The company is also charged with obstructing the federal investigation of the explosion by falsely denying, in an April 2011 letter to investigators, that it had a policy of propelling gas through the San Bruno pipeline and other aging lines at pressures up to 10 percent above the legal limits. In the criminal prosecution, PG&E is accused of 11 felony violations of laws that require gas pipeline operators to inspect their lines closely for potential risks, and to test or replace lines that show signs of hazards and maintain accurate records. The fines, and any penalties in the criminal case, are charged to the utility’s shareholders rather than its ratepayers. The state Public Utilities Commission has already fined PG&E a record $1.6 billion for the September 2010 explosion and fire caused by a defective pipeline seam that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes in San Bruno. PG&E did not comment directly on its legal victory, issuing only a statement similar to those it has made earlier in the case: “Regardless of this action or the next legal steps, we want our customers and their families to know that we are committed to re-earning their trust by acting with integrity and working around the clock to provide them with energy that is safe, reliable, affordable and clean.” “If it was so obvious that the government would just acquiesce, why in the world would they have gone down that path as part of their theory of the case?” Levine asked. When prosecutors reduce the punishment they have sought in a case, he said, they usually demand something in return, like guilty pleas to some of the charges. “The timing is odd,” said David Levine, a professor of criminal law at UC Hastings in San Francisco. But it wasn’t clear why prosecutors had maintained their intention to seek the higher penalties throughout the trial, only to back off during jury deliberations. One ruling upheld the company’s argument that safety standards set by state regulators shouldn’t be used to measure PG&E’s allegedly improper cost-cutting. Henderson had issued rulings, most recently last week, that would have limited the evidence prosecutors could have used in a penalty phase to tie PG&E’s profits to safety violations charged in the case.
![criminal case pacific bay send report criminal case pacific bay send report](https://www.playoholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/DigbyForeverTipsandStrategies.png)
PG&E had argued that a post-conviction penalty phase would be needlessly time-consuming and pointless, and prosecutors apparently conceded the point by offering no written rebuttal with Tuesday’s filing.
![criminal case pacific bay send report criminal case pacific bay send report](https://techvodoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Criminal-Case-Pacific-Bay-Screenshot-1.jpg)
District Judge Thelton Henderson, who signed off on the prosecution’s decision later in the day, will determine the fines for any convictions. The office declined to comment on the reason for the filing.Īs a result, the maximum fine would be $500,000 per conviction, or $6 million for all 12 counts. attorney’s office, in a one-sentence court filing, withdrew its request for penalties based on the company’s financial gains. But during the fourth day of jury deliberations, the U.S. Jurors would have considered the penalties in a second phase of the trial.