Company: PCG-PB
Filing Date: 2025-02-13
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0001004980-25-000010
Chunk: 258

Company: PG&E Corp
Filing Date: 2025-02-13
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 1A
Chunk 258
---
&E Corporation and the Utility have been the subject of investigations, regulatory enforcement actions, and criminal proceedings in connection with wildfires and could be the subject of additional investigations, regulatory enforcement actions, or criminal proceedings in connection with the 2019 Kincade fire, the 2021 Dixie fire, the 2022 Mosquito fire, or other wildfires.  For more information, see Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

Under California law (including Penal Code section 1202.4), if the Utility were convicted of any charges in connection with a wildfire, the sentencing court must order the Utility to “make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order” that is “sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of” the Utility’s underlying conduct, in addition to interest and the victim’s or victims’ attorneys’ fees.  This requirement for full reimbursement of economic loss is not waivable by either the government or the victims and is not offset by any compensation that the victims have received or may receive from their insurance carriers.

There have been numerous other wildfires in the Utility’s service area, of which the Utility has not been alleged or determined to be a cause.  The Utility could be alleged or determined to be a cause of one or more of these wildfires.

Additionally, under the doctrine of inverse condemnation, courts have imposed liability against utilities on the grounds that losses borne by the person whose property was damaged through a public-use undertaking should be spread across the community that benefited from such undertaking, even if the utility is unable to recover these costs through rates.  In fact, in December 2017, the CPUC denied recovery of costs that San Diego Gas & Electric Company stated it had incurred as a result of the doctrine of inverse condemnation.  Legal challenges to that denial were unsuccessful. Plaintiffs have asserted and continue to assert the doctrine of inverse condemnation in lawsuits related to certain wildfires that occurred in the Utility’s service area.  Inverse condemnation imposes strict liability (including liability for attorneys’ fees) for damages as a result of the design, construction and maintenance of utility facilities, including utilities’ electric transmission lines.  The Utility continues to dispute the applicability of inverse condemnation to the Utility, but the Utility may not be successful in challenging the applicability of inverse condemnation in litigation against PG&E Corporation or the Utility.

39

Although the Utility has taken extensive measures to reduce the threat of future wildfires, the potential that the Utility