SF Judge Finds PG&E Violated Probation, Ponders Further Action to Address Wildfire 'Emergency'
"PG&E is not the only source of these fires but it is a source," U.S. District Judge William Alsup wrote. "And it is really to most of us unthinkable that a public utility would be out there causing that kind of damage."
January 30, 2019 at 07:11 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The judge overseeing the aftermath of PG&E Corp.'s 2016 safety-related felony conviction has found the company violated the terms of its probation by failing to fully disclose an investigation into the utility's role in a 2017 California wildfire.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup stopped short of imposing additional penalties on PG&E, which recently filed for bankruptcy with counsel from Cravath, Swaine & Moore. But the judge did say he was considering a number of potential additional restrictions, including ordering it to comply with California regulations regarding clearing brush from power lines, or forcing the utility to power down during threatening weather conditions.
State fire authorities, the judge noted, have found that PG&E equipment sparked 17 wildfires in the state in just one month in October 2017.
“We cannot continue to sustain this kind of catastrophic injury to the state,” said Alsup, noting that nearly 3 percent of the state's total acreage has burned in the past two fire seasons. “PG&E is not the only source of these fires, but it is a source. And it is really to most of us unthinkable that a public utility would be out there causing that kind of damage.”
“We have to have electricity in this state, but can we have electricity that is delivered safely?” the judge said.
Alsup is overseeing PG&E's probation following the company's August 2016 conviction on six felony counts stemming from the 2010 pipeline explosion in San Bruno. The blast killed eight people and injured dozens more. Alsup inherited the case after Judge Thelton Henderson, who oversaw the trial, retired in 2017.
Alsup noted Wednesday at the onset of the three-hour hearing that although PG&E is a company, his role in overseeing probation mirrors what it would be in the case of an individual, such as a someone convicted on drug charges.
“Part of my duty is to supervise that offender and to make sure that we try to bring them into compliance to the law and to protect the public from further harms from the offender,” Alsup said.
Kate Dyer of Clarence Dyer & Cohen, a member of PG&E's defense team, said that the company had provided the probation office with notification in May 2018 the same day that it reached a settlement with state fire authorities over wildfires investigators concluded that PG&E caused in 2017. She said that the company further provided the probation office with disclosures it made to investors in SEC filings the following month about the settlement.
But federal probation officer Jennifer Hutchings testified that PG&E had failed to disclose that it was the subject of a full criminal investigation related to 2017 fires, something the company is required to do under the terms of its probation. Hutchings said that she should have been informed “in much further detail.” Dyer declined to cross-examine Hutchings, and the judge found that PG&E violated the terms of its probation immediately after the probation officer's testimony.
The remainder of the hearing involved Alsup hearing from a variety of parties—the company, federal prosecutors, the California Public Utilities Commission, CalFire, and plaintiffs lawyers who represent victims of recent wildfires—about the appropriate course of action going forward.
PG&E is due to file a draft of its plan to manage vegetation along its power lines to the CPUC next week, as mandated under state legislation passed last year. But Alsup urged PG&E not to wait until the end of a months-long regulatory review process to take action before the coming fire season, which unofficially begins at the beginning of summer.
“We need strong medicine, come June 21,” Alsup said. “It has to be in place. We can't still be talking about it.”
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: A $604.9M Trade Secrets Verdict With a Big Assist From a Juror Question
Litigators of the Week: A Reset in the Fight Over Nearly $2B in Bonds Issued by Venezuela's National Oil Company
How Kirkland & Ellis Litigators Became a National Brand in Oil and Gas
Dorsey & Whitney Hits Back Against Complaint Claiming Firm Dragged Its Feet on Malpractice Suit Against Fellow Big Firm
Trending Stories
- 1Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 2Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 3Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 4De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 5Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250