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 Item 7. MD&A, and Notes 13, 14, and 15 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

U.S. District Court Matters and Probation

On August 9, 2016, the jury in the federal criminal trial against the Utility in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in San Francisco, found the Utility guilty on one count of obstructing a federal agency proceeding and five counts of violations of pipeline integrity management regulations of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act. On January 26, 2017, the court issued a judgment of conviction against the Utility. The court sentenced the Utility to a five-year corporate probation period, oversight by a third-party monitor for a period of five years, with the ability to apply for early termination after three years, a fine of $3 million to be paid to the federal government, certain advertising requirements, and community service.

The probation includes a requirement that the Utility not commit any local, state, or federal crimes during the probation period. As part of the probation, the Utility has retained a third-party monitor at the Utility’s expense. The goal of the third-party monitor is to help ensure that the Utility takes reasonable and appropriate steps to maintain the safety of its gas and electric operations, and to maintain effective ethics, compliance and safety related incentive programs on a Utility-wide basis.

On November 27, 2018, the court overseeing the Utility’s probation, issued an order requiring that the Utility, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California (the “USAO”) and the third-party monitor provide written answers to a series of questions regarding the Utility’s compliance with the terms of its probation, including what requirements of the Utility’s probation “might be implicated were any wildfire started by reckless operation or maintenance of PG&E power lines” or “might be implicated by any inaccurate, slow, or failed reporting of information about any wildfire by PG&E.” The court also ordered the Utility to provide “an accurate and complete statement of the role, if any, of PG&E in causing and reporting the recent 2018 Camp fire in Butte County and all other wildfires in California” since January 2017 (“Question 4 of the November 27 Order”). On December 5, 2018, the court issued an order requesting that the Office of the California Attorney General advise the court of its view on “the extent to which, if at all, the reckless operation or maintenance of PG&E power lines would constitute a crime under California law.” The responses of the Attorney General were submitted on December 28, 2018, and the responses of the Utility, the USAO and the third-party monitor were submitted on December 31, 2018.

On January 3, 2019, the court issued a new order requiring that the Utility provide further information regarding the Atlas fire. the court noted that “[t]his order postpones the question of the adequacy of PG&E’s response” to Question 4 of the November 27 Order. On January 4, 2019, the court issued another order requiring that the Utility provide “with respect to each of the eighteen October 2017 Northern California wildfires that [Cal Fire] has attributed to [the Utility’s] facilities,” information regarding the wind conditions in the vicinity of each fire’s origin and information about the equipment allegedly involved in each fire’s ignition. The responses of the Utility were submitted on January 10, 2019.

On January 9, 2019, the court ordered the Utility to appear in court on January 30, 2019, as a result of the court’s finding that “there is probable cause to believe there has been a violation of the conditions of supervision” with respect to reporting requirements related to the 2017 Honey fire. In addition, on January 9, 2019, the court issued an order (the “January 9 Order”) proposing to add new conditions of probation that would require the Utility, among other things, to:

The Utility was ordered to show cause by January 23, 2019 as to why the Utility’s conditions of probation should not be modified as proposed. The Utility's response was submitted on January 23, 2019. The court requested that Cal Fire file a public statement, and invited the CPUC to comment, by January 25, 2019. On January 30, 2019, the court found that the Utility had violated a condition of its probation with respect to reporting requirements related to the 2017 Honey fire. The court issued an order stating that a sentencing hearing on the probation violation will be set at a later date. Also on January 30, 2019, the court ordered the Utility to submit to the court on February 6, 2019 the 2019 Wildfire Safety Plan that the Utility was required to submit to the CPUC by February 6, 2019 in accordance with SB 901, and invited interested parties to comment on such plan by February 20, 2019. In addition, on February 14, 2019, the court ordered the Utility to provide additional information, including on its vegetation clearance requirements. The Utility submitted its response to the court on February 22, 2019. As of February 24, 2019, to the Utility’s knowledge, no parties have submitted comments to the court on the 2019 Wildfire Safety Plan.

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 SED engaged a consultant to assist in the SED’s investigation and the preparation of a report containing the SED’s assessment, and subsequently, to report on the implementation by the Utility of the consultant's recommendations.

On May 8, 2017, the CPUC released the consultant’s report, accompanied by a scoping memo and ruling. The scoping memo established a second phase in the OII in which the CPUC evaluated the safety recommendations of the consultant. Phase two of the proceeding also considered all necessary measures, including, but not limited to, a potential reduction of the Utility’s return on equity. On November 17, 2017, the CPUC issued a phase two scoping memo and procedural schedule. The scoping memo directed the Utility 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 the recommendations of the consultant and supports their adoption by the CPUC. Other parties’ responsive testimony was submitted on February 16, 2018, followed by the Utility’s rebuttal testimony on February 23, 2018.

On November 29, 2018, the CPUC approved the PD in connection with this proceeding. The decision directed the Utility to implement the recommendations set forth in the May 2017 consultant report no later than July 1, 2019, and to submit quarterly reports on the Utility's implementation status beginning in the fourth quarter of 2018.

On December 21, 2018, the CPUC issued a Scoping Memo and Ruling (the “Scoping Memo”) setting forth the scope to be addressed in the next phase of its ongoing investigation into whether the organizational culture and governance of PG&E Corporation and the Utility prioritize safety and adequately directs resources to promote accountability and achieve safety goals and standards (the “Safety Culture OII”). The Scoping Memo provides that the CPUC “will examine [PG&E’s] current corporate governance, structure, and operations to determine if the utility is positioned to provide safe electrical and gas service, and will review alternatives to the current management and operational structures of providing electric and gas service in Northern California.”

In the Scoping Memo, the CPUC alleges that the Utility has had “serious safety problems with both its gas and electric operations for many years” and despite penalties and other remedial measures in connection with these problems, PG&E Corporation and the Utility have failed to develop “a comprehensive enterprise-wide approach to addressing safety.” The Scoping Memo outlines a number of proposals to address the CPUC’s concerns regarding PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s safety culture, including, but not limited to, (i) replacement of all or part of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s existing boards of directors and corporate management, (ii) separating the Utility’s gas and electric distribution and transmission businesses into separate companies, (iii) reorganizing the Utility into regional subsidiaries based on regional distinctions, (iv) reconstituting the Utility as a publicly owned utility or utilities, (v) providing for entities other than the Utility to provide generation services and (vi) conditioning the Utility’s return on equity on safety performance. The Scoping Memo does not propose penalties and states that this phase “is not a punitive phase.” The Utility submitted its background filing to the CPUC on January 16, 2019 and opening comments were filed on February 13, 2019. Reply comments are due on February 28, 2019.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to predict whether additional fines, penalties, or other ratemaking tools such as a potential reduction of the Utility's return on equity will be adopted by the CPUC in future phases of 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, starting in 2017, the Utility pays an annual interim mitigation fee, 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 effect on the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows.