PG&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.

Assessing whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, whether the loss or a range of losses is estimable, and the amount of the best estimate or lower end of the range often requires management to exercise significant judgment about future events. Management makes these assessments based on a number of assumptions and subjective factors, including negotiations (including those during mediations with claimants), discovery, settlements and payments, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter, and estimates based on currently available information and prior experience with wildfires.

Loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly, and estimates are adjusted to reflect the impact of all known information. As more information becomes available, including from potential claimants as litigation or resolution efforts progress, management estimates and assumptions regarding the potential financial impacts of wildfire events may change. 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.

Potential liabilities related to wildfires depend on various factors, including the cause of the fire, contributing causes of the fire (including alternative potential origins, weather- and climate-related issues, and forest management and fire suppression practices), 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 courts or other governmental entities.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of numerous civil complaints related to the following wildfire events and expect that they may receive further complaints. The complaints 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 relevant wildfire. The timing and outcome for resolution of any such claims or investigations are uncertain. The Utility believes it will continue to receive additional information from potential claimants in connection with these wildfire events as litigation or resolution efforts progress. Any such additional information may potentially allow PG&E Corporation and the Utility to refine the estimates of their accrued losses and may result in changes to the accrual depending on the information received. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to vigorously defend themselves against both criminal charges and civil complaints.

If the Utility’s facilities, such as its electric distribution and transmission lines, are judicially determined to be the substantial cause of the following matters, 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 through rates. 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. In addition to claims for property damage, business interruption, interest and attorneys’ fees under inverse condemnation, 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 following wildfire events, including if PG&E Corporation or the Utility were found to have been negligent.

According to Cal Fire, on October 23, 2019 at approximately 9:27 p.m. Pacific Time, a wildfire began northeast of Geyserville in Sonoma County, California (the “2019 Kincade fire”), located in the service area of the Utility. According to a Cal Fire incident update dated March 3, 2020, 3:35 p.m. Pacific Time, the 2019 Kincade fire consumed 77,758 acres and resulted in no fatalities, four first responder injuries, 374 structures destroyed, and 60 structures damaged. In connection with the 2019 Kincade fire, state and local officials issued numerous mandatory evacuation orders and evacuation warnings. 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.

As of July 19, 2023, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of approximately 124 complaints on behalf of at least 2,839 plaintiffs related to the 2019 Kincade fire. The plaintiffs filed master complaints on July 16, 2021; PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s response was filed on August 16, 2021; and PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a demurrer with respect to the plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claims. On December 10, 2021, the court overruled the demurrer. The court scheduled trial for November 7, 2022, which it vacated on October 11, 2022.

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 Cal Fire’s determination of the cause and 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 2019 Kincade fire. Based on the facts and circumstances available to PG&E Corporation and the Utility as of the date of this report, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a liability in the aggregate amount of $1.025 billion as of December 31, 2022 (before available insurance). The aggregate liability remained unchanged as of June 30, 2023.

PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s accrued estimated losses of $1.025 billion do not include, among other things: (i) any amounts for potential penalties or fines 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.

According to Cal Fire, on September 27, 2020, at approximately 4:03 p.m. Pacific Time, 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 area of the Utility. According to a Cal Fire incident update dated October 16, 2020, 3:08 p.m. Pacific Time, the 2020 Zogg fire consumed 56,338 acres and resulted in four fatalities, one injury, 204 structures destroyed, and 27 structures damaged.

On September 24, 2021, the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office (“Shasta D.A.”) charged the Utility with 11 felonies and 20 misdemeanors related to the 2020 Zogg fire, the 2020 Daniel fire, the 2020 Ponder fire, and the 2021 Woody fire. On September 24, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility announced that they disputed the charges. They further announced that they would accept Cal Fire’s finding that a Utility electric line caused the 2020 Zogg fire, even though PG&E Corporation and the Utility did not have access to all of the evidence that Cal Fire gathered. On June 9, 2022, the Utility entered a plea of not guilty to all of the charges. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing conducted in January and February 2023, the court dismissed 20 of the 31 counts, including all charges related to the three smaller fires as well as all charges relating to air contamination. On February 24, 2023, the Utility filed a motion to set aside 10 of the remaining 11 counts. On April 14, 2023, the court issued a written tentative ruling dismissing nine of the remaining counts and inviting the parties to submit additional briefing on the issues discussed in the tentative ruling. On May 31, 2023, the Utility and the Shasta D.A. filed a civil stipulated judgment (the “Zogg Stipulation”) for the Shasta D.A. to dismiss with prejudice all criminal charges against the Utility in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire. On May 31, 2023, the Shasta County Superior Court granted the Shasta D.A.’s motion to dismiss the pending criminal charges. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Zogg Stipulation, the Utility agreed to (1) pay a total of $50 million, which will not be recoverable through rates; (2) take certain wildfire mitigation actions consistent with its then-applicable wildfire mitigation plan and (3) extend the term of the independent compliance monitor to monitor the Utility’s compliance with certain commitments in Shasta County by approximately one year. After the Zogg Stipulation was entered by the Shasta County Superior Court, the Shasta D.A. moved to dismiss the charges with prejudice, which was granted by the court on June 14, 2023. As of June 30, 2023, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements reflected $50 million within Other current liabilities in connection with the Zogg Stipulation.

On October 25, 2022, the SED issued a proposed administrative enforcement order alleging that the Utility violated CPUC regulations and Public Utilities Code Section 451 in connection with the CPUC’s investigation of the 2020 Zogg fire. The proposed order recommends a penalty of $155 million. On February 21, 2023, the Utility and the SED filed a joint motion for approval of a settlement agreement (the “Zogg SED Settlement”). The Zogg SED Settlement provides that the Utility would (i) pay $10 million to California’s General Fund; (ii) implement certain enhancements to its vegetation management processes; (iii) incur $140 million in connection with certain initiatives specified in the Zogg SED Settlement, and the Utility may not seek recovery of this $140 million of costs. The SED agreed to refrain from instituting any further enforcement proceedings against the Utility related to the 2020 Zogg fire. The Zogg SED Settlement states that it does not constitute an admission or evidence of any wrongdoing, fault, omission, negligence, imprudence, or liability on the part of the Utility. In connection with the Zogg SED Settlement, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a liability of $10 million reflected in Other current liabilities on the Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2022. For the $140 million of costs for which the Utility will not seek recovery, the Utility expects to record disallowances as such costs are incurred. On May 24, 2023, the CPUC issued a resolution granting the joint motion filed by the Utility and the SED and approving the Zogg SED Settlement.

As of July 19, 2023, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of approximately 29 complaints on behalf of at least 523 plaintiffs related to 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. The plaintiffs filed master complaints on August 6, 2021, and PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s answer was filed on September 7, 2021, and PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a demurrer with respect to the plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claims. On December 10, 2021, the court overruled the demurrer. The court has set a trial date in the coordinated proceeding for September 5, 2023.

In addition, on March 18, 2022, Cal Fire filed a complaint against the Utility in the coordinated proceeding seeking to recover approximately $34.5 million for fire suppression and other costs incurred in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire. The Utility filed an answer to Cal Fire’s complaint on May 3, 2022. The Utility and Cal Fire reached a settlement of Cal Fire’s claims and dismissal of Cal Fire’s complaint with prejudice was entered on December 22, 2022. On September 26, 2022, the Utility entered into a tolling agreement with Cal OES, which remains in effect.

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 Cal Fire’s determination of the cause and 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. Based on the facts and circumstances available to PG&E Corporation and the Utility as of the date of this report, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a liability in the aggregate amount of $400 million as of December 31, 2022 (before available insurance). The aggregate liability remained unchanged as of June 30, 2023.

The Utility has liability insurance for third-party liability attributable to the 2020 Zogg fire in an aggregate amount of $611 million. As of June 30, 2023, the Utility recorded an insurance receivable for $372 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire, which equals the $400 million probable loss estimate less an initial self-insured retention of $60 million, plus $32 million in legal fees incurred. Recovery under the Utility’s wildfire insurance policies for the 2021 Dixie fire will reduce the amount of insurance proceeds available for the 2020 Zogg fire by the same amount up to $600 million and vice versa.

According to the Cal Fire Investigation Report on the 2021 Dixie fire (the “Cal Fire Investigation Report”), on July 13, 2021, at approximately 5:07 p.m. Pacific Time, a wildfire began in the Feather River Canyon near Cresta Dam (the “2021 Dixie fire”), located in the service area of the Utility. According to the Cal Fire Investigation Report, the 2021 Dixie fire consumed 963,309 acres and resulted in 1,311 structures destroyed and 94 structures damaged (including 763 residential homes, 12 multi-family homes, 8 commercial residential homes, 148 nonresidential commercial structures, and 466 detached structures), and four first-responder injuries. The Cal Fire Investigation Report does not attribute a fatality that was previously published in an October 25, 2021 Cal Fire incident report to the 2021 Dixie fire.

On January 4, 2022, Cal Fire issued a press release with its determination that the 2021 Dixie fire was caused by a tree contacting electrical distribution lines owned and operated by the Utility. On June 7, 2022, the Utility received a copy of the Cal Fire Investigation Report, which states that the fire ignited when a tree fell and contacted electrical distribution lines owned and operated by the Utility, and the Cal Fire Investigation Report has been made publicly available. The Cal Fire Investigation Report alleges that the Utility acted negligently in its response to the initial outage and fault that caused the 2021 Dixie fire. The Cal Fire Investigation Report also alleges that the subject tree had visible outward signs of damage and decay which would have been noticeable at the ground level, and that a brief visual inspection should have discovered the decay. Based on the information currently available to the Utility, including its inspection records, operating and inspection protocols and procedures, implementation of those protocols and procedures, and day-of-event response, the Utility believes its personnel acted reasonably (within the meaning of the applicable prudency standard discussed under “Regulatory Recovery” below) given the information available at the time and followed applicable policies and protocols both before ignition and in the day-of-event response. While an intervenor in a future cost recovery proceeding may argue the Cal Fire Investigation Report itself creates serious doubt with respect to the reasonableness of the Utility’s conduct, PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not believe the report identifies sufficient facts to shift the burden of proof applicable in a proceeding for cost recovery to the Utility. (See “Regulatory Recovery” and “Wildfire Fund under AB 1054”). PG&E Corporation and the Utility disagree with many allegations in the Cal Fire Investigation Report and plan to vigorously contest them. However, if the CPUC or the FERC were to reach conclusions similar to those of the Cal Fire Investigation Report, it may determine that the Utility had been imprudent, in which case some or all of its costs recorded to the WEMA would not be recoverable, the Utility would not be able to recover costs through FERC TO rates, or the Utility would be required to reimburse the Wildfire Fund for the costs and expenses that are allocated to it.

The SED and OEIS have been investigating the fire; various other entities, which may include other state and federal law enforcement agencies, may also be investigating the fire. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California also issued a subpoena for documents. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are cooperating with the investigations. Except for the investigation by the District Attorneys of Butte County, Plumas County, Shasta County, Lassen County and Tehama County, whose potential state criminal prosecution of the Utility is resolved, it is uncertain when any other such investigations will be complete. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are also conducting their own investigation into the cause of the 2021 Dixie fire. This investigation is ongoing.

As of July 19, 2023, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of approximately 143 complaints on behalf of at least 6,380 individual plaintiffs and a separate putative class complaint related to the 2021 Dixie fire and expect that they may receive further complaints. The plaintiffs seek damages that include wrongful death, property damage, economic loss, medical monitoring, punitive damages, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and other damages. A trial on individual claims is scheduled to commence on November 8, 2023. Cal Fire also filed a complaint largely repeating the allegations of the earlier Cal Fire Investigation Report and seeking damages for fire suppression and investigation costs.

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 Cal Fire’s determination of the cause and 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 2021 Dixie fire. Based on the facts and circumstances available to PG&E Corporation and the Utility as of the date of this report, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a liability in the aggregate amount of $1.175 billion as of December 31, 2022 (before available recoveries). The aggregate liability remained unchanged as of June 30, 2023.

PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s accrued estimated losses of $1.175 billion do not include, among other things: (i) any amounts for potential penalties or fines 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 including for state or federal fire suppression costs and damages related to federal land, (iv) evacuation costs, (v) medical monitoring costs, or (vi) any other amounts that are not reasonably estimable.

As noted above, the aggregate estimated liability for claims in connection with the 2021 Dixie fire does not include potential claims for fire suppression costs from federal, state, county, or local agencies or damage to land and vegetation in national parks or national forests. As to these damages, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have not concluded that a loss is probable. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to reasonably estimate the range of possible losses for any such claims due to, among other factors, incomplete information as to facts pertinent to potential claims and defenses, as well as facts that would bear on the amount, type, and valuation of vegetation loss, potential reforestation, habitat loss, and other resources damaged or destroyed by the 2021 Dixie fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe, however, that such losses could be significant with respect to fire suppression costs due to the size and duration of the 2021 Dixie fire and corresponding magnitude of fire suppression resources dedicated to fighting the 2021 Dixie fire and with respect to claims for damage to land and vegetation in national parks or national forests due to the very large number of acres of national park and national forests that were affected by the 2021 Dixie fire. According to the Cal Fire Investigation Report, over $650 million of costs had been incurred in suppressing the 2021 Dixie fire. The Utility estimates that the fire burned approximately 70,000 acres of national parks and approximately 685,000 acres of national forests.

The Utility has liability insurance coverage for third-party liability in an aggregate amount of $900 million. Recovery under the Utility’s wildfire insurance policies for the 2020 Zogg fire will reduce the amount of insurance proceeds available for the 2021 Dixie fire by the same amount up to $600 million and vice versa. As of June 30, 2023, the Utility recorded an insurance receivable of $528 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2021 Dixie fire, which equals the aggregate $900 million of available insurance coverage for third-party liability attributable to the 2021 Dixie fire, less the $372 million insurance receivable recorded in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire.

As of June 30, 2023, the Utility recorded a Wildfire Fund receivable of $175 million for probable recoveries in connection with the 2021 Dixie fire. AB 1054 provides that the CPUC may allocate costs and expenses in the application for cost recovery in full or in part taking into account factors both within and beyond the utility’s control that may have exacerbated the costs and expenses, including humidity, temperature, and winds. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe that, even if it found that the Utility acted unreasonably, the CPUC would nevertheless authorize recovery in part. See “Wildfire Fund under AB 1054” below. The Utility also recorded a $117 million reduction to its regulatory liability for wildfire-related claims costs that were determined to be probable of recovery through the FERC TO formula rate and a $411 million regulatory asset for costs that were determined to be probable of recovery through the WEMA. See “Regulatory Recovery” below. Decreases in the amount of the insurance receivable for the 2021 Dixie fire may also increase the amount that is probable of recovery through the FERC TO formula rate and the WEMA. The WEMA regulatory asset increased by $23 million during the six months ended June 30, 2023.

On September 6, 2022, at approximately 6:17 p.m. Pacific Time, the Utility was notified that a wildfire had ignited near OxBow Reservoir in Placer County, California (the “2022 Mosquito fire”), located in the service area of the Utility. The National Wildfire Coordinating Group’s InciWeb incident overview dated November 4, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. Pacific Time indicated that the 2022 Mosquito fire had consumed approximately 76,788 acres at that time. It also indicated no fatalities, no injuries, 78 structures destroyed, and 13 structures damaged (including 44 residential homes and 40 detached structures) and that the fire was 100% contained.

The cause of the 2022 Mosquito fire remains under investigation by the USFS and the DOJ, and PG&E Corporation and the Utility are cooperating with the investigation. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have received document and information requests from the DOJ. 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 2022 Mosquito fire. This investigation is preliminary, and PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not currently have access to the evidence in the possession of the USFS, the DOJ, or other third parties.

As of July 19, 2023, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of approximately six complaints on behalf of at least 236 individual plaintiffs related to the 2022 Mosquito fire and expect that they may receive further complaints. PG&E Corporation and the Utility also are aware of a complaint on behalf of the Placer County Water Agency, a complaint on behalf of the Middle Fork Project Finance Authority, a complaint on behalf of El Dorado County, Placer County, Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, Georgetown Fire Protection District, and El Dorado County Water Agency, and three complaints on behalf of the subrogation insurers. The plaintiffs seek damages that include property damage, economic loss, punitive damages, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and other damages.

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 2022 Mosquito fire. Based on the facts and circumstances available to PG&E Corporation and the Utility as of the date of this report, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a liability in the aggregate amount of $100 million as of December 31, 2022 (before available insurance). The aggregate liability remained unchanged as of June 30, 2023.

PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s accrued estimated losses do not include, among other things: (i) any amounts for potential penalties or fines 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 including for state or federal fire suppression costs and damages related to federal land, (iv) evacuation costs, or (v) any other amounts that are not reasonably estimable. The Utility’s accrued estimated losses also do not include any assumptions regarding offsetting recoveries from third-parties (outside of the Utility’s insurers).

As noted above, the aggregate estimated liability for claims in connection with the 2022 Mosquito fire does not include potential claims for fire suppression costs from federal, state, county, or local agencies or damage to land and vegetation in national parks or national forests. As to these damages, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have not concluded that a loss is probable. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to reasonably estimate the range of possible losses for any such claims due to, among other factors, incomplete information as to facts pertinent to potential claims and defenses, as well as facts that would bear on the amount, type, and valuation of vegetation loss, potential reforestation, habitat loss, and other resources damaged or destroyed by the 2022 Mosquito fire.

The Utility has liability insurance coverage for third-party liability in an aggregate amount of $733 million, with a deductible of $60 million. As of June 30, 2023, the Utility recorded an insurance receivable of $54 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2022 Mosquito fire. As of June 30, 2023, the Utility also recorded a $9 million reduction to its regulatory liability for wildfire-related claims costs that were determined to be probable of recovery through the FERC TO formula rate and a $51 million regulatory asset for costs that were determined to be probable of recovery through the WEMA. See “Regulatory Recovery” below.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility have recovery mechanisms available for wildfire liabilities including from insurance, customers, and the Wildfire Fund. PG&E Corporation and the Utility record a receivable for a recovery when it is deemed probable that recovery of a recorded loss will occur, and the Utility can reasonably estimate the amount or its range. While the Utility plans to seek recovery of all insured losses, it is unable to predict the ultimate amount and timing of such recoveries. For more information on the applicable facts and circumstances of the corresponding wildfires, see “2019 Kincade Fire,” “2020 Zogg Fire,” “2021 Dixie Fire,” and “2022 Mosquito Fire.”

In April 2022, the Utility purchased approximately $340 million in wildfire liability insurance coverage for the period from April 1, 2022 to April 1, 2023, at a cost of approximately $263 million. Additionally, the Utility purchased approximately $600 million in wildfire liability insurance in August 2022 for the period from August 1, 2022 to August 1, 2023, at a cost of approximately $516 million. The Utility’s wildfire liability insurance is subject to an initial self-insured retention of $60 million. In the six months ended June 30, 2023, the Utility commuted $207 million of the $340 million in wildfire liability insurance coverage running from $757 million to $970 million. PG&E Corporation and the Utility did not procure additional wildfire liability insurance in April 2023 as they move to a program of self-insurance. See “Self-Insurance” below.

On January 12, 2023, the CPUC approved a settlement agreement among the Utility and two parties to the proceeding pursuant to which the Utility’s wildfire liability insurance will be entirely based on self-insurance once all of the Utility’s existing wildfire liability insurance policies expire, which will occur on August 1, 2023. The self-insurance will be funded through CPUC-jurisdictional rates at $400 million for test year 2023 and subsequent years until $1.0 billion of unimpaired self-insurance is reached. If losses are incurred, the settlement agreement contains an adjustment mechanism designed to adjust customer funded self-insurance based on the amount of wildfire related liabilities incurred in the previous year. For 2024, 2025, and 2026, if the estimated claims for wildfire events from the immediately preceding year exceed the amount collected for self-insurance in that same year, the self-insurance amount to be collected in rates during the following year would increase by 50% of the difference between the self-insurance amount collected and estimated claims for events in the immediately preceding year. The settlement agreement includes a 5% deductible, capped at a maximum of $50 million, on claims that are incurred each year. The settlement agreement prohibits the Utility from purchasing additional wildfire liability insurance from the commercial insurance market.

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)	2022 Mosquito fire		2021 Dixie fire		2020 Zogg fire		2019 Kincade fire		Total
Balance at December 31, 2022	$	45	$	530	$	118	$	101	$	794
Accrued insurance recoveries (1)	8		(1)		1		—		8
Reimbursements	—		(200)		(54)		(101)		(355)
Balance at June 30, 2023	$	53	$	329	$	65	$	—	$	447

Section 451.1 of the Public Utilities Code provides that when determining an application to recover costs and expenses arising from a covered wildfire, the CPUC shall allow cost recovery if the costs and expenses are just and reasonable (i.e., the “prudency standard”). AB 1054 states that a utility with a valid safety certification for the time period in which a covered wildfire ignited “shall be deemed to have been reasonable” unless “a party to the proceeding creates a serious doubt as to the reasonableness of the [Utility’s] conduct,” in which case the burden shifts to the utility to prove its conduct was reasonable. The Utility had a valid safety certification at the time of the 2021 Dixie fire and the 2022 Mosquito fire, so any analysis of cost recovery starts with this presumption. AB 1054 also allows the CPUC to allocate costs and expenses “in full or in part taking into account factors both within and beyond the Utility’s control that may have exacerbated the costs and expenses, including humidity, temperature, and winds.”

The Utility’s recorded receivables under the WEMA and with respect to the Wildfire Fund take into account this revised prudency standard and the presumption of reasonableness of the Utility’s conduct, based on the Utility’s interpretation of AB 1054 and the information currently available to the Utility. Although the concept of “serious doubt” has been applied in other regulatory proceedings, such as FERC proceedings, the revised prudency standard under AB 1054 has not been interpreted or applied by the CPUC and it is possible that the CPUC could interpret or apply the standard differently, in which case the Utility may not be able to recover all or a portion of expenses that it has recorded as a receivable.

The Utility recognizes income and reduces its regulatory liability for potential refund through future FERC TO formula rates for a portion of the third-party wildfire-related claims in excess of insurance coverage. The FERC presumes that a utility’s expenditures are prudent and permits cost recovery unless a party raises a serious doubt regarding the prudency of such costs. The allocation to transmission customers was based on a FERC-approved allocation factor as determined in the formula rate. Based on information currently available to the Utility regarding the 2021 Dixie fire and the 2022 Mosquito fire, as of June 30, 2023, the Utility recorded reductions of $117 million and $9 million, respectively, to its regulatory liability for wildfire-related claims costs that were determined to be probable of recovery through the FERC TO formula rate.

The WEMA provides for tracking of incremental wildfire claims, outside legal costs, and insurance premiums above those authorized in rates. With respect to wildfire claims and outside legal costs, the Utility expects that the same prudency standard as applies to the Wildfire Fund would also be applied in any CPUC review of an application filed by the Utility seeking recovery of such costs recorded to the WEMA. See “Wildfire Fund under AB 1054” below. As of June 30, 2023, based on information currently available to the Utility, incremental wildfire claims-related costs for the 2021 Dixie fire and the 2022 Mosquito fire were determined to be probable of recovery and the Utility recorded $411 million and $51 million, respectively, as regulatory assets in the WEMA.

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. Each of California’s large electric IOUs has elected to participate in the Wildfire Fund. 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 Coverage 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. The accrued Wildfire Fund receivable as of June 30, 2023 reflects an expectation that the Coverage Year will be based on the calendar year.

Electric utility companies that draw from the Wildfire Fund will only be required to reimburse amounts that are determined by the CPUC in a proceeding for cost recovery not to be just and reasonable, applying the prudency standard in AB 1054 and after allocating costs and expenses for cost recovery based on relevant factors both within and outside of a utility’s control that may have exacerbated the costs and expenses, 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 $3.7 billion based on its forecasted 2023 equity rate base, which 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 failed to maintain a valid safety certification. Costs that the CPUC determines to be just and reasonable in accordance with the prudency standard in AB 1054 will not be reimbursed to the Wildfire Fund, resulting in a draw-down of the Wildfire Fund.

Before the expiration of any current safety certification, the Utility must request a new safety certification from the OEIS, which the Utility expects to 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. An issued safety certification is valid for 12 months or until a timely request for a new safety certification is acted upon, whichever occurs later. 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. On December 13, 2022, OEIS approved the Utility’s 2022 application and issued the Utility’s 2022 safety certification.

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 allowed 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.

As further described under the headings “Wildfire-Related Securities Claims in District Court” and “Wildfire-Related Securities Claims—Claims in the Bankruptcy Court Process,” PG&E Corporation and the Utility face certain wildfire-related securities claims related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires and other claims related to the 2018 Camp fire and the PSPS program in the Chapter 11 Cases (i.e., the Subordinated Claims), and certain former directors, current and former officers, and underwriters of certain note offerings face wildfire-related securities claims in the District Court action. The claims described under the heading “Wildfire-Related Securities Claims in District Court” are referred to as the “Wildfire-Related Non-Bankruptcy Securities Claims” and collectively with the claims described under the heading “Wildfire-Related Securities Claims—Claims in the Bankruptcy Court Process” are referred to in this section as the “Wildfire-Related Securities Claims.”

Based on the facts and circumstances available to PG&E Corporation and the Utility as of the date of this filing, PG&E Corporation believes it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with these matters. PG&E Corporation has recorded a liability in the aggregate amount of $300 million (before available insurance), which represents its best estimate of probable losses for the Wildfire-Related Securities Claims. PG&E Corporation believes that it is reasonably possible that the amount of loss could be greater or less than the accrued estimated amount but is unable to reasonably estimate the amount because of the number of plaintiffs and the complexity of the litigation, and because a class settlement, if any, would be subject to, among other things, approval by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, and class members would have the right to opt out of any such settlement.

In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in the District Court, 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 in various PG&E Corporation public disclosures related to, among other things, vegetation management and other issues connected to the 2017 Northern California wildfires. 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, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 18-03509. The court also appointed PERA as lead plaintiff. PERA filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018. On December 14, 2018, PERA filed a second amended consolidated complaint to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, including allegations regarding transmission line safety and the PSPS program.

On February 22, 2019, a third purported securities class action was filed in the District Court, entitled York County on behalf of the York County Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the “York County Action”). The complaint named 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 was named as a defendant. The complaint asserted claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act based on alleged 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. 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. On September 30, 2022, the District Court issued an order staying the action pending resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings. Accordingly, the District Court administratively closed the case, subject to a motion by the parties thereto to reopen the case. On October 31, 2022, PERA filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s order staying the action. PERA filed its opening brief on March 6, 2023, the answering brief was filed on May 8, 2023, and PERA filed its reply on May 30, 2023. Oral argument is scheduled for September 13, 2023.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to resolve securities claims filed in the bankruptcy consistent with the Plan. These claims consist of pre-petition claims against PG&E Corporation or the Utility 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 United States Bankruptcy Code. The first category of claims consists of pre-petition claims arising from or related to the trading of 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 the trading of 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”).

PG&E Corporation and the Utility have engaged in settlement efforts with respect to the Subordinated Claims. All such settlements have been conditioned upon, among other things, resolution of that claimant’s Wildfire-Related Non-Bankruptcy Securities Claims. If any of the Subordinated Claims are ultimately not settled, PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect that those 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 Emergence 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 Emergence 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 financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows.

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. On August 10, 2021, the District Court issued an order affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling with respect to the Insurance Deduction. On September 9, 2021, PERA filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and on December 15, 2021, PERA filed its opening brief. On February 14, 2022 and February 17, 2022, the Official Committee of Tort Claimants appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases and both PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed their answering briefs, respectively. On May 20, 2022, the Official Committee of Tort Claimants filed a motion to dismiss the case. On June 21, 2022, PERA filed its opposition, and PG&E Corporation and the Utility joined the motion to dismiss. On June 28, 2022, the Official Committee of Tort Claimants filed its reply. On January 13, 2023, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a joint motion with PERA requesting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stay and hold PERA’s appeal in abeyance to allow the parties to continue to negotiate a settlement of the matters underlying the appeal. On January 25, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order granting the joint motion. On March 27, 2023, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a joint statement with PERA informing the court that the parties had been unable to successfully negotiate the terms of a settlement agreement that would potentially resolve the matters underlying this appeal and requested that the court place the appeal back on calendar for oral argument. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 5, 2023. On May 16, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision affirming the District Court. The time for appeal has expired.

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 would allow PG&E Corporation and the Utility to collect 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. On January 25, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Securities Claims Procedures Motion.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility have worked to resolve the Subordinated Claims in accordance with procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court, including by collecting trading information from holders of Subordinated Claims. Also, pursuant to those procedures, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have filed numerous omnibus objections in the Bankruptcy Court to certain of the Subordinated Claims. The Bankruptcy Court has entered several orders disallowing and expunging Subordinated Claims that were subject to these omnibus objections, and certain Subordinated Claims subject to these omnibus objections remain pending. PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect to file additional omnibus objections with respect to certain of the Subordinated Claims and to continue to act under the procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court to resolve the Subordinated Claims.

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 may extend to the claims asserted against certain directors and officers in the securities class actions and in the litigation matters enumerated under the heading “Wildfire-Related Derivative Litigation” in Note 15 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2022 Form 10-K. PG&E Corporation and the Utility maintain D&O Insurance coverage to reduce their exposure to such indemnification obligations.

In July 2022, PG&E Corporation, the Utility, and the former director and officer defendants settled with certain of their D&O Insurance carriers the majority of their claims regarding, among other things, the applicability of one year of the D&O Insurance policies to the Wildfire-Related Non-Bankruptcy Securities Claims and the derivative claims described in the 2022 Form 10-K. As a result of these agreements, PG&E Corporation received insurance proceeds in an aggregate amount of $272 million. Proceeds from the D&O Insurance coverage were paid to the Fire Victim Trust for the Fire Victim Trust D&O Claims in the amount of $117 million, and PG&E Corporation intends to apply the remaining $155 million of proceeds to the Wildfire-Related Securities Claims.

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 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 pleaded 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).

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 TO rate cases. 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 the TO rate case for 2017 (“TO18”), the TO rate case for 2018 (“TO19”), and the TO rate case for 2019 (“TO20”), respectively.

On October 15, 2020, the FERC issued an order that, among other things, rejected the Utility’s direct assignment of common plant to FERC and required the allocation of all common plant between CPUC and FERC jurisdiction be based on operating and maintenance labor ratios. The order reopened the record for the limited purpose of allowing the parties an opportunity to present written evidence concerning the FERC’s revised ROE methodology adopted in FERC Opinion No. 569-A, issued on May 21, 2020.

On March 17, 2022, the FERC issued a further order in the TO18 rate case proceeding finding that 9.26% is the just and reasonable base ROE for the Utility. With the incentive component of 50-basis points for the Utility’s continuing participation in the CAISO, the resulting ROE would be 9.76%. As a result, the Utility increased its regulatory liabilities for amounts previously collected during the TO18 and TO19 rate case periods from March 2017 through the first quarter of 2022 by approximately $62.5 million. On April 18, 2022, the Utility and several other parties sought rehearing of the FERC’s determination of the base ROE finding. On May 19, 2022, the FERC denied all parties’ rehearing requests. The Utility has filed an appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, as have the other parties that sought rehearing. The appeal is being held in abeyance until the FERC issues a substantive order on rehearing on the ROE issue.

On May 16, 2022 and May 31, 2022, the Utility filed a compliance filing and a refund report describing the adjustments made to the transmission revenue requirement, adjusted rates, and the calculation and mechanism of the refunds based on the FERC’s TO18 orders, including the orders on common plant, depreciation, the TCJA, and ROE. On May 18, 2023, the FERC issued an order rejecting a revised compliance filing regarding the TCJA. On June 20, 2023, the Utility filed a further compliance filing and a request for rehearing of the FERC’s order. On July 21, 2023, the FERC issued an order denying rehearing by operation of law. For the TCJA issue, the Utility plans to submit a request for private letter ruling with the Internal Revenue Service to obtain clarification regarding the appropriate disposition of the matter. The outcome of the private letter ruling may impact the outcome of the Utility’s request for rehearing. The Utility expects to issue the refund after the FERC issues a decision on the compliance filing.

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 TO20 rate case provides that the transmission revenue requirement and rates are to be updated annually on January 1, subject to true-up. The Utility is required to make a successor rate filing in 2023, which would go into effect on January 1, 2024.

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 totaled $78 million and $69 million as of June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively. These amounts were included in Other current liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. Included among these claims and lawsuits are the proofs of claim filed in the Chapter 11 Cases, except for proofs of claim discussed under “Wildfire-Related Securities Claims—Claims in the Bankruptcy Court Process” in Note 10. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have resolved a significant majority of the proofs of claim. PG&E Corporation and the Utility continue their review and analysis of certain remaining claims. PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not believe it is reasonably possible that the resolution of these matters will have a material impact on their financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

On 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.

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. On February 28, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order certifying two questions of state law to the California Supreme Court. On June 1, 2022, the California Supreme Court accepted certification of the questions. The plaintiff filed its opening brief on July 1, 2022. The Utility’s answering brief was filed on August 31, 2022, and the plaintiff’s reply brief was filed on October 20, 2022.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility emerged from bankruptcy on July 1, 2020. Certain parties filed notices of appeal with respect to the Confirmation Order, including the Trade Committee. The Trade Committee appealed the Confirmation Order’s holding, which awarded post-petition interest on general unsecured claims at the federal judgment rate of 2.59%. The Trade Committee is seeking for its members to receive post-petition interest at the rates specified under their contracts or the rate established under California state law, which is 10%. The Bankruptcy Court and the federal district court held that the Trade Committee’s members are entitled to post-petition interest at the federal judgment rate. On June 8, 2021, the Trade Committee appealed the federal district court decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 29, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal district court decision 2-1. On February 2, 2023, the Utility filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. On May 22, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the Utility’s petition.

Based on the information available, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is probable that they will incur a loss in connection with the post-petition interest matter, and that such loss will not be material. Because the Supreme Court of the United States denied the Utility’s petition, the matter is remanded to the Bankruptcy Court to evaluate the rate of interest for each individual contract, the conditions under which the contract rate applies, and whether payment of interest under state law would be warranted for each contract and claimant. PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect that these proceedings likely will require extensive discovery and motion practice before the Bankruptcy Court with respect to each of these claims on a variety of contractual issues and equitable considerations. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to predict the timing and outcome of these proceedings or any further appeals.

PG&E Corporation’s tax returns have been accepted through 2015 for federal income tax purposes, except for a few matters, the most significant of which relate to the deductibility of approximately $850 million in repair costs for gas transmission and distribution lines and $400 million in customer bill credits, which the Utility incurred in connection with the decision issued in 2015 for the San Bruno natural gas explosion in September of 2010. The Internal Revenue Service is auditing tax years 2015 through 2018.

Between November 2020 and January 2021, several governmental entities raised concerns regarding the Utility’s emergency response to the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex fire, including Cal Fire, the California Coastal Commission, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors alleging environmental, vegetation management, and unpermitted work violations. In the matter of Santa Cruz County’s complaint with the CPUC, the parties reached a settlement, and the CPUC dismissed the complaint on December 15, 2021. The Utility continues to work with the California Coastal Commission, Cal Fire, and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board to resolve any outstanding issues and to work with Santa Cruz County to implement the terms of the settlement agreement. Violations can result in penalties, remediation, and other relief.

Given the complexities of the legal and regulatory environment and the inherent uncertainties involved in the early stages of a remediation project, the process for estimating remediation liabilities requires significant judgment. The Utility records an environmental remediation liability when the site assessments indicate that remediation is probable, and the Utility can reasonably estimate the loss or a range of probable amounts. The Utility records an environmental remediation liability based on the lower end of the range of estimated probable costs, unless an amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. Key factors that inform the development of estimated costs include site feasibility studies and investigations, applicable remediation actions, operations and maintenance activities, post-remediation monitoring, and the cost of technologies that are expected to be approved to remediate the site. Amounts recorded are not discounted to their present value. 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)	June 30, 2023		December 31, 2022
Topock natural gas compressor station	$	291	$	284
Hinkley natural gas compressor station	106		110
Former MGP sites owned by the Utility or third parties (1)	839		750
Utility-owned generation facilities (other than fossil fuel-fired), other facilities, and third-party disposal sites (2)	119		112
Fossil fuel-fired generation facilities and sites (3)	25		26
Total environmental remediation liability	$	1,380	$	1,282

The Utility’s gas compressor stations, former MGP 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 laws relating to hazardous substances. The Utility has a comprehensive program 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 as of June 30, 2023, 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. As of June 30, 2023, the Utility expected to recover $1.14 billion of its environmental remediation liability for certain sites through various ratemaking mechanisms authorized by the CPUC.

The Utility’s remediation and abatement efforts at the Topock site are subject to the regulatory authority of the 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 the initial phase of construction was completed in 2021. Additional phases of construction will continue for several years. It is reasonably possible that the Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the Topock site may increase by as much as $231 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 HSMA, where 90% of the costs are recovered through rates.

The Utility has been implementing remediation measures at the Hinkley site to reduce the mass of the chromium plume in groundwater and to monitor and control movement of the plume. The Utility’s remediation and abatement efforts at the Hinkley site are subject to the regulatory authority of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. In November 2015, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region adopted a clean-up and abatement order directing the Utility to contain and remediate the underground plume of hexavalent chromium and the potential environmental impacts. The final order states that the Utility must continue and improve its remediation efforts, define the boundaries of the chromium plume, and take other action. Additionally, the final order sets plume capture requirements, requires a monitoring and reporting program, and includes deadlines for the Utility to meet interim cleanup targets. The United States Geological Survey team is conducting a background study on the site to better define the chromium plume boundaries. A background report was finalized in April 2023. It is reasonably possible that the Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the Hinkley site may increase by as much as $126 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the Hinkley site will not be recovered through rates.

Former MGPs used coal and oil to produce gas for use by the Utility’s customers before natural gas became available. The by-products and residues of this process were often disposed of at the MGPs themselves. The Utility has 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. It is reasonably possible that the Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with MGP sites may increase by as much as $561 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation at identified MGP sites is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the MGP sites are recovered through the HSMA, where 90% of the costs are recovered through rates.

Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites often involve long-term remediation. It is reasonably possible that the Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites may increase by as much as $78 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 HSMA, where 90% of the costs are recovered through rates.

In 1998, the Utility divested its generation power plant business as part of generation deregulation. Although the Utility sold its fossil-fueled power plants, the Utility retained the environmental remediation liability associated with each site. It is reasonably possible that the Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with fossil fuel-fired generation sites may increase by as much as $50 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.

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 to the site’s spent fuel storage installation. NEIL also provides coverage for damages caused by acts of terrorism and cyberattacks 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 $41 million. If EMANI losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, the Utility could be subject to a retrospective assessment of approximately $5 million. For more information about the Utility’s nuclear insurance coverage, see Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2022 Form 10-K.

On October 23, 2020, the Utility and BA2 300 Lakeside LLC (“Landlord”), a wholly owned subsidiary of TMG Bay Area Investments II, LLC, entered into an office lease agreement for approximately 910,000 rentable square feet of space within the Lakeside Building to serve as the Utility’s principal administrative headquarters (the “Lease”). In connection with the Lease, the Utility also issued to Landlord (i) an option payment letter of credit in the amount of $75 million, and (ii) a lease security letter of credit in the amount of $75 million.

The Lease also requires the rentable space to be delivered in two phases, with each phase consisting of multiple subphases. As of June 30, 2023, approximately 659,000 rentable square feet of the leased premises has been made available for use by the Utility. The Utility has recorded $735 million in Operating lease right of use assets, $262 million in leasehold improvements, which includes $178 million that was provided to the Utility as lease incentives, and $913 million in noncurrent Operating lease liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements related to the Lease.

On July 11, 2023, the Utility and the Landlord entered into an Amendment to Office Lease and an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and Joint Escrow Instructions, pursuant to which the Utility was deemed to have exercised its option to purchase the Property, as modified. Pursuant to the Purchase and Sale and Joint Escrow Instructions, the purchase price will be $906 million, with deposits applicable to such purchase price of $150 million paid on July 11, 2023, $250 million to be paid on July 11, 2024, and the remaining $506 million to be paid at closing in June 2025. The Utility will continue to lease the Lakeside building pursuant to the Lease until closing.