Company: PCG-PB
Filing Date: 2025-02-13
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0001004980-25-000010
Chunk: 275

Company: PG&E Corp
Filing Date: 2025-02-13
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 1A
Chunk 275
---
 operations), whether the CAISO wholesale electricity market continues to function effectively, or compliance with new state laws or policies.  See “Trends in Market Demand and Competitive Conditions in the Electricity Industry” in Item 1.

48

Jurisdictions attempt to acquire the Utility’s assets through eminent domain, and third parties attempt to acquire the Utility’s customers by bypassing the Utility’s electric infrastructure system.

Jurisdictions attempt to acquire the Utility’s assets through eminent domain (“municipalization”).  For example, the City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco”) has submitted a petition with the CPUC seeking a valuation of the Utility’s electric assets in or serving San Francisco and has expressed intent to acquire such assets.  San Francisco would still need to, among other things, initiate and prevail in an eminent domain action in state court to acquire the Utility’s assets, but the Utility may not be successful in defending against such an action or related regulatory proceeding.  If municipalization proceedings are permitted to move forward and are successful, the Utility would be entitled to receive the fair market value of the assets that are subject to the takeover effort, as well as associated severance damages, but valuation issues in any municipalization proceeding would be highly contentious and could result in the Utility receiving less than what it believes is just compensation for the applicable assets.  Any assets acquired by a third party through eminent domain would be excluded from the Utility’s rate base, reducing the Utility’s revenues and opportunity to earn a return on such assets.  In addition, third parties attempt to bypass the Utility’s existing electric infrastructure system to provide retail electric service to discrete geographic areas or specific customers.  Utility assets that are targeted for municipalization, as well as existing or potential future Utility customers targeted for electric services by third parties that bypass the Utility’s facilities, generally are located in geographic areas that have a lower cost of service relative to billed revenues, so municipalization (or bypass) could negatively impact the affordability of the Utility’s service for remaining Utility customers served outside of those geographic areas.  A successful municipalization or bypass attempt could also encourage similar attempts by other municipalities or third parties which, if successful, would further divide the Utility’s assets and reduce the Utility’s rate base, profitability, and affordability for remaining Utility customers.  It is also unclear how the CPUC would allocate the compensation received by the Utility for any involuntary sale of its assets between shareholders and customers.  As a result of these factors, municipalization or electric bypass could materially affect the Utility’s financial condition,