Three Noteworthy City Council Special Meeting – Workshop Agenda Items, March 5, 2018

ABSTRACT: Three Noteworthy City Council Special Meeting – Workshop Agenda Items, March 5, 2018 are featured namely CLOSED SESSION, PUBLIC APPEARANCES and EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS including Monterey-Salinas Transit Presentation, Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau Presentation, Monterey Bay Community Power Presentation and Pacific Gas & Electric Presentation,New Gas Line Project. The CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – WORKSHOP and Staff Reports document copies are embedded.

Agenda 03-05-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - WORKSHOP
Monday, March 5, 2018
CLOSED SESSION 4:00 P.M.
OPEN SESSION 5:30 PM

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

CLOSED SESSION

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)

Name of Case: Chilone Payton vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA

Monterey Superior Court Case No. 16CV003820

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)

Name of Case: Jacqueline Simonelli, Antonio C. Simonelli, Petitioners/Plaintiffs v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, Christopher Tescher, Dennis Levett, Pot D'Oro, LLC, and Doe 1 through Doe 100, inclusive, Respondents/Defendants Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M123079

C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)

Name of Case: Alfred Johnson v. City of Carmel and Does 1 through Doe 20, inclusive, Respondents/Defendants: Monterey County Superior Court Case No.17CV003800

D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)

Name of Case: Yolanda Macias v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, and Does 1 through Doe 25, inclusive, Respondents/Defendants Monterey County Superior Court Case No.17CV003685

E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)

Name of Case: Gerit Sand; Cobblestone Bakery, a sole proprietorship, Plaintiff v. City of Carmel- by-the-Sea, Defendant - Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M130393

F. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING OR ANTICIPATED

LITIGATION (Facts and Circumstances)

Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2): 2 cases

G. FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES RULING OF FEBRUARY 16, 2018.

OPEN STUDY SESSION 5:30 PM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ANNOUNCEMENTS

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

Members of the public are entitled to speak on matters of municipal concern not on the agenda during Public Appearances. Each person's comments shall be limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council, Board or Commission. Matters not appearing on the City Council, Board or Commission's agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names so that they may be identified in the minutes of the meeting.

EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS

A. Monterey-Salinas Transit Presentation

B. Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau Presentation

C. Monterey Bay Community Power Presentation

D. Pacific Gas & Electric Presentation, New Gas Line Project
Pacific Gas & Electric Presentation,New Gas Line Project 03-05-18.pdf by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

Pacific Gas & Electric Presentation, New Gas Line Project

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT

JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (CASE NUMBER: 0971 3:14CR00175-001 THE)

ABSTRACT: The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson Senior U.S. District Judge, on January 26, 2017, issued a JUDMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE and ORDER concerning a third-party monitor. THE DEFENDANT ORGANIZATION: was found guilty on count(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Superseding Indictment after a plea of not guilty. PROBATION The defendant organization is hereby sentenced to probation for a term of: Five (5) years. This term consists of five years on each of Counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8, all counts to run concurrent.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION
1. While on probation, PG&E shall not commit another Federal, State, or local crime.
2. PG&E shall comply with the separately entered order concerning a third-party monitor (see attached order on pages 6 through 18 of the judgment).
3. Within six months of the date of the judgment, PG&E shall develop and submit to the Court an effective compliance and ethics program consistent with § 8B2.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The submission shall include a schedule for implementation. PG&E shall revise the program and file updates with the Court whenever deemed appropriate by the third-party monitor.
4. Within 60 days of the date of the judgment, PG&E shall place one full-page advertisement in both the Wall Street Journal and San Francisco Chronicle publicizing the nature of the offenses committed, the convictions, the nature of the punishment imposed, and the steps that will be taken to prevent the recurrence of similar offenses.
5. For three months beginning no later than 60 days after sentencing, and to the greatest extent possible replicating the same channels and air times that PG&E used before and/or during trial in this case in 2016, PG&E will air television commercials which publicize the nature of the offenses committed, the convictions, the nature of the punishment imposed, and the steps that will be taken to prevent the recurrence of similar offenses. PG&E will air such commercials up to the cost of $3,000,000 less the cost of the print advertisements referred to in (4) above. The cost of advertising does not constitute a monetary penalty. PG&E estimates that this will result in approximately 12,500 commercials of approximately 60 seconds in duration across broadcast and cable outlets over the three-month period. PG&E will not include language regarding the conviction as part of the company's public service safety announcements, including what actions the public should take in the event of wires down, gas leaks or other emergencies, and which typically run on radio and digitally given time sensitivity, because such information could cause the public to fail to take the needed safety actions in a timely fashion.
6. PG&E shall submit to: (A) a reasonable number of regular or unannounced examinations of its books and records at appropriate business premises by the probation officer or experts engaged by the Court; and (B) interrogation of knowledgeable individuals within the organization. Compensation to and costs of any experts engaged by the Court shall be paid by the organization. The probation officer and any Court-engaged experts shall work with the third-party monitor to minimize duplication of efforts.
7. PG&E shall perform 10,000 hours of community service. At least 2,000 of these hours shall be performed by high-level personnel, as defined in the commentary to § 8A1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines. PG&E shall provide the prospective community service workers’ names and titles to the probation officer to ensure compliance with this condition. The location and type of community service must be preapproved by the probation officer and to every extent possible be in the City of San Bruno. The intent of this condition is to require 10,000 hours of community service that PG&E would not otherwise have done, and the probation officer shall therefore consider as part of the approval process the extent to which the proposed projects can be tied to existing service initiatives by PG&E. The community service shall be geared toward giving back to communities affected by PG&E’s negligence, with special emphasis on the City of San Bruno, as directed by the probation officer.
8. PG&E shall notify the probation officer and monitor immediately upon learning of (A) any material adverse change in its business or financial condition or prospects, or (B) the commencement of any bankruptcy proceeding, major civil litigation, criminal prosecution, or administrative proceeding against the organization, or any investigation or formal inquiry by governmental authorities regarding the organization.
9. PG&E shall pay the fine and special assessment in a lump sum within 60 days of the date of this judgment. Any fines and special assessment payment is not to be passed off to the ratepayers.
CRIMINAL MONETARY PENALTIES
Assessment $2,400.00
Fine $3,000,000.00
TOTAL $3,002,400.00

Judgment in a Criminal Case Usa v. Pg&e Company 1-31-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Northern District of California
JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
CASE NUMBER: 0971 3:14CR00175-001 THE

REFERENCE:
PG&E ordered to advertise its guilt for pipeline safety violations
By Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle
Updated 3:32 pm, Thursday, January 26, 2017

U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson Postpones Sentencing of PG&E ‘saying he needed more time to consider comments by attorneys for the government and PG&E’

Judge postpones sentencing of PG&E in case tied to blast
Sudhin Thanawala, Associated Press
January 24, 2017

U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson to Sentence Pacific Gas and Electric Company, January 23, 2017 (USA v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Criminal Case California Northern District Court, Case No. 3:14-cr-00175)

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

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.

905 United States' Sentencing Memo 1-09-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

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.

1. Obstruction
2. 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.

906 DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMO 1-09-17.pdf by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

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.

1. 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

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

ABSTRACT: Re: BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation And Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines, the NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT document copy is embedded. Please be advised that Investigation 14-11-008 is being reassigned from Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Maribeth A. Bushey to ALJ Rafael L. Lirag. Dated November 22, 2016, at San Francisco, California.

Notice of Reassignment 11-22-2016 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 11-22-16
NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 DECISION REGARDING INVESTIGATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S GAS DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES RECORDS

ABSTRACT: Re: BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation And Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines, the DECISION REGARDING INVESTIGATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S GAS DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES RECORDS document copy is embedded. Summary Today‘s decision finds that Pacific Gas and Electric Company failed to comply with applicable law and regulations in maintaining accurate records of its natural gas distribution system. These inaccurate records were relied on for locating and marking underground facilities in anticipation of excavation. The inaccurately mapped and consequently inaccurately marked facilities led to excavators damaging the distribution system in several instances. Release of natural gas, service interruptions and, in one case, significant property damage resulted. Today‘s decision first separates the violations into systemic failures and isolated mistakes in an otherwise compliant system, and imposes substantial fines for systemic failures and graduated fines for the isolated instances. Total fines of $25,626,000 are assessed for the systemic violations and incidents found in today‘s decision. With the Citation previously assessed for the Carmel incident, the total fine imposed on Pacific Gas and Electric Company for distribution system incidents is $36,476,000. This proceeding is closed.
Carmel proposed fines of up to $651 million, with supporting calculations. Carmel also recommended linking executive compensation to safety objectives, appointing independent monitors for PG&E‘s system, and ordering PG&E to compensate Carmel for its expenses.
The City requested reimbursement from PG&E for its expenses. The Commission‘s policy choice to decline to use its equitable powers to order PG&E to reimburse governmental entities for their litigation costs was set forth in D.15-04-024 at 168-170. The City has presented no reason to depart from that policy choice.
The City also recommended linking executive compensation to safety performance; a similar proposal was also examined and found duplicative or unsupported in D.15-04-024 at 167. Finally, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea sought appointment of an independent monitor. That proposal was also considered in D.15-04-024 at 155– 60, where the Commission authorized another $30 million in reimbursement for experts for SED in addition to the $15 million awarded in Rulemaking 11-02-019, and otherwise denied the requested independent monitor.
Finally, the parties agree that the fines ordered in today‘s decision may not be included in regulated revenue requirement nor recovery sought from ratepayers in any manner.

IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Within 30 days of the effective date of this order Pacific Gas and Electric Company must pay a fine of $25,626,000 by check or money order payable to the California Public Utilities Commission and mailed or delivered to the Commission‘s Fiscal Office, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 3000, San Francisco, CA 94102. Write on the face of the check or money order ―For deposit to the General Fund per Decision 16-08-020.‖
2. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) shall convene, support, and report on a meet and confer process to consider and develop additional remedial measures necessary to address the issues identified in today‘s decision. The objective of this process will be a comprehensive compliance plan that includes all feasible and cost-effective measures necessary to improve PG&E‘s natural gas distribution system record-keeping. The participants shall begin their review with Exhibit E to Decision 15-04-024 to evaluate those remedial measures to determine whether more or different requirements are needed for the gas distribution system. All parties to this proceeding shall be invited to participate as well as all parties to the most recent general rate case and Investigation 11-02-016. The Commission‘s Safety and Enforcement Division shall participate and monitor this process. No later than 120 days after the effective date of this order, PG&E shall file and serve its initial compliance plan.
3. Investigation 14-11-008 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated August 18, 2016, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL PICKER
President
MICHEL PETER FLORIO
CATHERINE J.K. SANDOVAL
CARLA J. PETERMAN
LIANE M. RANDOLPH
Commissioners

Decision Regarding Investigation of Pg and e Gas Distribution Facilities Records 8-26-16

Date of Issuance 8/26/2016
DECISION REGARDING INVESTIGATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S GAS DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES RECORDS

MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. Attorneys for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Proposed Fines of $651,000,000; California Public Utilities Commission Orders Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) To Pay Fine of $25,626,000. City Requested Reimbursement from PG&E for Its Expenses, Recommended Linking Executive Compensation to Safety Performance & Appointment of an Independent Monitor: DENIED

ABSTRACT: Between October 2014 and June 2016 (as of the latest Check Register), City legal expenditures related to the natural gas explosion in Carmel-by-the-Sea, March, 2014, and, separately, a formal penalty consideration case against PG&E relating to recordkeeping associated with the utility’s gas distribution infrastructure (BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Investigation 14-11-008), amounted to a total of $440,396.45 to MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP., resulting in a $10,850,000 Citation assessed for the Carmel incident and total fines of $25,626,000 for the systemic violations and incidents, for a the total fine imposed on Pacific Gas and Electric Company for distribution system incidents of $36,476,000.

TIMELINE

MARCH 3, 2014 – AUGUST 18, 2016

MARCH 3, 2014: Carmel – March 3, 2014 A natural gas explosion destroyed a house located in the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Prior to the explosion, a PG&E welding crew was preparing to tie-in the gas distribution main along 3rd Avenue into the newly installed plastic main on Guadalupe Street. The crew welded a tapping tee onto a two-inch steel distribution main on 3rd Avenue, and did not know that the steel distribution main had an inserted and unmapped 1¼-inch plastic line, which was damaged by the welding and tapping process which caused the natural gas to escape the plastic main. Natural gas migrated into the residential structure and later resulted in an explosion.

OCTOBER 9, 2014 – NOVEMBER 18, 2014: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA LEGAL EXPENDITURES
Steven R. Myers Attorney MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 555 12TH STREET,

SUITE 1500 OAKLAND CA 94607
For: Carmel-by-the-Sea
Emilie E. De La Motte Attorney At Law MEYERS NAVE RIBACK SILVER & WILSON
Britt K. Strottman Attorney MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON

129212 10/9/2014 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP $918.75 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LEGAL

Vendor Total-> $918.75

129431 11/18/2014 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP $10,212.70 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LEGAL

129431 11/18/2014 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP $7,220.28 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LEGAL

129431 11/18/2.014 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP $4,450.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LEGAL

129431 11/18/2014 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP $1,870.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LEGAL

Vendor Total----> $23,752.98

TOTAL: Contract Spend $24,671.73

NOVEMBER 20, 2014: CPUC ISSUES $10.85 MILLION STAFF CITATION TO PG&E; COMMISSIONERS OPEN FORMAL CASE TO EVALUATE PG&E’S GAS DISTRIBUTION RECORDKEEPING
Docket #: I.14-11-008
SAN FRANCISCO, November 20, 2014 - The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today issued a $10.85 million staff Citation to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for a natural gas explosion in Carmel-by-the-Sea in March, and, separately, opened a formal penalty consideration case against PG&E relating to recordkeeping associated with the utility’s gas distribution infrastructure.
Citation Date: November 20, 2014
Citation#: ALJ-274 2014-11-001
$10,850,000.00: State Treasury to the credit of the General Fund

JANUARY 22, 2015-JUNE 30, 2016: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA LEGAL EXPENDITURES
Steven R. Myers Attorney MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 555 12TH STREET, SUITE 1500 OAKLAND CA 94607
For: Carmel-by-the-Sea
Emilie E. De La Motte Attorney At Law MEYERS NAVE RIBACK SILVER & WILSON
Britt K. Strottman Attorney MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON

129847 1/22/2015 MEY04 (MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP) $24,360.64 professional services- PG&E Incident $ 49,032.37

130324 3/19/2015 MEY04 (MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP) 1,188.44 Prof fees-PG&E $ 50,220.81

130554 5/1/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 8,643.50 PG&E GAS EXPLOSION LEGAL/PROF SERVICES

130554 5/1/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 11,115.00 PG&E GAS EXPLOSION LEGAL/PROF SERVICES

130554 5/1/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 16,683.19 PG&E GAS EXPLOSION LEGAL/PROF SERVICES

130554 5/1/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 499.25 PG&E GAS EXPLOSION LEGAL/PROF SERVICES

130679 5/29/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 16,259.38 PG&E GAS EXPLOSION LEGAL/PROF SERVICES $ 103,421.13

Vendor Total -----> 53,200.32

130853 6/26/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 12,706.75 PROF FEES:PG&E GAS EXPLOSION 116,127.88

Vendor Total -----> 12,706.75

131156 8/20/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 2,178.75 FY 15-16 PROF FEES RELATING TO PGE GAS EXPLOS 6/14

131213 8/27/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 33,768.43 FY 15-16 PROF FEES RELATING TO PGE EXPLOSION 3/14 152,075.06

Vendor Total -----> 35,947.18

131505 10/2/ 2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 17,654.65 PROF LEGAL SERVICES. PG&E MATTER 3/3/14 AUG BILL

Vendor Total-----> 17,654.65

131815 11/24/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 8,765.00 PG&E EXPLOSION PROF SERVICES
131815 11/24/ 2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 787.75 PG&E EXPLOSION 3/3/14 PROF SERVICES
131815 11/24/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 41,951.44 PG&E EXPLOSION PROF SERVICES 221.233.90
Vendor Total-> 51,504.19

132052 12/29/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 15,643.95 PG&E EXPLOSION MARCH2014 NOVEMBER PROF SERVICES 236,877.85

Vendor Total--·> 15,643.95

132230 1/27/2016 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 22,612.40 PG&E GAS EXPLOSION PROF SERVICES FOR DEC2015 259.490.35

Vendor Total - - > 22,612.40

132915 5/11/2016 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 121,031.60 PG&E 2014 EXPLOSION-PROF SERVICES FOR JAN 2016

132!H5 5/11/2016 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 38,999.77 PG&E 2014 EXPLOSION-PROF SERVICES FOR FEB 2016

131915 5/11/1016 M£YERS/NAV£ PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 15,918.00 PG&E 2014 EXPLOSION-PROF SERVICES FOR MARCH 2016

Vendor Total -> 177,949.37

JUNE 1, 2016: PRESIDING OFFICER’S DECISION

Total fines of $24,310,000 are assessed for the systemic violations and incidents found in today’s decision. With the Citation previously assessed for the Carmel incident, the total fine imposed on Pacific Gas and Electric Company for distribution system incidents is $35,160,000.

133222 6/30/2016 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 2,596.73 APRIL 2016 PROF SERVICES RE: PGE 2014 EXPLOSION

133222 6/30/2016 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 360.00 PROF SERVICES MAY 2016 RE: PGE 2014 EXPLOSION

Vendor Total----> 2,956.73

TOTAL: $415,724.72

AUGUST 18, 2016: MODIFIED PRESIDING OFFICER’S DECISION REGARDING INVESTIGATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S GAS DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES RECORDS
Total fines of $25,626,000 are assessed for the systemic violations and incidents found in today‘s decision. With the Citation previously assessed for the Carmel incident, the total fine imposed on Pacific Gas and Electric Company for distribution system incidents is $36,476,000.

EXCERPTS;

Appeal of the Presiding Officer’s Decision

SED and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea filed appeals of the Presiding Officer‘s Decision on July 1, 2016. PG&E filed its response to both appeals on July 18, 2016. The grounds on which each party contended that the Presiding Officer Decision was unlawful or erroneous are analyzed below. Where noted in today‘s decision, the Presiding Officer‘s Decision has been revised in response to the appeals. In all other respects, the appeals are denied.

In today‘s decision, we add the omitted $50,000 Carmel fine to the total fine and revise the De Anza missing records per-day fine from $834.95 to $1,000 per day. The additional De Anza amount of $1,266,000 plus $50,000 brings the total fine to $25,626,000, as compared to the total fine of $24,310,000 in the Presiding Officer‘s decision.

5.1. Corrected Sum of Fine Assessed

SED47 contends and PG&E48 agrees that the sum of fines assessed on page 55 of the Presiding Officer‘s Decision incorrectly omits the $50,000 fine for PG&E‘s service failures to City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. This error has been corrected in today‘s decision.

5.2. Total Fine Amount and Carmel Incident

SED argued that the Presiding Officer Decision erred in setting the fine too low and that the fine for the Carmel incident should be increased by $20.73 million.  As set forth above, the Commission had previously upheld a citation of $10.85 million for that incident and SED did not dispute the Presiding Officer‘s Decision holding that an additional fine of $10.8 million should be assessed against PG&E for failing to prevent recurrences of leaks caused by unmapped plastic inserts (the cause of the Carmel explosion).

SED argued the Proposed Decision erred in adopting a fine of only $21.65 million and an additional fine of $20.73 million should be imposed. PG&E stated that a total fine of $42.38 million would be “disproportionate to the harm that resulted” and “unprecedented.”

SED cited to no Commission precedent with a fine of this magnitude for similar violations nor aggravating circumstances that would justify such a departure from Commission precedent. SED has shown no error or unlawful determination in the Presiding Officer‘s Decision.

5.5. Per Incident Fines and Additional Incidents

SED argued that the maximum fine for each incident should be imposed and that additional incidents should be included.  PG&E responded in opposition that the Commission has discretion to tailor the fines to specific facts of each violation and that additional incidents are not within the scope of this proceeding.

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea also contended that the Commission was without discretion to decide, based on the specific facts of each violation, whether to apply Public Utilities Code § 2108 to uncorrected violations.

In its Appeal, SED acknowledged that the Commission has the discretion to decline to impose daily fines pursuant to § 2108.55 PG&E agreed with SED and cited to D.15-04-024.56

We find that the additional incidents were outside the scope of this proceeding and that the Commission has substantial discretion to tabulate and impose fines based on the specific facts of each violation. SED and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea have demonstrated no error in the Presiding Officer‘s Decision.

5.6. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Other Requests

The City requested reimbursement from PG&E for its expenses. The Commission‘s policy choice to decline to use its equitable powers to order PG&E to reimburse governmental entities for their litigation costs was set forth in D.15-04-024 at 168-170. The City has presented no reason to depart from that policy choice.

The City also recommended linking executive compensation to safety performance; a similar proposal was also examined and found duplicative or unsupported in D.15-04-024 at 167. Finally, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea sought appointment of an independent monitor. That proposal was also considered in D.15-04-024 at 155– 60, where the Commission authorized another $30 million in reimbursement for experts for SED in addition to the $15 million awarded in Rulemaking 11-02-019, and otherwise denied the requested independent monitor.

Finally, the parties agree that the fines ordered in today‘s decision may not be included in regulated revenue requirement nor recovery sought from ratepayers in any manner.

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea brought the unique perspectives of local government and first responders to this proceeding. The efforts of the City to bring forth these perspectives added greatly to the development of a complete evidentiary record and assisted the Commission in discharging its duties.

REFERENCE:
Decision on Fines and Remedies to Be Imposed 04-09-15

Date of Issuance April 9, 2015
DECISION ON FINES AND REMEDIES TO BE IMPOSED ON PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATION AND PRACTICES OF ITS NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PIPELINES

JURY VERDICT: Guilty as to Counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8. Not Guilty as to Counts: 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 14-cr-00175-THE

ABSTRACT: RE: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 14-cr-00175-THE Jury verdict: Guilty as to Counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8. Not Guilty as to Counts: 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12.
COUNT ONE: 18 U.S.C. § 1505
Has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of obstructing a National Transportation Safety Board proceeding, in violation of 18 United States Code Section 1505? YES, GUILTY
COUNT TWO: 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b)
Has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of knowingly and willfully violating 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 192.917(b) for Line 132 or Line 109, in violation of 49 United States Code Section 60123(a)? YES, GUILTY
COUNT THREE: 49 C.F.R. §192.709(a)-Line 132
Has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of knowingly and willfully violating 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 192.709(a) for Line 132, in violation of 49 United States Code Section 60123(a)? NO, NOT GUILTY
COUNT FOUR: 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(a)-Line 109
Has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of knowingly and willfully violating 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 192.709(a) for Line 109, in violation of 49 United States Code Section 60123(a)? NO, NOT GUILTY
COUNT FIVE: 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(a)
Has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of knowingly and willfully violating 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 192.917(a) for Line 132, Line 153, or DFM 1816-01, in violation of 49 United States Code Section 60123(a)? YES, GUILTY
COUNT SIX: 49 C.F.R. § 192.919
Has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of knowingly and willfully violating 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 192.919 for Line 132, Line 153, or Line 109, in violation of 49 United States Code Section 60123(a)? YES, GUILTY
COUNT SEVEN: 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(e)(3)
Has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of knowingly and willfully violating 49 Code ofFederal Regulations Section 192.917(e)(3) for Line 132, Line 153, DFM 1816-01, or Line 109, in violation of 49 United States Code Section 60123(a)? YES, GUILTY
COUNT EIGHT: 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(e)(4)
Has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of knowingly and willfully violating 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 192.917(e)(4) for DFM 1816-01, Line 191-1, Line 109, Line 107, or Line 132, in violation of 49 United States Code Section 60123(a)? YES, GUILTY
COUNT NINE: 49 C.F.R. § 192.517(a)-Line 132
Has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of knowingly and willfully violating 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 192.517(a) for Line 132, in violation of 49 United States Code Section 60123(a)? NO, NOT GUILTY
COUNT TEN: 49 C.F.R. § 192.517(a)-Line 109
Has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of knowingly and willfully violating 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 192.517(a) for Line 109, in violation of 49 United States Code Section 60123(a)? NO, NOT GUILTY
COUNT ELEVEN: 49 C.F.R. § 192.517(a)-Line 153
Has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of knowingly and willfully violating 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 192.517(a) for Line 153, in violation of 49 United States Code Section 60123(a)? NO, NOT GUILTY

COUNT TWELVE: 49 C.F.R. § 192.517(a)-Line 191-1

Has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of knowingly and willfully violating 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 192.517(a) for Line 191-1, in violation of 49 United States Code Section 60123(a)? NO, NOT GUILTY
Hearing set for October 11, 2016 at 2:00 PM. CRIMINAL TRIAL MINUTES and VERDICT FORM document copies are embedded.

Criminal Trial Minutes 08-09-16 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

CRIMINAL TRIAL MINUTES

Verdict Form by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

VERDICT FORM

REFERENCES:
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)

PG&E Guilty on Charges Stemming From 2010 Blast
8/9/2016 3:50:00 PM, Nicholas Iovino

“A federal jury on Tuesday found Pacific Gas and Electric guilty of five counts of violating pipeline safety laws and one count of obstructing an investigation of the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion.”
PG&E “faces a $3 million fine for the six counts on which it was found guilty,” according to Nicholas Iovino, Courthouse News Service.

RE: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant. NO. CR 14-0175 THE: ‘the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California dismisses the Alternative Fines Act sentencing allegations in the Superseding Indictment’

ABSTRACT: “Federal prosecutors on Tuesday dropped Alternative Fines Act charges against the company, leaving PG&E with a new maximum penalty of $6 million,” according to NICHOLAS IOVINO, Feds Reduce Possible Fines Against PG&E. The NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF ALTERNATIVE FINES ACT SENTENCING ALLEGATIONS document copy is embedded. “With leave of the Court, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California dismisses the Alternative Fines Act sentencing allegations in the Superseding Indictment in the above-captioned case.” (August 2, 2016) And the DEFENDANT’S BRIEF REGARDING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF EMPANELING A SECOND JURY TO TRY THE ALTERNATIVE FINES ACT ALLEGATIONS document copy is embedded. CONCLUSION The Court may not empanel a new jury to consider the gains element of the charges brought in the indictment. Instead, if the jury returns a guilty verdict on any of the charged Counts, the Court should discharge the jury and proceed to sentencing without an unduly complicated Alternative Fines Act proceeding. Dated: August 1, 2016

PGE - Gov Dismisses AFA 08-02-16 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF ALTERNATIVE FINES ACT SENTENCING ALLEGATIONS  Pge AFA Motion 08-01-16 DEFENDANT’S BRIEF REGARDING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF EMPANELING A SECOND JURY TO TRY THE ALTERNATIVE FINES ACT ALLEGATIONS REFERENCE: Feds Reduce Possible Fines Against PG&E by $556M By NICHOLAS IOVINO August 2, 2016 Courthouse News Service

Courthouse News Service: PG&E Criminal Trail Over Pipeline Blast (continued)

Jury Begins Deliberations in PG&E Criminal Trial 
7/27/2016 7:09:00 PM, Nicholas Iovino

Feds Say PG&E Opened Door to New Evidence
7/26/2016 6:46:00 PM, Nicholas Iovino
_________________________________________________

Post-Blast Evidence OK'd in PG&E Criminal Trial
7/12/2016 5:36:00 PM, Nicholas Iovino

PG&E Fought Better Pipeline Tests Before Catastrophe, Engineer Says
7/15/2016 6:29:00 AM, Nicholas Iovino

Damning Testimony Over Fatal PG&E Explosion
7/21/2016 6:35:00 AM, Nicholas Iovino

PG&E Fights Back as Prosecutors Rest Case
7/22/2016 5:04:00 AM, Nicholas Iovino

US Attacks PG&E Maps as Criminal Trial Closes
7/22/2016 4:18:00 PM, Nicholas Iovino

Closing arguments for the criminal trial are expected to begin on Tuesday morning, July 26.

REFERENCE: Courthouse News Service

Courthouse News Service: PG&E Criminal Trial Over Pipeline Blast

PG&E Demands Records From Private Eyes
6/7/2016 5:56:00 AM, Nicholas Iovino

PG&E Criminal Trial Over Pipeline Blast Begins
6/17/2016 4:45:00 PM, Nicholas Iovino

Fed Expert Takes On PG&E Over Fatal Explosion 

6/22/2016 4:06:00 AM, Nicholas Iovino

Emails Show PG&E Knew of Problems Before Blast

6/24/2016 6:35:00 AM, Nicholas Iovino

PG&E Knew Pipeline Data Was Flawed, Feds Say
6/29/2016 6:19:00 PM, Nicholas Iovino

PG&E Engineer Defends Cheaper Gas Line Test
7/1/2016 5:03:00 PM, Nicholas Iovino

Damning Documents Exposed in PG&E Trial
7/8/2016 5:55:00 AM, Nicholas Iovino

REFERENCE:

Courthouse News Service

CRIMINAL, U.S. DISTRICT COURT: PG&E Criminal Trial, Thirteen Criminal Counts, including Pipeline Safety Violation Charges (Twelve Counts) & Obstructing a Federal Investigation National Transportation Safety Board (One Count)

RE: Pacific Gas & Electric Co. criminal trial of violating record-keeping and pipeline maintenance requirements of the U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act (12 counts) and obstructing justice in a federal probe (NTSB) of the fatal explosion of a PG&E pipeline, 2010 San Bruno natural gas explosion

·        12-Member Jury and Six Alternate Jurors, Sworn In, Thursday, June 16, 2016

·        Lead Prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Hallie Hoffman, Opening Statement, & Lead Defense attorney, PG&E attorney Steven Bauer, Friday, June 17, 2016

NOTES:

• U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson, Federal Building courtroom, San Francisco.
• Trial is expected to last six weeks, Tuesdays through Fridays.
• If convicted of all charges, the utility could be fined $562 million.

REFERENCES:
Prosecutor begins PG&E trial with blistering opening statement

 By Bob Egelko

Updated 7:46 pm, Friday, June 17, 2016

PG&E criminal trial over San Bruno explosion begins
By George Avalos, gavalos@bayareanewsgroup.com
Posted: 06/17/2016

PG&E criminal trial opening statement Friday, jury sworn in today
Bay City News Published: June 16, 2016, 4:55 pm Updated: June 16, 2016

U.S. v. PG&E, Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH: UNITED STATES’ AMENDED WITNESS LIST & DEFENDANT’S REVISED WITNESS LIST

RE: UNITED STATES v. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH

ABSTRACT: U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson granted a delay in the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. criminal trail regarding the 2010 San Bruno natural gas explosion for “an unspecified amount of time in the start of the case.” “PG&E faces 13 criminal counts, including 12 claims that it violated pipeline safety regulations and one that it obstructed a probe into the explosion by the National Transportation Safety Board,” according to reporting by George Avalos. The UNITED STATES’ AMENDED WITNESS LIST (Dated: April 25, 2016) and DEFENDANT’S REVISED WITNESS LIST (Dated: April 25, 2016) document copies are embedded.

Document 490 Case 314 Cr 00175 TEH by L. A. Paterson

UNITED STATES’ AMENDED WITNESS LIST
Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 490 Filed 04/25/16

Document 486 Case 314 Cr 00175 TEH by L. A. Paterson

DEFENDANT’S REVISED WITNESS LIST
Case 3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document 486 Filed 04/25/16

REFERENCES:
Some prosecution witnesses get immunity in PG&E San Bruno blast trial

By George Avalos, gavalos@bayareanewsgroup.com

Posted:   04/26/2016

PG&E trial in San Bruno explosion delayed again; start date is unknown

By George Avalos, gavalos@bayareanewsgroup.com

Posted:   04/21/2016