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 24, 2019

9:30 AM

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

FILED BY ADAM CRONIN [2579];

MOTION OF THE AD HOC 

COMMITTEE OF SENIOR UNSECURED 

NOTEHOLDERS TO TERMINATE THE 

DEBTORS' EXCLUSIVE PERIODS 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 

1121(D)(1) OF THE BANKRUPTCY 

CODE FILED BY AD HOC 

COMMITTEE OF SENIOR UNSECURED 

NOTEHOLDERS OF PACIFIC GAS 

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY [2741];

APPLICATION PURSUANT TO 11 

U.S.C. SECTIONS 327 AND 328 

FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING 

EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION OF 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP AS 

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND 

ADVISOR TO THE DEBTORS, NUNC 

PRO TUNC TO THE PETITION DATE 

[2197];

STATUS CONFERENCE RE MOTIONS 

FOR RELIEF FROM STAY DKT 

#2904 AND 2863 AND ESTIMATION 

MOTION DKT #3091.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE DENNIS MONTALI

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 1 of

118
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

APPEARANCES:

For the Debtors: STEPHEN KAROTKIN, ESQ.

RAY C. SCHROCK, P.C.

MATTHEW GOREN, ESQ.

JESSICA LIOU, ESQ.

THEODORE E. TSEKERIDES, ESQ.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

(212)310-8350

KEVIN J. ORSINI, ESQ.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

825 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019

(212)474-1596

PETER J. BENVENUTTI, ESQ.

Keller & Benvenutti LLP

650 California Street

Suite 1900

San Francisco, CA 94108

(415)364-6798

For Official Creditors' 

Committee:

GREGORY BRAY, ESQ.

Milbank LLP

2029 Century Park East

33rd Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(424)386-4470

ANDREW LEBLANC, ESQ.

Milbank LLP

1850 K Street NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20006

(202)835-7574

DENNIS F. DUNNE, ESQ.

Milbank LLP

55 Hudson Yards

New York, NY 10001

(212)530-5770

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 2 of

118
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

For Ad Hoc Group of 

Subrogation Claimants:

MATTHEW A. FELDMAN, ESQ.

BENJAMIN P MCCALLEN, ESQ.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

787 Seventh Avenue

New York, NY 10019

(212)728-8182

For Equity Holders: BRUCE BENNETT, ESQ.

JAMES O. JOHNSTON, ESQ.

Jones Day

555 South Flower Street

Fiftieth Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

(213)489-3939

For Ad Hoc Group of 

Bondholders:

MICHAEL S. STAMER, ESQ.

DAVID H. BOTTER, ESQ.

ABID QURESHI, ESQ.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

One Bryant Park

New York, NY 10036

(212)872-1000

ASHLEY VINSON CRAWFORD, ESQ.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

580 California Street

Suite 1500

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415)765-9500

For Lead Plaintiffs in 

Federal Action:

RANDY MICHELSON, ESQ.

Michelson Law Group

100 Pine Street

Suite 2450

San Francisco, CA 94111

(415)512-8600

For California Public 

Utilities Commission:

ALAN W. KORNBERG, ESQ.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & 

Garrison LLP

1285 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10019

(212)373-3209

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 3 of

118
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

For Sonoma Clean Power 

Authority:

G. LARRY ENGEL, ESQ.

Engel Law, PC

12116 Horseshoe Lane

Nevada City, CA 95959

(415)370-5943

For BOKF, N.A.: ANDREW I. SILFEN, ESQ.

Arent Fox LLP

1301 Avenue of the Americas

42nd Floor

New York, NY 10019

(212)484-3900

For HoldCo Lender Group: MICHAEL LAUTER, ESQ.

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton 

LLP

Four Embarcadero Center 

17th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

(415)434-9100

AMY CATON, ESQ.

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel 

LLP

1177 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

(212)715-7772

For Official Committee of 

Tort Claimants:

ROBERT A. JULIAN, ESQ.

CECILY A. DUMAS, ESQ.

Baker & Hostetler LLP

11601 Wilshire Boulevard

Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90025

(310)442-8887

For Wildfire Victims: DARIO DE GHETALDI, ESQ.

Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi & 

Riddle LLP

700 El Camino Real

Millbrae, CA 94030

(650)871-5666

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 4 of

118
5

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 Governor of California 

and Department of Finance 

of State of California:

MATTHEW L. HINKER, ESQ.

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

7 Times Square

New York, NY 10036

(212)326-2000

For Adam Cronin: ADAM CRONIN, Pro Se

Court Recorder: JOHN BOLTS

 United States Bankruptcy

Court

450 Golden Gate Avenue

16th Floor

 San Francisco, CA 94102

Transcriber: PENINA WOLICKI

 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# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 5 of

118
6

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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 24, 2019, 9:31 AM

-oOo-

(Call to order of the Court.)

THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. Full house.

Mr. Karotkin, good morning.

MR. KAROTKIN: Good morning, sir.

THE COURT: Any reason -- should we stick with the 

posted agenda, or do we have any changes?

MR. KAROTKIN: No, I think we can do that. I would 

just like to advise the Court that with respect to item number 

2, the Deloitte retention application, that's been resolved, 

and the Office of the United States Trustee has advised that I 

can tell you they've withdrawn their objection.

THE COURT: It's a good thing.

Well, I was going to comment on your opposition, which 

cited a bunch of out-of-area cases without telling me what 

courts they were in and didn't say anything about a Ninth 

Circuit controlling case. But in view of the withdrawal, I'll 

grant the motion. So we'll take that out of order and take 

care of it.

MR. KAROTKIN: Okay. I believe, Your Honor, with 

respect to item 1, Mr. Benvenutti will be --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KAROTKIN: -- addressing the Court.

THE COURT: Um-hum. Is Mr. Cronin here this morning? 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 6 of

118
7

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

Any sign of Adam Cronin?

MR. KAROTKIN: There he is.

THE COURT: Mr. Cronin, all right. We're going to 

take your case first, Mr. Cronin. 

And Mr. Benvenutti, you're up for that?

MR. BENVENUTTI: Yes, I am, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Cronin, sorry, come up to the 

podium, please. Did you get the message from my clerk about 

the schedule today?

MR. CRONIN: I did, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So why don't you go ahead and tell 

me why you should get relief from stay. And let me ask you in 

advance, did you see the decisions that I've posted in the case 

earlier on a couple of other cases?

MR. CRONIN: I have.

THE COURT: Okay. So go ahead and tell me why, and 

we're going to keep your time somewhat limited here.

MR. CRONIN: Okay. I'm requesting relief from the 

automatic stay because in response to what PG&E's objection is, 

I believe that my case is more similar to -- in terms of the 

context that this Court used to grant relief from stay to the 

CCSF case.

THE COURT: And why do you think that's so?

MR. CRONIN: Because this Court reasoned that -- let 

me -- so PG&E wrongfully suggests in the Gelman decision that 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 7 of

118
8

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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 Gelman decision is or should be applicable to all 

individual cases categorized similar to mine. This Court 

previously stated that the Court must analyze each such request 

for relief on a case-by-case basis.

THE COURT: Well, that's true. I agree. I do.

MR. CRONIN: So in the -- excuse me -- in the CCSF 

case, the -- the Court reasoned that the lengthy litigation 

between CC -- CCSF and PG&E before the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission justified relief from stay. That 

litigation before a specialized tribunal will take far longer, 

and it is arguably more complex than the Gelman and Valero 

litigation.

THE COURT: Right. Right.

MR. CRONIN: Although my case is not being heard by a 

specialized tribunal like FERC, my case was investigated and 

granted legal -- legal authority by the -- by the DFEH, which 

is a specialized governing agency, to pursue actionable claims 

in a state -- state court forum.

THE COURT: Right. But you're on your own now in the 

state court. I mean, it's the superior court --

MR. CRONIN: Um-hum.

THE COURT: -- you versus the company. And the issue 

is going to be resolved one way or the other in favor -- in 

your favor or against you, right?

MR. CRONIN: Right.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 8 of

118
9

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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: Okay. So it's no long -- I mean, I'm not 

suggesting the superior court isn't an appropriate court, but 

it's not a specialized court like the --

MR. CRONIN: Right.

THE COURT: -- Federal Energy Commission.

MR. CRONIN: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. CRONIN: But their -- the Gelman and Valero cases 

are almost done. Mine are in the early stages of litigation. 

The Gelman and Valero cases are based on single incidences, 

whereas mine has literally hundreds of issues and individuals 

that need to be investigated that span a time frame of a year 

and --

THE COURT: But you're only in there on your own, 

right? I mean, you -- it's not a class action. It's your --

MR. CRONIN: It's --

THE COURT: -- your complaint against the utility.

MR. CRONIN: Right.

THE COURT: Right? Your former employer?

MR. CRONIN: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. But I mean, so what would happen --

if you get relief from stay and the matter goes forward, what 

are you going to do? How do you present your case? You 

present your case and --

MR. CRONIN: Um-hum.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 9 of

118
10

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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: -- how you are claimed you are harmed, and 

the company responds, and the court decides, right?

MR. CRONIN: Right. But the -- this Court makes the 

argument that the CCSF case is going to be much lengthier and 

much more complex than the Gelman and Valero cases, which is 

also, I would argue, applicable to my case as well.

THE COURT: Okay. You did file a proof of claim in 

the case here, right?

MR. CRONIN: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, let me hear what 

Mr. Benvenutti has to say, and I'll give you a little time to 

respond after you hear from him. And I can get one of these 

other gentlemen to let you have a chair. You don't have to --

is there room -- someone make room for Mr. Cronin to be seated 

there?

MR. BENVENUTTI: He can sit -- he can sit in my chair, 

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. All right, Mr. Benvenutti?

MR. BENVENUTTI: Yes, thank you. Good morning, Your 

Honor. Peter Benvenutti for the debtors.

As the Court knows, this is a pre-petition claim, 

employment discrimination, wrongful termination, privacy -- as 

Mr. Cronin described it. The litigation is in the early 

stages. There's a demurrer hearing pending in the superior 

court when the case -- when the bankruptcy cases were filed. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 10

of 118
11

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

No trial date is set or close. Mr. Cronin filed a proof of 

claim, as the Court heard.

The claim process is designed to resolve these kinds 

of disputes. It's more efficient, more economical, for both 

parties, particularly given that virtually all of these kinds 

of disputes ultimately settle.

THE COURT: Is there a jury issue? Did he --

MR. BENVENUTTI: He hasn't asserted one, Your Honor. 

It's not evident on the face of the papers that it's a jury 

issue.

THE COURT: Does the proof of claim take away that 

option or not?

MR. BENVENUTTI: It would take away the option unless 

he has a right and asserts the right.

THE COURT: So there's no affirmative demand for jury?

MR. BENVENUTTI: There's no affirmative --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BENVENUTTI: -- demand for jury that I'm aware of, 

Your Honor. So --

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BENVENUTTI: -- this is against the backdrop, as 

the Court knows, of the approach the court articulated in the 

Gelman and Valero decisions, which distilled to its essence, is 

debtors are entitled to breathing space in view of the 

complexity of the organization. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 11

of 118
12

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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 can take judicial notice of the activity 

that's going on in the case toward reorganization. And the 

Court said in the Gelman and Valero decisions, essentially, 

that the breathing space will last at least until September, 

and the Court will revisit the question with respect to those 

claims in September. And I don't presume to pre-judge what the 

Court's going to say at that point.

But the question, I think, for the Court is: is there 

anything about Mr. Cronin's case today that constitutes the 

kind of compelling circumstances that the Court referenced in 

the Gelman case and the Gelman decision that would warrant 

giving his case the kind of special treatment he's asking for 

and relief from stay so that it can go forward.

He hasn't made that kind of a showing. He hasn't 

demonstrated, for that matter, I believe, a prima facie case 

for relief from stay, unlike the claimants in Gelman and 

Valero.

The Curtis factors illustrate why this is not 

appropriate for relief from stay: early stages of the 

litigation; no trial date set; not close; no insurance; no 

specialized tribunal; litigation won't result in complete 

resolution of the claim -- as in Gelman, he'd still have to 

have the claim allowed and come back to the bankruptcy court to 

get paid; it's definitely not more economical or efficient or 

better use of judicial resources; and then there's a balance of 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 12

of 118
13

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

harms.

Little harm, if any, to Mr. Cronin, to have him 

litigate his claim through the objection process in the 

bankruptcy court. The risk to the debtors, aside from 

diversion of attention, which is not huge in this case, 

obviously, but it's the floodgates issue. If Mr. Cronin's 

claim qualifies for relief from stay, it's going to be very 

difficult to find any litigation pending in state court that 

doesn't. 

So I think this is -- I would hope the Court sees this 

as a very clear case. He should not be granted relief from 

stay, certainly at this time, and instead he should be directed 

to rely upon the claims process.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Cronin, you have a chance to 

respond. And I want you to understand that the case is 

important to you so it's important to me. And the fact that 

there are lots of people here and we've got other matters on 

the table, it's the point, I have to -- it's an up-or-down 

question on your issue. But what have you heard that Mr. 

Benvenutti says that --

MR. CRONIN: Your Honor, I did demand a --

THE COURT: -- would still persuade me to do what he 

doesn't want me to do.

MR. CRONIN: I did demand a jury trial in my case. I 

have the legal right to one. I want to pursue that. As I 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 13

of 118
14

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

mentioned previously, the DFEH had gone through this. 

They've --

THE COURT: Well, that -- you don't have to repeat 

that, because that's history. I mean --

MR. CRONIN: Right.

THE COURT: -- it's not relevant anymore. It's a 

predicate for you to have filed your suit. I don't know what 

the company's responses are. And if somehow it believes that 

you lost some rights, you can raise those issues, if the matter 

goes forward in state court.

MR. CRONIN: Um-hum. 

THE COURT: Do you understand how the claims process 

will work here, and if there's an objection to your claim, do 

you know -- do you understand how that works?

MR. CRONIN: Yeah, I'm aware, and I'm undoubted that 

they will object to my claim. I would like to preserve my 

right to a trial.

THE COURT: Well, no --

MR. CRONIN: That's --

THE COURT: -- by ruling -- if I rule against you 

today, no one's denying you rights to preserve arguments. 

You're not waiving any arguments.

MR. CRONIN: Right.

THE COURT: You're simply perhaps not persuading me to 

let you go forward. It's just -- then we just maintain the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 14

of 118
15

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

status quo --

MR. CRONIN: Well --

THE COURT: -- and your rights are what they are.

MR. CRONIN: Well, to give you a little background, 

Your Honor, the -- there is procedural history related to this 

case. 

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. CRONIN: In a case that I filed while I was still 

employed in May of 2016 for the same incidences, that was going 

on for almost a year, and we still didn't have a trial date 

set, at that time.

THE COURT: But that's not -- that's not relevant to 

today's motion.

MR. CRONIN: Right but -- right. But my point is he 

had made the argument that the case will settle. And PG&E 

doesn't settle. That's -- that's what I've learned, but --

THE COURT: PG&E is in bankruptcy now --

MR. CRONIN: Right.

THE COURT: -- and a lot -- a lot of things are a 

little different now. I won't say they will or won't.

MR. CRONIN: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, Mr. Cronin, I understand your 

point. The fact that I told you I will consider your -- and I 

am considering your case on its own merits, I am, I don't 

believe your analysis of your situation resembles the situation 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 15

of 118
16

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

involved in the City and FERC. That's a highly complicated, 

multiyear, complex, ongoing thing. Yours is important to you, 

as I say, but it's a discrete issue.

I think given the circumstances and what I've 

explained in Gelman -- Gelman and Valero, those sides will be 

back asking me to revisit that question again. So and I will 

do so when requested. But I think Mr. Benvenutti's got the 

persuasive argument here, and you -- it's important to you, but 

I don't think I can put you up to the front of the queue, if 

you will, for the --

MR. BENVENUTTI: Your Honor, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Turn that phone off, please.

MR. BENVENUTTI: I thought I turned this off.

THE COURT: If he answers the phone, I'll rule against 

him.

MR. CRONIN: Please do.

THE COURT: So Mr. Cronin, I'm sympathetic to your 

plight, but unfortunately these things are complex, and you 

haven't really made the case to make a departure from what has 

got to be the rule for the time being, so I'm going to deny 

your motion. I'm not going to continue it to another date, 

because again, there's a lot of things happening in this 

bankruptcy, and maybe there'll be a more satisfactory 

resolution that will leave your case ready to go back to 

superior court. Maybe it'll be resolved in the bankruptcy. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 16

of 118
17

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

Maybe there will be a compromise.

But I think, given the circumstances, to give you 

relief from stay now isn't really justified under the factors 

that Mr. Benvenutti and the company have set forth. So I'm 

going to go ahead and ask him to submit a fairly form order --

form in the sense that it will recite that for the reasons 

stated on the record today, which I'm stating on the record, 

your motion is denied. And it goes without saying that that 

doesn't decide any other rights. It simply says for now you 

remain subject to the automatic stay.

I appreciate your effort. I appreciate your being 

here and explaining yourself. And that's the Court's ruling. 

Okay? Thank you very much.

MR. BENVENUTTI: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BENVENUTTI: And apologies for my phone going off.

THE COURT: Well, you didn't answer it, so --

MR. BENVENUTTI: I did think -- I did think I turned 

it off.

THE COURT: -- there were no consequences.

One second. Mr. Karotkin, you recall I said I wanted 

to devote a few minutes here just to talk about what's on the 

agenda coming up. Is that still something that you think would 

be appropriate for me to deal with the relief from stay 

motions?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 17

of 118
18

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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. KAROTKIN: Yes, yes.

THE COURT: Or not?

MR. KAROTKIN: I think that -- no, that's the next 

item. And I think you wanted to --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. KAROTKIN: -- you indicated to have some thoughts 

in the status conference on the --

THE COURT: Well, obviously -- I'm going to state the 

obvious to anyone following this case. The complexity -- the 

interplay, rather, of relief from stay by the fire victims or 

the subrogation claims, motions for exclusivity, motions for 

estimation of claims, they are all complex by themselves, but 

they all are interrelated. And I resisted and debated 

internally on how to take them together, and of course, the 

argument that I heard from the TCC was that they wanted to have 

the matters on the relief from stay heard today to be -- to the 

extent that they relate to the exclusivity motion. 

I declined that. And when we come to the exclusivity 

motion, I'll hear from their counsel as to what I should do 

about that. But -- and I also want to say that when I consider 

the two motions for relief from stay and the motion for the 

estimation process, I am reminded yet again on how they are 

interacting with the legislation, with the pressures on the 

court and all the parties, and the necessary importance of 

getting this case out the door successfully.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 18

of 118
19

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

But that being said, I'm going to give you just a few 

comments that I would like no response to today, but as the 

various parties file either additional briefs or respond briefs 

to the existing motions, I'd like you to address them. I'll 

try to be brief, and I'll try to make these very succinct.

They are by no means dispositive of everything on my 

mind, but they are things that, at least when I read those 

three motions and the responses, I was forced to say: I got to 

have some more guidance from the parties and their counsel.

So my comments, then, are on about five subjects. 

They relate -- without delineating who and how, they relate to 

the two motions for relief from stay, the subrogation motion, 

the TCC motion, and also the debtors' estimation motion. And I 

will -- I'll give you my thoughts, and then I'll give you some 

further thoughts on how I'd like you to address these.

So the first couple relate, perhaps, more specifically 

to the debtor -- debtors. And one of the two relates more 

specifically to a statement made in the estimation motion on 

page 22 -- and that's 22 of the footer. Some of the -- some of 

the pleadings, of course, have two numbers. And so when I look 

at the docket item, it's docket number 3091 -- I'm sorry --

yeah, 3091, page 22 of 33, there is a statement made in the 

paragraph beginning at line 4 and also at footnote 10. And I 

need -- in the responsive briefs, I need more clarification 

from the debtor or the debtors' counsel, what is meant by 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 19

of 118
20

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

what's in those references.

And what I mean specifically, then look at the -- at 

line 6 on page 22, the statement is made, "There is no question 

that estimating the wildfire claims is permissible for at least 

some purposes, including voting and plan feasibility, which is 

all that is proposed here." 

And then the footnote goes to say that addressing that 

issue would involve deciding a variety of issues not presented 

by the motion, whether the claims for emotional distress are 

involved; whether finding a -- excuse me -- funding a 

resolution of personal injury claims with a limited trust as 

part of a confirmed plan amounts to de facto litigation.

There's nothing in the footnote and minimal in the 

text that even discusses the Dow Corning and the two 

Archdiocese cases -- the two reported Portland decisions and 

the -- excuse me -- the San Diego decision that address the 

very issue of the impact of fixing amounts in a liquidation 

estimation, subject to cap. Again, there may -- the Corning 

case is cited in page 22, but not for the point that I made.

And so I just need some clarification. So let's put 

it more specifically. Just suppose that this Court does agree 

to estimate the debtors' liability for the Tubbs fire, and 

let's assume that there is an estimation of X dollars, what 

happens to an individual claimant's rights -- an individual 

claimant who is entitled to a jury trial? Are they a separate 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 20

of 118
21

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

class? Are they paid in full if their claims are fixed? Are 

they left into the class? In other words, what does it mean, 

and is there some merit to the statement that if their claims 

are determined by a jury or by a district court that it'll 

somehow end up as part of the claim or the class estimation, in 

any event?

So that's one question. The second question is the 

motion for estimation has a very complicated process of going 

through the estimation in phases. And again, anyone who's read 

the brief and certainly Mr. Karotkin and his colleagues have 

written the brief, so I don't need to go into detail about

phase 1 and phase 2. 

But phase 1 appears to be a pure legal question, and 

phase 2 to be a factual question. And so my rhetorical 

question is, how could I even begin that trial before the 

claims bar date, as a matter of due process? The proposal in 

the estimation motion is that we have a trial beginning October 

7th -- we'll deal later with whether that date is realistic or 

necessary.

But in any event, it's before the claims bar date. 

And so I'm struggling in my mind to know how, if there were no 

opposition, and I had to do what's been proposed, how I could 

possibly even begin phases 1 or 2 before I don't even -- before 

the people who are before the Court as claimants are even 

identified in a final sense.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 21

of 118
22

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

Okay. A couple of specific questions for the TCC and 

the subrogation committee. When you file your further papers I 

need to have an estimated timeline of what would happen if 

relief from stay were granted. And again, the response might 

be slightly different for the two claimants -- two groups. I'm 

not sure they will be. But I need to get a better sense --

assuming I issued an order as requested at the continued 

hearing, what happens next? When does -- when specifically is 

it expected to go to the superior court? And does that mean --

does that mean the San Francisco Superior Court or another 

superior court; because there have been other courts involved?

When is that matter likely to be heard, if it's 

opposed? And if it is heard and the superior court grants 

preference to the thirteen persons in the two claims -- again, 

it might be slightly different for the eight people who are 

identified in the TCC motion, and perhaps in the five who are 

identified in the subrogation motion -- I think I got the 

numbers right -- in any event, I need to know when it will take 

place? When is it likely?

None of you can predict nor do I expect you to predict 

what an assigned superior court judge, who maybe hasn't even 

been identified yet -- I don't know -- what he or she will do 

or his or her calendar will be like. But I need a best 

judgment from experienced trial counsel, from knowing what they 

know about the consolidated fire cases that existed before 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 22

of 118
23

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

bankruptcy, when are they likely to go to trial, and when are 

they likely to -- excuse me -- how long are they likely to be 

tried?

Second question for the same group. And that is 

perhaps more directed to the TCC's argument, is why should I 

assume that the court's decision -- the state court's decision, 

either in the Tubbs case, if that goes first, or the Atlas 

case, if the trial court gets -- if there is relief from stay, 

and the trial court chooses to stick with Atlas -- oh, I'm 

sorry. I'm confusing my notes here.

Why should I assume that the Tubbs trial will be put 

ahead of the Atlas fire, since the superior court has already 

made the ruling that many of you are very familiar with, that 

the Atlas trial goes first and the Atlas trial covers a lot of 

procedures and a lot of different kinds of plaintiffs? And so 

I need the best judgment to help me inform me on my decision, 

if I were to grant relief from stay, why does it follow that 

the Tubbs trial is likely to be put ahead of the line and the 

preferences that are alleged by the victims of that fire are 

respected? And if so, then, when is it all going to happen?

And then, now, this is a question that's a little more 

specific to the TCC. On page 12 of its motion, why should I 

assume that the Tubbs trial, if it goes forward in the way that 

the TCC has asked for, that it will "resolve all fire claims"? 

Or why should I assume that it's an all-or-nothing proposition? 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 23

of 118
24

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

Is there not an in between that might happen?

And I realize that that's somewhat just dealing with 

speculation and rhetoric, but I need to get some best judgment 

as to what those phrases mean. 

And sure, any experienced lawyer will tell me that

maybe people will reach a settlement and maybe there'll be a 

resolution. That's fine. But the point is, this notion that 

it's all or nothing, particularly if I'm persuaded not to grant 

relief from stay and am persuaded to conduct an estimation 

trial, either alone, to the extent that I have authority to do 

so, or in connection with a district court? If so, why -- is 

estimation on all or nothing? I don't know that it is. It may 

be nothing more than a best judgment of a figure, but somebody 

needs to give me more guidance on that.

The final category of questions is really for all 

parties. This is perhaps more philosophical, but it's still 

something that's working on my mind, and I need help from all 

of you.

So we all know that 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(B) limits the 

bankruptcy court's ability to liquidate or estimate 

unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful death claims. 

Now, many of you quote the statute and pick there from the 

statute the word "contingent" as well. I don't think the word 

"contingent" is relevant anymore. There's nothing contingent 

about the fires that have occurred. They occurred. And for 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 24

of 118
25

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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 most part, the claims are unliquidated, and of course, 

particularly with Tubbs, they are disputed. But "contingent" 

is off the table, in my book.

But it doesn't matter. The statute says what this 

Court can do. And I understand. There's no question. I can't 

change the statute and I don't intend to or to try.

But unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful 

death claims, for purposes of distribution. So here's my 

question. 

Where does emotional distress or any phrase like 

emotional distress fall in that separation of powers and 

authority? In other words, is emotional distress -- and again, 

I don't want to be locked into the phrase "emotional distress", 

because there may be another proper term, whether it's in 

Prosser on Torts or in the Witkin or in the law generally, that 

describes the kind of damage that doesn't lend itself to actual 

physical damages, like a burn or a death, but rather the 

emotional type of thing. We all know what that means. Does it 

fall in or out of the phrase as found in the statute?

And I don't know the answer. And I don't know -- and 

I haven't independently researched it. So if there's a way to 

understand this, you can all help me.

Finally, related to the same question is this. Can --

and I was guided in part in reading some of the state court 

coordination orders. Again, I'm sorry if I can't keep track of 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 25

of 118
26

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

them all. But those of you, particularly the nonbankruptcy 

lawyers who are involved in the state court litigation, you'll 

recall that -- I believe it's in the Atlas fire -- there's a 

pre-trial order that sort of breaks the kinds of plaintiffs 

into different categories from those who lost undeveloped 

property, to those who lost property that they owned, to those 

who lost property where they rented, to -- and then to the 

extreme, those who lost loved ones or suffered physical 

personal injury.

So my question is, is there -- is it permissible for 

part of the estimation process to bifurcate the claims? This 

is really a variation of the question I gave you before about 

how to interpret 28 U.S.C. 157. And that is, could the 

bankruptcy court determine on an estimation, under 502(c), 

claims that are in that pure property, non-personal-injurywrongful-death category, and leave to another day or another 

forum, the calculation of amounts that would give rise to the 

personal and wrongful death entitlements and/or the emotional 

distress, if it goes that way?

And let me tell you that -- I'm going to go back to 

that first thing. I've recently, in another matter, 

encountered the question of whether emotional distress for 

state-law purposes fits willful and malicious injury in the 

523(a)(6) context. Now, you lawyers who work only on big fancy 

corporate cases never do dischargeability litigation. But 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 26

of 118
27

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

those of us who do all kinds of bankruptcy are quite familiar 

with 523(a)(6) for dischargeability issues. 

And the question is: is a personal injury -- when you 

get to what will constitute a willful tort for 523(a)(6) 

purposes, does that include emotional distress? And I think 

the cases tend to say yes. And state law may tend to say yes. 

But the reason why I asked the question, and the 

reason that I'm stating in two different ways, is that 28 

U.S.C. 157 doesn't necessarily import that jurisprudence, so --

because it only has to do with the judicial officer's 

authority.

If the President decided to give me an Article III 

appointment, I guess I could conduct the full trial under 28 

U.S.C. Section 157. But he didn't; and I can't. And therefore 

it is a question of which judicial officer. It's not a 

question of which power. Because clearly a district judge with 

life tenure would be given the power to do that.

So I'm really getting back to the question that I 

presumably would ask if I'm supposed to make the call on how to 

split the matter between what can be done at the bankruptcy 

court level and what not, and as I say, if there is a 

permissible theory of bifurcating the estimation process.

All right, so I hope I haven't left you more confused 

because I -- I'll repeat for the third time, I need help on 

this. These are difficult questions. And you are all capable 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 27

of 118
28

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

lawyers, and you can help me, if it comes to that.

In looking at the schedule -- and again, assuming 

nothing has changed -- there are still responses due on the 

motions for relief from stay -- I'm sorry, excuse me -- no, 

I'll rephrase that. There are responses due from the 

estimation motion. 

And what I'm going to do is just fix August 7th for 

all responses, which I think is the proper day anyway. But 

make sure -- and I don't want a separate brief on the things 

that I just told you. I want each party who is filing 

something like the committees that are filing responses, or any 

other party filing responses to the estimation motion, just 

include your response to my questions in your response 

generally.

And to the extent that -- from the debtors' point of 

view, the debtor has the right to reply to anything that it 

files. And to the -- let me think about this a minute. Yeah.

I want to make sure that by October -- excuse me --

August 7th, that these issues are addressed in what's been 

filed.

I'll say one other thing and then move on. I've been 

trying to be liberal in all the requests that come in to 

chambers to extend deadlines for the benefit of parties. 

That's great. But it's impossible for me and my short staff of 

two law clerks to deal with these enormous briefs that come in 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 28

of 118
29

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

twenty-four hours before the hearing, like yesterday.

So I am not inclined to extend deadlines as we 

approach a hearing date, if you expect me to review them and 

consider them. I would find it embarrassing to have to come on 

the bench and say I couldn't read everything that everybody 

gave me. But that's one of the problems, that I can't read 

everything you all are giving me under these late deadlines.

So August 7th is when I want these questions answered 

in connection with everything that people are already going to 

be responding to or replying to.

With that, I will move on and go to the motion for 

consideration of the exclusivity period, unless there's a 

change of events here. Thank you for your time.

MR. ORSINI: Good morning, Your Honor. Kevin Orsini 

from Cravath, for the debtors.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. ORSINI: Just one clarification. 

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ORSINI: I understand the August 7th date would be 

the date by which the Court is seeking to have those who are 

opposing our motion to estimate address all of their issues, 

including to answer Your Honor's very helpful questions. With 

respect to the debtors --

THE COURT: You want to have you reply --

MR. ORSINI: -- addressing those --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 29

of 118
30

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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: -- then, in that time frame.

MR. ORSINI: Right.

THE COURT: Well, what's the response time on the 

estimation motion? Isn't it prior to the 14th?

MR. ORSINI: I don't know that date off the top of my 

head. I guess the question is, if Your Honor is right that 

August 7th is the date for them to put in their papers, we're 

happy to put in our reply at whatever date it would make the 

most sense from the Court's perspective, so that you have the 

time to digest it.

THE COURT: Well, but here, let's back up. Forget 

(sic) I hadn't asked any questions at all. You filed your 

estimation motion, and it's set for the 14th?

MR. ORSINI: Correct.

THE COURT: So I believe the response was due fourteen 

days prior; am I wrong or am I forgetting my own procedure? 

What's our procedure?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I believe it's seven days 

prior.

THE COURT: Well, okay, if it's seven -- then again, 

we -- this is why this case is not easy to manage, sometimes, 

because we have a 28-14-7 sequence for the more traditional 

adversary matters. Here we have a 21 and 7 process, if there 

aren't designated respondents. But there kind of are.

Look, I owe it to you to give you a clear answer on 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 30

of 118
31

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

this. Mr. Orsini, why don't I say -- let me look at my 

calendar for a minute. That's a Wednesday. Well, I can't 

complain about late-minute filings and then tell you that you 

can't do -- you'll have to do it before you even have a chance 

to respond. So make me an offer.

MR. ORSINI: You're putting me in a precarious 

position, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, it's --

MR. ORSINI: Because I'm going pay for this back at 

the office.

THE COURT: -- it's you or me, babe.

MR. ORSINI: But I'm pulling up the calendar. So if 

it's August 7th, I don't want to deign to suggest that the 

Court would have to work over the weekend on this, but --

THE COURT: I know. I wouldn't -- nothing's changed.

MR. ORSINI: We could certainly --

THE COURT: You don't think I worked this weekend?

MR. ORSINI: -- certainly by -- I did -- I did see 

that, Your Honor. And we appreciate that. 

We can certainly put something in by August 11th.

THE COURT: Okay. That's a deal.

MR. ORSINI: If the Court needs more time, I can push 

it back.

THE COURT: The debtors' response -- I mean, the 

debtors' response to the motion -- any opposition to the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 31

of 118
32

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

estimation motion, including the response that's responsive to 

my specific questions, is August 11th.

MR. ORSINI: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So for counsel who are opposing the 

estimation motion, your response is due in accordance with the 

normal procedures that were filed. And I'm sorry to have 

changed the rules on you. So that's the deal.

I'm not -- listen, I'm not saying there can't be 

deadlines extended, I'm just saying, just it's very difficult 

to get a pile of papers that's hundreds of pages long, twentyfour hours or --

MR. ORSINI: And we understand that --

THE COURT: -- thirty-six hours before a hearing.

MR. ORSINI: -- Your Honor. There are many of us and 

one of you, and we have a lot of papers to get through. So 

we --

THE COURT: Well, there are --

MR. ORSINI: -- certainly -- we certainly appreciate 

that.

THE COURT: -- many of you, that's for sure.

MR. ORSINI: One other point while I'm up here, very 

briefly, Your Honor, just in the spirit of status conference.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ORSINI: An additional issue that I foresee 

potentially coming up when we're together again on the 14th 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 32

of 118
33

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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 I think is inexorably linked to a lot of these issues, 

particularly estimation, is what Your Honor has previously 

called the 800-pound gorilla, the so-called BrownGreer 

database.

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. ORSINI: We're continuing to seek access to that, 

which is something that --

THE COURT: I'm aware of that.

MR. ORSINI: -- TCC had offered --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. ORSINI: -- as part of the claims form 

discussions, but has now taken the position is outside their 

possession, custody, or control.

We've subpoenaed BrownGreer. There's no question 

we're entitled to it. There's no question it's important 

information. And I just wanted to flag for Your Honor that 

that may be something else we have to talk about that day too.

THE COURT: Well, we have a procedure in place to deal 

with those matters. We'll deal with them when we have to.

MR. ORSINI: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Julian, good morning.

MR. JULIAN: Thank you, Your Honor. Robert Julian for 

the TCC.

Now that Mr. Orsini has brought it up, yes, Your 

Honor, the plaintiffs and the TCC have been requesting 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 33

of 118
34

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

documents for a long time. I'm not going to argue it. But we 

would like Your Honor to set a hearing aside next week if Mr. 

Orsini -- leadership counsel from the North Bay, and the TCC 

are not able to agree. Because we -- whichever way Your Honor 

goes, discovery of these thousands of pages of documents should 

start. And so we'd like to have --

THE COURT: Well, we have -- we have a hearing on the 

31st on the regular calendar. And we have a special hearing on 

the compensation for the 7th, right? Ms. Brar, right?

THE CLERK: No, the 9th.

THE COURT: The 9th. The 9th. So we've got two 

dates.

MR. JULIAN: The 31st. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I mean, pick them both.

MR. JULIAN: We will.

THE COURT: Just don't pick another one.

MR. JULIAN: Thank you. 

THE COURT: All right. All right, so according to my 

calculation, all that's left today, unless you want to -- are 

you coming out of order, or are you waiting for the next 

motion?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Actually, we should probably 

all come up together.

THE COURT: Mr. Kornberg, I haven't seen you in a 

while.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 34

of 118
35

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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. KORNBERG: Nice to see you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is this an out-of-order request?

MR. KORNBERG: It is an out-of-order request.

THE COURT: All right. Well, let me get --

MR. KORNBERG: But I'd like to say it's an unusual 

request.

THE COURT: Let me get appearances.

MR. KORNBERG: Alan Kornberg from Paul, Weiss, 

Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, for the California Public 

Utilities Commission.

Your Honor --

THE COURT: And with you?

MR. STAMER: And Your Honor, Mike Stamer from Akin 

Gump, on behalf of the ad hoc noteholder committee, the movant.

THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Stamer.

All right, Mr. Kornberg.

MR. KORNBERG: Your Honor, we do have an unusual 

request. The PUC is taking the unusual step of requesting an 

adjournment of the motion --

THE COURT: Oh, I'm aware of that. I mean --

MR. KORNBERG: -- which we didn't even respond. But 

there are several significant events that have recently 

occurred that could profoundly affect --

THE COURT: Well, let me interrupt you. Only to this 

regard -- does Mr. Stamer -- are you opposing the request?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 35

of 118
36

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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. STAMER: We are, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. So go ahead.

MR. STAMER: And I'm happy to let Mr. Kornberg speak 

if Your Honor would like --

THE COURT: No, I -- look, Mr. Kornberg and Mr. 

Karotkin had sent an email, as you all know, to my courtroom 

deputy, yesterday. I don't want to have off-the-record 

conversations about things. We're on the record, so go ahead 

and make your -- I take this as an oral motion for an 

extension.

MR. KORNBERG: It is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Go ahead. Let's hear it, then.

MR. STAMER: And Your Honor, I'll sit down --

THE COURT: Yeah, Mr. Stamer, sure.

MR. STAMER: -- and be prepared to respond when Mr. --

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. STAMER: -- Kornberg is --

THE COURT: Sure, okay.

MR. KORNBERG: Thank you. Your Honor, we've taken 

this step because there have been several significant events 

that we think could profoundly affect the course of these 

Chapter 11 cases.

Let me say at the outset that the PUC has been and 

continues to be keenly interested in the ad hoc noteholder 

group's plan proposal. We are very hopeful that its emergence 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 36

of 118
37

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

will have a positive impact on these cases. But we can't view 

that in isolation.

In recent days, as Your Honor is well aware, the ad 

hoc committee of subrogation claimholders has also filed a 

motion to terminate exclusivity --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. KORNBERG: -- to pursue the plan described in its 

term sheet. And in responsive papers, the tort committee says 

that it will do the same when it is ready.

So this might not be a cause for concern in a typical 

case. It actually might be a terrific development in a typical 

case, but as Your Honor has observed on multiple occasions, 

this is not a typical case. And I would go so far to say that 

this is a very unique case.

Let me refer specifically to the recent legislation 

AB-1054. The enactment of AB-1054 --

THE COURT: There was already a challenge to it, you 

know? Right upstairs.

MR. KORNBERG: The enactment of AB-1054 is a landmark 

development in helping public utilities cope with devastating 

wildfire liabilities. But in the case of PG&E there are 

strings attached. Under Section 3291 of that statute, by June 

30, 2020, PG&E must resolve -- and I'm using the word in the 

statute -- its Chapter 11 case.

THE COURT: But we mean -- that means confirmation, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 37

of 118
38

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

doesn't it?

MR. KORNBERG: That's how I read it, but I'm not the 

draftsperson.

THE COURT: No, but you are an experienced bankruptcy 

lawyer and you're a veteran of number one, and so am I. So I 

would assume if a plan gets confirmed by that deadline, then 

the follow-up claims objections, et cetera, et cetera, would 

happen in the normal course.

MR. KORNBERG: That's how we interpret the statute, 

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KORNBERG: We agree. We agree with you that 

it's --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KORNBERG: -- should be viewed as confirmation. 

And again, that resolution or confirmation has to occur by June 

30 for PG&E to be eligible to participate in the Wildfire Fund.

But that's not the only thing that has to happen by 

June 30, 2020. By statute, the PUC must also have approved the 

Chapter 11 plan and the related --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. KORNBERG: -- documents. And the PUC has to make 

certain findings required by the statute, including findings 

relating to the reorganized company's governance structure, 

adherence to the state's climate goals and procurement 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 38

of 118
39

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

requirements and whether the plan is neutral to rate payers, 

and if not, how they should be compensated.

So let me very clear. We want competition here. The 

governor has emphatically stated that it's good for California 

for there to be competition. The PUC has said that to everyone 

that will listen to them. So we do want to have a competitive 

process which yields the best plan and the best financing for 

that plan, the most sustainable capital structure, the fairest 

resolution of wildfire-related claims, the best corporate 

governance and safety culture, the best outcome for workers, 

and importantly, the best outcome for rate payers.

But Your Honor, we cannot permit competition to turn 

into chaos. And I think that is really the challenge that we 

all face. How do we manage a competitive plan process in this 

court, and at the PUC, and not derail a successful resolution 

by June 2020; and Your Honor, just sitting here this morning 

listening to all of the difficult and complex issues that 

require resolution, estimation or relief-from-the-stay matters, 

not amongst the least of those.

So we've come to the judgment, and I believe you'll 

hear from the governor's office as well, that we do not believe 

that terminating exclusivity at this time, to permit dueling 

plans and multiple contested confirmation proceedings, is the 

right answer.

That might work if we had an unlimited amount of time. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 39

of 118
40

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

But we don't have an unlimited amount of time. And 

accordingly, over the weekend, we reached out to many of the 

key parties in the case to suggest that we take a little time 

to explore a potentially better approach. And that approach, 

Your Honor, as we would see it and would suggest, and have 

urged the parties to consider, is to negotiate a protocol for 

the submission of competing plan proposals, according to what 

would be a court-approved procedure and a court-approved 

timeline, so that the desired competition occurs before the 

Court is asked to confirm a plan and before the PUC is asked to 

approve it.

The goal is to avoid multiple contested confirmation 

proceedings and all that go with them that could well make 

resolution of these cases by June 2020 an impossibility. 

I'm pleased to say, Your Honor -- and I know you will 

hear from them directly -- that after much arm-twisting, I 

think the debtors support taking the time to explore this, as 

does the tort committee, the ad hoc subrogation claimholders 

committee, and the equity holders that are represented by Jones 

Day.

So my request is actually --

THE COURT: You know, just let me interrupt you for a 

minute. I --

MR. KORNBERG: Sure.

THE COURT: -- saw the email that my clerk received, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 40

of 118
41

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

and I also, last night, read Mr. Stamer's reply brief. And it 

dawned on me, with all the stuff I was trying to read, that the 

reference was made to the group represented by Jones Day, but I 

couldn't remember who that was. And I remembered that Mr. 

Bennett was one of one counsel. There's other counsel. And I, 

for the moment, didn't remember what Mr. Bennett was, although 

I saw him and I waved to him this morning, when I drove in.

But at least until a moment ago, I didn't remember 

which law firm was involved for which group. But I take it the 

other group that's active here has not been -- not consented 

that -- forgive me for getting the names mixed up. But you 

know who I'm talking about, the other shareholder group.

MR. KORNBERG: Oh, I have not been in touch with them. 

I don't know if others have.

THE COURT: Oh, it's the -- yeah, Kramer Levin's 

client, PG&E HoldCo group. 

MR. KORNBERG: Yeah, but I believe they are --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We can see Amy right here.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She just --

THE COURT: But again, gentlemen, I just can't keep 

track of them all when I'm going through these piles of pages.

MR. KAROTKIN: I don't believe that's a shareholder 

group.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KAROTKIN: And Ms. Caton is rising on --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 41

of 118
42

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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: Oh, okay.

MR. KAROTKIN: -- on your screen. She represents that 

group.

THE COURT: Okay. That's okay. Okay, thank you. We 

don't need -- I don't need to hear from anybody. I just wanted 

to make sure I had everybody accounted for. I was confused and 

thought that was a shareholder group.

MR. KAROTKIN: She's trying to talk, but he mic's not

working.

THE CLERK: Oh, she needs to -- yeah.

THE COURT: What? Well, you want to be heard? I 

mean, I don't need to hear from you now. I'd rather come back 

to Mr. Kornberg and have counsel on the phone -- I mean, next 

door.

MR. KAROTKIN: She's talking anyway.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, we have some audio problems 

next door. But go ahead, finish your point.

MR. KORNBERG: So Your Honor, our request is actually 

a very, very narrow one. We would like the Court to adjourn 

for two weeks the ad hoc noteholder group's motion to terminate 

exclusivity. We would like the parties to attempt, during 

those two weeks, to devise a competing plan proposal protocol, 

and most importantly, a timeline; if successful, to come back 

to Your Honor and have that approved; and if not, we can 

continue the exclusivity motion at that time.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 42

of 118
43

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

We do not think that two weeks will prejudice anyone. 

This effort could result in a constructive process that both 

promotes competition and keeps these cases on track to confirm 

the best possible plan by June 2020. And so that is our very 

narrow request, Your Honor. And thank you for --

THE COURT: So let me finish --

MR. KORNBERG: -- letting me speak.

THE COURT: -- the point. So that would leave on 

calendar for today's purposes, at least, that we'd have the 

relief from stay and the estimation motions pending. If there 

was a further agreement to adjourn them, then that would -- we 

could deal with that later.

And I take it, Mr. Kornberg, in your view, if there is 

not a resolution consistent with what you said, and there's no 

other reason to change the schedule, then on the fourteen --

well, in two weeks from now, whatever that date is -- I presume 

you mean not exactly two weeks, right? Or do you mean exactly 

two weeks, or --

MR. KORNBERG: Approximately two weeks.

THE COURT: Yeah, I mean, a continued hearing. I 

mean, whether it's thirteenth or the fourteenth or some other 

day, that's not critical, I take it? And you would either 

report that there is progress and everybody on board, or there 

isn't; in which case presumably I'd hear the arguments on the 

exclusivity?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 43

of 118
44

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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. KORNBERG: Yes, Your Honor. And the --

THE COURT: And keep in mind that if I -- that if 

you're successful, that's fine. If you're unsuccessful, then 

we have another exclusivity motion in the queue, right?

MR. KORNBERG: At least one, and perhaps there'll be a 

second one.

THE COURT: Who knows?

MR. KORNBERG: And so Your Honor, that's really one of 

the reasons that we wanted to be heard on this, before we go 

down the route of potentially three or four dueling plans and 

dueling confirmation processes.

THE COURT: Well, I understand. I don't like the 

notion of dueling plans either. But that might be inevitable. 

Obviously, if I were to -- either if you hadn't make this 

request or if this request is not successful, I have to make a 

ruling up or down on the pending motion. And if I were to 

grant it, we're open for dueling plans.

I mean, it's -- and again, even dueling plans, if 

they're not chaotic, are not unhelpful, if it can be done 

efficiently.

So be more specific, then. Would you like me to set 

it to a date prior to the 14th or -- in other words, let me try 

to -- let me rephrase my question differently. You obviously 

are in a role -- you personally, for your client and the 

governor's office, are trying to herd the cats, at least, to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 44

of 118
45

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

get them in the room. But presumably that means at a further 

hearing, if there's success, it would be to schedule yet other 

things to implement. I mean, I can't imagine we'd be having a 

hearing in two weeks and figuring out what the agenda would be 

for the competitive process.

So what specifically would you propose?

MR. KORNBERG: Well, Your Honor, I think we would 

report back to the Court at the next convenient hearing date, 

again, approximately two weeks. We don't -- our intent here 

was not to prejudice Elliott, to take a short time out to see 

if we could come up -- to make some order here. 

We would then come back, and I guess there would have 

to be a motion to approve -- if we're lucky enough to agree on 

a protocol, a motion to approve that protocol. And I think 

that could be teed up in the --

THE COURT: Listen, if the --

MR. KORNBERG: -- in the ordinary course.

THE COURT: -- if the principal players agree, we can 

expedite the process. The last thing in the world we don't 

need is a motion to set a hearing on a hearing -- on something 

that everybody agrees with. We can do it quickly.

MR. KORNBERG: Well, I would think, Your Honor, if we 

give people an opportunity to respond, you know, ten days to 

two weeks, at least is my view. But I'm sure others can weigh 

in with what they think would be appropriate.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 45

of 118
46

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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, okay. But given what you're dealing 

with, would it be better to have a hearing such -- say on the 

9th or on the 31st? I mean, is the 31st, just a week from now, 

is that too optimistic?

MR. KORNBERG: I think that might be, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The 9th?

MR. KORNBERG: That would be fine with us.

THE COURT: Well, I'm -- again, I haven't heard from 

Mr. Stamer. Maybe he's going to persuade me otherwise. But 

I'm going to -- because I have a couple questions for him. But 

I'm trying to think about everything else.

The one thing we don't need among everything else is 

lots of lawyers writing lots of briefs that don't have to be 

written and one judge reading all the briefs that don't have to 

be read. And so if there is some sort of interim procedural 

piece in the next couple of weeks, then we don't need to be 

having all these briefings that I've just talked to everybody 

about, in the next few days after that.

So I'm really looking for guidance from you on how 

best to do it. But let's hear what Mr. Stamer or -- did 

someone from the governor's office want to be heard on this?

MR. KORNBERG: Yes, I believe so.

THE COURT: Okay. Good morning.

MR. HINKER: Good morning, Your Honor. Matthew Hinker 

from O'Melveny & Myers --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 46

of 118
47

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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: I'm sorry, your name again?

MR. HINKER: Matthew Hinker.

THE COURT: Mr. Hinker.

MR. HINKER: Yes. And Your Honor, my pro hac was 

filed this morning.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HINKER: So apologies for that.

THE COURT: That's no problem.

MR. HINKER: Your Honor, as Mr. Kornberg mentioned, 

we're asking the Court to adjourn the motion to terminate 

exclusivity for two weeks to allow the parties to develop a 

fully competitive, fair, and transparent process. We believe 

that a controlled process conducted under the auspices of the 

bankruptcy court is the most effective way to ensure that the 

plan process is consistent with the State's objectives of 

achieving the best result for California, within the time 

frames.

The development of a fully competitive process will 

allow the potential proposals to be brought forth, including 

proposals from existing stakeholders, municipalities, thirdparty purchasers, and any other party that may wish to 

participate, and will provide for the full and fair evaluation 

of those proposals in an open and transparent manner.

As Mr. Kornberg mentioned, a chaotic and undefined 

process is unlikely to meet the time frame set forth in 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 47

of 118
48

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

AB-1054, and it may make it more difficult for other parties to 

compete with PG&E's existing equity and debt holders. 

Instead, the governor envisions and would support a 

process that creates a fair process for interested parties that 

incorporates checks and balances and is fully transparent and 

competitive.

The various constituents involved in these Chapter 11 

cases, including the committees, the ad hoc groups, the 

debtors, and PUC, should be involved in the formation and the 

development of that process and timeline, and there should be 

consensus around the process.

The governor believes that the parties working 

together can develop that process over the next two weeks, and 

it would provide for the fair, transparent, and competitive 

process to allow -- to follow the time frame set forth in 

AB-1054.

If not, the limited adjournment, we don't believe, 

would prejudice the parties, and we're hopeful that we can use 

the limited time to work together in good faith to agree to a 

process that's in the best interests of all the debtors' 

constituents, including workers, freight carriers, victims, and 

the State of California.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hinker.

MR. HINKER: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Stamer?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 48

of 118
49

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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. KAROTKIN: Your Honor, at some point I would like 

to be heard on this as well.

THE COURT: Sure. Well, go ahead. Go ahead. I think 

you're in the same category. And I'm putting people who are --

I don't want to have everybody in the room saying "me too". So 

because I want Mr. Stamer --- if his client agrees, we've got a 

deal. But --

MR. KAROTKIN: Your Honor, as Mr. Kornberg noted, he 

reached out to us over the weekend with this proposal that was 

initiated by the governor's office and the CPUC. I wouldn't 

say he had to twist our arm. I think that from the debtors' 

perspective, we think that an orderly process makes sense. We 

certainly share the governor's view and the PUC's view that 

terminating exclusivity to allow competing plans to go forward 

is not in the best interests of any parties here, will lead to 

chaos, will lead to value destruction, will lead to a massive 

litigation; and that's not the most efficient way to proceed

here. 

Keeping in mind what is vitally important to these 

cases and that is getting a plan confirmed by June 30th, '20, 

all that's being suggested, Your Honor, today, is a two-week 

adjournment --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. KAROTKIN: -- to try to see if we can 

accommodate -- if the parties can accommodate the concerns of 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 49

of 118
50

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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 governor's office and the CPUC, who are key to the success 

of these cases.

As Mr. Kornberg noted, under the statute that was 

recently enacted, the CPUC has a multitude of approval rights 

that have to be addressed over the course of the proceeding, 

and in order to get this case out of Chapter 11, I think it's 

very interesting to note, Your Honor, that in a thirty-three 

page pleading that was filed yesterday by the ad hoc group, the 

most salient point they make is entirely consistent with what 

Mr. Kornberg is proposing today.

THE COURT: I noted it. I marked it and underlined it 

on page 9.

MR. KAROTKIN: Yeah, well, I don't know what page 

you're looking at.

THE COURT: We seem to be on the same page.

MR. KAROTKIN: I think it's the same page, page --

THE COURT: The same comment?

MR. KAROTKIN: -- page 5 of their number, which 

probably is the same page, where they say their plan 

proposal -- and I'm quoting -- they're saying it's just a 

proposal, and they say that in italicized type. And that --

again, to use their words -- "modifications can and are 

expected to be made as the ad hoc committee develops a formal 

plan and builds a consensus with the other stakeholders."

THE COURT: Well, my comment was --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 50

of 118
51

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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. KAROTKIN: Then they go on --

THE COURT: -- my comment was on the next --

MR. KAROTKIN: -- I'm sorry, page 6.

THE COURT: -- page, yes.

MR. KAROTKIN: The following page.

THE COURT: Next page.

MR. KAROTKIN: I'm getting there, Your Honor. On page

6 --

THE COURT: You're reading my notes?

MR. KAROTKIN: I tried to, but I couldn't -- where 

they cite to Governor Newsom's recent remarks, which again, are 

entirely consistent with what the governor and the CPUC are 

asking Your Court (sic) to do, again, a two-week adjournment to 

consider this, as the ad hoc committee again states in their 

pleading -- and they quote the governor -- "I think having a 

process where there's alternative considerations is healthy" --

and I hope I'm reading what you made notes about.

THE COURT: No, just the prior sentence.

MR. KAROTKIN: And that this process is now -- with 

the CPUC -- this precise process is now what the governor and 

the CPUC are asking you to grant two weeks -- just two weeks to 

consider --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. KAROTKIN: -- and to submit something to this 

Court, hopefully on a consensual basis. And if it's not 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 51

of 118
52

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

consensual, no one is asking for Mr. Stamer's clients to 

prejudice their rights. If they're unhappy and they don't like 

it, they can come in on August 9th, which I think is an 

appropriate date, Your Honor, and say to you, we think this is 

the dumbest thing in the world, and we would like you, on 

August 9th, to consider our motion.

And Your Honor, we have no issues with that. 

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KAROTKIN: And we think it's appropriate, based 

on -- they only have a proposal here.

THE COURT: Well, let's not --

MR. KAROTKIN: And I think it's --

THE COURT: -- let's not get into that. I know what 

they have, and it's far more elaborate than I ever envisioned 

when I said term sheet. When I said term sheet, Mr. Kornberg 

was here with me, eighteen years ago, and I asked for a term 

sheet and I got a term sheet. I didn't get a thirty-five page 

draft plan.

My comment was just one line earlier, at line 4. "The 

ad hoc committee welcomes competition from any other party that 

is willing to file its own motion to terminate exclusivity and 

make an alternative, credible, and potentially confirmable 

proposal."

So that's just --

MR. KAROTKIN: Well, let's have an orderly process to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 52

of 118
53

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

do that.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. KAROTKIN: Let's see if in the next two weeks we 

can come up with an orderly process to do it. Your Honor --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KAROTKIN: -- I know June 30 is a real date. I 

don't think two weeks is going to prejudice getting to that 

date. And we think that's the right way to proceed.

THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Stamer, you're up.

With that kind of backscratching and love --

MR. STAMER: Look, it's a hard act to follow, Your 

Honor.

THE COURT: It's a love-fest, isn't it?

MR. STAMER: Exactly. Just for the record, again, 

Mike Stamer from Akin Gump, on behalf of the ad hoc noteholder 

committee. Mr. Kornberg referred to our clients as Elliott. 

They are actually one of twenty-five members of the ad hoc 

group.

THE COURT: I'm aware of that.

MR. STAMER: I'd like to address quickly some of the 

comments that my colleagues from the other side made, and then 

I'll spend a little time as to why I think an adjournment is 

not appropriate.

So Your Honor, to start, Mr. Kornberg said he's 

asking -- his statements were in support of a very narrow 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 53

of 118
54

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

request, which was a two-week adjournment. I respectfully 

disagree. The CPUC is going to object to exclusivity. He just 

said that. That's a substantive objection which --

THE COURT: Wait. They're going to object to what?

MR. STAMER: To the term -- our motion to the 

termination of exclusivity.

THE COURT: But they haven't filed anything.

MR. STAMER: They haven't filed anything. But from 

this podium --

THE COURT: Well, they're a little late if they 

have -- if they want to -- if they have opposition.

MR. STAMER: Understood. I just want to make sure we 

understand kind of where this is heading. And --

THE COURT: Well, but so you're not -- you're not 

getting to me. There were lots of positions for an against, 

and the CPUC is silent on the subject. So I don't hear a 

motion that opposes or do I hear Mr. Kornberg saying two weeks 

so we can file a -- weigh in on the motion. I'm not --

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, I --

MR. KORNBERG: Absolutely not, Your Honor.

MR. STAMER: -- Your Honor, I understand.

THE COURT: He's not going to do that.

MR. STAMER: I understand.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, we object to any adjournment 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 54

of 118
55

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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 the motion for a number of reasons. No one is --

THE COURT: Well, give me the reasons. Because 

that's --

MR. STAMER: I'm happy to.

THE COURT: -- that's what I have to decide.

MR. STAMER: I'm happy to.

THE COURT: And I don't want to turn this into 

anything else. Why shouldn't I continue the hearing two weeks, 

or if I were to listen to oral argument today, keep the matter 

under advisement for two weeks? Same --

MR. STAMER: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Why -- go ahead.

MR. STAMER: I'm sorry. Everyone is in violent 

agreement that every day counts. And in this case, we believe 

two weeks is a long time and what you heard from Mr. Kornberg 

is two weeks really isn't two weeks.

In order for them to try to pursue this type of 

protocol, to get it in place, it's at least a month. And Your 

Honor, this company needs to at least confirm a plan in 

approximately eleven months.

THE COURT: No, I know that. 

MR. STAMER: -- eleven months from today.

THE COURT: I know that. But you know, Mr. Stamer, 

again, you and I don't have a lot of experience with one 

another, and as complicated as this case is, I don't feel 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 55

of 118
56

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

terribly intimidated by the challenge of getting a plan 

confirmed well before that deadline. To me, it's all those 

other things that have to happen, and -- because I'm not a big 

fan of wasting time on disclosure statements that we don't need 

and therefore we come down to confirmation.

Now, I'll concede the point that that's -- things like 

estimation trials, if they're supposed to happen, are timeconsuming, and certainly contested confirmations by themselves 

can be time consuming. But I don't anticipate, to me, June 

30th, as a problem. So -- okay?

MR. STAMER: Understood. And that actually is 

consistent with our view, that -- and apparently the governor's 

view, that competition and a process is healthy for these 

debtors. Our view is that process needs to happen in 

connection with and in front of this Court as part of competing 

plans of reorganization.

THE COURT: But you don't have -- but it doesn't have 

to be at the end of the day, it can be early in the day. Your 

statement that I quoted doesn't say a contested confirmation, 

it's the parties are willing -- are willing to consider 

credible, confirmable proposals. But that doesn't mean we have 

to have fifteen plans up for confirmation, does it?

MR. STAMER: No, Your Honor. I completely agree.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. STAMER: And look, we listened to the Court very 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 56

of 118
57

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

carefully at the first exclusivity hearing. We worked very 

hard --

THE COURT: I know.

MR. STAMER: -- because --

THE COURT: You did. I agree.

MR. STAMER: -- as you saw in our reply, the company 

has not made sufficient, if any, progress towards a viable 

plan.

THE COURT: Well, I'm trying to get --

MR. STAMER: Sure.

THE COURT: -- away from that subject, because I don't 

want to turn this into that he-said she-said, because --

MR. STAMER: That's fair, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- it's just not constructive.

MR. STAMER: And I don't mean to -- I don't mean to 

criticize.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. STAMER: Our view is --

THE COURT: -- I don't either.

MR. STAMER: Thank you. Our view is -- our view is, 

Your Honor --

THE COURT: But I will occasionally.

MR. STAMER: -- that -- understood. As is your right. 

Our view is, Your Honor, that two weeks, a month, one day, is 

actually too much time, that this is -- what they're proposing 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 57

of 118
58

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

is really an unprecedented, undocumented, road to nowhere, 

which actually --

THE COURT: But how do I know that? How do I know 

that? If I called in sick today, because I had a headache and 

I set the hearings over for two weeks, what would happen? I 

mean, I didn't do that, and I didn't -- I'm not threatening 

that. But what is going to be different between what you and I 

are talking about and what the opponents and proponents of 

exclusivity would be arguing about here if two weeks from now, 

there isn't a consensus and the governor or Mr. Kornberg throw 

in their hands or -- you know, give up or whatever? What is 

the downside there?

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, I -- look, we are -- we are 

always interested and willing to talk to people about how to 

move this process forward. As Your Honor I'm sure read 

throughout our reply papers, the company actually hasn't been 

speaking to anybody.

THE COURT: No, I know that.

MR. STAMER: They haven't --

THE COURT: I --

MR. STAMER: -- they haven't spoken to us. And our 

concern, Your Honor, is --

THE COURT: I thought we weren't going to go there.

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, it's actually -- I think it's 

relevant to where we are. Look, we are happy -- we're very 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 58

of 118
59

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

happy we filed the motion to terminate exclusivity. We're very 

happy we came up with what Mr. Karotkin read in our papers, a 

proposal. It's a proposal that happens to have twenty-five 

billion dollars of committed capital. 

Your Honor, our concern is what is happening here is 

going to result or it's a -- it's a path towards further 

entrenchment of the debtor and a perpetual exclusivity.

If you -- Your Honor, if you look at paragraph 2 of 

the email -- I know Your Honor has it.

THE COURT: Yeah, I mean, as I say, I don't like 

communicating substance by emails, because I don't -- I hate 

the word "transparent" also. But we are a court of public 

record. And so I don't mind people communicating with my 

courtroom staff about things like continuances. But I don't 

like emails that say substantive matters, because then we get 

calls from the media or others, and I don't want my staff or 

any of the court to be involved in that.

So I have it. I --

MR. STAMER: Okay.

THE COURT: -- I have the email, and I'll let you 

refer to it now, but keep in mind that I don't particularly 

like it, as a general matter. But go ahead.

MR. STAMER: Understood. And Your Honor, we did not 

respond in kind.

THE COURT: Right.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 59

of 118
60

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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. STAMER: We did in fact call your calendar clerk 

to say that we were not supportive of the --

THE COURT: No, that's fine.

MR. STAMER: -- of the objection, but --

THE COURT: And that's fine. That's a procedural 

scheduling matter.

MR. STAMER: Understood. Your Honor, pursuant to 

paragraph 2 of the email, the debtors and the CPUC are 

requesting a two-week adjournment of our hearing on the motion 

to terminate exclusivity to give the debtors, in consultation 

with the CPUC, time to formulate a currently nonexistent 

process and timeline. Your Honor, if you --

THE COURT: Right, I understand.

MR. STAMER: The text -- and you have it front of you.

THE COURT: I have it in hard copy, old fashioned way; 

here it is.

MR. STAMER: If I may read it into the record, Your 

Honor, because I think it is very relevant.

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. STAMER: "During this two-week adjournment, the 

debtors, in consultation with the CPUC, will formulate a 

process and timeline to be submitted to the Court for approval 

pursuant to which the debtors, as fiduciaries for all 

stakeholders, in consultation with the CPUC and the statutory 

committees, will consider all proposals with respect to plan 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 60

of 118
61

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

sponsorship and financing and determine the most appropriate 

plan for the debtors to propose. During this process and 

timeline, the plan exclusive periods will remain intact."

So what they're -- and they're very transparent about 

it; what they're guiding towards is something other than what 

is specifically contemplated in 1121, which is if someone can 

establish cause to terminate exclusivity, then the bankruptcy 

court, in its core jurisdiction, has the ability and should be 

the one that determines --

THE COURT: You're preaching to the choir. I'm the 

one that wrote the book on this, right, and --

MR. STAMER: That's actually --

THE COURT: -- that's why we're here today.

MR. STAMER: That is actually our point.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. STAMER: Rather than waste two weeks, waste a 

month, waste more than a month, because it's not -- I guess 

there's an unlikely chance that it would be successful, but we 

don't believe that's the case. What we should be doing is we 

should be arguing about whether or not we've satisfied the 

cause standard and Your Honor's views with respect to what it 

takes to terminate exclusivity.

THE COURT: Well, then again, this is a question to 

ask of trial counsel, but what if I listen to your argument 

today and deny your motion? Is that better than not ruling on 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 61

of 118
62

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

it or --

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, it is obviously not better, 

from my perspective.

THE COURT: Right, but is it better from the -- what's 

better from the perspective of the entirety of your client's 

rights but also this entire universe of people that are 

affected by this bankruptcy? Isn't it better just to take a 

short time out? I mean, your client isn't jeopardized, isn't 

prejudiced. Let me not --

MR. STAMER: Sure, sure.

THE COURT: Let me be rude by asking a question and 

then not letting you answer it and asking another question. 

Suppose we didn't have this request? Suppose Mr. Kornberg had 

never shown up today, and we heard this argument, and during 

the argument I said, okay, Mr. Stamer, if I grant your motion, 

what happens next, what would your answer be?

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, what happens next is -- and 

again, what we're asking for in the motion, which I think 

addresses the chaos issues --

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. STAMER: -- is we believe that we have met the 

standard --

THE COURT: No, but what happens next? Just tell me 

the procedure.

MR. STAMER: I'm very wordy; I'm sorry, Your Honor.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 62

of 118
63

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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: I know. So am I.

MR. STAMER: What happens next is we -- what we're 

asking for is termination of the exclusive periods --

THE COURT: I know.

MR. STAMER: -- just for us.

THE COURT: I know.

MR. STAMER: Just for us.

THE COURT: I know.

MR. STAMER: And we're not being --

THE COURT: What's the answer to me question? What 

happens next?

MR. STAMER: Your question is we file a plan.

THE COURT: Okay. And a disclosure statement?

MR. STAMER: Of course.

THE COURT: And do we set it for hearing right away?

MR. STAMER: Your Honor --

THE COURT: I mean, if you said, sure, I want a 

hearing on the disclosure statement in two weeks, I'd say, 

well, you're not going to get one. 

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, we would be willing -- and 

again, from our perspective, old fashioned, if it's not broke, 

don't fix it. We think the way 1121 works is the way it's 

supposed to work. And anything else -- I'll get there, Your 

Honor. Anything else is a waste of time that is potentially 

very -- very damaging. We believe we can deal with the chaos 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 63

of 118
64

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

with only having people that show up with credible confirmable, 

potentially confirmable plans. 

THE COURT: Yeah, I know. I know, but look -- it 

doesn't matter about anyone else. The number of people, as you 

know from the responses, want me to terminate exclusivity 

across the board. There's no way I'm going to do that. 

Period. So you are asking me to terminate for you client. 

That doesn't mean the debtor doesn't get to have a competing 

plan. So if I were to terminate it today, you file a plan 

tomorrow, Mr. Karotkin and company could be filing a plan the 

next day or whatever. And from a case management point of 

view, there's no way I would have hearings all over the lot. 

We'd consolidate it and have --

MR. STAMER: Correct.

THE COURT: -- one hearing. Maybe there'd be one 

disclosure statement. One thing. And the same is true of the 

ad hoc subrogation committee were allowed to do it, or any 

other party was allowed to do it. So what I'm really trying to 

say to you, politely, is that, even if I granted your motion 

this afternoon, I don't think anything would happen, from my 

point of view, for a while.

MR. STAMER: Actually, Your Honor --

THE COURT: Okay?

MR. STAMER: -- it's a very good point, and this is a 

clarification that I'm happy to make, and that is: if you 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 64

of 118
65

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

terminate exclusivity, in accordance with our request --

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. STAMER: -- then we, the parties, should be 

working on a protocol, consistent with 1121, consistent with 

what all other cases do where exclusivity is terminated, where 

we talk about, okay, let's work together, let's avoid any 

inefficiencies. Let's define what a credible confirmable plan 

is. If people -- we'll be back for purposes of dealing with 

the subrogation group's motion to terminate exclusivity. We 

can actually move this process along immediately.

THE COURT: And why is that efficient to have 

sequential motions to terminate if in fact, with the help of 

the governor and the CPUC, there can be a consensus either on a 

protocol, or perhaps on how to tee up the competing plans. 

In other words, if you're feeling left out because you 

weren't mentioned in the email, I'm assuming that Mr. Kornberg 

and the governor's representatives are going to invite you and 

your client to the table to talk about things in the next two 

weeks. And if they're not, they better explain to me why they 

wouldn't invite you to the table. Your clients represent a 

major player in this case, so you ought to be allowed to come 

to the table, and I suspect you will be. 

But the point is that, to me, is consistently chaotic 

if we have, for the next two months, every other week we're 

going to have a motion to terminate exclusivity from a 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 65

of 118
66

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

different player. That doesn't make sense either, right?

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, and the last thing I want to 

do is bring chaos to the courthouse or give you additional 

fifty or a hundred-page briefs to read.

THE COURT: No big deal.

MR. STAMER: But the fact that there may be other 

people that come with what they think are credible plans, Your 

Honor, from our perspective, again, we think competition is 

good, but it's only competition among parties that are willing 

to sponsor a plan that can actually get confirmed by --

THE COURT: Well, yes, I understand that. But the 

likely candidates are the debtor and the two official 

committees. I don't even think the official committee is 

likely to do it because they're -- but maybe they are. 

But I don't know, frankly -- and I don't mean this as 

an insult to other groups, and I'll leave aside -- for the 

moment, aside equity groups. I don't believe this is an 

invitation for anybody in 450 Golden Gate Avenue that wants to 

file a plan to come to the party and propose one. But I could 

be wrong. 

But the people that are initiating this colloquy, like 

the CPUC and the governor, they're sophisticated experienced 

people, including bankruptcy practitioners that know the rules. 

And there's going to be a natural selection process, I would 

think, so the major players are at the table. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 66

of 118
67

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

But any way, let's -- to get more specific, tell me 

how it hurts your client for me to continue this to August 9th 

or something like that.

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, fundamentally, it hurts our 

clients because we lose probably more than a month.

THE COURT: Well, you lose between now and August 9th, 

assuming I rule today or August 9th.

MR. STAMER: That's --

THE COURT: But I might not rule. I mean, I liked your 

thirty-two page brief, but I only finished reading it at 

midnight last night, so I might want to take the matter under 

advisement anyway. So you might not get a ruling for a while 

anyway.

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, I understand. Look, the 

driving force behind everything that the ad hoc committee has 

been doing is the desire to move the process forward. As you 

read in our brief, we are critical of the debtor.

THE COURT: But I also read in your brief the sentence 

that I read.

MR. STAMER: Yeah.

THE COURT: We welcome competition.

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, we absolutely welcome 

competition.

THE COURT: And we're only debating when that 

competition takes place.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 67

of 118
68

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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. STAMER: When and the appropriate forum.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. STAMER: And whether or not you can actually have 

competition if you have perpetual exclusivity for the benefit 

of the debtor without other parties having the wherewithal and 

the ability to file their own plan.

THE COURT: But I certainly heard from Mr. Kornberg 

and the governor's office the invitation to consider people 

like the ad hoc subrogation committee, perhaps the TCC, 

certainly the debtor. I mean, you don't want the debtor to 

perpetuate exclusivity, but you're not telling them they can't 

propose a plan, obviously, so --

MR. STAMER: Of course.

THE COURT: -- it's hard for me to imagine that, at 

least for openers, your client and the subrogation committee 

and the debtor are three major players that are going to 

discuss this.

And you know what? If there's no consensus and there 

are three competing plans -- and when I say plan I mean 

outlines of plans or term sheets of plans -- and if the parties 

can't decide it, I'll decide it. That's why I get the big 

bucks, right? I'll decide it if I have to. But I'm also not 

opposed, if necessary, to go all the way through to have 

competing plans. As much as I think it would be unfortunate, 

it's obviously an option under the law. And the equity players 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 68

of 118
69

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

know it. Mr. Bennett knows it. And if he and his clients want 

to propose a plan, they have a right to do it too, right?

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, I hear the Court loud and 

clear. As Your Honor read in our reply, which I won't dwell 

on, at least not too much, we believe --

THE COURT: Well, you can, I said I finished it at 

midnight.

MR. STAMER: We believe that our filing -- your 

comments at the exclusivity hearing, our filing of the motion 

to terminate exclusivity, the commitment letter we put in, the 

legislation, whichever everyone is concerned about the 

deadline, but we can't underestimate how incredibly valuable 

that is.

THE COURT: Yeah, it is. I agree.

MR. STAMER: That is -- we've got momentum.

THE COURT: To me it's like a judge saying to the 

litigants, have you guys thought about settling this, and they 

say, oh, no, we haven't. And I said, well, I'm going to give 

you a trial date, and the trial date's next Monday. And you 

know what, sometimes they settle on Friday or Sunday. 

MR. STAMER: Understand.

THE COURT: So --

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, our concern -- and then I'll 

sit down and shut up.

THE COURT: No, you don't have to sit down.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 69

of 118
70

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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. STAMER: Our concern is that the debtors' behavior 

here shows what they're doing is they are swinging for the 

fences to avoid dilution to --

(Off-the-record discussion)

MR. STAMER: Our concern is -- and it actually is 

played out very clearly in their objection to exclusivity. 

They talk about how they're going to finance their plan, and 

they talk about an equity investment and what they call equity 

securitizement.

THE COURT: No, I understand, and you've made a very 

important point about that, and that's worth discussing when 

we -- if I have to --

MR. STAMER: And I know Your Honor read it, but 

they're not -- they haven't been authorized by the legislature 

or the governor. They actually were presented and rejected as 

part of the process that led to 1054. From our perspective, 

the only thing that brought the company to life with respect to 

moving the plan process forward, was the specter of exclusivity 

being terminated.

THE COURT: No, Mr. Stamer, again, I apologize, for 

the fifteenth time, to stop talking about the old case. But a 

few of us in this room are veterans of the old case. And I can 

assure you that there were lawyers on the debtors' side that 

couldn't believe their ears when I told them I was going to 

terminate exclusivity. Ask Mr. Kornberg. He was here popping 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 70

of 118
71

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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 champagne. And you know what? We got a competing proposal 

and a mediated result. So you're preaching to the choir when 

there's someone that thinks that's a good thing to do.

MR. STAMER: And Your Honor, I could not have made the 

point more persuasively than you just did. Our view is we 

should be talking about exclusivity, terminating it, putting 

together a protocol, as opposed to a detour to something that 

is not yet written, is unprecedented in a situation where every 

day really matters.

THE COURT: I know. But let's get back to the final 

question.

MR. STAMER: Sure.

THE COURT: And then I'll let anybody else who wants 

to be heard.

The narrow question that I have is: where does it 

hurt? Tell the doctor where it hurts, when he presses on your 

knee, when I have to decide, from July 24th to August 9th, just 

to defer the argument, and on August 9th I'll listen to your 

whole argument on why I should terminate exclusivity. So why 

does it -- what's the problem with that short delay?

MR. STAMER: It hurts all over.

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. STAMER: It hurts --

THE COURT: Then you're beyond hope.

MR. STAMER: We all know that, Your Honor. But it's 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 71

of 118
72

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

truly -- look, everyone's focused, we've got really good news 

on the legislation. We actually got a little momentum 

building. And we'll take some of the credit for it, but the 

company actually filed their estimation motion, they're 

actually moving towards what everybody needs, which is a 

reasonable quantification of the claim.

THE COURT: They took eight whole days to file their 

estimation motion after the governor signed the bill, if I read 

the dates correctly.

MR. STAMER: I think they've been working on it for a 

little while before that.

THE COURT: Probably. Probably.

MR. STAMER: But Your Honor, again, we don't -- based 

upon the time frame, based upon the momentum we have, we don't 

think the case and the parties can spare the nine days.

THE COURT: But what if I heard the argument -- what 

if we took a break, and I hear the argument, and I say matter 

submitted, and I just decide I forgot to tell you I have a twoweek cruise planned. I mean, I don't, but I mean, I do have 

the right to take some time to think about it. So --

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, you absolutely do.

THE COURT: But it would also be disadvantageous to 

you, right? I mean, the only difference between hearing the 

argument and taking the matter under advisement would be those 

courtroom watchers who want to see whether I've tipped my hand 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 72

of 118
73

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

on how I'm thinking about things. That's all. And I'm not --

I've not made up my mind on these motions. They're thoroughly 

briefed and highly litigated and highly significant. 

But that's the only question. And given the fact that 

in the queue is the ad hoc subrogation motion, which I can't 

ignore, and the debtor doesn't have to file a motion; the 

debtor gets to file a plan, and they can file one tomorrow or 

next week or two weeks from now, and it's the same thing.

So I guess what I'm really telling you is that, much 

like I might have granted a continuance if somebody had a 

personal inconvenience to a party or a litigant or something --

this is not the case; nobody made up a phony excuse. But it 

seems to me that you haven't really told me -- what you really 

told me is we'll be back here in two weeks with the same 

argument. And I'm saying, okay, well, that's the worst --

that's the most horrible thing I can think of, but that's not 

the end of the world.

MR. STAMER: If Your Honor is in fact going to reserve 

and give it some time, you're --

THE COURT: No, I --

MR. STAMER: Hard to argue with that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Believe me, I looked at -- my law clerks 

and I looked at this yesterday and thought, I've got a thirtytwo-page brief that was filed yesterday morning. Can I get 

this done? Well, I got it done. I read it, I got questions, I 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 73

of 118
74

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

underlined language, and I have a series of questions that I 

was going to present to people. 

But it seems to me that if there's even a slight 

chance that there'll be at least some consensus -- again, Mr. 

Stamer, your client might be the lone wolf here in the sense 

that there may be a consensus among the two official committees 

or the debtor or some other group that you don't like, and 

that's okay. You're entitled to make your argument. And I 

really am not using a deferred decision as leverage. 

But also, I almost think that how could I -- I mean, 

if I were to rule on your motion and then come up with the 

subrogation group's motion, would I have to be consistent? 

Well, no, I wouldn't have to be. I could graft one or the 

other. But to be inconsistent would be, itself, something I'd 

have to make sure that was intellectually honest in my own 

mind.

I make one other comment about what you've done here. 

I don't mean on today's motion; I mean on your paper. And I 

made this comment earlier. When, way back in 2001 or '2, 

whenever it was when I authorized the CPUC to file a term 

sheet, I meant a more traditional term sheet. And I don't 

remember exactly the document that the CPUC filed, but I do 

remember that it was enough to persuade me to terminate 

exclusivity over the debtors' objection. 

When we had the colloquy here -- and I don't care that 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 74

of 118
75

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

at the first hearing you said what you said about continuing 

it, and then now you're criticized for coming back later and 

changing your tune. That's okay. I don't care that you've 

done that. But I started to look at the comments and the 

oppositions to your motion, and you're getting people that are 

fly-specking it. Some of the critics of your position are big, 

big questions. Some of them are, you know, why did you say 

this instead of that. And I'm going, that's the risk of having 

too detailed a term sheet. It's almost a draft plan, and that 

isn't what I contemplated. 

So I would have almost welcomed a less elaborate term 

sheet as long as it had the critical terms. And so it's like 

if you're going to buy Blackacre, you say what your price for 

Blackacre is and how much you're going to pay. You don't have 

to have the architect's drawings of where the flagpoles going 

to be placed. And so that's a lousy metaphor, but what I'm 

getting at is that if you start with too much specificity then 

you invite criticism of the specificity. 

And so you are correct, many of the issues that have 

been raised by the opponents here are confirmation issues, but 

many of them are not. And some of them are fundamental issues: 

is this, what I call confirmable, as a matter of law? I'm not 

going to comment one way or the other, at the moment, but what 

I'm saying is, that's how I kind of draw the distinction. You 

don't need to tell me where the flagpole's going to be. You 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 75

of 118
76

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

need to tell me what the price is, and the big ticket items, 

and that's the end of it.

So look, this is a long way of saying I am inclined to 

grant the request because I don't think there is a real 

downside to your client. But this is another way of saying, 

look, perhaps I need to hear the ad hoc subrogation's group 

motion at the same time. And I realize that's compressing some 

time. But what I think what I'd prefer to do would be to have 

a further hearing before the scheduled time for the ad hoc 

group. If it means people are going to be filing briefs late, 

that's a risk. 

If there's a consensus on the 9th that says there is a 

procedure that the parties have agreed to, then we're on board. 

If there is no consensus or your clients have not joined the 

consensus, then I'll figure out what to do. So --

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, can I just make two other 

comments, and then I'll sit down?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. STAMER: I hear you loud and clear. It's really 

just to clear up the record, if I could.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. STAMER: Look, we read the comments by the 

shareholders and the debtors about what we said at the last 

exclusivity hearing. 

THE COURT: Yeah, I don't care.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 76

of 118
77

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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. STAMER: If you look at footnote 4, it kind of 

took it out of context, didn't give the rest of what we said. 

But we put it in our reply, so we made sure. And I didn't want 

to make a big issue, but Your Honor --

THE COURT: It's in the record.

MR. STAMER: -- Your Honor brought it up.

THE COURT: It's in the record, but you know, the 

governor has something to do with it in the meantime to, so --

MR. STAMER: Understood. Understood. And Your Honor, 

in the area of no good deed goes unpunished, we, the ad hoc 

committee, the professionals, spent a tremendous amount of time 

putting together a very comprehensive term sheet.

THE COURT: You did. I agree.

MR. STAMER: And we actually had spoken to everyone 

that would meet with us. Our view -- the competition and the 

living, breathing document, we believe that we have presented a 

credible potentially confirmable plan. It's not perfect. We 

know it's not perfect. There are issues. But the point of the 

welcoming competition and living, breathing document is I've 

been doing this thirty years, give or take, I think.

THE COURT: You're a rookie.

MR. STAMER: I'm actually -- I'm a pup. I've never 

seen the first plan that's filed be the one that's confirmed. 

So --

THE COURT: Right.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 77

of 118
78

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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. STAMER: -- our anticipation is -- our position 

very clearly is we have a confirmable plan. There will likely 

be -- there has to be back and forth to get to confirmation. 

And I understand Your Honor's point.

THE COURT: I'm just going to repeat it again.

MR. STAMER: Sure.

THE COURT: I think that where you and I perhaps 

differ, in broad strokes here, is that -- and then you're being 

an advocate for your client and I'm being the Court that's 

trying to help. I don't want the bankruptcy court or the 

bankruptcy system to be the roadblock. I want to be out of the 

way when June 30th comes and everybody is celebrating or 

blaming someone else. I think we're having a discussion about 

when that competition should occur. 

And I don't want to schedule competing confirmation 

trials in February or March with four rooms full of experts on 

why the present value of plan A is better than the present 

value of plan B. And I think sorting out the players here and 

getting at least, if not a consensus proposal, a narrowing of 

proposals, and then simplifying and streamlining the disclosure 

process and the confirmation journey is more efficient with my 

judgment on it.

And I must say, if out of whatever discussions are had 

at the urging of the governor and the CPUC, if that leads to 

solving some of these other problems, the relief from stay 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 78

of 118
79

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

problems or the estimation problem, or even solves some of the 

problems, that's progress too. That's something we can all be 

thankful for. So this is a long, long way of saying I don't --

I'm going to continue it. I think what makes sense to me, and 

I will listen to any other counsel, would be to go back to what 

I discussed with Mr. Kornberg, a hearing that we have set aside 

on the 9th for other reasons, but a hearing for a report back 

from Mr. Kornberg and the governor's office, well, have you got 

something or not. And if the answer is not, then I would 

listen to the arguments on your motion, on the 14th, and 

concurrently with the motion from the subrogation group 

which --

THE CLERK: It's set on the 13th.

THE COURT: WE moved that to -- or they set it on the 

13th, right?

THE CLERK: It was set on the 13th.

THE COURT: Okay. 13th then.

MR. STAMER: Okay. 

THE COURT: So let's do it this way for everyone else 

that wants to be heard. And again, I apologize to the counsel 

who tried to speak from the other room. I call this a 

tentative ruling. My tentative ruling is to grant the oral 

request for the adjournment and to disregard or to disagree and 

therefore deny Mr. Stamer's opposition.

And I will move the hearing on the contested 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 79

of 118
80

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

exclusivity motion by the ad hoc senior creditors' committee --

I'm using the wrong term; you know who we're talking about, Mr. 

Stamer's client --to the 13th of August at 9:30, with the 

anticipation that on the 9th of August we'll hear from the 

CPUC/governor's officers on the efforts to come to some 

consent.

MR. STAMER: Your Honor, the only clarification or 

question I have is I think, from our perspective, subject to 

Your Honor saying no, obviously, they should run coterminous. 

So we'd like to have our hearing at the same time as the CPUC 

has to report.

THE COURT: Well, but I think it's a report. I mean, 

if -- but does that make sense? I'll put this to you: does 

that make sense if they have something good to report in terms 

of progress?

MR. STAMER: Understood.

THE COURT: I mean, it's kind of like --

MR. STAMER: Understood, Your Honor. Understood.

THE COURT: Okay?

MR. STAMER: Okay. 

THE COURT: Look, we -- okay, we're done. All right. 

Thank you.

All right. We have counsel on the phone -- I mean, 

next door. Are you hearing me in there in the other room?

MR. DE GHETALDI: Yes, Your Honor.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 80

of 118
81

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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: Okay. Go ahead.

MR. DE GHETALDI: I'm sitting at the back of the room 

here, and I missed the segue from the relief from stay --

THE COURT: I know who you are, but you need to state 

your name for the record.

MR. DE GHETALDI: My name is Dario de Ghetaldi.

THE COURT: Yeah, I know, Mr. de Ghetaldi. Good 

morning. What do you want to say?

MR. DE GHETALDI: Well, along with my cocounsel who 

are here today, I think we're the three trial counsel on the 

only preference case that has ever been heard in any of these 

PG&E matters because a court -- and it's the only trial that 

ever commenced. And I wanted to suggest a question, without 

suggesting the answer, that the Court might be interested in 

examining.

THE COURT: Well, I want to stick with what's on the 

agenda right now. I'll hear you later. The issue right now is 

this request to adjourn the contested exclusivity motion. So 

are you --

MR. DE GHETALDI: That's --

THE COURT: -- on that subject? Because if not, I'd 

rather pass and hear from the other counsel.

MR. DE GHETALDI: No, Your Honor, that's fine. I just 

wanted to let you know that I'm here and I'm --

THE COURT: Okay. I'll come back to you. Let me 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 81

of 118
82

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

finish the agenda on this item.

MR. DE GHETALDI: Thank you.

MR. DUNNE: Good morning, Your Honor. Dennis Dunne 

from Milbank on behalf of the official unsecured creditors' 

committee. I'll be brief. 

Your Honor's made your position clear. We had opposed 

the request for --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DUNNE: -- the adjournment principally because 

we're on the clock, and Your Honor kind of telescoped that 

issue: what will we lose --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DUNNE: -- in the next two weeks. And I wanted to 

have one suggestion as to what we can do during this two-week 

period, say, to kind of not be in a position where we could 

potentially lose time. 

But in terms of the committee's perspective, I think 

we share a lot of the objectives that you heard from the CPUC 

and the debtors. We've got to keep our eyes on the June 30th, 

2020 deadline.

THE COURT: Actually, that was kind of why I was 

surprised that you were opposed to the request, because I sort 

of regarded your and your client's role as being in the middle 

of this dispute here.

MR. DUNNE: And so let me -- that's why I'm standing, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 82

of 118
83

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

to kind of give you a sense of that, Your Honor. And we 

also -- we're not wedded to the bondholder plan. We agree with 

the CPUC and the debtors we should want a process that gets to 

the best plan for all stakeholders.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DUNNE: The point of disagreement is whether we 

believe that's likely to occur within a competing plan context 

or with the board of directors retaining exclusivity to next 

June 30th, 2020, with the help and the assistance and the 

oversight of the CPUC.

Your Honor made it clear. Let's spend the next two 

weeks to try to figure out whether a protocol can work like 

that. What we would propose doing, because we can get to 

August 9th, and a couple of things can happen, right? On 

August 9th we could all be in violent agreement. We stand up 

here. Mr. Stamer and I are fine with the protocol. That's 

easy, right? We don't have to talk.

THE COURT: Sure. 

MR. DUNNE: We could be in a situation where --

THE COURT: If I have full option.

MR. DUNNE: Right, Your Honor. Exactly. We could be 

in a situation where some parties are supportive of that 

protocol where exclusivity stays in place and others are not. 

That would mean Your Honor would then most likely have to rule 

on the motion to terminate exclusivity if Mr. Stamer's not on 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 83

of 118
84

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

board with that.

What I'd like to work on in the interim is to have an 

answer to Your Honor's question that works either way, whether 

you deny the motion or approve the motion. Deny the motion, 

exclusivity stays in place. Mr. Kornberg's protocol is likely, 

kind of, running out. Or you grant exclusivity.

How do we deal with competing plans in that situation? 

And we could probably all spend some time trying, over the next 

two weeks, to have an answer to that in terms of look, there's

barriers to entry to this case. There are billions of dollars 

of tort claimants. A plan proponent has to have significant 

financial wherewithal in order --

THE COURT: Of course.

MR. DUNNE: -- to be able to move forward with the 

plan. We can talk about how to have common disclosure 

statements so that things aren't running amuck with all those 

processes. 

THE COURT: No, I agree. Absolutely.

MR. DUNNE: And so I think that we could take 

advantage of the time by having, perhaps, some specificity on 

that side, so that either way Your Honor pivots, we haven't 

lost the time, whether there's --

THE COURT: But don't -- do you think, though, again, 

we're not all lifetime bankruptcy lawyers. There are a lot of 

people honoring this case that aren't, including the public, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 84

of 118
85

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

and don't you think even a ruling up or down on these motions 

have significant psychological, if not financial impacts? And 

I'm not talking about somebody that just got a hit. I'm 

talking about important issues for people's rights. And if the 

word goes out across the board that the judge has just denied 

exclusivity, or granted exclusivity, there are consequences, at 

least perceptions, right?

MR. DUNNE: No, that's absolutely correct. There's no 

doubt about it. 

THE COURT: And that --

MR. DUNNE: There's consequences. I heard Mr. Stamer 

say that he actually wants a ruling on that.

THE COURT: Right. Right. 

MR. DUNNE: And if we don't get him on board --

THE COURT: But I mean so --

MR. DUNNE: -- with the protocol, there'll be a 

ruling.

THE COURT: But what if that perception is 

misunderstood, or what's the value of having a perception? If 

I don't state a ruling, that strikes me as better than making a 

ruling and therefore having one side or the other having to act 

on it.

I realize it's not the ultimate decision, but it's a 

very critical one for timing purposes.

MR. DUNNE: Correct. And Your Honor, I'm not asking 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 85

of 118
86

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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 you issue a ruling now, a preliminary ruling now. What 

I'm saying is there's a possibility greater than zero that on

August 9th you will be asked to make a ruling on the motion to 

terminate exclusivity.

THE COURT: Understood.

MR. DUNNE: And we should be prepared --

THE COURT: Well, not on that, no.

MR. DUNNE: -- for what Your Honor's decision is.

THE COURT: No. On the 13th. 

MR. DUNNE: On the 13th.

THE COURT: Because if there's no consensus, 

procedural consensus, I will have at least the ad hoc 

subrogation motion competing with the ad hoc committee's motion 

and whatever the debtor has to say. I don't know. 

I mean, again, we can't -- if the debtor decides to 

file a plan, there's nothing -- it's not an action item, but 

it's a fact if the debtor does file a plan.

So I guess what I'm saying is that my personal view is 

making a ruling has consequences, and I'm a little concerned 

about the unintended consequences of such a ruling. 

MR. DUNNE: Your Honor, I think that everybody hears 

that, and I think that that's why people try to get into a room 

and try to work something out.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DUNNE: We all know that sometimes you get to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 86

of 118
87

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

consensus, sometimes you don't.

THE COURT: That's right.

MR. DUNNE: If we don't, we're going to find out what 

Your Honor thinks of the motion on exclusivity.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, I could order you all to 

mediation too.

MR. DUNNE: You could do a lot of things, yes.

THE COURT: But I'm not going to do that. And I want 

the parties, and particularly here with the legislative leader 

and the administrative leaders taking the lead and trying to 

bring a consensus rather than the bankruptcy judge.

MR. DUNNE: No, no. And I understand that, Your 

Honor. And I wouldn't be standing here today with this 

position if the legislature hadn't -- you know, there were lots 

of helpful aspects of the legislation, but being put on the 

clock means we --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DUNNE: It would be -- we would all regret sitting 

here next June 29th and saying had we only moved a little 

quicker in the fall --

THE COURT: I agree.

MR. DUNNE: That's what I'm concerned about.

THE COURT: I agree. I'm well aware of that, and 

that's why if this were a two-month contingency I wouldn't do 

it. But a two-week or so seems a little -- well, it seems a 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 87

of 118
88

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

little un-risky, not risky. And as I said, I'll repeat what I 

personally believe, that the system, to me, doesn't need till 

next June 30th if everybody lines up and the things happen. 

And courts schedule things the way they should do.

If the CPUC or the governor's office or the FERC or 

third-party financiers, if they want to slow down the train, 

that's their business, but my court or my role, as long as I'm 

doing it, and to the extent that any district judge gets 

involved in matters that he or she have to do, I want to make 

sure that the bankruptcy system isn't the hang-up in terms of 

that clock ticking.

MR. DUNNE: Right. And specifically with respect to 

the bondholder group proposal, one of the benefits that they 

have is they don't need further legislative action for their 

plan. There are other plans that have been discussed -- and it 

may be the debtors, maybe not, maybe the equity -- that would 

require legislative action.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DUNNE: Well, one of our concerns is that we put 

all our eggs in that basket only to find out that the 

legislature does not do what they failed to do in July, which 

is authorize tax-exempt bonds to fund that plan. If they do, 

great, but if not, we have a plan now that could actually be 

confirmed, subject to the amendments in light of the usual 

processes.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 88

of 118
89

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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: Oh, no, I know. But that's it. You're 

not advocating sticking with exclusivity. You're advocating 

break it. And the only question is well, maybe I will break it 

in two weeks.

MR. DUNNE: Right.

THE COURT: I mean --

MR. DUNNE: And all I'm saying is that we don't know 

where Your Honor will be in two weeks. We don't know where 

we'll be in two weeks. We'll have a whole bunch of 

conversations in two weeks, and we'll come back to you. I'm 

saying it's incumbent on the parties to try to make -- because 

of the deadline -- to try to have a process that works in both 

ways.

THE COURT: No, don't. I don't want to mislead you. 

If Mr. Kornberg and the governor's office hadn't made the 

request, we would probably be concluding the argument. 

MR. DUNNE: Okay. 

THE COURT: And I would either have issued an oral 

ruling on the merits of the motion or promised a prompt 

disposition. And that's true if the hearing takes place on 

August 13th. Because again, we're back to my role isn't to 

take this under advisement and write a fifteen-page published 

opinion that it takes me six weeks to do. I got to turn this 

around and get it done.

MR. DUNNE: I understand, Your Honor.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 89

of 118
90

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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: Ms. Dumas, you were asking to be heard. 

Good morning. It's still morning.

MS. DUMAS: It is still morning. Good morning, Your 

Honor. Cecily Dumas, Baker & Hostetler, on behalf of the 

official committee of tort claimants. The TCC wants to 

acknowledge the sea of financial interests in both courtrooms 

and understand their concerns about the case, but a brief 

reminder is needed that the reason we're here in this 

bankruptcy case is the destruction of neighborhoods and dozens 

of deaths --

THE COURT: Right.

MS. DUMAS: -- as a consequence of PG&E's conduct.

So Mr. Julian and I are in the courtroom. Mr. Kelly 

and Mr. Pitre the leadership of the North Bay litigation, Mr. 

Karotkin, we're here because the biggest problem to be solved 

in the case is the valuation of tort claims.

So I want to make three short points.

THE COURT: Okay. 

MS. DUMAS: My first point is that the TCC had already 

opposed the motion to lift exclusivity for the ad hoc 

bondholders to file that plan, as the Court has pointed out. 

The reason that we opposed it is because that plan --

THE COURT: No, I know why.

MS. DUMAS: -- had the capped trust.

THE COURT: Yes, I know why.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 90

of 118
91

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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. DUMAS: We appreciate Your Honor's raising that 

specific issue, that we don't think a plan is confirmable as a 

matter of law when it has a capped trust that, for all intents 

and purposes, becomes the cap trust for distribution. So we 

will --

THE COURT: Well, but that's the point I want you to 

brief.

MS. DUMAS: That's what we're going to brief.

THE COURT: Okay. 

MS. DUMAS: So that's our first point, and we 

appreciate the Court's acknowledging that that's the infirmity 

that needs to get further developed.

Second point. The tort claimants --

THE COURT: Just move away from the mic a little bit. 

You're just a little louder.

MS. DUMAS: I'm probably spitting into it --

THE COURT: You're doing fine.

MS. DUMAS: -- for those on the phone.

THE COURT: No, you're doing fine. Okay. Go ahead.

MS. DUMAS: Second point. The tort claimants' 

committee is in support of competition in plan holders. The 

tort claimants committee, simply, their interest is to get full 

fair allowance and payment in full of the claims that result 

from the losses from the various fires. So whereas we opposed 

that specific plan proposed by the bondholders, we have met 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 91

of 118
92

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

with the bondholders. We will continue to consider plans 

proposed by the bondholders as well as any plan that's proposed 

by the debtors or any other party.

THE COURT: Well, I assume you and your clients are 

going to be invited to the meeting.

MS. DUMAS: We have, in fact, been invited, and --

THE COURT: Okay. 

MS. DUMAS: When we got a call from the California 

Public Utilities Commission the other day, we figured we 

probably ought to listen to what it and the governor's office 

had to say.

THE COURT: Good advice.

MS. DUMAS: Yes, sir. Third and final point. There's 

been a lot of discussion about timing and a lot of discussion 

about the complexity of issues to resolve and total enterprise 

value and experts. From our perspective, the most significant 

use of time in these cases, everyone's time, is to get to the 

most fair and efficient way to resolve tort claims. That can't 

be rushed through any artificial deadline, although we are 

hopeful that through the protocol we propose, or such other 

protocols that the Court and the parties develop that provide 

for a fair process, consistent with constitutional principles 

and consistent with 157, are followed.

So we, from our limited view of the world, not looking 

to make an enormous profit or to take over a company, from our 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 92

of 118
93

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

limited view of the world, the most complicated and dedicated 

use of time in these proceedings should be the resolution of 

tort claims, because that's why we're here. That's the hardest 

issue to resolve. Your Honor's being asked to make a 

determination that the California Supreme Court hasn't made on 

inverse condemnation as well as many other difficult issues 

associated with damages --

THE COURT: You know, as challenging as that question 

is --

MS. DUMAS: -- personal injury torts.

THE COURT: As challenging as that question is, it's 

an easy question to propose, because it's just a question of 

law.

MS. DUMAS: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: Okay?

MS. DUMAS: It's also an easy question to reject under 

applicable law, but --

THE COURT: Yes. 

MS. DUMAS: -- we'll get there.

THE COURT: But what I'm getting at is whether I agree 

or disagree, it's still a legal question, and that's what I'm 

trying to do and lawyers are trying to do.

MS. DUMAS: Yes. 

THE COURT: The factual question, and the questions 

that you're talking about, or the bigger questions, are much 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 93

of 118
94

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

different. So to me the fact that I have to decide what Mr. 

Karotkin called phase 1, it's okay. I'll do it. I'll do it.

MS. DUMAS: Yes. I mean, we'll get to -- we think 

it -- not the time to argue it. We have -- it's got to be 

phase 3, if at all, but --

THE COURT: Right.

MS. DUMAS: But in any event, I simply want to stress 

to the Court that what's on our minds -- we know it's on Mr. 

Karotkin's mind and Mr. Orsini's mind. It's on our minds. 

It's on the minds of Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pitre, is how do we get 

there --

THE COURT: Right.

MS. DUMAS: In a way that's consistent and fair and 

will be time consuming and complicated. And we don't want that 

to get lost --

THE COURT: It's not lost.

MS. DUMAS: -- in all the financial interest concerns 

about who wins the race to own this company and make a profit.

THE COURT: Ms. Dumas.

MS. DUMAS: That's all I want to say.

THE COURT: The reason why I put the questions to 

everybody before we even talked about exclusivity was to help 

me do my job and do my best to make the decision that really 

comes down to Superior Court or estimation process, and a 

subset of that is with or without involvement of another 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 94

of 118
95

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

federal judge. That I couldn't agree more, that is the 

fundamental gating question to -- gating is a phrase term, a 

popular phrase here these days. And so that's a gating 

question for your clients and their treatment. 

MS. DUMAS: And it involves --

THE COURT: And it's on the agenda as early as we can 

make it.

MS. DUMAS: Yes, sir. And it involves, concededly, 

very difficult issues and areas in which the Court has 

discretion and areas in which reasonable minds can differ.

THE COURT: No, I understand.

MS. DUMAS: We just want to make sure it's fair, so 

that the reason we're here, the victims, get paid in full.

THE COURT: And this goes back to the opening question 

of I need some guidance from your co-counsel as to what would 

be the timeline and the sequence if I grant relief from stay? 

It's inconceivable to me that I would grant relief from stay 

and set an estimation process.

MS. DUMAS: Yes, sir. The only difficulty --

THE COURT: So to me it comes down to one or the 

other, and if it's the estimation process, then, as I say, to 

figure out the responsibility of different judicial officers. 

That's all.

MS. DUMAS: Yes, sir. The only difficulty with the

Court's suggestion is that my litigation co-counsel, Mr. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 95

of 118
96

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

Julian, is very shy and he doesn't like making recommendations 

to the Court.

THE COURT: That's why I asked you to come up and be 

heard.

MS. DUMAS: We will fully brief the matters in 

conjunction with the Court's request. I thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. Anyone else want to be heard?

Oh, Mr. Karotkin, did you want to say something 

further or not? I'll start with you.

Anyone else want to be --

MR. KAROTKIN: No, sir. 

THE COURT: Anyone else want to be heard here in this 

courtroom first, and then I'll see if the other courtroom?

All right. Anyone in the other courtroom?

All right. Well, thank you all for your time. For 

the record, the motion of the ad hoc committee of senior 

unsecured creditors for -- our shorthand term is to terminate 

exclusivity -- is being continued to Aug. 13th at 9:30, and 

preparatory to that there will be a hearing on August 9th at 

9:30.

THE CLERK: I just have 11:30.

(Court and clerk confer.)

THE COURT: Okay. We'll stick with 11:30 on that day.

And Mr. de Ghetaldi, I know you want to be heard, but 

let me just finish on this other point. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 96

of 118
97

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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

So for the record, we're continuing our -- I mean, 

we're setting on that August 9th 11:30 calendar, where we 

already have the motions that have been continued pertaining to 

the key employee compensation and the CEO's compensation, we 

are setting, for lack of a better term, a status conference on 

the request by the CPUC and the governor's office to see if 

they can come up with some consensus about a procedural 

proceeding. It doesn't have a formal name, but that's what 

we're here for.

All right. So unless anyone else wants to be heard, 

Mr. de Ghetaldi, you asked to be heard. And again, I wanted to 

make sure you were focusing on what was on our agenda, so I'm 

assuming you want to raise something else Go ahead.

MR. DE GHETALDI: I was hoping to be on the Court's 

agenda, Your Honor. It was just on the issues revolving around 

the preference motion and the Court's --

THE COURT: Well, but it's not on the calendar. I 

just asked for help for what will be argued and heard on August 

14.

MR. DE GHETALDI: And I understand that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DE GHETALDI: What I would like to do is to 

suggest to the Court that there is a question that has not been 

briefed in any of the papers and that the Court did not 

cover --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 97

of 118
98

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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: Okay. All right. 

MR. DE GHETALDI: -- in the questions they laid out. 

THE COURT: What's the question then?

MR. DE GHETALDI: Okay. And it relates to California 

law with respect to a party's right to preference under Code of 

Civil Procedure 36(a). California cases are uniform and strong 

in holding that the right to preference is absolute, mandatory, 

and substantive. 

So I believe that there is an issue as to, among 

others, the effect of 28 U.S.C. 2075 that says that the 

bankruptcy, "shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any 

substantive right" under state law. And so I think that that 

is an issue that is worthy of the Court's --

THE COURT: Well, has that been touched upon in the 

briefs? I mean, the motion for relief from stay that was filed 

by the TCC, and a similar motion by the subrogation group, I 

believe the debtor has responded, and I hope that someone has 

addressed that issue. If it hasn't, then it's not my job to 

start adding assignments for things that I haven't thought 

about. You may have a very good suggestion, but I don't -- if 

the parties haven't raised it, I don't know what I'm supposed 

to do about it.

MR. DE GHETALDI: Well, Your Honor, I had prepared a 

reply brief that I was going to file, until I saw the Court's 

response to the ex parte request to continue the hearing --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 98

of 118
99

PG&E Corp. And Pacific Gas And 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: Okay. 

MR. DE GHETALDI: -- which was set for today.

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. DE GHETALDI: And I had raised it in the -- I did 

not file it, because I was waiting for the Court's order.

THE COURT: Okay. File it. File it.

MR. DE GHETALDI: I will. Thank you. 

THE COURT: File it. Thank God. And I'll take all 

the help I can get.

MR. DE GHETALDI: Thank you. 

THE COURT: Thank you. Anyone else? All right. 

Thank you all for your time in both courtrooms, and otherwise 

see you on the -- I'll see some of you next week, and I'll see 

you on the 9th.

(Whereupon these proceedings were concluded at 11:29 AM)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 99

of 118
100

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

I N D E X

RULINGS: PAGE LINE

Debtors' application to employ Deloitte & 6 19

Touche, granted.

Motion of Mr. Cronin for relief from stay is 16 20

denied.

Oral motion to adjourn exclusivity hearing is 97 1

granted.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 100

of 118
101

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, Penina Wolicki, certify that the foregoing transcript is a 

true and accurate record of the proceedings.

________________________________________ 

/s/ PENINA WOLICKI, CET-569

eScribers

7227 N. 16th Street, Suite #207

Phoenix, AZ 85020

Date: July 25, 2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 101

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

A

AB-1054 (5)

 37:16,16,19;48:1,16

ability (3)

 24:20;61:8;68:6

able (2)

 34:4;84:14

abridge (1)

 98:11

absolute (1)

 98:7

Absolutely (5)

 54:20;67:22;72:21;

 84:18;85:8

access (1)

 33:6

accommodate (2)

 49:25,25

accordance (2)

 32:5;65:1

according (2)

 34:18;40:7

accordingly (1)

 40:2

accounted (1)

 42:6

achieving (1)

 47:16

acknowledge (1)

 90:6

acknowledging (1)

 91:11

across (2)

 64:6;85:5

act (2)

 53:11;85:21

action (4)

 9:15;86:16;88:14,17

actionable (1)

 8:17

active (1)

 41:10

activity (1)

 12:1

actual (1)

 25:16

Actually (26)

 34:22;37:11;40:21;

 42:18;53:17;56:11;

 57:25;58:2,16,24;

 61:12,14;64:22;65:10;

 66:10;68:3;70:5,15;

 72:2,4,5;77:14,22;

 82:21;85:12;88:23

ad (24)

 35:14;36:24;37:3;

 40:18;42:20;48:8;50:8,

 23;51:14;52:20;53:15,

 17;64:17;67:15;68:9;

 73:5;76:6,9;77:10;

 80:1;86:12,13;90:20;

 96:16

Adam (1)

 7:1

adding (1)

 98:19

additional (3)

 19:3;32:24;66:3

address (5)

 19:4,15;20:16;29:21;

 53:20

addressed (3)

 28:19;50:5;98:18

addresses (1)

 62:19

addressing (3)

 6:24;20:7;29:25

adherence (1)

 38:25

adjourn (4)

 42:19;43:11;47:10;

 81:18

adjournment (11)

 35:19;48:17;49:22;

 51:13;53:22;54:1,25;

 60:9,20;79:23;82:9

administrative (1)

 87:10

advance (1)

 7:13

advantage (1)

 84:20

adversary (1)

 30:23

advice (1)

 92:12

advise (1)

 6:10

advised (1)

 6:12

advisement (4)

 55:10;67:12;72:24;

 89:22

advocate (1)

 78:9

advocating (2)

 89:2,2

affect (2)

 35:23;36:21

affected (1)

 62:7

affirmative (2)

 11:15,16

afternoon (1)

 64:20

again (37)

 16:6,22;18:22;20:18;

 21:9;22:4,14;25:12,25;

 28:2;30:20;32:25;

 38:16;41:20;44:18;

 45:9;46:8;47:1;50:22;

 51:11,13,14;53:14;

 55:24;61:23;62:18;

 63:21;66:8;70:20;

 72:13;74:4;78:5;79:20;

 84:23;86:15;89:21;

 97:11

against (6)

 8:24;9:17;11:21;

 14:20;16:14;54:15

agency (1)

 8:17

agenda (8)

 6:8;17:23;45:4;

 81:17;82:1;95:6;97:12,

 15

ago (2)

 41:8;52:16

agree (18)

 8:5;20:21;34:4;

 38:12,12;45:13,18;

 48:19;56:23;57:5;

 69:14;77:13;83:2;

 84:18;87:21,23;93:20;

 95:1

agreed (1)

 76:13

agreement (3)

 43:11;55:14;83:15

agrees (2)

 45:21;49:6

ahead (16)

 7:11,16;17:5;23:12,

 18;36:2,8,12;42:17;

 49:3,3;55:12;59:22;

 81:1;91:19;97:13

Akin (2)

 35:13;53:15

Alan (1)

 35:8

alleged (1)

 23:19

all-or-nothing (1)

 23:25

allow (4)

 47:11,19;48:15;

 49:14

allowance (1)

 91:23

allowed (4)

 12:23;64:17,18;

 65:21

almost (5)

 9:9;15:10;74:10;

 75:9,11

alone (1)

 24:10

along (2)

 65:10;81:9

alternative (2)

 51:16;52:22

Although (3)

 8:14;41:6;92:19

always (1)

 58:14

amendments (1)

 88:24

among (4)

 46:12;66:9;74:6;

 98:9

amongst (1)

 39:19

amount (3)

 39:25;40:1;77:11

amounts (3)

 20:12,17;26:17

amuck (1)

 84:16

Amy (1)

 41:18

analysis (1)

 15:25

analyze (1)

 8:3

and/or (1)

 26:18

answered (1)

 29:8

anticipate (1)

 56:9

anticipation (2)

 78:1;80:4

anymore (2)

 14:6;24:24

apologies (2)

 17:16;47:7

apologize (2)

 70:20;79:20

apparently (1)

 56:12

appearances (1)

 35:7

appears (1)

 21:13

applicable (3)

 8:1;10:6;93:17

application (1)

 6:11

appointment (1)

 27:13

appreciate (6)

 17:11,11;31:19;

 32:18;91:1,11

approach (4)

 11:22;29:3;40:4,4

appropriate (9)

 9:2;12:19;17:24;

 45:25;52:4,9;53:23;

 61:1;68:1

approval (2)

 50:4;60:22

approve (4)

 40:11;45:13,14;84:4

approved (2)

 38:19;42:24

Approximately (3)

 43:19;45:9;55:20

Archdiocese (1)

 20:15

architect's (1)

 75:15

area (1)

 77:10

areas (2)

 95:9,10

arguably (1)

 8:11

argue (4)

 10:6;34:1;73:21;

 94:4

argued (1)

 97:18

arguing (2)

 58:9;61:20

argument (17)

 10:4;15:15;16:8;

 18:15;23:5;55:9;61:24;

 62:14,15;71:18,19;

 72:16,17,24;73:15;

 74:8;89:16

arguments (4)

 14:21,22;43:24;

 79:10

arm (1)

 49:11

arm-twisting (1)

 40:16

around (3)

 48:11;89:24;97:15

Article (1)

 27:12

articulated (1)

 11:22

artificial (1)

 92:19

aside (5)

 13:4;34:2;66:16,17;

 79:6

aspects (1)

 87:15

asserted (1)

 11:8

asserts (1)

 11:14

assigned (1)

 22:21

assignments (1)

 98:19

assistance (1)

 83:9

associated (1)

 93:7

assume (7)

 20:23;23:6,11,23,25;

 38:6;92:4

assuming (5)

 22:7;28:2;65:16;

 67:7;97:13

assure (1)

 70:23

Atlas (6)

 23:7,9,12,14,14;26:3

attached (1)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(1) AB-1054 - attached Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 102

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

 37:22

attempt (1)

 42:21

attention (1)

 13:5

audio (1)

 42:16

Aug (1)

 96:18

August (24)

 28:7,19;29:8,19;

 30:7;31:13,20;32:2;

 52:3,6;67:2,6,7;71:17,

 18;80:3,4;83:14,15;

 86:3;89:21;96:19;97:2,

 18

auspices (1)

 47:13

authority (4)

 8:16;24:10;25:12;

 27:11

authorize (1)

 88:22

authorized (2)

 70:14;74:20

automatic (2)

 7:19;17:10

Avenue (1)

 66:18

avoid (3)

 40:12;65:6;70:3

aware (7)

 11:18;14:15;33:8;

 35:20;37:3;53:19;

 87:23

away (5)

 11:11,13;57:11;

 63:15;91:14

B

babe (1)

 31:11

back (25)

 12:23;16:6,24;26:20;

 27:18;30:11;31:9,23;

 42:12,23;45:8,12;65:8;

 71:10;73:14;74:19;

 75:2;78:3;79:5,7;81:2,

 25;89:10,21;95:14

backdrop (1)

 11:21

background (1)

 15:4

backscratching (1)

 53:10

Baker (1)

 90:4

balance (1)

 12:25

balances (1)

 48:5

bankruptcy (23)

 10:25;12:23;13:4;

 15:17;16:23,25;23:1;

 24:20;26:14;27:1,20;

 38:4;47:14;61:7;62:7;

 66:23;78:10,11;84:24;

 87:11;88:10;90:9;

 98:11

bar (2)

 21:16,20

barriers (1)

 84:10

based (4)

 9:10;52:9;72:13,14

basis (2)

 8:4;51:25

basket (1)

 88:20

Bay (2)

 34:3;90:14

becomes (1)

 91:4

begin (2)

 21:15,23

beginning (2)

 19:23;21:17

behalf (4)

 35:14;53:15;82:4;

 90:4

behavior (1)

 70:1

behind (1)

 67:15

believes (2)

 14:8;48:12

bench (1)

 29:5

benefit (2)

 28:23;68:4

benefits (1)

 88:13

Bennett (3)

 41:5,6;69:1

Benvenutti (20)

 6:22;7:5,6;10:11,16,

 18,19,20;11:8,13,16,

 18,21;13:20;16:11,13;

 17:4,14,16,18

Benvenutti's (1)

 16:7

best (16)

 22:23;23:16;24:3,13;

 39:7,7,9,10,11;43:4;

 46:20;47:16;48:20;

 49:15;83:4;94:23

better (13)

 12:25;22:6;40:4;

 46:2;61:25;62:2,4,5,7;

 65:19;78:17;85:20;

 97:5

beyond (1)

 71:24

bifurcate (1)

 26:11

bifurcating (1)

 27:22

big (8)

 26:24;56:3;66:5;

 68:21;75:6,7;76:1;77:4

bigger (1)

 93:25

biggest (1)

 90:15

bill (1)

 72:8

billion (1)

 59:4

billions (1)

 84:10

bit (1)

 91:14

Blackacre (2)

 75:13,14

blaming (1)

 78:13

board (7)

 43:23;64:6;76:13;

 83:8;84:1;85:5,14

bondholder (2)

 83:2;88:13

bondholders (4)

 90:21;91:25;92:1,2

bonds (1)

 88:22

book (2)

 25:3;61:11

both (6)

 11:4;34:14;43:2;

 89:12;90:6;99:12

Brar (1)

 34:9

break (3)

 72:17;89:3,3

breaks (1)

 26:4

breathing (4)

 11:24;12:4;77:16,19

brief (15)

 19:5;21:10,11;28:9;

 41:1;67:10,17,18;

 73:24;82:5;90:7;91:7,

 8;96:5;98:24

briefed (2)

 73:3;97:24

briefings (1)

 46:17

briefly (1)

 32:22

briefs (9)

 19:3,3,24;28:25;

 46:13,14;66:4;76:10;

 98:15

bring (2)

 66:3;87:11

broad (1)

 78:8

broke (1)

 63:21

brought (4)

 33:24;47:19;70:17;

 77:6

BrownGreer (2)

 33:3,14

bucks (1)

 68:22

building (1)

 72:3

builds (1)

 50:24

bunch (2)

 6:16;89:9

burn (1)

 25:17

business (1)

 88:7

buy (1)

 75:13

C

calculation (2)

 26:17;34:19

calendar (8)

 22:23;31:2,12;34:8;

 43:9;60:1;97:2,17

CALIFORNIA (9)

 6:1;35:9;39:4;47:16;

 48:22;92:8;93:5;98:4,6

Call (7)

 6:3;27:19;60:1;70:8;

 75:22;79:21;92:8

called (3)

 33:3;58:4;94:2

calls (1)

 59:16

came (1)

 59:2

can (56)

 6:9,13;10:12,16,16;

 12:1,13;14:9;16:9;

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

 27:20;28:1;31:20,22;

 41:18;42:24;44:19;

 45:18,21,24;48:13,18;

 49:24,25;50:22;52:3;

 53:4;54:18;56:9,18;

 61:6;63:25;65:10,13;

 66:10;68:3;69:6;70:22;

 72:15;73:7,16,24;

 76:16;79:2;82:14;

 83:12,13,14;84:15;

 95:6,10;97:7;99:9

candidates (1)

 66:12

cap (2)

 20:18;91:4

capable (1)

 27:25

capital (2)

 39:8;59:4

capped (2)

 90:24;91:3

care (4)

 6:20;74:25;75:3;

 76:25

carefully (1)

 57:1

carriers (1)

 48:21

case (59)

 6:18;7:4,13,20,22;

 8:7,14,15;9:23,24;10:4,

 6,8,25;12:2,9,11,12,15;

 13:5,11,15,24;15:6,8,

 15,24;16:19,24;18:9,

 25;20:19;23:7,8;30:21;

 37:11,12,13,14,21,24;

 40:3;43:24;50:6;55:14,

 25;61:19;64:11;65:21;

 70:21,22;72:15;73:12;

 81:11;84:10,25;90:7,9,

 16

case-by-case (1)

 8:4

cases (21)

 6:16;7:14;8:2;9:8,

 10;10:5,25;20:15;

 22:25;26:25;27:6;

 36:22;37:1;40:14;43:3;

 48:8;49:20;50:2;65:5;

 92:17;98:6

categories (1)

 26:5

categorized (1)

 8:2

category (3)

 24:15;26:16;49:4

Caton (1)

 41:25

cats (1)

 44:25

cause (3)

 37:10;61:7,21

CC (1)

 8:8

CCSF (4)

 7:22;8:6,8;10:4

Cecily (1)

 90:4

celebrating (1)

 78:12

CEO's (1)

 97:4

certain (1)

 38:23

certainly (11)

 13:12;21:10;31:16,

 18,20;32:18,18;49:13;

 56:8;68:7,10

cetera (2)

 38:7,7

chair (2)

 10:13,16

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(2) attempt - chair Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 103

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

challenge (3)

 37:17;39:13;56:1

challenging (2)

 93:8,11

chambers (1)

 28:23

champagne (1)

 71:1

chance (4)

 13:14;31:4;61:18;

 74:4

change (3)

 25:6;29:13;43:15

changed (3)

 28:3;31:15;32:7

changes (1)

 6:8

changing (1)

 75:3

chaos (5)

 39:13;49:16;62:19;

 63:25;66:3

chaotic (3)

 44:19;47:24;65:23

Chapter (5)

 36:22;37:24;38:20;

 48:7;50:6

checks (1)

 48:5

choir (2)

 61:10;71:2

chooses (1)

 23:9

Circuit (1)

 6:18

circumstances (3)

 12:10;16:4;17:2

cite (1)

 51:11

cited (2)

 6:16;20:19

City (1)

 16:1

Civil (1)

 98:6

claim (13)

 10:7,21;11:2,3,11;

 12:22,23;13:3,7;14:13,

 16;21:5;72:6

claimant (1)

 20:25

claimants (7)

 12:16;21:24;22:5;

 84:11;90:5;91:13,22

claimants' (1)

 91:20

claimant's (1)

 20:24

claimed (1)

 10:1

claimholders (2)

 37:4;40:18

claims (27)

 8:17;12:6;13:13;

 14:12;18:11,12;20:4,9,

 11;21:1,3,16,20;22:14;

 23:24;24:21;25:1,8;

 26:11,15;33:11;38:7;

 39:9;90:16;91:23;

 92:18;93:3

clarification (5)

 19:24;20:20;29:17;

 64:25;80:7

class (4)

 9:15;21:1,2,5

clear (8)

 13:11;30:25;39:3;

 69:4;76:19,20;82:6;

 83:11

clearly (3)

 27:16;70:6;78:2

clerk (9)

 7:8;34:10;40:25;

 42:10;60:1;79:13,16;

 96:21,22

clerks (2)

 28:25;73:22

client (12)

 41:16;44:24;49:6;

 62:8;64:7;65:18;67:2;

 68:15;74:5;76:5;78:9;

 80:3

clients (8)

 52:1;53:16;65:20;

 67:5;69:1;76:14;92:4;

 95:4

client's (2)

 62:5;82:23

climate (1)

 38:25

clock (3)

 82:10;87:16;88:11

close (2)

 11:1;12:20

cocounsel (1)

 81:9

co-counsel (2)

 95:15,25

Code (1)

 98:5

colleagues (2)

 21:10;53:21

colloquy (2)

 66:21;74:25

coming (4)

 17:23;32:25;34:20;

 75:2

commenced (1)

 81:13

comment (8)

 6:15;50:17,25;51:2;

 52:19;74:17,19;75:23

comments (7)

 19:2,10;53:21;69:9;

 75:4;76:17,22

Commission (4)

 8:9;9:5;35:10;92:9

commitment (1)

 69:10

committed (1)

 59:4

committee (22)

 22:2;35:14;37:4,8;

 40:18,19;50:23;51:14;

 52:20;53:16;64:17;

 66:13;67:15;68:9,15;

 77:11;80:1;82:5;90:5;

 91:21,22;96:16

committees (5)

 28:11;48:8;60:25;

 66:13;74:6

committee's (2)

 82:17;86:13

common (1)

 84:15

communicating (2)

 59:11,13

company (11)

 8:22;10:2;17:4;

 55:19;57:6;58:16;

 64:10;70:17;72:4;

 92:25;94:18

company's (2)

 14:8;38:24

compelling (1)

 12:10

compensated (1)

 39:2

compensation (3)

 34:9;97:4,4

compete (1)

 48:2

competing (13)

 40:7;42:22;49:14;

 56:15;64:8;65:14;

 68:19,24;71:1;78:15;

 83:7;84:7;86:13

competition (17)

 39:3,5,12;40:9;43:3;

 52:20;56:13;66:8,9;

 67:21,23,25;68:4;

 77:15,19;78:14;91:21

competitive (7)

 39:6,14;45:5;47:12,

 18;48:6,14

complain (1)

 31:3

complaint (1)

 9:17

complete (1)

 12:21

completely (1)

 56:23

complex (6)

 8:11;10:5;16:2,18;

 18:12;39:17

complexity (3)

 11:25;18:9;92:15

complicated (5)

 16:1;21:8;55:25;

 93:1;94:14

comprehensive (1)

 77:12

compressing (1)

 76:7

compromise (1)

 17:1

concede (1)

 56:6

concededly (1)

 95:8

concern (6)

 37:10;58:22;59:5;

 69:23;70:1,5

concerned (3)

 69:11;86:19;87:22

concerns (4)

 49:25;88:19;90:7;

 94:17

concluded (1)

 99:15

concluding (1)

 89:16

concurrently (1)

 79:11

condemnation (1)

 93:6

conduct (3)

 24:9;27:13;90:12

conducted (1)

 47:13

confer (1)

 96:22

conference (3)

 18:7;32:22;97:5

confirm (3)

 40:10;43:3;55:19

confirmable (9)

 52:22;56:21;64:1,2;

 65:7;75:22;77:17;78:2;

 91:2

confirmation (13)

 37:25;38:15,16;

 39:23;40:12;44:11;

 56:5,19,22;75:20;78:3,

 15,21

confirmations (1)

 56:8

confirmed (7)

 20:12;38:6;49:20;

 56:2;66:10;77:23;

 88:24

confused (2)

 27:23;42:6

confusing (1)

 23:10

conjunction (1)

 96:6

connection (3)

 24:11;29:9;56:15

consensual (2)

 51:25;52:1

consensus (16)

 48:11;50:24;58:10;

 65:13;68:18;74:4,6;

 76:12,14,15;78:19;

 86:11,12;87:1,11;97:7

consent (1)

 80:6

consented (1)

 41:10

consequence (1)

 90:12

consequences (5)

 17:20;85:6,11;86:19,

 20

consider (11)

 15:23;18:20;29:4;

 40:6;51:14,22;52:6;

 56:20;60:25;68:8;92:1

consideration (1)

 29:12

considerations (1)

 51:16

considering (1)

 15:24

consistent (11)

 43:14;47:15;50:9;

 51:12;56:12;65:4,4;

 74:12;92:22,23;94:13

consistently (1)

 65:23

consolidate (1)

 64:13

consolidated (1)

 22:25

constituents (2)

 48:7,21

constitute (1)

 27:4

constitutes (1)

 12:9

constitutional (1)

 92:22

constructive (2)

 43:2;57:14

consultation (3)

 60:10,21,24

consuming (3)

 56:8,9;94:14

contemplated (2)

 61:6;75:10

contested (6)

 39:23;40:12;56:8,19;

 79:25;81:18

context (4)

 7:21;26:24;77:2;

 83:7

contingency (1)

 87:24

contingent (4)

 24:23,24,24;25:2

continuance (1)

 73:10

continuances (1)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(3) challenge - continuances Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 104

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

 59:14

continue (7)

 16:21;42:25;55:8;

 67:2;79:4;92:1;98:25

continued (4)

 22:7;43:20;96:18;

 97:3

continues (1)

 36:24

continuing (3)

 33:6;75:1;97:1

control (1)

 33:13

controlled (1)

 47:13

controlling (1)

 6:18

convenient (1)

 45:8

conversations (2)

 36:8;89:10

coordination (1)

 25:25

cope (1)

 37:20

copy (1)

 60:15

core (1)

 61:8

Corning (2)

 20:14,18

corporate (2)

 26:25;39:9

correctly (1)

 72:9

coterminous (1)

 80:9

counsel (15)

 18:19;19:9,25;22:24;

 32:4;34:3;41:5,5;

 42:13;61:24;79:5,20;

 80:23;81:10,22

counts (1)

 55:14

couple (6)

 7:14;19:16;22:1;

 46:10,16;83:14

course (10)

 18:14;19:20;25:1;

 36:21;38:8;45:17;50:5;

 63:14;68:13;84:13

Court (409)

 6:3,4,7,10,14,23,24,

 25;7:3,7,11,16,21,23,

 24;8:2,3,5,7,13,18,19,

 20,20,22;9:1,2,2,3,5,7,

 14,17,19,21;10:1,2,3,7,

 10,18,21,25;11:2,7,11,

 15,17,20,22,22;12:1,3,

 5,8,10,23;13:4,8,10,14,

 22;14:3,6,10,12,18,20,

 24;15:3,7,12,17,19,22;

 16:12,14,17,25;17:15,

 17,20;18:2,5,8,24;

 20:21;21:4,24;22:9,10,

 11,13,21;23:8,9,12;

 24:11;25:5,24;26:2,14;

 27:21;29:16,18,20,24;

 30:1,3,11,15,20;31:8,

 11,14,15,17,21,22,24;

 32:4,13,17,20,23;33:5,

 8,10,18,21;34:7,11,14,

 16,18,24;35:2,4,7,12,

 15,20,24;36:2,5,12,14,

 16,18;37:6,17,25;38:4,

 11,14,21;39:15;40:10,

 22,25;41:15,20,24;

 42:1,4,11,16,19;43:6,8,

 20;44:2,7,12;45:8,16,

 18;46:1,6,8,23;47:1,3,

 6,8,10,14;48:23,25;

 49:3,23;50:11,15,17,

 25;51:2,4,6,9,13,18,23,

 25;52:8,11,13;53:2,5,9,

 13,19;54:4,7,10,14,22,

 24;55:2,5,7,12,21,23;

 56:15,17,24,25;57:3,5,

 9,11,14,17,19,22;58:3,

 18,20,23;59:10,12,17,

 20,25;60:3,5,13,15,19,

 22;61:8,10,13,15,23;

 62:4,11,20,23;63:1,4,6,

 8,10,13,15,17;64:3,15,

 23;65:2,11;66:5,11;

 67:6,9,18,21,24;68:2,7,

 14;69:3,6,14,16,22,25;

 70:10,20;71:10,13,22,

 24;72:7,12,16,22;

 73:20,22;76:18,21,25;

 77:5,7,13,21,25;78:5,7,

 9,10;79:14,17,19;

 80:12,17,19,21;81:1,4,

 7,12,14,16,21,25;82:8,

 12,21;83:5,18,20;

 84:13,18,23;85:10,13,

 15,18;86:5,7,9,11,24;

 87:2,5,8,17,21,23;88:7,

 18;89:1,6,14,18;90:1,

 11,18,21,23,25;91:6,9,

 14,17,19;92:4,7,12,21;

 93:5,8,11,15,18,20,24;

 94:6,8,12,16,19,21,24;

 95:6,9,11,14,20;96:2,3,

 7,12,22,23;97:17,21,

 23,24;98:1,3,14;99:1,3,

 6,8,11

court-approved (2)

 40:8,8

courthouse (1)

 66:3

courtroom (7)

 36:6;59:14;72:25;

 90:13;96:13,13,14

courtrooms (2)

 90:6;99:12

courts (3)

 6:17;22:11;88:4

Court's (14)

 12:7;17:12;23:6,6;

 24:20;30:9;91:11;

 95:25;96:6;97:14,16;

 98:13,24;99:5

cover (1)

 97:25

covers (1)

 23:14

CPUC (23)

 49:10;50:1,4;51:12,

 20,21;54:2,16;60:8,11,

 21,24;65:13;66:22;

 74:20,22;78:24;80:10;

 82:18;83:3,10;88:5;

 97:6

CPUC/governor's (1)

 80:5

Cravath (1)

 29:15

creates (1)

 48:4

credible (6)

 52:22;56:21;64:1;

 65:7;66:7;77:17

credit (1)

 72:3

creditors (1)

 96:17

creditors' (2)

 80:1;82:4

critical (4)

 43:22;67:17;75:12;

 85:24

criticism (1)

 75:18

criticize (1)

 57:16

criticized (1)

 75:2

critics (1)

 75:6

Cronin (43)

 6:25;7:1,3,4,7,10,15,

 18,24;8:6,14,21,25;9:4,

 6,8,16,18,20,25;10:3,9,

 14,23;11:1;13:2,14,21,

 24;14:5,11,15,19,23;

 15:2,4,8,14,18,21,22;

 16:16,17

Cronin's (2)

 12:9;13:6

cruise (1)

 72:19

culture (1)

 39:10

currently (1)

 60:11

Curtis (1)

 12:18

custody (1)

 33:13

D

damage (1)

 25:16

damages (2)

 25:17;93:7

damaging (1)

 63:25

Dario (1)

 81:6

database (1)

 33:4

date (20)

 11:1;12:20;15:10;

 16:21;21:16,18,20;

 29:3,19,20;30:5,7,8;

 43:16;44:22;45:8;52:4;

 53:6,8;69:19

dates (2)

 34:12;72:9

date's (1)

 69:19

dawned (1)

 41:2

day (14)

 26:16;28:8;33:17;

 40:20;41:3;43:22;

 55:14;56:18,18;57:24;

 64:11;71:9;92:9;96:23

days (8)

 30:16,18;37:3;45:23;

 46:18;72:7,15;95:3

de (22)

 20:12;80:25;81:2,6,

 6,7,9,20,23;82:2;96:24;

 97:11,14,20,22;98:2,4,

 23;99:2,4,7,10

deadline (6)

 38:6;56:2;69:12;

 82:20;89:12;92:19

deadlines (4)

 28:23;29:2,7;32:9

deal (12)

 17:24;21:18;28:25;

 31:21;32:7;33:18,19;

 43:12;49:7;63:25;66:5;

 84:7

dealing (3)

 24:2;46:1;65:8

death (4)

 24:21;25:8,17;26:18

deaths (1)

 90:10

debated (1)

 18:13

debating (1)

 67:24

debt (1)

 48:2

debtor (18)

 19:17,25;28:16;59:7;

 64:8;66:12;67:17;68:5,

 10,10,16;73:6,7;74:7;

 86:14,15,17;98:17

debtors (19)

 10:20;11:24;13:4;

 19:17;29:15,23;40:17;

 48:9;56:14;60:8,10,21,

 23;61:2;76:23;82:19;

 83:3;88:16;92:3

debtors' (11)

 19:13,25;20:22;

 28:15;31:24,25;48:20;

 49:11;70:1,23;74:24

decide (8)

 17:9;55:5;68:21,21,

 22;71:17;72:18;94:1

decided (1)

 27:12

decides (2)

 10:2;86:15

deciding (1)

 20:8

decision (11)

 7:25;8:1;12:11;

 20:16;23:6,6,16;74:9;

 85:23;86:8;94:23

decisions (4)

 7:13;11:23;12:3;

 20:15

declined (1)

 18:18

dedicated (1)

 93:1

deed (1)

 77:10

defer (1)

 71:18

deferred (1)

 74:9

define (1)

 65:7

definitely (1)

 12:24

deign (1)

 31:13

delay (1)

 71:20

delineating (1)

 19:11

Deloitte (1)

 6:11

demand (4)

 11:15,18;13:21,24

demonstrated (1)

 12:15

demurrer (1)

 10:24

denied (2)

 17:8;85:5

Dennis (1)

 82:3

deny (5)

 16:20;61:25;79:24;

 84:4,4

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(4) continue - deny Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 105

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

denying (1)

 14:21

departure (1)

 16:19

deputy (1)

 36:7

derail (1)

 39:15

described (2)

 10:23;37:7

describes (1)

 25:16

designated (1)

 30:24

designed (1)

 11:3

desire (1)

 67:16

desired (1)

 40:9

destruction (2)

 49:16;90:9

detail (1)

 21:11

detailed (1)

 75:9

determination (1)

 93:5

determine (2)

 26:14;61:1

determined (1)

 21:4

determines (1)

 61:9

detour (1)

 71:7

devastating (1)

 37:20

develop (3)

 47:11;48:13;92:21

developed (1)

 91:12

development (4)

 37:11,20;47:18;

 48:10

develops (1)

 50:23

devise (1)

 42:22

devote (1)

 17:22

DFEH (2)

 8:16;14:1

Diego (1)

 20:16

differ (2)

 78:8;95:10

difference (1)

 72:23

different (10)

 15:20;22:5,15;23:15;

 26:5;27:8;58:7;66:1;

 94:1;95:22

differently (1)

 44:23

difficult (7)

 13:8;27:25;32:9;

 39:17;48:1;93:6;95:9

difficulty (2)

 95:19,24

digest (1)

 30:10

dilution (1)

 70:3

directed (2)

 13:12;23:5

directly (1)

 40:16

directors (1)

 83:8

disadvantageous (1)

 72:22

disagree (3)

 54:2;79:23;93:21

disagreement (1)

 83:6

dischargeability (2)

 26:25;27:2

disclosure (6)

 56:4;63:13,18;64:16;

 78:20;84:15

discovery (1)

 34:5

discrete (1)

 16:3

discretion (1)

 95:10

discrimination (1)

 10:22

discuss (1)

 68:17

discussed (2)

 79:6;88:15

discusses (1)

 20:14

discussing (1)

 70:11

discussion (4)

 70:4;78:13;92:14,14

discussions (2)

 33:12;78:23

disposition (1)

 89:20

dispositive (1)

 19:6

dispute (1)

 82:24

disputed (1)

 25:2

disputes (2)

 11:4,6

disregard (1)

 79:23

distilled (1)

 11:23

distinction (1)

 75:24

distress (8)

 20:9;25:10,11,12,13;

 26:19,22;27:5

distribution (2)

 25:8;91:4

district (4)

 21:4;24:11;27:16;

 88:8

diversion (1)

 13:5

docket (2)

 19:21,21

doctor (1)

 71:16

document (3)

 74:22;77:16,19

documents (3)

 34:1,5;38:22

dollars (3)

 20:23;59:4;84:10

done (9)

 9:9;27:20;44:19;

 73:25,25;74:17;75:4;

 80:21;89:24

door (4)

 18:25;42:14,17;

 80:24

doubt (1)

 85:9

Dow (1)

 20:14

down (11)

 36:13;44:10,16;56:5;

 69:24,25;76:17;85:1;

 88:6;94:24;95:20

downside (2)

 58:12;76:5

dozens (1)

 90:9

draft (2)

 52:18;75:9

draftsperson (1)

 38:3

draw (1)

 75:24

drawings (1)

 75:15

driving (1)

 67:15

drove (1)

 41:7

due (5)

 21:16;28:3,5;30:15;

 32:5

dueling (6)

 39:22;44:10,11,13,

 17,18

Dumas (32)

 90:1,3,4,12,19,24;

 91:1,8,10,16,18,20;

 92:6,8,13;93:10,14,16,

 19,23;94:3,7,13,17,19,

 20;95:5,8,12,19,24;

 96:5

dumbest (1)

 52:5

DUNNE (31)

 82:3,3,9,13,25;83:6,

 19,21;84:14,19;85:8,

 11,14,16,25;86:6,8,10,

 21,25;87:3,7,12,18,22;

 88:12,19;89:5,7,17,25

during (5)

 42:21;60:20;61:2;

 62:14;82:14

dwell (1)

 69:4

E

earlier (3)

 7:14;52:19;74:19

early (5)

 9:9;10:23;12:19;

 56:18;95:6

ears (1)

 70:24

easy (4)

 30:21;83:17;93:12,

 16

economical (2)

 11:4;12:24

effect (1)

 98:10

effective (1)

 47:14

efficient (6)

 11:4;12:24;49:17;

 65:11;78:21;92:18

efficiently (1)

 44:20

effort (2)

 17:11;43:2

efforts (1)

 80:5

eggs (1)

 88:20

eight (2)

 22:15;72:7

eighteen (1)

 52:16

either (12)

 19:3;23:7;24:10;

 43:22;44:13,14;57:19;

 65:13;66:1;84:3,21;

 89:18

elaborate (2)

 52:14;75:11

eleven (2)

 55:20,22

eligible (1)

 38:17

Elliott (2)

 45:10;53:16

else (16)

 33:17;46:11,12;55:8;

 63:23,24;64:4;71:13;

 78:13;79:19;96:7,10,

 12;97:10,13;99:11

email (6)

 36:6;40:25;59:9,20;

 60:8;65:16

emails (2)

 59:11,15

embarrassing (1)

 29:4

emergence (1)

 36:25

emotional (9)

 20:9;25:10,11,12,13,

 18;26:18,22;27:5

emphatically (1)

 39:4

employed (1)

 15:9

employee (1)

 97:4

employer (1)

 9:19

employment (1)

 10:22

enacted (1)

 50:4

enactment (2)

 37:16,19

encountered (1)

 26:22

end (4)

 21:5;56:18;73:17;

 76:2

Energy (2)

 8:8;9:5

enlarge (1)

 98:11

enormous (2)

 28:25;92:25

enough (2)

 45:13;74:23

ensure (1)

 47:14

enterprise (1)

 92:15

entire (1)

 62:6

entirely (2)

 50:9;51:12

entirety (1)

 62:5

entitled (4)

 11:24;20:25;33:15;

 74:8

entitlements (1)

 26:18

entrenchment (1)

 59:7

entry (1)

 84:10

envisioned (1)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(5) denying - envisioned Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 106

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

 52:14

envisions (1)

 48:3

equity (7)

 40:19;48:2;66:17;

 68:25;70:8,8;88:16

essence (1)

 11:23

essentially (1)

 12:3

establish (1)

 61:7

estimate (3)

 20:22;24:20;29:21

estimated (1)

 22:3

estimating (1)

 20:4

estimation (31)

 18:12,22;19:13,18;

 20:18,23;21:5,8,9,17;

 24:9,12;26:11,14;

 27:22;28:6,12;30:4,13;

 32:1,5;33:2;39:18;

 43:10;56:7;72:4,8;

 79:1;94:24;95:18,21

et (2)

 38:7,7

evaluation (1)

 47:22

even (15)

 20:14;21:15,23,23,

 24;22:21;31:4;35:21;

 44:18;64:19;66:13;

 74:3;79:1;85:1;94:22

event (4)

 21:6,20;22:18;94:7

events (3)

 29:13;35:22;36:20

everybody (11)

 29:5;42:6;43:23;

 45:21;46:17;49:5;72:5;

 78:12;86:21;88:3;

 94:22

everyone (6)

 6:4;39:5;55:13;

 69:11;77:14;79:19

everyone's (2)

 72:1;92:17

evident (1)

 11:9

ex (1)

 98:25

exactly (5)

 43:17,17;53:14;

 74:22;83:21

examining (1)

 81:15

exclusive (2)

 61:3;63:3

exclusivity (53)

 18:11,17,18;29:12;

 37:5;39:22;42:21,25;

 43:25;44:4;47:11;

 49:14;52:21;54:2,6;

 57:1;58:9;59:1,7;

 60:10;61:7,22;64:5;

 65:1,5,9,25;68:4,11;

 69:9,10;70:6,18,25;

 71:6,19;74:24;76:24;

 80:1;81:18;83:8,23,25;

 84:5,6;85:6,6;86:4;

 87:4;89:2;90:20;94:22;

 96:18

excuse (7)

 8:6;20:10,16;23:2;

 28:4,18;73:12

existed (1)

 22:25

existing (3)

 19:4;47:20;48:2

expect (2)

 22:20;29:3

expected (2)

 22:9;50:23

expedite (1)

 45:19

experience (1)

 55:24

experienced (4)

 22:24;24:5;38:4;

 66:22

experts (2)

 78:16;92:16

explain (1)

 65:19

explained (1)

 16:5

explaining (1)

 17:12

explore (2)

 40:4,17

extend (2)

 28:23;29:2

extended (1)

 32:9

extension (1)

 36:10

extent (4)

 18:17;24:10;28:15;

 88:8

extreme (1)

 26:8

eyes (1)

 82:19

F

face (2)

 11:9;39:14

facie (1)

 12:15

fact (10)

 13:16;15:23;60:1;

 65:12;66:6;73:4,18;

 86:17;92:6;94:1

facto (1)

 20:12

factors (2)

 12:18;17:3

factual (2)

 21:14;93:24

failed (1)

 88:21

fair (10)

 47:12,22;48:4,14;

 57:13;91:23;92:18,22;

 94:13;95:12

fairest (1)

 39:8

fairly (1)

 17:5

faith (1)

 48:19

fall (3)

 25:11,19;87:20

familiar (2)

 23:13;27:1

fan (1)

 56:4

fancy (1)

 26:24

far (3)

 8:10;37:13;52:14

fashioned (2)

 60:15;63:21

favor (2)

 8:23,24

feasibility (1)

 20:5

February (1)

 78:16

Federal (3)

 8:8;9:5;95:1

feel (1)

 55:25

feeling (1)

 65:15

fences (1)

 70:3

FERC (3)

 8:15;16:1;88:5

few (4)

 17:22;19:1;46:18;

 70:22

fiduciaries (1)

 60:23

fifteen (1)

 56:22

fifteen-page (1)

 89:22

fifteenth (1)

 70:21

fifty (1)

 66:4

figure (4)

 24:13;76:15;83:12;

 95:22

figured (1)

 92:9

figuring (1)

 45:4

file (22)

 10:7;19:3;22:2;

 52:21;54:18;63:12;

 64:9;66:19;68:6;72:7;

 73:6,7,7;74:20;86:16,

 17;90:21;98:24;99:5,6,

 6,8

filed (18)

 10:25;11:1;14:7;

 15:8;28:20;30:12;32:6;

 37:4;47:5;50:8;54:7,8;

 59:1;72:4;73:24;74:22;

 77:23;98:15

files (1)

 28:17

filing (7)

 28:10,11,12;64:10;

 69:8,9;76:10

filings (1)

 31:3

final (4)

 21:25;24:15;71:10;

 92:13

Finally (1)

 25:23

finance (1)

 70:7

financial (4)

 84:12;85:2;90:6;

 94:17

financiers (1)

 88:6

financing (2)

 39:7;61:1

find (4)

 13:8;29:4;87:3;

 88:20

finding (1)

 20:10

findings (2)

 38:23,23

fine (9)

 24:7;44:3;46:7;60:3,

 5;81:23;83:16;91:17,

 19

finish (4)

 42:17;43:6;82:1;

 96:25

finished (2)

 67:10;69:6

fire (7)

 18:10;20:22;22:25;

 23:12,19,24;26:3

fires (2)

 24:25;91:24

firm (1)

 41:9

first (11)

 7:4;19:16;23:7,14;

 26:21;57:1;75:1;77:23;

 90:19;91:10;96:13

fits (1)

 26:23

five (2)

 19:10;22:16

fix (2)

 28:7;63:22

fixed (1)

 21:1

fixing (1)

 20:17

flag (1)

 33:16

flagpoles (1)

 75:15

flagpole's (1)

 75:25

floodgates (1)

 13:6

fly-specking (1)

 75:6

focused (1)

 72:1

focusing (1)

 97:12

follow (3)

 23:17;48:15;53:11

followed (1)

 92:23

following (2)

 18:9;51:5

follow-up (1)

 38:7

footer (1)

 19:19

footnote (4)

 19:23;20:7,13;77:1

force (1)

 67:15

forced (1)

 19:8

foresee (1)

 32:24

Forget (1)

 30:11

forgetting (1)

 30:16

forgive (1)

 41:11

forgot (1)

 72:18

form (3)

 17:5,6;33:11

formal (2)

 50:23;97:8

formation (1)

 48:9

former (1)

 9:19

formulate (2)

 60:11,21

forth (5)

 17:4;47:19,25;48:15;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(6) envisions - forth Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 107

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

 78:3

forum (3)

 8:18;26:17;68:1

forward (10)

 9:22;12:13;14:10,25;

 23:23;49:14;58:15;

 67:16;70:18;84:14

found (1)

 25:19

four (3)

 32:11;44:10;78:16

fourteen (2)

 30:15;43:15

fourteenth (1)

 43:21

frame (5)

 9:12;30:1;47:25;

 48:15;72:14

frames (1)

 47:17

FRANCISCO (2)

 6:1;22:10

frankly (1)

 66:15

freight (1)

 48:21

Friday (1)

 69:20

front (3)

 16:9;56:15;60:14

Full (9)

 6:4;21:1;27:13;

 47:22;78:16;83:20;

 91:22,23;95:13

fully (4)

 47:12,18;48:5;96:5

Fund (2)

 38:17;88:22

fundamental (2)

 75:21;95:2

fundamentally (1)

 67:4

funding (1)

 20:10

further (9)

 19:15;22:2;43:11;

 45:1;59:6;76:9;88:14;

 91:12;96:9

G

Garrison (1)

 35:9

Gate (1)

 66:18

gating (3)

 95:2,2,3

gave (2)

 26:12;29:6

Gelman (14)

 7:25;8:1,11;9:8,10;

 10:5;11:23;12:3,11,11,

 16,22;16:5,5

general (1)

 59:22

generally (2)

 25:15;28:14

gentlemen (2)

 10:13;41:20

gets (5)

 23:8;38:6;73:7;83:3;

 88:8

GHETALDI (21)

 80:25;81:2,6,6,7,9,

 20,23;82:2;96:24;

 97:11,14,20,22;98:2,4,

 23;99:2,4,7,10

given (6)

 11:5;16:4;17:2;

 27:17;46:1;73:4

giving (2)

 12:12;29:7

goal (1)

 40:12

goals (1)

 38:25

God (1)

 99:8

goes (12)

 9:22;14:10;17:8;

 20:7;23:7,14,23;26:19;

 34:5;77:10;85:5;95:14

Golden (1)

 66:18

Good (24)

 6:4,5,6,14;10:19;

 29:14,16;33:21;39:4;

 46:23,24;48:19;64:24;

 66:9;71:3;72:1;77:10;

 80:14;81:7;82:3;90:2,

 3;92:12;98:20

gorilla (1)

 33:3

governance (2)

 38:24;39:10

governing (1)

 8:17

governor (14)

 39:4;48:3,12;51:11,

 12,15,20;58:10;65:13;

 66:22;70:15;72:8;77:8;

 78:24

governor's (14)

 39:21;44:25;46:21;

 49:10,13;50:1;56:12;

 65:17;68:8;79:8;88:5;

 89:15;92:10;97:6

graft (1)

 74:13

grant (12)

 6:19;7:21;23:17;

 24:8;44:17;51:21;

 62:15;76:4;79:22;84:6;

 95:16,17

granted (6)

 8:16;13:11;22:4;

 64:19;73:10;85:6

grants (1)

 22:13

great (2)

 28:24;88:23

greater (1)

 86:2

group (17)

 23:4;41:3,9,10,12,16,

 23;42:3,7;50:8;53:18;

 74:7;76:6,10;79:11;

 88:13;98:16

groups (4)

 22:5;48:8;66:16,17

group's (4)

 36:25;42:20;65:9;

 74:12

guess (6)

 27:13;30:6;45:12;

 61:17;73:9;86:18

guidance (4)

 19:9;24:14;46:19;

 95:15

guided (1)

 25:24

guiding (1)

 61:5

Gump (2)

 35:14;53:15

guys (1)

 69:17

H

hac (1)

 47:4

hand (1)

 72:25

hands (1)

 58:11

hang-up (1)

 88:10

happen (13)

 9:21;22:3;23:20;

 24:1;38:8,18;56:3,7,

 14;58:5;64:20;83:14;

 88:3

happening (2)

 16:22;59:5

happens (8)

 20:24;22:8;59:3;

 62:16,17,23;63:2,11

happy (8)

 30:8;36:3;55:4,6;

 58:25;59:1,2;64:25

hard (5)

 53:11;57:2;60:15;

 68:14;73:21

hardest (1)

 93:3

harm (1)

 13:2

harmed (1)

 10:1

harms (1)

 13:1

hate (1)

 59:11

head (1)

 30:6

headache (1)

 58:4

heading (1)

 54:13

healthy (2)

 51:16;56:13

hear (19)

 10:10,12;18:19;

 36:12;39:21;40:16;

 42:5,12;43:24;46:20;

 54:16,17;69:3;72:17;

 76:6,19;80:4;81:17,22

heard (29)

 8:14;11:2;13:19;

 18:15,16;22:12,13;

 42:11;44:9;46:8,21;

 49:2;55:15;62:14;68:7;

 71:14;72:16;79:20;

 81:11;82:18;85:11;

 90:1;96:4,7,12,24;

 97:10,11,18

hearing (34)

 10:24;22:8;29:1,3;

 32:13;34:2,7,8;43:20;

 45:2,4,8,20,20;46:2;

 55:8;57:1;60:9;63:15,

 18;64:15;69:9;72:23;

 75:1;76:9,24;79:6,7,

 25;80:10,24;89:20;

 96:19;98:25

hearings (2)

 58:5;64:12

hears (1)

 86:21

help (11)

 23:16;24:17;25:22;

 27:24;28:1;65:12;

 78:10;83:9;94:22;

 97:18;99:9

helpful (2)

 29:22;87:15

helping (1)

 37:20

herd (1)

 44:25

here's (1)

 25:8

he-said (1)

 57:12

highly (3)

 16:1;73:3,3

HINKER (10)

 46:24,24;47:2,2,3,4,

 7,9;48:23,24

history (2)

 14:4;15:5

hit (1)

 85:3

hoc (24)

 35:14;36:24;37:4;

 40:18;42:20;48:8;50:8,

 23;51:14;52:20;53:15,

 17;64:17;67:15;68:9;

 73:5;76:6,9;77:10;

 80:1;86:12,13;90:20;

 96:16

HoldCo (1)

 41:16

holders (3)

 40:19;48:2;91:21

holding (1)

 98:7

honest (1)

 74:15

Honor (133)

 6:21;7:6,10;10:17,

 20;11:8,19;13:21;15:5;

 16:11;17:14;29:14;

 30:6;31:7,19;32:3,14,

 22;33:2,16,20,22,25;

 34:2,4,13;35:1,11,13,

 17;36:1,4,11,13,19;

 37:3,12;38:10;39:12,

 16;40:5,15;42:18,24;

 43:5;44:1,8;45:7,22;

 46:5,24;47:4,9;49:1,8,

 21;50:7;51:7;52:4,7;

 53:4,12,24;54:19,20,

 21,25;55:11,19;56:23;

 57:13,21,24;58:13,15,

 22,24;59:5,8,9,23;60:7,

 12,18;62:2,17,25;

 63:16,20,24;64:22;

 66:2,8;67:4,14,22;69:3,

 4,23;70:13;71:4,25;

 72:13,21;73:18,21;

 76:16;77:4,6,9;80:7,9,

 18,25;81:23;82:3,10;

 83:1,11,21,24;84:21;

 85:25;86:21;87:4,13;

 89:8,25;90:4;96:6;

 97:15,20;98:23

honoring (1)

 84:25

Honor's (8)

 29:22;61:21;78:4;

 82:6;84:3;86:8;91:1;

 93:4

hope (5)

 13:10;27:23;51:17;

 71:24;98:17

hopeful (3)

 36:25;48:18;92:20

hopefully (1)

 51:25

hoping (1)

 97:14

horrible (1)

 73:16

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(7) forum - horrible Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 108

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

Hostetler (1)

 90:4

hours (3)

 29:1;32:11,13

house (1)

 6:4

huge (1)

 13:5

hundred-page (1)

 66:4

hundreds (2)

 9:11;32:10

hurt (1)

 71:16

hurts (5)

 67:2,4;71:16,21,23

I

identified (4)

 21:25;22:16,17,22

ignore (1)

 73:6

III (1)

 27:12

illustrate (1)

 12:18

imagine (2)

 45:3;68:14

immediately (1)

 65:10

impact (2)

 20:17;37:1

impacts (1)

 85:2

implement (1)

 45:3

import (1)

 27:9

importance (1)

 18:24

important (8)

 13:16,16;16:2,8;

 33:15;49:19;70:11;

 85:4

importantly (2)

 39:11;42:23

impossibility (1)

 40:14

impossible (1)

 28:24

incidences (2)

 9:10;15:9

inclined (2)

 29:2;76:3

include (2)

 27:5;28:13

including (9)

 20:5;29:22;32:1;

 38:23;47:19;48:8,21;

 66:23;84:25

inconceivable (1)

 95:17

inconsistent (1)

 74:14

inconvenience (1)

 73:11

incorporates (1)

 48:5

incredibly (1)

 69:12

incumbent (1)

 89:11

independently (1)

 25:21

indicated (1)

 18:6

individual (3)

 8:2;20:24,24

individuals (1)

 9:11

inefficiencies (1)

 65:7

inevitable (1)

 44:13

inexorably (1)

 33:1

infirmity (1)

 91:11

inform (1)

 23:16

information (1)

 33:16

initiated (1)

 49:10

initiating (1)

 66:21

injury (7)

 20:11;24:21;25:7;

 26:9,23;27:3;93:10

instead (3)

 13:12;48:3;75:8

insult (1)

 66:16

insurance (1)

 12:20

intact (1)

 61:3

intellectually (1)

 74:15

intend (1)

 25:6

intent (1)

 45:9

intents (1)

 91:3

interacting (1)

 18:23

interest (2)

 91:22;94:17

interested (4)

 36:24;48:4;58:14;

 81:14

interesting (1)

 50:7

interests (3)

 48:20;49:15;90:6

interim (2)

 46:15;84:2

internally (1)

 18:14

interplay (1)

 18:10

interpret (2)

 26:13;38:9

interrelated (1)

 18:13

interrupt (2)

 35:24;40:22

intimidated (1)

 56:1

into (11)

 21:2,11;25:13;26:5;

 39:13;52:13;55:7;

 57:12;60:17;86:22;

 91:16

inverse (1)

 93:6

investigated (2)

 8:15;9:12

investment (1)

 70:8

invitation (2)

 66:18;68:8

invite (3)

 65:17,20;75:18

invited (2)

 92:5,6

involve (1)

 20:8

involved (9)

 16:1;20:10;22:11;

 26:2;41:9;48:7,9;

 59:17;88:9

involvement (1)

 94:25

involves (2)

 95:5,8

isolation (1)

 37:2

issue (18)

 8:22;11:7,10;13:6,

 19;16:3;20:8,17;32:24;

 77:4;81:17;82:11;86:1;

 91:2;93:4;98:9,13,18

issued (2)

 22:7;89:18

issues (19)

 9:11;14:9;20:8;27:2;

 28:19;29:21;33:1;

 39:17;52:7;62:19;

 75:19,20,21;77:18;

 85:4;92:15;93:6;95:9;

 97:15

italicized (1)

 50:21

item (6)

 6:10,22;18:4;19:21;

 82:1;86:16

items (1)

 76:1

J

jeopardized (1)

 62:8

job (2)

 94:23;98:18

joined (1)

 76:14

Jones (2)

 40:19;41:3

journey (1)

 78:21

judge (8)

 22:21;27:16;46:14;

 69:16;85:5;87:11;88:8;

 95:1

judgment (6)

 22:24;23:16;24:3,13;

 39:20;78:22

judicial (5)

 12:1,25;27:10,15;

 95:22

Julian (8)

 33:21,22,22;34:13,

 15,17;90:13;96:1

JULY (3)

 6:1;71:17;88:21

June (14)

 37:22;38:16,19;

 39:16;40:14;43:4;

 49:20;53:6;56:9;78:12;

 82:19;83:9;87:19;88:3

jurisdiction (1)

 61:8

jurisprudence (1)

 27:9

jury (7)

 11:7,9,15,18;13:24;

 20:25;21:4

justified (2)

 8:9;17:3

K

Karotkin (41)

 6:5,6,9,21,24;7:2;

 17:21;18:1,3,6;21:10;

 36:6;41:22,25;42:2,8,

 15;49:1,8,24;50:13,16,

 18;51:1,3,5,7,10,19,24;

 52:9,12,25;53:3,6;

 59:2;64:10;90:15;94:2;

 96:8,11

Karotkin's (1)

 94:9

keenly (1)

 36:24

keep (7)

 7:17;25:25;41:20;

 44:2;55:9;59:21;82:19

Keeping (1)

 49:19

keeps (1)

 43:3

Kelly (2)

 90:13;94:10

Kevin (1)

 29:14

key (3)

 40:3;50:1;97:4

kind (16)

 12:10,12,14;25:16;

 30:24;53:10;54:13;

 59:24;75:24;77:1;

 80:17;82:10,15,21;

 83:1;84:6

kinds (5)

 11:3,5;23:15;26:4;

 27:1

knee (1)

 71:17

knowing (1)

 22:24

knows (4)

 10:21;11:22;44:7;

 69:1

Kornberg (57)

 34:24;35:1,3,5,8,8,

 16,17,21;36:3,5,11,17,

 19;37:7,19;38:2,9,12,

 15,22;40:24;41:13,17;

 42:13,18;43:7,13,19;

 44:1,5,8;45:7,17,22;

 46:5,7,22;47:9,24;

 49:8;50:3,10;52:15;

 53:16,24;54:17,20;

 55:15;58:10;62:13;

 65:16;68:7;70:25;79:6,

 8;89:15

Kornberg's (1)

 84:5

Kramer (1)

 41:15

L

lack (1)

 97:5

laid (1)

 98:2

landmark (1)

 37:19

language (1)

 74:1

last (6)

 12:4;41:1;45:19;

 66:2;67:11;76:23

late (3)

 29:7;54:10;76:10

late-minute (1)

 31:3

later (4)

 21:18;43:12;75:2;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(8) Hostetler - later Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 109

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

 81:17

law (12)

 25:15;27:6;28:25;

 41:9;68:25;73:22;

 75:22;91:3;93:13,17;

 98:5,12

lawyer (2)

 24:5;38:5

lawyers (7)

 26:2,24;28:1;46:13;

 70:23;84:24;93:22

lead (4)

 49:15,16,16;87:10

leader (1)

 87:9

leaders (1)

 87:10

leadership (2)

 34:3;90:14

leads (1)

 78:24

learned (1)

 15:16

least (17)

 12:4;19:7;20:4;

 39:19;41:8;43:9;44:5,

 25;45:24;55:18,19;

 68:15;69:5;74:4;78:19;

 85:7;86:12

leave (4)

 16:24;26:16;43:8;

 66:16

led (1)

 70:16

left (4)

 21:2;27:23;34:19;

 65:15

legal (5)

 8:16,16;13:25;21:13;

 93:21

legislation (5)

 18:23;37:15;69:11;

 72:2;87:15

legislative (3)

 87:9;88:14,17

legislature (3)

 70:14;87:14;88:21

lend (1)

 25:16

lengthier (1)

 10:4

lengthy (1)

 8:7

less (1)

 75:11

letter (1)

 69:10

letting (2)

 43:7;62:12

level (1)

 27:21

leverage (1)

 74:9

Levin's (1)

 41:15

liabilities (1)

 37:21

liability (1)

 20:22

liberal (1)

 28:22

life (2)

 27:17;70:17

lifetime (1)

 84:24

lift (1)

 90:20

light (1)

 88:24

liked (1)

 67:9

likely (12)

 22:12,19;23:1,2,2,

 18;66:12,14;78:2;83:7,

 24;84:5

limited (6)

 7:17;20:11;48:17,19;

 92:24;93:1

limits (1)

 24:19

line (5)

 19:23;20:3;23:18;

 52:19,19

lines (1)

 88:3

linked (1)

 33:1

liquidate (1)

 24:20

liquidation (1)

 20:17

listen (9)

 32:8;39:6;45:16;

 55:9;61:24;71:18;79:5,

 10;92:10

listened (1)

 56:25

listening (1)

 39:17

literally (1)

 9:11

litigant (1)

 73:11

litigants (1)

 69:17

litigate (1)

 13:3

litigated (1)

 73:3

litigation (14)

 8:7,10,12;9:9;10:23;

 12:20,21;13:8;20:12;

 26:2,25;49:17;90:14;

 95:25

little (16)

 10:11;13:2;15:4,20;

 23:21;40:3;53:22;

 54:10;72:2,11;86:19;

 87:19,25;88:1;91:14,

 15

living (2)

 77:16,19

locked (1)

 25:13

lone (1)

 74:5

long (10)

 9:1;23:2;32:10;34:1;

 55:15;75:12;76:3;79:3,

 3;88:7

longer (1)

 8:10

look (20)

 19:20;20:2;30:25;

 31:1;36:5;53:11;56:25;

 58:13,25;59:8;64:3;

 67:14;72:1;75:4;76:3,

 6,22;77:1;80:21;84:9

looked (2)

 73:22,23

looking (4)

 28:2;46:19;50:14;

 92:24

lose (4)

 67:5,6;82:11,16

losses (1)

 91:24

lost (8)

 14:9;26:5,6,7,8;

 84:22;94:15,16

lot (14)

 15:19,19;16:22;

 23:14,15;32:15;33:1;

 55:24;64:12;82:18;

 84:24;87:7;92:14,14

lots (5)

 13:17;46:13,13;

 54:15;87:14

loud (2)

 69:3;76:19

louder (1)

 91:15

lousy (1)

 75:16

love (1)

 53:10

loved (1)

 26:8

love-fest (1)

 53:13

lucky (1)

 45:13

M

maintain (1)

 14:25

major (3)

 65:21;66:25;68:16

makes (3)

 10:3;49:12;79:4

making (3)

 85:20;86:19;96:1

malicious (1)

 26:23

manage (2)

 30:21;39:14

management (1)

 64:11

mandatory (1)

 98:7

manner (1)

 47:23

many (8)

 23:13;24:22;32:14,

 20;40:2;75:19,21;93:6

March (1)

 78:16

marked (1)

 50:11

massive (1)

 49:16

matter (17)

 9:22;12:15;14:9;

 21:16;22:12;25:4;

 26:21;27:20;55:9;

 59:22;60:6;64:4;67:11;

 72:17,24;75:22;91:3

matters (10)

 13:17;18:16;30:23;

 33:19;39:18;59:15;

 71:9;81:12;88:9;96:5

Matthew (2)

 46:24;47:2

May (13)

 15:9;20:18;24:12;

 25:14;27:6;33:17;

 47:21;48:1;60:17;66:6;

 74:6;88:16;98:20

maybe (12)

 16:23,25;17:1;22:21;

 24:6,6;46:9;64:15;

 66:14;88:16,16;89:3

mean (52)

 8:20;9:1,15,21;14:4;

 20:2;21:2;22:9,10;

 24:4;31:24;34:14;

 35:20;37:25;42:12,13;

 43:17,17,20,21;44:18;

 45:3;46:3;56:21;57:15,

 15;58:6;59:10;62:8;

 63:17;64:8;66:15;67:9;

 68:10,19;72:19,19,23;

 74:10,18,18;80:12,17,

 23;83:24;85:15;86:15;

 87:5;89:6;94:3;97:1;

 98:15

means (6)

 19:6;25:18;37:25;

 45:1;76:10;87:16

meant (2)

 19:25;74:21

meantime (1)

 77:8

media (1)

 59:16

mediated (1)

 71:2

mediation (1)

 87:6

meet (2)

 47:25;77:15

meeting (1)

 92:5

members (1)

 53:17

mentioned (4)

 14:1;47:9,24;65:16

merit (1)

 21:3

merits (2)

 15:24;89:19

message (1)

 7:8

met (2)

 62:21;91:25

metaphor (1)

 75:16

mic (1)

 91:14

mic's (1)

 42:8

middle (1)

 82:23

midnight (2)

 67:11;69:7

might (14)

 22:4,15;24:1;37:10,

 11;39:25;44:13;46:5;

 67:9,11,12;73:10;74:5;

 81:14

Mike (2)

 35:13;53:15

Milbank (1)

 82:4

mind (11)

 19:7;21:21;24:17;

 44:2;49:19;59:13,21;

 73:2;74:16;94:9,9

minds (4)

 94:8,9,10;95:10

mine (3)

 8:2;9:9,11

minimal (1)

 20:13

minute (3)

 28:17;31:2;40:23

minutes (1)

 17:22

mislead (1)

 89:14

missed (1)

 81:3

misunderstood (1)

 85:19

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(9) law - misunderstood Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 110

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

mixed (1)

 41:11

modifications (1)

 50:22

modify (1)

 98:11

moment (4)

 41:6,8;66:17;75:23

momentum (3)

 69:15;72:2,14

Monday (1)

 69:19

month (5)

 55:18;57:24;61:17,

 17;67:5

months (3)

 55:20,22;65:24

more (30)

 7:20;8:11;10:5;11:4,

 4;12:24;16:23;19:9,16,

 17,24;20:21;23:5,21;

 24:13,14,16;27:23;

 30:22;31:22;44:21;

 48:1;52:14;61:17;67:1,

 5;71:5;74:21;78:21;

 95:1

morning (20)

 6:4,5,6,25;10:19;

 29:14,16;33:21;39:16;

 41:7;46:23,24;47:5;

 73:24;81:8;82:3;90:2,

 2,3,3

most (13)

 25:1;30:9;39:8;

 42:23;47:14;49:17;

 50:9;61:1;73:16;83:24;

 92:16,18;93:1

motion (80)

 6:19;15:13;16:21;

 17:8;18:17,19,21;

 19:12,13,13,18;20:9;

 21:8,17;22:16,17;

 23:22;28:6,12;29:11,

 21;30:4,13;31:25;32:1,

 5;34:21;35:19;36:9;

 37:5;42:20,25;44:4,16;

 45:13,14,20;47:10;

 52:6,21;54:5,17,18;

 55:1;59:1;60:9;61:25;

 62:15,18;64:19;65:9,

 25;69:9;72:4,8;73:5,6;

 74:11,12,18;75:5;76:7;

 79:10,11;80:1;81:18;

 83:25;84:4,4,4;86:3,13,

 13;87:4;89:19;90:20;

 96:16;97:16;98:15,16

motions (13)

 17:25;18:11,11,21;

 19:4,8,12;28:4;43:10;

 65:12;73:2;85:1;97:3

movant (1)

 35:14

move (8)

 28:21;29:11;58:15;

 65:10;67:16;79:25;

 84:14;91:14

moved (2)

 79:14;87:19

moving (2)

 70:18;72:5

much (11)

 10:4,5;17:13;40:16;

 57:25;68:24;69:5;73:9;

 75:14,17;93:25

multiple (3)

 37:12;39:23;40:12

multitude (1)

 50:4

multiyear (1)

 16:2

municipalities (1)

 47:20

must (4)

 8:3;37:23;38:19;

 78:23

Myers (1)

 46:25

N

name (4)

 47:1;81:5,6;97:8

names (1)

 41:11

narrow (4)

 42:19;43:5;53:25;

 71:15

narrowing (1)

 78:19

natural (1)

 66:24

necessarily (1)

 27:9

necessary (3)

 18:24;21:19;68:23

need (27)

 9:12;19:24,24;20:20;

 21:11;22:3,6,18,23;

 23:16;24:3,17;27:24;

 42:5,5,12;45:20;46:12,

 16;56:4;75:25;76:1,6;

 81:4;88:2,14;95:15

needed (1)

 90:8

needs (7)

 24:14;31:22;42:10;

 55:19;56:14;72:5;

 91:12

negotiate (1)

 40:6

neighborhoods (1)

 90:9

neutral (1)

 39:1

news (1)

 72:1

Newsom's (1)

 51:11

next (31)

 18:3;22:8;34:2,20;

 42:13,17;45:8;46:16,

 18;48:13;51:2,6;53:3;

 62:16,17,23;63:2,11;

 64:11;65:18,24;69:19;

 73:8;80:24;82:13;83:8,

 11;84:8;87:19;88:3;

 99:13

Nice (1)

 35:1

night (2)

 41:1;67:11

nine (1)

 72:15

Ninth (1)

 6:17

nobody (1)

 73:12

nonbankruptcy (1)

 26:1

None (1)

 22:20

nonexistent (1)

 60:11

non-personal-injury- (1)

 26:15

nor (1)

 22:20

normal (2)

 32:6;38:8

North (2)

 34:3;90:14

note (1)

 50:7

noted (3)

 49:8;50:3,11

noteholder (4)

 35:14;36:24;42:20;

 53:15

notes (3)

 23:10;51:9,17

nothing's (1)

 31:15

notice (1)

 12:1

notion (2)

 24:7;44:13

nowhere (1)

 58:1

number (6)

 6:10;19:21;38:5;

 50:18;55:1;64:4

numbers (2)

 19:20;22:18

O

object (4)

 14:16;54:2,4,25

objection (8)

 6:13;7:19;13:3;

 14:13;54:3;60:4;70:6;

 74:24

objections (1)

 38:7

objectives (2)

 47:15;82:18

observed (1)

 37:12

obvious (1)

 18:9

obviously (8)

 13:6;18:8;44:14,23;

 62:2;68:12,25;80:9

occasionally (1)

 57:22

occasions (1)

 37:12

occur (3)

 38:16;78:14;83:7

occurred (3)

 24:25,25;35:23

occurs (1)

 40:9

October (2)

 21:17;28:18

off (6)

 16:12,13;17:16,19;

 25:3;30:5

offer (1)

 31:5

offered (1)

 33:9

Office (13)

 6:12;31:10;39:21;

 44:25;46:21;49:10;

 50:1;68:8;79:8;88:5;

 89:15;92:10;97:6

officer (1)

 27:15

officers (2)

 80:5;95:22

officer's (1)

 27:10

official (5)

 66:12,13;74:6;82:4;

 90:5

off-the-record (2)

 36:7;70:4

old (4)

 60:15;63:21;70:21,

 22

O'Melveny (1)

 46:25

one (46)

 8:23;10:12;11:8;

 13:25;17:21;19:17;

 21:7;28:21;29:6,17;

 32:15,21;34:16;38:5;

 41:5,5;42:19;44:5,6,8;

 46:12,14;52:1,19;

 53:17;55:1,24;57:24;

 61:9,11;63:19;64:15,

 15,16;66:19;73:7;

 74:13,17;75:23;77:23;

 82:14;85:21,24;88:13,

 19;95:20

ones (1)

 26:8

one's (1)

 14:21

ongoing (1)

 16:2

only (21)

 9:14;26:24;27:10;

 35:24;38:18;52:10;

 64:1;66:9;67:10,24;

 70:17;72:23;73:4;80:7;

 81:11,12;87:19;88:20;

 89:3;95:19,24

oOo- (1)

 6:2

open (2)

 44:17;47:23

openers (1)

 68:15

opening (1)

 95:14

opinion (1)

 89:23

opponents (2)

 58:8;75:20

opportunity (1)

 45:23

opposed (8)

 22:13;68:23;71:7;

 82:6,22;90:20,22;

 91:24

opposes (1)

 54:17

opposing (3)

 29:21;32:4;35:25

opposition (5)

 6:15;21:22;31:25;

 54:11;79:24

oppositions (1)

 75:5

optimistic (1)

 46:4

option (4)

 11:12,13;68:25;

 83:20

oral (4)

 36:9;55:9;79:22;

 89:18

order (12)

 6:3,19;17:5;22:7;

 26:4;34:20;45:11;50:6;

 55:17;84:12;87:5;99:5

orderly (3)

 49:12;52:25;53:4

orders (1)

 25:25

ordinary (1)

 45:17

organization (1)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(10) mixed - organization Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 111

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

 11:25

Orsini (27)

 29:14,14,17,19,25;

 30:2,5,14;31:1,6,9,12,

 16,18,22;32:3,12,14,

 18,21,24;33:6,9,11,20,

 24;34:3

Orsini's (1)

 94:9

others (5)

 41:14;45:24;59:16;

 83:23;98:10

otherwise (2)

 46:9;99:12

ought (2)

 65:21;92:10

out (26)

 6:19;18:25;25:19;

 34:20;40:2;45:4,10;

 49:9;50:6;62:8;65:15;

 70:6;76:15;77:2;78:11,

 18,23;83:12;84:6;85:5;

 86:23;87:3;88:20;

 90:21;95:22;98:2

outcome (2)

 39:10,11

outlines (1)

 68:20

out-of-area (1)

 6:16

out-of-order (2)

 35:2,3

outset (1)

 36:23

outside (1)

 33:12

over (11)

 31:14;40:2;48:13;

 49:9;50:5;58:5;64:12;

 71:21;74:24;84:8;

 92:25

oversight (1)

 83:10

owe (1)

 30:25

own (8)

 8:19;9:14;15:24;

 30:16;52:21;68:6;

 74:15;94:18

owned (1)

 26:6

P

page (20)

 19:19,22;20:3,19;

 23:22;50:8,12,13,15,

 16,16,18,19;51:3,4,5,6,

 7;52:17;67:10

pages (3)

 32:10;34:5;41:21

paid (3)

 12:24;21:1;95:13

paper (1)

 74:18

papers (9)

 11:9;22:2;30:7;

 32:10,15;37:8;58:16;

 59:2;97:24

paragraph (3)

 19:23;59:8;60:8

part (8)

 20:12;21:5;25:1,24;

 26:11;33:11;56:15;

 70:16

parte (1)

 98:25

participate (2)

 38:17;47:22

particularly (7)

 11:5;24:8;25:2;26:1;

 33:2;59:21;87:9

parties (28)

 11:5;18:24;19:3,9;

 24:16;28:23;40:3,6;

 42:21;47:11;48:1,4,12,

 18;49:15,25;56:20;

 65:3;66:9;68:5,20;

 72:15;76:13;83:22;

 87:9;89:11;92:21;

 98:21

party (9)

 28:10,12;47:21,21;

 52:20;64:18;66:19;

 73:11;92:3

party's (1)

 98:5

pass (1)

 81:22

path (1)

 59:6

Paul (1)

 35:8

pay (2)

 31:9;75:14

payers (2)

 39:1,11

payment (1)

 91:23

pending (4)

 10:24;13:8;43:10;

 44:16

people (22)

 13:17;21:24;22:15;

 24:6;29:9;45:23;49:4;

 58:14;59:13;62:6;64:1,

 4;65:8;66:7,21,23;

 68:8;74:2;75:5;76:10;

 84:25;86:22

people's (1)

 85:4

perception (2)

 85:18,19

perceptions (1)

 85:7

perfect (2)

 77:17,18

perhaps (11)

 14:24;19:16;22:16;

 23:5;24:16;44:5;65:14;

 68:9;76:6;78:7;84:20

period (3)

 29:12;64:7;82:15

periods (2)

 61:3;63:3

permissible (3)

 20:4;26:10;27:22

permit (2)

 39:12,22

perpetual (2)

 59:7;68:4

perpetuate (1)

 68:11

personal (9)

 20:11;24:21;25:7;

 26:9,18;27:3;73:11;

 86:18;93:10

personally (2)

 44:24;88:2

persons (1)

 22:14

perspective (10)

 30:9;49:12;62:3,5;

 63:21;66:8;70:16;80:8;

 82:17;92:16

persuade (3)

 13:22;46:9;74:23

persuaded (2)

 24:8,9

persuading (1)

 14:24

persuasive (1)

 16:8

persuasively (1)

 71:5

pertaining (1)

 97:3

Peter (1)

 10:20

PG&E (9)

 7:25;8:8;15:15,17;

 37:21,23;38:17;41:16;

 81:12

PG&E's (3)

 7:19;48:2;90:12

phase (6)

 21:12,12,13,14;94:2,

 5

phases (2)

 21:9,23

philosophical (1)

 24:16

phone (6)

 16:12,14;17:16;

 42:13;80:23;91:18

phony (1)

 73:12

phrase (5)

 25:10,13,19;95:2,3

phrases (1)

 24:4

physical (2)

 25:17;26:8

pick (3)

 24:22;34:14,16

piece (1)

 46:16

pile (1)

 32:10

piles (1)

 41:21

Pitre (2)

 90:14;94:10

pivots (1)

 84:21

place (7)

 22:19;33:18;55:18;

 67:25;83:23;84:5;

 89:20

placed (1)

 75:16

plaintiffs (3)

 23:15;26:4;33:25

plan (61)

 20:5,12;36:25;37:7;

 38:6,20;39:1,7,8,14;

 40:7,10;42:22;43:4;

 47:15;49:20;50:19,24;

 52:18;55:19;56:1;57:8;

 60:25;61:2,3;63:12;

 64:9,9,10;65:7;66:10,

 19;68:6,12,19;69:2;

 70:7,18;73:7;75:9;

 77:17,23;78:2,17,18;

 83:2,4,7;84:11,15;

 86:16,17;88:15,22,23;

 90:21,22;91:2,21,25;

 92:2

planned (1)

 72:19

plans (18)

 39:23;44:10,13,17,

 18;49:14;56:16,22;

 64:2;65:14;66:7;68:19,

 20,20,24;84:7;88:15;

 92:1

played (1)

 70:6

player (2)

 65:21;66:1

players (5)

 45:18;66:25;68:16,

 25;78:18

pleading (2)

 50:8;51:15

pleadings (1)

 19:20

please (3)

 7:8;16:12,16

pleased (1)

 40:15

plight (1)

 16:18

podium (2)

 7:8;54:9

point (30)

 12:7;13:18;15:14,23;

 20:19;24:7;28:15;

 32:21;42:17;43:8;49:1;

 50:9;56:6;61:14;64:11,

 21,24;65:23;70:11;

 71:5;77:18;78:4;83:6;

 90:19;91:6,10,13,20;

 92:13;96:25

pointed (1)

 90:21

points (1)

 90:17

politely (1)

 64:19

popping (1)

 70:25

popular (1)

 95:3

Portland (1)

 20:15

position (7)

 31:7;33:12;75:6;

 78:1;82:6,15;87:14

positions (1)

 54:15

positive (1)

 37:1

possession (1)

 33:13

possibility (1)

 86:2

possible (1)

 43:4

possibly (1)

 21:23

posted (2)

 6:8;7:13

potential (1)

 47:19

potentially (8)

 32:25;40:4;44:10;

 52:22;63:24;64:2;

 77:17;82:16

power (2)

 27:16,17

powers (1)

 25:11

practitioners (1)

 66:23

preaching (2)

 61:10;71:2

precarious (1)

 31:6

precise (1)

 51:20

predicate (1)

 14:7

predict (2)

 22:20,20

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(11) Orsini - predict Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 112

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

prefer (1)

 76:8

preference (5)

 22:14;81:11;97:16;

 98:5,7

preferences (1)

 23:19

pre-judge (1)

 12:6

prejudice (5)

 43:1;45:10;48:18;

 52:2;53:7

prejudiced (1)

 62:9

preliminary (1)

 86:1

preparatory (1)

 96:19

prepared (3)

 36:15;86:6;98:23

pre-petition (1)

 10:21

present (5)

 9:23,24;74:2;78:17,

 17

presented (3)

 20:8;70:15;77:16

preserve (2)

 14:16,21

President (1)

 27:12

presses (1)

 71:16

pressures (1)

 18:23

presumably (3)

 27:19;43:24;45:1

presume (2)

 12:6;43:16

pre-trial (1)

 26:4

previously (3)

 8:3;14:1;33:2

price (2)

 75:13;76:1

prima (1)

 12:15

principal (1)

 45:18

principally (1)

 82:9

principles (1)

 92:22

prior (5)

 30:4,16,19;44:22;

 51:18

privacy (1)

 10:22

pro (1)

 47:4

probably (9)

 34:22;50:19;67:5;

 72:12,12;84:8;89:16;

 91:16;92:10

problem (5)

 47:8;56:10;71:20;

 79:1;90:15

problems (5)

 29:6;42:16;78:25;

 79:1,2

procedural (5)

 15:5;46:15;60:5;

 86:12;97:7

procedure (7)

 30:16,17;33:18;40:8;

 62:24;76:13;98:6

procedures (2)

 23:15;32:6

proceed (2)

 49:17;53:8

proceeding (2)

 50:5;97:8

proceedings (4)

 39:23;40:13;93:2;

 99:15

process (51)

 11:3;13:3,13;14:12;

 18:22;21:8,16;26:11;

 27:22;30:23;39:7,14;

 43:2;45:5,19;47:12,13,

 15,18,25;48:4,4,10,11,

 13,15,20;49:12;51:16,

 19,20;52:25;53:4;

 56:13,14;58:15;60:12,

 22;61:2;65:10;66:24;

 67:16;70:16,18;78:21;

 83:3;89:12;92:22;

 94:24;95:18,21

processes (3)

 44:11;84:17;88:25

procurement (1)

 38:25

professionals (1)

 77:11

profit (2)

 92:25;94:18

profoundly (2)

 35:23;36:21

progress (4)

 43:23;57:7;79:2;

 80:15

promised (1)

 89:19

promotes (1)

 43:3

prompt (1)

 89:19

proof (3)

 10:7;11:1,11

proper (2)

 25:14;28:8

property (4)

 26:6,6,7,15

proponent (1)

 84:11

proponents (1)

 58:8

proposal (13)

 21:16;36:25;42:22;

 49:9;50:20,21;52:10,

 23;59:3,3;71:1;78:19;

 88:13

proposals (7)

 40:7;47:19,20,23;

 56:21;60:25;78:20

propose (8)

 45:6;61:2;66:19;

 68:12;69:2;83:13;

 92:20;93:12

proposed (5)

 20:6;21:22;91:25;

 92:2,2

proposing (2)

 50:10;57:25

proposition (1)

 23:25

Prosser (1)

 25:15

protocol (14)

 40:6;42:22;45:14,14;

 55:18;65:4,14;71:7;

 83:12,16,23;84:5;

 85:16;92:20

protocols (1)

 92:21

provide (3)

 47:22;48:14;92:21

psychological (1)

 85:2

Public (5)

 35:9;37:20;59:12;

 84:25;92:9

published (1)

 89:22

PUC (8)

 35:18;36:23;38:19,

 22;39:5,15;40:10;48:9

PUC's (1)

 49:13

pulling (1)

 31:12

pup (1)

 77:22

purchasers (1)

 47:21

pure (2)

 21:13;26:15

purposes (8)

 20:5;25:8;26:23;

 27:5;43:9;65:8;85:24;

 91:4

pursuant (2)

 60:7,23

pursue (4)

 8:17;13:25;37:7;

 55:17

push (1)

 31:22

put (13)

 16:9;20:20;23:11,18;

 30:7,8;31:20;69:10;

 77:3;80:13;87:15;

 88:19;94:21

putting (4)

 31:6;49:4;71:6;

 77:12

Q

qualifies (1)

 13:7

quantification (1)

 72:6

queue (3)

 16:9;44:4;73:5

quicker (1)

 87:20

quickly (2)

 45:21;53:20

quite (1)

 27:1

quo (1)

 15:1

quote (2)

 24:22;51:15

quoted (1)

 56:19

quoting (1)

 50:20

R

race (1)

 94:18

raise (2)

 14:9;97:13

raised (3)

 75:20;98:21;99:4

raising (1)

 91:1

rate (2)

 39:1,11

rather (6)

 18:10;25:17;42:12;

 61:16;81:22;87:11

reach (1)

 24:6

reached (2)

 40:2;49:9

read (20)

 19:7;21:9;29:5,6;

 38:2;41:1,2;46:15;

 58:15;59:2;60:17;66:4;

 67:17,18,19;69:4;

 70:13;72:8;73:25;

 76:22

reading (5)

 25:24;46:14;51:9,17;

 67:10

ready (2)

 16:24;37:9

real (2)

 53:6;76:4

realistic (1)

 21:18

realize (3)

 24:2;76:7;85:23

really (19)

 16:19;17:3;24:15;

 26:12;27:18;39:13;

 44:8;46:19;55:16;58:1;

 64:18;71:9;72:1;73:9,

 13,13;74:9;76:19;

 94:23

reason (8)

 6:7;27:7,8;43:15;

 90:8,22;94:21;95:13

reasonable (2)

 72:6;95:10

reasoned (2)

 7:24;8:7

reasons (5)

 17:6;44:9;55:1,2;

 79:7

recall (2)

 17:21;26:3

received (1)

 40:25

recent (3)

 37:3,15;51:11

recently (3)

 26:21;35:22;50:4

recite (1)

 17:6

recommendations (1)

 96:1

record (12)

 17:7,7;36:8;53:14;

 59:13;60:17;76:20;

 77:5,7;81:5;96:16;97:1

refer (2)

 37:15;59:21

reference (1)

 41:3

referenced (1)

 12:10

references (1)

 20:1

referred (1)

 53:16

regard (1)

 35:25

regarded (1)

 82:23

regret (1)

 87:18

regular (1)

 34:8

Regulatory (1)

 8:9

reject (1)

 93:16

rejected (1)

 70:15

relate (4)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(12) prefer - relate Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 113

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

 18:17;19:11,11,16

related (3)

 15:5;25:23;38:20

relates (2)

 19:17;98:4

relating (1)

 38:24

relevant (5)

 14:6;15:12;24:24;

 58:25;60:18

relief (28)

 7:12,18,21;8:4,9;

 9:22;12:13,16,19;13:7,

 11;17:3,24;18:10,16,

 21;19:12;22:4;23:8,17;

 24:9;28:4;43:10;78:25;

 81:3;95:16,17;98:15

relief-from-the-stay (1)

 39:18

rely (1)

 13:13

remain (2)

 17:10;61:3

remarks (1)

 51:11

remember (5)

 41:4,6,8;74:22,23

remembered (1)

 41:4

reminded (1)

 18:22

reminder (1)

 90:8

rented (1)

 26:7

reorganization (2)

 12:2;56:16

reorganized (1)

 38:24

repeat (4)

 14:3;27:24;78:5;

 88:1

rephrase (2)

 28:5;44:23

reply (9)

 28:16;29:24;30:8;

 41:1;57:6;58:16;69:4;

 77:3;98:24

replying (1)

 29:10

report (6)

 43:23;45:8;79:7;

 80:11,12,14

reported (1)

 20:15

represent (1)

 65:20

representatives (1)

 65:17

represented (2)

 40:19;41:3

represents (1)

 42:2

request (23)

 8:3;35:2,3,6,18,25;

 40:21;42:18;43:5;

 44:15,15;54:1;62:13;

 65:1;76:4;79:23;81:18;

 82:7,22;89:16;96:6;

 97:6;98:25

requested (2)

 16:7;22:7

requesting (4)

 7:18;33:25;35:18;

 60:9

requests (1)

 28:22

require (2)

 39:18;88:17

required (1)

 38:23

requirements (1)

 39:1

researched (1)

 25:21

resembles (1)

 15:25

reserve (1)

 73:18

resisted (1)

 18:13

resolution (11)

 12:22;16:24;20:11;

 24:7;38:16;39:9,15,18;

 40:14;43:14;93:2

resolve (6)

 11:3;23:24;37:23;

 92:15,18;93:4

resolved (3)

 6:11;8:23;16:25

resources (1)

 12:25

respect (9)

 6:10,22;12:5;29:23;

 60:25;61:21;70:17;

 88:12;98:5

respected (1)

 23:20

respectfully (1)

 54:1

respond (8)

 10:12;13:15;19:3;

 31:5;35:21;36:15;

 45:23;59:24

responded (1)

 98:17

respondents (1)

 30:24

responding (1)

 29:10

responds (1)

 10:2

response (12)

 7:19;19:2;22:4;

 28:13,13;30:3,15;

 31:24,25;32:1,5;98:25

responses (8)

 14:8;19:8;28:3,5,8,

 11,12;64:5

responsibility (1)

 95:22

responsive (3)

 19:24;32:1;37:8

rest (1)

 77:2

result (6)

 12:21;43:2;47:16;

 59:6;71:2;91:23

retaining (1)

 83:8

retention (1)

 6:11

review (1)

 29:3

revisit (2)

 12:5;16:6

revolving (1)

 97:15

rhetoric (1)

 24:3

rhetorical (1)

 21:14

Rifkind (1)

 35:9

right (95)

 7:3;8:13,13,19,24,

 25;9:4,6,15,18,19,20;

 10:2,3,8,10,18;11:14,

 14,20;13:25;14:5,17,

 23;15:14,14,18,21;

 17:15;22:18;27:23;

 28:16;30:2,6;34:9,9,18,

 18;35:4,16;36:2;37:6,

 18;38:21;39:24;41:18;

 43:17;44:4;49:23;

 51:23;53:8;57:23;

 59:25;60:13;61:11;

 62:4;63:15;66:1;68:22;

 69:2,2;72:20,23;77:25;

 79:15;80:21,23;81:17,

 17;82:8,12;83:5,14,17,

 21;85:7,13,13;86:24;

 87:2,17;88:12,18;89:5;

 90:11;94:6,12;96:14,

 15;97:10;98:1,5,7,12;

 99:11

rights (9)

 14:9,21;15:3;17:9;

 20:24;50:4;52:2;62:6;

 85:4

rise (1)

 26:17

rising (1)

 41:25

risk (3)

 13:4;75:8;76:11

risky (1)

 88:1

road (1)

 58:1

roadblock (1)

 78:11

Robert (1)

 33:22

role (4)

 44:24;82:23;88:7;

 89:21

rookie (1)

 77:21

room (9)

 10:14,14;45:1;49:5;

 70:22;79:21;80:24;

 81:2;86:22

rooms (1)

 78:16

route (1)

 44:10

rude (1)

 62:11

rule (7)

 14:20;16:14,20;67:7,

 9;74:11;83:24

rules (2)

 32:7;66:23

ruling (19)

 14:20;17:12;23:13;

 44:16;61:25;67:12;

 79:22,22;85:1,12,17,

 20,21;86:1,1,3,19,20;

 89:19

run (1)

 80:9

running (2)

 84:6,16

rushed (1)

 92:19

S

safety (1)

 39:10

salient (1)

 50:9

same (15)

 15:9;23:4;25:23;

 37:9;49:4;50:15,16,17,

 19;55:10;64:16;73:8,

 14;76:7;80:10

SAN (3)

 6:1;20:16;22:10

satisfactory (1)

 16:23

satisfied (1)

 61:20

saw (4)

 40:25;41:7;57:6;

 98:24

saying (18)

 17:8;32:8,9;49:5;

 50:20;54:17;69:16;

 73:15;75:24;76:3,5;

 79:3;80:9;86:2,18;

 87:19;89:7,11

schedule (6)

 7:9;28:2;43:15;45:2;

 78:15;88:4

scheduled (1)

 76:9

scheduling (1)

 60:6

screen (1)

 42:2

sea (1)

 90:6

seated (1)

 10:14

second (6)

 17:21;21:7;23:4;

 44:6;91:13,20

Section (2)

 27:14;37:22

securitizement (1)

 70:9

seek (1)

 33:6

seeking (1)

 29:20

seem (1)

 50:15

seems (4)

 73:13;74:3;87:25,25

sees (1)

 13:10

segue (1)

 81:3

selection (1)

 66:24

senior (2)

 80:1;96:16

sense (11)

 17:6;21:25;22:6;

 30:9;49:12;66:1;74:5;

 79:4;80:13,14;83:1

sent (1)

 36:6

sentence (2)

 51:18;67:18

separate (2)

 20:25;28:9

separation (1)

 25:11

September (2)

 12:4,6

sequence (2)

 30:22;95:16

sequential (1)

 65:12

series (1)

 74:1

set (18)

 11:1;12:20;15:11;

 17:4;30:13;34:2;44:21;

 45:20;47:25;48:15;

 58:5;63:15;79:6,13,14,

 16;95:18;99:2

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(13) related - set Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 114

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

setting (2)

 97:2,5

settle (4)

 11:6;15:15,16;69:20

settlement (1)

 24:6

settling (1)

 69:17

seven (2)

 30:18,20

several (2)

 35:22;36:20

shall (1)

 98:11

share (2)

 49:13;82:18

shareholder (3)

 41:12,22;42:7

shareholders (1)

 76:23

sheet (10)

 37:8;52:15,15,17,17;

 74:21,21;75:9,12;

 77:12

sheets (1)

 68:20

she-said (1)

 57:12

short (5)

 28:24;45:10;62:8;

 71:20;90:17

shorthand (1)

 96:17

show (1)

 64:1

showing (1)

 12:14

shown (1)

 62:14

shows (1)

 70:2

shut (1)

 69:24

shy (1)

 96:1

sic (2)

 30:12;51:13

sick (1)

 58:4

side (4)

 53:21;70:23;84:21;

 85:21

sides (1)

 16:5

sign (1)

 7:1

signed (1)

 72:8

significant (6)

 35:22;36:20;73:3;

 84:11;85:2;92:16

silent (1)

 54:16

similar (3)

 7:20;8:2;98:16

simplifying (1)

 78:20

simply (4)

 14:24;17:9;91:22;

 94:7

single (1)

 9:10

sit (6)

 10:16,16;36:13;

 69:24,25;76:17

sitting (3)

 39:16;81:2;87:18

situation (6)

 15:25,25;71:8;83:19,

 22;84:7

six (1)

 89:23

slight (1)

 74:3

slightly (2)

 22:5,15

slow (1)

 88:6

so-called (1)

 33:3

solved (1)

 90:15

solves (1)

 79:1

solving (1)

 78:25

somebody (3)

 24:13;73:10;85:3

somehow (2)

 14:8;21:5

someone (6)

 10:14;46:21;61:6;

 71:3;78:13;98:17

sometimes (4)

 30:21;69:20;86:25;

 87:1

somewhat (2)

 7:17;24:2

sophisticated (1)

 66:22

sorry (11)

 7:7;16:11;19:21;

 23:10;25:25;28:4;32:6;

 47:1;51:3;55:13;62:25

sort (3)

 26:4;46:15;82:22

sorting (1)

 78:18

space (2)

 11:24;12:4

span (1)

 9:12

spare (1)

 72:15

speak (3)

 36:3;43:7;79:21

SPEAKER (4)

 30:18;34:22;41:18,

 19

speaking (1)

 58:17

special (2)

 12:12;34:8

specialized (5)

 8:10,15,17;9:3;12:21

specific (7)

 22:1;23:22;32:2;

 44:21;67:1;91:2,25

specifically (9)

 19:16,18;20:2,21;

 22:8;37:15;45:6;61:6;

 88:12

specificity (3)

 75:17,18;84:20

specter (1)

 70:18

speculation (1)

 24:3

spend (3)

 53:22;83:11;84:8

spent (1)

 77:11

spirit (1)

 32:22

spitting (1)

 91:16

split (1)

 27:20

spoken (2)

 58:21;77:14

sponsor (1)

 66:10

sponsorship (1)

 61:1

staff (3)

 28:24;59:14,16

stages (3)

 9:9;10:24;12:19

stakeholders (4)

 47:20;50:24;60:24;

 83:4

Stamer (123)

 35:13,13,15,25;36:1,

 3,13,14,15,17;46:9,20;

 48:25;49:6;53:9,11,14,

 15,20;54:5,8,12,19,21,

 23,25;55:4,6,11,13,22,

 23;56:11,23,25;57:4,6,

 10,13,15,18,20,23;

 58:13,19,21,24;59:19,

 23;60:1,4,7,14,17,20;

 61:12,14,16;62:2,10,

 15,17,21,25;63:2,5,7,9,

 12,14,16,20;64:14,22,

 24;65:3;66:2,6;67:4,8,

 14,20,22;68:1,3,13;

 69:3,8,15,21,23;70:1,5,

 13,20;71:4,12,21,23,

 25;72:10,13,21;73:18,

 21;74:5;76:16,19,22;

 77:1,6,9,14,22;78:1,6;

 79:18;80:7,16,18,20;

 83:16;85:11

Stamer's (5)

 41:1;52:1;79:24;

 80:3;83:25

stand (1)

 83:15

standard (2)

 61:21;62:22

standing (2)

 82:25;87:13

start (5)

 34:6;53:24;75:17;

 96:9;98:19

started (1)

 75:4

state (14)

 8:18,18,20;13:8;

 14:10;18:8;23:6;25:24;

 26:2;27:6;48:22;81:4;

 85:20;98:12

stated (3)

 8:3;17:7;39:4

state-law (1)

 26:23

statement (8)

 19:18,22;20:3;21:3;

 56:19;63:13,18;64:16

statements (3)

 53:25;56:4;84:16

States (2)

 6:12;51:14

state's (2)

 38:25;47:15

stating (2)

 17:7;27:8

status (4)

 15:1;18:7;32:22;

 97:5

statute (11)

 24:22,23;25:4,6,19;

 37:22,24;38:9,19,23;

 50:3

statutory (1)

 60:24

stay (28)

 7:12,19,21;8:9;9:22;

 12:13,16,19;13:7,12;

 17:3,10,24;18:10,16,

 21;19:12;22:4;23:8,17;

 24:9;28:4;43:10;78:25;

 81:3;95:16,17;98:15

stays (2)

 83:23;84:5

step (2)

 35:18;36:20

stick (4)

 6:7;23:9;81:16;

 96:23

sticking (1)

 89:2

still (10)

 12:22;13:22;15:8,10;

 17:23;24:16;28:3;90:2,

 3;93:21

stop (1)

 70:21

streamlining (1)

 78:20

stress (1)

 94:7

strikes (1)

 85:20

strings (1)

 37:22

strokes (1)

 78:8

strong (1)

 98:6

structure (2)

 38:24;39:8

struggling (1)

 21:21

stuff (1)

 41:2

subject (7)

 17:10;20:18;54:16;

 57:11;80:8;81:21;

 88:24

subjects (1)

 19:10

submission (1)

 40:7

submit (2)

 17:5;51:24

submitted (2)

 60:22;72:18

subpoenaed (1)

 33:14

subrogation (15)

 18:11;19:12;22:2,17;

 37:4;40:18;64:17;65:9;

 68:9,15;73:5;74:12;

 79:11;86:13;98:16

subrogation's (1)

 76:6

subset (1)

 94:25

substance (1)

 59:11

substantive (4)

 54:3;59:15;98:8,12

success (2)

 45:2;50:1

successful (5)

 39:15;42:23;44:3,15;

 61:18

successfully (1)

 18:25

succinct (1)

 19:5

suffered (1)

 26:8

sufficient (1)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(14) setting - sufficient Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 115

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

 57:7

suggest (5)

 31:13;40:3,5;81:13;

 97:23

suggested (1)

 49:21

suggesting (2)

 9:2;81:14

suggestion (3)

 82:14;95:25;98:20

suggests (1)

 7:25

suit (1)

 14:7

Sunday (1)

 69:20

superior (11)

 8:20;9:2;10:24;

 16:25;22:9,10,11,13,

 21;23:12;94:24

support (4)

 40:17;48:3;53:25;

 91:21

supportive (2)

 60:2;83:22

suppose (3)

 20:21;62:13,13

supposed (4)

 27:19;56:7;63:23;

 98:21

Supreme (1)

 93:5

sure (26)

 22:6;24:5;28:9,18;

 32:20;36:14,16,18;

 40:24;42:6;45:24;49:3;

 54:12;57:10;58:15;

 62:10,10;63:17;71:12;

 74:15;77:3;78:6;83:18;

 88:10;95:12;97:12

surprised (1)

 82:22

suspect (1)

 65:22

sustainable (1)

 39:8

swinging (1)

 70:2

sympathetic (1)

 16:17

system (3)

 78:11;88:2,10

T

table (6)

 13:18;25:3;65:18,20,

 22;66:25

talk (10)

 17:22;33:17;42:8;

 58:14;65:6,18;70:7,8;

 83:17;84:15

talked (2)

 46:17;94:22

talking (9)

 41:12;42:15;58:8;

 70:21;71:6;80:2;85:3,

 4;93:25

tax-exempt (1)

 88:22

TCC (14)

 18:15;19:13;22:1,16;

 23:22,24;33:9,23,25;

 34:3;68:9;90:5,19;

 98:16

TCC's (1)

 23:5

tee (1)

 65:14

teed (1)

 45:15

telescoped (1)

 82:10

telling (3)

 6:16;68:11;73:9

ten (1)

 45:23

tend (2)

 27:6,6

tentative (2)

 79:22,22

tenure (1)

 27:17

term (17)

 25:14;37:8;52:15,15,

 16,17;54:5;68:20;

 74:20,21;75:9,11;

 77:12;80:2;95:2;96:17;

 97:5

terminate (22)

 37:5;42:20;47:10;

 52:21;59:1;60:10;61:7,

 22;64:5,7,9;65:1,9,12,

 25;69:10;70:25;71:19;

 74:23;83:25;86:4;

 96:17

terminated (2)

 65:5;70:19

terminating (3)

 39:22;49:14;71:6

termination (3)

 10:22;54:6;63:3

terms (6)

 7:20;75:12;80:14;

 82:17;84:9;88:10

terribly (1)

 56:1

terrific (1)

 37:11

thankful (1)

 79:3

theory (1)

 27:22

there'd (1)

 64:15

therefore (4)

 27:14;56:5;79:24;

 85:21

there'll (5)

 16:23;24:6;44:5;

 74:4;85:16

thinking (1)

 73:1

third (2)

 27:24;92:13

third- (1)

 47:20

third-party (1)

 88:6

thirteen (1)

 22:14

thirteenth (1)

 43:21

thirty (1)

 77:20

thirty- (1)

 73:23

thirty-five (1)

 52:17

thirty-six (1)

 32:13

thirty-three (1)

 50:7

thirty-two (1)

 67:10

thoroughly (1)

 73:2

though (1)

 84:23

thought (6)

 16:13;42:7;58:23;

 69:17;73:23;98:19

thoughts (3)

 18:6;19:14,15

thousands (1)

 34:5

threatening (1)

 58:6

three (6)

 19:8;44:10;68:16,19;

 81:10;90:17

throughout (1)

 58:16

throw (1)

 58:10

ticket (1)

 76:1

ticking (1)

 88:11

till (1)

 88:2

time- (1)

 56:7

timeline (8)

 22:3;40:9;42:23;

 48:10;60:12,22;61:3;

 95:16

timing (2)

 85:24;92:14

tipped (1)

 72:25

today (20)

 7:9;12:9;14:21;17:7;

 18:16;19:2;34:19;

 49:21;50:10;55:9,22;

 58:4;61:13,25;62:14;

 64:9;67:7;81:10;87:13;

 99:2

today's (3)

 15:13;43:9;74:18

together (8)

 18:14;32:25;34:23;

 48:13,19;65:6;71:7;

 77:12

told (5)

 15:23;28:10;70:24;

 73:13,14

tomorrow (2)

 64:10;73:7

took (3)

 72:7,17;77:2

top (1)

 30:5

tort (13)

 24:21;25:7;27:4;

 37:8;40:18;84:11;90:5,

 16;91:13,20,22;92:18;

 93:3

Torts (2)

 25:15;93:10

total (1)

 92:15

touch (1)

 41:13

touched (1)

 98:14

toward (1)

 12:2

towards (4)

 57:7;59:6;61:5;72:5

track (3)

 25:25;41:21;43:3

traditional (2)

 30:22;74:21

train (1)

 88:6

transparent (6)

 47:12,23;48:5,14;

 59:12;61:4

treatment (2)

 12:12;95:4

tremendous (1)

 77:11

trial (24)

 11:1;12:20;13:24;

 14:17;15:10;20:25;

 21:15,17;22:24;23:1,8,

 9,11,14,14,18,23;

 24:10;27:13;61:24;

 69:19,19;81:10,12

trials (2)

 56:7;78:16

tribunal (3)

 8:10,15;12:21

tried (3)

 23:3;51:10;79:21

true (3)

 8:5;64:16;89:20

truly (1)

 72:1

trust (4)

 20:11;90:24;91:3,4

Trustee (1)

 6:12

try (11)

 19:5,5;25:6;44:22;

 49:24;55:17;83:12;

 86:22,23;89:11,12

trying (12)

 28:22;41:2;42:8;

 44:25;46:11;57:9;

 64:18;78:10;84:8;

 87:10;93:22,22

Tubbs (6)

 20:22;23:7,11,18,23;

 25:2

tune (1)

 75:3

Turn (5)

 16:12;39:12;55:7;

 57:12;89:23

turned (2)

 16:13;17:18

twenty- (1)

 32:10

twenty-five (2)

 53:17;59:3

twenty-four (1)

 29:1

twist (1)

 49:11

two (53)

 18:21;19:12,17,20;

 20:14,15;22:5,5,14;

 27:8;28:25;34:11;

 42:20,22;43:1,16,17,

 18,19;45:4,9,24;47:11;

 48:13;51:21,21;53:3,7;

 54:17;55:8,10,15,16,

 16;57:24;58:5,9;61:16;

 63:18;65:18,24;66:12;

 73:8,14;74:6;76:16;

 82:13;83:11;84:9;89:4,

 8,9,10

two- (1)

 72:18

two-month (1)

 87:24

two-page (1)

 73:24

two-week (7)

 49:21;51:13;54:1;

 60:9,20;82:14;87:25

type (3)

 25:18;50:21;55:17

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(15) suggest - type Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 116

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

typical (3)

 37:10,11,13

U

ultimate (1)

 85:23

ultimately (1)

 11:6

Um-hum (8)

 6:25;8:21;9:25;

 14:11;15:7;33:5;62:20;

 65:2

undefined (1)

 47:24

under (15)

 17:3;26:14;27:13;

 29:7;37:22;47:13;50:3;

 55:10;67:11;68:25;

 72:24;89:22;93:16;

 98:5,12

underestimate (1)

 69:12

underlined (2)

 50:11;74:1

Understood (11)

 54:12;56:11;57:23;

 59:23;60:7;77:9,9;

 80:16,18,18;86:5

undeveloped (1)

 26:5

undocumented (1)

 58:1

undoubted (1)

 14:15

unfortunate (1)

 68:24

unfortunately (1)

 16:18

unhappy (1)

 52:2

unhelpful (1)

 44:19

UNIDENTIFIED (4)

 30:18;34:22;41:18,

 19

uniform (1)

 98:6

unintended (1)

 86:20

unique (1)

 37:14

United (1)

 6:12

universe (1)

 62:6

unless (4)

 11:13;29:12;34:19;

 97:10

unlike (1)

 12:16

unlikely (2)

 47:25;61:18

unlimited (2)

 39:25;40:1

unliquidated (3)

 24:21;25:1,7

unprecedented (2)

 58:1;71:8

unpunished (1)

 77:10

un-risky (1)

 88:1

unsecured (2)

 82:4;96:17

unsuccessful (1)

 44:3

unusual (3)

 35:5,17,18

up (34)

 7:5,7;16:9;17:23;

 21:5;30:11;31:12;

 32:21,25;33:24;34:23;

 41:11;44:16;45:11,15;

 53:4,9;56:22;58:11;

 59:2;62:14;64:1;65:14;

 69:24;73:2,12;74:11;

 76:20;77:6;83:15;85:1;

 88:3;96:3;97:7

upon (4)

 13:13;72:14,14;

 98:14

up-or-down (1)

 13:18

upstairs (1)

 37:18

urged (1)

 40:6

urging (1)

 78:24

USC (5)

 24:19;26:13;27:9,14;

 98:10

use (5)

 12:25;48:18;50:22;

 92:17;93:2

used (1)

 7:21

using (3)

 37:23;74:9;80:2

usual (1)

 88:24

Utilities (3)

 35:10;37:20;92:9

utility (1)

 9:17

V

Valero (8)

 8:11;9:8,10;10:5;

 11:23;12:3,17;16:5

valuable (1)

 69:12

valuation (1)

 90:16

value (5)

 49:16;78:17,18;

 85:19;92:16

variation (1)

 26:12

variety (1)

 20:8

various (3)

 19:3;48:7;91:24

versus (1)

 8:22

veteran (1)

 38:5

veterans (1)

 70:22

viable (1)

 57:7

victims (4)

 18:10;23:19;48:21;

 95:13

view (22)

 6:18;11:24;28:16;

 37:1;43:13;45:24;

 49:13,13;56:12,13,14;

 57:18,20,20,24;64:12,

 21;71:5;77:15;86:18;

 92:24;93:1

viewed (1)

 38:15

views (1)

 61:21

violent (2)

 55:13;83:15

virtually (1)

 11:5

vitally (1)

 49:19

voting (1)

 20:5

W

Wait (1)

 54:4

waiting (2)

 34:20;99:5

waiving (1)

 14:22

wants (6)

 66:18;71:13;79:20;

 85:12;90:5;97:10

warrant (1)

 12:11

waste (4)

 61:16,16,17;63:24

wasting (1)

 56:4

watchers (1)

 72:25

waved (1)

 41:7

way (27)

 8:23;23:23;25:21;

 26:19;34:4;47:14;

 49:17;53:8;60:15;

 63:22,22;64:6,12;67:1;

 68:23;74:19;75:23;

 76:3,5;78:12;79:3,19;

 84:3,21;88:4;92:18;

 94:13

ways (2)

 27:8;89:13

wedded (1)

 83:2

WEDNESDAY (2)

 6:1;31:2

week (6)

 34:2;46:3;65:24;

 72:19;73:8;99:13

weekend (4)

 31:14,17;40:2;49:9

weeks (39)

 42:20,22;43:1,16,17,

 18,19;45:4,9,24;46:16;

 47:11;48:13;51:21,21;

 53:3,7;54:17;55:8,10,

 15,16,16;57:24;58:5,9;

 61:16;63:18;65:19;

 73:8,14;82:13;83:12;

 84:9;89:4,8,9,10,23

weigh (2)

 45:24;54:18

Weiss (1)

 35:8

welcome (2)

 67:21,22

welcomed (1)

 75:11

welcomes (1)

 52:20

welcoming (1)

 77:19

weren't (2)

 58:23;65:16

Wharton (1)

 35:9

what's (13)

 17:22;20:1;21:22;

 28:19;30:3,17;62:4;

 63:10;71:20;81:16;

 85:19;94:8;98:3

whenever (1)

 74:20

whereas (2)

 9:11;91:24

Whereupon (1)

 99:15

wherewithal (2)

 68:5;84:12

whichever (2)

 34:4;69:11

whole (3)

 71:19;72:7;89:9

who's (1)

 21:9

wildfire (3)

 20:4;37:21;38:17

wildfire-related (1)

 39:9

willful (2)

 26:23;27:4

willing (6)

 52:21;56:20,20;

 58:14;63:20;66:9

wins (1)

 94:18

wish (1)

 47:21

withdrawal (1)

 6:18

withdrawn (1)

 6:13

within (2)

 47:16;83:7

without (6)

 6:16;17:8;19:11;

 68:5;81:13;94:25

Witkin (1)

 25:15

wolf (1)

 74:5

word (5)

 24:23,23;37:23;

 59:12;85:5

words (5)

 21:2;25:12;44:22;

 50:22;65:15

wordy (1)

 62:25

work (10)

 14:13;26:24;31:14;

 39:25;48:19;63:23;

 65:6;83:12;84:2;86:23

worked (2)

 31:17;57:1

workers (2)

 39:10;48:21

working (5)

 24:17;42:9;48:12;

 65:4;72:10

works (4)

 14:14;63:22;84:3;

 89:12

world (5)

 45:19;52:5;73:17;

 92:24;93:1

worst (1)

 73:15

worth (1)

 70:11

worthy (1)

 98:13

write (1)

 89:22

writing (1)

 46:13

written (3)

 21:11;46:14;71:8

wrong (3)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(16) typical - wrong Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 117

of 118
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088

July 24, 2019

 30:16;66:20;80:2

wrongful (4)

 10:22;24:21;25:7;

 26:18

wrongful-death (1)

 26:16

wrongfully (1)

 7:25

wrote (1)

 61:11

Y

year (2)

 9:12;15:10

years (2)

 52:16;77:20

yesterday (5)

 29:1;36:7;50:8;

 73:23,24

yields (1)

 39:7

Z

zero (1)

 86:2

1

1 (5)

 6:22;21:12,13,23;

 94:2

10 (1)

 19:23

1054 (1)

 70:16

11 (5)

 36:22;37:24;38:20;

 48:7;50:6

11:29 (1)

 99:15

11:30 (3)

 96:21,23;97:2

1121 (3)

 61:6;63:22;65:4

11th (2)

 31:20;32:2

12 (1)

 23:22

13th (9)

 79:13,15,16,17;80:3;

 86:9,10;89:21;96:18

14 (1)

 97:19

14th (5)

 30:4,13;32:25;44:22;

 79:10

157 (4)

 26:13;27:9,14;92:23

157b2B (1)

 24:19

2

2 (7)

 6:11;21:12,14,23;

 59:8;60:8;74:19

20 (1)

 49:20

2001 (1)

 74:19

2016 (1)

 15:9

2019 (1)

 6:1

2020 (7)

 37:23;38:19;39:16;

 40:14;43:4;82:20;83:9

2075 (1)

 98:10

21 (1)

 30:23

22 (5)

 19:19,19,22;20:3,19

24 (1)

 6:1

24th (1)

 71:17

28 (5)

 24:19;26:13;27:8,13;

 98:10

28-14-7 (1)

 30:22

29th (1)

 87:19

3

3 (1)

 94:5

30 (4)

 37:23;38:17,19;53:6

3091 (2)

 19:21,22

30th (6)

 49:20;56:10;78:12;

 82:19;83:9;88:3

31st (4)

 34:8,13;46:3,3

3291 (1)

 37:22

33 (1)

 19:22

36a (1)

 98:6

4

4 (3)

 19:23;52:19;77:1

450 (1)

 66:18

5

5 (1)

 50:18

502c (1)

 26:14

523a6 (3)

 26:24;27:2,4

6

6 (3)

 20:3;51:3,8

7

7 (1)

 30:23

7th (8)

 21:18;28:7,19;29:8,

 19;30:7;31:13;34:9

8

800-pound (1)

 33:3

9

9 (1)

 50:12

9:30 (3)

 80:3;96:18,20

9:31 (1)

 6:1

9th (21)

 34:10,11,11;46:3,6;

 52:3,6;67:2,6,7;71:17,

 18;76:12;79:7;80:4;

 83:14,15;86:3;96:19;

 97:2;99:14

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(17) wrongful - 9th Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 118

of 118