1

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

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

-oOoIn Re:

PG&E CORPORATION AND PACIFIC 

GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

_____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 19-30088

Chapter 11

San Francisco, California

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

9:30 AM

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

FILED BY PHILIP VERWEY 

[1141]; MOTION FOR RELEF FROM 

STAY FILED BY MARTA MESTER 

[3036]; MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM STAY FILED BY DAN CLARKE 

[2823]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE DENNIS MONTALI

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

For the Debtor: PETER J. BENVENUTTI, ESQ.

Keller & Benvenutti LLP

650 California Street

Suite 1900

San Francisco, CA 94108

(415)364-6798

For Philip Verwey Farms: ANNIE DUONG, ESQ.

McCormick Barstow LLP

7647 North Fresno Street

Fresno, CA 93720

(559)433-1300

For Official Creditors' 

Committee:

GREGORY A. BRAY, ESQ.

(Telephonically)

DANIEL B. DENNY, ESQ.

(Telephonically)

Milbank LLP

2029 Century Park East

33rd Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

(424)386-4000

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 1 of

37
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

For Official Creditors' 

Committee:

ALAN J. STONE, ESQ.

(Telephonically)

Milbank LLP

55 Hudson Yards

New York, NY 10001

(212)530-5000

For Stroock & Stroock & 

Lavan LLP:

EREZ E. GILAD, ESQ.

(Telephonically)

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP

180 Maiden Lane

New York, NY 10038 

(212)806-6006

For Stroock & Stroock & 

Lavan LLP:

FRANK A. MEROLA, ESQ.

(Telephonically)

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP

2029 Century Park East

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(310)556-5800

For CPUC: BRIAN S. HERMANN, ESQ.

(Telephonically)

ALAN W. KORNBERG, ESQ.

(Telephonically)

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & 

Garrison LLP

1285 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10019 

(212)373-3545

For BlueMountain: MICHAEL H. STRUB, JR., ESQ.

(Telephonically)

Irell & Manella LLP

1800 Avenue of the Stars

Suite 900

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

(310)277-1010

For BlueMountain: JOHN H. VERAJA, ESQ.

(Telephonically)

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 

LLP

One Liberty Plaza 

New York, NY 10006 

(212)225-2000

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 2 of

37
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

Court Recorder: JOHN BOLTS

 United States Bankruptcy

Court

450 Golden Gate Avenue

16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Transcriber: JENNIFER NAUS

 eScribers, LLC

7227 N. 16th Street

Suite #207

Phoenix, AZ 85020

(973)406-2250

Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; 

transcript provided by transcription service.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 3 of

37
4

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2019, 9:33 AM

-oOo-

(Call to order of the Court.)

THE CLERK: All rise. Court is now in session. The 

Honorable Dennis Montali presiding. 

THE COURT: Good morning. 

MR. BENVENUTTI: Good morning, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Please be seated. Mr. Benvenutti, where's 

the crowd? You usually have a cast of thousands here. 

MR. BENVENUTTI: Well, I was just remarking on that to 

Ms. Parada, but more significantly, we don't seem to have my 

opponent who hopefully is on her way. 

THE COURT: Well, is she on the phone? 

THE CLERK: No. 

THE COURT: Okay. Well, have we heard anything from? 

THE CLERK: I have a voice mail -- email from her, but 

I can't listen to it, so. 

THE COURT: Do you want to go and listen to it? 

THE CLERK: I'm trying to set up a telephonic --

THE COURT: Pardon? 

THE CLERK: She probably missed the court call. 

THE COURT: Well, I mean if you --

THE CLERK: Yeah, I can go in and look. 

THE COURT: -- you want to just go and look? Okay. 

Well, should we go off the record, I guess? 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 4 of

37
5

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

THE CLERK: Yes. 

THE COURT: Yeah, okay. 

MR. BENVENUTTI: Yes, please. 

THE COURT: Mr. Bolts, take us off the record for a 

moment? 

(Recess from 9:34 a.m., until 9:36 a.m.)

THE CLERK: The matter of PG&E Corporation. 

THE COURT: All right. Appearances, please. Counsel, 

Ms. --

MS. DUONG: This is Annie Duong, appearing for Philip 

Verwey Farm.

THE COURT: Okay, Ms. Duong. Good morning. 

MR. BENVENUTTI: Good morning, Your Honor. Peter 

Benvenutti on behalf of the debtors. 

THE COURT: So let me say that I am amazed at the 

enormous amount of paperwork on this for what is an extremely 

narrow question. So Ms. Duong, you filed a paper that wasn't 

really anticipated. But what you didn't say in what you filed 

yesterday is your client's response to Mr. Benvenutti's 

suggestion that perhaps all we need here is an agreement that 

as to the claims that are asserted by PG&E against its 

customer, which would be one of your clients, we can just 

maintain the status quo. 

He said it perhaps a little differently, but that's 

really what you mean, right, Mr. Benvenutti? 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 5 of

37
6

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

MR. BENVENUTTI: Yes. Yes, it is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So Ms. Duong, as I read the papers, 

although you kind of throw in there in one of these late briefs 

your client does business in many forms, that's very 

interesting, but it's not very relevant. So the way I see it, 

there is about a hundred and -- I've got the specific numbers, 

130,000 dollars that is billed to one entity, Hanford, just a 

few hundred dollars that's billed to Madeira, and the 

difference presumably is billed to the debtor -- I mean, I'm 

sorry, your client, not the debtor, Mr. Verwey. 

And you haven't had -- in the six months of the 

bankruptcy, he hasn't received a threat or a demand or a 

cancellation threat about anything for paying that claim, has 

he? 

MS. DUONG: He has, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: He has? 

MS. DUONG: Yes, he has. He has gotten notices from 

PG&E's risk department --

THE COURT: Okay. 

MS. DUONG: -- as well as their claims department. 

THE COURT: But have you considered just exploring 

with opposing counsel just an agreement that maintains the 

status quo as to that amount while all this other stuff gets 

worked out? 

MS. DUONG: Absolutely. We actually entered into an 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 6 of

37
7

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

interim agreement --

THE COURT: Um-hum. 

MS. DUONG: -- in which we were to basically suspend 

and keep the status quo for a certain period of time in order 

to actually explore the different issues such as liability and 

the disputes as to the amount. 

THE COURT: Well, but let's try it a different way. 

So leave aside the threat, and I certainly understand; whether 

your client runs a dairy or just lives in his house, it doesn't 

really matter, if the utility says we're going to turn off your 

service if you don't pay, that's a threat. I don't make light 

of it. But six months later it hasn't happened. 

So what I am going to tell you is forget the threat of 

turning off the switch. What would you do, and your response 

be if PG&E filed a lawsuit against your client to recover the 

amount that has been billed to one or more of your clients; 

what would your response be? I don't mean the legal words, I 

mean what would -- as a layperson, what would your response be? 

MS. DUONG: I mean our response would be that we would 

have to defend it. 

THE COURT: No, no. But wouldn't it be yeah, we owe 

the debt, but we have claims that offset. 

MS. DUONG: Right. 

THE COURT: I mean that's what a nonlawyer would even 

say. Why do I have to pay 390,000 or 260,000 or some other 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 7 of

37
8

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

thousand if they -- they owe me a million dollars? 

MS. DUONG: Absolutely, that's exactly the basis. 

THE COURT: So that's -- why can't we just focus on 

that and say that at least the 264,000 -- I mean, I have to say

that the 126,000 billed to Hanford doesn't lend itself to a 

traditional set-off even if your client does business in 

multiple different entities. That's perfectly fine. Nothing 

wrong with that, but the only -- PG&E has the right -- assume 

for a moment that it has the right to file suit or to take 

action against its customer who hasn't paid. Hanford is a 

customer who hasn't paid, so there's nothing that bankruptcy 

law does about that. So to the extent that -- because it's a 

defense, that's all. It's just a defense. It's not an 

exercise of set-off. I mean, it is, but there's nothing to do, 

right; don't you agree? 

MS. DUONG: I wouldn't argue as to the interconnection 

invoices. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MS. DUONG: I think the focus of more of the usage 

charges, and I think that's what they're even more concerned 

about, Mr. Verwey. 

THE COURT: Okay, understood. So what neither of you 

addressed and is, I don't think, is that although there is a 

lot of back and forth about the law, including one of you had 

the good sense to cite one of my own cases -- thank you, not 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 8 of

37
9

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

that it makes any difference -- the law treats an offset right

as a secured claim, the equivalent of a secured claim. So your 

client claims -- again I'll focus on Verwey Farm, PVF -- claims 

to have been damaged by PG&E for a variety of reasons that are 

in the record. And someday, and by settlement or litigation or 

something, there will be a resolution of that. 

But in the meantime, you client says because I have a 

claim that you have caused me harm, I don't have to pay you 

what you owe me. But that's like saying I have a secured claim 

because a right of set-off is the equivalent of a secured 

claim. 

So what happens if a debtor wants to use collateral 

subject to a secured claim; do you know the answer? 

MS. DUONG: No. 

THE COURT: The debtor has to provide adequate 

protection to make sure that the security isn't impaired. So 

Mr. Benvenutti, for the client, says we can come up with an 

adequate protection agreement, which is another way of saying 

we'll maintain the status quo for the offset. 

So it's not whether you exercise offset or not; you 

just protect the 264,000 dollars until you either reach an 

agreement or there is a judicial determination or arbitration;

however you get to it, there is a final accounting of how much 

the parties owe each other. End of story. 

And if your client proves that it suffered damages in 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 9 of

37
10

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

excess of the 264, end of story. PG&E pays you the difference 

or pays you something when it emerges from bankruptcy with a 

plan. 

If you lose, your client has to pay PG&E the 

undisputed usage charge. Nothing fancy about that, right? 

MS. DUONG: Right. But I think --

THE COURT: Any problem with that? 

MS. DUONG: I do find some issue with that, merely 

because -- and it kind of comes to the agreement that we kind 

of reached outside of this, so I don't want to bring too many 

details in --

THE COURT: No. 

MS. DUONG: -- but essentially is that there was an 

agreement, and we did have an agreement that no attempts would 

be while during -- pending --

THE COURT: But I don't want you to go there. What I 

am saying is if we had the simple case. Forget that whole 

history. You get a bill from PG&E at your home, and PG&E says 

your overdue 50 dollars, and you call back the service desk and 

you say but you guys owe me 150 dollars because of that payment 

I had to make to you for something. And somebody says, hey, 

that's right. We net it out and you get a refund for 100 

dollars. Done. So we just add some zeros here and add some 

other entities and put it in a bankruptcy; it's the same 

concept. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 10

of 37
11

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

MS. DUONG: But I don't think that that would 

necessarily be adequate protection either, even just --

THE COURT: Why wouldn't it if you don't have to pay 

it? 

MS. DUONG: Right. But that's assuming that 

everything kind of runs along and trickles down the line. 

THE COURT: Why? 

MS. DUONG: There were instances --

THE COURT: No, no. Tell my why that is so, because 

I -- look, you're -- and I'm going to let you answer the 

question. This started way back months ago. You filed a 

motion for relief from stay. To do what? To exercise your 

set-off rights, which is, if we use bankruptcy labels, it's 

treat my claim against PG&E as a secured claim. That's the 

functional equivalent. 

Where it gets more complicated is months go by and 

more briefing, and then in a reply or opposition you say, oh, 

by the way, can we have an injunction? I mean that's 

procedurally inappropriate. 

So what's so complicated about my telling Mr. 

Benvenutti that -- or asking him to see if he agrees, that why 

don't we just hold in place what your client would be allowed 

to set off, or alternatively, grant relief to exercise set-off, 

but nothing else happens. You don't -- there's no final 

accounting. Nobody -- it just maintains the status quo. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 11

of 37
12

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

Now, tell me what is wrong with that? 

MS. DUONG: I don't think there is necessarily 

anything wrong with that.

THE COURT: Okay. 

MS. DUONG: But I just don't believe that that is 

adequate protection. There is nothing that really stops --

For example, say the situation that we agree that from 

here on out, that no actions will be taken, no shedding off, 

whatever, right? 

THE COURT: Right. Yeah. 

MS. DUONG: But what if during that period, that 

message doesn't get trickled through and then the power does 

get shut off? 

THE COURT: What if there is no bankruptcy, and you've 

never heard of me, and you've never heard of set-off, and 

you've never heard of any of these legal doctrines. And your 

client calls you one day and says they just turned off my 

power; what do I do? Well, what do you do?

I presume there are a hundred things you do, starting 

by swearing, and you call the CPUC, or you call PG&E, or you 

say hey, you guys turned off my power; what's the deal, right? 

Isn't that what you would do if you were in your home and all 

of a sudden, the power went off? I mean, leave aside thirdparty things, and you'd say why are you turning my power off? 

My bill is current. I've paid my bill, right? 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 12

of 37
13

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

MS. DUONG: Yeah, but I think the difference is that 

because of this bankruptcy stay, we would be prevented from 

taking any of those actions. 

THE COURT: Well, think about what you -- again, what 

you have asked me to do. If I had -- and I do appreciate that 

it's a big problem for your client, and I don't make light of 

it. But it's only one of countless problems that have gone on 

with PG&E. 

But what you've said in some detail in your papers is 

you just want to do a final reconciliation of account. You 

want to prove how PG&E damaged your client and, to the extent 

you are able to prove that your client was damaged, it should 

be allowed to pay, to reimburse itself for some of that damage 

by the money that PG&E is claiming against your client for 

really unrelated matters. It's the doctrine of set-off that 

exists in the common law and California law. 

So what that means to a layperson is your client 

doesn't have to pay PG&E while it is trying to vindicate its 

rights that would, if correct, would satisfy, otherwise, the 

obligation to pay. 

So again I'll repeat my question. If at the end of 

the day, whether by arbitration, claims resolution, whatever, 

if it ends up that PG&E damaged your client by -- I want to 

stay clear of whether it's 900,000 or 300,000 or some --

damaged your client by some amount, then that will be the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 13

of 37
14

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

determination that your client is owed that amount, and PG&E is 

owed its amount which for these purposes looks like it's no 

more than 264,000 dollars, and those just set off one another. 

So if you win a judgment for 265,000, they owe you 

1,000 bucks, and your client doesn't pay the 264. If you get a 

judgment for 50,000 dollars, PG&E is going to look to you for 

264 minus that amount. That's all this does. And that -- so 

what else could you hope for? 

No, of course, I am not condoning PG&E turning the 

power off for this reason. And if they turn the power off for 

some other reason, there are consequences. And nobody's 

endorsing that entitlement. 

Mr. Benvenutti, have I said anything that is 

inconsistent with your understanding of the way set-off works 

and the way these things operate? 

MR. BENVENUTTI: No, Your Honor. And I might add that 

given that the Court implicitly accepts that PVF has 

established a prima facie case for set-off with respect to the 

court claim asserted in PVF's name against --

THE COURT: The 264. 

MR. BENVENUTTI: -- the 264. 

THE COURT: Yeah. 

MR. BENVENUTTI: Right. I'm confident that we can 

work out a simple agreement that maintains the status quo and 

that protects Ms. Duong's client against the risk of collection 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 14

of 37
15

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

efforts by my client. There was one instance that happened 

that I am aware of, and it was as a result of miscommunication. 

THE COURT: Well, that happens. 

MR. BENVENUTTI: And I can't guarantee that that won't 

happen again, but what I can, I think, guarantee with such an 

agreement is that we would have in place a clear, simple 

vehicle for dealing with it if it should happen, and making 

sure that the intent of that agreement that I am suggesting is 

enforced. 

THE COURT: Ms. Duong, how can you complain about 

that? I mean, that -- I mean, really, I understand your client 

might feel completely spooked by this whole thing, but that's a 

very traditional, sensible resolution. And sure, PG&E is a 

complicated case, and your client's situation is a little 

unusual and unique. But when you cut through all of that, it's 

a very simple application of the principles of set-off as 

imposed as the bankruptcy law operates it. And as I say, I --

to me, I can't think of a simpler solution for the short term. 

So once again, I'll say it to you. If there's a 

stipulated order, and Mr. Benvenutti's client proceeds to 

violate that order, we have a thing called contempt. 

But if your client violates the order, we have a thing 

called contempt too. So I'd rather not worry about that. I'd 

rather say two lawyers representing their clients agree on 

behalf of -- or with the consent of their clients -- to what is 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 15

of 37
16

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

a very simple and fairly very traditional kind of status quo. 

And we can't protect against an accident -- accident of turning 

off the light, the power, whatever. But there are remedies if 

that happens.

And again, I'm not really suggesting contempt. What 

I'm saying is that if you have a stipulation that maintains the 

status quo, and then either resolves consensually or otherwise 

through the claims process, the total amount of claims that 

your client asserts minus what are proper set-offs -- again, if 

Hanford suffered the damage and not PVF, then Hanford may be 

able to have a set-off for its -- the bill to it. If Hanford 

didn't suffer damage, then Hanford better pay. 

Now, Mr. Benvenutti is only addressing, and I'm only 

addressing, the amount that are legitimately disputed, because 

you concede that Hanford has a separate bill. I'm not going to 

worry about the 500-dollar one. You haven't given everything 

away. It's just a fact. It's a fact. Hanford has been billed 

for 126,000 dollars and hasn't paid it. And why hasn't it paid 

it? Well, maybe as a practical matter, the answer is because 

there's a way to come up with a global solution. But in terms 

of bankruptcy law, this makes sense to me.

MS. DUONG: Okay. 

MR. BENVENUTTI: Now, you didn't -- Mr. Benvenutti, 

can your client go the next step and put the Hanford claim in 

the same bundle of rights to maintain the status quo?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 16

of 37
17

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

MR. BENVENUTTI: Not on this showing, Your Honor. No. 

At this point, unless we have some reason to understand that 

Hanford, in fact, can assert a legitimate basis of set-off --

THE COURT: And that it assert damage, right.

MR. BENVENUTTI: Yes. We can't do that.

THE COURT: Okay. But I mean, if there's some 

documentation to support a prima facie case, then you have to 

take another look at that.

MR. BENVENUTTI: Absolutely.

THE COURT: Again, I think we're back to what would 

happen if there were no bankruptcy, and PG&E calls up Hanford 

and says, you owe me 126,000 dollars, and Hanford says, no, you 

owe me X dollars for the damage had. 

MR. BENVENUTTI: Correct. And if Hanford, in fact, 

has a basis for claiming that it's owed X dollars, we have to 

take account of that.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. BENVENUTTI: On this record, I don't think it 

does.

MS. DUONG: Yeah. I think the dispute really does 

come down to, I think, the mechanism for having the adequate 

protection for Mr. Verwey's properties, but also obviously 

within this process as well.

I think -- and you said it yourself, like, the -- it's 

not just a fear, but it's a real threat of the damages that 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 17

of 37
18

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

could happen if the power were shut off, which is what the 

basis of the original motion and the original general claims 

was for. 

THE COURT: No. I understand that. But to some 

extent, your client, at the end of the day -- not the end of 

the day -- today, your client undoubtedly says, we got damaged 

by a lot of money, and we want to made whole for our damage. 

There's nothing wrong with saying that, and if he or it can 

prove its case, it should be made whole. I don't disagree. 

But if it can't, then that's life in the big city. That's what 

happens.

MS. DUONG: Right. Right. And I think I was actually 

more making a comment and a statement as to the agreement that 

there would -- or a stipulation for order -- that no action 

would be taken on these properties in between here and whenever 

the litigation would presumably occur. 

THE COURT: But see, that gets back -- and I don't 

want to turn this into a lecture from the judge to a lawyer, 

perhaps, appearing here in my court for the first time -- I 

think; maybe you have before, but I don't remember -- but 

that's why you don't put in a reply brief at the last page, by 

the way, can I have an injunction. I mean, if you really think 

PG&E is going to go off and do some bad things to you, get an 

injunction. But don't throw it into a reply brief at the end. 

I mean, sure, again, I'm not going to minimize what 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 18

of 37
19

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

your client must think, and it's ugly, tragic; about twenty 

years ago, I had a case involving -- I was on the BAP, and I 

had a case involving a dairy that there was an electrical 

problem, and some of the cows were electrocuted. And it wasn't 

funny, but that's what happened.

So your client -- some of your livestock, I think, 

were damaged or injured or killed, right?

MS. DUONG: Correct.

THE COURT: Yeah. So it's the same history repeating 

itself. So it's not funny, but if there were no bankruptcy, 

and PG&E said, Mr. Verwey, you owe us a lot of money, and we're 

going to turn off your power, and it's too bad if your cows 

die, you might be down to Superior Court seeking an injunction 

saying they can't turn off the power because we will suffer 

harm, blah, blah, blah -- the usual injunction provisions.

So the point is you could have; you didn't. That's 

not the issue. And the narrow issue is, can your client 

exercise set-off, which is a legal way of saying, can your 

client not pay what he doesn't think he has to pay because he, 

in turn, has suffered corresponding or off-setting damages. 

And as Mr. Benvenutti just stated, PVF at least makes a prima 

facie case for damages that it has suffered, which is a prima 

facie -- and by saying prima facie, I don't mean a ruling. It 

just sounds like a credible argument. 264 owed PG&E, X 

dollars -- possibly, likely more than 264 owed by PG&E. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 19

of 37
20

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

Nothing could be more obvious than a set-off. 

So my question to you, or my invitation to you is do 

that, because that's what I think you're entitled to, and as 

Mr. Benvenutti said on this record, he cannot concede that 

there's another 126,000 because if you treat it that way, I'd 

like to think he's not going to go back to the office and call 

the client and say, turn off Hanford's power this afternoon. I 

would say that that would be surprising and that this is the 

kind of thing that could be resolved all the way -- maybe not 

all the way to complete resolution. But if you can make a case 

for a prima facie set-off of that 126, I'd be surprised if PG&E 

would argue about your entitlement to turn the 264 set-off into 

the total of the 390. Again, I'm not going to worry about the 

500 dollars. 

MR. BENVENUTTI: Your Honor, may I make this 

suggestion?

THE COURT: Yes, sir. 

MR. BENVENUTTI: I completely agree that this should 

be done by agreement if at all possible, not by order. I will 

assure both the Court and Ms. Duong that PG&E's lawyers have 

every expectation that PG&E would abide by such an agreement, 

allowing for the risk of miscommunication, which is why build 

into the agreement, some mechanism for flagging that issue if 

it should happen, and dealing with it expeditiously. 

I would suggest that Ms. Duong and I attempt to work 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 20

of 37
21

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

out such a simple agreement, which I think can be done based on 

the Court's guidance, and I would be happy to have a continued 

hearing holding date as assurances to Ms. Duong that will make 

that happen, and if need be, we'll be back in front of the 

Court to sort it out at that point.

THE COURT: I'd like to avoid that. But can you live 

with that?

MS. DUONG: I think that -- obviously, I haven't 

consulted my client on --

THE COURT: Right.

MS. DUONG: -- these suggestions. But I think my -- I 

think I have an inkling that my client would be more protected 

and feel more comfortable with a stipulated order. I think 

that is much more protection for miscommunications for 

additional demands and threats, and I think that's especially 

the spooked -- I think that's what you -- the term you used 

earlier. He's especially spooked because power was shut off, 

because threats were made, because voice messages were left, 

and emails, and to his staff, to himself. And because of that, 

I think the stipulated -- if there was -- if we agree to 

anything, it would be a stipulation by order.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to -- I'm going to permit 

that and give you a continued date. I think I'm a little 

troubled by the amount of money that, perhaps, has been spent 

on what still is a fairly narrow issue, but I don't minimize 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 21

of 37
22

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

your client -- particularly the client's anxiety and concerns 

about this. And the fact is, you probably would be telling me 

if your client called you this morning to say they just turned 

the power off. 

So I'm going to give you a continued date and ask you 

to -- Mr. Benvenutti to work out some accommodation -- some 

resolution that might maintain the status quo. 

And beyond the status quo, if possible. I mean, great 

if this thing could be resolved completely. As I say, we can't 

solve the problem, and maybe it's beyond the ability to handle 

it in this fashion to say what's the total off-setting claim, 

but maybe there's a way to negotiate that too. That's for 

another day.

MR. BENVENUTTI: Your Honor, if I may --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. BENVENUTTI: -- there have been attempts to 

reach --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. BENVENUTTI: -- a global settlement. Those 

attempts have been unsuccessful. Hope always springs eternal. 

I don't want to convey a false sense of --

THE COURT: No.

MR. BENVENUTTI: -- optimism. At this point, I think 

it is likely that there will need to be litigation through the 

claims objection process to resolve --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 22

of 37
23

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

THE COURT: Well, that was my next --

MR. BENVENUTTI: -- PVF's claim. 

THE COURT: -- question I had. I didn't -- and maybe 

it's in the papers -- have your client -- has the client -- and 

they filed claims under the -- in the case? Yeah, I mean, the 

claim's bar date is still running. Have they filed a claim 

yet?

MS. DUONG: Are you asking if they filed proofs of 

claims?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. DUONG: Yes, they have.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BENVENUTTI: Yeah. So the agreement that I have 

in mind would remain in place until there's a resolution of the 

PVF claim.

THE COURT: Right. Right. Yeah, I don't know as I 

sit here how unconsensual (sic) claims resolution is going to 

happen. That's a bigger question that affects more than your 

client and the dairy problem. Obviously, it affects tens of 

thousands of claims in the fire end of the case. It's on the 

to-do list of all the principal lawyers and the judge. 

MS. DUONG: And I don't doubt that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And so to the extent that the lawyers and 

the judge can take care of, either for the short-term or 

permanently, something that is unrelated to the fire claims, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 23

of 37
24

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

then that's progress. 

So all right. I'm going to take -- look, Mr. 

Benvenutti knows the bankruptcy law -- I'm not suggesting you 

don't. What I'm saying is, he knows it and how I operate in 

this case and other cases and bankruptcy judges generally. And 

he knows, and I'm sure you know, the fundamental principles of 

set-off. And that's why I'm not even getting into this debate 

about post- and pre-petition and everything else. 

I take this case, as many of the cases that I deal 

with in the PG&E case -- how would we handle this if there were 

no bankruptcy? And the answer is, I think, if I were a 

Superior Court judge, and I was having a discussion with you 

too, Counsel, about this kind of dispute, I think the 

resolution would be the same. And there's nothing magic about 

bankruptcy. It's just a little more difficult because of the 

different terminology, and the applicable statutes, and so on.

But at the end of the day, it is a recognition of 

claims that are going both ways: one of which is undisputed, 

the other which is disputed -- or the collection.

Why don't I do this. There have been two or three 

prior hearings. We don't need to have you come to court and 

spend money. And Ms. Duong, you're certainly welcome to appear 

by phone if you have -- I mean, Mr. Benvenutti didn't have to 

come very far, but you had to come from Fresno. So you really 

ought to take to take advantage of our phones just for your own 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 24

of 37
25

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

sake, but you're welcome here. 

And I'm going to give you a later date for a holding 

with the expectation that at least the short-term matter will 

be resolved. You can take Mr. Benvenutti's representation that 

he will do what he, as counsel, can do to make sure that --

recommend to his client that nothing untoward happens in the 

meantime. 

And your client, for the time being, has the 

functional equivalent of set-off. I mean, it's one of these 

weird things about the bankruptcy law. You have to get 

permission to do something the law permits you to do. And 

there are cases where people asserting rights of set-off have 

substantial sums of money, and someone in bankruptcy has little 

by comparison, and set-off as an offensive weapon. Here, it is 

not an offensive weapon. Your client has acknowledged owing 

this 390,000 dollars and wants to be vindicated for the offsetting claim. But beyond that, it's the same deal. 

So I hope you can reach a temporal resolution and, 

with luck, a permanent one.

MR. BENVENUTTI: Your Honor, if I may --

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. BENVENUTTI: -- one point of clarification. I'm 

not clear whether the Court is telling us that we need to come 

up with a stipulated order or an agreement. I strongly prefer 

the latter for the reasons that the Court previously suggested.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 25

of 37
26

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

THE COURT: Well, but -- I mean, can't we kind of do 

an order that makes the status quo? I mean look, Mr. 

Benvenutti, if PG&E, or any party, agrees to do something by 

order and then accidentally errs, there's no consequence. I 

mean, there may be consequence, but certainly if your client --

there's a misunderstanding, it's not going to be a contempttype thing. I mean, I got to -- I think we have to fashion 

a --

MR. BENVENUTTI: It's a big organization, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. BENVENUTTI: And I've discovered that 

communication between its component parts is not always as 

seamless as one would like.

THE COURT: I'm going to -- well, Mr. Benvenutti, I'm 

going to ask you to use your good judgment and experience to 

see if you can come up with a -- something that is acceptable 

to both sides in terms of -- I mean, you have a lot of 

experience with this in the bankruptcy court, in my court, and 

if you can come up with language that opposing counsel will 

agree with and feel comfortable with, then I'd like you to try 

to do it. If not, I guess I'll do it.

MR. BENVENUTTI: All right. Very well, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BENVENUTTI: We'll certainly give it a shot. Does 

the Court have in mind the middle of August, or the latter part 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 26

of 37
27

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

of August?

THE COURT: Well, I mean, we've got our dates out 

there. I mean, with this big organization, how long is it 

going to take to kind of formalize putting this thing in place?

MR. BENVENUTTI: I don't think -- I don't think it 

should take long, assuming we can reach agreement on what it 

says with Ms. Duong and her client.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, we have a calendar in the 

latter part of August, and as your client's and co-counsel 

know, our mid-August calendar is getting a little crowded.

MR. BENVENUTTI: Yes. Yes.

THE COURT: Not to say the other ones aren't.

MR. BENVENUTTI: It's jammed. Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What's our August date? The 28th?

MS. DUONG: We have the --

MR. BENVENUTTI: 28th would -- 28th would be fine with 

me, if that works for Ms. Duong.

THE COURT: Oh, Ms. Parada, we have a --

THE CLERK: The 27th and the 28th --

THE COURT: Yeah, but do we have things on either of 

those dates yet?

THE CLERK: On both.

THE COURT: Which are the kind of more like relief 

from stay-type stuff? Is that the 27th? I mean, we don't --

and for example, we -- well, you tell me. What's on the 27th?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 27

of 37
28

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

THE CLERK: An application to retain Trident.

THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Duong, is that date convenient 

for you? And again, I -- invitation to do it by phone.

MS. DUONG: Unfortunately, no, the 27th isn't. I have 

a conflict.

THE COURT: How about the next day?

MS. DUONG: But the 28th would work.

MR. BENVENUTTI: All right.

THE COURT: Okay. Again, my invitation to you is 

twofold. You're welcome here, but I'd rather save your client 

some money and let you do this by phone. It's not going to 

give Mr. Benvenutti an advantage.

And secondly, my other invitation is don't even come 

back. Work a deal and convince your client that he should be 

comfortable with something that is worked out at this level. 

There is always a risk of something going wrong, but that's the 

same kind of risk that exists everywhere, and I can't make this 

entire organization act like two lawyers and one judge coming 

to a resolution. It's like, it would be the same with 

everything we're doing. Superior Court, out of court, out of 

bankruptcy, it's the whole bundle.

So I'm continuing it to 9:30 on the 28th with the hope 

that you'll have a resolution. Okay?

MR. BENVENUTTI: Very well. Thank you, Your Honor.

MS. DUONG: Thank you, Your Honor.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 28

of 37
29

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

THE COURT: Good luck. Thank you for coming, Ms. 

Duong, and for your presentation.

All right. That's the only matter we have on the PG&E 

calendar today. So anyone on the phone and anyone in court, 

please -- anything else, that's it for PG&E today.

(Whereupon these proceedings were concluded at 10:09 AM)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 29

of 37
30

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

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I, Jennifer Naus, certify that the foregoing transcript is a 

true and accurate record of the proceedings.

________________________________________ 

/s/ JENNIFER NAUS

eScribers

7227 N. 16th Street, Suite #207

Phoenix, AZ 85020

Date: August 1, 2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 30

of 37
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 31, 2019

A

abide (1)

 20:21

ability (1)

 22:10

able (2)

 13:12;16:11

Absolutely (3)

 6:25;8:2;17:9

acceptable (1)

 26:16

accepts (1)

 14:17

accident (2)

 16:2,2

accidentally (1)

 26:4

accommodation (1)

 22:6

account (2)

 13:10;17:16

accounting (2)

 9:23;11:25

acknowledged (1)

 25:15

act (1)

 28:18

action (2)

 8:10;18:14

actions (2)

 12:8;13:3

actually (3)

 6:25;7:5;18:12

add (3)

 10:23,23;14:16

additional (1)

 21:15

addressed (1)

 8:23

addressing (2)

 16:13,14

adequate (5)

 9:15,18;11:2;12:6;

 17:21

advantage (2)

 24:25;28:12

affects (2)

 23:18,19

afternoon (1)

 20:7

again (12)

 9:3;13:4,21;15:5,19;

 16:5,9;17:10;18:25;

 20:13;28:3,9

against (8)

 5:21;7:15;8:10;

 11:14;13:14;14:19,25;

 16:2

ago (2)

 11:11;19:2

agree (6)

 8:15;12:7;15:24;

 20:18;21:20;26:20

agreement (19)

 5:20;6:22;7:1;9:18,

 22;10:9,14,14;14:24;

 15:6,8;18:13;20:19,21,

 23;21:1;23:13;25:24;

 27:6

agrees (2)

 11:21;26:3

allowed (2)

 11:22;13:13

allowing (1)

 20:22

along (1)

 11:6

alternatively (1)

 11:23

although (2)

 6:3;8:23

always (3)

 22:20;26:12;28:16

amazed (1)

 5:15

amount (11)

 5:16;6:23;7:6,16;

 13:25;14:1,2,7;16:8,

 14;21:24

Annie (1)

 5:10

anticipated (1)

 5:18

anxiety (1)

 22:1

appear (1)

 24:22

Appearances (1)

 5:8

appearing (2)

 5:10;18:19

applicable (1)

 24:16

application (2)

 15:16;28:1

appreciate (1)

 13:5

arbitration (2)

 9:22;13:22

argue (2)

 8:16;20:12

argument (1)

 19:24

aside (2)

 7:8;12:23

assert (2)

 17:3,4

asserted (2)

 5:21;14:19

asserting (1)

 25:12

asserts (1)

 16:9

assume (1)

 8:8

assuming (2)

 11:5;27:6

assurances (1)

 21:3

assure (1)

 20:20

attempt (1)

 20:25

attempts (3)

 10:14;22:16,20

August (4)

 26:25;27:1,9,14

avoid (1)

 21:6

aware (1)

 15:2

away (1)

 16:17

B

back (8)

 8:24;10:19;11:11;

 17:10;18:17;20:6;21:4;

 28:14

bad (2)

 18:23;19:12

bankruptcy (19)

 6:12;8:11;10:2,24;

 11:13;12:14;13:2;

 15:17;16:21;17:11;

 19:10;24:3,5,11,15;

 25:10,13;26:18;28:21

BAP (1)

 19:2

bar (1)

 23:6

based (1)

 21:1

basically (1)

 7:3

basis (4)

 8:2;17:3,15;18:2

behalf (2)

 5:14;15:25

BENVENUTTI (51)

 4:7,8,10;5:3,13,14,

 25;6:1;9:17;11:21;

 14:13,16,21,23;15:4;

 16:13,23,23;17:1,5,9,

 14,18;19:21;20:4,15,

 18;22:6,14,16,19,23;

 23:2,13;24:3,23;25:20,

 22;26:3,9,11,14,22,24;

 27:5,11,13,16;28:8,12,

 24

Benvenutti's (3)

 5:19;15:20;25:4

better (1)

 16:12

beyond (3)

 22:8,10;25:17

big (4)

 13:6;18:10;26:9;

 27:3

bigger (1)

 23:18

bill (5)

 10:18;12:25,25;

 16:11,15

billed (6)

 6:7,8,9;7:16;8:5;

 16:17

blah (3)

 19:15,15,15

Bolts (1)

 5:4

both (4)

 20:20;24:18;26:17;

 27:22

brief (2)

 18:21,24

briefing (1)

 11:17

briefs (1)

 6:3

bring (1)

 10:10

bucks (1)

 14:5

build (1)

 20:22

bundle (2)

 16:25;28:21

business (2)

 6:4;8:6

C

calendar (3)

 27:8,10;29:4

CALIFORNIA (2)

 4:1;13:16

Call (6)

 4:3,21;10:19;12:20,

 20;20:6

called (3)

 15:21,23;22:3

calls (2)

 12:17;17:11

can (23)

 4:23;5:22;9:17;

 11:18;14:23;15:5,10;

 16:24;17:3;18:8,22;

 19:17,18;20:10;21:1,6;

 23:24;25:4,5,18;26:16,

 19;27:6

cancellation (1)

 6:13

care (1)

 23:24

case (14)

 10:17;14:18;15:14;

 17:7;18:9;19:2,3,22;

 20:10;23:5,20;24:5,9,

 10

cases (4)

 8:25;24:5,9;25:12

cast (1)

 4:9

caused (1)

 9:8

certain (1)

 7:4

certainly (4)

 7:8;24:22;26:5,24

charge (1)

 10:5

charges (1)

 8:20

cite (1)

 8:25

city (1)

 18:10

claim (16)

 6:13;9:2,2,8,9,11,13;

 11:14,14;14:19;16:24;

 22:11;23:2,6,15;25:17

claiming (2)

 13:14;17:15

claims (16)

 5:21;6:20;7:22;9:3,

 3;13:22;16:8,8;18:2;

 22:25;23:5,9,17,20,25;

 24:18

claim's (1)

 23:6

clarification (1)

 25:22

clear (3)

 13:24;15:6;25:23

CLERK (11)

 4:4,14,16,19,21,23;

 5:1,7;27:19,22;28:1

client (49)

 6:4,10;7:9,15;8:6;

 9:3,7,17,25;10:4;

 11:22;12:17;13:6,11,

 12,14,17,23,25;14:1,5,

 25;15:1,11,20,22;16:9,

 24;18:5,6;19:1,6,17,19;

 20:7;21:9,12;22:1,3;

 23:4,4,19;25:6,8,15;

 26:5;27:7;28:10,14

clients (4)

 5:22;7:16;15:24,25

client's (4)

 5:19;15:14;22:1;

 27:9

co-counsel (1)

 27:9

collateral (1)

 9:12

collection (2)

 14:25;24:19

comfortable (3)

 21:13;26:20;28:15

coming (2)

Min-U-Script® eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(1) abide - coming Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 31

of 37
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 31, 2019

 28:18;29:1

comment (1)

 18:13

common (1)

 13:16

communication (1)

 26:12

comparison (1)

 25:14

complain (1)

 15:10

complete (1)

 20:10

completely (3)

 15:12;20:18;22:9

complicated (3)

 11:16,20;15:14

component (1)

 26:12

concede (2)

 16:15;20:4

concept (1)

 10:25

concerned (1)

 8:20

concerns (1)

 22:1

concluded (1)

 29:6

condoning (1)

 14:9

confident (1)

 14:23

conflict (1)

 28:5

consensually (1)

 16:7

consent (1)

 15:25

consequence (2)

 26:4,5

consequences (1)

 14:11

considered (1)

 6:21

consulted (1)

 21:9

contempt (3)

 15:21,23;16:5

contempt- (1)

 26:6

continued (3)

 21:2,23;22:5

continuing (1)

 28:22

convenient (1)

 28:2

convey (1)

 22:21

convince (1)

 28:14

Corporation (1)

 5:7

corresponding (1)

 19:20

Counsel (5)

 5:8;6:22;24:13;25:5;

 26:19

countless (1)

 13:7

course (1)

 14:9

Court (94)

 4:3,4,6,8,13,15,18,

 20,21,22,24;5:2,4,8,12,

 15;6:2,16,19,21;7:2,7,

 21,24;8:3,18,22;9:15;

 10:7,12,16;11:3,7,9;

 12:4,10,14;13:4;14:17,

 19,20,22;15:3,10;17:4,

 6,10,17;18:4,17,19;

 19:9,13;20:17,20;21:5,

 6,10,22;22:15,18,22;

 23:1,3,10,12,16,23;

 24:12,21;25:21,23,25;

 26:1,10,14,18,18,23,

 25;27:2,8,12,14,18,20,

 23;28:2,6,9,20,20;29:1,

 4

Court's (1)

 21:2

cows (2)

 19:4,12

CPUC (1)

 12:20

credible (1)

 19:24

crowd (1)

 4:9

crowded (1)

 27:10

current (1)

 12:25

customer (3)

 5:22;8:10,11

cut (1)

 15:15

D

dairy (3)

 7:9;19:3;23:19

damage (6)

 13:13;16:10,12;17:4,

 13;18:7

damaged (7)

 9:4;13:11,12,23,25;

 18:6;19:7

damages (4)

 9:25;17:25;19:20,22

date (7)

 21:3,23;22:5;23:6;

 25:2;27:14;28:2

dates (2)

 27:2,21

day (7)

 12:17;13:22;18:5,6;

 22:13;24:17;28:6

deal (4)

 12:21;24:9;25:17;

 28:14

dealing (2)

 15:7;20:24

debate (1)

 24:7

debt (1)

 7:22

debtor (4)

 6:9,10;9:12,15

debtors (1)

 5:14

defend (1)

 7:20

defense (2)

 8:13,13

demand (1)

 6:12

demands (1)

 21:15

Dennis (1)

 4:5

department (2)

 6:18,20

desk (1)

 10:19

detail (1)

 13:9

details (1)

 10:11

determination (2)

 9:22;14:1

die (1)

 19:13

difference (4)

 6:9;9:1;10:1;13:1

different (4)

 7:5,7;8:7;24:16

differently (1)

 5:24

difficult (1)

 24:15

disagree (1)

 18:9

discovered (1)

 26:11

discussion (1)

 24:12

dispute (2)

 17:20;24:13

disputed (2)

 16:14;24:19

disputes (1)

 7:6

doctrine (1)

 13:15

doctrines (1)

 12:16

documentation (1)

 17:7

dollars (16)

 6:7,8;8:1;9:21;10:19,

 20,23;14:3,6;16:18;

 17:12,13,15;19:25;

 20:14;25:16

Done (3)

 10:23;20:19;21:1

doubt (1)

 23:22

down (3)

 11:6;17:21;19:13

Duong (48)

 5:10,10,12,17;6:2,15,

 17,20,25;7:3,19,23;8:2,

 16,19;9:14;10:6,8,13;

 11:1,5,8;12:2,5,11;

 13:1;15:10;16:22;

 17:20;18:12;19:8;

 20:20,25;21:3,8,11;

 23:8,11,22;24:22;27:7,

 15,17;28:2,4,7,25;29:2

Duong's (1)

 14:25

during (2)

 10:15;12:11

E

earlier (1)

 21:17

efforts (1)

 15:1

either (5)

 9:21;11:2;16:7;

 23:24;27:20

electrical (1)

 19:3

electrocuted (1)

 19:4

else (4)

 11:24;14:8;24:8;

 29:5

email (1)

 4:16

emails (1)

 21:19

emerges (1)

 10:2

End (8)

 9:24;10:1;13:21;

 18:5,5,24;23:20;24:17

endorsing (1)

 14:12

ends (1)

 13:23

enforced (1)

 15:9

enormous (1)

 5:16

entered (1)

 6:25

entire (1)

 28:18

entities (2)

 8:7;10:24

entitled (1)

 20:3

entitlement (2)

 14:12;20:12

entity (1)

 6:7

equivalent (4)

 9:2,10;11:15;25:9

errs (1)

 26:4

especially (2)

 21:15,17

essentially (1)

 10:13

established (1)

 14:18

eternal (1)

 22:20

even (6)

 7:24;8:6,20;11:2;

 24:7;28:13

everywhere (1)

 28:17

exactly (1)

 8:2

example (2)

 12:7;27:25

excess (1)

 10:1

exercise (5)

 8:14;9:20;11:12,23;

 19:18

exists (2)

 13:16;28:17

expectation (2)

 20:21;25:3

expeditiously (1)

 20:24

experience (2)

 26:15,18

explore (1)

 7:5

exploring (1)

 6:21

extent (4)

 8:12;13:11;18:5;

 23:23

extremely (1)

 5:16

F

facie (6)

 14:18;17:7;19:22,23,

 23;20:11

fact (5)

 16:17,17;17:3,14;

 22:2

fairly (2)

 16:1;21:25

false (1)

Min-U-Script® eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(2) comment - false Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 32

of 37
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 31, 2019

 22:21

fancy (1)

 10:5

far (1)

 24:24

Farm (2)

 5:11;9:3

fashion (2)

 22:11;26:7

fear (1)

 17:25

feel (3)

 15:12;21:13;26:20

few (1)

 6:8

file (1)

 8:9

filed (7)

 5:17,18;7:15;11:11;

 23:5,6,8

final (3)

 9:23;11:24;13:10

find (1)

 10:8

fine (2)

 8:7;27:16

fire (2)

 23:20,25

first (1)

 18:19

flagging (1)

 20:23

focus (3)

 8:3,19;9:3

forget (2)

 7:13;10:17

formalize (1)

 27:4

forms (1)

 6:4

forth (1)

 8:24

FRANCISCO (1)

 4:1

Fresno (1)

 24:24

front (1)

 21:4

functional (2)

 11:15;25:9

fundamental (1)

 24:6

funny (2)

 19:5,10

G

general (1)

 18:2

generally (1)

 24:5

gets (3)

 6:23;11:16;18:17

given (2)

 14:17;16:16

global (2)

 16:20;22:19

Good (7)

 4:6,7;5:12,13;8:25;

 26:15;29:1

grant (1)

 11:23

great (1)

 22:8

guarantee (2)

 15:4,5

guess (2)

 4:25;26:21

guidance (1)

 21:2

guys (2)

 10:20;12:21

H

handle (2)

 22:10;24:10

Hanford (14)

 6:7;8:5,10;16:10,10,

 11,12,15,17,24;17:3,

 11,12,14

Hanford's (1)

 20:7

happen (7)

 15:5,7;17:11;18:1;

 20:24;21:4;23:18

happened (3)

 7:12;15:1;19:5

happens (6)

 9:12;11:24;15:3;

 16:4;18:11;25:6

happy (1)

 21:2

harm (2)

 9:8;19:15

heard (4)

 4:15;12:15,15,16

hearing (1)

 21:3

hearings (1)

 24:21

hey (2)

 10:21;12:21

himself (1)

 21:19

history (2)

 10:18;19:9

hold (1)

 11:22

holding (2)

 21:3;25:2

home (2)

 10:18;12:22

Honor (15)

 4:7;5:13;6:1,15;

 14:16;17:1;20:15;

 22:14;23:22;25:20;

 26:9,22;27:13;28:24,

 25

Honorable (1)

 4:5

hope (4)

 14:8;22:20;25:18;

 28:22

hopefully (1)

 4:12

house (1)

 7:9

hundred (3)

 6:6,8;12:19

I

impaired (1)

 9:16

implicitly (1)

 14:17

imposed (1)

 15:17

inappropriate (1)

 11:19

including (1)

 8:24

inconsistent (1)

 14:14

injunction (5)

 11:18;18:22,24;

 19:13,15

injured (1)

 19:7

inkling (1)

 21:12

instance (1)

 15:1

instances (1)

 11:8

intent (1)

 15:8

interconnection (1)

 8:16

interesting (1)

 6:5

interim (1)

 7:1

into (6)

 6:25;18:18,24;20:12,

 23;24:7

invitation (4)

 20:2;28:3,9,13

invoices (1)

 8:17

involving (2)

 19:2,3

issue (5)

 10:8;19:17,17;20:23;

 21:25

issues (1)

 7:5

J

jammed (1)

 27:13

judge (5)

 18:18;23:21,24;

 24:12;28:18

judges (1)

 24:5

judgment (3)

 14:4,6;26:15

judicial (1)

 9:22

JULY (1)

 4:1

K

keep (1)

 7:4

killed (1)

 19:7

kind (11)

 6:3;10:9,9;11:6;

 16:1;20:9;24:13;26:1;

 27:4,23;28:17

knows (3)

 24:3,4,6

L

labels (1)

 11:13

language (1)

 26:19

last (1)

 18:21

late (1)

 6:3

later (2)

 7:12;25:2

latter (3)

 25:25;26:25;27:9

law (10)

 8:12,24;9:1;13:16,

 16;15:17;16:21;24:3;

 25:10,11

lawsuit (1)

 7:15

lawyer (1)

 18:18

lawyers (5)

 15:24;20:20;23:21,

 23;28:18

layperson (2)

 7:18;13:17

least (3)

 8:4;19:21;25:3

leave (2)

 7:8;12:23

lecture (1)

 18:18

left (1)

 21:18

legal (3)

 7:17;12:16;19:18

legitimate (1)

 17:3

legitimately (1)

 16:14

lend (1)

 8:5

level (1)

 28:15

liability (1)

 7:5

life (1)

 18:10

light (3)

 7:11;13:6;16:3

likely (2)

 19:25;22:24

line (1)

 11:6

list (1)

 23:21

listen (2)

 4:17,18

litigation (3)

 9:5;18:16;22:24

little (6)

 5:24;15:14;21:23;

 24:15;25:13;27:10

live (1)

 21:6

lives (1)

 7:9

livestock (1)

 19:6

long (2)

 27:3,6

look (7)

 4:23,24;11:10;14:6;

 17:8;24:2;26:2

looks (1)

 14:2

lose (1)

 10:4

lot (4)

 8:24;18:7;19:11;

 26:17

luck (2)

 25:19;29:1

M

Madeira (1)

 6:8

magic (1)

 24:14

mail (1)

 4:16

maintain (4)

 5:23;9:19;16:25;

 22:7

Min-U-Script® eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(3) fancy - maintain Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 33

of 37
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 31, 2019

maintains (4)

 6:22;11:25;14:24;

 16:6

makes (4)

 9:1;16:21;19:21;

 26:2

making (2)

 15:7;18:13

many (3)

 6:4;10:10;24:9

matter (5)

 5:7;7:10;16:19;25:3;

 29:3

matters (1)

 13:15

may (5)

 16:10;20:15;22:14;

 25:20;26:5

maybe (6)

 16:19;18:20;20:9;

 22:10,12;23:3

mean (30)

 4:22;5:25;6:9;7:17,

 18,19,24;8:4,14;11:18;

 12:23;15:11,11;17:6;

 18:22,25;19:23;22:8;

 23:5;24:23;25:9;26:1,

 2,5,7,17;27:2,3,8,24

means (1)

 13:17

meantime (2)

 9:7;25:7

mechanism (2)

 17:21;20:23

merely (1)

 10:8

message (1)

 12:12

messages (1)

 21:18

mid-August (1)

 27:10

middle (1)

 26:25

might (4)

 14:16;15:12;19:13;

 22:7

million (1)

 8:1

mind (2)

 23:14;26:25

minimize (2)

 18:25;21:25

minus (2)

 14:7;16:9

miscommunication (2)

 15:2;20:22

miscommunications (1)

 21:14

missed (1)

 4:21

misunderstanding (1)

 26:6

moment (2)

 5:5;8:9

money (7)

 13:14;18:7;19:11;

 21:24;24:22;25:13;

 28:11

Montali (1)

 4:5

months (4)

 6:11;7:12;11:11,16

more (16)

 4:11;7:16;8:19,20;

 11:16,17;14:3;18:13;

 19:25;20:1;21:12,13,

 14;23:18;24:15;27:23

morning (5)

 4:6,7;5:12,13;22:3

motion (2)

 11:12;18:2

much (2)

 9:23;21:14

multiple (1)

 8:7

must (1)

 19:1

N

name (1)

 14:19

narrow (3)

 5:17;19:17;21:25

necessarily (2)

 11:2;12:2

need (5)

 5:20;21:4;22:24;

 24:21;25:23

negotiate (1)

 22:12

neither (1)

 8:22

net (1)

 10:22

next (3)

 16:24;23:1;28:6

Nobody (1)

 11:25

nobody's (1)

 14:11

nonlawyer (1)

 7:24

notices (1)

 6:17

numbers (1)

 6:6

O

objection (1)

 22:25

obligation (1)

 13:20

obvious (1)

 20:1

obviously (3)

 17:22;21:8;23:19

occur (1)

 18:16

off (22)

 4:25;5:4;7:10,14;

 11:23;12:8,13,17,21,

 23,24;14:3,10,10;16:3;

 18:1,23;19:12,14;20:7;

 21:17;22:4

off- (1)

 25:16

offensive (2)

 25:14,15

office (1)

 20:6

offset (4)

 7:22;9:1,19,20

off-setting (2)

 19:20;22:11

once (1)

 15:19

one (17)

 5:22;6:3,7;7:16;8:24,

 25;12:17;13:7;14:3;

 15:1;16:16;24:18;25:9,

 19,22;26:13;28:18

ones (1)

 27:12

only (5)

 8:8;13:7;16:13,13;

 29:3

oOo- (1)

 4:2

operate (2)

 14:15;24:4

operates (1)

 15:17

opponent (1)

 4:12

opposing (2)

 6:22;26:19

opposition (1)

 11:17

optimism (1)

 22:23

order (12)

 4:3;7:4;15:20,21,22;

 18:14;20:19;21:13,21;

 25:24;26:2,4

organization (3)

 26:9;27:3;28:18

original (2)

 18:2,2

otherwise (2)

 13:19;16:7

ought (1)

 24:25

out (11)

 6:24;10:22;12:8;

 14:24;21:1,5;22:6;

 27:2;28:15,20,20

outside (1)

 10:10

overdue (1)

 10:19

owe (9)

 7:21;8:1;9:9,24;

 10:20;14:4;17:12,13;

 19:11

owed (5)

 14:1,2;17:15;19:24,

 25

owing (1)

 25:15

own (2)

 8:25;24:25

P

page (1)

 18:21

paid (5)

 8:10,11;12:25;16:18,

 18

paper (1)

 5:17

papers (3)

 6:2;13:9;23:4

paperwork (1)

 5:16

Parada (2)

 4:11;27:18

Pardon (1)

 4:20

part (2)

 26:25;27:9

particularly (1)

 22:1

parties (1)

 9:24

parts (1)

 26:12

party (2)

 12:24;26:3

pay (12)

 7:11,25;9:8;10:4;

 11:3;13:13,18,20;14:5;

 16:12;19:19,19

paying (1)

 6:13

payment (1)

 10:20

pays (2)

 10:1,2

pending (1)

 10:15

people (1)

 25:12

perfectly (1)

 8:7

perhaps (4)

 5:20,24;18:19;21:24

period (2)

 7:4;12:11

permanent (1)

 25:19

permanently (1)

 23:25

permission (1)

 25:11

permit (1)

 21:22

permits (1)

 25:11

Peter (1)

 5:13

PG&E (31)

 5:7,21;7:15;8:8;9:4;

 10:1,4,18,18;11:14;

 12:20;13:8,11,14,18,

 23;14:1,6,9;15:13;

 17:11;18:23;19:11,24,

 25;20:11,21;24:10;

 26:3;29:3,5

PG&E's (2)

 6:18;20:20

Philip (1)

 5:10

phone (5)

 4:13;24:23;28:3,11;

 29:4

phones (1)

 24:25

place (4)

 11:22;15:6;23:14;

 27:4

plan (1)

 10:3

Please (4)

 4:8;5:3,8;29:5

point (5)

 17:2;19:16;21:5;

 22:23;25:22

possible (2)

 20:19;22:8

possibly (1)

 19:25

post- (1)

 24:8

power (14)

 12:12,18,21,23,24;

 14:10,10;16:3;18:1;

 19:12,14;20:7;21:17;

 22:4

practical (1)

 16:19

prefer (1)

 25:24

pre-petition (1)

 24:8

presentation (1)

 29:2

presiding (1)

 4:5

presumably (2)

 6:9;18:16

presume (1)

Min-U-Script® eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(4) maintains - presume Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 34

of 37
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 31, 2019

 12:19

prevented (1)

 13:2

previously (1)

 25:25

prima (6)

 14:18;17:7;19:21,22,

 23;20:11

principal (1)

 23:21

principles (2)

 15:16;24:6

prior (1)

 24:21

probably (2)

 4:21;22:2

problem (5)

 10:7;13:6;19:4;

 22:10;23:19

problems (1)

 13:7

procedurally (1)

 11:19

proceedings (1)

 29:6

proceeds (1)

 15:20

process (3)

 16:8;17:23;22:25

progress (1)

 24:1

proofs (1)

 23:8

proper (1)

 16:9

properties (2)

 17:22;18:15

protect (2)

 9:21;16:2

protected (1)

 21:12

protection (6)

 9:16,18;11:2;12:6;

 17:22;21:14

protects (1)

 14:25

prove (3)

 13:11,12;18:9

proves (1)

 9:25

provide (1)

 9:15

provisions (1)

 19:15

purposes (1)

 14:2

put (3)

 10:24;16:24;18:21

putting (1)

 27:4

PVF (5)

 9:3;14:17;16:10;

 19:21;23:15

PVF's (2)

 14:19;23:2

Q

quo (12)

 5:23;6:23;7:4;9:19;

 11:25;14:24;16:1,7,25;

 22:7,8;26:2

R

rather (3)

 15:23,24;28:10

reach (4)

 9:21;22:17;25:18;

 27:6

reached (1)

 10:10

read (1)

 6:2

real (1)

 17:25

really (10)

 5:18,25;7:10;12:6;

 13:15;15:11;16:5;

 17:20;18:22;24:24

reason (3)

 14:10,11;17:2

reasons (2)

 9:4;25:25

received (1)

 6:12

Recess (1)

 5:6

recognition (1)

 24:17

recommend (1)

 25:6

reconciliation (1)

 13:10

record (5)

 4:25;5:4;9:5;17:18;

 20:4

recover (1)

 7:15

refund (1)

 10:22

reimburse (1)

 13:13

relevant (1)

 6:5

relief (3)

 11:12,23;27:23

remain (1)

 23:14

remarking (1)

 4:10

remedies (1)

 16:3

remember (1)

 18:20

repeat (1)

 13:21

repeating (1)

 19:9

reply (3)

 11:17;18:21,24

representation (1)

 25:4

representing (1)

 15:24

resolution (11)

 9:6;13:22;15:13;

 20:10;22:7;23:14,17;

 24:14;25:18;28:19,23

resolve (1)

 22:25

resolved (3)

 20:9;22:9;25:4

resolves (1)

 16:7

respect (1)

 14:18

response (5)

 5:19;7:14,17,18,19

result (1)

 15:2

retain (1)

 28:1

right (30)

 5:8,25;7:23;8:8,9,15;

 9:1,10;10:5,6,22;11:5;

 12:9,10,21,25;14:23;

 17:4,17;18:12,12;19:7;

 21:10;22:18;23:16,16;

 24:2;26:22;28:8;29:3

rights (4)

 11:13;13:19;16:25;

 25:12

rise (1)

 4:4

risk (5)

 6:18;14:25;20:22;

 28:16,17

ruling (1)

 19:23

running (1)

 23:6

runs (2)

 7:9;11:6

S

sake (1)

 25:1

same (7)

 10:24;16:25;19:9;

 24:14;25:17;28:17,19

SAN (1)

 4:1

satisfy (1)

 13:19

save (1)

 28:10

saying (9)

 9:9,18;10:17;16:6;

 18:8;19:14,18,23;24:4

seamless (1)

 26:13

seated (1)

 4:8

secondly (1)

 28:13

secured (6)

 9:2,2,9,10,13;11:14

security (1)

 9:16

seeking (1)

 19:13

seem (1)

 4:11

sense (3)

 8:25;16:21;22:21

sensible (1)

 15:13

separate (1)

 16:15

service (2)

 7:11;10:19

session (1)

 4:4

set (3)

 4:19;11:23;14:3

set-off (20)

 8:6,14;9:10;11:13,

 23;12:15;13:15;14:14,

 18;15:16;16:11;17:3;

 19:18;20:1,11,12;24:7;

 25:9,12,14

set-offs (1)

 16:9

setting (1)

 25:17

settlement (2)

 9:5;22:19

shedding (1)

 12:8

short (1)

 15:18

short-term (2)

 23:24;25:3

shot (1)

 26:24

showing (1)

 17:1

shut (3)

 12:13;18:1;21:17

sic (1)

 23:17

sides (1)

 26:17

significantly (1)

 4:11

simple (6)

 10:17;14:24;15:6,16;

 16:1;21:1

simpler (1)

 15:18

sit (1)

 23:17

situation (2)

 12:7;15:14

six (2)

 6:11;7:12

solution (2)

 15:18;16:20

solve (1)

 22:10

somebody (1)

 10:21

someday (1)

 9:5

someone (1)

 25:13

sorry (1)

 6:10

sort (1)

 21:5

sounds (1)

 19:24

specific (1)

 6:6

spend (1)

 24:22

spent (1)

 21:24

spooked (3)

 15:12;21:16,17

springs (1)

 22:20

staff (1)

 21:19

started (1)

 11:11

starting (1)

 12:19

stated (1)

 19:21

statement (1)

 18:13

status (12)

 5:23;6:23;7:4;9:19;

 11:25;14:24;16:1,7,25;

 22:7,8;26:2

statutes (1)

 24:16

stay (3)

 11:12;13:2,24

stay-type (1)

 27:24

step (1)

 16:24

still (2)

 21:25;23:6

stipulated (4)

 15:20;21:13,20;

 25:24

stipulation (3)

 16:6;18:14;21:21

stops (1)

 12:6

Min-U-Script® eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(5) prevented - stops Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 35

of 37
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 31, 2019

story (2)

 9:24;10:1

strongly (1)

 25:24

stuff (2)

 6:23;27:24

subject (1)

 9:13

substantial (1)

 25:13

sudden (1)

 12:23

suffer (2)

 16:12;19:14

suffered (4)

 9:25;16:10;19:20,22

suggest (1)

 20:25

suggested (1)

 25:25

suggesting (3)

 15:8;16:5;24:3

suggestion (2)

 5:20;20:16

suggestions (1)

 21:11

suit (1)

 8:9

sums (1)

 25:13

Superior (3)

 19:13;24:12;28:20

support (1)

 17:7

sure (6)

 9:16;15:8,13;18:25;

 24:6;25:5

surprised (1)

 20:11

surprising (1)

 20:8

suspend (1)

 7:3

swearing (1)

 12:20

switch (1)

 7:14

T

telephonic (1)

 4:19

telling (3)

 11:20;22:2;25:23

temporal (1)

 25:18

tens (1)

 23:19

term (2)

 15:18;21:16

terminology (1)

 24:16

terms (2)

 16:20;26:17

third- (1)

 12:23

thousand (1)

 8:1

thousands (2)

 4:9;23:20

threat (6)

 6:12,13;7:8,11,13;

 17:25

threats (2)

 21:15,18

three (1)

 24:20

throw (2)

 6:3;18:24

today (3)

 18:6;29:4,5

to-do (1)

 23:21

total (3)

 16:8;20:13;22:11

traditional (3)

 8:6;15:13;16:1

tragic (1)

 19:1

treat (2)

 11:14;20:5

treats (1)

 9:1

trickled (1)

 12:12

trickles (1)

 11:6

Trident (1)

 28:1

troubled (1)

 21:24

try (2)

 7:7;26:20

trying (2)

 4:19;13:18

turn (8)

 7:10;14:10;18:18;

 19:12,14,20;20:7,12

turned (3)

 12:17,21;22:3

turning (4)

 7:14;12:24;14:9;

 16:2

twenty (1)

 19:1

two (3)

 15:24;24:20;28:18

twofold (1)

 28:10

type (1)

 26:7

U

ugly (1)

 19:1

Um-hum (1)

 7:2

unconsensual (1)

 23:17

under (1)

 23:5

understood (1)

 8:22

undisputed (2)

 10:5;24:18

undoubtedly (1)

 18:6

Unfortunately (1)

 28:4

unique (1)

 15:15

unless (1)

 17:2

unrelated (2)

 13:15;23:25

unsuccessful (1)

 22:20

untoward (1)

 25:6

unusual (1)

 15:15

up (8)

 4:19;9:17;13:23;

 16:20;17:11;25:24;

 26:16,19

usage (2)

 8:19;10:5

use (3)

 9:12;11:13;26:15

used (1)

 21:16

usual (1)

 19:15

usually (1)

 4:9

utility (1)

 7:10

V

variety (1)

 9:4

vehicle (1)

 15:7

Verwey (5)

 5:11;6:10;8:21;9:3;

 19:11

Verwey's (1)

 17:22

vindicate (1)

 13:18

vindicated (1)

 25:16

violate (1)

 15:21

violates (1)

 15:22

voice (2)

 4:16;21:18

W

wants (2)

 9:12;25:16

way (15)

 4:12;6:5;7:7;9:18;

 11:11,18;14:14,15;

 16:20;18:22;19:18;

 20:5,9,10;22:12

ways (1)

 24:18

weapon (2)

 25:14,15

WEDNESDAY (1)

 4:1

weird (1)

 25:10

welcome (3)

 24:22;25:1;28:10

what's (5)

 11:20;12:21;22:11;

 27:14,25

whenever (1)

 18:15

where's (1)

 4:8

Whereupon (1)

 29:6

whole (5)

 10:17;15:12;18:7,9;

 28:21

win (1)

 14:4

within (1)

 17:23

words (1)

 7:17

work (5)

 14:24;20:25;22:6;

 28:7,14

worked (2)

 6:24;28:15

works (2)

 14:14;27:17

worry (3)

 15:23;16:16;20:13

wrong (5)

 8:8;12:1,3;18:8;

 28:16

Y

years (1)

 19:2

yesterday (1)

 5:19

Z

zeros (1)

 10:23

1

1,000 (1)

 14:5

10:09 (1)

 29:6

100 (1)

 10:22

126 (1)

 20:11

126,000 (4)

 8:5;16:18;17:12;

 20:5

130,000 (1)

 6:7

150 (1)

 10:20

2

2019 (1)

 4:1

260,000 (1)

 7:25

264 (8)

 10:1;14:5,7,20,21;

 19:24,25;20:12

264,000 (3)

 8:4;9:21;14:3

265,000 (1)

 14:4

27th (4)

 27:19,24,25;28:4

28th (6)

 27:14,16,16,19;28:7,

 22

3

300,000 (1)

 13:24

31 (1)

 4:1

390 (1)

 20:13

390,000 (2)

 7:25;25:16

5

50 (1)

 10:19

50,000 (1)

 14:6

500 (1)

 20:14

500-dollar (1)

 16:16

9

9:30 (1)

Min-U-Script® eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(6) story - 9:30 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 36

of 37
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 31, 2019

 28:22

9:33 (1)

 4:1

9:34 (1)

 5:6

9:36 (1)

 5:6

900,000 (1)

 13:24

Min-U-Script® eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(7) 9:33 - 900,000 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3358 Filed: 08/01/19 Entered: 08/01/19 19:23:08 Page 37

of 37