Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

7K characters. Original on sec.gov · Markdown

Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In addition to the following proceedings, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are parties to various lawsuits and regulatory proceedings in the ordinary course of their business. For more information regarding material lawsuits and proceedings, see “Enforcement and Litigation Matters” in Note 13 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 and in Item 7. MD&A.

Order Instituting an Investigation into the Utility’s Safety Culture

On August 27, 2015, the CPUC began a formal investigation into whether the organizational culture and governance of PG&E Corporation and the Utility prioritize safety and adequately direct resources to promote accountability and achieve safety goals and standards. The CPUC directed the SED to evaluate the Utility’s and PG&E Corporation’s organizational culture, governance, policies, practices, and accountability metrics in relation to the Utility’s record of operations, including its record of safety incidents. The CPUC authorized the SED to engage a consultant to assist in the SED’s investigation and the preparation of a report containing the SED’s assessment.

On May 8, 2017, the CPUC President released the consultant’s report, accompanied by a scoping memo and ruling. The scoping memo establishes a second phase in this OII in which the CPUC will evaluate the safety recommendations of the consultant that may lead to the CPUC’s adoption of the recommendations in the report, in whole or in part. This phase of the proceeding will also consider all necessary measures, including, but not limited to, a potential reduction of the Utility’s return on equity until any recommendations adopted by the CPUC are implemented. On November 17, 2017, the CPUC issued a phase two scoping memo and procedural schedule. The scoping memo directed the Utility and other parties to file testimony addressing a number of issues including adoption of the safety recommendations from the consultant, the Utility’s implementation process for the safety recommendations of the consultant, the Utility’s Board of Director’s actions and initiatives related to safety culture and the consultant’s recommendations, the Utility’s corrective action program, and the Utility’s response to certain specified safety incidents that occurred in 2013 through 2015. The Utility’s testimony was submitted to the CPUC on January 8, 2018 and stated that the Utility agrees with all of the recommendations of the consultant and supports their adoption by the CPUC. Other parties’ responsive testimony is due February 16, 2018, and the Utility’s rebuttal is due February 23, 2018. On January 29, 2018, the CPUC modified the procedural schedule to allow more time for parties to better identify areas of agreement to reduce the number of issues that may require hearings.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding, including whether additional fines, penalties, or other ratemaking tools will ultimately be adopted by the CPUC, and whether the CPUC will require that a portion of return on equity for the Utility be dependent on making safety progress as the CPUC may define in this proceeding.

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant

The Utility's Diablo Canyon power plant employs a “once-through” cooling water system that is regulated under a Clean Water Act permit issued by the Central Coast Board. This permit allows the Diablo Canyon power plant to discharge the cooling water at a temperature no more than 22 degrees above the temperature of the ambient receiving water, and requires that the beneficial uses of the water be protected. The beneficial uses of water in this region include industrial water supply, marine and wildlife habitat, shellfish harvesting, and preservation of rare and endangered species. In January 2000, the Central Coast Board issued a proposed draft cease and desist order alleging that, although the temperature limit has never been exceeded, the Utility's Diablo Canyon power plant's discharge was not protective of beneficial uses.

In October 2000, the Utility and the Central Coast Board reached a tentative settlement under which the Central Coast Board agreed to find that the Utility's discharge of cooling water from the Diablo Canyon power plant protects beneficial uses and that the intake technology reflects the best technology available, as defined in the federal Clean Water Act. As part of the tentative settlement, the Utility agreed to take measures to preserve certain acreage north of the plant and to fund approximately $6 million in environmental projects and future environmental monitoring related to coastal resources. On March 21, 2003, the Central Coast Board voted to accept the settlement agreement. On June 17, 2003, the settlement agreement was executed by the Utility, the Central Coast Board and the California Attorney General's Office. A condition to the effectiveness of the settlement agreement was that the Central Coast Board renew Diablo Canyon's permit.

However, at its July 10, 2003 meeting, the Central Coast Board did not renew the permit and continued the permit renewal hearing indefinitely. Several Central Coast Board members indicated that they no longer supported the settlement agreement, and the Central Coast Board requested a team of independent scientists to develop additional information on possible mitigation measures for Central Coast Board staff. In 2005, the Central Coast Board reviewed the scientists' draft report recommending several such mitigation measures, but no action was taken.

In 2010, the California Water Board adopted a policy on once-through cooling that generally requires the installation of cooling towers or other significant measures to reduce the impact on marine life from existing power generation facilities in California by at least 85%. The policy also provided for an alternative compliance approach for nuclear plants if certain criteria were met. As required by the policy, the California Water Board appointed a committee to evaluate the feasibility and cost of using alternative technologies to achieve compliance at Diablo Canyon. The committee’s consultant submitted its final report to the California Water Board in September 2014. The report addressed feasibility, costs and timeframes to install alternative technologies at Diablo Canyon, such as cooling towers.

On January 11, 2018, the CPUC approved the retirement of Diablo Canyon Unit 1 by 2024 and Unit 2 by 2025. As a result of the planned retirement, the California Water Board will no longer need to address alternative compliance measures for Diablo Canyon. As required under the policy, the Utility paid an annual interim mitigation fee beginning in 2017, which it will continue to pay until operations cease in 2025. Additionally, the Utility expects that its decision to retire Diablo Canyon will affect the terms of a final settlement agreement between the Utility and the Central Coast Board regarding the thermal component of the plant’s once-through cooling discharge.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material impact on the Utility’s financial condition or results of operations.

Previous: Item 2. PROPERTIES · Next: Item 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES