Cal Fire report on Dixie Fire could affect PG&E criminal, civil cases

A state agency's determination that the 963,000-acre Dixie Fire in July started with a tree hitting a power line is not complete proof that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is criminally responsible, Butte County District Attorney Michael L. Ramsey indicated Wednesday.

The report could also affect pending lawsuits by five counties and individual plaintiffs.

"This office and four other district attorney offices (Plumas, Lassen, Tehama and Shasta) have been working with Cal Fire investigators and specialists since the beginning of the fire," he said. "A criminal investigation and review by our prosecution offices continues to determine whether PG&E bears criminal responsibility for the Dixie Fire."

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection report, issued Tuesday, stated the tree contacted electrical distribution lines owned and operated by PG&E near Cresta Dam in Butte County. The report confirms statements issued by PG&E just after the fire broke out.

In a statement provided Wednesday by spokesman James Noonan, the utility promised: "Regardless of today's finding, we will continue to be tenacious in our efforts to stop fire ignitions from our equipment and to ensure that everyone and everything is always safe."

"Taking a bold step forward, PG&E has committed to burying 10,000 miles of lines in addition to the mitigations included in PG&E's 2021 Wildfire Mitigation Plan," the statement added.

DA Ramsey said prosecutors are focusing on whether they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that PG&E violated Penal Code Section 452, reckless arson.

"Continued investigation and ultimate review into criminal liability by all involved offices will take several weeks or more. Once a final decision has been made it will be announced by all five counties," Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie A. Bridgett said Wednesday.

Plumas County District Attorney David Hollister added, "We will do our absolute best to make sure a fair and balanced evaluation occurs concerning whether criminal charges are appropriate in addressing the origin of the Dixie Fire. If the evidence warrants such a prosecution, I will make sure the interests of Plumas County, approximately half of which was burned in this fire, are represented."

In addition to the criminal investigation, PG&E is facing multiple lawsuits arising from the fire, including one brought by the five counties. Plumas County et al. v. PG&E et al., CGC-21-596070 (S.F. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 20, 2021).

"It is no surprise to the counties, it is no surprise to our law firm or our experts that Cal Fire made this conclusion," plaintiffs' attorney John P. Fiske of Baron & Budd PC said Wednesday. "We think it further supports our lawsuit and we hope that PG&E moves quickly to resolve these lawsuits and compensate victims and communities so that they can recover and rebuild as quickly as possible."

Fiske said he expects the utility will resolve and settle the lawsuit, but said the important question will be when.

"I've represented over 60 public entities in wildfire cases. And the more I do this, the more I am convinced that the timeline of payment is as important as any other factor in whether or not a community recovers and rebuilds in a meaningful way," he said.

PG&E is facing criminal charges in Sonoma County and Shasta County arising from the 2020 Zogg Fire and the 2019 Kincade Fire. People v. PG&E, 21-06622 (Shasta County Super. Ct., filed Sept. 24, 2021). People v. PG&E, SRC-7452281 (Sonoma Super. Ct., filed April 6, 2021).

The utility has been on federal probation since 2017 for failing to inspect pipelines before a gas explosion killed eight people in San Bruno.

The probation term is scheduled to end Jan. 25 although there has been discussion as to whether the company violated the terms of its probation if it is found guilty of causing the Kincade Fire and the Zogg Fire.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco ordered the government to file a status report by Thursday on whether the Department of Justice wants to move forward with the probation violation allegations. USA v. PG&E, 14-CR00175 (N.D. Cal., filed April 1, 2014).

Whether or not the probation term can be extended past five years is an untested question, but Alsup said he would consider it.