Key Sustainability Indicators
Business
- √
- target met or exceeded
- —
- target not met
| Metric | 2016 Target | 2016 Result | Meets Target | 2017 Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gas Operations | ||||
| Strength-Tested Transmission Pipeline (miles) |
80 | 89 | √ target met or exceeded | 242 |
| Transmission Pipeline Replacement (miles) |
8 | 22 | √ target met or exceeded | 30 |
| Valves Automated (number of valves) |
26 | 33 | √ target met or exceeded | 35 |
| Retrofitted Transmission Pipeline (miles) |
111 | 107 | — target met or exceeded | 132 |
| Gas Dig-Ins Footnote 1 (dig-ins per 1,000 Underground Service Alert tickets) |
2.03 | 2.02 | √ target met or exceeded | 1.92 |
| Electric Operations Footnote 2 | ||||
| System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) average number of outages per customer |
0.892 | 1.022 | — target met or exceeded | 1.00 |
| System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) average duration of outages per customer in minutes |
96.3 | 108.9 | — target met or exceeded | 107.0 |
| Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI) average restoration time per outage in minutes |
108.0 | 106.7 | √ target met or exceeded | 107.0 |
| Nuclear Operations | ||||
| Unit 1 Performance Indicator Footnote 3a | 98.7 | 100.00 | √ target met or exceeded | 90.5 |
| Unit 2 Performance Indicator Footnote 3b | 98.7 | 90.0 | — target met or exceeded | 87.6 |
| Compliance and Risk Management | ||||
| Employees Completing Annual Compliance and Ethics Training | 99.8% | 99.4% | — target met or exceeded | 99.8% |
| Management Employees Completing Annual Code of Conduct Training | 99.8% | 99.8% | √ target met or exceeded | 99.8% |
- 1. Total number of third-party dig-ins (i.e., damage from a third party resulting in repair or replacement of an underground facility). Definition of exclusions slightly adjusted in 2016 to align with benchmarks. ▲
- 2. The slight decline in year-over-year reliability can mostly be attributed to stormy El Niño weather early in the year. ▲
- 3. Refers to the sum of 12 performance indicators for nuclear power generation reported to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations and compared to industry benchmarks. ▲ 3a, 3b
Safety
- √
- target met or exceeded
- —
- target not met
| Metric | 2016 Target | 2016 Result | Meets Target | 2017 Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Safety | ||||
| Leak Repair Performance Footnote 1 (number at year-end) |
100 or fewer | 52 | √ target met or exceeded | 100 or fewer |
| Gas Emergency Response Footnote 2 (minutes) |
21.00 | 20.02 | √ target met or exceeded | 21.00 |
| Transmission & Distribution Wires Down Footnote 3 (number of instances) |
2,572 | 3,299 | — target not met | N/A Footnote 4 |
| Electric Overhead Conductor Index Footnote 4 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 1.00 |
| Electric Emergency Response Footnote 5 (percentage within 60 minutes) |
97.5% | 98.3% | √ target met or exceeded | 97.5% |
| Workplace Safety | ||||
| Lost Workday Case Rate Footnote 6 | 0.320 | 0.402 | — target not met | 0.339 |
| Serious Preventable Motor Vehicle Incident Rate Footnote 7 | 0.239 | 0.280 | — target not met | 0.239 |
| Timely Reporting of Injuries Footnote 8 | 67.1% | 67.3% | √ | 71.3% |
- 1. Number of grade 2 and 2+ leaks open at year-end. Grade 2 and 2+ leaks are minor and non-hazardous. ▲
- 2. Average response time in minutes to an immediate response gas emergency order. ▲
- 3. Number of unplanned sustained outage events involving at least one downed overhead electric transmission or primary distribution conductor. ▲
- 4. For 2017, this metric is changing and will track the successful completion of three key work activities: (1) circuit miles of electric distribution infrared inspections completed, (2) circuit miles of distribution electric conductor upgraded/replaced, and (3) number of trees trimmed/removed as part of the vegetation management program. This public and employee safety metric supports the prevention of distribution conductor failures resulting in wires down. This metric will replace the Transmission & Distribution Wires Down metric. ▲
- 5. Percentage of time that PG&E personnel are on site within 60 minutes after receiving a 911 call of a potential PG&E electric hazard. ▲
- 6. Number of lost workday cases incurred per 200,000 hours worked (or for approximately every 100 employees). ▲
- 7. Number of serious preventable motor vehicle incidents occurring that the driver could have reasonably avoided, per 1 million miles driven. ▲
- 8. Percentage of work-related injuries reported to the 24/7 Nurse Report Line within one day of the incident. ▲
Customers and Communities
- √
- target met or exceeded
- —
- target not met
| Metric | 2016 Target | 2016 Result | Meets Target | 2017 Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customer Satisfaction | ||||
| Customer Satisfaction Score Footnote 1 | 75.7 | 76.1 | √ target met or exceeded target not met | 76.4 |
| Gas and Electric Meter Billing Accuracy Footnote 2 (percentage of bills) |
99.73% | 99.74% | √ target met or exceeded | 99.68% |
| Energy Affordability | ||||
| Energy Savings Assistance Program (number of homes weatherized) |
119,940 | 74,319 | — target met or exceeded | 90,030 |
| California Alternative Rates for Energy (number of eligible customers enrolled) |
1,419,000 | 1,423,324 | √ target met or exceeded | 1,413,000 |
| Customer Energy Efficiency Footnote 3 | ||||
| Electricity Saved (GWh) | 1,236 | 1,406 | √ target met or exceeded | 1,144 |
| Natural Gas Saved (million therms) | 18.4 | 23.6 | √ target met or exceeded | 18.6 |
| Generation Capacity Avoided (MW) | 226 | 292 | √ target met or exceeded | 193 |
| Community Investments | ||||
| Charitable Contributions (percentage of pre-tax earnings from operations) |
1.1% | 1.2% | √ target met or exceeded | 1.1% |
| Supplier Diversity | ||||
| Spending on Certified Diverse Suppliers (percentage) |
42.0% | 44.4% | √ target met or exceeded | 42.0% |
- 1. Overall satisfaction of customers with the products and services offered by PG&E, as measured through a quarterly survey. Each year, we calibrate our customer satisfaction performance using results from J.D. Power’s Utility Customer Satisfaction Studies. This comparison helps us set our goal for next year, as we aim to achieve second quartile performance in customer satisfaction. ▲
- 2. Refers to the percentage of bills that are not adjusted after being mailed to the customer. Each year, a very small percentage of bills must be estimated, largely due to intermittent connectivity (similar to a cell phone temporarily losing its connection). ▲
- 3. Data refers to annual energy savings or the first-year impacts associated with installed customer energy efficiency projects. Targets are based on mandated energy efficiency savings as agreed upon with the CPUC. ▲
Employees
- √
- target met or exceeded
- —
- target not met
| Metric | 2016 Target | 2016 Result | Meets Target | 2017 Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employee Engagement | ||||
| Employee Engagement Index Footnote 1 | 76 | 77 | √ | N/A Footnote 2 |
| Employee Volunteer Hours | 90,000 | 96,800 | √ target met or exceeded | 91,000 |
| Employee Giving Campaign Pledges/Donations (millions) |
$7.9 | $8.4 | √ target met or exceeded | $8.2 |
| Career Pathways | ||||
| Training Effectiveness Footnote 3 | 4.45 | 4.48 | √ target met or exceeded | 4.52 |
| PowerPathway graduates hired into industry jobs (percentage) |
82% | 82% | √ target met or exceeded | 82% |
| Health and Wellness | ||||
| Workforce Unavailable Due to Health Footnote 4 | 7.2% | 7.2% | √ target met or exceeded | 6.9% |
- 1. Percentage of favorable responses to questions on employee survey that measure employee engagement. ▲
- 2. There is no 2017 target because PG&E’s employee survey is fielded every two years to allow more time to execute on action plans to address issues identified in the survey. Conducting biennial surveys is consistent with best practice among companies. ▲
- 3. Measures the effectiveness of PG&E’s internal training program on a five-point scale through employee surveys on predictive data from employees on their ability to use training on the job. ▲
- 4. Percentage of full-time employees unavailable for work either due to long-term or short-term health reasons, as measured by total workdays lost for the entire year of 2016. ▲
Environment
- √
- target met or exceeded
- —
- target not met
| Metric | 2016 Target | 2016 Result | Meets Target | 2017 Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance | ||||
| Agency Inspections Without a Written Enforcement Action | 90% | 95% | √ target met or exceeded | 90% |
| Buildings and Facilities | ||||
| Additional Energy Use Reduction Footnote 1 | 2.0% | 1.2% | — target not met | — Footnote 3a |
| Additional Water Use Reduction Footnote 2 | 3.5% | 0% | — target met or exceeded | — Footnote 3b |
| Waste Diversion Rate Footnote 4 | 80% | 80% | √ target not met | 80% |
| Natural Resource Stewardship | ||||
| “Bird-Safe” Utility Pole Retrofits | 2,000 | 2,068 | √ target met or exceeded | 2,000 |
| Clean Energy | ||||
| Renewable Portfolio Standard (average percentage of renewable energy delivered to customers, 2014 to 2016) |
23% | 32.8% | √ target met or exceeded | Average of 23% over 2014 to 2016 period |
| Supplier Sustainability | ||||
| Supplier Environmental Performance Standards Footnote 5 | 70% | 75% | √ target met or exceeded | 75% |
- 1. Energy use reduction is measured by comparing usage in MMBtus against the prior year at offices and service yards. In 2016, PG&E changed its methodology to measure energy use reduction on a square-foot basis. ▲
- 2. Water use reduction is measured by comparing usage in gallons against the prior year at offices and service yards. In 2016, PG&E changed its methodology to measure water use reduction on a square-foot basis. ▲
- 3. In 2017, PG&E is establishing new longer-term goals for reducing the environmental impact of our internal operations. ▲ 3a, 3b
- 4. The waste metric measures the rate at which waste was diverted from landfills in the final quarter of each year and includes all non-hazardous municipal waste at office facilities and service yards. ▲
- 5. Represents the percentage of top-tier suppliers (approximately 100 critical firms that represented about 60 percent of PG&E’s spend in 2016) that achieve a score of three or higher on a five-point scale relative to key elements of PG&E’s Supplier Environmental Performance Standards. Scoring is based on suppliers’ responses to an annual survey conducted by the Electric Utility Industry Sustainable Supply Chain Alliance. ▲