SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Pacific Gas and Electric could be liable for contamination from a defunct gas plant that operated more than 100 years ago, a federal judge has ruled, because evidence suggests its predecessor dumped hazardous waste at or near the San Francisco site in 1903.
“This is an important day for the health of San Francisco and the bay,” plaintiffs’ attorney Stuart Gross said in a statement Wednesday. “It is also an important day for the principles of ‘polluter pays’ and corporate accountability.”
Gross represents plaintiff Dan Clarke, a former San Francisco resident seeking a court order that would force PG&E to investigate and clean up contamination allegedly left by the Cannery gas plant, owned and operated by companies later acquired by PG&E from 1899 to 1903.
Like other manufactured gas plants at the turn of the century, the Cannery used oil and coal to create gas for lighting, heating and cooking. The plant, run by PG&E predecessors the Equitable Gas Light Company and San Francisco Gas and Electric Company, was demolished in 1907 after the Great Earthquake of 1906.
Over the past four years, PG&E struck three separate deals to settle claims over three former gas plants in San Francisco — the North Beach MGP, Fillmore MGP and Beach Street MGP — but those settlements did not address alleged contamination from a fourth former plant — the Cannery MGP near San Francisco’s Ghiradelli Square and Aquatic Park. The former plant’s footprint, encompassing a whole city block, is now occupied by a hotel, restaurants, shops and a National Park Visitor Center.
At a hearing on dueling motions for summary judgment this past November, a PG&E lawyer argued the utility is not legally responsible for potential pollution at the site because no evidence shows that its predecessor SFG&E mishandled or dumped any hazardous waste there.
In a 14-page ruling issued Tuesday night, U.S. District Judge William Orrick rejected that argument, finding the available evidence supports a “reasonable inference” that SFG&E operated the plant and dismantled its parts in 1903, two activities that produced toxic waste that would have been dumped in or near the San Francisco Bay at that time.
“I find that SFG&E operated the Cannery MGP, which would have involved generating or handling waste and created point sources of contamination,” Orrick wrote.
Historic documents revealed that SFG&E earned money from the plant in September 1903 and that it had a legal obligation to provide gas to buildings within 100 feet of the facility after the site was acquired on Aug. 31, 1903, and before the plant was dismantled by Nov. 1, 1903.
Orrick found that evidence "supports the conclusion that SFG&E continued to operate the Cannery MGP after August 31, 1903—at least for some period of time."
Orrick also cited written testimony from a plaintiff’s expert and geohydrologist Anne Farr, who opined that the plant “would have generated a variety of wastes” to be “disposed of on the plant property and proximate to the plant.”
The ruling wasn't a total loss for PG&E. Orrick found the utility could not be held liable for contamination that occurred before its predecessor SFG&E acquired the Cannery plant from the Equitable Gas Light Company on Aug. 31, 1903.
“Because SFG&E purchased Equitable’s stock rather than its assets, successor liability does not apply as a matter of law,” Orrick wrote.
In the next stage of litigation, both sides will dig up evidence to show whether or not contamination exists on the former gas plant site and nearby properties.
Plaintiff Clarke’s attorney Gross said PG&E has for decades evaded responsibility for contamination from the former Cannery gas plant based on its contention that it never owned or operated the plant. That argument has now been refuted in a court of law, he said.
“No government agency ever challenged that assertion, letting PG&E off the hook,” Gross said. “Mr. Clarke stepped into and filled that gap and, in so doing, provided an extraordinary public service. We’re honored to represent him in this fight.”
A PG&E spokesman said Wednesday that the utility is committed to addressing environmental impacts from historic gas plant operations but maintains that it should not be held legally responsible for alleged contamination from the former Cannery gas plant.
"PG&E respectfully disagrees with the Court’s ruling, and believes the evidence demonstrates that PG&E is not the corporate successor nor has ever operated the former Cannery MGP and is therefore not responsible for the alleged contamination," PG&E spokesman Jeff Smith said in an emailed statement.
This past March, PG&E agreed to settle a separate lawsuit over three other former gas plants in San Francisco. The company agreed to fund a study to clean up contamination from an underground storage tank and cover the cost of soil testing, soil removal and replacement for homeowners and small businesses in a 33-block area around two of its former gas plants.
The utility also agreed in January 2021 to pay up to $190 million to rehab a small craft harbor to settle a lawsuit with the city of San Francisco over historic gas plant pollution.
Additionally, PG&E settled yet another dispute over defunct gas plants with the San Francisco Herring Association in 2018. In that deal, the company agreed to pay $4.2 million for water quality and environmental improvement projects and to investigate, monitor and report levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, toxic byproducts of the gas manufacturing process.
Follow @NicholasIovino
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
