ABSTRACT: RE: USA
v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Criminal
Case California Northern District Court, Case
No. 3:14-cr-00175
District Judge Thelton e. Henderson, presiding
District Judge Thelton e. Henderson, presiding
U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson is
scheduled to sentence Pacific Gas
and Electric Company on January 23, 2017, at 2:30 P.M., Courtroom G,
15th Floor, San Francisco, for criminal
pipeline safety violations stemming from a fatal pipeline explosion in San
Bruno on September 9, 2010, which “killed eight people, injured 66 others and
destroyed or damaged dozens of houses.” In August 2016, the jury convicted PG&E of
six felony counts, including “one count of obstructing a National
Transportation Safety Board probe of the San Bruno explosion and five counts of
violating a federal pipeline safety law’s requirements for identifying,
evaluating, recording and prioritizing risks in its high-pressure natural gas
transmission lines,” according to reporting by Julia Cheever, Bay City News (maximum
possible fine $500,000 per conviction, or a total of $3 million).
HIGHLIGHTS OF UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM and HIGHLIGHTS OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
are presented; UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM and DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM document
copies are embedded.
UNITED STATES’
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case No. CR
14-00175 THE
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO
DIVISION
HIGHLIGHTS OF UNITED STATES’
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Offense Conduct
The Presentence
Report (PSR) accurately summarizes the proof at trial regarding PG&E’s offense conduct.
Count One
The evidence
proved that PG&E intentionally and corruptly endeavored to obstruct,
influence, or impede the NTSB’s
investigation.
Counts Two and
Five Through Eight
PG&E was
also convicted on Counts Two and Five through Eight, which charged knowing and willful
violations of Minimum Federal Safety Standard regulations for natural gas
pipelines, in violation of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. §
60123(a).
Relevant Conduct
In addition to
the offenses of conviction, the evidence at trial demonstrated a larger pattern
of obstructive conduct by PG&E, as well as other violations of the pipeline
safety regulations.
- Obstruction
- Other Pipeline Safety Violations
The
evidence also showed, by at least a preponderance of the evidence and
notwithstanding the jury’s acquittal on Counts 3-4 and 9-12, that PG&E
failed to maintain leak repair records and to retain strength test pressure
records (STPRs), as required under 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.709(a) and 192.517(a).
SENTENCING
GUIDELINES CALCULATION
The
government concurs with the sentencing guidelines calculation set forth in the
revised PSR.
CONCLUSION
PG&E
violated the sacred trust placed in it by every person living in or merely
passing through Northern
California to follow minimum standards of safety in operating its natural gas pipelines – pipes that transport highly explosive material under the public’s
homes, freeways, and businesses. Its deliberate and repeated choices not to do
so were motivated by the desire to maximize profits instead of safety – in
other words, greed. The San Bruno explosion was not an “accident”; it was a
matter of time. And PG&E’s efforts to corruptly mislead the federal
investigation of the explosion highlight its status as a bad corporate citizen.
PG&E’s
crimes compel a serious sentence that will alter its culture for good. Only
through the comprehensive probationary scheme laid out in the PSR, as modified
in the government’s proposal and together with the maximum fine allowed by
statute, will the sentence reflect the seriousness of PG&E’s crimes,
promote respect for the law, justly punish PG&E, and protect the public from further crimes by PG&E, and adequately deter future such crimes.
Finally, the
United States anticipates that several victims of PG&E’s crimes, including representatives
from San Bruno and the NTSB, may seek to be heard at sentencing regarding the impacts of
PG&E’s crimes. The government will make every effort to advise the Court of
the number of individuals who wish to speak prior to commencement of the sentencing
proceedings.
DEFENDANT’S
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
CASE NO.
CR-14-00175-THE
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant.
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO
DIVISION
HIGLIGHTS OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
AN APPROPRIATE
SENTENCE
PG&E is
prepared to submit the maximum statutory fine ($3,000,000). In addition, as further noted
below, PG&E is not opposed to the imposition of a properly scoped
monitorship and is working
with the Government on a joint proposal which, if agreement is reached, will be submitted to the
Court ahead of sentencing.
Governing Legal
Standards
Congress
requires that in assessing a “just” punishment, district courts “shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court,
then, has the power and
the duty to impose a sentence that reflects balance and due proportion.
The Court Should
Decline to Impose Additional Probation Conditions As
Recommended by
the Probation Office
Probation
conditions that functionally increase the punishment above the statutory maximum are
unconstitutional.
Consistent with
those principles, PG&E objects in particular to the following aspects of the Probation
Office’s recommendations.
- The
Analysis Underlying the PSR Recommendations Is Flawed
In its revised
presentence report (“PSR”), the Probation Office has recommended several probationary requirements
that are based on faulty conclusions or a misunderstanding of the law. And the
conditions recommended by the Probation Office appear to stem largely from the report’s
incorrect conclusion that the conduct underlying the regulatory violations found
by the jury caused the
explosion in San Bruno. PSR at 43. The government did not allege and the jury did not find
that the regulatory violations charged in this case caused the tragic accident
in San Bruno. As the
Court repeatedly instructed, “there is no allegation in this case and there has
been no evidence in this case that any alleged regulatory violation caused the
San Bruno explosion. Such evidence had no place in this criminal prosecution
because this case is not about the cause of the San Bruno
explosion[.]”
ADDITIONAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE PSR
PG&E
respectfully submits that the PSR has incorrectly applied Guidelines
provisions, and this part of the report’s analysis must be rejected.
The guidelines
and policy statements in Chapter Eight of the Guidelines apply in this case. U.S.S.G. §
8A1.1. With respect to the fine, Section 8C2.1 directs the Court to apply
either the specific
provisions set forth in Sections 8C2.2 through 8C2.9 for certain enumerated offenses, or to
apply Section 8C2.10, which directs the Court to determine the fine according
to 18 U.S.C. §§
3553 and 3572. PG&E agrees with PSR’s conclusion that Section 8C2.10
applies to all of the
counts of conviction in this case. PSR at ¶ 138.
Note: “PSR”
Presentence Report
REFERENCE:
Prosecutors urge strict probation conditions on PG&E, Julia Cheever Bay City News, January 10, 2017
Prosecutors urge strict probation conditions on PG&E, Julia Cheever Bay City News, January 10, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment