>

Mark Filip will serve as Compliance and Ethics Monitor

 U.S. Attorneys » Northern District of California » News

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Northern District of California

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, February 27, 2017

Former Deputy Attorney General Selected As Corporate Monitor Over Pacific Gas And Electric Company

Mark Filip will serve as Compliance and Ethics Monitor

SAN FRANCISCO—  Former Acting Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice Mark Filip, now a Chicago-based partner with the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, has been jointly selected by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to serve as Compliance and Ethics Monitor of PG&E.  On January 26, 2017, the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson, Senior United States District Judge, ordered PG&E to submit to a five-year period of monitorship as a condition of the company’s probation following its five felony convictions for willful violations of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act.  The jury also convicted PG&E of corruptly obstructing the federal investigation of the 2010 gas transmission line explosion in San Bruno.  Mr. Filip previously served as a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, as well as an Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. 
 

Topic(s): 
Office and Personnel Updates
Share:

PG&E Found Guilty Of Obstruction Of An Agency Proceeding And Multiple Violations Of The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act

 U.S. Attorneys » Northern District of California » News

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Northern District of California

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, August 9, 2016

PG&E Found Guilty Of Obstruction Of An Agency Proceeding And Multiple Violations Of The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act

SAN FRANCISCO—A federal jury found Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) guilty today of multiple willful violations of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (“PSA”) and obstructing an agency proceeding, announced U.S. Attorney Brian J. Stretch, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, San Mateo County District Attorney Stephen M. Wagstaffe, U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General Special Agent in Charge William Swallow, FBI Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett, and San Bruno Police Chief Ed Barberini. The PSA violations were uncovered in the course of an investigation initiated after the fatal San Bruno natural gas pipeline explosion in 2010.  The obstruction charge was added later after investigators discovered PG&E attempted to mislead the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) during its investigation.

The verdict follows a 5 ½ week trial before the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson, U.S. District Judge. The PSA-related charges stem from PG&E’s record keeping and pipeline “integrity management” practices.  The evidence at trial demonstrated that PG&E willfully failed to address recordkeeping deficiencies concerning its larger natural gas pipelines knowing that their records were inaccurate or incomplete.  The evidence further demonstrated that PG&E willfully failed to identify threats to its larger natural gas pipelines and to take appropriate actions to investigate the seriousness of threats to pipelines when they were identified. In addition, PG&E willfully failed to adequately prioritize as high risk, and properly assess, threatened pipelines after they were over-pressurized, as required by the PSA and its regulations.  On April 1, 2014, a federal grand jury for the Northern District of California returned an indictment charging PG&E with multiple pipeline violations.  In finding PG&E guilty, the jury concluded the company knowingly and willfully violated the PSA and its regulations between 2007 and 2010.   The jury found PG&E guilty of 5 out of the 11 separate violations of the PSA charged.

The charge of obstructing an agency proceeding was included in a superseding indictment filed July 29, 2014.  The charge centers around PG&E’s use of a letter in an attempt to mislead the NTSB during an investigation.  The NTSB began its investigation immediately after the deadly San Bruno explosion.  During the course of the NTSB’s investigation, PG&E provided a version of a policy outlining the way in which PG&E addressed manufacturing threats on its pipelines.  In accordance with this policy, PG&E did not prioritize as high-risk, and properly assess, many of its oldest natural gas pipelines, which ran through urban and residential areas. Although PG&E was operating under the policy from 2009 through April 5, 2011, the company submitted a letter to the NTSB attempting to withdraw the document.  According to PG&E’s letter, the policy was produced in error and was an unapproved draft.  In finding PG&E guilty of obstructing an agency proceeding, the jury concluded PG&E intentionally and corruptly tried to influence, obstruct or impede the NTSB investigation, in violation of 18 United States Code Section 1505. 

U.S. Attorney Brian J. Stretch provided the following statement:

On occasion an event occurs that is sufficiently devastating that a public account must be made, either through an admission of wrongdoing and acceptance of responsibility, or through the judgment of the people acting through a jury.  Such an event was the explosion in San Bruno on September 9, 2010, and the physical and emotional injuries suffered by so many that terrible day.

In the aftermath of the explosion, our office, along with the District Attorney of San Mateo and the California Attorney General’s Office, charted a course to examine whether PG&E had complied with the federal regulations designed to keep people safe, or willfully disregarded those regulations.  To honor the memory of those who perished in the explosion required nothing less.  The jury has determined that PG&E management chose willfully not to follow certain of those regulations.

This verdict in no way diminishes or calls into question the hard, honest work done by PG&E’s employees in the field, as they labor tirelessly day and night to provide us with light and heat.  It is a reflection only of the choices and priorities set at the top.

PG&E provides gas and electricity to the citizens of Northern California and must adhere to certain safety requirements and financial limitations.  We hope that the verdict today insures that PG&E’s management will adhere faithfully to this compact in the future. 

I want to thank the many prosecutors and team members whose singular focus and dedication was nothing short of heroic.  The Assistant United States Attorneys who tried the case to the jury -- Hallie Hoffman, Jeff Schenk, and Hartley West – represented the Department of Justice with highest degree of professionalism. 

Our office was teamed up with the California Attorney General’s Office, the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office, and the San Bruno Police Department.  This was a shared responsibility and we are deeply appreciative of their commitment to joining us in the pursuit of justice.

In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General were relentless in their pursuit of facts. 

Finally, the City of San Bruno is a strong community with deep civic pride.  It has steadfastly supported this prosecution and advocated for reform.  Today’s verdict is an important step toward achieving the lasting change that San Bruno so very much deserves.

“We are very pleased with the verdict and commend the jury for their hard work and thoughtful deliberation,” said California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris. “The California Department of Justice is proud to have worked with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and various federal and state partners to investigate and ultimately prosecute this important case.”

“We are grateful to the US Attorney’s Office for outstanding work with the support of San Bruno Police Department and our office,” said San Mateo County District Attorney Stephen M. Wagstaffe.  “Justice was done today and PG&E was properly convicted of multiple felonies insuring justice for our community.”

“These guilty verdicts against PG&E are a sobering reminder to those entrusted with ensuring public safety that we have a solemn obligation to place that safety foremost in our actions,” said William Swallow, regional Special Agent-in-Charge, USDOT OIG.  “We appreciate the committed efforts of everybody who helped achieve this result, including our law enforcement peers and prosecutorial colleagues.  DOT OIG remains committed to working with them to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who endanger public safety. On behalf of the Inspector General, I offer our deepest condolences to the family and friends of those who perished in the San Bruno explosion.”

“The San Bruno Police Department is extremely proud of the complex investigative work that led to a conviction in this case,” said San Bruno Police Chief Ed Barberini.  “We are very grateful to the United States Attorney’s Office and all of the partners that contributed to a successful conclusion to this case.”

The maximum statutory penalty for each count for a corporation is $500,000. Judge Henderson has scheduled post-trial motions to be heard on October 11, 2016.   

The prosecution is the result of an investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, the California Attorney General’s Office, the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office, the United States Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, the FBI, the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, and the City of San Bruno Police Department. 

Topic(s): 
Financial Fraud
Share:

Munger, Tolles & Olson

Munger, Tolles & Olson

The Attorney's cases, court hearings and conflicts. 


WESTLAW NEWS

IN BRIEF: PG&E wants Munger Tolles & Olson to take on Kincade Fire matters

PG&E Corp is seeking a court order allowing Munger Tolles & Olson to handle any legal fallout the bankrupt power producer may face from the massive Kincade Fire currently burning in California.

Munger represents PG&E before regulators and with respect to federal, state and local laws and rules related to wildfire liabilities, work that should include matters that may arise from the Kincade Fire, the company said in an application to amend the law firm’s retention filed on Wednesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in San Francisco.

To read the full story on Westlaw Practitioner Insights, click here: bit.ly/2oBw2J9

Share:

Munger Hall - Sorry, sounds like Logan's Run

Share:
Share:

Mark Philip - Federal Monitor for PG&E Criminal Conviction

Share:

BBKLAW.COM Howard Golub reporting directly to PG&E CEO Stan Skinner father Captain Skinner orders subordinates to arrest PG&E Programmer Pete Bennett

Too many dead club

Created by Pete Bennett during 2014 as with each passing year the painful observation persons near were being killed

Profile

Geeks

Howard Golub

Of Counsel

HGOLUB@BBKLAW.COM

Tel: (925) 977-3323

Location(s)

VIEW DIRECTIONS

At a Glance

Howard is a recognized leader among energy law practitioners in California.
 
Built on a foundation of decades of experience with both the law and with key decision-makers, Howard consistently develops innovative solutions delivering outstanding results for his clients.
 
From 1986 to 1994 he was vice president and general counsel of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Howard Golub provides services to a wide range of clients in the energy industry, including utilities, large consumers, public agencies, independent power producers, and developers of technologies for the production of energy.

Howard’s work includes strategic planning, merger and acquisition, utility system creation, franchise agreements, energy project development, contract negotiation and formulation, contract restructuring and alternative dispute resolution. He makes appearances before a variety of federal and state agencies.

Howard focuses on clients’ objectives, primarily in the areas of developing new opportunities, improving their competitiveness and defending existing rights through an integrated regulatory-transactional approach. For example, he created a strategy that allowed one client to develop an independent and fully functioning electric distribution enterprise, taking less than six months from conception to operation — an unprecedented and cost-effective solution. Another client was facing financial ruin until Howard developed a regulatory strategy to cure several years of poor decisions by prior management. A third client was saved $350 million in utility charges.

The energy industry, particularly in California, has been in a state of change for some years and that process will continue — particularly in the areas of price structures, infrastructure development, integration of environmental mandates, transmission access, competition, energy efficiency, renewable energy development, rate design and development of new market entrants. These changes represent significant opportunity for astute market participants.

Representative matters include:

  • Creation of new utility systems and counseling developing systems
  • Community choice aggregation
  • Feasibility studies involving legal, regulatory, operational and financial issues
  • Rulemaking proceedings
  • Rate-setting and rate design proceedings
  • Discounted power rates
  • Utility exit fees
  • Utility tariff interpretation and modification
  • Power sales agreements, both for sellers and buyers
  • Interconnection agreements and transmission access agreements
  • Natural gas supply agreements
  • Development of renewable resource power projects
  • Hydroelectric licensing
  • Certificates of public convenience and necessity
  • Franchise agreements
  • Utility rights-of-way
  • Environmental compliance


From 1986 to 1994 Howard was vice president and general counsel of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, one of the largest energy utility companies in the United States. He reported directly to the Board of Directors and to the chief executive officer and served on the company’s Management Committee consisting of the CEO and 10 other senior officers. As chief legal officer of the company, he had extensive experience with all aspects of energy law – regulation, legislation, commercial transactional and litigation. He was also PG&E’s lead environmental officer, responsible for environmental policy and for auditing environmental compliance. He formulated and implemented a proactive environmental program which increased competitiveness and earnings, was strongly endorsed by national environmental leaders, and personally awarded the nation’s highest environmental medal by the President of the United States.

Prior to entering private practice, Howard was an assistant district attorney for New York County (1968-1969) and an officer in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the U.S. Navy (1969-1973) where he tried numerous courts-martial and later served as a U.S. Military Judge. After leaving active duty, Howard remained in the Naval Reserves, rising to the rank of captain.
 
Howard is admitted to numerous federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court.

Education

  • Harvard Law School, J.D.
  • Hunter College, B.A. cum laude (Phi Beta Kappa)
  • Naval War College: Senior Reserve Officer Course
  • MIT Sloan School of Management: Executive Management Program for General Counsel.


Admissions

  • California
  • New York
Share:

Hugh Smith - PG&E High Performance Engineer Jul 2010 - Jan 2015 4 years 7 months

The PG&Eamp;E High Performance Engineer

Fluid Dynamics

The key reason why the San Bruno Explosion IS not an accident leads to a pumping station in Milipitas. Earlier in the late afternoon leads a power wall change out that began at 5:00 PM linked to the lack of backup generators in place. The NTSB stated this in their first video covereing the San Bruno Explosion. The pumps were long enough for the LNG to decompress then when the pumps started the resulting explosion was magnified with air (oxegen, gas) become air bomb. Basically it was a K-Boom Tragedy.

 

Hugh Smith

Hugh Smith

Big Data Consultant at Gedanken High Performance Computing

San Francisco Bay Area500+ connections

About

Specialties: Capacity Planning, Performance Analysis and Tuning, Database Optimization, Data Mining

Experience

Big Data Consultant
Gedanken High Performance Computing
Capacity Planning Consultant
GE Digital
Senior Performance Engineer
PG&E
Consultant-Performance
Chevron
Managing Consultant
BEC Consultants
Founder
Altopuente Systems International
Performance Engineer
State Compensation Insurance Fund
Education

  •  - Present 5 years 9 months

    Pleasant Hill, California

  •  - less than a year

  •  - 4 years 7 months

  •  - 2 years

  •  - 20 years 8 months

    San Francisco Bay Area

  •  - 8 years

  •  - 9 years

  • Harvard University

    Completed 6 graduate level classes in Software Engineering

  • UC San Diego

    UC San Diego

    Completed Certificate program in Data Mining

  • UC Santa Cruz

    Bioinformatics Classes

  • San Jose State University

    San Jose State University

    Graduate level classes in Math and Computer Science

  • UC Berkeley

    UC Berkeley

    Telecommunications Engineering

  • Virginia Tech

    BSIndustrial Engineering and Operations Research

Share:

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Ad Home

More Links

Follow Us

No one has ever become poor by giving, Please Donate

Flickr Images

Featured

javascript:void(0)
Powered by Blogger.

Comments

Facebook

Search This Blog

Find Us On Facebook

Random Posts

Recent Posts

Header Ads

BlogRoll

Labels

Labels

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Unordered List

  • Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
  • Aliquam tincidunt mauris eu risus.
  • Vestibulum auctor dapibus neque.

Pages

Theme Support

Need our help to upload or customize this blogger template? Contact me with details about the theme customization you need.