The lawyers representing a group of Oregonians suing PacifiCorp are fighting a battle on two fronts.
The first is at the ongoing trial at the Multnomah County Courthouse: 17 named plaintiffs representing residents from across Western Oregon are suing the parent company of Pacific Power for its alleged role in the 2020 Labor Day fires. They say the electric utility鈥檚 failure to properly prepare for a wind storm and dry conditions led to sparking power lines and major fires that destroyed their homes.
The second battle has been taking place behind the scenes as plaintiffs鈥� attorneys filed a motion to sanction PacifiCorp that alleges the corporation has actively hidden key evidence.
Throughout the trial, the plaintiffs have questioned the competence and preparedness of people at the top of PacifiCorp. But the latest motions also question the executives鈥� honesty, alleging that several didn鈥檛 disclose September 2020 phone conversations they had about a meeting with leaders from the governor鈥檚 office and the Oregon Department of Forestry about the fires.
The focus on the utility executives鈥� decisions during the Labor Day fires is notable as the trial nears the end of its third week, and plaintiffs seek to portray the company as unrepentant about potentially thousands of destroyed properties in the class action case.
The plaintiffs鈥� attorneys have kept the top leaders at PacifiCorp and Pacific Power in their cross hairs from the start. Through expert witness testimony from veteran workers in the utility industry, they鈥檙e trying to make the case that the fires weren鈥檛 just the result of a few mistakes made on a hot, windy day, but evidence of larger systemic problems at Pacific Power.
Vincent Oatis, a retired senior lead manager for Southern California Edison鈥檚 vegetation program, testified for the plaintiffs May 1. They asked him to evaluate PacifiCorp鈥檚 tree trimming operation and the budget it put behind the effort.
His evaluation was unsparing. Oatis told jurors PacifiCorp鈥檚 vegetation executives were unqualified to do their jobs, deferred important work because the company wouldn鈥檛 allocate enough resources toward vegetation management and failed to heed critical warnings from the state.
Oatis was especially incredulous about 2019 and 2020 state audits PacifiCorp received that called the company鈥檚 lack of vegetation management 鈥渄isturbing.鈥�
鈥淨uite frankly, I probably would have been fired,鈥� Oatis said when asked what would have happened if he received that letter during his working days. 鈥淚 would have probably lost my job.鈥�
When asked to rate PacifiCorp鈥檚 handling of the 2020 fires, Oatis was blunt.
鈥淥n a scale of one to 10, simply put, I鈥檇 give them a two,鈥� he said.
Edward LaBranch, a retired electrician who ended his three-decade career at the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in California as the director of transmission and distribution, was another expert witness put forward by the plaintiffs. Attorneys asked him to review PacifiCorp鈥檚 electrical operations overall and during the days of the fires.
鈥淭here was a failure and an absence of leadership,鈥� he said on the stand, specifically calling out high-ranking PacifiCorp executives Erik Brookhouse and David Lucas.
PacifiCorp decided against depowering lines as heavy winds battered western Oregon and some lines kept re-energizing even as they began to fault. LaBranch said PacifiCorp leaders needed to be more proactive in preventing fire risk.
鈥淥ur slogan was, 鈥楰eep the lights on,鈥欌�� LaBranch said, referring to his former employer. 鈥淏ut it鈥檚 not at any cost.鈥�
The defense often pushed back against the expert witnesses, pointing out that they had been paid by the plaintiffs and didn鈥檛 always have the full context of the situation beyond what attorneys provided them.
Both Brookhouse and Lucas were mentioned in the plaintiffs鈥� sanctions request, which accuses the men of engaging in some of these conversations. The plaintiffs鈥� attorneys also are requesting the judge place restrictions on the testimony provided by the defense鈥檚 witnesses, among other penalties.
In response, a lawyer for PacifiCorp wrote that the plaintiffs claimed there were three records that the defense hadn鈥檛 disclosed to them: a voicemail left on Lucas鈥� phone by another PacifiCorp executive, a text message about transmission lines starting fires and a digital calendar invitation to the meeting with the governor鈥檚 office. Defense attorney Ellen Kenney wrote that PacifiCorp couldn鈥檛 find the records the plaintiffs were seeking.
鈥淒espite a diligent search, Pacific Power has not been able to locate these documents, likely because they never in fact existed,鈥� she wrote.
Multnomah Circuit Court Judge Steffan Alexander has yet to rule on the motion.
Regardless of the outcome of the case, Pacific Power鈥檚 fire preparedness will remain an important topic as Oregon continues to become warmer and drier. While the fires at the center of the lawsuit happened in the Santiam Canyon, the coast and Southern Oregon, Pacific Power serves customers across the state, including parts of Portland, Central Oregon, the Columbia River Gorge and Eastern Oregon.
The case could also have legal ramifications for PacifiCorp beyond the millions of dollars on the line in this lawsuit. that winegrowers are considering a lawsuit against the utility for smoke damage to their grape crops caused by the Labor Day fires. One of the vineyard owners behind the effort said one of their motivating factors was Pacific Power鈥檚 decision to keep power running during the windstorm.
The trial is expected to run through early June.
Copyright 2023