By Renee Records
Claims Director, PG&E
For much of my career, evidence management occupied a relatively quiet place within utility organizations. It was recognized as an important responsibility, but it was generally managed within claims, legal and investigative functions. Investigators understood evidence collection, and claims and legal teams understood their responsibilities when significant incidents occurred. That approach served the industry well for many years, but today’s operating environment is different.
Utilities now operate under increasing scrutiny from multiple directions. Regulators are examining evidence-handling practices more closely than in the past. Plaintiff attorneys have become increasingly sophisticated in challenging evidence-preservation decisions. Customers and the public expect greater transparency whenever significant incidents occur. Collectively, these forces have changed what utilities are expected to demonstrate.
“Evidence management is no longer judged by what an organization says happened. It is judged by what an organization can demonstrate happened.”
That distinction has fundamentally changed the role evidence management plays within today’s utility organizations.
Regulatory Scrutiny Is Increasing
Utilities have long operated under regulations requiring evidence to be preserved under defined circumstances. Those requirements are not new. What has changed is how closely regulators examine the decisions organizations make surrounding evidence.
Today, regulators increasingly want to understand why evidence was collected, how it was identified, who handled it, how chain of custody was maintained and whether established procedures were followed consistently across the organization—not simply whether evidence was retained. In many cases, they also want to inspect the evidence itself and review the documentation supporting its handling.
Regulations generally establish evidence requirements; however, they do not prescribe how evidence management programs should operate. Utilities must proactively identify, develop and sustain processes that align with their specific operational risks and requirements and can withstand regulatory review—not simply meet minimum requirements.
When significant gaps are identified, the consequences extend beyond a single finding. Regulatory inquiries can become extensive investigations that require organizations to produce documentation, explain decisions and demonstrate that evidence has been managed appropriately throughout its lifecycle.
“Evidence management serves as a critical indicator of an organization’s operational discipline.”
Increasingly, evidence management reveals not only an organization’s ability to meet regulatory requirements, but also its capacity to manage risk, defend decisions and maintain stakeholder trust.
Litigation Has Changed the Conversation
Regulatory oversight is only part of the story. The litigation environment surrounding utilities has evolved just as significantly.
Plaintiff attorneys are increasingly sophisticated in their understanding of utility operations. They recognize that evidence management often becomes a critical point of scrutiny long after service restoration is complete and infrastructure repairs have been made.
Months after an incident, organizations may be asked to explain why particular evidence was collected, why other evidence was not, whether damaged equipment was preserved and how every transfer of that evidence was documented.
When evidence cannot be located, documentation is incomplete or chain of custody cannot be clearly demonstrated, attention quickly shifts away from the incident itself and toward the organization’s processes.
“Questions about evidence preservation quickly become questions about credibility.”
Utilities have always been expected to defend the decisions they make during an incident. Increasingly, they must also demonstrate that those decisions were supported by consistent, repeatable and well-documented processes.
Public Expectations Continue to Rise
Utilities today operate in an environment where significant incidents rarely remain private matters. Large events often involve multiple agencies, extensive public interest, media attention and long-term regulatory and legal review. Communities expect utilities to respond effectively, communicate transparently and demonstrate accountability throughout the investigation process.
That expectation extends beyond regulatory compliance. Utilities have an obligation to demonstrate that evidence has been handled in a manner that supports fair investigations, informed decision-making and public confidence. Evidence management is one of the ways organizations reinforce trust that investigations are thorough, objective and supported by facts rather than assumptions.
For organizations entrusted with critical public infrastructure, maintaining that confidence has become as important as meeting regulatory obligations.
A Different Standard
Together, increased regulatory oversight, more sophisticated litigation and rising public expectations have fundamentally changed the environment in which utilities manage evidence.
Evidence management can no longer be viewed simply as the process of storing physical items after an incident. It has become fundamental to demonstrating accountability, consistency and defensibility when an organization’s decisions are examined.
In an environment of increasing legal and regulatory scrutiny, proactive evidence management is no longer a best practice—it is a strategic imperative. Organizations that invest in defensible evidence management today will be the ones best positioned to respond with confidence when their actions, decisions and records are placed under a microscope.
About Renee Records
Renee Records is Claims Director at PG&E. Her work spans claims, investigations and evidence management in the utility environment. She brings practical, firsthand insight into the regulatory, legal and operational pressures utilities face when preserving evidence, documenting chain of custody and supporting defensible decisions.