>

PG&E Charged With Obstruction Of The Investigation Of The National Transportation Safety Board And Additional Violations Of The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, July 29, 2014

PG&E Charged With Obstruction Of The Investigation Of The National Transportation Safety Board And Additional Violations Of The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal grand jury for the Northern District of California returned a superseding indictment charging Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) with obstruction of the investigation of the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”), as well as additional violations of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (PSA), announced U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag, 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, and FBI Special Agent in Charge David J. Johnson.


The superseding indictment alleges that PG&E obstructed the NTSB’s investigation that began immediately after the deadly San Bruno explosion. According to the superseding indictment, 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. PG&E later withdrew that policy claiming it was produced in error, and was an unapproved draft. In fact, PG&E was operating under the so-called unapproved draft from 2009 through April 5, 2011. The consequence of this practice was that 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.

Additionally, the superseding indictment charges PG&E with 27 counts of knowingly and willfully violating the PSA. These charges stem from PG&E’s record keeping and pipeline “integrity management” practices. The superseding indictment alleges that PG&E failed to address recordkeeping deficiencies concerning its larger natural gas pipelines knowing that their records were inaccurate or incomplete. The superseding indictment also alleges that PG&E failed to identify threats to its larger natural gas pipelines and that PG&E did not take appropriate actions to investigate the seriousness of threats to pipelines when they were identified. Finally, the superseding indictment alleges that PG&E failed to adequately reprioritize and assess threatened pipelines after the pipelines were over pressurized as required by the PSA and its regulations.

PG&E is charged with one count of obstruction of an agency proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1505, and 27 separate counts of violations of the PSA. The maximum statutory penalty for each count is a $500,000 fine or a fine based on the twice the gross gain PG&E made as a result of the violations, or twice the losses suffered by the victims. The superseding indictment alleges that PG&E derived gross gains of $281 million, and victims suffered losses of approximately $565 million. PG&E is next scheduled to appear on August 18, 2014 before the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson, United States District Judge.

Kim A. Berger and Hallie M. Hoffman are the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who are prosecuting the case, with the assistance of Alycee Lane and Pat Mahoney, along with Deputy Attorneys General Brett Morris and Deborah Halberstadt from the California Attorney General’s Office. The prosecution is the result of an investigation conducted by 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.

Please note, an indictment contains only allegations and, as with all defendants, PG&E must be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

(PG&E superseding indictment )

Share:

The deadwitness.com sampler Not your warm and fuzzy story

Marc Angelucci
Marc Angelucci (March 30, 1968 – July 11, 2020) was an American attorney, men's rights activist, and
 
Oklahoma City Official Trailer 1 (2017) - ,
Missing Person
Missing Juvenile: Lisa Dickinson Missing Since: 09/05/76 Date of Birth: 04/25/67 Age: 9 years old Height and weight: 4’10” 80 lbs
Louis Richard Fresquez
Louis Richard Fresquez
John Makin
Attorney created insurance forms for the Terrorism Insurance behind Lloyds of London Beazely Group
Kevin Lally
Attorney from Contra Costa County linked to Kinder Morgan, Southern Pacific
Cromwell Uranium Holdings Inc.
Cromwell Uranium Corp. Completes Acquisition of Cromwell Uranium Holdings Inc.
Kevin Lally
The career of Mr.Lally crosses back to hearings in a Contra Costa County Superior Court between 1987 to 1990. .
Scott Peterson is Innocent
Scott Peterson
Jamey Sheets
Jamey Sheets - Docs Pharmacyt,
Share:

Exploding Pants (2006) just like Bennett's Exploding Truck (2004)

Exploding Pants (2006)

Former FBI Agent Frank Doyle Jr.

This FBI agent arrived at Mainframe Designs located 546 Bliss Ave, Pittsburg CA just weeks after shop owner Pete Bennett lost part of his left hand.   Bennett's hand came very close to amputation when a grinding wheel was mounted on a Rockwell Shaper w th 3/4" spindle.   Bennett's mistake was listening Floyd Brown Sr. say it was mounted correctly, we were both wrong but Bennett long suspected it was deliberate.

The concurrent corruption investigation with the Pittsburg Police Department

There is so much more to the the Frank Doyle Jr. part of my story.

Four
MythBusters (TV Series) Exploding Pants (2006) Plot Summaries The team tries out a myth of farm workers' pants igniting, using materials from fertilizer to explosives, while the boys waste money on nifty fuel-saving devices found on the Internet, and remind us that biodiesel (cooking oil!) is a semi-viable fuel alternative. —HobbesPDX
Share:

The Sniper Files

Share:

Aegislink - Regional Member Meeting – Midwest

Regional Member Meeting – Midwest
Tuesday, Jan 11, 2022 | Midwest region
Please join Bill Cullen, AEGIS President & CEO, as well as Bill Hillman, Executive Vice President & Chief Underwriting Officer, and George Keefe, Senior Vice President — Member Relations, for an online members-only regional meeting on Tuesday, January 11. This meeting is for member risk managers in the Midwest region.

Online regional meetings are small groups with no more than 30 member companies on Webex sessions. Each attendee is encouraged to participate in the open-forum discussion. We're interested in your thoughts on current insurance market conditions, the pandemic, possible new products and services, other ways AEGIS might help, and whatever else may be on your mind. Over the years, many important initiatives have resulted from regional meetings and we are looking forward to fruitful conversations with you online.

The online regional meeting will run from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm EDT. Use the link to the right to register. Registration will be limited to 30 member companies per Webex meeting. A few days prior to the meeting, we will send you an e-mail with log-in instructions.

We hope you'll invite your supervisor or next-in-command to join us and learn more about AEGIS and our latest initiatives for member companies. 

It has been a while since we have met face-to-face, so we welcome you to turn on your cameras during the session.

We look forward to seeing you.


Share:

Scott Scheele / Antitrust & Competition Practice Group

Antitrust & Competition Practice Group

Kirkland and Ellis PG&E Ethics and Oracle v. PeopleSoft

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Overview

Scott Scheele is a partner in the Antitrust & Competition Practice Group in the Washington, D.C., office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Scott has over 30 years of experience, including serving as a senior executive and supervisor in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. He has handled matters involving the media, telecommunications, technology and financial services industries, and has substantial antitrust litigation, trial, investigation and management experience.

Scott spent nine years as the Chief of the Media, Entertainment and Communications Section of the Antitrust Division, and in that capacity supervised all merger and civil conduct investigations and implemented competition policy in the areas of wireless and wireline telecommunications, media and entertainment. Before that, he spent eight years as the Assistant Chief of the Networks & Technology Enforcement Section. Scott joined the Antitrust Division in 1995, after five years as an associate with Howrey & Simon.

Prior to joining Kirkland, Scott’s significant public investigations and cases involved:

  • United States v. Liberty Latin America/AT&T (D.D.C. 2020). Complaint and settlement of Liberty’s $2 billion acquisition of AT&T’s wireless and wireline telecommunications business in Puerto Rico.
  • United States v. T-Mobile/Sprint (D.D.C. 2019). Investigation of $26 billion merger of two national wireless carriers that resulted in a complaint and settlement through consent decree.
  • United States v. AT&T/Time Warner (D.D.C. 2017). Extensive investigation and contested trial seeking to block the $100 billion vertical merger of the country’s largest video distributor (DirectTV) with a large content provider (Time Warner).
  • United States v. CenturyLink/Level 3 (D.D.C. 2017). Complaint and settlement of CenturyLink’s $34 billion acquisition of Level 3’s telecommunications business.
  • United States v. AT&T (C.D. Cal. 2016). Contested Sherman Act Section 1 litigation alleging information sharing among video distribution competitors regarding their intentions to distribute the Los Angeles Dodgers regional sports network. Shortly after briefing of AT&T’s motion to dismiss, the case was settled through a consent decree that obtained all relief sought in the Government’s prayer for relief.
  • United States v. Charter/Time Warner Cable (D.D.C. 2016). Complaint and settlement of Charter Communication’s $90 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.
  • Comcast/Time Warner Cable (2015). Investigation of Comcast’s proposed $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable – two incumbent cable providers that did not have overlapping territories. Comcast abandoned the merger.
  • United States v. Sinclair/Perpetual (D.D.C. 2014). Complaint and settlement requiring divestiture of television station filed in connection with a nearly $1 billion acquisition.
  • United States v. Gannett/Belo (D.D.C. 2013). Complaint and settlement requiring divestiture of television station filed in connection with a $2.2 billion acquisition.
  • United States v. eBay (N.D. Cal. 2012). Contested complaint alleging a no-solicit and no-hiring agreement between eBay and Intuit. eBay ultimately settled via a consent decree following an Order denying its motion to dismiss.
  • United States v. H&R Block/TaxACT (D.D.C. 2011). Contested litigation and trial involving the merger of two retail tax return preparation software providers.
  • United States v. Google/ITA (D.D.C. 2011). Complaint and settlement requiring Google to continue to develop and license ITA’s QPX air travel software.
  • Nasdaq/NYSE (2011). This proposed acquisition was abandoned after the Antitrust Division threatened to block the $10 billion deal.
  • Google/Yahoo (2008). Yahoo and Google abandoned their advertising agreement after the Antitrust Division informed the companies that it would seek to block it.
  • United States v. Oracle (N.D. Cal. 2004). Complaint and trial seeking to block Oracle’s cash tender offer for PeopleSoft, both leading providers of enterprise human relations and financial services software.
  • United States v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Investigation and civil trial against Visa and MasterCard. Favorable judgment affirmed on appeal.
  • Community Publishers v. Donrey Media, Inc. (W.D. Ark. 1995). Trial to block merger of two newspapers in Northwest Arkansas.

ChiefUnited States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Media, Entertainment & Communications Section2012–2021

Assistant ChiefUnited States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Networks & Technology Enforcement Section2004–2012

Trial AttorneyUnited States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division1995–2004

Associate, Howrey & Simon, 1990–1995

More

Thought Leadership

Recent Speaking Engagements

“Information Exchange Counseling in the Digital Age,” ABA Spring Meeting Panel, 2019

“Net Neutrality: Déjà vu or a New Era?,” ABA Spring Meeting Panel, 2018

“Barclays Select Series: Future of Sports,” Fireside Chat Interview, 2017

Memberships & Affiliations

American Bar Association, Antitrust Section

  • Vice-Chair, Mergers & Acquisitions Committee, 2017–Present
  • Vice-Chair, Media and Technology Committee, 2013–2016
  • Vice-Chair, Insurance and Financial Services Committee, 2009–2013

National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA)

  • Faculty: Deposition, 2009–2012
  • Trial Advocacy, 2010

Franklin & Marshall College Board of Trustees, Alumnus Trustee 1996–2001

Franklin & Marshall College Alumni Association President 1995–1996

Credentials

Admissions & Qualifications

  • District of Columbia
  • Pennsylvania (inactive)

Courts

  • United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Education

  • Villanova University Charles Widger School of LawJ.D.1990
  • Franklin & Marshall CollegeB.A., Government; Economics Minor1987
Scott A. Scheele
Scott A. Scheele
scott.scheele@kirkland.com
More
Share:

Guidewire Software, Inc. visa:462 rank:436

Guidewire Software, Inc. visa:462 rank:436
Follow
2850 South Delaware Street San Mateo, CA 94403Alert: 3 LCs denied or withdrawn!
  1. Report
  2. Contact
  3. Visa
  4. Salary
  5. Occupation
  6. Location
  7. Review
Guidewire Software, Inc. has filed 359 labor condition applications for H1B visa and 103 labor certifications for green card from fiscal year 2019 to 2021. Guidewire Software was ranked 436 among all visa sponsors. Please note that 2 LCA for H1B Visa and 1 LC for green card have been denied or withdrawn during the same period.
ContactNameJob TitlePhoneEmail
LCA for H1B VisaLaura DilgerGlobal Mobility Specialist+1650389 xxxxxxxx @guidewire.com
LC for Green CardMark Daniels-650-389- xxxxxxxx @guidewire.com
sign in to view all contacts
H1B VisaSalaryCertifiedCertified-Withdrawn(?)DeniedWithdrawn
2021$140,760108000
2020$141,173148100
2019$131,197100002
Green CardSalaryCertifiedCertified-ExpiredDeniedWithdrawn
2021$140,53826400
2020$139,763161501
2019$140,71333800
Share:

The 9/11 Deadline and the Consultant

 HELP ME GET COMPENSATION!

COMMENTARY
Opinion  
December 16, 2003
Dow Jones WebReprint Service®     

The 9/11 Deadline

By JAY LEFKOWITZ

On Dec. 22, 2003, the curtain will close on the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, an unprecedented federal program that provides an average of $1.7 million tax free to the families of each fallen victim. By that day, the relatives of approximately 3,000 individuals who perished in the attacks, as well as all those survivors who were injured, will have had to decide once and for all whether to take advantage of the federal government's offer of compensation.

Enacted by Congress only 11 days after the attacks, the Fund was intended to shield the airlines from endless litigation, as well as to provide speedy compensation to the victims on a no-fault basis in a non-adversarial forum. While Congress had established other compensation programs in the past — for miners afflicted with Black Lung disease, for example, or workers exposed to dangerous levels of radiation — it had never before set up a program this generous, nor had it ever agreed to compensate victims of terror as a trade-off for access to the courts. Under any other set of circumstances, a program such as this might have been dead on arrival because trial lawyers would have howled that it was a form of "tort reform." Ironically, the Fund may ultimately serve as a prime example of a compensation program far superior to the traditional tort system. After all, in no mass disaster has our court system ever provided such prompt and substantial compensation to every single victim with a legitimate claim — and all without having trial lawyers skim 30%-50% off the top.

* * *

In establishing the Fund, Congress set only a few ground rules. To submit a claim, individuals must waive their right to sue any domestic entity in connection with the attacks; lawsuits against foreign terrorists or foreign governments harboring terrorists are not precluded. Claimants are then entitled to compensation based on their economic loss (income that would likely have been earned by a loved one had he not perished), and non-economic loss (pain and suffering). The law also requires that the total amount of money received by the claimants from other sources (such as life insurance proceeds) be subtracted from the Fund award. Beyond these general provisions, however, the Act gives enormous discretion to a Special Master appointed by the attorney general. Congress did not even set an outer limit on the total amount of money that the Special Master may expend.

But in its attempt to deal humanely with an inhumane event, Congress raised as many vexing questions as it answered. Most importantly, should Congress have created a Fund limited to Sept. 11? The Fund does not cover the victims of the bombings at Oklahoma City or the African embassies, or the first attack on the World Trade Center. Nor does it offer to compensate citizens who are killed in future terrorist attacks.

There are other questions: Should the government award a vastly different sum of money to the widower of a waitress than to the widower of a successful stockbroker? (Congress said yes, although it gave the Special Master discretion to set each award at a "fair" level.) Should every claimant receive the same amount for suffering, or should some family members, such as those who spent the last minutes talking to loved ones on cell phones, receive more? Should charitable contributions made to individual victims be deemed a collateral source if such a policy would have the effect of chilling charitable donations?

Still other issues have arisen during the Fund's implementation: Is the appropriate claimant on behalf of a single victim the parents, who may not have seen their child in years, or the victim's fiancé, whose wedding was scheduled for early October? What about the competing claims of the ex-wife who is still caring for the victim's children versus the current wife or even the victim's same-sex partner? And how should the Fund deal with a claim filed by the widow of a foreign citizen or illegal alien? With approximately 3,000 fatalities, nearly every story is different and the law, necessarily drafted in haste, left many unanswered questions.

Working within the broad discretion afforded him by Congress, and in close cooperation with the Department of Justice, Special Master Kenneth Feinberg has successfully navigated these challenging issues in an effort to be consistent and compassionate. The results speak for themselves. About 4,500 eligible claims have already been filed, about half of which are for death claims. Only 73 disqualifying lawsuits have been filed by individuals seeking redress against the airlines and other defendants. For the claims submitted, the awards for fatalities range from $250,000 to $7 million, and for physical injuries from just $500 to $7.9 million. But with Dec. 22 only days away, more than 700 families with death claims appear to have made no choice at all, largely because they are still grieving and cannot bring themselves to file a claim for compensation.

Their grief is understandable. But inaction in the face of the Fund's deadline would be foolish. While no amount of compensation can ever fill their void, these families should think long and hard before passing up Congress's offer of substantial compensation.

Mr. Lefkowitz headed the White House Domestic Policy Council before returning to law practice this Fall.


Return To Top
Sale of this WebReprint Service® Article Does Not Constitute Or Imply Any Endorsement Or Sponsorship Of Any Product, Service, Company Or Organization.
REPRODUCTIONS REQUIRE FURTHER PERMISSION

© 
2004   Dow Jones & Company, Inc.    All Rights Reserved
www.djreprints.com
Share:

2018GXA002

Share:

 https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/pge-aslup-show-cause-order-12.29.20.pdf

Share:

Connecting the Lawyers for 9/11 to the lawyers in the PG&E San Bruno Explosion

On January 21, 2022 AT 10:00AM the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry will present oral arguments in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for our 1st Amendment Constitutional right to petition the government (a grand jury) for a redress of grievances concerning the 60 exhibits for the controlled demolitions of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, & 7.


911Lawyers.org
911Lawyers.org/evidence <-- 60 exhibits
911Lawyers.org/grandjury <‐- legal battle
911lawyers.org/film <-- new film project
911Lawyers.org/petition <-- sign it
911Lawyers.org/petitioners <-- see it
911Lawyers.org/donate <-- help them, plz

The only thing evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing. Never doubt that a small group of good people can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
We will never forget.
We will never give up.
We will never go away.
Justice be served.
Sign the 9/11 public directory at 911public.org.
Join the open roundtable 9/11 Zoom meeting that happens every Sunday at 5PM EST at 911warroom.com/zoom 
See less
Share:

CPUC Sets Scope for PG&E Independent Safety Monitor

 The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today set the selection process, scope of work, and schedule for an Independent Safety Monitor that will augment CPUC oversight of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).

As a condition of approving PG&E’s plan for exiting bankruptcy in May 2020, the CPUC ordered an Independent Safety Monitor that will be functionally equivalent to the Federal Monitor that was appointed as part of PG&E’s probation in criminal court. The Independent Safety Monitor will augment the CPUC’s oversight of PG&E’s execution of real-time operations to ensure that the utility is focused on long-term outcomes that promote safety and reliability.

The Independent Safety Monitor is intended to help ensure that PG&E prioritizes and implements the highest level of risk reduction across all levels of the company, from senior officials to field personnel. The Independent Safety Monitor will also help oversee PG&E’s safety related recordkeeping and record management systems and will support the CPUC’s oversight so that modernization efforts that PG&E implements are informed by PG&E’s prior failures and support the safe system construction, operation, and maintenance in PG&E’s electric and natural gas lines of business. The Independent Safety Monitor’s work will complement but not unnecessarily duplicate the safety oversight work of the CPUC or the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety.

A Request for Proposals (RFP) will be issued seeking an Independent Safety Monitor for five years at a cost not to exceed $5 million per year to be paid by PG&E’s shareholders. The CPUC will review and select the Independent Safety Monitor from eligible candidates that respond to the RFP.  

The CPUC’s oversight of PG&E includes broad investigation and enforcement authority, examination of rates and costs, pressing for progress on the utility’s efforts to reduce the risk of wildfire ignited by its equipment, ensuring safe execution of Public Safety Power Shutoffs, regulating the safety of the utility’s natural gas system, and ensuring PG&E is progressing toward modernizing its electric grid. The Independent Safety Monitor will augment these oversight efforts.

The many actions the CPUC is taking to hold PG&E accountable for safely serving its customers include:

  • Placed PG&E into the first step of an Enhanced Oversight and Enforcement process based on the company’s failure to sufficiently prioritize clearing vegetation on its highest-risk power lines as part of its wildfire mitigation work in 2020.
  • Directed PG&E to address its preparedness for Public Safety Power Shutoffs at a public briefing.
  • Ordered PG&E to make enhancements to its Public Safety Power Shutoffs process.
  • Directed PG&E to address its safety performance at a Safety Certification public briefing.
  • Ordered PG&E to create a mobile app for customers to report electric infrastructure safety concerns.
  • Continual monitoring of PG&E’s safety enhancement actions ordered in a 2018-2020 natural gas system locate and mark investigation.
  • Continual monitoring of PG&E’s safety enhancement actions ordered in a 2017-2018 wildfires investigation.
  • Ongoing monitoring and reporting of PG&E’s safety culture ordered in a 2015 investigation following PG&E’s 2010 natural gas transmission pipeline explosion in San Bruno.

The proposal voted on is available at https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M397/K322/397322603.PDF.

The CPUC regulates services and utilities, safeguards the environment, and assures Californians’ access to safe and reliable utility infrastructure and services. For more information on the CPUC, please visit www.cpuc.ca.gov.

###

Press Release

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.