Commitments And Contingencies | NOTE 9: 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. The Utility also has substantial financial com mitments in connection with agreements entered into to support its operating activities. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows also may be affected by the outcome of the following matters. Enforce ment and Litigation Matters Improper CPUC Communications In the Penalty Decision (further described below), the CPUC stated that it will begin a new investigation to examine allegations by the City of San Bruno that communications between the Utility’s employees and CPUC personnel violated the CPUC’s rules relating to ex parte communications. Ex parte communications include any communication between a decision maker and an interested person concerning substantive issues in certain identified categories of formal proceedings before the CPUC. The Utility believes that the communications cited by San Bruno are not prohibited ex parte communications. If the CPUC determines that the communications constitute ex parte violations, it is reasonably possible t hat the CPUC will impose penalties or other remedies, but the Utility is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of future charges that could be incurred given the CPUC’s wide discretion and the number of factors that can be considered in determi ning the final penalties. In September 2014, t he Utility notified the CPUC of ex parte communications between the Utility and the CPUC regarding the 2015 GT&S rate case. In November 2014, the CPUC imposed a fine of $1.05 million on the Utility for these communications. In addition, the CPUC disallowed the Utility from recovering up to the entire amount of the revenue increase that may be authorized in the pending GT&S rate case and that otherwise would have been collected from ratepayers over a five-mon th period. The CPUC will determine the amount of this disallowance when it issues its decision to authorize the Utility’s GT&S revenue requirements. In October and December 2014, the Utility also notified the CPUC of additional email communications between the Utility and the CPUC regarding various matters (not limited to the GT&S rate case) that the Utility believes may constitute or describe ex parte communications. For these additional communications, the Utility believes it is probable that CPUC enforcement action will be taken. The Utility is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of future charges that could be incurred given the CPUC’s wide discretion and the number of factors that can be considered in determining the final penalti es. On May 21, 2015, the Utility filed various documents (including copies of internal email correspondence) with the CPUC to complete its response to orders issued by CPUC administrative law judges regarding potential ex parte communications between the Utility and CPUC personnel. The Utility also notified the CPUC of an additional potential ex parte communication made in the 2011 General Rate Case to supplement a notification that the Utility voluntarily provided on October 6, 2014. It is uncertain what action the CPUC or other parties will take in response to these additional reported communications. It is possible that additional orders will be issued to which the Utility will be required to respond. The CPUC could impose fines and penalties on the Util ity relating to communications reported to the CPUC or with respect to additional communications that the Utility may identify and report in response to new orders that may be issued or in connection with new or ongoing investigations or legal proceedings. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Francisco and the California Attorney General’s office have also begun investigations in connection with the ex parte communications. The Utility is cooperating with the federal and state investigators. It is uncertain whether any charges will be brought against the Utility . Other CPUC Matters CPUC Investigation Regarding Natural Gas Distribution Facilities Record-Keeping On November 20, 2014, the CPUC began an investigation into whether the Utility violated applica ble laws pertaining to record-keeping practices for its natural gas distribution service and facilities. The order also requires the Utility to show cause why (1) the CPUC should not find that the Utility violated provisions of the California Public Utili ties Code, CPUC general orders or decisions, other rules, or requirements, and/or engaged in unreasonable and/or imprudent practices related to these matters, and (2) the CPUC should not impose penalties, and/or any other forms of relief, if any violations are found. In particular, the order cites the SED’s investigative reports alleging that the Utility violated rules regarding safety record-keeping in connection with six natural gas distribution incidents, including the natural gas explosion that occurre d in Carmel, California on March 3, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the assigned Commissioner issued a scoping memo and ruling stating that the scope of the proceeding is whether or not the Utility violated any applicable laws, rules, or regulations “by its reco rd-keeping policies and practices with respect to maintaining safe operation of its gas distribution system.” The scope of the proceeding also may include matters resulting from the SED’s ongoing reviews of the Utility’s record-keeping practices relating to mapping, pre-excavation location and marking, and pressure validation for distribution facilities, among other issues. The procedural schedule requires the SED’s and intervenors’ testimony to be submitted starting in September 2015 with the Utility’s r esponse due in November 2015, followed by rebuttal testimony in December 2015. Hearings are scheduled for January 2016. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is reasonably possible that the CPUC will impose penalties on the Utility or require the Utility to implement operational remedies. The Utility is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of future charges that could be incurred given the CPUC’s wide discretion and the number of factors that can be considered in determining penalties and given the fact that the extent of any alleged violations is currently unknown. In addition, the Utility could incur material costs to implement operational remedies, which may not be recoverable. Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Rights-of-Way In 2012, the Utility notified the CPUC and the SED that the Utility planned to complete a system-wide survey of its transmission pipelines in an effort to address a self-reported violation whereby the Utility did not properly identify encroachments (such as b uilding structures and vegetation overgrowth) on the Utility’s pipeline rights-of-way. The Utility also submitted a proposed compliance plan that set forth the scope and timing of remedial work to remove identified encroachments over a multi-year period a nd to pay penalties if the proposed milestones were not met. In March 2014, the Utility informed the SED that the survey has been completed and that remediation work, including removal of the encroachments, is expected to continue for several years. The S ED has not addressed the Utility’s proposed compliance plan, and it is reasonably possible that the SED will impose fines on the Utility or take other enforcement action in the future based on the Utility’s failure to continuously survey its system and rem ove encroachments. T he Utility is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of future charges that could be incurred given the SED’s wide discretion and the number of factors that can be considered in determining penalties. Potential Safety Cita tions The SED periodically audits utility operating practices and conducts investigations of potential violations of laws and regulations applicable to the safety of the California utilities’ electric and natural gas facilities and operations. In additio n, the California utilities are required to inform the SED of self-identified or self-corrected violations. The SED has authority to issue citations and impose fines for violations identified through audits, investigations, or self-reports. The SED can c onsider various factors in determining whether to impose fines and the amount of fines, including the severity of the safety risk associated with each violation, the number and duration of the violations, whether the violation was self-reported, and whethe r corrective actions were taken. The SED has imposed fines on the Utility ranging from $50,000 to $16.8 million for violations of natural gas laws and regulations. The Utility believes it is probable that the SED will impose fines or take other enforcement action based on some of the Utility’s self-reported non-compliance with natural gas laws and regulations or based on allegations of non-compliance with such laws and regulations that are contained in some of the SED’s audits. The Utility is una ble to reasonably estimate the amount or range of future charges that could be incurred for fines imposed by the SED with respect to these matters given the wide discretion the SED has in determining whether to bring enforcement action and the number of fa ctors that can be considered in determining the amount of fines. Federal Matters Federal Criminal Indictment On July 29, 2014, a federal grand jury for the Northern District of California returned a 28-count superseding criminal indictment against the U tility in federal district court that succeeded the original indictment that was returned on April 1, 2014. The superseding indictment charges 27 felony counts alleging that the Utility knowingly and willfully violated minimum safety standards under the N atural Gas Pipeline Safety Act relating to recordkeeping, pipeline integrity management, and identification of pipeline threats. The superseding indictment also includes one felony count charging that the Utility illegally obstructed the NTSB’s investigat ion into the cause of the San Bruno accident. The maximum statutory fine for each felony count is $500,000, for total fines of $14 million. The superseding indictment also seeks an alternative fine under the Alternative Fines Act which states, in part: “ If any person derives pecuniary gain from the offense, or if the offense results in pecuniary loss to a person other than the defendant, the defendant may be fined not more than the greater of twice the gross gain or twice the gross loss.” Based on the su perseding indictment’s allegations that the Utility derived gross gains of approximately $281 million and that the victims suffered losses of approximately $565 million, the maximum alternative fine would be approximately $1.13 billion. The Utility ente red a plea of not guilty. The Utility believes that criminal charges and the alternative fine allegations are not merited and that it did not knowingly and willfully violate minimum safety standards under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act or obstruct th e NTSB’s investigation, as alleged in the superseding indictment. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have not accrued any charges for criminal fines in their Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as such amounts are not considered to be probable. The trial is set to begin March 8, 2016. Other Federal Matters The Utility was informed that the U.S. Attorney’s Office was investigating a natural gas explosion that occurred in Carmel, California on March 3, 2014. (For more information refer to Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements appearing under Item 8 in the 2014 Form 10-K). It is uncertain whether any charges will be brought against the Utility . The U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Francisco also continues to investigate matters relating to the indicted case. Capital Expenditures relating to Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan At June 30, 2015, approximately $ 645 million of PSEP-related capital costs is recorded in property, plant, and equipment on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Utility would be required to record charges to the statement of income in future periods to the extent PSEP-related capital costs are higher than currently expected. Penalty Decision Related to the CPUC’s Investigative Enforcement Proceedings Related to Natural Gas Transmission The Penalty Decision (see Note 1 above) imposes penalties on the Utility totaling $1.6 billion c omprised of: (1) a $300 million fine to be paid to the State General Fund, (2) a one-time $400 million bill credit to the Utility’s natural gas customers, (3) $850 million to fund future pipeline safety projects and programs, and (4) remedial measures that the CPU C estimates will cost the Utility at least $50 million. For the three months and six months ended June 30, 2015, the Utility recorded additional charges of $75 million and $628 million, respectively, as a result of the Penalty Decision. The cumulative charges at June 30, 2015, and the anticipated future financial impact are shown in the following table: Anticipated Six Months Cumulative Future Ended Charges Financial Total (in millions) June 30, 2015 June 30, 2015 Impact Amount Fine payable to the state (1) $ 100 $ 300 $ - $ 300 Customer bill credit 400 400 - 400 Charge for disallowed capital (2) 128 128 561 689 Disallowed revenue for pipeline safety expenses (3) - - 161 161 CPUC estimated cost of other remedies (4) - 20 30 50 Total Penalty Decision fines and remedies recorded $ 628 $ 848 $ 752 $ 1,600 (1) In March 2015, the Utility increased its accrual from $200 million at December 31, 2014 to $300 million. (2) The Penalty Decision prohibits the Utility from recovering certain expenses and capital spending associated with pipeline safety-related projects and programs that the CPUC will identify in the final decision to be issued in the Utility’s 2015 GT&S rate case. The Utility estimates that approximately $75 million and $128 million of capital spending (which include less than $1 million for remedy relat ed capital costs) in the three months and six months ended June 30, 2015, respectively, are probable of disallowance, subject to adjustment based on the final 2015 GT&S rate case decision. (3) These costs are being expensed as incurred. Future GT&S revenue s will be reduced for these unrecovered expenses. (4) In the Penalty Decision, the CPUC estimates that the Utility would incur $50 million to comply with the other remedies in the Penalty Decision, including $30 million to reimburse the CPUC for the costs of future audits. Remedial costs are expensed as incurred. Other than the refund of CPUC audit costs, the majority of the remedies have been completed or are underway and the associated costs have already been incurred. At June 30, 2015, the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets include $300 million in other current liabilities for the fines payable, and $400 million in current regulatory liabilities for the one-time bill credit due to the Utility’s natural gas customers. The charges recorded are refle cted in operating and maintenance expenses in the June 30, 2015, Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. The Penalty Decision requires that at least $688.5 million of the $850 million be allocated to capital expenditures and that the Utility be pre cluded from including these capital costs in rate base. The remainder will be allocated to safety-related expenses. The CPUC will determine which safety projects and programs will be funded by shareholders in the Utility’s pending 2015 GT&S rate case. I f the $850 million is not exhausted by designated safety-related projects and programs in the GT&S proceeding, the CPUC will identify additional projects in future proceedings to ensure that the full $850 million is spent. It is uncertain what costs the CP UC will ultimately count towards the $850 million shareholder-funded obligation. To the extent the Utility’s actual costs exceed qualified amounts and are not authorized for recovery, the Utility may be required to record additional charges in future peri ods. The CPUC is expected to issue a final decision in the Utility’s 2015 GT&S rate case in 2016 to identify the safety-related project and programs that will be subject to the disallowance. Other Legal and Regulatory Contingencies Accruals for other leg al and regulatory contingencies (excluding amounts related to the enforcement and litigation matters described above) totaled $ 43 million at June 30, 2015, and $55 million at De cember 31, 2014. These amounts are included in other current liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material impact on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Environmental Remediation Contingencies The Utility’s environmental remediation liability is primarily included in non-current liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and is composed of the following: Balance at (in millions) June 30, 2015 December 31, 2014 Topock natural gas compressor station (1) $ 297 $ 291 Hinkley natural gas compressor station (1) 149 158 Former manufactured gas plant sites owned by the Utility or third parties 263 257 Utility-owned generation facilities (other than fossil fuel-fired), other facilities, and third-party disposal sites 153 150 Fossil fuel-fired generation facilities and sites 96 98 Total environmental remediation liability $ 958 $ 954 (1) See “Natural Gas Compressor Station Sites” below. At June 30, 2015 , the Utility expected to recover $ 676 million of its environmental remediation liability through various ratemaking mechanisms authorized by the CPUC. The Utility will also incur environmental remediation costs that it does not seek to recover in rates, such as the costs associated with the Hinkley site. Natural Gas Compressor Station Sites The Utility is legally responsible for remediating groundwater con tamination caused by hexavalent chromium used in the past at the Utility’s natural gas compressor stations. One of these stations is located near Hinkley, California and is referred to below as the “Hinkley site.” Another station is located near Needles, California and is referred to below as the “Topock site.” The Utility is also required to take measures to abate the effects of the contamination on the environment. Hinkley Site The Utility has been implementing interim remediation measures at the Hinkley site to reduce the mass of the chromium plume and to monitor and control movement of the plume. The Utility's remediation and abatement efforts at the Hinkley site are overseen by the Regional Board. In January 2015, the Regional Board issued an updated draft clean-up and abatement order that proposes the Utility continues and improves its remedial treatment methods and contains a proposed monitoring and reporting program. The Regional Board is expected to issue a revised draft clean-up and abate ment order in August 2015. After a public comment period, the Regional Board is expected to consider adoption of a final clean-up and abatement order (which may include deadlines to meet specified interim clean up targets) at its November 2015 meeting. T he Utility’s environmental remediation liability at June 30, 2015 reflects the Utility’s best estimate of probable future costs associated with its final remediation plan and interim remed iation measures. Future costs will depend on many factors, including the levels of hexavalent chromium the Utility is required to use as the standard for remediation, the required time period by which those standards must be met, and the nature and extent of the chromium contamination. Future changes in cost estimates and the assumptions on which they are based may have a material impact on future financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. Topock Site The Utility's remediation and abat ement efforts at the Topock site are overseen by the DTSC and the U.S. Department of the Interior. While the Utility has been working with these agencies to develop a final remediation plan, the Utility has been employing various interim remediation measu res, including a system of extraction wells and a treatment plant designed to prevent movement of the chromium plume toward the Colorado River. In September 2014, the Utility submitted its near-final remediation plan to the agencies for approval. The Uti lity’s plan proposes that the Utility construct an in-situ groundwater treatment system to convert hexavalent chromium into a non-toxic and non-soluble form of chromium. The DTSC is conducting an additional environmental review of the proposed plan, and t he Utility anticipates that the DTSC’s draft environmental impact report will be issued for public comment in July 2016. After the DTSC considers public comments that may be made, the DTSC is expected to issue a final environmental impact report in Decemb er 2016. After the Utility modifies its plan in response to the final report, the Utility plans to seek approval to begin construction of the new in-situ treatment system in early 2017. The Utility's environmental remediation liability at June 30, 2015 r eflects its best estimate of probable future costs associated with its final remediation plan. Future costs will depend on many factors, including the scope and timing of required remediation work. Future changes in cost estimates and the assumptions on which they are based may have a material impact on future financial condition and cash flows. Reasonably Possible Environmental Contingencies Although the Utility has provided for known environmental obligations that are probable and reasonably estimable , the Utility’s undiscounted future costs could increase to as much as $ 1.8 billion (including amounts related to the Hinkley and Topock sites described above) if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated or if the other potentially responsible parties are not financially able to contribute to these costs. The Utility may incur actual costs in the fu ture that are materially different than this estimate and such costs could have a material impact on results of operations during the period in which they are recorded. Resolution of Remaining Chapter 11 Disputed Claims Various electricity suppliers file d claims in the Utility’s proceeding filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code seeking payment for energy supplied to the Utility’s customers between May 2000 and June 2001. The Utility has entered into a number of settlement agreements with vari ous electricity suppliers to resolve some of these disputed claims and to resolve the Utility’s refund claims against these electricity suppliers. At December 31, 2014 , the Consolidated Balance Sheets reflected $ 434 million in net claims, within Disputed claims and customer refunds, and $ 291 million of cash in escrow for payment of the remaining net disputed claims, within Restricted cash. There were no significant changes to th ese balances during the six months ended June 30, 2015 . Tax Matters The IRS is currently reviewing several matters in the 2011, 2012, and 2013 tax returns. The most significant relates to a 2011 accounting method change to adopt guidance issued by the IRS in determining which repair costs are deductible for the electric transmission and distribution businesses. PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect that the IRS will complete its review of the deductible repair costs for t he electric transmission and distribution businesses in 2015. The IRS is also expected to issue guidance during 2015 that determines which repair costs are deductible for the natural gas transmission and distribution businesses. PG&E Corporation’s and th e Utility’s unrecognized tax benefits may change significantly within the next 12 months depending on the IRS guidance that is issued and the resolution of the audits related to the 2011, 2012, and 2013 tax returns. As of June 30, 2015, it is reasonably p ossible that unrecognized tax benefits will decrease by approximately $ 370 million within the next 12 months, and most of this decrease would not impact net income. There were no other significant developments to tax matters during the six months ended June 30, 2015. (Refer to Note 8 of the Notes to the Consolidated F inancial Statements in Item 8 of the 2014 Form 10-K.) 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, 2014 the Utility had undiscounted future expected obligations of approximately $53.3 billion. (See Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of the 20 14 Form 10-K.) During the six months ended June 30, 2015, the Utility entered into several renewable energy and other power purchase agreements that were approved by the CPUC and completed major milestones with respect to construction, resulting in additi onal commitments of approximately $465 million over the next 25 years. |