Information on wildfire litigation

April 7, 2025

We submitted an article to the op-ed — or opinion — section of the Oregon Capital Chronicle in response to a recent article that was published regarding wildfire legislation under consideration in Oregon. Op-eds provide readers with information and a viewpoint on a timely and relevant topic. The Oregon Capital Chronicle declined to publish this op-ed, we are making it available here.

At PacifiCorp, we continue to work with reporters to inform their reporting. We remain committed to maintaining transparency.

Erin C. Isselmann
Vice President, Corporate Communications and Public Affairs, PacifiCorp

_________________________________________________________________

The Labor Day fires of 2020 were undeniably tragic. In a catastrophic wildfire, there are no winners. 

A newly released report by the Oregon Department of Forestry supports PacifiCorp’s longstanding conclusion, supported by expert evidence presented at trial, that its electrical equipment did not contribute to the widespread devastation that occurred in the Santiam Canyon Fire during Labor Day 2020. The investigation, which began shortly after the 2020 wildfires, found that the most probable explanation for these ignitions were embers and spot fires from the main Beachie Creek Fire, which was lightning-caused weeks before Labor Day 2020 and burning upwind of the Santiam Canyon.

Simply stated, PacifiCorp was falsely accused by trial attorneys and subsequently exonerated by the State of Oregon following ODF’s thorough, independent investigation. No trial should ever have occurred in the absence of an official investigation report.

The recent developments regarding the Beachie Creek fire underscore the need for comprehensive reform in how Oregon manages and accounts for wildfires. Moreover, during Oregon’s record-breaking wildfire season in 2024, none of the wildfires in the state were caused by utilities. Wildfires are a complex problem and the overwhelming majority of wildfires in Oregon are not caused by utilities. There is no benefit to anyone to ignore that reality just because it might be easier to make a utility the insurer of last resort. 

For Oregon, inaction is not an option. 

As wildfires spread beyond the West and impact increasingly diverse locations, such as Colorado, Hawaii, Texas, New York, North Carolina and South Carolina, several states are taking the responsible step of evaluating measures to address this evolving risk. Many of these measures recognize the impacts to customers and communities and call to question the utilities’ ability to continue providing essential electric service without necessary policy reform.

There are meaningful and holistic solutions under consideration in Oregon to address wildfire risk. Lawmakers are considering legislation that is designed to ensure accountability through an auditing process of approved wildfire mitigation plans and to compensate individuals impacted by wildfire in a timely manner so they can rebuild their lives. This legislation is not about immunity from future litigation.   

Those who have a strong financial incentive to maintain the status quo, such as trial lawyers, continue to propagate misinformation. This is not a surprise.

The focus is on preventing wildfires, prioritizing the safety of customers and communities and accountability. In addition to strong support from the state’s electricity providers, these efforts have the support of a broad coalition of more than 30 municipal and county governments, chambers of commerce, regional economic development organizations and various others, who agree that utilities provide essential electric service to customers and communities. 

The stark reality is that Oregon must have the courage to act when it comes to wildfire, as states across the West have already done. Political leadership owes it to everyone to ensure that wildfire risk is managed in a way that balances accountability and criticality. Absent reasonable and thoughtful policy choices, the state faces an uncertain future.

On February 5, 2025, Willamette Week published a story by the Oregon Journalism Project about Pacific Power and wildfires in Oregon. The article presented a one-sided view based on a narrative pushed by plaintiffs’ attorneys who are in active litigation against Pacific Power. We write to provide a more accurate picture of Pacific Power’s industry-leading efforts to prioritize the safety of its customers, communities and employees. 

Nearly two years ago, a jury in Portland decided that Pacific Power was negligent in connection with certain fires that burned on Labor Day 2020. But the article fails to grapple with the complexity of what happened at that class action trial. The questions of if, when, where, and for how long the power should be shut off are as difficult as they are consequential. 

With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy for plaintiffs’ lawyers to argue that power across Oregon should have been shut off on Labor Day 2020. But in real time, the decision is never so easy. Shutting off the power can be just as dangerous as leaving it on, and it is never a realistic option to shut off power for all 600,000 customers across an entire state—which is what the plaintiffs’ attorneys suggested that Pacific Power should have done that weekend.

That would have been disastrous. The article talked about two people, Doug Grafe and Nik Blosser, who may have thought, without identifying specific locations, that the general idea of power shut offs should have been considered. But the article did not talk about the even greater number of customer service calls that Pacific Power received that same evening from panicked residents who asked for the power to be kept on because they needed electricity, including for essential medical devices and to refrigerate medication.

The article also did not talk about the dangers of shutting off power when people are trying to evacuate. Going into the Labor Day 2020 weekend, a lightning-caused fire called the Beachie Creek Fire had already been burning on federal land for multiple weeks—uncontained—and posed an active and growing threat to many Oregonians living in the North Fork Canyon and Santiam Canyon. When the windstorm hit on the evening of Labor Day 2020, that fire exploded toward people’s homes faster than any of the firefighting experts on the ground predicted.

The article is right that there is still no authoritative account of what happened in the Santiam Canyon that night. At trial, numerous witnesses who were present in the Santiam Canyon, including a local fire chief who was himself a member of the plaintiff class, testified that the Beachie Creek Fire was responsible for the vast majority of the destruction in the canyon. 

While the exact timing is not clear, there is no debate that the Beachie Creek Fire eventually entered the Canyon that night. Whether they knew it at the time or not, many people depended on the power staying on so that they could get out. Electricity powers countless emergency resources. Water systems that are used to fight fires and to protect properties from catching fire. Cell towers. Computers and televisions and phones that are used to distribute evacuation notices. Traffic signals that help facilitate an orderly and rapid evacuation. Gas pumps that ensure that evacuees can refuel their vehicles. Though the article does not acknowledge these needs, Pacific Power could not ignore them on Labor Day 2020.

This is not to say that Pacific Power will never shut off power. It has done so when the conditions warrant and will do so in the future. But we cannot pretend that it is a quick and easy fix. Lives will be impacted no matter the decision. In every instance, the hardworking people who work in our operations center and oversee our system feel the weight of that decision and take that responsibility seriously.        

All of that is why Pacific Power is appealing the verdict in the class action trial. It is not about trying to deny compensation to people who lost their homes, and it is not about trying to cause delay for the sake of delay. Pacific Power fully recognizes the tragic impact of the 2020 Labor Day fires on our state and has worked hard to reach fair settlements with more than 1,500 people who did not join the class action. Most of those households have been able to receive substantial payments, both from Pacific Power through settlement and from their property insurers, to rebuild their homes and lives. But that just hasn’t been enough for the plaintiffs’ lawyers in this case who have decided to turn the utility into the enemy for their own gain, which knows no limits at this point. The article fails to even note the self-interested agenda of those attorneys, who may stand to gain an outsized portion of any award in the litigation. 

Filing lawsuits against utilities for billions of dollars is not a sustainable long-term solution to the growing risks posed by wildfires and climate change. These outsized damages awards do nothing to solve the problem except divert crucial resources and attention away from much-needed safety improvements—equipment upgrades, undergrounding, monitoring stations, system hardening—and into the pockets of plaintiffs’ lawyers seeking windfall attorney fees. 

That is disappointing, because Pacific Power has always worked hard to stay ahead of wildfire mitigation efforts. Just last year, Stanford University’s Climate and Energy Policy Program issued a detailed report assessing the wildfire mitigation programs of western investor-owned utilities. See Stanford Climate & Energy Policy Program, Wildfire: Assessing and Quantifying Risk Exposure and Mitigation Across Western Utilities (May 2024). The report ranked Pacific Power in the top tier for wildfire mitigation due to its development of a formal wildfire prevention plan, deployment of weather stations and meteorological experts and resources to warn of potential adverse weather events, integration of protective equipment and device settings, and implementation of an operational plan for proactive power shutoffs when conditions warrant. 

Oregon state regulators have also vetted and approved Pacific Power’s wildfire mitigation efforts.  Each year, Pacific Power must submit its wildfire mitigation plan to the Oregon Public Utility Commission. The plan is scrutinized both by an independent evaluator and by Commission staff who compare the plan against those measures adopted by other utilities in and outside of Oregon. Each year, the Oregon Public Utility Commission has approved Pacific Power’s plan.  

Wildfires are a complex problem with no single root cause, and no winners. It does not benefit anyone to ignore that reality just because it might be easier to make the utility pay in the short term. When the next big wildfire happens, there might not be a utility to blame. Two of the biggest wildfires on Labor Day 2020, the Beachie Creek Fire and the Lionshead Fire, were caused by lightning – not by any utility. The people who lived in those areas and lost their homes in those fires were excluded from this class action lawsuit, and they are not going to make headlines for recovering millions of dollars in damages, because in those cases, there is no single easy target for the lawyers to blame.

As wildfires have spread beyond the West and impacted increasingly diverse locations, such as Hawaii, Texas, and New York, several states have begun to evaluate measures to address this evolving risk. Many of these measures recognize the need for healthy utilities that can continue to provide essential electricity service and support their communities. Those solutions include limits on uncapped liability and measures to ensure that property owners have access to adequate and affordable insurance. Large damage awards against electric utilities will eventually have an upward pressure on customer rates. Pacific Power supports any efforts to help us provide safe and reliable service, at a reasonable cost to customers. Many policies are forward-looking and will take years to implement. We need public support for measures to help us evolve electric services in a world at greater risk of devastating wildfires.

February 10, 2025

In reading the recently published article in Willamette Week, "PacifiCorp Was Grossly Negligent in Oregon’s 2020 Wildfires. Now It’s Asking Lawmakers for Protection," we noticed an error which needs to be corrected.

We would like to clarify that Nik Blosser is not a “neutral third party” as represented in the article. Mr. Blosser is in active litigation against the company. Last year, his winery in Dayton filed a lawsuit for smoke damage, and he is seeking millions of dollars in alleged business losses as well as punitive damages. The case is Sokol Blosser et al v. PacifiCorp (Multnomah County Case No. 24CV3044). It is not accurate to present Mr. Blosser (and his trial testimony) along with his subsequent interview with Mr. Manning, as neutral. Pre-trial depositions and testimony during the June 2023 trial may pre-date the filing of this litigation, however the same is not true of Mr. Blosser’s interview with Mr. Manning.

Thank you for your attention.

The James class action liability verdicts and first two damages trials have been appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals. On April 1, 2025, PacifiCorp filed its opening brief in the Oregon Court of Appeals, challenging key legal rulings in the James class action involving the 2020 wildfires. PacifiCorp’s appeal raises numerous procedural and legal concerns, including: 

• Plaintiffs failed to prove that PacifiCorp caused harm to every class member.  
• Jury instructions applied incorrect legal standards in assessing class wide evidence and individual claims.  
• Class members were permitted to seek non-economic damages contrary to Oregon law.  

James Case Opening Brief

James Case Appeal Notice

Order Granting Extension of Time

In April 2025, a coalition of industry groups and organizations filed amici briefs in the James appeal case, weighing in as friends of the court on a variety of issues that could have impacts beyond the current litigation. Amici briefs provide policy or specialized guidance to help the appellate court reach an informed decision. The briefs argue in part:

• PacifiCorp is being held liable for harms it did not cause.
• The sheer scope of the damages imposed against PacifiCorp in this matter, if applied to another utility, including a public utility, could be financially catastrophic for an Oregon community.
• Affirming the trial court’s rulings would have cascading negative impacts for insurers, Oregon businesses including utilities, and ultimately all Oregonians. If a utility, or indeed any business, is subject to unlimited class-wide liability and unpredictable noneconomic damages unauthorized by law, they will become uninsurable. The unavailability or unaffordability of insurance harms a business’ financial health because it increases its risk and deters capital investors. In short, affirming these rulings threatens to destabilize the risk-bearing structures on which Oregon’s businesses rely.
• With the threatened inclusion of unsubstantiated noneconomic damages, resources are being shifted from the pockets of ratepayers to plaintiffs seeking recovery many times their economic losses. And, in the worst-case scenario, customers could find themselves without an electrical utility provider at all. Not only is the individual customer dependent on the continued delivery of electricity at reasonable rates, but local economies are also dependent on energy—as they cannot operate, let alone thrive and grow, without access to affordable electricity.

As part of the appeal, PacifiCorp is challenging key legal rulings in the James class action involving the 2020 wildfires, raising several procedural and legal concerns.

PacifiCorp December 18, 2023, 8-K

• PacifiCorp has reached a $250 million settlement agreement with 10 companies with commercial timber interests associated with the Archie Creek Complex Fire. The 2020 wildfires were undeniably tragic, and PacifiCorp is pleased to resolve this matter on behalf of our impacted customers and communities. 
• PacifiCorp is committed to settling all reasonable claims for actual damages as provided under Oregon law. This is the latest example and follows closely behind a separate settlement agreement reached earlier this month with 463 individual plaintiffs related to the Archie Creek Complex Fire. These are in addition to settlements with other individuals and businesses, and hundreds of insurance claims PacifiCorp settled where homeowners and businesses have received insurance payments for their real and personal property damages and alternative living expenses.  
  
• The growing threat of wildfires to communities and businesses is bigger than any one company or industry. PacifiCorp will continue to collaborate with stakeholders on holistic solutions to address the impact of wildfires while leading in investments in wildfire preparedness and mitigation. The safety of our customers and communities remains our top priority.
  

PacifiCorp December 5, 2023, 8-K

• PacifiCorp has reached a $299 million settlement agreement with 463 plaintiffs impacted by the 2020 Archie Creek fire in Douglas County, Oregon. The 2020 wildfires were undeniably tragic, and PacifiCorp is pleased to resolve this matter on behalf of our affected customers and communities. 
  
• PacifiCorp is committed to settling all reasonable claims for actual damages as provided under Oregon law and will continue to advance its positions in other proceedings to ensure fair and appropriate outcomes. These settlements are in addition to settlements with other individuals and businesses, and hundreds of insurance claims PacifiCorp settled where homeowners and businesses have received insurance payments for their real and personal property damages and alternative living expenses.  
• The growing threat of wildfires to communities and businesses is bigger than any one company or industry. PacifiCorp will continue to collaborate with stakeholders on holistic solutions to address the impact of wildfires while leading in investments in wildfire preparedness and mitigation. The safety of our customers and communities remains our top priority.

PacifiCorp June 3, 2024, 8-K
News Release

• PacifiCorp has reached a $178 million settlement agreement with 403 plaintiffs, impacted by the 2020 Beachie Creek and Echo Mountain Complex fires in Oregon. The vast majority of these plaintiffs opted out of the James class action litigation. The 2020 wildfires were undeniably tragic, and PacifiCorp is pleased to resolve this matter on behalf of our affected customers and communities.
• PacifiCorp is committed to settling all reasonable claims and will continue to advance its positions in other proceedings to ensure fair and appropriate outcomes. The company has now settled nearly 1,500 claims with individuals and businesses in California and Oregon.
• The growing threat of wildfires to communities and businesses is bigger than any one company or industry. PacifiCorp will continue to collaborate with stakeholders on holistic solutions to address the impact of wildfires while leading in investments in wildfire preparedness and mitigation. The safety of our customers and communities remains our top priority.

James Class Action

• Plaintiffs have filed five Mass Short Form Complaints. The complaints identify 1,536 plaintiffs (including 164 minors) with each plaintiff (including the minors) claiming $5 million in economic damages and $25 million in noneconomic damages.
• On April 24, 2023, the jury trial for James with respect to the 17 named plaintiffs began in Multnomah County Circuit Court. In June 2023, the jury issued its verdict finding PacifiCorp liable to the 17 named plaintiffs and to the class with respect to the four wildfires. The jury found PacifiCorp's conduct grossly negligent, reckless and willful as to each plaintiff and the entire class. The jury awarded the 17 named plaintiffs $90 million of damages, including $4 million of economic damages, $68 million of noneconomic damages and $18 million of punitive damages based on a 0.25 multiplier of the economic and noneconomic damages.
• In January 2024, the Multnomah County Circuit Court entered a limited judgment and money award for the June 2023 James verdict. The limited judgment awards $92 million of damage based on the amounts awarded by the jury, as well as doubling of the economic damages and offsetting of any insurance proceeds received by plaintiffs. The limited judgment created a lien against PacifiCorp, attaching a debt for the money awards. PacifiCorp posted a supersedeas bond, which stays any effort to seek payment of the judgment pending final resolution of any appeals. Under ORS 82.010, interest at a rate of 9% per annum will accrue on the judgment commencing at the date the judgment was entered until the entire money award is paid, amended or reversed by an appellate court. In January 2024, PacifiCorp filed a notice of appeal associated with the June 2023 verdict in James, including whether the case can proceed as a class action and filed a motion to stay further damages phase trials. On February 14, 2024, the Oregon Court of Appeals denied PacifiCorp's request to stay the damages phase trials. On February 13, 2024, the 17 named plaintiffs filed a notice of cross-appeal as to the January 2024 limited judgment and money award. The appeals process and further actions could take several years.
• In January 2024, the jury for the first James damages phase trial awarded nine plaintiffs $62 million of damages, including $6 million of economic damages and $56 million of noneconomic damages. After the jury verdict, the Multnomah County Circuit Court doubled the economic damages to $12 million and added $16 million of punitive damages using the 0.25 multiplier determined by the jury for the June 2023 James verdict bringing the total damages awarded to $84 million. PacifiCorp requested that the Multnomah County Circuit Court judge offset the damage awards by deducting insurance proceeds received by any of the nine plaintiffs, and on March 25, 2024, the Multnomah County Circuit Court granted in large part the offset request. In April 2024, the Multnomah County Circuit Court entered a limited judgment and money award for the January 2024 James verdict. The limited judgment awards $80 million of damages based on the amounts awarded by the jury and offsetting insurance proceeds received by plaintiffs. The limited judgment created a lien against PacifiCorp, attaching a debt for the money awards. In April 2024, PacifiCorp posted a supersedeas bond, which stays any effort to seek payment of the judgment pending final resolution of any appeals. PacifiCorp amended its January 2024 appeal of the June 2023 James verdict to include the January 2024 jury verdict.
• In March 2024, the jury for the second James damages phase trial awarded 10 plaintiffs $42 million of damages, including $12 million of doubled economic damages, $23 million of noneconomic damages and $7 million of punitive damages using the 0.25 multiplier determined by the jury for the June 2023 James verdict. PacifiCorp has requested that the Multnomah County Circuit Court judge offset the damage awards by deducting insurance proceeds received by any of the ten plaintiffs. PacifiCorp intends to appeal the jury's damage awards associated with the March 2024 jury verdict once judgment is entered.
• On February 7, 2025, the jury for the third James damages phase trial awarded seven individual plaintiffs and one commercial plaintiff $36 million of damages, including $3.8 million of stipulated economic damages and $32 million of non-economic damages. Pursuant to the Oregon Wildfire Statute, plaintiffs asked the court to double the economic damages to $7.6 million after the verdict. It is anticipated the court will increase the award by $9 million of punitive damages by applying the 0.25 multiplier determined by the June 2023 James jury. We anticipate the total award for the eight plaintiffs to be approximately $49 million. PacifiCorp filed post-trial motions with the Multnomah County Circuit Court requesting the court offset the damage awards by deducting insurance proceeds received by any of the eight plaintiffs. PacifiCorp intends to appeal the jury's damage awards associated with the March 2024 jury verdict once judgment is entered.
• These verdicts are just one step in a multi-year legal proceeding. PacifiCorp will vigorously pursue appeals and is confident that it will prevail.

PacifiCorp June 16, 2023, 8-K

PacifiCorp June 24, 2024, 8-K

• PacifiCorp has reached a $150 million settlement with 378 plaintiffs in the 2020 Slater fire in California, settling substantially all individual claims associated with that fire. PacifiCorp is pleased to resolve this matter on behalf of plaintiffs and customers.

PacifiCorp January 10, 2025, 8-K

• PacifiCorp executed settlement agreements totaling $87 million with 499 individual plaintiffs (which includes 331 individual plaintiffs for which settlement in principle was reached in September 2024) and $23 million with personal injury, loss of life and commercial plaintiffs for various complaints associated with the 2022 McKinney wildfire. PacifiCorp is pleased to resolve these claims on behalf of our impacted customers and communities.
• To date, PacifiCorp has settled more than 2,000 wildfire-related claims. The company will continue to settle all reasonable claims.
• The growing threat of wildfires affects everyone and is larger than any single company, industry or government. It is critical that wildfire-related issues be solved holistically, with businesses, governments and key stakeholders working together to design and implement constructive, enduring solutions.  The safety of our customers and communities remains our top priority.

PacifiCorp’s post-trial motion in the James Class Action Wildfire Litigation

Summary of Filing

In the motion, PacifiCorp asks the Multnomah County Circuit Court to correct several legal errors that occurred during the recent class action wildfire case captioned James v. PacifiCorp. If the trial court fails to correct these errors,  they will be appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Here is a brief summary of the relevant issues:

1. Noneconomic Damages. The jury should not have been allowed to award noneconomic damages. ORS 477.089 made “economic and property damages” the “exclusive remedies for damages or injury to property caused by a wildfire.” All of Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries here are injuries to property, so only economic damages should have been awarded. And Oregon law prohibits recovery of noneconomic damages for injuries to property resulting from non-intentional fires. Despite these twin bars on noneconomic damages under the circumstances, the jury awarded $67.5 million in noneconomic damages to Plaintiffs—over 90% of the total damages awarded to Plaintiffs. 
2. Evidence of Class Injuries. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving liability as to the entire class, and certainly should not have been instructed that it “may assume that the evidence at the trial applies to all class members.” (June 6, 2023, Final Jury Instructions at 16.) Oregon law unequivocally requires that “[t]o prevail in a class action,” plaintiffs “must prove” each element of each claim “on the part of all class members.” It was undisputed that different class members were affected by different fires with different causes—proof that one class member may have been affected by an alleged utility fire could not be proof that some other class member, located miles away, was affected by the same fire. It was error to allow Plaintiffs to prove only the claims of the class representatives and then ask the jury to “assume” that evidence establishes the claims of all class members. Rather, it was Plaintiffs’ burden to prove the claims of every class member. Plaintiffs’ trial presentation glossed over the myriad of individualized issues at play, and the Court’s instructions permitted the jury to nonetheless find liability and causation as to the entire class. Because Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving their claims as to the entire class, the Court should grant judgment in favor of PacifiCorp on the class claims; at a minimum, a new trial should be ordered with the jury properly instructed as to Plaintiffs’ burden. 
3. Causation Regarding Class Wide Liability. The jury’s class-wide findings of causation with respect to the Santiam Canyon fire were unsupported by evidence. Plaintiffs were required to prove that PacifiCorp—and not the presence of a separate, lightning-ignited fire—caused the injuries of each individual plaintiff and every class member in the Santiam Canyon. Causation must be established by evidence of a “reasonable probability,” not a “mere possibility.” And in a class action, causation—like every other element—must be proved across the entire class. The Santiam Canyon class boundary was defined to include properties south of a line on a map selected by Plaintiffs’ counsel—a line Plaintiffs’ counsel tried (unsuccessfully) to change in the middle of trial when it became clear that the Beachie Creek fire, not any utility-caused fire, was the actual cause of injury to properties in the Santiam Canyon. Plaintiffs failed to establish causation as to this vast swath of property, and their own experts and witnesses demonstrated that it would have been impossible for any PacifiCorp-caused fire to damage each and every fire-affected property in this area. This failure of proof also undermined the ascertainability of the class because the class definition hinged on establishing who was injured by fire. Judgment for PacifiCorp on the claims of class members in the Santiam Canyon is required, or, in the alternative, decertification of the class.
4. Class Certification. The jury adjudicated liability as to the whole class, even though this Court certified only an issues class. Not a single issue identified in the Court’s class certification order was presented to the jury; instead, the verdict form asked the jury to find liability, which it did. This violated (i) ORCP 32, which requires both a written order certifying the class before the decision on the merits and written notice to the class members, and (ii) the federal constitutional right to due process, which likewise requires that class members receive notice and an opportunity to opt out and that defendants receive notice of the claims brought against them and an opportunity to defend against those claims. The unofficial revision of the scope of the class, made near the end of trial with no analysis as to the propriety of class certification, requires vacatur of the jury’s verdict. 
5. Constitutional Due Process Rights. Relieving Plaintiffs of their burden to prove the claims of the absent class members, and instructing the jury to “assume that the evidence at the trial applies to all class members,” violated PacifiCorp’s federal constitutional right to due process. (June 6, 2023, Final Jury Instructions at 16.) “A defendant in a class action has a due process right to raise individual challenges and defenses to claims, and a class action cannot be certified in a way that eviscerates this right or masks individual issues.” Plaintiffs unquestionably did not prove their claims with class-wide evidence, and Plaintiffs’ reliance on the class action mechanism and on the assumption that individual evidence could apply to the class made it impossible for PacifiCorp to litigate these claims on an individualized basis. This “rough justice” approach to litigation is inconsistent with the constitution’s protection of due process. These and many additional errors propelled the jury towards its unsupported verdict. 
6. Public Safety Power Shutoffs and Gross Negligence. The Oregon Public Utilities Commission and not juries situated throughout Oregon should determine whether a utility acted reasonably in turning off the power before a weather event. The Oregon Public Utility Commission is best situated to regulate the transmission and distribution of electricity in Oregon and has created rules governing safely shutting off the power.

James case post-trial hearings: Case Management Order No. 8

On September 20, 2023, the judge in the James Multnomah County Court case entered Case Management Order No. 8 and set three phase II trials where plaintiffs will present evidence regarding their damages. Two of the trials will have 10-15 plaintiffs per trial. The third trial involves commercial timber plaintiffs. The first James phase II trial is set for January 8-17, 2024. The second James phase II trial is set for February 26 – March 1, 2024. The third trial regarding commercial timber interests is set for April 22-30, 2024.

James case post-trial hearings: Case Management Order No. 9

The Judge in the James case set the following post-trial hearings in Case Management Order No. 9:

1. October 13, 1:15 p.m.: Hearing on proposed limited judgment and PacifiCorp’s motion to set-off insurance recoveries.
   
2. November 9, 3:00 p.m.: Hearing on PacifiCorp's post-trial motions.
3. December 1, 1:00 p.m.: Hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for common benefit fee.

Defendants’ Motion to Reduce Punitive Damages Award Under ORS 31.730

Summary of Filing

PacifiCorp is asking the Multnomah County Circuit Court to review the James jury’s punitive damages award to determine whether the award is within the range of damages that a rational juror would be entitled to award when applying the Oregon punitive damages statutory and common-law factors. PacifiCorp is requesting the Multnomah County Circuit Court reduce the punitive damages award based on the significant developments of PacifiCorp’s wildfire mitigation actions after the 2020 Labor Day wind event. Those actions include:

1. PacifiCorp can conduct targeted proactive power shut offs in its service territory.
2. PacifiCorp exercised those capabilities multiple times since Labor Day 2020. Most recently, PacifiCorp conducted a largescale Public Safety Power Shutoff event in September 2022 in some of the same geographic areas at issue in this case, including the Santiam Canyon. That effort was made possible due to PacifiCorp’s significant post-2020 investments in wildfire mitigation across its entire service territory. 
3. PacifiCorp now has an in-house meteorology team consisting of five meteorologists and a data scientist, and the team is still growing.
4. PacifiCorp’s in-house meteorology team prepares daily weather forecasts covering PacifiCorp’s entire service territory that are forward-looking over five to seven days. PacifiCorp now has access to granular weather information—down to the individual power line level—across its entire service territory.
5. PacifiCorp has expanded its network of hyperlocal weather stations across its entire service territory, not just within pre-identified highest risk areas. By the end of 2022, PacifiCorp had installed 115 weather stations across Oregon, with plans to bring that number up to 162 by the end of 2023. In addition, PacifiCorp employs portable weather stations that can be deployed to specific areas quickly in the event that additional forecasting support is needed.
6. PacifiCorp’s in-house meteorology team developed and relies on a number of modeling techniques, including a combination of weather forecast models, wildfire models, and outage models. The weather forecast model (also known as the “Weather Research and Forecast Model” or “WRF”) is a high-resolution model that provides a 96-hour forecast of weather conditions customized down to the individual power line level, but also information about fuels and fire weather forecasts. 
7. PacifiCorp also relies on a wildfire modeling tool called the “Fire Potential Index” (or “FPI”), which provides a way to quantify the potential risks and consequences of fire ignitions for a given circuit at a given time. 
8. Under certain circumstances, PacifiCorp also utilizes field observers to physically go out into the field to report back on on-the-ground conditions and system impacts.

Defendants' Motion to Vacate, Motion for Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict, Motion for a New Trial, and Renewed Motion for Decertification

Order Allowing Reconsideration and Denying Motion for Stay Pending Appeal

Order Denying Defendants' Post-trial Motions – Phase II, Damages Trial 2

Order Granting Defendants' Objection and Awarding Plaintiffs' Statement of Costs and Disbursements – Phase II, Trial 1

Plaintiff’s Proposed Case Management Order No. 10

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter Case Management Order No. 10

Defendant's Motion for Entry of Case Management Order No. 10

Proposed Limited Judgement and Money Award for the James Phase II, Trial 2

Defendant PacifiCorp's Reply in Response to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Clarify Scope of Class Representation

Declaration of Douglas Dixon in Support of Defendant PacifiCorp's Reply in Response to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Clarify Scope of Class Representation

Defendant PacifiCorp's Motion to Modify Scope of Class Contact Order

Defendant PacifiCorp's Motion for Expedited Consideration of Motion to Modify Scope of Class Contact Order

Order Deying, in Part, Interested Parties' Motion for Order to Clarify Scope of Representation

Order Granting, in Part, Entry of Case Management Order No. 10

Order Granting, in Part, Defendants' Omnibus Motion to Make Mass Short-Form Complaints Nos. 1-5 More Definite and Certain

On January 14, 2025, class counsel filed the Mass Short-Form Complaint #6 (below) where individual plaintiffs are seeking $5 million in economic damages, $25 million in non-economic damages and punitive damages of 0.25 times the amount of economic and non-economic damages. This brings the total count of mass short-form plaintiffs up to 1,591.

Mass Short-Form Complaint #6

On December 24, 2024, two additional short-form complaints were filed in the James case on behalf of eight plaintiffs associated with the Frank Timber company. The two complaints together seek a total of $29.3 million in damages, including $13 million in base economic damages, double damages, and $3.3 million in punitive damages. As a result of the six mass complaints, subsequent dismissals, active class plaintiffs in James total 1,594 for which per plaintiff damages sought vary.

Frank Timber Resources, Inc., et al. Short-Form Complaint

Theodore and Deana Freres, et al. Short-Form Complaint

The court has set the following damages trials in the James class action litigation with up to 10 plaintiffs per trial:

1. February 2025
2. March 2025
3. April 2025
4. May 2025
5. June 2025
6. July 2025
7. September 2025
8. October 2025
9. December 2025

PacifiCorp’s Motion to Dismiss the Vineyards’ Smoke Damage Lawsuits

Summary of Filing

PacifiCorp filed the Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit filed by Bridgadoon Vineyards, LLC lawsuit in Lane County Circuit Court. Similar motions to dismiss were filed in the complaints brought by Retraite, LLC; Parlance, LLC ; Vendange, LLC; and Samuel Robert Winery, LLC. PacifiCorp presents the following arguments for the Circuit Courts’ consideration:

1. The 2020 Labor Day windstorm caused at least 17 separate wildfires across Oregon and burned more than 1 million acres. Nearly three years later, one wine producer brings this lawsuit claiming that PacifiCorp ignited five fires that caused smoke particles to travel across the state to damage Plaintiff’s vineyard and grapes it purchased from other vineyards.  
2. Plaintiffs have the obvious factual problem of proving that any smoke damage to Plaintiff’s grapes resulted from PacifiCorp equipment dozens or even hundreds of miles away rather than from any of the other dozen or more wildfires burning over Labor Day weekend 2020.
3. Plaintiff’s claim for inverse condemnation fails on every element. To state a claim for inverse condemnation, Plaintiff must allege that (1) “the government” (2) “intentionally” acted “in a manner that necessarily caused” the injury to Plaintiff’s property (3) for a “public use,” in the case of claims under Article I, Section 18, or by a corporation. PacifiCorp is not the government, and there is no allegation anywhere in the complaint that PacifiCorp acted “under authority of law” in any relevant way. Nor does Plaintiff allege ultimate facts sufficient to show that any of PacifiCorp’s “intentional” acts were inevitable or “substantially certain” to cause smoke damage to Plaintiff’s vineyards. Just as occurred in the Douglas County case arising from one of the same fires at issue here, the Court should dismiss the inverse condemnation claim with prejudice.
4. Plaintiff’s other claims should be dismissed based on similar flaws. For example, Plaintiffs offer no factual allegations— whatsoever—to show that smoke damage to vineyards dozens or hundreds of miles away was a foreseeable risk of Plaintiff’s allegation that PacifiCorp was negligent in not installing “insulated[] distribution line conductors” months or years prior to Labor Day 2020 or any of Plaintiff’s other allegations of negligent conduct.
5. Plaintiff’s requested multiple damages are unavailable as a matter of law. As just one example, Plaintiff relies on Oregon Revised Statutes 756.185, which permits treble damages if a utility violates Oregon utility law in a grossly negligent or willful way. But the statute explicitly “does not apply with respect to the liability of any public utility for personal injury or property damage.” Oregon Revised Statutes 756.185(4). That clause forecloses trebling damage.
6. Plaintiff’s claim for “spoliation of evidence” fails. Even if Oregon law recognized a freestanding claim for spoliation—and it does not—the Oregon Court of Appeals has expressly rejected bringing claims for spoliation unless a party “first br[ings] the underlying claim and los[es] or suffer[s] diminution in its value.”
7. Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring, among other things, PacifiCorp to “refrain from re-energizing powerlines on red flag warning days” and to “withhold distribution payments to its parent company, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, until PacifiCorp can certify it is sufficiently compliant with Oregon tree trimming laws.” Oregon law does not recognize a freestanding claim for an injunction. Even if it did, an injunction that effectively would permit Plaintiff’s counsel to run Oregon’s second largest utility, substituting their own judgment for that of the Oregon Public Utility Commission (“PUC”), usurps the PUC’s statutory and regulatory authority, and is barred by the doctrines of exclusive and primary jurisdiction.