Docoh
Loading...

Sierra Pacific Power

Filed: 28 Feb 21, 7:00pm
0001081316us-gaap:OtherPostretirementBenefitPlansDefinedBenefitMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Memberbhe:DomesticEquitySecuritiesMember2020-12-310001081316country:USus-gaap:PensionPlansDefinedBenefitMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Memberbhe:PacificorpMemberbhe:ForeignEquitySecuritiesMember2019-12-310001081316bhe:MidamericanEnergyCompanyAndSubsidiariesMemberbhe:NoncontractswithcustomerrevenueMemberus-gaap:CorporateAndOtherMemberus-gaap:UnregulatedOperationMember2020-01-012020-12-310001081316bhe:EasternEnergyGasHoldingsLLCMemberus-gaap:DisposalGroupDisposedOfByMeansOtherThanSaleNotDiscontinuedOperationsMemberbhe:AffiliatedBalancesMemberbhe:DominionEnergyQuestarPipelineMember2020-01-012020-12-31

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

☒ Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020
or
☐ Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the transition period from ______ to _______
CommissionExact name of registrant as specified in its charter;IRS Employer
File NumberState or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organizationIdentification No.
001-14881BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY COMPANY94-2213782
(An Iowa Corporation)
666 Grand Avenue, Suite 500
Des Moines, Iowa 50309-2580
515-242-4300
001-05152 PACIFICORP 93-0246090
  (An Oregon Corporation)  
  825 N.E. Multnomah Street  
  Portland, Oregon 97232  
  888-221-7070  
333-90553MIDAMERICAN FUNDING, LLC47-0819200
(An Iowa Limited Liability Company)
666 Grand Avenue, Suite 500
Des Moines, Iowa 50309-2580
515-242-4300
333-15387MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY42-1425214
(An Iowa Corporation)
666 Grand Avenue, Suite 500
Des Moines, Iowa 50309-2580
515-242-4300
000-52378NEVADA POWER COMPANY88-0420104
(A Nevada Corporation)
6226 West Sahara Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89146
702-402-5000
000-00508SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY88-0044418
(A Nevada Corporation)
6100 Neil Road
Reno, Nevada 89511
775-834-4011
001-37591EASTERN ENERGY GAS HOLDINGS, LLC46-3639580
(A Virginia Limited Liability Company)
6603 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23230
804-613-5100



RegistrantSecurities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY COMPANYNone
PACIFICORPNone
MIDAMERICAN FUNDING, LLCNone
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANYNone
NEVADA POWER COMPANYNone
SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANYNone
EASTERN ENERGY GAS HOLDINGS, LLCNone
RegistrantName of exchange on which registered:
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY COMPANYNone
PACIFICORPNone
MIDAMERICAN FUNDING, LLCNone
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANYNone
NEVADA POWER COMPANYNone
SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANYNone
EASTERN ENERGY GAS HOLDINGS, LLCNone
RegistrantSecurities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY COMPANYNone
PACIFICORPNone
MIDAMERICAN FUNDING, LLCNone
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANYNone
NEVADA POWER COMPANYCommon Stock, $1.00 stated value
SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANYCommon Stock, $3.75 par value
EASTERN ENERGY GAS HOLDINGS, LLCNone

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
RegistrantYesNo
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY COMPANY
PACIFICORP
MIDAMERICAN FUNDING, LLC
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY
NEVADA POWER COMPANY
SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY
EASTERN ENERGY GAS HOLDINGS, LLC

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
RegistrantYesNo
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY COMPANY
PACIFICORP
MIDAMERICAN FUNDING, LLC
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY
NEVADA POWER COMPANY
SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY
EASTERN ENERGY GAS HOLDINGS, LLC




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.
RegistrantYesNo
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY COMPANY
PACIFICORP
MIDAMERICAN FUNDING, LLC
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY
NEVADA POWER COMPANY
SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY
EASTERN ENERGY GAS HOLDINGS, LLC

Indicate by check mark whether the registrants have submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted 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 registrants were required to submit such files).Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrants' knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a 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.
RegistrantLarge accelerated filerAccelerated filerNon-accelerated filerSmaller reporting companyEmerging growth company
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY COMPANY
PACIFICORP
MIDAMERICAN FUNDING, LLC
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY
NEVADA POWER COMPANY
SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY
EASTERN ENERGY GAS HOLDINGS, LLC

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrants have 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. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrants are a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).Yes ☐ No ☒

All shares of outstanding common stock of Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company are privately held by a limited group of investors. As of January 31, 2021, 76,368,874 shares of common stock, no par value, were outstanding.

All shares of outstanding common stock of PacifiCorp are indirectly owned by Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company. As of January 31, 2021, 357,060,915 shares of common stock, no par value, were outstanding.

All of the member's equity of MidAmerican Funding, LLC is held by its parent company, Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, as of January 31, 2021.All shares of outstanding common stock of MidAmerican Energy Company are owned by its parent company, MHC Inc., which is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of MidAmerican Funding, LLC. As of January 31, 2021, 70,980,203 shares of common stock, no par value, were outstanding.





All shares of outstanding common stock of Nevada Power Company and its subsidiaries are owned by its parent company, NV Energy, Inc., which is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company. As of January 31, 2021, 1,000 shares of common stock, $1.00 stated value, were outstanding.

All shares of outstanding common stock of Sierra Pacific Power Company are owned by its parent company, NV Energy, Inc. As of January 31, 2021, 1,000 shares of common stock, $3.75 par value, were outstanding.

All of the member's equity of Eastern Energy Gas Holdings, LLC is held indirectly by its parent company, Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, as of January 31, 2021.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, MidAmerican Funding, LLC and its subsidiaries, MidAmerican Energy Company, Nevada Power Company and its subsidiaries, Sierra Pacific Power Company and Eastern Energy Gas Holdings, LLC and its subsidiaries meet the conditions set forth in General Instruction I(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-K and are therefore filing portions of this Form 10-K with the reduced disclosure format specified in General Instruction I(2) of Form 10‑K.

This combined Form 10-K is separately filed by Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, PacifiCorp and its subsidiaries, MidAmerican Funding, LLC and its subsidiaries, MidAmerican Energy Company, Nevada Power Company and its subsidiaries, Sierra Pacific Power Company and Eastern Energy Gas Holdings, LLC and its subsidiaries. Information contained herein relating to any individual company is filed by such company on its own behalf. Each company makes no representation as to information relating to the other companies.




TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

i


Definition of Abbreviations and Industry Terms

When used in Forward-Looking Statements, Part I - Items 1 through 4, Part II - Items 5 through 7A, and Part III - Items 10 through 14, the following terms have the definitions indicated.
Entity Definitions
BHEBerkshire Hathaway Energy Company
Berkshire HathawayBerkshire Hathaway Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy or the CompanyBerkshire Hathaway Energy Company and its subsidiaries
PacifiCorpPacifiCorp and its subsidiaries
MidAmerican FundingMidAmerican Funding, LLC and its subsidiaries
MidAmerican EnergyMidAmerican Energy Company
NV EnergyNV Energy, Inc. and its subsidiaries
Nevada PowerNevada Power Company and its subsidiaries
Sierra PacificSierra Pacific Power Company
Nevada UtilitiesNevada Power Company and its subsidiaries and Sierra Pacific Power Company
Eastern Energy GasEastern Energy Gas Holdings, LLC and its subsidiaries
RegistrantsBerkshire Hathaway Energy Company, PacifiCorp and its subsidiaries, MidAmerican Funding, LLC and its subsidiaries, MidAmerican Energy Company, Nevada Power Company and its subsidiaries, Sierra Pacific Power Company and Eastern Energy Gas Holdings, LLC and its subsidiaries
Subsidiary RegistrantsPacifiCorp and its subsidiaries, MidAmerican Funding, LLC and its subsidiaries, MidAmerican Energy Company, Nevada Power Company and its subsidiaries, Sierra Pacific Power Company and Eastern Energy Gas Holdings, LLC and its subsidiaries
Northern PowergridNorthern Powergrid Holdings Company
BHE GT&SBHE GT&S, LLC
Northern Natural GasNorthern Natural Gas Company
Kern RiverKern River Gas Transmission Company
BHE CanadaBHE Canada Holdings Corporation
AltaLinkAltaLink, L.P.
BHE U.S. TransmissionBHE U.S. Transmission, LLC
HomeServicesHomeServices of America, Inc. and its subsidiaries
BHE Pipeline Group or Pipeline CompaniesBHE GT&S, LLC, Northern Natural Gas Company and Kern River Gas Transmission Company
BHE TransmissionBHE Canada Holdings Corporation and BHE U.S. Transmission, LLC
BHE RenewablesBHE Renewables, LLC and CalEnergy Philippines
ETTElectric Transmission Texas, LLC
Domestic Regulated BusinessesPacifiCorp and its subsidiaries, MidAmerican Energy Company, Nevada Power Company and its subsidiaries, Sierra Pacific Power Company, BHE GT&S, LLC, Northern Natural Gas Company and Kern River Gas Transmission Company
Regulated BusinessesPacifiCorp and its subsidiaries, MidAmerican Energy Company, Nevada Power Company and its subsidiaries, Sierra Pacific Power Company, BHE GT&S, LLC, Northern Natural Gas Company, Kern River Gas Transmission Company and AltaLink, L.P.
UtilitiesPacifiCorp and its subsidiaries, MidAmerican Energy Company, Nevada Power Company and its subsidiaries and Sierra Pacific Power Company
Northern Powergrid Distribution CompaniesNorthern Powergrid (Northeast) plc and Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc
TopazTopaz Solar Farms LLC
Topaz Project550-megawatt solar project in California
Agua CalienteAgua Caliente Solar, LLC
ii


Agua Caliente Project290-megawatt solar project in Arizona
Bishop Hill IIBishop Hill Energy II LLC
Bishop Hill Project81-megawatt wind-powered generating facility in Illinois
Pinyon Pines IPinyon Pines Wind I, LLC
Pinyon Pines IIPinyon Pines Wind II, LLC
Pinyon Pines Projects168-megawatt and 132-megawatt wind-powered generating facilities in California
Jumbo RoadJumbo Road Holdings, LLC
Jumbo Road Project300-megawatt wind-powered generating facility in Texas
Solar Star FundingSolar Star Funding, LLC
Solar Star ProjectsA combined 586-megawatt solar project in California
Solar Star ISolar Star California XIX, LLC
Solar Star IISolar Star California XX, LLC
Cove PointCove Point LNG, LP
EGTSEastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc.
GT&S TransactionThe acquisition of substantially all of the natural gas transmission and storage business of Dominion Energy and Dominion Questar, exclusive of the Questar Pipeline Group on November 1, 2020
DEIDominion Energy, Inc.
Dominion QuestarDominion Energy Questar Corporation
Questar Pipeline GroupDominion Energy Questar Pipeline, LLC and related entities
Liquefaction FacilityA natural gas export/liquefaction facility
Atlantic Coast PipelineAtlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC
Dominion Energy Gas RestructuringThe acquisition of DCP and Eastern MLP Holding Company II, LLC (formerly known as Dominion MLP Holding Company II, LLC) from, and the disposition of East Ohio and EGP to, DEI by Eastern Energy Gas Holdings, LLC on November 6, 2019
DCPCPMLP Holdings Company, LLC (formerly known as Dominion Cove Point, LLC)
Certain Industry Terms
2017 Tax ReformThe Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted on December 22, 2017, effective January 1, 2018
AESOAlberta Electric System Operator
AFUDCAllowance for Funds Used During Construction
AOCIAccumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
AROAsset Retirement Obligation
ASCAccounting Standards Codification
AUCAlberta Utilities Commission
BARTBest Available Retrofit Technology
BcfBillion cubic feet
BTERBase Tariff Energy Rate
California ISOCalifornia Independent System Operator Corporation
CCRCoal Combustion Residuals
COVID-19Coronavirus Disease 2019
CPUCCalifornia Public Utilities Commission
CSAPRCross-State Air Pollution Rule
D.C. CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
DEAADeferred Energy Accounting Adjustment
Dodd-Frank Reform ActDodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
DthDecatherm
iii


DSMDemand-side Management
EBAEnergy Balancing Account
ECACEnergy Cost Adjustment Clause
ECAMEnergy Cost Adjustment Mechanism
EEIREnergy Efficiency Implementation Rate
EEPREnergy Efficiency Program Rate
EIMEnergy Imbalance Market
EPAUnited States Environmental Protection Agency
ERCOTElectric Reliability Council of Texas
FERCFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
GAAPAccounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America
GEMAGas and Electricity Markets Authority
GHGGreenhouse Gases
GWhGigawatt Hour
ICCIllinois Commerce Commission
IPUCIdaho Public Utilities Commission
IRPIntegrated Resource Plan
IUBIowa Utilities Board
kVKilovolt
LNGLiquefied Natural Gas
LDCLocal Distribution Company
MATSMercury and Air Toxics Standards
MISOMidcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MWMegawatt
MWhMegawatt Hour
NAAQSNational Ambient Air Quality Standards
NERCNorth American Electric Reliability Corporation
NOx
Nitrogen Oxides
NRCNuclear Regulatory Commission
OATTOpen Access Transmission Tariff
OCAIowa Office of Consumer Advocate
OCIOther Comprehensive Income (Loss)
OfgemOffice of Gas and Electric Markets
OPUCOregon Public Utility Commission
PCAMPower Cost Adjustment Mechanism
PGAPurchased Gas Adjustment Clause
PTAMPost Test-year Adjustment Mechanism
PTCProduction Tax Credit
PUCNPublic Utilities Commission of Nevada
RCRAResource Conservation and Recovery Act
RACRenewable Adjustment Clause
RECRenewable Energy Credit
RPSRenewable Portfolio Standards
RRARenewable Energy Credit and Sulfur Dioxide Revenue Adjustment Mechanism
RTORegional Transmission Organization
SCRSelective Catalytic Reduction
SECUnited States Securities and Exchange Commission
iv


SIPState Implementation Plan
SO2
Sulfur Dioxide
TAMTransition Adjustment Mechanism
UPSCUtah Public Service Commission
VIEVariable Interest Entity
WECCWestern Electricity Coordinating Council
WPSCWyoming Public Service Commission
WUTCWashington Utilities and Transportation Commission
ZECZero Emission Credit

v


Forward-Looking Statements

This report contains statements that do not directly or exclusively relate to historical facts. These statements are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements can typically be identified by the use of forward-looking words, such as "will," "may," "could," "project," "believe," "anticipate," "expect," "estimate," "continue," "intend," "potential," "plan," "forecast" and similar terms. These statements are based upon the relevant Registrant's current intentions, assumptions, expectations and beliefs and are subject to risks, uncertainties and other important factors. Many of these factors are outside the control of each Registrant and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These factors include, among others:
general economic, political and business conditions, as well as changes in, and compliance with, laws and regulations, including income tax reform, initiatives regarding deregulation and restructuring of the utility industry, and reliability and safety standards, affecting the respective Registrant's operations or related industries;
changes in, and compliance with, environmental laws, regulations, decisions and policies that could, among other items, increase operating and capital costs, reduce facility output, accelerate facility retirements or delay facility construction or acquisition;
the outcome of regulatory rate reviews and other proceedings conducted by regulatory agencies or other governmental and legal bodies and the respective Registrant's ability to recover costs through rates in a timely manner;
changes in economic, industry, competition or weather conditions, as well as demographic trends, new technologies and various conservation, energy efficiency and private generation measures and programs, that could affect customer growth and usage, electricity and natural gas supply or the respective Registrant's ability to obtain long-term contracts with customers and suppliers;
performance, availability and ongoing operation of the respective Registrant's facilities, including facilities not operated by the Registrants, due to the impacts of market conditions, outages and repairs, transmission constraints, weather, including wind, solar and hydroelectric conditions, and operating conditions;
the effects of catastrophic and other unforeseen events, which may be caused by factors beyond the control of each respective Registrant or by a breakdown or failure of the Registrants' operating assets, including severe storms, floods, fires, earthquakes, explosions, landslides, an electromagnetic pulse, mining incidents, litigation, wars, terrorism, pandemics (including potentially in relation to COVID-19), embargoes, and cyber security attacks, data security breaches, disruptions, or other malicious acts;
the ability to economically obtain insurance coverage, or any insurance coverage at all, sufficient to cover losses arising from catastrophic events, such as wildfires where the Registrants may be found liable for property damages regardless of fault;
a high degree of variance between actual and forecasted load or generation that could impact a Registrant's hedging strategy and the cost of balancing its generation resources with its retail load obligations;
changes in prices, availability and demand for wholesale electricity, coal, natural gas, other fuel sources and fuel transportation that could have a significant impact on generating capacity and energy costs;
the financial condition, creditworthiness and operational stability of the respective Registrant's significant customers and suppliers;
changes in business strategy or development plans;
availability, terms and deployment of capital, including reductions in demand for investment-grade commercial paper, debt securities and other sources of debt financing and volatility in interest rates;
changes in the respective Registrant's credit ratings;
risks relating to nuclear generation, including unique operational, closure and decommissioning risks;
hydroelectric conditions and the cost, feasibility and eventual outcome of hydroelectric relicensing proceedings;
the impact of certain contracts used to mitigate or manage volume, price and interest rate risk, including increased collateral requirements, and changes in commodity prices, interest rates and other conditions that affect the fair value of certain contracts;
the impact of inflation on costs and the ability of the respective Registrants to recover such costs in regulated rates;
fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, primarily the British pound and the Canadian dollar;
vi


increases in employee healthcare costs;
the impact of investment performance, certain participant elections such as lump sum distributions and changes in interest rates, legislation, healthcare cost trends, mortality, morbidity on pension and other postretirement benefits expense and funding requirements;
changes in the residential real estate brokerage, mortgage and franchising industries and regulations that could affect brokerage, mortgage and franchising transactions;
the ability to successfully integrate the portion of the natural gas transmission and storage business acquired from DEI on November 1, 2020, and future acquired operations into a Registrant's business;
the expected timing and likelihood of completion of the proposed transaction to acquire the remaining portion of DEI's natural gas transmission and storage business, including the ability to obtain the required clearance under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended;
unanticipated construction delays, changes in costs, receipt of required permits and authorizations, ability to fund capital projects and other factors that could affect future facilities and infrastructure additions;
the availability and price of natural gas in applicable geographic regions and demand for natural gas supply;
the impact of new accounting guidance or changes in current accounting estimates and assumptions on the financial results of the respective Registrants; and
other business or investment considerations that may be disclosed from time to time in the Registrants' filings with the SEC or in other publicly disseminated written documents.

Further details of the potential risks and uncertainties affecting the Registrants are described in the Registrants' filings with the SEC, including Item 1A and other discussions contained in this Form 10-K. Each Registrant undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. The foregoing factors should not be construed as exclusive.

vii


PART I

Item 1.    Business

GENERAL

BHE is a holding company that owns a highly diversified portfolio of locally managed businesses principally engaged in the energy industry and is a consolidated subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. As of January 31, 2021, Berkshire Hathaway, Mr. Walter Scott, Jr., a member of BHE's Board of Directors (along with his family members and related or affiliated entities) and Mr. Gregory E. Abel, BHE's Chairman, beneficially owned 91.1%, 7.9% and 1.0%, respectively, of BHE's voting common stock.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy's operations are organized as eight business segments: PacifiCorp, MidAmerican Funding (which primarily consists of MidAmerican Energy), NV Energy (which primarily consists of Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific), Northern Powergrid (which primarily consists of Northern Powergrid (Northeast) plc and Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc), BHE Pipeline Group (which primarily consists of BHE GT&S, Northern Natural Gas and Kern River), BHE Transmission (which consists of BHE Canada (which primarily consists of AltaLink) and BHE U.S. Transmission), BHE Renewables and HomeServices. BHE, through these locally managed and operated businesses, owns four utility companies in the United States serving customers in 11 states, two electricity distribution companies in Great Britain, five interstate natural gas pipeline companies, one of which owns an LNG import, export and storage facility, in the United States, an electric transmission business in Canada, interests in electric transmission businesses in the United States, a renewable energy business primarily investing in wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric projects, the largest residential real estate brokerage firm in the United States and one of the largest residential real estate brokerage franchise networks in the United States.

BHE owns a highly diversified portfolio of primarily regulated businesses that generate, transmit, store, distribute and supply energy and serve customers and end-users across geographically diverse service territories, including 28 states located throughout the United States and in Great Britain and Canada.
83% of Berkshire Hathaway Energy's consolidated operating income during 2020 was generated from rate-regulated businesses.
The Utilities serve 5.2 million electric and natural gas customers in 11 states in the United States, Northern Powergrid serves 3.9 million end-users in northern England and AltaLink serves approximately 85% of Alberta, Canada's population.
As of December 31, 2020, the Company owns approximately 33,700 MWs of generation capacity in operation and under construction:
Approximately 29,000 MWs of generation capacity is owned by its regulated electric utility businesses;
Approximately 4,700 MWs of generation capacity is owned by its nonregulated subsidiaries, the majority of which provides power to utilities under long-term contracts;
Owned generation capacity in operation and under construction consists of 38% wind and solar, 32% natural gas, 24% coal, 5% hydroelectric and geothermal and 1% nuclear and other; and,
Cumulative investments in wind, solar, geothermal and biomass generation facilities is approximately $34 billion.
The Company owns approximately 36,000 miles of transmission lines and owns a 50% interest in ETT that has approximately 1,900 miles of transmission lines.
The BHE Pipeline Group operates approximately 21,300 miles of pipeline with a market area design capacity of approximately 21 Bcf of natural gas per day, serves customers and end-users in 23 states and transported approximately 15% of the total natural gas consumed in the United States during 2020. The BHE Pipeline Group also operates 20 natural gas storage facilities with a total operating storage design capacity of 499 Bcf.
HomeServices closed over $152.2 billion of home sales in 2020, up 13.1% from 2019, and continued to grow its brokerage, mortgage and franchise businesses, with services in all 50 states. HomeServices' franchise business has approximately 370 franchisees primarily in the United States and internationally.
1


Human Capital

The Registrants are committed to attracting, retaining and developing the highest quality of employees; maintaining a safe, diverse and inclusive work environment; offering competitive compensation and benefit programs; and providing employees with opportunities for growth and development.

Employees

As of December 31, 2020, BHE had approximately 23,800 employees, consisting of approximately 14,200 (60%) electric and natural gas operations employees, approximately 6,300 (26%) real estate services employees and approximately 3,300 (14%) corporate services employees. HomeServices has approximately 43,000 real estate agents who are independent contractors. As of December 31, 2020, approximately 8,200 BHE employees were covered by union contracts. The majority of the union employees are employed by the Utilities and are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Utility Workers Union of America, the United Utility Workers Association and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers.

Safety

Safety and security are integral to the Registrants' culture and will always be one of the Registrants' top priorities. The Registrants' safety, cyber and physical security programs are built on personal ownership, compliance with standards, accountability for performance, and continuous improvement. The Registrants' provide best-in-class training to ensure that all employees understand the risks and have thorough and specific knowledge to protect themselves, as well as the Registrants' assets, information and operations.

The Registrants use the recordable incident rate to measure employee safety. The recordable incident rate is defined as the number of work-related injuries per 100 full-time workers during a one-year period. The recordable incident rates for each of the Registrants are included below:

Year Ended
December 31, 2020
Recordable Incident Rate:
PacifiCorp0.92 
MidAmerican Energy0.73 
Nevada Power0.51 
Sierra Pacific0.96 
Eastern Energy Gas0.59 
BHE Overall0.51 

Compensation and Benefits

The Registrants' commitment to employees is further demonstrated through competitive compensation and benefits and by providing opportunities for personal growth and career development. In addition to market-based salary, the Registrants' compensation packages include incentive programs to recognize and reward outstanding performance. The Registrants' benefits programs are designed to meet the diverse needs of employees and their families and includes, among other benefits:

A comprehensive and flexible benefits package that includes medical, dental and vision coverage; employee assistance programs; pre-tax flexible spending accounts; and adoption assistance;
Income protection that includes options for short- and long-term disability coverage and life insurance;
Retirement planning that includes a retirement savings plan 401(k) and a variety of employee and employer contribution and matching options;
Family Medical Leave as well as paid time off and holiday benefits; and
Career development opportunities that provide access to a variety of learning programs and career development support, including tuition reimbursement.
2


BHE was incorporated under the laws of the state of Iowa in 1999 and its principal executive offices are located at 666 Grand Avenue, Suite 500, Des Moines, Iowa 50309-2580, its telephone number is (515) 242-4300 and its internet address is www.brkenergy.com.

PACIFICORP

General

PacifiCorp, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BHE, is a United States regulated electric utility company headquartered in Oregon that serves approximately 2.0 million retail electric customers in portions of Utah, Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, Idaho and California. PacifiCorp is principally engaged in the business of generating, transmitting, distributing and selling electricity. PacifiCorp's combined service territory covers approximately 141,400 square miles and includes diverse regional economies across six states. No single segment of the economy dominates the combined service territory, which helps mitigate PacifiCorp's exposure to economic fluctuations. In the eastern portion of the service territory, consisting of Utah, Wyoming and southeastern Idaho, the principal industries are manufacturing, mining or extraction of natural resources, agriculture, technology, recreation and government. In the western portion of the service territory, consisting of Oregon, southern Washington and northern California, the principal industries are agriculture, manufacturing, forest products, food processing, technology, government and primary metals. In addition to retail sales, PacifiCorp buys and sells electricity on the wholesale market with other utilities, energy marketing companies, financial institutions and other market participants to balance and optimize the economic benefits of electricity generation, retail customer loads and existing wholesale transactions. Certain PacifiCorp subsidiaries support its electric utility operations by providing coal mining services.

PacifiCorp's operations are conducted under numerous franchise agreements, certificates, permits and licenses obtained from federal, state and local authorities. The average term of the franchise agreements is approximately 22 years. Several of these franchise agreements allow the municipality the right to seek amendment to the franchise agreement at a specified time during the term. PacifiCorp generally has an exclusive right to serve electric customers within its service territories and, in turn, has an obligation to provide electric service to those customers. In return, the state utility commissions have established rates on a cost-of-service basis, which are designed to allow PacifiCorp an opportunity to recover its costs of providing services and to earn a reasonable return on its investments.

PacifiCorp was incorporated under the laws of the state of Oregon in 1989 and its principal executive offices are located at 825 N.E. Multnomah Street, Portland, Oregon 97232, its telephone number is (888) 221-7070 and its internet address is www.pacificorp.com. PacifiCorp delivers electricity to customers in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho under the trade name Rocky Mountain Power and to customers in Oregon, Washington and California under the trade name Pacific Power.

All shares of PacifiCorp's common stock are indirectly owned by BHE. PacifiCorp also has shares of preferred stock outstanding that are subject to voting rights in certain limited circumstances.

Regulated Electric Operations

Customers

The GWhs and percentages of electricity sold to PacifiCorp's retail customers by jurisdiction for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
202020192018
Utah24,851 46 %24,490 45 %24,514 45 %
Oregon12,993 24 13,089 24 12,867 23 
Wyoming8,358 15 9,393 17 9,393 17 
Washington4,065 4,145 3,949 
Idaho3,534 3,485 3,643 
California759 741 749 
Total54,560 100 %55,343 100 %55,115 100 %

3


Electricity sold to PacifiCorp's retail and wholesale customers by class of customer and the average number of retail customers for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
202020192018
GWhs sold:
Residential17,150 29 %16,668 27 %16,227 26 %
Commercial17,727 29 18,151 30 18,078 28 
Industrial, irrigation and other19,683 33 20,524 34 20,810 33 
Total retail54,560 91 55,343 91 55,115 87 
Wholesale5,249 5,480 8,309 13 
Total GWhs sold59,809 100 %60,823 100 %63,424 100 %
Average number of retail customers (in thousands):
Residential1,713 87 %1,682 87 %1,651 87 %
Commercial217 11 214 11 212 11 
Industrial, irrigation and other37 37 37 
Total1,967 100 %1,933 100 %1,900 100 %

Variations in weather, economic conditions and various conservation, energy efficiency and private generation measures and programs can impact customer usage. Wholesale sales are impacted by market prices for energy relative to the incremental cost to generate power.

The annual hourly peak customer demand, which represents the highest demand on a given day and at a given hour, occurs in the summer when air conditioning and irrigation systems are heavily used. Peak demand in the winter occurs due to heating requirements. During 2020, PacifiCorp's peak demand was 10,546 MWs in the summer and 8,327 MWs in the winter.

4


Generating Facilities and Fuel Supply

PacifiCorp has ownership interest in a diverse portfolio of generating facilities. The following table presents certain information regarding PacifiCorp's owned generating facilities as of December 31, 2020:
FacilityNet Owned
Installed /Net CapacityCapacity
Generating FacilityLocationEnergy Source
Repowered(1)
(MWs)(2)
(MWs)(2)
COAL(3):
Jim Bridger Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4Rock Springs, WYCoal1974-19792,119 1,413 
Hunter Nos. 1, 2 and 3Castle Dale, UTCoal1978-19831,363 1,158 
Huntington Nos. 1 and 2Huntington, UTCoal1974-1977909 909 
Dave Johnston Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4Glenrock, WYCoal1959-1972745 745 
Naughton Nos. 1 and 2Kemmerer, WYCoal1963-1968357 357 
Wyodak No. 1Gillette, WYCoal1978332 266 
Craig Nos. 1 and 2Craig, COCoal1979-1980837 161 
Colstrip Nos. 3 and 4Colstrip, MTCoal1984-19861,480 148 
Hayden Nos. 1 and 2Hayden, COCoal1965-1976441 77 
8,583 5,234 
NATURAL GAS:
Lake Side 2Vineyard, UTNatural gas/steam2014631 631 
Lake SideVineyard, UTNatural gas/steam2007546 546 
Currant CreekMona, UTNatural gas/steam2005-2006524 524 
ChehalisChehalis, WANatural gas/steam2003477 477 
Naughton No. 3(4)
Kemmerer, WYNatural gas1971247 247 
Gadsby SteamSalt Lake City, UTNatural gas1951-1955238 238 
HermistonHermiston, ORNatural gas/steam1996461 231 
Gadsby PeakersSalt Lake City, UTNatural gas2002119 119 
3,243 3,013 
HYDROELECTRIC:
Lewis River SystemWAHydroelectric1931-1958578 578 
North Umpqua River SystemORHydroelectric1950-1956204 204 
Klamath River SystemCA, ORHydroelectric1903-1962170 170 
Bear River SystemID, UTHydroelectric1908-1984105 105 
Rogue River SystemORHydroelectric1912-195752 52 
Minor hydroelectric facilitiesVariousHydroelectric1895-198626 26 
1,135 1,135 
WIND:
Ekola FlatsMedicine Bow, WYWind2020250 250 
MarengoDayton, WAWind2007-2008 / 2020234 234 
TB FlatsMedicine Bow, WYWind2020204 204 
Cedar Springs IIDouglas, WYWind2020199 199 
GlenrockGlenrock, WYWind2008-2009 / 2019139 139 
Seven Mile HillMedicine Bow, WYWind2008 / 2019119 119 
Dunlap RanchMedicine Bow, WYWind2010 / 2020111 111 
Leaning JuniperArlington, ORWind2006 / 2019100 100 
Rolling HillsGlenrock, WYWind2009 / 2019100 100 
High PlainsMcFadden, WYWind2009 / 201999 99 
Goodnoe HillsGoldendale, WAWind2008 / 201994 94 
Foote Creek(5)
Arlington, WYWind199941 41 
McFadden RidgeMcFadden, WYWind2009 / 201928 28 
Pryor MountainBridger, MTWind202020 20 
1,738 1,738 
OTHER:
BlundellMilford, UTGeothermal1984, 200732 32 
32 32 
Total Available Generating Capacity14,731 11,152 
5


PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION:
Various wind projects(6)
516 516 
15,247 11,668 

(1)Repowered dates are associated with component replacements on existing wind-powered generating facilities commonly referred to by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") as repowering. IRS rules provide for re-establishment of the PTCs for an existing wind-powered generating facility upon the replacement of a significant portion of its components. If the degree of component replacement in such projects meets IRS guidelines, PTCs are re-established for ten years at rates that depend upon the date on which construction begins.
(2)Facility Net Capacity represents the lesser of nominal ratings or any limitations under applicable interconnection, power purchase, or other agreements for intermittent resources and the total net dependable capability available during summer conditions for all other units. An intermittent resource's nominal rating is the manufacturer's contractually specified capability (in MWs) under specified conditions. Net Owned Capacity indicates PacifiCorp's ownership of Facility Net Capacity.
(3)Cholla Unit 4 was retired in December 2020 consistent with the preferred portfolio in PacifiCorp's 2019 IRP. Refer to "Environmental Laws and Regulations" in Item 1 of this Form 10-K for further discussion.
(4)Naughton Unit 3 was removed from coal-fueled service in January 2019. PacifiCorp determined in its 2019 IRP that converting Naughton Unit 3 to a natural gas-fueled generation resource provides economic benefits to customers. PacifiCorp completed the conversion to natural gas in 2020.

(5)Foote Creek is in the process of being repowered and is expected to be completed in 2021.

(6)Includes portions of TB Flats and Pryor Mountain projects that remain under construction.

The following table shows the percentages of PacifiCorp's total energy supplied by energy source for the years ended December 31:
202020192018
Coal48 %53 %54 %
Natural gas19 19 16 
Hydroelectric(1)
Wind and other(1)
Total energy generated78 80 80 
Energy purchased - short-term contracts and other10 10 10 
Energy purchased - long-term contracts (renewable)(1)
12 10 10 
100 %100 %100 %

(1)All or some of the renewable energy attributes associated with generation from these sources may be: (a) used in future years to comply with RPS or other regulatory requirements, (b) sold to third parties in the form of RECs or other environmental commodities, or (c) excluded from energy purchased.

PacifiCorp is required to have resources available to continuously meet its customer needs and reliably operate its electric system. The percentage of PacifiCorp's energy supplied by energy source varies from year to year and is subject to numerous operational and economic factors such as planned and unplanned outages, fuel commodity prices, fuel transportation costs, weather, environmental considerations, transmission constraints and wholesale market prices of electricity. PacifiCorp evaluates these factors continuously in order to facilitate economical dispatch of its generating facilities. When factors for one energy source are less favorable, PacifiCorp places more reliance on other energy sources. For example, PacifiCorp can generate more electricity using its low cost hydroelectric and wind-powered generating facilities when factors associated with these facilities are favorable. In addition to meeting its customers' energy needs, PacifiCorp is required to maintain operating reserves on its system to mitigate the impacts of unplanned outages or other disruption in supply, and to meet intra-hour changes in load and resource balance. This operating reserve requirement is dispersed across PacifiCorp's generation portfolio on a least-cost basis based on the operating characteristics of the portfolio. Operating reserves may be held on hydroelectric, coal-fueled, natural gas-fueled or certain types of interruptible load. PacifiCorp manages certain risks relating to its supply of electricity and fuel requirements by entering into various contracts, which may be accounted for as derivatives and may include forwards, options, swaps and other agreements. Refer to "General Regulation" in Item 1 of this Form 10-K for a discussion of energy cost recovery by jurisdiction and to PacifiCorp's Item 7A in this Form 10-K for a discussion of commodity price risk and derivative contracts.

6


    Coal

PacifiCorp has interests in coal mines that support its coal-fueled generating facilities and jointly operates the Bridger surface and Bridger underground coal mines. These mines supplied 16%, 19% and 17% of PacifiCorp's total coal requirements during the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively. The remaining coal requirements are acquired through long and short-term third-party contracts.

Most of PacifiCorp's coal reserves are held through agreements with the federal Bureau of Land Management and from certain states and private parties. The agreements generally have multi-year terms that may be renewed or extended and require payment of rents and royalties. In addition, federal and state regulations require that comprehensive environmental protection and reclamation standards be met during the course of mining operations and upon completion of mining activities.

Coal reserve estimates are subject to adjustment as a result of the development of additional engineering and geological data, new mining technology and changes in regulation and economic factors affecting the utilization of such reserves.

Recoverability by surface mining methods typically ranges from 90% to 95%. Recoverability by underground mining techniques ranges from 50% to 70%. To meet applicable standards, PacifiCorp blends coal from its owned mines with contracted coal and utilizes emissions reduction technologies for controlling SO2 and other emissions. For fuel needs at PacifiCorp's coal-fueled generating facilities in excess of coal reserves available, PacifiCorp believes it will be able to purchase coal under both long- and short-term contracts to supply its generating facilities over their currently expected remaining useful lives.

    Natural Gas

PacifiCorp uses natural gas as fuel for its generating facilities that use combined-cycle, simple-cycle and steam turbines. Oil and natural gas are also used for igniter fuel and standby purposes. These sources are presently in adequate supply and available to meet PacifiCorp's needs.

PacifiCorp enters into forward natural gas purchases at fixed or indexed market prices. PacifiCorp purchases natural gas in the spot market with both fixed and indexed market prices for physical delivery to fulfill any fuel requirements not already satisfied through forward purchases of natural gas and sells natural gas in the spot market for the disposition of any excess supply if the forecasted requirements of its natural gas-fueled generating facilities decrease. PacifiCorp also utilizes financial swap contracts to mitigate price risk associated with its forecasted fuel requirements.

    Hydroelectric

The amount of electricity PacifiCorp is able to generate from its hydroelectric facilities depends on a number of factors, including snowpack in the mountains upstream of its hydroelectric facilities, reservoir storage, precipitation in its watersheds, generating unit availability and restrictions imposed by oversight bodies due to competing water management objectives.

PacifiCorp operates the majority of its hydroelectric generating portfolio under long-term licenses. The FERC regulates 99% of the net capacity of this portfolio through 15 individual licenses, which have terms of 30 to 50 years. The licenses for major hydroelectric generating facilities expire at various dates through 2059. A portion of this portfolio is licensed under the Oregon Hydroelectric Act. For discussion of PacifiCorp's hydroelectric relicensing activities, including updated information regarding the Klamath River hydroelectric system, refer to Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Berkshire Hathaway Energy in Item 8 of this Form 10-K and Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of PacifiCorp in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

7


    Wind and Other Renewable Resources

PacifiCorp has pursued renewable resources as a viable, economical and environmentally prudent means of supplying electricity and complying with laws and regulations. Renewable resources have low to no emissions and require little or no fossil fuel. PacifiCorp is repowering all of its existing wind-powered generating facilities by replacing a significant portion of the equipment to requalify the facilities for federal renewable electricity PTCs for ten years from the date the repowered facilities were placed in-service. The repowering project will extend the lives of the existing wind facilities and increase the anticipated electrical generation from the repowered wind facilities, on average, by approximately 26%. Additionally, new wind-powered generating facilities totaling 674 MWs were placed in-service during 2020 with another 516 MWs expected to be placed in-service during 2021. The energy production from the new wind-powered generating facilities is expected to qualify for 100% of the federal PTCs available for ten years once the equipment is placed in-service. In addition to the discussion contained herein regarding repowering activities, refer to "Regulatory Matters" in Item 1 of this Form 10-K.

    Wholesale Activities

PacifiCorp purchases and sells electricity in the wholesale markets as needed to balance its generation with its retail load obligations. PacifiCorp may also purchase electricity in the wholesale markets when it is more economical than generating electricity from its own facilities and may sell surplus electricity in the wholesale markets when it can do so economically. When prudent, PacifiCorp enters into financial swap contracts and forward electricity sales and purchases for physical delivery at fixed prices to reduce its exposure to electricity price volatility.

    Energy Imbalance Market

PacifiCorp and the California ISO implemented an EIM in November 2014, which reduces costs to serve customers through more efficient dispatch of a larger and more diverse pool of resources, more effectively integrates renewables and enhances reliability through improved situational awareness and responsiveness. The EIM expands the real-time component of the California ISO's market technology to optimize and balance electricity supply and demand every five minutes across the EIM footprint. The EIM is voluntary and available to all balancing authorities in the western United States. EIM market participants submit bids to the California ISO market operator before each hour for each generating resource they choose to be dispatched by the market. Each bid is comprised of a dispatchable operating range, ramp rate and prices across the operating range. The California ISO market operator uses sophisticated technology to select the least-cost resources to meet demand and send simultaneous dispatch signals to every participating generator across the EIM footprint every five minutes. In addition to generation resource bids, the California ISO market operator also receives continuous real-time updates of the transmission grid network, meteorological and load forecast information that it uses to optimize dispatch instructions. Outside the EIM footprint, utilities in the western United States do not utilize comparable technology and are largely limited to transactions within the borders of their balancing authority area to balance supply and demand intra-hour using a combination of manual and automated dispatch. The EIM delivers customer benefits by leveraging automation and resource diversity to result in more efficient dispatch, more effective integration of renewables and improved situational awareness. Benefits are expected to increase further with renewable resource expansion and as more entities join the EIM, bringing incremental resource diversity.

Transmission and Distribution

PacifiCorp operates one balancing authority area in the western portion of its service territory ("PacifiCorp-West") and one balancing authority area in the eastern portion of its service territory ("PacifiCorp-East"). A balancing authority area is a geographic area with transmission systems that control generation to maintain schedules with other balancing authority areas and ensure reliable operations. In operating the balancing authority areas, PacifiCorp is responsible for continuously balancing electricity supply and demand by dispatching generating resources and interchange transactions so that generation internal to the balancing authority area, plus net imported power, matches customer loads. Deliveries of energy over PacifiCorp's transmission system are managed and scheduled in accordance with FERC requirements.

PacifiCorp's transmission system is part of the Western Interconnection, which includes the interconnected transmission systems of 14 western states, two Canadian provinces and parts of Mexico. PacifiCorp's transmission system, together with contractual rights on other transmission systems, enables PacifiCorp to integrate and access generation resources to meet its customer load requirements. PacifiCorp's transmission and distribution systems included approximately 16,900 miles of transmission lines in ten states, 63,800 miles of distribution lines and 900 substations as of December 31, 2020.

8


PacifiCorp's transmission and distribution system is managed on a coordinated basis to obtain maximum load-carrying capability and efficiency. Portions of PacifiCorp's transmission and distribution systems are located:

On property owned or used through agreements by PacifiCorp;
Under or over streets, alleys, highways and other public places, the public domain and national forests and state and federal lands under franchises, easements or other rights that are generally subject to termination;
Under or over private property as a result of easements obtained primarily from the title holder of record; or
Under or over Native American reservations through agreements with the United States Secretary of Interior or Native American tribes.
It is possible that some of the easements and the property over which the easements were granted may have title defects or may be subject to mortgages or liens existing at the time the easements were acquired.

PacifiCorp's Energy Gateway Transmission Expansion Program represents plans to build approximately 2,000 miles of new high-voltage transmission lines, with an estimated cost of $6 billion, primarily in Wyoming, Utah, Idaho and Oregon. The $6 billion estimated cost includes: (a) the 135-mile, 345-kV transmission line between the Terminal substation near the Salt Lake City Airport and the Populus substation in Downey, Idaho, placed in-service in 2010; (b) the 100-mile, 345/500-kV transmission line between the Mona substation in central Utah and the Oquirrh substation in the Salt Lake Valley, placed in-service in 2013; (c) the 170-mile, 345-kV transmission line between the Sigurd substation in central Utah and the Red Butte substation in southwest Utah, placed in-service in 2015; (d) the 140-mile, 500-kV transmission line between Aeolus substation near Medicine Bow in Wyoming and Jim Bridger generating facility, placed in-service in 2020; (e) the 400-mile, 500kV high-voltage transmission line between the Aeolus substation and the Clover substation near Mona, Utah; (f) the 290-mile, 500kV high-voltage transmission line from Longhorn Substation near Boardman, Oregon, to the existing Hemingway Substation southwest of Boise, Idaho (a joint project with Idaho Power and the Bonneville Power Administration); and (g) other segments that are expected to be placed in-service in future years, depending on load growth, siting, permitting and construction schedules. The transmission line segments are intended to: (a) address customer load growth; (b) improve system reliability; (c) reduce transmission system constraints; (d) provide access to diverse generation resources, including renewable resources; and (e) improve the flow of electricity throughout PacifiCorp's six-state service area. Proposed transmission line segments are evaluated to ensure optimal benefits and timing before committing to move forward with permitting and construction. Through December 31, 2020, $2.7 billion had been spent and $2.3 billion, including AFUDC, had been placed in-service.

Future Generation, Conservation and Energy Efficiency

Energy Supply Planning

As required by certain state regulations, PacifiCorp uses an IRP to develop a long-term resource plan to ensure that PacifiCorp can continue to provide reliable and cost-effective electric service to its customers while maintaining compliance with existing and evolving environmental laws and regulations. The IRP process identifies the amount and timing of PacifiCorp's expected future resource needs, accounting for planning uncertainty, risks, reliability, state energy policies and other factors. The IRP is prepared following a public process, which provides an opportunity for stakeholders to participate in PacifiCorp's resource planning process. PacifiCorp files its IRP on an every-two-year basis with the state commissions in each of the six states where PacifiCorp operates. Five states indicate whether the IRP meets the state commission's IRP standards and guidelines, a process referred to as "acknowledgment" in some states.

In October 2019, PacifiCorp filed its 2019 IRP with its state commissions. In November 2019, the WUTC temporarily suspended its practice of acknowledging utility IRPs, including PacifiCorp's 2019 IRP, due to ongoing implementation activities associated with Washington state's Senate Bill 5116, the Clean Energy Transformation Act. In May 2020, the OPUC acknowledged the 2019 IRP with conditions. The UPSC also acknowledged the 2019 IRP in May 2020. In September 2020, the IPUC acknowledged the 2019 IRP. In October 2020, the WPSC concluded its docket investigating the 2019 IRP. A written decision was issued in January 2021 requiring PacifiCorp to incorporate additional analyses for the 2021 IRP and periodically file reports related to the action plan and other items.

9


The 2019 IRP includes new transmission investments that will facilitate growth in new renewable energy resources, new storage resources, and expansion in new energy efficiency measures and demand-response programs. The IRP also includes accelerated coal-fueled generation facility retirements and the need for incremental flexible capacity resources beginning in 2021. Delivery of new transmission infrastructure that will facilitate approximately 4,400 MWs of new renewable energy resources, incremental to new renewable capacity that was expected to come online by the end of 2020 and 2021, and the addition of approximately 600 MWs of new storage capacity is planned through 2023. The 2019 IRP outlines PacifiCorp's plan to procure these near-term generating facilities through a Request for Proposals ("RFP") process that will determine how many of the new resources identified in the 2019 IRP will be developed as owned assets or power purchase agreements. Over the next 20 years, the 2019 IRP calls for retiring approximately 4,500 MWs of coal-fueled generating capacity while adding approximately 8,900 MWs of new renewable resources, incremental to new renewable capacity of approximately 2,000 MWs that were expected to come online by the end of 2020 and 2021, and approximately 2,800 MWs of new storage capacity. All or some of the renewable energy attributes associated with generation from these renewable resources may be used in future years to comply with RPS or other regulatory requirements, sold to third parties in the form of RECs or other environmental commodities, or excluded from energy purchased.

Requests for Proposals

PacifiCorp issues individual RFPs, each of which typically focuses on a specific category of generation resources consistent with the IRP or other customer-driven demands. The IRP and the RFPs provide for the identification and staged procurement of resources to meet load or RPS requirements. Depending upon the specific RFP, applicable laws and regulations may require PacifiCorp to file draft RFPs with the UPSC, the OPUC and the WUTC. Approval by the UPSC, the OPUC or the WUTC may be required depending on the nature of the RFPs.

A draft of PacifiCorp's 2020 All Source RFP ("2020AS RFP") was filed for approval with the UPSC and the OPUC in April 2020. In July 2020, the UPSC and the OPUC approved the 2020AS RFP, and PacifiCorp issued the 2020AS RFP to the market. The 2020AS RFP sought bids for resources capable of coming online by the end of 2024 up to the level of resources identified in PacifiCorp's 2019 IRP. Bids were submitted in August 2020, and an initial shortlist was identified in October 2020. The initial shortlist includes a total of 6,982 MWs of new generation and storage capacity. Of the total, 5,652 MWs are new generation resources (represented by 3,173 MWs of solar generation and 2,479 MWs of wind generation) and an additional 1,330 MWs of new battery storage assets, which includes 1,130 MWs of solar collocated battery storage and 200 MWs of stand-alone battery storage. The final shortlist of winning bids will be identified by June 2021.

Energy Efficiency Programs

PacifiCorp has provided a comprehensive set of DSM programs to its customers since the 1970s. The programs are designed to reduce energy consumption and more effectively manage when energy is used, including management of seasonal peak loads. PacifiCorp offers services to customers such as energy engineering audits and information on how to improve the efficiency of their homes and businesses. To assist customers in investing in energy efficiency, PacifiCorp offers rebates or incentives encouraging the purchase and installation of high-efficiency equipment such as lighting, heating and cooling equipment, weatherization, motors, process equipment and systems, as well as incentives for energy project management, efficient building operations and efficient construction. Incentives are also paid to solicit participation in load management programs by residential, business and agricultural customers through programs such as PacifiCorp's residential and small commercial air conditioner load control program and irrigation equipment load control programs. Although subject to prudence reviews, state regulations allow for recovery of costs incurred for the DSM programs through state-specific energy efficiency surcharges to retail customers or for recovery of costs through rates. During 2020, PacifiCorp spent $159 million on these DSM programs, resulting in an estimated 574,114 MWhs of first-year energy savings and an estimated 270 MWs of peak load management. In addition to these DSM programs, PacifiCorp has load curtailment contracts with a number of large industrial customers that deliver up to 305 MWs of load reduction when needed, depending on the customers' actual loads. Recovery of the costs associated with the large industrial load management program are captured in the retail special contract agreements with those customers approved by their respective state commissions or through PacifiCorp's general rate case process.

10


Human Capital

Employees

As of December 31, 2020, PacifiCorp had approximately 5,200 employees, of which approximately 2,900 were covered by union contracts, principally with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Utility Workers Union of America and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. For more information regarding PacifiCorp's human capital disclosures, refer to Item 1. Business - General section of this Form 10-K.

MIDAMERICAN FUNDING AND MIDAMERICAN ENERGY

General

MidAmerican Funding and MHC

MidAmerican Funding, a wholly owned subsidiary of BHE, is a holding company headquartered in Iowa that owns all of the outstanding common stock of MHC Inc. ("MHC"), which is a holding company owning all of the common stock of MidAmerican Energy and Midwest Capital Group, Inc. ("Midwest Capital"). MidAmerican Funding and MidAmerican Energy are indirect consolidated subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway. MidAmerican Funding conducts no business other than activities related to its debt securities and the ownership of MHC. MHC conducts no business other than the ownership of its subsidiaries. MidAmerican Energy is a substantial portion of MidAmerican Funding's and MHC's assets, revenue and earnings.

MidAmerican Funding was formed as a limited liability company under the laws of the state of Iowa in 1999 and its principal executive offices are located at 666 Grand Avenue, Suite 500, Des Moines, Iowa 50309-2580 and its telephone number is (515) 242-4300.

MidAmerican Energy

MidAmerican Energy, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BHE, is a United States regulated electric and natural gas utility company headquartered in Iowa that serves 0.8 million retail electric customers in portions of Iowa, Illinois and South Dakota and 0.8 million retail and transportation natural gas customers in portions of Iowa, South Dakota, Illinois and Nebraska. MidAmerican Energy is principally engaged in the business of generating, transmitting, distributing and selling electricity and in distributing, selling and transporting natural gas. MidAmerican Energy's service territory covers approximately 11,000 square miles. Metropolitan areas in which MidAmerican Energy distributes electricity at retail include Council Bluffs, Des Moines, Fort Dodge, Iowa City, Sioux City and Waterloo, Iowa; and the Quad Cities (Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa and Rock Island, Moline and East Moline, Illinois). Metropolitan areas in which it distributes natural gas at retail include Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Fort Dodge, Iowa City, Sioux City and Waterloo, Iowa; the Quad Cities; and Sioux Falls, South Dakota. MidAmerican Energy has a diverse customer base consisting of urban and rural residential customers and a variety of commercial and industrial customers. Principal industries served by MidAmerican Energy include electronic data storage; processing and sales of food products; manufacturing, processing and fabrication of primary metals, farm and other non-electrical machinery; cement and gypsum products; and government. In addition to retail sales and natural gas transportation, MidAmerican Energy sells electricity principally to markets operated by RTOs and natural gas to other utilities and market participants on a wholesale basis. MidAmerican Energy is a transmission-owning member of the MISO and participates in its capacity, energy and ancillary services markets.

MidAmerican Energy's regulated electric and natural gas operations are conducted under numerous franchise agreements, certificates, permits and licenses obtained from federal, state and local authorities. The franchise agreements, with various expiration dates, are typically for 20- to 25-year terms. Several of these franchise agreements give either party the right to seek amendment to the franchise agreement at one or two specified times during the term. MidAmerican Energy generally has an exclusive right to serve electric customers within its service territories and, in turn, has an obligation to provide electricity service to those customers. In return, the state utility commissions have established rates on a cost-of-service basis, which are designed to allow MidAmerican Energy an opportunity to recover its costs of providing services and to earn a reasonable return on its investment. In Illinois, MidAmerican Energy's regulated retail electric customers may choose their energy supplier.


11


The percentages of MidAmerican Energy's operating revenue and operating income derived from the following business activities for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
202020192018
Operating revenue:
Regulated electric79 %76 %75 %
Regulated gas21 23 25 
Other— — 
100 %100 %100 %
Operating income:
Regulated electric86 %86 %85 %
Regulated gas14 13 15 
Other— — 
100 %100 %100 %

MidAmerican Energy was incorporated under the laws of the state of Iowa in 1995 and its principal executive offices are located at 666 Grand Avenue, Suite 500, Des Moines, Iowa 50309-2580, its telephone number is (515) 242-4300 and its internet address is www.midamericanenergy.com.

Regulated Electric Operations

Customers

The GWhs and percentages of electricity sold to MidAmerican Energy's retail customers by jurisdiction for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
202020192018
Iowa24,425 92 %24,073 92 %23,670 92 %
Illinois1,847 1,894 1,944 
South Dakota251 234 237 
26,523 100 %26,201 100 %25,851 100 %


12


Electricity sold to MidAmerican Energy's retail and wholesale customers by class of customer and the average number of retail customers for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
202020192018
GWhs sold:
Residential6,687 18 %6,575 18 %6,763 18 %
Commercial3,707 10 3,921 11 3,897 11 
Industrial14,645 39 14,127 39 13,587 37 
Other1,484 1,578 1,604 
Total retail26,523 71 26,201 72 25,851 70 
Wholesale11,219 29 10,000 28 11,181 30 
Total GWhs sold37,742 100 %36,201 100 %37,032 100 %
Average number of retail customers (in thousands):
Residential682 86 %675 86 %670 86 %
Commercial97 12 95 12 94 12 
Industrial— — — 
Other14 14 14 
Total795 100 %786 100 %780 100 %

Variations in weather, economic conditions and various conservation and energy efficiency measures and programs can impact customer usage. Wholesale sales are impacted by market prices for energy relative to the incremental cost to generate power.

There are seasonal variations in MidAmerican Energy's electricity sales that are principally related to weather and the related use of electricity for air conditioning. Additionally, electricity sales are priced higher in the summer months compared to the remaining months of the year. As a result, 40% to 50% of MidAmerican Energy's regulated electric retail revenue is reported in the months of June, July, August and September.

A degree of concentration of sales exists with certain large electric retail customers. Sales to the ten largest customers, from a variety of industries, comprised 23%, 21% and 20% of total retail electric sales in 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively. Sales to electronic data storage customers included in the ten largest customers comprised 16%, 12% and 9% of total retail electric sales in 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

The annual hourly peak demand on MidAmerican Energy's electric system usually occurs as a result of air conditioning use during the cooling season. Peak demand represents the highest demand on a given day and at a given hour. On July 8, 2020, retail customer usage of electricity caused an hourly peak demand of 5,035 MWs on MidAmerican Energy's electric distribution system, which is 60 MWs less than the record hourly peak demand of 5,095 MWs set July 19, 2019.

13


Generating Facilities and Fuel Supply

MidAmerican Energy has ownership interest in a diverse portfolio of generating facilities. The following table presents certain information regarding MidAmerican Energy's owned generating facilities as of December 31, 2020:
FacilityNet
Year Installed /Net CapacityOwned Capacity
Generating FacilityLocationEnergy Source
Repowered(1)
(MWs)(2)
(MWs)(2)
WIND:
Ida GroveIda Grove, IAWind2016-2019500 500 
OrientGreenfield, IAWind2018-2019500 500 
HighlandPrimghar, IAWind2015475 475 
Rolling HillsMassena, IAWind2011443 443 
Beaver CreekOgden, IAWind2017-2018340 340 
North EnglishMontezuma, IAWind2018-2019340 340 
Palo AltoPalo Alto, IAWind2019-2020340 340 
Arbor HillGreenfield, IAWind2018-2020310 310 
PomeroyPomeroy, IAWind2007-2011 / 2018-2019286 286 
Diamond TrailLadora, IAWind2020250 250 
LundgrenOtho, IAWind2014250 250 
O'BrienPrimghar, IAWind2016250 250 
CenturyBlairsburg, IAWind2005-2008 / 2017-2018200 200 
EclipseAdair, IAWind2012200 200 
IntrepidSchaller, IAWind2004-2005 / 2017176 176 
AdairAdair, IAWind2008 / 2019-2020175 175 
PrairieMontezuma, IAWind2017-2018169 169 
Southern HillsOrient, IAWind2020163 163 
CarrollCarroll, IAWind2008 / 2019150 150 
WalnutWalnut, IAWind2008 / 2019150 150 
ViennaGladbrook, IAWind2012-2013150 150 
AdamsLennox, IAWind2015150 150 
WellsburgWellsburg, IAWind2014139 139 
LaurelLaurel, IAWind2011120 120 
MacksburgMacksburg, IAWind2014119 119 
ContrailBraddyville, IAWind2020110 110 
Morning LightAdair, IAWind2012100 100 
VictoryWestside, IAWind2006 / 2017-201899 99 
IvesterWellsburg, IAWind201890 90 
Pocahontas Prairie(3)
Pomeroy, IAWind202080 80 
Charles CityCharles City, IAWind2008 / 201875 75 
6,899 6,899 
COAL:
LouisaMuscatine, IACoal1983744 655 
Walter Scott, Jr. Unit No. 3Council Bluffs, IACoal1978702 556 
Walter Scott, Jr. Unit No. 4Council Bluffs, IACoal2007819 489 
OttumwaOttumwa, IACoal1981720 374 
George Neal Unit No. 3Sergeant Bluff, IACoal1975506 364 
George Neal Unit No. 4Salix, IACoal1979653 265 
4,144 2,703 
NATURAL GAS AND OTHER:
Greater Des MoinesPleasant Hill, IAGas2003-2004485 485 
ElectrifarmWaterloo, IAGas or Oil1975-1978187 187 
Pleasant HillPleasant Hill, IAGas or Oil1990-1994156 156 
SycamoreJohnston, IAGas or Oil1974147 147 
River HillsDes Moines, IAGas1966-1967118 118 
Riverside Unit No. 5(4)
Bettendorf, IAGas1961117 117 
CoralvilleCoralville, IAGas197066 66 
MolineMoline, ILGas197064 64 
28 portable power modulesVariousOil200056 56 
ParrCharles City, IAGas196933 33 
14


FacilityNet
Year Installed /Net CapacityOwned Capacity
Generating FacilityLocationEnergy Source
Repowered(1)
(MWs)(2)
(MWs)(2)
1,429 1,429 
NUCLEAR:
Quad Cities Unit Nos. 1 and 2Cordova, ILUranium19721,815 454 
HYDROELECTRIC:
Moline Unit Nos. 1-4Moline, ILHydroelectric1941
Total Available Generating Capacity14,291 11,489 
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION:
Various wind projects87 87 
14,378 11,576 
(1)Repowered dates are associated with component replacements on existing wind-powered generating facilities commonly referred to by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") as repowering. IRS rules provide for re-establishment of the PTCs for an existing wind-powered generating facility upon the replacement of a significant portion of its components. If the degree of component replacement in such projects meets IRS guidelines, PTCs are re-established for ten years at rates that depend upon the date on which construction begins.
(2)Facility Net Capacity represents the lesser of nominal ratings or any limitations under applicable interconnection, power purchase, or other agreements for intermittent resources and the total net dependable capability available during summer conditions for all other units. An intermittent resource's nominal rating is the manufacturer's contractually specified capability (in MWs) under specified conditions. Net Owned Capacity indicates MidAmerican Energy's ownership of Facility Net Capacity.
(3)The Pocahontas Prairie was acquired in 2020 and is currently not eligible to earn federal renewable electricity PTCs.
(4)Riverside Unit No. 5 was retired in January 2021.

The following table shows the percentages of MidAmerican Energy's total energy supplied by energy source for the years ended December 31:
202020192018
Wind and other renewable(1)
54 %44 %36 %
Coal19 33 42 
Nuclear10 10 10 
Natural gas
Total energy generated85 88 90 
Energy purchased - short-term contracts and other14 10 
Energy purchased - long-term contracts (renewable)(1)
Energy purchased - long-term contracts (non-renewable)— 
100 %100 %100 %

(1)All or some of the renewable energy attributes associated with generation from these sources may be: (a) used in future years to comply with RPS or other regulatory requirements, (b) sold to third parties in the form of RECs or other environmental commodities, or (c) excluded from energy purchased.

MidAmerican Energy is required to have resources available for dispatch by MISO to continuously meet its customer needs and reliably operate its electric system. The percentage of MidAmerican Energy's energy supplied by energy source varies from year to year and is subject to numerous operational and economic factors such as planned and unplanned outages, fuel commodity prices, fuel transportation costs, weather, environmental considerations, transmission constraints, and wholesale market prices of electricity. MidAmerican Energy evaluates these factors continuously in order to facilitate economical dispatch of its generating facilities by MISO. When factors for one energy source are less favorable, MidAmerican Energy places more reliance on other energy sources. For example, MidAmerican Energy can generate more electricity using its low cost wind-powered generating facilities when factors associated with these facilities are favorable. When factors associated with wind resources are less favorable, MidAmerican Energy must increase its reliance on more expensive generation or purchased electricity. Refer to "General Regulation" in Item 1 of this Form 10-K for a discussion of energy cost recovery by jurisdiction.


15


Wind

MidAmerican Energy owns more wind-powered generating capacity than any other United States rate-regulated electric utility and believes wind-powered generation offers a viable, economical and environmentally prudent means of supplying electricity and complying with laws and regulations. Pursuant to ratemaking principles approved by the IUB, facilities accounting for 96% of MidAmerican Energy's wind-powered generating capacity in-service at December 31, 2020, are authorized to earn over their regulatory lives a fixed rate of return on equity ranging from 11.0% to 12.2% on the depreciated cost of their original construction, which excludes the cost of later replacements, in any future Iowa rate proceeding. MidAmerican Energy's wind-powered generating facilities, including those facilities where a significant portion of the equipment was replaced, commonly referred to as repowered facilities, are eligible for federal renewable electricity PTCs for 10 years from the date the facilities are placed in-service. PTCs are earned as energy from qualifying wind-powered generating facilities is produced and sold. PTCs for MidAmerican Energy's wind-powered generating facilities currently in-service began expiring in 2014, with final expiration in 2030. Since 2014, MidAmerican Energy has repowered, or plans to repower, 2,310 MWs of wind-powered generating facilities for which PTCs have expired or will expire by the end of 2022. MidAmerican Energy anticipates energy generation from the repowered facilities will increase between 19% and 30% depending upon the technology being repowered.

Of the 6,998 MWs of wind-powered generating facilities in-service as of December 31, 2020, 6,866 MWs were generating PTCs, including 1,275 MWs of repowered facilities. PTCs earned by MidAmerican Energy's wind-powered generating facilities placed in-service prior to 2013, except for repowered facilities, are included in MidAmerican Energy's Iowa energy adjustment clause, through which MidAmerican Energy is allowed to recover fluctuations in its electric retail energy costs. Facilities earning PTCs that currently benefit customers through the Iowa energy adjustment clause totaled 1,000 MWs (nominal ratings) as of December 31, 2020, with the eligibility of those facilities to earn PTCs expiring by the end of 2022. MidAmerican Energy earned PTCs totaling $510 million and $378 million in 2020 and 2019, respectively, of which 15% and 19%, respectively, were included in the Iowa energy adjustment clause.

Coal

All of the coal-fueled generating facilities operated by MidAmerican Energy are fueled by low-sulfur, western coal from the Powder River Basin in northeast Wyoming. MidAmerican Energy's coal supply portfolio includes multiple suppliers and mines under short-term and multi-year agreements of varying terms and quantities through 2023. MidAmerican Energy believes supplies from these sources are presently adequate and available to meet MidAmerican Energy's needs. MidAmerican Energy's coal supply portfolio has substantially all of its expected 2021 requirements under fixed-price contracts. MidAmerican Energy regularly monitors the western coal market for opportunities to enhance its coal supply portfolio.

MidAmerican Energy has a multi-year long-haul coal transportation agreement with BNSF Railway Company ("BNSF"), an affiliate company, for the delivery of coal to all of the MidAmerican Energy-operated coal-fueled generating facilities other than the George Neal Energy Center. Under this agreement, BNSF delivers coal directly to MidAmerican Energy's Walter Scott, Jr. Energy Center and to an interchange point with Canadian Pacific Railway Company for short-haul delivery to the Louisa Energy Center. MidAmerican Energy has a multi-year long-haul coal transportation agreement with Union Pacific Railroad Company for the delivery of coal to the George Neal Energy Center.

        Nuclear

MidAmerican Energy is a 25% joint owner of Quad Cities Generating Station Units 1 and 2 ("Quad Cities Station"), a nuclear power plant, which is currently licensed by the NRC for operation until December 14, 2032. Exelon Generation Company, LLC ("Exelon Generation"), a subsidiary of Exelon Corporation, is the 75% joint owner and the operator of Quad Cities Station. Approximately one-third of the nuclear fuel assemblies in each reactor core at Quad Cities Station is replaced every 24 months. MidAmerican Energy has been advised by Exelon Generation that the following requirements for Quad Cities Station can be met under existing supplies or commitments: uranium requirements through 2025 and partial requirements through 2030; uranium conversion requirements through 2028 and partial requirements through 2031; enrichment requirements through 2027 and partial requirements through 2031; and fuel fabrication requirements through 2028. MidAmerican Energy has been advised by Exelon Generation that it does not anticipate it will have difficulty in contracting for uranium, uranium conversion, enrichment or fabrication of nuclear fuel needed to operate Quad Cities Station during these time periods. In reaction to concerns about the profitability of Quad Cities Station and Exelon Generation's ability to continue its operation, in December 2016, Illinois passed legislation creating a zero emission standard, which went into effect June 1, 2017. The zero emission standard requires the Illinois Power Agency to purchase ZECs and recover the costs from certain ratepayers in Illinois, subject to certain limitations. The proceeds from the ZECs will provide Exelon Generation additional revenue through 2027 as an incentive for continued operation of Quad Cities Station.

16


        Natural Gas and Other

MidAmerican Energy uses natural gas and oil as fuel for intermediate and peak demand electric generation, igniter fuel, transmission support and standby purposes. These sources are presently in adequate supply and available to meet MidAmerican Energy's needs.

        Regional Transmission Organizations

MidAmerican Energy sells and purchases electricity and ancillary services related to its generation and load in wholesale markets pursuant to the tariffs in those markets. MidAmerican Energy participates predominantly in the MISO energy and ancillary service markets, which provide MidAmerican Energy with wholesale opportunities over a large market area. MidAmerican Energy can enter into wholesale bilateral transactions in addition to market activity related to its assets. MidAmerican Energy is authorized to participate in the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ("PJM") markets and can contract with several other major transmission-owning utilities in the region. MidAmerican Energy can utilize both financial swaps and physical fixed-price electricity sales and purchases contracts to reduce its exposure to electricity price volatility.

MidAmerican Energy's decisions regarding additions to or reductions of its generation portfolio may be impacted by the MISO's minimum reserve margin requirement. The MISO requires each member to maintain a minimum reserve margin of its accredited generating capacity over its peak demand obligation based on the member's load forecast filed with the MISO each year. The MISO's reserve requirement was 8.9% for the summer of 2020 and will increase to 9.4% for the summer of 2021. MidAmerican Energy's owned and contracted capacity accredited for the 2020-2021 MISO capacity auction was 5,471 MWs compared to a peak demand obligation of 4,830 MWs, or a reserve margin of 13.3%. Accredited capacity represents the amount of generation available to meet the requirements of MidAmerican Energy's retail customers and consists of MidAmerican Energy-owned generation, interruptible retail customer load, certain customer private generation that MidAmerican Energy is contractually allowed to dispatch and the net amount of capacity purchases and sales, excluding sales into the MISO annual capacity auction. Accredited capacity may vary significantly from the nominal, or design, capacity ratings, particularly for wind turbines whose output is dependent upon wind levels at any given time. Additionally, the actual amount of generating capacity available at any time may be less than the accredited capacity due to regulatory restrictions, transmission constraints, fuel restrictions and generating units being temporarily out of service for inspection, maintenance, refueling, modifications or other reasons.

Transmission and Distribution

MidAmerican Energy's transmission and distribution systems included 4,600 circuit miles of transmission lines in four states, 25,000 circuit miles of distribution lines and 340 substations as of December 31, 2020. Electricity from MidAmerican Energy's generating facilities and purchased electricity is delivered to wholesale markets and its retail customers via the transmission facilities of MidAmerican Energy and others. MidAmerican Energy participates in the MISO capacity, energy and ancillary services markets as a transmission-owning member and, accordingly, operates its transmission assets at the direction of the MISO. The MISO manages its energy and ancillary service markets using reliability-constrained economic dispatch of the region's generation. For both the day-ahead and real-time (every five minutes) markets, the MISO analyzes generation commitments to provide market liquidity and transparent pricing while maintaining transmission system reliability by minimizing congestion and maximizing efficient energy transmission. Additionally, through its FERC-approved OATT, the MISO performs the role of transmission service provider throughout the MISO footprint and administers the long-term planning function. MISO and related costs of the participants are shared among the participants through a number of mechanisms in accordance with the MISO tariff.

Regulated Natural Gas Operations

MidAmerican Energy is engaged in the distribution of natural gas to customers in its service territory and the related procurement, transportation and storage of natural gas for the benefit of those customers. MidAmerican Energy purchases natural gas from various suppliers and contracts with interstate natural gas pipelines for transportation of the gas to MidAmerican Energy's service territory and for storage and balancing services. MidAmerican Energy sells natural gas and delivery services to end-use customers on its distribution system; sells natural gas to other utilities, municipalities and energy marketing companies; and transports natural gas through its distribution system for end-use customers who have independently secured their supply of natural gas. During 2020, 58% of the total natural gas delivered through MidAmerican Energy's distribution system was associated with transportation service.

17


Natural gas property consists primarily of natural gas mains and service lines, meters, and related distribution equipment, including feeder lines to communities served from natural gas pipelines owned by others. The natural gas distribution facilities of MidAmerican Energy included 24,100 miles of natural gas main and service lines as of December 31, 2020.

Customer Usage and Seasonality

The percentages of natural gas sold to MidAmerican Energy's retail customers by jurisdiction for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
202020192018
Iowa76 %76 %76 %
South Dakota13 13 13 
Illinois10 10 10 
Nebraska
100 %100 %100 %

The percentages of natural gas sold to MidAmerican Energy's retail and wholesale customers by class of customer, total Dths of natural gas sold, total Dths of transportation service and the average number of retail customers for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
202020192018
Residential45 %45 %43 %
Commercial(1)
20 22 21 
Industrial(1)
Total retail70 71 69 
Wholesale(2)
30 29 31 
100 %100 %100 %
Total Dths of natural gas sold (in thousands)114,399125,655126,272
Total Dths of transportation service (in thousands)110,263112,143102,198
Total average number of retail customers (in thousands)774766759

(1)Commercial and industrial customers are classified primarily based on the nature of their business and natural gas usage. Commercial customers are non-residential customers that use natural gas principally for heating. Industrial customers are non-residential customers that use natural gas principally for their manufacturing processes.
(2)Wholesale sales are generally made to other utilities, municipalities and energy marketing companies for eventual resale to end-use customers.

There are seasonal variations in MidAmerican Energy's regulated natural gas business that are principally due to the use of natural gas for heating. Typically, 50-60% of MidAmerican Energy's regulated retail natural gas revenue is reported in the months of January, February, March and December.

On January 29, 2019, MidAmerican Energy recorded its all-time highest peak-day delivery through its distribution system of 1,314,526 Dths. This peak-day delivery consisted of 68% traditional retail sales service and 32% transportation service. MidAmerican Energy's 2020/2021 winter heating season peak-day delivery as of February 23, 2021, was 1,243,237 Dths, reached on February 14, 2021. This preliminary peak-day delivery consisted of 72% traditional retail sales service and 28% transportation service.


18


Natural Gas Supply and Capacity

MidAmerican Energy uses several strategies designed to maintain a reliable natural gas supply and reduce the impact of volatility in natural gas prices on its regulated retail natural gas customers. These strategies include the purchase of a geographically diverse supply portfolio from producers and third-party energy marketing companies, the use of interstate pipeline storage services and MidAmerican Energy's LNG peaking facilities, and the use of financial derivatives to fix the price on a portion of the anticipated natural gas requirements of MidAmerican Energy's customers. Refer to "General Regulation" in Item 1 of this Form 10-K for a discussion of the PGAs.

MidAmerican Energy contracts for firm natural gas pipeline capacity to transport natural gas from key production areas and liquid market centers to its service territory through direct interconnects to the pipeline systems of several interstate natural gas pipeline systems, including Northern Natural Gas, an affiliate company. MidAmerican Energy has multiple pipeline interconnections into several larger markets within its distribution system. Multiple pipeline interconnections create competition among pipeline suppliers for transportation capacity to serve those markets, thus reducing costs. In addition, multiple pipeline interconnections increase delivery reliability and give MidAmerican Energy the ability to optimize delivery of the lowest cost supply from the various production areas and liquid market centers into these markets. Benefits to MidAmerican Energy's distribution system customers are shared among all jurisdictions through a consolidated PGA.

At times, the natural gas pipeline capacity available through MidAmerican Energy's firm capacity portfolio may exceed the requirements of retail customers on MidAmerican Energy's distribution system. Firm capacity in excess of MidAmerican Energy's system needs can be released to other companies to achieve optimum use of the available capacity. Past IUB and South Dakota Public Utilities Commission ("SDPUC") rulings have allowed MidAmerican Energy to retain 30% of the respective jurisdictional revenue on the resold capacity, with the remaining 70% being returned to customers through the PGAs.

MidAmerican Energy utilizes interstate pipeline natural gas storage services to meet retail customer requirements, manage fluctuations in demand due to changes in weather and other usage factors and manage variation in seasonal natural gas pricing. MidAmerican Energy typically withdraws natural gas from storage during the heating season when customer demand is historically at its peak and injects natural gas into storage during off-peak months when customer demand is historically lower. MidAmerican Energy also utilizes its three LNG facilities to meet peak day demands during the winter heating season. Interstate pipeline storage services and MidAmerican Energy's LNG facilities reduce dependence on natural gas purchases during the volatile winter heating season and can deliver a significant portion of MidAmerican Energy's anticipated retail sales requirements on a peak winter day. For MidAmerican Energy's 2020/2021 winter heating season preliminary peak-day of February 14, 2021, supply sources used to meet deliveries to traditional retail sales service customers included 51% from purchases delivered on interstate pipelines, 33% from interstate pipeline storage services and 16% from MidAmerican Energy's LNG facilities.

MidAmerican Energy attempts to optimize the value of its regulated transportation capacity, natural gas supply and interstate pipeline storage services by engaging in wholesale transactions. IUB and SDPUC rulings have allowed MidAmerican Energy to retain 50% of the respective jurisdictional margins earned on certain wholesale sales of natural gas, with the remaining 50% being returned to customers through the PGAs.

MidAmerican Energy is not aware of any factors that would cause material difficulties in meeting its anticipated retail customer demand under normal operating conditions for the foreseeable future.


19


Energy Efficiency Programs

MidAmerican Energy has provided a comprehensive set of demand- and energy-reduction programs to its Iowa electric and natural gas customers since 1990. The programs, collectively referred to as energy efficiency programs, are designed to reduce energy consumption and more effectively manage when energy is used, including management of seasonal peak loads. Current programs offer services to customers such as energy engineering audits and information on how to improve the efficiency of their homes and businesses. To assist customers in investing in energy efficiency, MidAmerican Energy offers rebates or incentives encouraging the purchase and installation of high-efficiency equipment such as lighting, heating and cooling equipment, weatherization, motors, process equipment and systems, as well as incentives for efficient construction. Incentives are also paid to residential customers who participate in the air conditioner load control program and nonresidential customers who participate in the nonresidential load management program. In Iowa, legislation passed in 2018 provides that projected cumulative average annual costs for a natural gas energy efficiency plan cannot exceed 1.5% of expected Iowa natural gas retail revenue and, for an electric demand response plan and separately for an electric energy efficiency plan other than demand response, cannot exceed 2.0% of expected annual Iowa electric retail revenue. Although subject to prudence reviews, state regulations allow for contemporaneous recovery of costs incurred for energy efficiency programs through state-specific energy efficiency service charges paid by all retail electric and natural gas customers. In 2020, $40 million was expensed for MidAmerican Energy's energy efficiency programs, which resulted in estimated first-year energy savings of 136,000 MWhs of electricity and 189,000 Dths of natural gas and an estimated peak load reduction of 345 MWs of electricity and 4,558 Dths per day of natural gas.

Human Capital

Employees

All of MidAmerican Funding's employees are employed by MidAmerican Energy. As of December 31, 2020, MidAmerican Energy had approximately 3,400 employees, of which approximately 1,400 were covered by union contracts. MidAmerican Energy has three separate contracts with locals of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("IBEW") and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union. A contract with the IBEW covering substantially all of the union employees expires April 30, 2022. For more information regarding MidAmerican Funding's and MidAmerican Energy's human capital disclosures, refer to Item 1. Business - General section of this Form 10-K.

NV ENERGY (NEVADA POWER AND SIERRA PACIFIC)

General

NV Energy, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BHE, is an energy holding company headquartered in Nevada whose principal subsidiaries are Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific. Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific are indirect consolidated subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway. Nevada Power is a United States regulated electric utility company serving 1.0 million retail customers primarily in the Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson and adjoining areas. Sierra Pacific is a United States regulated electric and natural gas utility company serving 0.4 million retail electric customers and 0.2 million retail and transportation natural gas customers in northern Nevada. The Nevada Utilities are principally engaged in the business of generating, transmitting, distributing and selling electricity and, in the case of Sierra Pacific, in distributing, selling and transporting natural gas. Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific have electric service territories covering approximately 4,500 square miles and 41,200 square miles, respectively. Sierra Pacific has a natural gas service territory covering approximately 900 square miles in Reno and Sparks. Principal industries served by the Nevada Utilities include gaming, recreation, warehousing, manufacturing and governmental services. Sierra Pacific also serves the mining industry. The Nevada Utilities buy and sell electricity on the wholesale market with other utilities, energy marketing companies, financial institutions and other market participants to balance and optimize economic benefits of electricity generation, retail customer loads and wholesale transactions.

The Nevada Utilities' electric and natural gas operations are conducted under numerous nonexclusive franchise agreements, revocable permits and licenses obtained from federal, state and local authorities. The franchise agreements, with various expiration dates, are typically for 20- to 25-year terms. The Nevada Utilities operate under certificates of public convenience and necessity as regulated by the PUCN, and as such the Nevada Utilities have an obligation to provide electricity service to those customers within their service territory. In return, the PUCN has established rates on a cost-of-service basis, which are designed to allow the Nevada Utilities an opportunity to recover all prudently incurred costs of providing services and an opportunity to earn a reasonable return on their investment.
20


NV Energy's monthly net income is affected by the seasonal impact of weather on electricity and natural gas sales and seasonal retail electricity prices from the Nevada Utilities'. For 2020, 76% of NV Energy annual net income was recorded in the months of June through September.

Regulated electric utility operations is Nevada Power's only segment while regulated electric utility operations and regulated natural gas operations are the two segments of Sierra Pacific.

The percentages of Sierra Pacific's operating revenue and operating income derived from the following business activities for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
202020192018
Operating revenue:
Electric86 %87 %88 %
Gas14 13 12 
100 %100 %100 %
Operating income:
Electric89 %88 %89 %
Gas11 12 11 
100 %100 %100 %

Nevada Power was incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1929 and its principal executive offices are located at 6226 West Sahara Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89146, its telephone number is (702) 402-5000 and its internet address is www.nvenergy.com.

Sierra Pacific was incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1912 and its principal executive offices are located at 6100 Neil Road, Reno, Nevada 89511, its telephone number is (775) 834-4011 and its internet address is www.nvenergy.com.
21


Regulated Electric Operations

Customers

The Nevada Utilities' sell electricity to retail customers in a single state jurisdiction. Electricity sold to the Nevada Utilities' retail and wholesale customers by class of customer and the average number of retail customers for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
202020192018
Nevada Power:
GWhs sold:
Residential10,477 46 %9,311 41 %9,970 43 %
Commercial4,591 20 4,657 21 4,778 20 
Industrial4,881 21 5,344 24 5,534 24 
Other195 193 214 
Total fully bundled20,144 88 19,505 87 20,496 88 
Distribution only service2,425 11 2,613 12 2,521 11 
Total retail22,569 99 22,118 99 23,017 99 
Wholesale374 527 274 
Total GWhs sold22,943 100 %22,645 100 %23,291 100 %
Average number of retail customers (in thousands):
Residential856 88 %840 88 %825 88 %
Commercial110 12 109 12 108 12 
Industrial— — — 
Total968 100 %951 100 %935 100 %
Sierra Pacific:
GWhs sold:
Residential2,672 23 %2,491 22 %2,483 23 %
Commercial2,977 26 2,973 26 2,998 27 
Industrial3,544 31 3,716 32 3,387 31 
Other15 — 16 — 16 — 
Total fully bundled9,208 80 9,196 80 8,884 81 
Distribution only service1,670 15 1,629 14 1,516 14 
Total retail10,878 95 10,825 94 10,400 95 
Wholesale548 662 558 
Total GWhs sold11,426 100 %11,487 100 %10,958 100 %
Average number of retail customers (in thousands):
Residential310 86 %304 86 %300 86 %
Commercial49 14 48 14 47 14 
Total359 100 %352 100 %347 100 %

Variations in weather, economic conditions, particularly for gaming, mining and wholesale customers and various conservation, energy efficiency and private generation measures and programs can impact customer usage. Wholesale sales are impacted by market prices for energy relative to the incremental cost to generate power.

There are seasonal variations in the Nevada Utilities' electric business that are principally related to weather and the related use of electricity for air conditioning. Typically, 48-52% of Nevada Power's and 36-38% of Sierra Pacific's regulated electric revenue is reported in the months of June through September.

22


The annual hourly peak customer demand on the Nevada Utilities' electric systems occurs as a result of air conditioning use during the cooling season. Peak demand represents the highest demand on a given day and at a given hour. On August 18, 2020, customer usage of electricity caused an hourly peak demand of 5,965 MWs on Nevada Power's electric system, which is 159 MWs less than the record hourly peak demand of 6,124 MWs set July 28, 2016. On July 29, 2020, customer usage of electricity caused an hourly peak demand of 1,906 MWs on Sierra Pacific's electric system, which is 46 MWs more than the previous record hourly peak demand of 1,860 MWs set July 19, 2018.

Generating Facilities and Fuel Supply

The Nevada Utilities have ownership interest in a diverse portfolio of generating facilities. The following table presents certain information regarding the Nevada Utilities' owned generating facilities as of December 31, 2020:
FacilityNet Owned
Net CapacityCapacity
Generating FacilityLocationEnergy SourceInstalled
(MWs)(1)
(MWs)(1)
Nevada Power:
NATURAL GAS:
ClarkLas Vegas, NVNatural gas1973-20081,102 1,102 
LenzieLas Vegas, NVNatural gas20061,102 1,102 
Harry AllenLas Vegas, NVNatural gas1995-2011628 628 
HigginsPrimm, NVNatural gas2004530 530 
SilverhawkLas Vegas, NVNatural gas2004520 520 
Las VegasLas Vegas, NVNatural gas1994-2003272 272 
Sun PeakLas Vegas, NVNatural gas/oil1991210 210 
4,364 4,364 
RENEWABLES:
NellisLas Vegas, NVSolar201515 15 
GoodspringsGoodsprings, NVWaste heat2010
20 20 
Total Nevada Power4,384 4,384 
Sierra Pacific:
NATURAL GAS:
TracySparks, NVNatural gas1974-2008753 753 
Ft. ChurchillYerington, NVNatural gas1968-1971226 226 
Clark MountainSparks, NVNatural gas1994132 132 
1,111 1,111 
COAL:
Valmy Unit Nos. 1 and 2Valmy, NVCoal1981-1985522 261 
Total Sierra Pacific1,633 1,372 
Total NV Energy6,017 5,756 

(1)Facility Net Capacity represents the lesser of nominal ratings or any limitations under applicable interconnection, power purchase, or other agreements for intermittent resources and the total net dependable capability available during summer conditions for all other units. An intermittent resource's nominal rating is the manufacturer's contractually specified capability (in MWs) under specified conditions. Net Owned Capacity indicates Nevada Power or Sierra Pacific's ownership of Facility Net Capacity.


23


The following table shows the percentages of the Nevada Utilities' total energy supplied by energy source for the years ended December 31:
202020192018
Nevada Power:
Natural gas66 %65 %64 %
Coal— 
Total energy generated66 70 70 
Energy purchased - long-term contracts (renewable)(1)
15 17 16 
Energy purchased - long-term contracts (non-renewable)13 11 10 
Energy purchased - short-term contracts and other
100 %100 %100 %
Sierra Pacific:
Natural gas48 %46 %48 %
Coal11 
Total energy generated56 57 56 
Energy purchased - long-term contracts (non-renewable)24 27 29 
Energy purchased - long-term contracts (renewable)(1)
15 13 12 
Energy purchased - short-term contracts and other
100 %100 %100 %

(1)     All or some of the renewable energy attributes associated with generation from these sources may be: (a) used in future years to comply with RPS or other regulatory requirements, (b) sold to third parties in the form of RECs or other environmental commodities, or (c) excluded from energy purchased.

The Nevada Utilities are required to have resources available to continuously meet their customer needs and reliably operate their electric systems. The percentage of the Nevada Utilities' energy supplied by energy source varies from year-to-year and is subject to numerous operational and economic factors such as planned and unplanned outages; fuel commodity prices; fuel transportation costs; weather; environmental considerations; transmission constraints; and wholesale market prices of electricity. The Nevada Utilities evaluate these factors continuously in order to facilitate economical dispatch of their generating facilities. When factors for one energy source are less favorable, the Nevada Utilities place more reliance on other energy sources. As long as the Nevada Utilities' purchases are deemed prudent by the PUCN, through their annual prudency review, the Nevada Utilities are permitted to recover the cost of fuel and purchased power. The Nevada Utilities also have the ability to reset quarterly the BTERs, with PUCN approval, based on the last twelve months fuel costs and purchased power and to reset quarterly DEAA.

The Nevada Utilities have adopted an approach to managing the energy supply function that has three primary elements. The first element is a set of management guidelines for procuring and optimizing the supply portfolio that is consistent with the requirements of a load serving entity with a full requirements obligation, and with the growth of private generation serving a small but growing group of customers with partial requirements. The second element is an energy risk management and control approach that ensures clear separation of roles between the day-to-day management of risks and compliance monitoring and control and ensures clear distinction between policy setting (or planning) and execution. Lastly, the Nevada Utilities pursue a process of ongoing regulatory involvement and acknowledgment of the resource portfolio management plans.

The Nevada Utilities have entered into multiple long-term power purchase contracts (three or more years) with suppliers that generate electricity utilizing renewable resources, natural gas and coal. Nevada Power has entered into contracts with a total capacity of 3,612 MWs with contract termination dates ranging from 2022 to 2067. Included in these contracts are 3,352 MWs of capacity from renewable energy, of which 2,068 MWs of capacity are under development or construction and not currently available. Sierra Pacific has entered into contracts with a total capacity of 1,178 MWs with contract termination dates ranging from 2022 to 2046. Included in these contracts are 992 MWs of capacity from renewable energy, of which 401 MWs of capacity are under development or construction and not currently available.

24


The Nevada Utilities manage certain risks relating to their supply of electricity and fuel requirements by entering into various contracts, which may be accounted for as derivatives, including forwards, futures, options, swaps and other agreements. Refer to NV Energy's "General Regulation" section in Item 1 of this Form 10-K for a discussion of energy cost recovery by jurisdiction and Nevada Power's Item 7A and Sierra Pacific's Item 7A in this Form 10-K for a discussion of commodity price risk and derivative contracts.

    Natural Gas

The Nevada Utilities rely on first-of-the-month indexed physical gas purchases for the majority of natural gas needed to operate their generating facilities. To secure natural gas supplies for the generating facilities, the Nevada Utilities execute purchases pursuant to a PUCN approved four season laddering strategy. In 2020, natural gas supply net purchases averaged 320,382 and 169,522 Dths per day with the winter period contracts averaging 273,504 and 189,422 Dths per day and the summer period contracts averaging 353,678 and 155,439 Dths per day for Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific, respectively. The Nevada Utilities believe supplies from these sources are presently adequate and available to meet its needs.

The Nevada Utilities contract for firm natural gas pipeline capacity to transport natural gas from production areas to their service territory through direct interconnects to the pipeline systems of several interstate natural gas pipeline systems, including Nevada Power who contracts with Kern River, an affiliated company. Sierra Pacific utilizes natural gas storage contracted from interstate pipelines to meet retail customer requirements and to manage the daily changes in demand due to changes in weather and other usage factors. The stored natural gas is typically replaced during off-peak months when the demand for natural gas is historically lower than during the heating season.

    Coal

Sierra Pacific relies on spot market solicitations for coal supplies and will regularly monitor the western coal market for opportunities to meet these needs. Sierra Pacific has a transportation services contract with Union Pacific Railroad Company to ship coal from various origins in central Utah, western Colorado and Wyoming that expires December 31, 2025. Sierra Pacific has no commitments to purchase coal for 2021 or beyond. The Navajo Generating Station was shut down in November 2019 and Nevada Power has no coal requirements going forward.

        Energy Imbalance Market

The Nevada Utilities participate in the EIM operated by the California ISO, which reduces costs to serve customers through more efficient dispatch of a larger and more diverse pool of resources, more effectively integrates renewables and enhances reliability through improved situational awareness and responsiveness. The EIM expands the real-time component of the California ISO's market technology to optimize and balance electricity supply and demand every five minutes across the EIM footprint. The EIM is voluntary and available to all balancing authorities in the western United States. EIM market participants submit bids to the California ISO market operator before each hour for each generating resource they choose to be dispatched by the market. Each bid is comprised of a dispatchable operating range, ramp rate and prices across the operating range. The California ISO market operator uses sophisticated technology to select the least-cost resources to meet demand and send simultaneous dispatch signals to every participating generator across the EIM footprint every five minutes. In addition to generation resource bids, the California ISO market operator also receives continuous real-time updates of the transmission grid network, meteorological and load forecast information that it uses to optimize dispatch instructions. Outside the EIM footprint, utilities in the western United States do not utilize comparable technology and are largely limited to transactions within the borders of their balancing authority area to balance supply and demand intra-hour using a combination of manual and automated dispatch. The EIM delivers customer benefits by leveraging automation and resource diversity to result in more efficient dispatch, more effective integration of renewables and improved situational awareness. Benefits are expected to increase further with renewable resource expansion and as more entities join the EIM bringing incremental diversity.

Transmission and Distribution

The Nevada Utilities' transmission system is part of the Western Interconnection, a regional grid in the United States. The Western Interconnection includes the interconnected transmission systems of 14 western states, two Canadian provinces and parts of Mexico. The Nevada Utilities' transmission system, together with contractual rights on other transmission systems, enables the Nevada Utilities to integrate and access generation resources to meet their customer load requirements. Nevada Power's transmission and distribution systems included approximately 1,900 miles of transmission lines, 14,000 miles of distribution lines and 210 substations as of December 31, 2020. Sierra Pacific's transmission and distribution systems included approximately 4,200 miles of transmission lines, 9,500 miles of distribution lines and 200 substations as of December 31, 2020.

25


ON Line is a 231-mile, 500-kV transmission line connecting Nevada Power's and Sierra Pacific's service territories. ON Line provides the ability to jointly dispatch energy throughout Nevada and provide access to renewable energy resources in parts of northern and eastern Nevada, which enhances the Nevada Utilities' ability to manage and optimize their generating facilities. ON Line provides between 600 MW northbound and 900 MW southbound of transfer capability with interconnection between the Robinson Summit substation on the Sierra Pacific system and the Harry Allen substation on the Nevada Power system. ON Line was a joint project between the Nevada Utilities and Great Basin Transmission, LLC. The Nevada Utilities own a 25% interest in ON Line and have entered into a long-term transmission use agreement with Great Basin Transmission, LLC for its 75% interest in ON Line until 2054. The Nevada Utilities share of its 25% interest in ON Line and the long-term transmission use agreement is split 75% for Nevada Power and 25% for Sierra Pacific, previously split 95% for Nevada Power and 5% for Sierra Pacific. In December 2019, the PUCN approved an order to update the split starting January 1, 2020 to 75% for Nevada Power and 25% for Sierra Pacific to more accurately reflect the benefits obtained from the transmission line. In August 2020, the FERC approved the amended agreement between the Nevada Utilities and Great Basin Transmission, LLC that reallocated the PUCN-approved, updated ownership percentage from Nevada Power to Sierra Pacific.

Future Generation, Conservation and Energy Efficiency

        Energy Supply Planning

Within the energy supply planning process, there are four key components covering different time frames:

IRPs are filed by the Nevada Utilities for approval by the PUCN every three years and the Nevada Utilities may, as necessary, file amendments to their IRPs. IRPs are prepared in compliance with Nevada laws and regulations and cover a 20-year period. Nevada law governing the IRP process was modified in 2017 and now requires joint filings by Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific. IRPs develop a comprehensive, integrated plan that considers customer energy requirements and propose the resources to meet those requirements in a manner that is consistent with prevailing market fundamentals. The ultimate goal of the IRPs is to balance the objectives of minimizing costs and reducing volatility while reliably meeting the electric needs of the Nevada Utilities' customers. Costs incurred to complete projects approved through the IRP process still remain subject to review for reasonableness by the PUCN.
Energy Supply Plans ("ESP") are filed with the PUCN for approval and operate in conjunction with the PUCN-approved 20-year IRP. The ESP has a one- to three-year planning horizon and is an intermediate-term resource procurement and risk management plan that establishes the supply portfolio strategies within which intermediate-term resource requirements will be met with PUCN approval required for executing contracts of longer than three years.
Distributed Resource Plans ("DRP") are filed with the PUCN for approval and operate in conjunction with the PUCN-approved 20-year IRP. The DRP establishes a formal process to aid in the cost-effective integration of distributed resources into the Nevada Utilities' distribution and transmission process and ultimately the NV Energy utilities' electricity grid.
Action plans are filed with the PUCN for approval and operate in conjunction with the PUCN-approved 20-year IRP and PUCN-approved ESP. The action plan establishes tactical execution activities with a one-month to twelve-month focus.

In July 2020, the Nevada Utilities filed their fourth amendment to the IRP requesting approval of two new renewable energy power purchase agreements, a utility-owned renewable facility, a utility-owned community scale renewable facility and updates to the Transmission Plan. In July 2020, the Nevada Utilities also filed a joint petition requesting to defer the September 2020 filing of the Updated Distributed Resource Plans until its June 2021 Joint Integrated Resource Plan is filed. In September 2020, the PUCN issued an order granting the petition to defer the filing and ordered the Nevada Utilities to conduct an informal workshop in October 2020 to provide an update of the distributed resources plan and present information consistent with the statutory requirements. In November 2020, the Nevada Utilities filed a settlement stipulation for Phase I of the fourth amendment to the IRP, which was followed by a hearing. The settlement resolved all issues related to the load forecast, four renewable energy projects and certain transmission investments. The stipulation was approved by the PUCN in December 2020. Phase II hearing was scheduled in February 2021.
26


Emissions Reduction and Capacity Replacement Plan

In compliance with Senate Bill No. 123, Nevada Power retired 255 MWs of coal-fueled generation in 2019 in addition to the 557 MWs of coal-fueled generation retired in 2017. Consistent with the Emissions Reduction and Capacity Replacement Plan ("ERCR Plan"), between 2014 and 2016, Nevada Power acquired 536 MWs of natural gas generating resources, executed long-term power purchase agreements for 200 MWs of nameplate renewable energy capacity and constructed a 15-MW solar photovoltaic facility. Nevada Power has the option to acquire 35 MWs of nameplate renewable energy capacity in the future under the ERCR Plan, subject to PUCN approval.

    Energy Efficiency Programs

The Nevada Utilities have provided a comprehensive set of energy efficiency, demand response and conservation programs to their Nevada electric customers. The programs are designed to reduce energy consumption and more effectively manage when energy is used, including management of seasonal peak loads. Current programs offer services to customers such as energy audits and customer education and awareness efforts that provide information on how to improve the efficiency of their homes and businesses. To assist customers in investing in energy efficiency, the Nevada Utilities have offered rebates or incentives encouraging the purchase and installation of high-efficiency equipment such as lighting, heating and cooling equipment, weatherization, motors, process equipment and systems, as well as incentives for efficient construction. Incentives are also paid to residential customers who participate in the air conditioner load control program and nonresidential customers who participate in the nonresidential load management program. Energy efficiency program costs are recovered through annual rates set by the PUCN, and adjusted based on the Nevada Utilities' annual filing to recover current program costs and any over or under collections from the prior filing, subject to prudence review. During 2020, Nevada Power spent $33 million on energy efficiency programs, resulting in an estimated 218,913 MWhs of electric energy savings and an estimated 207 MWs of electric peak load management. During 2020, Sierra Pacific spent $10 million on energy efficiency programs, resulting in an estimated 96,933 MWhs of electric energy savings and an estimated 32 MWs of electric peak load management.

Regulated Natural Gas Operations

Sierra Pacific is engaged in the distribution of natural gas to customers in its service territory and the related procurement, transportation and storage of natural gas for the benefit of those customers. Sierra Pacific purchases natural gas from various suppliers and contracts with interstate natural gas pipelines for transportation of the natural gas from the production areas to Sierra Pacific's service territory and for storage services to manage fluctuations in system demand and seasonal pricing. Sierra Pacific sells natural gas and delivery services to end-use customers on its distribution system; sells natural gas to other utilities, municipalities and energy marketing companies; and transports natural gas through its distribution system for a number of end-use customers who have independently secured their supply of natural gas. During 2020, 10% of the total natural gas delivered through Sierra Pacific's distribution system was for transportation service.

Natural gas property consists primarily of natural gas mains and service lines, meters, and related distribution equipment, including feeder lines to communities served from natural gas pipelines owned by others. The natural gas distribution facilities of Sierra Pacific included 3,500 miles of natural gas mains and service lines as of December 31, 2020.
27


Customer Usage and Seasonality

The percentages of natural gas sold to Sierra Pacific's retail and wholesale customers by class of customer, total Dths of natural gas sold, total Dths of transportation service and the average number of retail customers for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
202020192018
Residential56 %57 %55 %
Commercial(1)
28 29 28 
Industrial(1)
10 10 11 
Total retail94 96 94 
Wholesale(2)
100 %100 %100 %
Total Dths of natural gas sold (in thousands)18,622 19,846 18,334 
Total Dths of transportation service (in thousands)1,850 2,217 2,250 
Total average number of retail customers (in thousands)174 170 167 

(1)Commercial and industrial customers are classified primarily based on the nature of their business and natural gas usage. Commercial customers are non-residential customers with monthly gas usage less than 12,000 therms during five consecutive winter months. Industrial customers are non-residential customers that use natural gas in excess of 12,000 therms during one or more winter months.

(2)Wholesale sales are generally made to other utilities, municipalities and energy marketing companies for eventual resale to end-use customers.

There are seasonal variations in Sierra Pacific's regulated natural gas business that are principally due to the use of natural gas for heating. Typically, 47-56% of Sierra Pacific's regulated natural gas revenue is reported in the months of December through March.

On February 3, 2020, Sierra Pacific recorded its highest peak-day natural gas delivery of 141,416 Dths, which is 22,158 Dths less than the record peak-day delivery of 163,574 Dths set on December 9, 2013. This peak-day delivery consisted of 95% traditional retail sales service and 5% transportation service.

Fuel Supply and Capacity

The purchase of natural gas for Sierra Pacific's regulated natural gas operations is done in combination with the purchase of natural gas for Sierra Pacific's regulated electric operations. In response to energy supply challenges, Sierra Pacific has adopted an approach to managing the energy supply function that has three primary elements, as discussed earlier under Generating Facilities and Fuel Supply. Similar to Sierra Pacific's regulated electric operations, as long as Sierra Pacific's purchases of natural gas are deemed prudent by the PUCN, through its annual prudency review, Sierra Pacific is permitted to recover the cost of natural gas. Sierra Pacific also has the ability, with PUCN approval, to reset quarterly the BTERs, based on the last twelve months fuel costs, and to reset quarterly DEAA.

Human Capital

Employees

As of December 31, 2020, Nevada Power had approximately 1,400 employees, of which approximately 700 were covered by a union contract with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

As of December 31, 2020, Sierra Pacific had approximately 1,000 employees, of which approximately 500 were covered by a union contract with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

For more information regarding Nevada Power's and Sierra Pacific's human capital disclosures, refer to Item 1. Business - General section of this Form 10-K.


28


NORTHERN POWERGRID

Northern Powergrid, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BHE, is a holding company which owns two companies that distribute electricity in Great Britain, Northern Powergrid (Northeast) plc and Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc. In addition to the Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies, Northern Powergrid also owns a meter asset rental business that leases meters to energy suppliers in the United Kingdom, an engineering contracting business that provides electrical infrastructure contracting services primarily to third parties and a hydrocarbon exploration and development business that is focused on developing integrated upstream gas projects in Europe and Australia.

The Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies serve 3.9 million end-users and operate in the north-east of England from North Northumberland through Tyne and Wear, County Durham and Yorkshire to North Lincolnshire, an area covering 10,000 square miles. The principal function of the Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies is to build, maintain and operate the electricity distribution network through which the end-user receives a supply of electricity.

The Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies receive electricity from the national grid transmission system and from generators that are directly connected to the distribution network and distribute it to end-users' premises using their networks of transformers, switchgear and distribution lines and cables. Substantially all of the end-users in the Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies' distribution service areas are directly or indirectly connected to the Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies' networks and electricity can only be delivered to these end-users through their distribution systems, thus providing the Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies with distribution volumes that are relatively stable from year to year. The Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies charge fees for the use of their distribution systems to the suppliers of electricity.

The suppliers purchase electricity from generators, sell the electricity to end-user customers and use the Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies' distribution networks pursuant to an industry standard "Distribution Connection and Use of System Agreement." During 2020, RWE Npower PLC and certain of its affiliates and British Gas Trading Limited represented 15% and 12%, respectively, of the total combined distribution revenue of the Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies. Variations in demand from end-users can affect the revenues that are received by the Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies in any year, but such variations have no effect on the total revenue that the Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies are allowed to recover in a price control period. Under- or over-recoveries against price-controlled revenues are carried forward into prices for future years.

The Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies' combined service territory features a diverse economy with no dominant sector. The mix of rural, agricultural, urban and industrial areas covers a broad customer base ranging from domestic usage through farming and retail to major industry including automotives, chemicals, mining, steelmaking and offshore marine construction. The industry within the area is concentrated around the principal centers of Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Sheffield and Leeds.

The price controlled revenue of the Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies is set out in the special conditions of the licenses of those companies. The licenses are enforced by the regulator, GEMA, through the Ofgem and limit increases to allowed revenues (or may require decreases) based upon the rate of inflation, other specified factors and other regulatory action. Changes to the price controls can be made by the regulator, but if a licensee disagrees with a change to its license it can appeal the matter to the United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA"). It has been the convention in Great Britain for regulators to conduct periodic regulatory reviews before making proposals for any changes to the price controls. The current electricity distribution price control became effective April 1, 2015 and will continue through March 31, 2023.


29


GWhs and percentages of electricity distributed to the Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies' end-users and the total number of end-users as of and for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
202020192018
Northern Powergrid (Northeast) plc:
Residential5,252 40 %4,982 36 %5,125 36 %
Commercial(1)
1,411 11 1,644 12 1,782 13 
Industrial(1)
6,377 48 7,097 51 7,134 50 
Other142 156 198 
13,182 100 %13,879 100 %14,239 100 %
Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc:
Residential7,694 39 %7,311 35 %7,509 36 %
Commercial(1)
2,048 11 2,391 12 2,558 12 
Industrial(1)
9,540 49 10,722 52 10,716 51 
Other217 236 268 
19,499 100 %20,660 100 %21,051 100 %
Total electricity distributed32,681 34,539 35,290 
Number of end-users (in thousands):
Northern Powergrid (Northeast) plc1,615 1,612 1,603 
Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc2,319 2,314 2,301 
3,934 3,926 3,904 

(1)     The increase in industrial and decrease in commercial is largely due to the Great Britain-wide customer reclassifications which are in progress (as a result of Ofgem approved industry changes), negatively impacting commercial volumes by 100 GWhs in 2018 compared to 2017.

As of December 31, 2020, the combined electricity distribution network of the Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies included approximately 17,300 miles of overhead lines, 42,800 miles of underground cables and 770 major substations.

BHE PIPELINE GROUP (EASTERN ENERGY GAS)

BHE GT&S

BHE GT&S is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BHE. BHE GT&S' operations, through its ownership of Eastern Energy Gas, includes three interstate natural gas pipeline systems, one of the nation's largest underground natural gas storage systems and one liquefied natural gas export, import and storage facility. BHE GT&S' operations also include two smaller liquefied natural gas facilities, one field service company, and one gathering and processing company.

Eastern Energy Gas' principal subsidiaries are EGTS and Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC ("CGT"). EGTS's operations include natural gas transmission and storage pipelines located in Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. EGTS also operates one of the nation's largest underground natural gas storage systems located in New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. CGT's operations include an interstate natural gas pipeline system located in South Carolina and southeastern Georgia. Eastern Energy Gas also owns a 50% equity interest in Iroquois Gas Transmission System L.P. ("Iroquois"). Iroquois owns and operates an interstate natural gas pipeline located in the states of New York and Connecticut.


30


Eastern Energy Gas' LNG operations involve the export, import and storage of LNG at the Cove Point LNG Facility that is owned by Cove Point LNG, LP ("Cove Point"), located in Maryland, as well as the transportation of regasified LNG to the interstate pipeline grid and mid-Atlantic markets and the liquefaction of natural gas for export as LNG. Cove Point's LNG Facility has an operational peak regasification daily send-out capacity of approximately 1.8 million Dth and an aggregate LNG storage capacity of approximately 14.6 billions of cubic feet equivalent ("Bcfe"). In addition, Cove Point has a small liquefier that has the potential to produce approximately 15,000 Dth/day. The Liquefaction Facility consists of one LNG train with a nameplate outlet capacity of 5.25 million tonnes per annum ("Mtpa"). Cove Point has authorization from the Department of Energy ("DOE") to export up to 0.77 Bcfe/day (approximately 5.75 Mtpa) should the Liquefaction Facility perform better than expected. Cove Point's 36-inch diameter underground interstate natural gas pipelines are approximately 139 miles, with interconnections to Transcontinental Gas Pipeline, LLC in Fairfax County, Virginia, and with Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC and EGTS in Loudoun County, Virginia. Eastern Energy Gas operates, as the general partner, and owns a 25% limited partnership interest in the Cove Point liquefied natural gas export, import and storage facility. BHE GT&S also operates and has ownership interests in three smaller liquefied natural gas facilities in Alabama, Florida and Pennsylvania.

In total, Eastern Energy Gas operates approximately 5,400 miles of natural gas transmission, gathering and storage pipelines, of which approximately 5,300 miles are owned by Eastern Energy Gas, with a design capacity of 12.5 Bcf per day as well as approximately 100 miles of natural gas liquids pipelines operated by BHE GT&S. Eastern Energy Gas also operates 17 underground storage fields with a total operating storage design capacity of approximately 420 Bcf, of which approximately 306 Bcf relates to natural gas storage field capacity that Eastern Energy Gas owns.

BHE GT&S' pipeline system is configured with approximately 360 active receipt and delivery points. In 2020, BHE GT&S delivered over 2.0 trillion cubic feet ("Tcf") of natural gas to its customers.

BHE GT&S' natural gas transmission and storage earnings primarily result from rates established by FERC. Revenues derived from BHE GT&S' pipeline operations are primarily from reservation charges for firm transportation and storage services as provided for in their FERC-approved tariffs. Reservation charges are required to be paid regardless of volumes transported or stored. The profitability of these businesses is dependent on their ability, through the rates they are permitted to charge, to recover costs and earn a reasonable return on their capital investments. Approximately 91% of BHE GT&S' transmission capacity is subscribed including 88% under long-term contracts (two years or greater) and 3% on a year-to-year basis. BHE GT&S' storage services are 100% subscribed with long-term contracts. Additionally, BHE GT&S receives revenue from firm fee-based contractual arrangements, including negotiated rates, for certain pipeline transportation and LNG storage and terminal services. Variability in BHE GT&S' earnings results from changes in operating and maintenance expenditures, as well as changes in rates and the demand for services, which are dependent on weather, changes in commodity prices and the economy.

Except for quantities of natural gas owned and managed for operational and system balancing purposes, BHE GT&S does not own the natural gas that is transported through its system. The sale of natural gas for operational and system balancing purposes, sales from our field services company and sales of natural gas liquids accounts for the majority of the remaining operating revenue.

During 2020, BHE GT&S had two customers that each accounted for greater than 10% of its operating revenue and its ten largest customers accounted for 53% of its total operating revenue. BHE GT&S has agreements with terms through 2038 to retain the majority of its two largest customers' volumes. The loss of any of these significant customers, if not replaced, could have a material adverse effect on BHE GT&S.

Human Capital

Employees

As of December 31, 2020, Eastern Energy Gas had approximately 1,500 employees, consisting of approximately 1,100 natural gas operations employees and 400 corporate services employees. As of December 31, 2020, approximately 600 employees were covered by a union contract with the Utility Workers Union of America. For more information regarding Eastern Energy Gas' human capital disclosures, refer to Item 1. Business - General section of this Form 10-K.
31


Northern Natural Gas

Northern Natural Gas, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BHE, owns the largest interstate natural gas pipeline system in the United States, as measured by pipeline miles, which reaches from west Texas to Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Northern Natural Gas primarily transports and stores natural gas for utilities, municipalities, gas marketing companies and industrial and commercial users. Northern Natural Gas' pipeline system consists of two commercial segments. Its traditional end-use and distribution market area in the northern part of its system, referred to as the Market Area, includes points in Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Michigan and Illinois. Its natural gas supply and delivery service area in the southern part of its system, referred to as the Field Area, includes points in Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. The Market Area and Field Area are separated at a Demarcation Point ("Demarc"). Northern Natural Gas' pipeline system consists of 14,500 miles of natural gas pipelines, including 6,000 miles of mainline transmission pipelines and 8,500 miles of branch and lateral pipelines, with a Market Area design capacity of 6.3 Bcf per day, a Field Area delivery capacity of 1.7 Bcf per day to the Market Area and 1.4 Bcf per day to the West Texas area and over 79 Bcf of firm service and operational storage cycle capacity in five storage facilities. Northern Natural Gas' pipeline system is configured with approximately 2,240 active receipt and delivery points which are integrated with the facilities of LDCs. Many of Northern Natural Gas' LDC customers are part of combined utilities that also use natural gas as a fuel source for electric generation. Northern Natural Gas delivered over 1.3 Tcf of natural gas to its customers in 2020.

Northern Natural Gas' transportation rates and most of its storage rates are cost-based. These rates are designed to provide Northern Natural Gas with an opportunity to recover its costs of providing services and earn a reasonable return on its investments. In addition, Northern Natural Gas has fixed rates that are market-based for certain of its firm storage contracts with contract terms that expire in 2028.

Northern Natural Gas' operating revenue for the years ended December 31 was as follows (in millions):
202020192018
Transportation:
Market Area$633 65 %$544 64 %$518 58 %
Field Area - deliveries to Demarc137 14 106 12 102 11 
Field Area - other deliveries89 10 95 11 71 
Total transportation859 89 745 87 691 78 
Storage91 65 68 
Total transportation and storage revenue950 98 810 95 759 86 
Gas, liquids and other sales18 42 128 14 
Total operating revenue$968 100 %$852 100 %$887 100 %

Substantially all of Northern Natural Gas' Market Area transportation revenue is generated from reservation charges, with the balance from usage charges. Northern Natural Gas transports natural gas primarily to local distribution markets and end-users in the Market Area. Northern Natural Gas provides service to 84 utilities, including MidAmerican Energy, an affiliate company, which serve numerous residential, commercial and industrial customers. Most of Northern Natural Gas' transportation capacity in the Market Area is committed to customers under firm transportation contracts, where customers pay Northern Natural Gas a monthly reservation charge for the right to transport natural gas through Northern Natural Gas' system. Reservation charges are required to be paid regardless of volumes transported or stored. As of December 31, 2020, approximately 75% of Northern Natural Gas' customers' entitlement in the Market Area have terms beyond 2022 and approximately 51% beyond 2024. As of December 31, 2020, the weighted average remaining contract term for Northern Natural Gas' Market Area firm transportation contracts is over six years.

Northern Natural Gas' Field Area customers consist primarily of energy marketing companies and midstream companies, which take advantage of the price spread opportunities created between Field Area supply points and Demarc. In addition, there are a growing number of midstream customers that are delivering gas south in the Field Area to the Waha Hub market. The remaining Field Area transportation service is sold to power generators connected to Northern Natural Gas' system in Texas and New Mexico that are contracted on a long-term basis with a weighted average remaining contract term of six years, and various LDCs, energy marketing companies and midstream companies for both connected and off-system markets.


32


Northern Natural Gas' storage services are provided through the operation of one underground natural gas storage field in Iowa and two underground natural gas storage facilities in Kansas. Additionally, Northern Natural Gas has two LNG storage peaking units, one in Iowa and one in Minnesota, that support its transportation service. The three underground natural gas storage facilities and two LNG storage peaking units have a total firm service and operational storage cycle capacity of over 79 Bcf and over 2.2 Bcf per day of peak delivery capability. These storage facilities provide operational flexibility for the daily balancing of Northern Natural Gas' system and provide services to customers for their winter peaking and year-round load swing requirements. Northern Natural Gas has 65.1 Bcf of firm storage contracts. Firm storage contracts at maximum tariff rates represent 54.4 Bcf, and the market-based rate contracts represent the remaining 10.7 Bcf. The average remaining contract term for firm storage contracts is five years.

Except for quantities of natural gas owned and managed for operational and system balancing purposes, Northern Natural Gas does not own the natural gas that is transported through its system. The sale of natural gas for operational and system balancing purposes accounts for the majority of the remaining operating revenue.

During 2020, Northern Natural Gas had two customers that each accounted for greater than 10% of its transportation and storage revenue and its ten largest customers accounted for 64% of its system-wide transportation and storage revenue. Northern Natural Gas has agreements with terms through 2029 and 2034 to retain the majority of its two largest customers' volumes. The loss of any of these significant customers, if not replaced, could have a material adverse effect on Northern Natural Gas.

Northern Natural Gas' extensive pipeline system, which is interconnected with many interstate and intrastate pipelines in the national grid system, has access to multiple major supply basins. Direct access is available from producers in the Anadarko, Permian and Hugoton basins, some of which have experienced increased production from shale and tight sands formations adjacent to Northern Natural Gas' pipeline. Since 2011, the pipeline has connected 2,395,000 Dths per day of supply access from the Midland and Delaware Basins within the Permian Basin area in west Texas and from the Granite Wash tight sands formations in the Texas panhandle and in Oklahoma. Additionally, Northern Natural Gas has interconnections with several interstate pipelines and several intrastate pipelines with receipt, delivery, or bi-directional capabilities. Because of Northern Natural Gas' location and multiple interconnections it is able to access natural gas from other key production areas, such as the Rocky Mountain, Williston, including the Bakken formation, and western Canadian basins. The Rocky Mountain basins are accessed through interconnects with Trailblazer Pipeline Company, Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC, Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, Colorado Interstate Gas Company and Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC ("REX"). The western Canadian basins are accessed through interconnects with Northern Border Pipeline Company ("Northern Border"), Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership ("Great Lakes") and Viking Gas Transmission Company ("Viking"). This supply diversity and access to both stable and growing production areas provides significant flexibility to Northern Natural Gas' system and customers.

Northern Natural Gas' system experiences significant seasonal swings in demand and revenue typically with approximately 60% of transportation revenue occurring during the months of November through March. This seasonality provides Northern Natural Gas with opportunities to deliver additional value-added services, such as firm and interruptible storage services. As a result of Northern Natural Gas' geographic location in the middle of the United States and its many interconnections with other pipelines, Northern Natural Gas has the opportunity to augment its steady end user and LDC revenue by capitalizing on opportunities for shippers to reach additional markets, such as Chicago, Illinois, other parts of the Midwest, and Texas, through interconnects.

Kern River

Kern River, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BHE, owns an interstate natural gas pipeline system that extends from supply areas in the Rocky Mountains to consuming markets in Utah, Nevada and California. Kern River operates 1,400 miles of mainline natural gas pipelines, with a design capacity of 2,166,575 Dths, or 2.2 Bcf, per day. The mainline pipeline extends from the system's point of origination near Opal, Wyoming, through the Central Rocky Mountains to Daggett, California. The mainline section consists of 1,300 miles of 36-inch diameter pipeline and 100 miles of various laterals that connect to the mainline. Except for quantities of natural gas owned for operational purposes, Kern River does not own the natural gas that is transported through its system. Kern River's transportation rates are cost-based. The rates are designed to provide Kern River with an opportunity to recover its costs of providing services and earn a reasonable return on its investments.


33


Kern River's rates are based on a levelized rate design with recovery of 70% of the original investment during the initial long-term contracts ("Period One rates"). After expiration of the initial term, eligible customers have the option to elect service at rates ("Period Two rates") that are lower than Period One rates because they are designed to recover the remaining 30% of the original investment. To the extent that eligible customers do not contract for service at Period Two rates, the volumes are turned back and sold at market rates for varying terms. As of December 31, 2020, initial Period One contracts total 331,921 Dths per day. Period Two contracts total 1,054,029 Dths per day and 569,631 Dths per day of total turned back volume has an average remaining contract term of more than two years. The remaining capacity is sold on a short-term basis at market rates.

As of December 31, 2020, approximately 76% of Kern River's design capacity of 2,166,575 Dths per day is contracted pursuant to long-term firm natural gas transportation service agreements, whereby Kern River receives natural gas on behalf of customers at designated receipt points and transports the natural gas on a firm basis to designated delivery points. In return for this service, each customer pays Kern River a fixed monthly reservation fee based on each customer's maximum daily quantity, which represents nearly 86% of total operating revenue, and a commodity charge based on the actual amount of natural gas transported pursuant to its long-term firm natural gas transportation service agreements and Kern River's tariff.

These long-term firm natural gas transportation service agreements expire between April 2022 and April 2033 and have a weighted-average remaining contract term of over eight years. Kern River's customers include electric and natural gas distribution utilities, major oil and natural gas companies or affiliates of such companies, electric generating companies, energy marketing and trading companies and financial institutions. As of December 31, 2020, 73% of the firm capacity under contract has primary delivery points in California, with the flexibility to access secondary delivery points in Nevada and Utah. In 2019, Kern River provided approximately 26% of California's demand for natural gas.

During 2020, Kern River had two customers, including Nevada Power Company, d/b/a NV Energy, that each accounted for greater than 10% of its revenue. The loss of these significant customers, if not replaced, could have a material adverse effect on Kern River.

Competition

The Pipeline Companies compete with other pipelines on the basis of cost, flexibility, reliability of service and overall customer service, with the customer's decision being made primarily on the basis of delivered price, which includes both the natural gas commodity cost and transportation costs. The Pipeline Companies also compete with midstream operators and gas marketers seeking to provide or arrange transportation, storage and other services to meet customer needs. Natural gas competes with alternative energy sources, including coal, nuclear energy, wind, geothermal, solar and fuel oil and the electricity generated from these alternative energy sources. Legislation and governmental regulations, weather, futures markets, production costs and other factors beyond the control of the Pipeline Companies, influence the price of the natural gas commodity. Additionally, natural gas demand could be adversely affected by laws mandating or incenting renewable power sources that produce fewer GHG emissions than natural gas.

The Pipeline Companies generate a substantial portion of their revenue from long-term firm contracts for transportation and storage services and are therefore insulated from competitive factors during the terms of the contracts. When these long-term contracts expire, the Pipeline Companies face competitive pressures from other natural gas pipeline facilities. The Pipeline Companies' ability to extend existing customer contracts, remarket expiring contracted capacity or market new capacity is dependent on competitive alternatives, the regulatory environment and the market supply and demand factors at the relevant dates these contracts are eligible to be renewed or extended. The duration of new or renegotiated contracts will be affected by current commodity and transportation prices, competitive conditions and customers' judgments concerning future market trends and volatility.

Subject to regulatory requirements, the Pipeline Companies attempt to recontract or remarket capacity at the maximum rates allowed under their tariffs, although at times the Pipeline Companies discount these rates to remain competitive. Historically, the Pipeline Companies have been able to provide competitively priced services because of access to a variety of relatively low cost supply basins, cost control measures and the relatively high level of firm entitlement that is sold on a seasonal and annual basis, which lowers the per unit cost of transportation. To date, the Pipeline Companies have avoided significant pipeline system bypasses.

BHE GT&S' natural gas transmission operations compete with domestic and Canadian pipeline companies. The combination of reliable and flexible services, access to highly liquid and attractive pricing locations, significant storage capability, availability of numerous receipt and delivery points along its pipeline system and capacity rights held on third party pipelines enable BHE GT&S to tailor its services to meet the needs of individual customers.

34


Northern Natural Gas needs to compete aggressively to serve existing load and add new load. Northern Natural Gas' attractive competitive position relative to other pipelines in the upper Midwest is reinforced each winter as customers expect, and receive, reliable deliveries of natural gas for their critical markets. Northern Natural Gas provides customers access to multiple supply basins that allow customers to obtain reliable supplies at competitive prices, not subject to the natural gas grid dynamics from pipeline competition that would limit customers to a singular supply source. Northern Natural Gas has been successful in competing for a significant amount of the increased demand related to residential and commercial needs and the construction of new power plants and new fertilizer or other industrial plants.

Other than the short-term transportation associated with the Permian business, Northern Natural Gas expects the current level of Field Area contracting to Demarc to continue in the foreseeable future, as Market Area customers presently need to purchase competitively-priced supplies from the Field Area to support their existing and growth demand requirements. However, the revenue received from these Field Area contracts is expected to decrease due to construction of new pipeline facilities.

Kern River is the only interstate pipeline that presently delivers natural gas directly from the Rocky Mountain gas supply region to end-users in the Southern California market. Kern River's levelized rate structure and access to upstream pipelines, storage facilities and economic Rocky Mountain gas reserves increase its competitiveness and attractiveness to end-users. Kern River believes it has an advantage relative to other interstate pipelines serving Southern California because its relatively new pipeline can be economically expanded and has required significantly less capital expenditures and ongoing maintenance than other systems.

Cove Point's gas transportation, LNG import and storage operations, as well as the Liquefaction Facility's capacity, are contracted primarily under long-term fixed reservation fee agreements. However, in the future Cove Point may compete with other independent terminal operators as well as major oil and gas companies on the basis of terminal location, services provided and price. In addition, the Liquefaction Facility may face competition on a global scale as international customers explore other options to meet their energy needs.

BHE TRANSMISSION

BHE Canada

BHE Canada, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BHE, primarily owns AltaLink, a regulated electric transmission-only utility company headquartered in Alberta, Canada serving approximately 85% of Alberta's population. AltaLink's high voltage transmission lines and related facilities transmit electricity from generating facilities to major load centers, cities and large industrial plants throughout its 87,000 square mile service territory, which covers a diverse geographic area including most major urban centers in central and southern Alberta. AltaLink's transmission facilities, consisting of approximately 8,200 miles of transmission lines and approximately 310 substations as of December 31, 2020, are an integral part of the Alberta Interconnected Electric System ("AIES"). BHE Canada also owns MATL Canada L.P., a company headquartered in Alberta, Canada, which operates 82 miles of the 230 kV Montana Alberta Tie Line located in Canada (the entire transmission line runs from Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada to Great Falls, Montana, and connects power grids in the two jurisdictions).

The AIES is a network or grid of transmission facilities operating at high voltages ranging from 69 kVs to 500 kVs. The grid delivers electricity from generating units across Alberta, Canada through approximately 16,000 miles of transmission lines. The AIES is interconnected to British Columbia's transmission system that links Alberta with the North American western interconnected system, interconnection with Saskatchewan's transmission system and interconnection with Montana's transmission system.

AltaLink is a transmission facility owner within the electricity industry in Alberta and is permitted to charge a tariff rate for the use of its transmission facilities. Such tariff rates are established on a cost-of-service regulatory model, which is designed to allow AltaLink an opportunity to recover its costs of providing services and to earn a reasonable return on its investments. Transmission tariffs are approved by the AUC and are collected from the AESO.

The electricity industry in Alberta consists of four principal segments. Generators sell wholesale power into the power pool operated by the AESO and through direct contractual arrangements. Alberta's transmission system or grid is composed of high voltage power lines and related facilities that transmit electricity from generating facilities to distribution networks and directly connected end-users. Distribution facility owners are regulated by the AUC and are responsible for arranging for, or providing, regulated rate and regulated default supply services to convey electricity from transmission systems and distribution-connected generators to end-use customers. Retailers can procure energy through the power pool, through direct contractual arrangements with energy suppliers or ownership of generation facilities and arrange for its distribution to end-use customers.

35


The AESO mandate is defined in the Electric Utilities Act (Alberta) and its regulations, and requires the AESO to assess both current and future needs of Alberta's interconnected electrical system. In September 2019, the AESO released the 2019 Long-term Outlook, which is the AESO's forecast of Alberta's load and generation over the next 20 years, and is used as one input to guide the AESO in planning Alberta's transmission system. The 2019 Long-term Outlook includes a Reference Case Scenario, which is the AESO's main corporate forecast for long-term load growth and generation development in Alberta, and a set of alternative scenarios that are developed to understand future uncertainties. The Reference Case Scenario forecasts Alberta's electricity demand to grow at an annual rate of 0.9% over the next 20 years and a total of approximately 13 gigawatts of new generation capacity to be added for the same period. Other scenarios are developed based on modifying assumptions used in the Reference Case Scenario to reflect higher cogeneration development, alternative renewable policy, higher economic growth, lower economic growth, and a more diversified Alberta economy. The AESO indicates that it will continue monitoring economic, policy and industry development and if a scenario becomes more likely, the AESO may adopt it as its main forecast.

In January 2020, the AESO released the 2020 Long-term Transmission Plan. Developed based on a set of broad scenarios, the 2020 Long-term Transmission Plan seeks to optimize the use of Alberta's existing transmission system, and plan development of new transmission in a timely manner to provide for the safe, dependable and efficient delivery of electricity across Alberta. The AESO recognizes that the electricity industry is changing and therefore it continues to evolve its approach to planning. The 2020 Long-term Transmission Plan identifies 20 transmission developments proposed over the next five years, valued at approximately C$1.4 billion. These developments are estimated to increase average transmission rates by about C$0.50—C$0.70 per MW hour, starting in 2025. Approximately C$1.0 billion of the transmission developments are in AltaLink's service territory. Each of these developments will still require detailed needs analysis and regulatory approval prior to proceeding.
    
BHE U.S. Transmission

BHE U.S. Transmission, a wholly owned subsidiary of BHE, is engaged in various joint ventures to develop, own and operate transmission assets and is pursuing additional investment opportunities in the United States. Currently, BHE U.S. Transmission has two joint ventures with transmission assets that are operational. In May 2020, BHE U.S. Transmission acquired the general partner and limited partner interests in MATL LLP, a U.S based company with 132 line miles in the U.S. of the total 214 mile 230 kV line running from Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada to Great Falls, Montana.

BHE U.S. Transmission indirectly owns a 50% interest in ETT, along with subsidiaries of American Electric Power Company, Inc. ("AEP"). ETT owns and operates electric transmission assets in the ERCOT and, as of December 31, 2020, had total assets of $3.2 billion. ETT's transmission system includes approximately 1,900 miles of transmission lines and 38 substations as of December 31, 2020.

BHE U.S. Transmission also indirectly owns a 25% interest in Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC, a joint venture with AEP and Westar Energy, Inc., to build, own and operate a 108-mile, 345-kV transmission project in Kansas. The project had total assets of $136 million as of December 31, 2020.


36


BHE RENEWABLES

The subsidiaries comprising the BHE Renewables reportable segment own interests in several independent power projects in the United States and one in the Philippines. The following table presents certain information concerning these independent power projects as of December 31, 2020:
PowerFacilityNet
PurchaseNetOwned
EnergyYearAgreementPowerCapacityCapacity
Generating FacilityLocationSourceInstalledExpiration
Purchaser(1)
(MWs)(2)
(MWs)(2)
WIND:
Grande PrairieNebraskaWind20162036OPPD400 400 
Jumbo RoadTexasWind20152033AE300 300 
Santa RitaTexasWind20182025-2038KC, CODTX, MES300 300 
Walnut RidgeIllinoisWind20182028USGSA212 212 
Pinyon Pines ICaliforniaWind20122035SCE168 168 
Pinyon Pines IICaliforniaWind20122035SCE132 132 
Bishop Hill IIIllinoisWind20122032Ameren81 81 
MarshallKansasWind20162036MJMEC, KPP, KMEA & COIMO72 72 
1,665 1,665 
SOLAR:
TopazCaliforniaSolar2013-20142039PG&E550 550 
Solar Star 1CaliforniaSolar2013-20152035SCE310 310 
Solar Star 2CaliforniaSolar2013-20152035SCE276 276 
Agua CalienteArizonaSolar2012-20132039PG&E290 142 
Alamo 6TexasSolar20172042CPS110 110 
Community Solar Gardens(6)
MinnesotaSolar2016-20182041-2043(5)98 98 
PearlTexasSolar20172042CPS50 50 
1,684 1,536 
NATURAL GAS:
CordovaIllinoisNatural Gas2001NANA512 512 
Power ResourcesTexasNatural Gas1988NANA212 212 
SaranacNew YorkNatural Gas1994NANA245 196 
YumaArizonaNatural Gas19942024SDG&E50 50 
1,019 970 
GEOTHERMAL:
Imperial Valley ProjectsCaliforniaGeothermal1982-2000(3)(3)345 345 
345 345 
HYDROELECTRIC:
Casecnan Project(4)
PhilippinesHydroelectric20012021NIA150 128 
WailukuHawaiiHydroelectric19932023HELCO10 10 
160 138 
Total Available Generating Capacity4,873 4,654 

37


(1)San Diego Gas & Electric Company ("SDG&E"); Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E"), Ameren Illinois Company ("Ameren"), Southern California Edison ("SCE"), the Philippine National Irrigation Administration ("NIA"); Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. ("HELCO"); Austin Energy ("AE"); Omaha Public Power District ("OPPD"); Kimberly-Clark Corporation ("KC"); City of Denton, TX ("CODTX"); MidAmerican Energy Services, LLC ("MES"); U.S. General Services Administration ("USGSA"); Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Commission ("MJMEC"); Kansas Power Pool ("KPP"); Kansas Municipal Energy Agency ("KMEA"); City of Independence, MO ("COIMO"); and CPS Energy ("CPS").
(2)Facility Net Capacity represents the lesser of nominal ratings or any limitations under applicable interconnection, power purchase, or other agreements for intermittent resources and the total net dependable capability available during summer conditions for all other units. An intermittent resource's nominal rating is the manufacturer's contractually specified capability (in MWs) under specified conditions. Net Owned Capacity indicates BHE Renewables' ownership of Facility Net Capacity.
(3)Approximately 12% of the Company's interests in the Imperial Valley Projects' Contract Capacity are currently sold to Southern California Edison Company under a long-term power purchase agreement expiring in 2026. Certain long-term power purchase agreement renewals for 252 MWs have been entered into with other parties at fixed prices that expire from 2028 to 2039, of which 202 MWs mature in 2039.
(4)Under the terms of the agreement with the NIA, CalEnergy Philippines will own and operate the Casecnan project for a 20-year cooperation period which ends December 11, 2021, after which ownership and operation of the project will be transferred to the NIA at no cost on an "as-is" basis. NIA also pays CalEnergy Philippines for delivery of water pursuant to the agreement.
(5)The power purchasers are commercial, industrial and not-for-profit organizations.
(6)The community solar gardens project is consolidated in the table above for convenience as it consists of 98 distinct entities that each own an approximately 1-MW solar garden with independent but substantially similar terms and conditions.

Additionally, BHE Renewables has invested $6.2 billion in 32 wind projects sponsored by third parties, commonly referred to as tax equity investments.

The percentages of BHE Renewables' operating revenue derived from the following business activities for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
202020192018
Solar48 %48 %51 %
Wind20 21 18 
Geothermal18 19 19 
Hydro
Natural gas11 10 
Total operating revenue100 %100 %100 %

HOMESERVICES

HomeServices, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BHE, is the largest residential real estate brokerage firm in the United States. In addition to providing traditional residential real estate brokerage services, HomeServices offers other integrated real estate services, including mortgage originations and mortgage banking; title and closing services; property and casualty insurance; home warranties; relocation services; and other home-related services. HomeServices' real estate brokerage business is subject to seasonal fluctuations because more home sale transactions tend to close during the second and third quarters of the year. As a result, HomeServices' operating results and profitability are typically higher in the second and third quarters relative to the remainder of the year. HomeServices' owned brokerages currently operate in nearly 900 offices in 30 states and the District of Columbia with over 43,000 real estate agents under 46 brand names. The United States residential real estate brokerage business is subject to the general real estate market conditions, is highly competitive and consists of numerous local brokers and agents in each market seeking to represent sellers and buyers in residential real estate transactions.

HomeServices' franchise network currently includes approximately 370 franchisees primarily in the United States and internationally in over 1,600 brokerage offices with over 53,000 real estate agents under two brand names. In exchange for certain fees, HomeServices provides the right to use the Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices or Real Living brand names and other related service marks, as well as providing orientation programs, training and consultation services, advertising programs and other services.


38


OTHER ENERGY BUSINESSES

Effective January 1, 2016, MidAmerican Energy Company transferred its nonregulated energy operations to MES, a subsidiary of BHE. MES is a nonregulated energy business consisting of competitive electricity and natural gas retail sales. MES' electric operations predominantly include sales to retail customers in Illinois, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Maryland and other states that allow customers to choose their energy supplier. MES' natural gas operations predominantly include sales to retail customers in Iowa and Illinois. Electricity and natural gas are purchased from producers and third-party energy marketing companies and sold directly to commercial, industrial and governmental end-users. MES does not own electricity or natural gas production assets but hedges its contracted sales obligations either with physical supply arrangements or financial products. As of December 31, 2020, MES' contracts in place for the sale of electricity totaled 16,549 GWhs with an average term of 2.7 years and for the sale of natural gas totaled 20,655,206 Dths with an average term of 1.2 years. In addition, MES manages natural gas supplies for a number of smaller commercial end-users, which includes the sale of natural gas to these customers to meet their supply requirements. Refer to Item 7A in this Form 10-K for a discussion of commodity price risk and derivative contracts.

GENERAL REGULATION

BHE's regulated subsidiaries and certain affiliates are subject to comprehensive governmental regulation, which significantly influences their operating environment, prices charged to customers, capital structure, costs and, ultimately, their ability to recover costs and earn a reasonable return on invested capital. In addition to the discussion contained herein regarding general regulation, refer to "Regulatory Matters" in Item 1 of this Form 10-K for further discussion regarding certain regulatory matters.

Domestic Regulated Public Utility Subsidiaries

The Utilities are subject to comprehensive regulation by various state, federal and local agencies. The more significant aspects of this regulatory framework are described below.

State Regulation

Historically, state regulatory commissions have established retail electric and natural gas rates on a cost-of-service basis, which are designed to allow a utility the opportunity to recover what each state regulatory commission deems to be the utility's reasonable costs of providing services, including a fair opportunity to earn a reasonable return on its investments based on its cost of debt and equity. In addition to return on investment, a utility's cost of service generally reflects a representative level of prudent expenses, including cost of sales, operating expense, depreciation and amortization and income and other tax expense, reduced by wholesale electricity and other revenue. The allowed operating expenses are typically based on actual historical costs adjusted for known and measurable or forecasted changes. State regulatory commissions may adjust cost of service for various reasons, including pursuant to a review of: (a) the utility's revenue and expenses during a defined test period, (b) the utility's level of investment and (c) changes in income tax laws. State regulatory commissions typically have the authority to review and change rates on their own initiative; however, they may also initiate reviews at the request of a utility, utility customers or organizations representing groups of customers. In certain jurisdictions, the utility and such parties, however, may agree with one another not to request a review of or changes to rates for a specified period of time.

The retail electric rates of the Utilities are generally based on the cost of providing traditional bundled services, including generation, transmission and distribution services. The Utilities have established ECAMs and other cost recovery mechanisms in certain states, which help mitigate their exposure to changes in costs from those assumed in establishing base rates.

39


With certain limited exceptions, the Utilities have an exclusive right to serve retail customers within their service territories and, in turn, have an obligation to provide service to those customers. In some jurisdictions, certain classes of customers may choose to purchase all or a portion of their energy from alternative energy suppliers, and in some jurisdictions retail customers can generate all or a portion of their own energy. Under Oregon law, PacifiCorp has the exclusive right and obligation to provide electricity distribution services to all residential and nonresidential customers within its allocated service territory; however, nonresidential customers have the right to choose an alternative provider of energy supply. The impact of this right on PacifiCorp's consolidated financial results has not been material. In Washington, state law does not provide for exclusive service territory allocation. PacifiCorp's service territory in Washington is surrounded by other public utilities with whom PacifiCorp has from time to time entered into service area agreements under the jurisdiction of the WUTC. Under California law, PacifiCorp has the exclusive right and obligation to provide electricity distribution services to all residential and nonresidential customers within its allocated service territory; however, cities, counties and certain other public agencies have the right to choose to generate energy supply or elect an alternative provider of energy supply through the formation of a Community Choice Aggregator ("CCA"). To date, no CCA activity has occurred in PacifiCorp's California service territory. If a CCA is formed, PacifiCorp would continue to provide CCA customers transmission, distribution, metering and billing services and the CCA would provide generation supply. In addition, PacifiCorp would likely be able to collect costs from CCA customers for the generation-related costs that PacifiCorp incurred while they were customers of PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp would remain the electricity provider of last resort for these customers. In Illinois, state law has established a competitive environment so that all Illinois customers are free to choose their retail service supplier. For customers that choose an alternative retail energy supplier, MidAmerican Energy continues to have an ongoing obligation to deliver the supplier's energy to the retail customer. MidAmerican Energy bills the retail customer for such delivery services. MidAmerican Energy also has an obligation to serve customers at regulated cost-based rates and has a continuing obligation to serve customers who have not selected a competitive electricity provider. The impact of this right on MidAmerican Energy's financial results has not been material. In Nevada, Chapter 704B of the Nevada Revised Statutes allows retail electric customers with an average annual load of one MW or more to file a letter of intent and application with the PUCN to acquire electric energy and ancillary services from another energy supplier. The law requires customers wishing to choose a new supplier to receive the approval of the PUCN to meet public interest standards. In particular, departing customers must secure new energy resources that are not under contract to the Nevada Utilities, the departure must not burden the Nevada Utilities with increased costs or cause any remaining customers to pay increased costs and the departing customers must pay their portion of any deferred energy balances, all as determined by the PUCN. Also, the Utilities and the state regulatory commissions are individually evaluating how best to integrate private generation resources into their service and rate design, including considering such factors as maintaining high levels of customer safety and service reliability, minimizing adverse cost impacts and fairly allocating costs among all customers.

In Nevada, large natural gas customers using 12,000 therms per month with fuel switching capability are allowed to participate in the incentive natural gas rate tariff. Once a service agreement has been executed, a customer can compare natural gas prices under this tariff to alternative energy sources and choose its source of natural gas. In addition, natural gas customers using greater than 1,000 therms per day have the ability to secure their own natural gas supplies under the gas transportation tariff.

PacifiCorp

            Rate Filings

Under Utah law, the UPSC must issue a written order within 240 days of a public utility's application for a general rate change. Absent an order, the proposed rates go into effect as filed and are not subject to refund, the UPSC may allow interim rates to take effect within 45 days of an application, subject to refund or surcharge, if an adequate prima facie showing is established in hearing that the interim rate change is justified.

The OPUC has the authority to suspend proposed new rates for a period not to exceed more than six months, with an additional three-month extension, beyond the 30-day time period when the new rates would otherwise go into effect. Absent suspension or other action from the OPUC, new rates automatically go into effect 30 days from filing by the utility. Upon suspension by the OPUC, the OPUC is authorized to allow collection of an interim rate, subject to refund, during the pendency of the OPUC's review of the rate request.

In Wyoming, the WPSC can allow interim rates to go into effect 30 days after the initial application but may require a bond to secure a refund for the amount. The WPSC may suspend the rates for final approval for a period not to exceed 10 months.

The WUTC has the authority to suspend proposed new rates, subject to hearing, for a period not to exceed 10 months beyond the 30-day time period when the new rate would otherwise go into effect.

40


Under Idaho law, the IPUC can suspend a filing for an initial period not to exceed five months, and an additional extension of 60 days with a showing of good cause.

The CPUC has the authority to suspend proposed new rates, subject to hearing, for a period not to exceed 18 months. The CPUC may extend the suspension period on a case-by-case period.

            Adjustment Mechanisms

In addition to recovery through base rates, PacifiCorp also achieves recovery of certain costs through various adjustment mechanisms as summarized below.
State RegulatorBase Rate Test PeriodAdjustment Mechanism
UPSC
Forecasted or historical with known and measurable changes(1)
EBA under which 100% of the difference between base net power costs set during a general rate case and actual net power costs is deferred and reflected in future rates. Wheeling revenue is also included in the mechanism. Beginning in 2021, the mechanism includes a true-up of PTCs as well.
Balancing account to provide for 100% recovery or refund of the difference between the level of REC revenues included in base rates and actual REC revenues after adjusting for a REC incentive authorized by the UPSC.
Recovery mechanism for single capital investments that in total exceed 1% of existing rate base when a general rate case has occurred within the preceding 18 months.
Effective January 1, 2021, Wildland Fire Mitigation Balancing Account to recover operating expenses and capital expenditures incurred to implement PacifiCorp's Utah Wildland Fire Protection Plan incremental to those included in base rates.
OPUCForecastedPCAM under which 90% of the difference between forecasted net variable power costs and PTCs established under the annual TAM and actual net variable power costs and PTCs is deferred and reflected in future rates. The difference between the forecasted and actual net variable power costs and PTCs must fall outside of an established asymmetrical deadband, with a negative annual power cost variance deadband of $15 million; and a positive annual power cost variance deadband of $30 million and is subject to an earnings test of +/- 1% on PacifiCorp's allowed return on equity.
Annual TAM based on forecasted net variable power costs and PTCs.
RAC to recover the revenue requirement of new renewable resources and associated transmission costs that are not reflected in general rates.
Balancing account for proceeds from the sale of RECs.
Effective January 1, 2021, Annual Wildfire Mitigation and Vegetation Management Cost Recovery Mechanism approved for three years to recover vegetation management and wildfire mitigation operations and maintenance costs and wildfire mitigation capital costs, incremental to those included in base rates. Recovery is subject to performance metrics and earnings tests. After three years, the mechanism will be assessed to determine whether continued use is warranted.
WPSC
Forecasted or historical with known and measurable changes(1)
ECAM under which 70% of the difference between base net power costs set during a general rate case and actual net power costs is deferred and reflected in future rates. Chemical costs and start-up fuel costs are also included in the mechanism.
REC and SO2 revenue adjustment mechanism to provide for recovery or refund of 100% of any difference between actual REC and SO2 revenues and the level in rates.
WUTCHistorical with known and measurable changesPCAM under which the difference between base net power costs set during a general rate case and actual net power costs is deferred and reflected in future rates after applying a $4 million deadband for positive or negative net power cost variances. For net power cost variances between $4 million and $10 million, amounts to be recovered from customers are allocated 50/50 and amounts to be credited to customers are allocated 75/25 (customers/PacifiCorp). Positive or negative net power cost variances in excess of $10 million are allocated 90/10 (customers/PacifiCorp).
Deferral mechanism of costs for up to 24 months of new base load generation resources and eligible renewable resources and related transmission that qualify under the state's emissions performance standard and are not reflected in base rates.
REC revenue tracking mechanism to provide credit of 100% of REC revenues to customers.
41


Decoupling mechanism under which the difference between actual annual revenues and authorized revenues per customer is deferred and reflected in future rates, subject to an earnings test. Under the earnings test, 50% of any excess earnings over PacifiCorp's authorized return on equity is returned to customers in addition to any surcharge or surcredit related to the revenue variance. The earnings test is asymmetrical and adjustments are not made when PacifiCorp earns at or below authorized returns on equity. To trigger a rate adjustment, the deferral balance must exceed plus or minus 2.5% of the authorized revenue at the end of each deferral period by rate class. Rate adjustments must not exceed a surcharge of 5% of the actual normalized revenue by class.
IPUCHistorical with known and measurable changesECAM under which 90% of the difference between base net power costs set during a general rate case and actual net power costs is deferred and reflected in future rates. Also provides for recovery or refund of 100% of the difference between the level of REC revenues included in base rates and actual REC revenues and differences in actual PTCs compared to the amount in base rates.
CPUCForecastedPTAM for major capital additions that allows for rate adjustments outside of the context of a traditional general rate case for the revenue requirement associated with capital additions exceeding $50 million on a total-company basis. Filed as eligible capital additions are placed into service.
ECAC that allows for an annual update to actual and forecasted net power costs.
PTAM for attrition, a mechanism that allows for an annual adjustment to costs other than net power costs.
Catastrophic Events Memorandum Account for catastrophic events, allows for deferral and cost recovery of reasonable costs incurred as the result of catastrophic events, which are events for which a state or federal agency has declared a state of emergency.
Fire Risk Mitigation Memorandum Account to track costs related to wildfire mitigation activities incremental to what is in base rates and Wildfire Mitigation Plan Memorandum Account to track costs associated with the implementation of PacifiCorp's approved wildfire mitigation plan.

(1)PacifiCorp has relied on both historical test periods with known and measurable adjustments, as well as forecasted test periods.

MidAmerican Energy

            Rate Filings

Under Iowa law, there are two options for temporary collection of higher rates following the filing of a request for a base rate increase. Collection can begin, subject to refund, either (1) within 10 days of filing, without IUB review, or (2) 90 days after filing, with approval by the IUB, depending upon the ratemaking principles and precedents utilized. In either case, if the IUB has not issued a final order within ten months after the filing date, the temporary rates become final and any difference between the requested rate increase and the temporary rates may then be collected subject to refund until receipt of a final order. Under Illinois law, new base rates may become effective 45 days after the filing of a request with the ICC, or earlier with ICC approval. The ICC has authority to suspend the proposed new rates, subject to hearing, for a period not to exceed approximately eleven months after filing. South Dakota law authorizes the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission to suspend new base rates for up to six months during the pendency of rate proceedings; however, a utility may implement all or a portion of the proposed new rates six months after the filing of a request for a rate increase subject to refund pending a final order in the proceeding.

Iowa law also permits rate-regulated utilities to seek ratemaking principles with the IUB prior to the construction of certain types of new generating facilities. Pursuant to this law, MidAmerican Energy has applied for and obtained IUB ratemaking principles orders for a 484-MW (MidAmerican Energy's share) coal-fueled generating facility, a 495-MW combined cycle natural gas-fueled generating facility and 6,639 MWs (nominal ratings) of wind-powered generating facilities as of December 31, 2020. These ratemaking principles established cost caps for the projects, below which such costs are deemed prudent by the IUB, and authorized a fixed rate of return on equity for the respective generating facilities over the regulatory life of the facilities in any future Iowa rate proceeding. As of December 31, 2020, the generating facilities in service totaled $8.4 billion, or 43%, of MidAmerican Energy's regulated property, plant and equipment, net and were subject to these ratemaking principles at a weighted average return on equity of 11.4% with a weighted average remaining life of 33 years.

42


Ratemaking principles for several wind-powered generation projects have established mechanisms in Iowa where electric rate base may be reduced. The current revenue sharing mechanism originates from Wind XI and Wind XII ratemaking principles proceedings and reduces rate base for Iowa electric returns on equity exceeding an established benchmark. For 2018, sharing was triggered by MidAmerican Energy's actual equity return being above a threshold calculated annually in accordance with the IUB's 2016 Wind XI order. The threshold, not to exceed 11%, was the weighted average equity return of rate base with returns authorized via ratemaking principles proceedings and all other rate base. For all other rate base, the return is based on interest rates on 30-year A-rated utility bond yields plus 400 basis points, with a minimum return of 9.5%. In 2018 pursuant to this mechanism, MidAmerican Energy shared with customers 100% of the revenue in excess of the trigger. In December 2018, the IUB issued an order approving ratemaking principles related to MidAmerican Energy's Wind XII project. The ratemaking principles continued the revenue sharing mechanism for 2019 and beyond, maintaining the return on equity threshold for sharing and reducing the customer sharing percentage from 100% to 90%. A second mechanism, the retail customer benefit mechanism, reduces electric rate base for the value of higher cost retail energy displaced by covered wind-powered production and applies to the wind-powered generating facilities placed in-service in 2016 under the Wind X project and facilities constructed under the Wind XII project approved by the IUB in 2018. Rate base reductions under these mechanisms are applied to coal and other generation facilities in specified orders.

            Adjustment Mechanisms

Under its current Iowa, Illinois and South Dakota electric tariffs, MidAmerican Energy is allowed to recover fluctuations in electric energy costs for its retail electric sales through fuel, or energy, cost adjustment mechanisms. The Iowa mechanism also includes PTCs associated with wind-powered generating facilities placed in-service prior to 2013, except for PTCs earned by repowered facilities. Eligibility for PTCs associated with MidAmerican Energy's earliest projects began expiring in 2014. Facilities currently earning PTCs that benefit customers through the Iowa energy adjustment clause totaled 1,000 MWs (nominal ratings) as of December 31, 2020, with the eligibility of those facilities to earn PTCs expiring by the end of 2022. Additionally, MidAmerican Energy has transmission adjustment clauses to recover certain transmission charges related to retail customers in all jurisdictions. The transmission adjustment mechanisms recover costs billed by the MISO for regional transmission service. The Illinois adjustment mechanism additionally recovers MidAmerican Energy's entire transmission revenue requirement attributable to Illinois. The adjustment mechanisms reduce the regulatory lag for the recovery of energy and transmission costs related to retail electric customers in these jurisdictions and accomplish, with limited timing differences, a pass-through of the related costs to these customers. Recoveries through these adjustment mechanisms are reflected in operating revenue, and the related costs are reflected in cost of fuel and energy, operations and maintenance expense or income tax benefit, as applicable.

Of the wind-powered generating facilities placed in-service as of December 31, 2020, 4,670 MWs (nominal ratings) have not been included in the determination of MidAmerican Energy's Iowa retail electric base rates. In accordance with the related ratemaking principles, until such time as these generation assets are reflected in base rates and ceasing thereafter, MidAmerican Energy will continue to reduce its revenue from Iowa energy adjustment clause recoveries by $12 million each calendar year.

MidAmerican Energy's cost of natural gas purchased for resale is collected for each jurisdiction through a uniform PGA, which is updated monthly to reflect changes in actual costs. Subject to prudence reviews, the PGA accomplishes a pass-through of MidAmerican Energy's cost of natural gas purchased for resale to its customers and, accordingly, has no direct effect on net income.

MidAmerican Energy's electric and natural gas energy efficiency program costs are collected through bill riders that are adjusted annually based on actual and expected costs in accordance with the energy efficiency plans filed with and approved by the respective state regulatory commission. As such, the energy efficiency program costs, which are reflected in operations and maintenance expense, and related recoveries, which are reflected in operating revenue, have no direct impact on net income.

MidAmerican Energy has income tax rider mechanisms in Iowa and Illinois that were established in response to 2017 Tax Reform, which enacted significant changes to the Internal Revenue Code, including, among other things, a reduction in the United States federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. South Dakota implemented changes to base rates in response to 2017 Tax Reform. As a result of 2017 Tax Reform, MidAmerican Energy re-measured its accumulated deferred income tax balances at the 21% rate and increased regulatory liabilities pursuant to the approved mechanisms. In December 2018, the IUB approved in final form a tax expense revision mechanism that reduces customer electric rates for the impact of the lower income tax rate on current operations, as calculated annually, and defers the amortization of excess accumulated deferred income taxes created by their re-measurement at the 21% income tax rate to a regulatory liability, the disposition of which will be determined in MidAmerican Energy's next rate case. In 2018, Iowa Senate File 2417 was signed into law, which, among other items, reduces the state of Iowa corporate tax rate from 12% to 9.8% effective in 2021, at which time, the impacts of Iowa Senate File 2417 will be included in the Iowa tax expense revision mechanism.
43


NV Energy (Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific)

            Rate Filings

Nevada statutes require the Nevada Utilities to file electric general rate cases at least once every three years with the PUCN. Sierra Pacific may also file natural gas general rate cases with the PUCN. The Nevada Utilities are also subject to a two-part fuel and purchased power adjustment mechanism. The Nevada Utilities make quarterly filings to reset the BTERs, based on the last 12 months of fuel and purchased power costs. The difference between actual fuel and purchased power costs and the revenue collected in the BTERs is deferred into a balancing account. The DEAA rate clears amounts deferred into the balancing account. Nevada regulations allow an electric or natural gas utility that adjusts its BTERs on a quarterly basis to request PUCN approval to make quarterly changes to its DEAA rate if the request is in the public interest. During required annual DEAA proceedings, the prudence of fuel and purchased power costs is reviewed, and if any costs are disallowed on such grounds, the disallowances will be incorporated into the next quarterly BTERs change. Also, on an annual basis, the Nevada Utilities (a) seek a determination that energy efficiency program expenditures were reasonable, (b) request that the PUCN reset base and amortization EEPR, and (c) request that the PUCN reset base and amortization EEIR.

            EEPR and EEIR

EEPR was established to allow the Nevada Utilities to recover the costs of implementing energy efficiency programs and EEIR was established to offset the negative impacts on revenue associated with the successful implementation of energy efficiency programs. These rates change once a year in the utility's annual DEAA application based on energy efficiency program budgets prepared by the Nevada Utilities and approved by the PUCN in the IRP proceedings. When the Nevada Utilities' regulatory earned rate of return for a calendar year exceeds the regulatory rate of return used to set base tariff general rates, they are obligated to refund energy efficiency implementation revenue previously collected for that year.

            Net Metering

Nevada enacted Assembly Bill 405 ("AB 405") on June 15, 2017. The legislation, among other things, established net metering crediting rates for private generation customers with installed net metering systems less than 25 kilowatts. Under AB 405, private generation customers will be compensated at 95% of the rate the customer would have paid for a kilowatt-hour of electricity supplied by the Nevada Utilities for the first 80 MWs of cumulative installed capacity of all net metering systems in Nevada, 88% of the rate for the next 80 MWs, 81% of the rate for the next 80 MWs and 75% of the rate for any additional private generation capacity. As of December 31, 2020, the cumulative installed and applied-for capacity of net metering systems under AB 405 in Nevada was 300 MWs.

            Natural Disaster Protection Plan

Senate Bill 329 ("SB 329"), Natural Disaster Mitigation Measures, was signed into law on May 22, 2019. The legislation requires the Nevada Utilities to submit a natural disaster protection plan to the PUCN. The PUCN adopted natural disaster protection plan regulations on January 29, 2020, that require the Nevada Utilities to file their natural disaster protection plan for approval on or before March 1 of every third year. The regulations also require annual updates to be filed on or before September 1 of the second and third years of the plan. The plan must include procedures, protocols and other certain information as it relates to the efforts of the Nevada Utilities to prevent or respond to a fire or other natural disaster. The expenditures incurred by the Nevada Utilities in developing and implementing the natural disaster protection plan are required to be held in a regulatory asset account, with the Nevada Utilities filing an application for recovery on or before March 1 of each year. The Nevada Utilities submitted their initial natural disaster protection plan to the PUCN and filed their first application seeking recovery of 2019 expenditures on February 28, 2020.

Federal Regulation

The FERC is an independent agency with broad authority to implement provisions of the Federal Power Act, the Natural Gas Act ("NGA"), the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ("Energy Policy Act") and other federal statutes. The FERC regulates rates for wholesale sales of electricity; transmission of electricity, including pricing and regional planning for the expansion of transmission systems; electric system reliability; utility holding companies; accounting and records retention; securities issuances; construction and operation of hydroelectric facilities; and other matters. The FERC also has the enforcement authority to assess civil penalties of up to $1.3 million per day per violation of rules, regulations and orders issued under the Federal Power Act. The Utilities have implemented programs and procedures that facilitate and monitor compliance with the FERC's regulations described below. MidAmerican Energy is also subject to regulation by the NRC pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Atomic Energy Act"), with respect to its ownership interest in the Quad Cities Station.
44


Wholesale Electricity and Capacity

The FERC regulates the Utilities' rates charged to wholesale customers for electricity and transmission capacity and related services. Much of the Utilities' wholesale electricity sales and purchases occur under market-based pricing allowed by the FERC and are therefore subject to market volatility. The Utilities are precluded from selling at market-based rates in the PacifiCorp-East, PacifiCorp-West, Nevada Utilities, Idaho Power Company and NorthWestern Energy balancing authority areas. Wholesale electricity sales in those specific balancing authority areas are permitted at cost-based rates. PacifiCorp and the Nevada Utilities have been granted the authority to bid into the California EIM at market-based rates.

The Utilities' authority to sell electricity in wholesale electricity markets at market-based rates is subject to triennial reviews conducted by the FERC. Accordingly, the Utilities are required to submit triennial filings to the FERC that demonstrate a lack of market power over sales of wholesale electricity and electric generation capacity in their respective market areas. PacifiCorp, the Nevada Utilities and certain affiliates, representing the BHE Northwest Companies, file together for market power study purposes. The BHE Northwest Companies' most recent triennial filing was made in June 2019 and an order accepting it was issued in June 2020. MidAmerican Energy and certain affiliates file together for market power study purposes of the FERC-defined Northeast Region. The most recent triennial filing for the Northeast Region was made in June 2020 and is under review by the FERC. MidAmerican Energy and certain affiliates file together for market power study purposes of the FERC-defined Central Region. The most recent triennial filing for the Central Region was made in December 2020 and is under review by the FERC. Under the FERC's market-based rules, the Utilities must also file with the FERC a notice of change in status when there is a change in the conditions that the FERC relied upon in granting market-based rate authority.

Transmission

PacifiCorp's and the Nevada Utilities' wholesale transmission services are regulated by the FERC under cost-based regulation subject to PacifiCorp's and the Nevada Utilities' OATT. These services are offered on a non-discriminatory basis, which means that all potential customers are provided an equal opportunity to access the transmission system. PacifiCorp's and the Nevada Utilities' transmission business is managed and operated independently from its wholesale marketing business in accordance with the FERC's Standards of Conduct. PacifiCorp and the Nevada Utilities have made several required compliance filings in accordance with these rules.

In December 2011, PacifiCorp adopted a cost-based formula rate under its OATT for its transmission services. Cost-based formula rates are intended to be an effective means of recovering PacifiCorp's investments and associated costs of its transmission system without the need to file rate cases with the FERC, although the formula rate results are subject to discovery and challenges by the FERC and intervenors. A significant portion of these services are provided to PacifiCorp's energy supply management function.

MidAmerican Energy participates in the MISO as a transmission-owning member. Accordingly, the MISO is the transmission provider under its FERC-approved OATT. While the MISO is responsible for directing the operation of MidAmerican Energy's transmission system, MidAmerican Energy retains ownership of its transmission assets and, therefore, is subject to the FERC's reliability standards discussed below. MidAmerican Energy's transmission business is managed and operated independently from its wholesale marketing business in accordance with the FERC Standards of Conduct.

MidAmerican Energy constructed and owns four Multi-Value Projects ("MVPs") located in Iowa and Illinois that added approximately 250 miles of 345-kV transmission line to MidAmerican Energy's transmission system since 2012. The MISO OATT allows for broad cost allocation for MidAmerican Energy's MVPs, including similar MVPs of other MISO participants. Accordingly, a significant portion of the revenue requirement associated with MidAmerican Energy's MVP investments is shared with other MISO participants based on the MISO's cost allocation methodology, and a portion of the revenue requirement of the other participants' MVPs is allocated to MidAmerican Energy. The transmission assets and financial results of MidAmerican Energy's MVPs are excluded from the determination of its retail electric rates.

The FERC has established an extensive number of mandatory reliability standards developed by the NERC and the WECC, including planning and operations, critical infrastructure protection and regional standards. Compliance, enforcement and monitoring oversight of these standards is carried out by the FERC; the NERC; and the WECC for PacifiCorp, Nevada Power, and Sierra Pacific; and the Midwest Reliability Organization for MidAmerican Energy.


45


Hydroelectric

The FERC licenses and regulates the operation of hydroelectric systems, including license compliance and dam safety programs. Most of PacifiCorp's hydroelectric generating facilities are licensed by the FERC as major systems under the Federal Power Act, and certain of these systems are licensed under the Oregon Hydroelectric Act. Under the Federal Power Act, 20 developments associated with PacifiCorp's hydroelectric generating facilities licensed with the FERC are classified as "high hazard potential," meaning it is probable in the event of a dam failure that loss of human life in the downstream population could occur. The FERC provides guidelines utilized by PacifiCorp in development of public safety programs consisting of a dam safety program and emergency action plans.

For an update regarding PacifiCorp's Klamath River hydroelectric system, refer to Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Berkshire Hathaway Energy in Item 8 of this Form 10-K and Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of PacifiCorp in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    General

MidAmerican Energy is subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC with respect to its license and 25% ownership interest in Quad Cities Station. Exelon Generation, the operator and 75% owner of Quad Cities Station, is under contract with MidAmerican Energy to secure and keep in effect all necessary NRC licenses and authorizations.

The NRC regulates the granting of permits and licenses for the construction and operation of nuclear generating stations and regularly inspects such stations for compliance with applicable laws, regulations and license terms. Current licenses for Quad Cities Station provide for operation until December 14, 2032. The NRC review and regulatory process covers, among other things, operations, maintenance and environmental and radiological aspects of such stations. The NRC may modify, suspend or revoke licenses and impose civil penalties for failure to comply with the Atomic Energy Act, the regulations under such Act or the terms of such licenses.

Federal regulations provide that any nuclear operating facility may be required to cease operation if the NRC determines there are deficiencies in state, local or utility emergency preparedness plans relating to such facility, and the deficiencies are not corrected. Exelon Generation has advised MidAmerican Energy that an emergency preparedness plan for Quad Cities Station has been approved by the NRC. Exelon Generation has also advised MidAmerican Energy that state and local plans relating to Quad Cities Station have been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The NRC also regulates the decommissioning of nuclear-powered generating facilities, including the planning and funding for the eventual decommissioning of the facilities. In accordance with these regulations, MidAmerican Energy submits a biennial report to the NRC providing reasonable assurance that funds will be available to pay its share of the costs of decommissioning Quad Cities Station. MidAmerican Energy has established a trust for the investment of funds collected for nuclear decommissioning of Quad Cities Station.

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 ("NWPA"), the United States DOE is responsible for the selection and development of repositories for, and the permanent disposal of, spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive wastes. Exelon Generation, as required by the NWPA, signed a contract with the DOE under which the DOE was to receive spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste for disposal beginning not later than January 1998. The DOE did not begin receiving spent nuclear fuel on the scheduled date and remains unable to receive such fuel and waste. The costs to be incurred by the DOE for disposal activities were previously being financed by fees charged to owners and generators of the waste. In accordance with a 2013 ruling by the D.C. Circuit, the DOE, in May 2014, provided notice that, effective May 16, 2014, the spent nuclear fuel disposal fee would be zero. In 2004, Exelon Generation, reached a settlement with the DOE concerning the DOE's failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel in 1998. As a result, Quad Cities Station has been billing the DOE, and the DOE is obligated to reimburse the station for all station costs incurred due to the DOE's delay. Exelon Generation has constructed an interim spent fuel storage installation ("ISFSI") at Quad Cities Station consisting of two pads to store spent nuclear fuel in dry casks in order to free space in the storage pool. The first dry cask was placed in-service in 2005. As of December 31, 2020, the first pad at the ISFSI is full, and the second pad is in operation. The first and second pads at the ISFSI are expected to facilitate storage of casks to support operations at Quad Cities Station through the end of its operating licenses.    
    

46


Nuclear Insurance

MidAmerican Energy maintains financial protection against catastrophic loss associated with its interest in Quad Cities Station through a combination of insurance purchased by Exelon Generation, insurance purchased directly by MidAmerican Energy, and the mandatory industry-wide loss funding mechanism afforded under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 ("Price-Anderson"), which was amended and extended by the Energy Policy Act. The general types of coverage maintained are: nuclear liability, property damage or loss and nuclear worker liability, as discussed below.

Exelon Generation purchases private market nuclear liability insurance for Quad Cities Station in the maximum available amount of $450 million, which includes coverage for MidAmerican Energy's ownership. In accordance with Price-Anderson, excess liability protection above that amount is provided by a mandatory industry-wide Secondary Financial Protection program under which the licensees of nuclear generating facilities could be assessed for liability incurred due to a serious nuclear incident at any commercial nuclear reactor in the United States. Currently, MidAmerican Energy's aggregate maximum potential share of an assessment for Quad Cities Station is approximately $69 million per incident, payable in installments not to exceed $10 million annually.

The insurance for nuclear property damage losses covers property damage, stabilization and decontamination of the facility, disposal of the decontaminated material and premature decommissioning arising out of a covered loss. For Quad Cities Station, Exelon Generation purchases primary property insurance protection for the combined interests in Quad Cities Station, with coverage limits for nuclear damage losses up to $1.5 billion and non-nuclear damage losses up to $500 million. MidAmerican Energy also directly purchases extra expense coverage for its share of replacement power and other extra expenses in the event of a covered accidental outage at Quad Cities Station. The property and related coverages purchased directly by MidAmerican Energy and by Exelon Generation, which includes the interests of MidAmerican Energy, are underwritten by an industry mutual insurance company and contain provisions for retrospective premium assessments to be called upon based on the industry mutual board of directors' discretion for adverse loss experience. Currently, the maximum retrospective amounts that could be assessed against MidAmerican Energy from industry mutual policies for its obligations associated with Quad Cities Station total $7 million.

The master nuclear worker liability coverage, which is purchased by Exelon Generation for Quad Cities Station, is an industry-wide guaranteed-cost policy with an aggregate limit of $450 million for the nuclear industry as a whole, which is in effect to cover tort claims of workers in nuclear-related industries.

United States Mine Safety

PacifiCorp's mining operations are regulated by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, which administers federal mine safety and health laws and regulations, and state regulatory agencies. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration has the statutory authority to institute a civil action for relief, including a temporary or permanent injunction, restraining order or other appropriate order against a mine operator who fails to pay penalties or fines for violations of federal mine safety standards. Federal law requires PacifiCorp to have a written emergency response plan specific to each underground mine it operates, which is reviewed by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration every six months, and to have at least two mine rescue teams located within one hour of each mine. Information regarding PacifiCorp's mine safety violations and other legal matters disclosed in accordance with Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Reform Act is included in Exhibit 95 to this Form 10-K.

Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Subsidiaries

The Pipeline Companies are regulated by the FERC, pursuant to the NGA and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. Under this authority, the FERC regulates, among other items, (a) rates, charges, terms and conditions of service, (b) the construction and operation of interstate pipelines, storage and related facilities, including the extension, expansion or abandonment of such facilities and (c) the construction and operation of LNG import/export facilities. The Pipeline Companies hold certificates of public convenience and necessity and LNG facility authorizations issued by the FERC, which authorize them to construct, operate and maintain their pipeline and related facilities and services.


47


FERC regulations and the Pipeline Companies' tariffs allow each of the Pipeline Companies to charge approved rates for the services set forth in their respective tariffs. Generally, these rates are a function of the cost of providing services to customers, including prudently incurred operations and maintenance expenses, taxes, depreciation and amortization and a reasonable return on invested capital. Tariff rates for each of the Pipeline Companies have been developed under a rate design methodology whereby substantially all fixed costs, including a return on invested capital and income taxes, are collected through reservation charges, which are paid by firm transportation and storage customers regardless of volumes shipped. Commodity charges, which are paid only with respect to volumes actually shipped, are designed to recover the remaining, primarily variable, costs. Kern River's reservation rates have historically been approved using a "levelized" cost-of-service methodology so that the rate remains constant over the levelization period. This levelized cost of service has been achieved by using a FERC-approved depreciation schedule in which depreciation increases as the cost of capital decreases on declining rate base. Each of the Pipeline Companies also hold authority to negotiate rates for their services, subject to requirements to offer cost-based rate alternatives, and to publish such negotiated rates. In addition, for services that are not subject to FERC rate jurisdiction pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, Cove Point charges rates that are established by contract.

The Pipeline Companies' rates are subject to change in future general rate proceedings. Rates for natural gas pipelines are changed by filings under either Section 5 or Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act. Section 5 proceedings are initiated by the FERC or the pipeline's customers for a potential reduction to rates that the FERC finds are no longer just and reasonable. In a Section 5 proceeding, the initiating party has the burden of demonstrating that the currently effective rates of the pipeline are no longer just and reasonable, and of demonstrating alternative just and reasonable rates. Any rate decrease as a result of a Section 5 proceeding is implemented prospectively upon the issuance of a final FERC order adopting the new just and reasonable rates. Section 4 rate proceedings are initiated by the natural gas pipeline, who must demonstrate that the new proposed rates are just and reasonable. The new rates as a result of a Section 4 proceeding are typically implemented six months after the Section 4 filing and are subject to refund upon issuance of a final order by the FERC.

The FERC-regulated natural gas companies may not grant undue preference to any customer. FERC regulations require that certain information be made public for market access, through standardized internet websites. These regulations also restrict each pipeline's marketing affiliates' access to certain non-public information that could affect price or availability of service.

Interstate natural gas pipelines are also subject to regulations administered by the Office of Pipeline Safety within the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, an agency of the United States Department of Transportation ("DOT"). Federal pipeline safety regulations are issued pursuant to the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, as amended ("NGPSA"), which establishes safety requirements in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of interstate natural gas facilities, and requires an entity that owns or operates pipeline facilities to comply with such plans. Major amendments to the NGPSA include the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 ("2002 Act"), the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006 ("2006 Act"), the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 ("2011 Act") and the Protecting Our Infrastructure Of Pipelines And Enhancing Safety Act Of 2016 ("2016 Act").

The 2002 Act established additional safety and pipeline integrity regulations for all natural gas pipelines in high-consequence areas. The 2002 Act imposed major new requirements in the areas of operator qualifications, risk analysis and integrity management. The 2002 Act mandated more frequent periodic inspection or testing of natural gas pipelines in high-consequence areas, which are locations where the potential consequences of a natural gas pipeline accident may be significant or may do considerable harm to persons or property. Pursuant to the 2002 Act, the DOT promulgated regulations that require natural gas pipeline operators to develop comprehensive integrity management programs, to identify applicable threats to natural gas pipeline segments that could impact high-consequence areas, to assess these segments and to provide ongoing mitigation and monitoring. The regulations require recurring inspections of high-consequence area segments every seven years after the initial baseline assessment.

The 2006 Act required pipeline operators to institute human factors management plans for personnel employed in pipeline control centers. DOT regulations published pursuant to the 2006 Act required development and implementation of written control room management procedures.

48


The 2011 Act was a response to natural gas pipeline incidents, most notably the San Bruno natural gas pipeline explosion that occurred in September 2010 in California. The 2011 Act increased the maximum allowable civil penalties for violations, directs operator assistance for Federal authorities conducting investigations and authorized the DOT to hire additional inspection and enforcement personnel. The 2011 Act also directed the DOT to study several topics, including the definition of high-consequence areas, the use of automatic shutoff valves in high-consequence areas, expansion of integrity management requirements beyond high-consequence areas and cast iron pipe replacement. The studies are complete, and a number of notices of proposed rulemaking have been issued. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration issued the Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: MAOP Reconfirmation, Expansion of Assessment Requirements and Other Related Amendments final rule in October 2019. The primary change is the expansion of the pipeline integrity assessment requirements to cover moderate-consequence areas and reconfirming maximum allowable operating pressures. Pipeline operators must develop procedures to address assessment requirements and define and map locations by mid-2021 and complete 50% of the required integrity testing by 2028 and the remaining testing by 2034. The BHE Pipeline Group is assessing the impact of the rule. This is the first of three parts of the anticipated new rules. Additional final rules are expected in 2021.

The 2016 Act required the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to set federal minimum safety standards for underground natural gas storage facilities and authorized emergency order authority. In February 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration issued a final rule regarding underground natural gas storage facilities that incorporates by reference the American Petroleum Institute's Recommended Practice 1171, "Functional Integrity of Natural Gas Storage in Depleted Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and Aquifer Reservoirs", clarifies certain aspects of the mandatory nature of the standard and defines regulatory completion dates for underground storage facility risk assessments. EGTS has 17 underground natural gas storage fields that fall under this regulation and does not expect the impact of complying with the final rule to be significant. Northern Natural Gas has three underground natural gas storage fields that fall under this regulation and is complying with the final rule. Kern River, Carolina Gas and Cove Point do not have underground natural gas storage facilities.

The DOT and related state agencies routinely audit and inspect the pipeline facilities for compliance with their regulations. The Pipeline Companies conduct internal audits of their facilities every four years with more frequent reviews of those deemed higher risk. The Pipeline Companies also conduct preliminary audits in advance of agency audits. Compliance issues that arise during these audits or during the normal course of business are addressed on a timely basis. The Pipeline Companies believe their pipeline systems comply in all material respects with the NGPSA and with DOT regulations issued pursuant to the NGPSA.

Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies

The Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies, as holders of electricity distribution licenses, are subject to regulation by GEMA. GEMA regulates distribution network operators ("DNOs") within the terms of the Electricity Act 1989 and the terms of DNO licenses, which are revocable with 25 years notice. Under the Electricity Act 1989, GEMA has a duty to ensure that DNOs can finance their regulated activities and DNOs have a duty to maintain an investment grade credit rating. GEMA discharges certain of its duties through its staff within Ofgem. Each of fourteen licensed DNOs distributes electricity from the national grid transmission system and distribution-connected generators to end users within its respective distribution services area.

49


DNOs are subject to price controls, enforced by Ofgem, that limit the revenue that may be recovered and retained from their electricity distribution activities. The regulatory regime that has been applied to electricity distributors in Great Britain encourages companies to look for efficiency gains in order to improve profits. The distribution price control formula also adjusts the revenue received by DNOs to reflect a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the rate of inflation (as measured by the United Kingdom's Retail Prices Index) and the quality of service delivered by the licensee's distribution system. The current price control, Electricity Distribution 1 ("ED1"), has been set for a period of eight years, starting April 1, 2015, although the formula has been, and may be, reviewed by the regulator following public consultation. The procedure and methodology adopted at a price control review are at the reasonable discretion of Ofgem. Ofgem's judgment of the future allowed revenue of licensees is likely to take into account, among other things:
the actual operating and capital costs of each of the licensees;
the operating and capital costs that each of the licensees would incur if it were as efficient as, in Ofgem's judgment, the more efficient licensees;
the actual value of certain costs which are judged to be beyond the control of the licensees;
the taxes that each licensee is expected to pay;
the regulatory value ascribed to the expenditures that have been incurred in the past and the efficient expenditures that are to be incurred in the forthcoming regulatory period;
the rate of return to be allowed on expenditures that make up the regulatory asset value;
the financial ratios of each of the licensees and the license requirement for each licensee to maintain investment grade status;
an allowance in respect of the repair of the pension deficits in the defined benefit pension schemes sponsored by each of the licensees; and
any under- or over-recoveries of revenues, relative to allowed revenues, in the previous price control period.

A number of incentive schemes also operate within the current price control period to encourage DNOs to provide an appropriate quality of service to end users. This includes specified payments to be made for failures to meet prescribed standards of service. The aggregate of these guaranteed standards payments is uncapped, but may be excused in certain prescribed circumstances that are generally beyond the control of the DNOs.

A new price control can be implemented by GEMA without the consent of the DNOs, but if a licensee disagrees with a change to its license it can appeal the matter to the United Kingdom's CMA, as can certain other parties. Any appeals must be notified within 20 working days of the license modification by GEMA. If the CMA determines that the appellant has relevant standing, then the statute requires that the CMA complete its process within six months, or in some exceptional circumstances seven months. The Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies appealed Ofgem's proposals for the resetting of the formula that commenced April 1, 2015, as did one other party, and the CMA subsequently revised GEMA's decision.

The current eight-year electricity distribution price control period runs from April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2023. The current price control was the first to be set for electricity distribution in Great Britain since Ofgem completed its review of network regulation (known as the RPI-X @ 20 project). The key changes to the price control calculations, compared to those used in previous price controls are that:
the period over which new regulatory assets are depreciated is being gradually lengthened, from 20 years to 45 years, with the change being phased over eight years;
allowed revenues will be adjusted during the price control period, rather than at the next price control review, to partially reflect cost variances relative to cost allowances;
the allowed cost of debt will be updated within the price control period by reference to a long-run trailing average based on external benchmarks of utility debt costs;
allowed revenues will be adjusted in relation to some new service standard incentives, principally relating to speed and service standards for new connections to the network; and
there was scope for a mid-period review and adjustment to revenues in the latter half of the period for any changes in the outputs required of licensees for certain specified reasons, although GEMA made no adjustments under this provision.

50


Under the current price control, as revised by the CMA, and excluding the effects of incentive schemes and any deferred revenues from the prior price control, the opening base allowed revenue of Northern Powergrid (Northeast) plc and Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc remains constant in all subsequent years within the price control period (ED1) through 2022-23, before the addition of inflation. Nominal opening base allowed revenues will increase in line with inflation. Adjustments are made annually to recognize the effect of factors such as changes in the allowed cost of debt, performance on incentive schemes and catch up of prior year under- or over- recoveries.

Ofgem also monitors DNO compliance with license conditions and enforces the remedies resulting from any breach of condition. License conditions include the prices and terms of service, financial strength of the DNO, the provision of information to Ofgem and the public, as well as maintaining transparency, non-discrimination and avoidance of cross-subsidy in the provision of such services. Ofgem also monitors and enforces certain duties of a DNO set out in the Electricity Act 1989, including the duty to develop and maintain an efficient, coordinated and economical system of electricity distribution. Under changes to the Electricity Act 1989 introduced by the Utilities Act 2000, GEMA is able to impose financial penalties on DNOs that contravene any of their license duties or certain of their duties under the Electricity Act 1989, as amended, or that are failing to achieve a satisfactory performance in relation to the individual standards prescribed by GEMA. Any penalty imposed must be reasonable and may not exceed 10% of the licensee's revenue.

AltaLink

AltaLink is regulated by the AUC, pursuant to the Electric Utilities Act (Alberta), the Public Utilities Act (Alberta), the Alberta Utilities Commission Act (Alberta) and the Hydro and Electric Energy Act (Alberta). The AUC is an independent, quasi-judicial agency established by the province of Alberta, Canada, which is responsible for, among other things, approving the tariffs of transmission facility owners, including AltaLink, and distribution utilities, acquisitions of such transmission facility owners or utilities, and construction and operation of new transmission projects in Alberta. The AUC also investigates and rules on regulated rate disputes and system access problems. The AUC regulates and oversees Alberta's electricity transmission sector with broad authority that may impact many of AltaLink's activities, including its tariffs, rates, construction, operations and financing.

The AUC has various core functions in regulating the Alberta electricity transmission sector, including the following:
regulating and adjudicating issues related to the operation of electric utilities within Alberta;
processing and approving general tariff applications relating to revenue requirements, capital expenditure prudency and rates of return including deemed capital structure for regulated utilities while ensuring that utility rates are just and reasonable, and approval of the transmission tariff rates of regulated transmission providers paid by the AESO, which is the independent transmission system operator in Alberta, Canada that controls the operation of AltaLink's transmission system;
approving the need for new electricity transmission facilities and permits to build and licenses to operate electricity transmission facilities;
reviewing operations and accounts from electric utilities and conducting on-site inspections to ensure compliance with industry regulation and standards;
adjudicating enforcement issues including the imposition of administrative penalties that arise when market participants violate the rules of the AESO; and
collecting, storing, analyzing, appraising and disseminating information to effectively fulfill its duties as an industry regulator.

AltaLink's tariffs are regulated by the AUC under the provisions of the Electric Utilities Act (Alberta) in respect of rates and terms and conditions of service. The Electric Utilities Act (Alberta) and related regulations require the AUC to consider that it is in the public interest to provide consumers the benefit of unconstrained transmission access to competitive generation and the wholesale electricity market. In regulating transmission tariffs, the AUC must facilitate sufficient investment to ensure the timely upgrade, enhancement or expansion of transmission facilities, and foster a stable investment climate and a continued stream of capital investment for the transmission system.

51


Under the Electric Utilities Act (Alberta), AltaLink prepares and files applications with the AUC for approval of tariffs to be paid by the AESO for the use of its transmission facilities, and the terms and conditions governing the use of those facilities. The AUC reviews and approves such tariff applications based on a cost-of-service regulatory model under a forward test year basis. Under this model, the AUC provides AltaLink with a reasonable opportunity to (i) earn a fair return on equity; and (ii) recover its forecast costs, including operating expenses, depreciation, borrowing costs and taxes (including deemed income taxes) associated with its regulated transmission business. The AUC must approve tariffs that are just, reasonable and not unduly preferential, arbitrary or unjustly discriminatory. AltaLink's transmission tariffs are not dependent on the price or volume of electricity transported through its transmission system.

The AESO is an independent system operator in Alberta, Canada that oversees the Alberta Interconnected Electric System ("AIES") and wholesale electricity market. The AESO is responsible for directing the safe, reliable and economic operation of the AIES, including long-term transmission system planning. AltaLink and the other transmission facility owners receive substantially all of their transmission tariff revenues from the AESO. The AESO, in turn, charges wholesale tariffs, approved by the AUC, in a manner that promotes fair and open access to the AIES and facilitates a competitive market for the purchase and sale of electricity. The AESO monitors compliance with approved reliability standards, which are enforced by the Market Surveillance Administrator, which may impose penalties on transmission facility owners for non-compliance with the approved reliability standards.

The AESO determines the need and plans for the expansion and enhancement of the transmission system in Alberta in accordance with applicable law and reliability standards. The AESO's responsibilities include long-term transmission planning and management, including assessing the current and future transmission system capacity needs of market participants. When the AESO determines an expansion or enhancement of the transmission system is needed, with limited exceptions, it submits an application to the AUC for approval of the proposed expansion or enhancement. The AESO then determines which transmission provider should submit an application to the AUC for a permit and license to construct and operate the designated transmission facilities. Generally the transmission provider operating in the geographic area where the transmission facilities expansion or enhancement is to be located is selected by the AESO to build, own and operate the transmission facilities. In addition, Alberta law provides that certain transmission projects may be subject to a competitive process open to qualified bidders.

Independent Power Projects

The Yuma, Cordova, Saranac, Power Resources, Topaz, Agua Caliente, Solar Star, Bishop Hill II, Jumbo Road, Marshall, Grande Prairie, Walnut Ridge, Pinyon Pines, Santa Rita, Alamo 6 and Pearl independent power projects are Exempt Wholesale Generators ("EWG") under the Energy Policy Act, while the Community Solar Gardens, Imperial Valley and Wailuku independent power projects are currently certified as Qualifying Facilities ("QF") under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. Both EWGs and QFs are generally exempt from compliance with extensive federal and state regulations that control the financial structure of an electric generating plant and the prices and terms at which electricity may be sold by the facilities.

The Yuma, Cordova, Saranac, Imperial Valley, Topaz, Agua Caliente, Solar Star, Bishop Hill II, Marshall, Grande Prairie, Walnut Ridge and Pinyon Pines independent power projects have obtained authority from the FERC to sell their power using market-based rates. This authority to sell electricity in wholesale electricity markets at market-based rates is subject to triennial reviews conducted by the FERC. Accordingly, the respective independent power projects are required to submit triennial filings to the FERC that demonstrate a lack of market power over sales of wholesale electricity and electric generation capacity in their respective market areas. The Pinyon Pines, Solar Star, Topaz and Yuma independent power projects and power marketer CalEnergy, LLC file together for market power study purposes of the FERC-defined Southwest Region. The most recent triennial filing for the Southwest Region was made in June 2019 and an order accepting it was issued in March 2020. The Cordova and Saranac independent power projects and power marketer CalEnergy, LLC file together with MidAmerican Energy and certain affiliates for market power study purposes of the FERC-defined Northeast Region. The most recent triennial filing for the Northeast Region was made in June 2020 and is awaiting FERC action. The Bishop Hill II and Walnut Ridge independent power projects and power marketer CalEnergy, LLC file together with MidAmerican Energy and certain affiliates for market power study purposes of the FERC-defined Central Region. The most recent triennial filing for the Central Region was made in December 2020 and is awaiting FERC action. The Marshall and Grande Prairie independent power projects and power marketer CalEnergy, LLC file together for market power study purposes in the FERC-defined Southwest Power Pool Region. The most recent triennial filing for the Southwest Power Pool Region was made in December 2018 and an order accepting it was issued July 2019.


52


The entire output of Jumbo Road, Santa Rita, Alamo 6, Pearl and Power Resources is within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas ("ERCOT") and market-based authority is not required for such sales solely within ERCOT as the ERCOT market is not a FERC-jurisdictional market. Similarly, Wailuku sells its output solely to the Hawaii Electric Light Company within the Hawaii electric grid, which is not a FERC-jurisdictional market and therefore, Wailuku does not require market-based rate authority.

EWGs are permitted to sell capacity and electricity only in the wholesale markets, not to end users. Additionally, utilities are required to purchase electricity produced by QFs at a price that does not exceed the purchasing utility's "avoided cost" and to sell back-up power to the QFs on a non-discriminatory basis, unless they have successfully petitioned the FERC for an exemption from this purchase requirement. Avoided cost is defined generally as the price at which the utility could purchase or produce the same amount of power from sources other than the QF on a long-term basis. The Energy Policy Act eliminated the purchase requirement for utilities with respect to new contracts under certain conditions. New QF contracts are also subject to FERC rate filing requirements, unlike QF contracts entered into prior to the Energy Policy Act. FERC regulations also permit QFs and utilities to negotiate agreements for utility purchases of power at rates other than the utilities' avoided cost.

The Philippine Congress has passed the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 ("EPIRA"), which is aimed at restructuring the Philippine power industry, privatizing the National Power Corporation ("NPC") and introducing a competitive electricity market, among other initiatives. Under the EPIRA, Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation ("PSALM") is tasked, among others, to dispose of and privatize the assets of NPC. PSALM recently issued statements that public bidding of the administration and management of the contracted energy of the Casecnan Project's energy conversion and power purchase agreement to interested parties will be made in 2021. It is still not known what impact, if any, the implementation of this change in independent power producer administrator may have on the Casecnan Project's future operations.

Residential Real Estate Brokerage Company

HomeServices and its operating subsidiaries are regulated by the United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which enforces the Truth In Lending Act ("TILA"), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA") and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"); by the United States Federal Trade Commission with respect to certain franchising activities; by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, which enforces the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"); and by state agencies where its subsidiaries operate. TILA and ECOA regulate lending practices. FHA prohibits housing-related discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. RESPA regulates real estate settlement services including real estate closing practices, lender servicing and escrow account practices and business relationships among settlement service providers and third parties to the transaction.

REGULATORY MATTERS

In addition to the discussion contained herein regarding regulatory matters, refer to "General Regulation" in Item 1 of this Form 10-K for further information regarding the general regulatory framework.

PacifiCorp

Multi-State Process

In November 2019, PacifiCorp completed negotiations with the Multi-State Process Workgroup, a working group of stakeholders consisting of utility regulatory agencies, customers, and certain others potentially affected by inter-jurisdictional allocation procedures, resulting in a new cost allocation agreement, the 2020 Protocol. The agreement establishes a common allocation method to be used in Utah, Oregon, Wyoming, Idaho and California through 2023 and a separate method for Washington during the same time period that is based on a system approach for cost allocations and provides a path forward for Washington to achieve compliance with Washington's Clean Energy Transformation Act. The agreement establishes a process for the 2020 Protocol signatories to resolve remaining outstanding cost-allocations to be implemented in a new, permanent and long-term allocation method at the end of the four years. In December 2019, PacifiCorp submitted the 2020 Protocol to the UPSC, the OPUC, the WPSC and the IPUC for approval. WUTC approval of the agreement was sought in the general rate case filing also submitted in December 2019. In 2020, PacifiCorp received approval of the 2020 Protocol from the UPSC, the OPUC, the WPSC, the IPUC and the WUTC. Approval from the CPUC will be requested in a future general rate case.


53


Depreciation Rate Study

In September 2018, PacifiCorp filed applications for depreciation rate changes with the UPSC, the OPUC, the WPSC, the WUTC and the IPUC based on PacifiCorp's 2018 depreciation rate study, requesting the rates become effective January 1, 2021. Based on the proposed depreciation rates, annual depreciation expense would have increased approximately $300 million. Updates since September 2018 include the filing of PacifiCorp's 2020 decommissioning studies in which a third‑party consultant was engaged to estimate decommissioning costs associated with coal-fueled generating facilities and removal of Cholla Unit 4. Depreciation rates based on the outcomes described below were effective January 1, 2021, resulting in an estimated increase in depreciation expense of $176 million in 2021, based on historical balances.

In March 2020, PacifiCorp filed a partial settlement stipulation with the UPSC to which all but one intervening party agreed. The partial settlement adopts certain aspects of the 2018 depreciation rate study as filed for coal-fueled generating facilities and established a secondary phase to the proceeding to address decommissioning costs for PacifiCorp's coal‑fueled generating facilities and equipment replaced as a result of PacifiCorp's wind repowering projects. In April 2020, the UPSC approved the stipulation as filed. In December 2020, the UPSC issued an order regarding the secondary phase which approved PacifiCorp's proposed accounting treatment related to the retired wind assets and supports recovery of incremental decommissioning costs reflected in the third-party study over the remaining depreciable lives of the coal-fueled generating facilities as proposed in the general rate case.

In August 2020, PacifiCorp filed an all‑party stipulation with the OPUC regarding the depreciation study with depreciation rates for coal-fueled generating facilities and associated incremental decommissioning costs reflected in the third-party study to be addressed separately in the general rate case proceeding. In December 2020, the OPUC approved the stipulation effective January 1, 2021. The OPUC's December 2020 general rate case order accepted PacifiCorp's proposed depreciable lives for the coal-fueled generating facilities but deferred a decision on rate treatment of the incremental decommissioning costs.

In April 2020, PacifiCorp filed a stipulation with the WPSC resolving all issues addressed in PacifiCorp's depreciation rate study application with ratemaking treatment of certain matters to be addressed in PacifiCorp's general rate case, including depreciation for coal-fueled generating facilities and associated incremental decommissioning costs reflected in decommissioning studies and certain matters related to the repowering of PacifiCorp's wind-powered generating facilities. The stipulation was approved by the WPSC during a hearing in August 2020 and a subsequent written order in December 2020. The general rate case hearing was rescheduled for February 2021. As a result of the hearing date change, PacifiCorp filed an application in October 2020 with the WPSC requesting authorization to defer costs associated with impacts of the depreciation study. A hearing for this deferral application is scheduled to occur in July 2021.

In July 2020, PacifiCorp filed a full settlement stipulation with the WUTC resolving all issues in the proceeding. The WUTC approved the stipulation in December 2020, excluding aspects related to certain coal-fueled generating facilities that were separately addressed in the general rate case. The general rate case settlement authorizes accelerated depreciation of certain coal-fueled generating facilities, as well as recovery of incremental decommissioning costs reflected in the third-party study over a ten-year period.

In June 2020, PacifiCorp filed a partial settlement stipulation with the IPUC to which all but one intervening party agreed. The partial settlement adopts certain aspects of the 2018 depreciation rate study as filed for coal-fueled generating facilities and proposes a secondary phase to the proceeding be established in order to address decommissioning costs for PacifiCorp's coal‑fueled generating facilities. In August 2020, the IPUC approved the stipulation and authorized a secondary phase to the proceeding to address decommissioning costs for PacifiCorp's coal‑fueled generating facilities.

As a result of delaying the general rate case filing in Idaho for 2021 for an anticipated effective date of January 1, 2022, PacifiCorp reached a separate agreement with parties to defer the incremental depreciation expense from the 2018 depreciation study for one year, during 2021. In October 2020, a settlement stipulation was filed with the IPUC related to the secondary phase of the depreciation study to defer the incremental decommissioning expense from the 2020 decommissioning studies for one year, during 2021, consistent with the stipulated treatment of the incremental depreciation expense from the 2018 depreciation study, as a result of delaying the general rate case filing. The IPUC approved the stipulation as filed in December 2020.


54


Retirement Plan Settlement Charge

During 2018, the PacifiCorp Retirement Plan incurred a settlement charge as a result of excess lump sum distributions over the defined threshold for the year ended December 31, 2018. In December 2018, PacifiCorp submitted filings with the UPSC, the OPUC, the WPSC and the WUTC seeking approval to defer the settlement charge. Also in December 2018, an advice letter was filed with the CPUC requesting a memorandum account to track the costs associated with pension and postretirement settlements and curtailments. In October 2019, the request for a memorandum account was re-filed as an application with the CPUC. In 2019, the WUTC approved the requested deferral, while the UPSC and the WPSC denied the request. In January 2020, the OPUC issued an order denying PacifiCorp's request. In April 2020, the CPUC approved the request to establish a memorandum account effective December 31, 2018.

In its December 2020 generate rate case order, the UPSC ordered PacifiCorp to initiate a proceeding by March 2021 to establish a balancing account for pension settlement losses. While the OPUC did not authorize specific treatment for pension settlement losses in its December 2020 general rate case order, it did indicate that it is receptive to PacifiCorp filing a deferral request, should a pension settlement loss be triggered in the 2021 test period for the general rate case proceeding.

COVID-19

In March and April 2020, PacifiCorp filed applications requesting authorization to defer costs associated with COVID‑19 with the UPSC, the OPUC, the WPSC, the WUTC and the IPUC. In April 2020, as ordered by the CPUC, PacifiCorp filed to establish the COVID‑19 Pandemic Protections Memorandum Account. The memorandum account was approved in September 2020, retroactive to March 4, 2020. In April 2020, the WPSC approved PacifiCorp's application to defer costs associated with COVID‑19, subject to a public notice period, and required associated benefits arising from COVID‑19 to be offset against the deferred costs. During the public notice period, one party to the proceeding filed a petition for a rehearing of the matter. The WPSC scheduled a hearing for this matter in April 2021. In July, September and October 2020, the IPUC, the UPSC and the OPUC, respectively, approved PacifiCorp's applications to defer costs associated with COVID‑19, requiring associated benefits arising from COVID‑19 to be offset against the deferred costs. In November 2020, PacifiCorp filed a revised petition consistent with the requirements set forth in the WUTC's adopted term sheet in its generic COVID-19 proceeding. In December 2020, the WUTC approved PacifiCorp's revised petition. In February 2021, PacifiCorp filed a motion to withdraw the application from the WPSC, after reaching an agreement with parties to the proceeding.

Utah

In March 2019, PacifiCorp filed its annual EBA application with the UPSC requesting recovery of $24 million, or 1.1%, of deferred net power costs from customers for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, reflecting the difference between base and actual net power costs in the 2018 deferral period. The rate change was approved by the UPSC effective May 1, 2019 on an interim basis. Following a decision from the Utah Supreme Court in June 2019 that found the UPSC did not have authority to approve interim rates in conjunction with the EBA, the UPSC directed PacifiCorp to terminate the interim rate change pending final approval in the proceeding. The hearing on final approval was held in February 2020, and the UPSC issued an order approving full recovery of the 2018 deferred costs beginning April 1, 2020.

In May 2019, Utah House Bill 411 went into effect. The legislation, among other things, authorizes the UPSC to approve a renewable energy program for communities seeking 100% renewable electricity. Participating cities were required to adopt a resolution with a goal to be on 100% renewable electricity by 2030 before December 31, 2019. Twenty-four communities in Utah, including Salt Lake City, passed the resolution before December 31, 2019. Customers within a participating community may opt out of the program and maintain existing rates. Rates approved for the program may not result in any shift of costs or benefits to nonparticipating customers. The program details, including costs, are being developed with the communities for a future filing with the UPSC.

In March 2020, PacifiCorp filed its annual EBA application with the UPSC requesting recovery of $37 million, or 1.0%, of deferred power costs from customers for the period January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, reflecting the difference between base and actual net power costs in the 2019 deferral period. A hearing was held in February 2021 for rates effective March 1, 2021.


55


In March 2020, Utah's governor signed Utah House Bill 66, Wildland Fire Planning and Cost Recovery Amendments, which requires PacifiCorp to prepare a wildfire protection plan to be approved by the UPSC. All investments, including the cost of capital, made to implement an approved plan are recoverable in rates. The bill also provides a potential liability safe harbor if PacifiCorp is in compliance with its approved wildfire mitigation plan. In addition, the legislation clarifies the standard for real property losses and eliminates the current standard of treble damages awarded for tree losses. The first wildland fire protection plan was filed with the UPSC in June 2020 and was approved by the UPSC in October 2020. As part of the 2020 general rate case, the UPSC approved a Wildland Fire Mitigation Balancing Account to track and defer costs associated with the implementation of the wildland fire protection plan that are not recovered through base rates.

In March 2020, Utah's governor signed Utah House Bill 396, Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Amendments, which directs the UPSC to enable PacifiCorp to recover in rates up to $50 million of electric vehicle infrastructure. The legislation also prohibits a third‑party from generating electricity onsite to directly resell to customers through electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

In May 2020, PacifiCorp filed a general rate case with the UPSC requesting an increase in base rates of $96 million, or 4.8%, which PacifiCorp proposed to be implemented over a three-year period with 2.6% effective January 1, 2021, 1.1% effective January 1, 2022 and 1.1% effective January 1, 2023 reflecting the refunding of a portion of 2017 Tax Reform benefits in 2021 and 2022. The proposed increase reflected recovery of Energy Vision 2020 investments, updated depreciation rates, incremental decommissioning costs associated with coal-fueled generating facilities, a wildland fire mitigation cost tracking mechanism to implement Utah House Bill 66, and rate design modernization proposals. The application also requested authorization to recover costs associated with the early retirement of Cholla Unit 4. The proposed increase reflected several rate mitigation measures that included use of the balance in the Utah Sustainable Transportation and Energy Plan ("STEP") regulatory accounts to accelerate depreciation of the undepreciated plant balance of certain coal-fueled generation units, including Cholla Unit 4, and the use of a portion of the excess deferred income taxes associated with 2017 Tax Reform to accelerate recognition of certain regulatory assets and further depreciate the Dave Johnston plant balance. In October 2020, PacifiCorp filed rebuttal testimony, modifying its request to an increase in base rates of $72 million, or 3.6%, primarily due to a reduction to the requested return on equity. In December 2020, the UPSC issued an order approving an increase in base rates of $31 million, or 1.6%, effective January 1, 2021 reflecting a reduction in PacifiCorp's requested return on equity and before considering refunds of remaining 2017 Tax Reform benefits. The UPSC approved PacifiCorp's proposed rate mitigation strategy to refund remaining 2017 Tax Reform benefits over two years, resulting in an overall net decrease of $15 million, or 0.7%, effective January 1, 2021 followed by a 1.1% increase on January 1, 2022 and another 1.1% increase on January 1, 2023. The order accepted PacifiCorp's proposal to use Utah STEP regulatory balances and excess deferred income taxes associated with 2017 Tax Reform to accelerate depreciation of Cholla Unit 4 and portions of other coal-fueled generating plant balances, as well as to accelerate recognition of certain regulatory asset balances. The order also authorized PacifiCorp to establish a deferral account for costs associated with the early retirement of Cholla Unit 4 and a Wildland Fire Mitigation Balancing Account as described under "Adjustment Mechanisms" in Item 1 of this Form 10-K. In addition, the UPSC ordered PacifiCorp to initiate a proceeding by March 2021 to establish a balancing account for pension settlement losses.

Oregon

In December 2018, PacifiCorp filed a 2019 RAC application requesting recovery of costs associated with repowering of approximately 900 MWs of company-owned and installed wind facilities expected to be completed in 2019. The associated net power cost and PTC benefits were previously included in the 2019 TAM. An all-party settlement was approved by the OPUC in September 2019, providing for a total rate increase of $24 million, or 1.8%, subject to final cost updates. The first rate increase of $9 million, or 0.7%, was effective October 1, 2019 for four repowered facilities, the second rate increase of $1 million, or 0.1%, was effective December 1, 2019 for one repowered facility and the third rate increase of $5 million, or 0.4%, was effective January 1, 2020 for two repowered facilities. A final rate increase of $5 million, or 0.4%, was effective April 1, 2020 for the two remaining repowered facilities that were placed in service by the end of March 2020. As part of the settlement, parties agreed that depreciation of the Oregon‑allocated net book value of certain undepreciated equipment replaced as a result of the applicable repowering projects would be accelerated and offset with excess deferred income taxes resulting from 2017 Tax Reform. In 2020, accelerated depreciation of $40 million and offsetting amortization of excess deferred income taxes was recognized associated with the two remaining repowered facilities included in the 2019 RAC. In October 2020, PacifiCorp filed its annual update for plants placed into service in 2019 requesting an overall rate increase of $2 million, or 0.2%, effective November 1, 2020. The rate was in effect through December 31, 2020 when new rates from the general rate case reset the RAC rates to zero.

56


In October 2019, the OPUC approved the all-party settlement in the 2020 TAM, effective January 1, 2020. In December 2020, the Cedar Springs II wind facility was placed in service. In compliance with the terms of the settlement adopted by the OPUC, in December 2020, PacifiCorp filed to include the net power costs and PTCs in rates which resulted in a rate decrease of approximately $1 million, or 0.1%, effective December 11, 2020. In December 2020, PacifiCorp also filed an application with the OPUC requesting authorization to defer the revenue requirement associated with the Cedar Springs II wind resource and associated transmission through December 31, 2020, for later inclusion in rates.

In November 2019, PacifiCorp filed a 2020 RAC application requesting an annual increase in rates of $1 million, or 0.1%, associated with repowering the Glenrock III wind facility effective April 1, 2020 and an annual increase in rates of $3 million, or 0.3%, associated with repowering the Dunlap wind facility effective October 15, 2020. As part of its application, PacifiCorp proposed to offset the Oregon-allocated net book value of the replaced wind equipment in this filing with PacifiCorp's OATT revenue related deferral from 2017 through 2019. An all-party settlement was filed in January 2020 supporting the filed request and was approved by the OPUC in March 2020. Based on a final cost update for the Glenrock III wind facility, and including the net power cost and PTC benefits, a 0.02% rate decrease became effective April 1, 2020. In September 2020, PacifiCorp filed for a rate change after the repowered Dunlap wind facility was placed in service. Based on the final cost update for the Dunlap wind facility, and including the net power cost and PTC benefits, an additional rate increase of $2 million, or 0.1%, became effective September 18, 2020. As a result of the settlement, accelerated depreciation of $34 million and offsetting amortization of the OATT deferral was recognized during 2020 associated with undepreciated equipment replaced as a result of the repowering of the Glenrock III and Dunlap wind facilities.

In November 2019, PacifiCorp requested authorization to establish an automatic adjustment clause and rate schedule for the costs and revenues related to the Oregon Corporate Activity Tax ("OCAT") that applies to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2020. Concurrent with this filing, PacifiCorp also requested authorization to defer the OCAT expense. In January 2020, the OPUC authorized the automatic adjustment clause, rate schedule and application for deferral. PacifiCorp began recovering the estimated OCAT expense effective February 1, 2020. The recovery adjustment for 2020 is 0.41% and the rate is being applied as a percentage surcharge on customers' bills.

In February 2020, PacifiCorp filed a general rate case in Oregon requesting a net rate increase of $71 million, or 5.4%, effective January 1, 2021. The request included a separate tariff rider to recover costs associated with the early retirement of Cholla Unit 4 for an increase of $17 million annually from January 2021 through April 2025 and an annual credit to customers of $25 million for amortization of remaining deferred income tax benefits associated with 2017 Tax Reform over a three-year period beginning January 2021. The request for the increase in base rates reflected recovery of Energy Vision 2020 investments, updated depreciation rates, incremental decommissioning costs and other closure costs associated with coal-fueled facilities and rate design modernization proposals. Net power costs are addressed separately in the Oregon TAM, discussed below. In June 2020, PacifiCorp filed reply testimony requesting a revised net rate increase of $67 million, or 5.0%, effective on January 1, 2021. The revised net rate increase reflected a proposal to offset the costs associated with the early retirement of Cholla Unit 4 with a portion of the deferred income tax benefits associated with 2017 Tax Reform rather than recovering these costs through a separate tariff as proposed in the initial filing. The revised net rate increase also included PacifiCorp's proposal to provide an annual credit to customers of $6 million for amortization of the remaining deferred income tax benefits associated with 2017 Tax Reform over a two-year period beginning January 2021. In August 2020, PacifiCorp filed its surrebuttal testimony requesting a revised net rate increase of $41 million, or 3.1%, effective January 1, 2021. This included a decrease in the requested return on equity, an update to depreciation rates consistent with the settled depreciation study and the proposed annual credit to customers of the remaining deferred income tax benefits associated with 2017 Tax Reform that was modified to $7 million. PacifiCorp also filed a partial stipulation that would settle all rate design and rate spread issues in the general rate case. In PacifiCorp's closing brief filed in October 2020, PacifiCorp modified the requested net rate increase to $40 million, or 3.0%, to accept the OPUC staff's adjustment correcting the ongoing advanced meter infrastructure operating costs reflected in the case. In December 2020, the OPUC approved a net rate decrease of approximately $24 million, or 1.8%, effective January 1, 2021, accepting PacifiCorp's proposed annual credit to customers of the remaining 2017 Tax Reform benefits over a two-year period. The new rates approved by the OPUC reflect a modified capital structure for ratemaking purposes and a lower return on equity than proposed by PacifiCorp. The new rates also exclude approximately $27 million in incremental decommissioning costs and other closure costs associated with coal-fueled generating facilities that will be addressed through a separate process in 2021. The order also authorizes an Annual Wildfire Mitigation and Vegetation Management Cost Recovery Mechanism for three years as described under "Adjustment Mechanisms" in Item 1 of this Form 10-K. PacifiCorp's compliance filing to reset base rates effective January 1, 2021 in response to the OPUC's order reflected a rate decrease of approximately $67 million, or 5.1%, due to the exclusion of the impacts of repowered wind facilities, new wind facilities and certain other new investments that had not been placed in service at the time of the filing. Additional compliance filings will be made to include these investments in rates concurrent when they are placed in service. In January 2021, the OPUC approved the second compliance filing to add the remainder of the Ekola Flats wind facility to rates, resulting in a rate increase of approximately $7 million, or 0.5%, effective January 12, 2021.
57


In February 2020, PacifiCorp submitted its annual TAM filing in Oregon requesting a decrease of $49 million, or 3.7%, effective January 1, 2021, based on forecast net power costs and loads for the calendar year 2021. The filing includes the customer benefits of new and repowered wind resources, including an increase in PTCs. In June 2020, PacifiCorp filed reply testimony in its annual TAM with updated forecast net power costs resulting in a rate decrease of $47 million, or 3.6%, effective January 1, 2021. In August 2020, PacifiCorp filed a stipulation with the OPUC settling all issues in the proceeding. In October 2020, the OPUC approved the stipulation. In November 2020, the final cost update was filed resulting in an annual rate decrease of $41 million, or 3.1%, effective January 1, 2021.

Wyoming

In July 2019, Wyoming Senate Enrolled Act No. 74 ("SEA 74") went into effect. The legislation, among other things, requires electric utilities to make a good faith effort to sell a coal-fueled generation facility in Wyoming before it can receive recovery in rates for capital costs associated with new generation facilities built, in whole or in part, to replace the retiring coal-fueled generation facility. The electric utility is obligated to purchase the electricity from the facility through a power purchase agreement at a price that is no greater than the utility's avoided cost as determined by the WPSC. Costs associated with an approved power purchase agreement are expected to be recoverable in rates from Wyoming customers. In March 2020, the Wyoming governor signed Senate Enrolled Act No. 23, which allows a 1 MW or greater customer to purchase electricity from a coal-fueled generation facility purchased from an electric utility under SEA 74. The WPSC approved new administrative rules to implement the legislation in November 2020, which are expected to go into effect in early 2021. The overall impacts of the legislation and the new administrative rules cannot be determined at this time.

In March 2020, PacifiCorp filed a general rate case with the WPSC requesting an increase in base rates of $7 million, or 1.1%, effective January 1, 2021. The increase reflects recovery of Energy Vision 2020 investments, updated depreciation rates, incremental decommissioning costs associated with coal-fueled facilities and rate design modernization proposals. The application also requests a revision to the ECAM to eliminate the sharing band and requests authorization to discontinue operations and recover costs associated with the early retirement of Cholla Unit 4. The proposed increase reflects several rate mitigation measures that include use of the remaining 2017 Tax Reform benefits to buy down plant balances, including Cholla Unit 4, and spreading the recovery of the depreciation of certain coal-fueled generation units over time periods that extend beyond the depreciable lives proposed in the depreciation rate study. In September 2020, PacifiCorp filed its rebuttal testimony that modified its requested increase in base rates from $7 million to $9 million and reflected an update to the rate mitigation measures for using the 2017 Tax Reform benefits. The WPSC determined that the rebuttal testimony filed constituted a material and substantial change to the original application and vacated the hearing that was scheduled for October 2020. The WPSC re-noticed PacifiCorp's case and rescheduled the hearings. The hearings began February 2021 and will resume March 2021. PacifiCorp has requested a rate effective date of July 1, 2021.

In March 2020, the Wyoming governor signed House of Representatives Enrolled Act No. 79, which requires the WPSC to adopt a standard to specify a percentage of an electric utility's electricity to be generated from coal‑fueled generation utilizing carbon capture technology by no later than 2030. The bill allows electric utilities to implement a surcharge not to exceed 2% of customer bills to recover costs to comply with the standard. PacifiCorp is working with the WPSC and other stakeholders on rules to implement the legislation. The overall impacts of this legislation cannot be determined at this time.

In April 2020, PacifiCorp filed its annual ECAM and RRA application with the WPSC requesting recovery of $7 million, or 1.0% of deferred net power costs from customers for the period January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, reflecting the difference between base and actual net power costs in the 2019 deferral period. The rate change went into effect on an interim basis June 15, 2020. This increase will be offset in part by continued rate credits associated with 2017 Tax Reform benefits and bonus depreciation for which minor adjustments are proposed to go into effect in the same timeframe. The hearing was held and the WPSC issued a bench decision in December 2020, reducing the requested recovery by $1 million.

Washington

In November 2019, PacifiCorp submitted its 2019 decoupling filing with the WUTC for the twelve months ended June 30, 2019. In January 2020, the WUTC approved PacifiCorp's 2019 decoupling filing, which resulted in a $12 million surcredit to customers effective February 1, 2020.
58


In December 2019, PacifiCorp submitted its 2021 Washington general rate case requesting an overall decrease to rates of $4 million, or 1.1%, effective January 1, 2021. The case includes a proposed ten-year annual surcredit of $7 million to customers primarily associated with the amortization of excess deferred income taxes from 2017 Tax Reform. The case also includes a request for approval of a new cost allocation methodology, updated depreciation rates, incremental decommissioning costs and other closure costs associated with certain coal-fueled facilities, recovery of Energy Vision 2020 investments, and rate design modernization proposals. In April 2020, PacifiCorp submitted supplemental testimony and exhibits to incorporate the impacts of the recently completed decommissioning studies for PacifiCorp's coal-fueled generating resources and updated net power costs. The updates resulted in a revised request for an overall increase to rates of $11 million, or 3.2%. The parties subsequently reached a settlement in principle. In July 2020, the resulting all-party settlement was filed reflecting a rate decrease of $4 million or 1.2%. The settlement adjusts the current $8 million annual surcredit associated with 2017 Tax Reform that was set to expire January 1, 2021 to a five-year annual surcredit of $12 million, primarily associated with the amortization of excess deferred income taxes from 2017 Tax Reform. The settlement also includes approval of the new cost allocation methodology, updated depreciation rates, incremental decommissioning costs and other closure costs associated with certain coal-fueled facilities and rate design modernization proposals. While recovery of the Energy Vision 2020 investments is reflected in the settlement, revenue associated with those investments placed into service after May 1, 2020 will be subject to a prudency review in a separate filing in 2021 to address the cost recovery. In October 2020, PacifiCorp filed a petition for rehearing and motion to amend the settlement stipulation to reflect an increase to net power costs. In the settlement, parties had agreed to offset any increase to net power costs in the October update with the power cost adjustment mechanism deferral account balance. The October update resulted in an increase greater than the balance in the deferral account. To maintain the intent of the settlement to update net power costs and decrease rates for customers, PacifiCorp and the parties to the settlement reached an agreement to reflect this difference in the deferral account for future ratemaking. In November 2020, PacifiCorp and parties filed joint testimony supporting the amended settlement. The settlement was approved by the WUTC in December 2020.

In December 2020, PacifiCorp submitted its 2020 decoupling filing with the WUTC for the twelve months ended June 30, 2020. In January 2021, the WUTC approved PacifiCorp's 2020 decoupling filing, which resulted in a $3 million surcharge to customers over two years effective February 1, 2021.

Idaho

In April 2020, PacifiCorp filed its annual ECAM application with the IPUC requesting recovery of $21 million, or 3.0%, for deferred costs in 2019. This filing includes recovery of the difference in actual net power costs to the base level in rates, an adder for recovery of the Lake Side 2 resource, changes in PTCs, RECs, and a resource tracking mechanism to match costs with the benefits of wind repowering projects until they are reflected in base rates. This deferral is partially offset by $3 million related to amortization of excess deferred income taxes stemming from 2017 Tax Reform and net of recovery for a regulatory asset related to the prior depreciation study. In May 2020, the IPUC issued an order approving the application as filed with rates effective June 1, 2020.

In March 2020, PacifiCorp filed a notice of intent to file a general rate case with the IPUC. However, in June 2020, PacifiCorp negotiated a settlement with parties that allowed PacifiCorp to avoid filing a general rate case in 2020. The parties will support PacifiCorp's proposal to defer the incremental depreciation expense from the 2018 depreciation study during 2021, request deferred accounting treatment for unrecovered investment and closure costs when Cholla Unit 4 is retired, use a portion of the deferred income tax benefits associated with 2017 Tax Reform to accelerate the depreciation of Cholla Unit 4 and offset future rate increases, and include the Pryor Mountain wind facility and the repowering of the Foote Creek I wind facility in the resource tracking mechanism. In return, PacifiCorp will delay filing a general rate case until 2021 with rates effective January 1, 2022. In July 2020, PacifiCorp filed a settlement stipulation allowing the delay of the general rate case and the related application for an accounting order. In December 2020, the IPUC issued an order approving the application and associated stipulation as filed.

California

In April 2018, PacifiCorp filed a general rate case with the CPUC for an overall rate increase of $1 million, or 0.9%, effective January 1, 2019. A CPUC decision was issued in February 2020, resulting in a $6 million, or 5.1%, rate decrease effective February 6, 2020. The CPUC's final order also resulted in an additional rate decrease of $6 million, or 5.1%, over the next three years due to the amortization of excess deferred income taxes attributed to 2017 Tax Reform.

59


California Senate Bill 901 requires electric utilities to prepare and submit wildfire mitigation plans that describe the utilities' plans to prevent, combat and respond to wildfires affecting their service territories. In January 2020, the CPUC approved the resolution establishing procedural rules for the review and disposition of 2020 Wildfire Mitigation Plans. PacifiCorp submitted its 2020 Wildfire Mitigation Plan in February 2020 for which it received approval in June 2020.

In December 2019, PacifiCorp filed an application notifying the CPUC of the early retirement of the Cholla Unit 4 generating facility and requesting authorization to establish a memorandum account associated with the retirement and decommissioning of Cholla Unit 4. The memorandum account would be used to track costs associated with the unrecovered plant balance, decommissioning and other closure-related costs until PacifiCorp requests recovery in its next general rate case or other proceeding. In July 2020, the CPUC issued a decision approving the requested memorandum account with an effective date of December 27, 2019.

In August 2020, PacifiCorp filed an application with the CPUC to address California energy costs and GHG Allowance costs. The application includes a $7 million, or 6.7% decrease in energy costs, which is largely attributed to PTCs for new and repowered Energy Vision 2020 resources, and an increase of $1 million, or 0.8%, to recover costs for purchasing GHG allowances as required by the state's Cap-and-Trade Program. If this application is approved, this would result in an overall decrease of $6 million, or 5.9% effective January 1, 2021.

MidAmerican Energy

COVID-19

In May 2020, the IUB issued an order authorizing MidAmerican Energy to use a regulatory asset account to record and track increased costs and other financial impacts associated with COVID-19. As of December 31, 2020, MidAmerican Energy has $2 million in a regulatory asset for certain uncollectible customer accounts. At such time as MidAmerican Energy deems appropriate, it may initiate a proceeding with the IUB to seek recovery of such costs and other financial impacts. MidAmerican Energy cannot predict at this time the amount of such financial impacts from COVID-19 or when it will seek recovery of such costs with the IUB.

Iowa Transmission Legislation

In June 2020, Iowa enacted legislation that grants incumbent electric transmission owners the right to construct, own and maintain electric transmission lines that have been approved for construction in a federally registered planning authority's transmission plan and that connect to the incumbent electric transmission owner's facility. Also known as the Right of First Refusal, the law ensures MidAmerican Energy, as an incumbent electric transmission owner, has the legal right to construct, own and maintain transmission lines that have been approved by the MISO (or another federally registered planning authority) in MidAmerican Energy's service territory. To exercise the legal right, MidAmerican Energy must notify the IUB within 90 days of any such approval for construction that it intends to construct, own and maintain the electric transmission line. The law still requires an incumbent electric transmission owner to obtain a state franchise from the IUB to construct, erect, maintain or operate an electric transmission line and, upon issuance of a franchise, the incumbent electric transmission owner provide the IUB an estimate of the cost to construct the electric transmission line and, until the construction is complete, a quarterly report updating the estimated cost to construct the electric transmission line. Legal challenges have been brought against similar laws in other states, but courts that have ruled on such cases have upheld the states' laws. In October 2020, a lawsuit challenging the law was filed in Iowa by national transmission interests. The suit raises issues specific to Iowa law, and the State of Iowa is defending the law in the suit.

Renewable Subscription Program

In December 2020, MidAmerican Energy filed with the IUB a proposed Renewable Subscription Program tariff. If approved, the program will provide qualified industrial customers with the opportunity to meet their future energy growth above baseline levels with renewable energy from specific MidAmerican Energy wind-powered generation additions and 100 MWs of planned solar generation for 20 years at fixed prices based on the cost of such facilities. Under the program, MidAmerican Energy would own the facilities, retain PTCs and other tax benefits associated with the facilities and include all revenues and costs from the program in its Iowa-jurisdictional results of operation, but renewable attributes from the project would be specifically assigned to subscribing customers. Approval by the IUB is pending.
60


    NV Energy (Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific)

        Regulatory Rate Reviews

In June 2019, Sierra Pacific filed an electric regulatory rate review with the PUCN. The filing supported an annual revenue increase of $5 million but requested an annual revenue reduction of $5 million. In September 2019, Sierra Pacific filed an all-party settlement for the electric regulatory rate review. The settlement resolves all cost of capital and revenue requirement issues and provides for an annual revenue reduction of $5 million and requires Sierra Pacific to share 50% of regulatory earnings above 9.7% with its customers. The rate design portion of the regulatory rate review was not a part of the settlement and a hearing on rate design was held in November 2019. In December 2019, the PUCN issued an order approving the stipulation but made some adjustments to the methodology for the weather normalization component of historical sales in rates, which resulted in an additional annual revenue reduction of $3 million. The new rates were effective January 1, 2020. In January 2020, Sierra Pacific filed a petition for rehearing challenging the PUCN's adjustments to the weather normalization methodology. In February 2020, the PUCN issued an order granting the petition for rehearing. In April 2020, the PUCN issued a final order approving a weather normalization methodology that changed the additional annual revenue reduction from $3 million to $2 million with an effective date of January 1, 2020. Customers billed under rates using the initial revenue reduction were issued credits in the fourth quarter of 2020.

In June 2020, Nevada Power filed an electric regulatory rate review with the PUCN. The filing supported an annual revenue reduction of $96 million but requested an annual revenue reduction of $120 million. In September 2020, Nevada Power filed an all-party settlement for the electric regulatory rate review. The settlement resolved all but one issue and provided for an annual revenue reduction of $93 million and required Nevada Power to issue a $120 million one-time bill credit, composed primarily of existing regulatory liabilities, to customers beginning in October 2020. The continuation of the earning sharing mechanism was the one issue that was not addressed in the settlement. In October 2020, the PUCN held a hearing on the continuation of the earning sharing mechanism and issued an interim order accepting the settlement and requiring the one-time bill credit be issued to customers. The $120 million one-time bill credit was issued to customers in the fourth quarter of 2020. In December 2020, the PUCN issued a final order directing Nevada Power to continue the earning sharing mechanism subject to any modifications made to the earning sharing mechanism pursuant to an alternative rate-making ruling and to use the weather normalization methodology adopted for Sierra Pacific in its 2019 regulatory rate review. The new rates were effective on January 1, 2021.

In June 2020, Sierra Pacific filed a petition with the PUCN, which was later changed to an application, to adjudicate and establish the cost recovery mechanism for the One Nevada Transmission Line ("ON Line") addressing the reallocated portion of the ON Line revenue requirement. This filing was made concurrent with the Nevada Power regulatory rate review application, which addresses the ON Line reallocated revenue requirement related to Nevada Power. In December 2020, the PUCN issued a final order deferring the ON Line reallocated revenue and regulatory amortization until Sierra Pacific's next regulatory rate review.
        2017 Tax Reform

In February 2018, the Nevada Utilities made filings with the PUCN proposing a tax rate reduction rider for the lower annual income tax expense anticipated to result from 2017 Tax Reform for 2018 and beyond. In March 2018, the PUCN issued an order approving the rate reduction proposed by the Nevada Utilities. The new rates were effective April 1, 2018. The order extended the procedural schedule to allow parties additional discovery relevant to 2017 Tax Reform and a hearing was held in July 2018. In September 2018, the PUCN issued an order directing the Nevada Utilities to record the amortization of any excess protected accumulated deferred income tax arising from the 2017 Tax Reform as a regulatory liability effective January 1, 2018. Subsequently, the Nevada Utilities filed a petition for reconsideration relating to the amortization of protected excess accumulated deferred income tax balances resulting from the 2017 Tax Reform. In November 2018, the PUCN issued an order granting reconsideration and reaffirming the September 2018 order. In December 2018, the Nevada Utilities filed a petition for judicial review with the district court. The district court issued an order in March 2020 denying the petition and affirming the PUCN's order. In May 2020, the Nevada Utilities filed a notice of appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court of the district court's order. The Nevada Utilities have agreed to withdraw the notice of appeal as a part of the Nevada Power electric regulatory rate review settlement. In December 2020, the PUCN issued a final order accepting the settlement. In January 2021, the Nevada Utilities filed their withdrawal and the matter was dismissed by the court.


61


Price Stability Tariff

In November 2018, the Nevada Utilities made filings with the PUCN to implement the Customer Price Stability Tariff ("CPST"). The Nevada Utilities have designed the CPST to provide certain customers, namely those eligible to file an application pursuant to Chapter 704B of the Nevada Revised Statutes, with a market-based pricing option for renewable resources. The CPST provides for an energy rate that would replace the BTER and deferred energy accounting adjustment. The goal is to have an energy rate that yields an all-in effective rate that is competitive with market options available to such customers. In February 2019, the PUCN granted several intervenors the ability to participate in the proceeding. In June 2019, the Nevada Utilities withdrew their filings. In May 2020, the Nevada Utilities refiled the CPST incorporating the considerations raised by the PUCN and other intervenors and a hearing was held in September 2020. In November 2020, the PUCN issued an order approving the tariff with modified pricing and directing the Nevada Utilities to develop a methodology by which all eligible participants may have the opportunity to participate in the CPST program up to a limit with the same proportion of governmental entities' and non-governmental entities' MWh reserved for potentially interested customers as filed. In December 2020, the Nevada Utilities filed a petition for reconsideration of the pricing ordered by the PUCN.

Natural Disaster Protection Plan

The Nevada Utilities submitted their initial natural disaster protection plan to the PUCN and filed their first application seeking recovery of 2019 expenditures in February 2020. In June 2020, a hearing was held and an order was issued in August 2020 that granted the joint application, made adjustments to the budget and approved the 2019 costs for recovery starting in October 2020. In October 2020, intervening parties filed petitions for reconsideration. The Bureau of Consumer Protection filed a petition for judicial review with the district court in November 2020. In December 2020, the PUCN issued a second modified final order approving the natural disaster protection plan, as modified, and reopened its investigation and rulemaking on SB 329 to address rate design issues raised by intervenors. The comment period for the reopened investigation and rulemaking ended in early February 2021 and the matter is ongoing.
COVID-19

In March 2020, the PUCN issued an emergency order for the Nevada Utilities to establish regulatory asset accounts related to the costs of maintaining service to customers affected by COVID-19 whose services would have been terminated or disconnected under normally-applicable terms of service. The Nevada Utilities may incur significant costs as a result of COVID-19, including, but not limited to, higher credit loss expenses resulting from a higher than average level of write-offs of uncollectible accounts associated with the suspension of disconnections and late payment fees to assist customers facing unprecedented economic pressures. The Nevada Utilities also expect to incur additional costs that cannot currently be predicted given the unprecedented nature of COVID-19.

Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies

GEMA, through the Ofgem, published its final determinations for the next set of price controls for transmission and gas distribution networks in Great Britain in December 2020. These determinations do not apply to Northern Powergrid but aspects of the proposals are capable of application to Northern Powergrid's next price control, ("ED2"), which will begin in April 2023.

Regarding allowed return on capital, Ofgem determined a cost of equity of 4.55% (plus inflation calculated using the United Kingdom's consumer prices index including owner occupiers' housing costs, CPIH). When placed on a comparable footing, by adjusting for differences in the assumed equity ratio and the measure of inflation used, the determination for transmission and gas distribution is approximately 200 basis points lower than the current cost of equity for electricity distribution.

In December 2020, in respect of electricity distribution, GEMA published its decision on the methodology it will use to set the ED2 price control and prices from April 2023 to March 2028. This confirmed that Ofgem will apply many aspects of the proposals from the transmission and gas distribution price controls to electricity distribution. It did not cover financial aspects, including the allowed return on capital, which will be covered by a separate decision in Q1 2021, with confirmation not expected until final determinations in late 2022.


62


BHE Pipeline Group

BHE GT&S

During 2018, BHE GT&S filed informational filings on FERC Form No. 501-G for EGTS and Carolina Gas. FERC terminated those proceedings without additional action. Also in 2018, BHE GT&S requested a waiver from filing the FERC Form No. 501-G filing requirement for Cove Point. The waiver request was granted.

In January 2020, pursuant to the terms of a previous settlement, Cove Point filed a general rate case for its FERC-jurisdictional services, with proposed rates to be effective March 1, 2020. Cove Point proposed an annual cost-of-service of approximately $182 million. In February 2020, the FERC approved suspending the changes in rates for five months following the proposed effective date, until August 1, 2020, subject to refund. In November 2020, Cove Point reached an agreement in principle with the active participants in the general rate case proceeding. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, Cove Point's rates effective August 1, 2020 result in an increase to annual revenues of approximately $4 million and a decrease in annual depreciation expense of approximately $1 million, compared to the rates in effect prior to August 1, 2020. The interim settlement rates were implemented November 1, 2020, and Cove Point's provision for rate refunds for August 2020 through October 2020 totaled $7 million. The agreement in principle was reflected in a stipulation and agreement filed with the FERC in January 2021, which is subject to final approval by the FERC.

        Northern Natural Gas

In October 2018, Northern Natural Gas filed an informational filing on FERC Form No. 501-G and a Statement Demonstrating Why No Rate Adjustment is Necessary. In January 2019, FERC initiated a Section 5 investigation to determine whether the rates currently charged by Northern Natural Gas are just and reasonable. As required by the FERC Section 5 order, Northern Natural Gas filed a cost and revenue study in April 2019. In July 2019, Northern Natural Gas filed a Section 4 rate case requesting increases in its transportation and storage rates. In January 2020, the FERC approved Northern Natural Gas' filing to implement its interim rates subject to refund, effective January 1, 2020. In June 2020, a settlement agreement was filed with the FERC, resolving the Section 5 investigation and Section 4 rate case and providing for increased service rates and depreciation rates. Market Area transportation reservation rates increased 28.5% and storage reservation rates increased 67.0% from the rates that were in effect in 2019. Depreciation rates are 2.3% for onshore transmission plant, 2.95% for LNG storage plant, 13.0% for intangible plant, and 2.75% for general plant. The settlement also provides for a Section 4 and Section 5 rate action moratorium through June 30, 2022, subject to certain exceptions, as well as provides for minimum annual maintenance capital spending. The settlement rates were implemented May 1, 2020, and the Company's provision for rate refunds for January 2020 through April 2020 totaled $69 million. The FERC approved the settlement in September 2020, and rate refunds to customers were processed in early October 2020.
        Kern River

In October 2018, Kern River filed an informational filing on FERC Form No. 501-G and a Statement Explaining Why No Rate Adjustment is Necessary, along with a Tax Reform Credit Rate Settlement in a companion docket. Kern River's Tax Reform Credit Rate Settlement offered an 11% rate credit against the Maximum Base Tariff Rates for firm service and any one-part rate that includes fixed costs which would result in an expected annual rate credit of $13 million. In November 2018, FERC approved Kern River's Tax Reform Credit effective November 15, 2018.
63


    BHE Transmission

        AltaLink

Rate Relief Application

In January 2021, driven by the pandemic and economic shutdown that has negatively impacted all Albertans, AltaLink filed an application with the AUC that requested approval of tariff relief measures totaling C$350 million over the three-year period, 2021 to 2023. The tariff relief measures consist of a proposed refund to customers of C$150 million of previously collected future income taxes and C$200 million of surplus accumulated depreciation. The future income tax refund will be evenly distributed over the two-year period, 2021 to 2022, with C$75 million included in each year. The accumulated depreciation surplus will be refunded over the three-year period, 2021 to 2023, with C$60 million included in 2021 and 2022, and C$80 million in 2023. If approved by the AUC, these tariff relief measures will save customers an estimated C$317 million over the three-year period, 2021 to 2023.

General Tariff Application

In August 2018, AltaLink filed its 2019-2021 GTA with the AUC, delivering on the first three years of its commitment to keep rates lower or flat at the approved 2018 revenue requirement of C$904 million for customers for the next five years. In addition, AltaLink proposed to provide a further tariff reduction over the three year period by refunding previously collected accumulated depreciation surplus of an additional C$31 million. In April 2019, AltaLink filed an update to its 2019-2021 GTA primarily to reflect its 2018 actual results and the impact of the AUC's decision on AltaLink's 2014-2015 Deferral Accounts Reconciliation Application. The application requested the approval of revised revenue requirements of C$879 million, C$882 million and C$885 million for 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively.

In July 2019, AltaLink filed a 2019-2021 partial negotiated settlement application with the AUC. The application consisted of negotiated reductions that resulted in a net decrease of C$38 million to the three year total revenue requirement applied for in AltaLink's 2019-2021 GTA updated in April 2019. However, this was offset by AltaLink's request for an additional C$20 million of forecast transmission line clearance capital as part of an excluded matter. The 2019-2021 negotiated settlement agreement excluded certain matters related to the new salvage study and salvage recovery approach, additional capital spending and incremental asset retirements. AltaLink's salvage proposal is estimated to save customers C$267 million between 2019 and 2023. Excluded matters were examined by the AUC in a hearing held in November 2019, with written arguments filed in January 2020.

In October 2019, AltaLink filed a letter with the AUC to request the continuation of the monthly interim refundable transmission tariff effective January 1, 2020, until a final tariff is approved. In October 2019, the AUC confirmed the interim refundable transmission tariff at C$74 million per month, until otherwise directed by the AUC.

In April 2020, the AUC issued its decision with respect to AltaLink's 2019-2021 GTA. The AUC approved the negotiated settlement agreement as filed and rendered its decision and directions on the excluded matters. The AUC declined to approve AltaLink's proposed salvage methodology at that time, but indicated it would initiate a generic proceeding to review the matter on an industry-wide basis. The AUC approved, on a placeholder basis, C$13 million of the additional C$20 million AltaLink requested for forecast transmission line clearance capital. The remaining C$7 million of capital investment was reviewed in AltaLink's subsequent compliance filing. Also, C$3 million of forecast operating expenses and C$4 million of forecast capital expenditures related to fire risk mitigation were approved, with an additional C$31 million of capital expenditures reviewed in the compliance filing. Finally, the AUC approved C$6 million of retirements for towers and fixtures.

In July 2020, the AUC approved AltaLink's compliance filing establishing revised revenue requirements of C$895 million for 2019, C$894 million for 2020 and C$898 million for 2021, exclusive of the assets transferred to the PiikaniLink Limited Partnership and the KainaiLink Limited Partnership. The AUC also approved a revised monthly tariff of C$71 million for September 2020 to December 2020 and a monthly tariff of C$74 million for 2021. The 2021 revenue requirement is based on 8.5% return on equity and 37% deemed equity set by the AUC as placeholders.


64


The AUC deferred its decision on AltaLink's proposed salvage methodology included in AltaLink's 2019-2021 GTA, pending a generic proceeding to consider the broader implications. This generic proceeding was closed and in July 2020, AltaLink filed an application with the AUC for the review and variance of the AUC's decision with respect to AltaLink's proposed salvage methodology. In September 2020, the AUC granted this review on the basis that there were changed circumstances that could lead the AUC to materially vary or rescind the majority hearing panel's findings on AltaLink's proposed salvage methodology. In October 2020, AltaLink filed responses to information requests from the AUC, written argument was filed by intervening parties and written reply argument was filed by AltaLink. In November 2020, the AUC issued its decision on AltaLink's review and variance application. The AUC decided to vary the original decision and approve AltaLink's proposed net salvage method and the revised transmission tariffs as filed, effective December 2020. The new salvage methodology will decrease the amount of salvage pre-collection resulting in reductions to AltaLink's revenue requirement from customers by C$24 million, C$27 million and C$31 million for the years 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively. AltaLink delivered on the first three years of its commitment to customers to keep rates flat for five years by obtaining the necessary AUC approvals. AltaLink's approved 2019-2021 GTA maintains customer rates below the 2018 level of C$904 million from 2019 to 2021.

2022 Generic Cost of Capital Proceeding

In December 2020, the AUC initiated the 2022 generic cost of capital proceeding. This proceeding will consider the return on equity and deemed equity ratios for 2022 and one or more additional test years. Due to the existing uncertainty as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, before establishing a process schedule, the commission has requested participants to submit comments that address the following: (i) the continuation of the currently approved return on equity and deemed equity ratios for a further period of time; (ii) the appropriate test period for the proceeding; (iii) the scope of the proceeding, including whether a formula-based approach to return on equity should be utilized; (iv) the considerations to take into account when establishing the process for the proceeding; and (v) the avoidance of duplicative evidence and greater coordination and collaboration between parties.

In January 2021, AltaLink submitted a letter to the AUC stating that due to ongoing capital market volatility and other COVID-19 related uncertainties there are reasonable grounds for extending the currently approved 2021 return on equity and deemed equity ratio on a final basis for 2022. AltaLink further stated there is insufficient time to complete a full generic cost of capital proceeding in 2021, in order to issue a decision prior to the beginning of 2022 and a formula-based approach should not be considered at this time. AltaLink suggested that a proceeding could be restarted in the third quarter of 2021, for 2023 and subsequent years.

2021 Generic Cost of Capital Proceeding

In December 2018, the AUC initiated the 2021 GCOC proceeding to consider returning to a formula-based approach in determining the return on equity for a given year, starting with 2021. In April 2019, after receiving comments from interested parties, the AUC expanded the scope of the proceeding to include a traditional non-formulaic GCOC inquiry as well as the consideration of returning to a formula-based approach.

In January 2020, AltaLink filed company and expert evidence, recommending a range of 8.75% to 10.5% return on equity, on a recommended equity ratio of 40% for 2021 and 2022. The Consumers' Coalition of Alberta, the Utilities Consumer Advocate and the City of Calgary filed intervenor evidence recommending a range of 5.0% to 6.9% return on equity and an AltaLink common equity ratio of 35% to 37% for 2021 and 2022.

In March 2020, as a result of COVID-19, the AUC suspended the proceeding for an indefinite period. This decision was subject to review and reassessment by the AUC every 30 to 60 days. In May 2020, the AUC proposed a method to determine fair cost of capital parameters for 2021 given the circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. The AUC outlined four options for utilities and interested parties to consider and subsequently added a fifth option that set the 2021 return on equity at 8.3% as a balance between certainty and economic conditions.

In July 2020, AltaLink requested that the AUC continue to hold the proceeding in abeyance and revisit the issue in another 30 to 60 days. AltaLink also requested that if the AUC determined the proceeding should resume, the AUC should set a date for the filing of evidence by all parties in the first quarter of 2021 and that the proceeding should address return on equity for 2021 and 2022 only.

In August 2020, the AUC issued a letter indicating that it had decided not to resume the GCOC proceeding at that time and would continue to assess when, and under what conditions, the proceeding could resume.

65


In October 2020, the AUC issued its decision and set the final approved return on equity and deemed equity ratio for AltaLink by extending the current approved 8.5% and 37%, respectively, for the duration of 2021.

2014-2015 Deferral Accounts Reconciliation Application

In December 2018 and January 2019, the AUC issued decisions approving C$3,833 million out of the C$4,017 million capital project additions included in the application. Project costs of C$155 million were deferred to a future hearing. The AUC disallowed capital additions of approximately C$29 million including applicable AFUDC, pending receipt of additional supporting documentation for certain items.

AltaLink filed compliance filings in February and September 2019 reflecting the AUC's directives, and AUC approval was received in November 2019. However, the AUC had previously ruled that it would put in placeholder amounts for the approved costs of the assets in the 2014-2015 Deferral Accounts Reconciliation Application proceeding until the AUC-initiated proceeding to consider the issue of transmission asset utilization.

In January 2021, the AUC approved the placeholder amounts as final, noting that the transmission asset utilization proceeding was not initiated and the AUC has no immediate plans to do so.

2016-2018 Deferral Accounts Reconciliation Application

In July 2019, AltaLink filed its 2016-2018 Deferral Accounts Reconciliation Application with the AUC. The application included 116 projects with total gross capital additions, including AFUDC, of C$976 million. In December 2019, the AUC announced a series of technical meetings to address AltaLink's responses to certain information requests.

In March 2020, the AUC issued a letter indicating that it would provide further process steps after AltaLink submitted its remaining responses to information requests and the Consumers' Coalition of Alberta filed its intervener evidence. In May 2020, AltaLink provided additional responses to information requests as directed by the AUC. In accordance with the AUC's revised process schedule, the Consumers' Coalition of Alberta filed its intervener evidence in June 2020, and AltaLink subsequently filed information requests on the intervener evidence in June 2020 and filed its rebuttal evidence in July 2020.

In August 2020, the AUC determined that a hearing was not required and issued a proceeding schedule to provide for argument, reply argument and the close of record by September 2020. In September 2020, AltaLink and interveners filed written argument and reply argument.

In December 2020, the AUC issued its decision approving C$941 million out of the C$947 million capital project additions included in the application. The AUC disallowed capital additions of approximately C$6 million. As part of this proceeding, the AUC also approved the following: AltaLink's deferral accounts for taxes other than income taxes, long-term debt, and annual structure payments; placeholder treatment for project trailing costs associated with two ongoing disputes; and canceled project costs incurred in 2017 and 2018. AltaLink filed compliance filings in January 2021 reflecting the AUC's directives.

2019 Deferral Accounts Reconciliation Application

In October 2020, AltaLink filed its application with the AUC, which includes ten projects with total gross capital additions of C$129 million, including applicable AFUDC. In December 2020, AltaLink provided responses to AUC information requests, interveners filed written arguments and AltaLink filed reply arguments.


66


Alberta Electric System Operator Tariff Decision

In September 2019, the AUC issued its decision with respect to the 2018 AESO tariff. As part of this decision, the AUC approved AltaLink's proposal to refund contributions made by distribution facility owners relative to transmission projects built and owned by transmission facility owners. The proposal would benefit distribution customers by flowing through the lower cost of capital of the transmission facility owner rather than the higher cost of capital of the distribution facility owner. As directed by the AUC, AltaLink would pay FortisAlberta the unamortized contribution balance of approximately C$375 million as of December 2017 and add the amount to AltaLink's rate base if the decision was upheld. The AUC directed the AESO to consult with AltaLink to provide a joint proposal to implement AltaLink's contribution proposal effective in January 2018. In September 2019, FortisAlberta filed a review and variance application with the AUC requesting the AUC re-evaluate its findings with respect to AltaLink's customer contribution proposal relative to distribution facility owners. In October 2019, the AUC granted FortisAlberta's request to proceed to a review and variance with the record closed in November 2019 after submissions from FortisAlberta, AltaLink, and other interested parties. FortisAlberta also filed for permission to appeal the decision with the Court of Appeal, which would not be heard until after the AUC's review proceeding.

In December 2019, the AUC reopened the record of the review and variance proceeding and, in January 2020, issued specific information requests to FortisAlberta and AltaLink to clarify the evidence previously filed. AltaLink and FortisAlberta filed responses to the AUC information requests in January 2020. In February 2020, FortisAlberta filed a motion with the AUC requesting the appointment of a review panel to convene an oral hearing.

In March 2020, as a result of COVID-19, the AUC advised that it would be immediately deferring all public hearings, consultations or information sessions until further notice and requested FortisAlberta to advise the AUC whether it wished to amend its motion. In April 2020, FortisAlberta filed its response requesting an oral hearing, to commence in 105 days.

In May 2020, the AUC denied FortisAlberta's request for an oral hearing but requested expert tax evidence on three areas of disagreement between AltaLink and FortisAlberta. AltaLink and FortisAlberta filed expert evidence in July 2020. The AUC set a further process of information requests and responses and written submissions, which were scheduled to be completed in September 2020.

In September 2020, AltaLink and FortisAlberta filed a written argument and a reply argument. In November 2020, the AUC issued its decision with respect to FortisAlberta's review and variance proceeding. In its decision, the AUC rescinded its earlier findings from the original September 2019 decision which (i) directed FortisAlberta to transfer the unamortized contribution balance of approximately C$375 million to AltaLink and (ii) ruled the new contribution policy proposed by AltaLink be applied. The AUC's decision was based on two main areas: (i) if the original decision was confirmed, FortisAlberta would incur incremental income tax, carrying costs and debt restructuring costs of at least C$117 million that would be required to be recovered from ratepayers and (ii) the AUC determined that a majority of the approximately C$40 million in savings to ratepayers, which the hearing panel relied on as the basis for their original decision, could be achieved by directing FortisAlberta to adjust the applicable amortization rate for its AESO contributions to match the service lives of the transmission assets.

In November 2020, the AUC initiated a separate proceeding to (i) examine the legal basis of the current AESO customer contribution policy as it pertains to all transmission facility owners and distribution facility owners, (ii) consider whether there is a need for a new policy, including consideration of AltaLink's proposed policy and (iii) if approved, set the date on which any new policy would commence.

In December 2020, AltaLink filed its submissions in this proceeding, stating that the current customer contribution policy is contrary to business principles as it allows a distribution facility owner to earn a return on assets that are owned, operated and maintained by a transmission facility owner who has all the risk of ownership and is also contrary to the legislative scheme in Alberta, which delineates the ownership of transmission and distribution assets. AltaLink also stated it disagrees with the AUC's decision and it intends to file an appeal.

In December 2020, AltaLink filed its application for permission to appeal the AUC's review and variance decision with the Court of Appeal. The permission to appeal application is scheduled to be heard in May 2021.
67


    BHE U.S. Transmission

A significant portion of ETT's revenues are based on interim rate changes that can be filed twice annually and are subject to review and possible true-up in the next filed base regulatory rate review scheduled for no later than February 1, 2023. In January 2021, the Public Utilities Commission of Texas ("PUCT") approved ETT's request to suspend a base regulatory rate review filing scheduled for February 2021. Results of a base regulatory rate review would be prospective except for any deemed disallowance by the PUCT of the transmission investment since the initial base regulatory rate review in 2007. In June 2018, the PUCT approved ETT's application to reduce its transmission revenue by $28 million to reflect the lower federal income tax rate due to 2017 Tax Reform with the amortization of excess accumulated deferred federal income taxes expected to be addressed in the next base rate case.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Each Registrant is subject to federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations regarding climate change, RPS, air and water quality, emissions performance standards, coal combustion byproduct disposal, hazardous and solid waste disposal, protected species and other environmental matters that have the potential to impact each Registrant's current and future operations. In addition to imposing continuing compliance obligations, these laws and regulations provide regulators with the authority to levy substantial penalties for noncompliance, including fines, injunctive relief and other sanctions. These laws and regulations are administered by various federal, state, local and international agencies. Each Registrant believes it is in material compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, although many laws and regulations are subject to interpretation that may ultimately be resolved by the courts. The Company has cumulative investments in wind, solar, geothermal and biomass generating facilities of approximately $34 billion and plans to spend an additional $3 billion on the construction of wind-powered generating facilities, repowering certain existing wind-powered generating facilities and funding of wind tax equity investments through 2021. Refer to "Liquidity and Capital Resources" of each respective Registrant in Item 7 of this Form 10-K for discussion of each Registrant's renewable generation-related capital expenditures.

Climate Change

In December 2015, an international agreement was negotiated by 195 nations to create a universal framework for coordinated action on climate change in what is referred to as the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement reaffirms the goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2 degrees Celsius, while urging efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius; establishes commitments by all parties to make nationally determined contributions and pursue domestic measures aimed at achieving the commitments; commits all countries to submit emissions inventories and report regularly on their emissions and progress made in implementing and achieving their nationally determined commitments; and commits all countries to submit new commitments every five years, with the expectation that the commitments will get more aggressive. In the context of the Paris Agreement, the United States agreed to reduce GHG emissions 26% to 28% by 2025 from 2005 levels. After more than 55 countries representing more than 55% of global GHG emissions submitted their ratification documents, the Paris Agreement became effective November 4, 2016. On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced the United States would begin the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The United States completed its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on November 4, 2020. President Biden accepted the terms of the climate agreement January 20, 2021, and the United States completed its reentry February 19, 2021.

68


GHG Performance Standards

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA may establish emissions standards that reflect the degree of emissions reductions achievable through the best technology that has been demonstrated, taking into consideration the cost of achieving those reductions and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements. On August 3, 2015, the EPA issued final new source performance standards, establishing a standard of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per MWh for large natural gas-fueled generating facilities and 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per MWh for new coal-fueled generating facilities with the "Best System of Emission Reduction" reflecting highly efficient supercritical pulverized coal facilities with partial carbon capture and sequestration or integrated gasification combined-cycle units that are co-fired with natural gas or pre-combustion slipstream capture of carbon dioxide. The new source performance standards were appealed to the D.C. Circuit and oral argument was scheduled for April 17, 2017. However, oral argument was deferred and the court held the case in abeyance for an indefinite period of time. On December 6, 2018, the EPA announced revisions to new source performance standards for new and reconstructed coal-fueled units. EPA proposes to revise carbon dioxide emission limits for new coal-fueled facilities to 1,900 pounds per MWh for small units and 2,000 pounds per MWh for large units. The EPA would define the best system of emission reduction for new and modified units as the most efficient demonstrated steam cycle, combined with best operating practices. On January 12, 2021, EPA finalized a rule focused solely on a significant contribution finding for purposes of regulating source categories' GHG emissions. The final rule sets no specific regulatory standards and contains no regulatory text, nor does it address what constitutes the best system of emission reduction for new, modified and reconstructed electric generating units. EPA confirms in the "significant contribution" rule that electric generating units remain a listed source category under Clean Air Act Section 111(b), reaching that conclusion through the introduction of an emissions threshold framework by which a source category is deemed to contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution due to their GHG emissions if the amount of those emissions exceeds 3% of total GHG emissions in the United States. Under this methodology, no other source category would qualify for regulation. The significant contribution rule will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register but is expected to be quickly revisited by the Biden administration. Because the significant contribution rule did not alter the emission limits or technology requirements of the 2015 rule, any new fossil-fueled generating facilities will be required to meet the GHG new source performance standards.
    
    Affordable Clean Energy Rule

In June 2014, the EPA released proposed regulations to address GHG emissions from existing fossil-fueled generating facilities, referred to as the Clean Power Plan, under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA's proposal calculated state-specific emission rate targets to be achieved based on the "Best System of Emission Reduction." In August 2015, the final Clean Power Plan was released, which established the Best System of Emission Reduction as including: (a) heat rate improvements; (b) increased utilization of existing combined-cycle natural gas-fueled generating facilities; and (c) increased deployment of new and incremental non-carbon generation placed in-service after 2012. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the United States Supreme Court in February 2016 while litigation proceeded. On October 10, 2017, the EPA issued a proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan, which was intended to achieve an overall reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil-fueled electric generating units of 32% below 2005 levels. On June 19, 2019, the EPA repealed the Clean Power Plan and issued the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which fully replaced the Clean Power Plan. In the Affordable Clean Energy rule, the EPA determined that the best system of emissions reduction for existing coal-fueled power plants is limited to actions that can be taken at a point source facility, specifically heat rate improvements and identified a set of candidate technologies and measures that could improve heat rates. Measures taken to meet the standards of performance must be achieved at the source itself. States have until July 2022 to submit compliance plans to the EPA. The Affordable Clean Energy rule was challenged by environmental and health groups in the D.C. Circuit. On January 19, 2021, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the Affordable Clean Energy rule to the EPA, finding that the rule "rested critically on a mistaken reading of the Clean Air Act" that limited the best system of emission reduction to actions taken at a facility. Until the EPA indicates its course of action in response to this decision, the full impacts on the Registrants cannot be determined. PacifiCorp, MidAmerican Energy, Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific have historically pursued cost-effective projects, including plant efficiency improvements, increased diversification of their generating fleets to include deployment of renewable and lower carbon generating resources, and advanced customer energy efficiency programs.

New Source Performance Standards for Methane Emissions

In August 2020, the EPA finalized regulations to rescind standards for methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. The changes eliminate requirements to regulate methane emissions from the production, processing, transmission and storage of oil and gas. The rule was immediately challenged by environmental and tribal groups, as well as numerous states. In January 2021, the D.C. Circuit lifted an administrative stay and allowed the rule to take effect, finding that groups challenging the rule had not met the standard for a long-term stay. Until such time as litigation is exhausted, the relevant Registrants cannot determine whether additional action may be required.
69


Regional and State Activities

Several states have promulgated or otherwise participate in state-specific or regional laws or initiatives to report or mitigate GHG emissions. These are expected to impact the relevant Registrant, and include:

In June 2013, Nevada Senate Bill 123 ("SB 123") was signed into law. Among other things, SB 123 and regulations thereunder required Nevada Power to file with the PUCN an emission reduction and capacity replacement plan by May 1, 2014. In May 2014, Nevada Power filed its emissions reduction capacity replacement plan. The plan provided for the retirement or elimination of 300 MWs of coal-fueled generating capacity by December 31, 2014, another 250 MWs of coal-fueled generating capacity by December 31, 2017, and another 250 MWs of coal generating capacity by December 31, 2019, along with replacement of such capacity with a mixture of constructed, acquired or contracted renewable and non-technology specific generating units. The plan also sets forth the expected timeline and costs associated with decommissioning coal-fueled generating units that will be retired or eliminated pursuant to the plan. The PUCN has the authority to approve or modify the emission reduction and capacity replacement plan filed by Nevada Power. The PUCN may approve variations to Nevada Power's resource plans relative to requirements under SB 123. Refer to Nevada Power's Note 13 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information on the ERCR Plan.

Under the authority of California's Global Warming Solutions Act, which includes a series of policies aimed at returning California GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, the California Air Resources Board adopted a GHG cap-and-trade program with an effective date of January 1, 2012; compliance obligations were imposed on entities beginning in 2013. PacifiCorp is subject to the cap-and-trade program as a retail service provider in California and an importer of wholesale energy into California. In 2015, Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order to reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. In September 2016, California Senate Bill 32 was signed into law establishing GHG emissions reduction targets of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

The states of California, Washington and Oregon have adopted GHG emissions performance standards for base load electricity generating resources. Under the laws in California and Oregon, the emissions performance standards provide that emissions must not exceed 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per MWh. In September 2018, the Washington Department of Commerce amended the emissions performance standards to provide that GHG emissions for base load electricity generating resources must not exceed 925 pounds of carbon dioxide per MWh. These GHG emissions performance standards generally prohibit electric utilities from entering into long-term financial commitments (e.g., new ownership investments, upgrades, or new or renewed contracts with a term of five or more years) unless any base load generation supplied under long-term financial commitments comply with the GHG emissions performance standards.

In September 2016, the Washington State Department of Ecology issued a final rule regulating GHG emissions from sources in Washington. The rule regulates GHG including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride beginning in 2017 with three-year compliance periods thereafter (i.e., 2017-2019, 2020-2022, etc.). Under the rule, the Washington State Department of Ecology established GHG emissions reduction pathways for all covered entities. Covered entities may use emission reduction units, which may be traded with other covered entities, to meet their compliance requirements. PacifiCorp's resources that are covered under the rule include the Chehalis generating facility, which is a natural gas combined-cycle plant located in Washington state. PacifiCorp received its baseline emission order on December 17, 2017, which specified the emission reduction requirements for the Chehalis generating facility every three years beginning in 2017. The reduction requirements average 1.7% per year. However, the Washington State Department of Ecology suspended the compliance obligations of the Clean Air Rule after a Thurston County Superior Court judge ruled the state lacks authority to mandate reductions from indirect emitters. On January 16, 2020, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed that the rule limits the applicability of emission standards to actual emitters and cannot be expanded to non-emitters. The court also found that the rule itself is severable, so that the Washington State Department of Ecology may continue to enforce the rule as it applies to emitters. The case was remanded for further proceedings. Pending further action by the lower court, the rule itself remains suspended, but entities subject to the rule are required to continue reporting emissions.

70


The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a mandatory, market-based effort to cap and reduce power sector GHG emissions in eleven Eastern states, required, beginning in 2009, the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector of 10% by 2018. Following a program review in 2012, the nine Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative states implemented a new 2014 cap which was approximately 45% lower than the 2012-2013 cap. The cap is reduced each year by 2.5% from 2015 to 2020. In December 2017, an updated model rule was released by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative states which includes an additional 30% regional cap reduction between 2020 and 2030.

Renewable Portfolio Standards

Each state's RPS described below could significantly impact the relevant Registrant's consolidated financial results. Resources that meet the qualifying electricity requirements under each RPS vary from state to state. Each state's RPS requires some form of compliance reporting and the relevant Registrant can be subject to penalties in the event of noncompliance. Each Registrant believes it is in material compliance with all applicable RPS laws and regulations.

In 1983, Iowa became the first state in the United States to adopt a RPS requiring the state utilities to own or to contract for a combined total of 105 MWs of renewable generating capacity and associated energy production. The IUB allocated the 105-MW requirement between the two utilities in Iowa based on each utility's percentage of their combined estimated Iowa retail peak demand in 1990 resulting in MidAmerican Energy being allocated a RPS requirement of 55.2 MWs. The utility must meet its RPS obligation by either owning renewable energy production facilities located in Iowa or entering into long-term contracts to purchase or wheel electricity from renewable production facilities located in the utility's service area.

Since 1997, NV Energy has been required to comply with a RPS. In November 2020, Nevada voters approved a constitution amendment that requires the state to get at least half its electricity from renewable sources by 2030. Beginning in 2022, the state must get 22% of its electricity from renewable sources. That percentage is increased incrementally over eight years up to the 50% threshold by 2030. The state's previous RPS required utilities to get 25% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025.

Utah's Energy Resource and Carbon Emission Reduction Initiative provides that, beginning in the year 2025, 20% of adjusted retail electric sales of all Utah utilities be supplied by renewable energy, if it is cost effective. Retail electric sales will be adjusted by deducting the amount of generation from sources that produce zero or reduced carbon emissions, and for sales avoided as a result of energy efficiency and DSM programs. Qualifying renewable energy sources can be located anywhere within the WECC, and RECs can be used.

The Oregon Renewable Energy Act ("OREA") provides a comprehensive renewable energy policy and RPS for Oregon. Subject to certain exemptions and cost limitations established in the law, PacifiCorp and other qualifying electric utilities must meet minimum qualifying electricity requirements for electricity sold to retail customers of at least 5% in 2011 through 2014, 15% in 2015 through 2019, and 20% in 2020 through 2024. In March 2016, Oregon Senate Bill 1547-B ("SB 1547-B"), the Clean Electricity and Coal Transition Plan, was signed into law. SB 1547-B requires coal-fueled resources be eliminated from Oregon's allocation of electricity by January 1, 2030 and increases the current RPS target from 25% in 2025 to 50% by 2040. SB 1547-B also implements new REC banking provisions, as well as the following interim RPS targets: 27% in 2025 through 2029, 35% in 2030 through 2034, 45% in 2035 through 2039, and 50% by 2040 and subsequent years. As required by the OREA, the OPUC has approved an automatic adjustment clause to allow an electric utility, including PacifiCorp, to recover prudently incurred costs of its investments in renewable energy generating facilities and associated transmission costs.

Washington's Energy Independence Act establishes a renewable energy target for qualifying electric utilities, including PacifiCorp. The requirements are 3% of retail sales by January 1, 2012 through 2015, 9% of retail sales by January 1, 2016 through 2019 and 15% of retail sales by January 1, 2020 and each year thereafter. In April 2013, Washington State Senate Bill 5400 ("SB 5400") was signed into law. SB 5400 expands the geographic area in which eligible renewable resources may be located to beyond the Pacific Northwest, allowing renewable resources located in all states served by PacifiCorp to qualify. SB 5400 also provides PacifiCorp with additional flexibility and options to meet Washington's renewable mandates. In May 2019, the state of Washington enacted Senate Bill 5116, the Clean Energy Transformation Act. The legislation, among other things, requires Washington utilities to be carbon neutral by January 1, 2030 and institutes a planning target of 100% non-emitting generation by 2045. Electric utilities must also eliminate from rates coal-fueled resources by December 31, 2025.

71


The California RPS required all California retail sellers to procure an average of 20% of retail load from renewable resources by December 31, 2013, 25% by December 31, 2016 and 33% by December 31, 2020. In October 2015, California Senate Bill No. 350 became law and increased the RPS target to 50% by December 31, 2030. The state's RPS was further expanded in September 2018, when California Senate Bill 100 ("SB 100"), the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018 was signed into law. In addition to requiring retail sellers to meet a RPS target of 60% by 2030, SB 100 enabled a longer-term planning target for 100% of total California retail sales to come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045. In December 2011, the CPUC adopted a decision confirming that multi-jurisdictional utilities, such as PacifiCorp, are not subject to the percentage limits within the three product content categories of RPS-eligible resources established by the legislation that have been imposed on other California retail sellers.

Clean Air Act Regulations

The Clean Air Act is a federal law administered by the EPA that provides a framework for protecting and improving the nation's air quality and controlling sources of air emissions. The implementation of new standards is generally outlined in SIPs, which are a collection of regulations, programs and policies to be followed. SIPs vary by state and are subject to public hearings and EPA approval. Some states may adopt additional or more stringent requirements than those implemented by the EPA. The major Clean Air Act programs most directly affecting the Registrants' operations are described below.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, the EPA sets minimum NAAQS for six principal pollutants, consisting of carbon monoxide, lead, NOx, particulate matter, ozone and SO2, considered harmful to public health and the environment. Areas that achieve the standards, as determined by ambient air quality monitoring, are characterized as being in attainment, while those that fail to meet the standards are designated as being nonattainment areas. Generally, sources of emissions in a nonattainment area that are determined to contribute to the nonattainment are required to reduce emissions. Currently, with the exceptions described in the following paragraphs, air quality monitoring data indicates that all counties where the relevant Registrant's major emission sources are located are in attainment of the current NAAQS.

On June 4, 2018, EPA published final designations for much of the United States. Relevant to the Registrants, these designations include classifying Yuma County, Arizona; Clark County, Nevada; and the Northern Wasatch Front, Southern Wasatch Front and Duchesne and Uintah counties in Utah as nonattainment-marginal with the 2015 ozone standard. These areas will be required to meet the 2015 standard three years from the August 3, 2018, effective date. All other areas relevant to the Registrants were designated attainment/unclassifiable with this same action. On January 29, 2021, the D.C. Circuit vacated several provisions of the 2018 implementing rules for the 2015 ozone standards for contravening the Clean Air Act. Until the EPA takes final action consistent with this ruling, impacts to the relevant Registrants cannot be determined.

In January 2010, the EPA finalized a one-hour air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide at 100 parts per billion. In February 2012, the EPA published final designations indicating that based on air quality monitoring data, all areas of the country are designated as "unclassifiable/attainment" for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS. On April 6, 2018, EPA issued a decision to retain the 2010 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS without revision.

In June 2010, the EPA finalized a new NAAQS for SO2. Under the 2010 rule, areas must meet a one-hour standard of 75 parts per billion utilizing a three-year average. The rule utilizes source modeling in addition to the installation of ambient monitors where SO2 emissions impact populated areas. Attainment designations were due by June 2012; however, citing a lack of sufficient information to make the designations, the EPA did not issue its final designations until July 2013 and determined, at that date, that a portion of Muscatine County, Iowa was in nonattainment for the one-hour SO2 standard. MidAmerican Energy's Louisa coal-fueled generating facility is located just outside of Muscatine County, south of the violating monitor. In its final designation, the EPA indicated that it was not yet prepared to conclude that the emissions from the Louisa coal-fueled generating facility contribute to the monitored violation or to other possible violations, and that in a subsequent round of designations, the EPA will make decisions for areas and sources outside Muscatine County. MidAmerican Energy does not believe a subsequent nonattainment designation will have a material impact on the Louisa coal-fueled generating facility. Although the EPA's July 2013 designations did not impact PacifiCorp's nor the Nevada Utilities' generating facilities, the EPA's assessment of SO2 area designations will continue with the deployment of additional SO2 monitoring networks across the country. On February 25, 2019, EPA issued a decision to retain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS without revision.

72


The Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against the EPA in August 2013 with respect to the one-hour SO2 standards and its failure to make certain attainment designations in a timely manner. In March 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("Northern District of California") accepted as an enforceable order an agreement between the EPA and Sierra Club to resolve litigation concerning the deadline for completing the designations. The Northern District of California's order directed the EPA to complete designations in three phases: the first phase by July 2, 2016; the second phase by December 31, 2017; and the final phase by December 31, 2020. The first phase of the designations require the EPA to designate two groups of areas: 1) areas that have newly monitored violations of the 2010 SO2 standard; and 2) areas that contain any stationary source that, according to the EPA's data, either emitted more than 16,000 tons of SO2 in 2012 or emitted more than 2,600 tons of SO2 and had an emission rate of at least 0.45 lbs/SO2 per million British thermal unit in 2012 and, as of March 2, 2015, had not been announced for retirement. MidAmerican Energy's George Neal Unit 4 and the Ottumwa Generating Station (in which MidAmerican Energy has a majority ownership interest, but does not operate), are included as units subject to the first phase of the designations, having emitted more than 2,600 tons of SO2 and having an emission rate of at least 0.45 lbs/SO2 per million British thermal unit in 2012. States may submit to the EPA updated recommendations and supporting information for the EPA to consider in making its determinations. Iowa submitted documentation to the EPA in April 2016 supporting its recommendation that Des Moines, Wapello and Woodbury Counties be designated as being in attainment of the standard. In July 2016, the EPA's final designations were published in the Federal Register indicating portions of Muscatine County, Iowa were in nonattainment with the 2010 SO2 standard, Woodbury County, Iowa was unclassifiable, and Des Moines and Wapello Counties were unclassifiable/attainment.

In December 2012, the EPA finalized more stringent fine particulate matter NAAQS, reducing the annual standard from 15 micrograms per cubic meter to 12 micrograms per cubic meter and retaining the 24-hour standard at 35 micrograms per cubic meter. The EPA did not set a separate secondary visibility standard, choosing to rely on the existing secondary 24-hour standard to protect against visibility impairment. In December 2014, the EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 fine particulate matter standard. Based on these designations, the areas in which the relevant Registrant operates generating facilities have been classified as "unclassifiable/attainment." Unless additional monitoring suggests otherwise, the relevant Registrant does not anticipate that any impacts of the revised standard will be significant. In December 2020, the EPA finalized its decision to retain, without revision, the existing primary and secondary standards for particulate matter. In June 2020, the EPA proposed a determination of attainment for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter for Salt Lake City and Provo serious nonattainment areas. The determination is based upon quality-assured, quality controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the area has attained the 2006 standard based on the 2017-2019 monitoring. The comment period for the proposal ended in August 2020. Until the rule is finalized, the relevant Registrants cannot determine the impact on their operations.

In December 2014, the Utah SIP for fine particulate matter was adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board. PacifiCorp's Lake Side, Lake Side 2, Gadsby Steam and Gadsby Peakers generating facilities operate within nonattainment areas for fine particulate matter; however, the SIP did not impose significant new requirements on PacifiCorp's impacted generating facilities, nor did the EPA's comments on the Utah SIP identify requirements for PacifiCorp's existing generating facilities that would have a material impact on its consolidated financial results.

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

In March 2011, the EPA proposed a rule that requires coal-fueled generating facilities to reduce mercury emissions and other hazardous air pollutants through the establishment of "Maximum Achievable Control Technology" standards. The final MATS became effective on April 16, 2012 and required that new and existing coal-fueled generating facilities achieve emission standards for mercury, acid gases and other non-mercury hazardous air pollutants. Existing sources were required to comply with the new standards by April 16, 2015 with the potential for individual sources to obtain an extension of up to one additional year, at the discretion of the Title V permitting authority, to complete installation of controls or for transmission system reliability reasons. The relevant Registrants have completed emission reduction projects to comply with the final rule's standards for acid gases and non-mercury metallic hazardous air pollutants.

MidAmerican Energy retired certain coal-fueled generating units as the least-cost alternative to comply with the MATS. Walter Scott, Jr. Energy Center Units 1 and 2 were retired in 2015, and George Neal Energy Center Units 1 and 2 were retired in April 2016. A fifth unit, Riverside Generating Station, was limited to natural gas combustion in March 2015.


73


Numerous lawsuits have been filed in the D.C. Circuit challenging the MATS. In April 2014, the D.C. Circuit upheld the MATS requirements. In November 2014, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the MATS appeal on the limited issue of whether the EPA unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities. Oral argument in the case was held before the United States Supreme Court in March 2015, and a decision was issued by the United States Supreme Court in June 2015, which reversed and remanded the MATS rule to the D.C. Circuit for further action. The United States Supreme Court held that the EPA had acted unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate generating facilities, and that cost, including costs of compliance, must be considered before deciding whether regulation is necessary and appropriate. The United States Supreme Court's decision did not vacate or stay implementation of the MATS rule. In December 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued an order remanding the rule to the EPA, without vacating the rule. As a result, the relevant Registrants continue to have a legal obligation under the MATS rule and the respective permits issued by the states in which each respective Registrant operates to comply with the MATS rule, including operating all emissions controls or otherwise complying with the MATS requirements.

In December 2018, the EPA issued a proposed revised supplemental cost finding for the MATS, as well as the required risk and technology review under Clean Air Act Section 112. The EPA proposed to determine that it is not appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutant emissions from power plants under Section 112; however, the EPA proposed to retain the emission standards and other requirements of the MATS rule, because the EPA did not propose to remove coal- and oil-fueled power plants from the list of sources regulated under Section 112. In May 2020, the EPA published its decision to repeal the appropriate and necessary findings in the MATS rule and retain the overall emission standards. The rule took effect in July 2020. A number of petitions for review were filed in the D.C. Circuit by parties challenging and supporting the EPA's decision to rescind the appropriate and necessary finding. Until litigation over the rule is exhausted, the relevant Registrants cannot fully determine the impacts of the changes to the MATS rule.

In March 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion in Chesapeake Climate Action Network v. EPA regarding consolidated challenges to the EPA's startup and shutdown provisions contained in the 2012 MATS rule. The MATS rule's provisions governing startup and shutdown require electric generating units comply with work practice standards as opposed to numerical limits during these periods. The EPA denied petitions for reconsideration of these provisions in 2016 and environmentalists challenged this denial. The D.C. Circuit vacated the reconsideration denials, remanding the petition to the EPA for further action. The court did not make a determination on the merits of the arguments concerning the EPA's legal authority to set work practice standards. The existing work practice standards and the alternate definition for when startup ends continue to be applicable. Until the EPA finalizes action to respond to the court's order, the relevant Registrants cannot fully determine the impacts of the remand.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

The EPA promulgated an initial rule in March 2005 to reduce emissions of NOx and SO2, precursors of ozone and particulate matter, from down-wind sources in the eastern United States, including Iowa, to reduce emissions by implementing a plan based on a market-based cap-and-trade system, emissions reductions, or both. After numerous appeals, the CSAPR was promulgated to address interstate transport of SO2 and NOx emissions in 27 eastern and Midwestern states.

74


The first phase of the rule was implemented January 1, 2015. In November 2015, the EPA released a proposed rule that would further reduce NOx emissions in 2017. The final "CSAPR Update Rule" was published in the Federal Register in October 2016 and required additional reductions in NOx emissions beginning in May 2017. On December 6, 2018, EPA finalized a rule to close out the CSAPR, having determined that the CSAPR Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS fully addressed Clean Air Act interstate transport obligations of 20 eastern states. EPA determined that 2023 is an appropriate future analytic year to evaluate remaining good neighbor obligations and that there will be no remaining nonattainment or maintenance receptors with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the eastern United States in that year. Accordingly, the 20 CSAPR Update-affected states would not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance of, any other state with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Both the CSAPR Update and the CSAPR Close-Out rules were challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court. The D.C. Circuit ruled September 13, 2019, that because the EPA allowed upwind States to continue to significantly contribute to downwind air quality problems beyond statutory deadlines, the CSAPR Update Rule provided only a partial remedy that did not fully address interstate ozone transport, and remanded the CSAPR Update Rule back to the EPA. The D.C. Circuit Court issued an opinion October 1, 2019, finding that because the CSAPR Close-Out Rule relied on the same faulty reasoning as the CSAPR Update rule, the CSAPR Close-Out Rule must be vacated. On October 15, 2020, the EPA proposed to tighten caps on emissions of NOx from power plants in 12 states in the CSAPR trading program in response to the D.C. Circuit's decision to vacate the CSAPR Update rule. The rule is intended to fully resolve 21 upwind states' remaining good neighbor obligations under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Additional emissions reductions are required at power plants in 12 states, including Illinois; the EPA predicts that emissions from the remaining nine states, including Iowa and Texas, will not significantly contribute to downwind states' ability to attain or maintain the ozone standard. The EPA accepted comment on the proposal through December 15, 2020. Until the rule is finalized, the relevant Registrants cannot determine the impact on their operations.

The CSAPR provisions are not anticipated to have a material impact on the Registrants. MidAmerican Energy operates natural gas-fueled generating facilities in Iowa and BHE Renewables operates natural gas-fueled generating facilities in Texas, Illinois and New York, which are subject to the CSAPR. MidAmerican Energy has installed emissions controls at its coal-fueled generating facilities to comply with the CSAPR and may purchase emissions allowances to meet a portion of its compliance obligations. The cost of these allowances is subject to market conditions at the time of purchase and historically has not been material. MidAmerican Energy believes that the controls installed to date are consistent with the reductions to be achieved from implementation of the rule. None of PacifiCorp's, Nevada Power's or Sierra Pacific's generating facilities are subject to the CSAPR. However, in a Notice of Data Availability published in the January 6, 2017, Federal Register, the EPA provided preliminary estimates of which upwind states may have linkages to downwind states experiencing ozone levels at or exceeding the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 70 parts per billion, and, using similar methodology to that in the CSAPR, indicated that Utah and Wyoming could have an obligation under the "good neighbor" provisions of the Clean Air Act to reduce NOx emissions. Until such time as a rule is finalized, the relevant Registrants cannot determine whether additional action may be required.

Regional Haze

The EPA's Regional Haze Rule, finalized in 1999, requires states to develop and implement plans to improve visibility in designated federally protected areas ("Class I areas"). Some of PacifiCorp's coal-fueled generating facilities in Utah, Wyoming, Arizona and Colorado and certain of Nevada Power's and Sierra Pacific's fossil-fueled generating facilities are subject to the Clean Air Visibility Rules. In accordance with the federal requirements, states are required to submit SIPs that address emissions from sources subject to BART requirements and demonstrate progress towards achieving natural visibility requirements in Class I areas by 2064.

75


The state of Utah issued a regional haze SIP requiring the installation of SO2, NOx and particulate matter controls on Hunter Units 1 and 2, and Huntington Units 1 and 2. In December 2012, the EPA approved the SO2 portion of the Utah regional haze SIP and disapproved the NOx and particulate matter portions. Subsequently, the Utah Division of Air Quality completed an alternative BART analysis for Hunter Units 1 and 2, and Huntington Units 1 and 2. In January 2016, the EPA published two alternative proposals to either approve the Utah SIP as written or reject the Utah SIP relating to NOx controls and require the installation of SCR controls at Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 within five years. EPA's final action on the Utah regional haze SIP was effective August 4, 2016. The EPA approved in part and disapproved in part the Utah regional haze SIP and issued a federal implementation plan ("FIP") requiring the installation of SCR controls at Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 within five years of the effective date of the rule. PacifiCorp and other parties filed requests with the EPA to reconsider and stay that decision, as well as filed motions for stay and petitions for review with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Tenth Circuit") asking the court to overturn the EPA's actions. In July 2017, the EPA issued a letter indicating it would reconsider its FIP decision. In light of the EPA's grant of reconsideration and the EPA's position in the litigation, the Tenth Circuit held the litigation in abeyance and imposed a stay of the compliance obligations of the FIP for the number of days the stay is in effect while the EPA conducts its reconsideration process. To support the reconsideration, PacifiCorp undertook additional air quality modeling using the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions ("CAMX") dispersion model. On January 14, 2019, the state of Utah submitted a SIP revision to the EPA, which includes the updated modeling information and additional analysis. On June 24, 2019, the Utah Air Quality Board unanimously voted to approve the Utah regional haze SIP revision, which incorporates a BART alternative into Utah's regional haze SIP. The BART alternative makes the shutdown of PacifiCorp's Carbon plant enforceable under the SIP and removes the requirement to install SCR technology on Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2. The Utah Division of Air Quality submitted the SIP revision to the EPA for approval at the end of 2019. In January 2020, the EPA published its proposed approval of the Utah Regional Haze SIP Alternative, which makes the shutdown of the Carbon plant federally enforceable and adopts as BART the existing NOx controls and emission limits on the Hunter and Huntington plants. The proposed approval withdraws the FIP requirements to install SCR on Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2. The EPA released the final rule approving the Utah Regional Haze SIP Alternative on October 28, 2020. With the approval, the EPA also finalized its withdrawal of the FIP requirements for the Hunter and Huntington plants. The Utah Regional Haze SIP Alternative took effect December 28, 2020. On January 11, 2021, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the Utah regional haze petitions on the basis of the final rule approved Utah's revised SIP and withdrawing the EPA's FIP. On January 19, 2021, Heal Utah, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club and Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment filed a petition for review of the Utah Regional Haze SIP Alternative in the Tenth Circuit.
76


The state of Wyoming issued two regional haze SIPs requiring the installation of SO2, NOx and particulate matter controls on certain PacifiCorp coal-fueled generating facilities in Wyoming. The EPA approved the SO2 SIP in December 2012 and the EPA's approval was upheld on appeal by the Tenth Circuit in October 2014. In addition, the EPA initially proposed in June 2012 to disapprove portions of the NOx and particulate matter SIP and instead issue a FIP. The EPA withdrew its initial proposed actions on the NOx and particulate matter SIP and the proposed FIP, published a re-proposed rule in June 2013, and finalized its determination in January 2014, which aligns more closely with the SIP proposed by the state of Wyoming. The EPA's final action on the Wyoming SIP approved the state's plan to have PacifiCorp install low-NOx burners at Naughton Units 1 and 2, SCR controls at Naughton Unit 3 by December 2014, SCR controls at Jim Bridger Units 1 through 4 between 2015 and 2022, and low-NOx burners at Dave Johnston Unit 4. The EPA disapproved a portion of the Wyoming SIP and issued a FIP for Dave Johnston Unit 3, where it required the installation of SCR controls by 2019 or, in lieu of installing SCR controls, a commitment to shut down Dave Johnston Unit 3 by 2027, its currently approved depreciable life. The EPA also disapproved a portion of the Wyoming SIP and issued a FIP for the Wyodak coal-fueled generating facility, requiring the installation of SCR controls within five years (i.e., by 2019). The EPA action became final on March 3, 2014. PacifiCorp filed an appeal of the EPA's final action on Wyodak in March 2014. The state of Wyoming also filed an appeal of the EPA's final action, as did the Powder River Basin Resource Council, National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club. In September 2014, the Tenth Circuit issued a stay of the March 2019 compliance deadline for Wyodak, pending further action by the Tenth Circuit in the appeal. The EPA, U.S. Department of Justice, state of Wyoming and PacifiCorp executed a settlement agreement December 16, 2020, removing the requirement to install SCR in lieu of monthly and annual NOx emissions limits. The settlement agreement is subject to a comment period which runs through March 5, 2021. Litigation in the Tenth Circuit remains stayed pending finalization of the settlement agreement. In June 2014, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality issued a revised BART permit allowing Naughton Unit 3 to operate on coal through 2017 and providing for natural gas conversion of the unit in 2018. In 2017, the department approved an extension of the compliance date for Naughton Unit 3 to align with the requirements of the Wyoming SIP extending the requirement to cease coal firing to no later than January 30, 2019. The EPA issued final approval of the Wyoming SIP, including the Naughton Unit 3 gas conversion on March 21, 2019. PacifiCorp removed the unit from coal-fueled service on January 30, 2019, and its 2019 IRP Action Plan incorporates completion of the gas conversion, including all required regulatory notices and filings, by the end of 2020. On February 5, 2019, PacifiCorp submitted a reasonable progress reassessment permit application and reasonable progress determination for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, seeking a rescission of the December 2017 permit requiring the installation of SCR, to be replaced with permit imposing plant-wide emission limits to achieve better modeled visibility, fewer overall environmental impacts and lower costs of compliance. In May 2020, the Wyoming Air Quality Division issued a permit approving PacifiCorp's monthly and annual NOx and SO2 emission limits on the four Jim Bridger units and submitted a regional haze SIP revision to the EPA. The revised SIP grants approval of PacifiCorp's Jim Bridger reasonable progress reassessment application and incorporates PacifiCorp's proposed emission limits in lieu of the requirement to install SCR systems on Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2. The EPA is reviewing the SIP revisions.

The state of Arizona issued a regional haze SIP requiring, among other things, the installation of SO2, NOx and particulate matter controls on Cholla Unit 4. The EPA approved in part, and disapproved in part, the Arizona SIP and issued a FIP for the disapproved portions requiring SCR controls on Cholla Unit 4. PacifiCorp filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("Ninth Circuit") regarding the FIP as it relates to Cholla Unit 4, and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and other affected Arizona utilities filed separate appeals of the FIP as it relates to their interests. The Ninth Circuit issued an order in February 2015, holding the matter in abeyance while the parties pursued an alternate compliance approach for Cholla Unit 4. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's revision of the draft permit and revision to the Arizona regional haze SIP were approved by the EPA through final action published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2017, with an effective date of April 26, 2017. The final action allows Cholla Unit 4 to utilize coal until April 30, 2025 and convert to gas or otherwise cease burning coal by June 30, 2025. Retirement of Cholla Unit 4 was completed in December 2020.

The state of Colorado regional haze SIP requires SCR controls at Craig Unit 2 and Hayden Units 1 and 2, in which PacifiCorp has ownership interests. Each of those regional haze compliance projects are either already in service or currently being constructed. In addition, in February 2015, the state of Colorado finalized an amendment to its regional haze SIP relating to Craig Unit 1, in which PacifiCorp has an ownership interest, to require the installation of SCR controls by 2021. In September 2016, the owners of Craig Units 1 and 2 reached an agreement with state and federal agencies and certain environmental groups that were parties to the previous settlement requiring SCR to retire Unit 1 by December 31, 2025, in lieu of SCR installation, or alternatively to remove the unit from coal-fueled service by August 31, 2021 with an option to convert the unit to natural gas by August 31, 2023, in lieu of SCR installation. The terms of the agreement were approved by the Colorado Air Quality Board in December 2016, incorporated into an amended Colorado regional haze SIP in 2017 and approved by the EPA in August 2018. PacifiCorp identified a December 31, 2025, retirement date for Craig Unit 1 in its 2017 and 2019 IRPs.

Until the EPA takes final action in each state and decisions have been made in the pending appeals, PacifiCorp cannot fully determine the impacts of the Regional Haze Rule on its respective generating facilities.
77


Water Quality Standards

The federal Water Pollution Control Act ("Clean Water Act") establishes the framework for maintaining and improving water quality in the United States through a program that regulates, among other things, discharges to and withdrawals from waterways. The Clean Water Act requires that cooling water intake structures reflect the "best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact" to aquatic organisms. After significant litigation, the EPA released a proposed rule under §316(b) of the Clean Water Act to regulate cooling water intakes at existing facilities. The final rule was released in May 2014, and became effective in October 2014. Under the final rule, existing facilities that withdraw at least 25% of their water exclusively for cooling purposes and have a design intake flow of greater than two million gallons per day are required to reduce fish impingement (i.e., when fish and other aquatic organisms are trapped against screens when water is drawn into a facility's cooling system) by choosing one of seven options. Facilities that withdraw at least 125 million gallons of water per day from waters of the United States must also conduct studies to help their permitting authority determine what site-specific controls, if any, would be required to reduce entrainment of aquatic organisms (i.e., when organisms are drawn into the facility). PacifiCorp and MidAmerican Energy are assessing the options for compliance at their generating facilities impacted by the final rule and will complete impingement and entrainment studies. PacifiCorp's Dave Johnston generating facility and all of MidAmerican Energy's coal-fueled generating facilities, except Louisa, Ottumwa and Walter Scott, Jr. Unit 4, which have water cooling towers, withdraw more than 125 million gallons per day of water from waters of the United States for once-through cooling applications. PacifiCorp's Jim Bridger, Naughton, Gadsby, Hunter and Huntington generating facilities currently utilize closed cycle cooling towers but are designed to withdraw more than two million gallons of water per day. The standards are required to be met as soon as possible after the effective date of the final rule, but no later than eight years thereafter. The costs of compliance with the cooling water intake structure rule cannot be fully determined until the prescribed studies are conducted and the respective state environmental agencies review the studies to determine whether additional mitigation technologies should be applied. If PacifiCorp's or MidAmerican Energy's existing intake structures require modification, the costs are not anticipated to be significant to the consolidated financial statements. Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific do not utilize once-through cooling water intake or discharge structures at any of their generating facilities. All of the Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific generating stations are designed to have either minimal or zero discharge; therefore, they are not impacted by the §316(b) final rule.

78


In November 2015, the EPA published final effluent limitation guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating sector which, among other things, regulate the discharge of bottom ash transport water, fly ash transport water, combustion residual leachate and non-chemical metal cleaning wastes. These guidelines, which had not been revised since 1982, were revised in response to the EPA's concerns that the addition of controls for air emissions has changed the effluent discharged from coal- and natural gas-fueled generating facilities. Under the originally promulgated guidelines, permitting authorities were required to include the new limits in each impacted facility's discharge permit upon renewal with the new limits to be met as soon as possible, beginning November 1, 2018 and fully implemented by December 31, 2023. On April 5, 2017, a request for reconsideration and administrative stay of the guidelines was filed with the EPA. The EPA granted the request for reconsideration on April 12, 2017, imposed an immediate administrative stay of compliance dates in the rule that had not passed judicial review and requested the court stay the pending litigation over the rule until September 12, 2017. On June 6, 2017, the EPA proposed to extend many of the compliance deadlines that would otherwise occur in 2018 and on September 18, 2017, the EPA issued a final rule extending certain compliance dates for flue gas desulfurization wastewater and bottom ash transport water limits until November 1, 2020. In a separate action, on April 12, 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated two aspects of the final effluent limitation guidelines, concerning discharge limits for (1) legacy wastewater from ash transport or treatment systems and (2) combustion residual leachate from landfills or settling ponds. The Fifth Circuit found that EPA's own data did not support the agency's conclusion that impoundments were the best technology available for these two waste streams. EPA must now complete a new effluent limitation guideline for these discharge limits. On November 22, 2019, the EPA proposed updates to the 2015 rule, specifically addressing flue gas desulfurization wastewater and bottom ash transport water. The rule was finalized in October 2020 and took effect December 14, 2020. EPA revised selenium limits on flue gas desulfurization wastewater and the zero-discharge requirements on bottom ash transport water associated with blowdown of ash handling systems and adjusted compliance dates to allow time to procure and install necessary technology. The rule does not address the wastestreams at issue in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal's April 2019 decision. While most of the issues raised by this rule are already being addressed through the CCR rule and are not expected to impose significant additional requirements on the facilities, the impact of the rule cannot be fully determined until any judicial review is conducted.

In April 2014, the EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps of Engineers") issued a joint proposal to address "waters of the United States" to clarify protection under the Clean Water Act for streams and wetlands. The proposed rule comes as a result of United States Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 that created confusion regarding jurisdictional waters that were subject to permitting under either nationwide or individual permitting requirements. The final rule was released in May 2015 but is currently under appeal in multiple courts and a nationwide stay on the implementation of the rule was issued in October 2015. On January 13, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition to address jurisdictional challenges to the rule. The EPA plans to undertake a two-step process, with the first step to repeal the 2015 rule and the second step to carry out a notice-and-comment rulemaking in which a substantive re-evaluation of the definition of the "waters of the United States" will be undertaken. On July 27, 2017, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers issued a proposal to repeal the final rule and recodify the pre-existing rules pending issuance of a new rule, which was finalized September 12, 2019. On January 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision related to the jurisdictional challenges to the rule, holding that federal district courts, rather than federal appeals courts, have proper jurisdiction to hear challenges to the rule and instructed the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the petitions for review for lack of jurisdiction, clearing the way for imposition of the rule in certain states barring final action by the EPA to formalize the extension of the compliance deadline. On December 11, 2018, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers proposed a revised definition of "waters of the United States" that is intended to further clarify jurisdictional questions, eliminate case-by-case determinations and narrow Clean Water Act jurisdiction to align with Justice Scalia's 2006 opinion in Rapanos v. United States. On January 23, 2020, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers signed the final rule narrowing the federal government's permitting authority under the Clean Water Act. The new Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which took effect 60 days after it was published in the Federal Register, redefines what waters qualify as navigable waters of the U.S. and are under Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Under the new rule, the Clean Water Act will be considered to cover territorial seas and traditional navigable waters; tributaries that flow into jurisdictional waters; wetlands that are directly adjacent to jurisdictional waters; and lakes, ponds and impoundments of jurisdictional waters. The agency and corps originally proposed six categories, but in the final version they collapsed ditches and impoundments into other categories. There are also 12 categories of waters that the agencies highlighted as being excluded from coverage, including groundwater, ephemeral streams and pools, prior converted cropland and waste treatment systems. Until the rule is fully litigated and finalized, the Registrants cannot predict the impact on overall compliance obligations.


79


In April 2020, the United States Supreme Court established a new test for Clean Water Act jurisdiction in County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, finding that the statute can cover discharges of contaminated groundwater in certain circumstances. The United States Supreme Court outlined a seven-factor test to determine whether discharges conveyed through groundwater to surface water are "functionally equivalent" to direct discharges, finding that the time it takes for pollutants to travel through groundwater and the distance traveled are the two most important factors in the test. The United States Supreme Court remanded County of Maui, Hawaii to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for further adjudication, which subsequently remanded the case to the district court to determine whether additional discovery is needed before applying the new seven-factor test. The EPA finalized guidance January 14, 2021, implementing County of Maui. The EPA utilized the United States Supreme Court's seven factors, plus an additional factor for the design and performance of the system or facility from which the pollutant is reached, to determine whether pollutants that reach surface waters after traveling through groundwater are a "functional equivalent" to a direct discharge that require a permit. Until the functional equivalent test and guidance are applied by the courts, the Registrants cannot determine the impact of this case on their operations.

In April 2020, the U.S. District Court of the District of Montana vacated nationwide permit 12, which provides an expedited route for projects like oil and gas pipelines and utility lines to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act, finding that the Corps of Engineers, which implements the nationwide permit program, failed to conduct necessary programmatic consultation of nationwide permit 12 under the Endangered Species Act. The district court's vacatur, which was subsequently limited just to the Keystone XL pipeline project, the subject of the initial lawsuit, is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 13, 2021, the Corps of Engineers finalized a rule modifying its nationwide permit program for certain activities affecting waters of the United States. The final rule restructures the nationwide permit program for utility lines by splitting the existing nationwide permit 12 into three separate nationwide permits – one for oil and gas, including pipelines; one for electrical and telecommunications; and one for water/sewer and other utilities. The Corps of Engineers included a biological assessment for the final rule but did not conduct a formal Endangered Species Act consultation in connection with reissuance of the nationwide permits. The Corps of Engineers reissued and revised 12 of 52 and added four new nationwide permits, which will be effective for a period of five years. The remaining nationwide permits are scheduled for renewal in advance of expiration in 2022. Until the nationwide permit challenges are fully litigated, the Registrants cannot determine the impact of this case on their operations.

Coal Combustion Byproduct Disposal

In May 2010, the EPA released a proposed rule to regulate the management and disposal of coal combustion byproducts under the RCRA. The final rule was released by the EPA on December 19, 2014, was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015 and was effective on October 19, 2015. The final rule regulates coal combustion byproducts as non-hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle D and establishes minimum nationwide standards for the disposal of CCR. Under the final rule, surface impoundments and landfills utilized for coal combustion byproducts may need to be closed unless they can meet the more stringent regulatory requirements. The final rule requires regulated entities to post annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action reports. The first of these reports was posted to the respective Registrant's coal combustion rule compliance data and information websites in March 2018. Based on the results in those reports, additional action may be required under the rule.

At the time the rule was published in April 2015, PacifiCorp operated 18 surface impoundments and seven landfills that contained coal combustion byproducts. Prior to the effective date of the rule in October 2015, nine surface impoundments and three landfills were either closed or repurposed to no longer receive coal combustion byproducts and hence are not subject to the final rule. As PacifiCorp proceeded to implement the final coal combustion rule, it was determined that two surface impoundments located at the Dave Johnston generating facility were hydraulically connected and effectively constitute a single impoundment. In November 2017, a new surface impoundment was placed into service at the Naughton Generating Station. At the time the rule was published in April 2015, MidAmerican Energy owned or operated nine surface impoundments and four landfills that contain coal combustion byproducts. Prior to the effective date of the rule in October 2015, MidAmerican Energy closed or repurposed six surface impoundments to no longer receive coal combustion byproducts. Five of these surface impoundments were closed on or before December 21, 2017 and the sixth is undergoing closure. At the time the rule was published in April 2015, the Nevada Utilities operated ten evaporative surface impoundments and two landfills that contained coal combustion byproducts. Prior to the effective date of the rule in October 2015, the Nevada Utilities closed four of the surface impoundments, four impoundments discontinued receipt of coal combustion byproducts making them inactive and two surface impoundments remain active and subject to the final rule. The two landfills remain active and subject to the final rule.

80


Multiple parties filed challenges over various aspects of the final rule in the D.C. Circuit in 2015, resulting in settlement of some of the issues and subsequent regulatory action by the EPA, including subjecting inactive surface impoundments to regulation. Oral argument was held by the D.C. Circuit on November 20, 2017 over certain portions of the 2015 rule that had not been settled or otherwise remanded. On August 21, 2018, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v. EPA, finding it was arbitrary and capricious for EPA to allow unlined ash ponds to continue operating until some unknown point in the future when groundwater contamination could be detected. The D.C. Circuit vacated the closure section of the CCR rule and remanded the issue of unlined ponds to EPA for reconsideration with specific instructions to consider harm to the environment, not just to human health. The D.C. Circuit also held EPA's decision to not regulate legacy ponds was arbitrary and capricious. While the D.C. Circuit's decision was pending, the EPA, on March 15, 2018, issued a proposal to address provisions of the final CCR rule that were remanded back to the agency on June 14, 2016, by the D.C. Circuit. The proposal included provisions that establish alternative performance standards for owners and operators of CCR units located in states that have approved permit programs or are otherwise subject to oversight through a permit program administered by the EPA. The EPA finalized the first phase of the CCR rule amendments on July 30, 2018, with an effective date of August 28, 2018 (the "Phase 1, Part 1 rule"). In addition to adopting alternative performance standards and revising groundwater performance standards for certain constituents, EPA extended the deadline by which facilities must initiate closure of unlined ash ponds exceeding a groundwater protection standard and impoundments that do not meet the rule's aquifer location restrictions to October 31, 2020. Following submittal of competing motions from environmental groups and the EPA to stay or remand this deadline extension, on March 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's request to remand the rule and left the October 31, 2020 deadline in place while the agency undertakes a new rulemaking establishing a new deadline for initiating closure. On August 14, 2019, the EPA released its "Phase 2" proposal, which contains targeted amendments to the CCR rule in response to court remands and EPA settlement agreements, as well as issues raised in a rulemaking petition. The Phase 2 proposal modifies the definition of "beneficial use" by replacing a mass-based threshold with new location-based criteria for triggering the need to conduct an environmental demonstration; establishes a definition of "CCR storage pile" to address the temporary storage of CCR on the ground, depending on whether the material is destined for disposal or beneficial use; makes certain changes to the rule's annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action reports to make it easier for the public to see and understand the data contained within the reports; modifies the requirements related to facilities' publicly available CCR rule websites to make the information more readily available; and establishes a risk-based groundwater monitoring protection standard for boron in the event the EPA decides to add boron to Appendix IV in the CCR rule. The EPA accepted comments on the Phase 2 proposal through October 15, 2019. On December 22, 2020, the EPA released a notice of data availability relating to the Phase 2 proposal to revise the CCR rule's definition of beneficial use and provisions governing piles of CCR on- and off-site prior to beneficial use. The new information presented by the notice includes data and information the EPA received during the comment period on the Phase 2 proposal. The EPA accepted comment on the notice of data availability through February 22, 2021. The EPA has not announced an anticipated timeline for completing the Phase 2 rule. In February 2020, the EPA proposed a federal CCR permit program as required by the WIIN Act of 2016. The proposal would require permits for all CCR units in states that do not have an EPA-approved CCR program. The proposal would establish individual, general and permit-by-rule permits; a tiered schedule for applications to prioritize permits for high-hazard potential CCR units; and postpone timelines for permit applications for all other CCR units. The EPA has not announced an anticipated timeline for completing the federal CCR permit rule. In October 2020, the EPA released an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on legacy CCR surface impoundments, seeking comment on and information related to issues relevant to development of regulations for legacy impoundments. Issues identified by the EPA include the definition of a legacy impoundment, information on the universe of legacy impoundments, the types of regulatory requirements that should apply to legacy impoundments, and the EPA's regulatory authority to regulate legacy impoundments under RCRA subtitle D. The EPA accepted comment on the advanced notice through February 12, 2021. Until the proposals are finalized and fully litigated, the Registrants cannot determine whether additional action may be required.
81


In August 2020, the EPA finalized its Holistic Approach to Closure: Part A rule ("Part A rule"). This proposal addressed the D.C. Circuit's revocation of the provisions that allow unlined impoundments to continue receiving ash. The Part A rule was finalized in August 2020 and establishes a new deadline of April 11, 2021, by which all unlined surface impoundments (including clay lined impoundments that do not otherwise meet the definition of "lined") must initiate closure. The Part A rule also identifies two extensions to that date: (1) a site-specific extension to develop alternate disposal capacity and initiate closure by October 15, 2023; and (2) a site-specific extension for facilities that agree to shut down the coal-fueled unit and complete ash pond closure activities by October 17, 2028. In addition to these closure deadline provisions, the Part A rule also finalized changes to the CCR rule's annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action reports and modified requirements related to CCR rule compliance websites initially proposed in the Phase 2 rule. PacifiCorp developed a demonstration for the development of alternative capacity for the Jim Bridger Plant FGD Pond 2 and a demonstration for closure of the Naughton Plant and ash pond and submitted them to the EPA in November 2020. Approval of these demonstrations is anticipated in first quarter 2021. No other Registrants used the provisions of the Part A rule. In December 2020, the EPA finalized its Holistic Approach to Closure: Part B rule ("Part B rule"), which establishes procedures for owners and operators of unlined ash ponds to demonstrate that the liner systems or underlying soils for these units perform as well as the liner criteria in the CCR rule. Additional provisions included in the proposed rule but not finalized, including the use of CCR in closure activities and allowing for the completion of groundwater corrective action during the post-closure care period, will be addressed in future rulemakings. As finalized, none of the relevant Registrants anticipate exercising the provisions of the Part B rule.

Separately, on August 10, 2017, the EPA issued proposed permitting guidance on how states' CCR permit programs should comply with the requirements of the final rule as authorized under the December 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act. Using that guidance, the state of Oklahoma applied for EPA approval of its state program and, on June 28, 2018, the EPA's approval of the application was published in the Federal Register. Environmental groups, including Waterkeeper Alliance and the Sierra Club, filed suit in the D.C. Circuit on September 26, 2018, alleging that the EPA unlawfully approved Oklahoma's permit program. This suit also incorporates claims first identified in a July 26, 2018 notice of intent to sue that alleged the EPA failed to perform nondiscretionary duties related to the development and publication of minimum guidelines for public participation in the approval of state permit programs for CCR. To date, none of the states in which the Registrants operate has applied for EPA approval of state permitting authority. The state of Utah adopted the federal final rule in September 2016, which required PacifiCorp to submit permit applications for two of its landfills by March 2017. It is anticipated that the state of Utah will apply for EPA approval of its CCR permit program prior to the end of 2021. In 2019, the state of Wyoming proposed to adopt state rules which incorporate the final federal rule by reference. It is anticipated that Wyoming will finalize its rule and seek the EPA's approval to implement a state permit program in 2021.

Notwithstanding the status of the final CCR rule, citizens' suits have been filed against regulated entities seeking judicial relief for contamination alleged to have been caused by releases of coal combustion byproducts. Some of these cases have been successful in imposing liability upon companies if coal combustion byproducts contaminate groundwater that is ultimately released or connected to surface water. In addition, actions have been filed against regulated entities seeking to require that surface impoundments containing CCR be subject to closure by removal rather than being allowed to effectuate closure in place as provided under the final rule. The Registrants are not a party to these lawsuits and until they are resolved, the Registrants cannot predict the impact on overall compliance obligations.

On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order on climate change which also required review of actions taken over the preceding four years that were harmful to "public health, environment, unsupported by the best available science, or otherwise not in the national best interest." The order included a non-exhaustive list of regulatory actions to be reviewed by the issuing agencies, including New Source Performance Standards for the power sector and the oil and gas sector, rescission of the Clean Power Plan, particulate matter and ozone NAAQS, steam electric effluent limitation guidelines, waters of the United States, reissuance of nationwide permits, and the phase one, part one and holistic approach to closure: parts A and B under the CCR rule. In addition, the Biden administration issued a regulatory freeze memorandum that prohibits submission of rules and guidance documents to the Federal Register without direct review, requires immediate withdrawal of rules and guidance documents submitted to the Federal Register but not yet published, and, for rules and guidance documents published but not yet having taken effect, consideration of a 60-day delay and possible additional comment period. Until the issuing agency completes its review and takes final action consistent with these directives, the relevant Registrant cannot determine whether additional action under any of these rules will be necessary.


82


Other

Other laws, regulations and agencies to which the relevant Registrants are subject include, but are not limited to:
The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and similar state laws may require any current or former owners or operators of a disposal site, as well as transporters or generators of hazardous substances sent to such disposal site, to share in environmental remediation costs. Certain Registrants have been identified as potentially responsible parties in connection with certain disposal sites. The relevant Registrants have completed several cleanup actions and are participating in ongoing investigations and remedial actions. Costs associated with these actions are not expected to be material and are expected to be found prudent and included in rates.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, under which the United States DOE is responsible for the selection and development of repositories for, and the permanent disposal of, spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive wastes. Refer to Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Berkshire Hathaway Energy in Item 8 of this Form 10-K and Note 11 of the Notes to Financial Statements of MidAmerican Energy in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding MidAmerican Energy's nuclear decommissioning obligations.
The federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and similar state statutes establish operational, reclamation and closure standards that must be met during and upon completion of PacifiCorp's mining activities.
The FERC evaluates hydroelectric systems to ensure environmental impacts are minimized, including the issuance of environmental impact statements for licensed projects both initially and upon relicensing. The FERC monitors the hydroelectric facilities for compliance with the license terms and conditions, which include environmental provisions. Refer to Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Berkshire Hathaway Energy in Item 8 of this Form 10-K and Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of PacifiCorp in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for information regarding the relicensing of PacifiCorp's Klamath River hydroelectric system.

The Registrants expect they will be allowed to recover their respective prudently incurred costs to comply with the environmental laws and regulations discussed above. The Registrants' planning efforts take into consideration the complexity of balancing factors such as: (a) pending environmental regulations and requirements to reduce emissions, address waste disposal, ensure water quality and protect wildlife; (b) avoidance of excessive reliance on any one generation technology; (c) costs and trade-offs of various resource options including energy efficiency, demand response programs and renewable generation; (d) state-specific energy policies, resource preferences and economic development efforts; (e) additional transmission investment to reduce power costs and increase efficiency and reliability of the integrated transmission system; and (f) keeping rates affordable. Due to the number of generating units impacted by environmental regulations, deferring installation of compliance-related projects is often not feasible or cost effective and places the Registrants at risk of not having access to necessary capital, material, and labor while attempting to perform major equipment installations in a compressed timeframe concurrent with other utilities across the country. Therefore, the Registrants have established installation schedules with permitting agencies that coordinate compliance timeframes with construction and tie-in of major environmental compliance projects as units are scheduled off-line for planned maintenance outages; these coordinated efforts help reduce costs associated with replacement power and maintain system reliability.

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

Each Registrant is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, those described below. Careful consideration of these risks, together with all of the other information included in this Form 10-K and the other public information filed by the relevant Registrant, should be made before making an investment decision. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known or which each Registrant currently deems immaterial may also impair its business operations. Unless stated otherwise, the risks described below generally relate to each Registrant.

Corporate and Financial Structure Risks

BHE is a holding company and depends on distributions from subsidiaries, including joint ventures, to meet its obligations.

BHE is a holding company with no material assets other than the ownership interests in its subsidiaries and joint ventures, collectively referred to as its subsidiaries. Accordingly, cash flows and the ability to meet BHE's obligations are largely dependent upon the earnings of its subsidiaries and the payment of such earnings to BHE in the form of dividends or other distributions. BHE's subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to pay amounts due pursuant to BHE's senior debt, junior subordinated debt or its other obligations, or to make funds available, whether by dividends or other payments, for the payment of amounts due pursuant to BHE's senior debt, junior subordinated
83


debt or its other obligations, and do not guarantee the payment of any of its obligations. Distributions from subsidiaries may also be limited by:
their respective earnings, capital requirements, and required debt and preferred stock payments;
the satisfaction of certain terms contained in financing, ring-fencing or organizational documents; and
regulatory restrictions that limit the ability of BHE's regulated utility subsidiaries to distribute profits.

BHE is substantially leveraged, the terms of its existing senior and junior subordinated debt do not restrict the incurrence of additional debt by BHE or its subsidiaries, and BHE's senior debt is structurally subordinated to the debt of its subsidiaries, and each of such factors could adversely affect BHE's consolidated financial results.

A significant portion of BHE's capital structure is comprised of debt, and BHE expects to incur additional debt in the future to fund items such as, among others, acquisitions, capital investments and the development and construction of new or expanded facilities. As of December 31, 2020, BHE had the following outstanding obligations:
senior unsecured debt of $13.4 billion;
junior subordinated debentures of $100 million;
guarantees and letters of credit in respect of subsidiary and equity method investments aggregating $1.3 billion; and
commitments, subject to satisfaction of certain specified conditions, to provide equity contributions in support of renewable tax equity investments totaling $563 million.

BHE's consolidated subsidiaries also have significant amounts of outstanding debt, which totaled $38.6 billion as of December 31, 2020. These amounts exclude (a) trade debt, (b) preferred stock obligations, (c) letters of credit in respect of subsidiary debt, and (d) BHE's share of the outstanding debt of its own or its subsidiaries' equity method investments.

Given BHE's substantial leverage, it may not have sufficient cash to service its debt, which could limit its ability to finance future acquisitions, develop and construct additional projects, or operate successfully under difficult conditions, including those brought on by adverse national and global economies, unfavorable financial markets or growth conditions where its capital needs may exceed its ability to fund them. BHE's leverage could also impair its credit quality or the credit quality of its subsidiaries, making it more difficult to finance operations or issue future debt on favorable terms, and could result in a downgrade in debt ratings by credit rating agencies.

The terms of BHE's and its subsidiaries' debt do not limit BHE's ability or the ability of its subsidiaries to incur additional debt or issue preferred stock. Accordingly, BHE or its subsidiaries could enter into acquisitions, new financings, refinancings, recapitalizations, leases or other highly leveraged transactions that could significantly increase BHE's or its subsidiaries' total amount of outstanding debt. The interest payments needed to service this increased level of debt could adversely affect BHE's or its subsidiaries' financial results. Many of BHE's subsidiaries' debt agreements contain covenants, or may in the future contain covenants, that restrict or limit, among other things, such subsidiaries' ability to create liens, sell assets, make certain distributions, incur additional debt or miss contractual deadlines or requirements, and BHE's ability to comply with these covenants may be affected by events beyond its control. Further, if an event of default accelerates a repayment obligation and such acceleration results in an event of default under some or all of BHE's other debt, BHE may not have sufficient funds to repay all of the accelerated debt simultaneously, and the other risks described under "Corporate and Financial Structure Risks" may be magnified as well.

Because BHE is a holding company, the claims of its senior debt holders are structurally subordinated with respect to the assets and earnings of its subsidiaries. Therefore, the rights of its creditors to participate in the assets of any subsidiary in the event of a liquidation or reorganization are subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary's creditors and preferred shareholders, if any. In addition, pursuant to separate financing agreements, substantially all of PacifiCorp's electric utility properties, MidAmerican Energy's electric utility properties in the state of Iowa, Nevada Power's and Sierra Pacific's properties in the state of Nevada, AltaLink's transmission properties, the equity interest of MidAmerican Funding's subsidiary and substantially all of the assets of the subsidiaries of BHE Renewables that are direct or indirect owners of solar and wind generation projects, are directly or indirectly pledged to secure their financings and, therefore, may be unavailable as potential sources of repayment of BHE's debt.

84


A downgrade in BHE's credit ratings or the credit ratings of its subsidiaries, including the Subsidiary Registrants, could negatively affect BHE's or its subsidiaries' access to capital, increase the cost of borrowing or raise energy transaction credit support requirements.

BHE's senior unsecured debt and its subsidiaries' long-term debt, including the Subsidiary Registrants, are rated by various rating agencies. BHE cannot give assurance that its senior unsecured debt rating or any of its subsidiaries' long-term debt ratings will not be reduced in the future. Although none of the Registrants' outstanding debt has rating-downgrade triggers that would accelerate a repayment obligation, a credit rating downgrade would increase any such Registrant's borrowing costs and commitment fees on its revolving credit agreements and other financing arrangements, perhaps significantly. In addition, such Registrant would likely be required to pay a higher interest rate in future financings, and the potential pool of investors and funding sources would likely decrease. Further, access to the commercial paper market could be significantly limited, resulting in higher interest costs.

Similarly, any downgrade or other event negatively affecting the credit ratings of BHE's subsidiaries could make their costs of borrowing higher or access to funding sources more limited, which in turn could cause BHE to provide liquidity in the form of capital contributions or loans to such subsidiaries, thus reducing its and its subsidiaries' liquidity and borrowing capacity.

Most of the Registrants' large wholesale customers, suppliers and counterparties require such Registrant to have sufficient creditworthiness in order to enter into transactions, particularly in the wholesale energy markets. If the credit ratings of a Registrant were to decline, especially below investment grade, the relevant Registrant's financing costs and borrowings would likely increase because certain counterparties may require collateral in the form of cash, a letter of credit or some other form of security for existing transactions and as a condition to entering into future transactions with such Registrant. Amounts could be material and could adversely affect such Registrant's liquidity and cash flows.

BHE's majority shareholder, Berkshire Hathaway, could exercise control over BHE in a manner that would benefit Berkshire Hathaway to the detriment of BHE's creditors and BHE could exercise control over the Subsidiary Registrants in a manner that would benefit BHE to the detriment of the Subsidiary Registrants' creditors and PacifiCorp's preferred stockholders.

Berkshire Hathaway is majority owner of BHE and has control over all decisions requiring shareholder approval. In circumstances involving a conflict of interest between Berkshire Hathaway and BHE's creditors, Berkshire Hathaway could exercise its control in a manner that would benefit Berkshire Hathaway to the detriment of BHE's creditors.

BHE indirectly owns all of the common stock of PacifiCorp, Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific and the membership interest in Eastern Energy Gas. BHE is also the sole member of MidAmerican Funding and, accordingly, indirectly owns all of MidAmerican Energy's common stock. As a result, BHE has control over all decisions requiring shareholder approval, including the election of directors. In circumstances involving a conflict of interest between BHE and the creditors of the Subsidiary Registrants, BHE could exercise its control in a manner that would benefit BHE to the detriment of the Subsidiary Registrants' creditors.

Business Risks

Much of BHE's growth has been achieved through acquisitions, and any such acquisition may not be successful.

Much of BHE's growth has been achieved through acquisitions. Future acquisitions may range from buying individual assets to the purchase of entire businesses. BHE will continue to investigate and pursue opportunities for future acquisitions that it believes, but cannot assure, may increase value and expand or complement existing businesses. BHE may participate in bidding or other negotiations at any time for such acquisition opportunities which may or may not be successful.

Any acquisition entails numerous risks, including, among others:
the failure to complete the transaction for various reasons, such as the inability to obtain the required regulatory approvals, materially adverse developments in the potential acquiree's business or financial condition or successful intervening offers by third parties;
the failure of the combined business to realize the expected benefits;
the risk that federal, state or foreign regulators or courts could require regulatory commitments or other actions in respect of acquired assets, potentially including programs, contributions, investments, divestitures and market mitigation measures;
85


the risk of unexpected or unidentified issues not discovered in the diligence process; and
the need for substantial additional capital and financial investments.

An acquisition could cause an interruption of, or a loss of momentum in, the activities of one or more of BHE's subsidiaries. In addition, the final orders of regulatory authorities approving acquisitions may be subject to appeal by third parties. The diversion of BHE management's attention and any delays or difficulties encountered in connection with the approval and integration of the acquired operations could adversely affect BHE's combined businesses and financial results and could impair its ability to realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisition.

BHE cannot assure that future acquisitions, if any, or any integration efforts will be successful, or that BHE's ability to repay its obligations will not be adversely affected by any future acquisitions.

The Registrants are subject to operating uncertainties and events beyond each respective Registrant's control that impact the costs to operate, maintain, repair and replace utility and interstate natural gas pipeline systems, which could adversely affect each respective Registrant's financial results.

The operation of complex utility systems or interstate natural gas pipeline and storage systems that are spread over large geographic areas involves many operating uncertainties and events beyond each respective Registrant's control. These potential events include the breakdown or failure of the Registrants' thermal, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind and other electricity generating facilities and related equipment, compressors, pipelines, transmission and distribution lines or other equipment or processes, which could lead to catastrophic events; unscheduled outages; strikes, lockouts or other labor-related actions; shortages of qualified labor; transmission and distribution system constraints; failure to obtain, renew or maintain rights-of-way, easements and leases on United States federal, Native American, First Nations or tribal lands; terrorist activities or military or other actions, including cyber attacks; fuel shortages or interruptions; unavailability of critical equipment, materials and supplies; low water flows and other weather-related impacts; performance below expected levels of output, capacity or efficiency; operator error; third-party excavation errors; unexpected degradation of pipeline systems; design, construction or manufacturing defects; and catastrophic events such as severe storms, floods, fires, earthquakes, explosions, landslides, an electromagnetic pulse, mining incidents, litigation, wars, terrorism, pandemics (including potentially in relation to COVID-19) and embargoes. A catastrophic event might result in injury or loss of life, extensive property damage or environmental or natural resource damages. For example, in the event of an uncontrolled release of water at one of PacifiCorp's high hazard potential hydroelectric dams, it is probable that loss of human life, disruption of lifeline facilities and property damage could occur in the downstream population and civil or other penalties could be imposed by the FERC. The extent of that liability would be determined by the applicable state law where any such damage occurred. Any of these events or other operational events could significantly reduce or eliminate the relevant Registrant's revenue or significantly increase its expenses, thereby reducing the availability of distributions to BHE. For example, if the relevant Registrant cannot operate its electricity or natural gas facilities at full capacity due to damage caused by a catastrophic event, its revenue could decrease and its expenses could increase due to the need to obtain energy from more expensive sources.

Further, the Registrants self-insure many risks, and current and future insurance coverage may not be sufficient to replace lost revenue or cover repair and replacement costs or other damages. The scope, cost and availability of each Registrant's insurance coverage may change, including the portion that is self-insured. Any reduction of each Registrant's revenue or increase in its expenses resulting from the risks described above, could adversely affect the relevant Registrant's financial results.

The Registrants are subject to increasing risk from catastrophic wildfires and may be unable to obtain enough insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or at all to adequately protect the Registrants from liability, which could materially affect the Registrants financial results and liquidity.

The risk of catastrophic and severe wildfires has increased in the western United States giving rise to large damage claims against utilities for fire-related losses. Catastrophic and severe wildfires can occur in PacifiCorp, Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific's ("Western Domestic Utilities") service territory even when the Western Domestic Utilities effectively implement their wildfire mitigation plans and prudently manage their systems.

In California, for example, where PacifiCorp operates, "inverse condemnation" currently exposes utilities to potential liability for property damages where the utility's electrical equipment was a substantial cause of the wildfire. California courts have held that utilities can be held liable under inverse condemnation without being found negligent and regardless of fault. California law also permits inverse condemnation plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees. As a result of inverse condemnation being applied to utilities and wildfire damages, recent losses recorded by insurance companies, and the risk of an increase in the frequency, duration and size of wildfires, insurance for wildfire liabilities may not be available or may be available only at rates that are prohibitively expensive. In addition, even if insurance for wildfire liabilities is available, it may not be available in amounts
86


necessary to cover potential losses. Uninsured losses and increases in the cost of insurance may be challenged when PacifiCorp seeks cost recovery and may not be recoverable in customer rates.

The Western Domestic Utilities monitor weather conditions with specific thresholds for designated high fire consequence areas to help ensure the safe and reliable operation of their systems during periods of elevated wildfire ignition risk. Should weather conditions become extreme, the Western Domestic Utilities may de-energize certain sections of their distribution and transmission facilities as a last resort to minimize risk to the public. These "public safety power shutoffs" could be subject to increased scrutiny by regulators and policy makers. And, although "public safety power shutoffs" are intended to minimize risk of wildfire ignition, de-energization may cause other damages for which the Western Domestic Utilities could be held liable.

Damage claims against PacifiCorp for the 2020 Wildfires (as defined below) may materially affect PacifiCorp's financial condition and results of operations.

In September 2020, a severe weather event resulting in high winds, low humidity and warm temperatures contributed to several major wildfires, private and public property damage, personal injuries and loss of life and widespread power outages in Oregon and California (the "2020 Wildfires"). The 2020 Wildfires spread over certain parts of PacifiCorp's service territory and surrounding areas in Oregon and California and are 100% contained. Investigations into the cause and origin of each wildfire are complex and ongoing. Although those investigations are not complete, several civil actions (including a putative class action) have been filed in Oregon and California on behalf of citizens and businesses who suffered damages from fires allegedly involving PacifiCorp's equipment. It is possible that additional lawsuits against PacifiCorp may be filed in Oregon or California with respect to the 2020 Wildfires. If PacifiCorp is found liable for damages related to the 2020 Wildfires and is unable to, or believes that it will be unable to, recover those damages through insurance or customer rates, or access the bank and capital markets on reasonable terms, PacifiCorp's financial results could be adversely affected. Refer to PacifiCorp's Note 14 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information on the 2020 Wildfires.

Each Registrant's business could be adversely affected by COVID-19 or other pathogens, or similar crises.

Each Registrant's business could be adversely affected by the worldwide outbreak of COVID-19 generally and more specifically in the markets in which we operate, including, without limitation, if each Registrant's utility customers experience decreases in demand for their products and services or otherwise reduce their consumption of electricity or natural gas that the respective Registrant supplies, or if such Registrant experiences material payment defaults by its customers. For example, if the tourism industry in Nevada experiences a significant and extended decrease as a result of changes in customer behavior, demand for electricity sold by Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific could decrease. In addition, each Registrant's results and financial condition may be adversely affected by federal, state or local legislation related to COVID-19 (or other similar laws, regulations, orders or other governmental or regulatory actions) that would impose a moratorium on terminating electric or natural gas utility services, including related assessment of late fees, due to non-payment or other circumstances. Certain Registrants have already temporarily implemented certain of these measures, either voluntarily or in accordance with requirements of the respective Registrant's public utility commissions. These requirements will likely remain for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, HomeServices' residential real estate brokerage business could experience a decline (which could be significant) in residential property transactions if potential customers elect to defer purchases in reaction to any substantial outbreak, or fear of such outbreak, of COVID-19 or other pathogen, or due to general economic uncertainty such as high unemployment levels, in some or all of the real estate markets in which HomeServices operates. The government and regulators could impose other requirements on each Registrant's business that could have an adverse impact on such Registrant's financial results.

Further, the recent outbreak of COVID-19, or another pathogen, could disrupt supply chains (including supply chains for energy generation, steel or transmission wire) relating to the markets each Registrant serves, which could adversely impact such Registrant's ability to generate or supply power. In addition, such disruptions to the supply chain could delay certain construction and other capital expenditure projects, including construction and repowering of the Registrants' renewable generation projects. Such disruptions could adversely affect the impacted Registrant's future financial results.

Such declines in demand, any inability to generate or supply power or delays in capital projects could also significantly reduce cash flows at BHE's subsidiaries, thereby reducing the availability of distributions to BHE, which could adversely affect its financial results.


87


Each Registrant is subject to extensive federal, state, local and foreign legislation and regulation, including numerous environmental, health, safety, reliability, data privacy and other laws and regulations that affect its operations and costs. These laws and regulations are complex, dynamic and subject to new interpretations or change. In addition, new laws and regulations, including initiatives regarding deregulation and restructuring of the utility industry, are continually being proposed and enacted that impose new or revised requirements or standards on each Registrant.

Each Registrant is required to comply with numerous federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations as described in "General Regulation" and "Environmental Laws and Regulations" in Item 1 of this Form 10-K that have broad application to each Registrant and limits the respective Registrant's ability to independently make and implement management decisions regarding, among other items, acquiring businesses; constructing, acquiring, disposing or retiring of operating assets; operating and maintaining generating facilities and transmission and distribution system assets; complying with pipeline safety and integrity and environmental requirements; setting rates charged to customers; establishing capital structures and issuing debt or equity securities; transacting between subsidiaries and affiliates; and paying dividends or similar distributions. These laws and regulations, which are followed in developing the Registrants' safety and compliance programs and procedures, are implemented and enforced by federal, state and local regulatory agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the FERC, the EPA, the DOT, the NRC, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration and various state regulatory commissions in the United States, and foreign regulatory agencies, such as GEMA, which discharges certain of its powers through its staff within Ofgem, in Great Britain and the AUC in Alberta, Canada.

Compliance with applicable laws and regulations generally requires each Registrant to obtain and comply with a wide variety of licenses, permits, inspections, audits and other approvals. Further, compliance with laws and regulations can require significant capital and operating expenditures, including expenditures for new equipment, inspection, cleanup costs, removal and remediation costs and damages arising out of contaminated properties. Compliance activities pursuant to existing or new laws and regulations could be prohibitively expensive or otherwise uneconomical. As a result, each Registrant could be required to shut down some facilities or materially alter its operations. Further, each Registrant may not be able to obtain or maintain all required environmental or other regulatory approvals and permits for its operating assets or development projects. Delays in, or active opposition by third parties to, obtaining any required environmental or regulatory authorizations or failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the authorizations may increase costs or prevent or delay each Registrant from operating its facilities, developing or favorably locating new facilities or expanding existing facilities. If any Registrant fails to comply with any environmental or other regulatory requirements, such Registrant may be subject to penalties and fines or other sanctions, including changes to the way its electricity generating facilities are operated that may adversely impact generation or how the Pipeline Companies are permitted to operate their systems that may adversely impact throughput. The costs of complying with laws and regulations could adversely affect each Registrant's financial results. Not being able to operate existing facilities or develop new generating facilities to meet customer electricity needs could require such Registrant to increase its purchases of electricity on the wholesale market, which could increase market and price risks and adversely affect such Registrant's financial results.

Existing laws and regulations, while comprehensive, are subject to changes and revisions from ongoing policy initiatives by legislators and regulators and to interpretations that may ultimately be resolved by the courts. For example, changes in laws and regulations could result in, but are not limited to, increased competition and decreased revenues within each Registrant's service territories, such as the defeated Nevada Energy Choice Initiative; new environmental requirements, including the implementation of or changes to the Affordable Clean Energy rule, RPS and GHG emissions reduction goals; the issuance of new or stricter air quality standards; the implementation of energy efficiency mandates; the issuance of regulations governing the management and disposal of coal combustion byproducts; changes in forecasting requirements; changes to each Registrant's service territories as a result of condemnation or takeover by municipalities or other governmental entities, particularly where it lacks the exclusive right to serve its customers; the inability of each Registrant to recover its costs on a timely basis, if at all; new pipeline safety requirements; or a negative impact on each Registrant's current cost recovery arrangements. In addition to changes in existing legislation and regulation, new laws and regulations are likely to be enacted from time to time that impose additional or new requirements or standards on each Registrant. Adverse rulings in GHG-related cases could result in increased or changed regulations and could increase costs for GHG emitters, including the Registrants' generating facilities. The GHG rules, changes to those rules, and the Registrants' compliance requirements are subject to potential outcomes from proceedings and litigation challenging the rules.

New federal, regional, state and international accords, legislation, regulation, or judicial proceedings limiting GHG emissions could have a material adverse impact on the Registrants, the United States and the global economy. Companies and industries with higher GHG emissions, such as utilities with significant coal-fueled generating facilities, will be subject to more direct impacts and greater financial and regulatory risks. The impact is dependent on numerous factors, none of which can be meaningfully quantified at this time. These factors include, but are not limited to, the magnitude and timing of GHG emissions reduction requirements; the design of the requirements; the cost, availability and effectiveness of emissions control technology;
88


the price, distribution method and availability of offsets and allowances used for compliance; government-imposed compliance costs; and the existence and nature of incremental cost recovery mechanisms. Examples of how new requirements may impact the Registrants include:
Additional costs may be incurred to purchase required emissions allowances under any market-based cap-and-trade system in excess of allocations that are received at no cost. These purchases would be necessary until new technologies could be developed and deployed to reduce emissions or lower carbon generation is available;
Acquiring and renewing construction and operating permits for new and existing generating facilities may be costly and difficult;
Additional costs may be incurred to purchase and deploy new generating technologies;
Costs may be incurred to retire existing coal-fueled generating facilities before the end of their otherwise useful lives or to convert them to burn fuels, such as natural gas or biomass, that result in lower emissions;
Operating costs may be higher and generating unit outputs may be lower;
Higher interest and financing costs and reduced access to capital markets may result to the extent that financial markets view climate change and GHG emissions as a greater business risk; and
The relevant Registrant's natural gas pipeline operations, electric transmission and retail sales may be impacted in response to changes in customer demand and requirements to reduce GHG emissions.

The impact of events or conditions caused by climate change, whether from natural processes or human activities, are uncertain and could vary widely, from highly localized to worldwide, and the extent to which a utility's operations may be affected is uncertain. Climate change may cause physical and financial risk through, among other things, sea level rise, changes in precipitation and extreme weather events. Consumer demand for energy may increase or decrease, based on overall changes in weather and as customers promote lower energy consumption through the continued use of energy efficiency programs or other means. Availability of resources to generate electricity, such as water for hydroelectric production and cooling purposes, may also be impacted by climate change and could influence the Registrants' existing and future electricity generating portfolio. These issues may have a direct impact on the costs of electricity production and increase the price customers pay or their demand for electricity.

Implementing actions required under, and otherwise complying with, new federal and state laws and regulations and changes in existing ones are among the most challenging aspects of managing utility operations. The Registrants cannot accurately predict the type or scope of future laws and regulations that may be enacted, changes in existing ones or new interpretations by agency orders or court decisions, nor can each Registrant determine their impact on it at this time; however, any one of these could adversely affect each Registrant's financial results through higher capital expenditures and operating costs, early closure of generating facilities or lower tax benefits or restrict or otherwise cause an adverse change in how each Registrant operates its business. To the extent that each Registrant is not allowed by its regulators to recover or cannot otherwise recover the costs to comply with new laws and regulations or changes in existing ones, the costs of complying with such additional requirements could have a material adverse effect on the relevant Registrant's financial results. Additionally, even if such costs are recoverable in rates, if they are substantial and result in rates increasing to levels that substantially reduce customer demand, this could have a material adverse effect on the relevant Registrant's financial results.

Recovery of costs and certain activities by each Registrant is subject to regulatory review and approval, and the inability to recover costs or undertake certain activities may adversely affect each Registrant's financial results.

State Regulatory Rate Review Proceedings

The Utilities establish rates for their regulated retail service through state regulatory proceedings. These proceedings typically involve multiple parties, including government bodies and officials, consumer advocacy groups and various consumers of energy, who have differing concerns but generally have the common objective of limiting rate increases or requesting rate decreases while also requiring the Utilities to ensure system reliability. Decisions are subject to judicial appeal, potentially leading to further uncertainty associated with the approval proceedings.

States set retail rates based in part upon the state regulatory commission's acceptance of an allocated share of total utility costs. When states adopt different methods to calculate interjurisdictional cost allocations, some costs may not be incorporated into rates of any state or other jurisdiction. Ratemaking is also generally done on the basis of estimates of normalized costs, so if a given year's realized costs are higher than normalized costs, rates may not be sufficient to cover those costs. In some cases, actual costs are lower than the normalized or estimated costs recovered through rates and from time-to-time may result in a state
89


regulator requiring refunds to customers. Each state regulatory commission generally sets rates based on a test year established in accordance with that commission's policies. The test year data adopted by each state regulatory commission may create a lag between the incurrence of a cost and its recovery in rates. Each state regulatory commission also decides the allowed levels of expense, investment and capital structure that it deems are prudently incurred in providing the service and may disallow recovery in rates for any costs that it believes do not meet such standard. Additionally, each state regulatory commission establishes the allowed rate of return the Utilities will be given an opportunity to earn on their sources of capital. While rate regulation is premised on providing a fair opportunity to earn a reasonable rate of return on invested capital, the state regulatory commissions do not guarantee that each Registrant will be able to realize the allowed rate of return or recover all of its costs even if it believes such costs to be prudently incurred.

Some state regulatory commissions have authorized recovery of certain costs above the level assumed in establishing base rates through adjustment mechanisms, which may be subject to customer sharing. Any significant increase in fuel costs for electricity generation or purchased electricity costs could have a negative impact on the Utilities, despite efforts to minimize this impact through the use of hedging contracts and adjustment mechanisms or through future general regulatory rate reviews. Any of these consequences could adversely affect each Registrant's financial results.

FERC Jurisdiction

The FERC authorizes cost-based rates associated with transmission services provided by the Utilities' transmission facilities. Under the Federal Power Act, the Utilities, or MISO as it relates to MidAmerican Energy, may voluntarily file, or may be obligated to file, for changes, including general rate changes, to their system-wide transmission service rates. General rate changes implemented may be subject to refund. The FERC also has responsibility for approving both cost- and market-based rates under which the Utilities sell electricity in the wholesale market, has jurisdiction over most of PacifiCorp's hydroelectric generating facilities and has broad jurisdiction over energy markets. The FERC may impose price limitations, bidding rules and other mechanisms to address some of the volatility of these markets or could revoke or restrict the ability of the Utilities to sell electricity at market-based rates, which could adversely affect each Registrant's financial results. The FERC also maintains rules concerning standards of conduct, affiliate restrictions, interlocking directorates and cross-subsidization. As a transmission owning member of MISO, MidAmerican Energy is also subject to MISO-directed modifications of market rules, which are subject to FERC approval and operational procedures. As participants in EIM, PacifiCorp, Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific are also subject to applicable California ISO rules, which are subject to FERC approval and operational procedures. The FERC may also impose substantial civil penalties for any non-compliance with the Federal Power Act and the FERC's rules and orders.

The NERC has standards in place to ensure the reliability of the electric generation system and transmission grid. The Utilities are subject to the NERC's regulations and periodic audits to ensure compliance with those regulations. The NERC may carry out enforcement actions for non-compliance and administer significant financial penalties, subject to the FERC's review.

The FERC has jurisdiction over, among other things, the construction, abandonment, modification and operation of natural gas pipelines and related facilities used in the transportation, storage and sale of natural gas in interstate commerce, including all rates, charges and terms and conditions of service. The FERC also has market transparency authority and has adopted additional reporting and internet posting requirements for natural gas pipelines and buyers and sellers of natural gas.

Rates for the interstate natural gas transmission and storage operations at the Pipeline Companies, which include reservation, commodity, surcharges, fuel and gas lost and unaccounted for charges, are authorized by the FERC. In accordance with the FERC's rate-making principles, the Pipeline Companies' current maximum tariff rates are designed to recover prudently incurred costs included in their pipeline system's regulatory cost of service that are associated with the construction, operation and maintenance of their pipeline system and to afford the Pipeline Companies an opportunity to earn a reasonable rate of return. Nevertheless, the rates the FERC authorizes the Pipeline Companies to charge their customers may not be sufficient to recover the costs incurred to provide services in any given period. Moreover, from time to time, the FERC may change, alter or refine its policies or methodologies for establishing pipeline rates and terms and conditions of service. In addition, the FERC has the authority under Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act of 1938 ("NGA") to investigate whether a pipeline may be earning more than its allowed rate of return and, when appropriate, to institute proceedings against such pipeline to prospectively reduce rates. Any such proceedings, if instituted, could result in significantly adverse rate decreases.

Under FERC policy, interstate pipelines and their customers may execute contracts at negotiated rates, which may be above or below the maximum tariff rate for that service or the pipeline may agree to provide a discounted rate, which would be a rate between the maximum and minimum tariff rates. In a rate proceeding, rates in these contracts are generally not subject to adjustment. It is possible that the cost to perform services under negotiated or discounted rate contracts will exceed the cost used in the determination of the negotiated or discounted rates, which could result either in losses or lower rates of return for providing such services. Under certain circumstances, FERC policy allows interstate natural gas pipelines to design new
90


maximum tariff rates to recover such costs in regulatory rate reviews. However, with respect to discounts granted to affiliates, the interstate natural gas pipeline must demonstrate that the discounted rate was necessary in order to meet competition.

GEMA Jurisdiction

The Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies, as Distribution Network Operators ("DNOs") and holders of electricity distribution licenses, are subject to regulation by GEMA. Most of the revenue of a DNO is controlled by a distribution price control formula set out in the electricity distribution license. The price control formula does not directly constrain profits from year-to-year, but is a control on revenue that operates independent of a significant portion of the DNO's actual costs. A resetting of the formula does not require the consent of the DNO, but if a licensee disagrees with a change to its license it can appeal the matter to the United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority. GEMA is able to impose financial penalties on DNOs that contravene any of their electricity distribution license duties or certain of their duties under British law, or fail to achieve satisfactory performance of individual standards prescribed by GEMA. Any penalty imposed must be reasonable and may not exceed 10% of the DNO's revenue. During the term of any price control, additional costs have a direct impact on the financial results of the Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies.

AUC Jurisdiction

The AUC is an independent, quasi-judicial agency established by the province of Alberta, Canada, which is responsible for, among other things, approving the tariffs of transmission facility owners, including AltaLink, and distribution utilities, acquisitions of such transmission facility owners or utilities, and construction and operation of new transmission projects in Alberta. The AUC also investigates and rules on regulated rate disputes and system access problems.

The AUC regulates and oversees Alberta's electricity transmission sector with broad authority that may impact many of AltaLink's activities, including its tariffs, rates, construction, operations and financing. The AUC has various core functions in regulating the Alberta electricity transmission sector, including the following:
regulating and adjudicating issues related to the operation of electric utilities within Alberta;
processing and approving general tariff applications relating to revenue requirements and rates of return including deemed capital structure for regulated utilities while ensuring that utility rates are just and reasonable and approval of the transmission tariff rates of regulated transmission providers by the AESO, which is the independent transmission system operator in Alberta that controls the operation of AltaLink's transmission system;
approving the need for new electricity transmission facilities and permits to build and licenses to operate electricity transmission facilities;
reviewing operations and accounts from electric utilities and conducting on-site inspections to ensure compliance with industry regulations and standards;
adjudicating enforcement issues including the imposition of administrative penalties that arise when market participants violate the rules of the AESO; and
collecting, storing, analyzing, appraising and disseminating information to effectively fulfill its duties as an industry regulator.

In addition, AUC approval is required in connection with new energy and regulated utility initiatives in Alberta, amendments to existing approvals and financing proposals by designated utilities.

Physical or cyber attacks, both threatened and actual, could impact each Registrant's operations and could adversely affect its financial results.

Each Registrant relies on technology in virtually all aspects of its business. Like those of many large businesses, certain of the Registrant's technology systems have been subject to computer viruses, malicious codes, unauthorized access, phishing efforts, denial-of-service attacks and other cyber attacks and each Registrant expects to be subject to similar attacks in the future as such attacks become more sophisticated and frequent. A significant disruption or failure of its technology systems by physical or cyber attack could result in service interruptions, safety failures, security events, regulatory compliance failures, an inability to protect information and assets against unauthorized users, and other operational difficulties. Attacks perpetrated against each Registrant's systems could result in loss of assets and critical information and expose it to remediation costs and reputational damage.

91


Although the Registrants have taken steps intended to mitigate these risks, a significant disruption or cyber intrusion could adversely affect each Registrant's financial results. Cyber attacks could further adversely affect each Registrant's ability to operate facilities, information technology and business systems, or compromise sensitive customer and employee information. In addition, physical or cyber attacks against key suppliers or service providers could have a similar effect on each Registrant. Additionally, if each Registrant is unable to acquire, develop, implement, adopt or protect rights around new technology, it may suffer a competitive disadvantage.

Each Registrant is actively pursuing, developing and constructing new or expanded facilities, the completion and expected costs of which are subject to significant risk, and each Registrant has significant funding needs related to its planned capital expenditures.

Each Registrant actively pursues, develops and constructs new or expanded facilities. Each Registrant expects to incur significant annual capital expenditures over the next several years. Such expenditures may include construction and other costs for new electricity generating facilities, electric transmission or distribution projects, environmental control and compliance systems, natural gas storage facilities, new or expanded pipeline systems, and continued maintenance and upgrades of existing assets.

Development and construction of major facilities are subject to substantial risks, including fluctuations in the price and availability of commodities, manufactured goods, equipment, and the imposition of tariffs thereon when sourced by foreign providers, labor, siting and permitting and changes in environmental and operational compliance matters, load forecasts and other items over a multi-year construction period, as well as counterparty risk and the economic viability of the Registrants' suppliers, customers and contractors. Certain of the Registrants' construction projects are substantially dependent upon a single supplier or contractor and replacement of such supplier or contractor may be difficult and cannot be assured. These risks may result in the inability to timely complete a project or higher than expected costs to complete an asset and place it in-service and, in extreme cases, the loss of the power purchase agreements or other long-term off-take contracts underlying such projects. Such costs may not be recoverable in the regulated rates or market or contract prices each Registrant is able to charge its customers. Delays in construction of renewable projects may result in delayed in-service dates which may result in the loss of anticipated revenue or income tax benefits. It is also possible that additional generation needs may be obtained through power purchase agreements, which could increase long-term purchase obligations and force reliance on the operating performance of a third party. The inability to successfully and timely complete a project, avoid unexpected costs or recover any such costs could adversely affect such Registrant's financial results.

Furthermore, each Registrant depends upon both internal and external sources of liquidity to provide working capital and to fund capital requirements. If BHE does not provide needed funding to its subsidiaries and the subsidiaries are unable to obtain funding from external sources, they may need to postpone or cancel planned capital expenditures.

A significant sustained decrease in demand for electricity or natural gas in the markets served by each Registrant would decrease its operating revenue, could impact its planned capital expenditures and could adversely affect its financial results.

A significant sustained decrease in demand for electricity or natural gas in the markets served by each Registrant would decrease its operating revenue, could impact its planned capital expenditures and could adversely affect its financial results. Factors that could lead to a decrease in market demand include, among others:
a depression, recession or other adverse economic condition that results in a lower level of economic activity or reduced spending by consumers on electricity or natural gas;
an increase in the market price of electricity or natural gas or a decrease in the price of other competing forms of energy;
shifts in competitively priced natural gas supply sources away from the sources connected to the Pipeline Companies' systems, including shale gas sources;
efforts by customers, legislators and regulators to reduce the consumption of electricity generated or distributed by each Registrant through various existing laws and regulations, as well as, deregulation, conservation, energy efficiency and private generation measures and programs;
laws mandating or encouraging renewable energy sources, which may decrease the demand for electricity and natural gas or change the market prices of these commodities;
higher fuel taxes or other governmental or regulatory actions that increase, directly or indirectly, the cost of natural gas or other fuel sources for electricity generation or that limit the use of natural gas or the generation of electricity from fossil fuels;
92


a shift to more energy-efficient or alternative fuel machinery or an improvement in fuel economy, whether as a result of technological advances by manufacturers, legislation mandating higher fuel economy or lower emissions, price differentials, incentives or otherwise;
a reduction in the state or federal subsidies or tax incentives that are provided to agricultural, industrial or other customers, or a significant sustained change in prices for commodities such as ethanol or corn for ethanol manufacturers; and
sustained mild weather that reduces heating or cooling needs.

Each Registrant's operating results may fluctuate on a seasonal and quarterly basis and may be adversely affected by weather.

In most parts of the United States and other markets in which each Registrant operates, demand for electricity peaks during the summer months when irrigation and cooling needs are higher. Market prices for electricity also generally peak at that time. In other areas, including the western portion of PacifiCorp's service territory, demand for electricity peaks during the winter when heating needs are higher. In addition, demand for natural gas and other fuels generally peaks during the winter. This is especially true in MidAmerican Energy's and Sierra Pacific's retail natural gas businesses. Further, extreme weather conditions, such as heat waves, winter storms or floods could cause these seasonal fluctuations to be more pronounced. Periods of low rainfall or snowpack may negatively impact electricity generation at PacifiCorp's hydroelectric generating facilities, which may result in greater purchases of electricity from the wholesale market or from other sources at market prices. Additionally, PacifiCorp and MidAmerican Energy have added substantial wind-powered generating capacity, and BHE's unregulated subsidiaries are adding solar and wind-powered generating capacity, each of which is also a climate-dependent resource.

As a result, the overall financial results of each Registrant may fluctuate substantially on a seasonal and quarterly basis. Each Registrant has historically provided less service, and consequently earned less income, when weather conditions are mild. Unusually mild weather in the future may adversely affect each Registrant's financial results through lower revenue or margins. Conversely, unusually extreme weather conditions could increase each Registrant's costs to provide services and could adversely affect its financial results. The extent of fluctuation in each Registrant's financial results may change depending on a number of factors related to its regulatory environment and contractual agreements, including its ability to recover energy costs, the existence of revenue sharing provisions as it relates to MidAmerican Energy and Nevada Power, and terms of its wholesale sale contracts.

Each Registrant is subject to market risk associated with the wholesale energy markets, which could adversely affect its financial results.

In general, each Registrant's primary market risk is adverse fluctuations in the market price of wholesale electricity and fuel, including natural gas, coal and fuel oil, which is compounded by volumetric changes affecting the availability of or demand for electricity and fuel. The market price of wholesale electricity may be influenced by several factors, such as the adequacy or type of generating capacity, scheduled and unscheduled outages of generating facilities, prices and availability of fuel sources for generation, disruptions or constraints to transmission and distribution facilities, weather conditions, demand for electricity, economic growth and changes in technology. Volumetric changes are caused by fluctuations in generation or changes in customer needs that can be due to the weather, electricity and fuel prices, the economy, regulations or customer behavior. For example, the Utilities purchase electricity and fuel in the open market as part of their normal operating businesses. If market prices rise, especially in a time when larger than expected volumes must be purchased at market prices, the Utilities may incur significantly greater expense than anticipated. Likewise, if electricity market prices decline in a period when the Utilities are a net seller of electricity in the wholesale market, the Utilities could earn less revenue. Although the Utilities have ECAMs, the risks associated with changes in market prices may not be fully mitigated due to customer sharing bands as it relates to PacifiCorp and other factors.

Potential terrorist activities and the impact of military or other actions, could adversely affect each Registrant's financial results.

The ongoing threat of terrorism and the impact of military or other actions by nations or politically, ethnically or religiously motivated organizations regionally or globally may create increased political, economic, social and financial market instability, which could subject each Registrant's operations to increased risks. Additionally, the United States government has issued warnings that energy assets, specifically pipeline, nuclear generation, transmission and other electric utility infrastructure, are potential targets for terrorist attacks. Political, economic, social or financial market instability or damage to or interference with the operating assets of the Registrants, customers or suppliers may result in business interruptions, lost revenue, higher commodity prices, disruption in fuel supplies, lower energy consumption and unstable markets, particularly with respect to
93


electricity and natural gas, and increased security, repair or other costs, any of which may materially adversely affect each Registrant in ways that cannot be predicted at this time. Any of these risks could materially affect its consolidated financial results. Furthermore, instability in the financial markets as a result of terrorism or war could also materially adversely affect each Registrant's ability to raise capital.

Certain Registrants are subject to the unique risks associated with nuclear generation.

The ownership and operation of nuclear power plants, such as MidAmerican Energy's 25% ownership interest in Quad Cities Station, involves certain risks. These risks include, among other items, mechanical or structural problems, inadequacy or lapses in maintenance protocols, the impairment of reactor operation and safety systems due to human error, the costs of storage, handling and disposal of nuclear materials, compliance with and changes in regulation of nuclear power plants, limitations on the amounts and types of insurance coverage commercially available, and uncertainties with respect to the technological and financial aspects of decommissioning nuclear facilities at the end of their useful lives. Additionally, Exelon Generation, the 75% owner and operator of the facility, may respond to the occurrence of any of these or other risks in a manner that negatively impacts MidAmerican Energy, including closure of Quad Cities Station prior to the expiration of its operating license. The prolonged unavailability, or early closure, of Quad Cities Station due to operational or economic factors could have a materially adverse effect on the relevant Registrant's financial results, particularly when the cost to produce power at the plant is significantly less than market wholesale prices. The following are among the more significant of these risks:
Operational Risk - Operations at any nuclear power plant could degrade to the point where the plant would have to be shut down. If such degradations were to occur, the process of identifying and correcting the causes of the operational downgrade to return the plant to operation could require significant time and expense, resulting in both lost revenue and increased fuel and purchased electricity costs to meet supply commitments. Rather than incurring substantial costs to restart the plant, the plant could be shut down. Furthermore, a shut-down or failure at any other nuclear power plant could cause regulators to require a shut-down or reduced availability at Quad Cities Station.
In addition, issues relating to the disposal of nuclear waste material, including the availability, unavailability and expense of a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel could adversely impact operations as well as the cost and ability to decommission nuclear power plants, including Quad Cities Station, in the future.

Regulatory Risk - The NRC may modify, suspend or revoke licenses and impose civil penalties for failure to comply with applicable Atomic Energy Act regulations or the terms of the licenses of nuclear facilities. Unless extended, the NRC operating licenses for Quad Cities Station will expire in 2032. Changes in regulations by the NRC could require a substantial increase in capital expenditures or result in increased operating or decommissioning costs.

Nuclear Accident and Catastrophic Risks - Accidents and other unforeseen catastrophic events have occurred at nuclear facilities other than Quad Cities Station, both in the United States and elsewhere, such as at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan as a result of the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. The consequences of an accident or catastrophic event can be severe and include loss of life and property damage. Any resulting liability from a nuclear accident or catastrophic event could exceed the relevant Registrant's resources, including insurance coverage.

Certain of BHE's subsidiaries are subject to the risk that customers will not renew their contracts or that BHE's subsidiaries will be unable to obtain new customers for expanded capacity, each of which could adversely affect its financial results.

If BHE's subsidiaries are unable to renew, remarket, or find replacements for their customer agreements on favorable terms, BHE's subsidiaries' sales volumes and operating revenue would be exposed to reduction and increased volatility. For example, without the benefit of long-term transportation agreements, BHE cannot assure that the Pipeline Companies will be able to transport natural gas at efficient capacity levels. Substantially all of the Pipeline Companies' revenues are generated under transportation, storage and LNG contracts that periodically must be renegotiated and extended or replaced, and the Pipeline Companies are dependent upon relatively few customers for a substantial portion of their revenue. Similarly, without long-term power purchase agreements, BHE cannot assure that its unregulated power generators will be able to operate profitably. Failure to maintain existing long-term agreements or secure new long-term agreements, or being required to discount rates significantly upon renewal or replacement, could adversely affect BHE's consolidated financial results. The replacement of any existing long-term agreements depends on market conditions and other factors that may be beyond BHE's subsidiaries' control.

94


Each Registrant is subject to counterparty risk, which could adversely affect its financial results.

Each Registrant is subject to counterparty credit risk related to contractual payment obligations with wholesale suppliers and customers. Adverse economic conditions or other events affecting counterparties with whom each Registrant conducts business could impair the ability of these counterparties to meet their payment obligations. Each Registrant depends on these counterparties to remit payments on a timely basis. Each Registrant continues to monitor the creditworthiness of its wholesale suppliers and customers in an attempt to reduce the impact of any potential counterparty default. If strategies used to minimize these risk exposures are ineffective or if any Registrant's wholesale suppliers' or customers' financial condition deteriorates or they otherwise become unable to pay, it could have a significant adverse impact on each Registrant's liquidity and its financial results.

Each Registrant is subject to counterparty performance risk related to performance of contractual obligations by wholesale suppliers, customers and contractors. Each Registrant relies on wholesale suppliers to deliver commodities, primarily natural gas, coal and electricity, in accordance with short- and long-term contracts. Failure or delay by suppliers to provide these commodities pursuant to existing contracts could disrupt the delivery of electricity and require the Utilities to incur additional expenses to meet customer needs. In addition, when these contracts terminate, the Utilities may be unable to purchase the commodities on terms equivalent to the terms of current contracts.

Each Registrant relies on wholesale customers to take delivery of the energy they have committed to purchase. Failure of customers to take delivery may require the relevant Registrant to find other customers to take the energy at lower prices than the original customers committed to pay. If each Registrant's wholesale customers are unable to fulfill their obligations, there may be a significant adverse impact on its financial results.

The Northern Powergrid Distribution Companies' customers are concentrated in a small number of electricity supply businesses with RWE Npower PLC and British Gas Trading Limited accounting for approximately 15% and 12%, respectively, of distribution revenue in 2020. AltaLink's primary source of operating revenue is the AESO. Generally, a single customer purchases the energy from BHE's independent power projects in the United States and the Philippines pursuant to long-term power purchase agreements. For example, certain of BHE Renewables' solar and wind independent power projects sell all of their electrical production to either Pacific Gas and Electric Company or Southern California Edison Company, respectively. Any material payment or other performance failure by the counterparties in these arrangements could have a significant adverse impact on BHE's consolidated financial results.

BHE owns investments and projects in foreign countries that are exposed to risks related to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates and increased economic, regulatory and political risks.

BHE's business operations and investments outside the United States increase its risk related to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, primarily the British pound and the Canadian dollar. BHE's principal reporting currency is the United States dollar, and the value of the assets and liabilities, earnings, cash flows and potential distributions from its foreign operations changes with the fluctuations of the currency in which they transact. BHE indirectly owns a hydroelectric power plant in the Philippines and may acquire significant energy-related investments and projects outside of the United States. BHE may selectively reduce some foreign currency exchange rate risk by, among other things, requiring contracted amounts be settled in, or indexed to, United States dollars or a currency freely convertible into United States dollars, or hedging through foreign currency derivatives. These efforts, however, may not be effective and could negatively affect BHE's consolidated financial results.

In addition to any disruption in the global financial markets, the economic, regulatory and political conditions in some of the countries where BHE has operations or is pursuing investment opportunities may present increased risks related to, among others, inflation, foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, currency repatriation restrictions, nationalization, renegotiation, privatization, availability of financing on suitable terms, customer creditworthiness, construction delays, business interruption, political instability, civil unrest, guerilla activity, terrorism, pandemics (including potentially in relation to COVID-19), expropriation, trade sanctions, contract nullification and changes in law, regulations or tax policy. BHE may not choose to or be capable of either fully insuring against or effectively hedging these risks.

Poor performance of plan and fund investments and other factors impacting the pension and other postretirement benefit plans and nuclear decommissioning and mine reclamation trust funds could unfavorably impact each Registrant's cash flows, liquidity and financial results.

Costs of providing each Registrant's defined benefit pension and other postretirement benefit plans and costs associated with the joint trustee plan to which PacifiCorp contributes depend upon a number of factors, including the rates of return on plan assets,
95


the level and nature of benefits provided, discount rates, mortality assumptions, the interest rates used to measure required minimum funding levels, the funded status of the plans, changes in benefit design, tax deductibility and funding limits, changes in laws and government regulation and each Registrant's required or voluntary contributions made to the plans. Furthermore, the timing of recognition of unrecognized gains and losses associated with the Registrants' defined benefit pension plans is subject to volatility due to events that may give rise to settlement accounting. Settlement events resulting from lump sum distributions offered by certain of the Registrants' defined benefit pension plans are influenced by the interest rates used to discount a participant's lump sum distribution. When the applicable interest rates are low, lump sum distributions in a given year tend to increase resulting in a higher likelihood of triggering settlement accounting.

Certain of the Registrant's pension and other postretirement benefit plans are in underfunded positions. Each Registrant may be required to make cash contributions to fund these plans in the future. Additionally, each Registrant's plans have investments in domestic and foreign equity and debt securities and other investments that are subject to loss. Losses from investments could add to the volatility, size and timing of future contributions.

Furthermore, the funded status of the UMWA 1974 Pension Plan multiemployer plan to which PacifiCorp's subsidiary previously contributed is considered critical and declining. PacifiCorp's subsidiary involuntarily withdrew from the UMWA 1974 Pension Plan in June 2015 when the UMWA employees ceased performing work for the subsidiary. PacifiCorp has recorded its best estimate of the withdrawal obligation.

In addition, MidAmerican Energy is required to fund over time the projected costs of decommissioning Quad Cities Station, a nuclear power plant, and Bridger Coal Company, a joint venture of PacifiCorp's subsidiary, Pacific Minerals, Inc., is required to fund projected mine reclamation costs. The funds that MidAmerican Energy has invested in a nuclear decommissioning trust and a subsidiary of PacifiCorp has invested in a mine reclamation trust are invested in debt and equity securities and poor performance of these investments will reduce the amount of funds available for their intended purpose, which could require MidAmerican Energy or PacifiCorp's subsidiary to make additional cash contributions. As contributions to the trust are being made over the operating life of the respective facility, reductions in the expected operating life of the facility could also require MidAmerican Energy and PacifiCorp's subsidiary to make additional contributions to the related trust. Such cash funding obligations, which are also impacted by the other factors described above, could have a material impact on MidAmerican Energy's or PacifiCorp's liquidity by reducing their available cash.

Inflation and changes in commodity prices and fuel transportation costs may adversely affect each Registrant's financial results.

Inflation and increases in commodity prices and fuel transportation costs may affect each Registrant by increasing both operating and capital costs. As a result of existing rate agreements, contractual arrangements or competitive price pressures, each Registrant may not be able to pass the costs of inflation on to its customers. If each Registrant is unable to manage cost increases or pass them on to its customers, its financial results could be adversely affected.

Cyclical fluctuations and competition in the residential real estate brokerage and mortgage businesses could adversely affect HomeServices.

The residential real estate brokerage and mortgage industries tend to experience cycles of greater and lesser activity and profitability and are typically affected by changes in economic conditions, which are beyond HomeServices' control. Any of the following, among others, are examples of items that could have a material adverse effect on HomeServices' businesses by causing a general decline in the number of home sales, sale prices or the number of home financings which, in turn, would adversely affect its financial results:
rising interest rates or unemployment rates, including a sustained high unemployment rate in the United States;
periods of economic slowdown or recession in the markets served or the adverse effects on market actions as a result of the actual or potential spread of COVID-19;
decreasing home affordability;
lack of available mortgage credit for potential homebuyers, such as the reduced availability of credit, which may continue into future periods;
inadequate home inventory levels;
sources of new competition; and
changes in applicable tax law.
96


Disruptions in the financial markets could affect each Registrant's ability to obtain debt financing or to draw upon or renew existing credit facilities and have other adverse effects on each Registrant.

Disruptions in the financial markets could affect each Registrant's ability to obtain debt financing or to draw upon or renew existing credit facilities and have other adverse effects on each Registrant. Significant dislocations and liquidity disruptions in the United States, Great Britain, Canada and global credit markets, such as those that occurred in 2008 and 2009, may materially impact liquidity in the bank and debt capital markets, making financing terms less attractive for borrowers that are able to find financing and, in other cases, may cause certain types of debt financing, or any financing, to be unavailable. Additionally, economic uncertainty in the United States or globally may adversely affect the United States' credit markets and could negatively impact each Registrant's ability to access funds on favorable terms or at all. If a Registrant is unable to access the bank and debt markets to meet liquidity and capital expenditure needs, it may adversely affect the timing and amount of its capital expenditures, acquisition financing and its financial results.

Potential changes in accounting standards may impact each Registrant's financial results and disclosures in the future, which may change the way analysts measure each Registrant's business or financial performance.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") and the SEC continuously make changes to accounting standards and disclosure and other financial reporting requirements. New or revised accounting standards and requirements issued by the FASB or the SEC or new accounting orders issued by the FERC could significantly impact each Registrant's financial results and disclosures. For example, beginning in 2018 all changes in the fair values of equity securities (whether realized or unrealized) are recognized as gains or losses in the relevant Registrant's financial statements. Accordingly, periodic changes in such Registrant's reported net income will likely be subject to significant variability.

Each Registrant is involved in a variety of legal proceedings, the outcomes of which are uncertain and could adversely affect its financial results.

Each Registrant is, and in the future may become, a party to a variety of legal proceedings. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and the Registrants cannot predict the outcome of individual matters with certainty. It is possible that the final resolution of some of the matters in which each Registrant is involved could result in additional material payments substantially in excess of established liabilities or in terms that could require each Registrant to change business practices and procedures or divest ownership of assets. Further, litigation could result in the imposition of financial penalties or injunctions and adverse regulatory consequences, any of which could limit each Registrant's ability to take certain desired actions or the denial of needed permits, licenses or regulatory authority to conduct its business, including the siting or permitting of facilities. Any of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on such Registrant's financial results.

97


Item 1B.    Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable.

Item 2.    Properties

Each Registrant's energy properties consist of the physical assets necessary to support its electricity and natural gas businesses. Properties of the relevant Registrant's electricity businesses include electric generation, transmission and distribution facilities, as well as coal mining assets that support certain of PacifiCorp's electric generating facilities. Properties of the relevant Registrant's natural gas businesses include natural gas distribution facilities, interstate pipelines, storage facilities, liquefied natural gas facilities, compressor stations and meter stations. The transmission and distribution assets are primarily within each Registrant's service territories. In addition to these physical assets, the Registrants have rights-of-way, mineral rights and water rights that enable each Registrant to utilize its facilities. It is the opinion of each Registrant's management that the principal depreciable properties owned by it are in good operating condition and are well maintained. Pursuant to separate financing agreements, substantially all of PacifiCorp's electric utility properties, MidAmerican Energy's electric utility properties in the state of Iowa, Nevada Power's and Sierra Pacific's properties in the state of Nevada, AltaLink's transmission properties and substantially all of the assets of the subsidiaries of BHE Renewables that are direct or indirect owners of generation projects are pledged or encumbered to support or otherwise provide the security for the related subsidiary debt. For additional information regarding each Registrant's energy properties, refer to Item 1 of this Form 10-K and Notes 4, 5 and 22 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Berkshire Hathaway Energy in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, Notes 3 and 4 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of PacifiCorp in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, Notes 3 and 4 of the Notes to Financial Statements of MidAmerican Energy in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, Notes 3 and 4 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Nevada Power in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, Notes 3 and 4 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Sierra Pacific in Item 8 of this Form 10-K and Notes 4 and 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Eastern Energy Gas in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

The following table summarizes Berkshire Hathaway Energy's operating electric generating facilities as of December 31, 2020:
Facility NetNet Owned
EnergyCapacityCapacity
SourceEntityLocation by Significance(MWs)(MWs)
Natural gasPacifiCorp, MidAmerican Energy, NV Energy and BHE RenewablesNevada, Utah, Iowa, Illinois, Washington, Wyoming, Oregon, Texas, New York and Arizona11,17110,892
WindPacifiCorp, MidAmerican Energy and BHE RenewablesIowa, Wyoming, Texas, Nebraska, Washington, California, Illinois, Oregon, Kansas and Montana10,30210,302
CoalPacifiCorp, MidAmerican Energy and NV EnergyWyoming, Iowa, Utah, Nevada, Colorado and Montana13,2498,198
SolarBHE Renewables and NV EnergyCalifornia, Texas, Arizona, Minnesota and Nevada1,6991,551
HydroelectricPacifiCorp, MidAmerican Energy and BHE RenewablesWashington, Oregon, The Philippines, Idaho, California, Utah, Hawaii, Montana, Illinois and Wyoming1,2991,277
NuclearMidAmerican EnergyIllinois1,815454
GeothermalPacifiCorp and BHE RenewablesCalifornia and Utah377377
Total39,91233,051

Additionally, as of December 31, 2020 the Company has electric generating facilities that are under construction in Iowa, Wyoming and Montana having total Facility Net Capacity and Net Owned Capacity of 603 MWs.

98


The right to construct and operate each Registrant's electric transmission and distribution facilities and interstate natural gas pipelines across certain property was obtained in most circumstances through negotiations and, where necessary, through prescription, eminent domain or similar rights. PacifiCorp, MidAmerican Energy, Nevada Power, Sierra Pacific, BHE GT&S, Northern Natural Gas and Kern River in the United States; Northern Powergrid (Northeast) plc and Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc in Great Britain; and AltaLink in Alberta, Canada continue to have the power of eminent domain or similar rights in each of the jurisdictions in which they operate their respective facilities, but the United States and Canadian utilities do not have the power of eminent domain with respect to governmental, Native American or Canadian First Nations' tribal lands. Although the main Kern River pipeline crosses the Moapa Indian Reservation, all facilities in the Moapa Indian Reservation are located within a utility corridor that is reserved to the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

With respect to real property, each of the electric transmission and distribution facilities and interstate natural gas pipelines fall into two basic categories: (1) parcels that are owned in fee, such as certain of the electric generating facilities, electric substations, natural gas compressor stations, natural gas meter stations and office sites; and (2) parcels where the interest derives from leases, easements (including prescriptive easements), rights-of-way, permits or licenses from landowners or governmental authorities permitting the use of such land for the construction, operation and maintenance of the electric transmission and distribution facilities and interstate natural gas pipelines. Each Registrant believes it has satisfactory title or interest to all of the real property making up their respective facilities in all material respects.

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

PacifiCorp

On September 30, 2020, a putative class action complaint against PacifiCorp was filed, captioned Jeanyne James et. al. vs. PacifiCorp, Case No. 20cv33885, Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon. The complaint was filed on behalf of certain named Oregon residents and businesses and all Oregon citizens and entities whose real or personal property was harmed by wildfires in Oregon beginning on or after September 7, 2020. The complaint alleges that PacifiCorp's assets contributed to the Oregon wildfires occurring on or after September 7, 2020 and that PacifiCorp acted with gross negligence, among other things. The complaint was amended November 2, 2020 to seek the following damages: (i) damages for real and personal property and other economic losses in excess of $600 million; (ii) double the amount of property and economic damages based on alleged gross negligence; (iii) treble damages for specific costs associated with loss of timber, trees and shrubbery; (iv) double the damages for the costs of litigation and reforestation; and (v) prejudgment interest. The plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and have reserved their right to amend the complaint to allege claims for punitive damages. Other individual lawsuits alleging similar claims have been filed in Oregon related to the 2020 wildfires. Investigations as to the cause and origin of the wildfires are ongoing.

For more information regarding certain legal proceedings affecting PacifiCorp, refer to Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of PacifiCorp in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Item 4.    Mine Safety Disclosures

Information regarding Berkshire Hathaway Energy's and PacifiCorp's mine safety violations and other legal matters disclosed in accordance with Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Reform Act is included in Exhibit 95 to this Form 10-K.

99


PART II

Item 5.    Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY

BHE's common stock is beneficially owned by Berkshire Hathaway, Mr. Walter Scott, Jr., a member of BHE's Board of Directors (along with his family members and related or affiliated entities) and Mr. Gregory E. Abel, BHE's Chairman, and has not been registered with the SEC pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, listed on a stock exchange or otherwise publicly held or traded. BHE has not declared or paid any cash dividends to its common shareholders since Berkshire Hathaway acquired an equity ownership interest in BHE in March 2000 and does not presently anticipate that it will declare any dividends on its common stock in the foreseeable future.

PACIFICORP

All common stock of PacifiCorp is held by its parent company, PPW Holdings LLC, which is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of BHE. PacifiCorp declared and paid dividends to PPW Holdings LLC of $— million in 2020 and $175 million in 2019.

MIDAMERICAN FUNDING AND MIDAMERICAN ENERGY

All common stock of MidAmerican Energy is held by its parent company, MHC, which is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of MidAmerican Funding. MidAmerican Funding is an Iowa limited liability company whose membership interest is held solely by BHE. Neither MidAmerican Funding nor MidAmerican Energy declared or paid any cash distributions or dividends to its sole member or shareholder in 2020 and 2019.

NEVADA POWER

All common stock of Nevada Power is held by its parent company, NV Energy, which is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of BHE. Nevada Power declared and paid dividends to NV Energy of $155 million in 2020 and $371 million in 2019.

SIERRA PACIFIC

All common stock of Sierra Pacific is held by its parent company, NV Energy, which is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of BHE. Sierra Pacific declared and paid dividends to NV Energy of $20 million in 2020 and $46 million in 2019.

EASTERN ENERGY GAS

Eastern Energy Gas is a Virginia limited liability corporation whose membership interest is held solely by its parent company, BHE GT&S, which is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of BHE. Eastern Energy Gas did not declare or pay cash distributions to BHE GT&S in 2020. Eastern Energy Gas declared and paid cash distributions to DEI of $4.3 billion in 2020 and $457 million in 2019.
100


Item 6.    Selected Financial Data
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company and its subsidiaries
PacifiCorp and its subsidiaries
MidAmerican Funding, LLC and its subsidiaries and MidAmerican Energy Company
Nevada Power Company and its subsidiaries
Sierra Pacific Power Company
Eastern Energy Gas Holdings, LLC and its subsidiaries

Item 7.    Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company and its subsidiaries
PacifiCorp and its subsidiaries
MidAmerican Funding, LLC and its subsidiaries and MidAmerican Energy Company
Nevada Power Company and its subsidiaries
Sierra Pacific Power Company
Eastern Energy Gas Holdings, LLC and its subsidiaries

Item 7A.    Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company and its subsidiaries
PacifiCorp and its subsidiaries
MidAmerican Funding, LLC and its subsidiaries and MidAmerican Energy Company
Nevada Power Company and its subsidiaries
Sierra Pacific Power Company
Eastern Energy Gas Holdings, LLC and its subsidiaries

101



Item 8.    Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company and its subsidiaries
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Balance Sheets
Consolidated Statements of Operations
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
PacifiCorp and its subsidiaries
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Balance Sheets
Consolidated Statements of Operations
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders' Equity
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
MidAmerican Energy Company
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Balance Sheets
Statements of Operations
Statements of Changes in Shareholder's Equity
Statements of Cash Flows
Notes to Financial Statements
MidAmerican Funding, LLC and its subsidiaries
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Balance Sheets
Consolidated Statements of Operations
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Member's Equity
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Nevada Power Company and its subsidiaries
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Balance Sheets
Consolidated Statements of Operations
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholder's Equity
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Sierra Pacific Power Company
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Balance Sheets
Statements of Operations
Statements of Changes in Shareholder's Equity
Statements of Cash Flows
Notes to Financial Statements
Eastern Energy Gas Holdings, LLC and its subsidiaries
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Balance Sheets
Consolidated Statements of Operations
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
102


Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company and its subsidiaries
Consolidated Financial Section
103


Item 6.    Selected Financial Data

Information required by Item 6 is omitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2)(a) to Form 10-K.

Item 7.    Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following is management's discussion and analysis of certain significant factors that have affected the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company during the periods included herein. Explanations include management's best estimate of the impact of weather, customer growth, usage trends and other factors. This discussion should be read in conjunction with the Company's historical Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K. The Company's actual results in the future could differ significantly from the historical results.

The reportable segment financial information includes all necessary adjustments and eliminations needed to conform to the Company's significant accounting policies. The differences between the reportable segment amounts and the consolidated amounts, described as BHE and Other, relate principally to other entities, corporate functions and intersegment eliminations.

Results of Operations

Overview

Net income and operating revenue for the Company's reportable segments for the years ended December 31 are summarized as follows (in millions):

20202019Change20192018Change
Operating revenue:
PacifiCorp$5,341 $5,068 $273 %$5,068 $5,026 $42 %
MidAmerican Funding2,728 2,927 (199)(7)2,927 3,053 (126)(4)
NV Energy2,854 3,037 (183)(6)3,037 3,039 (2)— 
Northern Powergrid1,022 1,013 1,013 1,020 (7)(1)
BHE Pipeline Group1,578 1,131