EXHIBIT G

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4486-7 Filed: 10/25/19 Entered: 10/25/19 20:22:43 Page 1

of 6
10/21/2019 S&P Global Market Intelligence

https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/CreditResearch/RenderArticle.aspx?articleId=2168627&SctArtId=467165&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceOb... 2/6

Current Ratings View Analyst Contact Information Rate This Article

Credit FAQ:

Will California Still Have An Investment-Grade Investor-Owned Electric

Utility?

Feb 19, 2019

On Jan. 29, 2019, PG&E Corp. and subsidiary Pacific Gas & Electric Co. filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.

Bankruptcy Code, about two months after the start of the devastating Camp Fire. S&P Global Ratings has been actively

reexamining its assessment of California's regulatory construct for electric utilities. Our initial reassessment led to a one-notch

downgrade on Jan. 21, 2019, on Edison International (Edison) (BBB/Watch Neg/A-2) and its subsidiary, Southern California

Edison Co. (SCE) (BBB/Watch Neg/A-2), and a one-notch downgrade on Sempra Energy's (BBB+/Negative/A-2) subsidiary San

Diego Gas & Electric Co. (SDG&E) (BBB+/Negative/A-2). Furthermore, we indicated that we could lower the ratings on these

companies by one or more notches within the next few months. This raises the possibility that our issuer credit ratings (ICR) for all

of California's investor-owned regulated electric utilities could be below investment grade before the start of the 2019 wildfire

season. Here we address investors' most frequently asked questions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did PG&E's bankruptcy filing require S&P Global Ratings to reexamine its assessment of California's regulatory

construct for electric utilities?

Our view is that PG&E's management and board of directors filed for bankruptcy because of the potential for the company to incur

significant liabilities stemming from the 2017 and 2018 wildfires and the uncertainties regarding the prospects for and timing of

potential recoveries through the regulatory process. We believe that potential liability risks are significant in California and that the

regulatory mechanisms to resolve these risks are unclear at best. Consequently, we believe California electric utilities face

ongoing and unresolved risks related to future wildfires and, to the extent that this lack of clarity lingers, each of the other

California electric utilities could potentially follow PG&E's lead if faced with a catastrophic wildfire in 2019 or beyond. Furthermore,

the relatively short time line leading up to the board's determination that a voluntary bankruptcy was in the best interests of PG&E

and its stakeholders, only about two months after the catastrophic Camp Fire, also led us to reexamine our assessment of

California's regulatory construct for electric utilities.

Could a second California electric utility potentially file for voluntary bankruptcy in 2019?

We think it is possible. Without any regulatory reform, we view it as entirely possible that another electric utility could face a

devastating wildfire during the 2019 wildfire season and, depending on the magnitude and severity, its board of directors could

similarly determine that the best course of action would be to file for a voluntary bankruptcy before year-end 2019. In our view, the

rapid decline in creditworthiness--PG&E filed for Chapter 11 only two months after the Camp Fire--shows how quickly things can

change in California, given the current regulatory construct.

Does S&P Global Ratings believe that there is still time for California to take constructive steps that support credit

quality?

Yes. As we see it, there is a window of opportunity to bring clarity to the regulatory construct. However, that opening will start to

close at the beginning of the 2019 wildfire season. From a ratings perspective, we would need to see clear evidence that concrete

steps are being taken during this relatively short period to strengthen California's regulatory construct for electric utilities. Absent

clear evidence of leadership to identify concrete and realistic steps to reduce wildfire liability risks, S&P Global Ratings would

lower the ratings on Edison, SCE, and SDG&E by one or more notches.

When does S&P Global Ratings believe the California wildfire season begins?

While the start of California's wildfire season generally varies throughout the state, we believe that the wildfire season can start as

early as June.

What specific concrete steps does S&P Global Ratings believe are necessary for California's electric utilities to maintain

their credit quality?

Table of Contents

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4486-7 Filed: 10/25/19 Entered: 10/25/19 20:22:43 Page 2

of 6
10/21/2019 S&P Global Market Intelligence

https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/CreditResearch/RenderArticle.aspx?articleId=2168627&SctArtId=467165&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceOb... 3/6

Based on PG&E Corp.'s public disclosures, we believe that PG&E's board of directors determined to file for reorganization under

Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code because of the following underlying risks:

Potentially significant liabilities from the recent wildfires;

Uncertainties regarding the prospects for and timing of recovering such costs from ratepayers; and

The need for an orderly, fair, and expeditious process to resolve the potential wildfire liabilities.

We believe the significant liabilities that PG&E potentially faces from wildfires are a direct result of climate change and the

California courts' interpretation of the legal doctrine of inverse condemnation. Our ratings base case for California's electric utilities

assumes that climate change will persist and that California will continue to face catastrophic wildfires. We do not expect that

much can be accomplished in the near term to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires in the state, and we believe that inverse

condemnation will compound the risks California's electric utilities currently face. Under the legal doctrine of inverse

condemnation, if a California utility's facilities are determined to be the substantial cause of a wildfire, the utility could be liable for

all of the wildfire's property damage and other associated costs without the utility being negligent.

In our view, California's interpretation of the legal doctrine of inverse condemnation effectively makes California's electric utilities

the state's reinsurer, which creates new risks that were never envisioned when investor-owned utilities were established. We don't

believe that an electric utility is large enough, sufficiently diversified, or adequately capitalized to be a reinsurer. Overall, in our

view, the combination of climate change, frequent and severe wildfires, and California's interpretation of inverse condemnation, if

unaddressed, significantly raises the risk for California's electric utilities to a level inconsistent with any other North American

utility.

A second risk that PG&E cited was that it did not expect the California Public Utility Commission to permit the company to

securitize its wildfire costs on an expedited or emergency basis. PG&E also believed that it would likely take years to obtain

authorization to securitize the wildfire costs despite the company's assessment of the extraordinary challenges it faces. Under our

methodology, investment-grade utility ratings require a regulatory framework that is transparent, consistent, predictable, and

allows for timely cost recovery. In our view, a regulatory construct that lacks these foundational elements could subject the utility

to financial instability and lead us to revise downward our assessment of the regulatory framework's relative credit supportiveness.

California has been plagued with catastrophic wildfires for years. In our view, California's regulatory process to recover these

material wildfire costs is still unpredictable, relatively untested, and lacks transparency and uncertainly regarding the timeliness of

cost recovery.

Will any California investor-owned electric utility still have an investment-grade rating before the start of the 2019

wildfire season?

Possibly. We are actively monitoring what, if any, improvements will be implemented to the regulatory construct before the start of

the 2019 wildfire season. Absent concrete steps taken by regulators and/or politicians to reduce the risks for California's electric

utilities, S&P Global Ratings could lower the ratings on Edison, SCE, and SDG&E by one or more notches --indicative of the

possibility that the ICR on these companies could be below investment grade before the start of the 2019 wildfire season.

Florida's utilities are also at risk for natural disasters--why does S&P Global Ratings have an investment-grade rating on

all investor-owned electric utilities in Florida?

In our view, there are two key distinguishing factors between the regulatory construct in California and Florida. The first is inverse

condemnation and the second is recovery.

As mentioned, the legal doctrine of inverse condemnation that developed under California's common law holds a utility strictly

liable for damages arising from wildfires if its equipment is a substantial cause of the wildfire, regardless of the utility's negligence.

In our view, this makes California's utilities the state's reinsurer every time a wildfire destroys part of its service territory. For

example, assume a wildfire caused by a California utility without negligence had total damages of $5 billion, which included

damages to the utility's assets of just $100 million. The California utility could be liable for the entire amount of damages from the

catastrophic fire, or as much as $5 billion. In that same situation, under Florida law, the Florida utility would seek to recover from

ratepayers just the damage to its own assets or $100 million.

The second key difference is the recovery process. In Florida, utilities follow what we would characterize as a predictable and

reliable process to recover their costs following a catastrophic hurricane. Florida utilities can petition for the recovery of storm Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4486-7 Filed: 10/25/19 Entered: 10/25/19 20:22:43 Page 3

of 6
10/21/2019 S&P Global Market Intelligence

https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/CreditResearch/RenderArticle.aspx?articleId=2168627&SctArtId=467165&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceOb... 4/6

costs without being subject to an earnings test and the state has allowed for the securitization of these costs. These creditsupportive measures in Florida have been implemented many times and reduce the credit risks associated with the state's

unpredictable weather conditions. In contrast, the California recovery process is untested and uncertain. PG&E identified this risk

in its bankruptcy filing, citing the uncertainty surrounding the timing and amounts, if any, it could recover following the 2017 and

2018 wildfires. The lack of a well-defined and timely process to adequately quantify and recover wildfire costs, in our view, is a

second material distinction for California's regulatory construct.

Would a loss of investor confidence in California electric utilities be significant?

We think so. Utilities are different from most industrial companies because they generally operate with negative discretionary cash

flow, reflecting the high capital spending necessary to maintain and improve their electrical systems. To offset this risk, we think a

utility's credit quality depends on its operating under a credit-supportive regulatory construct that is consistent and predictable.

Also, because utilities have negative discretionary cash flow their creditworthiness is linked to reliable access to the capital

markets to operate their businesses. If investor confidence in the California construct wanes, a utility's access to the capital

markets may be limited and its cost of capital may increase. In our view, the lack of consistent access to the capital markets or

lack of steady affordable capital can add considerable strain to a utility's business model.

Are the SCE and SDG&E service territories susceptible to wildfires?

Yes. In our view, both service territories face wildfire risks. SCE's operating territory has had major catastrophic wildfires in each of

the past two seasons. Many wildfires have also occurred in San Diego County over this timeframe, but have either been

insignificant or SDG&E has not been determined to be the cause of these wildfires. Therefore, SDG&E has not been financially

responsible for a major devastating wildfire over the past decade. Although the topography differs greatly throughout California,

and the management of this issue by a utility can mitigate some of the risks, given the increasing effects of climate change, S&P

Global Ratings assumes that all of California's regulated electric utilities are susceptible to catastrophic wildfire-related risks.

Does S&P Global Ratings take into account SDG&E's state-of-the-art technological system?

Yes. In our view, SDG&E has one of the most sophisticated advanced wildfire warning systems in the world. The company has

invested in hundreds of weather stations and fire cameras that have the capability to identify when specific areas could be most

susceptible to a wildfire. Furthermore, after a wildfire starts, the utility's fire camera system is equipped with the technology to

identify the wildfire's GPS coordinates. This information is relayed to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,

which determines the most appropriate course of action to extinguish the fire at its earliest stage.

The company's advance warning system has already prevented at least one wildfire that potentially could have been catastrophic.

However, despite this advanced warning system, we don't think the utility is immune to the risk of a devastating wildfires. We

believe that all California electric utilities are susceptible to potential liabilities from wildfires because of environmental changes

and high winds that could spread the fire at a rate that outpaces the capabilities of the the first responders. While SDG&E is

certainly not immune to wildfire risks, because of the company's advanced operations, S&P Global Ratings has consistently rated

the company higher than its California electric utility peers.

If SDG&E is downgraded would S&P Global Ratings also downgrade Sempra Energy?

Probably. To date, we have lowered our rating on SDG&E by two notches due to the uncertainty regarding California's regulatory

construct but have maintained our ICR on SDG&E's parent, Sempra Energy. Currently, our ICR on SDG&E is the same as our

rating on Sempra Energy. Because SDG&E accounts for about 35% of consolidated Sempra, a further downgrade of SDG&E to

below our Sempra ICR would likely result in a weaker credit assessment at the consolidated parent and would likely result in a

downgrade to Sempra Energy.

Can senior secured first-mortgage bonds be rated above the issuer credit rating?

Yes. First-mortgage bonds (FMB) issue ratings can be notched above our ICR on a regulated utility depending on the rating

category and our recovery rating, which is based on the extent of the collateral coverage. FMBs benefit from a first-priority lien on

substantially all of the utility's real property owned or subsequently acquired. Collateral coverage of over 1.5x supports a recovery

rating of '1+' and an issue rating of two notches above the ICR in the 'BBB' category, and three notches above the ICR in the

speculative-grade category.

Can senior unsecured bonds be rated above the issuer credit rating?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4486-7 Filed: 10/25/19 Entered: 10/25/19 20:22:43 Page 4

of 6
10/21/2019 S&P Global Market Intelligence

https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/CreditResearch/RenderArticle.aspx?articleId=2168627&SctArtId=467165&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceOb... 5/6

Do you have any comments?

How helpful was this article?

Yes, but only in certain situations. If an ICR on a regulated utility is investment grade ('BBB-' or higher), the senior unsecured

bonds cannot be rated above the ICR. If the ICR on a utility is speculative grade ('BB+' or lower), then notching will depend on the

recovery rating and the ICR level.

If the utility ICR is in the 'BB' category, we could rate the senior unsecured bonds one notch above the ICR if we determine that

under a hypothetical default scenario, we assess substantial recovery for the unsecured bondholders (recovery of 70% or

greater), consistent with a recovery rating of '2'. If we rate the ICR on a utility 'B+' or lower, we could rate the senior unsecured

bonds two notches above the ICR if we assign the unsecured debt a '1' recovery rating (recovery of greater than 90%) or one

notch above the ICR if we assign the unsecured debt a '2' recovery rating (recovery of 70%-90%) in a simulated default scenario.

For unsecured holding company debt, we cap the recovery ratings at '3' (recovery of 50%-70%) for companies in the 'BB'

category and at '2' for companies rated below 'B+'.

Related Criteria And Research

Related Research

PG&E Corp. Downgraded To 'D' On Bankruptcy Filing; Subsidiary Debt Lowered To 'D', Jan. 29, 2019

Edison International And Subsidiary Southern California Edison Downgraded To 'BBB'; Ratings Placed On Watch Negative, Jan. 21, 2019

San Diego Gas & Electric Co. Downgraded To 'BBB+', Outlook Remains Negative, Jan. 21, 2019

What's Behind Our Multi-Notch Downgrade Of PG&E Corp.?, Jan. 11, 2019

Sempra Energy And Southern California Gas Co. Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Remains Negative, Sept. 5, 2018

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Primary Credit Analyst: Gabe Grosberg, New York (1) 212-438-6043;

gabe.grosberg@spglobal.com

Secondary Contact: Rebecca Ai, New York + (212) 438-7278;

rebecca.ai@spglobal.com

Recovery Analyst: Steve H Wilkinson, CFA, New York (1) 212-438-5093;

steve.wilkinson@spglobal.com

Rate This Article

Go

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or

any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a

database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of S&P Global Market Intelligence or its affiliates (collectively, S&P

Global). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P Global and any third-party providers, as well as

their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Global Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy,

completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Global Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or

otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data

input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P GLOBAL PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED

WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE

OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR

THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Global Parties be

liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs,

expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by

negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. 

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are

expressed and not statements of fact. S&P Global Market Intelligence’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions

(described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not

address the suitability of any security. S&P Global Market Intelligence assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication

in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its

management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P Global Market Intelligence

does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P Global Market Intelligence has obtained

information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P Global Market Intelligence does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of

due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of

reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic

update on a credit rating and related analyses. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4486-7 Filed: 10/25/19 Entered: 10/25/19 20:22:43 Page 5

of 6
10/21/2019 S&P Global Market Intelligence

https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/CreditResearch/RenderArticle.aspx?articleId=2168627&SctArtId=467165&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceOb... 6/6

S&P Global keeps certain activities of its divisions separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of

their respective activities. As a result, certain divisions of S&P Global may have information that is not available to other S&P Global

divisions. S&P Global has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in

connection with each analytical process. 

S&P Global Ratings does not contribute to or participate in the creation of credit scores generated by S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Lowercase nomenclature is used to differentiate S&P Global Market Intelligence PD credit model scores from the credit ratings issued by

S&P Global Ratings. 

S&P Global may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from

obligors. S&P Global reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P Global's public ratings and analyses are made

available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.capitaliq.com (subscription), and may be

distributed through other means, including via S&P Global publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our

ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.

Processing time: 0.226999999998952

PageId: 1765

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4486-7 Filed: 10/25/19 Entered: 10/25/19 20:22:43 Page 6

of 6