matters

U.S. District Court Matters and Probation

In connection with the Utility’s probation proceeding, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has the ability to impose additional probation conditions on the Utility. Additional conditions, if implemented, could be wide-ranging and would impact the Utility’s operations, number of employees, costs and financial performance. Depending on the terms of these additional requirements, costs in connections with such requirements could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows.

CPUC and FERC Matters

Order Instituting Investigation into the 2017 Northern California Wildfires and the 2018 Camp Fire

On June 27, 2019, the CPUC issued the Wildfires OII to determine whether the Utility “violated any provision(s) of the California Public Utilities Code, Commission General Orders 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.” On December 5, 2019, the assigned commissioner issued a second amended scoping memo and ruling that amended the scope of issues to be considered in this proceeding to include the 2018 Camp fire.

As previously disclosed, on December 17, 2019, the Utility, the SED of the CPUC, the CPUC’s OSA, and CUE jointly submitted to the CPUC a proposed settlement agreement in connection with this proceeding and jointly moved for its approval. The settlement agreement became effective on the Effective Date.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Utility agreed to (i) not seek rate recovery of wildfire-related expenses and capital expenditures in future applications in the amount of $1.625 billion, as specified below, and (ii) incur costs of $50 million in shareholder-funded system enhancement initiatives as described further in the settlement agreement. The amounts set forth in the table below include actual recorded costs and forecasted cost estimates as of the date of the settlement agreement for expenses and capital expenditures which the Utility has incurred or planned to incur to comply with its legal obligations to provide safe and reliable service. While actual costs incurred for certain cost categories are different than what was assumed in the settlement agreement, the Utility has recorded $1.625 billion of the disallowed costs through March 31, 2021.

(in millions)
Description(1)	Expense		Capital		Total
Distribution Safety Inspections and Repairs Expense (FRMMA/WMPMA)	$	236	$	—	$	236
Transmission Safety Inspections and Repairs Expense (TO)(2)	433		—		433
Vegetation Management Support Costs (FHPMA)	36		—		36
2017 Northern California Wildfires CEMA Expense and Capital (CEMA)	82		66		148
2018 Camp Fire CEMA Expense (CEMA)	435		—		435
2018 Camp Fire CEMA Capital for Restoration (CEMA)	—		253		253
2018 Camp Fire CEMA Capital for Temporary Facilities (CEMA)	—		84		84
Total	$	1,222	$	403	$	1,625

(1) All amounts included in the table reflect actual recorded costs for 2019 and 2020.

(2) Transmission amounts are under the FERC’s regulatory authority.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility record a charge when it is both probable that costs incurred or projected to be incurred for recently completed plant will not be recoverable through rates charged to customers and the amount of disallowance can be reasonably estimated.

The Utility expects that the system enhancement spending pursuant to the settlement agreement will occur through 2025.

On April 20, 2020, the assigned commissioner issued a Decision Different adopting, with changes, the proposed modifications set forth in the request for review. The Decision Different (i) increases the amount of disallowed wildfire expenditures by $198 million (as set forth in the POD); (ii) increases the amount of shareholder funding for System Enhancement Initiatives by $64 million (as set forth in the POD); (iii) imposes a $200 million fine but permanently suspends payment of the fine; and (iii) limits the tax savings that must be returned to customers to those savings generated by disallowed operating expenditures. The Decision Different also denies all pending appeals of the POD and denies, in part, the Utility’s motion requesting other relief. On April 30, 2020, the Utility submitted its comments on the Decision Different to the CPUC, accepting the modifications. The CPUC approved the Decision Different on May 7, 2020.

As it relates to the additional $198 million in disallowed costs as adopted in the Decision Different, the Utility has recorded cumulative charges of $172 million primarily in WMPMA through March 31, 2021 and intends to record the remaining charges of $26 million by the end of 2021.

On June 8, 2020, two parties filed separate applications for rehearing, the purpose of which was to challenge the CPUC’s approval of the settlement agreement, as modified. On June 23, 2020, the Utility and CUE filed a joint response opposing the applications for rehearing. On December 3, 2020, the CPUC issued a decision denying the application for rehearing. On January 4, 2021, one party filed a petition for review of the CPUC decision with the California court of appeals. Responses to the petition were submitted on March 25, 2021. The Utility is unable to predict the timing and outcome of the petition.

Transmission Owner Rate Case Revenue Subject to Refund

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, March 1, 2018, and May 1, 2019 for TO18, the TO rate case for 2018 (“TO19”), and the TO rate case for 2019 (“TO20”), respectively.

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. On October 15, 2020, the FERC issued an order that affirmed in part and reversed in part the initial decision. The order reopens the record for the limited purpose of allowing parties an opportunity to present written evidence concerning the FERC’s revised ROE methodology adopted in the FERC Opinion No. 569-A, issued on May 21, 2020. Initial briefs were filed on December 14, 2020 and reply briefs were filed on February 12, 2021. In addition, the order addresses a number of other issues including: (1) approving depreciation rates that yield an estimated composite depreciation rate of 2.94% compared to the Utility’s request of 3.25%; (2) reducing forecasted capital, operations and maintenance, and cost of debt expense to actual costs incurred for the rate case period; and (3) upholding the initial decision’s rejection of the Utility’s direct assignment of common plant to transmission and requiring the allocation of all common plant between CPUC and FERC jurisdiction be based on operating and maintenance labor ratios. On the direct assignment issue, applying labor ratios to certain common plant would result in an allocation of 6.15% of common plant to FERC in comparison to 8.84% under the Utility’s direct assignment method. The Utility filed a request for rehearing of certain aspects of the order, which was denied by the FERC on December 17, 2020. The Utility filed a petition for review of the order on February 11, 2021 in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and a separate petition for review was jointly filed the same day by two other parties in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have issued orders holding the appeals in abeyance until July 14, 2021 and June 30, 2021, respectively, so that the FERC has time to issue a substantive order on rehearing. The ultimate outcome on appeal of certain items for which the Utility requested rehearing could also impact the revenues recorded for the TO19 and TO20 periods. On April 15, 2021, the FERC issued an order denying the Utility’s request for rehearing and granting the request for rehearing of two parties regarding the impact of the Tax Act on TO18 rates in January and February 2018. The Utility may seek rehearing of the FERC’s reversal on the applicability of the Tax Act on TO18 rates which may affect the timing for judicial review of the FERC order on the Utility’s request for rehearing.

As a result of the FERC’s April 15, 2021 order denying rehearing on the common plant allocation, the Utility increased its Regulatory liabilities for amounts previously collected during the TO18, TO19, and TO20 rate case periods from 2017 through the first quarter of 2021 by approximately $270 million. A portion of these common plant costs are expected to be recovered at the CPUC in a separate application and as a result, the Utility has recorded approximately $150 million to Regulatory assets.

On September 21, 2018, the Utility filed an all-party settlement with the FERC, which was approved by the 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 the TO18 proceeding.

On December 30, 2020, the FERC approved an all-party settlement agreement in connection with TO20. The TO20 settlement resolved all issues of the Utility’s formula rate. However, some of the formula rate issues are contingent on the outcome of TO18, including the allocation of costs related to common, general and intangible plant. The settlement provides that the formula rate will remain in effect through December 31, 2023. The Utility is required to make a successor rate filing in 2023 which would go into effect on January 1, 2024.

CEMA Interim Rate Relief Subject to Refund

On March 30, 2018, the Utility submitted to the CPUC its 2018 CEMA application requesting cost recovery of $183 million in connection with seven catastrophic events that included fire and storm declared emergencies from mid-2016 through early 2017, as well as $405 million related to work performed in 2016 and 2017 to cut back or remove dead or dying trees that were exposed to years of drought conditions and bark beetle infestation.

On April 25, 2019, the CPUC approved the Utility’s request for interim rate relief, allowing for recovery of $373 million of costs as requested by the Utility at that time. The interim rate relief was implemented on October 1, 2019. Costs included in the interim rate relief are subject to audit and refund. On August 7, 2019, the Utility filed a revised application, revised testimony and revised workpapers, reflecting a new revenue requirement request of $669 million, pursuant to a CPUC ruling allowing these changes.

The 2018 CEMA application does not include costs related to the 2015 Butte fire, the 2017 Northern California wildfires, or the 2018 Camp fire.

On March 9, 2020, the CPUC issued a modified scoping memo and ruling. On May 4, 2020, the Utility filed a revised application, which included 2019 tree mortality costs, reflecting a new revenue requirement request of $757 million, and the costs of an independent auditor to be hired for audit of all vegetation management costs and related interest calculations.

On January 4, 2021, the independent audit of all vegetation management costs commenced, and the final audit report is expected in early July 2021.

On January 8, 2021, the Utility filed a revised application updating the revenue requirement to include an additional $5.6 million of tree mortality costs and the cost of hiring an independent auditor.

The Utility is unable to predict the timing and outcome of this application.

WMCE Interim Rate Relief Subject to Refund

On September 30, 2020, the Utility filed an application with the CPUC requesting cost recovery of recorded expenditures related to wildfire mitigation, certain catastrophic events, and a number of other activities (the “WMCE application”). The recorded expenditures, which exclude amounts disallowed as a result of the CPUC’s decision in the OII into the 2017 Northern California Wildfires and the 2018 Camp fire, consist of $1.18 billion in expense and $801 million in capital expenditures, resulting in a proposed revenue requirement of approximately $1.28 billion.

The costs addressed in the WMCE application cover activities mainly during the years 2017 to 2019 and are incremental to those previously authorized in the Utility’s 2017 GRC and other proceedings. The majority of costs addressed in this application reflect work necessary to mitigate wildfire risk and to respond to catastrophic events occurring during the years 2017 to 2019. The Utility’s requested revenue includes amounts for the FHPMA of $293 million, the FRMMA and the WMPMA of $740 million, and the CEMA of $251 million. The requested revenue for CEMA costs reflected in the application include the Utility’s costs incurred responding to ten catastrophic events.

Given the CPUC’s prior approval of $447 million in interim rate relief (which includes interest), the Utility proposed to recover the remaining $868 million revenue requirement, including interest, over a one-year period (following the conclusion of interim rate relief recovery). Cost recovery requested in this application is subject to the CPUC’s reasonableness review, which could result in some or all of the interim rate relief of $447 million being subject to refund.

Intervenors’ testimony was served on April 14, 2021 and the Utility’s rebuttal testimony is due on April 30, 2021. The scoping memo and ruling for the proceeding calls for a PD to be issued in September 2021.

The Utility is unable to predict the outcome of this application. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows could be materially affected if the Utility is unable to timely recover costs included in this application.

For more information regarding the FHPMA, the FRMMA, the WMPMA, and the CEMA memorandum accounts, see Note 4 above and the 2020 Form 10-K.

Other Matters

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are subject to various claims and lawsuits 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 $134 million and $144 million at March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively. These amounts were included in Other current liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. 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.

PSPS Class Action

On December 19, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California naming PG&E Corporation and the Utility. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all California residents and business owners who had their power shut off by the Utility during the October 9, October 23, October 26, October 28, or November 20, 2019 power outages and any subsequent voluntary outages occurring during the course of litigation. The plaintiff alleges that the necessity for the October and November 2019 power shutoff events was caused by the Utility’s negligence in failing to properly maintain its electrical lines and surrounding vegetation. The complaint seeks up to $2.5 billion in special and general damages, punitive and exemplary damages and injunctive relief to require the Utility to properly maintain and inspect its power grid. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe the allegations are without merit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

On January 21, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative strike the class action allegations. On March 30, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Utility’s motion to dismiss this class action because the plaintiff’s class action claims are preempted as a matter of law by the CPUC code. On April 3, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order dismissing the action without leave to amend.

The plaintiff appealed the decision dismissing the complaint to the District Court. On March 26, 2021, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of this action, and the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellant’s opening brief is due by June 24, 2021, and PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s opposition brief is due by July 26, 2021. The appellants’ reply brief is due 21 days after the opposition brief is filed.

The Utility is unable to determine the timing and outcome of this proceeding.

GT&S Capital Expenditures 2011-2014

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 a review of reasonableness to be conducted, or overseen, by the CPUC staff. The review was completed on June 1, 2020 and did not result in any additional disallowances. The report certified $512 million for future recovery. The difference between the certified amount and the $576 million previously disallowed is primarily a result of differences between capital expenditures forecasted in the 2015 GT&S rate case and recorded capital expenditures.

On July 31, 2020, the Utility filed an application seeking recovery of revenue requirements on the $512 million of capital expenditures retroactive to January 1, 2015. On October 16, 2020, the assigned commissioner issued a scoping memo establishing the scope and schedule for the proceeding. On January 20, 2021, the Utility provided supplemental testimony and supporting working papers addressing the reasonableness of the capital expenditures. Intervenors testimony was served on April 7, 2021 and the Utility’s rebuttal testimony is due on May 5, 2021. The scoping memo calls for the issuance of a PD in the fourth quarter of 2021.

On November 10, 2020, the Utility filed a motion seeking approximately $100 million in interim rates, assuming the CPUC reaches a final decision in this matter in late 2021 or early 2022. The CPUC has not yet ruled upon the Utility’s motion.

The Utility is unable to determine the timing and outcome of this proceeding.

CZU Lightning Complex Fire Notices of Violation

Several governmental entities have raised concerns regarding the Utility’s emergency response to the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex fire, including Cal Fire alleging violations of Public Resource Code sections related to timber harvest regulations and Forest Practice Rules, the California Coastal Commission alleging violations of the Coastal Act related to unpermitted development in the coastal zone, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board alleging unpermitted discharge to waters, and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors adopting a resolution to file a complaint with the CPUC. The concerns include potential environmental impacts related to erosion and sedimentation from hazard tree removal and access road use, work in sensitive habitats, and the management of wood debris. The Coastal Commission issued a Notice of Violation letter to the Utility on November 20, 2020, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a Notice of Violation letter on December 15, 2020, Cal Fire has issued six Notices of Violation through April 7, 2021, and Santa Cruz County filed a complaint with the CPUC on January 25, 2021. The Utility continues to work with all agencies, as well as Santa Cruz County, to resolve any outstanding issues. Santa Cruz County has agreed to extend the deadline for the Utility to answer the complaint and file a motion to dismiss to April 29, 2021, so the parties can discuss settlement opportunities.

Based on the information currently available, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is probable that a liability has been incurred. The Utility is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential penalties that could be incurred given the number of factors that can be considered in determining penalties. PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not believe that the resolution of these matters will have a material impact on their financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Violations can result in penalties, remediation and other relief.

Environmental Remediation Contingencies

The Utility’s environmental remediation liability is primarily included in non-current liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and is comprised of the following:

	Balance at
(in millions)	March 31, 2021		December 31, 2020
Topock natural gas compressor station	$	298	$	303
Hinkley natural gas compressor station	130		132
Former manufactured gas plant sites owned by the Utility or third parties (1)	693		659
Utility-owned generation facilities (other than fossil fuel-fired),   other facilities, and third-party disposal sites (2)	116		111
Fossil fuel-fired generation facilities and sites (3)	76		96
Total environmental remediation liability	$	1,313	$	1,301

(1) Primarily driven by the following sites: San Francisco Beach Street, Vallejo, Napa, and San Francisco East Harbor.

(2) Primarily driven by Geothermal landfill and Shell Pond site.

(3) Primarily driven by the San Francisco Potrero Power Plant.

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 March 31, 2021, 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, the Utility’s time frame for remediation, and unanticipated claims filed against the Utility.  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 March 31, 2021, the Utility expected to recover $1,017 million of its environmental remediation liability for certain sites through various ratemaking mechanisms authorized by the CPUC. 

For more information, see remediation site descriptions below and see Note 15 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K.

Natural Gas Compressor Station Sites

The Utility is legally responsible for remediating groundwater contamination caused by hexavalent chromium used in the past at the Utility’s natural gas compressor stations. The Utility is also required to take measures to abate the effects of the contamination on the environment.

Topock Site

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 $220 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.

Hinkley Site

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 report was received in January 2020 and is expected to be finalized in 2021. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the Hinkley site may increase by as much as $138 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 Manufactured Gas Plants

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 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 $436 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation at currently identified MGP sites 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

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 $59 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.

Fossil Fuel-Fired Generation Sites

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 $44 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.

Nuclear Insurance

The Utility maintains multiple insurance policies through NEIL and EMANI, covering nuclear or non-nuclear events at the Utility’s two nuclear generating units at Diablo Canyon and the retired Humboldt Bay Unit 3.  NEIL provides property damage and business interruption coverage of up to $3.2 billion per nuclear incident and $2.5 billion per non-nuclear incident for Diablo Canyon. For Humboldt Bay Unit 3, NEIL provides up to $50 million of coverage for nuclear and non-nuclear property damages. NEIL also provides coverage for damages caused by acts of terrorism at nuclear power plants. Through NEIL, there is up to $3.2 billion available to the membership to cover this exposure. EMANI shares losses with NEIL, as part of the first $400 million of coverage within the current nuclear insurance program. EMANI also provides an additional $200 million in excess insurance for property damage and business interruption losses incurred by the utility if a nuclear or non-nuclear event were to occur at Diablo Canyon. 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, the maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligation for the Utility would be approximately $42 million.  If EMANI losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, the Utility could be subject to a retrospective assessment of approximately $4 million.  For more information about the Utility’s nuclear insurance coverage, see Note 15 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K.

Diablo Canyon Outages

Diablo Canyon Unit 2 has experienced five outages between July 2020 and April 2021, each due or related to malfunctions within the main generator associated with excessive vibrations. Additional inspections and replacement of a redesigned component of the generator occurred during Unit 2’s planned spring 2021 refueling outage. The affected component is part of the secondary system and does not involve a risk of release of radioactive material into the environment. The Utility is working with the vendor that supplied the affected component to understand the root cause and to develop appropriate corrective actions.

If additional shutdowns occur in the future, the Utility may incur incremental costs or forgo additional power market revenues. The Utility will also be subject to a review of the reasonableness of its actions before the CPUC.

Diablo Canyon carries property damage and outage insurance issued by NEIL and EMANI.

The Utility is unable to reasonably estimate the occurrence or length of future outages, the cost to repair the generator, the loss of power market revenues, or the results of a reasonableness review by the CPUC.

Tax Matters

As of the date of this report, it is more likely than not that PG&E Corporation has not undergone an ownership change, and consequently, its net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes are not limited by section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Purchase Commitments

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, 2020, the Utility had undiscounted future expected obligations of approximately $35 billion. (See Note 15 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K.)

Oakland Headquarters Lease

On June 5, 2020, the Utility entered into an Agreement to Enter Into Lease and Purchase Option (the “Agreement”) with TMG Bay Area Investments II, LLC (“TMG”). The Agreement provides that, contingent on (i) entry of an order by the Bankruptcy Court authorizing the Utility to enter into the Agreement and the Lease Agreement (as defined below), subject to certain conditions, and (ii) acquisition of the Lakeside Building by BA2 300 Lakeside LLC (“Landlord”), a wholly owned subsidiary of TMG, the Utility and Landlord will enter into an office lease agreement (the “Lease Agreement”) for approximately 910,000 rentable square feet of space within the building located at the Lakeside Building to serve as the Utility’s principal administrative headquarters (the “Lease”). On June 9, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court authorizing them to enter into the Agreement and grant related relief. The Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the motion on June 24, 2020.

Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, concurrent with the Landlord’s acquisition of the building, on October 23, 2020, the Utility and the Landlord entered into the Lease, and the Utility issued to Landlord (i) an option payment letter of credit in the amount of $75 million on or before the Lease Date (as defined in the Agreement and the Lease Agreement), and (ii) a lease security letter of credit in the amount of $75 million.

The term of the Lease will begin on or about March 1, 2022. The Lease term will expire 34 years and 11 months after the commencement date, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms of the Lease. In addition to base rent, the Utility will be responsible for certain costs and charges specified in the Lease, including insurance costs, maintenance costs and taxes.

The Lease requires the Landlord to pursue approvals to subdivide the real estate it owns surrounding the Lakeside Building to create a separate legal parcel that contains the Lakeside Building (the “Property”) that can be sold to the Utility. The Lease grants to the Utility an option to purchase the Property, following such subdivision, at a price of $892 million, subject to certain adjustments (the “Purchase Price”). The Purchase Price would not be paid until 2023.

In connection with entry into the Agreement, the Utility intends to sell its current office space generally located at 77 Beale Street, 215 Market Street, 245 Market Street and 50 Main Street, San Francisco, California 94105, and associated properties owned by the Utility (“SFGO”). Any sale of the SFGO would be subject to approval by the CPUC. On September 30, 2020, the Utility filed an application with the CPUC seeking authorization to sell the SFGO. On April 21, 2021, the Utility entered into a settlement agreement with certain other parties and submitted the settlement agreement to the CPUC for approval. Under the settlement, the parties agree that (1) the Utility’s headquarters strategy, including the move to Oakland, the sale of SFGO, and the terms of the agreement to lease and the option to purchase the Lakeside Building, is reasonable, (2) all of the gain on sale of SFGO will be returned to customers over five years, beginning in 2022, and (3) the SFGO sale terms and the costs associated with the Utility’s move to the Lakeside Building and development will be considered at later stages of the proceeding and through the CPUC’s advice letter process.

At March 31, 2021, the Lease Agreement had no impact on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.