Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every day we bring you insight and analysis into the most important legal news of the day. You can find more episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Good California's largest public utility face murder or manslaughter charges for the recent wildfires that killed eighty six people in the Paradise area, more deaths than any other fire in the state's history.
P G and E has already been labeled a convicted felon, and a federal judge is overseeing its probation for criminal convictions following a twenty ten pipeline explosion that killed eight people. Joining me is Peter Henning, professor at Wayne State University Law School. Peter, what evidence would the state have to come up with in its investigation to charge p G
n E criminally? Well, the starting point in this, the Attorney General pointed out, is that they have to figure out whether p g n E was reckless, because if you want to bring a homicide charge, either second degree murder or involuntary manslaughter, you would have to find that the utility was reckless in its operations, and if they can't find that kind of evidence, then what they're left with are maybe some misdemeanors failure to clear vegetation, failure
to properly maintain their wires, But it would be a much more toned down case if they can't find evidence that p G and E acted recklessly. There have been various charges and investigations of p GNY in recent years, sometimes difficult to sort them all out. Does its history
play into whether any charges will be brought? I certainly think it does, and especially because the company's on probation at the moment from that explosion, and so if it were to violate any of the terms of its probation, and the key term is that it cannot commit any other crimes that that could result in charges for violating
the terms of its probation. And I think, um, you know, no utility is very popular among the populace and so, but PGNs history here and the fact that it's been accused of not being cooperative with the Public Utility Commission and fighting that case back from I really think prosecutors are going to look hard at p G and E and if they can find evidence of even just something beyond ordinary negligence. I think they'll look at pursuing charges
because of the history of the company. We know what happens to a person who's on probation and who has been charged grimly. But explain what happens to a company. Well, I mean there are a couple of things that could happen that Typically, when a company is found to have violated the law, you imposed fines or you meaning the government, where the court imposes a fine. Um, it is possible, although I don't think this would happen, but a company can be in effect put to death by having its
charter revoked by the state. Now that I don't think you were going to see that with a public utility, because who's going to take over its operations? But the company is already operating with a monitor from its teen conviction. Um, that monitorship could be ratcheted up and you could have much closer state supervision, which of course P. G and
E would have to pay for. And so the costs here are going to be much greater beyond justifined, because you also have all the private lawsuits where people whose houses were destroyed are going to go after pg need to try to recover, as are the insurance companies. P gens executives and people of the company have never been held accountable in any of these investigations or lawsuits. Is
that likely in the future. That's an interesting question. Getting to the c suite or that you know, the very senior executives is very difficult because they tend not to have their fingerprints, if you will, on the basic types of decisions that result in corporate liability. It's much more likely to be lower or mid level managers. Um you know, could you break through to the senior executive ranks. I'm
just not sure. I'm sure the prosecutors at bout the state and the federal level want to see if there's someone who they can hold personally liable. But a lot of times in a corporation, especially on the size of pgn E, that so much authority is diffuse that it's hard to be able point the finger at one or two people or they end up really becoming just scapegoats, and there's a measure of unfairness juries if they see a company and individuals being charged, often will cut slack
to the individuals and hold the company responsible. So I'm just not sure we're going to see any individuals charged in this case, although it certainly it's possible. So Peter in a report to Judge William als Up on Monday, and he's the judge who is overseeing pgens probation p G, and he seemed to be trying to shift the blame for the recent wildfires tell us more about its claims there. Well, that's interesting, and what a surprise that they would try
to uh negate their any possible blame. They're pointing out that where these fires started, um, and of course we don't know exactly where the fire started or what was its cause, but they're pointing out that it could have been individuals who had unauthorized materials for the power lines or had somehow altered how the power was brought to their homes. And I think p G and E at least it looks like they're going to try to point the finger at others and say, sorry, not us. Um,
you know, we did everything we could do. We can't control what individuals do on their own property. And of course you know that in that part of California it's a tinder box, and so any type of error with electricity can spark a fire and as we saw, can have a disastrous implications. So I think what p GNI is doing is it's trying to limit its potential liability here by saying we weren't reckless. Maybe we were negligent, maybe we should have paid more attention, but that would
likely preclude a homicide charge. Javier Sarah, the a G for California. His office submitted a legal brief that the judge requested, why didn't the a G offer an opinion on pg ns criminal negligence or recklessness? Why did it stay away from that? Well, I think at the moment, and what that brief does is it lays out here's what we would have to prove, but at the moment they don't know for sure. And so as they pointed out that there are two key issues in this case.
If p G and he is going to be held liable for the deaths, and the first of those is intent, can they show recklessness? And the second is causation? Um, did what p G and E did or failed to do? Did that cause the fires? Or was it just a contributing source of the fires? And that in in any homicide charge, causation is a key element. That's Peter Henny, Professor at Wayne State University Law School. Thanks for listening
to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg