Wildfire funding suit shouldn’t be linked to PG&E probation, state argues

In court filings, state officials said it would be inappropriate to relate a lawsuit challenging a wildfire funding bill to a criminal case against PG&E over a pipeline explosion.

Michael J. Aguirre of Aguirre Severson LLP in San Diego has accused lawmakers of trying to bail out utilities whose equipment is blamed for devastating fires throughout California. Cannara, Nelson v. Dept. of Water Resources et al., 19-CV04171 (N.D. Cal., filed July 19, 2019).

Aguirre wants Judge William Alsup of San Francisco to hear his challenge because Alsup oversees a case against Pacific Gas & Electric Co. that stems from a deadly pipeline explosion in San Bruno in 2010. USA v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 14-CR00175 (N.D. Cal., filed April 1, 2014).

Christofer C. Nolan, a lawyer for the California Public Utilities Commissoin, argued in court papers filed Monday that Aguirre's case had nothing to do with the facts, events or parties involved in the prosecution of PG&E. He also defended AB 1054, the law signed July 12 that established the wildfire fund, claiming its goals are to create additional safety oversight for the electric utility infrastructure and address future related wildfire liabilities.

Deputy Attorney General Natasha A. Saggar Sheth wrote in her opposition papers that PG&E's conduct in 2010 has nothing to do with whether or not AB 1054 is constitutional.

AB 1054 deals only with potential events that haven't yet transpired and wouldn't affect civil liability for past fire damages, Sheth wrote.

Aguirre said Tuesday that the state is purposely rejecting a judge most knowledgeable about the issues in the case, "which shows that they're aligning themselves with a convicted felon, which is what they've done up to now."

"We're not saying [Alsup] will necessarily rule in our favor, but he's in the best position to evaluate the validity of both sides' arguments," he said.

-- Gina Kim