134 

Level 3 Reconciliation 

The following table is a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of instruments for the pension plan that have been classified as 

Level 3 for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016: 

(in millions) FixedFor the year ended December 31, 2017 Income 

Balance at beginning of year $ 5 

Actual return on plan assets: 

Relating to assets still held at the reporting date (1) 

Relating to assets sold during the period - 

Purchases, issuances, sales, and settlements: 

Purchases 3 

Settlements (3) 

Balance at end of year $ 4 

 

(in millions) FixedFor the year ended December 31, 2016 Income 

Balance at beginning of year $ 3 

Actual return on plan assets: 

Relating to assets still held at the reporting date 3 

Relating to assets sold during the period - 

Purchases, issuances, sales, and settlements: 

Purchases - 

Settlements (1) 

Balance at end of year $ 5 

There were no material transfers out of Level 3 in 2017 and 2016. 

Cash Flow Information 

Employer Contributions 

PG&E Corporation and the Utility contributed $335 million to the pension benefit plans and $33 million to the other benefit plans 

in 2017. These contributions are consistent with PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s funding policy, which is to contribute 

amounts that are tax-deductible and consistent with applicable regulatory decisions and federal minimum funding requirements. 

None of these pension or other benefits were subject to a minimum funding requirement requiring a cash contribution in 2017. 

The Utility’s pension benefits met all the funding requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. PG&E 

Corporation and the Utility expect to make total contributions of approximately $327 million and $24 million to the pension plan 

and other postretirement benefit plans, respectively, for 2018. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 1

of 129
135 

Benefits Payments and Receipts 

As of December 31, 2017, the estimated benefits expected to be paid and the estimated federal subsidies expected to be received in 

each of the next five fiscal years, and in aggregate for the five fiscal years thereafter, are as follows: 

Pension PBOP Federal 

(in millions) Plan Plans Subsidy 

2018 $ 712 $ 83 $ (8) 

2019 811 87 (9) 

2020 850 91 (9) 

2021 886 95 (10) 

2022 920 100 (3) 

Thereafter in the succeeding five years 5,002 508 (15) 

There were no material differences between the estimated benefits expected to be paid by PG&E Corporation and paid by the 

Utility for the years presented above. There were also no material differences between the estimated subsidies expected to be 

received by PG&E Corporation and received by the Utility for the years presented above. 

Retirement Savings Plan 

PG&E Corporation sponsors a retirement savings plan, which qualifies as a 401(k) defined contribution benefit plan under the 

Internal Revenue Code 1986, as amended. This plan permits eligible employees to make pre-tax and after-tax contributions into 

the plan, and provide for employer contributions to be made to eligible participants. Total expenses recognized for defined 

contribution benefit plans reflected in PG&E Corporation’s Consolidated Statements of Income were $103 million, $97 million, 

and $89 million in 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively. 

There were no material differences between the employer contribution expense for PG&E Corporation and the Utility for the years

presented above. 

NOTE 12: RELATED PARTY AGREEMENTS AND TRANSACTIONS 

The Utility and other subsidiaries provide and receive various services to and from their parent, PG&E Corporation, and among 

themselves. The Utility and PG&E Corporation exchange administrative and professional services in support of operations. 

Services provided directly to PG&E Corporation by the Utility are priced at the higher of fully loaded cost (i.e., direct cost of good 

or service and allocation of overhead costs) or fair market value, depending on the nature of the services. Services provided 

directly to the Utility by PG&E Corporation are generally priced at the lower of fully loaded cost or fair market value, depending 

on the nature and value of the services. PG&E Corporation also allocates various corporate administrative and general costs to the 

Utility and other subsidiaries using agreed-upon allocation factors, including the number of employees, operating and maintenance 

expenses, total assets, and other cost allocation methodologies. Management believes that the methods used to allocate expenses 

are reasonable and meet the reporting and accounting requirements of its regulatory agencies. 

The Utility’s significant related party transactions were: 

Year Ended December 31, 

(in millions) 2017 2016 2015 

Utility revenues from: 

Administrative services provided to PG&E Corporation $ 8 $ 7 $ 6 

Utility expenses from: 

Administrative services received from PG&E Corporation $ 65 $ 74 $ 53 

Utility employee benefit due to PG&E Corporation 73 91 82 

At December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Utility had receivables of $20 million and $18 million, respectively, from PG&E Corporation 

included in accounts receivable – other and other noncurrent assets – other on the Utility’s Consolidated Balance Sheets, and 

payables of $22 million and $22 million, respectively, to PG&E Corporation included in accounts payable – other on the Utility’s 

Consolidated Balance Sheets. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 2

of 129
136 

NOTE 13: CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS 

PG&E Corporation and the Utility have significant contingencies arising from their operations, including contingencies related to 

enforcement and litigation matters and environmental remediation. A provision for a loss contingency is recorded when it is both 

probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. PG&E Corporation and the Utility 

evaluate the range of reasonably estimated losses and record a provision based on the lower end of the range, unless an amount 

within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, 

and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Loss 

contingencies are reviewed quarterly and estimates are adjusted to reflect the impact of all known information, such as 

negotiations, discovery, settlements and payments, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to 

a particular matter. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s provision for loss and expense excludes anticipated legal costs, which 

are expensed as incurred. The Utility also has substantial financial commitments in connection with agreements entered into to

support its operating activities. See “Purchase Commitments” below. PG&E Corporation has financial commitments described in 

“Other Commitments” below. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows may

be materially affected by the outcome of the following matters. 

Enforcement and Litigation Matters

Northern California Wildfires 

Beginning on October 8, 2017, multiple wildfires spread through Northern California, including Napa, Sonoma, Butte, Humboldt, 

Mendocino, Del Norte, Lake, Nevada, and Yuba Counties, as well as in the area surrounding Yuba City. According to the Cal Fire

California Statewide Fire Summary dated October 30, 2017, at the peak of the wildfires, there were 21 major wildfires in 

California that, in total, burned over 245,000 acres, resulted in 43 fatalities, and destroyed an estimated 8,900 structures. 

Subsequently, the number of fatalities increased to 44. 

The Utility incurred $219 million in costs for service restoration and repair to the Utility’s facilities (including $97 million in 

capital expenditures) through December 31, 2017 in connection with these fires. While the Utility believes that such costs are

recoverable through CEMA, its CEMA requests are subject to CPUC approval. The Utility’s financial condition, results of 

operations, liquidity, and cash flows could be materially affected if the Utility is unable to recover such costs. 

The fires are being investigated by Cal Fire and the CPUC, including the possible role of the Utility’s power lines and other 

facilities. The Utility expects that Cal Fire will issue a report or reports stating its conclusions as to the sources of ignition of the 

fires and the ways that they progressed. The CPUC’s SED also is conducting investigations to assess the compliance of electric 

and communication companies’ facilities with applicable rules and regulations in fire impacted areas. According to information

made available by the CPUC, investigation topics include, but are not limited to, maintenance of facilities, vegetation 

management, and emergency preparedness and response. Various other entities, including fire departments, may also be 

investigating certain of the fires. (For example, on February 3, 2018, it was reported that investigators with the Santa Rosa Fire 

Department had completed their investigation of two small fires that reportedly destroyed two homes and damaged one 

outbuilding and had concluded that the Utility’s facilities, along with high wind and other factors, contributed to those fires.) It is 

uncertain when the investigations will be complete and whether Cal Fire will release any preliminary findings before its 

investigation is complete. 

As of January 31, 2018, the Utility had submitted 22 electric incident reports to the CPUC associated with the Northern California 

wildfires where Cal Fire has identified a site as potentially involving the Utility’s facilities in its investigation and the property 

damage associated with each incident exceeded $50,000. The information contained in these reports is factual and preliminary, 

and does not reflect a determination of the causes of the fires. The investigations into the fires are ongoing. 

If the Utility’s facilities, such as its electric distribution and transmission lines, are determined to be the cause of one or more fires, 

and the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies, the Utility could be liable for property damage, interest, and attorneys’ fees 

without having been found negligent, which liability, in the aggregate, could be substantial and have a material adverse effect on 

PG&E Corporation and the Utility. California courts have imposed liability under the doctrine of inverse condemnation in legal

actions brought by property holders 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 benefitted from such undertaking and based on the 

assumption that utilities have the ability to recover these costs from their customers. Further, courts could determine that the 

doctrine of inverse condemnation applies even in the absence of an open CPUC proceeding for cost recovery, or before a potential 

cost recovery decision is issued by the CPUC. There is no guarantee that the CPUC would authorize cost recovery even if a court 

decision were to determine that the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies. In addition to such claims for property damage, 

interest and attorneys’ fees, the Utility could be liable for fire suppression costs, evacuation costs, medical expenses, personal 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 3

of 129
137 

injury damages, and other damages under other theories of liability, including if the Utility were found to have been negligent, 

which liability, in the aggregate, could be substantial and have a material adverse effect on PG&E Corporation and the Utility. 

Further, the Utility could be subject to material fines or penalties if the CPUC or any other law enforcement agency brought an

enforcement action and determined that the Utility failed to comply with applicable laws and regulations. 

Given the preliminary stages of investigations and the uncertainty as to the causes of the fires, PG&E Corporation and the Utility 

do not believe a loss is probable at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that facts could emerge through the course of the 

various investigations that lead PG&E Corporation and the Utility to believe that a loss is probable, resulting in an accrued liability 

in the future, the amount of which could be material. PG&E Corporation and the Utility currently are unable to reasonably 

estimate the amount of losses (or range of amounts) that they could incur given the preliminary stages of the investigations and the 

uncertainty regarding the extent and magnitude of potential damages. On January 31, 2018, the California Department of 

Insurance issued a press release announcing an update on property losses in connection with the October and December wildfires 

in California, stating that, as of such date, “insurers have received nearly 45,000 insurance claims totaling more than $11.79 billion 

in losses,” of which approximately $10 billion relates to statewide claims from the October 2017 wildfires. The remaining amount 

relates to claims from the Southern California December 2017 wildfires. According to the California Department of Insurance, as 

of the date of the press release, more than 21,000 homes, 3,200 businesses, and more than 6,100 vehicles, watercraft, farm 

vehicles, and other equipment were damaged or destroyed by the October 2017 wildfires. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have 

not independently verified these estimates. The California Department of Insurance did not state in its press release whether it 

intends to provide updated estimates of losses in the future. 

If the Utility’s facilities are determined to be the cause of one or more of the Northern California wildfires, PG&E Corporation and 

the Utility could be liable for the related property losses and other damages. The California Department of Insurance January 31, 

2018 press release reflects insured property losses only. The press release does not account for uninsured losses, interest, 

attorneys’ fees, fire suppression costs, evacuation costs, medical expenses, personal injury and wrongful death damages or other 

costs. If the Utility were to be found liable for certain or all of such other costs and expenses, the amount of PG&E Corporation’s 

and the Utility’s liability could be higher than the approximately $10 billion estimated in respect of the wildfires that occurred in 

October 2017, depending on the extent of the damage in connection with such fire or fires. As a result, PG&E Corporation’s and

the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows could be materially affected. 

As of January 31, 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of 111 lawsuits, six of which seek to be certified as class 

actions, that have been filed against PG&E Corporation and the Utility in the Sonoma, Napa and San Francisco Counties Superior 

Courts. The lawsuits allege, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, and private nuisance. They 

principally assert that PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s alleged failure to maintain and repair their distribution and 

transmission lines and failure to properly maintain the vegetation surrounding such lines were the causes of the fires. The 

plaintiffs seek damages that include wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, evacuation costs, medical expenses, 

punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other damages. In addition, insurance carriers who have made payments to their insureds

for property damage arising out of the fires have filed three subrogation complaints in the San Francisco County Superior Court. 

These complaints allege, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass and nuisance. The allegations are similar 

to the ones made by individual plaintiffs. On October 31, 2017, a group of plaintiffs submitted a petition for coordination to the 

Chair of the Judicial Council of California and requested coordination of the litigation in the San Francisco Superior Court. On 

November 9, 2017, PG&E Corporation and the Utility submitted a petition for coordination to the Chair of the Judicial Council of 

California, and requested separate coordination in the counties in which the fires occurred. On January 4, 2018, the coordination 

motion judge of the San Francisco Superior Court entered an order granting coordination of the litigation in connection with the 

Northern California wildfires and recommending that the coordinated proceeding take place in the San Francisco Superior Court. 

On January 12, 2018, the Judicial Council of California accepted the coordination motion judge’s recommendation and assigned 

the coordinated proceeding to San Francisco. The first case management conference is scheduled for February 27, 2018. 

In addition, two derivative lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment were filed in the San Francisco County 

Superior Court on November 16, 2017 and November 20, 2017, respectively. The first lawsuit is filed against the members of the

Board of Directors and certain officers of PG&E Corporation. PG&E Corporation is identified as a nominal defendant in that 

action. The second lawsuit is filed against the members of the Board of Directors, certain former members of the Board of 

Directors, and certain officers of both PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are identified as 

nominal defendants in that action. Motions to consolidate the two lawsuits, appoint lead plaintiffs’ counsel, and enter a case

schedule are currently pending. 

PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect to be the subject of additional lawsuits in connection with the Northern California 

wildfires. The wildfire litigation could take a number of years to be resolved because of the complexity of the matters, including 

the ongoing investigation into the causes of the fires and the growing number of parties and claims involved. The Utility has 

liability insurance from various insurers, which provides coverage for third-party liability attributable to the Northern California 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 4

of 129
138 

wildfires in an aggregate amount of approximately $800 million. If the Utility were to be found liable for one or more fires, the 

Utility’s insurance could be insufficient to cover that liability, depending on the extent of the damage in connection with such fire 

or fires. Following the Northern California wildfires, PG&E Corporation reinstated its liability insurance in the amount of 

approximately $630 million for any potential future event. 

In addition, it could take a number of years before the Utility’s final liability is known and the Utility could apply for cost

recovery. The Utility may be unable to recover costs in excess of insurance through regulatory mechanisms and, even if such 

recovery is possible, it could take a number of years to resolve and a number of years thereafter to collect. Further, SB 819,

introduced in the California Senate in January 2018, if it becomes law, would prohibit utilities from recovering costs in excess of 

insurance resulting from damages caused by such utilities’ facilities, if the CPUC determines that the utility did not reasonably 

construct, maintain, manage, control, or operate the facilities. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have considered certain actions 

that might be taken to attempt to address liquidity needs of the business in such circumstances, but the inability to recover costs in 

excess of insurance through increases in rates and by collecting such rates in a timely manner, or any negative assessment by the 

Utility of the likelihood or timeliness of such recovery and collection, could have a material adverse effect on PG&E Corporation’s 

and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows. 

Litigation and Regulatory Citations in Connection with the Butte Fire 

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 

management program ultimately led to the failure of the tree. 

Third-Party Claims 

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, 2017, 77 known 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. The complaints involve 

approximately 3,770 individual plaintiffs representing approximately 2,030 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 the doctrine of inverse condemnation and negligence theory of liability. Plaintiffs also seek 

punitive damages. As of December 31, 2017, several plaintiffs have dismissed the Utility’s two vegetation management 

contractors. The number of individual complaints and plaintiffs may still increase in the future, because the statute of limitations 

for property damages in connection with the Butte fire has not yet expired. (The statute of limitations for personal injury in

connection with the Butte fire has expired.) The Utility continues mediating and settling cases. 

In addition, on April 13, 2017, Cal Fire filed a complaint with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Calaveras, 

seeking to recover $87 million for its costs incurred on the theory that the Utility and its vegetation management contractors were 

negligent, among other claims. On July 31, 2017, Cal Fire dismissed its complaint against Tree’s, Inc., one of the Utility’s 

vegetation contractors. The Utility and Cal Fire are currently engaged in a mediation process. 

Further, in May 2017, the OES indicated that it intends to bring a claim against the Utility that it estimates in the approximate 

amount of $190 million. This claim would include costs incurred by the OES for tree and debris removal, infrastructure damage,

erosion control, and other claims related to the Butte fire. Also, in June 2017, the County of Calaveras indicated that it intends to 

bring a claim against the Utility that it estimates in the approximate amount of $85 million. This claim would include costs that 

the County of Calaveras incurred or expects to incur for infrastructure damage, erosion control, and other costs related to the Butte 

fire. 

On April 28, 2017, the Utility moved for summary adjudication on plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages. On August 10, 2017, 

the Court denied the Utility’s motion on the grounds that plaintiffs might be able to show conscious disregard for public safety 

based on the fact that the Utility relied on contractors to fulfill their contractual obligation to hire and train qualified employees. 

On August 16, 2017, the Utility filed a writ with the Court of Appeals challenging what the Utility believes is a novel theory of 

punitive damages liability. The Court of Appeals accepted the writ on September 15, 2017 and ordered the trial court and 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 5

of 129
139 

plaintiffs to show cause why the relief requested by the Utility should not be granted. Briefing on the writ was completed as of 

January 2, 2018. The Utility is seeking expedited review of the motion. 

On June 22, 2017, the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento ruled on a motion of several plaintiffs and found that the 

doctrine of inverse condemnation applies to the Utility with respect to the Butte fire. The court held, among other things, that the 

Utility had failed to put forth any evidence to support its contention that the CPUC would not allow the Utility to pass on its

inverse condemnation liability through rate increases. While the ruling is binding only between the Utility and the plaintiffs in the 

coordination proceeding, others could file lawsuits and make similar claims. On January 4, 2018, the Utility filed with the court a 

renewed motion for a legal determination of inverse condemnation liability, citing the November 30, 2017 CPUC decision denying 

the San Diego Gas & Electric Company application to recover wildfire costs in excess of insurance, and the CPUC declaration that 

it will not automatically allow utilities to spread inverse condemnation losses through rate increases. The motion is set for hearing 

on March 15, 2018. 

Estimated Losses from Third-Party Claims 

In connection with this matter, the Utility may be liable for property damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees without having been 

found negligent, through the doctrine 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. While the Utility believes it was not negligent, there can be no assurance that a court or jury would 

agree with the Utility. 

The Utility currently believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss of at least $1.1 billion, increased from the $750 million 

previously estimated as of December 31, 2016, in connection with the Butte fire. The Utility’s updated estimate resulted primarily 

from an increase in the number of claims filed against the Utility and experience to date in resolving claims. This amount is based 

on updated assumptions about 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 certain other damages, but does not include punitive damages for which the Utility could be liable. In 

addition, while this amount includes the Utility’s assumptions about fire suppression costs (including its assessment of the Cal Fire 

loss), it does not include any significant portion of the estimated claims from the OES and the County of Calaveras. The Utility 

still does not have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the probable loss it may have for these additional claims. 

The Utility currently is unable to reasonably estimate the upper end of the range of losses due to the uncertainty of pending legal 

motions related to the applicability of inverse condemnation and punitive damages and because it has insufficient information on 

the claims of over 1,000 households and the claims from the OES and the County of Calaveras. The process for estimating costs 

associated with claims relating to the Butte fire requires management to exercise significant judgment based on a number of 

assumptions and subjective factors. As more information becomes known, including additional discovery from the plaintiffs, 

results from the ongoing mediation and settlement process, review of potential claims from the OES and the County of Calaveras,

outcomes of future court or jury decisions, and information about damages, including punitive damages, that the Utility could be 

liable for, management estimates and assumptions regarding the financial impact of the Butte fire may result in material increases 

to the loss accrued. 

The following table presents changes in the third-party claims liability since December 31, 2015. The balance for the third-party 

claims liability is included in Other current liabilities in PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Consolidated Balance Sheets: 

Loss Accrual (in millions) 

Balance at December 31, 2015 $ - 

Accrued losses 750 

Payments(1) (60) 

Balance at December 31, 2016 690 

Accrued losses 350 

Payments(1) (479) 

Balance at December 31, 2017 $ 561 

 (1) As of December 31, 2017 the Utility entered into settlement agreements in connection with the Butte fire corresponding to approximately $624 million of which 

 $539 million has been paid by the Utility. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 6

of 129
140 

In addition to the amounts reflected in the table above, the Utility has incurred cumulative legal expenses of $87 million in 

connection with the Butte fire. For the year ended December 31, 2017, the Utility has incurred legal expenses in connection with 

the Butte fire of $60 million. 

Loss Recoveries 

The Utility has liability insurance from various insurers, which provides coverage for third-party liability attributable to the Butte 

fire in an aggregate amount of $922 million. The Utility records insurance recoveries when it is deemed probable that a recovery 

will occur and the Utility can reasonably estimate the amount or its range. Through December 31, 2017, the Utility recorded $922 

million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with losses related to the Butte fire. While the Utility plans to seek

recovery of all insured losses, it is unable to predict the ultimate amount and timing of such insurance recoveries. In addition, in 

the year ended December 31, 2017, the Utility received $53 million of reimbursements from the insurance policies of one of its 

vegetation management contractors (excluded from the table below). Recoveries of additional amounts under the insurance 

policies of the Utility’s vegetation management contractors, including policies where the Utility is listed as an additional insured, 

are uncertain. 

The following table presents changes in the insurance receivable since December 31, 2015. The balance for the insurance 

receivable is included in Other accounts receivable in PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Consolidated Balance Sheets: 

Insurance Receivable (in millions) 

Balance at December 31, 2015 $ - 

Accrued insurance recoveries 625 

Reimbursements (50) 

Balance at December 31, 2016 575 

Accrued insurance recoveries 297 

Reimbursements (276) 

Balance at December 31, 2017 $ 596 

 

In January 2018, the Utility received another $75 million in insurance reimbursements. 

If the Utility records losses in connection with claims relating to the Butte fire that materially exceed the amount the Utility 

accrued for these liabilities, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows could be 

materially affected in the reporting periods during which additional charges are recorded, depending on whether the Utility is able 

to record or collect insurance recoveries in amounts sufficient to offset such additional accruals. 

Regulatory Citations 

On April 25, 2017, the SED issued two citations to the Utility in connection with the Butte fire, totaling $8.3 million. The SED’s 

investigation found that neither the Utility nor its vegetation management contractors took appropriate steps to prevent the gray 

pine from leaning and contacting the Utility’s electric line, which created an unsafe and dangerous condition that resulted in that 

tree leaning and making contact with the electric line, thus causing a fire. The Utility paid the citations in June 2017. 

 

Enforcement Matters 

In 2014, both the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco and the California Attorney General's office opened investigations into 

matters related to allegedly improper communication between the Utility and CPUC personnel. The Utility has cooperated with 

those investigations. It is uncertain whether any charges will be brought against the Utility as a result of these investigations. 

CPUC Matters 

Order Instituting an Investigation into Compliance with Ex Parte Communication Rules 

 

During 2014 and 2015, the Utility filed several reports to notify the CPUC of communications that the Utility believes may have

constituted or described ex parte communications that either should not have occurred or that should have been timely reported to 

the CPUC. Ex parte communications include communications between a decision maker or a commissioner’s advisor and 

interested persons concerning substantive issues in certain formal proceedings. Certain communications are prohibited and others 

are permissible with proper noticing and reporting. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 7

of 129
141 

On November 23, 2015, the CPUC issued an OII into whether the Utility should be sanctioned for violating rules pertaining to ex

parte communications and Rule 1.1 of the CPUC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure governing the conduct of those appearing 

before the CPUC. The OII cites some of the communications the Utility reported to the CPUC. The OII also cites the ex parte 

violations alleged in the City of San Bruno’s July 2014 motion, which it filed in CPUC investigations related to the Utility’s 

natural gas transmission pipeline operations and practices. 

On March, 28, 2017, the Cities of San Bruno and San Carlos, ORA, the SED, TURN, and the Utility jointly submitted to the 

CPUC a settlement agreement in connection with the OII into the Utility’s compliance with the CPUC’s ex parte communication 

rules. On September 1, 2017, the assigned administrative law judge issued a PD in this proceeding adopting, with one 

modification, the settlement agreement jointly submitted to the CPUC on March 28, 2017, by the Utility, the Cities of San Bruno

and San Carlos, the ORA, the SED, and TURN. 

If adopted, the PD would increase the payment to the California General Fund, relative to the settlement agreement, from $1 

million to $12 million resulting in a total penalty of $97.5 million comprised of: (1) a $12 million payment to the California 

General Fund, (2) forgoing collection of $63.5 million of GT&S revenue requirements for the years 2018 ($31.75 million) and 

2019 ($31.75 million), (3) a $10 million one-time revenue requirement adjustment to be amortized in equivalent annual amounts 

over the Utility’s next GRC cycle (i.e., the GRC following the 2017 GRC), and (4) compensation payments to the Cities of San 

Bruno and San Carlos in a total amount of $12 million ($6 million to each city). In addition, the settlement agreement provides for 

certain non-financial remedies, including enhanced noticing obligations between the Utility and CPUC decision-makers, as well as 

certification of employee training on the CPUC ex parte communication rules. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, 

customers will bear no costs associated with the financial remedies set forth above. 

On September 21, 2017, the Utility submitted a motion to the CPUC accepting the proposed modification of the settlement 

agreement to increase the Utility’s payment to the California General Fund from $1 million to $12 million. Further, the Utility also 

reported that it has identified several communications that appear to raise issues similar to other communications that are part of 

this proceeding. 

On November 1, 2017, the Utility filed a status report advising the CPUC that the Utility and the non-Utility parties to the 

settlement agreement were unable to reach an agreement with respect to how to proceed regarding the communications that the 

Utility reported to the CPUC on September 21, 2017. Also on November 1, 2017, the non-Utility parties to the settlement 

requested that the CPUC approve the settlement, as modified by the PD, and open a second phase of the OII to investigate and 

consider appropriate sanctions for the new communications reported by the Utility on September 21, 2017, and others that may be

discovered. 

On November 30, 2017, the CPUC issued a decision extending the statutory deadline to June 29, 2018 to resolve the proceeding. 

The CPUC stated that an extension of the statutory deadline was necessary to allow the assigned administrative law judge time to 

prepare the revised decision and to open and resolve a second phase of this proceeding. 

The Utility is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding. 

At December 31, 2017, PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Consolidated Balance Sheets include a $24 million accrual for the 

amounts payable to the California General Fund and the Cities of San Bruno and San Carlos. In accordance with accounting rules, 

adjustments related to revenue requirements would be recorded in the periods in which they are incurred. 

Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Rights-of-Way 

 In 2012, the Utility notified the CPUC and the SED that the Utility planned to complete a system-wide survey of its transmission 

pipelines in an effort to address a self-reported violation whereby the Utility did not properly identify encroachments (such as 

building structures and vegetation overgrowth) on the Utility’s pipeline rights-of-way. The Utility also submitted a proposed 

compliance plan that set forth the scope and timing of remedial work to remove identified encroachments over a multi-year period 

and to pay penalties if the proposed milestones were not met. In March 2014, the Utility informed the SED that the survey had 

been completed and that remediation work, including removal of the encroachments, was expected to continue for several years. 

The SED has not addressed the Utility’s proposed compliance plan, and it is reasonably possible that the SED will impose fines on 

the Utility in the future based on the Utility’s failure to continuously survey its system and remove encroachments. The Utility is 

unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of future charges that could be incurred given the SED’s wide discretion and the 

number of factors that can be considered in determining penalties. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 8

of 129
142 

Potential Safety Citations 

The SED periodically audits utility operating practices and conducts investigations of potential violations of laws and regulations 

applicable to the safety of the California utilities’ electric and natural gas facilities and operations. The CPUC has delegated 

authority to the SED to issue citations and impose penalties for violations identified through audits, investigations, or self-reports. 

There are a number of audit findings, as well as other potential violations identified through various investigations and the Utility’s 

self-reported non-compliance with laws and regulations, on which the SED has yet to act. Under both the gas and electric 

programs, the SED has discretion whether to issue a penalty for each violation. 

The SED has discretion whether 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, with an administrative limit of $8 million per citation issued. The SED may, at 

its discretion, impose penalties on a daily basis, or on less than a daily basis, for violations that continued for more than one day. 

The SED also 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 violations 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 SED also is required to 

consider the appropriateness of the amount of the penalty to the size of the entity charged. Historically, the SED has exercised 

broad discretion in determining whether violations are continuing and the amount of penalties to be imposed. In the past, the SED 

has imposed fines on the Utility ranging from $50,000 to $16.8 million for violations of electric and natural gas laws and 

regulations. The CPUC can also open an OII and levy additional fines even after the SED has issued a citation. 

The Utility is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of future charges as a result of SED investigations or any 

proceedings that could be commenced in connection with potential violations of electric and natural gas laws and regulations. 

Other Matters 

Other Contingencies 

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are subject to various claims, lawsuits and regulatory proceedings that separately are not 

considered material. Accruals for contingencies related to such matters (excluding amounts related to the contingencies discussed 

above under “Enforcement and Litigation Matters”) totaled $86 million at December 31, 2017 and $45 million at December 31, 

2016. These amounts are included in Other current liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The resolution of these matters 

is not expected to have a material impact on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition, results of operations, or 

cash flows. 

Disallowance of Plant Costs 

 

PG&E Corporation and the Utility record a charge when it is both probable that costs incurred for recently completed plant will

not be recoverable through rates and the amount of disallowance can be reasonably estimated. Capital disallowances are reflected 

in operating and maintenance expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Income. Disallowances as a result of the CPUC’s June 

2016 final phase one decision and December 2016 final phase two decision in the Utility’s 2015 GT&S rate case, the Utility’s 

Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan, and CPUC’s final decision on the closure of Diablo Canyon are discussed below. 

2015 GT&S Rate Case Disallowance of Capital Expenditures

On June 23, 2016, the CPUC approved a final phase one decision in the Utility’s 2015 GT&S rate case. The phase one decision 

excluded from rate base $696 million of capital spending in 2011 through 2014 in excess of the amount adopted. The decision 

permanently disallowed $120 million of that amount and ordered that the remaining $576 million be subject to an audit overseen 

by the CPUC staff, with the possibility that the Utility may seek recovery in a future proceeding. The decision also established 

various cost caps that will increase the risk of overspend over the current rate case cycle including new one-way balancing 

accounts. As a result, in 2016, the Utility incurred charges of $219 million for capital expenditures that the Utility believes are 

probable of disallowance based on the decision. This included $134 million for 2011 through 2014 capital expenditures in excess

of adopted amounts and $85 million for the Utility’s estimate of 2015 through 2018 capital expenditures that are probable of 

exceeding authorized amounts. Additional charges may be required in the future based on the Utility’s ability to manage its capital 

spending and on the outcome of the CPUC’s audit of 2011 through 2014 capital spending. 

Capital Expenditures Relating to Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan 

The CPUC has authorized the Utility to collect $766 million for recovery of PSEP capital costs. As of December 31, 2017, the 

Utility has spent $1.38 billion on PSEP-related capital costs, of which $665 million was expensed in previous years for costs that 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 9

of 129
143 

are expected to exceed the authorized amount. The Utility expects the remaining PSEP work to continue throughout 2018. The 

Utility would be required to record charges in future periods to the extent PSEP-related capital costs are higher than currently 

expected. 

Capital Expenditures Relating to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant

On January 11, 2018, the CPUC issued a final decision adopting the settlement agreement jointly submitted to the CPUC in May 

2017 related to the recovery of license renewal costs and cancelled project costs within the Utility’s application to retire Diablo 

Canyon. The final decision allows for recovery from customers of $18.6 million of the total license renewal project cost of $53

million evenly over an 8-year period beginning January 1, 2018. Related to cancelled project costs, the decision allows for 

recovery from customers of 100% of the direct costs incurred prior to June 30, 2016 and 25% recovery of direct costs incurred 

after June 30, 2016. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Utility incurred charges of $47 million related to the Diablo 

Canyon capital expenditures settlement agreement, of which $24 million is for cancelled projects and $23 million is for disallowed 

license renewal costs. The Utility does not expect to incur additional charges as a result of the CPUC’s final decision, other than 

additional project cancellation costs that the Utility does not expect to be material. 

Environmental Remediation Contingencies 

Given the complexities of the legal and regulatory environment and the inherent uncertainties involved in the early stages of a

remediation project, the process for estimating remediation liabilities requires significant judgment. The Utility records an 

environmental remediation liability when the site assessments indicate that remediation is probable and the Utility can reasonably 

estimate the loss or a range of probable amounts. The Utility records an environmental remediation liability based on the lower 

end of the range of estimated probable costs, unless an amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. Key 

factors that inform the development of estimated costs include site feasibility studies and investigations, applicable remediation 

actions, operations and maintenance activities, post-remediation monitoring, and the cost of technologies that are expected to be 

approved to remediate the site. Amounts recorded are not discounted to their present value. The Utility’s environmental 

remediation liability is primarily included in non-current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and is composed of the 

following: 

Balance at 

December 31 December 31, 

(in millions) 2017 2016 

Topock natural gas compressor station $ 334 $ 299

Hinkley natural gas compressor station 147 135

Former manufactured gas plant sites owned by the Utility or third parties(1) 320 285

Utility-owned generation facilities (other than fossil fuel-fired), 

 other facilities, and third-party disposal sites(2) 115 131

Fossil fuel-fired generation facilities and sites(3) 123 108

Total environmental remediation liability $ 1,039 $ 958

(1) Primarily driven by the following sites: Vallejo, SF East Harbor, Napa, and SF North Beach 

(2) Primarily driven by the Shell Pond site 

(3) Primarily driven by the SF Potrero Power Plant site 

The Utility’s gas compressor stations, former manufactured gas plant sites, power plant sites, gas gathering sites, and sites used by 

the Utility for the storage, recycling, and disposal of potentially hazardous substances are subject to requirements issued by the 

state and federal regulatory agencies under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and/or other state hazardous 

waste laws. The Utility has a comprehensive program in place designed to comply with federal, state, and local laws and 

regulations related to hazardous materials, waste, remediation activities, and other environmental requirements. The Utility 

assesses and monitors, on an ongoing basis, measures that may be necessary to comply with these laws and regulations and 

implements changes to its program as deemed appropriate. The Utility’s remediation activities are overseen by the DTSC, several 

California regional water quality control boards, and various other federal, state, and local agencies. 

The Utility’s environmental remediation liability at December 31, 2017 reflects its best estimate of probable future costs associated 

with its final remediation plan. Future costs will depend on many factors, including the extent of work to implement final 

remediation plans and the Utility’s required time frame for remediation. The Utility may incur actual costs in the future that are 

materially different than this estimate and such costs could have a material impact on results of operations, financial condition and 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 10

of 129
144 

cash flows during the period in which they are recorded. At December 31, 2017, the Utility expected to recover $725 million of its 

environmental remediation liability through various ratemaking mechanisms authorized by the CPUC. 

Natural Gas Compressor Station Sites

The Utility is legally responsible for remediating groundwater contamination caused by hexavalent chromium used in the past at 

the Utility’s natural gas compressor stations. The Utility is also required to take measures to abate the effects of the contamination 

on the environment. 

Topock Site 

 

The Utility’s remediation and abatement efforts at the Topock site are subject to the regulatory authority of the DTSC and the DOI. 

In November 2015, the Utility submitted its final remediation design to the agencies for approval. The Utility’s design proposes 

that the Utility construct an in-situ groundwater treatment system to convert hexavalent chromium into a non-toxic and nonsoluble form of chromium. On December 21, 2017 the DTSC issued its final environmental impact report. The environmental 

impact report includes requirements related to conditions of work that have been anticipated or previously required and are 

accounted for in the current environmental remediation liability. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the 

Topock site may increase by as much as $289 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than 

anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the Topock site are expected to be recovered through the 

HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered in rates. 

Hinkley Site 

The Utility has been implementing interim remediation measures at the Hinkley site to reduce the mass of the chromium plume in 

groundwater and to monitor and control movement of the plume. The Utility’s remediation and abatement efforts at the Hinkley 

site are subject to the regulatory authority of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. In 

November 2015, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region adopted a final clean-up and abatement 

order to contain and remediate the underground plume of hexavalent chromium and the potential environmental impacts. The final

order states that the Utility must continue and improve its remediation efforts, define the boundaries of the chromium plume, and 

take other action. Additionally, the final order requires setting plume capture requirements, requires establishing a monitoring and 

reporting program, and finalizes deadlines for the Utility to meet interim cleanup targets. The United States Geological Survey

team is currently conducting a background study on the site to better define the chromium plume boundaries. The background 

study is expected to be finalized in 2019. The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with the Hinkley site may increase by 

as much as $145 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The costs associated 

with environmental remediation at the Hinkley site will not be recovered through rates. 

Former Manufactured Gas Plants (“MGPs”) 

Former manufactured gas plants used coal and oil to produce gas for use by the Utility’s customers in the past. The by-products 

and residues of this process were often disposed at the manufactured gas plants themselves. The Utility has undertaken a program 

to manage the residues left behind as a result of the manufacturing process; many of the sites in the program have been addressed. 

The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with MGP sites may increase by as much as $343 million if the extent of 

contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The costs associated with environmental remediation at the 

MGP sites are recovered through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered in rates. 

Utility-Owned Generation Facilities and Third-Party Disposal Sites 

Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites are long-term projects that are undergoing a remediation process. 

The Utility’s undiscounted future costs associated with Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites may 

increase by as much as $145 million if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The 

environmental remediation costs associated with the Utility-owned generation facilities and third-party disposal sites are recovered 

through the HSM, where 90% of the costs are recovered in rates. 

Fossil Fuel-Fired Generation Sites 

In 1998 the Utility divested its generation power plant business as part of generation deregulation. Although the Utility has sold its 

fossil-fueled power plants, the Utility has retained the environmental remediation liability associated with each site. The Utility’s 

undiscounted future costs associated with fossil fuel-fired generation sites may increase by as much as $106 million if the extent of 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 11

of 129
145 

contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The environmental remediation costs associated with the fossil 

fuel-fired sites will not be recovered through rates. 

Nuclear Insurance 

The Utility is a member of NEIL, which is a mutual insurer owned by utilities with nuclear facilities. NEIL provides insurance

coverage for property damages and business interruption losses incurred by the Utility if a nuclear event were to occur at the 

Utility’s two nuclear generating units at Diablo Canyon and the retired Humboldt Bay Unit 3. NEIL provides property damage 

and business interruption coverage of up to $3.2 billion per nuclear incident and $2.6 billion per non-nuclear incident for Diablo 

Canyon. Humboldt Bay Unit 3 has up to $131 million of coverage for nuclear and non-nuclear property damages. 

NEIL also provides coverage for damages caused by acts of terrorism at nuclear power plants. Certain acts of terrorism may be 

“certified” by the Secretary of the Treasury. If damages are caused by certified acts of terrorism, NEIL can obtain compensation 

from the federal government and will provide up to its full policy limit of $3.2 billion for each insured loss. In contrast, NEIL 

would treat all non-certified terrorist acts occurring within a 12-month period against one or more commercial nuclear power 

plants insured by NEIL as one event and the owners of the affected plants would share the $3.2 billion policy limit amount. 

In addition to the nuclear insurance the Utility maintains through the NEIL, the Utility also is a member of the EMANI, which 

provides excess insurance coverage for property damages and business interruption losses incurred by the Utility if a nuclear or 

non-nuclear event were to occur at Diablo Canyon. 

If NEIL losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, the Utility could be subject to a retrospective assessment. If NEIL 

were to exercise this assessment, as of December 31, 2017, the current maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium 

obligation for the Utility would be approximately $57 million. EMANI provides $200 million for any one accident and in the 

annual aggregate excess of the combined amount recoverable under the Utility’s NEIL policies. If EMANI losses in any policy 

year exceed accumulated funds, the Utility could be subject to a retrospective assessment of approximately $3 million, as of 

December 31, 2017. 

Under the Price-Anderson Act, public liability claims that arise from nuclear incidents that occur at Diablo Canyon, and that occur 

during the transportation of material to and from Diablo Canyon are limited to $13.5 billion. The Utility purchased the maximum 

available public liability insurance of $450 million for Diablo Canyon. The balance of the $13.5 billion of liability protection is 

provided under a loss-sharing program among utilities owning nuclear reactors. The Utility may be assessed up to $255 million 

per nuclear incident under this program, with payments in each year limited to a maximum of $38 million per incident. Both the

maximum assessment and the maximum yearly assessment are adjusted for inflation at least every five years. The next scheduled 

adjustment is due on or before September 10, 2018. 

The Price-Anderson Act does not apply to claims that arise from nuclear incidents that occur during shipping of nuclear material 

from the nuclear fuel enricher to a fuel fabricator or that occur at the fuel fabricator’s facility. The Utility has a separate policy that 

provides coverage for claims arising from some of these incidents up to a maximum of $450 million per incident. In addition, the 

Utility has $53 million of liability insurance for Humboldt Bay Unit 3 and has a $500 million indemnification from the NRC for 

public liability arising from nuclear incidents, covering liabilities in excess of the liability insurance.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 12

of 129
146 

Resolution of Remaining Chapter 11 Disputed Claims 

Various electricity suppliers filed claims in the Utility’s proceeding filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code seeking 

payment for energy supplied to the Utility’s customers between May 2000 and June 2001. While the FERC and judicial 

proceedings are pending, the Utility has pursued, and continues to pursue, settlements with electricity suppliers. The Utility has 

entered into a number of settlement agreements with various electricity suppliers to resolve some of these disputed claims and to 

resolve the Utility’s refund claims against these electricity suppliers. Under these settlement agreements, amounts payable by the 

parties are, in some instances, subject to adjustment based on the outcome of the various refund offset and interest issues being 

considered by the FERC. Generally, any net refunds, claim offsets, or other credits that the Utility receives from electricity

suppliers either through settlement or through the conclusion of the various FERC and judicial proceedings are refunded to 

customers through rates in future periods. 

At December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, the Consolidated Balance Sheets reflected $243 million and $236 

million in net claims within Disputed claims and customer refunds. The Utility is uncertain when or how the remaining net 

disputed claims liability will be resolved. 

Purchase Commitments 

The following table shows the undiscounted future expected obligations under power purchase agreements that have been 

approved by the CPUC and have met specified construction milestones as well as undiscounted future expected payment 

obligations for natural gas supplies, natural gas transportation, natural gas storage, and nuclear fuel as of December 31, 2017: 

Power Purchase Agreements 

Renewable Conventional Natural Nuclear 

(in millions) Energy Energy Other Gas Fuel Total 

2018 $ 2,150 $ 718 $ 280 $ 388 $ 96 $ 3,632 

2019 2,193 706 221 167 102 3,389 

2020 2,188 686 175 148 143 3,340 

2021 2,168 588 153 93 70 3,072 

2022 1,975 512 143 93 60 2,783 

Thereafter 26,005 657 526 357 151 27,696 

Total purchase 

commitments $ 36,679 $ 3,867 $ 1,498 $ 1,246 $ 622 $ 43,912 

 Third-Party Power Purchase Agreements 

In the ordinary course of business, the Utility enters into various agreements, including renewable energy agreements, QF 

agreements, and other power purchase agreements to purchase power and electric capacity. The price of purchased power may be 

fixed or variable. Variable pricing is generally based on the current market price of either natural gas or electricity at the date of 

delivery. 

Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreements. In order to comply with California’s RPS requirements, the Utility is required to 

deliver renewable energy to its customers at a gradually increasing rate. The Utility has entered into various agreements to 

purchase renewable energy to help meet California’s requirement. The Utility’s obligations under a significant portion of these 

agreements are contingent on the third party’s construction of new generation facilities, which are expected to grow. As of 

December 31, 2017, renewable energy contracts expire at various dates between 2018 and 2043. 

Conventional Energy Power Purchase Agreements. The Utility has entered into power purchase agreements for conventional 

generation resources, which include tolling agreements and resource adequacy agreements. The Utility’s obligation under a 

portion of these agreements is contingent on the third parties’ development of new generation facilities to provide capacity and 

energy products to the Utility. As of December 31, 2017, these power purchase agreements expire at various dates between 2018 

and 2033.

Other Power Purchase Agreements. The Utility has entered into agreements to purchase energy and capacity with independent 

power producers that own generation facilities that meet the definition of a QF under federal law. Several of these agreements are 

treated as capital leases. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, net capital leases reflected in property, plant, and equipment on the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 13

of 129
147 

Consolidated Balance Sheets were $18 million and $35 million including accumulated amortization of $143 million and $148 

million, respectively. The present value of the future minimum lease payments due under these agreements included $11 million 

and $17 million in Current Liabilities and $7 million and $18 million in Noncurrent Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet, 

respectively. As of December 31, 2017, QF contracts in operation expire at various dates between 2018 and 2028. In addition, the 

Utility has agreements with various irrigation districts and water agencies to purchase hydroelectric power. 

The costs incurred for all power purchases and electric capacity amounted to $3.3 billion in 2017, $3.5 billion in 2016, and $3.5 

billion in 2015. 

Natural Gas Supply, Transportation, and Storage Commitments 

The Utility purchases natural gas directly from producers and marketers in both Canada and the United States to serve its core 

customers and to fuel its owned-generation facilities. The Utility also contracts for natural gas transportation from the points at 

which the Utility takes delivery (typically in Canada, the US Rocky Mountain supply area, and the southwestern United States) to 

the points at which the Utility’s natural gas transportation system begins. These agreements expire at various dates between 2018 

and 2026. In addition, the Utility has contracted for natural gas storage services in northern California in order to more reliably 

meet customers’ loads. Costs incurred for natural gas purchases, natural gas transportation services, and natural gas storage,

 include contracts with terms of less than 1 year, amounted to $0.9 billion in 2017, $0.7 billion in 2016, and $0.9 billion in 2015. 

Nuclear Fuel Agreements 

The Utility has entered into several purchase agreements for nuclear fuel. These agreements expire at various dates between 2018 

and 2025 and are intended to ensure long-term nuclear fuel supply. The Utility relies on a number of international producers of 

nuclear fuel in order to diversify its sources and provide security of supply. Pricing terms are also diversified, ranging from 

market-based prices to base prices that are escalated using published indices. 

Payments for nuclear fuel amounted to $83 million in 2017, $100 million in 2016, and $128 million in 2015. 

Other Commitments 

PG&E Corporation and the Utility have other commitments related to operating leases (primarily office facilities and land), which 

expire at various dates between 2018 and 2052. At December 31, 2017, the future minimum payments related to these 

commitments were as follows: 

(in millions) Operating Leases 

2018 $ 44 

2019 41 

2020 40 

2021 36 

2022 27 

Thereafter 138 

Total minimum lease payments $ 326 

Payments for other commitments related to operating leases amounted to $45 million in 2017, $43 million in 2016, and $41 

million in 2015. Certain leases on office facilities contain escalation clauses requiring annual increases in rent. The rentals 

payable under these leases may increase by a fixed amount each year, a percentage of increase over base year, or the consumer 

price index. Most leases contain extension operations ranging between one and five years.

 which

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 14

of 129
148 

QUARTERLY CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA (UNAUDITED) 

Quarter ended 

(in millions, except per share amounts) December 31 September 30 June 30 March 31 

2017 

PG&E CORPORATION 

Operating revenues (1) $ 4,100 $ 4,517 $ 4,250 $ 4,268 

Operating income 429 899 748 880 

Income tax provision (2) 108 160 134 109 

Net income (3) 118 553 410 579 

Income available for common shareholders 114 550 406 576 

Comprehensive income 118 553 411 579 

Net earnings per common share, basic 0.22 1.07 0.79 1.13 

Net earnings per common share, diluted 0.22 1.07 0.79 1.13 

Common stock price per share: 

High 69.20 71.56 69.22 67.86 

Low 44.45 65.04 65.33 60.07 

UTILITY 

Operating revenues (1) $ 4,101 $ 4,516 $ 4,250 $ 4,271 

Operating income 434 834 749 883 

Income tax provision (2) 33 138 136 120 

Net income (3) 200 513 409 569 

Income available for common stock 196 510 405 566 

Comprehensive income 203 513 409 570 

2016 

PG&E CORPORATION 

Operating revenues (4) $ 4,713 $ 4,810 $ 4,169 $ 3,974 

Operating income 1,041 640 401 95 

Income tax (benefit) provision (5) 160 70 12 (187) 

Net income (6) 696 391 210 110 

Income available for common shareholders 692 388 206 107 

Comprehensive income 694 391 210 110 

Net earnings per common share, basic 1.37 0.77 0.41 0.22 

Net earnings per common share, diluted 1.36 0.77 0.41 0.22 

Common stock price per share: 

High 62.12 65.39 63.92 59.72 

Low 58.04 60.82 56.62 51.29 

UTILITY 

Operating revenues (4) $ 4,714 $ 4,809 $ 4,169 $ 3,975 

Operating income 1,044 640 401 96 

Income tax (benefit) provision (5) 169 73 13 (185) 

Net income (6) 696 389 209 108 

Income available for common stock 692 386 205 105 

Comprehensive income 694 389 210 108 

(1) In the first quarter of 2017, the Utility recorded the remaining retroactive revenues related to the 2015 GT&S rate case decision authorized by the CPUC. 

(2) In the fourth quarter of 2017, the Utility had lower income tax expense primarily due to lower operating income, which was partially offset by the impact of the 

Tax Act.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 15

of 129
149 

(3) In the second quarter of 2017, the Utility recorded a $47 million disallowance related to the Diablo Canyon settlement. Also, in the third quarter of 2017, the 

Utility recorded a $350 million charge related to Butte fire third-party claims. In the first, second, and third quarters of 2017, the Utility recorded $7 million, 

$14 million, and $276 million, respectively, for probable insurance recoveries in connection with recovery of losses related to the Butte fire. (See Note 13 of 

the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.) 

(4) In the third and fourth quarters of 2016, the Utility recorded an increase in base revenues as authorized by the CPUC in the 2015 GT&S rate case decision. 

(5) In the first quarter of 2016, the Utility had an income tax benefit, primarily due to net loss before income taxes and various tax audit results. 

(6) In the first, second, and third quarters of 2016, the Utility recorded charges for disallowed capital spending of $87 million, $148 million, and $51 million, 

respectively, as a result of the San Bruno Penalty Decision. Additionally, in the second and fourth quarters of 2016, the Utility recorded charges of $190 million 

and $29 million for capital expenditures probable of disallowance related to the final decision in the 2015 GT&S rate case. Also, in the first quarter of 2016 the 

Utility recorded a $350 million charge related to Butte fire litigation. In the second quarter of 2016, the Utility recorded $260 million for probable insurance 

recoveries in connection with recovery of losses related to the Butte fire. In the fourth quarter of 2016, the Utility recorded a $400 million charge related to the 

Butte fire litigation and an insurance receivable of $365 million for probable insurance recoveries in connection with the Butte fire. (See Note 13 of the Notes to 

the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.) 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 16

of 129
150 

MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING 

Management of PG&E Corporation and the Utility is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over 

financial reporting. PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide 

reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external 

purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. Internal control over financial reporting includes 

those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect 

the transactions and dispositions of the assets of PG&E Corporation and the Utility, (2) provide reasonable assurance that 

transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP and that receipts and 

expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of PG&E Corporation and the 

Utility, and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or 

disposition of assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements. 

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, 

projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because 

of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. 

Management assessed the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on the criteria 

established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the 

Treadway Commission. Based on its assessment and those criteria, management has concluded that PG&E Corporation and the 

Utility maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017. 

Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has audited PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s 

internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated 

Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 17

of 129
151 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

To the Shareholders and the Board of Directors of 

PG&E Corporation 

Opinion on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of PG&E Corporation and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of 

December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of 

Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material 

respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal 

Control — Integrated Framework (2013) issued by COSO. 

 

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) 

(PCAOB), the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017, of the Company and our report 

dated February 9, 2018, expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and included an emphasis-ofmatter paragraph regarding uncertainty related to possible material losses or penalties to the Company as a result of the Northern 

California wildfires that occurred in October 2017, as discussed in Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements. 

Basis for Opinion 

The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its 

assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report 

on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over 

financial reporting based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be 

independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and 

regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB. 

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material 

respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a

material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed 

risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a 

reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the 

reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally 

accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that 

(1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of 

the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of 

financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the 

company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide 

reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company's

assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements. 

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent, or detect misstatements. Also, 

projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because 

of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

San Francisco, California 

February 9, 2018

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 18

of 129
152 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Shareholders and the Board of Directors of 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

Opinion on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Pacific Gas and Electric Company and subsidiaries (the "Utility") 

as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the 

Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). In our opinion, the Utility maintained, in all 

material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in 

Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013) issued by COSO. 

 

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) 

(PCAOB), the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017, of the Utility and our report 

dated February 9, 2018, expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and included an emphasis-ofmatter paragraph regarding uncertainty related to possible material losses or penalties to the Utility as a result of the Northern 

California wildfires that occurred in October 2017, as discussed in Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements. 

Basis for Opinion 

The Utility’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment 

of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal 

Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Utility’s internal control over financial 

reporting based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with 

respect to the Utility in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities 

and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB. 

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material 

respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a

material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed 

risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a 

reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the 

reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally 

accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that 

(1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of 

the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of 

financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the 

company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide 

reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company's

assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements. 

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent, or detect misstatements. Also, 

projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because 

of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

San Francisco, California 

February 9, 2018 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 19

of 129
153 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Shareholders and the Board of Directors of 

PG&E Corporation 

Opinion on the Financial Statements 

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of PG&E Corporation and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of 

December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company’s related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, equity, and cash 

flows, for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, and the related notes and the schedules listed in the

Index at Item 15 (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all 

material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its 

cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with accounting principles generally 

accepted in the United States of America. 

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) 

(PCAOB), the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in 

Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway 

Commission and our report dated February 9, 2018 expressed an unqualified opinion on the Company's internal control over 

financial reporting. 

Basis for Opinion 

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the 

Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required 

to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and 

regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB. 

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error 

or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, 

whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a 

test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the

accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the 

financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Emphasis of Matter 

As discussed in Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements, the Northern California wildfires that occurred in October 2017 

may result in material losses or penalties to the Company. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

San Francisco, California 

February 9, 2018 

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 1999.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 20

of 129
154 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

To the Shareholders and the Board of Directors of 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

Opinion on the Financial Statements 

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Pacific Gas and Electric Company and subsidiaries (the 

“Utility”) as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the Utility’s related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income,

shareholders’ equity, and cash flows, for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, and the related notes and 

the schedule listed in the Index at Item 15 (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial 

statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Utility as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the 

results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with 

accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) 

(PCAOB), the Utility’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal 

Control — Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and 

our report dated February 9, 2018 expressed an unqualified opinion on the Utility’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Basis for Opinion 

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Utility’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the 

Utility’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to 

be independent with respect to the Utility in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and 

regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB. 

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error 

or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, 

whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a 

test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the

accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the 

financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Emphasis of Matter 

As discussed in Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements, the Northern California wildfires that occurred in October 2017 

may result in material losses or penalties to the Utility. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

San Francisco, California 

February 9, 2018 

We have served as the Utility’s auditor since 1999.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 21

of 129
155 

ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL 

DISCLOSURE 

Not applicable. 

ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES 

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures 

Based on an evaluation of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2017, 

PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s respective principal executive officers and principal financial officers have concluded that 

such controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by PG&E Corporation and the Utility 

in reports that the companies file or submit under the 1934 Act is (i) recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the

time periods specified in the SEC rules and forms, and (ii) accumulated and communicated to PG&E Corporation’s and the 

Utility’s management, including PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s respective principal executive officers and principal 

financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. 

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Management of PG&E Corporation and the Utility have prepared an annual report on internal control over financial 

reporting. Management’s report, together with the report of the independent registered public accounting firm, appears in Item 8 

of this 2017 Form 10-K under the heading “Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting” and “Report of 

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.” 

Registered Public Accounting Firm’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has audited PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s 

internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated 

Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. 

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2017 that 

have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, PG&E Corporation’s or the Utility’s internal control over 

financial reporting. 

ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION 

Not applicable. 

PART III 

ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 

Information regarding executive officers of PG&E Corporation and the Utility is set forth under “Executive Officers of the 

Registrants” at the end of Part I of this 2017 Form 10-K. Other information regarding directors will be included under the heading 

“Nominees for Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company” in the Joint Proxy Statement relating to the 

2018 Annual Meetings of Shareholders, which information is incorporated herein by reference. Information regarding compliance 

with Section 16 of the Exchange Act will be included under the heading “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting 

Compliance” in the Joint Proxy Statement relating to the 2018 Annual Meetings of Shareholders, which information is 

incorporated herein by reference. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 22

of 129
156 

Website Availability of Code of Ethics, Corporate Governance and Other Documents

The following documents are available both on the Corporate Governance section of PG&E Corporation’s website 

(www.pgecorp.com/corp/about-us/corporate-governance.page) and on the Utility’s website (www.pge.com/en_US/aboutpge/company-information/company-information.page, under the “Visit Corporate Governance” link): (1) the PG&E Corporation’s 

and the Utility’s codes of conduct (which meet the definition of “code of ethics” of Item 406(b) of the SEC Regulation S-K) 

adopted by PG&E Corporation and the Utility and applicable to their directors and employees, including their respective Chief 

Executive Officer and President, as the case may be, Chief Financial Officers, Controllers and other executive officers, (2) PG&E 

Corporation’s and the Utility’s respective corporate governance guidelines, and (3) key Board committee charters, including 

charters for the companies’ Audit Committees and the PG&E Corporation Nominating and Governance Committee and 

Compensation Committee. 

If any amendments are made to, or any waivers are granted with respect to, provisions of the code of conduct adopted by PG&E 

Corporation and the Utility and that apply to their respective Chief Executive Officer and President, as the case may be, Chief

Financial Officers, or Controllers, PG&E Corporation and the Utility will post the amended code of ethics on their websites and

will disclose any waivers to the “code of ethics” in a Current Report on Form 8-K. 

Procedures for Shareholder Recommendations of Nominees to the Boards of Directors

There were no material changes to the procedures described in PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s Joint Proxy Statement 

relating to the 2017 Annual Meetings of Shareholders by which security holders may recommend nominees to PG&E 

Corporation’s or Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Boards of Directors. 

Audit Committees and Audit Committee Financial Expert

Information regarding the Audit Committees of PG&E Corporation and the Utility and the “audit committee financial experts” as 

defined by the SEC will be included under the headings “Corporate Governance – Board Committee Duties – Audit Committees” 

and “Corporate Governance – Committee Membership, Independence, and Qualifications” in the Joint Proxy Statement relating to 

the 2018 Annual Meetings of Shareholders, which information is incorporated herein by reference. 

ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION 

Information responding to Item 11, for each of PG&E Corporation and the Utility, will be included under the headings 

“Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” “Compensation Committee Report,” “Summary Compensation Table - 2017,” “Grants 

of Plan-Based Awards in 2017,” “Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End - 2017,” “Option Exercises and Stock Vested 

During 2017,” “Pension Benefits – 2017,” “Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation – 2017,” “Potential Payments Upon 

Resignation, Retirement, Termination, Change in Control, Death, or Disability” and “Compensation of Non-Employee Directors – 

2017 Director Compensation” in the Joint Proxy Statement relating to the 2018 Annual Meetings of Shareholders, which 

information is incorporated herein by reference.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 23

of 129
157 

ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED 

STOCKHOLDER MATTERS 

Information regarding the beneficial ownership of securities for each of PG&E Corporation and the Utility is set forth under the 

headings “Share Ownership Information – Security Ownership of Management” and “Share Ownership Information – Principal 

Shareholders” in the Joint Proxy Statement relating to the 2018 Annual Meetings of Shareholders, which information is 

incorporated herein by reference. 

Equity Compensation Plan Information 

The following table provides information as of December 31, 2017 concerning shares of PG&E Corporation common stock 

authorized for issuance under PG&E Corporation's existing equity compensation plans. 

 (a) (b) (c) 

Plan Category 

Number of Securities to 

be Issued Upon Exercise 

of Outstanding Options, 

Warrants and Rights 

 Weighted Average 

Exercise Price of 

Outstanding Options, 

Warrants and Rights 

Number of Securities 

Remaining Available for 

Future Issuance Under 

Equity Compensation 

Plans (Excluding 

Securities Reflected in 

Column (a))

Equity compensation 

plans approved by shareholders 4,969,352 (1) $ 35.53 (2) 14,381,959 (3)

Equity compensation plans not 

approved by shareholders -- -

Total equity compensation plans 4,969,352 (1) $ 35.53 (2) 14,381,959 (3)

 (1) Includes 14,041 phantom stock units, 1,426,371 restricted stock units and 3,524,850 performance shares. The weighted average exercise price reported in column 

(b) does not take these awards into account. For performance shares, amounts reflected in this table assume payout in shares at 200% of target or, for 

performance shares granted in 2015, reflects the actual payout percentage of 0% for performance shares using a total shareholder return metric and 15.1%for 

performance shares using safety and affordability metrics. The actual number of shares issued can range from 0% to 200% of target depending on achievement 

of performance objectives. Also, restricted stock units and performance shares are generally settled in net shares. Upon vesting, shares with a value equal to 

required tax withholding will be withheld and, in lieu of issuing the shares, taxes will be paid on behalf of employees. Shares not issued due to share 

withholding or performance achievement below maximum will be available again for issuance. 

(2) This is the weighted average exercise price for the 4,090 options outstanding as of December 31, 2017. 

(3) Represents the total number of shares available for issuance under all of PG&E Corporation’s equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2017. Stock-based 

awards granted under these plans include restricted stock units, performance shares and phantom stock units. The 2014 LTIP, which became effective on May 

12, 2014, authorizes up to 17 million shares to be issued pursuant to awards granted under the 2014 LTIP, less approximately 2.7 million shares for awards 

granted under the 2006 LTIP from January 1, 2014 through May 11, 2014. In addition, if any awards outstanding under the 2006 LTIP at December 31, 2013 are 

cancelled, forfeited or expire without being settled in full, shares of stock allocable to the terminated portion of such awards shall again be available for issuance 

under the 2014 LTIP. 

 

For more information, see Note 5 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8. 

ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE 

 

Information responding to Item 13, for each of PG&E Corporation and the Utility, will be included under the headings “Related 

Party Transactions” and “Corporate Governance – Board and Director General Independence and Qualifications” and “Corporate 

Governance – Committee Membership, Independence, and Qualifications” in the Joint Proxy Statement relating to the 2018 

Annual Meetings of Shareholders, which information is incorporated herein by reference. 

ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES 

Information responding to Item 14, for each of PG&E Corporation and the Utility, will be included under the heading “Information 

Regarding the Independent Auditor for PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company” in the Joint Proxy Statement 

relating to the 2018 Annual Meetings of Shareholders, which information is incorporated herein by reference. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 24

of 129
158 

PART IV 

ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES 

(a) The following documents are filed as a part of this report: 

1. The following consolidated financial statements, supplemental information and report of independent registered public 

accounting firm are filed as part of this report in Item 8: 

Consolidated Statements of Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 for each of PG&E Corporation and 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 for each of PG&E 

Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 

Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2017 and 2016 for each of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company. 

 

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 for each of PG&E Corporation 

and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 

Consolidated Statements of Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 for PG&E Corporation. 

Consolidated Statements of Shareholders’ Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 for Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company. 

Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. 

Quarterly Consolidated Financial Data (Unaudited). 

Management’s Report on Internal Controls 

Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (Deloitte & Touche LLP). 

2.The following financial statement schedules are filed as part of this report: 

Condensed Financial Information of Parent as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 and for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, 

and 2015. 

Consolidated Valuation and Qualifying Accounts for each of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the 

Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015. 

3. Exhibits required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 25

of 129
159 

EXHIBIT INDEX 

Exhibit 

Number Exhibit Description 

 3.1 

Restated Articles of Incorporation of PG&E Corporation effective as of May 29, 2002 (incorporated by 

reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 

3.1) 

 3.2 

Certificate of Determination for PG&E Corporation Series A Preferred Stock filed December 22, 2000 

(incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000 (File No. 

1-12609), Exhibit 3.2) 

 3.3 Bylaws of PG&E Corporation amended as of December 16, 2016 (incorporated by reference to PG&E 

Corporation’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 3.3) 

 3.4 

Restated Articles of Incorporation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company effective as of April 12, 2004 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Form 8-K dated April 12, 2004 (File No. 1-

2348), Exhibit 3) 

 3.5 

Bylaws of Pacific Gas and Electric Company amended as of December 16, 2016 (incorporated by reference to 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (File No. 1-2348), 

Exhibit 3.5) 

 4.1 

Indenture, dated as of April 22, 2005, supplementing, amending and restating the Indenture of Mortgage, dated 

as of March 11, 2004, as supplemented by a First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 23, 2004, and a 

Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 12, 2004, between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and 

The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 

Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

 4.2 

First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 13, 2007, relating to the issuance of $700,000,000 principal 

amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 5.80% Senior Notes due March 1, 2037 (incorporated by 

reference from Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated March 14, 2007 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 

4.1) 

 4.3 

Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 3, 2008, relating to the issuance of $400,000,000 of Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company’s 6.35% Senior Notes due February 15, 2038 (incorporated by reference to Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated March 3, 2008 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

 4.4 

Fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 21, 2008, relating to the issuance of $600,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 8.25% Senior Notes due October 15, 2018 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated October 21, 2008 (File No. 

1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

 4.5 

Fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 18, 2008, relating to the issuance of $200,000,000 

principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 8.25% Senior Notes due October 15, 2018 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated November 18, 2008 (File 

No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

 4.6 

Sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 6, 2009, relating to the issuance of $550,000,000 aggregate 

principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 6.25% Senior Notes due March 1, 2039 (incorporated 

by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated March 6, 2009 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 

4.1) 

4.7 

Seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 11, 2009, relating to the issuance of $500,000,000 aggregate 

principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Floating Rate Senior Notes due June 10, 2010 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated June 11, 2009 (File No. 1-

2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 26

of 129
160 

 4.8 

 Eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 18, 2009, relating to the issuance of $550,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 5.40% Senior Notes due January 15, 2040 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated November 18, 2009 (File 

No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

 4.9 Ninth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 1, 2010, relating to the issuance of $250,000,000 aggregate 

principal amount of its 5.80% Senior Notes due March 1, 2037 (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated April 1, 2010 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

 4.10 

Tenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 15, 2010, relating to the issuance of $550,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 3.50% Senior Notes due October 1, 2020 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated September 15, 2010 (File 

No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

 4.11 

Twelfth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 18, 2010, relating to the issuance of $250,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 3.50% Senior Notes due October 1, 2020 

and $250,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 5.40% Senior Notes due January 15, 2040 (incorporated by 

reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated November 18, 2010 (File No. 1-2348), 

Exhibit 4.1) 

 4.12 

Thirteenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 13, 2011, relating to the issuance of $300,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 4.25% Senior Notes due May 15, 2021 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated May 13, 2011 (File No. 1-

2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

 4.13 

Fourteenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 12, 2011, relating to the issuance of $250,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 3.25% Senior Notes due September 15, 2021 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated September 12, 2011 (File 

No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

 4.14 

Sixteenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 1, 2011, relating to the issuance of $250,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 4.50% Senior Notes due December 15, 2041 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated December 1, 2011 (File No. 

1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

 4.15 

Seventeenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 16, 2012, relating to the issuance of $400,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 4.45% Senior Notes due April 15, 

2042 (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated April 16, 2012 (File 

No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

 4.16 

Eighteenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of August 16, 2012, relating to the issuance of $400,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 2.45% Senior Notes due August 15, 2022 

and $350,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 3.75% Senior Notes due August 15, 2042 (incorporated by 

reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated August 16, 2012 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 

4.1) 

 4.17 

Nineteenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 14, 2013, relating to the issuance of $375,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 3.25% Senior Notes due June 15, 2023 and 

$375,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 4.60% Senior Notes due June 15, 2043 (incorporated by 

reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated June 14, 2013 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

 4.18 

Twentieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 12, 2013, relating to the issuance of $300,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 3.85% Senior Notes due November 15, 

2023 and $500,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 5.125% Senior Notes due November 15, 2043 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated November 12, 2013 (File 

No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 27

of 129
161 

 4.19 

Twenty-First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of February 21, 2014, relating to the issuance of $450,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 3.75% Senior Notes due February 15, 2024 

and $450,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 4.75% Senior Notes due February 15, 2044 (incorporated 

by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated February 21, 2014 (File No.1 2348), 

Exhibit 4.1) 

4.20 

Twenty-Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of August 18, 2014, relating to the issuance of $350,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 3.40% Senior Notes due August 15, 2024 

and $225,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 4.75% Senior Notes due February 15, 2044 (incorporated 

by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated August 18, 2014 (File No. 1-2348), 

Exhibit 4.1) 

4.21 

Twenty-Fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 6, 2014, relating to the issuance of 

$500,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 4.30% Senior Notes due 

March 15, 2045 (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated November 

6, 2014 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

4.22 

Twenty-Fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 12, 2015, relating to the issuance of $400,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 3.50% Senior Notes due June 15, 2025 and 

$100,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 4.30% Senior Notes due March 15, 2045 (incorporated by 

reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated June 12, 2015 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

4.23 

 Twenty-Sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 5, 2015, relating to the issuance of $200,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 3.50% Senior Notes due June 15, 2025 and 

$450,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 4.25% Senior Notes due March 15, 2046 (incorporated by 

reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated November 5, 2015 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 

4.1)

4.24 

Twenty-Seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 1, 2016, relating to the issuance of $600,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 2.95% Senior Notes due March 1, 2026 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated March 1, 2016 (File No. 1-

2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

4.25 

Twenty-Eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 1, 2016, relating to the issuance of $250,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Floating Rate Senior Notes due November 

30, 2017 and $400,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 4.00% Senior Notes due December 1, 2046 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated December 1, 2016 (File No. 

1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

4.26 

Twenty-Ninth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 10, 2017, relating to the issuance of $400,000,000 

aggregate principal amount of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 3.30% Senior Notes due March 15, 2027 

and $200,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 4.00% Senior Notes due December 1, 2046 (incorporated 

by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated March 10, 2017 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 

4.1) 

4.27 

Indenture, dated as of November 29, 2017, relating to the issuance of $500,000,000 aggregate principal amount 

of by Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Floating Rate Senior Notes due 2018, $1,150,000,000 aggregate 

principal amount of its 3.30% Senior Notes due 2027 and $850,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 

3.95% Senior Notes due 2047 (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K 

dated November 29, 2017 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.1) 

4.28 Senior Note Indenture, dated as of February 10, 2014, between PG&E Corporation and U.S. Bank National 

Association (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form S-3 (File No. 333-193880), Exhibit 4.1) 

4.29 

First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of February 27, 2014, relating to the issuance of $350,000,000 aggregate 

principal amount of PG&E Corporation’s 2.40% Senior Notes due March 1, 2019 (incorporated by reference to 

PG&E Corporation’s Form 8-K dated February 27, 2014 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 4.1) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 28

of 129
162 

4.30 

 Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of November 29, 2017, among Pacific Gas and Electric Company and 

Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, 

Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, as representatives of the initial purchasers 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated November 29, 2017 (File 

No. 1-2348), Exhibit 4.5) 

10.1 

Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of April 27, 2015, among (1) PG&E Corporation, as 

borrower, (2) Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent and a lender, (3) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & 

Smith Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and Wells Fargo Securities 

LLC, as joint lead arrangers and joint bookrunners, (4) Citibank N.A. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as cosyndication agents and lenders, (5) Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as documentation agent and 

lender, and (6) the following other lenders: Barclays Bank PLC, BNP Paribas, Goldman Sachs Bank USA, 

Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A., Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A., 

Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd., Royal Bank of Canada, U.S. Bank, National Association, MUFG Union Bank, 

N.A., TD Bank, N.A., Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, New York Branch, and Sumitomo Mitsui 

Banking Corporation (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 

March 31, 2015 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.1) 

10.2 

Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of April 27, 2015, among (1) Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company, as borrower, (2) Citibank N.A., as administrative agent and a lender, (3) Merrill Lynch, 

Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and Wells 

Fargo Securities LLC, as joint lead arrangers and joint bookrunners, (4) Bank of America, N.A. and JPMorgan 

Chase Bank, N.A., as co-syndication agents and lenders, (5) Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as 

documentation agent and lender, and (6) the following other lenders: Barclays Bank PLC, BNP Paribas, 

Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A., Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., The Bank of 

New York Mellon, N.A., Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd., Royal Bank of Canada, U.S. Bank National 

Association, MUFG Union Bank, N.A., TD Bank, N.A., Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, New York 

Branch, and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.2) 

10.3 

Term Loan Agreement, dated as of March 2, 2016, between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and The Bank of 

Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated 

March 2, 2016 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.1) 

10.4 

Term Loan Agreement, dated as of February 23, 2017, by and among Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the 

several banks and other financial institutions or entities from time to time parties thereto, The Bank of TokyoMitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. and U.S. Bank National Association, as joint lead arrangers and joint bookrunners and The 

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd, as administrative agent (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company’s Form 8-K dated February 23, 2017 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.1) 

10.5 

 Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 27, 2017, among Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Barclays 

Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & 

Smith Incorporated and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, as representatives of the initial purchasers listed on 

Schedules I-A, I-B and I-C thereto (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 8-K 

dated November 29, 2017 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.1) 

10.6 

Settlement Agreement among the California Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

and PG&E Corporation, dated as of December 19, 2003, together with appendices (incorporated by reference to 

PG&E Corporation's and Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Form 8-K dated December 22, 2003 (File No. 1-

12609 and File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 99) 

10.7 

Transmission Control Agreement among the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the 

Participating Transmission Owners, including Pacific Gas and Electric Company, effective as of March 31, 

1998, as amended (CAISO, FERC Electric Tariff No. 7) (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s and 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (File No. 1-12609 and 

File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.8) 

10.8 * 

Letter regarding Compensation Agreement between PG&E Corporation and Anthony F. Earley, Jr. dated 

August 8, 2011 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 

30, 2011 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.1) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 29

of 129
163 

10.9 * 

Restricted Stock Unit Agreement between Anthony F. Earley, Jr. and PG&E Corporation for 2017 grant under 

the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's 

Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.04) 

10.10 * 

Restricted Stock Unit Agreement between Anthony F. Earley, Jr. and PG&E Corporation for 2016 grant under 

the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s 

Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.7) 

10.11 * 

Restricted Stock Unit Agreement between Anthony F. Earley, Jr. and PG&E Corporation for 2015 grant under 

the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's 

Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.7) 

10.12 * 

Restricted Stock Unit Agreement between Anthony F. Earley, Jr. and PG&E Corporation for 2014 grant under 

the PG&E Corporation 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's 

Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.4) 

10.13 * 

Restricted Stock Unit Agreement between Anthony F. Earley, Jr. and PG&E Corporation for 2013 grant under 

the PG&E Corporation 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's 

Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2013 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.5) 

10.14 * 

Performance Share Agreement subject to financial goals between Anthony F. Earley, Jr. and PG&E 

Corporation for 2017 grant under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by 

reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 

10.05) 

10.15 * 

Performance Share Agreement subject to financial goals between Anthony F. Earley, Jr. and PG&E 

Corporation for 2016 grant under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by 

reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (File No. 1-12609), 

Exhibit 10.12) 

10.16 * 

Performance Share Agreement subject to financial goals between Anthony F. Earley, Jr. and PG&E 

Corporation for 2015 grant under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by 

reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 

10.8) 

10.17 * 

Performance Share Agreement subject to safety and customer affordability goals between Anthony F. Earley, 

Jr. and PG&E Corporation for 2017 grant under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan 

(incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 (File No. 1-

12609), Exhibit 10.06) 

10.18 * 

Performance Share Agreement subject to safety and customer affordability goals between Anthony F. Earley, 

Jr. and PG&E Corporation for 2016 grant under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan 

(incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (File No. 

1-12609), Exhibit 10.14) 

10.19 * 

Performance Share Agreement subject to safety and customer affordability goals between Anthony F. Earley, 

Jr. and PG&E Corporation for 2015 grant under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan 

(incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 (File No. 

1-12609), Exhibit 10.9) 

10.20 * 

Performance Share Agreement between Anthony F. Earley, Jr. and PG&E Corporation for 2014 grant under the 

PG&E Corporation 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 

10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.5) 

10.21 * 

Restricted Stock Unit Agreement between Nickolas Stavropoulos and PG&E Corporation for additional 2015 

grant under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E 

Corporation’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (File No. 1-2609), Exhibit 10.16) 

10.22 * 

Restricted Stock Unit Agreement between Nickolas Stavropoulos and PG&E Corporation for non-annual award 

under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E 

Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.08) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 30

of 129
164 

10.23 * 

Restricted Stock Unit Agreement between Geisha J. Williams and PG&E Corporation for additional 2015 grant 

under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E 

Corporation’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (File No. 1-2609), Exhibit 10.17) 

10.24 * 

Restricted Stock Unit Agreement between John R. Simon and PG&E Corporation for additional 2015 grant 

under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E 

Corporation’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (File No. 1-2609), Exhibit 10.18) 

10.25 * 

Letter regarding Compensation Agreement between PG&E Corporation and Julie M. Kane dated March 11, 

2015 for employment starting May 18, 2015 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-Q for 

the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.4) 

10.26 * 

Restricted Stock Unit Agreement between Julie M. Kane and PG&E Corporation dated May 29, 2015 for 2015 

grant under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E 

Corporation’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.5) 

10.27 * 

Non-Annual Restricted Stock Unit Agreement between Julie M. Kane and PG&E Corporation dated May 29, 

2015 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (File 

No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.6) 

10.28 * 

Performance Share Agreement subject to financial goals between Julie M. Kane and PG&E Corporation dated 

May 29, 2015 for 2015 grant under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by 

reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 

10.7) 

10.29 * 

Performance Share Agreement subject to safety and customer affordability goals between Julie M. Kane and 

PG&E Corporation dated May 29, 2015 for 2015 grant under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term 

Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 

2015 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.8) 

10.30 * 

Restricted Stock Unit Agreement between Dinyar Mistry and PG&E Corporation dated February 23, 2016 

(incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Form 10-Q for the 

quarter ended March 31, 2016 (File No. 1-12609 and File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.2) 

10.31 * 

Separation Agreement between PG&E Corporation and Hyun Park dated August 7, 2017 and amended as of 

September 1, 2017 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 

September 30, 2017 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.1) 

10.32 * 

Separation Agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Desmond Bell dated January 6, 2017 

and amended as of April 25, 2017 (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Form 10-Q 

for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.09) 

10.33 * 

Separation Agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Helen Burt dated January 5, 2017 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 

2017 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.3) 

10.34 * 

Letter regarding Compensation Agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and David Thomason 

dated May 24, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Form 10-Q for the 

quarter ended June 30, 2016 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.2) 

10.35 * 

Non-Annual Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement between PG&E Corporation and David S. Thomason 

dated August 8, 2016 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 

September 30, 2016 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.1) 

10.36 * 

Performance Share Award Agreement subject to financial goals between David S. Thomason and PG&E 

Corporation dated August 8, 2016 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter 

ended September 30, 2016 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.2) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 31

of 129
165 

10.37 * 

Performance Share Award Agreement subject to safety and customer affordability goals between David S. 

Thomason and PG&E Corporation dated August 8, 2016 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's 

Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.3) 

10.38 * 

Non-Annual Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement between PG&E Corporation and Edward D. Halpin dated 

November 28, 2016 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-K for the year ended 

December 31, 2016 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.32) 

10.39 * 

PG&E Corporation Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan amended effective as of September 19, 2001, and 

frozen after December 31, 2004 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-K for the year 

ended December 31, 2004) (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.10) 

10.40 * 

PG&E Corporation 2005 Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan, as amended effective September 15, 2015 

(incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 (File 

No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.3) 

10.41 * 

PG&E Corporation 2005 Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, effective as of January 1, 

2005 (as amended to comply with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A regulations effective as of January 1, 

2009) (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 

(File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.24) 

10.42 * 

PG&E Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, as amended and restated 

effective as of July 22, 1998 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-Q for the quarter 

ended September 30, 1998 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.2) 

10.43 *

Description of Short-Term Incentive Plan for Officers of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries, effective 

January 1, 2017 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 

2017 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.2) 

10.44 * 

Description of Short-Term Incentive Plan for Officers of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries, effective 

January 1, 2016 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 8-K dated February 16, 2016 (File 

No. 1-12609) 

10.45 * 

Amendment to PG&E Corporation Short-Term Incentive Programs and Other Bonus Programs, effective 

January 1, 2009 (amendment to comply with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A regulations) (incorporated 

by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (File No. 1-12609), 

Exhibit 10.27) 

10.46 * 

Amendment to Pacific Gas and Electric Company Short-Term Incentive Programs and Other Bonus Programs, 

effective January 1, 2009 (amendment to comply with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A regulations) 

(incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 

2008 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.28) 

10.47 * 

PG&E Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, as amended effective as of January 1, 2013 

(incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (File No. 

1-12609, Exhibit 10.31) 

10.48 * 

PG&E Corporation Defined Contribution Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan, as amended effective 

September 17, 2013 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 

September 30, 2013 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.2) 

10.49 * 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Relocation Assistance Program for Officers (incorporated by reference to 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (File No. 1-2348), 

Exhibit 10.38) 

10.50 * 

Amendment to the Postretirement Life Insurance Plan of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, effective 

February 16, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter 

ended March 31, 2016 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.4) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 32

of 129
166 

10.51 * 

Amendment to the Postretirement Life Insurance Plan of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, effective 

February 6, 2015 (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 10-K for the year 

ended December 31, 2014) (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.37) 

10.52 * 

Postretirement Life Insurance Plan of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, as amended and restated on 

February 14, 2012 (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter 

ended March 31, 2012 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.7) 

10.53 * 

PG&E Corporation Non-Employee Director Stock Incentive Plan (a component of the PG&E Corporation 

Long-Term Incentive Program) as amended effective as of July 1, 2004 (incorporated by reference to PG&E 

Corporation’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.27) 

10.54 * PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan effective May 12, 2014 and amended effective January 1, 

2018 

10.55 * PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan effective May 12, 2014 and amended effective February 

15, 2017 

10.56 * 

PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan effective May 12, 2014 and amended effective January 1, 

2016 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 

(File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.42) 

10.57 * 

PG&E Corporation 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended effective January 1, 2013 (incorporated by 

reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (File No. 1-12609), 

Exhibit 10.40) 

10.58 * 

PG&E Corporation Long-Term Incentive Program (including the PG&E Corporation Stock Option Plan and 

Performance Unit Plan), as amended May 16, 2001, (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 

10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2001 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10) 

10.59 *

Form of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement for 2017 grants to non-employee directors under the PG&E 

Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for 

the quarter ended June 30, 2017 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.07) 

10.60 * 

Form of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement for 2016 grants to non-employee directors under the PG&E 

Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for 

the quarter ended June 30, 2016 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.1) 

10.61 * 

Form of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement for 2017 grants under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term 

Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 

2017 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.01) 

10.62 * 

Form of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement for 2016 grants under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term 

Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 

2016 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.55) 

10.63 * 

Form of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement for 2015 grants under the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term 

Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 

2015 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.4) 

10.64 * 

Form of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement for 2014 grants under the PG&E Corporation 2006 Long-Term 

Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 

2014 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.2) 

10.65 * 

Form of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement for 2013 grants under the PG&E Corporation 2006 Long-Term 

Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 

2013 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.3) 

10.66 * 

Form of Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement under the PG&E Corporation Long-Term Incentive Program 

(incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 8-K dated January 6, 2005 (File No. 1-12609), 

Exhibit 99.1) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 33

of 129
167 

10.67 * 

Form of Performance Share Agreement subject to financial goals for 2017 grants under the PG&E Corporation 

2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter 

ended June 30, 2017 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.02) 

10.68 * 

Form of Performance Share Agreement subject to financial goals for 2016 grants under the PG&E Corporation 

2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-K for the year 

ended December 31, 2016 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.61) 

10.69 * 

Form of Performance Share Agreement subject to financial goals for 2015 grants under the PG&E Corporation 

2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter 

ended March 31, 2015 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.5) 

10.70 * 

Form of Performance Share Agreement subject to safety and customer affordability goals for 2017 grants under 

the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's 

Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.03) 

10.71 * 

Form of Performance Share Agreement subject to safety and customer affordability goals for 2016 grants under 

the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's 

Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.63) 

10.72 * 

Form of Performance Share Agreement subject to safety and customer affordability goals for 2015 grants under 

the PG&E Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's 

Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.6) 

10.73 * 

Form of Performance Share Agreement for 2014 grants under the PG&E Corporation 2006 Long-Term 

Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 

2014 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.3) 

10.74 * 

PG&E Corporation 2010 Executive Stock Ownership Guidelines as adopted September 14, 2010, effective 

January 1, 2011 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 

30, 2010 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.3) 

10.75 * 

PG&E Corporation Executive Stock Ownership Program Guidelines as amended effective September 15, 2010 

(incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (File 

No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.2) 

10.76 * 

PG&E Corporation 2012 Officer Severance Policy, as amended effective as of May 12, 2014 (incorporated by 

reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014 (File No. 1-12609), 

Exhibit 10.2) 

10.77 * 

PG&E Corporation Golden Parachute Restriction Policy effective as of February 15, 2006 (incorporated by 

reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (File No. 1-12609), 

Exhibit 10.49) 

10.78 * 

Amendment to PG&E Corporation Golden Parachute Restriction Policy dated December 31, 2008 (amendment 

to comply with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A Regulations) (incorporated by reference to PG&E 

Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.58) 

10.79 * 

Amended and Restated PG&E Corporation Director Grantor Trust Agreement dated October 1, 2015 

(incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 (File 

No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.1) 

10.80 * 

Amended and Restated PG&E Corporation Officer Grantor Trust Agreement dated October 1, 2015 

(incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 (File 

No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.2) 

10.81 * 

PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Executive Incentive Compensation Recoupment 

Policy effective as of February 17, 2010 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-K for the 

year ended December 31, 2009 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.54) 

10.82 * 

Resolution of the Board of Directors of PG&E Corporation regarding indemnification of officers and directors 

dated December 18, 1996 (incorporated by reference to PG&E Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended 

December 31, 2004 (File No. 1-12609), Exhibit 10.40) 

10.83 * 

Resolution of the Board of Directors of Pacific Gas and Electric Company regarding indemnification of officers 

and directors dated July 19, 1995 (incorporated by reference to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Form 10-K 

for the year ended December 31, 2004 (File No. 1-2348), Exhibit 10.41) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 34

of 129
168 

12.1 Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges for Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

12.2 Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends for Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company 

12.3 Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges for PG&E Corporation 

21 Subsidiaries of the Registrant 

23.1 PG&E Corporation Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (Deloitte & Touche LLP) 

23.2 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (Deloitte & 

24 Powers of Attorney 

31.1 Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of PG&E Corporation required by 

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

31.2 Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

32.1 ** Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of PG&E Corporation required by 

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

32.2 ** Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

101.INS XBRL Instance Document 

101.SCH XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document 

101.CAL XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document 

101.LAB XBRL Taxonomy Extension Labels Linkbase Document 

101.PRE XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document 

101.DEF XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document 

* Management contract or compensatory agreement.

** Pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of SEC Regulation S-K, these exhibits are furnished rather than filed with this 

report. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 35

of 129
169 

ITEM 16. FORM 10-K SUMMARY 

None.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 36

of 129
170 

SIGNATURES 

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrants have duly 

caused this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 to be signed on their behalf by the 

undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. 

PG&E CORPORATION PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 

 (Registrant) (Registrant) 

 

 

 

 Geisha J. Williams Nickolas Stavropoulos 

 

By: Chief Executive Officer and President By: President and Chief Operating Officer 

 

Date: February 9, 2018 Date: February 9, 2018 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following 

persons on behalf of the registrants and in the capacities and on the dates indicated. 

Signature Title Date 

A. Principal Executive Officers 

 

 

 Chief Executive Officer and February 9, 2018

 Geisha J. Williams President (PG&E Corporation) 

 

 President and Chief Operating Officer February 9, 2018

 Nickolas Stavropoulos (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) 

 

B. Principal Financial Officers 

 

 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer February 9, 2018

 Jason P. Wells (PG&E Corporation) 

 

 Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and February 9, 2018

 David S. Thomason Controller (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) 

 

C. Principal Accounting Officer 

 

 Vice President and Controller (PG&E 

Corporation) February 9, 2018

 David S. Thomason Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and 

 Controller (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) 

 

D. Directors (PG&E 

Corporation and Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company, unless 

otherwise noted) 

 

 

* LEWIS CHEW Director February 9, 2018

 Lewis Chew 

GEISHA J. WILLIAMS NICKOLAS STAVROPOULOS

GEISHA J. WILLIAMS

NICKOLAS STAVROPOULOS

JASON P. WELLS

DAVID S. THOMASON

DAVID S. THOMASON

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 37

of 129
171 

 

* FRED J. FOWLER Director February 9, 2018

 Fred J. Fowler 

 

* JEH C. JOHNSON Director (PG&E Corporation only) February 9, 2018

 Jeh C. Johnson 

 

* RICHARD C. KELLY Director February 9, 2018

 Richard C. Kelly Chair of the Board (PG&E Corporation) 

 

* ROGER H. KIMMEL Director February 9, 2018

 Roger H. Kimmel 

 

* RICHARD A. MESERVE Director February 9, 2018

 Richard A. Meserve 

 

* FORREST E. MILLER Director February 9, 2018

 Forrest E. Miller Chair of the Board (Pacific Gas and Electric 

 Company) 

 

* ERIC D. MULLINS Director February 9, 2018

 Eric D. Mullins 

 

* ROSENDO G. PARRA Director February 9, 2018

 Rosendo G. Parra 

 

* BARBARA L. RAMBO Director February 9, 2018

 Barbara L. Rambo 

 

* ANNE SHEN SMITH Director February 9, 2018

 Anne Shen Smith 

 

* NICKOLAS STAVROPOULOS Director (Pacific Gas and Electric Company February 9, 2018

 Nickolas Stavropoulos only) 

 

* GEISHA J.WILLIAMS Director February 9, 2018

 Geisha J. Williams 

 

*By: February 9, 2018

 John R. Simon, Attorney-in-Fact 

JOHN R. SIMON

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 38

of 129
172 

PG&E CORPORATION 

SCHEDULE I — CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF PARENT 

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME 

 Years Ended December 31, 

(in millions, except per share amounts) 2017 2016 2015 

Administrative service revenue $ 63 $ 70 $ 51 

Operating expenses (5) (73) (53) 

Interest income 1 1 1 

Interest expense (11) (10) (10) 

Other income 4 2 30 

Equity in earnings of subsidiaries 1,667 1,388 852 

Income before income taxes 1,719 1,378 871 

Income tax provision (benefit) 73 (15) (3) 

Net income $ 1,646 $ 1,393 $ 874 

Other Comprehensive Income 

 Pension and other postretirement benefit plans obligations (net of taxes of $0, 

 $1, and $0, at respective dates) $ 1 $ (2) $ (1) 

 Net change in investments (net of taxes of $0, $0, and $12, at respective dates) - - (17) 

 Total other comprehensive income (loss) 1 (2) (18) 

Comprehensive Income $ 1,647 $ 1,391 $ 856 

Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding, Basic 512 499 484 

Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding, Diluted 513 501 487 

Net earnings per common share, basic $ 3.21 $ 2.79 $ 1.81 

Net earnings per common share, diluted $ 3.21 $ 2.78 $ 1.79 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 39

of 129
173 

PG&E CORPORATION 

SCHEDULE I — CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF PARENT – (Continued) 

CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS 

Balance at December 31, 

(in millions) 2017 2016 

ASSETS 

Current Assets 

 Cash and cash equivalents $ 2 $ 106 

 Advances to affiliates 24 24 

 Income taxes receivable 27 25 

 Total current assets 53 155 

Noncurrent Assets 

 Equipment 3 2 

 Accumulated depreciation (3) (2) 

 Net equipment - - 

 Investments in subsidiaries 19,514 18,172 

 Other investments 144 133 

 Intercompany receivable 72 - 

 Deferred income taxes 123 267 

 Total noncurrent assets 19,853 18,572 

Total Assets $ 19,906 $ 18,727 

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY 

Current Liabilities 

 Short-term borrowings $ 132 $ -

 Accounts payable – other 6 7 

 Other 23 274 

 Total current liabilities 161 281 

Noncurrent Liabilities 

 Long-term debt 350 348 

 Other 175 158 

 Total noncurrent liabilities 525 506 

Common Shareholders’ Equity 

 Common stock 12,632 12,198 

 Reinvested earnings 6,596 5,751 

 Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (8) (9) 

 Total common shareholders’ equity 19,220 17,940 

Total Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity $ 19,906 $ 18,727 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 40

of 129
174 

PG&E CORPORATION 

SCHEDULE I – CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF PARENT – (Continued) 

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS 

(in millions) 

Year ended December 31, 

2017 2016 2015 

Cash Flows from Operating Activities: 

 Net income $ 1,646 $ 1,393 $ 874 

 Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by 

 operating activities: 

 Stock-based compensation amortization 20 74 66 

 Equity in earnings of subsidiaries (1,667) (1,388) (852) 

 Deferred income taxes and tax credits-net 139 11 10 

 Current income taxes receivable/payable (2) (1) 5 

 Other (75) (24) (70) 

Net cash provided by operating activities 61 65 33 

Cash Flows From Investing Activities: 

 Investment in subsidiaries (455) (835) (705) 

 Dividends received from subsidiaries (1) 784 911 716 

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities 329 76 11 

Cash Flows From Financing Activities: 

 Borrowings (repayments) under revolving credit facilities 132 - - 

 Common stock issued 395 822 780 

 Common stock dividends paid (2) (1,021) (921) (856) 

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities (494) (99) (76) 

Net change in cash and cash equivalents (104) 42 (32) 

Cash and cash equivalents at January 1 106 64 96 

Cash and cash equivalents at December 31 $ 2 $ 106 $ 64 

Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information 

 Cash received (paid) for: 

 Interest, net of amounts capitalized $ (9) $ (9) $ (9) 

 Income taxes, net - (13) - 

Supplemental disclosure of noncash investing and financing activities 

 Noncash common stock issuances $ 21 $ 20 $ 21 

 Common stock dividends declared but not yet paid - 248 224 

 (1) Because of its nature as a holding company, PG&E Corporation classifies dividends received from subsidiaries as an investing cash flow. 

(2) In July and October of 2017, respectively, PG&E Corporation paid quarterly common stock dividends of $0.53 per share. 

 In July and October of 2016 and January and April of 2017, respectively, PG&E Corporation paid quarterly common stock dividends of $0.49 per share. 

 In January, April, July, and October of 2015 and January and April of 2016, respectively, PG&E Corporation paid quarterly common stock dividends of $0.455 

 per share.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 41

of 129
175 

PG&E Corporation 

SCHEDULE II – CONSOLIDATED VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS 

For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 

(in millions) Additions 

Description 

Balance at 

Beginning of 

Period 

Charged to 

Costs and 

Expenses 

Charged to 

Other 

Accounts Deductions (2)

Balance at 

End of 

Period 

Valuation and qualifying 

accounts deducted from 

assets: 

 2017: 

 Allowance for 

uncollectible accounts (1)

$ 58 $ 55 $ - $ 49 $ 64 

 2016: 

 Allowance for 

uncollectible accounts (1) $ 54 $ 50 $ - $ 46 $ 58 

 2015: 

 Allowance for 

uncollectible accounts (1) $ 66 $ 43 $ - $ 55 $ 54 

 (1) Allowance for uncollectible accounts is deducted from “Accounts receivable - Customers.” 

(2) Deductions consist principally of write-offs, net of collections of receivables previously written off.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 42

of 129
176 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

SCHEDULE II – CONSOLIDATED VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS 

For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 

(in millions) Additions 

Description 

Balance at 

Beginning 

of Period 

Charged to 

Costs and 

Expenses 

Charged to 

Other 

Accounts Deductions (2) 

Balance at 

End of 

Period 

Valuation and qualifying 

accounts deducted from 

assets: 

 2017: 

 Allowance for 

uncollectible accounts (1) $ 58 $ 55 $ - $ 49 $ 64 

 2016: 

 Allowance for 

uncollectible accounts (1) $ 54 $ 50 $ - $ 46 $ 58 

 2015: 

 Allowance for 

uncollectible accounts (1) $ 66 $ 43 $ - $ 55 $ 54 

 (1) Allowance for uncollectible accounts is deducted from “Accounts receivable - Customers.” 

(2) Deductions consist principally of write-offs, net of collections of receivables previously written off.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 43

of 129
177 

EXHIBIT 12.1 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 

COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES 

 

 

 Year Ended December 31, 

(in millions) 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 

Earnings: 

Net income $ 1,691 $ 1,402 $ 862 $ 1,433 $ 866 

Income tax provision (benefit) 427 70 (19) 384 326 

Fixed charges 1,572 1,417 1,260 1,176 971 

Total earnings $ 3,690 $ 2,889 $ 2,103 $ 2,993 $ 2,163 

Fixed charges: 

Interest on short-term borrowings 

 and long-term debt, net $ 1,532 $ 1,363 $ 1,208 $ 1,125 $ 917 

Interest on capital leases 2 3 4 6 7 

AFUDC debt 38 51 48 45 47 

Total fixed charges $ 1,572 $ 1,417 $ 1,260 $ 1,176 $ 971 

Ratios of earnings to fixed charges 2.35 2.04 1.67 2.55 2.23 

Note: 

For the purpose of computing Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s ratios of earnings to fixed charges, “earnings” represent net income adjusted for the income or 

loss from equity investees of less than 100% owned affiliates, equity in undistributed income or losses of less than 50% owned affiliates, income taxes and fixed 

charges (excluding capitalized interest). “Fixed charges” include interest on long-term debt and short-term borrowings (including a representative portion of rental 

expense), amortization of bond premium, discount and expense, interest on capital leases, AFUDC debt, and earnings required to cover the preferred stock dividend 

requirements. Fixed charges exclude interest on tax liabilities. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 44

of 129
178 

EXHIBIT 12.2 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 

COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED 

FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS 

 Year Ended December 31, 

(in millions) 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 

Earnings: 

Net income $ 1,691 $ 1,402 $ 862 $ 1,433 $ 866 

Income tax provision (benefit) 427 70 (19) 384 326 

Fixed charges 1,572 1,417 1,260 1,176 971 

Total earnings $ 3,690 $ 2,889 $ 2,103 $ 2,993 $ 2,163 

Fixed charges: 

Interest on short-term borrowings 

and long-term debt, net $ 1,532 $ 1,363 $ 1,208 $ 1,125 $ 917 

Interest on capital leases 2 3 4 6 7 

AFUDC debt 38 51 48 45 47 

Total fixed charges $ 1,572 $ 1,417 $ 1,260 $ 1,176 $ 971 

Preferred stock dividends: 

Tax deductible dividends $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 

Pre-tax earnings required to cover 

non-tax deductible preferred 

stock dividend requirements 7 5 5 6 7 

Total preferred stock dividends 16 14 14 15 16 

Total combined fixed charges 

and preferred stock 

dividends $ 1,588 $ 1,431 $ 1,274 $ 1,191 $ 987 

Ratios of earnings to combined 

 fixed charges and preferred 

 stock dividends 2.32 2.02 1.65 2.51 2.19 

Note: 

For the purpose of computing Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s ratios of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends, “earnings” represent 

net income adjusted for the income or loss from equity investees of less than 100% owned affiliates, equity in undistributed income or losses of less than 50% 

owned affiliates, income taxes and fixed charges (excluding capitalized interest). “Fixed charges” include interest on long-term debt and short-term borrowings 

(including a representative portion of rental expense), amortization of bond premium, discount and expense, interest on capital leases, AFUDC debt, and earnings 

required to cover the preferred stock dividend requirements. “Preferred stock dividends” represent tax deductible dividends and pre-tax earnings that are required to 

pay the dividends on outstanding preferred securities. Fixed charges exclude interest on tax liabilities. 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 45

of 129
179 

EXHIBIT 12.3

PG&E CORPORATION 

COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES 

 Year Ended December 31, 

(in millions) 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 

Earnings: 

Net income $ 1,660 $ 1,407 $ 888 $ 1,450 $ 828 

Income tax provision (benefit) 511 55 (27) 345 268 

Fixed charges 1,598 1,440 1,284 1,206 1,012 

Pre-tax earnings required to cover 

the preferred stock dividend of 

consolidated subsidiaries (15) (14) (14) (15) (16) 

Total earnings $ 3,754 $ 2,888 $ 2,131 $ 2,986 $ 2,092 

Fixed charges: 

Interest on short-term 

borrowings and long-term 

debt, net $ 1,543 $ 1,372 $ 1,218 $ 1,140 $ 942 

Interest on capital leases 2 3 4 6 7 

AFUDC debt 38 51 48 45 47 

Pre-tax earnings required to cover 

 the preferred stock dividend of 

consolidated subsidiaries 15 14 14 15 16 

Total fixed charges $ 1,598 $ 1,440 $ 1,284 $ 1,206 $ 1,012 

Ratios of earnings to fixed charges 2.35 2.01 1.66 2.48 2.07 

Note: 

For the purpose of computing PG&E Corporation's ratios of earnings to fixed charges, “earnings” represent income from continuing operations adjusted for income 

taxes, fixed charges (excluding capitalized interest), and pre-tax earnings required to cover the preferred stock dividend of consolidated subsidiaries. “Fixed 

charges” include interest on long-term debt and short-term borrowings (including a representative portion of rental expense), amortization of bond premium, 

discount and expense, interest on capital leases, AFUDC debt, and earnings required to cover preferred stock dividends of consolidated subsidiaries. Fixed charges 

exclude interest on tax liabilities. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 46

of 129
180

Boards of Directors of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company

LEWIS CHEW

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 

of Dolby Laboratories, Inc.

FRED J. FOWLER

Retired Chairman of the Board of Spectra Energy

Partners, LP

JEH C. JOHNSON(1)

Partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

RICHARD C. KELLY(2)

Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Xcel 

Energy Inc.

ROGER H. KIMMEL

Vice Chairman of Rothschild Inc.

RICHARD A. MESERVE

President Emeritus, Carnegie Institution of Washington

FORREST E. MILLER(3)

Retired Group President-Corporate Strategy and 

Development of AT&T Inc.

ERIC D. MULLINS

Co-Chief Executive Officer of Lime Rock Resources, L.P.

ROSENDO G. PARRA

Retired executive of Dell Inc.

and Co-Founder and Partner of Daylight Partners

BARBARA L. RAMBO

Chief Executive Officer of Taconic Management Services

ANNE SHEN SMITH

Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of 

Southern California Gas Company

NICKOLAS STAVROPOULOS(4)

President and Chief Operating Officer of Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company

GEISHA J. WILLIAMS 

Chief Executive Officer and President of PG&E Corporation

(1) Jeh C. Johnson is a director of PG&E Corporation only.

(2) Richard C. Kelly is the non-executive Chair of the Board of PG&E Corporation.

(3) Forrest E. Miller is the non-executive Chair of the Board of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

(4) Nickolas Stavropoulos is a director of Pacific Gas and Electric Company only.

PG&E Corporation Officers

RICHARD C. KELLY

Non-Executive Chair of the Board

GEISHA J. WILLIAMS

Chief Executive Officer and President

JOHN R. SIMON

Executive Vice President and General Counsel

JULIE M. KANE

Senior Vice President, Chief Ethics and Compliance 

Officer, and Deputy General Counsel

STEVEN E. MALNIGHT

Senior Vice President, Strategy and Policy

DINYAR B. MISTRY

Senior Vice President, Human Resources and 

Chief Diversity Officer

JASON P. WELLS

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

NICHOLAS M. BIJUR

Vice President and Treasurer

STEPHEN J. CAIRNS

Vice President, Internal Audit and Chief Risk Officer

MARK T. CARON

Vice President, Tax

LINDA Y.H. CHENG

Vice President, Corporate Governance and Corporate 

Secretary

DAVID S. THOMASON

Vice President and Controller

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 47

of 129
181

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Officers

FORREST E. MILLER

Non-executive Chair of the Board

NICKOLAS STAVROPOULOS

President and Chief Operating Officer

KAREN A. AUSTIN

Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer

LORAINE M. GIAMMONA

Senior Vice President and Chief Customer Officer

PATRICK M. HOGAN

Senior Vice President, Electric Operations

JULIE M. KANE

Senior Vice President, Chief Ethics and Compliance 

Officer, and Deputy General Counsel

STEVEN E. MALNIGHT

Senior Vice President, Strategy and Policy

DINYAR B. MISTRY

Senior Vice President, Human Resources and 

Chief Diversity Officer

JESUS SOTO, JR.

Senior Vice President, Gas Operations

FONG WAN

Senior Vice President, Energy Policy and Procurement

DEBORAH T. AFFONSA

Vice President, Customer Service

BARRY D. ANDERSON

Vice President, Electric Distribution

VALERIE J. BELL

Vice President, Information Technology Operations

NICHOLAS M. BIJUR

Vice President and Treasurer

STEPHEN J. CAIRNS

Vice President, Internal Audit and Chief Risk Officer

MARK T. CARON

Vice President, Tax

LINDA Y.H. CHENG

Vice President, Corporate Governance and 

Corporate Secretary

MELVIN J. CHRISTOPHER

Vice President, Gas Transmission and 

Distribution Operations

BERNARD A. COWENS

Vice President and Chief Security Officer

KEVIN J. DASSO

Vice President, Electric Asset Management

TIMOTHY FITZPATRICK

Vice President, Corporate Relations and 

Chief Communications Officer

JON A. FRANKE

Vice President, Power Generation

JOHN C. HIGGINS

Vice President, Safety and Health and 

Chief Safety Officer

AARON J. JOHNSON

Vice President, Customer Energy Solutions

KATHLEEN B. KAY

Vice President, Business Technology

ROBERT S. KENNEY

Vice President, Regulatory Affairs

MARY K. KING

Vice President, Human Resources

TRAVIS T. KIYOTA

Vice President, California External Affairs

ROY M. KUGA

Vice President, Grid Integration and Innovation

GREGG L. LEMLER

Vice President, Electric Transmission Operations

JANET C. LODUCA

Vice President and Deputy General Counsel

JAMIE L. MARTIN

Vice President, Finance and Planning

SCOTT T. SANFORD

Vice President, Customer Operations

GUN S. SHIM

Vice President, Supply Chain Management

SUMEET SINGH

Vice President, Gas Asset and Risk Management

DAVID S. THOMASON

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Controller

ROLANDO I. TREVINO

Vice President, Gas Engineering and Design

JAMES M. WELSCH

Vice President, Nuclear Generation and 

Chief Nuclear Officer

ANDREW K. WILLIAMS

Vice President, Land and Environmental Management

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 48

of 129
182

Shareholder Information

For financial and other information about PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, please visit 

our websites, www.pgecorp.com and www.pge.com, respectively. PG&E Corporation is the holder of all issued and 

outstanding shares of Pacific Gas and Electric Company common stock.

If you have questions about your PG&E Corporation common stock account or Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

preferred stock account, please contact our transfer agent, EQ Shareowner Services (“EQ”).

EQ Shareowner Services

P. O. Box 64874

St. Paul, MN 55164-0874

Toll-free telephone services: 1-888-489-4689 (Representatives are available from 7:00 a.m. CT to 7:00 p.m. CT) 

Website: www.shareowneronline.com

Lost or Stolen Stock Certificates

If you hold stock in your own name and your stock certificate has been lost, stolen, or in some way destroyed, you 

should immediately notify EQ.

Stock Held in Brokerage Accounts (“Street Name”)

When you purchase your stock and it is held for you by your broker, the shares are listed with EQ in the broker’s name, 

or street name. EQ does not know the identity of the individual shareholders who hold their shares in this manner. If you 

hold your stock in a street name account, you receive all tax forms, publications, and proxy materials through your 

broker. If you are receiving unwanted duplicate mailings, you should contact your broker to eliminate the duplications.

Stock Exchange Listings

PG&E Corporation’s common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “PCG.”

Pacific Gas and Electric Company has eight issues of first preferred cumulative stock, par value $25 per share, all of 

which are listed on NYSE American.

Non-Redeemable:

Issue Symbol

6.00% PCG-PA

5.50% PCG-PB

5.00% PCG-PC

Redeemable:

Issue Symbol

5.00% PCG-PD

5.00% Series A PCG-PE

4.80% PCG-PG

4.50% PCG-PH

4.36% PCG-PI

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 49

of 129
If you have general questions about PG&E Corporation or Pacific Gas and Electric Company, please contact the 

Corporate Secretary’s Office.

Vice President, Corporate Governance and Corporate Secretary

Linda Y.H. Cheng

PG&E Corporation

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

P. O. Box 770000

San Francisco, CA 94177

415-973-8200

Fax: 415-973-8719

Email: CorporateSecretary@pge.com

Securities analysts, portfolio managers, or other representatives of the investment community should contact the 

Investor Relations Office.

Senior Director, Investor Relations

Christopher A. Foster

PG&E Corporation 

P. O. Box 770000

San Francisco, CA 94177

415-972-7080

Email: invrel@pge-corp.com

PG&E Corporation

General Information

415-973-1000

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

General Information

415-973-7000

PG&E CORPORATION AND PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 

ANNUAL MEETINGS OF SHAREHOLDERS

Date: May 22, 2018

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Location: PG&E Corporation and

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Headquarters

77 Beale Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 50

of 129
Designed & published by labrador-company.com

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 51

of 129
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTE TL E R L LP ATTOR NE YS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

EXHIBIT D 

MASTER COMPLAINT, IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION, CASE NO. 

RG16843631 (SUPERIOR CT. CAL. MAY 16, 2017) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 52

of 129
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 53

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

i

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE............................................................................................ 1

III. THE PARTIES...................................................................................................................... 2

A. PLAINTIFFS.......................................................................................................................... 2

B. NAMED DEFENDANTS...................................................................................................... 2

C. DOE DEFENDANTS ............................................................................................................ 7

D. AGENCY AND CONCERT OF ACTION............................................................................ 8

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 8

A. THE OWNERS AND LESSEES OF THE GHOST SHIP AND ADJOINING 

BUILDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 8

B. THE DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE GHOST SHIP .......................................................... 10

C. KNOWN USE OF GHOST SHIP AS AN EVENT VENUE/CABARET........................... 17

D. PRIOR FIRES AT THE GHOST SHIP AND ADJOINING BUILDINGS ........................ 20

E. THE OWNERS/MANAGERS OF THE GHOST SHIP KNEW ABOUT THE PRIOR 

FIRES AND RECEIVED PRIOR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DANGEROUS 

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM AND UNSAFE CONDITIONS ................................................. 20

F. ALLEGATIONS SPECIFIC TO PG&E AND DOES 251 THROUGH 300 ...................... 23

G. THE EVENT ON DECEMBER 2, 2016 ............................................................................. 29

V. CAUSES OF ACTION ....................................................................................................... 33

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, 

EXCEPT PG&E DEFENDANTS AND DOES 251 THROUGH 300 ............................... 33

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE PG&E 

DEFENDANTS AND DOES 251 THROUGH 300 ........................................................... 38

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PREMISES LIABILITY AGAINST ALL 

DEFENDANTS................................................................................................................... 42

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO EVICT AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS CHOR NG, EVA NG, KAI NG AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, 

INCLUSIVE........................................................................................................................ 44

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, 

TRAINING AND/OR RETENTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ........................... 46

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AGAINST ALL 

DEFENDANTS................................................................................................................... 47

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 54

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

ii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR STRICT LIABILITY AGAINST

DEFENDANTS PG&E AND DOES 251 THROUGH 300 ............................................... 47

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION – SURVIVAL ACTION AGAINST ALL 

DEFENDANTS................................................................................................................... 49

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL 

DISTRESS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS.................................................................... 52

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL 

DISTRESS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS.................................................................... 53

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF...................................................................................................... 55

VII. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED .............................................................................................. 55

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 55

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs bring this action for damages and make the following allegations based upon 

information and belief.

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This case arises from the horrific fire that occurred on December 2, 2016, at the 

“Ghost Ship,” which is located at 1315 31st Avenue in the City of Oakland, County of Alameda, 

State of California. Thirty-six (36) people lost their lives and many others were seriously injured. 

2. At approximately 11:15 pm on December 2, 2016, over 100 invitees were at an 

electronic dance music event when the fire started inside the Ghost Ship. These invitees, along with 

artists performing at the event and residents, were plunged into darkness and thick, black smoke and 

tried to exit the unsafe structure. 

3. The interior of the 10,000 square-foot Ghost Ship was a death trap that contained a 

maze of makeshift rooms, alcoves and partitions. It was cluttered with carvings, mannequins, 

paintings, artwork, scraps of wood, pianos, furniture, tapestries and several recreational vehicles. 

4. The Ghost Ship lacked a safe means of access between the upper floor where the 

music event was and the exit on the ground floor. The Ghost Ship lacked adequate and sufficient 

fire safety measures and was not up to fire protection and life safety codes, including, but not 

limited to, not having adequate and sufficient smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, overhead 

sprinklers, exit signs, emergency lighting, exit lights and a safe means of exit, all in violation of 

applicable statutes.

5. Thirty-six (36) people were unable to exit and were trapped in the inferno inside. 

These victims suffered injuries from the fire, including from smoke inhalation, while trying to 

escape. The victims who perished were alive and feared for their safety. They were eventually 

overcome by the fire and smoke, and subsequently died inside the Ghost Ship. They did not die 

instantaneously when the fire broke out. They were injured and suffered from the injuries caused by 

the fire and smoke for many minutes before dying. This horrific disaster was foreseeable. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court, 

Limited Jurisdiction. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 56

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7. Venue is proper in Alameda County Superior Court because one or more Defendants 

reside in the County of Alameda, is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, and the injury 

and damage to Plaintiffs occurred within the jurisdictional area of this Court. 

III. THE PARTIES

A. PLAINTIFFS

8. Plaintiffs suffered wrongful death, personal, emotional and/or economic injures as a 

result of the Ghost Ship fire. Plaintiffs bring their causes of action as an heir to a victim that died

as a result of the Ghost Ship fire and/or for his or her own injuries sustained as a result of the 

Ghost Ship fire. 

B. NAMED DEFENDANTS

9. Defendants CHOR NAR SIU NG, individually and as trustee of the CHOR NAR SIU

NG REVOCABLE TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 2007, EVA NG, KAI NG and DOES 1 

through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are and were, at all times relevant hereto, owners and/or 

managers of the real property upon which the Ghost Ship was located. Said Defendants are and 

were, at all times relevant hereto, the owners and/or managers of the real property parcels with 

Assessor Parcel Numbers (“APN”) 25-690-11, APN 25-690-10 & APN 25-690-9, and street 

addresses of 1305, 1309, 1313 and 1315 31st Avenue and 3071 and 3073 International Boulevard, 

Oakland. 

10. CHOR NAR SIU NG is a natural person who is, and at all times relevant hereto, was 

a resident of the County of Alameda, State of California. CHOR NAR SIU NG is also referred to 

herein as CHOR NG.

11. EVA NG is a natural person who is, and at all times relevant hereto, was a resident of 

the County of Alameda, State of California. 

12. KAI NG is a natural person who is, and at all times relevant hereto, was a resident of 

the County of Alameda, State of California. 

13. Defendants DERICK ION ALMENA, MICAH ALLISON, NICHOLAS 

ALEXANDER BOUCHARD and DOES 51 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, leased, rented, 

promoted, marketed, controlled, secured, operated, built, constructed, developed, designed, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 57

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

engineered, maintained, managed, inspected, repaired and/or provided services to 1305 31st Avenue 

and 1315 31st Avenue, including the Ghost Ship, where events open to the public were held and 

entertainment was provided. Said Defendants had been leasing the Ghost Ship for at least three years 

and had converted the Ghost Ship into residential ad hoc spaces/units and leased those spaces to 

others. Permits were not obtained by said Defendants for the conversion to residential or public 

events held at the Ghost Ship. 

14. DERICK ION ALMENA is a natural person who is, and at all times relevant hereto, 

was a resident of the County of Alameda, State of California. DERICK ION ALMENA is also 

referred to herein as ALMENA. 

15. MICAH ALLISON is a natural person who is, and at all times relevant hereto, was a 

resident of the County of Alameda, State of California. MICAH ALLISON is also referred to 

herein as ALLISON. 

16. NICHOLAS ALEXANDER BOUCHARD is a natural person who is, and at all 

times relevant hereto, was a resident of the County of Alameda, State of California. NICHOLAS 

ALEXANDER BOUCHARD is also referred to herein as BOUCHARD.

17. Defendants DANIEL LOPEZ, 510 CUSTOM AUDIO, OMAR VEGA, individually 

and dba CUSTOM O’S, and DOES 101 through 150, inclusive, and each of them, leased, rented, 

marketed, controlled, secured, operated, built, constructed, developed, designed, engineered, 

maintained, managed, inspected and/or repaired 1309 31st Avenue and 1313 31st Avenue and/or the 

premises located on Assessor Parcel Number, APN 25-690-10, manufactured, distributed and/or sold 

materials to the Ghost Ship and the adjacent and surrounding premises, and provided utilities and 

services to the Ghost Ship. Defendants DANIEL LOPEZ, 510 CUSTOM AUDIO, OMAR VEGA, 

individually and dba CUSTOM O’S, and DOES 101 through 150 supplied electricity from their 

premises, restrooms and event space on their premises for use by patrons and invitees during music 

and other events held at the Ghost Ship. 

18. 510 CUSTOM AUDIO is, and at all times relevant hereto, was a California 

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of 

business in Oakland. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 58

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19. DANIEL LOPEZ is a natural person who is, and at all times relevant hereto, was a 

resident of the County of Alameda, State of California. DANIEL LOPEZ is also referred to herein 

as LOPEZ.

20. OMAR VEGA is a natural person who is, and at all times relevant hereto, was a 

resident of the County of Alameda, State of California. OMAR VEGA is also referred to herein as 

VEGA. VEGA was the owner and/or sole proprietor of CUSTOM O’S. 

21. Defendants JOHN HRABKO also known as RADAR, 100% SILK, BRITT 

BROWN, AMANDA BETH BROWN, NOT NOT FUN RECORDS, JOEL SHANAHAN also 

known as GOLDEN DONNA, RUSSELL E.L. BUTLER also known as BLACK JEANS, OPAL 

RECORDS and DOES 151 through 200, inclusive, and each of them, promoted, marketed, sold 

tickets at, leased, rented, performed at, controlled, secured, operated, developed, designed, 

engineered, maintained, managed, inspected and/or provided services at the Ghost Ship, and the 

adjacent and surrounding premises, where entertainment was provided on December 2, 2016. 

22. JOHN HRABKO aka RADAR is a natural person who is, and at all times relevant 

hereto, was a resident of Alameda County, California, and conducting substantial business in the 

State of California, including the County of Alameda. JOHN HRABKO is also referred to herein 

as HRABKO.

23. 100% SILK is and was, at all times relevant hereto, a business entity, form 

unknown, owned and/or operated by BRITT BROWN, AMANDA BETH BROWN and/or NOT 

NOT FUN RECORDS, who are also the alter egos of 100% SILK. 100% SILK “an independent 

record label and taste-maker in the expanding and evolving world of electronic dance music.”1 

100% SILK was founded in 2011 by BRITT BROWN, AMANDA BETH BROWN and/or NOT 

NOT FUN RECORDS, and is the sub-label and/or subsidiary of NOT NOT FUN RECORDS. 

BRITT BROWN, AMANDA BETH BROWN and/or NOT NOT FUN RECORDS, at all times 

relevant hereto, mentioned, dominated, influenced and controlled 100% SILK and the officers 

thereof as well as the business, property and affairs of each of said businesses and/or individuals. 

 

1http://silkdocumentary.vhx.tv/. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 59

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

There existed and now exists a unity of interest and ownership between 100% SILK and each of 

the alter egos, i.e., BRITT BROWN, AMANDA BETH BROWN and/or NOT NOT FUN 

RECORDS. The individuality and separateness of said Defendants and 100% SILK have ceased. 

100% SILK has been and now is a mere shell and naked framework which BRITT BROWN, 

AMANDA BETH BROWN and/or NOT NOT FUN RECORDS used as a conduit for the conduct 

of their personal business, property and affairs.

24. BRITT BROWN is a natural person who is, and at all times relevant hereto, was a 

resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and was conducting substantial 

business in the State of California, including the County of Alameda. BRITT BROWN is an 

owner, founder, operator, sole proprietor, alter ego, partner, joint venturer, agent, and/or officer of 

NOT NOT FUN RECORDS and 100% SILK.

25. AMANDA BETH BROWN is a natural person who is, and at all times relevant 

hereto, was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and was conducting 

substantial business in the State of California, including the County of Alameda. AMANDA 

BETH BROWN is also referred to herein as AMANDA BROWN. AMANDA BROWN is an 

owner, founder, operator, sole proprietor, alter ego, partner, joint venturer, agent, and/or officer of 

NOT NOT FUN RECORDS and 100% SILK. 

26. NOT NOT FUN RECORDS is, and at all times relevant hereto, was a California 

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal place 

of business in the County of Los Angeles. NOT NOT FUN RECORDS is a Los Angeles based 

record label founded by BRITT BROWN and AMANDA BROWN, and is also the parent 

company and/or alter ego of 100% SILK.

27. JOEL SHANAHAN, also known as GOLDEN DONNA, is a natural person who is, 

and at all times relevant hereto, was conducting substantial business in the State of California, 

including the County of Alameda. JOEL SHANAHAN is also referred to herein as SHANAHAN. 

SHANAHAN was an artist on the 100% SILK/NOT NOT FUN RECORDS label and was 

involved in the organization, promotion, sale, marketing, advertising, provision of security and 

provision of entertainment of the music event on December 2, 2016.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 60

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28. RUSSELL E.L. BUTLER, also known as BLACK JEANS, is a natural person who 

is, and at all times relevant hereto, was conducting substantial business in the State of California, 

including the County of Alameda. RUSSELL E.L. BUTLER is also referred to herein as 

BUTLER. BUTLER was involved in the planning, organization, promotion, sale, marketing, 

advertising, provision of security and provision of entertainment of the event at the Ghost Ship, 

and is an artist who is represented, managed and/or employed by OPAL RECORDS.

29. OPAL RECORDS is, and at all times relevant hereto, was conducting substantial 

business in the State of California, including the County of Alameda. OPAL RECORDS is a 

music label based in the United Kingdom, whose artists include BUTLER, and was involved in 

the planning, organization, promotion, sale, marketing, advertising, provision of security and 

provision of entertainment of the event at the Ghost Ship. 

30. Defendants BENJAMIN CANNON and DOES 201 through 250, inclusive, and 

each of them, performed work at the Ghost Ship and the adjoining buildings, including but not 

limited to electrical work. Said Defendants also leased, occupied, inspected, maintained, repaired 

and/or controlled the Ghost Ship and/or adjoining buildings. 

31. BENJAMIN CANNON is a natural person who is, and at all times relevant hereto, 

was a contractor, whose contractor’s license with the State of California had expired. BENJAMIN 

CANNON is also referred to herein as CANNON. CANNON sublet space from LOPEZ, 510 

CUSTOM AUDIO, VEGA and/or DOES 101 through 150. 

32. Defendant MAX OHR is a natural person, who did, and at all times relevant hereto, 

live and work inside the Ghost Ship, operating his tattoo business, making jewelry and performing 

at music events. MAX OHR is also referred to herein as OHR. OHR sublet space from 

ALMENA, ALLISON, BOUCHARD and DOES 51 through 100. OHR was hired by ALMENA, 

ALLISON, BOUCHARD, HRABKO, 100% SILK, BRITT BROWN, AMANDA BROWN, NOT 

NOT FUN RECORDS, SHANAHAN, BUTLER, OPAL RECORDS and/or DOES 51 through 100 

and 151 through 200 to promote and work the event on December 2, 2016. The services he provided 

include, but are not limited to promoting the event, collecting the entrance fee and providing security. 

///

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 61

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33. Defendants PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, PG&E CORPORATION 

and DOES 251 through 300, inclusive, and each of them, provided and/or worked on the electric 

service provided to the Ghost Ship and adjoining buildings. 

34. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a subsidiary corporation of PG&E 

Corporation, is incorporated in the State of California and is based in San Francisco. PACIFIC 

GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY is also referred to herein as PG&E COMPANY. PG&E 

COMPANY is a combination natural gas and electric utility which provides gas and electric 

service to millions of customers in northern and central California.

35. PG&E CORPORATION is an energy-based holding company incorporated in the 

State of California. PG&E CORPORATION is the parent company of PG&E COMPANY. 

Collectively, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY and PG&E CORPORATION are 

referred to herein as the “PG&E.”

C. DOE DEFENDANTS

36. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants DOES 301 through 500, inclusive, and 

each of them, were somehow negligent or otherwise responsible for the injuries and death of the 

Ghost Ship fire victims and the damages alleged herein. 

37. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that each of the Defendants, 

including DOES 301 through 500, is negligently or otherwise responsible in some manner for the 

events and happenings herein referred to and those Defendants negligently acted, or failed to act. 

Their negligence and/or failure to act and the dangerous conditions on the subject premises legally 

caused the injuries and damages hereinafter set forth. 

38. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or 

otherwise of Defendants DOE 1 through DOE 500, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs who 

therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 

section 474. Plaintiffs further allege each fictitious Defendant is in some manner responsible for 

the acts and occurrences set forth herein. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to show their true 

names and capacities when the same are ascertained.

///

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 62

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

D. AGENCY AND CONCERT OF ACTION

39. At all times relevant hereto, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, 

employee, partner, aider and abettor, contractor, subcontractor, co-conspirator and/or joint 

venturer of each of the remaining Defendants named herein and were at all times operating and 

acting within the purpose, course and scope of said agency, service, employment, partnership, 

conspiracy, contract, alter ego and/or joint venture, and with the permission and consent of their 

co-Defendants. Each Defendant has rendered substantial assistance and encouragement to the 

other Defendants, knowing that their conduct was wrongful and/or unlawful, and each Defendant 

has ratified and approved the acts of each of the remaining Defendants.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. THE OWNERS AND LESSEES OF THE GHOST SHIP AND ADJOINING 

BUILDINGS

40. 1305 31st Avenue is a structure located in an R-30 Zone, yet it is considered by 

Alameda County to be a “Warehouse, Portion of a Single Economic Unit.” This Single Economic 

Unit includes APN 25-690-11 (1305 31st Ave.), APN 25-690-10 (1315 31st Ave.) and APN 25-

690-9 (3703 International Blvd). The buildings sit at the corner of 31st Avenue and International 

Blvd., and run almost the complete length of the block on 31st Avenue between International 

Blvd. and East 13th Street. As part of the consolidated Single Economic Unit, there is an 

undeveloped yard on the south side between the structure on 1305 31st Ave. and the residence at 

1301 31st Ave.: APN No 25-690-5.

41. APN 25-690-11 was commonly referred to as the “Ghost Ship” by its occupants 

and in various promotions of the illegal cabaret and businesses that operated there. Graffiti 

painted on the front of it on the 31st Avenue side said “GHOSTSHIP.” The building, at various 

times, also went by other names including, but not limited to, the Satya Yuga Collective. At 

times, APN 25-690-11 has been misidentified as 1315 31st Ave. The building was covered in 

graffiti, and debris obstructed the sidewalk and ingress/egress creating a dangerous condition of 

public property for those seeking to enter or exit the building. See Photograph in Paragraph 43

below. From the outside, it was evident that the windows were blocked by debris stacked from 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 63

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

floor to ceiling and numerous metal objects were attached to the exterior of the building in a 

dangerous manner.

42. APN 25-690-11 is reported to have been constructed in the early 1900s. Prior to 

December 2, 2016, numerous unpermitted modifications to the entire Single Economic Unit had 

occurred on numerous occasions including, but not limited to: a new electric service; new meters 

and submeters; construction of illegal residential units; toilettes, kitchens and showers; inter and 

intra building passageways to access bathrooms, residential and event spaces and the rooftop; 

structural changes in the exterior and interior walls; and unpermitted and shared electrical systems. 

43. Photograph showing the exterior of the Ghost Ship and side lot before the fire:2

44. Defendants CHOR NG, EVA NG, KAI NG and DOES 1 through 50, and each of 

them, owned, leased, rented, marketed, controlled, secured, operated, built, constructed, developed, 

designed, engineered, maintained, managed, inspected, repaired and/or provided services to the 

premises. Said Defendants had mandatory and nondelegable duties to inspect and maintain APNs

25-690-11, 25-690-10 and 25-690-9 in a safe and usable condition, and to repair any dangerous or 

unsafe conditions. 

 

2Source: “I-Team Timeline: Complaints Against Ghost Ship Warehouse Since 2014,” ABC 7 News, Dan Noyes, 

December 5, 2016.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 64

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

45. Defendants CHOR NG, EVA NG, KAI NG and DOES 1 through 50 leased the 

property on APN 25 690-11, including the Ghost Ship to Defendants ALMENA, ALLISON, 

BOUCHARD and DOES 51 through 100, and each of them. 

46. Defendants CHOR NG, EVA NG, KAI NG and DOES 1 through 50, and each of 

them, leased the property on APN 25 690-10, which had street addresses of 1309, 1313 and/or 1315 

31 Ave. and/or 3071 International Blvd. to Defendants DANIEL LOPEZ, OMAR VEGA and DOES 

101 through 150, and each of them. 

B. THE DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE GHOST SHIP

47. Dangerous and flammable materials, including industrial and art supplies, propane 

tanks that fueled camping stoves and recreational vehicles and their components and parts, were 

located throughout the interior of the Ghost Ship. Photographs of the interior of the Ghost Ship 

show how it contained a maze of makeshift rooms, alcoves and partitions, and was cluttered with 

carvings, mannequins, paintings, artwork, scraps of wood, pianos, furniture, tapestries and several 

recreational vehicle trailers. 

48. Photograph showing the inside of the Ghost Ship before the fire:

3

 

3Source: “Video shows conditions inside Ghost Ship warehouse before fatal Oakland fire: 2 Investigates,” KTVU, 

Simone Aponte, December 7, 2016 (updated January 30, 2017). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 65

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

49. The Ghost Ship did not have adequate and sufficient fire safety measures and was 

not up to fire protection and life-safety codes. The Ghost Ship did not have adequate and 

sufficient smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, overhead sprinklers, exit signs, emergency lighting, 

exit lights and a safe means of ingress and egress. Following its investigation, the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives stated that the building did not appear to have any 

fire-suppression system or alarms. 

50. The main means of access between the ground floor of the Ghost Ship and the 

second floor, where the event space was located, was a makeshift staircase made of pallets and 

scrap wood. The staircase was not code compliant and had irregular angles and inconsistent 

spacing between steps, which significantly impeded the ability of the invitees trapped inside to 

exit. The only other means of access was a staircase hidden behind the performance stage on the 

second floor and hidden in the corner of the ground floor. 

51. Photograph showing bottom portion of the makeshift staircase before the fire:4

52. Photograph showing the top portion of the makeshift staircase and interior of the 

Ghost Ship before the fire:5

///

 

4Source: http://www.oaklandghostship.com (last visited December 22, 2016).

5Source: http://www.oaklandghostship.com (last visited December 22, 2016).

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 66

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

53. Photograph showing the makeshift staircase at night, which was representative of 

the Ghost Ship on December 2, 2016 before being plunged into darkness during the fire:6

 

6Source: @OpheliaNecro, “I am obsessed with this painting that was hanging above the staircase at Ghost Ship (The 

Oakland Warehouse). Any info on artist?pic.twitter.com/ByTjs9WuBv,” December 6, 2016. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 67

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

54. A makeshift opening on the second floor of the Ghost Ship provided access to 

restrooms and additional residential and event space in the building next door (APN 25-690-10). 

See “Opening in wall” in the diagram below:

7

///

///

///

 

7Source: “Warehouse in Oakland Fire Was Used Illegally,” New York Times, Ford Fessenden & Anjali Singhvi, 

December 5, 2016.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 68

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

55. Photographs showing the opening in the wall between the Ghost Ship and the 

adjoining structure:8

 Looking from Ghost Ship Looking towards Ghost Ship

56. Defendants ALMENA, ALLISON, BOUCHARD and DOES 51 through 100, 

leased the makeshift rooms and alcoves to approximately 24 individuals and entities, including 

OHR. Said Defendants charged each between $300 and $700 per month, or so, per lease. 

ALMENA and ALLISON lived on the second floor with their three minor children. 

///

 

8Source: “EXCLUSIVE: Filth, chaos, weird religious symbols, feral animals and orgies - inside Oakland warehouse 

of horrors before deadly blaze as tenant tells of previous fires,” The Daily Mail, Ryan Perry, December 6, 2016. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 69

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

57. Photograph showing OHR’s “Deeper Magic Tattoo Studio” inside the Ghost Ship 

before the fire:9

58. The Ghost Ship lacked a safe and sufficient electrical system and supply. Power 

to the Ghost Ship was supplied from a meter shared with the structures on APN 25-690-10 and 

APN 25-690-9, and electricity was supplied through holes in the wall between the Ghost Ship 

and the adjacent structures. Extension cords and cables were snaked throughout the Ghost Ship, 

and electrical boxes were installed by unlicensed contractors, including ALMENA and 

CANNON. 

59. PG&E was the supplier of electricity to one or more of the structures located on 

APNs 25-609-9, 25-609-10 and 25-609-11. The power from the high voltage transmission lines 

entered APN 25-609-9 into a mechanical room, in a common area, where two meters were located. 

One or more other meters were located throughout the structures in APN 25-609-10. No meter 

 

9Source: http://www.oaklandghostship.com (last visited December 22, 2016).

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 70

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

was located in APN 25-609-11. None of the meters were labeled as required to demonstrate the 

parcels and/or establishments that they served.

60. Several submeters were installed throughout the buildings, which were used to 

determine how much electricity was used by each tenant and/or subtenant of the buildings. 

Photographs showing panel (circuit breaker) and submeter, located on APN 690-25-10 for 

electricity to the Ghost Ship taken on February 22, 2017:

 Satya Yuga is written on the panel

61. Diagram showing how 

electricity was provided through the Ghost 

Ship and the adjoining buildings:

10

 

10“Exclusive: Ghost Ship owners knew of dangerous electrical system before deadly fire,” The Mercury News, by 

Aaron Davis, Matthias Gafni, Thomas Peele & David Debolt, March 24, 2017. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 71

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

62. The electrical system was overloaded with excessive use by the dozens of people 

who lived and worked at the Ghost Ship, including artists, musicians and tattoo artists that used 

electrical equipment, as well as the musicians and groups that performed public events held at 

the Ghost Ship. There were often sparks from the electrical system that smelled and circuit 

breakers blew out often. Overloaded electrical lines at the rear of the Ghost Ship likely 

contributed to the fire. 

C. KNOWN USE OF GHOST SHIP AS AN EVENT VENUE/CABARET

63. The Ghost Ship had an open, obvious and known history of having public events 

and parties inside, outside and on the roof top, and charging an entrance fee to the events. There 

were numerous complaints of excessive noise and debris made to the City of Oakland Police 

Department when events were occurring. 

64. It was obvious that ALMENA, ALLISON and/or BOUCHARD were using the 

Ghost Ship, under the name “Satya Yuga,” as a venue for private events. Satya Yuga’s Yelp page, 

which lists the Ghost Ship address as the location of the business, contains pictures dating back to 

February 2014 showing the second floor being used for private events. 

65. One Yelp reviewer from March 9, 2015 wrote that ALMENA “demanded more 

than double the original booking fee from the promoter,” the promoter refused to pay, and his 

group was asked to leave from a “private event” and threatened with violence.11 

///

///

///

 

11https://yelp.com/biz/satya-yuga-oakland. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 72

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

66. Photographs showing the second floor performance stage/dance floor:

12

///

 

12Source 1st photograph: ‘It was a tinderbox’: Site of Oakland warehouse fire was jammed with flammable objects,” 

The Washington Post, Bontemps, Wang, Guerra & Scherer, December 4, 2016; photograph from Satya Yuga 

Facebook page. Source 2nd photograph: 2014 photograph provided by Ajesh Shah, “Oakland building where fire 

victims died was source of complaints,” SFGATE, by Jill Tucker, Rachel Swan, Erin Allday & J.K. Dineen, 

December 5, 2016. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 73

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

67. Photograph 

showing a prior event at Ghost 

Ship and the performance 

stage/dance floor:13

68. Defendant OHR was a routine 

performer/disc jockey (“DJ”) at the 

Ghost Ship. Flyers, example depicted to 

the left, show that he was a “Resident 

DJ” and played several times a month.14

 

13Source: http://www.oaklandghostship.com (last visited December 22, 2016).

14Source: http://www.oaklandghostship.com (last visited December 22, 2016).

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 74

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

D. PRIOR FIRES AT THE GHOST SHIP AND ADJOINING BUILDINGS

69. There had been fires inside the Ghost Ship and the adjoining structures prior to 

December 2, 2016. The most recent fire occurred the day before, on December 1, 2016, when a 

refrigerator caught on fire. That fire was put out by one or more of the persons residing there. 

70. In October 2014, a sofa caught fire outside the main entrance of the Ghost Ship 

on 31st Avenue and had to be put out by Oakland Fire Department firefighters, who had been 

hired, trained, supervised and retained by the City of Oakland.

71. On December 3, 2014, there was a transformer fire in the structure on APN 25-

690-10 that was likely caused by the overloading of the electrical power system. 

72. According to former resident, jewelry maker Shelley Mack, there were three fires 

when she lived there – in late 2014 and early 2015 – caused by faulty electrics.15

E. THE OWNERS/MANAGERS OF THE GHOST SHIP KNEW ABOUT THE

PRIOR FIRES AND RECEIVED PRIOR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DANGEROUS 

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM AND UNSAFE CONDITIONS

73. In late 2014, CANNON reported the transformer fire in the structure on APN 25-

690-10 to KAI NG and EVA NG, and stated that it was likely caused by “catastrophically 

overloading” the power system.16 

74. On December 3, 2014, CANNON sent an invoice to KAI NG and EVA NG for 

$32,000 worth of electrical work to replace the burnt-out transformer. In that invoice,

CANNON stated that he found that the subpanels (also known as breaker boxes) were not 

properly installed with grounding and “deferred maintenance dating back decades requiring 

immediate intervention to avoid additional fires...every piece of wire downstream of main panel 

(was) improperly installed, illegal and dangerous.”17 After that fire, CANNON had installed a 

25-kilovolt-amp transformer, breakers, distribution panels, conduits and cable boxes.18 

 

15

“EXCLUSIVE: Filth, chaos, weird religious symbols, feral animals and orgies - inside Oakland warehouse of 

horrors before deadly blaze as tenant tells of previous fires,” The Daily Mail, Ryan Perry, December 6, 2016. 

16“Exclusive: Ghost Ship owners knew of dangerous electrical system before deadly fire,” The Mercury News, by 

Aaron Davis, Matthias Gafni, Thomas Peele & David Debolt, March 24, 2017. 

17Id. 

18Id. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 75

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

75. In an email to KAI NG in January 2015, CANNON wrote about the dangerous 

electrical infrastructure in the buildings that had not yet been upgraded. That dangerous 

infrastructure included the “tiny” transformer in the crawl space above the Boost mobile store 

because it could not handle the electrical load. CANNON reported that the existing subpanels 

and wiring in the crawl space were “grossly unsafe,” and recommended $15,000 in electrical 

upgrades to “get the whole building into a safe state.” He also stated: “We need a second 

transformer because the building is split in half power wise, I’ve already replaced that first 

transformer (we had no power when it went up in flames), but the second one is too small for the 

loads on it as well.” KAI NG reportedly “balked” at the costs and the NGS did not do any work 

to make the electrical system safe.19 

76. On February 13, 2015, ALMENA reported to KAI NG that electricity flowed to 

the Ghost Ship from the adjoining businesses within the block of buildings owned by the NGS 

(APNs 25-690-10 and 25-690-9) through “ancient and violated lines of distribution” that were 

“in dire need of a total and immediate upgrade.”20 

77. On February 15, 2015, KAI NG stated to ALMENA: “The lack of electrical 

infrastructure was made very clear before your lease began.”21

78. In October 2016, Ghost Ship resident, Max Harris, emailed EVA NG and KAI 

NG, further warning of the “overexertion” on the electrical system.22 Mr. Harris reported to 

KAI NG that “it was terminal and was getting worse.” KAI NG just asked for more money.23

79. Prior to the December 2, 2016 fire, Zachary “Zeke” Schultz, a former resident of 

the Ghost Ship and a tenant of the building adjacent to the Ghost Ship, texted and spoke 

extensively with the NG Defendants regarding people living in the Ghost Ship. The NGs agreed 

that this was a problem, and stated that they planned to terminate the lease, which was set to 

expire in November 2018. 

 

19Id. 

20Id. 

21Id. 

22Id. 

23Id. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 76

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

80. Subtenants and other individuals warned ALMENA that the Ghost Ship was a 

“death trap” and told him to purchase fire extinguishers. Former resident, DeL Lee left after a 

few months because he thought the Ghost Ship was unsafe. According to Lee: “I tried to throw 

a party, and the power would shut off – because of the way it was set up, all the plugs were in 

the same sockets. The whole place was wires and cables and wood....It would spark and 

smell.”24 

81. Ms. Mack, who lived in one of the recreational vehicles parked inside, reported 

that she moved out in February 2015, after complaining to ALMENA about the dangerous and 

unsanitary conditions.25

82. There were numerous complaints made to the City of Oakland, Planning and 

Building Department, for hazardous and unsafe conditions, including the building being used 

illegally for residential purposes. The complaints include, but are not limited to the following:

 April 9, 2014 – a “blight” complaint was filed, with the description: “Large 

structures built at property, not strapped down or stable.” 

 June 4, 2014 – a “blight” complaint was filed, with the description: “Vacant lot, 

trash & debris, construction debris, vector issues.”

 September 30, 2014 – a “blight” complaint was filed, with the description: 

“Pallets, construction materials blocking sidewalk.”

 October 7, 2014 – a “habitability” complaint was filed, with the description: 

“Constructing house/structure without permits.”

 October 8, 2014 – a “habitability” complaint was filed. A building inspector 

went to the property and reported that a “structure” had been removed so there 

was no longer an actionable violation that could be cited.

 November 13, 2016 – a “blight” complaint was filed, with the description: 

“There are a ton of garbage piling up on the property on 1305 31st Avenue. 

 

24“Oakland warehouse fire: Overloaded electrical system seen as cause,” East Bay Times, Matthias Gafni & Thomas 

Peele, December 12, 2016. 

25EXCLUSIVE: Filth, chaos, weird religious symbols, feral animals and orgies - inside Oakland warehouse of horrors 

before deadly blaze as tenant tells of previous fires,” The Daily Mail, Ryan Perry, December 6, 2016. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 77

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Also, a lot of items are left on the sidewalk near the property. Some trash was 

hazardous. This property is a storage but the owner turned it to become trash 

recycle site. the [sic] yard became a trash collection site and the main building 

was remodel for residential. The change causes our neighborhood looks very bad 

and creates health issue.” 

 November 14, 2016 – a “blight” complaint was filed, with the description: 

“Illegal interior building structure.” 

83. The notices of the violations were sent to CHOR NG. EVA NG responded to 

several notices. 

84. The conditions of the Ghost Ship and surrounding properties constituted dangers to 

human safety and were in violation of local ordinances, including Oakland Municipal Code

Sections: 8.24.020D (property inadequately maintained); 8.24.020C (building or structure in a 

state of disrepair); 8.40.170 (hallway and exit obstructions prohibited); 9.16.060 (lightingapproval of city before energy is supplied); 9.52.030 (permit required for special events); 

15.08.050 (maintenance code-general standards); 15.08.190 (habitable space); 15.08.210 (room 

dimensions); 15.08.220 (light and ventilation); 15.08.240 (security); 15.08.260 (mechanical and 

electrical systems); 15.08.270 (exiting); 15.08.300 (wooden stairs); 15.08.310 (fire protection); 

15.08.320 (smoke detectors); 15.08.340 (substandard and public nuisance buildings); 15.12.100 

(CA Fire Code); 15.24.020 (substandard buildings); and 15.64.060 (abatement of security bars on 

windows).

85. The complaints and code violations unquestionably put the NGs on notice of the 

illegal, unsafe, residential and event space use of the Ghost Ship and adjoining buildings, dating 

back to at least 2014, over two years before the fire. The same is true of the Ghost Ship website, 

which was created over two years ago, and clearly displays the unsafe conditions of the property 

and its illegal use as an event space/cabaret.

F. ALLEGATIONS SPECIFIC TO PG&E AND DOES 251 THROUGH 300

86. When “PG&E” is referenced throughout this Complaint it shall mean to include 

their officers, directors, agents, employees and independent contractors and DOES 251 through

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 78

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

300, and each of them. 

87. The California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) regulates privately owned 

electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation 

companies. The CPUC serves the public interest by protecting consumers and ensuring the 

provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure at just and reasonable rates.

88. The CPUC process for regulating a franchise, such as that awarded to PG&E,

includes the establishment of certain regulations encompassed within, among other things, Rules 

and Tariffs. These regulations involve a complex process. This process utilizes a formal set of 

procedures ultimately resulting in the issuance of Decisions by the CPUC that are then codified in 

Rules and obligations that both the public and utility must adhere to. This process often starts 

with the CPUC receiving an “Advice Letter” from PG&E. “Advice Letter” means (1) an informal 

request by a utility for Commission approval, authorization, or other relief, including an informal 

request for approval to furnish service under rates, charges, terms or conditions other than those 

contained in the utility's tariffs then in effect, and (2) a compliance filing by a load-serving entity 

pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 380. The advice letter then proceeds through a 

regulatory process, and a “Disposition” is reached. 

89. “Disposition” refers to the grant or rejection (including modification) of the relief 

requested in an advice letter. The disposition of an advice letter will be by resolution adopted by 

the CPUC, except for (1) an advice letter rejected without prejudice by the reviewing Industry 

Division pursuant to General Rule 5.3, or (2) an advice letter that is subject to disposition by 

Industry Division pursuant to General Rule 7.6.1. If the disposition results in a grant or 

modification then a Decision is reached and the Rule is so modified and encapsulated with a Rule 

which is then published and posted through a CPUC Sheet, showing the Rule and revisions.

90. PG&E owed various duties under statute, regulation and common law, including 

but not limited to Electric Rules, to the owners and occupants of APNs 25-609-9, 25-609-10 and 

25-609-11, their employees, invitees and guests, to provide safe and sufficient power to these 

facilities.

///

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 79

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

91. As a California employer, PG&E was required to have an injury and illness 

prevention program for their employees, which included identifying and evaluating workplace

hazards, scheduled periodic inspections to identify unsafe conditions and work practices, and 

correcting unsafe and unhealthy conditions and work practices in a timely manner. Cal. Labor 

Code § 6401.7; see also Section 6400 & 8 C.C.R. 3203. PG&E’s assessment under these 

California labor laws should have identified the unsafe conditions of its employees working at or 

near APNs 25-609-9, 25-609-10 and 25-609-11. PG&E should then have corrected the unsafe 

conditions and/or prevented its employees from working there before the December 2, 2016 fire. 

92. Pursuant to Cal. Public Utility Code Section 702, every public utility “shall obey 

and comply with every order, decision, direction, or rule made or prescribed by the commission in 

the matters in any way relating to or affecting its business as a public utility, and shall do 

everything necessary or proper to secure compliance therewith by all of its officers, agents, and 

employees.”

93. The various state statutes, local ordinances, rules of the CPUC, and standards of 

reasonable custom and practice, do impose direct and affirmative duties on operators of utilities 

(including PG&E) for the safety of the public and civil penalties may be assigned against the 

utility for failure to comply with them, including exemplary damages where warranted. 

94. California Public Utilities Code Section 2106 was in force and effect at all times 

relevant hereto. Section 2016 states: 

Any public utility which does, causes to be done, or permits any act, matter, or thing 

prohibited or declared unlawful, or which omits to do any act, matter, or thing required to 

be done, either by the Constitution, any law of this State, or any order or decision of the 

commission, shall be liable to the persons or corporations affected thereby for all loss, 

damages, or injury caused thereby or resulting therefrom. If the court finds that the act or 

omission was willful, it may, in addition to the actual damages, award exemplary damages. 

An action to recover for such loss, damage, or injury may be brought in any court of 

competent jurisdiction by any corporation or person.

95. At all times relevant hereto, PG&E, pursuant to Electric Rule 16 “Service 

Extensions” had the right to enter and leave the premises at APNs 25-609-9, 10 & 11 for any 

purpose connected with the furnishing of electric service (meter reading, inspection, testing, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 80

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

routine repairs, replacement, maintenance, vegetation management, emergency work, etc.), and 

the exercise of any and all rights secured to it by law, or under PG&E’s tariff schedules. 

96. At all times relevant hereto, Electric Rule 11 “Discontinuance and Restoration of 

Service” was in force and effect. PG&E, pursuant to Rule No. 11, including Rules 11(H)(1&2) & 

(I), Unsafe Apparatus or Condition, had the following rights and obligations:

H(1) PG&E may deny or terminate service to the customer immediately and without notice 

when: 

a. PG&E determines that the premises wiring, or other electrical equipment, or the use of 

either, is unsafe, or endangers PG&E's service facilities; or 

b. The customer threatens to create a hazardous condition; or 

c. Any governmental agency, authorized to enforce laws, ordinances or regulations 

involving electric facilities and/or the use of electricity, notifies PG&E in writing that the 

customer's facilities and/or use of electricity is unsafe or not in compliance with applicable 

laws, ordinances, or regulations

H(2) When relocation or replacement of electric service by PG&E is necessary, the 

service, including the metering facilities, will be installed in locations mutually acceptable 

to PG&E and the customer and which conform to current applicable codes, regulations and 

standards. If no such mutually acceptable location can be agreed upon, PG&E shall 

discontinue service until the customer and PG&E reach agreement.

I. SERVICE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER CUSTOMERS

PG&E will not supply service to a customer operating equipment which is considered by 

PG&E to be detrimental to either the service of other PG&E customers or to PG&E. 

PG&E will terminate service and refuse to restore service to any customer who continues 

to operate such equipment after receiving notification from PG&E to cease.

97. PG&E installed several “Smart Meters” in various parts of APNs 25-609-9 and 25-

609-10 and in doing so knew or should have known with reasonable diligence that the electrical 

supply and distribution systems, including but not limited to plugs, wires, breakers, transformers 

and other power delivery systems were dangerous, defective, out-of-code compliance, and an 

imminent threat to the health, safety and lives of the owners, occupants, customers and invitees of 

those structures. PG&E, however, failed to engage in mandatory or common law duties to 

demand that the consumers/customers correct, replace and/or repair the facilities, correct, replace 

or repair said facilities themselves or disconnect them until such time that the facilities were code 

compliant and/or safe.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 81

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

98. Electric Rule 16 also established a duty on behalf of PG&E to safely plan, design 

and engineer their service extensions. Rule 16 states, in relevant part, the following:

A. GENERAL

(1) DESIGN. PG&E will be responsible for planning, designing, and engineering its 

Service Extensions using PG&E’s standards for design, materials and construction.

D. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR NEW SERVICE EXTENSIONS 

(2) PG&E RESPONSIBILITY

a. SERVICE, METER, AND TRANSFORMER. PG&E will furnish, install, own, and 

maintain the following Service Facilities as applicable after Applicant meets all 

requirements to receive service:

(4) METERING. When the meter is owned by PG&E, PG&E will be responsible for 

the necessary instrument transformers where required, test facilities, meters, associated 

metering equipment, and the metering enclosures when PG&E elects to locate metering 

equipment at a point that is not accessible to Applicant. 

(5) TRANSFORMER. The transformer where required, including any necessary 

switches, capacitors, electrical protective equipment, etc. When either a pad mounted 

or overhead transformer is installed on Applicant's Premises, the Service Extension 

shall include the primary conductors from the connection point at the distribution 

supply line to the transformer and the secondary conductors, if any, from the 

transformer to the Service Delivery Point.

d. GOVERNMENT INSPECTION. PG&E will establish electric service to Applicant 

following notice from the governmental authority having jurisdiction that the 

Applicant-owned facilities have been installed and inspected in accordance with any 

applicable laws, codes, ordinances, rules, or regulations, and are safe to energize.

99. At all times relevant hereto, Electric Rule 18 “Supply to Separate Premises and 

Submetering of Electric Energy” was in effect, and PG&E was required to separately meter each 

premises/facility and or commercial enterprise. Rule 18 reads in relevant part:

A. SEPARATE METERING

Separate premises, even though owned by the same customer, will not be supplied through 

the same meter, except as may be specifically provided for in the applicable rate schedule.

C. FURNISHING AND METERING OF ELECTRICITY: 

1. RESIDENTIAL SERVICE

PG&E will furnish and meter electricity to each individual residential dwelling unit. . . .

2. NONRESIDENTIAL SERVICE

PG&E will furnish and meter electricity to each individual nonresidential premises or 

space, except:

a. Where electricity is furnished under a rate schedule that specifically provides for resale 

service;

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 82

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

b. Where a customer is receiving electricity through a single meter and the cost of 

electricity is absorbed in the rental for the individual premises or spaces, there is no 

separate identifiable charge by such customer to the tenants for electricity, and the rent 

does not vary with electric consumption; or where all of the following conditions are 

met:

(1) Service is supplied to a high rise building which is owned or managed by a single 

entity on a single premises; and

(2) Where a master-meter customer installs, owns, and maintains electric submeters on 

its existing building’s distribution system for cost allocation of dynamic pricing and/or 

conservation incentive purposes the cost of electricity allocated to the commercial 

building tenants will be billed at the same rate as the master meter billed by PG&E 

under the CPUC approved rate schedule servicing the master meter.

c. Where, in the sole opinion of PG&E, it is impractical for PG&E to meter individually 

each premises or space. In such a case, PG&E will meter those premises or spaces that 

it is practical to meter, if any.

d. Where the Commission has authorized PG&E to supply electric service through a 

single meter and to furnish service to nonresidential tenants on the same basis as in 1.c. 

above.

100. Where submetering was authorized, PG&E had an obligation, pursuant to Rule 18, 

to monitor, inspect and test such submetering and, if they had done so, they would have seen, upon 

reasonable inspection, that improper and dangerous use, distribution and delivery of power to 

APNs 25-609-9, 10 & 11 was occurring. 

101. Rule 18 (D) further reads:

D. TESTING OF SUBMETERS

As a condition of service for submetering, where electric energy is furnished in accordance 

with Paragraphs C1., C.2., C.3, and C.4 above, customers using submeters as a basis for 

charges for electricity shall submit to PG&E certification by a meter testing laboratory, 

satisfactory to PG&E, as to the accuracy of the submeters upon initial installation of such 

submeters, or for existing submeters upon request of PG&E. As a further condition of 

service for submetering, the customer shall agree that he will be governed by PG&E's Rule 

17, Meter Tests and Adjustment of Bills for Meter Error, with the exception that the word 

“subcustomer” be substituted for “customer” and the words “Utility’s customer” be 

substituted for “Company.” As a further condition of service for submetering, the customer 

shall agree that PG&E may inspect and examine customer's billing procedures from time to 

time to determine that such service is made in accordance with this rule or as otherwise 

may be authorized by the Commission.

102. The conditions in Rule 18(C)(2)(a)-(d) were never met or applied to APNs 25-609-

9, 10 & 11. PG&E knew or should have known that improper submetering had been, or was 

being, utilized unlawfully, within said parcels and was, indeed, creating a hazard of fire, injury and 

death. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 83

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

103. In the alternative, had the conditions of Rule 18(C)(2)(a)-(d) been met, PG&E 

knew or should have known of the unlawful and dangerous manner in which the 

residents/occupants of APN 25-609-11 were obtaining power from APNs 26-609-9 & 10. PG&E 

failed to meet its obligations under Rule 18(D). Pursuant to Rule 18(E), PG&E should have either 

discontinued the service to the submetered customer or, instead, provided a separate service which 

would have required them to install a new meter and meet all the duties and obligations to do so as 

set forth elsewhere in this Complaint.

104. Pursuant to Rule 16, in a building with two or more tenants, or where more than

one meter is used on the same premises, the meters should have been grouped at one central 

location, with each meter position or socket being clearly and permanently marked to indicate the 

particular unit, occupancy or load supplied by it. The meters located within APNs 25-609-9, 10 & 

11 were not marked as required. PG&E did not, with each meter position or socket clearly and 

permanently mark the particular unit, occupancy or load supplied by it.

105. At all times relevant hereto, CPUC General Order 95, Section III, at 31.1, was in 

effect and required electricity providers, such as PG&E, to furnish safe, proper and adequate 

electrical service. 

G. THE EVENT ON DECEMBER 2, 2016

106. Leading up to and on December 2, 2016, Defendants ALMENA, ALLISON, 

BOUCHARD, HRABKO, 100% SILK, BRITT BROWN, AMANDA BROWN, NOT NOT FUN 

RECORDS, SHANAHAN, BUTLER, OPAL RECORDS, OHR and/or DOES 51 through 100, 

and 151 through 200 organized and/or managed the music event at the Ghost Ship as part of “100% 

Silk West Coast Tour” for SHANAHAN, Chelsea Dolan, also known as Cherushi, and DJ Johnny 

Igaz, also known as Nackt.26 

///

///

///

 

26Chelsea Dolan and Johnny Igaz were victims of the fire. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 84

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

107. The music event was heavily promoted, including on social media, by HRABKO, 

100% SILK, BRITT BROWN, AMANDA BROWN, NOT NOT FUN RECORDS, SHANAHAN, 

BUTLER, OPAL RECORDS, OHR and/or DOES 51 through 100, and 151 through 200 starting a 

least one month prior to the event. One of the promotional “flyers,” which was posted through 

social media is shown below:27

108. Defendants ALMENA, ALLISON, BOUCHARD, HRABKO, 100% SILK, BRITT 

BROWN, AMANDA BROWN, NOT NOT FUN RECORDS, SHANAHAN, BUTLER, OPAL 

RECORDS, OHR and/or DOES 51 through 100, and 151 through 200 charged an entrance fee of 

$10 before 11:00 pm and $15 after 11:00 pm to enter the Ghost Ship on December 2, 2016. 

109. The promotion and marketing efforts resulted in drawing a large crowd. More than 

100 people were reportedly in attendance by 11:15 pm, only about two hours after the doors opened. 

 

27http://nacktmusic.com (last visited April 12, 2017). See also https://www.evensi.us/golden-donna-100-silk-2016-

west-coast-tour-oakland-rave/192392900 (last visited April 12, 2017) (the event was “saved” by 493 people who saw 

the promotion on this website). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 85

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

110. Most of the Decedents and Plaintiffs who were injured or damaged as a result of the 

Ghost Ship fire, purchased a ticket and were at the Ghost Ship on the evening of the December 2, 

2016, as a paying patron of the music event. 

111. During the music event, one of the Ghost Ship’s residents noticed smoke and flames, 

and called 911 at approximately 11:23 pm, after running outside.

112. After the fire started on December 2, 2016, the interior of the Ghost Ship went dark 

and patrons were unable to find their way to the only two means of egress: a staircase at the rear 

of the building, which was hidden behind the performance stage and a makeshift staircase (made 

of pallets and scrap wood) in the front of the building that patrons had used to access the second 

floor. 

113. Oakland Firehouse No. 13 is within yards from the Ghost Ship – so close that the 

Ghost Ship is visible from the front of the fire station. Oakland firefighters arrived within four 

minutes of receiving the first call. At that point, flames had engulfed one wall of the building. 

114. The fire and thick, black smoke spread. Many escaped, but thirty-six (36) people 

were trapped in the inferno inside. They were eventually overcome by the fire and smoke, and 

subsequently died inside. Photographs of the Ghost Ship on fire with victims trapped inside:28

 

28Source 1st Photograph: Allen Wedington, CNN (see http://www.ksbw.com/article/no-cause-yet-in-oaklandwarehouse-fire-that-killed-36/8496186 (last visited April 14, 2017)); Source 2nd Photograph: “Photos Ghost Ship 

Warehouse Fire in Oakland,” KGO/ABC 7 News, December 4, 2016. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 86

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

115. Photograph of the Ghost Ship, the “Death Trap” after the fire:29

///

///

///

 

29Source: “10 Additional Ghost Ship Victims Identified,” KGO/ABC 7 News, December 6, 2016.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 87

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, 

EXCEPT PG&E DEFENDANTS AND DOES 251 THROUGH 300

116. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action as an heir to a victim that died as a result of the 

Ghost Ship fire or for his or her own injuries sustained as a result of the Ghost Ship fire. 

117. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference, each and every allegation 

contained in paragraphs 1 to 85 and 106-115 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 

118. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, owned, operated, 

leased, rented, promoted, sold tickets at, patrolled, secured, built, constructed, developed, designed, 

engineered, maintained, inspected, repaired, managed, performed at, manufactured, distributed 

and/or sold materials to, provided utilities and services to, and/or otherwise controlled the Ghost 

Ship, and the adjacent and surrounding premises, at the time of the incident. 

119. Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to take reasonable steps to eliminate and 

warn of the risks and dangers posed by the activities occurring at and surrounding the Ghost Ship. 

Defendants, and each of them, owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Decedents, and to others at the 

Ghost Ship, to undertake reasonable steps to ensure that the Ghost Ship and adjacent properties 

were maintained in a safe and usable condition and free of any risks and dangers, and to inspect 

for and warn against such risks and dangers. Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to 

sublessees, renters and residents of the Ghost Ship to maintain the property in a safe and livable 

condition, by keeping the property free of debris and clutter, following safety procedures, and 

providing a proper supply of electrical power and life-safety fire prevention measures. 

Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to employ or contract with personnel at events such as 

the music show that was held on December 2, 2016, to provide security and to ensure the safety 

of the Ghost Ship and its visitors during such events.

120. Defendants, and each of them, had a duty, among other things, to properly own, 

manage, lease, run, promote, sell tickets at, oversee and/or provide utilities and services to the 

Ghost Ship; to properly manufacture, distribute and/or sell materials to the Ghost Ship and the 

adjacent and surrounding premises; to provide adequate and safe means of egress for patrons and 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 88

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

invitees; to take reasonable steps to eliminate the risks and dangers posed by the activities occurring 

at and surrounding the Ghost Ship, and adjacent and surrounding premises; to obtain permits for 

construction and holding public events; to hire competent employees, agents and/or contractors to 

secure the safety of patrons and invitees; to provide adequate security; to keep the premises safe for 

patrons and invitees; to have and/or make sure the premises were safely constructed consistent with 

applicable building codes and construction standards; to have and/or make sure the premises had 

adequate and sufficient fire safety measures and emergency evacuation measures, including 

adequate lighting; to have and/or make sure the premises contained a safe and sufficient supply of 

electrical power; to warn about the dangerous and unsafe conditions; and/or to not falsely imprison 

patrons and invitees and trap them inside the Ghost Ship during the fire. 

121. Defendants, and each of them, negligently and carelessly owned, operated, leased, 

rented, promoted, sold tickets at, patrolled, secured, built, constructed, developed, designed, 

maintained, inspected, repaired, managed, manufactured, distributed and/or sold materials to, 

provided utilities and services to and/or otherwise controlled the Ghost Ship, and the surrounding 

and adjacent premises, and the music event on December 2, 2016, by, among other things, failing to 

properly own, manage, lease, run, promote, sell tickets at, oversee and/or provide utilities and 

services to the Ghost Ship; failing to provide adequate and safe means of egress for patrons and 

invitees; failing to take reasonable steps to eliminate the risks and dangers posed by the activities 

occurring at and surrounding the Ghost Ship, and adjacent and surrounding premises; failing to 

obtain permits for construction and holding public events; failing to hire competent employees, 

agents and/or contractors to secure the safety of patrons and invitees; failing to obtain permits for 

construction and holding public events; failing to provide adequate security; failing to keep the 

premises safe for patrons and invitees; failing to have and/or make sure the premises were safely 

constructed consistent with applicable building codes; failing to have and/or make sure the 

premises had adequate and sufficient fire safety measures and emergency evacuation measures, 

including adequate lighting; failing to have and/or make sure the premises contained a safe and 

sufficient supply of electrical power; failing to warn about the dangerous and unsafe conditions; 

and/or falsely imprisoning patrons and invitees and trapping them inside during the fire. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 89

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

122. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants DOES 1 through 250 and 301 through 500, 

inclusive, and each of them, were somehow responsible for the injuries and damages sustained by 

Plaintiffs and Decedents, as alleged herein. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege 

that each of said Defendants, is negligently or otherwise responsible in some manner for the events 

and happenings herein referred to and those Defendants negligently acted, or failed to act. Their 

negligence and/or failure to act and the dangerous conditions on the subject premises legally caused 

the injuries and damages hereinafter set forth. 

123. The Defendants were in violation of many codes and statutes as explained above. 

These violations constitute negligence per se pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code § 669, and were a 

substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, and the premature death of 36 

victims. 

124. It was reasonably foreseeable that by failing to perform any or all duties set forth 

herein, the fire would occur during the music event on December 2, 2016.

125. Prior to the music event on December 2, 2016, Defendants, and each of them, knew 

and/or had reason to know that the Ghost Ship was in disrepair and had a faulty electrical system 

and contained life-threatening, dangerous and/or illegal conditions, which could likely result in 

injury to and death to persons.

126. The negligence of Defendants, and each of them, was a direct and proximate 

cause of the subject incident and the injuries and death of Decedents and damages of Plaintiffs. 

127. The acts, omissions and/or negligence of Defendants, and each of them, were a 

substantial factor in causing Decedents’ injuries and resulting death and harm to the Plaintiffs, and 

the direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs. 

128. As a further, proximate result of the acts, omissions and negligence of Defendants, 

and each of them, Plaintiffs have incurred the injuries and damages as set forth herein. 

129. With respect to the Plaintiffs claiming personal injury and/or property damage 

associated with a living Plaintiff that was injured and/or sustained property damage as a result of 

the fire, said Plaintiffs make the following punitive damages allegations in paragraphs 130 through 

137. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 90

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

130. Defendants, and each of them, acted with oppression, fraud and/or malice in that, 

among other things, they acted with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of 

Plaintiffs.

30

 

131. Defendants, and each of them, acted with malice, oppression and/or fraud in that, 

among other things, they acted with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of 

the Plaintiffs despite knowing the risk of serious injury or death that could likely result from the 

unsafe and dangerous condition of the Ghost Ship and surrounding and adjacent premises. 

132. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that the conditions at 

the Ghost Ship and neighboring properties were a safety hazard that posed a danger to human life, 

including but not limited to: inadequate means of ingress and egress; a faulty and unsafe electrical 

system; inadequate, inoperable, and/or non-existent lighting, smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, 

overhead sprinklers and/or exit signs; unsafe structures and stairways; obstructed and unclear 

walkways and exits cluttered with debris; rooms filled with flammable and combustible 

materials; and/or lack of permitting and security for public events, among other dangerous 

conditions. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that the Ghost Ship 

would be a venue for the music show on December 2, 2016, and that such event would lack 

necessary and proper permits, security, a safe electrical system and/or safety measures, and that 

the number of invitees would exceed the maximum limit for safe occupancy of the Ghost Ship.

Defendants, and each of them, also had advanced knowledge that a failure to fix or address the 

aforementioned conditions would result in the probability of a catastrophic event, which 

foreseeably would lead to harm and/or injuries to the health and safety of residents and invitees. 

Defendants, and each of them, intentionally chose not to take reasonable steps to make the Ghost 

Ship safe for occupancy and use as a music event space, and failed to warn invitees as to the 

dangerous and unsafe conditions on the property. With respect to those Defendants who 

presented the Ghost Ship as a music venue, in so presenting, they engaged in fraudulent conduct 

 

30For this and other causes of action for wrongful death only, no Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages for causes of 

action brought pursuant to C.C.P. § 377.60, et seq. for wrongful death of their decedent. Said Plaintiffs, however, do 

seek punitive damages on their survival causes of action brought pursuant to C.C.P. § 377.30, et seq.; see the Seventh 

Cause of Action, infra. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 91

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

intended to deceive invitees by misrepresenting and concealing the dangerous conditions of the 

property. 

133. Defendants, by themselves and/or through their employees and/or agents, acted with 

malice in that their despicable conduct was carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the 

rights or safety of the Plaintiffs. The term “malice” includes conduct evincing a conscious 

disregard of the probability that the defendant’s conduct will result in injury to others. See 

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 757. Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base 

or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.

134. Defendants, by themselves and/or through their employees and/or agents, acted with 

oppression in that their despicable conduct subjected the Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in 

conscious disregard of their rights. “Oppression” in Civil Code Section 3294 “means despicable 

conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's 

rights.” “Conscious disregard” for purposes of proving “oppression” does not require “willful” 

actions. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2); CACI 3940 & 3941; Major v. Western Home Ins. Co. 

(2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1225-1226.

135. Defendants knew that their despicable conduct, as described herein, would likely 

and within a high degree of probability cause harm to the Plaintiffs. 

136. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as set forth herein, was fraudulent 

in that each of them engaged in intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of material 

facts known to them, including that the premises lacked sufficient and safe electrical system, fire 

safety measures and a safe means of egress. That information was fraudulently withheld from the 

Plaintiffs and Decedents.

137. Defendants, and each of their employees’ and/or agents’ egregious conduct, 

including malice, oppression and fraud, were substantial factors in causing the incident and the 

Plaintiffs’ injuries and/or damages. An officer, a director, and/or a managing agent of 

Defendants, and each of them, authorized the employees’ or agents’ wrongful conduct, and/or 

adopted, ratified or approved the conduct after it occurred. An award of punitive damages in a 

sum according to proof at trial is, therefore, justified, warranted and appropriate under the facts

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 92

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and circumstances of this case, and to punish or set an example of Defendants and deter such 

behavior by Defendants and others in the future.

WHEREFORE, all Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 

set forth herein.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE PG&E 

DEFENDANTS AND DOES 251 THROUGH 300

138. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action as an heir to a victim that died as a result of the 

Ghost Ship fire or for his or her own injuries sustained as a result of the Ghost Ship fire. 

139. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference, each and every allegation 

contained in paragraphs 1 through 115 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 

140. PG&E and DOES 251 through 300, and each of them, at all times relevant hereto, 

owned, operated, controlled, managed, leased, loaned, borrowed, bailed and/or maintained 

electrical equipment that supplied power to the Ghost Ship and the adjoining structures. 

141. Defendants had a legal duty to Plaintiffs and Decedents, as foreseeable victims, 

to exercise the utmost care and diligence in maintaining and operating said electrical equipment

so as to not cause or contribute to a fire. Defendants breached that duty by failing to exercise 

care in their operation and maintenance of said electrical equipment, including, but not limited 

to, failing to properly monitor and inspect the electrical equipment, failing to properly repair the 

electrical equipment and failing to comply with applicable safety standards.

142. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs and others to act reasonably in the design, 

construct, and maintenance of the electrical systems serving APNs 25-609-9, 10 & 11, so as to 

furnish safe, proper, and adequate electrical service. Pursuant to Rule 11, Defendants owed a duty 

to abate unsafe apparatus and conditions. Pursuant to Rule 16, Defendants owed a duty to safely 

plan, design and engineer its service extensions. Pursuant to Rule 18, Defendants owed a duty to 

supply power safely and through separate meters to APNs 25-609-9, 10 & 11. Under General 

Order 95, Section III, at 31.1, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to design, construct and maintain 

the electrical systems serving APNs 25-609-9, 10 & 11, so as to furnish safe, proper and adequate 

electrical service. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 93

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

143. Defendants, as part of their duty to separately monitor each facility, should have 

installed a meter at APN 25-609-11 and, in doing so, as part of determining the required load, 

amperage, phasing and other metrics, would have, pursuant to regulation, standard industry and 

practice, and common law duty, conducted an inspection and analysis of the facilities and their 

use, and determined the need for, proposed and actual use of, power and would have conducted an 

inspection of the existing systems to assure that they were up to code as a new service requires 

code compliance. 

144. Additionally a reasonable utility would have undertaken calculations of power load, 

voltage, amperage, and other factors and examined the existing transformer, the potential 

requirement for a new transformer including evaluating the need for a new “vault,” panels, 

breaker, etc.

145. Defendants in meeting their obligations to separately meter would have been 

required to obtain, from the owner/user, a set of electrical drawings, prepared by a licensed 

electrical engineer prior to initiating service through the new meter. This would have required a 

review of the electrical infrastructure of the facilities, enterprises, and parcels to be served which 

would have revealed – and corrected – the deficiencies prior to service being initiated as it would 

have called for a plan check, pulling of a permit, inspection, sign-off and/or issuance of a 

Certificate of Occupancy by the appropriate authorities within the City of Oakland.

146. Defendants, in order to fulfill their legal duties should have conducted an 

evaluation and analysis of the voltage and amperage, load calculation, transformer requirements, 

breaker panels, wiring distribution, and needs and usage of the power within APN 25-609-11. 

Had Defendants done so, as a reasonably prudent utility would have, they would have observed 

and identified the hazardous and out-of-code conditions within the electrical distribution system 

which led to the deadly fire, including but not limited to: the overloading of the circuitry in both 

parcels; the substandard and missing meters; improper submetering; and/or inadequate and 

defective transformers, wiring, outlets, electrical cords, junction boxes, breaker panels, breakers, 

and the improper umbilicus of power coming from APN 25-609-10 into APN 25-609-11.

147. The scope of Defendants’ duties, if reasonably fulfilled, would have triggered the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 94

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

need for a permit which, in turn, would have required a city inspector to come and specifically 

inspect the installation and the other factors referenced above.

148. As a result of Defendants’ failure to meet their duty to provide adequate and 

appropriate metering, occupants of APN 25-609-11 obtained power from APN 25-609-9 & 10 in a 

manner which presented a serious risk of an electrical hazard, injury and death to the residents, 

occupants and/or invitees of APN 25-609-11.

149. Defendants also failed to meet their duties in the management of the exterior 

facilities that suppled power to APNs 25-609-9 & 10, including the high voltage overhead power 

lines and components that powered the buildings. The electrical system as it was delivered to 

foreseeable users inside the buildings was defective at the point after it passed through the 

customer’s meter and into the buildings.

150. Defendants breached their various duties, including but not limited to:

 Failing to provide a separate meter for each residence, customer, enterprise and/or facility 

within APNs 25-609-9, 10 & 11.

 Failing to adequately monitor the power that was supplied to APN 25-609-9, including 

spikes, surges and/or trouble tickets.

 Failing to obtain appropriate plans, calculations, permits and inspections required to install 

a new electric service and meter.

 Failing to locate all of the meters for APNs 25-609-9, 10 & 11 at one single location and 

individually marking them and, instead, locating them haphazardly through the structures 

in a manner which presented a risk of hazard to the residents, occupants, their guests, 

employees and invitees of APN 25-609-11.

 Failing to supply a safe, sufficient and reliable source of power for the occupants of APN 

25-609-11, their guests, employees and invitees.

 Failing to determine the need for, amount of and distribution of the power within APNs 

25-609-9, 10 & 11 in such a manner so as to reduce a risk of hazard, fire, injury and death 

to the residents, occupants, their guests, employees and invitees.

 Failing to determine and monitor the method and manner in which power was distributed, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 95

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

delivered and consumed within APNs 25-609-9, 10& 11, such that they failed to obtain the 

necessary designs, permits, inspections and approvals required before power should have 

been provided to said parcels.

 Failing to provide the proper transformers, including any necessary switches, capacitors, 

electrical protective equipment, etc. for the safe delivery and distribution of electricity 

within APNs 25-609-9, 10 & 11.

 Failing to identify and inspect submeters, the method and manner in which submeters were 

being installed and operated, and discontinuing service because of defective submeters.

 Failing to discontinue service to APNs 25-609-9, 10 & 11 until such time that the systems 

and equipment distributing the electricity within said parcels was rendered such that safe, 

reliable and appropriate electricity could be supplied.

 Failing, while being present in the buildings for the purpose of meter installation and/or 

reading to observe, recognize and remedy the hazardous, dangerous, and life-threatening 

conditions and misuse of power or, in the alternative, to disconnect power until the dangers 

could be rendered safe.

 Failing to discontinue supplying electricity to APNs 25-609-9 & 10 which were operating 

equipment to the service of other PG&E customers and or individuals who were residents, 

occupants, their guests, employees and invitees.

 Failing to act as a reasonable electric utility provider under any and all other statutes, 

regulations, ordinances, or common law.

 Failed to act as a reasonable electric utility provider in the management of the exterior 

facilities that suppled power to APNs 25-609-9 & 10 because the electrical system as it 

was delivered to foreseeable users inside the buildings was defective at the point after it 

passed through the customer’s meter and into the buildings.

151. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants owed the public, including Plaintiffs and 

Decedents, a duty to be truthful and accurate in their filings and representations made in 

connection with the delivery, distribution, inspection and maintenance of power to APNs 25-609-

9, 10 & 11. Defendants violated this a duty to be truthful and accurate in their filings and 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 96

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

representations made in connection with the delivery, distribution, inspection, maintenance of 

power to APNs 25-609-9, 10 & 11.

152. At the time of injury to Plaintiffs and Decedents, there were in force and effect 

various statutes, laws, regulations, rules and ordinances which were designed to protect Plaintiffs, 

Decedents and others similarly situated from harm, injury and/or death. Plaintiffs and Decedents 

fall within the class of persons these statutes, laws, regulations, rules and ordinances were 

designed to protect.

153. Defendants did violate said statutes, laws, regulations, rules and ordinances

and a result Plaintiffs and Decedents suffered injury and/or death to their detriment and as a result, 

the conduct of Defendants constitutes per se negligence under Cal. Evid. Code § 669.

154. Defendants’ breach of the aforementioned duties, and others, was a substantial 

factor in causing the fire and other conditions which led to the injuries and damages alleged 

herein. 

155. With respect to the Plaintiffs claiming personal injury and/or property damage 

associated with a living Plaintiff that was injured and/or sustained property damage as a result of the 

fire, said Plaintiffs make the following punitive damages allegations. The conduct of Defendants 

was fraudulent, oppressive and/or malicious as defined under California Civil Code 3294 and/or 

was ratified by the officers, directors and/or managing agents of Defendants so as to warrant the 

imposition of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Further, 

Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs 130 through 137 regarding punitive damages 

herein as though fully set forth. 

WHEREFORE, all Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 

set forth herein.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PREMISES LIABILITY 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

156. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action as an heir to a victim that died as a result of the 

Ghost Ship fire or for his or her own injuries sustained as a result of the Ghost Ship fire. 

157. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference, each and every allegation 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 97

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

43

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

contained in paragraphs 1 to 128 and 140 to 154 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth 

herein. 

158. At all times relevant hereto, the Ghost Ship, and adjacent and surrounding 

premises, were owned, operated, leased, rented, promoted, patrolled, secured, built, constructed, 

developed, designed, maintained, inspected, repaired, managed, serviced or otherwise controlled by 

said Defendants, and each of them. 

159. Defendants, and each of them, negligently and carelessly owned, operated, leased, 

rented, promoted, patrolled, secured, built, constructed, developed, designed, maintained, inspected, 

repaired, managed, provided utilities and services to and/or otherwise controlled the Ghost Ship, 

and adjacent and surrounding premises.

160. Defendants, and each of them, wantonly, recklessly, negligently and carelessly 

owned, operated, leased, rented, promoted, patrolled, secured, built, constructed, developed, 

designed, maintained, inspected, repaired, managed, provided utilities and services to and/or 

otherwise controlled the premises by, among other things, failing to properly own, manage, lease, 

run, oversee and/or provide services to the Ghost Ship; failing to provide adequate and safe means 

of egress for patrons and invitees; failing to take reasonable steps to eliminate the risks and dangers 

posed by the activities occurring at and surrounding the Ghost Ship, and adjacent and surrounding 

premises; failing to obtain permits for construction and holding public events; failing to hire 

competent employees, agents and/or contractors to secure the safety of patrons and invitees; failing 

to provide adequate security; failing to keep the premises safe for patrons, invitees and residents; 

failing to have and/or make sure the premises were safely constructed consistent with applicable 

building codes; failing to have and/or make sure the premises had adequate and sufficient fire safety 

measures and emergency evacuation measures, including adequate lighting; failing to have and/or 

make sure the premises contained a safe and sufficient supply of electrical power; and/or falsely 

imprisoning patrons, invitees and residents, and trapping them inside the Ghost Ship during the fire.

161. At all times relevant hereto, the premises contained dangerous and unsafe 

conditions of which Defendants, and each of them, had actual and/or constructive notice.

162. The premises were in a dangerous and unsafe condition due to the negligent 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 98

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

discharge of mandatory and nondelegable duties, ownership, leasing, renting, marketing, control, 

securing, operation, building, construction, engineering, development, design, maintenance, 

management, inspection, provision of utilities and services to, and/or repair of the premises, 

including the lack of warnings, visibility and lighting, by said Defendants, and each of them. 

163. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants, and each of them, violated state and local 

laws for safe design, construction, building, maintenance, inspection and repair of the premises.

164. It was reasonably foreseeable that as a result of the negligent and careless 

ownership, operation, leasing, renting, promoting, patrolling, securing, building, construction, 

development, design, maintenance, inspection, repair, management, provision of utilities and 

services to, and/or control of the premises that the life-threatening and dangerous conditions would 

occur at the Ghost Ship and surrounding and adjacent premises, and cause injury to persons inside 

and subsequently result in the premature death of 36 victims and injury to many others. 

165. As a direct and proximate result of said dangerous and unsafe conditions of the 

premises, Plaintiffs were caused to sustain injuries and damages as set forth herein.

166. With respect to the Plaintiffs claiming personal injury and/or property damage 

associated with a living Plaintiff that was injured and/or sustained property damage as a result of 

the fire, said Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference as though fully set forth, the punitive 

damages allegations contained in paragraphs 130 through 137 and 155. 

WHEREFORE, all Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 

set forth herein.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO EVICT 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS CHOR NG, EVA NG, KAI NG 

AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE

167. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action as an heir to a victim that died as a result of the 

Ghost Ship fire or for his or her own injuries sustained as a result of the Ghost Ship fire. 

168. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference, each and every allegation 

contained in paragraphs 1 to 85, 106 to 128 and 158 to 165 of the Complaint, as though fully set 

forth herein. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 99

of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

169. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants CHOR NG, EVA NG, KAI NG and 

DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, leased the premises where the Ghost Ship and the 

surrounding and adjacent premises were located to Defendants ALMENA, ALLISON, 

BOUCHARD, LOPEZ, VEGA, CUSTOM O’S and DOES 51 through 150, and each of them, as 

well as CANNON.

170. Defendants CHOR NG, EVA NG, KAI NG and DOES 1 through 50, and each of 

them, prior to December 2, 2016, knew and/or had reason to know that the Ghost Ship was 

unlawfully being used for residential and business purposes and music events, was in disrepair and 

had a faulty electrical system and contained life-threatening, dangerous and/or illegal conditions 

which could likely result in injury and death to persons, and had received numerous complaints in 

the years before December 2, 2016. Said Defendants, and each of them, knew or reasonably 

should have known that their lessees, the managers and operators of the Ghost Ship and the 

surrounding and adjacent premises, were unfit in carrying out their duties and/or incompetent to 

safely own, operate or manage the Ghost Ship and the surrounding and adjacent premises. 

171. Defendants CHOR NG, EVA NG, KAI NG and DOES 1 through 50, and each of 

them, had a duty to protect patrons and invitees inside the Ghost Ship from the foreseeable lifethreatening and dangerous conditions, including fire. Said Defendants had the duty and 

responsibility to take reasonable steps to eliminate the risks and dangers posed by the 

aforementioned activities in and about the premises, including but not limited to, evicting their 

lessees, who were the managers and operators of the Ghost Ship and surrounding and adjacent 

premises. In failing to evict as alleged herein, Defendants failed to perform said duties, and 

were negligent.

172. It was reasonably foreseeable that the continued leasing of the Ghost Ship and the 

surrounding and adjacent premises created a risk to patrons, invitees and residents of the Ghost 

Ship who were injured as a result of the fire. 

173. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of said Defendants, Plaintiff 

suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

174. With respect to the Plaintiffs claiming personal injury and/or property damage 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

100 of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

associated with a living Plaintiff that was injured and/or sustained property damage as a result of 

the fire, said Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference as though fully set forth, the punitive 

damages allegations contained in paragraphs 130 through 137. 

WHEREFORE, all Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 

set forth herein.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, TRAINING 

AND/OR RETENTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

175. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action as an heir to a victim that died as a result of the 

Ghost Ship fire or for his or her own injuries sustained as a result of the Ghost Ship fire. 

176. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference, each and every allegation 

contained in paragraphs 1 to 128, 140 to 154 and 169 to 173 of the Complaint, as though fully set 

forth herein. 

177. Defendants, and each of them, had a duty of care in the hiring, retention, training 

and/or supervision of one or more of their employees, contractors or agents.

178. One or more of Defendants’ employees, contractors or agents was unfit or 

incompetent to perform the work for which he or she was hired. 

179. Defendants knew or should have known that these employees, contractors or 

agents were unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk 

of harm to others, including Plaintiffs and Decedents.

180. In failing to exercise reasonable care in the hiring, supervision, training and/or 

retention of one or more employees, contractors or agents, Defendants, and each of them,

breached a duty of care owed to Plaintiffs and Decedents. 

181. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness, carelessness and 

other wrongdoing of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

182. With respect to the Plaintiffs claiming personal injury and/or property damage 

associated with a living Plaintiff that was injured and/or sustained property damage as a result of 

the fire, said Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference as though fully set forth, the punitive 

damages allegations contained in paragraphs 130 through 137 and 155. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

101 of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WHEREFORE, all Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 

set forth herein.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

183. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action as an heir to a victim that died as a result of the 

Ghost Ship fire or for his or her own injuries sustained as a result of the Ghost Ship fire. 

184. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference, each and every allegation 

contained in paragraphs 1 to 128, 140 to 154, 169 to 173 and 177 to 181 of the Complaint, as 

though fully set forth herein. 

185. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants, and each of them: (1) by failing to act, 

created a condition that was a blight, harmful to health and/or a fire and/or life-safety hazard; (2) 

created or maintained a condition that affected a substantial number of people at the same time; (3) 

that an ordinary person would be reasonably disturbed by the condition; (4) that the seriousness of 

the harm outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct; (5) Plaintiffs and Decedents did not 

consent to Defendants’ conduct; (6) Plaintiffs and Decedents suffered harm to their health and 

safety, personal injury and/or death, which was different from the type of harm suffered by the 

general public; and (7) Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs and 

Decedents’ harm. 

186. With respect to the Plaintiffs claiming personal injury and/or property damage 

associated with a living Plaintiff that was injured and/or sustained property damage as a result of 

the fire, said Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference as though fully set forth, the punitive 

damages allegations contained in paragraphs 130 through 137 and 155. 

WHEREFORE, all Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 

set forth herein.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR STRICT LIABILITY AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS PG&E AND DOES 251 THROUGH 300

187. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action as an heir to a victim that died as a result of the 

Ghost Ship fire or for his or her own injuries sustained as a result of the Ghost Ship fire. 

188. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference, each and every allegation 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

102 of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

contained in paragraphs 1 to 115 and 140 to 154 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth 

herein. 

189. Defendants supplied various products, including but not limited to the electrical 

system, electrical power, meters, connections, monitoring devices, wiring, etc. (hereinafter “The 

Products”) to APNs 25-609-09 & 10. In doing so, Defendants placed The Products into the 

system of commerce in exchange for compensation. 

190. The Products that were delivered to foreseeable users inside the building were 

defective at the point after they passed through the customer’s meter and into the buildings. The 

electrical system was defective at its point of delivery inside the building because it did not 

perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform when used or 

misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way. PG&E had, or should have had, 

knowledge that The Products would be used without inspection for defects for the purposes of 

obtaining and utilizing electrical power.

191. Suppliers of electricity are subject to strict liability in tort for personal injuries and 

deaths caused by delivery of electricity at dangerously high voltage due to defective products, 

including transformers. The electrical failure occurred as the electricity entered the meter into 

APN 25-690-9 and/or APN 25-690-10 where the submeters were placed to determine electrical 

usage by various tenants. The Products entered the stream of commerce prior to manifestation of 

the defect. Strict liability extends not only in favor of the users and consumers, but also in favor 

of bystanders such as the Plaintiffs and Decedents herein who were foreseeably present at a 

location where The Products were being delivered and consumed.

192. The Products did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have 

expected them to perform when used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way. 

193. As a proximate result of The Products’ defective condition, Plaintiffs and 

Decedents, and each of them, were harmed and suffered significant injuries and damages as set 

forth herein. 

194. The Products’ failure to perform safely was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs 

and Decedents’ harm. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

103 of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

195. With respect to the Plaintiffs claiming personal injury and/or property damage 

associated with a living Plaintiff that was injured and/or sustained property damage as a result of the

fire, said Plaintiffs make the following punitive damages allegations. The conduct of Defendants 

was fraudulent, oppressive and/or malicious as defined under California Civil Code 3294 and/or 

was ratified by the officers, directors and/or managing agents of Defendants so as to warrant the 

imposition of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Further, 

Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs 130 through 137 and 155 regarding punitive 

damages herein as though fully set forth. 

WHEREFORE, all Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 

set forth herein.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION – SURVIVAL ACTION

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

196. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference, each and every allegation 

contained in paragraphs 1 to 128, 140 to 154, 169 to 173, 177 to 181, 185 and 189 to 194 of the 

Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 

197. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants, and each of them, negligently, carelessly, 

recklessly and/or unlawfully acted and/or failed to act so as to cause the injuries and subsequent 

death of the Decedent victims. 

198. Despite their best efforts, Decedents were unable to escape the inferno. Rather, 

they remained alive for at least several minutes. During this time, Decedents experienced 

profound fear, suffering and overwhelming despair. 

199. Causes of Action One through Seven, therefore, survive the death of Decedents 

and accordingly pass to the personal representatives of their estates and/or successors-in-interest 

pursuant to C.C.P. § 377.20. 

200. As a direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of the 

Defendants, and each of them, on December 2, 2016, and prior to the Decedents’ deaths, 

Decedents suffered personal injuries from smoke inhalation, the roof collapsing and/or other 

objects burning and/or falling, as well as property damage from their clothes and other belongings 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

104 of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

being partially or totally destroyed, and incurred expenses for emergency services, rescue efforts, 

identification and/or removal of Decedents’ remains, coroner, funeral and burial expenses. 

201. It was reasonably foreseeable that as a direct and proximate result of the acts, 

omissions and negligence of Defendants, and each of them, and each of their breach of duties, that 

Decedents would be injured, then die, and caused to sustain economic damages. 

202. The acts, omissions and/or negligence of Defendants, and each of them, were a 

substantial factor in causing Decedents’ injuries and resulting deaths and harm to the Plaintiffs, and 

the direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs. 

203. Defendants, and each of them, acted with oppression, fraud and/or malice in that, 

among other things, they acted with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of 

Decedents. 

204. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that the conditions at 

the Ghost Ship and neighboring properties were a safety hazard that posed a danger to human life, 

including, but not limited to: inadequate means of ingress and egress; a faulty and unsafe 

electrical system; inadequate, inoperable, and/or non-existent lighting, smoke alarms, fire 

extinguishers, overhead sprinklers and/or exit signs; unsafe structures and stairways; obstructed 

and unclear walkways and exits cluttered with debris; rooms filled with flammable and 

combustible materials; and/or lack of permitting and security for public events, among other 

dangerous conditions. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that the Ghost 

Ship would be a venue for the music show on December 2, 2016, and that such event would lack 

necessary and proper permits, security, and safety measures, and that the number of invitees 

would exceed the maximum limit for safe occupancy of the Ghost Ship. Defendants, and each of 

them, also had advanced knowledge that a failure to fix or address the aforementioned conditions 

would result in the probability of a catastrophic event, which foreseeably would lead to harm 

and/or injuries to the health and safety of residents and invitees. Defendants, and each of them, 

intentionally chose not to take reasonable steps to make the Ghost Ship safe for occupancy and 

use as a music event space, and failed to warn invitees as to the dangerous and unsafe conditions 

on the property. Defendants, and each of them, in presenting the Ghost Ship as a music venue, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

105 of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

engaged in fraudulent conduct intended to deceive invitees by misrepresenting and concealing the 

dangerous conditions of the property. 

205. Defendants, and each of them, acted with malice, oppression and/or fraud in that, 

among other things, they acted with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of 

the Decedents despite knowing the risk of serious injury or death that could likely result from the 

unsafe and dangerous condition of the Ghost Ship and surrounding and adjacent premises. 

206. Defendants, by themselves and/or through their employees and/or agents, acted with 

malice in that their despicable conduct was carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the 

rights or safety of the Ghost Ship victims. The term “malice” includes conduct evincing a 

conscious disregard of the probability that a defendant’s conduct will result in injury to others. 

See Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 757. Defendants’ conduct was so vile, 

base or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.

207. Defendants, by themselves and/or through their employees and/or agents, acted with 

oppression in that their despicable conduct subjected the Decedents to cruel and unjust hardship in 

conscious disregard of their rights. “Oppression” in Civil Code Section 3294 “means despicable 

conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's 

rights.” “Conscious disregard” for purposes of proving “oppression” does not require “willful” 

actions. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2); CACI 3940 & 3941; Major v. Western Home Ins. Co. 

(2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1225-1226.

208. Defendants knew that their despicable conduct, as described herein, would likely 

and within a high degree of probability cause harm to the Decedents. 

209. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as set forth herein, was fraudulent 

in that each of them engaged in intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of material 

facts known to them, including that the premises lacked sufficient and safe fire safety measures 

and a safe means of egress. That information was fraudulently withheld from the Decedents.

210. Defendants, and each of their employees’ and/or agents’ egregious conduct, 

including malice, oppression and fraud, were substantial factors in causing the incident and the 

Decedents’ injuries and untimely deaths. An officer, a director, and/or a managing agent of 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

106 of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

52

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants, and each of them, authorized the employees’ or agents’ wrongful conduct, and/or 

adopted, ratified or approved the conduct after it occurred. An award of punitive damages in a 

sum according to proof at trial is, therefore, justified, warranted and appropriate under the facts 

and circumstances of this case.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as set 

forth herein.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL 

DISTRESS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

211. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for his or her own injuries sustained as a result 

of the Ghost Ship fire as a direct victim and/or bystander victim. 

212. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference, each and every allegation 

contained in paragraphs 1 through 195 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 

213. Defendants, and each of them, had a legal duty to Plaintiffs, as foreseeable 

victims, to exercise reasonable care as set forth herein. Defendants’ breach was the legal and 

proximate cause of the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs. 

214. As a result of the negligent conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs

suffered serious emotional distress. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs

would be harmed and suffer serious emotional distress during and as a result of their acts, 

omissions, conduct and/or other wrongdoing, and ensuing fire. Defendants knew or should have 

known that their conduct would cause serious emotional distress to Plaintiffs and that she or he 

would be harmed by the fire, causing injuries, death and property damage. The Defendants’ 

conduct was a substantial factor in causing his or her serious emotional distress. 

215. Additionally and/or alternatively, Defendants, and each of them, negligently 

caused the deaths of Plaintiffs’ Decedent as Plaintiffs watched the horrific scene in person, on 

television or on the internet and/or received text messages or other communications from his or 

her loved one. Plaintiffs knew that his or her loved one was trapped inside the burning building. 

Plaintiffs were aware that his or her loved one was being injured. The Defendants’ conduct was 

a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ serious emotional distress. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

107 of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

216. Because of the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, and as a direct and 

proximate result thereof, Plaintiffs have sustained emotional distress, shock and injury to his or 

her nervous system, all of which has caused, continues to cause, and will cause physical and 

mental pain and suffering, all to Plaintiffs’ general damage in a sum to be determined at the time 

of trial. Plaintiffs suffer and continue to suffer severe emotional distress as a result of the fire, 

including, but not limited to, anxiety, fear, nervousness, shock, horror and worry. 

217. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs were injured 

physically, emotionally, and/or economically, and/or were in the zone of danger of the fire, and 

reasonably feared for their lives as they attempted to escape the raging inferno, and/or witnessed 

close family members sustain serious injury and/or death as they attempted to escape the raging 

inferno. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered damages as alleged herein.

218. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference as though fully set forth, the punitive 

damages allegations contained in paragraphs 130 through 137 and 155. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as set 

forth herein.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

219. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for his or her own injuries sustained as a result 

of the Ghost Ship fire as a direct victim. 

220. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference, each and every allegation 

contained in paragraphs 1 through 195 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 

221. Defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct. Specific examples of 

Defendants’ outrageous conduct include, but are not limited to, knowing that the conditions at the 

Ghost Ship and neighboring properties were a safety hazard that posed a danger to human life, 

Defendants had, among other things: inadequate means of ingress and egress; a faulty and unsafe 

electrical system; inadequate, inoperable, and/or non-existent lighting, smoke alarms, fire 

extinguishers, overhead sprinklers and/or exit signs; unsafe structures and stairways; obstructed 

and unclear walkways and exits cluttered with debris; rooms filled with flammable and 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

108 of 129
______________________________________________________________________________________________

IN RE GHOST SHIP FIRE LITIGATION MASTER COMPLAINT

54

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

combustible materials; and/or lack of permitting and security for public events, among other 

dangerous conditions. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that the Ghost 

Ship would be a venue for the music show on December 2, 2016, and that such event would lack 

necessary and proper permits, security, and safety measures, and that the number of invitees 

would exceed the maximum limit for safe occupancy of the Ghost Ship. Defendants, and each of 

them, also had advanced knowledge that a failure to fix or address the aforementioned conditions 

would result in the probability of a catastrophic event, which foreseeably would lead to harm 

and/or injuries to the health and safety of residents and invitees. Defendants, and each of them, 

intentionally chose not to take reasonable steps to make the Ghost Ship safe for occupancy and 

use as a music event space, and failed to warn invitees as to the dangerous and unsafe conditions 

on the property. Defendants, and each of them, in presenting the Ghost Ship as a music venue, 

engaged in fraudulent conduct intended to deceive invitees by misrepresenting and concealing the 

dangerous conditions of the property. 

222. Defendants engaged in the aforementioned outrageous conduct with reckless 

disregard of the probability that such conduct would result in a fire or similar disaster that would 

result in severe emotional distress to Plaintiffs. 

223. Plaintiffs did in fact suffer severe emotional distress as a result of the fire caused 

by Defendants’ outrageous conduct, as alleged herein. 

224. Defendants’ outrageous conduct, which led to the devastating fire described 

herein, was the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ emotional distress.

225. The wrongful acts of Defendants were done maliciously, oppressively, 

fraudulently, and in conscious disregard of the safety and health of the Plaintiffs. 

226. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference as though fully set forth, the punitive 

damages allegations contained in paragraphs 130 through 137 and 155. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as set 

forth herein.

///

///

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

109 of 129
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

110 of 129
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTE TL E R L LP ATTOR NE YS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

EXHIBIT E 

QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q, PG&E CORPORATION AND PACIFIC GAS 

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

111 of 129
1 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C., 20549

FORM 10-Q 

(Mark One)

[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017

OR

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ___________ to __________

Commission

File

Number

_______________

Exact Name of

Registrant

as Specified

in its Charter

_______________

State or Other

Jurisdiction of

Incorporation

______________

IRS Employer

Identification

Number

___________

1-12609 PG&E Corporation California 94-3234914

1-2348 Pacific Gas and Electric Company California 94-0742640

PG&E Corporation

77 Beale Street

P.O. Box 770000

San Francisco, California 94177

________________________________________

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

77 Beale Street

P.O. Box 770000

San Francisco, California 94177

______________________________________

Address of principal executive offices, including zip code

PG&E Corporation

(415) 973-1000

______________________________________

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

(415) 973-7000

_____________________________________

Registrant's telephone number, including area code

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing 

requirements for the past 90 days. 

PG&E Corporation: [X] Yes [ ] No

Pacific Gas and Electric Company: [X] Yes [ ] No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File 

required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such 

shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

PG&E Corporation: [X] Yes [ ] No

Pacific Gas and Electric Company: [X] Yes [ ] No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an 

emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company”, and “emerging growth 

company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

PG&E Corporation: [X] Large accelerated filer [ ] Accelerated filer

[ ] Non-accelerated filer (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

 [ ] Smaller reporting company [ ] Emerging growth company

Pacific Gas and Electric Company: [ ] Large accelerated filer [ ] Accelerated filer

[X] Non-accelerated filer (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

[ ] Smaller reporting company [ ] Emerging growth company

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new 

or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. 

PG&E Corporation: [ ]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company: [ ] 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

PG&E Corporation: [ ] Yes [X] No

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

112 of 129
2 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company: [ ] Yes [X] No

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Common stock outstanding as of October 24, 2017:

PG&E Corporation: 514,422,806

Pacific Gas and Electric Company: 264,374,809

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

113 of 129
3 

PG&E CORPORATION AND

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

FORM 10-Q 

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION......................................................................................................................................... 6

ITEM 1. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

PG&E CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME........................................................................................... 6

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ........................................................ 7

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS......................................................................................................... 8

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS ............................................................................... 10

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME......................................................................................... 12

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ...................................................... 13

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS....................................................................................................... 14

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS ............................................................................... 16

NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)

NOTE 1: ORGANIZATION AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION.......................................................................................... 18

NOTE 2: SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES............................................................................................................ 18

NOTE 3: REGULATORY ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND BALANCING ACCOUNTS...................................................... 24

NOTE 4: DEBT........................................................................................................................................................................ 25

NOTE 5: EQUITY ................................................................................................................................................................... 26

NOTE 6: EARNINGS PER SHARE........................................................................................................................................ 27

NOTE 7: DERIVATIVES........................................................................................................................................................ 27

NOTE 8: FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 27

NOTE 9: CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS .......................................................................................................... 35

NOTE 10: SUBSEQUENT EVENTS .................................................................................................................................... 444

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

OVERVIEW............................................................................................................................................................................. 46

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS................................................................................................................................................. 51

LIQUIDITY AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES...................................................................................................................... 55

ENFORCEMENT AND LITIGATION MATTERS................................................................................................................ 59

REGULATORY MATTERS ................................................................................................................................................... 59

FEDERAL INITIATIVES........................................................................................................................................................ 66

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS............................................................................................................................................ 66

CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS...................................................................................................................................... 67

RISK MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................... 67

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES.................................................................................................................................. 67

ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ISSUED BUT NOT YET ADOPTED.................................................................................. 67

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS................................................................................................................................ 67

ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION.............................................................................................................................................. 73

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS

ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 6. EXHIBITS

SIGNATURES

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

114 of 129
4 

GLOSSARY

The following terms and abbreviations appearing in the text of this report have the meanings indicated below.

2016 Form 10-K PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company's combined Annual Report on 

Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016

AFUDC allowance for funds used during construction

ALJ administrative law judge

ARO asset retirement obligation

ASU accounting standard update issued by the FASB (see below)

CAISO California Independent System Operator 

Cal Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

CARB California Air Resources Board

CCA Community Choice Aggregator

CEC California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission

CO2 carbon dioxide

CEMA Catastrophic Event Memorandum Account

CP cathodic protection

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission

CRRs congestion revenue rights

DER distributed energy resources

DIDF Distribution Investment Deferral Framework

Diablo Canyon Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant

DOGGR Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

DRP electric distribution resources plan

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

EDA equity distribution agreement

EPS earnings per common share

EV electric vehicle

FASB Financial Accounting Standards Board

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GAAP U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

GHG greenhouse gas

GRC general rate case

GT&S gas transmission and storage

IOU(s) investor-owned utility(ies)

IRS Internal Revenue Service

MD&A Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations set 

forth in Item 2, of this Form 10-Q

NAV net asset value

NDCTP Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceedings

NEIL Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

OES State of California Office of Emergency Services

OII order instituting investigation

OIR order instituting rulemaking

ORA Office of Ratepayer Advocates

PCIA Power Charge Indifference Adjustment

PD proposed decision

PFM petition for modification

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

115 of 129
5 

ROE return on equity

SEC U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

SED Safety and Enforcement Division of the CPUC

TE transportation electrification

TO transmission owner

TURN The Utility Reform Network

Utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company

VIE(s) variable interest entity(ies)

WEMA Wildfire Expense Memorandum Account

Westinghouse Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

116 of 129
6 

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

PG&E CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

(Unaudited)

Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended

September 30, September 30,

(in millions, except per share amounts) 2017 2016 2017 2016

Operating Revenues

Electric $ 3,648 $ 3,994 $ 10,036 $ 10,590

Natural gas 869 816 2,999 2,363

Total operating revenues 4,517 4,810 13,035 12,953

Operating Expenses

Cost of electricity 1,466 1,613 3,436 3,719

Cost of natural gas 78 80 524 377

Operating and maintenance 1,364 1,783 4,414 5,631

Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning 710 694 2,134 2,090

Total operating expenses 3,618 4,170 10,508 11,817

Operating Income 899 640 2,527 1,136

Interest income 9 8 22 17

Interest expense (220) (211) (663) (621)

Other income, net 25 24 59 74

Income Before Income Taxes 713 461 1,945 606

Income tax provision (benefit) 160 70 403 (105)

Net Income 553 391 1,542 711

Preferred stock dividend requirement of subsidiary 3 3 10 10

Income Available for Common Shareholders $ 550 $ 388 $ 1,532 $ 701

Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding, Basic 513 501 511 497

Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding, Diluted 516 503 514 500

Net Earnings Per Common Share, Basic $ 1.07 $ 0.77 $ 3.00 $ 1.41

Net Earnings Per Common Share, Diluted $ 1.07 $ 0.77 $ 2.98 $ 1.40

Dividends Declared Per Common Share $ 0.53 $ 0.49 $ 1.55 $ 1.44

See accompanying Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

117 of 129
7 

PG&E CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(Unaudited)

Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended

September 30, September 30,

(in millions) 2017 2016 2017 2016

Net Income $ 553 $ 391 $ 1,542 $ 711

Other Comprehensive Income 

Pension and other postretirement benefit plans obligations

(net of taxes of $0, $0, $0 and $0, at respective dates) - - 1 -

Total other comprehensive income (loss) - - 1 -

Comprehensive Income 553 391 1,543 711

Preferred stock dividend requirement of subsidiary 3 3 10 10

Comprehensive Income Attributable to

Common Shareholders $ 550 $ 388 $ 1,533 $ 701

See accompanying Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

118 of 129
8 

PG&E CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

Balance At

September 30, December 31,

(in millions) 2017 2016

ASSETS

Current Assets

Cash and cash equivalents $ 191 $ 177

Restricted cash 7 7

Accounts receivable:

Customers (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $58 

at both periods) 1,368 1,252

Accrued unbilled revenue 972 1,098

Regulatory balancing accounts 1,478 1,500

Other 992 801

Regulatory assets 573 423

Inventories:

Gas stored underground and fuel oil 138 117

Materials and supplies 360 346

Income taxes receivable 25 160

Other 279 283

Total current assets 6,383 6,164

Property, Plant, and Equipment

Electric 54,148 52,556

Gas 18,938 17,853

Construction work in progress 2,421 2,184

Other 2 2

Total property, plant, and equipment 75,509 72,595

Accumulated depreciation (22,986) (22,014)

Net property, plant, and equipment 52,523 50,581

Other Noncurrent Assets

Regulatory assets 8,546 7,951

Nuclear decommissioning trusts 2,793 2,606

Income taxes receivable 52 70

Other 1,229 1,226

Total other noncurrent assets 12,620 11,853

TOTAL ASSETS $ 71,526 $ 68,598

See accompanying Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

119 of 129
9 

PG&E CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

Balance At

September 30, December 31,

(in millions, except share amounts) 2017 2016

LIABILITIES AND EQUITY

Current Liabilities

Short-term borrowings $ 869 $ 1,516

Long-term debt, classified as current 700 700

Accounts payable:

Trade creditors 1,419 1,495

Regulatory balancing accounts 1,328 645

Other 483 433

Disputed claims and customer refunds 240 236

Interest payable 163 216

Other 2,271 2,323

Total current liabilities 7,473 7,564

Noncurrent Liabilities 

Long-term debt 16,619 16,220

Regulatory liabilities 7,265 6,805

Pension and other postretirement benefits 2,707 2,641

Asset retirement obligations 4,758 4,684

Deferred income taxes 11,085 10,213

Other 2,333 2,279

Total noncurrent liabilities 44,767 42,842

Commitments and Contingencies (Note 9)

Equity

Shareholders' Equity

Common stock, no par value, authorized 800,000,000 shares;

513,773,072 and 506,891,874 shares outstanding at respective dates 12,560 12,198

Reinvested earnings 6,482 5,751

Accumulated other comprehensive loss (8) (9)

Total shareholders' equity 19,034 17,940

Noncontrolling Interest - Preferred Stock of Subsidiary 252 252

Total equity 19,286 18,192

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY $ 71,526 $ 68,598

See accompanying Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

120 of 129
10

PG&E CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

Nine Months Ended September 30,

(in millions) 2017 2016

Cash Flows from Operating Activities

Net income $ 1,542 $ 711

Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by

operating activities:

Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning 2,134 2,090

Allowance for equity funds used during construction (63) (84)

Deferred income taxes and tax credits, net 848 644

Disallowed capital expenditures 47 517

Other 204 293

Effect of changes in operating assets and liabilities:

 Accounts receivable (58) (283)

 Butte-related insurance receivable (166) (263)

 Inventories (35) (38)

 Accounts payable 76 189

 Butte-related third-party claims 12 321

 Income taxes receivable/payable 135 (63)

 Other current assets and liabilities 23 (32)

 Regulatory assets, liabilities, and balancing accounts, net (30) (634)

Other noncurrent assets and liabilities 68 (85)

Net cash provided by operating activities 4,737 3,283

Cash Flows from Investing Activities

Capital expenditures (3,938) (4,128)

Decrease in restricted cash - 66

Proceeds from sales and maturities of nuclear decommissioning

trust investments 1,043 1,019

Purchases of nuclear decommissioning trust investments (1,071) (1,050)

Other 16 10

Net cash used in investing activities (3,950) (4,083)

Cash Flows from Financing Activities

Net issuances (repayments) of commercial paper, net of discount of

 $4 and $5 at respective dates (652) (128)

Short-term debt financing 250 250

Short-term debt matured (250) -

Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt, net of discount and

 issuance costs of $11 and $6 at respective dates 734 594

Long-term debt matured or repurchased (345) -

Common stock issued 345 727

Common stock dividends paid (754) (678)

Other (101) (17)

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities (773) 748

Net change in cash and cash equivalents 14 (52)

Cash and cash equivalents at January 1 177 123

Cash and cash equivalents at September 30 $ 191 $ 71

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

121 of 129
11

Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information

Cash received (paid) for: 

Interest, net of amounts capitalized $ (644) $ (611)

Income taxes, net 158 154

Supplemental disclosures of noncash investing and financing activities

Common stock dividends declared but not yet paid $ 272 $ 248

Capital expenditures financed through accounts payable 301 325

Noncash common stock issuances 16 15

See accompanying Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

122 of 129
12

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

(Unaudited)

Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended

September 30, September 30,

(in millions) 2017 2016 2017 2016

Operating Revenues 

Electric $ 3,647 $ 3,993 $ 10,038 $ 10,590

Natural gas 869 816 2,999 2,363

Total operating revenues 4,516 4,809 13,037 12,953

Operating Expenses 

Cost of electricity 1,466 1,613 3,436 3,719

Cost of natural gas 78 80 524 377

Operating and maintenance 1,428 1,782 4,477 5,630

Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning 710 694 2,134 2,090

Total operating expenses 3,682 4,169 10,571 11,816

Operating Income 834 640 2,466 1,137

Interest income 10 8 22 16

Interest expense (217) (209) (655) (614)

Other income, net 24 23 52 68

Income Before Income Taxes 651 462 1,885 607

Income tax provision (benefit) 138 73 394 (99)

Net Income 513 389 1,491 706

Preferred stock dividend requirement 3 3 10 10

Income Available for Common Stock $ 510 $ 386 $ 1,481 $ 696

See accompanying Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

123 of 129
13

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(Unaudited)

Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended

September 30, September 30,

(in millions) 2017 2016 2017 2016

Net Income $ 513 $ 389 $ 1,491 $ 706

Other Comprehensive Income 

Pension and other postretirement benefit plans obligations

(net of taxes of $0, $0, $0 and $0, at respective dates ) - - 1 1

Total other comprehensive income (loss) - - 1 1

Comprehensive Income $ 513 $ 389 $ 1,492 $ 707

See accompanying Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

124 of 129
14

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

Balance At

September 30, December 31,

(in millions) 2017 2016

ASSETS

Current Assets

Cash and cash equivalents $ 70 $ 71

Restricted cash 7 7

Accounts receivable:

Customers (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $58 

 at both periods) 1,368 1,252

Accrued unbilled revenue 972 1,098

Regulatory balancing accounts 1,478 1,500

Other 992 801

Regulatory assets 573 423

Inventories:

Gas stored underground and fuel oil 138 117

Materials and supplies 360 346

Income taxes receivable 24 159

Other 279 282

Total current assets 6,261 6,056

Property, Plant, and Equipment

Electric 54,148 52,556

Gas 18,938 17,853

Construction work in progress 2,421 2,184

Total property, plant, and equipment 75,507 72,593

Accumulated depreciation (22,984) (22,012)

Net property, plant, and equipment 52,523 50,581

Other Noncurrent Assets

Regulatory assets 8,546 7,951

Nuclear decommissioning trusts 2,793 2,606

Income taxes receivable 52 70

Other 1,104 1,110

Total other noncurrent assets 12,495 11,737

TOTAL ASSETS $ 71,279 $ 68,374

See accompanying Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

125 of 129
15

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

Balance At

September 30, December 31,

(in millions, except share amounts) 2017 2016

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY

Current Liabilities

Short-term borrowings $ 869 $ 1,516

Long-term debt, classified as current 700 700

Accounts payable:

Trade creditors 1,419 1,494

Regulatory balancing accounts 1,328 645

Other 502 453

Disputed claims and customer refunds 240 236

Interest payable 163 214

Other 1,999 2,072

Total current liabilities 7,220 7,330

Noncurrent Liabilities 

Long-term debt 16,270 15,872

Regulatory liabilities 7,265 6,805

Pension and other postretirement benefits 2,612 2,548

Asset retirement obligations 4,758 4,684

Deferred income taxes 11,377 10,510

Other 2,279 2,230

Total noncurrent liabilities 44,561 42,649

Commitments and Contingencies (Note 9)

Shareholders' Equity

Preferred stock 258 258

Common stock, $5 par value, authorized 800,000,000 shares;

264,374,809 shares outstanding at respective dates 1,322 1,322

Additional paid-in capital 8,455 8,050

Reinvested earnings 9,460 8,763

Accumulated other comprehensive income 3 2

Total shareholders' equity 19,498 18,395

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY $ 71,279 $ 68,374

See accompanying Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

126 of 129
16

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

Nine Months Ended September 30,

(in millions) 2017 2016

Cash Flows from Operating Activities 

Net income $ 1,491 $ 706

Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by

operating activities: 

Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning 2,134 2,090

Allowance for equity funds used during construction (63) (84)

Deferred income taxes and tax credits, net 848 648

 Disallowed capital expenditures 47 517

 Other 196 234

Effect of changes in operating assets and liabilities:

Accounts receivable (58) (283)

Butte-related insurance receivable (166) (263)

Inventories (35) (38)

Accounts payable 76 194

Butte-related third-party claims 12 321

Income taxes receivable/payable 135 (64)

Other current assets and liabilities 36 (28)

Regulatory assets, liabilities, and balancing accounts, net (30) (634)

 Other noncurrent assets and liabilities 69 (75)

Net cash provided by operating activities 4,692 3,241

Cash Flows from Investing Activities 

Capital expenditures (3,938) (4,128)

Decrease in restricted cash - 66

Proceeds from sales and maturities of nuclear decommissioning

trust investments 1,043 1,019

Purchases of nuclear decommissioning trust investments (1,071) (1,050)

Other 16 10

Net cash used in investing activities (3,950) (4,083)

Cash Flows from Financing Activities 

Net issuances (repayments) of commercial paper, net of discount of

 $4 and $5 at respective dates (652) (293)

Short-term debt financing 250 250

Short-term debt matured (250) -

Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt, net of discount and

 issuance costs of $11 and $6 at respective dates 734 594

Long-term debt matured or repurchased (345) -

Preferred stock dividends paid (10) (10)

Common stock dividends paid (784) (423)

Equity contribution from PG&E Corporation 405 740

Other (91) (7)

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities (743) 851

Net change in cash and cash equivalents (1) 9

Cash and cash equivalents at January 1 71 59

Cash and cash equivalents at September 30 $ 70 $ 68

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

127 of 129
17

Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information 

Cash received (paid) for: 

Interest, net of amounts capitalized $ (636) $ (602)

Income taxes, net 158 151

Supplemental disclosures of noncash investing and financing activities

Common stock dividends declared but not yet paid $ - $ 244

Capital expenditures financed through accounts payable 301 325

See accompanying Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

128 of 129
18

NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)

NOTE 1: ORGANIZATION AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION

PG&E Corporation is a holding company whose primary operating subsidiary is Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a public utility 

serving northern and central California. The Utility generates revenues mainly through the sale and delivery of electricity and 

natural gas to customers. The Utility is primarily regulated by the CPUC and the FERC. In addition, the NRC oversees the 

licensing, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Utility’s nuclear generation facilities.

This quarterly report on Form 10-Q is a combined report of PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation’s Condensed 

Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of PG&E Corporation, the Utility, and other wholly owned and controlled 

subsidiaries. The Utility’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of the Utility and its wholly owned 

and controlled subsidiaries. All intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. The Notes to the Condensed 

Consolidated Financial Statements apply to both PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation and the Utility assess 

financial performance and allocate resources on a consolidated basis (i.e., the companies operate in one segment). 

The accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in conformity with GAAP and in 

accordance with the interim period reporting requirements of Form 10-Q and reflect all adjustments (consisting only of normal 

recurring adjustments) that management believes are necessary for the fair presentation of PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s 

financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows for the periods presented. The information at December 31, 2016 in the 

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets included in this quarterly report was derived from the audited Consolidated Balance 

Sheets in the 2016 Form 10-K. This quarterly report should be read in conjunction with the 2016 Form 10-K. 

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the 

reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. Some of the 

more significant estimates and assumptions relate to the Utility’s regulatory assets and liabilities, legal and regulatory 

contingencies, insurance recoveries, environmental remediation liabilities, AROs, and pension and other postretirement benefit 

plans obligations. Management believes that its estimates and assumptions reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Financial 

Statements are appropriate and reasonable. A change in management’s estimates or assumptions could result in an adjustment that 

would have a material impact on PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s financial condition and results of operations during the 

period in which such change occurred. 

Beginning on October 8, 2017, multiple wildfires spread through Northern California, including Napa, Sonoma, Butte, Humboldt, 

Mendocino, Del Norte, Lake, Nevada, and Yuba Counties, as well as in the area surrounding Yuba City (the “Northern California 

wildfires”). According to the Cal Fire California Statewide Fire Summary dated October 30, 2017, at the peak of the wildfires, 

there were 21 major wildfires in California that, in total, burned over 245,000 acres, resulted in 43 fatalities, and destroyed an 

estimated 8,900 structures. The causes of these fires are being investigated by Cal Fire and the CPUC, including the possible role 

of the Utility’s power lines and other facilities. See Note 10 below. 

NOTE 2: SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The significant accounting policies used by PG&E Corporation and the Utility are discussed in Note 2 of the Notes to the 

Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2016 Form 10-K.

Variable Interest Entities

A VIE is an entity that does not have sufficient equity at risk to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial 

support from other parties, or whose equity investors lack any characteristics of a controlling financial interest. An enterprise that 

has a controlling financial interest in a VIE is a primary beneficiary and is required to consolidate the VIE. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page

129 of 129