Embattled PG&E faces new lawsuits, protests
Filings: Utility accused of false ads on safety
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. misled the public about its efforts to maintain power equipment in a way that helps prevent wildfires, Camp Fire victims allege in a pair of new lawsuits.
The suits filed Monday take aim at PG&E’s efforts to improve its image after the deadly 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion, saying the utility ran false or misleading advertisements and made incorrect public statements regarding its safetyrelated maintenance work.
The suits filed in Butte County Superior Court open a new front in the courtroom battle gearing up over California’s deadliest and most destructive wildfire, which has led to mounting lawsuits against PG&E in recent weeks.
PG&E spokeswoman Lynsey Paulo said on Tuesday the utility is aware of the lawsuits and that safety of customers remains its “highest priority.” “Right now, our focus is on assessing infrastructure, safely restoring power where possible and helping our customers recover and rebuild,” she said.
Paulo added that advertising costs are covered with shareholder dollars and don’t impact rates.
In one PG&E message
cited in court papers, the utility said it would be “checking and adjusting” transmission lines as part of a commitment to provide “safe, reliable and affordable energy” to its customers.
The advertisement or public comment, which is undated in the lawsuits, says the utility may modify transmission towers or substations, replace or modify transmission lines or replace wooden poles where necessary.
But the plaintiffs’ attorneys say that claim is contradicted by PG&E’s apparent failure to fix issues at a transmission tower that malfunctioned in the area shortly before the Camp Fire started. Five towers on the same transmission line were previously “knocked over” in a 2012 storm, the suits note.
“We are tired of the false promises by PG&E,” said attorney Frank Pitre, one of the lawyers representing a Butte County mother and daughter who each lost a home in the blaze. “The public is being misled, and as a result, they continue to be in harm’s way.”
While the cause of the devastating fire is still under investigation, speculation quickly turned to PG&E when it reported the transmission line problem to regulators. A lawsuit filed last week focused partly on the issue and made a case for how the equipment there, described as poorly maintained, caused the conflagration.
In the past three years, PG&E has spent more than $37 million “promoting itself as a company that places the safety of its customers and operations first,” suggesting that decisions about infrastructure spending and vegetation management are driven by safety, the suits say.
But “PG&E’s rhetoric does not match its actions,” attorneys wrote.
The suit asks for an injunction to “halt PG&E’s false advertising.” Pitre said he believes the company may have spent as much as $50 million on advertising in recent years, but $37 million is what his team has been able to document so far.
Pitre said the goal is to get PG&E to “stop spending money on falsely promoting their safety” and instead invest more in infrastructure and vegetation management. He also wants to see the utility spend the same amount it paid for advertisements in recent years on infrastructure improvements.
“We’re using the injunction because we need to send a message to those people who are in charge of the decision-making that they have to start now redirecting money to safety as opposed to talking about it,” he said.
Separately, PG&E announced Monday it will implement a series of new wildfire prevention efforts and step up its support for survivors of the Camp Fire, which killed at least 86 people and destroyed nearly 14,000 homes.
The utility said it is expanding its inspections and other safety protocols to lessen wildfire risk across its service area and appointing Aaron Johnson, a vice president in its electric operations division, to a new role as PG&E’s representative overseeing the long-term recovery of Butte County.
Among Johnson’s duties will be working to modernize and rebuild the county’s energy infrastructure, joining the community’s efforts to provide housing and helping support local philanthropic efforts, PG&E said.
The utility also said it is conducting “detailed safety inspections” of more than 5,500 miles of transmission lines, including 50,000 transmission towers and poles, in areas where fire risk is high. Already, about 350 miles have been inspected.
The utility said the transmission equipment inspections will include ground and climbing observations as well as images from drones and, sometimes, helicopter. PG&E promised to quickly take action to resolve any identified safety-related issues and said it will undertake a similar effort for distribution lines early next year.
One suit was on behalf of Louise Howell, a 67-year-old woman who sought shelter from the fire in a lake, and Lila Williams, her 93-yearold mother who drove deeper into the mountains in order to avoid being overrun by flames in slow-moving traffic. They are represented by lawyers at Burlingame’s Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and other firms.
A second suit, making the same false-advertising claims, is on behalf of Chardonnay Telly, whose 74-year-old father, Richard Clayton Brown of Concow, perished in the Camp Fire. Telly is represented by San Francisco’s Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger and other firms.
PG&E’s continual advertisements and public representations of itself, including recent commercials about its vegetation management program, gave them “and the residents of Paradise and California, generally, a false sense of security,” the suits say. They also point to messages issued by PG&E issued in early November as it warned it may shut off power in some Northern California communities, including part of Butte County, because of fire danger.
But the utility ultimately did not move forward with the shutoff, stating hours after the Camp Fire started that “weather conditions did not warrant this safety measure.” But the suits say they did, listing several factors such as a fire danger warning from the National Weather Service, as well as low recorded humidity levels and wind speeds it says fulfilled PG&E’s stated criteria for planned blackouts.
The suit, like several before it, takes issue with PG&E’s broader maintenance practices.