Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings won approval for its 13-director slate at its June 25 annual meeting, including President Tomoaki Kobayakawa. But the sharper message in the disclosure came from a group of 190 shareholders, which submitted proposals 2 through 9 and used the meeting to press the company over how it should finance any future accident at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station.
The company item itself was conventional: elect 13 directors. The report names 13 candidates and confirms that board proposal was approved.
The proposal that mattered
Proposal 2 sought to amend the Articles of Incorporation to create a compensation fund for accidents at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa. In its original form, the target was ¥23.4tn, explicitly tied to the damage amount from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. A floor amendment then cut the target to ¥3.8tn, but kept the same basic mechanism: the fund would be accumulated under a "beneficiary pays" principle by adding the cost to TEPCO Energy Partner's electricity-rate cost base, with customers bearing the charge.
| Feature | Original motion | Amended motion |
|---|---|---|
| Fund purpose | Create a compensation fund for accidents at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa | Create a compensation fund for accidents at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa |
| Target amount | ¥23.4tn | ¥3.8tn |
| Funding source | Cost added to TEPCO Energy Partner's electricity-rate cost base, borne by customers | Cost added to TEPCO Energy Partner's electricity-rate cost base, borne by customers |
That matters because the proposal was not just a general call for tighter oversight. It tried to write a named plant, a target amount and a funding source into the company's rulebook. Even after the amendment, the ask remained highly specific.
What the filing leaves open
The same report lists proposals 3 through 9 as additional amendments to the Articles of Incorporation. In the filing text provided here, those items are named but not described in detail. What is clear is the scale of the campaign: 190 shareholders co-filed proposals 2 through 9, keeping nuclear-risk governance on the AGM agenda even as TEPCO secured approval for its directors.
The filing text provided here also does not supply a detailed vote breakdown suitable for publication. So the clearest takeaway is about substance rather than tally math: TEPCO got its board slate through, while a sizeable shareholder bloc argued that any future Kashiwazaki-Kariwa accident liability should be explicit, pre-funded and ultimately borne through customer electricity charges. That is not a policy decision by TEPCO, but it is a clear record of where one bloc of shareholders wants the debate to go next.