PG&E hit with $2.5B putative class action over outages

The bankrupt Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. was hit Thursday with a class action lawsuit seeking more than $2.5 billion over the utility's allegedly botched power outages.

PG&E's planned energy shutoffs were only necessary because of its negligence maintaining its transmission lines, according to the complaint.

Plaintiffs' attorneys at Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP seek to compensate customers for damages caused by the outages, including loss of home habitability, expenses for alternate means of power and loss to productivity and business. They also seek to require PG&E to properly maintain and inspect its power grid, so the shutoff will not be necessary in the future.

"For years, PG&E rewarded its executives with high pay and bonuses and paid dividends to its shareholders while failing to perform its most basic duty: to keep its grid safe and operational," said firm partner Nicholas Carlin in a statement.

PG&E did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

All proceedings against the utility are currently paused while it works its way through Chapter 11 reorganization. While most parties expect it to emerge a solvent company, litigants are fighting for a limited pool of funds.

Wildfire victims recently secured a $13.5 billion settlement with PG&E.

Whether PG&E would pursue a de-energization policy was a contentious issue for state regulators and U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who is overseeing its criminal probation.

Alsup encouraged PG&E to adopt the policy at the suggestion of plaintiffs' attorney Frank Pitre during a hearing in January last year.

"SDG&E has had a de-energization policy since the 2011 wildfires, and since it has been adopted, San Diego has not seen a single wildfire," he said. "It has been viewed as the gold standard."

The California Public Utility Commission pushed back on Alsup forcing PG&E to adopt what it called a stringent de-energization policy.

"Pitre is saying de-energizing, as inconvenient as it is, is better than death and destruction," Alsup responded. "To me, I agree. That makes sense."

State regulators approved the policy in June.