Firm replies to PG&E’s “shocking positions” in California Supreme Court power shutoff class action

October 20, 2022 – Firm lawyers Nicholas Carlin, Brian Conlon, and Kyle O’Malley today filed a reply brief on behalf of plaintiff Anthony Gantner and California utility customers in the California Supreme Court. Gantner, who filed a class action against PG&E after the utility shut off power to hundreds of thousands of customers for days at a time in the Fall of 2019, argues that PG&E should be liable for all the harms its decades of negligent grid maintenance caused—including the harms caused by PG&E’s “Public Safety Power Shutoffs” (PSPSs).

PG&E argues that it should not be liable because the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates PSPSs, and lawsuits against utilities are preempted if they interfere with regulation of the utility. PG&E argues that if it would have to pay for damages caused by the PSPSs, it would refrain from conducting PSPSs even if they would otherwise be necessary to protect the public from wildfires.  

The firm’s brief castigates PG&E for its “shocking positions” and “egregious violations of the public trust” for even suggesting that it might subject Californians to even more of PG&E’s negligently caused wildfires just to avoid paying damages to its customers caused by the PSPSs.

The brief further points out that plaintiffs are only seeking compensation for damage caused by those PSPSs that were made necessary by PG&E’s negligent maintenance, not all PSPSs, and that under CPUC regulations, PG&E is not authorized to consider the cost to itself of implementing a PSPS, and therefore there is no interference with CPUC regulations by holding PG&E liable.

No further briefing from the parties is expected and amicus briefs are due to be filed in the California Supreme Court in mid-November. Oral argument has not yet been set. For past news about this case, see here and here.