Judge proposes probation conditions on PG&E that could shut down power if winds are high

Plaintiffs' attorneys praised a San Francisco federal judge's proposals for imposing additional oversight as a part of the Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s probation, while accusing the regulatory agency in charge of overseeing the utility of inadequately upholding its duties.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup proposed to add conditions requiring PG&E to reinspect its entire electrical grid to remove all vegetation that could impact infrastructural operations, identify and repair faulty equipment, provide safety ratings for different areas and de-energize lines during high-risk weather conditions.

"Judge Alsup has done what the [California Public Utilities Commission] lacked the courage to do and is necessary to ensure the safety of the infrastructure for the supply of electricity to 15 million customers," said Frank Pitre, the lead plaintiffs' attorney for the North Bay fire cases who also represents Camp Fire survivors.

The order, which several attorneys said was somewhat unusual, is aimed at ensuring the "safety of California before the 2019 wildfire season," Alsup wrote. If the CPUC comes up with a better proposal, Alsup wrote that he would "consider conforming its proposed conditions to any such plan."

Laid out in the three proposals to modify PG&E's probation, the embattled utility would have to designate engineers to make safety determinations when it reinspects its electrical grid.

Utility engineers' ratings will be certified under penalty of perjury in writing because of "PG&E's history of falsification of inspection reports," Alsup wrote in the order to show cause why the utility's conditions of probation should not be modified.

PG&E is aware of the proposal and is reviewing it, according to company spokesperson James Noonan.

"We are committed to complying with all rules and regulations that apply to our work, while working together with our state and community partners and across all sectors and disciplines to develop comprehensive, long-term safety solutions for the future," he said.

The judge instructed PG&E to respond to his order to show cause by Jan. 23. U.S. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 14-CR175 (N.D. Cal., filed April 1, 2014).

He scheduled a hearing Jan. 30.

PG&E will most likely challenge Alsup's order on logistical grounds, according to plaintiffs' attorney Dario de Ghetaldi of Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi, & Riddle LLP, who added that "the powers of a judge over a criminal defendant whose on probation are fairly broad, subject to discretion and cannot easily be challenged."

Michael Danko of Danko Meredith, who represented victims of the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion that led to the embattled utility's probation and is representing Camp Fire survivors, agreed with de Ghetaldi that judges can change the terms of probation "lickety split without jumping through a lot of hoops."

He added PG&E could respond to Alsup's order by arguing it will be found in violation of the order because his deadline for reinspection and cleanup by the summer is unreasonable.

"To me, Alsup is saying the [California Public Utilities Commission] failed," he said. "He's saying, 'We know you were too cozy with PG&E before, and you are not doing the job."

A CPUC spokesperson could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Five years of probation was imposed on PG&E following a 2017 criminal conviction for its role in the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion.

Since-retired U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson ordered the maximum possible sentence, which included over $3 million in fines, a requirement that it not commit another crime and compliance with a third party monitor.

Although PG&E has a history of challenging court orders, Pitre said he expects the utility to comply with the order considering it has repeatedly stated it is "keeping up with vegetation management and have state of the art practices."

"If PG&E contests what Judge Alsup has issued in his order, it will seriously undermine the sincerity of their mantra that consumer and customer safety is their first priority," he said.

Britt Strottman of Baron & Budd PC, who was lead outside counsel in the San Bruno case, said an order from Alsup carries more weight than the threat of further regulation by state regulators because proceedings to determine how they are addressed are often lengthy and drawn out.

"PG&E as a corporation will be more afraid of any sort of violation of probation compared to any penalty they may receive at CPUC," she said.

A federal probation officer also argued, in a petition for summons filed Wednesday, that PG&E violated its probation when it failed to disclose a $1.5 million settlement with Butte County for its role in three 2017 blazes which were alleged by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection investigators to have been caused by vegetation contacting distribution lines.

The utility is required to report government investigations, regardless of conviction, to the probation office.

"It's pretty clear PG&E has started a number of fires, and that's a violation of parole," Danko said.