SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — In a lawsuit over century-old pollution from a defunct gas plant, two lawyers urged a federal judge Wednesday to adopt their interpretations of what historic business records say about Pacific Gas and Electric’s liability for potential groundwater contamination.
“What we have here is irrefutable evidence that San Francisco Gas and Electric operated the manufactured gas plant and generated waste,” attorney Stuart Gross argued in a video-conference hearing Wednesday.
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, which was owned and operated by PG&E’s predecessors 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 (SFG&E), is one of several that operated in San Francisco's North Beach and Marina neighborhoods at that time.
PG&E settled claims related to three other former gas plants in March last year, agreeing to investigate, monitor and report levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, toxic byproducts of the gas manufacturing process. The utility also vowed to create a cleanup plan for groundwater contamination and pay $4.2 million for water quality and environmental improvement projects.
That settlement did not address a fourth gas plant known as the Cannery 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.
During a hearing on dueling motions for summary judgment, PG&E lawyer James Mink argued that business records show PG&E predecessor SFG&E did not assume liability when it purchased assets, including the Cannery, from the Equitable Gas Light Company in 1903.
Mink and Gross agree that SFG&E purchased Equitable’s assets for $708,850 in a transaction finalized on Aug. 31, 1903, but they disagree on whether SFG&E fully acquired Equitable’s stock, took control of the company and assumed its liabilities.
Both sides also dispute whether SFG&E continued to operate the Cannery plant after it was acquired in August and before its components were dismantled and transferred to different gas plants later that year.
Gross argued that one can infer from the evidence that SFG&E operated the plant after Aug. 31 because it acquired Equitable’s gas customers but could not supply them with gas until the old distribution system of pipes was connected to other plants.
Mink begged to differ, insisting that historic records don't prove PG&E’s predecessor kept the plant running.
“There is no evidence of San Francisco Gas and Electric ever operating it,” Mink said.
Noting that events surrounding the business transaction were reported in newspapers at the time, U.S. District Judge William Orrick III questioned how an issue such as Equitable’s former customers getting cut off from their gas supply would go unreported.
“Don’t you think that would have been newsworthy,” Orrick asked. “If customers were two weeks without gas, wouldn’t there be articles about that?”
“If it had been two weeks, maybe there would be,” Mink replied. “We don’t have any evidence of how long it took.”
Gross pointed to statements in SFG&E’s 1903 annual report indicating that Cannery gas plant was not fully shut down until the winter months. Mink argued that report did not explicitly say when the plant was closed.
Evidence that SFG&E dismantled parts of the plant and transferred gas generators and tanks to different plants before abandoning the site also supports an inference that the company caused contamination, Gross argued.
“There’s overwhelming evidence that SFG&E after it acquired Equitable, the entire business, it operated the Cannery [manufactured gas plant] for some period,” Gross said. “During that period it generated waste. It’s liable of that. Then it cannibalized the cannery MGP after that. It's liable for that. Then it abandoned the site, leaving in place waste. It’s liable for that.”
Mink said there’s a missing link in the plaintiff’s theory, that being any evidence that PG&E’s predecessor SFG&E mishandled pollutants or caused contamination at the site.
“Handling and moving it offsite does not mean there’s liability,” Mink said.
After about an hour of debate, Orrick thanked both sides for their arguments before pointing out one assertion that he wholeheartedly rejects.
“The one thing I totally disagreed with is at one point, Mr. Gross, you talked about overwhelming evidence,” Orrick said. “That’s one thing we don’t have. We have a lot of interesting historical facts that lead to articulate different inferences that can be drawn from them, but it’s my job to sort them out and I will in good time.”
In addition to a settlement reached in March last year over gas plant contamination, PG&E also agreed in January 2020 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.
In 2018, PG&E settled yet another lawsuit over its defunct gas plants with the San Francisco Herring Association. In that deal, the company agreed to pay $4.2 million for water quality and environmental improvement projects and to investigate, monitor and report PAH levels.
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.
