1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

KLEE, TUCHIN, BOGDANOFF 

& STERN LLP

1999

AVENUE OF THE STARS, THIRTY-NINTH FLOOR

LOS 

ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

TELEPHONE: 310-407-4000

Kenneth N. Klee (State Bar No. 63372)

David M. Stern (State Bar No. 67697)

Samuel M. Kidder (State Bar No. 284015)

KLEE, TUCHIN, BOGDANOFF & STERN LLP

1999 Avenue of the Stars, Thirty-Ninth Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067

Telephone: 310-407-4000

Facsimile: 310-407-9090

Email: kklee@ktbslaw.com

dstern@ktbslaw.com 

skidder@ktbslaw.com

Attorneys for NextEra Energy, Inc. and

NextEra Energy Partners, L.P.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION,

-andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

Bankruptcy Case

No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

NEXTERA ENERGY’S LIMITED 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF THE 

UTILITY FOR LIMITED RELIEF 

FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY TO 

APPEAL CERTAIN MATTERS 

PENDING BEFORE THE FEDERAL 

ENERGY REGULATORY 

COMMISSION

Date: June 26, 2019

Time: 9:30 a.m. (PST)

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Objection Deadline: June 19, 2019

4:00 p.m. (PST)

Affects PG&E Corporation

Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM).

NextEra Energy, Inc. and NextEra Energy Partners, L.P. (together, “NextEra”) hereby 

submit this limited opposition to the Motion of the Utility for Limited Relief from the Automatic 

Stay to Appeal Certain Matters Pending Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2616 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 12:08:46 Page 1 of

4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

KLEE, TUCHIN, BOGDANOFF 

& STERN LLP

1999

AVENUE OF THE STARS, THIRTY-NINTH FLOOR

LOS 

ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

TELEPHONE: 310-407-4000

[Docket No. 2359] (the “Utility Stay Motion”)1 filed by PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company (the “Utility” and, together with PG&E Corporation, the “Debtors”).

I. LIMITED OPPOSITION

As explained in greater detail in NextEra’s Motion for Limited Relief from Stay to 

Participate in Appellate Proceedings with Respect to FERC Orders [Docket No. 2400] (the 

“NextEra Stay Motion”),2 NextEra agrees with the Debtors that the automatic stay should be lifted

to validate, retroactively, the Utility’s failure to seek stay relief in advance of requesting a 

rehearing from FERC and to permit, prospectively, the Utility to file and prosecute to conclusion 

its appeal of the FERC Orders, provided NextEra and other interested parties receive reciprocal 

relief.

Relief from the automatic stay is not a one-way street, particularly here as the Debtors are 

requesting, and desperately need,3 retroactive relief. See, e.g., Nat’l Envtl. Waste Corp. v. City of 

Riverside (In re Nat’l Envtl. Waste Corp.), 129 F.3d 1052, 1055 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[T]his court, 

similar to others, balances the equities in order to determine whether retroactive annulment is 

justified.”); Gan B, LLC v. Sims, 575 B.R. 375, 387 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (“While a court may in some 

circumstances ... grant[] retroactive relief from the automatic stay, such relief can only be granted 

in accordance with equitable principles ....”); In re Williams, 533 B.R. 557, 565 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 

2015) (“Whether to annul the stay is an equitable determination.”). NextEra does not dispute it is 

fair that the Utility have the ability to ask the Court of Appeals to correct what the Utility believes 

is an incorrect decision, even though the Utility sought rehearing without first seeking stay relief. 

 

1 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to 

them in the Utility Stay Motion.

2 NextEra hereby incorporates by reference all arguments made in the NextEra Stay Motion, in 

the Motion of Consolidated Edison for Relief from the Automatic Stay to Intervene and 

Participate in Appeal of FERC Orders [Docket No. 2403], and in the joinders to the NextEra 

Stay Motion [Docket Nos. 2406, 2411, 2450, 2452 & 2454].

3 Absent retroactive relief, the Utility would be precluded from appealing the FERC Orders. 

16 U.S.C § 825l(a) (“No proceeding to review any orders of the Commission shall be brought 

by any entity unless such entity shall have made application to the Commission for a rehearing 

thereon.”).

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2616 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 12:08:46 Page 2 of

4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

KLEE, TUCHIN, BOGDANOFF 

& STERN LLP

1999

AVENUE OF THE STARS, THIRTY-NINTH FLOOR

LOS 

ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

TELEPHONE: 310-407-4000

However, fairness cuts in more than one direction. NextEra, as well as FERC and all the 

defendant-intervenors (i.e., the PPA Counterparties), should be entitled to ask the Court of 

Appeals to affirm what those parties believe to be a correct order.

On its face, the Utility Stay Motion seeks relief from stay to permit the Utility to prosecute 

an appeal. It is silent as to the rights of other interested parties to participate in that appeal.

Although it is unclear whether the Debtors seek to preclude NextEra and other PPA 

Counterparties (or FERC) from defending any appeal of the FERC Orders, NextEra files this 

response, and likewise filed the NextEra Stay Motion, to insure that such an absurd and unfair

result does not occur.

4

 Cf. In re Paxton, 596 B.R. 686, 695-96 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2019) (noting the 

“obvious unfairness if a debtor is allowed to appeal an adverse judgment rendered in an action 

against the debtor, yet, at the same time, the automatic stay would prevent a creditor from doing 

the same”). Accordingly, the Court should grant the Utility Stay Motion if and only if it also 

grants the NextEra Stay Motion (or incorporates the relief requested therein into its order granting 

the Utility Stay Motion).5

 

Subject to the preceding caveats, NextEra does not oppose the Debtors’ request to 

retroactively lift the stay to validate postpetition actions relating to the FERC Orders, including the 

Utility’s failure to seek relief from stay prior to filing the Requests for Rehearing, and to prosecute 

an appeal of the FERC Orders to the D.C. or Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

4 NextEra does not believe there was malevolent intent, as noted in the NextEra Stay Motion, at 

1:5-9. But absent voicing its concerns, there could be a highly inequitable outcome.

5 After filing the NextEra Stay Motion, NextEra approached the Debtors in an attempt to 

negotiate a form of consensual order that would resolve both the Utility Stay Motion and the 

NextEra Stay Motion. As of the date hereof, the parties have not been able to reach agreement 

on a form of order, although NextEra will continue to explore the possibility of a consensual 

resolution in advance of the hearing on the motions.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2616 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 12:08:46 Page 3 of

4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

KLEE, TUCHIN, BOGDANOFF 

& STERN LLP

1999

AVENUE OF THE STARS, THIRTY-NINTH FLOOR

LOS 

ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

TELEPHONE: 310-407-4000

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein and in the NextEra Stay Motion, NextEra respectfully 

requests that the Court deny the prospective relief requested in the Utility Stay Motion unless it 

also enters an order granting the NextEra Stay Motion (or incorporates the relief requested therein 

into its order on the Utility Stay Motion).

DATED: June 19, 2019 /s/ David M. Stern

Kenneth N. Klee

David M. Stern

Samuel M. Kidder

KLEE, TUCHIN, BOGDANOFF & STERN LLP

Attorneys for NextEra Energy, Inc. and NextEra 

Energy Partners, L.P..

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2616 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 12:08:46 Page 4 of

4