PART I

The CPUC enforces state laws and regulations that set forth safety requirements pertaining to the design, construction, t esting, operation, and maintenance of utility gas and electric facilities.   The CPUC can impose penalties of up to $50,000 per day, per violation, for violations that occurred after January 1, 2012.  (The statutory maximum penalty for violations that occur red before January 1, 2012 is $20,000 per violation.)  The CPUC has wide discretion to determine the amount of penalties based on the totality of the circumstances, including such factors as the gravity of the violations; the type of harm caused by the vio lations and the number of persons affected; and the good faith of the entity charged in attempting to achieve compliance, after notification of a violation. The CPUC also is required to consider the appropriateness of the amount of the penalty to the size of the entity charged.  

The CPUC has delegated authority to the SED to issue citations and impose penalties for violations identified through audits, investigations, or self-reports.  Under both the gas and electric programs, the SED has discretion wheth er to issue a penalty for each violation, but if it assesses a penalty for a violation, it is required to impose the maximum statutory penalty of $50,000.  The SED may, at its discretion, impose penalties on a daily basis, or on less than a daily basis, fo r violations that continued for more than one day.  In September 2016, the CPUC adopted improvements and refinements to its gas and electric safety citation programs.  Specifically, the final decision refines the criteria for the SED to use in determining whether to issue a citation and the amount of penalty, sets an administrative limit of $8 million per citation issued, makes self-reporting voluntary in both gas and electric programs, adopts detailed criteria for the utilities to use to voluntarily self-r eport a potential violation, and refines other issues in the programs.  The decision also merges the rules applicable to its gas and electric safety citation programs into a single set of rules that replace s the previous safety citation programs .

The Cal ifornia State Legislature also directs the CPUC to implement state laws and policies, such as the laws relating to increasing renewable energy resources, the development and widespread deployment of distributed generation and self-generation resources, the reduction of GHG emissions, the establishment of energy storage procurement targets , and the development of a state-wide electric vehicle charging infrastructure.  T he CPUC is responsible for approving funding and administration of state-mandated public p urpose programs such as energy efficiency and other customer programs.  The CPUC also conducts audits and reviews of the Utility’s accounting, performance , and compliance with regulatory guidelines .

T he CPUC has imposed various conditions that govern the relationship between the Utility and PG&E Corporation and other affiliates, including financial conditions that require PG&E Corporation’s Board of Directors to give first priority to the capital requirements of the Utility, as determined to be necessary a nd prudent to meet the Utility's obligation to serve or to operate the Utility in a prudent and efficient manner. (For more information, see “Liquidity and Financial Resources” in MD&A and Item 1A. Risk Factors.)  

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the California Independent System Operator

The FERC has jurisdictio n over the Utility's electric transmission revenue requirements and rates, the licensing of substantially all of the Utility's hydroelectric generation facilities, and the interstate sale and transportation of natural gas. The FERC regulates the interconnections of the Utility’s transmission systems with other electric system and generation facilities, the tariffs and conditions of service of regional transmission organizations and the terms and rates of wholesale electricity sales.  The FERC also is charged with adopting and enforcing mandatory standards governing the reliabi lity of the nation’s electric transmission grid, including standards to protect the nation’s bulk power system a gainst potential disruptions from cyber and physical security breaches.  The FERC has authority to impose fines of up to $1 million per day for violation s of certain federal statutes and regulations.

The CAISO is the FERC-approved regional transmission org anization for the Utility’s service territory.  The CAISO controls the operation of the electric transmission system in California and provides open access transmission service on a non - discriminatory basis.  The CAISO also is responsible for planning tran smission system additions, ensuring the maintenance of adequate reserves of generating capacity, and ensuring that the reliability of the transmission system is maintained.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The NRC oversees the licensing, construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear facilities, including the Utility’s two nuclear generating units at Diablo Canyon and the Utility’s retired nuclear generating unit at Humboldt Bay.  (See “Electric ity Resources” below.)  NRC regulations require ext ensive monitoring and review of the safety, radiological, seismic, environmental, and security aspects of these facilities.  In the event of non-compliance, the NRC has the authority to impose fines or to force a shutdown of a nuclear plant, or both.  NRC safety and security requirements have, in the past, necessitated substantial capital expenditures at Diablo Canyon, and substantial capital expenditures could be required in the future.   (For more information about Diablo Canyon, see “Regulatory Matters – Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant” in MD&A and Item 1A. Risk Factors below.)

Other Regula tors

The CEC is the state's primary energy policy and planning agency.  The CEC is responsible for licensing all thermal power plants over 50 MW within California.   The CEC also is responsible for forecasts of future energy needs used by the CPUC in determining the adequacy of the utilities' electricity procurement plans and for adopting building and appliance energy efficiency requirements.

The CARB is the state agency responsible for setting and monitoring GHG and other emission limits.  The CARB is also responsible for adopting and enforcing regulations to implement state law requirements to gradually reduce GHG emissions in California.  (See “Environmental Regu lation - Air Quality and Climate Change” below.)

In addition, the Utility obtains permits, authorizations, and licenses in connection with the construction and operation of the Utility's generation facilities, electricity transmission lines, natural gas t ransportation pipelines, and gas compressor station facilities.  The Utility also periodically obtains permits, authorizations, and licenses in connection with distribution of electricity and natural gas that grant the Utility rights to occupy and/or use p ublic property for the operation of the Utility's business and to conduct certain related operations.  The Utility has franchise agreements with approximately 300 cities and counties that permit the Utility to install, operate, and maintain the Utility's e lectric and natural gas facilities in the public streets and highway s.  In exchange for the right to use public streets and highway s, the Utility pays annual fees to the cities and counties.  In most cases, the Utility’s franchise agreements are for an ind eterminate term, with no expiration date.

Ratemaking Mechanisms

The Utility’s rates for electricity and natural gas utility services are set at levels that are intended to allow the Utility to recover its costs of providing service including a return on invested capital (“cost-of-service ratemaking”).  Before setting rates, the CPUC and the FERC conduct proceedings to determine the annual amount that the Utility will be authorized to collect from its customers (“revenue requirements”).  The Utility’s reve nue requirements consist primarily of a base amount set to enable the Utility to recover its reasonable operating expenses ( e.g., maintenance, administration and general expenses) and capital costs ( e.g., depreciation, tax, and financing expenses).  In add ition, the CPUC authorizes the Utility to collect revenues to recover costs that the Utility is allowed to “pass-through” to customers (referred to as “Utility Revenues and Costs that did not Impact Earnings” in MD&A) , including its costs to procure electr icity, natural gas and nuclear fuel, to administer public purpose and customer programs, and to decommission its nuclear facilities.

The Utility’s rate of return on electric transmission assets is determined in the FERC TO proceedings.  The authorized rat e of return on all other Utility assets is set in the CPUC’s cost of capital proceeding.  Other than its electric transmission and certain gas transmission and storage revenues, the Utility’s base revenues are “decoupled” from its sales volume.  Regulatory balancing accounts, or revenue adjustment mechanisms, ensure that the Utility will fully collect its authorized base revenue requirements.  The Utility’s earnings primarily depend on its ability to manage its base operating and capital costs (referred to as “Utility Revenues and Costs that Impact ed Earnings” in MD&A) within its authorized base revenue requirements.

Both electric and gas rates vary depending on seasons mostly due to the influence of weather.   Electricity rates increase during the summer mo nths ( May – October) because of higher demand, driven by air conditioning loads , while gas service rates generally increase during the winter months ( November – March) to account for the gas peak due to heating.

During 201 6 , the CPUC continued to impleme nt state law requirements to reform residential electric rates to more closely reflect the utilities’ actual costs of service, reduce cross-subsidization among customer rate classe s, implement new rules for net energy metering (which currently allow certai n self-generating customers to receive bill credits for surplus power at the full retail rate) , and allow customers to have greater control over their energy use.  (See “Legislative and Regulatory Initiatives” in MD&A for more information on specific CPUC proceedings . )

From time to time, the CPUC may use incentive ratemaking mechanisms that provide the Utility an opportunity to earn some additional revenues.  For example, the Utility has earned incentives for the successful im plementation of e nergy efficiency programs.  (See “Regulatory Matters – 2014 – 2015 Energy Efficiency Incentive Awards” in MD&A.)

Base Revenues

General Rate Cases

The GRC is the primary proceeding in which the CPUC determines the amount of base revenue requirements that the Utility is authorized to collect from customers to recover the Utility’s anticipated costs, including return on rate base, related to its electricity distribution, natural gas distribution , and Utility owned ele ctricity generation operations.  The CPUC generally conducts a GRC every three or four years.  The CPUC approves the annual revenue requirements for the first year (or “test year”) of the GRC period and typically authorizes the Util ity to receive annual in creases in revenue requirements for the subsequent years of the GRC period (know n as “attrition years ”) .  Attrition year rate adjustments are generally provided for cost increases related to increases in invested capital and inflation .  Parties in the Util ity's GRC include the ORA and TURN, who generally represent the overall interests of residential customers, as well as a myriad of other intervenors who represent other business, community, customer, environmental, and union interests.  ( For more informati on about the Utility’s current GRC proceeding, see “ Regulatory Matters −2017 General Rate Case” in MD&A. )

Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Rate Cases

The CPUC determines the Utility’s authorized revenue requirements and rates for its natural gas transmission and storage services in the GT&S rate case.   The CPUC generally conducts a GT&S rate case every three or four years.   Similar to the GRC proceeding, t he CPUC approves the annual revenue requirements for the first year (or “test year”) of the G T&S period and typically determines annual increases in revenue requirements for attrition years of the GT&S period.   Parties in the Utility's GT&S rate case include the ORA and TURN, who generally represent the overall interests of residential customers, as well as other intervenors who represent other business, community, customer, and union interests.   (For more information, see “Regulatory Matters – 2015 Gas Transmission and Storage Rate Case” in MD&A.)  

Cost of Capital Proceedings

The CPUC periodica lly conducts a cost of capital proceeding to authorize the Utility's capital structure and rates of return for its electric generation, electric and natural gas distribution, and natural gas transmission and storage rate base.  The CPUC has authorized the Utility’s capital structure through 2017, consisting of 52% common equity, 47% long-term debt, and 1% preferred stock.  The CPUC also set the authorized ROE through 2017 at 10.40%.  The CPUC adopted an adjustment mechanism to allow the Utility’s capital st ructure and ROE to be adjusted if the utility bond index changes by certain thresholds on an annual basis.  On February 25, 2016, the CPUC issued a decision granting a petition for modification filed by the Utility and the other California IOUs to clarify that the CPUC’s previously adopted cost of capital adjustment mechanism would not be triggered for 2017.

On February 6, 2017, the Utility and other California IOUs entered into a MOU with the CPUC, ORA, and TURN to extend the next cost of capital applica tion filing deadline two years to April 22, 2019 for the year 2020.  To implement the MOU, on February 7, 2016, the IOUs, ORA, and TURN filed with the CPUC a petition for modification of prior CPUC decisions addressing cost of capital.  If the petition for modification is approved as submitted it would reduce the Utility’s ROE from 10.40% to 10.25% and reset the Utility’s authorized cost of long-term debt and preferred stock beginning January 1, 2018.  The Utility’s current capital structure of 52% common e quity, 47% long-term debt, and 1% preferred equity would remain unchanged.  The Utility’s cost of capital adjustment mechanism would not operate in 2017 but could operate in 2018 to change the cost of capital for 2019.  If the mechanism is activated for 20 19, the Utility’s cost of capital, including its new ROE of 10.25%, will be adjusted according to the existing terms of the mechanism.  Concurrently with the petition for modification, the Utility and other California IOUs also sent a letter to the executi ve director of the CPUC requesting that the existing April 2017 filing due date for the 2018 cost of capital be deferred while the CPUC is considering the petition for modification.  On February 13, 2017, the executive director of the CPUC granted the requ est.  As extended, the Utility and the other California IOUs would file their next cost of capital applications 60 days after the effective date of the CPUC decision on the petition for modification, or April 20, 2017, whichever is later, if the CPUC does not grant the petition for modification.

The Utility expects that the CPUC may issue a decision in the first half of 2017.  (For more information, see “Regulatory Matters –CPUC Cost of Capital” in MD&A.)

Electricity Transmission Owner Rate Cases

The FERC determines the amount of authorized revenue requirement s , including the rate of return on electric transmission assets, that the Utility may collect in rates in the TO rate case.  The Utility generally files a TO rate case every year.  The FERC typica lly authorizes the Utility to charge new rates based on the requested revenue requirement, subject to refund, before the FERC has issued a final decision.  These FERC-approved rates are included : 1) by the CPUC in the Utility's retail electric rates and ar e collected from retail electric customers ; and 2) by the CAISO in its Transmission Access Charges to wholesale customers .  ( For more information, s ee “ Regulatory Matters – FERC Transmission Owner Rate Cases” in MD&A.)  The Utility also recovers a portion of its revenue requirements for its wholesale electric transmission costs through charges collected under specific contracts with wholesale transmission customers that the Utility entered into before the CAISO began its operations.  These wholesale custome rs are charged individualized rates based on the terms of their contracts.

Revenues to Recover Energy Procurement and Other Pass-Through Costs

Electricity Procurement Costs

California investor-owned electric utilities are responsible for procuring elec trical capacity required to meet bundled customer demand, plus applicable reserve margins, that are not satisfied from their own generation facilities and existing electricity contracts.  The utilities are responsible for scheduling and bidding electric ge neration resources, including certain electricity procured from third parties into the wholesale market, to meet customer demand according to which resources are the least expensive (i.e., using the principles of “least-cost dispatch”).  In addition, the u tilities are required to obtain CPUC approval of their bundled customer procurement plans based on long-term demand forecasts.  The Utility’s most recent bundled customer procurement plan was approved in October 2015, and will remain in effect until the pl an is superseded by a subsequent CPUC-approved plan. 

California law allows electric utilities to recover the costs incurred in compliance with their CPUC-approved bundled customer procurement plans without further after-the-fact reasonableness review by the CPUC.  The CPUC may disallow costs associated with electricity purchases if the costs were not incurred in compliance with the CPUC-approved plan or if the CPUC determines that the utility failed to follow the principles of least-cost dispatch.  Addit ionally, the cost of replacement power procured due to unplanned outages at Utility owned generation facilities may be disallowed.

The Utility recovers its electricity procurement costs annually primarily through the energy resource recovery account.  (Se e Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.)  Each year, the CPUC reviews the Utility’s forecasted procurement costs related to power purchase agreements, derivative instruments, GHG emissions costs, and generation fuel expens e, and approves a forecasted revenue requirement.  The CPUC may adjust the Utility’s retail electricity rates more frequently if the forecasted aggregate over-collections or under-collections in the energy resource recovery account exceed 5% of its prior y ear electricity procurement and utility-owned generation revenues.  The CPUC performs an annual compliance review of the transactions recorded in the energy resource recovery account.

The CPUC has approved various power purchase agreements that the Utilit y has entered into with third parties in accordance with the Utility’s CPUC-approved procurement plan, to meet mandatory renewable energy targets, and to comply with resource adequacy requirements.  (For more information, see “Electric Utility Operations – Electricity Resources” below as well as Note 13 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.)

Natural Gas Procurement , Storage, and Transportation Costs

The Utility recovers the cost of gas used in generation facilities as a cost of electricity that is recovered annually through retail electricity rates.

The Utility sets the natural gas procurement rate for small commercial and residential customers (referred to as “core” customers) monthly, based on the forecasted costs of natural gas, core pipeline capacity and storage costs.  The Utility recovers the cost of gas purchased on behalf of core customers as well as the cost of derivative instruments for its core gas portfolio, through its retail gas rates, subject to limits as set fort h in its core procurement incentive mechanism described below.  The Utility reflects the difference between actual natural gas purchase costs and forecasted natural gas purchase costs in several natural gas balancing accounts, with under-collections and ov er-collections taken into account in subsequent monthly rate changes. 

The core procurement incentive mechanism protects the Utility against after-the-fact reasonableness reviews of its gas procurement costs for its core gas portfolio.  Under the core pr ocurement incentive mechanism, the Utility’s natural gas purchase costs for a fixed 12-month period are compared to an aggregate market-based benchmark based on a weighted average of published monthly and daily natural gas price indices at the points where the Utility typically purchases natural gas.  Costs that fall within a tolerance band, which is 99% to 102% of the commodity benchmark, are considered reasonable and are fully recovered in customers’ rates.  One-half of the costs above 102% of the benchma rk are recoverable in customers’ rates, and the Utility's customers receive in their rates 80% of any savings resulting from the Utility’s cost of natural gas that is less than 99% of the benchmark.  The Utility retains the remaining amount of these saving s as incentive revenues, subject to a cap equal to 1.5% of total natural gas commodity costs.  While this mechanism remains in place, changes in the price of natural gas, consistent with the market-based benchmark, are not expected to materially impact net income.

The Utility incurs transportation costs under various agreements with interstate and Canadian third-party transportation service providers.  These providers transport natural gas from the points at which the Utility takes delivery of natural gas (typically in Canada, the U.S. Rocky Mountains, and the southwestern United States) to the points at which the Utility's natural gas transportation system begins.   These agreements are governed by FERC-approved tariffs that detail rates, rules, and terms of service for the provision of natural gas transportation services to the Utility on interstate and Canadian pipelines.  The FERC approves the United States tariffs that shippers, including the Utility, pay for pipeline service, and the applicable Canadia n tariffs are approved by the National Energy Board, a Canadian regulatory agency.  The transportation costs the Utility incurs under these agreements are recovered through CPUC-approved rates as core natural gas procurement costs or as a cost of electrici ty.

Costs Associated with Public Purpose and Customer Programs

The CPUC authorizes the Utility to recover the costs of various public purpose and other customer programs through the collection of rates from most Utility customers.   These programs relate to energy efficiency, demand response, distributed generation, energy research and development, and other matters.   Additionally, the CPUC has authorized the Utility to provide a discount rate for low-income customers, known as California Alternate Rates f or Energy (“CARE”), which is subsidized by the Utility’s other customers.

Nuclear Decommissioning Costs

The Utility's nuclear power facilities consist of two units at Diablo Canyon and the retired facility at Humboldt Bay.  Nuclear decommissioning requir es the safe removal of nuclear facilities from service and the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC license and release of the property for unrestricted use.  Nuclear decommissioning costs are collected in adva nce through rates and are held in nuclear decommissioning trusts to be used for the eventual decommissioning of each nuclear unit.  The Utility files an application with the CPUC every three years requesting approval of the Utility’s updated estimated deco mmissioning costs and any rate change necessary to fully fund the nuclear decommissioning trusts to the levels needed to decommission the Utility’s nuclear plants.

On August 11, 2016, the Utility submitted an application to the CPUC to retire Diablo Canyo n at the expiration of its current operating licenses in 2024 and 2025 .  (For more information, see “ Legislative and Regulatory Initiatives” in MD&A.)

Electric Utility Operations

The Utility generates electricity and provides electricity transmission and distribution services throughout its service territory in northern and central California to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers.  The Utility provides “bundled” services (i.e., electricity, transmission and distribution services) to most customers in its service territory.  Customers also can obtain electricity from alternative providers such as municipalities or CCAs, as well as from self-generation res ources, such as rooftop solar installations.

The Utility has continued to invest in its vision for a future electric grid which w ill allow customers to choose new, advanced energy supply technologies and services to meet their needs consistent with safe, reliable and affordable electric service.  In addition, in December 2016, the CPUC issued a final decision establishing a three-year EV program for the Utility to deploy up to 7,500 charging stations. (For more information, see “ Legislative and Regulatory Initiatives” in MD&A.)

Electricity Resources

The Utility is required to maintain generating capacity adequate to meet its customers’ demand for electricity (“load”), including peak demand and planning and operating reserves, deliverable to the locations and at times as may be necessary to provide reliable electric service.  The Utility is required to dispatch, or schedule all of the electricity resources within its portfolio in the most cost-effective way .

The following table shows the percentage of the Utility’s total deliveries of electricity to customers in 201 6 represented by each major electricity resource, and further discussed below.

(1) This amount excludes electricity provided to direct access customers and CCAs who procure their own supplies of electricity.

(2) Mainly comprised of net   CAISO open market purchases.

(3) Non-renewable sources, including nuclear, large hydroelectric, and fossil fuel-fired are offset by transmission and distribution related system losses.

Renewable Energy Resources.   California law established an RPS that requires load-serving entities, such as the Utility, to gradually increase the amount of renewable energy they deliver to their customers.  In October 2015, the California Governor signed SB 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 into law.  SB 350 became effective January 1, 2016, and increases the amount of renewable energy that must be delivered by most load-serving entities, including the Utility, to their customers fro m 33% of their total annual retail sales by the end of the 2017-2020 compliance period, to 50% of their total annual retail sales by the end of the 2028- 2030 compliance period, and in each three-year compliance period thereafter, unless changed by legisla tive action.  SB 350 provides compliance flexibility and waiver mechanisms, including increased flexibility to apply excess renewable energy procurement in one compliance period to future compliance periods.  The Utility will incur additional costs to proc ure renewable energy to meet the new renewable energy targets, which the Utility expects will continue to be recoverable from customers as “pass-through” costs.  The Utility also may be subject to penalties for failure to meet the higher targets.  The CPUC is required to open a new rulemaking proceeding to adopt regulations to implement the higher renewable targets.   

As indicated below, the Utility’s application and joint proposal to retire Diablo Canyon include a voluntary increase in the Utility’s targ et for RPS-eligible resources to 55%, effective in 2031 through 2045, as compared to the state’s goal of 50% renewables.   (For more information, see “ Legislative and Regulatory Initiatives” in MD&A.)

Renewable generation resources, for purposes of the RPS requirements , include bioenergy such as biogas and biomass, certain hydroelectric facilities (30 MW or less), wind, solar, and geothermal energy.  During 201 6 , 32.8 % of the Utility’s energy deliveries were from renewable energy sources, exceeding the annual RPS target of 23.3%.  Approximately 2 8.4 % of the renewable energy delivered to the Utility’s customers was purchased from non-QF third parties.  Additional renewable resources were provided by QFs ( 2 . 6 %), the Utility’s small hydroelectric facilities ( 1 . 3 %), and the Utility’s solar facilities (0. 5 %).

The total 201 6 renewable deliveries shown above were comprised of the following:

Energy Storage.  As required by California law, the CPUC has opened a proceeding to establish a multi-year energy storage procurement framework, including energy storage procurement targets to be achieved by each load-serving entity under the CPUC jurisdiction, including the Utility.  Under the adopted energy storage procurement framework, the Utility is required to procure 580 MW of qualifying storage capacity by 2020, with all energ y storage projects required to be operational by the end of 2024.

The CPUC also adopted biennial interim storage targets for the Utility, beginning in 2014 and ending in 2020.  Under the adopted framework, the Utility is required to conduct biennial compe titive RFOs to help meet its interim storage targets. 

The Utility conducted an RFO in 2014. The Utility’s 2014 energy storage target was 90 MW, some of which the Utility met through already existing projects, or projects anticipated to resul t from other CPUC proceedings.  As a result of the 2014 RFO, 70 MW of transmission and distribution contracts have been approved by the CPUC.  Contracts for 6MW were rejected by the CPUC, including a behind-the-meter project.  Additionally, contracts for 13 MW were withdrawn by the Utility. 

The Utility’s 2016 energy storage target is 120 MW.  On November 30, 2016, the Utility issued its 2016 RFO.  The Utility must submit all executed contracts from the 2016 RFO to the CPUC for approval by December 1, 2017 .  The Utility expects to increase the amount of storage it is attempting to procure in its 2016 RFO by the shortfall from the 2014 target.

Owned Generation Facilities.  At December 31, 201 6 , the Utility owned the following generation facilities, all loca ted in California, listed by energy source and further described below:

(1 ) The Utility's Diablo Canyon power plant consists of two nuclear power reactor units, Units 1 and 2.  The NRC operating licenses expire in 2024 and 2025, respectively.  ( See “Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant ” in MD&A and Item 1A. Risk Factors.)

(2) The Utility’s hydroelectric syste m consists of 107 generating units at 67 powerhouses.  All of the Utility’s powerhouses are licensed by the FERC (except for two small powerhouses not subject to FERC licensing requirements), with license terms between 30 and 50 years .

(3) The Utility’s large photovoltaic facilities are Five Points solar station (15 MW), Westside solar station (15 MW), Stroud solar station (20 MW), Huron solar station (20 MW), Cantua solar station (20 MW), Giffen solar station (10 MW), Gates solar station (20 MW), West Ga tes solar station (10 MW) and Guernsey solar station (20 MW).  All of these facilities are located in Fresno County, except for Guernsey solar station, which is located in Kings County.

Generation Resources from Third Parties. The Utility has entered into various agreements to purchase power and electric capacity, including agreements for renewable energy resources, in accordance with its CPUC-approved procurement plan.  ( S ee “Ratemaking Mechanisms” above.)  For more information regarding the Utility’s pow er purchase agreements, see Note 1 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

Electricity Transmission  

At December   31, 201 6 , the Utility owned approximately 18, 400 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines operating at voltages ranging from 60 kV to 500 kV.  The Utility also operated 9 2 electric transmission substations with a capacity of approximately 64,600 M VA.  The Utility’s electric transmission system is interconnected with electric power systems in the Western Electricity Coordinating Co uncil, which includes many western states, Alberta and British Columbia, and parts of Mexico.

In 2013, the Utility, MidAmerican Transmission, LLC, and Citizens Energy Corporation were selected by the CAISO to jointly develop a new 230-kV transmission line to address the growing power demand in the Fresno, Madera and Kings counties area.  The CAISO has stated that the 2022 in-service date for the 70-mile line has been p ostponed, and has placed the project on hold .  The Utility has stopped all work on the project pending a decision from the CAISO that could defer or cancel the project.  A decision by the CAISO is expected by March 2018.   In addition, as a part of the CAISO's 2016-2017 planning efforts, the CAISO co nducted a review of a number of local area low voltage transmission projects in the Utility’s service territory that were predo minantly load forecast driven.  As a result of the review, the CAISO found that a number of lower-voltage transmission projects were no lo nger required and  recommended cancelling or requiring further review in the 2017-2018 planning cycle. 

On March 29, 2026 the Utility entered into an agreement with TransCanyon, LLC, a joint venture between subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, to jointly pursue competative transmission opportunities solicited by the CAISO.  The Utility and TransCanyon intend to jointly engage in the development of future transmission infastructure and compete to develop, build, own and operate transmission projects approved by the CAISO.

Throughout 201 6 , the Utility upgraded several critical substations and re-conductored a number of transmission lines to improve maintenance and sy stem flexibility, reliability and safety.  The Utility expects to undertake various additional transmission projects over the next several years to upgrade and expand the capacity of its transmission system to secure access to renewable generation resource s and replace aging or obsolete equipment and improve system reliability.  The Utility also has taken steps to improve the physical security of its transmission substations and equipment.

Electricity Distribution

The Utility's electricity distribution ne twork consists of a pproximately 142,000 circuit miles of distribution lines (of which approximately 20% are underground and approximately 80% are overhead), 5 9 transmission switching substations, and 606 distribution substations, with a capacity of approxi mately 3 1 , 8 00 MVA.  The Utility’s distribution network interconnects with its transmission system, primarily at switching and distribution substations, where equipment reduces the high-voltage transmissio n voltages to lower voltages, ranging from 44 kV to 2.4 kV, suitable for distribution to the Utility’s customers.

These distribution substations serve as the central hubs for the Utility’s electric distribution network.  Emanating from each substation are primary and secondary distribution lines connected to local transformers and switching equipment that link distribution lines and provide delivery to end-users.  In some cases, the Utility sells electricity from its distribution facilities to entities, such as municipal and other utilities, that resell the electricity.  In 2016 the Utility commenced operations in a new electric distribution control center facilit y in Concord, California ; along with the existing distribution control centers in Rocklin and Fresno, California, t hese control centers form a key part of the Utility’s efforts to create a smarter, more resilient grid.

In 201 6 , the Utility continued to deploy its Fault Location, Isolation, and Service Restoration circuit technology which involves the rapid operation of s mart s witches to reduce the duration of customer outages.   Another 8 9 circuits were outfitted with this equipment, bringing the total deployment to 7 89 of the Utility’s 3,200 distribution circuits.   The Utility pl ans to continue performing work to improve the reliability and safety of its electricity distribution operations in 2017 .  

Electricity Operating Statistics

The following table shows certain of the Utility’s operating statistics from 201 4 to 201 6 for e lectricity sold or delivered, including the classification of revenues by type of service.   No single customer of the Utility accounted for 10% or more of consolidated revenues for electricity sold in 201 6 , 201 5 and 201 4 .

(1) These amounts include electricity provided to direct access customers and CCAs who procure their own supplies of electricity.

(2) This activity is primarily related to a remittance of revenue to the Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) (the Utility acts as a billing and collection agent on behalf of the DWR), par tially offset by other miscellaneous revenue items.

(3) These amounts represent revenues authorized to be billed. 

Natural Gas Utility Operations  

The Utility provides natural gas transportation services to “core” customers (i.e., small commercial and residential customers) and to “non-core” customers (i.e., industrial, large commercial, and natural gas-fired electric generation facilities) that are connected to the Utility’s gas system in its service territory.   Core customers can purchase natural gas procurement service (i.e. , natural gas supply) from either the Utility or non-utility third-party gas procurement service providers (referred to as core transport agents).   When core customers purchase gas supply from a core transport agent, the Utility c ontinues to provide gas delivery, metering and billing services to customers.     When the Utility provides both transportation and procurement services, the Utility refers to the combined service as “bundled” natural gas service.   Currently, more th an 90% o f core customers, representing n early 78 % of the annual core market demand, receive bundled natural gas service from the Utility.

The Utility does not provide procurement service to non-core customers, who must purchase their gas supplies from third-party suppliers.  The Utility offers backbone gas transmission, gas delivery (local transmission and distribution), and gas storage services as separate and distinct services to its non-core customers.   Access to the Utility's backbone gas transmission system is available for all natural gas marketers and shippers, as well as non-core customers.   The Utility also delivers gas to off-system customers ( i.e ., outside of the Utility’s service territory) and to third-party natural gas storage customers.

Natural Gas Supplies

The Utility can receive natural gas from all the major natural gas basins in western North America, including basins in western Canada, the Rocky Mountains, and the southwestern United States.  The Utility can also receive natural gas from fields in California.  The Utility purchases natural gas to serve its core customers directly from producers and marketers in both Canada and the United States.  The contract lengths and natural gas sources of the Utility’s portfolio of natural gas purchase cont racts have fluctuated generally based on market conditions.  During 201 6 , the Utility purchased appr oximately 307,100 MMcf o f natural gas (net of the sale of excess supply of gas).  Substantially all of this natural gas was purch ased under contracts with a term of one year or less.  The Utility’s largest individual supplier represented approximately 14% of the total natural gas volume the Utility purchased during 201 6 .

Natural Gas System Assets

The Utility owns and operates an integrated natural gas transmission, storage, and distribution system that includes most of northern and central California.  At December 31, 201 6 , the Utility’s natural gas system consisted of approximately 42, 800 miles of dis tribution pipelines, over 6, 7 00 miles of backbone and local transmission pipelines, and various storage facilities.  The Utility owns and operates eight natural gas compressor stations on its backbone transmission system and one small station on its local transmission system that are used to move gas through the Utility’s pipelines.  The Utility’s backbone transmission system, composed primarily of Lines 300, 400, and 401, is used to transport gas from the Utility’s interconnection with interstate pipelines , other local distribution companies, and California gas fields to the Utility’s local transmission and distribution systems.

The Utility has firm transportation agreements for delivery of natural gas from western Canada to the United States-Canada border with TransCanada NOVA Gas Transmission,   Ltd. and TransCanada Foothills Pipe Lines   Ltd., B.C. System.  These companies’ pipeline systems connect at the border to the pipeline system owned by Gas Transmission Northwest, LLC, which provides natural gas trans portation services to a point of interconnection with the Utility’s natural gas transportation system on the Oregon-California border near Malin, Oregon.  The Utility also has firm transportation agreements with Ruby Pipeline, LLC to transport natural gas from the U.S . Rocky Mountains to the interconnection point with the Utility’s natural gas transportation system in the area of Malin, O regon, at the California border.  Similarly, the Utility has firm transportation agreements with Transwestern Pipeline Co mpany, LLC and El Paso Natural Ga s Company to transport natural gas from supply points in the Southwestern United States to interconnection points with the Utility's natural gas transportation system in the area of California near Topock, Arizona.  The Uti lity also has a transportation agreement with Kern River Gas Transmission Company to transport gas from the U.S. Rocky Mountains to the interconnection point with the Utility’s natural gas system in the area of Daggett, California.  ( For more information r egarding the Utility’s natural gas transportation agreements, see Note 1 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8. )

The Utility owns and operates three underground natural gas storage fields and has a 25% interest in a fourth stora ge field, all of which are connected to the Utility’s transmission system.   The Utility owns and operates compressors and other facilities at these storage fields that are used to inject gas into the fields for storage and later withdrawal.   In addition, f our independent storage operators are interconnected to the Utility's northern California transmission system.

As of December 31, 2016 the Utility had installed 268 automatic and remote control shut-off valves on its gas transmission system, as specified in the eleventh of twelve safety recommendations made by the NTSB following its investigation of the San Bruno accident.   The NTSB closed that recommendation in 2015.   The final safety recommendation, considered open and acceptable by the NTSB, involves en suring that all high consequence pipeline mileage in the Utility’s gas transmission system has been hydrostatically tested.   As of December 31, 2016, the Utility has hydrostatically tested about 840 miles and completed the majority of this safety recommend ation.   The Utility currently plans to complete the NTSB recommendation by 2022 for the remaining approximately 28 aggregate pipeline miles (involving hundreds of primarily short pipeline segments that include tie-in pieces, fittings or smaller diameter of f-takes from the larger transmission pipelines).

In addition, in 2016, the Utility inspected 260 miles of transmission pipeline using in-line inspection tools and upgraded an additional 107 miles of transmission pipeline to allow for the use in-line inspe ction tools, replaced 127 miles of distribution main, and completed the installation of over 25,000 line makers to more easily identify the locations of gas pipelines.

Natural Gas Operating Statistics

The following table shows the Utility's operating st atistics from 201 4 through 201 6 (excluding subsidiaries) for natural gas, including the classification of revenues by type of service.   No single customer of the Utility accounted for 10% or more of consolidated revenues for bundled gas sales in 201 6 , 201 5 and 201 4 .

Competition

Competition in the Electricity Industry

California law allows qualifying non-residential electric customers of investor-owned electric utilities to purchase electricity from energy service providers rather than from the utilities up to certain annual and overall GWh limits that have been specified for each utility.   T his arrangement is known as “direct access.”     In addition, California law permits cities, counties, and certain other public agencies th at have qualified to become a CCA to generate and/or purchase electricity for their local residents and businesses.   By law, a CCA can procure electricity for all of its residents and businesses which do not affirmatively elect to continue to receive elect ricity from a utility.

The Utility continues to provide transmission, distribution, metering, and billing services to direct access customers, although these customers can choose to obtain metering and billing services from their energy service provider. The CCA customers continue to obtain transmission, distribution, metering, and billing services from the Utility.  In addition to collecting charges for transmission, distribution, metering, and billing services that it provides, the Utility is able to co llect charges intended to recover the generation-related costs that the Utility incurred on behalf of direct access and CCA customers while they were the Utility’s customers. The Utility remains the electricity provider of last r esort for these customers.

In some circumstances, governmental entities such as cities and irrigation districts, which have authority under the state constitution or state statute to provide retail electric service, may seek to acquire the Ut ility’s distribution facilities, general ly through eminent domain.   These same entities may, and sometimes do, construct duplicate distribution facilities to serve existing or new Utility customers.

The Utility is also impacted by the increasing viability of distributed generation and energy st orage.  The levels of self-generation of electricity by customers (primarily solar installations) and the use of customer net energy metering, which allows self-generating customers to receive bill credits at the full retail rate, are increasing.   These fa ctors result in a shift of cost responsibility for grid and related services to other customers of the Utility.  The Utility also competes for the opportunity to develop and construct certain types of electric transmission facilities within, or interconnec ted to, its service territory through a competitive bidding process managed by the CAISO.

Competition in the Natural Gas Industry

The Utility competes with other natural gas pipeline companies for customers transporting natural gas into the southern Cali fornia market on the basis of transportation rates, access to competitively priced supplies of natural gas, and the quality and reliability of transportation services.  The Utility also competes for storage services with other third-party storage providers , primarily in northern California.

Environmental Regulation

The Utility’s operations are subject to extensive federal, state and local laws and requirements relating to the protection of the environment and the safety and health of the Utility's personn el and the public.  These laws and requirements relate to a broad range of activities, including the remediation of hazardous and radioactive substances; the discharge of pollutants into the air, water, and soil; the re porting and reduction of CO ­ 2 and other GHG emissions; the transportation, handling, storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel; and the environmental impacts of land use, including endangered species and habitat protection.   The penalties for violation of these laws and requirements can be severe and may include significant fines, damages, and criminal or civil sanctions.  These laws and requirements also may require the Utility, under certain circumstances, to interrupt or curtail operations.  (See Item 1A. Risk Factors.)  Generally, the U tility recovers most of the costs of complying with environmental laws and regulations in the Utility's rates, subject to reasonableness review.  Environmental costs associated with the clean-up of most sites that contain hazardous substances are subject t o a ratemaking mechanism described in Note 13 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 .

Hazardous Waste Compliance and Remediation

The Utility's facilities are subject to various regulations adopted by the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 as amended.  The Utility is also subject to the regulations adopted by other federal agenc ies respo nsible for implementing federal environmental laws.  The Utility also must comply with environmental laws and regulations adopted by the State of California and various state and local agencies.  These federal and state laws impose strict liability for the release of a hazardous substance on the (1) owner or operator of the site where the release occurred, (2) on companies that disposed of, or arranged for the disposal of, the hazardous substances, and (3) in some cases, their corporate successors.  Under t he Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act , these persons (known as “potentially responsible parties”) may be jointly and severally liable for the costs of cleaning up the hazardous substances, monitoring and paying for the har m caused to natural resources, and paying for the costs of health studies.

The Utility has a comprehensive program in place to comply with these federal, state, and local laws and regulations.  Under federal and California laws, the Utility may be respons ible for remediation of hazardous substances even if it did not deposit those substances on the site.  The Utility’s remediation activities are overseen by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, several California regional water quality con trol boards, and various other federal, state, and local agencies.  The Utility has incurred significant environmental remediation liabilities associated with former manufactured gas plant sites, power plant sites, gas gathering sites, sites where natural gas compressor stations are located, and sites used by the Utility for the storage, recycling, or disposal of potentially hazardous substances.  Groundwater at the Utility’s Hinkley and Topock natural gas compressor stations contains hexavalent chromium as a result of the Utility’s past operating practices.  The Utility is responsible for remediating this groundwater contamination and for abating the effects of the contamination on the environment.

For more information about environmental remediation liabi lities, see Note 1 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

Air Quality and Climate Change

The Utility's electricity generation plants, natural gas pipeline operations, fleet, and fuel storage tanks are subject to numerous air p ollution control laws, including the federal Clean Air Act, as well as state and local statutes.  These laws and regulations cover, among other pollutants, those contributing to the formation of ground-level ozone, CO 2 , sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), mono-nitrogen oxide (NO x ), particulate matter, and other GHG emissions.

In December 2009, the EPA concluded that GHG emissions contribute to climate change and issued a finding that GHG emissions cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and wel fare.   In May 2014, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (a confederation of the research arms of thirteen federal departments and agencies) released its third National Climate Assessment, which stated that the global climate is changing and that impact s related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond.

Federal Regulation .  At the federal level, the EPA is charged with implementation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act.  Although there have been several legislative attempts to address climate change through imposition of nationwide regulatory limits on GHG emissions, comprehensive federal legislation has not yet been enacted.  In the abse nce of federal legislative action, the EPA has used its existing authority under the Clean Air Act to address GHG emissions.

In August 2015, the EPA published final regulations under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act to control CO 2 emissions from new fo ssil fuel-fired power plants.  While these regulations do not affect the Utility’s existing power plants, the regulations impose emission limitations on fossil fuel-fired power plants constructed after January 8, 2014 and will affect the design, constructi on, operation and cost of such power plants. 

In August 2015 , the EPA also published final regulations under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to control CO 2 emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants .  These regulations are designed to red uce power plant CO 2 em issions on a national basis by as much as 32% by 2030, compared with 2005 levels.  States were required to submit final plans to comply with the se regulations by September 2016, but were permitted to request an extension to file such plans until September 2018. It is uncertain whether and how these federal regulations will ultimately impact California, since existing state regulation currently requires, among other things, the gradual reduction of state-wide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 20 3 0.   Following publication of the EPA’s regulations , in October 2015 West Virginia and several other states and parties challenged the EPA’s section 111(d) regulations in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circ uit and petitioned the Court to stay the regulations pending review of the appeal on the merits.  The D.C. Circuit denied the request for stay but in February 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted a stay of the section 111(d) regulations pending re view of the appeal by the D.C. Circuit.  The Supreme Court’s decision may affect the nature, extent and timing of implementat ion of these regulations.  As described below, the Utility expects all costs and revenues associated with the state-wide, comprehen sive cap-and-trade program to be passed through to customers.

With the change in federal a dministration from President Barack Obama to President Donald Trump, there is significant uncertainty with regard to what further actions may occur regarding climate change at the federal level.  The new a dministration has indicated that it intends to revoke the Clean Power Plan regulations and possibly withdraw from international efforts to combat climate change.  Upon taking office, President Trump issued an executi ve order to freeze all regulations issued in the 60 days preceding his inauguration and directed the EPA and the White House to remove climate change- related materials and web pages, pending further review.  It is assumed that the new a dministration also w ill take action to suspend all climate related regulatory and funding activities.  In light of the potential policy reversal at the federal level, the State of California has indicated that it intends to continue and enhance its leadership on climate chang e nationally and globally. 

State Regulation.  California ’s AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, provides for the gradual reduction of state-wide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.  The CARB has approved various regulations to achieve the 2020 target , including GHG emissions reporting and a state-wide, comprehensive cap-and-trade program that sets gradually declining limits (or “caps”) on the amount of GHGs that may be emitted by major GHG emission sources within different sectors of the ec onomy.  The cap - and-trade program’s first compliance period, which began on January 1, 2013, applied to the electricity generation and large industrial sectors.  The next compliance period, which began on January 1, 2015, expanded to include the natural ga s and transportation sectors, effectively covering all the economy’s major sectors until 2020.  The Utility’s compliance obligation as a natural gas supplier applies to the GHG emissions attributable to the combustion of natural gas delivered to the Utilit y’s customers other than natural gas delivery customers that are separately regulated as covered entities and have their own compliance obligation.  During each year of the program, the CARB issues emission allowances (i.e., the rights to emit GHGs) equal to the amount of GHG emissions allowed for that year.  Emitters can obtain allowances from the CARB at quarterly auctions or from third parties or exchanges.  Emitters may also satisfy a portion of their compliance obligation through the purchase of offset credits; e.g., credits for GHG reductions achieved by third parties (such as landowners, livestock owners, and farmers) that occur outside of the emitters’ facilities through CARB-qualified offset projects such as refo restation or biomass projects.  Addit ionally, Senate Bill 32 (2016) requires that CARB ensure a 40% reduction in greenhouse gases b y 2030 compared to 1990 levels.  CARB is currently considering regulatory amendments to the cap-and-trade program to extend the program’s authority to 2030.   The Utility expects all costs and revenues associated with the GHG cap-and-trade program to b e passed through to customers.  The California RPS program that requires the utilities to gradually increase the amount of renewable energy delivered to their customer s is also expected to help reduce GHG emissions in California.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies. During 201 6 , the Utility continued its programs to develop strategies to mitigate the impact of the Utility’s operations (including custom er energy usage) on the environment and to plan for the actions that it will need to take to adapt to the likely impacts of climate change on the Utility’s future operations , including forming an officer-level coordinating committee to govern and oversee t he Utility’s activities .  The Utility regularly reviews the most relevant scientific literature on climate change such as sea level rise, temperature changes, rainfall and runoff patterns, and wildfire risk, to help the Utility identify and evaluate climat e change-related risks and develop the necessary adaptation strategies.  The Utility maintains emergency response plans and procedures to address a range of near-term risks, including extreme storms, heat waves and wildfires and uses its risk-assessment pr ocess to prioritize infrastructure investments for longer-term risks associated with climate change. The Utility also engages with leaders from business, government, academia, and non-profit organizations to share information and plan for the future.

Wit h respect to electric operations, climate scientists project that, sometime in the next several decades, climate change will lead to increased electricity demand due to more extreme, persistent, and frequent hot weather.  The Utility believes its str ategie s to reduce GHG emissions through energy efficiency and demand response programs, infrastructure improvements, and the use of rene wable energy and energy storage are effective strategies for a dapting to the expected changes in demand for electricity.  The Utility is making substantial investments to build a more modern and resilient system that can better withstand extreme weather and related emergencies.   The Utility’s vegetation management activities also reduce the risk of wildfire impacts on electric an d gas facilities.  Over the long-term, the Utility also faces the risk of higher flooding and inundation potential at coastal and low elevation facilities due to sea level rise combined with high tides, storm runoff and storm surges.

Notwithstanding the c urrent high snowpack, c limate scientists predict that climate change will result in varying temperatures and levels of precipitation in the Utility’s service territory .  This could, in turn, affect the Utility’s hydroelectric generation.  To plan for this potential change, the Utility is engaging with state and local stakeholders and is also adopting strategies such as maintaining higher winter carryover reservoir storage levels, reducing discretionary reservoir water releases, and collaborating on research and new modeling tools.  

With respect to natural gas operations, both safety-related pipeline strength testing and normal pipeline maintenance and operations release the GHG methane into the atmosphere.  The Utility has taken steps to reduce the release of methane by implementing techniques including drafting and cross-compression, which reduce the pressure and volume of natural gas within pipelines prior to venting.   In addition, the Utility continues to achieve reductions in methane emissions by implem enting improvements in leak detection and repair, upgrades at metering and regulating stations, and maintenance and replacement of other pipeline materials.

Emissions Data

PG&E Corporation and the Utility track and report their annual environmental perf ormance results across a broad spectrum of areas.  The Utility reports its GHG emissions to the CARB and the EPA on a mandatory basis. On a voluntary basis, the Utility reports a more comprehensive emissions inventory to The Climate Registry, a non-pro fit organization.  The Utility’s third-party verified voluntary GHG inventory reported to The Climate Registry for 201 5 totaled more than 54 milli on metric tonnes of CO ­ 2 equivalent , two-thirds of which came from customer natural gas use.  The following table shows the 201 5 GHG emissions data the Utility reported to the CARB under AB 32 .   PG&E Corporation and the Utility also publish additional GHG emissions data in their annual Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Report.

(1) Includes nitrous oxide and methane emissions from the Utility’s generating stations.

(2) Includ ing, but not limited to, compressor stations and storage facilities emitting more than 25,000 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent annually.

( 3) Includes emissions from the combustion of natural gas delivered to all entities on the Utility’s distribution system, with the exception of gas delivered to other natural gas local distribution companies. This figure does not represent the Utility’s compliance obligation under AB 32, which will be equivalent to the above reported value less the fuel that is delivered to covered entities , as calculated by the CARB .

The following table shows the Utility’s third-party-verified CO 2 emissions rate associated with the electricity delivered to customers in 201 5 as compared to the national average for electric utilities:

(1) Source: EPA eGRID.

(2) Since the Utility purchases a portion of its electricity from the wholesale market, the Utility is not able to track some of its delivered electricity back to a specific generator.  Therefore, there is some unavoidable uncertainty in the Utility’s emissions rate.

Air Emissions Data for Utility-Owned Generation

In addition to GHG emissions data provided above, the table below sets forth information about the air emissions from the Utility’s owned generation facilities.  The Utility’s owned generation (primarily nuclear and hydroelectric facilities) c omprised approximately 40 % of the Utility’s delivered electricity in 201 5 .  PG&E Corporation and the Utility also publish air emissions data in their annual Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Report.

Water Quality

On May 19, 2014, the EPA issued final regulations to implement the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act that require cooling water intake structures at electric power plants, such as the nuclear generation facilities at Diablo Canyon, to reflect the best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impacts.  Various industry and environmental groups have challenged the federal regulations in proceedings pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  California’s once-through cooling policy d iscussed below is considered to be at least as stringent as the new federal regulations.  Therefore, California’s implementation process for the state policy will likely continue without any significant change.

At the state level, 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 alternat ive 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.  The Utility’s Diablo Canyon operations must be in compliance with the California Water Board’s policy by December 31, 2024 .

On June 20, 2016, the Utility entered into a joint proposal with certain parties to retire Diablo Canyon at the expiration of its current operating licenses in 2024 and 2025 , and replace it with a GHG-free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage.  As a result of the planned retirement, the California Water Board will no lon ger need to address alternative compliance measures for Diablo Canyon.  Beginning in 2017, as required under the p olicy, the Utility will pay an annual interim mitigation fee until operations cease in 2024 and 2025 .  

Additionally, t he Utility expects tha t its decision to retire Diablo Canyon will affect the terms of a final settlement agreement between the Utility, the Central Coast Water Board and the California Attorney General’s Office regarding the thermal component of the plant’s once-through cooling discharge.  (For more information, see “Diablo Canyon Power Plant” in Item 3. Legal Proceedings below.)

Nuclear Fuel Disposal

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE and electric utilities with commercial nuclear power plants were authorized to enter into contracts under which the DOE would be required to dispose of the utilities’ spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste by January 1998, in exchange for fees paid by the utilities’ customers.  The DOE has been unable to meet its con tractual obligation with the Utility to dispose of nuclear waste from the Utility’s two nuclear generating units at Diablo Canyon and the retired nuclear facility at Humboldt Bay.  As a result, the Utility constructed interim dry cask storage facilities to store its spent fuel onsite at Diablo Canyon and at Humboldt Bay until the DOE fulfills its contractual obligation to take possession of the spent fuel.  The Utility and other nuclear power plant owners sued the DOE to recover the costs that they incurred to construct interim storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel.

In September 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Utility executed a settlement agreement that awarded the Utility $266 million for spent fuel storage costs incurred through December 31, 2010.  The settlement agreement also provided a claims process by which the Utility submits annual requests for reimbursement of its ongoing spent fuel storage costs.   Through 2016, the Ut ility has been awarded an additional $99 million through these annual submissions , including $28 million for costs incurred between June 1, 2014 and May 31, 2015.   The claim for the period June 1, 2015 through May 31, 2016 is currently under review by the DOE.   These proceeds are being refunded to customers through rates.   The settlement agreemen t, as amended, does not address costs incurred for spent fuel storage beyond 2016; an extension of the agreement for costs through 2019 is pending DOJ approval. Costs beyond 2016 could be subject to future litigation.   Considerable uncertainty continues to exist regarding when and whether the DOE will meet its contractual obligation to the Utility and other nuclear power plant owners to dispose of spent fuel.

On August 9, 2016, the jury returned its verdict.  The jury acquitted the Utility on all six of the record-keeping allegations but found the Utility guilty on six felony counts that include 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 sentencing the Utility to a five-ye ar 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, an d community service.  The Utility has decided not to appeal the convictions.  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 is requir ed to retain a third-party monitor.  The goal of the monitorship will be to prevent the criminal conduct with respect to gas pipeline transmission safety that gave rise to the conviction.  To that end, the goal of the monitor will be to help ensure that th e Utility takes reasonable and appropriate steps to maintain the safety of the gas transmission pipeline system, performs appropriate integrity management assessments on its gas transmission pipelines, and maintains an effective ethics an d compliance progr am and safety related incentive program.

After an initial assessment is conducted and an initial report is prepared by the monitor, the monitor will prepare reports on a semi -annual basis setting forth the monitor’s continued assessment and making recomme ndations consistent with the goals and scope of the monitorship.  The Utility expects that the monitor will be retained before the end of the second quarter of 2017.  For more information, see “Enforcement and Litigation Matters” in Note 13 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 and Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Litigation Related to the San Bruno Accident and Natural Gas Spending

As of December 31, 2016, there were seven purported derivative lawsuits seeking recovery on behalf of PG&E Corporation and the Utility for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by officers and directors, among other claims.

Four of the complaints were consolidated as the   San Bruno Fire Derivative Cases   and are pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.   The remaining three cases are Tellardin v. Anthony F. Earley, Jr.,. et al., Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Johns, et al., and Bushkin v. Rambo et al .

On December 8, 2015, the California Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate to t he Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, ordering the court to stay all proceedings in the four consolidated San Bruno Fire Derivative Cases pending conclusion of the federal criminal proce edings against the Utility.   On November 16, 2016, counse l in the four consolidated San Bruno Fire Derivative cases, as well as counsel in the Tellardin action, appeared for a status conference in the San Mateo Superior Court.   The court reaffirmed that all proceedings in these actions were stayed until the conclusion of the Utility’s federal criminal proceeding, at which point they were directed to meet and confe r and report back to the court.  T he parties completed a mediation session on December 8-9, 2016 and continue discussions about the poten tial resolu tion of the matter.  These actions remain stayed.

Bushkin v. Rambo et al ., pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, has been designated by the plaintiff as related to the pending shareholder derivative suit Ir on Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Johns, et al. , discussed below.   The plaintiff in the Bushkin lawsuit has agreed that this case should be stayed pending conclusion of the federal criminal trial against the Utility and, on May 3, 2016, the judge entere d a stipulated order staying the case.   The order also provides that the parties should meet and confer within 30 days after the criminal trial concludes and provide the court a status update.   Despite the stay of his complaint, on June 20, 2016 the Bushki n plaintiff filed a petition in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, seeking to enforce the plaintiff’s claimed right as a shareholder to inspect certain PG&E Corporation accounting books and records pursuant to section 1601 of the Calif ornia Corporations Code.   On July 25, 2016, PG&E Corporation filed a motion to stay plaintiff’s petition until the appellate stay of the San Bruno Fire Derivative Cases has been lifted, or, in the alternative, a demurrer asking the court to dismiss plainti ff’s petition.   On August 29, 2016, the San Francisco Superior Court granted PG&E Corporation’s motion, and indicated that plaintiff’s petition was stayed pending resolution of the criminal matter against the Utility.   On January 13, 2017, the parties subm itted a joint case management statement advising the court that, because the Utility ha d not yet been sentenced, the case should remain stayed until at least March 10, 2017, when the parties will advise the court of further developments.   While the Utility was sentenced in the federal criminal proceeding on January 26, 2017, this matter remains stayed until at least March 10, 2017.

The Iron Workers action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has been stayed p ending the resolution of the San Bruno Fire Derivative Cases .   On May 5, 2016, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer within 30 days after the criminal trial concludes and provide the court a status update.   At the court’s request, on August 22, 2016, the parties filed a statement requesting that the case continue to be stayed until resolution of the San Bruno Fire Derivative Cases .   On August 31, 2016, the court set a case management conference for September 30, 2016, and requested the parties to file a joint case management conference statement by September 23, 2016.   On September 30, 2016, the court decided to continue the stay pending the resolution of the federal criminal proceeding against the Utility and ordered the parties to submit a joint status report on or before March 15, 2017.   This matter remains stayed until at least March 15, 2017.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are uncertain when and how the above lawsuits will be resolved.

Butte Fire Litigation

In September 2015, a wildfire (known as the “Butte fire”) ignited and spread in Amador and Calaveras Counties in Northern California.  On April 28, 2016, Cal Fire released its report of the investigation of the origin and cause of the wildfire.  According to Cal Fire’s report, the fire burned 70,868 acres, resulted in two fatalities, destroyed 549 homes, 368 outbuildings and four commercial properties, and damaged 44 structures.  Cal Fire’s report concluded that the wildfire was caused when a Gray Pine tree contacted the Utility’s electric line which ignited portions of the tree, and determined that the failure by the Utility and/or its vegetation management contractors, ACRT Inc. and Trees, Inc., to identify certain potential hazards during its vegetation m anagement program ultimately led to the failure of the tree.  In a press release also issued on April 28, 2016, Cal Fire indicated that it will seek to recover firefighting costs in excess of $90 million from the Utility.

On May 23, 2016, individual plaintiffs filed a master complaint against the Utility and its two vegetation management contractors in the Superior Court of California for Sacramento County.  Subrogation insurers also filed a separate master complaint on the same date.  The California Judicial Council had previously authorized the coordination of all cases in Sacramento County.  As of December 31, 2016, complaints have been filed against the Utility and its two vegetation management contractors in the Superior Court of California in the Counties of Calaveras, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Amador involving approximately 1,950 individual plaintiffs representing approximately 950 households and their insurance companies.  These complaints are part of or are in the process of being added to the two master complaints.  Plaintiffs seek to recover damages and other costs, principally based on inverse condemnation and negligence theories of liability.  The number of individual complaints and plaintiffs may increase in the future. 

The Utility continues mediating and settli ng cases.  The next case management conference is scheduled for March 2, 2017.

In connection with this matter, the Utility may be liable for property damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees without having been found negligent, through the theory of inverse condemnation.  In addition, the Utility may be liable for fire suppression costs, personal injury damages, and other damages if the Utility were found to have been negligent.  The Utility believes it was not negligent; howeve r, there can be no assurance that a court or jury would agree with the Utility.  The Utility believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss of at least $750 million for all potential damages described above.  This amount is based on assumptions abo ut the number, size, and type of structures damaged or destroyed, the contents of such structures, the number and types of trees damaged or destroyed, as well as assumptions about personal injury damages, attorneys’ fees, fire suppression costs, and other damages that the Utility could be liable for under the theories of inverse condemnation and/or negligence . 

For additional information, see “Enforcement and Litigation Matters” in Note 13 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

Other Enforcement Matters

Fines may be imposed, or other regulatory or governmental enforcement action could be taken, with respect to the Utility’s self-reports of noncompliance with electric and natural gas safety regulations, prohibited ex parte commun ications between the Utility and CPUC personnel, and other enforcement matters.   See “Enforcement and Litigation Matters” in Note 13 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

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.  Thi s 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 use s 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 Ac t.     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 effectiven ess of the settlement agreement was that the Central Coast Board renew Diablo Canyon's permit.

However, a t 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.     I n   2005, the Central Coast Board reviewed the scientists' draft report recommending several such mitigation measures, but no action was taken .  

Subsequently, the California State Water Resources Control Board adopted a Once-Through Cooling Water Policy in May 2010 which requires Diablo Canyon to be in compliance with the policy by December 2024 and allows for alternative compliance measures at nuc lear power plants.  

On June 20, 2016, the Utility entered into a joint proposal with certain parties to retire Diablo Canyon at the expiration of its current operating licenses in 2024 and 2025 and replace it with a GHG-free portfolio of energy efficienc y, renewables and energy storage.   The Utility expects that the State Board’s OTC Policy and its decision to retire Diablo Canyon will a ffect the te rms of a final settlement agreement between the Utility, the Central Coast Water Board and the California At torney General’s Office .   Also, as required under the State Board’s OTC Policy, beginning in 2017 , the Utility will pay an annual interim mitigation fee until operations cease at the end of the current licenses.  

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.    

Venting Incidents in San Benito County

As part of its regular maintenance and inspection practices for its natural gas transmission system, the Utility performs in-line inspections of pipelines using devices called “pigs” that travel through the pipeline to inspect and clean the walls of the pipe.   When in-line inspections are performed, natural gas in the pipeline mu st be released or vented at the pipeline station where the device is removed.   In February 2014, the Utility conducted an in-line inspection of a natural gas transmission pipeline that traverses San Benito County and vented the natural gas at the Utility’s transmission station located in Hollister, which is next to an elementary school.   The Utility vented the natural gas during school hours on three occasions that month.   After being informed of the venting by the local air district, the San Benito County district attorney notified the Utility in December 2014 that it was contemplating bringing a civil legal action against the Utility for violation of Health and Safety Code section 41700, which prohibits discharges of air contaminants that cause a public nu isance.   In January 2017, the Utility and the district attorney reached an agreement on a stipulated judgement that resolves the matter.   The stipulated judgment includes a fine of approximately $175,000.   In addition, a $75,000 fine will be held in abeyan ce for 5 years, and would be payable to the San Benito County district attorney in case of non-compliance with certain remedial requirements of the stipulated judgment.   The stipulated judgment was executed by the court on January 27, 2017.

Transformer Oi l Release in Sonoma County

During a rain storm in February 2015, transformer oil was released into an underground vault in the City of Santa Rosa, in Sonoma County, while a Utility crew was replacing a broken transformer.  Following further rains, the oil released from the vault and reached a nearby creek.  The event was investigated by Santa Rosa Fire Department, the local environmental enforcement authority, and later referred to the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office.  In May 2016, the District At torney informed the Utility that it would seek penalties and costs in excess of $100,000 for alleged violations of several sections of the California Health and Safety and California Government codes which prohibit unauthorized spills or releases of oil in to waters of the state and require that releases be reported to the Office of Emergency Services.  In November 2016, the Utility and the Sonoma County district attorney reached an agreement on a stipulated judgment that resolves the matter.  The stipulated judgment includes a fine of $80,000, reimbursement of enforcement costs of $40,000, and injunctive provisions requiring improvements to the Utility’s vault dewatering procedure and training.  In November 2016, the court approved the stipulated judgment. 

(1) Mr. Earley, Mr. Stavropoulos, Ms. Williams, Mr. Simon, Ms. Burt, Ms. Kane, Mr. Mistry, Mr. Park, and Mr. Wells are executive officers of both PG&E Corporation and the Utility.  All other listed officers are executive officers of the Utility only.

(2) On No vember 14, 2016, the Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation elected Mr. Earley to the role of Executive Chair of the Board of PG&E Corporation and Ms. Williams to the role of Chief Executive Officer and President of PG&E Corporation, both effective March 1 , 2017.  Also on November 14, 2016, the Board of Directors of the Utility elected Mr. Stavropoulos as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Utility effective March 1, 2017.