NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)
NOTE 1: ORGANIZATION AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION
Organization and Basis of Presentation
PG&E Corporation is a holding company whose primary operating subsidiary is Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a public utility serving northern and central California. The Utility generates revenues mainly through the sale and delivery of electricity and natural gas to customers. The Utility is primarily regulated by the CPUC and the FERC. In addition, the NRC oversees the licensing, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Utility’s nuclear generation facilities.
This quarterly report on Form 10-Q is a combined report of PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of PG&E Corporation, the Utility, and other wholly owned and controlled subsidiaries. The Utility’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of the Utility and its wholly owned and controlled subsidiaries. All intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. The Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements apply to both PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation and the Utility assess financial performance and allocate resources on a consolidated basis (i.e., the companies operate in one segment).
The accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in conformity with GAAP and in accordance with the interim period reporting requirements of Form 10-Q and reflect all adjustments that management believes are necessary for the fair presentation of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows for the periods presented. The information at December 31, 2020 in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets included in this quarterly report was derived from the audited Consolidated Balance Sheets in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K. This quarterly report should be read in conjunction with the 2020 Form 10-K.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. Some of the more significant estimates and assumptions relate to the Utility’s regulatory assets and liabilities, wildfire-related liabilities, legal and regulatory contingencies, the Wildfire Fund, environmental remediation liabilities, AROs, insurance receivables, and pension and other post-retirement benefit plan obligations. Management believes that its estimates and assumptions reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements are appropriate and reasonable. A change in management’s estimates or assumptions could result in an adjustment that would have a material impact on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows during the period in which such change occurred.
NOTE 2: BANKRUPTCY FILING
Chapter 11 Proceedings
On the Petition Date, PG&E Corporation and the Utility commenced the Chapter 11 Cases with the Bankruptcy Court. Prior to the Effective Date, PG&E Corporation and the Utility continued to operate their business as debtors-in-possession under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court.
On June 20, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered the Confirmation Order confirming the Plan filed on June 19, 2020. PG&E Corporation and the Utility emerged from Chapter 11 on the Effective Date of July 1, 2020.
Except as otherwise set forth in the Plan, the Confirmation Order or another order of the Bankruptcy Court, substantially all pre-petition liabilities were discharged under the Plan.
Unresolved Chapter 11 Claims
PG&E Corporation and the Utility have received over 100,000 proofs of claim since the Petition Date, of which approximately 80,000 were channeled to the Subrogation Wildfire Trust and Fire Victim Trust. The claims channeled to the Subrogation Wildfire Trust and Fire Victim Trust will be resolved by such trusts, and PG&E Corporation and the Utility have no further liability in connection with such claims. PG&E Corporation and the Utility continue their review and analysis of certain remaining claims including asserted litigation claims, trade creditor claims, non-qualified benefit plan claims, along with other tax and regulatory claims, and therefore the ultimate liability of PG&E Corporation or the Utility for such claims may differ from the amounts asserted in such claims. Allowed claims are paid in accordance with the Plan and the Confirmation Order. Amounts expected to be allowed are reflected as current or noncurrent liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The Bankruptcy Code provides that the confirmation of a plan of reorganization discharges a debtor from substantially all debts arising prior to confirmation, other than as provided in the Plan or the Confirmation Order.
However, holders of certain claims may assert that they are entitled under the Plan or the Bankruptcy Code to pursue, or continue to pursue, their claims against PG&E Corporation and the Utility on or after the Effective Date, including but not limited to, claims arising from or relating to indemnification or contribution claims, including with respect to the wildfire that began on November 8, 2018 near the city of Paradise, Butte County, California (the “2018 Camp fire”), the 2017 Northern California wildfires, and the wildfire that began September 9, 2015 in Amador and Calaveras counties in Northern California (the “2015 Butte fire”).
In addition, Subordinated Debt Claims and Holdco Rescission or Damage Claims continue to be pursued against PG&E Corporation and the Utility in the claims reconciliation process in the Bankruptcy Court, and claims against certain former directors and current and former officers, as well as certain underwriters, are being pursued in the purported securities class action that is further described in Note 10 under the heading “Securities Class Action Litigation.”
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 March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively, the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets reflected $244 million and $242 million in net claims within Disputed claims and customer refunds. Pursuant to the Plan, on and after the Effective Date, the holders of such claims are entitled to pursue their claims against the Reorganized Utility as if the Chapter 11 Cases had not been commenced.
On September 1, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court requesting that the court approve an alternative dispute resolution process for resolving disputed general unsecured claims and appoint a panel of mediators in the process. On September 25, 2020, the court approved the motion and appointed a panel of mediators. The mediators’ role will be to assist various claims through a Standard and Abbreviated Mediation Process.
On October 27, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a motion for entry of an order extending the deadline for PG&E Corporation and the Utility to object to claims, requesting an additional 180 days beyond December 31, 2020 to process claims. On April 5, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order further extending the deadline to object to claims through and including December 23, 2021, except for certain claims filed by Cal Fire, for which the deadline is September 30, 2021, in each case without prejudice to the rights of PG&E Corporation and the Utility to seek additional extensions thereof. By stipulation approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the objection deadline for certain claims asserted by the United States is July 30, 2021 or September 30, 2021, depending on the claim.
Reorganization Items, Net
Reorganization items, net, represent amounts incurred after the Petition Date as a direct result of the Chapter 11 Cases and are comprised of professional fees and financing costs, net of interest income and other. Cash paid for reorganization items, net was $29 million and $17 million for PG&E Corporation and the Utility, respectively, during the three months ended March 31, 2021 as compared to $57 million and $117 million for PG&E Corporation and the Utility, respectively, during the same period in 2020. Reorganization items, net for the three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020 include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, 2021
|
(in millions)
|
Utility
|
|
PG&E Corporation (1)
|
|
PG&E Corporation Consolidated
|
Debtor-in-possession financing costs
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
Legal and other
|
5
|
|
|
(2)
|
|
|
3
|
|
Other
|
(3)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(3)
|
|
Total reorganization items, net
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
(2)
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) PG&E Corporation amounts reflected under the column “PG&E Corporation” exclude the accounts of the Utility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, 2020
|
(in millions)
|
Utility
|
|
PG&E Corporation (1)
|
|
PG&E Corporation Consolidated
|
Debtor-in-possession financing costs
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
Legal and other (2)
|
95
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
179
|
|
Interest income
|
(5)
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
|
(6)
|
|
Total reorganization items, net
|
$
|
93
|
|
|
$
|
83
|
|
|
$
|
176
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) PG&E Corporation amounts reflected under the column “PG&E Corporation” exclude the accounts of the Utility.
(2) Includes bridge loan facility fees.
NOTE 3: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
For a summary of the significant accounting policies used by PG&E Corporation and the Utility, see Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K.
Variable Interest Entities
A VIE is an entity that does not have sufficient equity at risk to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support from other parties, or whose equity investors lack any characteristics of a controlling financial interest. An enterprise that has a controlling financial interest in a VIE is a primary beneficiary and is required to consolidate the VIE.
Consolidated VIE
The SPV created in connection with the Receivables Securitization Program (as defined below in Note 5) in October 2020 is a bankruptcy remote, limited liability company wholly owned by the Utility, and its assets are not available to creditors of PG&E Corporation or the Utility. Pursuant to the Receivables Securitization Program, the Utility sells certain of its receivables and certain related rights to payment and obligations of the Utility with respect to such receivables, and certain other related rights to the SPV, which, in turn, obtains loans secured by the receivables from financial institutions (the “Lenders”). Amounts received from the Lenders, the pledged receivables and the corresponding debt are included in Accounts receivable and Long-term debt, respectively, on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of March 31, 2021, the aggregate principal amount of the loans made by the Lenders cannot exceed $1.0 billion outstanding at any time. The Receivables Securitization Program is scheduled to terminate on October 5, 2022, unless extended or earlier terminated.
The SPV is considered a VIE because its equity capitalization is insufficient to support its operations. The most significant activities that impact the economic performance of the SPV are decisions made to manage receivables. The Utility is considered the primary beneficiary and consolidates the SPV as it makes these decisions. No additional financial support was provided to the SPV during the period ended March 31, 2021 or is expected to be provided in the future that was not previously contractually required. As of March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the SPV had net accounts receivable of $2.5 billion and $2.6 billion, respectively, and outstanding borrowings of $650 million and $1.0 billion, respectively, under the Receivables Securitization Program.
Non-Consolidated VIEs
Some of the counterparties to the Utility’s power purchase agreements are considered VIEs. Each of these VIEs was designed to own a power plant that would generate electricity for sale to the Utility. To determine whether the Utility was the primary beneficiary of any of these VIEs at March 31, 2021, it assessed whether it absorbs any of the VIE’s expected losses or receives any portion of the VIE’s expected residual returns under the terms of the power purchase agreement, analyzed the variability in the VIE’s gross margin, and considered whether it had any decision-making rights associated with the activities that are most significant to the VIE’s performance, such as dispatch rights and operating and maintenance activities. The Utility’s financial obligation is limited to the amount the Utility pays for delivered electricity and capacity. The Utility did not have any decision-making rights associated with any of the activities that are most significant to the economic performance of any of these VIEs. Since the Utility was not the primary beneficiary of any of these VIEs at March 31, 2021, it did not consolidate any of them.
Pension and Other Post-Retirement Benefits
PG&E Corporation and the Utility sponsor a non-contributory defined benefit pension plan and cash balance plan. Both plans are included in “Pension Benefits” below. Post-retirement medical and life insurance plans are included in “Other Benefits” below.
The net periodic benefit costs reflected in PG&E Corporation’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
Other Benefits
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31,
|
(in millions)
|
2021
|
|
2020
|
|
2021
|
|
2020
|
Service cost for benefits earned (1)
|
$
|
147
|
|
|
$
|
132
|
|
|
$
|
16
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
Interest cost
|
161
|
|
|
178
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
16
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
(261)
|
|
|
(261)
|
|
|
(35)
|
|
|
(34)
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost
|
(1)
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
3
|
|
Amortization of net actuarial loss
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
(8)
|
|
|
(5)
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost
|
47
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
(10)
|
|
|
(5)
|
|
Regulatory account transfer (2)
|
37
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
Total
|
$
|
84
|
|
|
$
|
83
|
|
|
$
|
(10)
|
|
|
$
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) A portion of service costs are capitalized pursuant to GAAP.
(2) The Utility recorded these amounts to a regulatory account since they are probable of recovery from, or refund to, customers in future rates.
Non-service costs are reflected in Other income, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. Service costs are reflected in Operating and maintenance on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income.
There was no material difference between PG&E Corporation and the Utility for the information disclosed above.
Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
The changes, net of income tax, in PG&E Corporation’s accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension
Benefits
|
|
Other
Benefits
|
|
Total
|
(in millions, net of income tax)
|
Three Months Ended March 31, 2021
|
Beginning balance
|
$
|
(39)
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
(22)
|
|
Amounts reclassified from other comprehensive income: (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost (net of taxes of $0 and $1, respectively)
|
(1)
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
2
|
|
Amortization of net actuarial loss (net of taxes of $0 and $2, respectively)
|
1
|
|
|
(6)
|
|
|
(5)
|
|
Regulatory account transfer (net of taxes of $0 and $1, respectively)
|
1
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
4
|
|
Net current period other comprehensive gain (loss)
|
1
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1
|
|
Ending balance
|
$
|
(38)
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
(21)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) These components are included in the computation of net periodic pension and other post-retirement benefit costs. (See the “Pension and Other Post-Retirement Benefits” table above for additional details.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
Other
Benefits
|
|
Total
|
(in millions, net of income tax)
|
Three Months Ended March 31, 2020
|
Beginning balance
|
$
|
(22)
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
(5)
|
|
Amounts reclassified from other comprehensive income: (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost (net of taxes of $0 and $1, respectively)
|
(1)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
1
|
|
Amortization of net actuarial loss (net of taxes of $0, and $2, respectively)
|
1
|
|
|
(3)
|
|
|
(2)
|
|
Regulatory account transfer (net of taxes of $0 and $1, respectively)
|
—
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
Net current period other comprehensive gain (loss)
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
Ending balance
|
$
|
(22)
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) These components are included in the computation of net periodic pension and other post-retirement benefit costs. (See the “Pension and Other Post-Retirement Benefits” table above for additional details.)
There was no material difference between PG&E Corporation and the Utility for the information disclosed above.
Revenue Recognition
Revenue from Contracts with Customers
The Utility recognizes revenues when electricity and natural gas services are delivered. The Utility records unbilled revenues for the estimated amount of energy delivered to customers but not yet billed at the end of the period. Unbilled revenues are included in accounts receivable on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Rates charged to customers are based on CPUC and FERC authorized revenue requirements. Revenues can vary significantly from period to period because of seasonality, weather, and customer usage patterns.
Regulatory Balancing Account Revenue
The CPUC authorizes most of the Utility’s revenues in the Utility’s GRC and GT&S rate cases, which will be combined in the 2023 GRC. The Utility’s ability to recover revenue requirements authorized by the CPUC in these rate cases is independent, or “decoupled,” from the volume of the Utility’s sales of electricity and natural gas services. The Utility recognizes revenues that have been authorized for rate recovery, are objectively determinable and probable of recovery, and are expected to be collected within 24 months. Generally, electric and natural gas operating revenue is recognized ratably over the year. The Utility records a balancing account asset or liability for differences between customer billings and authorized revenue requirements that are probable of recovery or refund.
The CPUC also has authorized the Utility to collect additional revenue requirements to recover costs that the Utility has been authorized to pass on to customers, including costs to purchase electricity and natural gas, and to fund public purpose, demand response, and customer energy efficiency programs. In general, the revenue recognition criteria for pass-through costs billed to customers are met at the time the costs are incurred. The Utility records a regulatory balancing account asset or liability for differences between incurred costs and customer billings or authorized revenue meant to recover those costs, to the extent that these differences are probable of recovery or refund. As a result, these differences have no impact on net income.
The following table presents the Utility’s revenues disaggregated by type of customer:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31,
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
2021
|
|
2020
|
|
|
|
|
Electric
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue from contracts with customers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential
|
$
|
1,464
|
|
|
$
|
1,242
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial
|
1,013
|
|
|
1,007
|
|
|
|
|
|
Industrial
|
327
|
|
|
341
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agricultural
|
152
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public street and highway lighting
|
17
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other (1)
|
(64)
|
|
|
(66)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue from contracts with customers - electric
|
2,909
|
|
|
2,664
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory balancing accounts (2)
|
486
|
|
|
376
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total electric operating revenue
|
$
|
3,395
|
|
|
$
|
3,040
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue from contracts with customers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential
|
$
|
1,208
|
|
|
$
|
1,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial
|
245
|
|
|
234
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transportation service only
|
326
|
|
|
348
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other (1)
|
(47)
|
|
|
(22)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue from contracts with customers - gas
|
1,732
|
|
|
1,626
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory balancing accounts (2)
|
(411)
|
|
|
(360)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total natural gas operating revenue
|
1,321
|
|
|
1,266
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
$
|
4,716
|
|
|
$
|
4,306
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) This activity is primarily related to the change in unbilled revenue and amounts subject to refund, partially offset by other miscellaneous revenue items.
(2) These amounts represent revenues authorized to be billed or refunded to customers.
Initial and annual contributions to the Wildfire Fund established pursuant to AB 1054
The Wildfire Fund is expected to be capitalized with (i) $10.5 billion of proceeds of bonds supported by a 15-year extension of the Department of Water Resources charge to customers, (ii) $7.5 billion in initial contributions from California’s three large electric IOUs and (iii) $300 million in annual contributions paid by California’s three large electric IOUs for at least a 10 year period. The contributions from the IOUs will be effectively borne by their respective shareholders, as they will not be permitted to recover these costs from customers. The costs of the initial and annual contributions are allocated among the IOUs pursuant to a “Wildfire Fund allocation metric” set forth in AB 1054 based on land area in the applicable IOU’s service territory classified as high fire threat districts and adjusted to account for risk mitigation efforts. The Utility’s Wildfire Fund allocation metric is 64.2% (representing an initial contribution of approximately $4.8 billion and annual contributions of approximately $193 million).
On the Effective Date, PG&E Corporation and the Utility contributed, in accordance with AB 1054, an initial contribution of approximately $4.8 billion and first annual contribution of approximately $193 million to the Wildfire Fund to secure participation of the Utility therein. San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison made their initial contributions to the Wildfire Fund in September 2019. On December 30, 2020, the Utility made its second annual contribution of $193 million to the Wildfire Fund. As of March 31, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have eight remaining annual contributions of $193 million. PG&E Corporation and the Utility account for the contributions to the Wildfire Fund similarly to prepaid insurance with expense being allocated to periods ratably based on an estimated period of coverage.
As of March 31, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded $193 million in Other current liabilities, $1.3 billion in Other non-current liabilities, $464 million in current assets - Wildfire Fund asset, and $5.7 billion in non-current assets - Wildfire Fund asset in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. During the three months ended March 31, 2021, the Utility recorded amortization and accretion expense of $119 million. The amortization of the asset, accretion of the liability, and if applicable, impairment of the asset is reflected in Wildfire Fund expense in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. Expected contributions recorded in Wildfire Fund asset on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets are discounted to the present value using the 10-year US treasury rate at the date PG&E Corporation and the Utility satisfied all the eligibility requirements to participate in the Wildfire Fund. A useful life of 15 years is being used to amortize the Wildfire Fund asset.
AB 1054 did not specify a period of coverage; therefore, this accounting treatment is subject to significant accounting judgments and estimates. In estimating the period of coverage, PG&E Corporation and the Utility use a Monte Carlo simulation that began with 12 years of historical, publicly available fire-loss data from wildfires caused by electrical equipment, and subsequently plan to add an additional year of data each following year. The period of historic fire-loss data and the effectiveness of mitigation efforts by the California electric utility companies are significant assumptions used to estimate the useful life. These assumptions along with the other assumptions below create a high degree of uncertainty related to the estimated useful life of the Wildfire Fund. The simulation creates annual distributions of potential losses due to fires that could be attributed to the participating electric utilities. Starting with a 5 year period of historical data, with average annual statewide claims or settlements of approximately $6.5 billion, compared to approximately $2.9 billion for the 12-year historical data, would have decreased the amortization period to 6 years. Similarly, a ten percent change to the assumption regarding current and future mitigation effort effectiveness would increase the amortization period to 17 years assuming greater effectiveness and would decrease the amortization period to 12 years assuming less effectiveness.
Other assumptions used to estimate the useful life include the estimated cost of wildfires caused by other electric utilities, the amount at which wildfire claims would be settled, the likely adjudication of the CPUC in cases of electric utility-caused wildfires, the impacts of climate change, the level of future insurance coverage held by the electric utilities, the FERC-allocable portion of loss recovery, and the future transmission and distribution equity rate base growth of other electric utilities. Significant changes in any of these estimates could materially impact the amortization period.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility evaluate all assumptions quarterly, or upon claims being made from the Wildfire Fund for catastrophic wildfires, and the expected life of the Wildfire Fund will be adjusted as required. The Wildfire Fund is available to other participating utilities in California and the amount of claims that a participating utility incurs is not limited to their individual contribution amounts. PG&E Corporation and the Utility will assess the Wildfire Fund asset for impairment in the event that a participating utility’s electrical equipment is found to be the substantial cause of a catastrophic wildfire. Timing of any such impairment could lag as the emergence of sufficient cause and claims information can take many quarters and could be limited to public disclosure of the participating electric utility, if ignition were to occur outside the Utility’s service territory. There were fires in the Utility’s and other participating utilities’ services territories since July 12, 2019, including fires for which the cause is currently unknown, which may in the future be determined to be covered by the Wildfire Fund. At March 31, 2021, there were no such known events requiring a reduction of the Wildfire Fund asset nor have there been any claims or withdrawals by the participating utilities against the Wildfire Fund.
Financial Instruments—Credit Losses
PG&E Corporation and the Utility have three categories of financial assets in scope, each with their own associated credit risks. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have incorporated forward-looking data in their estimate of credit loss as follows. Trade receivables are represented by customer accounts receivable and have credit exposure risk related to current economic conditions. Insurance receivables are related to the liability insurance policies PG&E Corporation and the Utility carry. Insurance receivable risk is related to each insurance carrier’s risk of defaulting on their individual policies. Lastly, available-for-sale debt securities requires each company to determine if a decline in fair value is below amortized costs basis, or, impaired. Furthermore, if an impairment exists on available-for-sale debt securities, PG&E Corporation and the Utility will examine if there is an intent to sell, if it is more likely than not a requirement to sell prior to recovery, and if a portion of the unrealized loss is a result of credit loss. During the three months ended March 31, 2021, expected credit losses of $76 million were recorded in Operating and maintenance expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for credit losses associated with trade and other receivables. Of these amounts recorded during the three months ended March 31, 2021, $49 million and $7 million were deemed probable of recovery and deferred to the CPPMA and a FERC regulatory asset, respectively.
Sale of Transmission Tower Wireless Licenses
On February 16, 2021, the Utility granted to a subsidiary of SBA Communications Corporation (such subsidiary, “SBA”) an exclusive license enabling SBA to sublicense and market wireless communications equipment attachment locations (“Cell Sites”) on more than 700 of the Utility’s electric transmission towers, telecommunications towers, monopoles, buildings or other structures (collectively, the “Effective Date Towers”) to wireless telecommunication carriers (“Carriers”) for attachment of wireless communications equipment, as contemplated by a Master Transaction Agreement (the “Transaction Agreement”) dated February 2, 2021, between the Utility and SBA. Pursuant to the Transaction Agreement, the Utility also assigned to SBA license agreements between the Utility and Carriers for substantially all of the existing Cell Sites on the Effective Date Towers.
The exclusive license was granted pursuant to a Master Multi-Site License Agreement (the “License Agreement”) between the Utility and SBA. The term of the License Agreement is for 100 years. The Utility has the right to terminate the license for individual Cell Sites for certain regulatory or utility operational reasons, with a corresponding payment to SBA. Pursuant to the License Agreement, SBA is entitled to the sublicensing revenue generated by new sublicenses of Cell Sites on the Effective Date Towers, subject to the Utility’s right to a percentage of such sublicensing revenue.
The Utility and SBA also entered into a Master Transmission Tower Site License Agreement (the “Tower Site Agreement”), pursuant to which SBA received the exclusive rights to sublicense and market additional attachment locations on up to 28,000 of the Utility’s other electric transmission towers to Carriers for attachment of wireless communications equipment. The Tower Site Agreement provides for a split of license fees from Carriers between the Utility and SBA. The Tower Site Agreement has a licensing period of up to 15 years, depending on SBA’s achievement of certain performance metrics, and any sites licensed during such licensing period will continue to be subject to the Tower Site Agreement for the same term as the License Agreement.
In addition, the Utility and SBA entered into a Pipeline Cell Site Transaction Agreement pursuant to which the Utility and SBA established terms and conditions for adding additional cell sites under the License Agreement. Pipeline Cell Sites are locations where the Utility was in the process of locating a new Cell Site for a wireless carrier at the close of the transaction.
In exchange for the exclusive license and entry into the License Agreement, SBA agreed to pay the Utility a purchase price of $973 million. SBA paid the Utility $946 million of such purchase price at the closing pursuant to the Transaction Agreement, which also contemplates the post-closing assignment of additional specified Cell Sites to SBA upon the satisfaction of certain terms and conditions, for which SBA will make additional purchase price payments to the Utility. The closing settlement also reflected an adjustment for an estimated amount of payments received by the Utility from Carriers in the pre-closing period that are allocable to licenses in the post-closing period. The purchase price is subject to further adjustment pursuant to the terms of the Transaction Agreement through June 30, 2021.
The Utility recorded approximately $365 million of the $946 million sales proceeds as a financing obligation, as this portion of the proceeds for existing Cell Sites represents a sale of future revenues. The Utility recorded approximately $106 million of the $946 million sales proceeds as a contract liability (deferred revenue), as a portion of proceeds with respect to the sublicensing of Cell Sites, as well as the Tower Site Agreement represents an upfront payment for access to space on the Utility’s assets. The Utility utilized a discounted cash flow model based on business assumptions and estimates to determine the allocation of the purchase price between the financing obligation and deferred revenue. The financing obligation and deferred revenue are presented within Other non-current liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The Utility recorded the remaining approximately $475 million ($471 million of which is noncurrent) of the sale proceeds to a regulatory liability, for the portion that is probable to be returned to customers in accordance with existing revenue sharing practices.
The Utility will amortize the financing obligation through Electric operating revenue and Interest expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income using the effective interest method and will amortize the deferred revenue balance through Electric operating revenue ratably over the 100-year term.
Recently Adopted Accounting Standards
Income Taxes
In December 2019, the FASB issued ASU No. 2019-12, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Simplifying the Accounting for Income Taxes, which amends the existing guidance to reduce complexity relating to Income Tax disclosures. PG&E Corporation and the Utility adopted this ASU on January 1, 2021. There was no material impact to PG&E Corporation’s or the Utility’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and the related disclosures resulting from the adoption of this ASU.
Accounting Standards Issued But Not Yet Adopted
Debt
In August 2020, the FASB issued ASU No. 2020-06, Debt - Debt with Conversion and Other Options (Subtopic 470-20) and Derivatives and Hedging - Contracts in Entity’s Own Equity (Subtopic 815-40): Accounting for Convertible Instruments and Contracts in an Entity’s Own Equity, which simplifies the accounting for certain financial instruments with characteristics of liabilities and equity, including convertible instruments and contracts on an entity’s own equity. This ASU will be effective for PG&E Corporation and the Utility on January 1, 2022, with early adoption permitted. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are currently evaluating the impact the guidance will have on their Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and related disclosures.
NOTE 4: REGULATORY ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND BALANCING ACCOUNTS
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
Regulatory Assets
Long-term regulatory assets are comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
(in millions)
|
March 31, 2021
|
|
December 31, 2020
|
Pension benefits (1)
|
$
|
2,208
|
|
|
$
|
2,245
|
|
Environmental compliance costs
|
1,038
|
|
|
1,112
|
|
Utility retained generation (2)
|
168
|
|
|
181
|
|
Price risk management
|
228
|
|
|
204
|
|
Unamortized loss, net of gain, on reacquired debt
|
46
|
|
|
49
|
|
Catastrophic event memorandum account (3)
|
879
|
|
|
842
|
|
Wildfire expense memorandum account (4)
|
393
|
|
|
400
|
|
Fire hazard prevention memorandum account (5)
|
107
|
|
|
137
|
|
Fire risk mitigation memorandum account (6)
|
58
|
|
|
66
|
|
Wildfire mitigation plan memorandum account (7)
|
359
|
|
|
390
|
|
Deferred income taxes (8)
|
1,075
|
|
|
908
|
|
Insurance premium costs (9)
|
225
|
|
|
294
|
|
Wildfire mitigation balancing account (10)
|
156
|
|
|
156
|
|
General rate case memorandum accounts (11)
|
349
|
|
|
376
|
|
Vegetation management balancing account (12)
|
594
|
|
|
592
|
|
COVID-19 pandemic protection memorandum accounts (13)
|
132
|
|
|
84
|
|
Other
|
1,144
|
|
|
942
|
|
Total long-term regulatory assets
|
$
|
9,159
|
|
|
$
|
8,978
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Payments into the pension and other benefits plans are based on annual contribution requirements. As these annual requirements continue indefinitely into the future, the Utility expects to continuously recover pension benefits.
(2) In connection with the settlement agreement entered into among PG&E Corporation, the Utility, and the CPUC in 2003 to resolve the Utility’s 2001 proceeding under Chapter 11, the CPUC authorized the Utility to recover $1.2 billion of costs related to the Utility’s retained generation assets. The individual components of these regulatory assets are being amortized over the respective lives of the underlying generation facilities, consistent with the period over which the related revenues are recognized.
(3) Includes costs of responding to catastrophic events that have been declared a disaster or state of emergency by competent federal or state authorities. As of March 31, 2021, $54 million in COVID-19 related costs was recorded to CEMA regulatory assets. Recovery of CEMA costs is subject to CPUC review and approval.
(4) Includes incremental wildfire liability insurance premium costs the CPUC approved for tracking in June 2018 for the period July 26, 2017 through December 31, 2019. Recovery of WEMA costs is subject to CPUC review and approval.
(5) Includes costs associated with the implementation of regulations and requirements adopted to protect the public from potential fire hazards associated with overhead power line facilities and nearby aerial communication facilities that have not been previously authorized in another proceeding. Recovery of FHPMA costs is subject to CPUC review and approval.
(6) Includes costs associated with the 2019 WMP for the period January 1, 2019 through June 4, 2019. Recovery of FRMMA costs is subject to CPUC review and approval.
(7) Includes costs associated with the 2019 WMP for the period June 5, 2019 through December 31, 2019 and the 2020 WMP for the period of January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020 and the 2021 WMP for the period of January 1, 2021 through March 31, 2021. Recovery of WMPMA costs is subject to CPUC review and approval.
(8) Represents cumulative differences between amounts recognized for ratemaking purposes and expense recognized in accordance with GAAP.
(9) Represents non-current excess liability insurance premium costs recorded to RTBA and Adjustment Mechanism for Costs Determined in Other Proceedings, as authorized in the 2020 GRC and 2019 GT&S rate cases, respectively.
(10) Includes costs associated with certain wildfire mitigation activities for the period January 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021. Long-term balance represents costs above 115% of adopted revenue requirements, which are subject to CPUC review and approval.
(11) The General Rate Case Memorandum Accounts record the difference between the gas and electric revenue requirements in effect on January 1, 2020 and through February 28, 2021 as authorized by the CPUC in December 2020. These amounts will be recovered in rates over 22 months, beginning March 1, 2021.
(12) Represents costs from routine vegetation management and enhanced vegetation management activities previously recorded in the FRMMA/WMPMA, and tree mortality and fire risk reduction work previously recorded in CEMA. Recovery of VMBA costs above 120% of adopted revenue requirements is subject to CPUC review and approval.
(13) On April 16, 2020, the CPUC passed a resolution that established the CPPMA to recover costs associated with customer protections, including higher uncollectible costs related to a moratorium on electric and gas service disconnections for residential and small business customers. The CPPMA applies only to residential and small business customers and was approved on July 27, 2020 with an effective date of March 4, 2020. As of March 31, 2021, the Utility had recorded an aggregate under-collection of $122 million, representing incremental bad debt expense over what was collected in rates for the period the CPPMA is in effect. The remaining $10 million is associated with program costs and higher accounts receivable financing costs. Recovery of CPPMA costs is subject to CPUC review and approval.
Regulatory Liabilities
Long-term regulatory liabilities are comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
(in millions)
|
March 31, 2021
|
|
December 31, 2020
|
Cost of removal obligations (1)
|
$
|
7,035
|
|
|
$
|
6,905
|
|
Recoveries in excess of AROs (2)
|
452
|
|
|
458
|
|
Public purpose programs (3)
|
983
|
|
|
948
|
|
Employee benefit plans (4)
|
1,002
|
|
|
995
|
|
Tower Licenses (5)
|
471
|
|
|
—
|
|
Other
|
1,261
|
|
|
1,118
|
|
Total long-term regulatory liabilities
|
$
|
11,204
|
|
|
$
|
10,424
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Represents the cumulative differences between the recorded costs to remove assets and amounts collected in rates for expected costs to remove assets.
(2) Represents the cumulative differences between ARO expenses and amounts collected in rates. Decommissioning costs related to the Utility’s nuclear facilities are recovered through rates and are placed in nuclear decommissioning trusts. This regulatory liability also represents the deferral of realized and unrealized gains and losses on these nuclear decommissioning trust investments. (See Note 9 below.)
(3) Represents amounts received from customers designated for public purpose program costs expected to be incurred beyond the next 12 months, primarily related to energy efficiency programs.
(4) Represents cumulative differences between incurred costs and amounts collected in rates for Post-Retirement Medical, Post-Retirement Life and Long-Term Disability Plans.
(5) Represents the portion of the net proceeds received from the sale of transmission tower wireless licenses that will be returned to customers. Of the $471 million, $333 million and $138 million will be refunded to FERC and CPUC jurisdiction customers, respectively. (See Note 3 above.)
Regulatory Balancing Accounts
Current regulatory balancing accounts receivable and payable are comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivable Balance at
|
(in millions)
|
March 31, 2021
|
|
December 31, 2020
|
Electric distribution
|
$
|
266
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
Gas distribution and transmission
|
3
|
|
|
102
|
|
Energy procurement
|
346
|
|
|
413
|
|
Public purpose programs
|
309
|
|
|
292
|
|
Fire hazard prevention memorandum account
|
121
|
|
|
121
|
|
Fire risk mitigation memorandum account
|
33
|
|
|
33
|
|
Wildfire mitigation plan memorandum account
|
161
|
|
|
161
|
|
Wildfire mitigation balancing account
|
29
|
|
|
27
|
|
General rate case memorandum accounts
|
468
|
|
|
313
|
|
Vegetation management balancing account
|
49
|
|
|
115
|
|
Insurance premium costs
|
157
|
|
|
135
|
|
Other
|
307
|
|
|
289
|
|
Total regulatory balancing accounts receivable
|
$
|
2,249
|
|
|
$
|
2,001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payable Balance at
|
(in millions)
|
March 31, 2021
|
|
December 31, 2020
|
Electric distribution
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
55
|
|
Electric transmission
|
260
|
|
|
267
|
|
Gas distribution and transmission
|
280
|
|
|
76
|
|
Energy procurement
|
116
|
|
|
158
|
|
Public purpose programs
|
372
|
|
|
410
|
|
Other
|
340
|
|
|
279
|
|
Total regulatory balancing accounts payable
|
$
|
1,368
|
|
|
$
|
1,245
|
|
For more information, see Note 4 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K.
NOTE 5: DEBT
Credit Facilities
The following table summarizes PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s outstanding borrowings and availability under their credit facilities at March 31, 2021:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
Termination
Date
|
|
Facility Limit
|
|
Borrowings Outstanding
|
|
Letters of Credit Outstanding
|
|
Facility
Availability
|
|
Utility revolving credit facility
|
July 2023
|
|
$
|
3,500
|
|
(1)
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
979
|
|
|
$
|
2,521
|
|
|
Utility term loan credit facility (2)
|
January 2022
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
Utility receivables securitization program (3)
|
October 2022
|
|
1,000
|
|
(4)
|
650
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
350
|
|
(4)
|
PG&E Corporation revolving credit facility
|
July 2023
|
|
500
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
Total credit facilities
|
|
|
$
|
6,500
|
|
|
$
|
2,150
|
|
|
$
|
979
|
|
|
$
|
3,371
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Includes a $1.5 billion letter of credit sublimit.
(2) On March 11, 2021, the Utility prepaid in full all amounts outstanding with respect to the $1.5 billion term loan due on June 30, 2021. The remaining $1.5 billion term loan due on January 1, 2022 remains outstanding.
(3) On October 5, 2020, the Utility entered into an accounts receivable securitization program (the “Receivables Securitization Program”), providing for the sale of a portion of the Utility's accounts receivable to the SPV, a limited liability company wholly owned by the Utility. For more information, see “Variable Interest Entities” in Note 3.
(4) The amount the Utility may borrow under the Receivables Securitization Program is limited to the lesser of the facility limit and the facility availability. The facility availability may vary based on the amount of accounts receivable that the Utility owns that are eligible for sale to the SPV and the portion of those accounts receivable that are sold to the SPV that are eligible for advances by the lenders under the Receivables Securitization Program from time to time. As of April 22, 2021, the Receivables Securitization Program had a maximum borrowing base of $888 million and was fully drawn.
Long-Term Debt Issuances and Redemptions
Utility
In March 2021, the Utility issued $1.5 billion aggregate principal amount of 1.367% First Mortgage Bonds due March 10, 2023, $450 million aggregate principal amount of 3.25% First Mortgage Bonds due June 1, 2031, and $450 million aggregate principal amount of 4.20% First Mortgage Bonds due June 1, 2041. The proceeds were used for (i) the prepayment of all of the $1.5 billion 364-day term loan facility (maturing June 30, 2021) outstanding under the Utility’s term loan credit agreement, (ii) the repayment of all of the borrowings outstanding under the Utility’s revolving credit facility pursuant to the revolving credit agreement and (iii) general corporate purposes.
PG&E Corporation
On June 23, 2020, PG&E Corporation obtained a $2.75 billion secured term loan (the “Term Loan”) under a term loan credit agreement (the “Term Loan Agreement”). The Term Loan matures on June 23, 2025, unless extended by PG&E Corporation pursuant to the terms of the Term Loan Agreement. In accordance with the Term Loan Agreement, PG&E Corporation is required to repay the principal amount outstanding on the Term Loan in an amount equal to $6.875 million on the last day of each quarter.
On February 1, 2021, PG&E Corporation entered into a repricing amendment with the lenders under the Term Loan Agreement pursuant to which, among other things, the applicable margin was reduced from 450 basis points to 300 basis points and the LIBOR floor was reduced from 100 basis points to 50 basis points.
NOTE 6: EQUITY
Ownership Restrictions in PG&E Corporation’s Amended Articles
Under section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, if a corporation (or a consolidated group) undergoes an “ownership change,” net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes may be subject to certain limitations (which could limit PG&E Corporation or the Utility’s ability to use these deferred tax assets to offset taxable income). In general, an ownership change occurs if the aggregate stock ownership of certain shareholders (generally five percent shareholders, applying certain look-through and aggregation rules) increases by more than 50% over such shareholders’ lowest percentage ownership during the testing period (generally three years). PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Amended Articles of Incorporation (the “Amended Articles”) limit Transfers (as defined in the Amended Articles) that increase a person’s or entity’s (including certain groups of persons) ownership of PG&E Corporation’s equity securities to 4.75% or more prior to the Restriction Release Date without approval by the Board of Directors. The calculation of the percentage ownership may differ depending on whether the Fire Victim Trust is treated as a qualified settlement trust or grantor trust.
As of the date of this report, it is more likely than not that PG&E Corporation has not undergone an ownership change and consequently, its net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes are not limited by section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code.
In addition, the tax deduction recorded reflects PG&E Corporation’s conclusion as of March 31, 2021 that it is more likely than not that the Fire Victim Trust will be treated as a “qualified settlement fund” for U.S. federal income tax purposes, in which case the corresponding tax deduction will have occurred at the time transfers of cash and other property (including PG&E Corporation common stock) were made to the Fire Victim Trust. In January 2021, PG&E Corporation received an IRS ruling that states the Utility is eligible to make a grantor trust election for U.S. federal income tax purposes with respect to the Fire Victim Trust and addressed certain, but not all, related issues. PG&E Corporation believes benefits associated with “grantor trust” treatment, including, a potentially larger tax deduction related to the proceeds realized by the Fire Victim Trust from the sale of shares contributed to the Fire Victim Trust, could be realized, but only if PG&E Corporation and the Fire Victim Trust can meet certain requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations thereunder, relating to sales of PG&E Corporation stock. PG&E Corporation expects to elect grantor trust treatment if it is able to enter into a definitive agreement regarding the same with the Fire Victim Trust. On April 28, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court issued an oral ruling that it would approve the material terms of an agreement between PG&E Corporation, the Utility and the Fire Victim Trust that supports the election of the grantor trust treatment. There can be no assurance that the parties will execute a definitive agreement or that PG&E Corporation will be able to avail itself of the benefits of a grantor trust election. If PG&E Corporation makes a “grantor trust” election for the Fire Victim Trust, the Utility’s tax deduction will occur only at the time the Fire Victim Trust pays the fire victims and will be impacted by the price at which the Fire Victim Trust sells the shares, rather than the price at the time such shares were contributed to the Fire Victim Trust.
Dividends
On December 20, 2017, the Boards of Directors of PG&E Corporation and the Utility suspended quarterly cash dividends on both PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s common stock, beginning the fourth quarter of 2017, as well as the Utility’s preferred stock, beginning the three-month period ending January 31, 2018.
Subject to the dividend restrictions as described in Note 6 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K, any decision to declare and pay dividends in the future will be made at the discretion of the Boards of Directors and will depend on, among other things, results of operations, financial condition, cash requirements, contractual restrictions and other factors that the Boards of Directors may deem relevant. As of March 31, 2021, it is uncertain when PG&E Corporation and the Utility will commence the payment of dividends on their common stock and when the Utility will commence the payment of dividends on its preferred stock.
NOTE 7: EARNINGS PER SHARE
PG&E Corporation’s basic EPS is calculated by dividing the income available for common shareholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding. PG&E Corporation applies the treasury stock method of reflecting the dilutive effect of outstanding share-based compensation in the calculation of diluted EPS. The following is a reconciliation of PG&E Corporation’s income available for common shareholders and weighted average common shares outstanding for calculating diluted EPS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31,
|
(in millions, except per share amounts)
|
2021
|
|
2020
|
Income attributable to common shareholders
|
$
|
120
|
|
|
$
|
371
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding, basic
|
1,985
|
|
|
529
|
|
Add incremental shares from assumed conversions:
|
|
|
|
Employee share-based compensation
|
5
|
|
|
—
|
|
Equity Units
|
141
|
|
|
119
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding, diluted
|
2,131
|
|
|
648
|
|
Total Income per common share, diluted
|
$
|
0.06
|
|
|
$
|
0.57
|
|
All potentially dilutive securities were excluded from the calculation of outstanding common shares on a diluted basis in periods where PG&E Corporation has incurred a net loss.
NOTE 8: DERIVATIVES
Use of Derivative Instruments
The Utility is exposed to commodity price risk as a result of its electricity and natural gas procurement activities. Procurement costs are recovered through customer rates. The Utility uses both derivative and non-derivative contracts to manage volatility in customer rates due to fluctuating commodity prices. Derivatives include contracts, such as power purchase agreements, forwards, futures, swaps, options, and CRRs that are traded either on an exchange or over-the-counter.
Derivatives are presented in the Utility’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets recorded at fair value and on a net basis in accordance with master netting arrangements for each counterparty. The fair value of derivative instruments is further offset by cash collateral paid or received where the right of offset and the intention to offset exist.
Price risk management activities that meet the definition of derivatives are recorded at fair value on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These instruments are not held for speculative purposes and are subject to certain regulatory requirements. The Utility expects to fully recover in rates all costs related to derivatives under the applicable ratemaking mechanism in place as long as the Utility’s price risk management activities are carried out in accordance with CPUC directives. Therefore, all unrealized gains and losses associated with the change in fair value of these derivatives are deferred and recorded within the Utility’s regulatory assets and liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Net realized gains or losses on commodity derivatives are recorded in the cost of electricity or the cost of natural gas with corresponding increases or decreases to regulatory balancing accounts for recovery from or refund to customers.
The Utility elects the normal purchase and sale exception for eligible derivatives. Eligible derivatives are those that require physical delivery in quantities that are expected to be used by the Utility over a reasonable period in the normal course of business, and do not contain pricing provisions unrelated to the commodity delivered. These items are not reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value.
Volume of Derivative Activity
The volumes of the Utility’s outstanding derivatives were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contract Volume at
|
Underlying Product
|
|
Instruments
|
|
March 31, 2021
|
|
December 31, 2020
|
Natural Gas (1) (MMBtus (2))
|
|
Forwards, Futures and Swaps
|
|
219,348,075
|
|
|
146,642,863
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
17,080,000
|
|
|
14,140,000
|
|
Electricity (MWh)
|
|
Forwards, Futures and Swaps
|
|
11,127,600
|
|
|
9,435,830
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
588,800
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
Congestion Revenue Rights (3)
|
|
264,206,953
|
|
|
266,091,470
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Amounts shown are for the combined positions of the electric fuels and core gas supply portfolios.
(2) Million British Thermal Units.
(3) CRRs are financial instruments that enable the holders to manage variability in electric energy congestion charges due to transmission grid limitations.
Presentation of Derivative Instruments in the Financial Statements
At March 31, 2021, the Utility’s outstanding derivative balances were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity Risk
|
(in millions)
|
Gross Derivative
Balance
|
|
Netting
|
|
Cash Collateral
|
|
Total Derivative
Balance
|
Current assets – other
|
$
|
50
|
|
|
$
|
(3)
|
|
|
$
|
105
|
|
|
$
|
152
|
|
Noncurrent assets – other
|
136
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
136
|
|
Current liabilities – other
|
(41)
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
(21)
|
|
Noncurrent liabilities – other
|
(228)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
(225)
|
|
Total commodity risk
|
$
|
(83)
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
125
|
|
|
$
|
42
|
|
At December 31, 2020, the Utility’s outstanding derivative balances were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity Risk
|
(in millions)
|
Gross Derivative
Balance
|
|
Netting
|
|
Cash Collateral
|
|
Total Derivative
Balance
|
Current assets – other
|
$
|
33
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
115
|
|
|
$
|
148
|
|
Noncurrent assets – other
|
136
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
136
|
|
Current liabilities – other
|
(38)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
(23)
|
|
Noncurrent liabilities – other
|
(204)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
(194)
|
|
Total commodity risk
|
$
|
(73)
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
140
|
|
|
$
|
67
|
|
Cash inflows and outflows associated with derivatives are included in operating cash flows on the Utility’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
Some of the Utility’s derivatives instruments, including power purchase agreements, contain collateral posting provisions tied to the Utility’s credit rating from each of the major credit rating agencies, also known as a credit-risk-related contingent feature. Multiple credit agencies continue to rate the Utility below investment grade, which results in the Utility posting additional collateral. As of March 31, 2021, the Utility satisfied or has otherwise addressed its obligations related to the credit-risk related contingency features.
NOTE 9: FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
PG&E Corporation and the Utility measure their cash equivalents, trust assets, and price risk management instruments at fair value. A three-tier fair value hierarchy is established that prioritizes the inputs to valuation methodologies used to measure fair value:
•Level 1 – Observable inputs that reflect quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical assets or liabilities in active markets.
•Level 2 – Other inputs that are directly or indirectly observable in the marketplace.
•Level 3 – Unobservable inputs which are supported by little or no market activities.
The fair value hierarchy requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value.
Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis for PG&E Corporation and the Utility are summarized below. Assets held in rabbi trusts are held by PG&E Corporation and not the Utility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements
|
|
March 31, 2021
|
(in millions)
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Netting (1)
|
|
Total
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
$
|
228
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
228
|
|
Nuclear decommissioning trusts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
29
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
29
|
|
Global equity securities
|
2,461
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,461
|
|
Fixed-income securities
|
953
|
|
|
812
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,765
|
|
Assets measured at NAV
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
27
|
|
Total nuclear decommissioning trusts (2)
|
3,443
|
|
|
812
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
4,282
|
|
Price risk management instruments (Note 8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electricity
|
—
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
165
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
183
|
|
Gas
|
—
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
101
|
|
|
105
|
|
Total price risk management instruments
|
—
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
165
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
288
|
|
Rabbi trusts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-income securities
|
—
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
102
|
|
Life insurance contracts
|
—
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
76
|
|
Total rabbi trusts
|
—
|
|
|
178
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
178
|
|
Long-term disability trust
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
5
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
5
|
|
Assets measured at NAV
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
158
|
|
Total long-term disability trust
|
5
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
163
|
|
TOTAL ASSETS
|
$
|
3,676
|
|
|
$
|
1011
|
|
|
$
|
165
|
|
|
$
|
102
|
|
|
$
|
5,139
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Price risk management instruments (Note 8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electricity
|
—
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
259
|
|
|
(20)
|
|
|
244
|
|
Gas
|
—
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(3)
|
|
|
2
|
|
TOTAL LIABILITIES
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
259
|
|
|
$
|
(23)
|
|
|
$
|
246
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Includes the effect of the contractual ability to settle contracts under master netting agreements and margin cash collateral.
(2) Represents amount before deducting $690 million, primarily related to deferred taxes on appreciation of investment value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements
|
|
December 31, 2020
|
(in millions)
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Netting (1)
|
|
Total
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
$
|
470
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
470
|
|
Nuclear decommissioning trusts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
27
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
27
|
|
Global equity securities
|
2,398
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,398
|
|
Fixed-income securities
|
924
|
|
|
835
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,759
|
|
Assets measured at NAV
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
25
|
|
Total nuclear decommissioning trusts (2)
|
3,349
|
|
|
835
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
4,209
|
|
Price risk management instruments (Note 8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electricity
|
—
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
166
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
170
|
|
Gas
|
—
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
114
|
|
Total price risk management instruments
|
—
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
166
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
284
|
|
Rabbi trusts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-income securities
|
—
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
106
|
|
Life insurance contracts
|
—
|
|
|
79
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
79
|
|
Total rabbi trusts
|
—
|
|
|
185
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
185
|
|
Long-term disability trust
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
9
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
9
|
|
Assets measured at NAV
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
158
|
|
Total long-term disability trust
|
9
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
167
|
|
TOTAL ASSETS
|
$
|
3,828
|
|
|
$
|
1,023
|
|
|
$
|
166
|
|
|
$
|
115
|
|
|
$
|
5,315
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Price risk management instruments (Note 8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electricity
|
—
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
238
|
|
|
(25)
|
|
|
214
|
|
Gas
|
—
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
3
|
|
TOTAL LIABILITIES
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
238
|
|
|
$
|
(25)
|
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Includes the effect of the contractual ability to settle contracts under master netting agreements and margin cash collateral.
(2) Represents amount before deducting $671 million, primarily related to deferred taxes on appreciation of investment value.
Valuation Techniques
The following describes the valuation techniques used to measure the fair value of the assets and liabilities shown in the tables above. There are no restrictions on the terms and conditions upon which the investments may be redeemed. There were no material transfers between any levels for the three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020.
Trust Assets
Assets Measured at Fair Value
In general, investments held in the trusts are exposed to various risks, such as interest rate, credit, and market volatility risks. Nuclear decommissioning trust assets and other trust assets are composed primarily of equity and fixed-income securities and also include short-term investments that are money market funds valued as Level 1.
Global equity securities primarily include investments in common stock that are valued based on quoted prices in active markets and are classified as Level 1.
Fixed-income securities are primarily composed of U.S. government and agency securities, municipal securities, and other fixed-income securities, including corporate debt securities. U.S. government and agency securities primarily consist of U.S. Treasury securities that are classified as Level 1 because the fair value is determined by observable market prices in active markets. A market approach is generally used to estimate the fair value of fixed-income securities classified as Level 2 using evaluated pricing data such as broker quotes, for similar securities adjusted for observable differences. Significant inputs used in the valuation model generally include benchmark yield curves and issuer spreads. The external credit ratings, coupon rate, and maturity of each security are considered in the valuation model, as applicable.
Assets Measured at NAV Using Practical Expedient
Investments in the nuclear decommissioning trusts and the long-term disability trust that are measured at fair value using the NAV per share practical expedient have not been classified in the fair value hierarchy tables above. The fair value amounts are included in the tables above in order to reconcile to the amounts presented in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These investments include commingled funds that are composed of equity securities traded publicly on exchanges as well as fixed-income securities that are composed primarily of U.S. government securities and asset-backed securities.
Price Risk Management Instruments
Price risk management instruments include physical and financial derivative contracts, such as power purchase agreements, forwards, futures, swaps, options, and CRRs that are traded either on an exchange or over-the-counter.
Power purchase agreements, forwards, and swaps are valued using a discounted cash flow model. Exchange-traded futures that are valued using observable market forward prices for the underlying commodity are classified as Level 1. Over-the-counter forwards and swaps that are identical to exchange-traded futures or are valued using forward prices from broker quotes that are corroborated with market data are classified as Level 2. Exchange-traded options are valued using observable market data and market-corroborated data and are classified as Level 2.
Long-dated power purchase agreements that are valued using significant unobservable data are classified as Level 3. These Level 3 contracts are valued using either estimated basis adjustments from liquid trading points or techniques, including extrapolation from observable prices, when a contract term extends beyond a period for which market data is available. Market and credit risk management utilizes models to derive pricing inputs for the valuation of the Utility’s Level 3 instruments using pricing inputs from brokers and historical data.
The Utility holds CRRs to hedge the financial risk of CAISO-imposed congestion charges in the day-ahead market. Limited market data is available in the CAISO auction and between auction dates; therefore, the Utility utilizes historical prices to forecast forward prices. CRRs are classified as Level 3.
Level 3 Measurements and Uncertainty Analysis
Inputs used and the fair value of Level 3 instruments are reviewed period-over-period and compared with market conditions to determine reasonableness.
Significant increases or decreases in any of those inputs would result in a significantly higher or lower fair value, respectively. All reasonable costs related to Level 3 instruments are expected to be recoverable through customer rates; therefore, there is no impact to net income resulting from changes in the fair value of these instruments. (See Note 8 above.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value at
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
March 31, 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurement
|
|
Assets
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
Valuation
Technique
|
|
Unobservable
Input
|
|
Range(1) /Weighted-Average Price (2)
|
Congestion revenue rights
|
|
$
|
148
|
|
|
$
|
79
|
|
|
Market approach
|
|
CRR auction prices
|
|
$(320.25) - $320.25 / 0.27
|
Power purchase agreements
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
180
|
|
|
Discounted cash flow
|
|
Forward prices
|
|
$13.43 - $233.55 / 39.56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Represents price per MWh.
(2) Unobservable inputs were weighted by the relative fair value of the instruments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value at
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
December 31, 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurement
|
|
Assets
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
Valuation Technique
|
|
Unobservable Input
|
|
Range (1)/Weighted-Average Price (2)
|
Congestion revenue rights
|
|
$
|
153
|
|
|
$
|
74
|
|
|
Market approach
|
|
CRR auction prices
|
|
$(320.25) - $320.25 / 0.3
|
Power purchase agreements
|
|
$
|
13
|
|
|
$
|
164
|
|
|
Discounted cash flow
|
|
Forward prices
|
|
$12.56 - $148.30 / 35.52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Represents price per MWh.
(2) Unobservable inputs were weighted by the relative fair value of the instruments.
Level 3 Reconciliation
The following table presents the reconciliation for Level 3 instruments for the three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Price Risk Management Instruments
|
(in millions)
|
2021
|
|
2020
|
Asset balance as of January 1
|
$
|
(72)
|
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
Net realized and unrealized gains (losses):
|
|
|
|
Included in regulatory assets and liabilities or balancing accounts (1)
|
(22)
|
|
|
(10)
|
|
Asset (liability) balance as of March 31
|
$
|
(94)
|
|
|
$
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) The costs related to price risk management activities are fully passed through to customers in rates. Accordingly, unrealized gains and losses are deferred in regulatory liabilities and assets and net income is not impacted.
Financial Instruments
PG&E Corporation and the Utility use the following methods and assumptions in estimating fair value for financial instruments: the fair values of cash, net accounts receivable; short-term borrowings; accounts payable; and customer deposits approximate their carrying values at March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, as they are short-term in nature.
The carrying amount and fair value of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s long-term debt instruments were as follows (the table below excludes financial instruments with carrying values that approximate their fair values):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At March 31, 2021
|
|
At December 31, 2020
|
(in millions)
|
Carrying Amount
|
|
Level 2 Fair Value
|
|
Carrying Amount
|
|
Level 2 Fair Value
|
Debt (Note 5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PG&E Corporation
|
$
|
3,372
|
|
|
$
|
2,118
|
|
|
$
|
1,901
|
|
|
$
|
2,175
|
|
Utility
|
32,056
|
|
|
33,200
|
|
|
29,664
|
|
|
32,632
|
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Investments
The following table provides a summary of equity securities and available-for-sale debt securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
Amortized
Cost
|
|
Total Unrealized Gains
|
|
Total Unrealized Losses
|
|
Total Fair
Value
|
As of March 31, 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear decommissioning trusts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
$
|
29
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
29
|
|
Global equity securities
|
527
|
|
|
1,963
|
|
|
(2)
|
|
|
2,488
|
|
Fixed-income securities
|
1,689
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
(18)
|
|
|
1,765
|
|
Total (1)
|
$
|
2,245
|
|
|
$
|
2,057
|
|
|
$
|
(20)
|
|
|
$
|
4,282
|
|
As of December 31, 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear decommissioning trusts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
$
|
27
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
27
|
|
Global equity securities
|
543
|
|
|
1,881
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
|
2,423
|
|
Fixed-income securities
|
1,610
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
(3)
|
|
|
1,759
|
|
Total (1)
|
$
|
2,180
|
|
|
$
|
2,033
|
|
|
$
|
(4)
|
|
|
$
|
4,209
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Represents amounts before deducting $690 million and $671 million for the periods ended March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively, primarily related to deferred taxes on appreciation of investment value.
The fair value of fixed-income securities by contractual maturity is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
(in millions)
|
March 31, 2021
|
Less than 1 year
|
$
|
32
|
|
1–5 years
|
501
|
|
5–10 years
|
427
|
|
More than 10 years
|
805
|
|
Total maturities of fixed-income securities
|
$
|
1,765
|
|
The following table provides a summary of activity for fixed income and equity securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31,
|
(in millions)
|
2021
|
|
2020
|
Proceeds from sales and maturities of nuclear decommissioning trust investments
|
$
|
551
|
|
|
$
|
533
|
|
Gross realized gains on securities
|
55
|
|
|
18
|
|
Gross realized losses on securities
|
(13)
|
|
|
(9)
|
|
NOTE 10: 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.
Restructuring Support Agreement with the TCC
On December 6, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility entered into the TCC RSA. The TCC RSA (as incorporated into the Plan) provides for, among other things, a combination of cash and common stock of the reorganized PG&E Corporation to be provided by PG&E Corporation and the Utility pursuant to the Plan (together with certain additional rights, the “Aggregate Fire Victim Consideration”) in order to settle and discharge the Fire Victim Claims, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the TCC RSA and the Plan. The Aggregate Fire Victim Consideration that has funded and will fund the Fire Victim Trust pursuant to the Plan for the benefit of holders of the Fire Victim Claims consists of (a) $5.4 billion in cash that was contributed on the Effective Date of the Plan, (b) $1.35 billion in cash consisting of (i) $758 million that was paid in cash on January 15, 2021 and (ii) the remaining balance of $592 million to be paid in cash on or before January 15, 2022, in each case pursuant to the terms of the Tax Benefits Payment Agreement (as defined below), and (c) an amount of common stock of the reorganized PG&E Corporation valued at 14.9 times Normalized Estimated Net Income (as defined in the TCC RSA), except that the Fire Victim Trust’s share ownership of the reorganized PG&E Corporation would not be less than 20.9% based on the number of fully diluted shares of the reorganized PG&E Corporation outstanding as of the Effective Date of the Plan, assuming the Utility’s allowed ROE as of the date of the TCC RSA. Pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Bankruptcy Court on June 12, 2020, PG&E Corporation, the Utility, the TCC, and the trustee of the Fire Victim Trust agreed that the percentage ownership of the Fire Victim Trust would be 22.19% of the outstanding shares of PG&E Corporation on the Effective Date, subject to potential adjustments.
On the Effective Date, pursuant to the Plan, the Utility entered into a tax benefits payment agreement (the “Tax Benefits Payment Agreement”) with the Fire Victim Trust, pursuant to which the Utility agreed to pay to the Fire Victim Trust in cash an aggregate amount of $1.35 billion, comprising (i) at least $650 million of tax benefits arising from certain tax deductions related to pre-petition wildfires (“Tax Benefits”) for fiscal year 2020 to be paid on or before January 15, 2021 and (ii) of the remainder of $1.35 billion of Tax Benefits for fiscal year 2021 to be paid on or before January 15, 2022. On January 15, 2021, the Utility paid the first tranche of tax benefits of approximately $758 million pursuant to the Tax Benefits Payment Agreement, leaving approximately $592 million to be paid.
2019 Kincade Fire
According to Cal Fire, on October 23, 2019 at approximately 9:27 p.m., a wildfire began northeast of Geyserville in Sonoma County, California (the “2019 Kincade fire”), located in the service territory of the Utility. The Cal Fire Kincade Fire Incident Update dated November 20, 2019, 11:02 a.m. Pacific Time (the “incident update”), indicated that the 2019 Kincade fire had consumed 77,758 acres. In the incident update, Cal Fire reported no fatalities and four first responder injuries. The incident update also indicates the following: structures destroyed, 374 (consisting of 174 residential structures, 11 commercial structures and 189 other structures); and structures damaged, 60 (consisting of 35 residential structures, one commercial structure and 24 other structures). In connection with the 2019 Kincade fire, state and local officials issued numerous mandatory evacuation orders and evacuation warnings at various times for certain areas of the region. Based on County of Sonoma information, PG&E Corporation and the Utility understand that the geographic zones subject to either a mandatory evacuation order or an evacuation warning between October 23, 2019 and November 4, 2019 included approximately 200,000 persons.
On October 23, 2019, by 3:00 p.m. Pacific Time, the Utility had conducted a PSPS event and turned off the power to approximately 27,837 customers in Sonoma County, including Geyserville and the surrounding area. As part of the PSPS, the Utility’s distribution lines in these areas were deenergized. Following the Utility’s established and CPUC-approved PSPS protocols and procedures, transmission lines in these areas remained energized.
The Utility submitted electric incident reports to the CPUC indicating that:
•at approximately 9:19 p.m. Pacific Time on October 23, 2019, the Utility became aware of a transmission level outage on the Geysers #9 Lakeville 230 kV line when the line relayed and did not reclose;
•various generating facilities on the Geysers #9 Lakeville 230 kV line detected the disturbance and separated at approximately the same time;
•at approximately 9:21 p.m. Pacific Time, the PG&E Grid Control Center received a report that a fire had started in an area near transmission tower 001/006;
•at approximately 7:30 a.m. Pacific Time on October 24, 2019, a responding Utility troubleman patrolling the Geysers #9 Lakeville 230 kV line observed that Cal Fire had taped off the area around the base of transmission tower 001/006 in the area of the 2019 Kincade fire; and
•on site Cal Fire personnel brought to the troubleman’s attention what appeared to be a broken jumper on the same tower.
On July 16, 2020, Cal Fire issued a press release addressing the cause of the 2019 Kincade fire. The press release stated that Cal Fire had determined that “the Kincade Fire was caused by electrical transmission lines owned and operated by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) located northeast of Geyserville. Tinder dry vegetation and strong winds combined with low humidity and warm temperatures contributed to extreme rates of fire spread.”
On April 6, 2021, the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office filed a criminal complaint (the “Complaint”) charging the Utility with 5 felonies and 28 misdemeanors related to the 2019 Kincade fire. The Complaint alleges three felony counts of recklessly causing a fire that caused great bodily injury to six firefighters and/or burned inhabited and other structures, inhabited property, forest land and personal property, in violation of Penal Code section 452; two felony counts of reckless emission of air contaminants that caused great bodily injury to two minors, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 42400.3(c); one misdemeanor count of carelessly or negligently throwing or placing substances that may cause a fire, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 13001; one misdemeanor count of negligently causing fire, in violation of Public Resources Code section 4421; three misdemeanor counts of violation by a public utility, in violation of Public Utilities Code section 2110; and 23 misdemeanor counts of recklessly or negligently emitting air contaminants, in violation of Health and Safety Code sections 42400.3(b) and 42400.1(a). If convicted of any of the charges in the Complaint, the Utility could be subject to fines, penalties, and restitution to victims for their economic losses (including property damage, medical and mental health expenses, lost wages, lost profits, attorney's fees and interest), as well as non-monetary remedies such as oversight requirements.
On April 6, 2021, PG&E Corporation announced that it disputed the charges in the Complaint. It further announced that it will accept Cal Fire’s finding that a PG&E transmission line caused the 2019 Kincade fire, even though PG&E Corporation does not have access to the evidence that Cal Fire gathered. On April 20, 2021, the court held an initial hearing in the case.
Potential liabilities related to the 2019 Kincade fire depend on various factors, including but not limited to the cause of the fire, contributing causes of the fire (including alternative potential origins, weather- and climate-related issues), the number, size and type of structures damaged or destroyed, the contents of such structures and other personal property damage, the number and types of trees damaged or destroyed, attorneys’ fees for claimants, the nature and extent of any personal injuries, the amount of fire suppression and clean-up costs, other damages the Utility may be responsible for if found negligent, and the amount of any penalties, fines, or restitution that may be imposed by courts or other governmental entities.
If the Utility’s facilities, such as its electric distribution and transmission lines, are judicially determined to be the substantial cause of the 2019 Kincade fire, and the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies, the Utility could be liable for property damage, business interruption, interest and attorneys’ fees without having been found negligent. California courts have imposed liability under the doctrine of inverse condemnation in legal actions brought by property holders against utilities on the grounds that losses borne by the person whose property was damaged through a public use undertaking should be spread across the community that benefited from such undertaking, and based on the assumption that utilities have the ability to recover these costs from their customers. Further, California courts have determined that the doctrine of inverse condemnation is applicable regardless of whether the CPUC ultimately allows recovery by the utility for any such costs. The CPUC may decide not to authorize cost recovery even if a court decision were to determine that the Utility is liable as a result of the application of the doctrine of inverse condemnation. (See “Loss Recoveries – Regulatory Recovery” below for further information regarding potential cost recovery related to the wildfires.)
In light of the current state of the law concerning inverse condemnation and the information currently available to PG&E Corporation and the Utility, including the information contained in the electric incident reports, Cal Fire’s determination of the cause, other information gathered as part of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s investigation, and the charges filed by the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is probable that they will incur a loss in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a charge in the aggregate amount of $625 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 (before available insurance). Based on additional facts and circumstances available to the Utility as of the date of this filing, including the status of negotiations with certain subrogation entities and certain county and local agencies, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded an additional charge for potential losses in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire of $175 million for the three months ended March 31, 2021, for an aggregate liability of $800 million (before available insurance).
The aggregate liability of $800 million for claims in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire (before available insurance) corresponds to the lower end of the range of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s reasonably estimable range of losses and is subject to change based on additional information. The $800 million estimate does not include, among other things: (i) any amounts for potential penalties, fines, or restitution that may be imposed by courts or other governmental entities on PG&E Corporation or the Utility, (ii) any punitive damages, (iii) any amounts in respect of compensation claims by Federal or state agencies other than state fire suppression costs, (iv) evacuation costs or (v) any other amounts that are not reasonably estimable.
Under California law (including Penal Code section 1202.4), if the Utility were convicted of any of the charges in the Complaint, the sentencing court must order the Utility to “make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order” that is “sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of” the Utility’s underlying conduct, in addition to interest and the victim’s or victims’ attorneys’ fees. This requirement for full reimbursement of economic loss is not waivable by either the government or the victim and is not offset by any compensation that the victims have received or may receive from their insurance carriers. In the event that the Utility were convicted of certain charges in the Complaint, the Utility currently believes that, depending on which charges it were to be convicted of, its total losses associated with the 2019 Kincade fire would materially exceed the $800 million aggregate liability that PG&E Corporation and the Utility have recorded to reflect the lower end of the range of the reasonably estimable range of losses for the 2019 Kincade fire civil claims. The Utility is currently unable to determine a reasonable estimate of the amount of such additional losses. The Utility does not expect that any of its liability insurance would be available to cover restitution payments ordered by the court presiding over the criminal proceeding.
The Utility believes it will continue to receive additional information from potential claimants as litigation or resolution efforts progress. Any such additional information may potentially allow PG&E Corporation and the Utility to refine such estimate and may result in changes to the accrual depending on the information provided.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility currently believe that it is reasonably possible that the amount of loss could be greater than $800 million (before available insurance) but are unable to reasonably estimate the additional loss and the upper end of the range because, as described above, there are a number of unknown facts and legal considerations that may impact the amount of any potential liability, including the total scope and nature of claims that may be asserted against PG&E Corporation and the Utility and the outcome of the criminal proceedings initiated against the Utility by the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office. If the liability for the 2019 Kincade fire were to exceed $1.0 billion, it is possible the Utility would be eligible to make a claim to the Wildfire Fund under AB 1054 for such excess amount, subject to the 40% limitation on claims arising before emergence from bankruptcy. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to continue to review the available information and other information as it becomes available, including evidence in the possession of Cal Fire or the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office, evidence from or held by other parties, claims that have not yet been submitted, and additional information about the nature and extent of potential damages.
The process for estimating losses associated with potential claims related to the 2019 Kincade fire requires management to exercise significant judgment based on a number of assumptions and subjective factors, including the factors identified above and estimates based on currently available information and prior experience with wildfires. As more information becomes available, management estimates and assumptions regarding the potential financial impact of the 2019 Kincade fire may change.
The Utility has liability insurance from various insurers, which provides coverage for third-party liability attributable to the 2019 Kincade fire in an aggregate amount of $430 million. The Utility records insurance recoveries when it is deemed probable that recovery will occur, and the Utility can reasonably estimate the amount or its range. As of March 31, 2021, the Utility has recorded an insurance receivable for the full amount of the $430 million. While the Utility plans to seek recovery of all insured losses, it is unable to predict the ultimate amount and timing of such insurance recoveries.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility have received data requests from the SED relating to the 2019 Kincade fire and have responded to all data requests received to date, and various other entities may also be investigating the fire. It is uncertain when any such investigations will be complete.
As of April 28, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of 25 complaints on behalf of approximately 535 plaintiffs related to the 2019 Kincade fire and expect that they may receive further such complaints. The complaints were filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Sonoma and the California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco and include claims based on multiple theories of liability, including inverse condemnation, negligence, violations of the Public Utilities Code, violations of the Health & Safety Code, premises liability, trespass, public nuisance and private nuisance. The plaintiffs in each action principally assert that PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s alleged failure to properly maintain, inspect and de-energize their transmission lines was the cause of the 2019 Kincade fire. On December 3, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a petition with the California Judicial Council to coordinate the litigation. On April 8, 2021, the coordination motion judge ordered that the cases be coordinated, and on April 16, 2021, the San Francisco County Superior Court was selected as the site of the coordinated proceeding.
In addition to claims for property damage, business interruption, interest and attorneys’ fees, PG&E Corporation and the Utility could be liable for fire suppression costs, evacuation costs, medical expenses, personal injury damages, punitive damages and other damages under other theories of liability in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire, including if PG&E Corporation or the Utility were found to have been negligent.
2020 Zogg Fire
According to Cal Fire, on September 27, 2020, a wildfire began in the area of Zogg Mine Road and Jenny Bird Lane, north of Igo in Shasta County, California (the “2020 Zogg fire”), located in the service territory of the Utility. The Cal Fire Zogg fire Incident Update dated October 16, 2020, 3:08 p.m. Pacific Time (the “incident update”), indicated that the 2020 Zogg fire had consumed 56,338 acres. The incident update reported four fatalities and one injury. The incident update also indicated that 27 structures were damaged and 204 structures were destroyed. Of the 204 structures destroyed, 63 were single family homes, according to a damage inspection report available from the Shasta County Department of Resource Management.
On October 9, 2020, the Utility submitted an electric incident report to the CPUC indicating that:
•wildfire camera and satellite data on September 27, 2020 show smoke, heat or signs of fire in the area of Zogg Mine Road and Jenny Bird Lane between approximately 2:43 p.m. and 2:46 p.m. Pacific Time;
•according to Utility records, on September 27, 2020, a SmartMeter and a line recloser serving the area of Zogg Mine Road and Jenny Bird Lane reported alarms and other activity starting at approximately 2:40 p.m. until 3:06 p.m. Pacific Time when the line recloser de-energized a portion of the Girvan 1101 12 kV circuit, a distribution line that serves that area; and
•the data currently available to the Utility do not establish the causes of the activity on the Girvan 1101 circuit or the locations of these causes.
On March 22, 2021, Cal Fire issued a press release with its determination that the 2020 Zogg fire was caused by a pine tree contacting electrical facilities owned and operated by the Utility located north of the community of Igo.
Cal Fire also indicated that its investigative report has been forwarded to the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office, which is investigating the matter. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have received and are responding to data requests from the SED and document requests from the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office relating to the 2020 Zogg fire, and various other entities, which may include other law enforcement agencies, may also be investigating the fire. It is uncertain when any such investigations will be complete. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are also conducting their own investigation into the cause of the 2020 Zogg fire. This investigation is preliminary, and PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not have access to the evidence in the possession of Cal Fire or other third parties.
Potential liabilities related to the 2020 Zogg fire depend on various factors, including but not limited to the cause of the fire, contributing causes of the fire (including alternative potential origins, weather- and climate-related issues), the number, size and type of structures damaged or destroyed, the contents of such structures and other personal property damage, the number and types of trees damaged or destroyed, attorneys’ fees for claimants, the nature and extent of any personal injuries, including the loss of lives, the amount of fire suppression and clean-up costs, other damages the Utility may be responsible for if found negligent, and the amount of any penalties, fines, or restitution that may be imposed by governmental entities.
Based on the current state of the law concerning inverse condemnation in California and the facts and circumstances available to PG&E Corporation and the Utility as of the date of this filing, including the information gathered as part of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s investigation, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is probable that they will incur a loss in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded a charge in the aggregate amount of $275 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 (before available insurance). Based on additional facts and circumstances available to the Utility as of the date of this filing, including the status of negotiations with certain agencies and additional damages information from certain plaintiffs, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded an additional charge for potential losses in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire in the amount of $25 million for the three months ended March 31, 2021, for an aggregate liability of $300 million (before available insurance). If the Utility’s facilities, such as its electric distribution lines, are judicially determined to be the substantial cause of the Zogg fire, and the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies, the Utility could be liable for property damage, business interruption, interest and attorneys’ fees without having been found negligent. For more information regarding the inverse condemnation doctrine, see “2019 Kincade Fire” above.
The aggregate liability of $300 million for claims in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire (before available insurance) corresponds to the lower end of the range of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s reasonably estimable range of losses, and is subject to change based on additional information. This $300 million estimate does not include, among other things: (i) any amounts for potential penalties, fines or restitution that may be imposed by governmental entities on PG&E Corporation or the Utility, (ii) any punitive damages, (iii) any amounts in respect of compensation claims by Federal or state agencies other than state fire suppression costs, or (iv) any other amounts that are not reasonably estimable.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility currently believe that it is reasonably possible that the amount of the loss will be greater than $300 million and are unable to reasonably estimate the additional loss and the upper end of the range because, as described above, there are a number of unknown facts and legal considerations that may impact the amount of any potential liability, including the total scope and nature of claims that may be asserted against PG&E Corporation and the Utility. If the liability for the 2020 Zogg fire were to exceed $1.0 billion, it is possible the Utility would be eligible to make a claim to the Wildfire Fund under AB 1054 for such excess amount. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to continue to review the available information and other information as it becomes available, including evidence in Cal Fire’s possession, evidence from or held by other parties, claims that have not yet been submitted, and additional information about the nature and extent of personal and business property damages and losses, the nature, number and severity of personal injuries, and information made available through the discovery process. In particular, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have not had access to all of the evidence obtained by Cal Fire or other third parties.
The process for estimating losses associated with potential claims related to the 2020 Zogg fire requires management to exercise significant judgment based on a number of assumptions and subjective factors, including the factors identified above and estimates based on currently available information and prior experience with wildfires. As more information becomes available, management estimates and assumptions regarding the potential financial impact of the 2020 Zogg fire may change.
The Utility has liability insurance from various insurers, which provides coverage for third-party liability attributable to the 2020 Zogg fire in an aggregate amount of $611 million. This amount is reduced from the $867.5 million of coverage disclosed in the 2020 Form 10-K due to the Utility’s commuting certain insurance policies in connection with its April 2021 wildfire liability insurance renewal. The Utility records insurance recoveries when it is deemed probable that recovery will occur, and the Utility can reasonably estimate the amount or its range. As of March 31, 2021, the Utility has recorded an insurance receivable for $247 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire, which equals the $300 million probable loss estimate less an initial self-insured retention of $60 million, plus $7 million in legal fees incurred. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to seek full recovery for all insured losses. If PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to recover the full amount of their insurance, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows could be materially affected.
As of April 28, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of 7 complaints on behalf of approximately 266 plaintiffs related to the 2020 Zogg fire and expect that they may receive further such complaints. The complaints were filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Shasta and the California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco and include claims based on multiple theories of liability, including inverse condemnation, negligence, violations of the Public Utilities Code, violations of the Health & Safety Code, premises liability, trespass, public nuisance and private nuisance. The plaintiffs in each action principally assert that PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s alleged failure to properly maintain, inspect and de-energize their distribution lines was the cause of the 2020 Zogg fire. The plaintiffs seek damages that include wrongful death, property damage, economic loss, punitive damages, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and other damages. On February 5, 2021, certain plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Judicial Council to coordinate five civil cases filed against the Utility and PG&E Corporation in the Superior Courts of Shasta and San Francisco counties. The petition requests that the cases be coordinated in San Francisco Superior Court. On March 15, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a brief that supported coordination but requested that the cases be coordinated in Shasta County Superior Court or, in the alternative, Sacramento County Superior Court. On March 24, 2021, pursuant to authorization from the California Judicial Council, a judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court was assigned to serve as the coordination motion judge to decide whether the aforementioned actions should be coordinated and, if so, recommend where the coordinated proceeding should take place. A hearing is scheduled for May 12, 2021.
In addition to claims for property damage, business interruption, interest and attorneys’ fees, PG&E Corporation and the Utility could be liable for fire suppression costs, evacuation costs, medical expenses, wrongful death and personal injury damages, punitive damages and other damages under other theories of liability in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire, including if PG&E Corporation and the Utility were found to have been negligent.
Loss Recoveries
PG&E Corporation and the Utility have insurance coverage for liabilities, including wildfire. Additionally, there are several mechanisms that allow for recovery of costs from customers. Potential for recovery is described below. Failure to obtain a substantial or full recovery of costs related to wildfires or any conclusion that such recovery is no longer probable could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows. In addition, the inability to recover costs in a timely manner could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows.
Insurance
Insurance Coverage
In April 2021, the Utility purchased approximately $268 million in wildfire liability insurance coverage for the period of April 12, 2021 to April 1, 2022, and approximately $32 million in wildfire liability reinsurance for the period of April 1, 2021 to April 1, 2022 at a cost of approximately $220 million. This coverage is in addition to approximately $11 million in existing wildfire reinsurance for the period of July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021 and approximately $600 million in existing wildfire liability insurance purchased by the Utility in August 2020 for the period of August 1, 2020 to August 1, 2021. On August 1, 2021, this existing wildfire liability coverage is scheduled to renew for the period of August 1, 2021 to August 1, 2022 at a cost of approximately $516 million pursuant to multi-year policy terms. The Utility’s wildfire liability insurance is subject to an initial self-insured retention of $60 million. For non-wildfire events, the Utility carries approximately $700 million in coverage for the period of August 1, 2020 to August 1, 2021 at a cost of approximately $152 million. At March 31, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility had prepaid insurance of $313 million, reflected in Other current assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Various coverage limitations applicable to different insurance layers could result in material uninsured costs in the future depending on the amount and type of damages resulting from covered events.
In the Utility’s 2020 GRC proceeding, the CPUC also approved a settlement agreement provision that allows the Utility to recover annual insurance costs for up to $1.4 billion in general liability insurance coverage. An advice letter is required for additional coverage purchased by the Utility in excess of $1.4 billion in coverage.
The Utility will not be able to obtain any recovery from the Wildfire Fund for wildfire-related losses in any year that do not exceed the greater of $1.0 billion in the aggregate and the amount of insurance coverage required under AB 1054. (See “Wildfire Fund under AB 1054” below.)
Insurance Receivable
PG&E Corporation and the Utility record a receivable for insurance recoveries when it is deemed probable that recovery of a recorded loss will occur. Through March 31, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility recorded $430 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire, and $247 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the 2020 Zogg fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have recovered all of the insurance except for $25 million for the 2017 Northern California wildfires. PG&E Corporation and the Utility intend to seek full recovery for all insured losses.
If PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to recover the full amount of their insurance, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows could be materially affected.
The balances for insurance receivables with respect to wildfires are included in Other accounts receivable in PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance Receivable (in millions)
|
2020 Zogg fire
|
|
2019 Kincade fire
|
|
2017 Northern California wildfires
|
|
Total
|
Balance at December 31, 2020
|
$
|
219
|
|
|
$
|
430
|
|
|
$
|
25
|
|
|
$
|
674
|
|
Accrued insurance recoveries
|
28
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
28
|
|
Reimbursements
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2021
|
$
|
247
|
|
|
$
|
430
|
|
|
$
|
25
|
|
|
$
|
702
|
|
Regulatory Recovery
SB 901, signed into law on September 21, 2018, requires the CPUC to establish a CHT, directing the CPUC to limit certain disallowances in the aggregate, so that they do not exceed the maximum amount that the Utility can pay without harming customers or materially impacting its ability to provide adequate and safe service. SB 901 also authorizes the CPUC to issue a financing order that permits recovery, through the issuance of recovery bonds (also referred to as “securitization”), of wildfire-related costs found to be just and reasonable by the CPUC and, only for the 2017 Northern California wildfires, any amounts in excess of the CHT.
Pursuant to SB 901 and the CPUC’s methodology adopted in the CHT OIR, on April 30, 2020, the Utility filed an application with the CPUC seeking authorization for a post-emergence transaction to securitize $7.5 billion of 2017 wildfire claims costs that is designed to not impact amounts billed to customers, with the proceeds used to pay or reimburse the Utility for the payment of wildfire claims costs associated with the 2017 Northern California wildfires. In connection with the proposed transaction, the Utility would retire $6.0 billion of Utility debt and accelerate the remaining $592 million payment due to the Fire Victim Trust (see “Restructuring Support Agreement with the TCC” above). On April 23, 2021, the CPUC issued a decision granting the Utility’s application for a $7.5 billion rate neutral securitization.
On April 5, 2021, the ALJ issued a PD granting the Utility’s application for a financing order authorizing the issuance of recovery bonds in connection with a post-emergence transaction. On April 26, 2021, the Utility filed opening comments on the PD. The Utility’s reply comments are due on May 3, 2021. The Utility expects a CPUC decision on the financing order by May 6, 2021.
Failure to obtain a substantial or full recovery of costs related to wildfires could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows.
For more information see Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K.
Wildfire-Related Derivative Litigation
Two purported derivative lawsuits alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment were filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court on November 16, 2017 and November 20, 2017, respectively, naming as defendants certain then-current and former members of the Board of Directors and certain then-current and former officers of PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are named as nominal defendants. These lawsuits were consolidated by the court on February 14, 2018 and denominated In Re California North Bay Fire Derivative Litigation (now re-captioned Trotter v. Williams et al.). On April 13, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. After the parties reached an agreement regarding a stay of the derivative proceeding pending resolution of the tort actions described above and any regulatory proceeding relating to the 2017 Northern California wildfires, on April 24, 2018, the court entered a stipulation and order to stay. The stay was subject to certain conditions regarding the plaintiffs’ access to discovery in other actions. On January 28, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a request to lift the stay for the purposes of amending their complaint to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire. Prior to resolution of the plaintiffs’ request to lift the stay, this matter was automatically stayed by PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, as discussed below. On November 12, 2020, the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust filed a motion to intervene to substitute as the plaintiff in the matter, to which the parties later stipulated. On March 8, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to substitute the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust as the plaintiff. Separately, on February 24, 2021, the trustee filed an amended complaint in one of the pending state court derivative actions, the Trotter v. Chew action discussed below, asserting two claims for breach of fiduciary duty against certain of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s former directors and officers. The amended complaint was further amended to correct certain procedural flaws on March 24, 2021. Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility is a party to the action. A case management conference was held on March 18, 2021 and the two actions were consolidated on March 30, 2021. A hearing on the defendants’ demurrer and a further case management conference is scheduled for July 15, 2021. Trial is set for June 27, 2022.
On August 3, 2018, a third purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Chew, et al. (now captioned Trotter v. PG&E Corp., et al.), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants certain then-current and former members of the Board of Directors and certain then-current and former officers of PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation is named as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment as well as a claim under section 14(a) of the Exchange Act alleging that PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s 2017 proxy statement contained misrepresentations regarding the companies’ risk management and safety programs. On October 15, 2018, PG&E Corporation filed a motion to stay the litigation. Prior to the scheduled hearing on this motion, this matter was automatically stayed by PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, as discussed below. On December 14, 2020, the court entered a stipulation and order to substitute the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust as the plaintiff. On March 10, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice.
On October 23, 2018, a fourth purported derivative lawsuit, entitled City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Chew, et al., was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment. It named as defendants certain then-current and former members of the Board of Directors and certain then-current and former officers of PG&E Corporation, and named PG&E Corporation as a nominal defendant. The matter was consolidated with In Re California North Bay Fire Derivative Litigation on December 3, 2018. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this matter without prejudice on January 23, 2019.
On November 21, 2018, a fifth purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Williams v. Earley, Jr., et al. (now captioned Trotter v. Earley, et al.), was filed in federal court in San Francisco, alleging claims identical to those alleged in the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Chew, et al. lawsuit listed above against certain then-current and former officers and directors, and naming PG&E Corporation and the Utility as nominal defendants. This lawsuit includes allegations related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2018 Camp fire. This action was stayed by stipulation of the parties and order of the court on December 21, 2018, subject to resolution of the pending securities class action. On January 7, 2021, the court entered a stipulation and order to substitute the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust as the plaintiff. On March 3, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice.
On December 24, 2018, a sixth purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Bowlinger v. Chew, et al. (now captioned Trotter v. Chew, et al.), was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment in connection with the 2018 Camp fire against certain then-current and former officers and directors, and naming PG&E Corporation and the Utility as nominal defendants. On February 5, 2019, the plaintiff filed a response to the notice asserting that the automatic stay did not apply to his claims. PG&E Corporation and the Utility accordingly filed a Motion to Enforce the Automatic Stay with the Bankruptcy Court as to the Bowlinger action, which was granted. On November 5, 2020, the court entered a stipulation and order to substitute the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust as the plaintiff. On February 24, 2021, the trustee filed an amended complaint, which was amended on March 24, 2021 to correct certain procedural flaws, alleging two causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty against certain former officers and directors. The first cause of action alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the 2017 Northern California wildfires, and the second cause of action alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the 2018 Camp fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are no longer named as nominal defendants. A case management conference was held on March 18, 2021. On March 30, 2021, this action was consolidated with In Re California North Bay Fire Derivative Litigation. A hearing on the defendants’ demurrer and a further case management conference are scheduled for July 15, 2021. Trial is set for June 27, 2022.
On January 25, 2019, a seventh purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Hagberg v. Chew, et al., was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment in connection with the 2018 Camp fire against certain then-current and former officers and directors, and naming PG&E Corporation and the Utility as nominal defendants. A case management conference is set for July 7, 2021.
On January 28, 2019, an eighth purported derivative lawsuit, entitled Blackburn v. Meserve, et al. (now captioned Trotter v. Meserve, et al.), was filed in federal court alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets in connection with the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2018 Camp fire against certain then-current and former officers and directors, and naming PG&E Corporation as a nominal defendant. On January 8, 2021, the court entered a stipulation and order to substitute the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust as the plaintiff. On March 10, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice.
Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed notices in each of these proceedings on February 1, 2019, reflecting that the proceedings were automatically stayed through the Effective Date pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s rights with respect to the derivative claims asserted against former officers and directors of PG&E Corporation and the Utility were assigned to the Fire Victim Trust under the TCC RSA. The assignment became effective as of the Effective Date of the Plan.
The above purported derivative lawsuits were brought against the named defendants on behalf of PG&E Corporation or the Utility. As a result of the assignment of these claims to the Fire Victim Trust, any recovery based on these claims would be paid to the Fire Victim Trust. Any such recovery is limited to the extent of any director and officer insurance policy proceeds paid by any insurance carrier to reimburse PG&E Corporation or the Utility for amounts paid pursuant to their indemnification obligations in connection with such causes of action.
Securities Class Action Litigation
Wildfire-Related Class Action
In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its then-current and former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et al., respectively. The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions related to, among other things, vegetation management and transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public disclosures. The complaints asserted claims under section 10(b) and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29, 2015 to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases, and the litigation is now denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico (“PERA”) as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018. After the plaintiff requested leave to amend its complaint to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, the plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint on December 14, 2018.
Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, the proceedings were automatically stayed as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility. On February 15, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a complaint in Bankruptcy Court against the plaintiff seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to extend the stay to the claims alleged against the individual officer defendants.
On February 22, 2019, a third purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled York County on behalf of the York County Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the “York County Action”). The complaint names as defendants certain then-current and former officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018. Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility is named as a defendant. The complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the note offerings related to, among other things, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s vegetation management and wildfire safety measures. The complaint asserts claims under section 11 and section 15 of the Securities Act, and seeks unspecified monetary relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs, and injunctive relief. On May 7, 2019, the York County Action was consolidated with In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation.
On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint, which includes the claims asserted in the previously filed actions and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, the Utility, certain current and former officers and former directors, and the underwriters. On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court denied PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s request to extend the stay to the claims against the officer, director, and underwriter defendants. On October 4, 2019, the officer, director, and underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint, which motions are under submission with the District Court. The securities actions have been enjoined as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility pursuant to the Plan with such claims to be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court as part of the claims reconciliation process in the Chapter 11 Cases.
Satisfaction of HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims and Subordinated Debt Claims
Claims against PG&E Corporation and the Utility relating to, among others, the three purported securities class actions (described above) that have been consolidated and denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 18-03509, will be resolved pursuant to the Plan. As described above, these claims consist of pre-petition claims under the federal securities laws related to, among other things, allegedly misleading statements or omissions with respect to vegetation management and wildfire safety disclosures, and are classified into separate categories under the Plan, each of which is subject to subordination under the Bankruptcy Code. The first category of claims consists of pre-petition claims arising from or related to the common stock of PG&E Corporation (such claims, with certain other similar claims against PG&E Corporation, the “HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims”). The second category of pre-petition claims, which comprises two separate classes under the Plan, consists of claims arising from debt securities issued by PG&E Corporation and the Utility (such claims, with certain other similar claims against PG&E Corporation and the Utility, the “Subordinated Debt Claims,” and together with the HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims, the “Subordinated Claims”).
While PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe they have defenses to the Subordinated Claims, as well as insurance coverage that may be available with respect to the Subordinated Claims, these defenses may not prevail and any such insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover the full amount of the allowed claims. In that case, PG&E Corporation and the Utility will be required, pursuant to the Plan, to satisfy such claims as follows:
•each holder of an allowed HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claim will receive a number of shares of common stock of PG&E Corporation equal to such holder’s HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claim Share (as such term is defined in the Plan); and
•each holder of an allowed Subordinated Debt Claim will receive payment in full in cash.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility have been engaged in settlement efforts with respect to the Subordinated Claims. If the Subordinated Claims are not settled (with any such resolution being subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court), PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect that the Subordinated Claims will be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court in the claims reconciliation process and treated as described above under the Plan. Under the Plan, after the Effective Date, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have the authority to compromise, settle, object to, or otherwise resolve proofs of claim, and the Bankruptcy Court retains jurisdiction to hear disputes arising in connection with disputed claims. With respect to the Subordinated Claims, the claims reconciliation process may include litigation of the merits of such claims, including the filing of motions, fact discovery, and expert discovery. The total number and amount of allowed Subordinated Claims, if any, was not determined at the Effective Date. To the extent any such claims are allowed, the total amount of such claims could be material, and therefore could result in (a) the issuance of a material number of shares of common stock of PG&E Corporation with respect to allowed HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims, or (b) the payment of a material amount of cash with respect to allowed Subordinated Debt Claims. There can be no assurance that such claims will not have a material adverse impact on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.
Further, if shares are issued in respect of allowed HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims, it may be determined that under the Plan, the Fire Victim Trust should receive additional shares of common stock of PG&E Corporation (assuming, for this purpose, that shares issued in respect of the HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims were issued on the Effective Date).
The named plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed proofs of claim with the Bankruptcy Court on or before the bar date that reflect their securities litigation claims against PG&E Corporation and the Utility. On December 9, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities actions filed a motion seeking approval from the Bankruptcy Court to treat its proof of claim as a class proof of claim. On February 27, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying the motion, but extending the bar date for putative class members to file proofs of claim until April 16, 2020. On March 6, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal regarding the denial of its motion. On March 8, 2021, the District Court issued an order dismissing the appeal.
On July 2, 2020, PERA filed a notice of appeal of the Confirmation Order to the District Court, solely to the extent of seeking review of that part of the Confirmation Order approving the Insurance Deduction (as defined in the Plan) with respect to the formula for the determination of the HoldCo Rescission or Damage Claims Share. The merits of the appeal are fully briefed. On February 16, 2021, the Committee of Tort Claimants filed a motion to dismiss PERA’s appeal. On March 9, 2021, PERA filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a statement with respect to the motion to dismiss. The motion is scheduled to be heard on May 13, 2021.
On September 1, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a motion (the “Securities Claims Procedures Motion”) with the Bankruptcy Court to approve procedures to help facilitate the resolution of the Subordinated Claims. The motion, among other things, requested approval of procedures which allow PG&E Corporation and the Utility to collect certain trading information with respect to the Subordinated Claims, to engage in an alternative dispute resolution process for resolving disputed Subordinated Claims, and to file certain omnibus claim objections with respect to the Subordinated Claims. PERA and a number of other parties filed objections to the Securities Claims Procedures Motion.
On September 28, 2020, PERA filed a second motion under Bankruptcy Rule 7023 requesting that the Bankruptcy Court allow PERA to file a class proof of claim on behalf of the holders of Subordinated Claims (the “Renewed 7023 Motion”) seeking to position its motion as an alternative to the Securities Claims Procedures Motion. On December 4, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court issued an oral decision approving PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Securities Claims Procedures Motion and denying PERA’s Renewed 7023 Motion. On January 25, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting the Securities Claims Procedures Motion. On January 26, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered a written order denying the Renewed 7023 Motion.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility have been working to resolve the Subordinated Claims in accordance with the procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court, including by requesting information from Subordinated Claimants. On March 17, 2021, pursuant to the Securities Claims Procedures, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed in the Bankruptcy Court certain omnibus objections to certain of the Subordinated Claims. On April 26, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered orders disallowing and expunging the Subordinated Claims that were the subject of two of the three omnibus objections, and certain Subordinated Claims with respect to the third omnibus objection. The remaining Subordinated Claims in the third omnibus objection are subject to additional briefing.
De-energization Class Action
On October 25, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Vataj v. Johnson et al. The complaint named as defendants a then-current director and certain then-current and former officers of PG&E Corporation. Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged materially false and misleading statements regarding PG&E Corporation’s wildfire prevention and safety protocols and policies, including regarding the Utility’s public safety power shutoffs, that allegedly resulted in losses and damages to holders of PG&E Corporation’s securities. The complaint asserted claims under section 10(b) and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. On February 3, 2020, the District Court granted a stipulation appointing Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds and Robert Allustiarti co-lead plaintiffs and approving the selection of the plaintiffs’ counsel, and further ordered the parties to submit a proposed schedule by February 13, 2020.
On April 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims. The amended complaint added PG&E Corporation and a current officer of PG&E Corporation as defendants, and no longer asserts claims against certain current and former officers of PG&E Corporation previously named in the action.
On May 15, 2020, the officer defendants filed their motion to dismiss in Vataj. On June 19, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss. On July 10, 2020 the officer defendants filed their reply. In October 2020, the parties reached a settlement agreement in principle, and on October 29, 2020, filed a joint notice of settlement, informing the District Court that they have agreed in principle to settle the matter.
On February 16, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the District Court, and the District Court issued an order terminating as moot the pending motion to dismiss, without prejudice. Pursuant to the settlement stipulation, subject to certain conditions: (1) PG&E Corporation will pay $10 million into an interest-bearing escrow account within 14 days after the District Court’s preliminary approval of the settlement; and (2) plaintiffs and the Settlement Class (as defined in the stipulation of settlement) will release the Released Persons (as defined the stipulation of settlement, including PG&E Corporation and the Utility, and each of their officers, directors, as well as the current and former officers named in both the original and amended complaints) from all claims that have been or could have been asserted by or on behalf of PG&E Corporation shareholders that relate to (a) allegations that were asserted or could have been asserted in either of the complaints in Vataj, and (b) investments in PG&E Corporation’s stock during the relevant period specified in the stipulated settlement.
The settlement is subject to the District Court’s approval and its terms may change as a result of the settlement approval process. The preliminary settlement approval hearing was held on March 11, 2021, where the District Court requested certain supplemental filings, which the parties filed on March 18, 2021. On April 20, 2021, the District Court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On April 27, 2021, the parties requested September 7, 2021 for the final fairness and approval hearing. If the District Court approves the settlement and enters a judgment substantially in the form requested by the parties, the settlement will become effective when certain conditions specified in the settlement stipulation are satisfied, including the expiration of any right to appeal the judgment.
Indemnification Obligations and Directors’ and Officers’ Insurance Coverage
To the extent permitted by law, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have obligations to indemnify directors and officers for certain events or occurrences while a director or officer is or was serving in such capacity, which indemnification obligations extend to the claims asserted against certain directors and officers in the securities class actions and in the litigation matters enumerated above in Note 10 under the heading, “Wildfire-Related Derivative Litigation.” PG&E Corporation and the Utility maintain directors’ and officers’ insurance coverage to reduce their exposure to such indemnification obligations. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have provided notice to their insurance carriers of the claims asserted in the litigation matters enumerated in Note 10 above under the headings “Wildfire-Related Securities Litigation” and “Wildfire-Related Derivative Litigation,” and are in arbitration with the carriers regarding, among other things, the applicability of multiple years of directors’ and officers’ insurance policies to those matters. Recovery under the directors’ and officers’ insurance policies in one such litigation matter may impact the directors’ and officers’ insurance proceeds available in the other matters.
On March 17, 2021, the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust filed a lawsuit entitled, Trotter v. PG&E Corporation, et al., in San Francisco Superior Court, seeking, among other things, a declaration that the trustee for the Fire Victim Trust be permitted to participate in the arbitration with the carriers. The trustee named PG&E Corporation, the Utility, and the insurance carriers as defendants. On March 25, 2021, PG&E Corporation and the Utility removed the action to the Bankruptcy Court. On March 29, 2021, the Fire Victim Trust made a motion to remand the lawsuit back to state court, which the Bankruptcy Court denied on April 20, 2021.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility additionally have potential indemnification obligations to the underwriters for the Utility’s note offerings, pursuant to the underwriting agreements associated with those offerings. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s indemnification obligations to the officers, directors and underwriters may be limited or affected by the Chapter 11 Cases, among other things.
The extent of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s recovery of the directors’ and officers’ insurance proceeds could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows.
District Attorneys’ Offices Investigations
Following the 2018 Camp fire, the Butte County District Attorney’s Office and the California Attorney General’s Office opened a criminal investigation of the 2018 Camp fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility were informed by the Butte County District Attorney’s Office and the California Attorney General’s Office that a grand jury had been empaneled in Butte County.
On March 17, 2020, the Utility entered into the Plea Agreement and Settlement (the “Plea Agreement”) with the People of the State of California, by and through the Butte County District Attorney’s office (the “People” and the “Butte DA,” respectively) to resolve the criminal prosecution of the Utility in connection with the 2018 Camp fire. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Plea Agreement, the Utility agreed to plead guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter in violation of Penal Code section 192(b) and one count of unlawfully causing a fire in violation of Penal Code section 452, and to admit special allegations pursuant to Penal Code sections 452.1(a)(2), 452.1(a)(3) and 452.1(a)(4).
On January 15, 2021, the Butte County Superior Court held a brief hearing on the status of restitution, which involves distribution of funds from the Fire Victim Trust, which was established under the Company’s Plan of Reorganization in Bankruptcy Court and is managed by a trustee and a claims administrator. The Court continued the hearing to August 20, 2021 for a further update.
Following the 2019 Kincade fire, the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office opened a criminal investigation of the 2019 Kincade fire. On April 6, 2021, the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office filed a criminal complaint (the “Complaint”) against the Utility related to the 2019 Kincade fire. For more information see “2019 Kincade Fire” above.
On March 22, 2021, Cal Fire issued a press release with its determination that the 2020 Zogg fire was caused by a pine tree contacting electrical facilities owned and operated by the Utility located north of the community of Igo. Cal Fire also indicated that its investigative report has been forwarded to the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office, which is investigating the matter. For more information, see “2020 Zogg Fire” above.
Additional investigations and other actions may arise out of the 2019 Kincade fire or the 2020 Zogg fire. The timing and outcome for resolution of any such investigations are uncertain.
SEC Investigation
On March 20, 2019, PG&E Corporation learned that the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office was conducting an investigation related to PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s public disclosures and accounting for losses associated with the 2018 Camp fire, the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2015 Butte fire. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to predict the timing and outcome of the investigation.
Wildfire Fund under AB 1054
On July 12, 2019, the California governor signed into law AB 1054, a bill which provides for the establishment of a statewide fund that will be available for eligible electric utility companies to pay eligible claims for liabilities arising from wildfires occurring after July 12, 2019 that are caused by the applicable electric utility company’s equipment, subject to the terms and conditions of AB 1054. Eligible claims are claims for third party damages resulting from any such wildfires, limited to the portion of such claims that exceeds the greater of (i) $1.0 billion in the aggregate in any year and (ii) the amount of insurance coverage required to be in place for the electric utility company pursuant to section 3293 of the Public Utilities Code, added by AB 1054.
Electric utility companies that draw from the Wildfire Fund will only be required to repay amounts that are determined by the CPUC in an application for cost recovery not to be just and reasonable, subject to a disallowance cap equal to 20% of the IOU’s transmission and distribution equity rate base. For the Utility, the disallowance cap would be approximately $2.7 billion based on 2020 equity rate base, and is subject to adjustment based on changes in the Utility’s total transmission and distribution equity rate base and would apply for a three calendar year period. The disallowance cap is inapplicable in certain circumstances, including if the Wildfire Fund administrator determines that the electric utility company’s actions or inactions that resulted in the applicable wildfire constituted “conscious or willful disregard for the rights and safety of others,” or the electric utility company fails to maintain a valid safety certification. Costs that the CPUC determines to be just and reasonable will not need to be repaid to the Wildfire Fund, resulting in a draw-down of the Wildfire Fund.
The Utility is required to attain a safety certification from the CPUC every 12 months, which will be issued within 90 days if the Utility has provided documentation that it has satisfied the requirements for the safety certification pursuant to section 8389(e) of the Public Utilities Code, added by AB 1054. On January 14, 2021, the WSD approved the Utility’s 2020 application and issued the Utility’s 2020 Safety Certification pursuant to the requirements of AB 1054. The safety certification is separate from the CPUC’s enforcement authority and does not preclude the CPUC from pursuing remedies for safety or other applicable violations. The 2020 Safety Certification is valid for 12 months or until a timely request for a new safety certification is acted upon, whichever occurs later. On January 26, 2021, TURN filed with the CPUC a request for review of WSD’s issuance of the safety certification, which the CPUC declined to provide on April 14, 2021.
The Wildfire Fund and disallowance cap will be terminated when the amounts therein are exhausted. The Wildfire Fund is expected to be capitalized with (i) $10.5 billion of proceeds of bonds supported by a 15-year extension of the Department of Water Resources charge to customers, (ii) $7.5 billion in initial contributions from California’s three large electric IOUs and (iii) $300 million in annual contributions paid by California’s three large electric IOUs for at least a 10 year period. For more information regarding contributions to the Wildfire Fund, see Note 3 above.
The Wildfire Fund will only be available for payment of eligible claims so long as there are sufficient funds remaining in the Wildfire Fund. Such funds could be depleted more quickly than expected, including as a result of claims made by California’s other participating electric utility companies. The Wildfire Fund is available to pay for the Utility’s eligible claims arising as of July 12, 2019, the effective date of AB 1054, subject to a limit of 40% of the amount of such claims arising between the effective date of AB 1054 and the Utility’s emergence from Chapter 11. The 40% limit does not apply to eligible claims that arise after the Utility’s emergence from Chapter 11. The Wildfire Fund is additionally limited to the portion of such claims that exceeds the greater of (i) $1.0 billion in the aggregate in any year and (ii) the amount of insurance coverage required to be in place for the electric utility company pursuant to section 3293 of the Public Utilities Code, added by AB 1054.
AB 1054 also provides that the first $5.0 billion expended in the aggregate by California’s three large electric IOUs on fire risk mitigation capital expenditures included in their respective approved WMPs will be excluded from their respective equity rate bases. The $5.0 billion of capital expenditures were allocated among the IOUs in accordance with their Wildfire Fund allocation metrics. The Utility’s allocation is $3.21 billion. For more information on the Wildfire Fund allocation metrics, see Note 3 above. AB 1054 contemplates that such capital expenditures may be securitized through a customer charge.
For more information see “Regulatory Recovery” above, Note 3 above and Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K.
NOTE 11: OTHER CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS
PG&E Corporation and the Utility have significant contingencies arising from their operations, including contingencies related to enforcement and litigation matters and environmental remediation. A provision for a loss contingency is recorded when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. PG&E Corporation and the Utility evaluate the range of reasonably estimated losses and record a provision based on the lower end of the range, unless an amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and estimates are adjusted to reflect the impact of all known information, such as negotiations, discovery, settlements and payments, rulings, penalties related to regulatory compliance, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s policy is to exclude anticipated legal costs from the provision for loss and expense these costs as incurred.
The Utility also has substantial financial commitments in connection with agreements entered into to support its operating activities. See “Purchase Commitments” below.
PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows may be materially affected by the outcome of the following matters.
Enforcement Matters
U.S. District Court Matters and Probation
In connection with the Utility’s probation proceeding, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has the ability to impose additional probation conditions on the Utility. Additional conditions, if implemented, could be wide-ranging and would impact the Utility’s operations, number of employees, costs and financial performance. Depending on the terms of these additional requirements, costs in connections with such requirements could have a material effect on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows.
CPUC and FERC Matters
Order Instituting Investigation into the 2017 Northern California Wildfires and the 2018 Camp Fire
On June 27, 2019, the CPUC issued the Wildfires OII to determine whether the Utility “violated any provision(s) of the California Public Utilities Code, Commission General Orders or decisions, or other applicable rules or requirements pertaining to the maintenance and operation of its electric facilities that were involved in igniting fires in its service territory in 2017.” On December 5, 2019, the assigned commissioner issued a second amended scoping memo and ruling that amended the scope of issues to be considered in this proceeding to include the 2018 Camp fire.
As previously disclosed, on December 17, 2019, the Utility, the SED of the CPUC, the CPUC’s OSA, and CUE jointly submitted to the CPUC a proposed settlement agreement in connection with this proceeding and jointly moved for its approval. The settlement agreement became effective on the Effective Date.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Utility agreed to (i) not seek rate recovery of wildfire-related expenses and capital expenditures in future applications in the amount of $1.625 billion, as specified below, and (ii) incur costs of $50 million in shareholder-funded system enhancement initiatives as described further in the settlement agreement. The amounts set forth in the table below include actual recorded costs and forecasted cost estimates as of the date of the settlement agreement for expenses and capital expenditures which the Utility has incurred or planned to incur to comply with its legal obligations to provide safe and reliable service. While actual costs incurred for certain cost categories are different than what was assumed in the settlement agreement, the Utility has recorded $1.625 billion of the disallowed costs through March 31, 2021.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description(1)
|
Expense
|
|
Capital
|
|
Total
|
Distribution Safety Inspections and Repairs Expense (FRMMA/WMPMA)
|
$
|
236
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
236
|
|
Transmission Safety Inspections and Repairs Expense (TO)(2)
|
433
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
433
|
|
Vegetation Management Support Costs (FHPMA)
|
36
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
36
|
|
2017 Northern California Wildfires CEMA Expense and Capital (CEMA)
|
82
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
148
|
|
2018 Camp Fire CEMA Expense (CEMA)
|
435
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
435
|
|
2018 Camp Fire CEMA Capital for Restoration (CEMA)
|
—
|
|
|
253
|
|
|
253
|
|
2018 Camp Fire CEMA Capital for Temporary Facilities (CEMA)
|
—
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
84
|
|
Total
|
$
|
1,222
|
|
|
$
|
403
|
|
|
$
|
1,625
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) All amounts included in the table reflect actual recorded costs for 2019 and 2020.
(2) Transmission amounts are under the FERC’s regulatory authority.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility record a charge when it is both probable that costs incurred or projected to be incurred for recently completed plant will not be recoverable through rates charged to customers and the amount of disallowance can be reasonably estimated.
The Utility expects that the system enhancement spending pursuant to the settlement agreement will occur through 2025.
On April 20, 2020, the assigned commissioner issued a Decision Different adopting, with changes, the proposed modifications set forth in the request for review. The Decision Different (i) increases the amount of disallowed wildfire expenditures by $198 million (as set forth in the POD); (ii) increases the amount of shareholder funding for System Enhancement Initiatives by $64 million (as set forth in the POD); (iii) imposes a $200 million fine but permanently suspends payment of the fine; and (iii) limits the tax savings that must be returned to customers to those savings generated by disallowed operating expenditures. The Decision Different also denies all pending appeals of the POD and denies, in part, the Utility’s motion requesting other relief. On April 30, 2020, the Utility submitted its comments on the Decision Different to the CPUC, accepting the modifications. The CPUC approved the Decision Different on May 7, 2020.
As it relates to the additional $198 million in disallowed costs as adopted in the Decision Different, the Utility has recorded cumulative charges of $172 million primarily in WMPMA through March 31, 2021 and intends to record the remaining charges of $26 million by the end of 2021.
On June 8, 2020, two parties filed separate applications for rehearing, the purpose of which was to challenge the CPUC’s approval of the settlement agreement, as modified. On June 23, 2020, the Utility and CUE filed a joint response opposing the applications for rehearing. On December 3, 2020, the CPUC issued a decision denying the application for rehearing. On January 4, 2021, one party filed a petition for review of the CPUC decision with the California court of appeals. Responses to the petition were submitted on March 25, 2021. The Utility is unable to predict the timing and outcome of the petition.
Transmission Owner Rate Case Revenue Subject to Refund
The FERC determines the amount of authorized revenue requirements, including the rate of return on electric transmission assets, that the Utility may collect in rates in the TO rate case. The FERC typically authorizes the Utility to charge new rates based on the requested revenue requirement, subject to refund, before the FERC has issued a final decision. The Utility bills and records revenue based on the amounts requested in its rate case filing and records a reserve for its estimate of the amounts that are probable of refund. Rates subject to refund went into effect on March 1, 2017, March 1, 2018, and May 1, 2019 for TO18, the TO rate case for 2018 (“TO19”), and the TO rate case for 2019 (“TO20”), respectively.
On October 1, 2018, the ALJ issued an initial decision in the TO18 rate case and the Utility filed initial briefs on October 31, 2018, in response to the ALJ’s recommendations. On October 15, 2020, the FERC issued an order that affirmed in part and reversed in part the initial decision. The order reopens the record for the limited purpose of allowing parties an opportunity to present written evidence concerning the FERC’s revised ROE methodology adopted in the FERC Opinion No. 569-A, issued on May 21, 2020. Initial briefs were filed on December 14, 2020 and reply briefs were filed on February 12, 2021. In addition, the order addresses a number of other issues including: (1) approving depreciation rates that yield an estimated composite depreciation rate of 2.94% compared to the Utility’s request of 3.25%; (2) reducing forecasted capital, operations and maintenance, and cost of debt expense to actual costs incurred for the rate case period; and (3) upholding the initial decision’s rejection of the Utility’s direct assignment of common plant to transmission and requiring the allocation of all common plant between CPUC and FERC jurisdiction be based on operating and maintenance labor ratios. On the direct assignment issue, applying labor ratios to certain common plant would result in an allocation of 6.15% of common plant to FERC in comparison to 8.84% under the Utility’s direct assignment method. The Utility filed a request for rehearing of certain aspects of the order, which was denied by the FERC on December 17, 2020. The Utility filed a petition for review of the order on February 11, 2021 in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and a separate petition for review was jointly filed the same day by two other parties in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have issued orders holding the appeals in abeyance until July 14, 2021 and June 30, 2021, respectively, so that the FERC has time to issue a substantive order on rehearing. The ultimate outcome on appeal of certain items for which the Utility requested rehearing could also impact the revenues recorded for the TO19 and TO20 periods. On April 15, 2021, the FERC issued an order denying the Utility’s request for rehearing and granting the request for rehearing of two parties regarding the impact of the Tax Act on TO18 rates in January and February 2018. The Utility may seek rehearing of the FERC’s reversal on the applicability of the Tax Act on TO18 rates which may affect the timing for judicial review of the FERC order on the Utility’s request for rehearing.
As a result of the FERC’s April 15, 2021 order denying rehearing on the common plant allocation, the Utility increased its Regulatory liabilities for amounts previously collected during the TO18, TO19, and TO20 rate case periods from 2017 through the first quarter of 2021 by approximately $270 million. A portion of these common plant costs are expected to be recovered at the CPUC in a separate application and as a result, the Utility has recorded approximately $150 million to Regulatory assets.
On September 21, 2018, the Utility filed an all-party settlement with the FERC, which was approved by the FERC on December 20, 2018, in connection with TO19. As part of the settlement, the TO19 revenue requirement will be set at 98.85% of the revenue requirement for TO18 that will be determined upon issuance of a final unappealable decision in the TO18 proceeding.
On December 30, 2020, the FERC approved an all-party settlement agreement in connection with TO20. The TO20 settlement resolved all issues of the Utility’s formula rate. However, some of the formula rate issues are contingent on the outcome of TO18, including the allocation of costs related to common, general and intangible plant. The settlement provides that the formula rate will remain in effect through December 31, 2023. The Utility is required to make a successor rate filing in 2023 which would go into effect on January 1, 2024.
CEMA Interim Rate Relief Subject to Refund
On March 30, 2018, the Utility submitted to the CPUC its 2018 CEMA application requesting cost recovery of $183 million in connection with seven catastrophic events that included fire and storm declared emergencies from mid-2016 through early 2017, as well as $405 million related to work performed in 2016 and 2017 to cut back or remove dead or dying trees that were exposed to years of drought conditions and bark beetle infestation.
On April 25, 2019, the CPUC approved the Utility’s request for interim rate relief, allowing for recovery of $373 million of costs as requested by the Utility at that time. The interim rate relief was implemented on October 1, 2019. Costs included in the interim rate relief are subject to audit and refund. On August 7, 2019, the Utility filed a revised application, revised testimony and revised workpapers, reflecting a new revenue requirement request of $669 million, pursuant to a CPUC ruling allowing these changes.
The 2018 CEMA application does not include costs related to the 2015 Butte fire, the 2017 Northern California wildfires, or the 2018 Camp fire.
On March 9, 2020, the CPUC issued a modified scoping memo and ruling. On May 4, 2020, the Utility filed a revised application, which included 2019 tree mortality costs, reflecting a new revenue requirement request of $757 million, and the costs of an independent auditor to be hired for audit of all vegetation management costs and related interest calculations.
On January 4, 2021, the independent audit of all vegetation management costs commenced, and the final audit report is expected in early July 2021.
On January 8, 2021, the Utility filed a revised application updating the revenue requirement to include an additional $5.6 million of tree mortality costs and the cost of hiring an independent auditor.
The Utility is unable to predict the timing and outcome of this application.
WMCE Interim Rate Relief Subject to Refund
On September 30, 2020, the Utility filed an application with the CPUC requesting cost recovery of recorded expenditures related to wildfire mitigation, certain catastrophic events, and a number of other activities (the “WMCE application”). The recorded expenditures, which exclude amounts disallowed as a result of the CPUC’s decision in the OII into the 2017 Northern California Wildfires and the 2018 Camp fire, consist of $1.18 billion in expense and $801 million in capital expenditures, resulting in a proposed revenue requirement of approximately $1.28 billion.
The costs addressed in the WMCE application cover activities mainly during the years 2017 to 2019 and are incremental to those previously authorized in the Utility’s 2017 GRC and other proceedings. The majority of costs addressed in this application reflect work necessary to mitigate wildfire risk and to respond to catastrophic events occurring during the years 2017 to 2019. The Utility’s requested revenue includes amounts for the FHPMA of $293 million, the FRMMA and the WMPMA of $740 million, and the CEMA of $251 million. The requested revenue for CEMA costs reflected in the application include the Utility’s costs incurred responding to ten catastrophic events.
Given the CPUC’s prior approval of $447 million in interim rate relief (which includes interest), the Utility proposed to recover the remaining $868 million revenue requirement, including interest, over a one-year period (following the conclusion of interim rate relief recovery). Cost recovery requested in this application is subject to the CPUC’s reasonableness review, which could result in some or all of the interim rate relief of $447 million being subject to refund.
Intervenors’ testimony was served on April 14, 2021 and the Utility’s rebuttal testimony is due on April 30, 2021. The scoping memo and ruling for the proceeding calls for a PD to be issued in September 2021.
The Utility is unable to predict the outcome of this application. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows could be materially affected if the Utility is unable to timely recover costs included in this application.
For more information regarding the FHPMA, the FRMMA, the WMPMA, and the CEMA memorandum accounts, see Note 4 above and the 2020 Form 10-K.
Other Matters
PG&E Corporation and the Utility are subject to various claims and lawsuits that separately are not considered material. Accruals for contingencies related to such matters (excluding amounts related to the contingencies discussed above under “Enforcement and Litigation Matters”) totaled $134 million and $144 million at March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively. These amounts were included in Other current liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not believe it is reasonably possible that the resolution of these matters will have a material impact on their financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
PSPS Class Action
On December 19, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California naming PG&E Corporation and the Utility. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all California residents and business owners who had their power shut off by the Utility during the October 9, October 23, October 26, October 28, or November 20, 2019 power outages and any subsequent voluntary outages occurring during the course of litigation. The plaintiff alleges that the necessity for the October and November 2019 power shutoff events was caused by the Utility’s negligence in failing to properly maintain its electrical lines and surrounding vegetation. The complaint seeks up to $2.5 billion in special and general damages, punitive and exemplary damages and injunctive relief to require the Utility to properly maintain and inspect its power grid. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe the allegations are without merit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.
On January 21, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative strike the class action allegations. On March 30, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Utility’s motion to dismiss this class action because the plaintiff’s class action claims are preempted as a matter of law by the CPUC code. On April 3, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order dismissing the action without leave to amend.
The plaintiff appealed the decision dismissing the complaint to the District Court. On March 26, 2021, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of this action, and the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellant’s opening brief is due by June 24, 2021, and PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s opposition brief is due by July 26, 2021. The appellants’ reply brief is due 21 days after the opposition brief is filed.
The Utility is unable to determine the timing and outcome of this proceeding.
GT&S Capital Expenditures 2011-2014
On June 23, 2016, the CPUC approved a final phase one decision in the Utility’s 2015 GT&S rate case. The phase one decision excluded from rate base $696 million of capital spending in 2011 through 2014 in excess of the amount adopted in the prior GT&S rate case. The decision permanently disallowed $120 million of that amount and ordered that the remaining $576 million be subject to a review of reasonableness to be conducted, or overseen, by the CPUC staff. The review was completed on June 1, 2020 and did not result in any additional disallowances. The report certified $512 million for future recovery. The difference between the certified amount and the $576 million previously disallowed is primarily a result of differences between capital expenditures forecasted in the 2015 GT&S rate case and recorded capital expenditures.
On July 31, 2020, the Utility filed an application seeking recovery of revenue requirements on the $512 million of capital expenditures retroactive to January 1, 2015. On October 16, 2020, the assigned commissioner issued a scoping memo establishing the scope and schedule for the proceeding. On January 20, 2021, the Utility provided supplemental testimony and supporting working papers addressing the reasonableness of the capital expenditures. Intervenors testimony was served on April 7, 2021 and the Utility’s rebuttal testimony is due on May 5, 2021. The scoping memo calls for the issuance of a PD in the fourth quarter of 2021.
On November 10, 2020, the Utility filed a motion seeking approximately $100 million in interim rates, assuming the CPUC reaches a final decision in this matter in late 2021 or early 2022. The CPUC has not yet ruled upon the Utility’s motion.
The Utility is unable to determine the timing and outcome of this proceeding.
CZU Lightning Complex Fire Notices of Violation
Several governmental entities have raised concerns regarding the Utility’s emergency response to the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex fire, including Cal Fire alleging violations of Public Resource Code sections related to timber harvest regulations and Forest Practice Rules, the California Coastal Commission alleging violations of the Coastal Act related to unpermitted development in the coastal zone, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board alleging unpermitted discharge to waters, and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors adopting a resolution to file a complaint with the CPUC. The concerns include potential environmental impacts related to erosion and sedimentation from hazard tree removal and access road use, work in sensitive habitats, and the management of wood debris. The Coastal Commission issued a Notice of Violation letter to the Utility on November 20, 2020, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a Notice of Violation letter on December 15, 2020, Cal Fire has issued six Notices of Violation through April 7, 2021, and Santa Cruz County filed a complaint with the CPUC on January 25, 2021. The Utility continues to work with all agencies, as well as Santa Cruz County, to resolve any outstanding issues. Santa Cruz County has agreed to extend the deadline for the Utility to answer the complaint and file a motion to dismiss to April 29, 2021, so the parties can discuss settlement opportunities.
Based on the information currently available, PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is probable that a liability has been incurred. The Utility is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential penalties that could be incurred given the number of factors that can be considered in determining penalties. PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not believe that the resolution of these matters will have a material impact on their financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Violations can result in penalties, remediation and other relief.
Environmental Remediation Contingencies
The Utility’s environmental remediation liability is primarily included in non-current liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and is comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
(in millions)
|
March 31, 2021
|
|
December 31, 2020
|
Topock natural gas compressor station
|
$
|
298
|
|
|
$
|
303
|
|
Hinkley natural gas compressor station
|
130
|
|
|
132
|
|
Former manufactured gas plant sites owned by the Utility or third parties (1)
|
693
|
|
|
659
|
|
Utility-owned generation facilities (other than fossil fuel-fired),
other facilities, and third-party disposal sites (2)
|
116
|
|
|
111
|
|
Fossil fuel-fired generation facilities and sites (3)
|
76
|
|
|
96
|
|
Total environmental remediation liability
|
$
|
1,313
|
|
|
$
|
1,301
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Primarily driven by the following sites: San Francisco Beach Street, Vallejo, Napa, and San Francisco East Harbor.
(2) Primarily driven by Geothermal landfill and Shell Pond site.
(3) Primarily driven by the San Francisco Potrero Power Plant.
The Utility’s gas compressor stations, former manufactured gas plant sites, power plant sites, gas gathering sites, and sites used by the Utility for the storage, recycling, and disposal of potentially hazardous substances are subject to requirements issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in addition to other state hazardous waste laws. The Utility has a comprehensive program in place designed to comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to hazardous materials, waste, remediation activities, and other environmental requirements. The Utility assesses and monitors the environmental requirements on an ongoing basis and implements changes to its program as deemed appropriate. The Utility’s remediation activities are overseen by the DTSC, several California regional water quality control boards, and various other federal, state, and local agencies.
The Utility’s environmental remediation liability at March 31, 2021, reflects its best estimate of probable future costs for remediation based on the current assessment data and regulatory obligations. Future costs will depend on many factors, including the extent of work necessary to implement final remediation plans, the Utility’s time frame for remediation, and unanticipated claims filed against the Utility. The Utility may incur actual costs in the future that are materially different than this estimate and such costs could have a material impact on results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows during the period in which they are recorded. At March 31, 2021, the Utility expected to recover $1,017 million of its environmental remediation liability for certain sites through various ratemaking mechanisms authorized by the CPUC.
For more information, see remediation site descriptions below and see Note 15 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K.
Natural Gas Compressor Station Sites
The Utility is legally responsible for remediating groundwater contamination caused by hexavalent chromium used in the past at the Utility’s natural gas compressor stations. The Utility is also required to take measures to abate the effects of the contamination on the environment.
Topock Site
The Utility’s remediation and abatement efforts at the Topock site are subject to the regulatory authority of the California DTSC and the U.S. Department of the Interior. On April 24, 2018, the DTSC authorized the Utility to build an in-situ groundwater treatment system to convert hexavalent chromium into a non-toxic and non-soluble form of chromium. Construction activities began in October 2018 and will continue for several years. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the Topock site may increase by as much as $220 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the Topock site are expected to be recovered primarily through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered in rates.
Hinkley Site
The Utility has been implementing remediation measures at the Hinkley site to reduce the mass of the chromium plume in groundwater and to monitor and control movement of the plume. The Utility’s remediation and abatement efforts at the Hinkley site are subject to the regulatory authority of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. In November 2015, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region adopted a clean-up and abatement order directing the Utility to contain and remediate the underground plume of hexavalent chromium and the potential environmental impacts. The final order states that the Utility must continue and improve its remediation efforts, define the boundaries of the chromium plume, and take other action. Additionally, the final order sets plume capture requirements, requires a monitoring and reporting program, and includes deadlines for the Utility to meet interim cleanup targets. The United States Geological Survey team is currently conducting a background study on the site to better define the chromium plume boundaries. A draft background report was received in January 2020 and is expected to be finalized in 2021. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the Hinkley site may increase by as much as $138 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the Hinkley site will not be recovered through rates.
Former Manufactured Gas Plants
Former MGPs used coal and oil to produce gas for use by the Utility’s customers before natural gas became available. The by-products and residues of this process were often disposed of at the MGPs themselves. The Utility has a program to manage the residues left behind as a result of the manufacturing process; many of the sites in the program have been addressed. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with MGP sites may increase by as much as $436 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation at currently identified MGP sites is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the MGP sites are recovered through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered in rates.
Utility-Owned Generation Facilities and Third-Party Disposal Sites
Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites often involve long-term remediation. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites may increase by as much as $59 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The environmental remediation costs associated with the Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites are recovered through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered in rates.
Fossil Fuel-Fired Generation Sites
In 1998, the Utility divested its generation power plant business as part of generation deregulation. Although the Utility sold its fossil-fueled power plants, the Utility retained the environmental remediation liability associated with each site. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with fossil fuel-fired generation sites may increase by as much as $44 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The environmental remediation costs associated with the fossil fuel-fired sites will not be recovered through rates.
Nuclear Insurance
The Utility maintains multiple insurance policies through NEIL and EMANI, covering nuclear or non-nuclear events at the Utility’s two nuclear generating units at Diablo Canyon and the retired Humboldt Bay Unit 3. NEIL provides property damage and business interruption coverage of up to $3.2 billion per nuclear incident and $2.5 billion per non-nuclear incident for Diablo Canyon. For Humboldt Bay Unit 3, NEIL provides up to $50 million of coverage for nuclear and non-nuclear property damages. NEIL also provides coverage for damages caused by acts of terrorism at nuclear power plants. Through NEIL, there is up to $3.2 billion available to the membership to cover this exposure. EMANI shares losses with NEIL, as part of the first $400 million of coverage within the current nuclear insurance program. EMANI also provides an additional $200 million in excess insurance for property damage and business interruption losses incurred by the utility if a nuclear or non-nuclear event were to occur at Diablo Canyon. If NEIL losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, the Utility could be subject to a retrospective assessment. If NEIL were to exercise this assessment, the maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligation for the Utility would be approximately $42 million. If EMANI losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, the Utility could be subject to a retrospective assessment of approximately $4 million. For more information about the Utility’s nuclear insurance coverage, see Note 15 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K.
Diablo Canyon Outages
Diablo Canyon Unit 2 has experienced five outages between July 2020 and April 2021, each due or related to malfunctions within the main generator associated with excessive vibrations. Additional inspections and replacement of a redesigned component of the generator occurred during Unit 2’s planned spring 2021 refueling outage. The affected component is part of the secondary system and does not involve a risk of release of radioactive material into the environment. The Utility is working with the vendor that supplied the affected component to understand the root cause and to develop appropriate corrective actions.
If additional shutdowns occur in the future, the Utility may incur incremental costs or forgo additional power market revenues. The Utility will also be subject to a review of the reasonableness of its actions before the CPUC.
Diablo Canyon carries property damage and outage insurance issued by NEIL and EMANI.
The Utility is unable to reasonably estimate the occurrence or length of future outages, the cost to repair the generator, the loss of power market revenues, or the results of a reasonableness review by the CPUC.
Tax Matters
As of the date of this report, it is more likely than not that PG&E Corporation has not undergone an ownership change, and consequently, its net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes are not limited by section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Purchase Commitments
In the ordinary course of business, the Utility enters into various agreements to purchase power and electric capacity; natural gas supply, transportation, and storage; nuclear fuel supply and services; and various other commitments. At December 31, 2020, the Utility had undiscounted future expected obligations of approximately $35 billion. (See Note 15 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 2020 Form 10-K.)
Oakland Headquarters Lease
On June 5, 2020, the Utility entered into an Agreement to Enter Into Lease and Purchase Option (the “Agreement”) with TMG Bay Area Investments II, LLC (“TMG”). The Agreement provides that, contingent on (i) entry of an order by the Bankruptcy Court authorizing the Utility to enter into the Agreement and the Lease Agreement (as defined below), subject to certain conditions, and (ii) acquisition of the Lakeside Building by BA2 300 Lakeside LLC (“Landlord”), a wholly owned subsidiary of TMG, the Utility and Landlord will enter into an office lease agreement (the “Lease Agreement”) for approximately 910,000 rentable square feet of space within the building located at the Lakeside Building to serve as the Utility’s principal administrative headquarters (the “Lease”). On June 9, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court authorizing them to enter into the Agreement and grant related relief. The Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the motion on June 24, 2020.
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, concurrent with the Landlord’s acquisition of the building, on October 23, 2020, the Utility and the Landlord entered into the Lease, and the Utility issued to Landlord (i) an option payment letter of credit in the amount of $75 million on or before the Lease Date (as defined in the Agreement and the Lease Agreement), and (ii) a lease security letter of credit in the amount of $75 million.
The term of the Lease will begin on or about March 1, 2022. The Lease term will expire 34 years and 11 months after the commencement date, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms of the Lease. In addition to base rent, the Utility will be responsible for certain costs and charges specified in the Lease, including insurance costs, maintenance costs and taxes.
The Lease requires the Landlord to pursue approvals to subdivide the real estate it owns surrounding the Lakeside Building to create a separate legal parcel that contains the Lakeside Building (the “Property”) that can be sold to the Utility. The Lease grants to the Utility an option to purchase the Property, following such subdivision, at a price of $892 million, subject to certain adjustments (the “Purchase Price”). The Purchase Price would not be paid until 2023.
In connection with entry into the Agreement, the Utility intends to sell its current office space generally located at 77 Beale Street, 215 Market Street, 245 Market Street and 50 Main Street, San Francisco, California 94105, and associated properties owned by the Utility (“SFGO”). Any sale of the SFGO would be subject to approval by the CPUC. On September 30, 2020, the Utility filed an application with the CPUC seeking authorization to sell the SFGO. On April 21, 2021, the Utility entered into a settlement agreement with certain other parties and submitted the settlement agreement to the CPUC for approval. Under the settlement, the parties agree that (1) the Utility’s headquarters strategy, including the move to Oakland, the sale of SFGO, and the terms of the agreement to lease and the option to purchase the Lakeside Building, is reasonable, (2) all of the gain on sale of SFGO will be returned to customers over five years, beginning in 2022, and (3) the SFGO sale terms and the costs associated with the Utility’s move to the Lakeside Building and development will be considered at later stages of the proceeding and through the CPUC’s advice letter process.
At March 31, 2021, the Lease Agreement had no impact on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.