Plaintiffs’ attorneys and SoCalGas disagree on Porter Ranch report

Plaintiffs' attorneys in the Aliso Canyon gas leak litigation on Monday hailed a report stating Southern California Gas Co. failed to properly address prior leaks at the site of the 2015 rupture, while the utility said it complied with state gas storing regulations but didn't find any well casing issues.

The California Public Utilities Commission along with the Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources released a report Friday by third-party investigator Blade Energy Partners, finding the cause of the gas leak that spewed over 100,000 metric tons of methane was due to well casing corrosion. The 300-page report went on to state that prior to the 2015 leak, the utility failed to investigate more than 60 reported casing leaks at Aliso Canyon dating back to the 1970s.

Panish, Shea & Boyle LLP and Parris Law, who are involved in the lawsuits covering about 38,000 plaintiffs, said during a news conference in Aliso Canyon the report "crystallized" information attorneys were unable to obtain in the 31/2 years of litigation. They said it also emboldens their claims. Southern California Gas Leak Cases, JCCP4861 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 2, 2016).

"I think it is a much higher level of action. I think it's gross negligence and almost intentional," said co-lead plaintiffs' attorney Brian J. Panish of Panish, Shea & Boyle.

Rex Parris of Parris Law Firm

"We didn't know they had 60 prior failures that weren't addressed," said Panish, adding the failed well in question, SS-25, was not inspected.

The utility said in response to the report that it followed procedure.

"The Blade report confirms SoCalGas complied with gas storage regulations in existence at the time of the leak and that the related compliance activities conducted prior to the leak did not find indications of a casing integrity issue," according to a statement by the utility.

"That's just not true. That's not supported by the report," commented Panish. "The reality is the Blade report concluded it failed to follow well integrity regulations, exposing the Porter Ranch community to significant risk of well failures."

Citing the report, Panish said, "Required testing of the annulus every five years was not met according to SS-25 well records."

SoCalGas said Blade determined the utility's current practices and new state regulations address most, if not all, of the causes identified in the report.

"In Blade's opinion, there were measures, though not required by the gas storage regulations at the time, that could have been taken to aid in the early identification of corrosion and that, in their opinion, would have prevented or mitigated the leak," the utility said.

"Blade's report indicates the industry leading safety enhancements and new regulations put in place after the leak should prevent this type of incident from occurring again," said SoCalGas.

"That's not true. They cannot make such a claim of fact," said Panish.

The leak was stopped three months after the company first reported it in October 2015. A surge of filings poured in by residents who said they fell ill, businesses who lost money, and county and local officials looking to recoup losses.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl is seeking to set trial dates for the first group of plaintiffs. The state of California has settled a $115 million lawsuit over costs incurred by responding to the leak, and the utility previously pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of failing to timely report the leak.

However, that case is on appeal with the 2nd District Court of Appeal after victims said they were unlawfully shut out of restitution. Oral arguments are set for Thursday. People v. Southern California Gas Company, 6SC00433 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 2, 2016).

Former Los Angeles County District Attorney Stephen L. Cooley of Steve Cooley & Associates, who chairs the plaintiffs' restitution committee, said Marcy's Law "mandates restitution when there is a criminal act and there is harm."

"There is a lot at stake here. Restitution can be and should be ordered when there is a criminal conviction," Cooley said.

Patricia K. Oliver of Parris Law Firm, who represents hundreds of plaintiffs, said her clients continue to ask her what's in the gas, but she said she is unable to give them an answer.

"I don't know," said Oliver.