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 (including those during mediations with claimants), discovery, settlements and payments, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. 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.

The process for estimating losses associated with potential claims related to wildfires requires management to exercise significant judgment based on a number of assumptions and subjective factors, including the factors identified above and estimates based on currently available information and prior experience with wildfires. As more information becomes available, including from potential claimants as litigation or resolution efforts progress, management estimates and assumptions regarding the potential financial impacts of wildfire events may change.

Potential liabilities related to wildfires depend on various factors, including the cause of the fire, contributing causes of the fire (including alternative potential origins, weather- and climate-related issues, and forest management and fire suppression practices), the number, size and type of structures damaged or destroyed, the contents of such structures and other personal property damage, the number and types of trees damaged or destroyed, attorneys’ fees for claimants, the nature and extent of any personal injuries, including the loss of lives, the amount of fire suppression and clean-up costs, other damages the Utility may be responsible for if found negligent, and the amount of any penalties, fines, or restitution that may be imposed by courts or other governmental entities.

Criminal charges have been filed against the Utility in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire and the 2020 Zogg fire. Under California law (including Penal Code section 1202.4), if the Utility were convicted of any of the charges, the sentencing court must order the Utility to “make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order” that is “sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of” the Utility’s underlying conduct, in addition to interest and the victim’s or victims’ attorneys’ fees. This requirement for full reimbursement of economic loss is not waivable by either the government or the victims and is not offset by any compensation that the victims have received or may receive from their insurance carriers. If convicted of any of the charges, the Utility could be subject to fines, penalties, and restitution to victims for their economic losses (including property damage, medical and mental health expenses, lost wages, lost profits, attorneys’ fees and interest), as well as non-monetary remedies such as oversight requirements. In the event that the Utility were convicted of certain charges in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire or 2020 Zogg fire, the Utility currently believes that, depending on which charges it were to be convicted of, its total losses associated with such fire would materially exceed the accrued estimated liabilities that PG&E Corporation and the Utility have recorded to reflect the lower end of the range of the reasonably estimable range of losses. The Utility is currently unable to determine a reasonable estimate of the amount of such additional losses. The Utility does not expect that any of its liability insurance would be available to cover restitution payments ordered by the courts presiding over the criminal proceedings.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of numerous civil complaints related to the following wildfire events and expect that they may receive further such complaints. The complaints include claims based on multiple theories of liability, including inverse condemnation, negligence, violations of the Public Utilities Code, violations of the Health & Safety Code, premises liability, trespass, public nuisance and private nuisance. The plaintiffs in each action principally assert that PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s alleged failure to properly maintain, inspect, and de-energize their transmission lines was the cause of the relevant wildfire. The timing and outcome for resolution of any such claims or investigations are uncertain. The Utility believes it will continue to receive additional information from potential claimants in connection with these wildfire events as litigation or resolution efforts progress. Any such additional information may potentially allow PG&E Corporation and the Utility to refine the estimates of their accrued losses and may result in changes to the accrual depending on the information received. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to vigorously defend themselves against both criminal charges and civil complaints.

If the Utility’s facilities, such as its electric distribution and transmission lines, are judicially determined to be the substantial cause of the following matters, and the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies, the Utility could be liable for property damage, business interruption, interest and attorneys’ fees without having been found negligent. California courts have imposed liability under the doctrine of inverse condemnation in legal actions brought by property holders against utilities on the grounds that losses borne by the person whose property was damaged through a public use undertaking should be spread across the community that benefited from such undertaking, and based on the assumption that utilities have the ability to recover these costs through rates. Further, California courts have determined that the doctrine of inverse condemnation is applicable regardless of whether the CPUC ultimately allows recovery by the utility for any such costs. The CPUC may decide not to authorize cost recovery even if a court decision were to determine that the Utility is liable as a result of the application of the doctrine of inverse condemnation. In addition to claims for property damage, business interruption, interest and attorneys’ fees under inverse condemnation, PG&E Corporation and the Utility could be liable for fire suppression costs, evacuation costs, medical expenses, personal injury damages, punitive damages and other damages under other theories of liability in connection with the following wildfire events, including if PG&E Corporation or the Utility were found to have been negligent.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility currently believe that it is reasonably possible that the amount of loss could be greater than the accrued estimated amounts but are unable to reasonably estimate the additional loss and the upper end of the range because, as described above, there are a number of unknown facts and legal considerations that may impact the amount of any potential liability, including the total scope and nature of claims that may be asserted against PG&E Corporation and the Utility and the outcome of the criminal proceedings initiated against the Utility. If the liability for wildfires were to exceed $1.0 billion in the aggregate in any Coverage Year, the Utility may be eligible to make a claim to the Wildfire Fund under AB 1054 to satisfy settled or finally adjudicated eligible claims in excess of such amount, except that claims related to the 2019 Kincade fire would be subject to the 40% limitation on the allowed amount of claims arising before emergence from bankruptcy. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to continue to review the available information and other information as it becomes available, including evidence in the possession of Cal Fire or the relevant district attorney’s office, evidence from or held by other parties, claims that have not yet been submitted, and additional information about the nature and extent of personal and business property damages and losses, the nature, number and severity of personal injuries, and information made available through the discovery process.

According to Cal Fire, on October 23, 2019 at approximately 9:27 p.m. Pacific Time, a wildfire began northeast of Geyserville in Sonoma County, California (the “2019 Kincade fire”), located in the service territory of the Utility. According to a Cal Fire incident update dated March 3, 2020, 3:35 p.m. Pacific Time, the 2019 Kincade fire consumed 77,758 acres and resulted in no fatalities, four first responder injuries, 374 structures destroyed, and 60 structures damaged. In connection with the 2019 Kincade fire, state and local officials issued numerous mandatory evacuation orders and evacuation warnings. Based on County of Sonoma information, PG&E Corporation and the Utility understand that the geographic zones subject to either a mandatory evacuation order or an evacuation warning between October 23, 2019 and November 4, 2019 included approximately 200,000 persons.

On April 6, 2021, the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office filed the Kincade Complaint charging the Utility with five felonies and 28 misdemeanors related to the 2019 Kincade fire. On April 6, 2021, PG&E Corporation announced that it disputed the charges in the Kincade Complaint. It further announced that it would accept Cal Fire’s finding that a Utility transmission line caused the 2019 Kincade fire. On May 11, 2021, the Utility filed a demurrer to 25 of the 33 counts contained in the Kincade Complaint. At a hearing on September 9, 2021, the Sonoma County Superior Court overruled the demurrer. The Utility pled not guilty to all charges on October 13, 2021. On January 28, 2022, the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office filed the Kincade Amended Complaint, which replaces two felonies with five different felonies and drops six misdemeanor counts. On January 28, 2022, the court deemed the Utility’s demurrer and the court’s prior ruling as applying to 22 of the 30 counts in the Kincade Amended Complaint, and the Utility thereafter pled not guilty to all charges in the Kincade Amended Complaint. A preliminary hearing on the charges began on February 8, 2022.

On December 2, 2021, the CPUC approved a settlement between the Safety Enforcement Division and the Utility (the “Kincade SED Settlement”). The Kincade SED Settlement resolves SED’s investigation into the 2019 Kincade fire and provides for the removal of approximately 70 transmission lines or portions of lines that are no longer in service and are de-energized but have not been removed as required by CPUC rules. The Kincade SED Settlement provides that (i) the Utility will pay $40 million to California’s General Fund; (ii) the Utility will remove permanently abandoned transmission lines over a ten-year period; and (iii) the Utility must incur $85 million of the costs of such work by December 31, 2024, and it may not seek recovery of this $85 million of costs. SED agreed to refrain from instituting enforcement proceedings against the Utility for not having removed the lines previously. The Kincade SED Settlement states that it does not constitute an admission by the Utility of violations of GOs or statutory requirements. In connection with the Kincade SED Settlement, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a liability of $40 million reflected in Other current liabilities on the Consolidated Financial Statements for the period ended December 31, 2021. For the $85 million of cost of removal that the Utility will not seek recovery, the Utility expects to record such disallowances in 2022. On January 10, 2022, TURN filed an application for rehearing of the Kincade SED Settlement. On January 25, 2022, the Utility filed an opposition to the application for rehearing.

As of February 3, 2022, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of approximately 100 complaints on behalf of at least 2,605 plaintiffs related to the 2019 Kincade fire. The plaintiffs filed master complaints on July 16, 2021; PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s response was filed on August 16, 2021; and PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a demurrer with respect to the plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claims. On December 10, 2021, the court overruled the demurrer. In addition, on January 5, 2022, Cal Fire filed a complaint in the coordinated proceeding seeking to recover approximately $90 million for fire suppression and other costs incurred in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire. Following a November 5, 2021 hearing, the San Francisco County Superior Court set a trial date of November 7, 2022.

Based on the current state of the law concerning inverse condemnation in California and the facts and circumstances available to PG&E Corporation and the Utility as of the date of this filing, including Cal Fire’s determination of the cause and the information gathered as part of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s investigation, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is probable that they will incur a loss in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a liability in the aggregate amount of $625 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 (before available insurance). Based on the facts and circumstances available to the Utility as of the filing of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2021, including the status of negotiations with certain subrogation entities, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded an additional charge in 2021 for potential losses in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire of $175 million, for an aggregate liability of $800 million (before available insurance).

According to Cal Fire, on September 27, 2020, at approximately 4:03 p.m. Pacific Time, a wildfire began in the area of Zogg Mine Road and Jenny Bird Lane, north of Igo in Shasta County, California (the “2020 Zogg fire”), located in the service territory of the Utility. According to a Cal Fire incident update dated October 16, 2020, 3:08 p.m. Pacific Time, the 2020 Zogg fire consumed 56,338 acres and resulted in four fatalities, one injury, 204 structures destroyed, and 27 structures damaged.

On September 24, 2021, the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office filed the Zogg Complaint charging the Utility with 11 felonies and 20 misdemeanors related to the 2020 Zogg fire, the 2020 Daniel fire, the 2020 Ponder fire, and the 2021 Woody fire. On September 24, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility announced that they disputed the charges in the Zogg Complaint. They further announced that they would accept Cal Fire’s finding that a Utility electric line caused the 2020 Zogg fire, even though PG&E Corporation and the Utility did not have access to all of the evidence that Cal Fire gathered. On November 18, 2021, the Utility filed a demurrer to 10 of the 31 counts contained in the Zogg Complaint. A hearing on the demurrer is set for April 4, 2022.

As of February 3, 2022, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of approximately 21 complaints on behalf of at least 382 plaintiffs related to the 2020 Zogg fire. The plaintiffs seek damages that include wrongful death, property damage, economic loss, punitive damages, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and other damages. The plaintiffs filed master complaints on August 6, 2021, and PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s answer was filed on September 7, 2021, and PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a demurrer with respect to the plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claims. On December 10, 2021, the court overruled the demurrer. At an October 4, 2021 hearing, the San Francisco County Superior Court set a trial date of February 6, 2023. In addition, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have been contacted by Cal Fire to accept service of a complaint filed against them for fire suppression costs incurred in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire.

Based on the current state of the law concerning inverse condemnation in California and the facts and circumstances available to PG&E Corporation and the Utility as of the date of this filing, including Cal Fire’s determination of the cause and the information gathered as part of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s investigation, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is probable that they will incur a loss in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a liability in the aggregate amount of $275 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 (before available insurance). Based on the facts and circumstances available to the Utility as of the filing of the Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2021, including the status of negotiations with certain agencies, subrogation entities, and individual plaintiffs, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded an additional charge in 2021 for potential losses in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire in the amount of $100 million, for an aggregate liability of $375 million (before available insurance). Following continued negotiations during the quarter ended December 31, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility entered agreements with all but one of the insurance subrogation plaintiffs in the 2020 Zogg fire litigation to resolve their claims arising from the 2020 Zogg fire.

The Utility has liability insurance for third-party liability attributable to the 2020 Zogg fire in an aggregate amount of $611 million. This amount is reduced from the $867.5 million of coverage disclosed in the 2020 Form 10-K due to the Utility’s commuting certain insurance policies in connection with its April 2021 wildfire liability insurance renewal. As of December 31, 2021, the Utility has recorded an insurance receivable for $337 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire, which equals the $375 million probable loss estimate less an initial self-insured retention of $60 million, plus $22 million in legal fees incurred. Recovery under the Utility’s insurance policies for the 2021 Dixie fire will reduce the amount of insurance proceeds available for the 2020 Zogg fire by the same amount.

According to Cal Fire, on July 13, 2021, at approximately 5:15 p.m. Pacific Time, a wildfire began in the Feather River Canyon near Cresta Dam (the “2021 Dixie fire”), located in the service territory of the Utility. According to a Cal Fire incident update, dated October 25, 2021, 7:46 a.m. Pacific Time, the 2021 Dixie fire consumed 963,309 acres and resulted in 1,329 structures destroyed (including 717 residential, 143 commercial, and 443 other structures), 95 structures damaged, and one fatality, which according to published reports was a fire fighter who passed away due to COVID-19 after returning home from the 2021 Dixie fire.

The Butte County, Plumas County, Shasta County, Lassen County and Tehama County District Attorneys’ Offices, as well as the SED and OEIS, are investigating the fire; various other entities, which may include other state and federal law enforcement agencies, may also be investigating the fire. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California issued a subpoena for documents as well. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are cooperating with the investigations. It is uncertain when any such investigations will be complete. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are also conducting their own investigation into the cause of the 2021 Dixie fire. This investigation is ongoing, and PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not have access to all of the evidence in the possession of Cal Fire or other third parties.

The Utility’s accrued estimated losses do not include, among other things: (i) any amounts for potential penalties, fines, or restitution that may be imposed by courts or other governmental entities on PG&E Corporation or the Utility, (ii) any punitive damages, (iii) any amounts in respect of compensation claims by federal or state agencies including for state or federal fire suppression costs and damages related to federal land, (iv) evacuation costs, or (v) any other amounts that are not reasonably estimable.

As noted above, the aggregate estimated liability for claims in connection with the 2021 Dixie fire does not include potential claims for fire suppression costs from federal, state, county, or local agencies or damage to land and vegetation in national parks or national forests. As to these damages, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have not concluded that a loss is probable due to the incomplete information available to PG&E Corporation and the Utility as of the date of this filing as to facts pertinent to potential claims and defenses. Moreover, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are currently unable to reasonably estimate the range of possible losses for any such claims due to, among other factors, incomplete information as to facts pertinent to potential claims and defenses, as well as facts that would bear on the amount, type, and valuation of vegetation loss, potential reforestation, habitat loss, and other resources damaged or destroyed by the 2021 Dixie fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe, however, that such losses could be significant with respect to fire suppression costs due to the size and duration of the 2021 Dixie fire and corresponding magnitude of fire suppression resources dedicated to fighting the 2021 Dixie fire and with respect to claims for damage to land and vegetation in national parks or national forests due to the very large number of acres of national park and national forests that were affected by the 2021 Dixie fire. According to the National Interagency Coordination Center Incident Management Situation Report dated October 29, 2021 at 7:30 a.m. Mountain Time, over $630 million of costs had been incurred in suppressing the 2021 Dixie fire. The Utility currently estimates that the fire burned approximately 70,000 acres of national parks and approximately 685,000 acres of national forests.

The Utility has liability insurance coverage for third-party liability attributable to periods in which both the 2020 Zogg fire and 2021 Dixie fire occurred in an aggregate amount of $900 million. Recovery under the Utility’s insurance policies for the 2020 Zogg fire will reduce the amount of insurance proceeds available for the 2021 Dixie fire by the same amount. An immaterial decrease was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2021. As of December 31, 2021, the Utility has recorded an insurance receivable of $563 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2021 Dixie fire, which equals the aggregate $900 million of available insurance coverage for third-party liability attributable to the 2021 Dixie fire, less the $337 million insurance receivable recorded in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire.

As of December 31, 2021, the Utility has recorded a Wildfire Fund receivable of $150 million for probable recoveries in connection with the 2021 Dixie fire. See “Wildfire Fund under AB 1054” below. The Utility has also recorded a $101 million reduction to its regulatory liability for wildfire-related claims costs that were determined to be probable of recovery through the FERC TO formula rate and a $347 million regulatory asset for costs that were determined to be probable of recovery through the WEMA. See “Regulatory Recovery” below. Decreases in the amount of the insurance receivable for the 2021 Dixie fire may also increase the amount that is probable of recovery through the FERC TO formula rate and the WEMA. An immaterial increase was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2021.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility have recovery mechanisms available for wildfire liabilities including from insurance, customers, and the Wildfire Fund. PG&E Corporation and the Utility record a receivable for a recovery when it is deemed probable that recovery of a recorded loss will occur, and the Utility can reasonably estimate the amount or its range. While the Utility plans to seek recovery of all insured losses, it is unable to predict the ultimate amount and timing of such insurance recoveries.

In April 2021, the Utility purchased approximately $268 million in wildfire liability insurance coverage for the period from April 13, 2021 to April 1, 2022, and approximately $32 million in incremental wildfire liability reinsurance for the period from April 1, 2021 to April 1, 2022 at a cost of approximately $220 million. This coverage is in addition to approximately $11 million in existing wildfire liability reinsurance for the period from July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021 and approximately $600 million in existing wildfire liability insurance purchased by the Utility in August 2020 for the period from August 1, 2020 to August 1, 2021. On August 1, 2021, the $600 million of existing wildfire liability coverage renewed on a 12-month term covering the period from August 1, 2021 to August 1, 2022 at a cost of approximately $516 million pursuant to multi-year policy terms. The Utility’s wildfire liability insurance is subject to an initial self-insured retention of $60 million.

In June 2021, the Utility purchased approximately $535 million in non-wildfire liability coverage for the period from June 1, 2021 to April 1, 2022 at a cost of approximately $89 million. This coverage is in addition to approximately $140 million in existing non-wildfire liability insurance for the period from August 1, 2020 to August 1, 2021. In connection with the June 2021 renewal, the Utility procured an extension of this existing coverage to April 1, 2022 at a premium cost of approximately $30 million. The Utility also has $50 million in additional non-wildfire liability coverage available through one of its wildfire liability policies with shared limits. The Utility’s non-wildfire liability insurance is subject to an initial self-insured retention of $10 million. As of December 31, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility had prepaid insurance of $358 million, reflected in Other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

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


Insurance Receivable (in millions)	2021 Dixie fire		2020 Zogg fire		2019 Kincade fire		2018 Camp fire		2017 Northern California wildfires		2015 Butte fire		Total
Balance at December 31, 2019	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	1,380	$	808	$	50	$	2,238
Accrued insurance recoveries	—		219		430		—		—		—		649
Reimbursements	—		—		—		(1,380)		(783)		(50)		(2,213)
Balance at December 31, 2020	—		219		430		—		25		—		674
Accrued insurance recoveries (1)	563		118		—		—		—		—		681
Reimbursements (2)	—		(67)		(16)		—		(25)		—		(108)
Balance at December 31, 2021	$	563	$	270	$	414	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	1,247

The Utility recognizes income and reduces its regulatory liability for potential refund through the FERC TO formula rate in future rates for a portion of the third-party wildfire-related claims in excess of insurance coverage. The allocation to transmission customers was based on a FERC-approved allocation factor as determined in the formula rate. Based on information currently available to the Utility regarding the 2021 Dixie fire, for the year ended December 31, 2021, the Utility recorded a $101 million reduction to its regulatory liability for wildfire-related claims costs that were determined to be probable of recovery through the FERC TO formula rate.

In June 2018, the CPUC approved the establishment of the WEMA, which provides for tracking of incremental wildfire claims and outside legal costs plus incremental insurance premium costs above what is being recovered through rates. For the year ended December 31, 2021, based on information currently available to the Utility, incremental wildfire claims-related costs for the 2021 Dixie fire were determined to be probable of recovery and the Utility recorded a $347 million regulatory asset in the WEMA.

On July 12, 2019, the California governor signed into law AB 1054, a bill which provides for the establishment of a statewide fund that will be available for eligible electric utility companies to pay eligible claims for liabilities arising from wildfires occurring after July 12, 2019 that are caused by the applicable electric utility company’s equipment, subject to the terms and conditions of AB 1054. Each of California’s large electric IOUs has elected to participate in the Wildfire Fund. Eligible claims are claims for third-party damages resulting from any such wildfires, limited to the portion of such claims that exceeds the greater of (i) $1.0 billion in the aggregate in any Coverage Year and (ii) the amount of insurance coverage required to be in place for the electric utility company pursuant to Section 3293 of the Public Utilities Code, added by AB 1054. The accrued Wildfire Fund receivable as of December 31, 2021 reflects an expectation that the Coverage Year will be based on the calendar year with coverage limited to the 2021 Dixie Fire. For 2022, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have elected a Coverage Year that commences on January 1, 2022 at 12:01 a.m. Pacific Time and ends on December 31, 2022 at 12:00 a.m. Pacific Time.

Electric utility companies that draw from the Wildfire Fund will only be required to reimburse amounts that are determined by the CPUC in a proceeding for cost recovery applying the prudency standard in AB 1054, not to be just and reasonable, subject to a disallowance cap equal to 20% of the IOU’s transmission and distribution equity rate base. For the Utility, the disallowance cap would be approximately $2.9 billion based on its 2021 equity rate base, and is subject to adjustment based on changes in the Utility’s total transmission and distribution equity rate base and would apply for a three calendar year period. The disallowance cap is inapplicable in certain circumstances, including if the Wildfire Fund administrator determines that the electric utility company’s actions or inactions that resulted in the applicable wildfire constituted “conscious or willful disregard for the rights and safety of others,” or the electric utility company fails to maintain a valid safety certification. Costs that the CPUC determines to be just and reasonable in accordance with the prudency standard in AB 1054 will not be reimbursed to the Wildfire Fund, resulting in a draw-down of the Wildfire Fund. The Utility expects that the same prudency standard would also be applied in any CPUC review of an application filed by the Utility seeking recovery of costs recorded to the WEMA.

Before the expiration of any current safety certification, the Utility must request a new safety certification from the OEIS, which the Utility expects to be issued within 90 days if the Utility has provided documentation that it has satisfied the requirements for the safety certification pursuant to Section 8389(e) of the Public Utilities Code, added by AB 1054. An issued safety certification is valid for 12 months or until a timely request for a new safety certification is acted upon, whichever occurs later. On January 14, 2021, the OEIS (then the Wildfire Safety Division of the CPUC) approved the Utility’s 2020 application and issued the Utility’s 2020 safety certification pursuant to the requirements of AB 1054. The safety certification is separate from the CPUC’s enforcement authority and does not preclude the CPUC from pursuing remedies for safety or other applicable violations. On January 31, 2022, the OEIS approved the Utility’s 2021 application and issued the Utility’s 2021 safety certification.

The Wildfire Fund and disallowance cap will be terminated when the amounts therein are exhausted. The Wildfire Fund is expected to be capitalized with (i) $10.5 billion of proceeds of bonds supported by a 15-year extension of the Department of Water Resources charge to customers, (ii) $7.5 billion in initial contributions from California’s three large electric IOUs and (iii) $300 million in annual contributions paid by California’s three large electric IOUs for a 10-year period. For more information see “Initial and Annual Contributions to the Wildfire Fund Established Pursuant to AB 1054” in Note 3 above.

The Wildfire Fund will only be available for payment of eligible claims so long as there are sufficient funds remaining in the Wildfire Fund. Such funds could be depleted more quickly than expected, including as a result of claims made by California’s other participating electric utility companies. The Wildfire Fund is available to pay for the Utility’s eligible claims arising as of July 12, 2019, the effective date of AB 1054, subject to a limit of 40% of the allowed amount of such claims arising between the effective date of AB 1054 and the Utility’s emergence from Chapter 11. The 40% limit does not apply to eligible claims that arise after the Utility’s emergence from Chapter 11.

Two purported derivative lawsuits alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment were filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court on November 16, 2017 and November 20, 2017, respectively, naming as defendants certain then-current and former members of the boards of directors and certain then-current and former officers of PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are named as nominal defendants. These lawsuits were consolidated by the court on February 14, 2018 and denominated In Re California North Bay Fire Derivative Litigation (now re-captioned Trotter v. Williams et al.). On April 13, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. After the parties reached an agreement regarding a stay of the derivative proceeding pending resolution of the tort actions related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires and any regulatory proceeding relating to the 2017 Northern California wildfires, on April 24, 2018, the court entered a stipulation and order to stay. The stay was subject to certain conditions regarding the plaintiffs’ access to discovery in other actions. On January 28, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a request to lift the stay for the purposes of amending their complaint to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire. Prior to resolution of the plaintiffs’ request to lift the stay, this matter was automatically stayed by PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s rights with respect to PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s claims directly or indirectly related to any of the Fires (as defined in the Plan) against former officers and directors of PG&E Corporation and the Utility were assigned to the Fire Victim Trust under the Plan. Any such recovery is limited to the extent of any director and officer insurance policy proceeds paid by any insurance carrier to reimburse PG&E Corporation or the Utility for amounts paid pursuant to their indemnification obligations in connection with such causes of action. The assignment became effective as of the Emergence Date. On November 12, 2020, the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust filed a motion to intervene to substitute as the plaintiff in the matter, to which the parties later stipulated. On March 8, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to substitute the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust as the plaintiff.

On December 24, 2018, a separate derivative lawsuit, entitled Bowlinger v. Chew, et al. (now captioned Trotter v. Chew, et al.), was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment in connection with the 2018 Camp fire against certain then-current and former officers and directors, and naming PG&E Corporation and the Utility as nominal defendants. On February 5, 2019, the plaintiff filed a response to the notice asserting that the automatic stay did not apply to his claims. PG&E Corporation and the Utility accordingly filed a Motion to Enforce the Automatic Stay with the Bankruptcy Court as to the Bowlinger action, which was granted. On November 5, 2020, the court entered a stipulation and order to substitute the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust as the plaintiff.

On February 24, 2021, the trustee filed an amended complaint in the Trotter v. Chew action, asserting two claims for breach of fiduciary duty against certain of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s former directors and officers. Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility is a party to the action. On March 30, 2021, the Trotter v. Chew and Trotter v. Williams actions were consolidated. On April 26, 2021, the defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On November 8, 2021, the Court entered an order sustaining in part and overruling in part the demurrers. On November 18, 2021, the trustee filed a second amended complaint. On December 21, 2021, the defendants filed demurrers to the second amended complaint. Trial is set for June 27, 2022.

On January 25, 2019, a separate purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Hagberg v. Chew, et al., was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment in connection with the 2018 Camp fire against certain then-current and former officers and directors, and naming PG&E Corporation and the Utility as nominal defendants. A stipulation and proposed order to voluntarily dismiss this action was filed on April 20, 2021 and a case management conference on the dismissal order is set for March 9, 2022.

In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”), naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its then-current and former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et al., respectively. The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions related to, among other things, vegetation management and transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public disclosures. The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29, 2015 to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases, and the litigation is now denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 18-03509. The court also appointed PERA as lead plaintiff. PERA filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018. On December 14, 2018, PERA filed a second amended consolidated complaint to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire.

On February 22, 2019, a third purported securities class action was filed in the District Court, entitled York County on behalf of the York County Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the “York County Action”). The complaint names as defendants certain then-current and former officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018. Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility is named as a defendant. The complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the note offerings related to, among other things, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s vegetation management and wildfire safety measures. The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and seeks unspecified monetary relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs, and injunctive relief. On May 7, 2019, the York County Action was consolidated with In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation.

On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint, which includes the claims asserted in the previously filed actions and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, the Utility, certain current and former officers and former directors, and the underwriters. On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court denied PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s request to extend the stay to the claims against the officer, director, and underwriter defendants. On October 4, 2019, the officer, director, and underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint, which motions are under submission with the District Court. The securities actions have been enjoined as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility pursuant to the Plan with any such claims submitted through a proof of claim to be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court as part of the claims reconciliation process in the Chapter 11 Cases. On April 29, 2021, the District Court issued a notice of intent to stay this action pending completion of the claims procedures in the bankruptcy proceedings. PERA filed objections to the notice of intent to stay on May 28, 2021. PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a response to PERA’s objections on June 10, 2021, the officer, director, and underwriter defendants filed a response to PERA’s objections on June 11, 2021, and PERA filed a sur-response on June 21, 2021. The District Court has not taken further action with respect to its notice of intent to stay.

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

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

The named plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed proofs of claim with the Bankruptcy Court on or before the bar date that reflect their securities litigation claims against PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PERA has filed two motions seeking approval from the Bankruptcy Court to treat its proof of claim as a class claim. On February 27, 2020 and January 26, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court issued orders denying the motions. PERA filed an appeal of the February 27, 2020 order and on March 8, 2021, the District Court issued an order dismissing the appeal.

On July 2, 2020, PERA filed a notice of appeal of the Confirmation Order to the District Court, solely to the extent of seeking review of that part of the Confirmation Order approving the Insurance Deduction (as defined in the Plan) with respect to the formula for the determination of the HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims Share. On August 10, 2021, the District Court issued an order affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling with respect to the Insurance Deduction. On September 9, 2021, PERA filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and on December 15, 2021, PERA filed its opening brief. PERA’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit remains pending.

On September 1, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a motion (the “Securities Claims Procedures Motion”) with the Bankruptcy Court to approve procedures to help facilitate the resolution of the Subordinated Claims. The motion, among other things, requested approval of procedures which would allow PG&E Corporation and the Utility to collect trading information with respect to the Subordinated Claims, to engage in an alternative dispute resolution process for resolving disputed Subordinated Claims, and to file certain omnibus claim objections with respect to the Subordinated Claims. PERA and a number of other parties filed objections to the Securities Claims Procedures Motion. On January 25, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Securities Claims Procedures Motion.

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

Based on discussions with certain holders of the HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims, PG&E Corporation believes it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with the HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims. As of the date of this filing, PG&E Corporation determined that the amount or range of such loss is not reasonably estimable because either a negotiated resolution would be contingent upon available insurance coverage, the scope of which has not yet been agreed, or any negotiated resolutions would be limited to a subset of immaterial claims. PG&E Corporation is further unable to estimate the amount or range of loss because the nature and value of HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims varies significantly among potential claimholders, and as of the date of this filing, PG&E Corporation has only engaged in substantive discussions with a limited subset of claimholders.

On October 25, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Vataj v. Johnson et al. The complaint named as defendants a then-current director and certain then-current and former officers of PG&E Corporation. Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged materially false and misleading statements regarding PG&E Corporation’s wildfire prevention and safety protocols and policies, including regarding the Utility’s PSPS events, that allegedly resulted in losses and damages to holders of PG&E Corporation’s securities. The complaint asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs.

On February 16, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement. On November 2, 2021, the District Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, which is now effective. Pursuant to the settlement stipulation: (1) PG&E Corporation paid $10 million, and (2) plaintiffs and the Settlement Class (as defined in the stipulation of settlement) released the Released Persons (as defined in the stipulation of settlement, including PG&E Corporation and the Utility, and each of their officers, directors, as well as the current and former officers named in both the original and amended complaints) from all claims that have been or could have been asserted by or on behalf of PG&E Corporation shareholders that relate to (a) allegations that were asserted or could have been asserted in either of the complaints in Vataj, and (b) investments in PG&E Corporation’s stock during the relevant period specified in the stipulation of settlement.

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

On March 17, 2021, the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust filed a lawsuit entitled Trotter v. PG&E Corporation, et al., in San Francisco Superior Court, seeking, among other things, a declaration that the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust be permitted to participate in the arbitration with the carriers. The trustee named PG&E Corporation, the Utility, and the insurance carriers as defendants. On March 25, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility removed the action to the Bankruptcy Court. On March 29, 2021, the Fire Victim Trust filed a motion to remand the lawsuit back to state court, which the Bankruptcy Court denied on April 20, 2021. On April 30, 2021, the Fire Victim Trust moved for summary judgment. Oppositions and cross-motions to the summary judgment motion were filed by PG&E Corporation, the Utility and the insurance carriers on May 21, 2021. On June 22, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order denying the Fire Victim Trust’s motion for summary judgment and granting the defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. On June 29, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered judgment in favor of all defendants and against the Fire Victim Trust.

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

On December 6, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility entered into the TCC RSA. The TCC RSA (as incorporated into the Plan) provides for, among other things, a combination of cash and common stock of the reorganized PG&E Corporation to be provided by PG&E Corporation and the Utility pursuant to the Plan (together with certain additional rights, the “Aggregate Fire Victim Consideration”) in order to settle and discharge the Fire Victim Claims, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the TCC RSA and the Plan. The Aggregate Fire Victim Consideration that has funded and will fund the Fire Victim Trust pursuant to the Plan for the benefit of holders of the Fire Victim Claims consists of (a) $5.40 billion in cash that was contributed on the Emergence Date, (b) $1.35 billion in cash consisting of (i) $758 million that was paid in cash on January 15, 2021 and (ii) the remaining balance of $592 million that was paid in cash on January 18, 2022, in each case pursuant to the terms of the tax benefits payment agreement between the Fire Victim Trust and the Utility, and (c) an amount of common stock representing 22.19% of the outstanding shares of PG&E Corporation on the Emergence Date, subject to potential adjustments.

On June 27, 2019, the CPUC issued the Wildfires OII to determine whether the Utility “violated any provision(s) of the California Public Utilities Code, Commission General Orders or decisions, or other applicable rules or requirements pertaining to the maintenance and operation of its electric facilities that were involved in igniting fires in its service territory in 2017.” On December 5, 2019, the assigned commissioner issued a second amended scoping memo and ruling that amended the scope of issues to be considered in this proceeding to include the 2018 Camp fire.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Utility agreed to (i) not seek rate recovery of wildfire-related expenses and capital expenditures in future applications in the amount of $1.625 billion, as specified below, and (ii) incur costs of $50 million in shareholder-funded system enhancement initiatives as described further in the settlement agreement. The amounts set forth in the table below include actual recorded costs and forecasted cost estimates as of the date of the settlement agreement for expenses and capital expenditures which the Utility has incurred or planned to incur to comply with its legal obligations to provide safe and reliable service. While actual costs incurred for certain cost categories are different than what was assumed in the settlement agreement, the Utility recorded $1.625 billion of the disallowed costs for the year ended December 31, 2020.


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

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

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

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

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

On March 30, 2018, the Utility submitted to the CPUC its 2018 CEMA application requesting cost recovery of $183 million in connection with seven catastrophic events that included fire and storm declared emergencies from mid-2016 through early 2017, as well as $405 million related to work performed in 2016 and 2017 to cut back or remove dead or dying trees that were exposed to years of drought conditions and bark beetle infestation. The Utility filed three revisions to this application, resulting in a total cost recovery request of $763 million.

On November 2, 2021, the Utility filed a settlement agreement with the active parties in the matter. The settlement agreement, if approved by the CPUC, would authorize the Utility to collect a total of $683 million plus interest for the 2018 CEMA application. As noted above, $373 million of the total amount has already been collected in interim rates. The interim rates would become final and no longer subject to refund. The remainder of the authorized revenue requirement that has yet to be collected would be amortized over a 12-month period.

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

The costs addressed in the 2020 WMCE application cover activities mainly during the years 2017 to 2019 and are incremental to those previously authorized in the Utility’s 2017 GRC and other proceedings. The majority of costs addressed in this application reflect work necessary to mitigate wildfire risk and to respond to catastrophic events occurring during the years 2017 to 2019. The Utility’s requested revenue includes amounts for the FHPMA of $293 million, the FRMMA and the WMPMA of $740 million, and the CEMA of $251 million.

In its final decision in the Utility’s 2015 GT&S rate case, the CPUC excluded from rate base $696 million of capital spending in 2011 through 2014. This was the amount forecast to be recorded in excess of the amount adopted in the 2011 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 audit report was released June 2, 2020 and did not recommend any additional disallowances. The 2015 GT&S decision authorized the Utility to seek recovery, through a separate application, of those costs not recommended for disallowance by the audit.

On July 31, 2020, the Utility filed an application seeking recovery of $416.3 million in 2015 to 2022 revenue associated with $512 million of recorded capital expenditures. On July 7, 2021, the Utility filed a joint motion to adopt a settlement agreement reached with the active parties in the proceeding. If approved by the CPUC, the settlement agreement would resolve all issues in this proceeding and would authorize a $356.3 million revenue requirement for the period of 2015 through 2022. Of this amount, $313.3 million of revenues for the period 2015 through 2021 would be amortized in rates over 60 months and $43 million associated with 2022 would be amortized in rates over 12 months through an annual gas true-up filing for rates effective January 1, 2022. Going forward, the as-yet undepreciated capital plant associated with this application would be included in test year 2023 rate base in the Utility’s consolidated 2023 GRC. No party submitted comments on the settlement.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are subject to various claims and lawsuits that separately are not considered material. Accruals for contingencies related to such matters (excluding amounts related to the contingencies discussed above under “Enforcement and Litigation Matters”) totaled $77 million and $144 million as of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively. These amounts were included in Other current liabilities on the Consolidated Financial Statements. PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not believe it is reasonably possible that the resolution of these matters will have a material impact on their financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

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

The plaintiff appealed the decision dismissing the complaint to the District Court. On March 26, 2021, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of this action, and the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellant filed its opening brief on June 25, 2021. A former executive director of the CPUC filed an amicus brief on July 2, 2021, asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the decision of the District Court and to remand the case for further proceedings. The answering brief of PG&E Corporation and the Utility was filed August 25, 2021. On September 1, 2021, the CPUC filed an amicus brief asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the District Court’s dismissal. The appellant’s reply brief was filed on October 15, 2021. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the plaintiff’s appeal on January 12, 2022.

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

Based on the information currently available, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is probable that a liability has been incurred. Accordingly, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a charge during the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2021 for an amount that is not material. PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not believe that the resolution of these matters will have a material impact on their financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Violations can result in penalties, remediation and other relief.

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, 2021		December 31, 2020
Topock natural gas compressor station	$	299	$	303
Hinkley natural gas compressor station	123		132
Former MGP sites owned by the Utility or third parties (1)	667		659
Utility-owned generation facilities (other than fossil fuel-fired), other facilities, and third-party disposal sites (2)	104		111
Fossil fuel-fired generation facilities and sites (3)	70		96
Total environmental remediation liability	$	1,263	$	1,301

The Utility’s gas compressor stations, former MGP sites, power plant sites, gas gathering sites, and sites used by the Utility for the storage, recycling, and disposal of potentially hazardous substances are subject to requirements issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in addition to other state 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 as of December 31, 2021, reflects its best estimate of probable future costs for remediation based on the current assessment data and regulatory obligations. Future costs will depend on many factors, including the extent of work necessary to implement final remediation plans, the Utility’s time frame for remediation, and unanticipated claims filed against the Utility. The Utility may incur actual costs in the future that are materially different than this estimate and such costs could have a material impact on results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows during the period in which they are recorded. As of December 31, 2021, the Utility expected to recover $982 million of its environmental remediation liability for certain sites through various ratemaking mechanisms authorized by the CPUC.

The Utility’s remediation and abatement efforts at the Topock site are subject to the regulatory authority of the California DTSC and the U.S. Department of the Interior. On April 24, 2018, the DTSC authorized the Utility to build an in-situ groundwater treatment system to convert hexavalent chromium into a non-toxic and non-soluble form of chromium. Construction activities began in October 2018 and will continue for several years. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the Topock site may increase by as much as $220 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the Topock site are expected to be recovered primarily through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered through rates.

The Utility has been implementing remediation measures at the Hinkley site to reduce the mass of the chromium plume in groundwater and to monitor and control movement of the plume. The Utility’s remediation and abatement efforts at the Hinkley site are subject to the regulatory authority of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. In November 2015, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region adopted a clean-up and abatement order directing the Utility to contain and remediate the underground plume of hexavalent chromium and the potential environmental impacts. The final order states that the Utility must continue and improve its remediation efforts, define the boundaries of the chromium plume, and take other action. Additionally, the final order sets plume capture requirements, requires a monitoring and reporting program, and includes deadlines for the Utility to meet interim cleanup targets. The United States Geological Survey team is currently conducting a background study on the site to better define the chromium plume boundaries. A draft background report was received in January 2020 and is expected to be finalized in 2022. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the Hinkley site may increase by as much as $138 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the Hinkley site will not be recovered through rates.

Former MGPs used coal and oil to produce gas for use by the Utility’s customers before natural gas became available. The by-products and residues of this process were often disposed of at the MGPs themselves. The Utility has a program to manage the residues left behind as a result of the manufacturing process; many of the sites in the program have been addressed. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with MGP sites may increase by as much as $477 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation at currently identified MGP sites is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the MGP sites are recovered through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered through rates.

Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites often involve long-term remediation. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites may increase by as much as $50 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 through rates.

In 1998, the Utility divested its generation power plant business as part of generation deregulation. Although the Utility sold its fossil-fueled power plants, the Utility retained the environmental remediation liability associated with each site. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with fossil fuel-fired generation sites may increase by as much as $43 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.

NEIL provides insurance coverage for property damages and business interruption losses incurred by the Utility if a nuclear or non-nuclear event were to occur at the Utility’s two nuclear generating units at Diablo Canyon. NEIL provides property damage and business interruption coverage of up to $3.2 billion per nuclear incident and $2.7 billion per non-nuclear incident for Diablo Canyon. For Humboldt Bay Unit 3, NEIL provides up to $50 million of coverage for nuclear and non-nuclear property damages.

In addition to the nuclear insurance the Utility maintains through NEIL, the Utility also is a member of EMANI. EMANI shares losses with NEIL as part of the first $400 million in coverage for nuclear or non-nuclear property damages. Additional coverage is procured through 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. The excess insurance coverage through EMANI provides an additional $200 million for any one accident and in the annual aggregate excess of the combined amount recoverable under the Utility’s NEIL policies.

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 approximately $13.6 billion. The Utility purchases the maximum available public liability insurance of $450 million for Diablo Canyon. The balance of the $13.6 billion of liability protection is provided under a loss-sharing program among nuclear reactor owners. The Utility may be assessed up to $275 million per nuclear incident under this loss sharing 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 approximately $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.

Diablo Canyon Unit 2 experienced five outages between July 2020 and April 2021, each due or related to malfunctions within the main generator associated with excessive vibrations. Additional inspections and replacement of a redesigned component of the generator occurred during Unit 2’s planned spring 2021 refueling outage. The affected component is part of the secondary system and does not involve a risk of release of radioactive material into the environment. During July 2020 through April 2021, the Utility implemented effective corrective actions. The Utility continues to monitor the affected component.

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, 2021:


	Power Purchase Agreements
(in millions)	Renewable Energy		Conventional Energy		Other		Natural Gas		Nuclear Fuel		Total
2022	$	2,062	$	530	$	61	$	823	$	42	$	3,518
2023	2,043		425		61		191		41		2,761
2024	2,020		282		61		157		27		2,547
2025	2,009		216		61		157		—		2,443
2026	1,948		204		21		140		—		2,313
Thereafter	19,310		539		19		52		—		19,920
Total purchase commitments	$	29,392	$	2,196	$	284	$	1,520	$	110	$	33,502

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, 2021, renewable energy contracts expire at various dates between 2022 and 2041.

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 2022 and 2041. In addition, the Utility has contracted for natural gas storage services in Northern California to more reliably meet customers’ loads.

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