Defendant's Supplement of Recent Adverse Publicity 03-07-16

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

Steven M. Bauer (Bar No. 135067)
steven.bauer@lw.com
Margaret A. Tough (Bar No. 218056)
margaret.tough@lw.com
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-6538
Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095
Melissa Arbus Sherry (pro hac vice)
melissa.sherry@lw.com
555 11th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1304
Telephone: +1.202.637.2200
Facsimile: +1.202.637.2201
CLARENCE DYER & COHEN LLP
Kate Dyer (Bar No. 171891)
kdyer@clarencedyer.com
899 Ellis Street
San Francisco, California 94109-7807
Telephone: +1.415.749.1800
Facsimile: +1.415.749.1694
Attorneys for Defendant
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
15
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY,
Defendant.
CASE NO. CR-14-00175-TEH

DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENT OF
RECENT ADVERSE PUBLICITY IN
SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR
JURY QUESTIONNAIRE AND
CERTAIN OTHER JURY
SELECTION PROCEDURES
Judge:
Date:
Time:
Place:
Hon. Thelton Henderson

March 7, 2016
3:00 p.m.
Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEF.S SUPPLEMENT OF
RECENT ADVERSE PUBLICITY
Case No. CR-14-00175-TEH
The threat of adverse pretrial publicity denying defendant Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E) its constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury has only increased since
PG&E filed its Request for Jury Questionnaire and Certain Other Jury Selection Procedures
(Request) on February 22, 2016. Dkt. 297. The steady drum beat of media coverage, which
has vividly connected the tragic San Bruno explosion to this trial, appears to be reaching a
crescendo at the most sensitive juncturethe eve of jury selection when such adverse publicity
in the media may have the greatest prejudicial impact on the minds of potential jurors.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The supplemental examples below of adverse pretrial publicity against PG&E since
February 22 (which PG&E respectfully submits in support of its Request) further confirm the
acute need for a jury questionnaire and additional jury selection procedures in this case. See id.
(1) Just last night, SFGate.com and the San Francisco Chronicle published an article that
appears to be based on sealed (i.e., leaked) court documents. It reported: PG&E had
decided it would test for weld problems on its older lines only if pressure on the pipes
had spiked to a level 10 percent above the standard defined under federal rules,
according to an internal company document instructing operators how to manage the
gas transmission system. A month later, PG&E executives said the policy document
was only a draft and indicated that it was never been in effect. The indictment of
PG&E says that denial was an obstruction of justice. It says investigators turned up
records that showed PG&E repeatedly used the policy to avoid testing lines like the one
that exploded in San Bruno. J. Van Derbeken, Tug-of-War over Lawyers Emails
Could Delay PG&E Trial, SFGate.com (Mar. 6, 2016) (killed eight people and
destroyed 38 homes) (http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Tug-of-war-over-lawyersemails-could-delay-6873879.php). Reported also at San Francisco Chronicle
(http://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Tug-of-war-over-lawyers-emails-coulddelay-6873879.php). The article leads with this reused image:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
(1A) Connected to the SFGate article are social media comments posted by readers,
including one that illustrates the prejudicial influence of the information: Way to look
guilty as hell, PG&E. (http://www.sfgate.com/crime/articleComments/Tug-of-warover-lawyers-emails-could-delay-6873879.php).
1
DEF.S SUPPLEMENT OF
(2)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(http://sfist.com/2016/03/03/pg_e_san_bruno_blast_trial.php (The giant, blown-out
piece of gas pipeline from the 2010 San Bruno blast might be trucked to the courtroom
for PG&Es upcoming criminal trial, which is finally happening. (contains link to
March 2, 2016 San Francisco Chronicle article below))).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(3)
If federal prosecutors get their way, jurors in the upcoming Pacific Gas and Electric
Co. criminal case will get to see for themselves the giant gas-transmission pipe that
exploded in San Bruno. Prosecutors say the elaborate show-and-tell is an essential
part of proving that PG&E is guilty of 13 criminal charges that grew out of the
investigation into the September 2010 pipeline explosion that killed eight people and
destroyed 38 homes. J. Van Derbeken, Exhibit A in PG&E Criminal Trial: Giant
Section of San Bruno Pipe, San Francisco Chronicle (Mar. 2, 2016)
(http://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Exhibit-A-in-PG-E-criminal-trial-giantsection-6866843.php) (includes comparisons to Unabomber and murder cases).
(3A) Embedded into the online version of that March 2 Chronicle article is an elevenminute video titled San Brunos Survivors 5 Years After the Blast, which depicts
interviews with survivors about their experiences, injuries, and lost loved ones and
shows images of burning homes, personal injuries, and property damage. Id. Images
within the video include the following:
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEF.S SUPPLEMENT OF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
(3B) The same March 2 Chronicle article is tweeted on and can be accessed through
Twitter (https://twitter.com/sfchronicle/status/705244511576784896).
12
13
(3C) The same March 2 Chronicle article can also be accessed via Facebook, which
includes reader comments, such as: Too bad the jury wont get to see the burned
bodies of the victim... Not the same impact as hearing that the victims were burned to
death. (https://www.facebook.com/sanfranciscochronicle/posts/10153945090784524).
14
15
16
(4)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
Text of the above March 3, 2016 TV broadcast: Jury selection expected later this
month in the criminal trial of PG&E over the San Bruno pipeline disaster. The
Chronicle reports a jury could see a 28-foot long section of the pipe that ruptured as
evidence in the case. That explosion in 2010 killed eight people, injured dozens more,
3
DEF.S SUPPLEMENT OF
and destroyed 38 homes. PG&E is fighting the display of that pipe. They argue its not
relevant to the specific charges in this case. PG&E is accused of criminal violations
including poor record keeping and maintenance. Also failure to identity safety threats.
(Similar reports and images were rerun multiple times during the same newscast the
morning of March 3, 2016.)
2
3
4
(5)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Text of the above March 3, 2016 TV broadcast: [N]ow to the trial of PG&E for that
deadly San Bruno explosion nearly 6 years ago. When that will trial starts later this
month, it could create quite the traffic jam. Prosecutors plan to truck a giant section of
the pipeline to the front of the federal court house in San Francisco. The Chronicle
says it could be one of the first piece of evidence the jury sees. PG&E is fighting that
idea and asking the Judge to stop it. Prosecutors say the elaborate show and tell is an
essential part of proving PG&E is guilty of 13 criminal charges in the 2010 pipeline
explosion. Eight people died. 38 homes in San Brunos Crestmoor neighborhood
were destroyed.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
(6)
It would be the second-largest penalty ever against PG&E for gas-related violations,
behind the $1.6 billion that the commission imposed last year stemming from the 2010
explosion in San Bruno that killed eight people. J. Van Derbeken, Judge Asked to
Fine PG&E $112 Million for Carmel Blast, SFGate.com (Updated Mar. 3, 2016)
(http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-asked-to-fine-PG-E-112-million-forCarmel-6861837.php). Reported at San Francisco Chronicle first on March 1, 2016
(http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Judge-asked-to-fine-PG-E-112-millionfor-Carmel-6861837.php).
23
24
25
26
(6A) Connected to the SFGate article above are social media comments posted by
readers, including the following: (i) All of upper management at PG&E should all
be incarcerated for a very long time; (ii) Jailtime is the only thing that will get the
attention of these sleezeballs. Oh, and no rate increases for ten years. NONE! and
(iii) Fire and Fine the top ten officers of PG&E and throw them in jail.
(http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articleComments/Judge-asked-to-fine-PG-E-112million-for-Carmel-6861837.php).
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEF.S SUPPLEMENT OF
(7)
PG&E has also known about its gas distribution record-keeping failures for decades,
the PUC safety division stated in its brief for the proceeding. The impacts of PG&Es
failures have been felt across its service territory. PG&Es gas distribution recordkeeping violations endanger the public.. The new PUC filings, along with other
proceeding such as a criminal trial connected to the San Bruno explosion that is due to
begin in a few weeks, are a reminder that numerous issues brought to light by the San
Bruno blast remain front and center. G. Avalos, PG&E Could Face PUC Fines of Up
to $652 Million in Gas Records Probe, Contra Costa Times (Feb. 29, 2016)
(http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_29577445/pg-e-could-face-pucfines-up-652). Repeated at, e.g., Marin Independent Journal
(http://www.marinij.com/article/zz/20160229/NEWS/160224859); San Jose Mercury
News (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_29577444/pg-e-could-face-puc-finesup-652).
(8)
[I]n a criminal trial to determine PG&Es guilt or innocence in connection with a

lethal explosion in San Bruno[,] . [p]rosecutors intend to prove that PG&E knew of
manufacturing problems on the natural gas pipeline that exploded, destroyed documents
connected to the pipeline hidden beneath San Bruno, attempted to impede a federal
probe into the aftermath of the blast, sought to divert revenue to profits at the expense
of safe gas operations and equipment, and harvested ill-gained profits by neglecting
safety. G. Avalos, San Bruno: PG&E and Federal Prosecutors Dig in Ahead of
Criminal Trial, Contra Costa Times (Feb. 24, 2016)
(http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_29558257/san-bruno:-pge-and-federalprosecutors-dig-in-ahead-of-criminal-trial). Repeated at, e.g., Marin Independent
Journal (http://www.marinij.com/article/ZZ/20160224/NEWS/160227471); San Jose
Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_29558257/san-bruno-pg-eand-federal-prosecutors-dig).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
(8A) The San Jose Mercury News copy of the above February 24 article also is linked
to and can be accessed from Facebook with this image:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
(https://www.facebook.com/mercurynews/posts/10154056119291337).
5
DEF.S SUPPLEMENT OF
(9)
2
3
4
5
6
PG&E is seeking more revenue to undertake improvements and upgrades in its gas
transmission and storage system in the wake of a fatal explosion in September 2010
that killed eight and demolished a San Bruno neighborhood. PG&E wants more and
more of our paycheck every month, said Mindy Spatt, a spokeswoman for The Utility
Reform Network, a consumer group. G. Avalos, PG&E Bills Headed Higher in March
and in 2017, Contra Costa Times (Feb. 23, 2016)
(http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_29552486/pge-bills-headed-higher-inmarch-and-in-2017). Repeated at, e.g., Marin Independent Journal
(http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20160223/NEWS/160229920); San Jose Mercury
News (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_29552486/pge-bills-headed-higher-inmarch-and-in-2017).
7
8
The full text news articles linked above are, for the record, also included in Appendix C hereto.
* * *
10
These supplemental adverse publicity examples since February 22 demonstrate that a jury
11
questionnaire is vital to improving the chance of securing an impartial jury in this case. For
12
instance, the individuals who wrote comments about burned bodies and [j]ailtime and those
13
who share similar views must be screened off the jury for cause, and the Court can only hope to
14
do soefficiently and effectively do sowith extensive oral voir dire following the
15
questionnaire attached as Exhibit 1 to the Request, which is drawn from similar questionnaires in
16
other criminal cases. See, e.g., Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010); United States v.
17
Blankenship, No. 5:14-cr-244, Dkt. 351 (S.D. W.Va. Sept. 2, 2015). See Dkt. 297 at 1-13.
18
With vivid, unforgettable images of burning homes and personal injuries and
19
recitations of death counts, these recent examples continue to paint a picture that is likely to
20
incite prejudice. Skilling, 561 U.S. at 384. Indeed, as the Court found when denying PG&Es
21
earlier motion to strike, the deaths, injuries, and property damage that resulted from the
22
explosion, and were reported by the media, may prejudice a jury and will require an
23
extensive process for jury selection. Dkt. 43 at 8. 1 There thus continues to be a greater-than-
24
normal need, due to pretrial publicity, to ensure against jury bias in this trial. Skilling, 561 U.S.
25
at 389. Accordingly, for all these and the reasons discussed in the Request, the Court should
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
Again, while the explosion is not relevant to the specific charges of violating regulations and
obstruction here (e.g., Dkt. 273 MIL No. 1), media coverage that is factually unrelated to the
charges can impact jury selection. See Dkt. 297 at 2, 6 & n.6.
6
DEF.S SUPPLEMENT OF
(i) use the jury questionnaire attached as Exhibit 1 to the Request and further (ii) conduct
individual voir dire, (iii) allow attorneys to ask follow-up questions during voir dire, and
(iv) grant PG&E at least two additional peremptory challenges. See Dkt. 297 at 1-18.
4
5
6
Dated: March 7, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
By
7
8
/s/
Steven M. Bauer
Margaret A. Tough
Kate Dyer
CLARENCE, DYER & COHEN LLP
9
10
Attorneys for Defendant

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEF.S SUPPLEMENT OF
Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 33
APPENDIX C
Tug-of-war over lawyers emails could delay PG&E trial - SFGate#photo-9508715#photo-9508715#p...

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Tug-of-war-over-lawyers-emails-could-delay-6873879.php
Tug-of-war over lawyers emails could delay PG&E trial

By Jaxon Van Derbeken Published 5:45 pm, Sunday, March 6, 2016
IMAGE 1 OF 2
A huge fire roars through San Brunos Crestmoor neighborhood on Sept. 9, 2010. PG&E is on trial for its role in a gas pipeline explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes.
A federal magistrate is recommending that prosecutors seeking to convict Pacific Gas and Electric Co. of obstructing the investigation into the San Bruno
pipeline disaster be given confidential emails between the company and its lawyers, which the government believes will show that the attorneys were
involved in the alleged obstruction, The Chronicle has learned.
The magistrates recommendation has not been made public, but on Friday PG&E filed sealed court motions to support an objection to her findings. The
challenge means the judge overseeing the criminal trial against PG&E must settle the issue of whether the contested emails will be given to federal prosecutors.
If U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson goes along with the recommendation from Magistrate Maria-Elena James, PG&Es trial on the obstruction charge
and 12 counts of violating pipeline safety laws may well be delayed months beyond its scheduled March 22 opening in San Francisco.
Hendersons ruling could come as soon as Monday, when he is scheduled to consider several motions in a case that stems from the federal investigation into
the September 2010 gas-pipeline explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes in San Bruno.
No current or former PG&E employees are charged with crimes, but the company itself faces as much as $500 million in fines if convicted.
Crucial to case
The dispute over the emails began last year, when federal prosecutors identified seven communications between PG&E executives and the companys criminal
attorneys, from the law firm Latham and Watkins, that concerned a document at the heart of the obstruction case.
Tug-of-war over lawyers emails could delay PG&E trial - SFGate#photo-9508715#photo-9508715#p...

That document was a letter PG&E sent to investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board in April 2011, seven months after the explosion. The
investigators were looking into PG&E practices that might have caused the blast, and one area they were focusing on was the companys avoidance of costly
pipeline inspections that the federal government requires after gas-pressure surges.
Such inspections are intended to ensure that pressure spikes havent damaged critical pipeline parts such as welds, like the one that failed and contributed to
the San Bruno blast. Before the explosion, PG&E never conducted the costly inspections, opting for a less-expensive method that could not detect a bad weld.
Internal document
In March 2011, The Chronicle reported that PG&E had decided it would test for weld problems on its older lines only if pressure on the pipes had spiked to a
level 10 percent above the standard defined under federal rules, according to an internal company document instructing operators how to manage the gastransmission system.
A month later, PG&E executives said the policy document was only a draft and indicated that it was never been in effect. We have no indication that it was
ever approved, PG&E gas official William Hayes said of the policy in an April 6, 2011, letter to National Transportation Safety Board investigators.
The indictment of PG&E says that denial was an obstruction of justice. It says investigators turned up records that showed PG&E repeatedly used the policy to
avoid testing lines like the one that exploded in San Bruno.
Court documents show that prosecutors sought the emails and other documents to verify their theory that Latham and Watkins lawyers suggestions went into
the drafting of Hayes letter and amounted to part of the alleged obstruction of the San Bruno investigation.
To support their case, prosecutors cited Hayes testimony before the federal grand jury that indicted PG&E. Hayes testified that although he signed the letter,
he did not write it. He said he had gotten the letter to sign from attorneys, but that he did not remember their names.
Attorney-client talks
Last year, PG&E said it was resisting turning over 140 pages of documents to prosecutors, apparently including the emails. It maintained that the documents
were confidential communications between the attorneys and their client. Prosecutors later pressed for disclosure of the seven emails, arguing that the
privilege does not extend to attorneys fraudulent or deceptive conduct.
James recommendation to Judge Henderson remains under seal, but sources with knowledge of her findings told The Chronicle that she said some of the
seven emails should be turned over to the U.S. attorneys office.
If Henderson agrees, PG&E is likely to appeal. If the company ultimately has to turn over the emails, it will almost certainly have to find new attorneys to
defend it, something that could delay the trial for months.
Prosecutors have argued that it would be a conflict of interest for attorneys involved in the preparation of the letter at the heart of the obstruction charge to
defend the company against that very charge. They also said they needed to see the communications if the company invoked an advice of counsel defense,
essentially blaming the letter on attorneys.
If the records show that an attorney wrote the misleading letter to the NTSB regarding PG&Es policies or directed someone else to do so, and PG&E is relying
on that advice in an effort to negate its corrupt intent, there is a potential conflict this court will need to address, prosecutors said in a motion filed in October.
The company has since told Henderson it will not use that defense, that as a result, prosecutors are not entitled to see the emails. A spokesman for PG&E did
not respond to a request for comment Friday.
Pretty common
Rory Little, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco who has been both a criminal defense lawyer and prosecutor, said government
efforts to force companies to disclose communications with lawyers are not unusual.
This is pretty common in white-collar corporate criminal investigations, for attorney communications to come under scrutiny, Little said. But its not that
common for a magistrate judge to agree with prosecutors that the documents need to be examined.
Even if Henderson orders the emails turned over on the grounds they may be part of the obstruction case, the chances that the lawyers could actually be
charged with obstruction are remote, Little said. Usually, prosecutors dont go any further, he said.
Jaxon Van Derbeken is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @jvanderbeken
Tug-of-war over lawyers emails could delay PG&E trial - SFGate

Tug-of-war over lawyers emails could delay PG&E trial

BACK TO ARTICLE
Comments
SFGATE welcomes a free exchange of ideas in the Comments section. We encourage commenters to help our
moderators by flagging comments that threaten violence in any way, are spam, or use vulgarities including racist
epithets or other obscene terms toward a specific group. Please read our terms and conditions.
(2) Comments
POWERED BY:
Write your comment here
SUBMIT
Show: 10 | 20 | 50
Follow
theantireagan
Newest
Rank 2001
Say, are these the same lawyers Big Tobacco used to hide incriminating documents under attorney-client privilege?
Yes or no, that's ALWAYS been a favored corporate tactic. And, why not. As Little of Hastings pointed out, judges rarely order disclosure.
11 hours ago
0 Likes
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/articleComments/Tug-of-war-over-lawyers-emails-could-delay-6873879.php
Tug-of-war over lawyers emails could delay PG&E trial - SFGate

Like
permiewriter
Reply
Share
Rank 25
Way to look guilty as hell, PG&E.
11 hours ago
1 Like
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/articleComments/Tug-of-war-over-lawyers-emails-could-delay-6873879.php
Like
Reply
Share
Exhibit A in PG&E criminal trial: giant section of San Bruno pipe - San Francisco Chroni... Page 1 of 8
Crime
Exhibit A in PG&E criminal

trial: giant section of San Bruno
pipe
By Jaxon Van Derbeken | March 2, 2016 | Updated: March 2, 2016 8:10pm
0
http://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Exhibit-A-in-PG-E-criminal-trial-giant-section-68... 3/3/2016
Photo: Paul Chinn, The Chronicle
IMAGE 1 OF 3
Federal investigators inspect a 40-foot section of pipeline on Glenview Drive in San Bruno near where the
blast occurred.
If federal prosecutors get their way, jurors in the upcoming Pacific

Gas and Electric Co. criminal case will get to see for themselves the
giant gas-transmission pipe that exploded in San Bruno and they
wont have to go far to do it.
The section of pipe, 28 feet
long and 3,000 pounds, is to
be trucked to the front of
the federal courthouse on
Golden Gate Avenue in San
Francisco as one of the first
pieces of evidence to be
presented to the jury when

the trial opens this month
unless a judge sides with
PG&E and blocks the plan.
Prosecutors say the
elaborate show-and-tell is
an essential part of proving
that PG&E is guilty of 13
criminal charges that grew
out of the investigation into
the September 2010 pipeline explosion that killed eight people and
destroyed 38 homes in San Brunos Crestmoor neighborhood.
If convicted, the company could face as much as $500 million in
fines. No current or former PG&E employees are charged.
The U.S. attorneys office says the explosion itself, and the 30-inchdiameter section of ruptured pipe, by extension, is physical evidence
that is clearly relevant to its case. Prosecutors contend the blast
could have been prevented if PG&E had adhered to pipeline safety
laws that the company is charged with violating.
Showing the pipe section to the jury, they added in arguments to
U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson, will demonstrate that the line
ran through a heavily populated, high-consequence area.
San Bruno's Survivors - 5 Years After the Blast

from San Francisco Chronicle
PRO
Irrelevant to case?
The company is accused of 12 counts of violating safety laws, many
of them connected to its haphazard record-keeping system, along
with one count of obstructing the federal investigation of the
explosion.
None of the counts, PG&E contends, is directly connected to the
explosion itself something the company lawyers point to in
seeking to have Henderson block any mention of the blast during the
trial, let alone trucking in the ruined pipe for the jury to see.
In particular, the PG&E lawyers scoff at the notion that parading the
ruptured pipe on a flatbed truck is needed to show that the line ran
through a high-risk, heavily populated area. No one disputes that,
they told Henderson, adding that there are many substantially lessprejudicial means to prove this same fact including that PG&E will
stipulate to it.
Unabomber precedent
Henderson must settle that
dispute and many other
evidentiary fights before the
trial, which is tentatively
scheduled to begin with jury
selection March 22.
MORE ON PG&E
5 years after San Bruno
blast, survivors find new
life
Californias natural gas

supply must be better
regulated for
Professor Rory Little of UC

Hastings College of the Law
in San Francisco said
seeking to put such a large
PG&Es huge profit from
piece of evidence before a
exit fee signals need for
reform
jury is unusual, but not
unprecedented. One wellpublicized example, he said,
was federal prosecutors
plan to transport
Unabomber Theodore Kaczynskis Montana shack to California for
his trial.
Before that could happen, Kaczynski pleaded guilty in 1998 to a
string of bombings that killed three people and injured 23 others, so
the shack issue was never decided. The structure is now at the
Newseum in Washington, D.C.
This is not unusual
The point being, this is not unusual in this kind of high-profile trial
you typically see this in murder cases, where the prosecutors
make them go see the scene, Little said.
The idea that the jury actually sees physical evidence is not so
unusual but will it fly in this case? Little said. To say this is not
about the explosion is kind of like saying, Dont think about the
elephant in the corner. Without the explosion, you would not have
the missing (pipeline) records or an alleged act of obstruction.
On the other hand, he said, if I am the judge, I would be
wondering: Why doesnt a photograph do the same? Why do we
have to get the jury up, with all the media around?
Little added, I would be wondering, is this purely to get the jury all
excited about the case and is it relevant to the charges against
PG&E?
Bad records
PG&E was indicted in April on allegations that it repeatedly and
knowingly violated provisions of the federal Natural Gas Pipeline
Safety Act requiring operators to maintain accurate records about
gas pipes, identify risks to lines and inspect or test when pipe
pressures exceeded the legal maximum.
The obstruction charge accuses PG&E of misleading investigators by
disowning a document that outlined a scheme for avoiding costly
pipeline inspections after gas-pressure surges, in apparent defiance
of federal law.
PG&E insisted to investigators that the policy document was only a
draft. As for the regulatory violations, company lawyers contend that
even the governments witnesses discuss engineers striving to do
their level best with new, unclear regulations often while grappling
with conflicting advice from the regulators themselves.
Prosecutors say they may call as a witness former PG&E Corp. Chief
Executive Officer Peter Darbee, who they say reaped tens of millions
in bonuses while his company was allegedly cutting corners on
safety. PG&E lawyers are fighting prosecutors on this front as well,
saying Darbees testimony would not be relevant to the crimes PG&E
is accused of committing.
Pushback from boss
Prosecutors also are expected to call Leslie Banach McNiece, whom
PG&E hired in 2012 to help clean up extensive record-keeping
problems with its gas system. She is expected to describe the

pushback she got from PG&Es then-President, Chris Johns, when
she urged that the company adopt a new record-keeping policy.
McNiece is also expected to recount finding a company map of the
San Bruno pipeline in a trash bin outside her office in Walnut Creek.
The map she provided had handwritten references to the 1988
discovery of a flawed weld on the San Bruno line.
Prosecutors say the discovery should have prompted PG&E to test
the rest of the line for weld problems, something it never did. The
explosion happened when the pipe ruptured at a substandard weld,
investigators found.
Map wasnt destroyed
PG&E Vice President Sumeet Singh told McNiece to destroy the map
because it had been scanned into the companys computer system,
prosecutors say. However, the company never disclosed the
existence of the 1988 notation to investigators prosecutors say
they got the document from McNiece, who kept it in a safe deposit
box rather than destroy it.
PG&E wants Henderson to prevent McNiece from taking the stand,
arguing that prosecutors waited too long to disclose her testimony
and that it amounts to hearsay.
Jaxon Van Derbeken is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email:
jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com
Jaxon Van
Derbeken
Police/Courts
Reporter
2016 Hearst Corporation
PG&E lawyers not only want to ban any... - San Francisco Chronicle
Email or Phone
Password
Log In
Sign Up
Keep me logged in
Forgot your password?
San Francisco Chronicle

March 2 at 8:18pm
PG&E lawyers not only want to ban any mention of the fatal blast from the
trial, they also want to block the jury from seeing the pipe.
English (US) Privacy Terms Cookies

Advertising Ad Choices More
Facebook 2016
Exhibit A in PG&E criminal trial: San Bruno pipe

If federal prosecutors get their way, jurors in the upcoming Pacific Gas and Electric
Co. criminal case will get to see for themselves the giant gas-transmission pipe that
exploded in San Bruno.
SFCHRONICLE.COM
22 Likes 5 Comments 3 Shares

Share
Dirk Johnson, Anna Marie Kingdom, Harith Al-Rubaie and 19 others
like this.
Top Comments
3 shares
Douglas Le Too bad the jury won't get to see the burned bodies of the
victim... Not the same impact as hearing that the victims were burned to death.
March 4 at 1:22am Edited
Leslie Aguayo Critical to follow the money on this one. I have trouble
wrapping my mind around a public utility that has shareholders.
2 March 2 at 8:23pm
Michael C Palau Of course they do!
I'm sure Manson's lawyers wanted
no mention or pictures of Sharon Tate either
1 March 2 at 11:25pm
1 Reply
Jan Blum of course they want to strike the evidence against them.
March 3 at 9:39pm
Marie Russo That's total BS !
1 March 2 at 9:22pm
https://www.facebook.com/sanfranciscochronicle/posts/10153945090784524
Judge asked to fine PG&E $112 million for Carmel blast - SFGate
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-asked-to-fine-PG-E-112-million-for-Carmel-6861837.php
Judge asked to fine PG&E $112 million for Carmel blast

By Jaxon Van Derbeken Updated 2:52 pm, Thursday, March 3, 2016
A house at Guadalupe and 3rd in Carmel after a gas explosion on March 3, 2014.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. should be fined nearly $112 million in connection with a naturalgas explosion that leveled a Carmel cottage and damaged three other homes in 2014, the
safety division of the state Public Utilities Commission says.
Protecting public safety mandates a substantial fine being applied to PG&E, Ed Moldavsky, an
attorney for the safety division, said Friday in urging administrative law Judge Maribeth Bushey to
impose a $111.9 million fine against the company for its deeply flawed records and for allegedly
failing to reveal a 12-year gap in pipeline repair documents.
It would be the second-largest penalty ever against PG&E for gas-related violations, behind the
$1.6 billion that the commission imposed last year stemming from the 2010 explosion in San
Bruno that killed eight people.
PG&E noted that it has already paid $10.8 million in fines for the March 3, 2014, blast in Carmel,
after regulators found the company had failed to alert residents of the gas leak promptly and had
handled the emergency poorly.
The company maintains it should not be penalized further, saying the safety divisions
recommendation misinterprets applicable regulations and the record in this proceeding, and
(fails) to acknowledge the significant improvements PG&E has made to its distribution records.
The Carmel explosion happened as crews were replacing a street distribution gas line, a smaller
pipe than the type that ruptured in San Bruno. The replacement line was supposed to be hooked u
to a separate pipeline, which PG&E records showed was made of steel.
However, sometime after 1997, PG&E or a contractor had inserted a plastic pipe inside the steel
one. In doing so, workers made slices in the steel line, rendering it useless for carrying natural gas
No one marked the changes on PG&Es pipeline maps.
In 2014, workers relying on the inaccurate documents drilled into the old steel main and pierced
the plastic line inside. Gas then flowed out of the plastic line and into the surrounding steel line.
The gas escaped through a cut in the steel pipe and eventually got into the cottage at Third Avenue
and Guadalupe Street. A pilot light apparently touched off the explosion that destroyed the onebedroom cottage, which was empty, and damaged three nearby homes. No one was injured.
Utilities commission staffers say a similar incident happened in July 2013 in Mountain View, when
welding crews caused a leak when they melted an unmapped plastic insert in a steel pipe. The leak
forced an evacuation but caused no injuries.
PG&E recently conceded that it has lost 12 years of gas-line paper repair records for the South Bay
but has not said that contributed to the Mountain View incident. Moldavsky accused the company
of hiding the problem from regulators until last June, more than year after the Carmel blast
investigation began.
PG&E should be reminded that the commission and its staff are not operating on a need-to-know
basis with PG&E, Moldavsky wrote in his recommendation. It should not have taken an (official
regulatory probe) to pry this information from PG&E.
PG&E has a duty to disclose even troubling facts to the commission, Moldavsky wrote. PG&Es
failure to do so makes a mockery out of the regulatory compact.
PG&E, in its argument to Bushey, acknowledged that inaccuracies in its records contributed to
both the Mountain View and Carmel incidents, but said regulators failed to demonstrate that
PG&E fell short of what the regulations do require.
The company conceded that it does not have perfect records, but added, No pipeline operator
does.
For their part, Carmel officials are asking Bushey to levy a $652 million fine against PG&E for the
blast in their city and other problems.
How many times does the corporate mule need to be hit over the head with a 2-by-4 to get its
attention? city attorneys asked Bushey. Yet here we are again. The facts are clear, and the law is
clear.
Jaxon Van Derbeken is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email:
jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com
2016 Hearst Communications, Inc.
Judge asked to fine PG&E $112 million for Carmel blast

BACK TO ARTICLE
Comments
SFGATE welcomes a free exchange of ideas in the Comments section. We encourage commenters to help our
moderators by flagging comments that threaten violence in any way, are spam, or use vulgarities including racist
epithets or other obscene terms toward a specific group. Please read our terms and conditions.
(22) Comments
POWERED BY:
Write your comment here
SUBMIT
Show: 10 | 20 | 50
Follow
mcbane
Newest
Rank 407
$112M is a pittance to PG&E
2 days ago
0 Likes
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articleComments/Judge-asked-to-fine-PG-E-112-million-for-Carmel-6861837.php
Like
Reply
Share
shootist3006
Rank 4670
All of upper management at PG&E and the CA Public utilities Commission that regulates them should all be incarcerated for a very long time, in
a facility like San Quentin, Folsom or pelican bay. Not some white collar country club!
4 days ago
2 Likes
noescuses
Like
Reply
Share
Like
Reply
Share
Rank 172
Jailtime is the only thing that will get the attention of these sleezeballs.
Oh, and no rate increases for ten years. NONE!
4 days ago (edited)
permiewriter
2 Likes
Rank 25
No amount of fines will do the job.

Break PG&E up, hand its service territories over to municipal utility districts. Disband the PUC - which has proven itself to be exhaustively
incompetent. And criminal charges for all the crimes.
5 days ago
3 Likes
theantireagan
Rank 2001
Like
Reply
Share
Fines are tax deductible if NOT punitive or NOT paid to the govt. (Fines can be charged to ratepayers by PUC action as offsets for cost
increases or to ensure utility solvency.)
Most of the San Bruno fine will be deducted from income because the CA legislature failed to pass a law preventing it. 2 votes shy of passage
because EVERY Repub voted against.
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/07/14/bill-would-block-pge-from-deducting-115-million-of-san-bruno-fine
Depending on how the proposed fines for...
5 days ago
more
2 Likes
Like
primaryfocus
Reply
Share
Rank 123
how about this For EVERY explosion two-five from the executive board are removed and never to hold office in a public/private exchange like
PG&E or fail 240 days in jail with no probation offered
If two or more explosions happen in a 8 year period then GOV'T has 10 years to break up the monopoly. Eminent domain on PIPES and open
up to multiple energy sources.
5 days ago (edited)
2 Likes
MrInsBrokerSF
Like
Reply
Share
Rank 891
@primaryfocus You are far too generous or lax in your proposal. The State should just take over PG&E plus SoCal Edison and
combine them in one new state power agency to be run by a non profit public benefit corp. similar to CEA and CFP. Then
implement the same strict penalties for mismanagement people have suggested. And ban current and past PG&E mgrs. from
those top positions unless it can be clearly demonstrated they had no part in the failures of past management, and they have
critical... more
2 days ago
1 Like
Like
Reply
Share
primaryfocus
Rank 123
Protecting public safety mandates a substantial fine being applied to PG&E

and PG&E will make sure Customers feel it with increases.....
this is what you get with a monopoly
5 days ago
1 Like
dumdumbenny
Like
Reply
Share
Like
Reply
Share
Like
Reply
Share
Rank 73
Translation:
PG&E customers will be paying the $112 million.
5 days ago
3 Likes
optimusHackus
Rank 1199
Break up PGE. Gas and electric biz
5 days ago
TeaRexx
2 Likes
Rank 748
Notice your PG&E bills going up?
They don't pay the fines, YOU pay the fines.
Oh, and they "lost" the records.
Kamala Harris not sending anyone to jail. Make sure we elect her to the US Senate
5 days ago (edited)
5 Likes
MrInsBrokerSF
Like
Reply
Share
Like
Reply
Share
Rank 891
@TeaRexx Oh yeah - 80% plus Democratic Convention approval = slam dunk!
2 days ago
EXSFSAM
0 Likes
Rank 492
FIVE TIMES THAT! They are smug and takes us for granted because of the CROOKS on the CPUC!!! Wait for Harris to start issuing indictments
just few days before the election. She's as A crook as her mentor, jerry brown!
5 days ago
2 Likes
primaryfocus
Like
Reply
Share
Rank 123
@EXSFSAM they could hundred it.....just means there will be more ZERO's in your bill
until someone goes to jail or they break them up nothing will change --- its a corrupt monopoly with gov't on PG&E side..
5 days ago (edited)
1 Like
Like
Reply
Share
MrInsBrokerSF
Rank 891
@EXSFSAM That former CPUC President Mr. Peavey has no shame. I'd like to see him lose his fat pension, and have to pay back
what he's already collected from it since retiring. Also ban him from future public service please!
2 days ago
toby7
0 Likes
Like
Reply
Share
Rank 198
Such a "feel good" decision...And who will pay? Yes you the taxpayers with a smile on your face....Wake up America! It's like suing yourselve..
5 days ago (edited)
guldam
2 Likes
Like
Reply
Share
Rank 8913
Fire and Fine the top ten officers of PG&E and throw them in jail. If you fine the company, then customers end up paying those fines. Always,
always start at the top and work your way down. This is a failure of leadership.
5 days ago
pbag
1 Like
Like
Reply
Share
Like
Reply
Share
Rank 12
Smokescreen to de-privatize utilities.
5 days ago
1 Like
toby7
Rank 198
@pbag Agree....Put it all under "big brother" so we all can pay double.....
5 days ago
permiewriter
1 Like
Like
Reply
Share
Rank 25
@pbag
PG&E is making billions for its investors and executives.
Municipal Utility Districts (like the one Sacramento enjoys) don't turn a profit. Their rates are honest and pay for things like
infrastructure instead of some stockholder making a literal killing.
5 days ago
section14row18
0 Likes
Like
Reply
Share
Reply
Share
Rank 94
PG&E BLOWS UP San Bruno neighborhood in 2010. Fast forward 3.5 yrs to Carmel. PG&E BLOWS UP a house.
In 2014, regulators (if that's how you see the CPUC knowing what we know about their ties to PG&E) find in Carmel:
1. ""deeply flawed records and for allegedly failing to reveal a 12-year gap in pipeline repair documents." (sound familiar?)
2. "the company had failed to alert residents of the gas leak promptly" (really?)
3. "handled the emergency poorly." (Nooo, I'm shocked!)
But PG&E has...
5 days ago
more
1 Like
Like
la_blues
Rank 48
'No pipeline operator has perfect records' - but the better ones have better records than PG&E seems to have. And they try to keep them
accurate, instead of complaining when they're fined for having inaccurate ones that result in explosions.
5 days ago
3 Likes
This post has been removed by the author.
Like
Reply
Share
Big fine urged against PG&E for Carmel blast; Judge asked to fine PG&E $112
million for Carmel blast
The San Francisco Chronicle (California)
March 1, 2016 Tuesday
Copyright 2016 San Francisco Chronicle All Rights Reserved
Section: Main News; Pg. C1

Length: 657 words
Byline: By Jaxon Van Derbeken
Body
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. should be fined nearly $112 million in connection with a natural-gas
explosion that leveled a Carmel cottageand damaged three other homes in 2014, the safety division of
the state Public Utilities Commission says.
Protecting public safety mandates a substantial fine being applied to PG&E, Ed Moldavsky, an
attorney for the safety division, said Friday in urging administrative law Judge Maribeth Bushey to
impose a $111.9 million fine against the company for its deeply flawed records and for allegedly
failing to reveal a 12-year gap in pipeline repair documents.
It would be the second-largest penalty ever against PG&E for gas-related violations, behind the $1.6
billion that the commission imposed last yearstemming from the 2010 explosion in San Bruno that
killed eight people.
PG&E noted that it has already paid $10.8 million in finesfor the March 3, 2014, blast in Carmel, after
regulators found the company had failed to alert residents of the gas leak promptly and had handled
the emergency poorly.
The company maintains it should not be penalized further, saying the safety divisions recommendation
misinterprets applicable regulations and the record in this proceeding, and fails to acknowledge the
significant improvements PG&E has made to its distribution records.
The Carmel explosion happened as crews were replacing a street distribution gas line, a smaller pipe
than the type that ruptured in San Bruno. The replacement line was supposed to be hooked up to a
separate pipeline, which PG&E records showed was made of steel.
However, sometime after 1997, PG&E or a contractor had inserted a plastic pipe inside the steel one.
In doing so, workers made slices in the steel line, rendering it useless for carrying natural gas. No one
marked the changes on PG&Es pipeline maps.
In 2014, workers relying on the inaccurate documents drilled into the old steel main and pierced the
plastic line inside. Gas then flowed out of the plastic line and into the surrounding steel line.

Big fine urged against PG&E for Carmel blast; Judge asked to fine PG&E $112 million for Carmel blast
The gas escaped through a cut in the steel pipe and eventually got into the cottage at Third Avenue and
Guadalupe Street. A pilot light apparently touched off the explosion that destroyed the one-bedroom
cottage, which was empty, and damaged three nearby homes. No one was injured.
Utilities commission staffers say a similar incident happened in July 2013 in Mountain View, when
welding crews caused a leak when they melted an unmapped plastic insert in a steel pipe. The leak
forced an evacuation but caused no injuries.
PG&E recently conceded that it has lost 12 years of gas-line paper repair recordsfor the South Bay,
and said that gap may have contributed to the Mountain View incident. Moldavsky accused the
company of hiding the problem from regulators until last June, more than year after the Carmel blast
investigation began.
PG&E should be reminded that the commission and its staff are not operating on a need-to-know
basis with PG&E, Moldavsky wrote in his recommendation. It should not have taken an official
regulatory probe to pry this information from PG&E.
PG&E has a duty to disclose even troubling facts to the commission, Moldavsky wrote. PG&Es
failure to do so makes a mockery out of the regulatory compact.
PG&E, in its argument to Bushey, acknowledged that inaccuracies in its records contributed to both
the Mountain View and Carmel incidents, but said regulators failed to demonstrate that PG&E fell
short of what the regulations do require.
The company conceded that it does not have perfect records, but added, No pipeline operator does.
For their part, Carmel officials are asking Bushey to levy a $652 million fine against PG&E for the
blast in their city and other problems.
How many times does the corporate mule need to be hit over the head with a 2-by-4 to get its
attention? city attorneys asked Bushey. Yet here we are again. The facts are clear, and the law is
clear.
Classification
Language: ENGLISH
Publication-Type: Newspaper
Subject: FINES & PENALTIES (91%); ENERGY & UTILITY LAW (89%); GAS LEAKS (78%);
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES (77%); ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE (77%);
LITIGATION (76%); LAWYERS (73%); ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (72%); AGENCY
ADJUDICATION (72%); JUDGES (71%); WOUNDS & INJURIES (65%); EXPLOSIONS;
GOVERNMENT; UTILITIES
Company: PG&E CORP (98%)
Ticker: PCG (NYSE) (98%)
PG &E could face PUC fines of up to $652 million in gas records probe
Contra Costa Times (California)
February 29, 2016 Monday
Copyright 2016 Contra Costa Newspapers All Rights Reserved
Section: BREAKING; News; Local; Business

Length: 679 words
Byline: By George Avalos , gavalos@bayareanewsgroup.com
Body
SAN BRUNO -- PG&E could face fines of up to $652 million for an array of alleged violations
connected to record-keeping for its natural gas system, which has been under intense scrutiny since a
fatal explosion in San Bruno, according to a new regulatory filing Monday.
City officials in Carmel, the scene of a PG&E-caused house explosion in 2014, staffers with the state
Public Utility Commission Safety and Enforcement Division, and The Utility Reform Network have
filed opening briefs in a proceeding that could lead to the PUC imposing hundreds of millions of
dollars in penalties on the embattled utility, a PG&E filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Monday disclosed.
PG&E has also known about its gas distribution record-keeping failures for decades, the PUC safety
division stated in its brief for the proceeding. The impacts of PG&Es failures have been felt across
its service territory. PG&Es gas distribution record-keeping violations endanger the public.
The safety unit, in a Feb. 26 filing, wants PG&E shareholders to finance a fine of $111.9 million and
is asking the PUC to order the utility to undertake several record-keeping remedies.
The new PUC filings, along with other proceeding such as a criminal trial connected to the San Bruno
explosion that is due to begin in a few weeks, are a reminder that numerous issues brought to light by
the San Bruno blast remain front and center.
PG&E insists that it did not break the law, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, Carmel
city officials stated in its filing with the PUC. The utilitys denials show that PG&E prefers to waste
limited resources instead of facing responsibility for its actions.
The city of Carmel, in a Feb. 26 filing, urged the PUC to impose a fine for all the record-keeping
violations being reviewed in the proceeding. The proposed $651.8 million would include a $136.6
million fine for the flawed records connected to the Carmel blast.
The San Bruno explosion, federal investigators have determined, was caused by a combination of
PG&Es flawed record-keeping and shoddy maintenance, and the PUCs lazy supervision of the utility.
PG&E disagrees with the Safety and Enforcement Divisions and the city of Carmels conclusions,
which we believe misinterpret applicable regulations and the record in this proceeding, and fail to
acknowledge the significant improvements PG&E has made to its distribution records, said PG&E
spokesman Gregory Snapper.

PG&E could face PUC fines of up to $652 million in gas records probe
A PUC law judge would have to issue a recommendation, which would then receive a final decision
from the PUC, on whether to levy fresh penalties on PG&E.
Besides the Carmel explosion, the proceeding is looking at alleged violations in connection with
incidents in Mountain View, Castro Valley, Morgan Hill, Milpitas, San Ramon, Antioch, Alameda,
Kentfield, Alamo, Lafayette, San Francisco, San Jose, Fresno, Colusa, Sacramento and Roseville.
Whats more, the PUC is also investigating missing gas leak repair records from its De Anza division,
which serves 420,000 residents in western Santa Clara County. The unit includes the cities of
Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto,
Saratoga, and Sunnyvale. Among the well-known corporate or government customers of the division:
Apple, Google, Lockheed Martin and the NASA Ames complex.
The De Anza division is missing records from 1979 through 1991, according to the Safety and
Enforcement Division filing.
San Francisco-based PG&E said it has undertaken numerous initiatives since the San Bruno explosion
in September 2010 to improve its gas operations. Among them, the utility has: digitized more than 12
million pages of gas system records in recent years; deployed digital mapping and analytics tools for
its gas distribution system; and empowered employees to stop work on projects if the gas system
records dont match what is observed in the field.
Weve made extensive progress, Snapper said. We have more work to do.
Contact George Avalos at 408-859-5167. Follow him at Twitter.com/georgeavalos .
Classification
Language: ENGLISH
Subject: FINES & PENALTIES (91%); ENERGY & UTILITY LAW (90%); CITY
GOVERNMENT (89%); SUITS & CLAIMS (78%); INVESTIGATIONS (78%); CITIES (77%);
US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (77%); SECURITIES LAW (77%); FEDERAL
INVESTIGATIONS (74%); SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE FORCES (71%); SHAREHOLDERS
(69%); JUDGES (65%)
Organization: SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION (56%)
Industry: PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONS (90%); NATURAL GAS & ELECTRIC
UTILITIES (90%); ENERGY & UTILITY LAW (90%); NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION (89%);
UTILITIES INDUSTRY (77%); NATURAL GAS PRODUCTS (77%); SECURITIES LAW (77%);
NATURAL GAS (72%)
San Bruno: PG&E and federal prosecutors dig in ahead of criminal trial
February 24, 2016 Wednesday

Length: 646 words
Body
SAN BRUNO -- The prosecution and the defense in a criminal trial to determine PG&Es guilt or
innocence in connection with a lethal explosion in San Bruno appear to be firmly entrenched and
committed to winning the case, just one month before jury selection begins.
Both sides are digging in, neither side has blinked, said Peter Henning, a professor of law with
Detroit-based Wayne State University. This is gladiatorial combat in a courtroom.
Prosecutors intend to prove that PG&E knew of manufacturing problems on the natural gas pipeline
that exploded, destroyed documents connected to the pipeline hidden beneath San Bruno, attempted
to impede a federal probe into the aftermath of the blast, sought to divert revenue to profits at the
expense of safe gas operations and equipment, and harvested ill-gained profits by neglecting safety.
San Francisco-based PG&Es defense team plans to show that the prosecutors are engaged in a
campaign to distract jurors and prejudice them against the embattled utility, and that the government
has fashioned a case riddled with holes. PG&E attorneys say no company employee deliberately and
willfully broke pipeline safety rules in connection with the San Bruno disaster.
PG&E focused on maximizing profits at the expense of safety, the federal prosecutors stated in court
papers this week.
The governments strategy here is now becoming apparent. It intends to distract and seeks to
prejudice, PG&E attorneys stated in their court filing this week. The government will distract the
jury with weeks of testimony not directed to a careful evaluation of the actual elements of the charged
violations. And it will prejudice the jury by trying a case against a corporate logo.
A jury will have to sort through those arguments in a case that could last weeks or months. Meanwhile,
critics are watching with interest.
The truth is, and that truth is well known, that PG&E diverted funds away from safety, said state Sen.
Jerry Hill, whose San Mateo County district includes San Bruno.
The explosion in September 2010 killed eight and leveled a San Bruno neighborhood. PG&E faces
13 criminal counts, including 12 allegations that the company violated pipeline safety rules and one
that it obstructed a National Transportation Safety Board probe into the disaster. In December, the
judge in the trial dismissed 14 charges and sharply reduced the original maximum fine of $1.13 billion.
PG&E has pleaded not guilty on all the counts and faces a fine of up to $562 million if convicted.

San Bruno: PG&E and federal prosecutors dig in ahead of criminal trial
The prosecution witnesses include two key former executives with PG&E and a former top staffer with
the state Public Utilities Commission, according to court papers.
Those witnesses for the government include Peter Darbee, the ex-CEO who headed the company
during the years before the explosion as well as a period after the blast; Brian Cherry, a former
regulatory executive and lobbyist with PG&E who is one of the key figures in an email scandal that
outlines cozy ties between the PUC and PG&E that created an atmosphere of lax supervision by the
PUC of PG&E; and Paul Clanon, former executive director of the PUC.
Other key prosecution witnesses include Leslie McNiece, a former PG&E employee who was hired
to improve the utilitys record keeping system for its pipeline network, and Howard Lubow, a gas
industry expert who will testify that PG&E placed profits ahead of safety.
PG&E has objected, to one degree or another, to all the government witnesses.
The trial is due to start March 22 with jury selection. Prosecutors estimate that their presentation and
witness testimony should take roughly four weeks. Its expected that the defense could require two
weeks for its presentation. Jury selection and jury deliberations would add an unknown amount to
those estimates.
Classification
Language: ENGLISH
Subject: JURY TRIALS (90%); WITNESSES (89%); CRIMINAL FINES (78%); CRIMINAL
CONVICTIONS (78%); TESTIMONY (78%); LAW COURTS & TRIBUNALS (77%); LAW
SCHOOLS (76%); COUNTY GOVERNMENT (76%); CAMPAIGN FINANCE (75%); ENERGY
& UTILITY LAW (75%); ENERGY & UTILITY SECTOR PERFORMANCE (75%); US
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (74%); FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS (74%); JURY DUTY (73%);
COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS (71%); FINES & PENALTIES (71%); EXECUTIVES
(68%)
Industry: PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION (90%); LAW SCHOOLS (76%); ENERGY &
UTILITY LAW (75%); ENERGY & UTILITY SECTOR PERFORMANCE (75%); UTILITIES
INDUSTRY (75%); NATURAL GAS PRODUCTS (75%); COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY
PROFESSORS (71%); NATURAL GAS PIPELINES (70%); PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSIONS (70%); NATURAL GAS (70%)
Person: PETER A DARBEE (56%)
PG &E bills headed higher in March and in 2017

February 23, 2016 Tuesday

Length: 632 words
Body
SAN FRANCISCO -- PG&E monthly bills for residential customers are on the rise again.
The upcoming increases will arrive in two stages. Starting in March, as a result of previous approvals
by the state Public Utilities Commission, electricity bills for average residential customers will rise
$2.29 a month, bringing the average residential bill to $149.50 a month.
Separately, in papers filed Tuesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the utility said it
needed additional revenue increases from ratepayers that could lead to a $3 a month average rise in gas
and electricity bills.
Bottom line: By January 2017, gas and electricity bills could climb to $152.50 a month, which would
be $5.29 a month higher than the current average bill for gas and electricity of $147.21 a month.
These pending and potential increases in Pacific Gas & Electric bills come on the heels of a $9.55
monthly increase for gas and electricity that went into effect on Jan. 1 of this year, the result of prior
PUC votes. At the end of 2015, the average residential PG&E bill was $137.66 a month.
We are here to help our customers and their families make smart energy choices and save money
whenever possible, said Donald Cutler, a spokesman for the utility. PG&E provides our customers
with a number of programs that help them use less energy, run their homes and businesses more
efficiently and (manage) their monthly energy bills.
PG&E is seeking more revenue to undertake improvements and upgrades in its gas transmission and
storage system in the wake of a fatal explosion in September 2010 that killed eight and demolished a
San Bruno neighborhood.
PG&E wants more and more of our paycheck every month, said Mindy Spatt, a spokeswoman for
The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group. We know that customers are struggling already with
housing affordability, and higher utility bills add to that. And we believe the PUC could do more,
absolutely, to protect ratepayers.
It could have been worse. San Francisco-based PG&E did detail on Tuesday proposals that potentially
could extract less of a bite from ratepayers than first expected.
The utility had originally anticipated it would require revenue increases from ratepayers that would
have increased monthly bills by $4 a month starting in early 2017, but that idea was replaced by the
$3 a month increase.

PG&E bills headed higher in March and in 2017
Nevertheless, the already authorized increase in electricity bills of $2.29 a month, along with the
potential $3 rise starting in 2017, depending on future PUC decisions, still leaves customers facing the
prospect of monthly bills that would be $5.29 a month more, or 3.6 percent higher, than the current
PG&E bill.
The PUC also is debating a separate increase in gas bills that would result from the outcome of a rate
case related to the companys gas transmission and storage system. Under this proposal, bills for
PG&E natural gas residential customers would rise $5.23 a month were the PUC to endorse PG&Es
proposal. The full five-member commission is slated to make a decision by midyear.
A big part of what the PUC is not doing a good enough job to make sure that rates are fair and
reasonable, Spatt said. When you see thousands of PG&E customers getting service shut off for
nonpayment, you know theres a problem. An estimated 25,800 PG&E customers suffer service
terminations each month due to delinquent payments.
Despite the various increases that are certain to occur, or are pending, PG&E noted that its monthly
bills would still look favorable compared with other U.S. utilities.
PG&E bills will remain below the national averages, Cutler said. Based on the latest available data,
the national average combined bill is approximately $194.33 a month.
Classification
Language: ENGLISH
Subject: ENERGY & UTILITY LAW (90%); ELECTRONIC BILLING (78%); HOUSING
MARKET (78%); CONSUMER PROTECTION (78%); CONSUMER WATCHDOGS (78%);
ENERGY & UTILITY SECTOR PERFORMANCE (77%)
Organization: SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION (57%)
Industry: UTILITY RATES (90%); NATURAL GAS & ELECTRIC UTILITIES (90%); ENERGY
& UTILITY LAW (90%); ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION (90%); PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSIONS (89%); ELECTRONIC BILLING (78%); HOUSING MARKET
(78%); ENERGY & UTILITY SECTOR PERFORMANCE (77%); UTILITIES INDUSTRY (77%)
Geographic: CALIFORNIA, USA (74%)
Load-Date: February 24, 2016

Defendant's Supplement of Recent Adverse Publicity 03-07-16

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defendant's Supplement of Recent Adverse Publicity 03-07-16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 8

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CASE NO. CR-14-00175-TEH

Hon. Thelton Henderson

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 8

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 8

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 8

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 8

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343 Filed 03/07/16 Page 6 of 8

[I]n a criminal trial to determine PG&Es guilt or innocence in connection with a

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343 Filed 03/07/16 Page 7 of 8

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343 Filed 03/07/16 Page 8 of 8

Dated: March 7, 2016

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 33

Tug-of-war over lawyers emails could delay PG&E trial - SFGate#photo-9508715#photo-9508715#p...

Tug-of-war over lawyers emails could delay PG&E trial

Tug-of-war over lawyers emails could delay PG&E trial - SFGate#photo-9508715#photo-9508715#p...

Tug-of-war over lawyers emails could delay PG&E trial - SFGate

Tug-of-war over lawyers emails could delay PG&E trial

Write your comment here

Tug-of-war over lawyers emails could delay PG&E trial - SFGate

Way to look guilty as hell, PG&E.

Exhibit A in PG&E criminal

Photo: Paul Chinn, The Chronicle

If federal prosecutors get their way, jurors in the upcoming Pacific

presented to the jury when

San Bruno's Survivors - 5 Years After the Blast

Californias natural gas

Professor Rory Little of UC

problems with its gas system. She is expected to describe the

2016 Hearst Corporation

Forgot your password?

San Francisco Chronicle

English (US) Privacy Terms Cookies

Exhibit A in PG&E criminal trial: San Bruno pipe

22 Likes 5 Comments 3 Shares

Judge asked to fine PG&E $112 million for Carmel blast

Judge asked to fine PG&E $112 million for Carmel blast

Write your comment here

$112M is a pittance to PG&E

4 days ago (edited)

No amount of fines will do the job.

5 days ago (edited)

Protecting public safety mandates a substantial fine being applied to PG&E

Break up PGE. Gas and electric biz

5 days ago (edited)

@TeaRexx Oh yeah - 80% plus Democratic Convention approval = slam dunk!

5 days ago (edited)

5 days ago (edited)

Smokescreen to de-privatize utilities.

This post has been removed by the author.

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 26 of 33

Section: Main News; Pg. C1

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 27 of 33

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 28 of 33

Section: BREAKING; News; Local; Business

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 29 of 33

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 30 of 33

Section: BREAKING; News; Local; Business

Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 343-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 31 of 33