Colusa County sues PG&E to recover Sites Fire damages
Colusa County and the Colusa County Resource Conservation District have sued Pacific Gas & Electric Company and PG&E Corporation over the Sites Fire. The June 17, 2024, fire burned over 19,195 acres, leading to claims for infrastructure and natural resource damages. The lawsuit cites multiple causes of action, including negligence and code violations, following PG&E's report of a line fault and tree contact.
*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Colusa County and the Colusa County Resource Conservation District filed a lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric Company and PG&E Corporation to recover public infrastructure and natural resource damages caused by the Sites Fire. The fire, which began on June 17, 2024, burned more than 19,195 acres. The legal action seeks to hold PG&E responsible for the destruction and facilitate community recovery.
The complaint alleges multiple causes of action, including Inverse Condemnation, Negligence, Nuisance, Trespass, and violations of the Public Utilities Code Sec. 2106, California Health & Safety Code Sec. 13007, and Health and Safety Code Sec. 13009 et. seq. These claims stem from the damages incurred by the county and the conservation district.
PG&E disclosed to the California Public Utilities Commission that a line-to-ground fault occurred on its Elk Creek 1101 distribution circuit near Stonyford in Colusa County at approximately 13:26 on June 17, 2024. The area is designated as a Tier 2 High Fire Threat District. Shortly after the fault, the Sites Fire was observed. A PG&E troubleshooter later found a tree with a green canopy that had broken approximately 10-12 feet above the ground and was lying on a de-energized line.
Torri Sherlin, a shareholder with Baron & Budd P.C. and outside counsel for the plaintiffs, stated that the lawsuit aims to recover critical infrastructure and natural resource damages. She noted that the Colusa County RCD is acting under its statutory authority to restore natural resources and provide technical assistance to affected landowners.
Carlie Bouslaugh, a partner with Diab Chambers LLP, emphasized that the lawsuits are a critical step to facilitate community recovery by holding PG&E accountable for the fire. The public entities are represented by attorneys from Baron & Budd P.C., Diab Chambers LLP, and Colusa County Counsel Richard Stout.
Key Allegations and Legal Claims
The lawsuit outlines several legal violations and damages sought by the plaintiffs:
| Legal Claim | Description |
|---|---|
| Inverse Condemnation | Recovery for property taken or damaged for public use without compensation. |
| Negligence | Allegation of failure to exercise reasonable care. |
| Nuisance | Claim of interference with the use and enjoyment of land. |
| Trespass | Allegation of unlawful intrusion onto the land. |
| Public Utilities Code Sec. 2106 | Violation of specific utility regulations. |
| California Health & Safety Code Sec. 13007 | Violation of health and safety standards. |
| Health and Safety Code Sec. 13009 et. seq. | Additional violations of health and safety provisions. |
The case highlights the ongoing legal challenges PG&E faces regarding wildfire incidents in California.
How will this lawsuit impact PG&E's financial reserves and insurance coverage for future wildfire liabilities?
What regulatory changes might the California Public Utilities Commission implement in response to the incident in the Tier 2 High Fire Threat District?
Could this legal action set a precedent for other counties to seek similar damages for natural resource restoration?
18
Access Market Heat-map & Insights 
Create, Save & Share your Screener 
Use 200+ Screening Filters 
