OTHER CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

WILDFIRE-RELATED CONTINGENCIES

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. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and whether the loss or a range of losses is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and estimates are adjusted to reflect the impact of all known information, such as negotiations, discovery, settlements and payments, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's provision for loss and expense excludes anticipated legal costs, which are expensed as incurred. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows may be materially affected by the outcome of the following matters.

Wildfire-Related Claims

Wildfire-related claims on the Consolidated Financial Statements include amounts associated with the 2018 Camp fire, the 2017 Northern California wildfires, and the 2015 Butte fire.

For the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, the Utility’s Consolidated Income Statements include estimated losses offset by insurance recoveries as follows:



	Year Ended December 31,
(in millions)	2018			2017			2016
2015 Butte fire
Third-Party Claims	$	—		$	350		$	750
Insurance recoveries	(7		)	(350		)	(625		)
Total 2015 Butte fire	(7		)	—			125
2017 Northern California wildfires
Third-Party Claims	3,500			—			—
Insurance recoveries	(842		)	—			—
Total 2017 Northern California wildfires	2,658			—			—
2018 Camp fire
Third-Party Claims	10,500			—			—
Insurance recoveries	(1,380		)	—			—
Total 2018 Camp fire	9,120			—			—
Total wildfire-related claims, net of insurance recoveries	$	11,771		$	—		$	125

In addition to the amounts shown in the table above, during the year ended December 31, 2018, the Utility incurred $245 million of legal and other costs related to the 2018 Camp fire, the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2015 Butte fire.

At December 31, 2018 and 2017, the Utility's Consolidated Balance Sheets include estimated liabilities as follows:



	Balance At
(in millions)	December 31, 2018		December 31, 2017
2015 Butte fire	$	226	$	561
2017 Northern California wildfires	3,500		—
2018 Camp fire	10,500		—
Total wildfire-related claims	$	14,226	$	561

2018 Camp Fire Background

On November 8, 2018, a wildfire began near the city of Paradise, Butte County, California (the “2018 Camp fire”), which is located in the Utility’s service territory. Cal Fire's Camp Fire Incident Information Website as of January 4, 2019, (the “Cal Fire website”), indicated that the 2018 Camp fire consumed 153,336 acres. On the Cal Fire website, Cal Fire reported 86 fatalities and the destruction of 13,972 residences, 528 commercial structures and 4,293 other buildings resulting from the 2018 Camp fire. On February 7, 2019, the Butte County Sheriff's Office reported that the number of fatalities resulting from the 2018 Camp fire had been reduced from 86 to 85.

Although the cause of the 2018 Camp fire is still under investigation, based on the information currently known to PG&E Corporation and the Utility and reported to the CPUC and other agencies, including the facts described below, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is probable that the Utility’s equipment will be determined to be an ignition point of the 2018 Camp fire.

The Utility submitted two Electric Incident Reports (the “EIRs”) to the CPUC: one on November 8, 2018 and one on November 16, 2018. On December 11, 2018, the Utility publicly released a letter to the CPUC supplementing the EIRs (the “20-Day Electric Incident Report”), which stated:


•	On Cal Fire’s website, Cal Fire has identified coordinates for the 2018 Camp fire near Tower :27/222 on the Utility’s Caribou-Palermo 115 kV Transmission Line and has identified the start time of the 2018 Camp fire as 6:33 a.m. on November 8, 2018.

•

On November 8, 2018, at approximately 6:15 a.m., the Utility’s Caribou-Palermo 115kV Transmission Line relayed and deenergized. At approximately 6:30 a.m. that day, a Utility employee observed fire in the vicinity of Tower :27/222, and this observation was reported to 911 by Utility employees. In the afternoon of November 8, the Utility observed damage on the line at Tower :27/222. Specifically, an aerial patrol identified that a suspension insulator supporting a transposition jumper had separated from an arm on Tower :27/222.


•	On November 14, 2018, the Utility observed a broken C-hook attached to the separated suspension insulator that had connected the suspension insulator to a tower arm, along with wear at the connection point. In addition, the Utility observed a flash mark on Tower :27/222 near where the transposition jumper was suspended and damage to the transposition jumper and suspension insulator.

•

In addition to the events on the Caribou-Palermo 115kV Transmission Line, on November 8, 2018, at approximately 6:45 a.m., the Utility’s Big Bend 1101 12 kV Circuit experienced an outage. On November 9, 2018, a Utility employee on patrol arrived at the location of the pole with Line Recloser (“LR”) 1704 on the Big Bend 1101 Circuit and observed that the pole and other equipment were on the ground with bullets and bullet holes at the break point of the pole and on the equipment. On November 12, 2018, a Utility employee was patrolling Concow Road north of LR 1704 when he observed wires down and damaged and downed poles at the intersection of Concow Road and Rim Road. At this location, the employee observed several snapped trees, with some on top of the downed wires.

The information contained in the EIRs and the 20-Day Electric Incident Report is factual and preliminary and does not reflect a determination of the causes of the 2018 Camp fire. These incidents remain under investigation by Cal Fire and the CPUC. With respect to the potential ignition point on the Utility’s Big Bend 1101 12 kV Circuit, although Cal Fire has identified this location as a potential ignition point, based on the condition of the site, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have not been able to determine whether the Big Bend 1101 12 kV Circuit may be a probable ignition point for the 2018 Camp fire. Neither Cal Fire nor the CPUC has publicly issued any news releases or other determinations for the 2018 Camp fire. The timing and outcome of the investigations are uncertain. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are cooperating with Cal Fire and the CPUC.

Further, the CPUC’s SED 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 the fire. It is uncertain when the investigations will be complete and whether the SED will release any preliminary findings before its investigations are complete.

2017 Northern California Wildfires Background

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

Cal Fire has issued its determination on the causes of 19 of the 2017 Northern California wildfires, and alleged that all of these fires, with the exception of the Tubbs fire, involved the Utility's equipment. The remaining wildfires remain under Cal Fire's investigation, including the possible role of the Utility's power lines and other facilities.

During the second quarter of 2018, Cal Fire issued news releases announcing its determination on the causes of 16 of the 2017 Northern California wildfires (the La Porte, McCourtney, Lobo, Honey, Redwood, Sulphur, Cherokee, 37, Blue, Norrbom, Adobe, Partrick, Pythian, Nuns, Pocket and Atlas fires, located in Mendocino, Lake, Butte, Sonoma, Humboldt, Nevada and Napa counties). According to the Cal Fire news releases, the first four fires “were caused by trees coming into contact with power lines” and the remaining 12 fires “were caused by electric power and distribution lines, conductors and the failure of power poles.” Cal Fire has not yet released its investigation reports related to the McCourtney, Lobo, Sulphur, Blue, Norrbom, Adobe, Partrick, Pythian, Pocket and Atlas fires and stated in its news releases that these investigations have been referred to the appropriate county District Attorney’s offices for review “due to evidence of alleged violations of state law.” The Butte County District Attorney's office has entered into a settlement agreement with the Utility, resolving the Honey, Cherokee and LaPorte fire allegations without criminal or civil charges. The timing and outcome for resolution of the remaining referrals are uncertain.

Also during the second quarter of 2018, Cal Fire released its investigation reports related to the Redwood, Cherokee, 37, Nuns and La Porte fires. Cal Fire did not refer these fires to District Attorney offices for investigation.

On October 9, 2018, Cal Fire issued a news release announcing the results of its investigation into the Cascade fire, located in Yuba County, concluding that the Cascade fire “was started by sagging power lines coming into contact during heavy winds” and that “the power line in question was owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company.” On October 10, 2018, Cal Fire released its investigation report related to the Cascade fire.

On January 24, 2019, Cal Fire issued a news release and its investigation report into the cause of the Tubbs fire. Cal Fire has determined that the Tubbs fire was caused by a private electrical system adjacent to a residential structure.

Cal Fire has not publicly issued any news releases or other determinations for the Maacama, Pressley and Point wildfires. The timing and outcome of the Cal Fire investigation into these fires is uncertain.

Further, the SED 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. It is uncertain when the investigations will be complete and whether the SED will release any preliminary findings before its investigations are complete.

The Utility has submitted 23 electric incident reports to the CPUC associated with the 2017 Northern California wildfires where Cal Fire or the Utility 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.

Third-Party Claims, Investigations and Other Proceedings Related to the 2018 Camp Fire and 2017 Northern California Wildfires

If the Utility’s facilities, such as its electric distribution and transmission lines, are determined to be the substantial cause of one or more fires, and the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies, the Utility could be liable for property damage, business interruption, interest and attorneys’ fees without having been found negligent. California courts have imposed liability under the doctrine of inverse condemnation in legal actions brought by property holders against utilities on the grounds that losses borne by the person whose property was damaged through a public use undertaking should be spread across the community that benefited from such undertaking, and based on the assumption that utilities have the ability to recover these costs from their customers. Further, California courts have determined that the doctrine of inverse condemnation is applicable regardless of whether the CPUC ultimately allows recovery by the utility for any such costs. The CPUC may decide not to authorize cost recovery even if a court decision were to determine that the Utility is liable as a result of the application of the doctrine of inverse condemnation. (See “Loss Recoveries-Regulatory Recovery” below for further information regarding potential cost recovery related to the wildfires, including in connection with SB 901.)

In addition to claims for property damage, business interruption, interest and attorneys’ fees, 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, including if the Utility were found to have been negligent.

Further, the Utility could be subject to material fines or penalties if the CPUC or any law enforcement agency brought an enforcement action, including a criminal proceeding, and determined that the Utility failed to comply with applicable laws and regulations.

As of January 28, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of approximately 100 complaints on behalf of at least 4,200 plaintiffs related to the 2018 Camp fire, nine of which seek to be certified as class actions. The pending civil litigation against PG&E Corporation and the Utility related to the 2018 Camp fire, which is currently stayed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, includes claims under multiple theories of liability, including inverse condemnation, trespass, private nuisance, public nuisance, negligence, negligence per se, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent infliction of emotional distress, premises liability, violations of the Public Utilities Code, violations of the Health & Safety Code, malice and false advertising in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs 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 2018 Camp fire. The plaintiffs seek damages and remedies that include wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, evacuation costs, medical expenses, establishment of a class action medical monitoring fund, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other damages. PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's obligations with respect to such claims are expected to be determined through the Chapter 11 process.

As of January 28, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of approximately 750 complaints on behalf of at least 3,800 plaintiffs related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires, five of which seek to be certified as class actions. These cases have been coordinated in the San Francisco County Superior Court. As of the Petition Date, the coordinated litigation was in the early stages of discovery. A trial with respect to the Atlas fire was scheduled to begin on September 23, 2019. The pending civil litigation against PG&E Corporation and the Utility related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires, includes claims under multiple theories of liability, including inverse condemnation, trespass, private nuisance and negligence. This litigation, including the trial date with respect to the Atlas fire, currently is stayed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases. The plaintiffs 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 2017 Northern California wildfires. The plaintiffs seek damages that include wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, evacuation costs, medical expenses, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other damages. PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's obligations with respect to such claims are expected to be determined through the Chapter 11 process.

Insurance carriers who have made payments to their insureds for property damage arising out of the 2017 Northern California wildfires have filed 48 subrogation complaints in the San Francisco County Superior Court as of January 28, 2019. These complaints allege, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass and nuisance. The allegations are similar to the ones made by individual plaintiffs. As of January 28, 2019, insurance carriers have filed 37 similar subrogation complaints with respect to the 2018 Camp fire in the Sacramento County Superior Court. PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's obligations with respect to such claims are expected to be determined through the Chapter 11 process.

Various government entities, including Yuba, Nevada, Lake, Mendocino, Napa and Sonoma Counties and the Cities of Santa Rosa and Clearlake, also have asserted claims against PG&E Corporation and the Utility based on the damages that these government entities allegedly suffered as a result of the 2017 Northern California wildfires. Such alleged damages include, among other things, loss of natural resources, loss of public parks, property damages and fire suppression costs. The causes of action and allegations are similar to the ones made by individual plaintiffs and the insurance carriers. With respect to the 2018 Camp fire, Butte County has filed similar claims against PG&E Corporation and the Utility, and PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect additional similar claims to be made by other government entities. PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's obligations with respect to such claims are expected to be determined through the Chapter 11 process.

On March 16, 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a demurrer to the inverse condemnation cause of action in the 2017 Northern California wildfires litigation. On May 21, 2018, the court overruled the motion. On July 20, 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a writ in the Court of Appeal requesting appellate review of the trial court's decision, which was denied on September 17, 2018. On September 27, 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a petition for review to the California Supreme Court. On November 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's petition for review.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect to be the subject of numerous additional claims in connection with the 2018 Camp fire and 2017 Northern California wildfires. PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's obligations with respect to such claims are expected to be determined through the Chapter 11 process.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility also are the subject of criminal investigations or other actions by the county District Attorneys to whom Cal Fire has referred its investigations into the McCourtney, Lobo, Sulphur, Blue, Norrbom, Adobe, Partrick, Pythian, Pocket and Atlas fires. Although the Honey fire was referred to the Butte County District Attorney’s Office, in October 2018, the Utility reached an agreement to settle any civil claims or criminal charges that could have been brought by the Butte County District Attorney in connection with the Honey fire, as well as the La Porte and Cherokee fires (which were not referred). The settlement provides for funding by the Utility for at least four years of an enhanced fire prevention and communication program, in the amount of up to $1.5 million, not recoverable in rates. On October 9, 2018, the District Attorney of Yuba County announced his decision not to pursue criminal charges at such time against PG&E Corporation or the Utility pertaining to the Cascade fire. The Office of the District Attorney of Yuba County also indicated that it “reserves the right to review any additional information or evidence that may be submitted to it prior to the expiration of the criminal statute of limitations.”

Also in October 2018, the Utility and the Sonoma, Napa, Lake, Humboldt and Nevada County District Attorneys entered into agreements under which the Utility agreed to waive any applicable statutes of limitation related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires that started in these counties for a period of six months, until April 8, 2019. PG&E Corporation and the Utility anticipate further discussions with the District Attorneys in these counties relating to the 2017 Northern California wildfires and whether any criminal or civil charges should be brought. In addition, the Butte County District Attorney’s Office and the California Attorney General’s Office have opened a criminal investigation of the 2018 Camp fire. Additional investigations and other actions may arise out of the other 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2018 Camp fire. Such proceedings are not subject to the automatic stay imposed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases; however, collection efforts in connection with fines or penalties arising out of such proceedings are stayed.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are continuing to review the evidence concerning the 2018 Camp fire and 2017 Northern California wildfires. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have not yet had access to all of the evidence collected by Cal Fire as part of its investigations or to the many investigation reports prepared by Cal Fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility and plaintiffs are in discussions with Cal Fire about access to the evidence and the remaining reports. No schedule on gaining access has been set.

Regardless of any determinations of cause by Cal Fire with respect to any pre-petition fire, ultimately PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s liability will be resolved through the Chapter 11 process, regulatory proceedings and any potential enforcement proceedings, all of which could take a number of years to resolve. The timing and outcome of these and other potential proceedings are uncertain.

Potential Losses in Connection with the 2018 Camp Fire and 2017 Northern California Wildfires

On January 28, 2019, the California Department of Insurance issued a news release announcing an update on property losses in connection with the 2018 wildfires in Southern California (which are not in the Utility’s service territory) and the 2018 Camp fire, stating that, as of such date, “more than $11.4 billion in insured losses have been reported from the November 2018 fires,” of which approximately $8.4 billion relates to statewide claims from the 2018 Camp fire. On September 6, 2018, the California Department of Insurance issued a news release announcing that insurers have received nearly 55,000 insurance claims totaling more than $12.28 billion in losses, of which approximately $10 billion relates to statewide claims from the 2017 Northern California wildfires.

The dollar amounts announced by the California Department of Insurance represent an aggregate amount of approximately $18.4 billion of insurance claims made as of the above dates related to the 2018 Camp fire and 2017 Northern California wildfires. PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect that additional claims have been submitted and will continue to be submitted to insurers, particularly with respect to the 2018 Camp fire. These claims reflect insured property losses only. The $18.4 billion of insurance claims made as of the above dates does not account for uninsured or underinsured property losses, interest, attorneys’ fees, fire suppression and clean-up costs, evacuation costs, personal injury or wrongful death damages, medical expenses or other costs, such as potential punitive damages, fines or penalties, or losses related to claims that have not manifested yet ("future claims"), each of which could be significant. The scope of all claims related to the 2018 Camp fire and 2017 Northern California wildfires is not known at this time because of the applicable statutes of limitations under California law.

Potential liabilities related to the 2018 Camp fire and 2017 Northern California wildfires depend on various factors, including but not limited to the cause of each fire, contributing causes of the fires (including alternative potential origins, weather and climate related issues), the number, size and type of structures damaged or destroyed, the contents of such structures and other personal property damage, the number and types of trees damaged or destroyed, attorneys’ fees for claimants, the nature and extent of any personal injuries, including the loss of lives, the extent to which future claims arise, 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 or fines that may be imposed by governmental entities.

There are a number of unknown facts and legal considerations that may impact the amount of any potential liability. Among other things, it is uncertain at this time as to the number of wildfire-related claims that will be filed in the Chapter 11 Cases, the number of current and future claims that will be allowed by the Bankruptcy Court, how claims for punitive damages and claims by variously situated persons will be treated and whether such claims will be allowed, and the impact that historical settlement values for wildfire claims may have on the estimation of wildfire liability in the Chapter 11 Cases. If PG&E Corporation and the Utility were to be found liable for certain or all of the costs, expenses and other losses described above with respect to the 2018 Camp fire and 2017 Northern California wildfires, the amount of such liability could exceed $30 billion, which amount does not include potential punitive damages, fines and penalties or damages related to future claims. This estimate is based on a wide variety of data and other information available to PG&E Corporation and the Utility and their advisors, including various precedents involving similar claims, and accounts for property losses (including insured, uninsured and underinsured property losses), interest, attorneys’ fees, fire suppression and clean-up costs, evacuation costs, personal injury or wrongful death damages, medical expenses and certain other costs. This estimate is not intended to provide an upper end of the range of potential liability arising from the 2018 Camp fire and 2017 Northern California wildfires. In certain circumstances, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s liability could be substantially greater than such amount.

If PG&E Corporation and the Utility were to be found liable for any punitive damages or subject to fines or penalties, the amount of such punitive damages, fines and penalties could be significant. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have received significant fines and penalties in connection with past incidents. For example, in 2015, the CPUC approved a decision that imposed penalties on the Utility totaling $1.6 billion in connection with the natural gas explosion that occurred in the City of San Bruno, California on September 9, 2010 (the “San Bruno explosion”). These penalties represented nearly three times the underlying liability for the San Bruno explosion of approximately $558 million incurred for third-party claims, exclusive of shareholder derivative lawsuits and legal costs incurred. The amount of punitive damages, fines and penalties imposed on PG&E Corporation and the Utility could likewise be a significant amount in relation to the underlying liabilities with respect to the 2018 Camp fire and 2017 Northern California wildfires. PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's obligations with respect to such claims are expected to be determined through the Chapter 11 process. Such proceedings are not subject to the automatic stay imposed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases; however, collection efforts in connection with fines or penalties arising out of such proceedings are stayed.

2018 Camp Fire and 2017 Northern California Wildfires Accounting Charge

Following accounting rules, PG&E Corporation and the Utility record a liability when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, 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 is the amount within the range that is a better estimate than any other amount or the lower end of the range, if there is no better estimate. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and whether the loss or a range of losses is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events.

2018 Camp Fire

In light of the current state of the law and the information currently available to the Utility, including, among other things, the facts described in the EIRs and the 20-Day Electric Incident Report, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have determined that it is probable they will incur a loss for claims in connection with the 2018 Camp fire, and accordingly PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a charge in the amount of $10.5 billion for the year ended December 31, 2018. This charge corresponds to the lower end of the range of PG&E Corporation's and the Utility’s reasonably estimated losses, and is subject to change based on additional information.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility currently believe that it is reasonably possible that the amount of the loss related to the 2018 Camp fire and 2017 Northern California wildfires will be greater than the amount accrued, but are unable to reasonably estimate the additional loss and the upper end of the range because there are a number of unknown facts and legal considerations that may impact the amount of any potential liability, including the total scope and nature of claims that may be asserted against PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to continue to review the available information and other information as it becomes available, including evidence in Cal Fire’s possession, evidence from or held by other parties, claims that have not yet been submitted, and additional information about the nature and extent of personal and business property damage and losses, the nature, number and severity of personal injuries, and information made available through the discovery process.

The process for estimating losses associated with claims requires management to exercise significant judgment based on a number of assumptions and subjective factors, including but not limited to factors identified above and estimates based on currently available information and prior experience with wildfires. As more information becomes available, management estimates and assumptions regarding the financial impact of the 2018 Camp fire may change, which could result in material increases to the loss accrued.

The $10.5 billion charge does not include any amounts for potential penalties or fines that may be imposed by governmental entities on PG&E Corporation or the Utility, or punitive damages, if any, or any losses related to future claims for damages that have not manifested yet, each of which could be significant.

2017 Northern California Wildfires

In light of the current state of the law on inverse condemnation and the information currently available to the Utility, including, among other things, the Cal Fire determinations of cause as stated in Cal Fire’s press releases and their released reports, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have determined that it is probable they will incur a loss for claims in connection with 17 of the 2017 Northern California wildfires referred to as the La Porte, McCourtney, Lobo, Honey, Redwood, Sulphur, Cherokee, Blue, Pocket, Atlas, Cascade, Point and Sonoma/Napa merged fires (which include the Nuns, Norrbom, Adobe, Partrick and Pythian fires). Accordingly, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a charge in the amount of $2.5 billion during the quarter ended June 30, 2018 and a charge in the amount of $1.0 billion during the quarter ended December 31, 2018, for a total charge in the amount of $3.5 billion for the year ended December 31, 2018. This charge corresponds to the lower end of the range of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s reasonably estimated losses and is subject to change based on additional information. The additional charge recorded in the quarter ended December 31, 2018 resulted from additional information obtained by the Utility during that period about the fires.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility currently believe that it is reasonably possible that the amount of the loss related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2018 Camp fire will be greater than the amount accrued, but are unable to reasonably estimate the additional loss and the upper end of the range because there are a number of unknown facts and legal considerations that may impact the amount of any potential liability, including the total scope and nature of claims that may be asserted against PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to continue to review the available information and other information as it becomes available, including evidence in Cal Fire’s possession, evidence from or held by other parties, claims that have not yet been submitted, and additional information about the nature and extent of personal and business property damage and losses, the nature, number and severity of personal injuries, and information made available through the discovery process.

The process for estimating losses associated with claims requires management to exercise significant judgment based on a number of assumptions and subjective factors, including but not limited to factors identified above and estimates based on currently available information and prior experience with wildfires. As more information becomes available, management estimates and assumptions regarding the financial impact of the 2017 Northern California wildfires may change, which could result in material increases to the loss accrued.

The $3.5 billion charge does not include any amounts for potential penalties or fines that may be imposed by governmental entities on PG&E Corporation or the Utility, or punitive damages, if any, or any losses related to future claims for damages that have not manifested yet, each of which could be significant.

The $3.5 billion charge also does not include any amounts in connection with the 37, Tubbs, Maacama and Pressley fires because at this time PG&E Corporation and the Utility have not concluded that a loss arising from those fires is probable. However, in the future it is possible that facts could emerge that lead PG&E Corporation and the Utility to believe that a loss is probable, resulting in the accrual of a liability at that time, the amount of which could be significant.

Loss Recoveries

PG&E Corporation and the Utility had insurance coverage for liabilities, including wildfire. Additionally, there are several mechanisms that allow for recovery of costs from customers. Potential for recovery is described below. Failure to obtain a substantial or full recovery of costs related to the 2018 Camp fire and 2017 Northern California wildfires or any conclusion that such recovery is no longer probable could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows. In addition, the inability to recover costs in in a timely manner could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows.

Insurance

PG&E Corporation and the Utility had $842 million of insurance coverage for liabilities, including wildfire events, for the period from August 1, 2017 through July 31, 2018, subject to an initial self-insured retention of $10 million per occurrence and further retentions of approximately $40 million per occurrence. During the third quarter of 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility renewed their liability insurance coverage for wildfire events in an aggregate amount of approximately $1.4 billion for the period from August 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019, comprised of $700 million for general liability (subject to an initial self-insured retention of $10 million per occurrence), and $700 million for property damages only, which property damage coverage includes an aggregate amount of approximately $200 million through the reinsurance market where a catastrophe bond was utilized. PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect to face increasing difficulty securing liability insurance in future years due to availability and to face significantly increased insurance costs.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility record a receivable for insurance recoveries when it is deemed probable that recovery of a recorded loss will occur. Through December 31, 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded $1.38 billion for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2018 Camp fire and $842 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2017 Northern California wildfires. These amounts reflect an assumption that the cause of each fire is deemed to be a separate occurrence under the insurance policies. The amount of the receivable is subject to change based on additional information. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to seek full recovery for all insured losses and believe it is reasonably possible that they will record a receivable for the full amount of the insurance limits in the future.

If PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to recover the full amount of their insurance, or if insurance is otherwise unavailable, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows could be materially affected. Even if PG&E Corporation and the Utility were to recover the full amount of their insurance, PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect their losses in connection with the 2018 Camp fire and 2017 Northern California wildfires will greatly exceed their available insurance.

The following table presents changes in the insurance receivable for the year ended December 31, 2018. The balance for insurance receivable is included in Other accounts receivable in PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's Consolidated Balance Sheets:



(in millions)	Insurance Receivable
2018 Camp fire
Accrued insurance recoveries	$	1,380
Reimbursements	—
Balance at December 31, 2018	$	1,380

2017 Northern California wildfires
Accrued insurance recoveries	$	842
Reimbursements	(13		)
Balance at December 31, 2018	$	829

Regulatory Recovery

On June 21, 2018, the CPUC issued a decision granting the Utility’s request to establish a WEMA to track specific incremental wildfire liability costs effective as of July 26, 2017. The decision does not grant the Utility rate recovery of any wildfire-related costs. Any such rate recovery would require CPUC authorization in a separate proceeding. The Utility may be unable to fully recover costs in excess of insurance, if at all. Rate recovery is uncertain, therefore the Utility has not recorded a regulatory asset related to any wildfire claims costs. Even if such recovery is possible, it could take a number of years to resolve and a number of years to collect.

In addition, SB 901, signed into law on September 21, 2018, requires the CPUC to establish a customer harm threshold, directing the CPUC to limit certain disallowances in the aggregate, so that they do not exceed the maximum amount that the Utility can pay without harming ratepayers or materially impacting its ability to provide adequate and safe service (the “Customer Harm Threshold”). SB 901 also authorizes the CPUC to issue a financing order that permits recovery, through the issuance of recovery bonds (also referred to as “securitization”), of wildfire-related costs found to be just and reasonable by the CPUC and, only for the 2017 Northern California wildfires, any amounts in excess of the Customer Harm Threshold. SB 901 does not authorize securitization with respect to possible 2018 Camp fire costs, as the bill does not address fires that occurred in 2018.

On January 10, 2019, the CPUC adopted an OIR, which establishes a process to develop criteria and a methodology to inform determinations of the Customer Harm Threshold in future applications under Section 451.2(a) of the Public Utilities Code for cost recovery of 2017 wildfire costs. In the OIR, the CPUC stated that “consistent with Section 451.2(a), the determination of what costs and expenses are just and reasonable must be made in the context of an application for the recovery of specific costs related to the 2017 wildfires.” Following the CPUC’s interpretation of Section 451.2 as outlined in the OIR, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe that any securitization of costs relating to the 2017 Northern California wildfires would not occur, if at all, until (a) the Utility has paid claims relating to the 2017 Northern California wildfires, (b) the Utility has filed application for recovery of such costs and (c) the CPUC makes a determination that such costs are just and reasonable or in excess of the Customer Harm Threshold. PG&E Corporation and the Utility therefore do not expect the CPUC to permit the Utility to securitize costs relating to the 2017 Northern California wildfires on an expedited or emergency basis unless the CPUC alters the position expressed in the OIR.

On February 11, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed opening comments in response to the OIR in which they argued, among other things, the CPUC should (1) promptly set a Customer Harm Threshold, or at least define the methodology for setting the Customer Harm Threshold with sufficient specificity to enable PG&E Corporation and the Utility and potential investors to anticipate that amount; (2) determine the Customer Harm Threshold based on the capital needed to resolve claims arising from both the 2018 Camp fire and 2017 Northern California wildfires to be provided for in a plan of reorganization; (3) define how the Customer Harm Threshold will be applied to any future wildfires; and (4) establish the Customer Harm Threshold based on the amount of debt PG&E Corporation and the Utility can raise. Based on assumptions set forth in the comments, PG&E Corporation and the Utility indicated that they could borrow up to approximately $3 billion to fund wildfire claims costs as part of a plan of reorganization.

Failure to obtain a substantial or full recovery of costs related to the 2018 Camp fire and 2017 Northern California wildfires or any conclusion that such recovery is no longer probable could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows.

Wildfire-Related Derivative Litigation

Two purported derivative lawsuits alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment were filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court on November 16, 2017 and November 20, 2017, respectively, naming as defendants current and certain former members of the Board of Directors and certain current and former officers of PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are named as nominal defendants. These lawsuits were consolidated by the court on February 14, 2018, and are denominated In Re California North Bay Fire Derivative Litigation. On April 13, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. After the parties reached an agreement regarding a stay of the derivative proceeding pending resolution of the tort actions described above and any regulatory proceeding relating to the 2017 Northern California wildfires, on April 24, 2018, the court entered a stipulation and order to stay. The stay is subject to certain conditions regarding the plaintiffs' access to discovery in other actions. On January 28, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a request to lift the stay for the purposes of amending their complaint to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire.

On August 3, 2018, a third purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Chew, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants certain current and former members of the Board of Directors and certain current and former officers of PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation is named as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment as well as a claim under Section 14(a) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging that PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's 2017 proxy statement contained misrepresentations regarding the companies' risk management and safety programs. On October 15, 2018, PG&E Corporation filed a motion to stay the litigation. The hearing on this motion, previously set for January 31, 2019, was moved by stipulation of the parties and order of the court to March 7, 2019.

On October 23, 2018, a fourth purported derivative lawsuit, entitled City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Chew, et al., was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment. It names as defendants certain current and former members of the Board of Directors and certain current and former officers of PG&E Corporation, and names PG&E Corporation as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff filed a request with the court seeking the voluntary dismissal of this matter without prejudice on January 18, 2019.

On November 21, 2018, a fifth purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Williams v. Earley, Jr., et al., was filed in federal court in San Francisco, alleging claims identical to those alleged in the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Chew, et al. lawsuit listed above against certain current and former officers and directors, and naming PG&E Corporation and the Utility as nominal defendants. This lawsuit includes allegations related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2018 Camp fire. This action was stayed by stipulation of the parties and order of the court on December 21, 2018, subject to resolution of the pending securities class action.

On December 24, 2018, a sixth purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Bowlinger v. Chew, et al., was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment in connection with the 2018 Camp fire against certain current and former officers and directors, and naming PG&E Corporation and the Utility as nominal defendants. The court scheduled an initial case management conference for March 21, 2019.

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

On January 28, 2019, an eighth purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Blackburn v. Meserve, et al., was filed in federal court alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets in connection with the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2018 Camp fire against certain current and former officers and directors, and naming PG&E Corporation as a nominal defendant.

Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed notices in each of these proceedings on February 1, 2019, reflecting that the proceedings are automatically stayed pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. On February 5, 2019, the plaintiff in Bowlinger v. Chew, et al. filed a response to the notice asserting that the automatic stay did not apply to his claims. The court has not yet acted on the plaintiff’s response.

Wildfire-Related Securities Class Action Litigation

In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its current and former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et al., respectively. The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions related to, among other things, vegetation management and transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public disclosures. The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29, 2015 to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases and the litigation is now denominated In Re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018. After the plaintiff requested leave to amend their complaint to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, the plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint on December 14, 2018.

Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a notice on February 1, 2019, reflecting that the proceedings are automatically stayed pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. On February 15, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a complaint in Bankruptcy Court against the plaintiff seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to extend the stay to the claims alleged against the individual officer defendants.

On February 22, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled York County on behalf of the York County Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. The complaint names as defendants certain current and former officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of 4 public offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018. Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility is named as a defendant. The complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the note offerings related to, among other things, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s vegetation management and wildfire safety measures. The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the federal Securities Act of 1933, and seeks unspecified monetary relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs, and injunctive relief. If necessary, PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to file a complaint in Bankruptcy Court against the plaintiffs seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to extend the stay to the claims alleged against the individual officer and director defendants.

Clean-up and Repair Costs

The Utility incurred costs of $354 million for clean-up and repair of the Utility’s facilities (including $183 million in capital expenditures) through December 31, 2018, in connection with the 2018 Camp fire. The Utility also incurred costs of $327 million for clean-up and repair of the Utility’s facilities (including $157 million in capital expenditures) through December 31, 2018, in connection with the 2017 Northern California wildfires. The Utility is authorized to track and seek recovery of clean-up and repair costs through CEMA. (CEMA requests are subject to CPUC approval.) The Utility capitalizes and records as regulatory assets costs that are probable of recovery. At December 31, 2018, the CEMA balance related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires was $82 million and is included in long-term regulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Additionally, the capital expenditures for clean-up and repair are included in property, plant and equipment at December 31, 2018.

Should PG&E Corporation and the Utility conclude that recovery of any clean-up and repair costs included in the CEMA is no longer probable, PG&E Corporation and the Utility will record a charge in the period such conclusion is reached. Failure to obtain a substantial or full recovery of these costs or any conclusion that such recovery is no longer probable, could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows.

2015 Butte Fire

In September 2015, a wildfire (the “2015 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 2015 Butte fire. According to Cal Fire’s report, the 2015 Butte 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 2015 Butte fire 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, County of Sacramento. Subrogation insurers also filed a separate master complaint on the same date. The California Judicial Council previously had authorized the coordination of all cases in Sacramento County. As of January 31, 2019, 95 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 3,900 individual plaintiffs representing approximately 2,000 households and their insurance companies. These complaints are part of, or were in the process of being added to, the coordinated proceeding. 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. Several plaintiffs dismissed the Utility's two vegetation management contractors from their complaints. The Utility does not expect the number of claimants to increase significantly in the future, because the statute of limitations for property damage and personal injury in connection with the 2015 Butte fire has expired. Further, due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, these plaintiffs have been stayed from continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from commencing new lawsuits against PG&E Corporation or the Utility on account of pre-petition obligations. On January 30, 2019, the Court in the coordinated proceeding issued an order staying the action.

On April 28, 2017, the Utility moved for summary adjudication on plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages. The court denied the Utility’s motion and the Utility filed a writ with the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District. The writ was granted on July 2, 2018, directing the trial court to enter summary adjudication in favor of the Utility and to deny plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages under California Civil Code Section 3294. Plaintiffs sought rehearing and asked the California Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal's decision. Both requests were denied. Neither the trial nor appellate courts originally addressed whether plaintiffs can seek punitive damages at trial under Public Utilities Code Section 2106. However, the trial court, in November 2018, denied a motion filed by the Utility that would have confirmed that punitive damages under Public Utilities Code Section 2106 are unavailable. The Utility believes a loss related to punitive damages is unlikely, but possible.

On June 22, 2017, the Superior Court of California, 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 2015 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 at the time of the ruling, others could 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.

On May 1, 2018, the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento issued its ruling on the Utility’s renewed motion in which the court affirmed, with minor changes, its tentative ruling dated April 25, 2018. The court determined that it is bound by earlier holdings of two appellate courts decisions, Barham and Pacific Bell. Further, the court stated that the Utility's constitutional arguments should be made to the appellate courts and suggested that, to the extent the Utility raises the public policy implications of the November 30, 2017 CPUC decision in the San Diego Gas & Electric Company cost recovery proceeding, these arguments should be addressed to the Legislature or CPUC. The Utility filed a writ with the Court of Appeal seeking immediate review of the court's decision. On June 18, 2018, after the writ was summarily denied, the Utility filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, which also was denied. On September 6, 2018, the court set a trial for some individual plaintiffs to begin on April 1, 2019. The Utility reached agreement with two plaintiffs in the litigation to stipulate to judgment against the Utility on inverse condemnation grounds. The court granted the Utility's stipulated judgment motion on November 29, 2018 and the Utility filed its appeal on December 11, 2018. As a result of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases, these lawsuits, including the trial and the appeal from the stipulated judgment, are stayed.

In addition to the coordinated plaintiffs, Cal Fire, the California Office of Emergency Services (the “OES”), the County of Calaveras, and five smaller public entities (three fire districts, one water district and the California Department of Veterans Affairs) have brought suit or indicated that they intend to do so. The five smaller public entities filed their complaints in August 2018 and September 2018. They have been added to the coordinated proceedings. The Utility has settled the claims of the three fire protection districts.

On April 13, 2017, Cal Fire filed a complaint with the Superior Court of California, County of Calaveras, seeking to recover over $87 million for its costs incurred on the theory that the Utility and its vegetation management contractors were negligent, or violated the law, among other claims. On July 31, 2017, Cal Fire dismissed its complaint against Trees, Inc., one of the Utility's vegetation contractors. Cal Fire had requested that a trial of its claims be set in 2019, following any trial of the claims of the individual plaintiffs. On October 19, 2018, the Utility filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Cal Fire cannot recover any fire suppression costs under the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Dep't of Forestry & Fire Prot. v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal. App. 5th 154. The hearing on that motion was set for January 31, 2019, but the hearing and Cal Fire’s case against the Utility are now stayed. Prior to the stay, the Utility and Cal Fire were also engaged in a mediation process.

Also, on February 20, 2018, the County of Calaveras filed suit against the Utility and the Utility’s vegetation management contractors to recover damages and other costs, based on the doctrine of inverse condemnation and negligence theory of liability. The County also sought punitive damages. On March 2, 2018, the County served a mediation demand seeking in excess of $167 million, having previously indicated that it intended to bring an approximately $85 million claim against the Utility. This claim included costs that the County of Calaveras allegedly incurred or expected to incur for infrastructure damage, erosion control, and other costs. The Utility and the County of Calaveras settled the County's claims in November 2018 for $25.4 million.

Further, in May 2017, the OES indicated that it intended to bring a claim against the Utility that it estimated to be approximately $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 2015 Butte fire. The Utility has not received any information or documentation from OES since its May 2017 statement. In June 2017, the Utility entered into an agreement with the OES that extends their deadline to file a claim to December 2020.

PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's obligations with respect to such outstanding claims are expected to be determined through the Chapter 11 process.

Estimated Losses from Third-Party Claims

In connection with the 2015 Butte fire, the Utility may be liable for property damages, business interruption, 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 is found to have been negligent. While the Utility believes it was not negligent, there can be no assurance that a court would agree with the Utility.

The Utility’s assessment of the estimated loss related to the 2015 Butte fire is based on 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.

The Utility has determined that it is probable that it will incur a loss of $1.1 billion in connection with the 2015 Butte fire. 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 portion of the estimated claim from the OES. The Utility still does not have sufficient information to reasonably estimate any liability it may have for that additional claim.

The process for estimating costs associated with claims relating to the 2015 Butte fire requires management to exercise significant judgment based on a number of assumptions and subjective factors. As more information becomes known, management estimates and assumptions regarding the financial impact of the 2015 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 Wildfire-related claims 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
Accrued losses	—
Payments ⁽¹⁾	(335		)
Balance at December 31, 2018	$	226

⁽¹⁾ As of December 31, 2018, the Utility has paid $874 million of the $904 million in settlements to date in connection with the 2015 Butte fire.

If the Utility records losses in connection with claims relating to the 2015 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, liquidity, and cash flows could be materially affected in the reporting periods during which additional charges are recorded.

Loss Recoveries

The Utility has liability insurance from various insurers, that provides coverage for third-party liability attributable to the 2015 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, 2018, the Utility recorded $922 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with losses related to the 2015 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, the Utility has received $60 million in cumulative reimbursements from the insurance policies of its vegetation management contractors (excluded from the table below), including $7 million received in the year ended December 31, 2018. 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
Accrued insurance recoveries	—
Reimbursements	(511		)
Balance at December 31, 2018	$	85

In January and February 2019, the Utility received an additional $25 million in insurance reimbursements.

OTHER CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS

PG&E Corporation and the Utility have significant contingencies arising from their operations, including contingencies related to enforcement and litigation matters and environmental remediation. A provision for a loss contingency is recorded when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. PG&E Corporation and the Utility evaluate the range of reasonably estimated losses and record a provision based on the lower end of the range, unless an amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and estimates are adjusted to reflect the impact of all known information, such as negotiations, discovery, settlements and payments, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s policy is to exclude anticipated legal costs from the provision for loss and expense these costs as incurred. The Utility also has substantial financial commitments in connection with agreements entered into to support its operating activities. See “Purchase Commitments” below. PG&E Corporation has financial commitments described in “Other Commitments” below. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows may be materially affected by the outcome of the following matters.

Enforcement Matters

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. Such proceedings are not subject to the automatic stay imposed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases; however, collection efforts in connection with fines or penalties arising out of such proceedings are stayed.

CPUC and FERC Matters

Order Instituting an Investigation and Order to Show Cause into the Utility's Locate and Mark practices

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

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

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

On January 14, 2019, the Utility submitted responses to preliminary questions raised in the OII and separately filed an affidavit regarding the safety of the locate and mark program. On March 14, 2019, as directed by the CPUC, the Utility expects to submit a report that addresses the SED report and respond to the order to show cause. A schedule for future proceedings is expected to be established at an April 5, 2019 pre-hearing conference.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is probable that the CPUC will impose penalties, including fines or other remedies, on the Utility. The Utility is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of future charges that could be incurred given the CPUC's wide discretion and the number of factors that can be considered in determining penalties. The Utility is unable to predict the timing and outcome of this proceeding.

Such proceedings are likely not subject to the automatic stay imposed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases; however, collection efforts in connection with fines or penalties arising out of such proceedings are stayed.

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 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 April 26, 2018, the CPUC approved the revised proposed decision issued on April 3, 2018, adopting the settlement agreement jointly submitted to the CPUC on March 28, 2017, as modified (the "settlement agreement") by the Utility, the Cities of San Bruno and San Carlos, Cal PA, the SED, and TURN.

The decision results in a total penalty of $97.5 million comprised of: (1) a $12 million payment to the California General Fund,

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

As a result of the CPUC's April 26, 2018 decision, on May 17, 2018, the Utility made a $12 million payment to the California General Fund and $6 million payments to each of the Cities of San Bruno and San Carlos. At December 31, 2018, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Consolidated Balance Sheets include a $32 million accrual for a portion of the 2018 GT&S revenue requirement reduction. In accordance with accounting rules, adjustments related to revenue requirements are recorded in the periods in which they are incurred.

The CPUC also ordered a second phase in this proceeding to determine if any of the additional communications that the Utility reported to the CPUC on September 21, 2017, violate the CPUC ex parte rules. On May 22, 2018, the assigned ALJ issued a ruling requiring the parties to meet and confer to determine if an agreement can be reached on the issues identified by the ALJ. On September 17, 2018, the parties submitted a joint status report indicating a settlement in principle could not be reached. The ALJ will hold a prehearing conference with the parties to determine if evidentiary hearings are required. The Utility is unable to predict the timing and outcome of the second phase in this proceeding.

Transmission Owner Rate Case Revenue Subject to Refund

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

On October 1, 2018, the ALJ issued an initial decision in the TO18 rate case and the Utility filed initial briefs on October 31, 2018, in response to the ALJ's recommendations. The Utility expects the FERC to issue a decision in the TO18 rate case by mid-2019, however, that decision will likely be the subject of requests for rehearing and appeal. The Utility is unable to predict the timing of when a final decision will be issued. On September 21, 2018, the Utility filed an all-party settlement with FERC in connection with TO19. As part of the settlement, the TO19 revenue requirement will be set at 98.85% of the revenue requirement for TO18 that will be determined in the TO18 final decision. The Utility is unable to predict the timing or outcome of FERC’s decisions in these proceedings.

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.

Other Matters

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 in Note 13 and above under “Enforcement and Litigation Matters”) totaled $98 million at December 31, 2018 and $86 million at December 31, 2017. These amounts are included in Other current liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not believe it is reasonably possible that the resolution of these matters will have a material effect on their financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows.

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 in the prior GT&S rate case. The decision permanently disallowed $120 million of that amount and ordered that the remaining $576 million be subject to an audit overseen by the CPUC staff, with the possibility that the Utility may seek recovery in a future proceeding. 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 $44 million for the Utility’s estimate of 2015 through 2018 capital expenditures that are probable of exceeding authorized amounts. The Utility would be required to take a charge in the future if the CPUC's audit of 2011 through 2014 capital spending resulted in additional permanent disallowance. The audit is still in process.

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 comprised of the following:



	Balance at
(in millions)	December 31, 2018		December 31, 2017
Topock natural gas compressor station	$	369	$	334
Hinkley natural gas compressor station	146		147
Former manufactured gas plant sites owned by the Utility or third parties ⁽¹⁾	520		320
Utility-owned generation facilities (other than fossil fuel-fired), other facilities, and third-party disposal sites ⁽²⁾	111		115
Fossil fuel-fired generation facilities and sites ⁽³⁾	137		123
Total environmental remediation liability	$	1,283	$	1,039

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

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

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

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

The Utility’s environmental remediation liability at December 31, 2018, reflects its best estimate of probable future costs for remediation based on the current assessment data and regulatory obligations. Future costs will depend on many factors, including the extent of work necessary to implement final remediation plans and the Utility's time frame for remediation. The Utility may incur actual costs in the future that are materially different than this estimate and such costs could have a material effect on results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, and cash flows during the period in which they are recorded. At December 31, 2018, the Utility expected to recover $930 million of its environmental remediation liability for certain sites 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 California DTSC and the U.S. Department of the Interior. On April 24, 2018, the DTSC authorized the Utility to build an in-situ groundwater treatment system to convert hexavalent chromium into a non-toxic and non-soluble form of chromium. Construction activities began in October 2018 and will continue for several years. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the Topock site may increase by as much as $303 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the Topock site are expected to be recovered primarily through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered in rates.

Hinkley Site

The Utility has been implementing remediation measures at the Hinkley site to reduce the mass of the chromium plume in groundwater and to monitor and control movement of the plume. The Utility’s remediation and abatement efforts at the Hinkley site are subject to the regulatory authority of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. In November 2015, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region adopted a clean-up and abatement order directing the Utility to contain and remediate the underground plume of hexavalent chromium and the potential environmental impacts. The final order states that the Utility must continue and improve its remediation efforts, define the boundaries of the chromium plume, and take other action. Additionally, the final order sets plume capture requirements, requires a monitoring and reporting program, and includes deadlines for the Utility to meet interim cleanup targets. The United States Geological Survey team is currently conducting a background study on the site to better define the chromium plume boundaries. 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 $141 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the Hinkley site will not be recovered through rates.

Former Manufactured Gas Plants

Former MGPs used coal and oil to produce gas for use by the Utility’s customers before natural gas became available. The by-products and residues of this process were often disposed of at the MGPs themselves. The Utility has 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 $518 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 often involve long-term remediation. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites may increase by as much as $135 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The environmental remediation costs associated with the Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites are recovered through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered in rates.

Fossil Fuel-Fired Generation Sites

In 1998, the Utility divested its generation power plant business as part of generation deregulation. Although the Utility sold its fossil-fueled power plants, the Utility retained the environmental remediation liability associated with each site. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with fossil fuel-fired generation sites may increase by as much as $105 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.

Insurance

Wildfire Insurance

In 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility renewed their liability insurance coverage for wildfire events in an aggregate amount of approximately $1.4 billion for the period from August 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019, comprised of $700 million for general liability (subject to an initial self-insured retention of $10 million per occurrence), and $700 million for property damages only, which property damage coverage includes an aggregate amount of approximately $200 million through the reinsurance market where a catastrophe bond was utilized. Various coverage limitations applicable to different insurance layers could result in substantial uninsured costs in the future depending on the amount and type of damages.

PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s cost of obtaining wildfire insurance coverage has increased to $360 million, compared to the adopted approximately $50 million that the Utility is currently recovering through rates through December 31, 2019. The Utility intends to seek recovery for the full amount of premium costs paid in excess of the amount the Utility currently is recovering from customers through the end of the current GRC period, which ends on December 31, 2019.

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 reimbursement from the federal government up to a shared limit of $3.2 billion for each insured loss for NEIL members. In contrast, for acts of terrorism not deemed "certified" by the Secretary of the Treasury, NEIL treats 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 a $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. 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 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, 2018, the current maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligation for the Utility would be approximately $47 million. 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, 2018.

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 $14.1 billion. The Utility purchased the maximum available public liability insurance of $450 million for Diablo Canyon. The balance of the $14.1 billion of liability protection is provided under a loss-sharing program among utilities owning nuclear reactors. The Utility may be assessed up to $275 million per nuclear incident under this program, with payments in each year limited to a maximum of $41 million per incident. Both the maximum assessment and the maximum yearly assessment are adjusted for inflation at least every five years.

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 for Humboldt Bay Unit 3, covering liabilities in excess of the $53 million in liability insurance.

Resolution of Remaining 2001 Chapter 11 Disputed Claims

Various electricity suppliers filed claims in the Utility’s 2001 prior 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 pursued settlements with electricity suppliers and 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, in some instances, would be 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, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively, the Consolidated Balance Sheets reflected $220 million and $243 million in net claims within Disputed claims and customer refunds related to the 2001 Chapter 11 proceeding. The Utility's obligations with respect to such claims (all of which arose prior to the initiation of the Utility's pending Chapter 11 Case on January 29, 2019), including pursuant to any prior settlements relating thereto, are expected to be determined through the proceedings of the Chapter 11 Cases.

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, 2018:



	Power Purchase Agreements
(in millions)	Renewable Energy		Conventional Energy		Other		Natural Gas		Nuclear Fuel		Total
2019	$	2,221	$	642	$	108	$	412	$	108	$	3,491
2020	2,183		639		83		153		151		3,209
2021	2,174		582		65		93		64		2,978
2022	1,984		511		61		93		54		2,703
2023	1,914		223		61		93		49		2,340
Thereafter	24,217		435		162		264		47		25,125
Total purchase commitments	$	34,693	$	3,032	$	540	$	1,108	$	473	$	39,846

Subject to certain exceptions, under the Bankruptcy Code, PG&E Corporation and the Utility may assume, assign or reject certain executory contracts and unexpired leases, subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court and satisfaction of certain other conditions. (For more information see "Chapter 11 Proceedings" in Note 15 below.)

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, 2018, renewable energy contracts expire at various dates between 2019 and 2043.

Conventional Energy Power Purchase Agreements. The Utility has entered into many 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, 2018, these power purchase agreements expire at various dates between 2019 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. Two of these agreements are treated as capital leases. At December 31, 2018 and 2017, net capital leases reflected in property, plant, and equipment on the Consolidated Balance Sheets were $11 million and $18 million including accumulated amortization of $8 million and $143 million, respectively. The present value of the future minimum lease payments due under these agreements included $2 million and $11 million in Current Liabilities and $9 million and $7 million in Noncurrent Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet, respectively. As of December 31, 2018, QF contracts in operation expire at various dates between 2019 and 2049. 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 $3.1 billion in 2018, $3.3 billion in 2017, and $3.5 billion in 2016.

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 2019 and 2026. In addition, the Utility has contracted for natural gas storage services in northern California 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 $0.6 billion in 2018, $0.9 billion in 2017, and $0.7 billion in 2016.

Nuclear Fuel Agreements

The Utility has entered into several purchase agreements for nuclear fuel. These agreements expire at various dates between 2019 and 2024 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 $73 million in 2018, $83 million in 2017, and $100 million in 2016.

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 2019 and 2052. At December 31, 2018, the future minimum payments related to these commitments were as follows:



(in millions)	Operating Leases
2019	$	44
2020	41
2021	36
2022	28
2023	19
Thereafter	121
Total minimum lease payments	$	289

Payments for other commitments related to operating leases amounted to $43 million in 2018, $45 million in 2017, and $43 million in 2016. 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.