Pacific Gas & Electric (PCG)

California Energy Crisis Proceedings

FERC Proceedings

Various entities, including the Utility and the state of California are seeking up to $8.9 billion in refunds for electricity overcharges on behalf of California electricity purchasers for the period May 2000 to June 2001 through a proceeding pending at the FERC. This proceeding, the Refund Proceeding, commenced on August 2, 2000 when a complaint was filed against all suppliers in the ISO and PX markets. On July 25, 2001, the FERC held that refunds would be available for certain overcharges, and established a process to determine the refunds but asserted that it could not order market-wide refunds for periods before October 2, 2000. In December 2002, a FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the Refund Proceeding finding that power suppliers overcharged the utilities, the state of California and other buyers approximately $1.8 billion from October 2, 2000 to June 20, 2001, but that California buyers still owe the power suppliers approximately $3.0 billion, leaving approximately $1.2 billion in net unpaid bills.

In March 2003, the FERC confirmed most of the ALJ’s findings in the Refund Proceeding, but partially modified the refund methodology to include use of a new natural gas price methodology as the basis for mitigated prices. The FERC indicated that it would consider later allowances claimed by sellers for natural gas costs above the natural gas prices in the refund methodology. The FERC directed the ISO and the PX (which operates solely to reconcile remaining refund amounts owed) to make compliance filings establishing refund amounts. The ISO has indicated that it plans to make its compliance filing during the first half of 2005 with the PX to follow. In October 2003, the FERC affirmed its March 2003 decision and various parties appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Briefs have been submitted concerning which power suppliers are subject to refunds, the appropriate time period for which refunds can be ordered, and which transactions are subject to refunds. These matters will be argued before the Ninth Circuit on April 12 and 13, 2005, and a decision is expected in the following months.

The final refunds will not be determined until the FERC issues a final decision in the Refund Proceeding, following the ISO and PX compliance filings and the resolution of the appeals of the FERC’s orders. In addition, future refunds could increase or decrease as a result of retroactive adjustments proposed by the ISO, which incorporate revised data provided by the Utility and other entities.

In the FERC’s separate proceedings to investigate whether tariff violations occurred in the period before October 2, 2000, the FERC has asserted that it has the power to order power suppliers to disgorge any profits if the FERC finds that the tariffs in force at that time were violated or subject to manipulation. In September 2004, the Ninth Circuit found that the FERC has the authority to provide refunds for tariff violations involving inadequate transaction reporting for sales into the California spot markets throughout the period before October 2, 2000. The FERC has not yet acted on this finding and it is uncertain how it will be applied by the FERC.

California Energy Crisis Proceedings

FERC Proceedings

        Various entities, including the Utility and the state of California are seeking up to $8.9 billion in refunds for electricity overcharges on behalf of California electricity purchasers for the period May 2000 to June 2001 through a proceeding pending at the FERC. This proceeding, the Refund Proceeding, commenced on August 2, 2000 when a complaint was filed against all suppliers in the ISO and PX markets. On July 25, 2001, the FERC held that refunds would be available for certain overcharges, and established a process to determine the refunds but asserted that it could not order market-wide refunds for periods before October 2, 2000. In December 2002, a FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the Refund Proceeding finding that power suppliers overcharged the utilities, the state of California and other buyers approximately $1.8 billion from October 2, 2000 to June 20, 2001, but that California buyers still owe the power suppliers approximately $3.0 billion, leaving approximately $1.2 billion in net unpaid bills.

        In March 2003, the FERC confirmed most of the ALJ's findings in the Refund Proceeding, but partially modified the refund methodology to include use of a new natural gas price methodology as the basis for mitigated prices. The FERC indicated that it would consider later allowances claimed by sellers for natural gas costs above the natural gas prices in the refund methodology. The FERC directed the ISO and the PX (which operates solely to reconcile remaining refund amounts owed) to make compliance filings establishing refund amounts. The ISO has indicated that it plans to make its compliance filing during the first half of 2005 with the PX to follow. In October 2003, the FERC affirmed its March 2003 decision and various parties appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Briefs have been submitted concerning which power suppliers are subject to refunds, the appropriate time period for which refunds can be ordered, and which transactions are subject to refunds. These matters will be argued before the Ninth Circuit on April 12 and 13, 2005, and a decision is expected in the following months.

        The final refunds will not be determined until the FERC issues a final decision in the Refund Proceeding, following the ISO and PX compliance filings and the resolution of the appeals of the FERC's orders. In addition, future refunds could increase or decrease as a result of retroactive adjustments proposed by the ISO, which incorporate revised data provided by the Utility and other entities.

        In the FERC's separate proceedings to investigate whether tariff violations occurred in the period before October 2, 2000, the FERC has asserted that it has the power to order power suppliers to disgorge any profits if the FERC finds that the tariffs in force at that time were violated or subject to manipulation. In September 2004, the Ninth Circuit found that the FERC has the authority to provide refunds for tariff violations involving inadequate transaction reporting for sales into the California spot markets throughout the period before October 2, 2000. The FERC has not yet acted on this finding and it is uncertain how it will be applied by the FERC.

135

        The Utility recorded approximately $1.8 billion of claims filed by various electricity generators in its Chapter 11 proceeding as liabilities subject to compromise. This amount is subject to a pre-petition offset of approximately $200 million, reducing the net liability recorded to approximately $1.6 billion. Under a bankruptcy court order, the aggregate allowable amount of ISO, PX and generator claims was limited to approximately $1.6 billion. The Utility currently estimates that the claims would have been reduced to approximately $1.0 billion based on the refund methodology recommended in the FERC ALJ's initial decision. The revised methodology adopted by the FERC's March 2003 decision could further reduce the amount by several hundred million dollars, offset by the amount of any additional fuel cost allowance for suppliers.

        The Utility has entered into settlements with various power suppliers resolving the Utility's claims against these power suppliers. As discussed in Note 1, as of December 31, 2004, the Utility has recorded offsets to the Settlement Regulatory Asset of approximately $309 million, pre-tax ($183 million, after-tax) in connection with settlements. The final net after-tax amount of any amounts received by the Utility under future settlements with energy suppliers will be credited to customers, either as a reduction to the principal amount of the second series of ERBs, anticipated to be issued in November 2005, or if refunds are received after the second series of ERBs is issued, as a credit to the balancing account that tracks recovery of the customer costs and benefits related to the ERBs.

        As discussed in Note 13 below, in January 2005, the Utility and other parties entered into a settlement agreement with Mirant Corporation and its subsidiaries, to resolve Mirant's liability for FERC refunds, penalties and civil liabilities arising out of the California energy crisis. The settlement agreement is subject to approval by the FERC, the bankruptcy court overseeing Mirant's bankruptcy proceedings, and to the extent deemed necessary by the Utility, the bankruptcy court that retains jurisdiction over the Utility's Chapter 11 case. Although settlement discussions with a number of other major sellers and other market participants are continuing, the Utility cannot predict whether these settlement negotiations will be successful.