## Facts

- PG&E owned and operated natural-gas transmission pipelines, including a segment known as Line 132.
- On September 9, 2010, Line 132 ruptured in San Bruno, California, causing a fire that killed eight people, injured 58, and damaged or destroyed many homes (including 38 destroyed).
- The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) began investigating the day after the rupture.
- The NTSB investigation examined the cause of the explosion, the failed pipeline’s characteristics and history, PG&E’s emergency response, and PG&E’s operations.
- A federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging PG&E with one count of obstructing an agency proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (based on alleged interference with the NTSB investigation) and multiple counts of willfully violating the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act and related regulations.
- Before trial, PG&E moved to dismiss the obstruction count, arguing that the NTSB investigation was not a “proceeding” within the meaning of § 1505.

## Issues

1. Whether an NTSB post-accident investigation constitutes a “pending proceeding” before a federal agency under 18 U.S.C. § 1505.

## Decision

- The court denied PG&E’s motion to dismiss the obstruction count.
- The court held that the NTSB investigation qualified as a “proceeding” under 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
- Because the NTSB investigation was a covered proceeding, the obstruction charge was legally sufficient to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1505, an agency “proceeding” is not limited to adjudicative or trial-type hearings and may include formal, statutorily authorized agency investigations.
- A formal investigative process conducted under an agency’s statutory mandate, aimed at official findings and recommendations, can constitute a “proceeding” protected from obstruction under § 1505.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, an obstruction count is sufficient if the indictment plausibly alleges obstruction of a qualifying agency proceeding.

## Conclusion

The court held that the NTSB’s formal investigation into the San Bruno pipeline rupture was a “proceeding” within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1505, so alleged interference with that investigation could support an obstruction charge and the indictment’s obstruction count was not dismissed.


United States v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., No. 14-cr-00175-TEH (N.D. Cal. 2015)