Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Bankruptcy StrategistFeaturesBankruptcyLitigation

The How, What and Why of a Potential PG&E Bankruptcy

By John J. Rapisardi and Daniel Shamah
February 01, 2019

PG&E Corporation (Holdco) and its subsidiary, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (the Utility and together with Holdco, PG&E) announced on Jan. 13, 2019 that it expects to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on or around Jan. 29, 2019, right around the conclusion of a mandatory 15-day notice requirement under California law. See, Form 8-K of PG&E Corp. and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Jan. 13, 2019). Such a filing would represent the second time PG&E resorted to protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

PG&E filed for bankruptcy on April 6, 2001 and emerged three years later, on April 12, 2004. See, Case No. 01-30923-DM (Bankr. N.D. Cal.). The challenges PG&E has faced since wildfires began consuming large swaths of California are well known and has fueled speculation about a bankruptcy filing. But less well understood and appreciated are the legal and regulatory issues confronting PG&E and other similarly situated California utilities. As we'll see, those legal and regulatory issues present critical complications in a potential second PG&E bankruptcy.

Background on PG&E

PG&E, incorporated in California in 1905, is one of the largest combined natural gas and electrical energy companies in the United States. Based in San Francisco, it employs nearly 20,000 people. Its primary business is the transmission and delivery of energy — both natural gas and electricity — to nearly 16 million customers in Northern and Central California. The rates PG&E charges its customers are predominantly set by its principal regulator, the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC).

This premium content is locked for The Bankruptcy Strategist subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.