This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
News

Civil Litigation,
Criminal,
Environmental & Energy

Jan. 7, 2022

US attorney won't seek PG&E probation extension

There is no provision in statute or case law that provides anything for the court to work from when deciding how to approach the matter, the U.S. attorney’s report said, concluding that this case would not be a good one to set a precedent.

The U.S. attorney in San Francisco has declined to pursue further evidentiary proceedings against Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to determine whether it violated its criminal probation and will not seek sentencing options should the utility be found guilty.

U.S. Attorney Stephanie M. Hinds filed a status report Thursday recommending U.S. District Judge William H. Alsup vacate the evidentiary hearing he set for Jan. 10. PG&E's five-year probation, the maximum statutory limit, is set to expire Jan. 26. After expressing his dissatisfaction with progress during the past five years, Alsup had invited briefing on whether the utility could be kept under some kind of federal monitoring. According to the status report, an extension of probation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3564(d) is only permitted "if less than the maximum authorized term was previously imposed.'" The report also acknowledged that there is no binding case law on whether a court can extend a company's probation past the maximum limit or impose a new probation term that cannot be served concurrently with any of its previous terms.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Abraham A. Simmons said in a phone interview from San Francisco Thursday, "What's filed was a response to the judge's invitation to file a motion to extend PG&E's probation beyond what appeared to be the statutory limit. Second, there was a separate question about whether or not there was going to be some sort of evidentiary hearing. ... They were both things that the judge requested that we comment on."

After PG&E was convicted of six federal felonies in January 2017 for involvement in the San Bruno pipeline explosion in 2010, the company was sentenced to the maximum fine and maximum probation of five years. In June 2020, PG&E pleaded guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter for its role in the 2018 Camp Fire, which destroyed the town of Paradise and was the deadliest wildfire in California history. The Shasta County district attorney has charged PG&E for the 2020 Zogg Fire and the Sonoma County DA has charged the company for the 2019 Kincade Fire.

On Wednesday, the California Department of Fire Prevention released a report stating the 2021 Dixie Fire was started when a tree hit a PG&E power line, which might be used as evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings.

The issue of extending probation past the statutory limit has come up several times before Alsup. In lieu of extending probation, Alsup chose instead to add more probation conditions.

There is no provision in statute or case law that provides anything for the court to work from when deciding how to approach the matter, the U.S. attorney's report said, concluding that this case would not be a good one to set a precedent.

The utility has not been proven to have committed any crimes connected to the Kincade and Zogg fires.

Also, evidentiary hearings would only serve two purposes: to extend probation beyond the statutory limit, which the government has chosen not to do, and to gain more clarity into whether PG&E is guilty of alleged violations, which the state courts are already pursuing.

The U.S. attorney concluded the federal courts are the not proper venue to settle this matter.

The status report said, "The United States does not believe that an evidentiary hearing on the pending Form 12 is necessary. The allegations in the Form 12 are closely intertwined with two pending state criminal prosecutions of PG&E, in Sonoma and Shasta counties. ... In fact, given the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3564, penalties against PG&E for the conduct alleged in the Form 12 appear to be unavailable in this federal forum at this time. ... Conversely, the district attorney's offices in Sonoma and Shasta counties are actively prosecuting felony criminal cases against PG&E for the same underlying conduct. At this juncture, it appears that the state courts are the proper forum for further development of the evidence. Furthermore, if PG&E is convicted, a broader array of sentencing options will be available in that forum."

#365630

Jonathan Lo

Daily Journal Staff Writer
jonathan_lo@dailyjournal.com

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com