NOTE 13: 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, 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. 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 has financial commitments described in “Other Commitments” below. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows may be materially affected by the outcome of the following matters.

Enforcement and Litigation Matters

Northern California Wildfires

Beginning on October 8, 2017, multiple wildfires spread through Northern California, including Napa, Sonoma, Butte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Del Norte, Lake, Nevada, and Yuba Counties, as well as in the area surrounding Yuba City. According to the Cal Fire California Statewide Fire Summary dated October 30, 2017, at the peak of the wildfires, there were 21 major wildfires in California that, in total, burned over 245,000 acres, resulted in 43 fatalities, and destroyed an estimated 8,900 structures. Subsequently, the number of fatalities increased to 44.

The Utility incurred $219 million in costs for service restoration and repair to the Utility’s facilities (including $97 million in capital expenditures) through December 31, 2017 in connection with these fires. While the Utility believes that such costs are recoverable through CEMA, its CEMA requests are subject to CPUC approval. The Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows could be materially affected if the Utility is unable to recover such costs.

The fires are being investigated by Cal Fire and the CPUC, including the possible role of the Utility’s power lines and other facilities. The Utility expects that Cal Fire will issue a report or reports stating its conclusions as to the sources of ignition of the fires and the ways that they progressed. The CPUC’s SED also is conducting investigations to assess the compliance of electric and communication companies’ facilities with applicable rules and regulations in fire impacted areas. According to information made available by the CPUC, investigation topics include, but are not limited to, maintenance of facilities, vegetation management, and emergency preparedness and response. Various other entities, including fire departments, may also be investigating certain of the fires. (For example, on February 3, 2018, it was reported that investigators with the Santa Rosa Fire Department had completed their investigation of two small fires that reportedly destroyed two homes and damaged one outbuilding and had concluded that the Utility’s facilities, along with high wind and other factors, contributed to those fires.) It is uncertain when the investigations will be complete and whether Cal Fire will release any preliminary findings before its investigation is complete.

As of January 31, 2018, the Utility had submitted 22 electric incident reports to the CPUC associated with the Northern California wildfires where Cal Fire has identified a site as potentially involving the Utility’s facilities in its investigation and the property damage associated with each incident exceeded $50,000. The information contained in these reports is factual and preliminary, and does not reflect a determination of the causes of the fires. The investigations into the fires are ongoing.

If the Utility’s facilities, such as its electric distribution and transmission lines, are determined to be the cause of one or more fires, and the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies, the Utility could be liable for property damage, interest, and attorneys’ fees without having been found negligent, which liability, in the aggregate, could be substantial and have a material adverse effect on PG&E Corporation and the Utility. 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 benefitted from such undertaking and based on the assumption that utilities have the ability to recover these costs from their customers. Further, courts could determine that the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies even in the absence of an open CPUC proceeding for cost recovery, or before a potential cost recovery decision is issued by the CPUC. There is no guarantee that the CPUC would authorize cost recovery even if a court decision were to determine that the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies. In addition to such claims for property damage, interest and attorneys’ fees, the Utility could be liable for fire suppression costs, evacuation costs, medical expenses, personal injury damages, and other damages under other theories of liability, including if the Utility were found to have been negligent, which liability, in the aggregate, could be substantial and have a material adverse effect on PG&E Corporation and the Utility. Further, the Utility could be subject to material fines or penalties if the CPUC or any other law enforcement agency brought an enforcement action and determined that the Utility failed to comply with applicable laws and regulations.

Given the preliminary stages of investigations and the uncertainty as to the causes of the fires, PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not believe a loss is probable at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that facts could emerge through the course of the various investigations that lead PG&E Corporation and the Utility to believe that a loss is probable, resulting in an accrued liability in the future, the amount of which could be material. PG&E Corporation and the Utility currently are unable to reasonably estimate the amount of losses (or range of amounts) that they could incur given the preliminary stages of the investigations and the uncertainty regarding the extent and magnitude of potential damages. On January 31, 2018, the California Department of Insurance issued a press release announcing an update on property losses in connection with the October and December wildfires in California, stating that, as of such date, “insurers have received nearly 45,000 insurance claims totaling more than $11.79 billion in losses,” of which approximately $10 billion relates to statewide claims from the October 2017 wildfires. The remaining amount relates to claims from the Southern California December 2017 wildfires. According to the California Department of Insurance, as of the date of the press release, more than 21,000 homes, 3,200 businesses, and more than 6,100 vehicles, watercraft, farm vehicles, and other equipment were damaged or destroyed by the October 2017 wildfires. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have not independently verified these estimates. The California Department of Insurance did not state in its press release whether it intends to provide updated estimates of losses in the future.

If the Utility’s facilities are determined to be the cause of one or more of the Northern California wildfires, PG&E Corporation and the Utility could be liable for the related property losses and other damages. The California Department of Insurance January 31, 2018 press release reflects insured property losses only. The press release does not account for uninsured losses, interest, attorneys’ fees, fire suppression costs, evacuation costs, medical expenses, personal injury and wrongful death damages or other costs. If the Utility were to be found liable for certain or all of such other costs and expenses, the amount of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s liability could be higher than the approximately $10 billion estimated in respect of the wildfires that occurred in October 2017, depending on the extent of the damage in connection with such fire or fires. As a result, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows could be materially affected.

As of January 31, 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of 111 lawsuits, six of which seek to be certified as class actions, that have been filed against PG&E Corporation and the Utility in the Sonoma, Napa and San Francisco Counties Superior Courts. The lawsuits allege, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, and private nuisance. They principally assert that PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s alleged failure to maintain and repair their distribution and transmission lines and failure to properly maintain the vegetation surrounding such lines were the causes of the fires. The plaintiffs seek damages that include wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, evacuation costs, medical expenses, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other damages. In addition, insurance carriers who have made payments to their insureds for property damage arising out of the fires have filed three subrogation complaints in the San Francisco County Superior Court. These complaints allege, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass and nuisance. The allegations are similar to the ones made by individual plaintiffs. On October 31, 2017, a group of plaintiffs submitted a petition for coordination to the Chair of the Judicial Council of California and requested coordination of the litigation in the San Francisco Superior Court. On November 9, 2017, PG&E Corporation and the Utility submitted a petition for coordination to the Chair of the Judicial Council of California, and requested separate coordination in the counties in which the fires occurred. On January 4, 2018, the coordination motion judge of the San Francisco Superior Court entered an order granting coordination of the litigation in connection with the Northern California wildfires and recommending that the coordinated proceeding take place in the San Francisco Superior Court. On January 12, 2018, the Judicial Council of California accepted the coordination motion judge’s recommendation and assigned the coordinated proceeding to San Francisco. The first case management conference is scheduled for February 27, 2018.

In addition, two derivative lawsuits 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. The first lawsuit is filed against the members of the Board of Directors and certain officers of PG&E Corporation. PG&E Corporation is identified as a nominal defendant in that action. The second lawsuit is filed against the members of the Board of Directors, certain former members of the Board of Directors, and certain officers of both PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are identified as nominal defendants in that action. Motions to consolidate the two lawsuits, appoint lead plaintiffs’ counsel, and enter a case schedule are currently pending.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect to be the subject of additional lawsuits in connection with the Northern California wildfires. The wildfire litigation could take a number of years to be resolved because of the complexity of the matters, including the ongoing investigation into the causes of the fires and the growing number of parties and claims involved. The Utility has liability insurance from various insurers, which provides coverage for third-party liability attributable to the Northern California wildfires in an aggregate amount of approximately $800 million. If the Utility were to be found liable for one or more fires, the Utility’s insurance could be insufficient to cover that liability, depending on the extent of the damage in connection with such fire or fires. Following the Northern California wildfires, PG&E Corporation reinstated its liability insurance in the amount of approximately $630 million for any potential future event.

In addition, it could take a number of years before the Utility’s final liability is known and the Utility could apply for cost recovery. The Utility may be unable to recover costs in excess of insurance through regulatory mechanisms and, even if such recovery is possible, it could take a number of years to resolve and a number of years thereafter to collect. Further, SB 819, introduced in the California Senate in January 2018, if it becomes law, would prohibit utilities from recovering costs in excess of insurance resulting from damages caused by such utilities’ facilities, if the CPUC determines that the utility did not reasonably construct, maintain, manage, control, or operate the facilities. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have considered certain actions that might be taken to attempt to address liquidity needs of the business in such circumstances, but the inability to recover costs in excess of insurance through increases in rates and by collecting such rates in a timely manner, or any negative assessment by the Utility of the likelihood or timeliness of such recovery and collection, could have a material adverse effect on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows.

Litigation and Regulatory Citations in Connection with the Butte Fire

In September 2015, a wildfire (known as the “Butte fire”) ignited and spread in Amador and Calaveras Counties in Northern California. On April 28, 2016, Cal Fire released its report of the investigation of the origin and cause of the wildfire. According to Cal Fire’s report, the fire burned 70,868 acres, resulted in two fatalities, destroyed 549 homes, 368 outbuildings and four commercial properties, and damaged 44 structures. Cal Fire’s report concluded that the wildfire was caused when a gray pine tree contacted the Utility’s electric line which ignited portions of the tree, and determined that the failure by the Utility and/or its vegetation management contractors, ACRT Inc. and Trees, Inc., to identify certain potential hazards during its vegetation management program ultimately led to the failure of the tree.

Third-Party Claims

On May 23, 2016, individual plaintiffs filed a master complaint against the Utility and its two vegetation management contractors in the Superior Court of California for Sacramento County. Subrogation insurers also filed a separate master complaint on the same date. The California Judicial Council had previously authorized the coordination of all cases in Sacramento County. As of December 31, 2017, 77 known complaints have been filed against the Utility and its two vegetation management contractors in the Superior Court of California in the Counties of Calaveras, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Amador. The complaints involve approximately 3,770 individual plaintiffs representing approximately 2,030 households and their insurance companies. These complaints are part of or are in the process of being added to the two master complaints. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages and other costs, principally based on the doctrine of inverse condemnation and negligence theory of liability. Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages. As of December 31, 2017, several plaintiffs have dismissed the Utility’s two vegetation management contractors. The number of individual complaints and plaintiffs may still increase in the future, because the statute of limitations for property damages in connection with the Butte fire has not yet expired. (The statute of limitations for personal injury in connection with the Butte fire has expired.) The Utility continues mediating and settling cases.

In addition, on April 13, 2017, Cal Fire filed a complaint with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Calaveras, seeking to recover $87 million for its costs incurred on the theory that the Utility and its vegetation management contractors were negligent, among other claims. On July 31, 2017, Cal Fire dismissed its complaint against Tree’s, Inc., one of the Utility’s vegetation contractors. The Utility and Cal Fire are currently engaged in a mediation process.

Further, in May 2017, the OES indicated that it intends to bring a claim against the Utility that it estimates in the approximate amount of $190 million. This claim would include costs incurred by the OES for tree and debris removal, infrastructure damage, erosion control, and other claims related to the Butte fire. Also, in June 2017, the County of Calaveras indicated that it intends to bring a claim against the Utility that it estimates in the approximate amount of $85 million. This claim would include costs that the County of Calaveras incurred or expects to incur for infrastructure damage, erosion control, and other costs related to the Butte fire.

On April 28, 2017, the Utility moved for summary adjudication on plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages. On August 10, 2017, the Court denied the Utility’s motion on the grounds that plaintiffs might be able to show conscious disregard for public safety based on the fact that the Utility relied on contractors to fulfill their contractual obligation to hire and train qualified employees. On August 16, 2017, the Utility filed a writ with the Court of Appeals challenging what the Utility believes is a novel theory of punitive damages liability. The Court of Appeals accepted the writ on September 15, 2017 and ordered the trial court and plaintiffs to show cause why the relief requested by the Utility should not be granted. Briefing on the writ was completed as of January 2, 2018. The Utility is seeking expedited review of the motion.

On June 22, 2017, the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento ruled on a motion of several plaintiffs and found that the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies to the Utility with respect to the Butte fire. The court held, among other things, that the Utility had failed to put forth any evidence to support its contention that the CPUC would not allow the Utility to pass on its inverse condemnation liability through rate increases. While the ruling is binding only between the Utility and the plaintiffs in the coordination proceeding, others could file lawsuits and make similar claims. On January 4, 2018, the Utility filed with the court a renewed motion for a legal determination of inverse condemnation liability, citing the November 30, 2017 CPUC decision denying the San Diego Gas & Electric Company application to recover wildfire costs in excess of insurance, and the CPUC declaration that it will not automatically allow utilities to spread inverse condemnation losses through rate increases. The motion is set for hearing on March 15, 2018.

Estimated Losses from Third-Party Claims

In connection with this matter, the Utility may be liable for property damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees without having been found negligent, through the doctrine of inverse condemnation.

In addition, the Utility may be liable for fire suppression costs, personal injury damages, and other damages if the Utility were found to have been negligent. While the Utility believes it was not negligent, there can be no assurance that a court or jury would agree with the Utility.

The Utility currently believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss of at least $1.1 billion, increased from the $750 million previously estimated as of December 31, 2016, in connection with the Butte fire. The Utility’s updated estimate resulted primarily from an increase in the number of claims filed against the Utility and experience to date in resolving claims. This amount is based on updated assumptions about the number, size, and type of structures damaged or destroyed, the contents of such structures, the number and types of trees damaged or destroyed, as well as assumptions about personal injury damages, attorneys’ fees, fire suppression costs, and certain other damages, but does not include punitive damages for which the Utility could be liable. In addition, while this amount includes the Utility’s assumptions about fire suppression costs (including its assessment of the Cal Fire loss), it does not include any significant portion of the estimated claims from the OES and the County of Calaveras. The Utility still does not have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the probable loss it may have for these additional claims.

The Utility currently is unable to reasonably estimate the upper end of the range of losses due to the uncertainty of pending legal motions related to the applicability of inverse condemnation and punitive damages and because it has insufficient information on the claims of over 1,000 households and the claims from the OES and the County of Calaveras. The process for estimating costs associated with claims relating to the Butte fire requires management to exercise significant judgment based on a number of assumptions and subjective factors. As more information becomes known, including additional discovery from the plaintiffs, results from the ongoing mediation and settlement process, review of potential claims from the OES and the County of Calaveras, outcomes of future court or jury decisions, and information about damages, including punitive damages, that the Utility could be liable for, management estimates and assumptions regarding the financial impact of the Butte fire may result in material increases to the loss accrued.

The following table presents changes in the third-party claims liability since December 31, 2015. The balance for the third-party claims liability is included in Other current liabilities in PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Consolidated Balance Sheets:

Loss Accrual (in millions)
Balance at December 31, 2015	$	-
Accrued losses		750
Payments(1)		(60)
Balance at December 31, 2016		690
Accrued losses		350
Payments(1)		(479)
Balance at December 31, 2017	$	561

(1) As of December 31, 2017 the Utility entered into settlement agreements in connection with the Butte fire corresponding to approximately $624 million of which

$539 million has been paid by the Utility.

In addition to the amounts reflected in the table above, the Utility has incurred cumulative legal expenses of $87 million in connection with the Butte fire. For the year ended December 31, 2017, the Utility has incurred legal expenses in connection with the Butte fire of $60 million.

Loss Recoveries

The Utility has liability insurance from various insurers, which provides coverage for third-party liability attributable to the Butte fire in an aggregate amount of $922 million. The Utility records insurance recoveries when it is deemed probable that a recovery will occur and the Utility can reasonably estimate the amount or its range. Through December 31, 2017, the Utility recorded $922 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with losses related to the Butte fire. 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. In addition, in the year ended December 31, 2017, the Utility received $53 million of reimbursements from the insurance policies of one of its vegetation management contractors (excluded from the table below). Recoveries of additional amounts under the insurance policies of the Utility’s vegetation management contractors, including policies where the Utility is listed as an additional insured, are uncertain.

The following table presents changes in the insurance receivable since December 31, 2015. The balance for the insurance receivable is included in Other accounts receivable in PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Consolidated Balance Sheets:

Insurance Receivable (in millions)
Balance at December 31, 2015	$	-
Accrued insurance recoveries		625
Reimbursements		(50)
Balance at December 31, 2016		575
Accrued insurance recoveries		297
Reimbursements		(276)
Balance at December 31, 2017	$	596

In January 2018, the Utility received another $75 million in insurance reimbursements.

If the Utility records losses in connection with claims relating to the Butte fire that materially exceed the amount the Utility accrued for these liabilities, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows could be materially affected in the reporting periods during which additional charges are recorded, depending on whether the Utility is able to record or collect insurance recoveries in amounts sufficient to offset such additional accruals.

Regulatory Citations

On April 25, 2017, the SED issued two citations to the Utility in connection with the Butte fire, totaling $8.3 million. The SED’s investigation found that neither the Utility nor its vegetation management contractors took appropriate steps to prevent the gray pine from leaning and contacting the Utility’s electric line, which created an unsafe and dangerous condition that resulted in that tree leaning and making contact with the electric line, thus causing a fire. The Utility paid the citations in June 2017.

Enforcement Matters

In 2014, both the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco and the California Attorney General's office opened investigations into matters related to allegedly improper communication between the Utility and CPUC personnel. The Utility has cooperated with those investigations. It is uncertain whether any charges will be brought against the Utility as a result of these investigations.

CPUC Matters

Order Instituting an Investigation into Compliance with Ex Parte Communication Rules

During 2014 and 2015, the Utility filed several reports to notify the CPUC of communications that the Utility believes may have constituted or described ex parte communications that either should not have occurred or that should have been timely reported to the CPUC. Ex parte communications include communications between a decision maker or a commissioner’s advisor and interested persons concerning substantive issues in certain formal proceedings. Certain communications are prohibited and others are permissible with proper noticing and reporting.

On November 23, 2015, the CPUC issued an OII into whether the Utility should be sanctioned for violating rules pertaining to ex parte communications and Rule 1.1 of the CPUC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure governing the conduct of those appearing before the CPUC. The OII cites some of the communications the Utility reported to the CPUC. The OII also cites the ex parte violations alleged in the City of San Bruno’s July 2014 motion, which it filed in CPUC investigations related to the Utility’s natural gas transmission pipeline operations and practices.

On March, 28, 2017, the Cities of San Bruno and San Carlos, ORA, the SED, TURN, and the Utility jointly submitted to the CPUC a settlement agreement in connection with the OII into the Utility’s compliance with the CPUC’s ex parte communication rules. On September 1, 2017, the assigned administrative law judge issued a PD in this proceeding adopting, with one modification, the settlement agreement jointly submitted to the CPUC on March 28, 2017, by the Utility, the Cities of San Bruno and San Carlos, the ORA, the SED, and TURN.

If adopted, the PD would increase the payment to the California General Fund, relative to the settlement agreement, from $1 million to $12 million resulting in a total penalty of $97.5 million comprised of: (1) a $12 million payment to the California General Fund, (2) forgoing collection of $63.5 million of GT&S revenue requirements for the years 2018 ($31.75 million) and 2019 ($31.75 million), (3) a $10 million one-time revenue requirement adjustment to be amortized in equivalent annual amounts over the Utility’s next GRC cycle (i.e., the GRC following the 2017 GRC), and (4) compensation payments to the Cities of San Bruno and San Carlos in a total amount of $12 million ($6 million to each city). In addition, the settlement agreement provides for certain non-financial remedies, including enhanced noticing obligations between the Utility and CPUC decision-makers, as well as certification of employee training on the CPUC ex parte communication rules. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, customers will bear no costs associated with the financial remedies set forth above.

On September 21, 2017, the Utility submitted a motion to the CPUC accepting the proposed modification of the settlement agreement to increase the Utility’s payment to the California General Fund from $1 million to $12 million. Further, the Utility also reported that it has identified several communications that appear to raise issues similar to other communications that are part of this proceeding.

On November 1, 2017, the Utility filed a status report advising the CPUC that the Utility and the non-Utility parties to the settlement agreement were unable to reach an agreement with respect to how to proceed regarding the communications that the Utility reported to the CPUC on September 21, 2017. Also on November 1, 2017, the non-Utility parties to the settlement requested that the CPUC approve the settlement, as modified by the PD, and open a second phase of the OII to investigate and consider appropriate sanctions for the new communications reported by the Utility on September 21, 2017, and others that may be discovered.

On November 30, 2017, the CPUC issued a decision extending the statutory deadline to June 29, 2018 to resolve the proceeding. The CPUC stated that an extension of the statutory deadline was necessary to allow the assigned administrative law judge time to prepare the revised decision and to open and resolve a second phase of this proceeding.

The Utility is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding.

At December 31, 2017, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Consolidated Balance Sheets include a $24 million accrual for the amounts payable to the California General Fund and the Cities of San Bruno and San Carlos. In accordance with accounting rules, adjustments related to revenue requirements would be recorded in the periods in which they are incurred.

Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Rights-of-Way

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

Potential Safety Citations

The SED periodically audits utility operating practices and conducts investigations of potential violations of laws and regulations applicable to the safety of the California utilities’ electric and natural gas facilities and operations. The CPUC has delegated authority to the SED to issue citations and impose penalties for violations identified through audits, investigations, or self-reports. There are a number of audit findings, as well as other potential violations identified through various investigations and the Utility’s self-reported non-compliance with laws and regulations, on which the SED has yet to act. Under both the gas and electric programs, the SED has discretion whether to issue a penalty for each violation.

The SED has discretion whether to issue a penalty for each violation, but if it assesses a penalty for a violation, it is required to impose the maximum statutory penalty of $50,000, with an administrative limit of $8 million per citation issued. The SED may, at its discretion, impose penalties on a daily basis, or on less than a daily basis, for violations that continued for more than one day. The SED also has wide discretion to determine the amount of penalties based on the totality of the circumstances, including such factors as the gravity of the violations; the type of harm caused by the violations and the number of persons affected; and the good faith of the entity charged in attempting to achieve compliance, after notification of a violation. The SED also is required to consider the appropriateness of the amount of the penalty to the size of the entity charged. Historically, the SED has exercised broad discretion in determining whether violations are continuing and the amount of penalties to be imposed. In the past, the SED has imposed fines on the Utility ranging from $50,000 to $16.8 million for violations of electric and natural gas laws and regulations. The CPUC can also open an OII and levy additional fines even after the SED has issued a citation.

The Utility is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of future charges as a result of SED investigations or any proceedings that could be commenced in connection with potential violations of electric and natural gas laws and regulations.

Other Matters

Other Contingencies

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are subject to various claims, lawsuits and regulatory proceedings that separately are not considered material. Accruals for contingencies related to such matters (excluding amounts related to the contingencies discussed above under “Enforcement and Litigation Matters”) totaled $86 million at December 31, 2017 and $45 million at December 31, 2016. These amounts are included in Other current liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material impact on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Disallowance of Plant Costs

PG&E Corporation and the Utility record a charge when it is both probable that costs incurred for recently completed plant will not be recoverable through rates and the amount of disallowance can be reasonably estimated. Capital disallowances are reflected in operating and maintenance expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Income. Disallowances as a result of the CPUC’s June 2016 final phase one decision and December 2016 final phase two decision in the Utility’s 2015 GT&S rate case, the Utility’s Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan, and CPUC’s final decision on the closure of Diablo Canyon are discussed below.

2015 GT&S Rate Case Disallowance of Capital Expenditures

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. The decision permanently disallowed $120 million of that amount and ordered that the remaining $576 million be subject to an audit overseen by the CPUC staff, with the possibility that the Utility may seek recovery in a future proceeding. The decision also established various cost caps that will increase the risk of overspend over the current rate case cycle including new one-way balancing accounts. As a result, in 2016, the Utility incurred charges of $219 million for capital expenditures that the Utility believes are probable of disallowance based on the decision. This included $134 million for 2011 through 2014 capital expenditures in excess of adopted amounts and $85 million for the Utility’s estimate of 2015 through 2018 capital expenditures that are probable of exceeding authorized amounts. Additional charges may be required in the future based on the Utility’s ability to manage its capital spending and on the outcome of the CPUC’s audit of 2011 through 2014 capital spending.

Capital Expenditures Relating to Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan

The CPUC has authorized the Utility to collect $766 million for recovery of PSEP capital costs. As of December 31, 2017, the Utility has spent $1.38 billion on PSEP-related capital costs, of which $665 million was expensed in previous years for costs that are expected to exceed the authorized amount. The Utility expects the remaining PSEP work to continue throughout 2018. The Utility would be required to record charges in future periods to the extent PSEP-related capital costs are higher than currently expected.

Capital Expenditures Relating to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant

On January 11, 2018, the CPUC issued a final decision adopting the settlement agreement jointly submitted to the CPUC in May 2017 related to the recovery of license renewal costs and cancelled project costs within the Utility’s application to retire Diablo Canyon. The final decision allows for recovery from customers of $18.6 million of the total license renewal project cost of $53 million evenly over an 8-year period beginning January 1, 2018. Related to cancelled project costs, the decision allows for recovery from customers of 100% of the direct costs incurred prior to June 30, 2016 and 25% recovery of direct costs incurred after June 30, 2016. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Utility incurred charges of $47 million related to the Diablo Canyon capital expenditures settlement agreement, of which $24 million is for cancelled projects and $23 million is for disallowed license renewal costs. The Utility does not expect to incur additional charges as a result of the CPUC’s final decision, other than additional project cancellation costs that the Utility does not expect to be material.

Environmental Remediation Contingencies

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 Consolidated Balance Sheets and is composed of the following:

	Balance at
	December 31		December 31,
(in millions)	2017		2016
Topock natural gas compressor station	$	334	$	299
Hinkley natural gas compressor station		147		135
Former manufactured gas plant sites owned by the Utility or third parties(1)		320		285
Utility-owned generation facilities (other than fossil fuel-fired), other facilities, and third-party disposal sites(2)		115		131
Fossil fuel-fired generation facilities and sites(3)		123		108
Total environmental remediation liability	$	1,039	$	958

(1) Primarily driven by the following sites: Vallejo, SF East Harbor, Napa, and SF North Beach

(2) Primarily driven by the Shell Pond site

(3) Primarily driven by the SF Potrero Power Plant site

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 state and federal regulatory agencies under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and/or 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, on an ongoing basis, measures that may be necessary to comply with these laws and regulations 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 December 31, 2017 reflects its best estimate of probable future costs associated with its final remediation plan. Future costs will depend on many factors, including the extent of work to implement final remediation plans and the Utility’s required time frame for remediation. The Utility may incur actual costs in the future that are materially different than this estimate and such costs could have a material impact on results of operations, financial condition and cash flows during the period in which they are recorded. At December 31, 2017, the Utility expected to recover $725 million of its environmental remediation liability through various ratemaking mechanisms authorized by the CPUC.

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 DTSC and the DOI. In November 2015, the Utility submitted its final remediation design to the agencies for approval. The Utility’s design proposes that the Utility construct an in-situ groundwater treatment system to convert hexavalent chromium into a non-toxic and non-soluble form of chromium. On December 21, 2017 the DTSC issued its final environmental impact report. The environmental impact report includes requirements related to conditions of work that have been anticipated or previously required and are accounted for in the current environmental remediation liability. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the Topock site may increase by as much as $289 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 through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered in rates.

Hinkley Site

The Utility has been implementing interim 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 final clean-up and abatement order 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 requires setting plume capture requirements, requires establishing a monitoring and reporting program, and finalizes 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. The background study is expected to be finalized in 2019. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the Hinkley site may increase by as much as $145 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 (“MGPs”)

Former manufactured gas plants used coal and oil to produce gas for use by the Utility’s customers in the past. The by-products and residues of this process were often disposed at the manufactured gas plants themselves. The Utility has undertaken a program to manage the residues left behind as a result of the manufacturing process; many of the sites in the program have been addressed. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with MGP sites may increase by as much as $343 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the MGP sites are recovered through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered in rates.

Utility-Owned Generation Facilities and Third-Party Disposal Sites

Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites are long-term projects that are undergoing a remediation process. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites may increase by as much as $145 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 has sold its fossil-fueled power plants, the Utility has 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 $106 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 is a member of NEIL, which is a mutual insurer owned by utilities with nuclear facilities. NEIL provides insurance coverage for property damages and business interruption losses incurred by the Utility if a nuclear event were to occur 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 $2.6 billion per non-nuclear incident for Diablo Canyon. Humboldt Bay Unit 3 has up to $131 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. Certain acts of terrorism may be “certified” by the Secretary of the Treasury. If damages are caused by certified acts of terrorism, NEIL can obtain compensation from the federal government and will provide up to its full policy limit of $3.2 billion for each insured loss. In contrast, NEIL would treat all non-certified terrorist acts occurring within a 12-month period against one or more commercial nuclear power plants insured by NEIL as one event and the owners of the affected plants would share the $3.2 billion policy limit amount.

In addition to the nuclear insurance the Utility maintains through the NEIL, the Utility also is a member of the EMANI, which provides excess insurance coverage for property damages 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, as of December 31, 2017, the current maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligation for the Utility would be approximately $57 million. EMANI provides $200 million for any one accident and in the annual aggregate excess of the combined amount recoverable under the Utility’s NEIL policies. If EMANI losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, the Utility could be subject to a retrospective assessment of approximately $3 million, as of December 31, 2017.

Under the Price-Anderson Act, public liability claims that arise from nuclear incidents that occur at Diablo Canyon, and that occur during the transportation of material to and from Diablo Canyon are limited to $13.5 billion. The Utility purchased the maximum available public liability insurance of $450 million for Diablo Canyon. The balance of the $13.5 billion of liability protection is provided under a loss-sharing program among utilities owning nuclear reactors. The Utility may be assessed up to $255 million per nuclear incident under this program, with payments in each year limited to a maximum of $38 million per incident. Both the maximum assessment and the maximum yearly assessment are adjusted for inflation at least every five years. The next scheduled adjustment is due on or before September 10, 2018.

The Price-Anderson Act does not apply to claims that arise from nuclear incidents that occur during shipping of nuclear material from the nuclear fuel enricher to a fuel fabricator or that occur at the fuel fabricator’s facility. The Utility has a separate policy that provides coverage for claims arising from some of these incidents up to a maximum of $450 million per incident. In addition, the Utility has $53 million of liability insurance for Humboldt Bay Unit 3 and has a $500 million indemnification from the NRC for public liability arising from nuclear incidents, covering liabilities in excess of the liability insurance.

Resolution of Remaining Chapter 11 Disputed Claims

Various electricity suppliers filed claims in the Utility’s proceeding filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code seeking payment for energy supplied to the Utility’s customers between May 2000 and June 2001. While the FERC and judicial proceedings are pending, the Utility has pursued, and continues to pursue, settlements with electricity suppliers. The Utility has entered into a number of settlement agreements with various electricity suppliers to resolve some of these disputed claims and to resolve the Utility’s refund claims against these electricity suppliers. Under these settlement agreements, amounts payable by the parties are, in some instances, subject to adjustment based on the outcome of the various refund offset and interest issues being considered by the FERC. Generally, any net refunds, claim offsets, or other credits that the Utility receives from electricity suppliers either through settlement or through the conclusion of the various FERC and judicial proceedings are refunded to customers through rates in future periods.

At December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, the Consolidated Balance Sheets reflected $243 million and $236 million in net claims within Disputed claims and customer refunds. The Utility is uncertain when or how the remaining net disputed claims liability will be resolved.

Purchase Commitments

The following table shows the undiscounted future expected obligations under power purchase agreements that have been approved by the CPUC and have met specified construction milestones as well as undiscounted future expected payment obligations for natural gas supplies, natural gas transportation, natural gas storage, and nuclear fuel as of December 31, 2017:

	Power Purchase Agreements
	Renewable		Conventional				Natural		Nuclear
(in millions)	Energy		Energy		Other		Gas		Fuel		Total
2018	$	2,150	$	718	$	280	$	388	$	96	$	3,632
2019		2,193		706		221		167		102		3,389
2020		2,188		686		175		148		143		3,340
2021		2,168		588		153		93		70		3,072
2022		1,975		512		143		93		60		2,783
Thereafter		26,005		657		526		357		151		27,696
Total purchase
commitments	$	36,679	$	3,867	$	1,498	$	1,246	$	622	$	43,912

Third-Party Power Purchase Agreements

In the ordinary course of business, the Utility enters into various agreements, including renewable energy agreements, QF agreements, and other power purchase agreements to purchase power and electric capacity. The price of purchased power may be fixed or variable. Variable pricing is generally based on the current market price of either natural gas or electricity at the date of delivery.

Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreements. In order to comply with California’s RPS requirements, the Utility is required to deliver renewable energy to its customers at a gradually increasing rate. The Utility has entered into various agreements to purchase renewable energy to help meet California’s requirement. The Utility’s obligations under a significant portion of these agreements are contingent on the third party’s construction of new generation facilities, which are expected to grow. As of December 31, 2017, renewable energy contracts expire at various dates between 2018 and 2043.

Conventional Energy Power Purchase Agreements. The Utility has entered into power purchase agreements for conventional generation resources, which include tolling agreements and resource adequacy agreements. The Utility’s obligation under a portion of these agreements is contingent on the third parties’ development of new generation facilities to provide capacity and energy products to the Utility. As of December 31, 2017, these power purchase agreements expire at various dates between 2018 and 2033.

Other Power Purchase Agreements. The Utility has entered into agreements to purchase energy and capacity with independent power producers that own generation facilities that meet the definition of a QF under federal law. Several of these agreements are treated as capital leases. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, net capital leases reflected in property, plant, and equipment on the Consolidated Balance Sheets were $18 million and $35 million including accumulated amortization of $143 million and $148 million, respectively. The present value of the future minimum lease payments due under these agreements included $11 million and $17 million in Current Liabilities and $7 million and $18 million in Noncurrent Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet, respectively. As of December 31, 2017, QF contracts in operation expire at various dates between 2018 and 2028. In addition, the Utility has agreements with various irrigation districts and water agencies to purchase hydroelectric power.

The costs incurred for all power purchases and electric capacity amounted to $3.3 billion in 2017, $3.5 billion in 2016, and $3.5 billion in 2015.

Natural Gas Supply, Transportation, and Storage Commitments

The Utility purchases natural gas directly from producers and marketers in both Canada and the United States to serve its core customers and to fuel its owned-generation facilities. The Utility also contracts for natural gas transportation from the points at which the Utility takes delivery (typically in Canada, the US Rocky Mountain supply area, and the southwestern United States) to the points at which the Utility’s natural gas transportation system begins. These agreements expire at various dates between 2018 and 2026. In addition, the Utility has contracted for natural gas storage services in northern California in order to more reliably meet customers’ loads.

Costs incurred for natural gas purchases, natural gas transportation services, and natural gas storage, which include contracts with terms of less than 1 year, amounted to $0.9 billion in 2017, $0.7 billion in 2016, and $0.9 billion in 2015.

Nuclear Fuel Agreements

The Utility has entered into several purchase agreements for nuclear fuel. These agreements expire at various dates between 2018 and 2025 and are intended to ensure long-term nuclear fuel supply. The Utility relies on a number of international producers of nuclear fuel in order to diversify its sources and provide security of supply. Pricing terms are also diversified, ranging from market-based prices to base prices that are escalated using published indices.

Payments for nuclear fuel amounted to $83 million in 2017, $100 million in 2016, and $128 million in 2015.

Other Commitments

PG&E Corporation and the Utility have other commitments related to operating leases (primarily office facilities and land), which expire at various dates between 2018 and 2052. At December 31, 2017, the future minimum payments related to these commitments were as follows:

(in millions)	Operating Leases
2018	$	44
2019		41
2020		40
2021		36
2022		27
Thereafter		138
Total minimum lease payments	$	326

Payments for other commitments related to operating leases amounted to $45 million in 2017, $43 million in 2016, and $41 million in 2015. Certain leases on office facilities contain escalation clauses requiring annual increases in rent. The rentals payable under these leases may increase by a fixed amount each year, a percentage of increase over base year, or the consumer price index. Most leases contain extension operations ranging between one and five years.