Sonoma County judge rejects PG&E bid to narrow Kincade fire criminal case

A Superior Court judge rejected an effort by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. on Thursday to gut Sonoma County prosecutors’ criminal case against it for starting the 2019 Kincade wildfire.

Sonoma County Judge Mark Urioste denied the utility’s procedural move to have 25 of the 33 criminal charges tossed out, which would have severely diminished District Attorney Jill Ravitch’s case.

Urioste left all charges intact, and the company is set to enter pleas Oct. 13 to the five felony and 28 misdemeanor counts stemming from its alleged actions causing Sonoma County’s largest wildfire on record.

The complaint is the first time PG&E has faced criminal charges in Sonoma County for its liability in causing a wildfire and its ensuing environmental damage.

In court Thursday, the utility didn’t deny the facts of the Sonoma County case, instead asserting that 25 counts accusing PG&E of emitting air contaminants were legally insufficient. Such a procedural move, called a demurrer, is more common in civil cases than in criminal courts.

Ravitch called Urioste’s ruling significant in the effort to hold PG&E accountable for starting wildfires and causing untold environmental and health problems.

“This is the first prosecution of PG&E for environmental crimes. Now we can move forward and argue the case,” she said. “The charges reflect what we believe the facts are.”

Thursday’s legal arguments boiled down to the definition of one word: “emit.”

PG&E’s lawyers argued that the company did not emit any environmentally damaging air contaminants.

“PG&E started the fire. The fire emitted the contaminants,” said its lead attorney, Brad Brian of Los Angeles. “PG&E itself did not emit the air contaminants.”

Brian argued that the law intentionally doesn’t include language about “causing the emission of” contaminants, only actually “emitting” them.

He said the law sees “a clear difference” between the two.

Prosecutor Matt Cheever argued that when a statute is worded broadly, it was meant to be interpreted broadly.

“The defendant emitted air contaminants. The defendant acted recklessly. The defendant’s transmission tower equipment caused the fire,” he said.

“They argue ‘It was the fire, not us.’ They emitted air contaminants.”

The Kincade fire broke out Oct. 23, 2019, in The Geysers geothermal region of the Mayacamas Mountains in northern Sonoma County. The fire, which grew to 77,758 acres, triggered the largest mass evacuation in county history, at more than 190,000 people, while threatening Geyserville, Healdsburg, Windsor and northeast Santa Rosa. It ultimately destroyed 174 homes and a total of 370 structures, including winery and farm buildings.

Two of the felony charges were brought on behalf of two children who suffered from “wildfire smoke and related particulate matter and ash” generated by the fire, according to the complaint.

Prosecutors also charged PG&E with 23 misdemeanor health violations for 16 days of poor air generated by wildfire smoke from Oct. 23 to Nov. 6.

Last year, PG&E pleaded guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the Camp Fire, which its equipment started in 2018 and ultimately destroyed the town of Paradise.

Cal Fire investigators traced the start of the Kincade fire to a broken piece of equipment on a PG&E high-voltage transmission line. That line remained energized during high-risk fire weather that had prompted the utility to turn off electricity in other parts of its grid.

PG&E acknowledged that one of its transmission lines caused the fire, but its leaders have denied any criminal culpability for the destruction caused by flames over the next two weeks.

PG&E issed a statement late Thursday responding to the judge’s decision: “We respect the court’s ruling and look forward to raising this issue at the preliminary hearing. As we’ve previously stated, we accept Cal Fire’s finding that a PG&E transmission line caused the fire, but we do not believe there was any criminal activity.

“With California experiencing a severe drought and another devastating fire season, we remain committed to working to further reduce wildfire risk on our energy system and keep our customers and communities safe.”

Brian called the Sonoma County case “a novel, and we’d submit, incorrect application” of the law.

But Urioste was not persuaded by PG&E’s argument, agreeing with Cheever that the criminal complaint was sufficient to proceed.

“Questions about statutory interpretation of the charged offenses, such as whether the term ‘emit’ includes or excludes conduct that causes an emission, may, and I expect will, be raised at the preliminary hearing,” he said.

Urioste set Oct.13 as the date PG&E will enter pleas to the charges. A preliminary hearing may be held in January, after which the judge will determine if prosecutors have presented enough evidence to proceed to trial.

You can reach Staff Writer Lori A. Carter at 707-521-5470 or lori.carter@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @loriacarter.