TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

875 TH IRD AV E NUE

NEW YORK, NY 10022

39208457v3

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

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

Gabriel Ozel

11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400

San Diego, CA 92130-2092

Telephone: (858) 509-6000

gabriel.ozel@troutman.com

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

Hugh M. McDonald (admitted pro hac vice)

Jonathan D. Forstot (admitted pro hac vice)

875 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Telephone: (212) 704-6000

Facsimile: (212) 704-6288

hugh.mcdonald@troutman.com

jonathan.forstot@troutman.com

Attorneys for Consolidated Edison 

Development, Inc.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION

 -andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Debtors.

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).

Bankruptcy Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11 (Lead Case) (Jointly Administered)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON

DEVELOPMENT INC.’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. (Pacific Time)

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Objection Deadline: June 19, 2019

4:00 p.m. (Pacific Time)

Consolidated Edison Development, Inc. (“Con Edison”), through its counsel, submits this 

limited opposition to the Motion of the Utility for Limited Relief From the Automatic Stay to Appeal 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2625 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 13:17:04 Page 1 of

3
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

875 TH IRD AV E NUE

NEW YORK, NY 10022

39208457v3 - 2 -

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

Certain Matters Pending Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Doc. No. 2359] (the 

“Utility Motion”)1filed by PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the “Utility” 

and, together with PG&E Corporation, the “Debtors”).

I. LIMITED OPPOSITION

The Utility Motion should be granted only if Con Edison and the other PPA Counterparties 

are granted reciprocal stay relief.

As explained in the Motion of Consolidated Edison for Relief from the Automatic Stay to 

Intervene and Participate in Appeal of FERC Orders [Doc. No. 2403] (the “Con Edison Motion”),2

Con Edison has a direct and legally protected interest in any appeal of the FERC Orders. If the 

Utility obtains stay relief and appeals the FERC Orders, but Con Edison remains stayed from 

participating in that appeal, then Con Edison’s interests will be prejudiced significantly. Namely, 

Con Edison’s right to the Utility’s continued performance under its PPAs could be threatened 

without Con Edison having had the opportunity to defend its interests at the appellate level. Such 

an unjust result is contrary to the spirit of the automatic stay, which serves primarily to protect 

debtors and their estates—not give them an undue advantage over other parties in litigation.

The Debtors should not be permitted to use the automatic stay as a sword, rather than a 

shield, to deny Con Edison the ability to assert its rights and claims in any forum—an entirely 

inequitable result. See Anchev v. 335 West 38th St. Coop. Corp. (In re Anchev), 2009 Bankr. LEXIS

906, *6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2009) (noting it would be inequitable to permit debtor, as 

plaintiff in nonbankruptcy suit, to utilize stay as sword against defendants in that action) (citing In

re Jandous Elec. Const. Corp., 106 B.R. 48, 50 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989)); cf. Lake Cty. Grapevine 

 

1Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed in the Utility Motion. 

2 For the sake of brevity, Con Edison incorporates by reference all arguments made in the Con Edison Motion. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2625 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 13:17:04 Page 2 of

3
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

875 TH IRD AV E NUE

NEW YORK, NY 10022

39208457v3 - 3 -

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

Nursery Operations LLC v. Am. Nursery LLC, No. C 09-4877 VRW, 2010 WL 11586939, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“A section 362(a) stay provides a debtor with ‘breathing room,’ but 

does not prevent ‘persons whom the bankrupt has sued from protecting their legal rights.’”) 

(citations omitted)).

Therefore, Con Edison opposes the Utility Motion only to the extent that the Debtors request

stay relief without reciprocal stay relief being granted to Con Edison and the other parties to the 

FERC Proceeding.

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein and in the Con Edison Motion, Con Edison respectfully 

requests that the Court: deny the Utility Motion unless it also grants Con Edison and other PPA 

Counterparties that were parties to the FERC Proceeding reciprocal stay relief (whether by separate 

order granting the Con Edison Motion or within the same order granting the Utility Stay Motion)

and grant such other and further relief as is just and proper.

Dated: June 19, 2019 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

By: /s/ Hugh M. McDonald 

Hugh M. McDonald (admitted pro hac vice)

Jonathan D. Forstot (admitted pro hac vice)

875 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Telephone: (212) 704-6000

hugh.mcdonald@troutman.com

jonathan.forsot@troutman.comn

-andTROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

Gabriel Ozel

11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400

San Diego, CA 92130-2092

Telephone: (858) 509-6000

gabriel.ozel@troutman.com

Attorneys for Consolidated Edison

Development, Inc.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2625 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 13:17:04 Page 3 of

3