This will be a fascinating case to watch unfold. Consider, for example, that all of the following are true. Note these come from a variety of sources, including the company, but let’s just assume each is true:
#1: HE knew its system was fragile. Does this mean they were negligent? The U.S. grid is not exactly a standard of excellence - how fragile must a system be before there is a duty to make improvements? And does said duty extend regardless of circumstances? What if the improvements are too expensive to be made immediately but could be made gradually over time as funds are generated? How does continued payment of dividends during this incremental improvement period factor into this equation? Do I have a duty to suspend those dividends immediately to raise as much cash as possible as quickly as possible to fund the improvements, even if that would have negative implications for my equity value and resulting cost of capital, which in turn could impair my ability to make timely improvements in the future?
#2: Knowledge a storm was coming, and that wildfire threats were elevated. Is a failure to preemptively de-energize negligence? While this could likely change in the near future, most utilities today do not preemptively de-energize before a hurricane. But how do conditions being elevated for wildfires and the combination of #1 factor into that analysis?
#3: HE admits its lines caused the “morning fire.” However, they said they notified authorities immediately and were assured the fire had been extinguished. They said they then de-energized their lines hours prior to the “afternoon fire.” Assuming the afternoon fire was related somehow to the morning fire, does the fact they had been assured the morning fire was extinguished absolve them from any fault related to the afternoon fire? Or even if they are free of fault for the events that transpired between the morning fire and the afternoon fire, are they still nonetheless at fault given #1 and #2 which relate to circumstances known to HE before the morning fire?
If I inadvertently leave a dangerous (but nonetheless perfectly legal) weapon in a public space, call the police as soon as I realize my error, and am assured the weapon no longer poses a threat, am I off the hook if, despite police reassurances, someone nonetheless gets a hold of it and kills someone with it? Do I get allocated fault, despite the police reassurances, because I left it there in the first place and the whole chain of events could have been prevented if I hadn’t done that to begin with? Or do the police reassurances effectively absolve me 100% at that point in time and any unfortunate circumstances that subsequently transpire can no longer be attributed to me?
The whole case should be interesting. I hope there is a legal scholar out there somewhere who blogs his or her way through these and other facts as they unfold. That would make for a fascinating series of reads to take in as this case unfolds.
#1 - Valid point. But HEI is a profit making business, and as such, they do owe it to their locals to ensure safety, and weatherisation planning. I haven't researched it much, but i don't see a weatherisation plan embedded in the rate case.
This will be a fascinating case to watch unfold. Consider, for example, that all of the following are true. Note these come from a variety of sources, including the company, but let’s just assume each is true:
#1: HE knew its system was fragile. Does this mean they were negligent? The U.S. grid is not exactly a standard of excellence - how fragile must a system be before there is a duty to make improvements? And does said duty extend regardless of circumstances? What if the improvements are too expensive to be made immediately but could be made gradually over time as funds are generated? How does continued payment of dividends during this incremental improvement period factor into this equation? Do I have a duty to suspend those dividends immediately to raise as much cash as possible as quickly as possible to fund the improvements, even if that would have negative implications for my equity value and resulting cost of capital, which in turn could impair my ability to make timely improvements in the future?
#2: Knowledge a storm was coming, and that wildfire threats were elevated. Is a failure to preemptively de-energize negligence? While this could likely change in the near future, most utilities today do not preemptively de-energize before a hurricane. But how do conditions being elevated for wildfires and the combination of #1 factor into that analysis?
#3: HE admits its lines caused the “morning fire.” However, they said they notified authorities immediately and were assured the fire had been extinguished. They said they then de-energized their lines hours prior to the “afternoon fire.” Assuming the afternoon fire was related somehow to the morning fire, does the fact they had been assured the morning fire was extinguished absolve them from any fault related to the afternoon fire? Or even if they are free of fault for the events that transpired between the morning fire and the afternoon fire, are they still nonetheless at fault given #1 and #2 which relate to circumstances known to HE before the morning fire?
If I inadvertently leave a dangerous (but nonetheless perfectly legal) weapon in a public space, call the police as soon as I realize my error, and am assured the weapon no longer poses a threat, am I off the hook if, despite police reassurances, someone nonetheless gets a hold of it and kills someone with it? Do I get allocated fault, despite the police reassurances, because I left it there in the first place and the whole chain of events could have been prevented if I hadn’t done that to begin with? Or do the police reassurances effectively absolve me 100% at that point in time and any unfortunate circumstances that subsequently transpire can no longer be attributed to me?
The whole case should be interesting. I hope there is a legal scholar out there somewhere who blogs his or her way through these and other facts as they unfold. That would make for a fascinating series of reads to take in as this case unfolds.
#1 - Valid point. But HEI is a profit making business, and as such, they do owe it to their locals to ensure safety, and weatherisation planning. I haven't researched it much, but i don't see a weatherisation plan embedded in the rate case.
#2 - If you look at the map here: https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/learn-more
It is know that national hazards are a risk in HI. As such, negligence in parts of not knowing weather risk exists wouldn't be sufficient evidence.
What's key here - there needs to be a de-energising plan written somewhere, that takes into account the pros and cons of such actions.
#3 - The problem here is that the Wapo article highlights tampering with evidence https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/24/maui-fires-power-utility-lahaina-investigation/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
As such, the argument wouldn't hold in favor of HEI.
I'll continue to follow this case. Thank you for your thoughtful comments.