U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali agreed this week (8/16) to allow a State jury to decide whether PG&E’s equipment ignited the devastating wildfire in California wine country nearly two years ago.

CalFire investigators have already determined the fire that killed 23 people and destroyed more than 5,000 homes in the Santa Rosa area was caused by a private electrical system. Victims of the fire disagreed and demanded a jury trial. Meanwhile, PG&E argued that the bankruptcy process should determine whether it should be held liable for the fire.

Montali ruled that a State court was a suitable venue for resolving the matter.

If a jury decides the utility is responsible for the fire, PG&E could face a far more costly exit from bankruptcy.

The decision to afford a trial by jury could create problems for PG&E securing support for the legislation that PG&E is pushing for — this is the securitization bonds that they have lobbied for. As reported last week, an amended AB 235 (Mayes) is anticipated this week (Monday or Tuesday) that will outline the details. Draft language that circulated late on Friday (8/16) suggests that the “ask” has been reduced from earlier outlined (by PG&E in its lobbying documents) proposal of $40 billion to $20 billion.

PG&E scored a big victory this week (8/16) as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali ruled that the utility should hold on to sole rights to develop a Chapter 11 bankruptcy exit plan.

In making his ruling, Judge Montali rejected requests from two groups of creditors who have proposed billions of dollars in financial commitments to back their own Chapter 11 exit proposals for PG&E (details previously outlined in previous reports).

Montali wrote that although the bids were tempting, opening the door for competing restructuring plans would lead to an expensive and lengthy process that could have little or nothing to do with compensating the victims of the “enormous and unimaginable tragedies.”

PG&E earlier this week outlined a Chapter 11 exit strategy to be filed by September 9, 2019, in a bid to keep the company’s fate in its own hands, arguing it needed to keep control to head off a bankruptcy court brawl among rival plan proponents that would delay the proceedings.

Reacting to the decision, PG&E issued the following statement:

“PG&E has made significant progress in further refining a viable, fair, and comprehensive plan of reorganization that will compensate wildfire victims, protect customer rates, and put PG&E on a path to be the energy company our customers need and deserve.” 

Montali agreed, citing the need to speed the bankruptcy case along and to get money to fire victims.

PG&E warned its nearly 16 million customers this week (8/14) that it could shut off electricity in entire cities for up to a week as part of its new fire-prevention safety measures. 

In a message sent via email to customers, PG&E warned that it may suspend electrical service “for a minimum of 24 hours and up to a week” if there’s reason to suspect that live power lines may pose a particular danger of starting fires.

From PG&E’s “public safety power shut-off” site:

“Given the continued and growing threat of extreme weather and wildfires, and as an additional precautionary measure following the 2017 and 2018 wildfires, we are expanding and enhancing our Community Wildfire Safety Program to further reduce wildfire risks and help keep our customers and the communities we serve safe.
This includes expanding our Public Safety Power Shut-off program beginning with the 2019 wildfire season to include all electric lines that pass through high fire-threat areas – both distribution and transmission.”

Therefore “any customer who receives electric service from PG&E should be prepared for a possible public safety power outage” which could theoretically last up to seven days.

“No single factor will drive a public safety power shutoff,” the company warns, but variables like red flag warnings, low humidity, winds over 25 miles per hour, and dry ground conditions could all contribute to a decision to shut-off power.

PG&E reported that they staged a shutoff drill in the City of Orinda last week in preparation, and future drills may be pending.

In a report released by CARB this week (8/12), the agency said that GHG emissions from California’s electricity sector in 2017 dropped 9% below 2016 levels, but overall emissions in the state fell only 1%.

The decrease in electricity emissions was offset by rising emissions from the State’s transportation sector, which is the largest source of carbon gases in the State. That is according to the California Air Resources Board’s latest statewide GHG Inventory Report released on August 12, 2019.

Solar, wind, small hydro and nuclear power produced 52% of the State’s electricity (in state and imported) two years ago. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector in 2017 were 6 million metric tons below 2016 levels.

According to the CARB report, in-State solar energy resources grew 26% between 2016 and 2017. Solar and wind power made up 26% of the State’s power in 2017.

In a statement, CARB Chair Mary Nichols said:

“This is further evidence that California’s groundbreaking climate regulations are helping to deliver the greenhouse gas reductions needed to meet our 2020 target–and give us a running start at our even more ambitious 2030 target, too.”

Greenhouse gas producing activities statewide in 2017 created 424 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. That is 5 million tons below 2016 levels, states the CARB’s 2000-2017 Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

The emissions decrease in California occurred while the economy grew 3.6 percent. To this Governor Newsom said:

“California is proving that smart climate policies are good for our economy and good for the planet.” 

According to the report, the big problem is the rising GHG emissions from the transportation sector. Transportation emissions were fairly constant from 2002 through 2007, but then jumped by 9 million tons, a 6% increase, from 2013-2017. This jump is likely to put further pressure on the energy sector and in particular, the oil industry.