1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Trodella & Lapping LLP

540 Pacific Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94133

Richard A. Lapping (SBN: 107496)

Trodella & Lapping LLP

540 Pacific Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94133

Telephone: (415) 399-1015

Facsimile: (415) 651-9004

 Rich@TrodellaLapping.com

Attorneys for Valero Refining Company-California 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION,

-andPACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

□ Affects PG& Corporation

■ Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

□ Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case,

No. 19-30088 (DM).

Case No.: 19-30088-DM

Chapter 11

DECLARATION OF JOHN COX AND 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM STAY BY VALERO REFINING 

COMPANY-CALIFORNIA

Date: February 26, 2019

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Place: Courtroom 17

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor

San Francisco, California

Judge: Hon. Dennis Montali

I, John Cox, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice in the State of California and admitted to 

the bar of the Northern District of California. I am a partner with the firm of Law Offices of John 

Cox, P.C., and am one of the attorneys of record representing Valero Refining Company-California 

(“Valero”) in VALERO REFINING COMPANY-CALIFORNIA, a Delaware corporation v. 

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation, pending as Case No. 2:17-cv01350-TLN-EFB in United States District Court for the Eastern District of California before the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 1

of 54
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Trodella & Lapping LLP

540 Pacific Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94133

Honorable Troy L. Nunley, United States District Judge (the “District Court Action”). I make this 

declaration in that capacity and, if called upon to do so, I could and would testify of my own 

personal knowledge to the facts set forth herein.

2. This declaration (the “Declaration”) is submitted in support of the Motion for Relief 

From Stay by Valero Refining Company-California (the “Motion”) and in support of this Request 

for Judicial Notice. 

3. Except as otherwise indicated, all statements set forth in this Declaration are based 

upon my personal knowledge or my review of relevant records and documents. If called upon to 

testify, I could and would testify competently to the facts set forth in this Declaration.

4. The Court is requested to take judicial notice of the First Amended Complaint in the 

District Court Action, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

5. The Court is requested to take judicial notice of the ECF Docket maintained in the 

District Court Action, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 

6. All fact discovery, including 19 depositions, has been completed in the District Court 

Action, and all expert depositions (seven in all) except one (the eighth) have been taken. 

7. The facts and legal issues in the District Court Action are complex and vigorously 

disputed. The case is complex and difficult due to the highly technical electrical engineering and 

refinery operations evidence and testimony expected regarding the responsibility for the outage that 

occurred on May 5, 2017. 

7. Attached hereto as Exhibits 3 and 4 are copies of insurance policies produced to 

Valero by Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) in the District Court Action. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing information is true and correct.

Dated: February 5, 2019

/s/ John Cox

 John Cox

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 2

of 54
EXHIBIT 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 3

of 54
- 1 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

JOHN COX, CASB No. 197687 

NATHAN R. JASKOWIAK, CASB No. 248007

ALEXANDER J. BUKAC, CASB No. 305491

KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN 

A Professional Corporation

450 Pacific Avenue

San Francisco, California 94133 

Telephone: (415) 398-6000 

Facsimile: (415) 981-0136 

WATTS GUERRA, L.L.P.

MIKAL C. WATTS (admitted pro hac vice) 

FRANCISCO GUERRA IV (admitted pro hac vice) 

MARK A. FASSOLD (admitted pro hac vice) 

Four Dominion Drive

Bldg. 3, Suite 100 

San Antonio, Texas 78257

Telephone: (210) 527-0500 

Facsimile: (210) 527-0501

Attorneys for Plaintiff

VALERO REFINING COMPANY -- CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALERO REFINING COMPANY --

CALIFORNIA, a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a 

California corporation; 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:

1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; 

2. BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT;

3. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE;

4. BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD 

FAITH AND FAIR DEALING;

5. NEGLIGENCE

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 1 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 4

of 54
- 2 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

Plaintiff VALERO REFINING COMPANY – CALIFORNIA (“Valero”) states the following 

for its Complaint against Defendant PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (“PG&E”):

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. On May 5, 2017, Defendant PG&E breached its duties, contractual and otherwise, 

resulting in a complete power outage to Valero’s Benicia refinery (“The Refinery”). The loss of 

power caused an emergency shutdown of the Refinery, an extended period of flaring and significant 

damage to the complex Refinery equipment. The Refinery remained out of service for an extended 

period of time depriving Valero of revenues and causing fuel supply disruptions in Northern 

California. In causing the incident PG&E, among other things, breached its contractual duty to 

reasonably and diligently provide reliable electric power to the Refinery and failed to exercise 

reasonable care or diligence in designing, constructing, maintaining and operating its electrical 

system, all of which resulted in substantial damage to Valero.

2. Valero has leased the Bahia Substation from PG&E. Valero relies on PG&E to provide 

power to the Bahia Substation, which in turn powers the Refinery. 

3. Valero contracted with PG&E in order to ensure that electric power would always be 

available to the Refinery. The Refinery, and the sophisticated equipment operated within the 

Refinery, requires reliable electric power in order to function safely and efficiently. As PG&E was 

well aware, the failure to provide continuous and reliable power to the Refinery presented a safety risk 

to the public, a safety risk to employees and contractors at the Refinery, and damage to the equipment 

involved in the refining process. 

4. PG&E knew or should have known that reliable electric power is critical to Refinery 

operations, and that Refinery equipment operates under extremely high heat and pressure conditions. 

PG&E further knew or should have known that an unplanned power dip or outage at the Refinery can 

cause damage to Refinery equipment and create hazardous conditions. Furthermore, PG&E knew or 

should have known that unplanned power dips or outages can present serious safety issues to Refinery 

employees and members of the community, including the risk of explosions, fires, and serious injury 

or death. 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 2 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 5

of 54
- 3 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

5. PG&E and its employees engaged in the conduct alleged herein causing significant 

damage to Valero. Under the principles of corporate liability and respondeat superior, PG&E is liable 

for the actions of its agents and/or employees with respect to the events alleged herein because they 

were acting within the scope of their agency and employment and for the benefit of PG&E. 

6. Notwithstanding PG&E’s duty to provide reliable electric service to the Refinery, and 

its knowledge of the potentially adverse effects of its failure to do so, PG&E failed to act reasonably 

in the design, construction, management, maintenance and operation of its equipment and facilities, 

resulting in a refinery-wide electrical outage to the Refinery on May 5, 2017, and significant damage 

to Valero as described herein.

THE PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Valero is a Delaware Corporation with refining and retail operations located 

on the west coast and having its principal place of business and corporate headquarters located in San 

Antonio, Texas. The Valero Benicia Refinery is one of the most complex refineries in the United 

States, and operates at a capacity of 165,000 barrels per day. Approximately 70% of the Refinery’s 

product slate is California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) gasoline, which amounts to 10% of the 

clean-burning CARB gasoline used in California and twenty-five percent (25%) of the CARB gasoline 

used in the San Francisco Bay Area. Valero employs approximately 480 personnel at its Refinery in 

Benicia California. The Refinery is certified by Cal/OSHA as a Cal/VPP Star site, a designation that 

recognizes employers whose occupational safety and health programs are exemplary. Valero is 

committed to operating its refineries in an environmentally responsible manner, and to promoting the 

health and safety of employees, customers, and the communities where it does business. 

8. Defendant PG&E is a California corporation having its principal place of business 

located at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California 94105. PG&E is a subsidiary of PG&E 

Corporation, and is one of the largest regulated investor-owned electric utilities in California. On its 

website (http://www.pge.com), PG&E represents that its service area covers from Eureka in the north 

to Bakersfield in the south, from the Pacific Ocean to the Sierra Nevada. It claims to operate 

141,215 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,616 circuit miles of interconnected 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 3 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 6

of 54
- 4 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

transmission lines throughout this area. According to its website, PG&E maintains 5.4 million electric 

customer accounts. 

JURISDICTION & VENUE 

9. This Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because the 

parties are citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of 

interest and costs.

10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over PG&E because PG&E resides in this State, 

does business in this State, has engaged in acts or omissions within this State causing injury, and has 

otherwise established contacts with this State making the exercise of personal jurisdiction proper.

11. The claims asserted herein do not fall within the jurisdiction of the California Public 

Utilities Commission. See Fenholt v. So. Cal. Edison Company, (2014) Proposed Decision (D. ) 13-

07-014, at 1 (“the Commission lacks jurisdiction to award compensatory damages”); Elder v. Pacific 

Bell Telephone Co., 205 Cal. App. 4th 841, 848 (2012) (Section 2106 of the Public Utilities Code 

“confirms the full power of the courts to pass judgment on what utilities do”). 

12. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) because PG&E 

resides in this District, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the action 

occurred in this District because the Benicia Refinery, where the outage occurred, is located in this 

District.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

13. Pursuant Local Rule 120(d), intradistrict assignment to Sacramento is proper because 

the unlawful conduct that gives rise to this litigation occurred in the County of Solano. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

14. The Refinery is located in Benicia, California. The Refinery produces a variety of fuel 

products such as propane, butane, California Air Resources Board (CARB) gasoline, ultra-low-sulfur 

diesel (ULSD), jet fuel, fuel oil, residual oil and asphalt.

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 4 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 7

of 54
- 5 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

15. A source of consistent and reliable electric power is essential to around the clock 

operation of the Refinery. Proper shutdown and startup of the sophisticated mechanical equipment 

that drives the Refinery’s operational processes can take up to a week or more. This machinery is 

therefore particularly sensitive to sudden and unexpected reductions in power or power outages—all 

of which can result in unanticipated Refinery shutdowns. Such service interruptions include outages 

caused by the failure to use reasonable diligence by the Refinery’s energy provider, PG&E. These 

unanticipated shutdowns pose a substantial risk of harm and damage to the Refinery’s sophisticated 

equipment and production output, which in turn impacts the availability of end products to consumers 

as well as Valero’s profitability. 

16. The consequences of unanticipated reductions in power and power outages can impact 

the safety of Refinery employees as well as the surrounding community. Outages at oil refining 

facilities in particular can pose particularly disastrous consequences, including explosions and/or fires 

resulting in property damage and serious injury or death to individuals, as well as serious environmental hazards precipitated by the unexpected and unintended release of harmful materials. Electric 

utilities, including PG&E, are well aware of these risks.

17. PG&E provides electric service to the Refinery. PG&E’s provision of electric services 

to the Refinery is governed by several agreements. 

18. Under a Special Agreement for Electrical Standby Service (“Standby Agreement”), 

Valero receives service pursuant to Schedule S, “Standby Service,” and in accordance with and 

subject to PG&E’s applicable rates and rules as regularly established. Term and Condition 1 of the 

Standby Agreement provides: 

Customer has requested PG&E to stand ready at all times to deliver or 

supply and deliver electric energy to Customer’s premises on an asneeded basis. Such standby service shall be provided to Customer in 

accordance with and subject to PG&E’s applicable rates and rules as 

established from time to time by, and on file with, the California Public 

Utilities Commission (Commission).

See Exhibit A (emphasis added). 

19. Under a Generation Operating Communication Agreement (“Communication 

Agreement”), PG&E agreed to “give advance notice (minimum of 7 days), of plans to perform work, 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 5 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 8

of 54
- 6 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

which will affect Valero’s access to the PG&E electric system. See Exhibit B. The Communication 

Agreement also incorporates by reference the PG&E Interconnection Handbook and Electric Rules 2, 

14, and 21. See id. 

20. Electric Rule No. 14 “Shortage of Supply and Interruption of Delivery” provides: 

PG&E will exercise reasonable diligence and care to furnish and 

deliver a continuous and sufficient supply of electric energy to the 

customer, but does not guarantee continuity or sufficiency of supply. 

PG&E will not be liable for interruption or shortage or insufficiency of 

supply, or any loss or damage of any kind of character occasioned 

thereby, if same is caused by inevitable accident, act of God, fire, 

strikes, riots, war, or any other cause except that arising from its failure 

to exercise reasonable diligence. 

See Exhibit C (emphasis added).

21. PG&E provides both the primary and backup electrical power for the Refinery. Valero 

contracted with PG&E for the allocation of a redundant powerline, which serves as the Refinery’s 

backup power source and is intended to prevent unplanned power interruptions. The PG&E Vaca 

Dixon 230 kilo-volt (“KV”) powerline on circuit breaker CB212 and the PG&E Moraga 230 KV 

powerline on circuit breaker CB242 are both independent of each other so that each powerline 

functions as a back-up power supply to the other. Each powerline has over a 100 megawatt (“MW”) 

capacity. A typical Refinery load is 65 MW. Therefore, the Refinery does not require access to both 

PG&E powerlines lines at the same time to provide full power. 

22. The Refinery also has a Cogeneration Unit (“Cogen”) that can provide up to 47 MW of 

power. However, the Cogen is not the Refinery’s backup power supply. Although the Cogen is 

connected in parallel with the PG&E powerlines, it cannot operate when the Refinery suddenly loses 

all PG&E power because Cogen supply is rated 47 MW, or 18 MW less than the Refinery 65 MW 

load. In this situation, the Cogen equipment becomes overloaded and the Cogen circuit breaker trips. 

23. PG&E failed to design, construct, maintain and operate its equipment and services in a 

reasonably diligent manner such that sufficient power could be provided to the Refinery. On May 5, 

2017 when the Valero side of the Bahia Substation became isolated from the PG&E Electrical grid, 

without notice and through no fault of Valero and solely because of PG&E’s actions, the Refinery 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 6 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 9

of 54
- 7 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

suffered a complete loss of power. During this event, caused solely by PG&E’s own actions, PG&E 

could no longer provide Standby service in accordance with its agreement with Valero. 

THE MAY 5, 2017 POWER OUTAGE

24. On March 20, 2017, PG&E notified Valero that PG&E was planning three electrical 

line clearances, which had previously been scheduled to be performed in February of 2017. The 

originally scheduled clearances were cancelled because a PG&E tower, on the PG&E Moraga line, 

was in danger of falling due to a mudslide. The rescheduled line clearances were set to begin on 

May 1, 2017 and continue through May 12, 2017. 

25. On the evening of May 4, 2017, PG&E completed the first of the three scheduled 

electrical line clearances.

26. Valero is informed and believes that sometime prior to the early morning of May 5, 

2017, the PG&E Moraga line experienced a failed coupling capacitor voltage transformer (“CCVT”). 

A CCVT is a transformer used in power systems to step down extra high voltage signals and provide a 

low voltage signal, for instrumentation metering or operating protective control relays.

27. On May 5, 2017 at approximately 6:40 a.m., while PG&E was performing the second 

of three scheduled electrical line clearances, the Refinery experienced a complete loss of 230 KV 

electrical utility power from PG&E. The power outage occurred when the PG&E Moraga line 

experienced a failed CCVT, followed by PG&E de-energizing the Vaca Dixon line to perform the 

scheduled line clearance at the Bahia Substation. Although the Moraga line was still energized, 

PG&E’s failed CCVT sent a false voltage signal to simultaneously open Valero’s three circuit 

breakers, CB476, CB486 and CB496, causing the Refinery to lose all power from both the PG&E 

Vaca Dixon and Moraga 230 kV powerlines, the Refinery’s primary and backup power sources. The 

loss of both PG&E lines also forced Valero’s Cogen offline, which is designed to occur in the event of 

a 230 kW loss of PG&E power because the Cogen’s 47 MW rating is not sufficient to power up the 

65 MW average demand of the Refinery. 

28. Although PG&E was aware of the CCVT equipment failure on the Moraga line and 

knew or should have known that de-energizing the Vaca Dixon line to perform the scheduled 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 7 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 10

of 54
- 8 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

maintenance while a CCVT equipment failure existed on the Moraga line would cause a complete loss 

of power to the Refinery, PG&E failed to notify the Refinery and failed to take preventative steps to 

avoid a total loss of electrical power to the Refinery. 

29. PG&E restored power to the Bahia Substation just before 7:00 a.m., however power in 

the Refinery was not restored until approximately 7:50 a.m., with the Refinery power distribution 

system not being completely normalized until after 3:00 p.m. 

30. The complete loss of electrical power from PG&E on May 5th caused a Refinery-wide 

emergency shutdown, a result that was foreseeable to PG&E. 

31. The Refinery’s process units and boilers shut down and depressurized. Due to the 

abrupt nature of the emergency shutdown, the Refinery was unable to go through the systematic 

process it follows for planned shutdowns that allows the Refinery to minimize emissions and ensure 

safe operations and protect equipment. Because the May 5th shutdown was abrupt and unforeseen to 

Valero, substantial equipment damage and heavy flaring occurred after the Refinery lost power and 

was forced to shut down. 

32. Flares are an industrial safety device designed to safely dispose of products in a 

controlled manner to protect employees and the community. The sudden loss of PG&E electrical 

power caused the Refinery to flare on May 5th while emergency shutdown procedures were followed 

to safely shut down the Refinery. The Refinery also flared on several subsequent occasions as Valero 

attempted to bring units back online following the power outage. The emergency shutdown caused 

substantial damage to the Refinery’s property and equipment. 

33. As a result of the May 5, 2017 PG&E power loss and resulting flaring, the City of 

Benicia issued an evacuation order for the Benicia Industrial Park and two neighboring elementary 

schools were ordered to shelter-in-place. 

34. Further, as a result of the May 5, 2017 PG&E power loss, flaring, and resulting 

emergency shutdown of the Refinery, to date Valero has received eleven (11) Notices of Violation 

(“NOVs”) from the Bay Area Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) for excess visible 

emissions and public nuisance violations. 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 8 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 11

of 54
- 9 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

35. Following the May 5th PG&E power loss, the Refinery began the process of evaluating 

and repairing the extensive damage caused by the loss of power to ensure all Refinery units could be 

brought safely back online and the Refinery could resume normal operations. As a result of having to 

take most of the Refinery units offline to evaluate the damage and complete repairs, Valero lost a 

substantial amount of profits, all of which are damages proximately caused by PG&E’s negligence. 

Due to the damage caused by PG&E’s power loss, the Refinery was unable to resume normal 

operations until June 5th, 2017. 

36. By letter dated May 16, 2017, Valero provided PG&E notice of its potential claim and 

requested PG&E preserve all evidence related to the May 5th power outage in anticipation of 

litigation. By letter dated May 26, 2017, Valero also provided PG&E notice that Valero has suffered 

substantial damages as a result of the May 5th power outage. 

37. Although Valero has repeatedly requested technical answers about the May 5th power 

loss and permission to participate in PG&E’s incident investigation process, PG&E has not been 

cooperative. Importantly, PG&E has not provided Valero with an assurance that a complete power 

loss to the refinery will not occur again, nor has PG&E accepted responsibility for the damage caused 

by the loss of PG&E power on May 5, 2017. 

First cause of action

(Breach of Contract)

38. Valero incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 

through 37 of this Complaint. 

39. PG&E had a contractual obligation to exercise reasonable care when supplying 

electricity to the Refinery.

40. Valero and PG&E entered into a Special Agreement for Electrical Standby Service on 

December 31, 2002. The Standby Agreement constitutes a binding contract between Valero and 

PG&E. See Exhibit A.

41. Under the Standby Agreement, Valero receives service pursuant to Schedule S, 

“Standby Service,” and in accordance with and subject to PG&E’s applicable rates and rules as 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 9 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 12

of 54
- 10 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

regularly established. Term and Condition 1 of the Standby Agreement provides that PG&E will 

“stand ready at all times to deliver or supply and deliver electric energy to [Valero’s] premises on an 

as-needed basis.” Exhibit A. 

42. Valero and PG&E entered into the Generation Operating Communication Agreement 

on June 5, 2008. The Communication Agreement constitutes a binding contract between Valero and 

PG&E. See Exhibit B. 

43. Under the Communication Agreement, PG&E agreed to “give advance notice 

(minimum of 7 days), of plans to perform work, which will affect Valero’s access to the PG&E 

electric system.” See Exhibit B. The Communication Agreement also incorporates by reference, 

among others, Electric Rule 14 “Shortage of Supply and Interruption of Delivery” provides: 

PG&E will exercise reasonable diligence and care to furnish and deliver 

a continuous and sufficient supply of electric energy to the customer, but 

does not guarantee continuity or sufficiency of supply. PG&E will not 

be liable for interruption or shortage or insufficiency of supply, or any 

loss or damage of any kind of character occasioned thereby, if same is 

caused by inevitable accident, act of God, fire, strikes, riots, war, or any 

other cause except that arising from its failure to exercise reasonable 

diligence. 

See Exhibits B and C. 

44. Valero has properly performed and complied with all terms and conditions under the 

Standby Agreement, except for any terms and conditions which have been excused, prevented, 

waived, and/or released by PG&E. 

45. PG&E breached the Standby Agreement by failing to “stand ready at all times to 

deliver or supply and deliver electric energy to [Valero’s] premises on an as-needed basis.”

46. Valero has properly performed and complied with all terms and conditions under the 

Communication Agreement, except for any terms and conditions which have been excused, prevented, 

waived, and/or released by PG&E. 

47. PG&E breached the Communication Agreement by failing to “give advance notice 

(minimum of 7 days), of plans to perform work, which will affect Valero’s access to the PG&E 

electric system,” and by failing to “exercise reasonable diligence and care to furnish and deliver a 

continuous and sufficient supply of electric energy to the customer.” 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 10 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 13

of 54
- 11 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

48. Valero made a reasonable effort to minimize the damage caused by PG&E’s breach of 

the Standby Agreement and the Communication Agreement. 

49. However, as a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of PG&E’s breach of the 

Standby Services Agreement and the Communication Agreement, Valero has suffered damages 

including, but not limited to the following: 

a. Costs and expenses to restore operations at the Refinery after the shutdown that 

was caused by the unexpected and unplanned power outage; 

b. Costs and expenses to repair the facilities at the Refinery after the shutdown 

that were damaged as a result of the unexpected and unplanned power outage; 

c. Costs and expenses related to Valero’s investigation of the unexpected and 

unplanned power outage; 

d. Lost earnings and profits resulting from the decrease in production output at the 

Refinery caused by the unexpected and unplanned power outage; and 

e. Harm to Valero’s reputation. 

50. The loss of power resulted in damages for Valero, as described more fully above. The 

exact amount of damages will be proven at trial, but is in excess of Seventy-Five Million Dollars 

($75,000,000). 

Second cause of action

(Breach of Implied Contract)

51. Valero incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 

through 37 of this Complaint. 

52. Valero pleads this cause of action as an alternative to its cause of action for Breach of 

Contract, as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(2). 

53. Valero and PG&E engaged in a course of conduct that made PG&E aware of Valero’s 

manifest need for a reliable source of electrical power. 

///

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 11 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 14

of 54
- 12 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

54. Valero and PG&E engaged in a course of conduct that made PG&E aware of the 

importance of providing Valero with notice of any plans to perform work that could affect Valero’s 

access to the PG&E electrical system. 

55. The course of conduct between the parties was such that Valero retained a reasonable 

expectation that Valero would receive reliable electrical power from PG&E. 

56. The course of conduct between the parties was such that Valero retained a reasonable 

expectation that PG&E would provide Valero with notice of any plans to perform work that could 

affect Valero’s access to the PG&E electrical system. 

57. An implied contract for PG&E to provide continuous and reliable power to the 

Refinery existed between Valero and PG&E. 

58. An implied contract for PG&E to provide notice of any plans to perform work that 

could affect Valero’s access to the PG&E electrical system existed between Valero and PG&E. 

59. PG&E breached the implied contracts by failing to provide notice to Valero of work 

that could affect Valero’s access to the PG&E electrical system. 

60. PG&E breached the implied contracts by failing to provide continuous and reliable 

electrical service to the Refinery on May 5, 2017. 

61. Valero has properly performed and complied with all terms and conditions under the 

implied contracts, except for any terms and conditions which have been excused, prevented, waived, 

and/or released by PG&E.

62. Valero made a reasonable effort to minimize the damage caused by PG&E’s breach of 

the implied contracts.

63. However, as a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of PG&E’s breach of contract, 

Valero has suffered damages including, but not limited to the following: 

a. Costs and expenses to restore operations at the Refinery after the shutdown that 

was caused by the unexpected and unplanned power outage; 

b. Costs and expenses to repair the facilities at the Refinery after the shutdown 

that were damaged as a result of the unexpected and unplanned power outage; 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 12 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 15

of 54
- 13 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

c. Costs and expenses related to Valero’s investigation of the unexpected and 

unplanned power outage; 

d. Lost earnings and profits resulting from the decrease in production output at the 

Refinery caused by the unexpected and unplanned power outage; and 

e. Harm to Valero’s reputation. 

64. The loss of power resulted in damages for Valero, as described more fully above. The 

exact amount of damages will be proven at trial, but is in excess of Seventy-Five Million Dollars 

($75,000,000). 

Third cause of action

(Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purpose)

65. Valero incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 

through 64 of this Complaint. 

66. Valero informed PG&E, both orally and in writing that it wished to secure a reliable 

source of electricity to its Refinery in order to power its operations for the particular purpose of safely 

powering Valero’s complex petroleum refining and processing operations. Valero further informed 

PG&E, both orally and in writing, that fluctuations or interruptions to electrical service to the Refinery 

would cause severe damage to Valero’s equipment and operations. 

67. Valero is a unique customer of electrical power because it relies on a significant and 

constant supply of electrical power from PG&E in order to safely operate the Refinery. Unlike most 

customers, Valero has entered into several written contracts with PG&E relating to the supply of 

electrical power, including but not limited to the Standby Services Agreement and the Communication 

Agreement. Valero is also a unique customer because an unexpected loss of electrical power for even 

a small period of time can lead to a significant risk of harm and damage to the Refinery’s equipment 

and production output, as was the case with the May 5 outage. 

68. Valero relies on PG&E’s skill, judgment and representations to provide a reliable 

source of electric service to the Refinery in order to power its operations. 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 13 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 16

of 54
- 14 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

69. PG&E therefore knew or should have known at the time it entered into the Standby 

Agreement and the Communication Agreement that Valero intended to utilize electric service for the 

particular purpose of safely powering its complex petroleum refining and processing operations, and 

that fluctuations or interruptions in electrical service to the Refinery would cause severe damage to 

Valero’s equipment and operations. 

70. PG&E knew, prior to execution of the Standby Agreement and the Communication 

Agreement, that Valero had to rely on PG&E’s skill, judgment and representations in furnishing 

electrical service suitable for Valero’s particular purpose of safely powering its complex petroleum 

refining and processing operations. 

71. PG&E was obligated under an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose to 

provide Valero with electrical service that was fit for Valero’s particular purpose of safely powering 

its complex petroleum refining and processing operations, which included—among other things—

electrical service free from fluctuations and service interruptions. 

72. However, as a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of PG&E’s breach of the 

implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, Valero has suffered damages including, but not 

limited to the following:

a. Costs and expenses to restore operations at the Refinery after the shutdown that 

was caused by the unexpected and unplanned power outage; 

b. Costs and expenses to repair the facilities at the Refinery after the shutdown 

that were damaged as a result of the unexpected and unplanned power outage; 

c. Costs and expenses related to Valero’s investigation of the unexpected and 

unplanned power outage; 

d. Lost earnings and profits resulting from the decrease in production output at the 

Refinery caused by the unexpected and unplanned power outage; and

e. Harm to Valero’s reputation. 

73. The loss of power resulted in damages for Valero, as described more fully above. The 

exact amount of damages will be proven at trial, but is in excess of Seventy-Five Million Dollars 

($75,000,000). 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 14 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 17

of 54
- 15 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

Fourth cause of action

(Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) 

74. Valero incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 

through 73 of this Complaint. 

75. The Communication Agreement included an implied covenant of good faith and fair 

dealing. 

76. Valero has properly performed and complied with all terms and conditions under the 

Communication Agreement, except for any terms and conditions which have been excused, prevented, 

waived, and/or released by PG&E, and there were no conditions precedent relieving PG&E of its 

obligation to perform. 

77. The purpose of the Communication Agreement is to facilitate the exchange of 

information and maintenance plans that have the potential to affect Valero’s access to PG&E’s 

electrical supply. 

78. PG&E failed to inform Valero of the failed CCVT on the Moraga line and instead 

proceeded with the line clearance on the Vaca Dixon line as scheduled on May 5. PG&E’s failure to 

communicate information about the compromised CCVT prior to the Vaca Dixon line clearance was 

in contravention of the purpose of the Communication Agreement, and unfairly interfered with 

Valero’s right to receive the benefits of the Communication Agreement.

79. To the extent that PG&E argues that notice of the failed CCVT was not required 

pursuant to the express terms of the Communication Agreement, PG&E nevertheless breached the 

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to provide notice to Valero of important 

information solely within PG&E’s knowledge and control that PG&E knew or should have known 

could affect Valero’s access to the PG&E electrical system. 

80. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of PG&E’s breach of the implied 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Valero has suffered damages including, but not limited to the 

following: 

a. Costs and expenses to restore operations at the Refinery after the shutdown that 

was caused by the unexpected and unplanned power outage; 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 15 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 18

of 54
- 16 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

b. Costs and expenses to repair the facilities at the Refinery after the shutdown 

that were damaged as a result of the unexpected and unplanned power outage; 

c. Costs and expenses related to Valero’s investigation of the unexpected and 

unplanned power outage; 

d. Lost earnings and profits resulting from the decrease in production output at the 

Refinery caused by the unexpected and unplanned power outage; and 

e. Harm to Valero’s reputation. 

81. The loss of power resulted in damages for Valero, as described more fully above. The 

exact amount of damages will be proven at trial, but is in excess of Seventy-Five Million Dollars 

($75,000,000). 

Fifth cause of action

 (Negligence) 

82. Valero incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 

through 81 of this Complaint. 

83. PG&E owed a duty to Valero to exercise reasonable care and caution in the design, 

construction, inspection, maintenance and operation of the electrical service provided to the Refinery 

at a level or amount commensurate with the amount of harm that would foreseeably result from a 

power outage at the Refinery. In no way can PG&E abrogate its duty to exercise reasonable care to 

avoid unnecessary risks of harm to Valero and the Refinery. 

84. PG&E knew or should have known, based on its ongoing relationship with Valero and 

its longstanding provision of electrical service to the Refinery, that a reliable supply of electricity is 

imperative to avoid serious damage and loss of operation to the Refinery. PG&E assured Valero that 

it was committed to providing a reliable supply of power to the Refinery. PG&E acknowledges that it 

is responsible for damages arising from its failure to exercise reasonable diligence and care to furnish 

and deliver a continuous and sufficient supply of electric energy to the customer. PG&E further 

acknowledges that it is responsible for damage that results from its own negligence. 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 16 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 19

of 54
- 17 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

85. PG&E knew or should have known that the consequences of a power outage at a 

refinery are much more severe than those faced by ordinary electrical customers. Sophisticated 

refinery machinery is particularly sensitive to loss of power and steam caused by electrical power 

outages or electrical service interruptions, resulting in unanticipated shutdowns. Unscheduled 

shutdowns can not only damage refinery equipment, but they also compromise production, which in 

turn affects profitability. Moreover, unplanned service interruptions that cause unanticipated 

shutdowns can also create significant safety and environmental issues and apprehension throughout 

the surrounding community, including explosions, fires, personal injury, and death. 

86. PG&E knew or should have known that Valero relies on its provision of electrical 

service to operate the Refinery on a continuous basis, and that carrying out maintenance or other 

activities in a manner that could jeopardize the availability of that supply pose a significant risk that 

the Refinery would experience a total loss of power under the circumstances described herein. 

87. PG&E had a duty to Valero to exercise ordinary care in providing electrical services to 

the Refinery. PG&E breached its duty of care by, inter alia: 

a. Failing to provide notice to Valero about the CCVT equipment failure that 

occurred at the Bahia substation; 

b. Failing to take preventative steps to prevent the incident; 

c. Failing to design, construct, inspect, maintain and operate the sources of power 

supplying the Refinery in a manner to avoid unexpected power failure;

d. Failing to provide Valero the required advance notice of maintenance on PG&E 

power sources; 

e. Failing to train and supervise employees in order to avoid operational and/or 

equipment failure; 

f. Failing to maintain and/or upgrade to current standards its existing sources of 

power to the Bahia Substation in order to avoid unexpected power failure in an event similar to 

circumstances described herein;

///

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 17 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 20

of 54
- 18 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

g. Failing to design, construct and implement a plan that would ensure the 

continued provision of electric power to the Refinery in the event that transmission lines were lost and 

the Bahia Substation was isolated from the PG&E grid; and 

h. Actively dismantling the Refinery’s primary backup power. 

88. Further, ignoring the CCVT utility equipment failure report posed an extreme risk of 

danger to the health and safety of the employees at the Refinery as well as the surrounding 

communities to the point that such failure to take preventative steps once such report was made 

constitutes a failure to exercise even scant care, with an indifference to human life, and extreme 

departure from the ordinary standard of conduct on the part of PG&E. At all times PG&E was aware 

of such heightened degree of danger but still proceeded the way it did, ignoring the warning signs, and 

causing all of the damages claimed by Valero described herein. 

89. Valero made a reasonable effort to minimize the damage caused by PG&E’s negligent 

provision of electrical service to the Refinery.

90. However, as a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of PG&E’s breach of duty, 

Valero has suffered damages including, but not limited to the following: 

a. Costs and expenses to restore operations at the Refinery after the shutdown that 

was caused by the unexpected and unplanned power outage; 

b. Costs and expenses to repair the facilities at the Refinery after the shutdown 

that were damaged as a result of the unexpected and unplanned power outage; 

c. Costs and expenses related to Valero’s investigation of the unexpected and 

unplanned power outage; 

d. Lost earnings and profits resulting from the decrease in production output at the 

Refinery caused by the unexpected and unplanned power outage; and 

e. Harm to Valero’s reputation. 

91. The loss of power resulted in both general and special damages for Valero, as described 

more fully above. The exact amount of damages will be proven at trial, but is in excess of SeventyFive Million Dollars ($75,000,000). 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 18 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 21

of 54
- 19 - 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB 

KYL4835-1100-9358.1

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

26

27

28

WHEREFORE, Valero prays for judgment against PG&E as follows: 

1) For damages according to proof; 

2) Restitution;

3) For costs of suit incurred herein; and 

4) For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

DATED: September 11, 2017 /s/ Nathan R. Jaskowiak 

JOHN COX

NATHAN R. JASKOWIAK

ALEXANDER J. BUKAC

KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN 

MIKAL C. WATTS 

FRANCISCO GUERRA IV

MARK A. FASSOLD 

WATTS GUERRA, L.L.P.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

VALERO REFINING COMPANY --

CALIFORNIA

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 19 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 22

of 54
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 20 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 23

of 54
Distribution 

Division 

Customer 

_ Tariffs and Compliance 

_ Electric Billing Solutions 

QFLOG#~~~~~ 

Premise# _____ _ 

Acct# -------- / Ve>J (}cc,f- "IC> 5(;jl.f-s 5 3 6 'I-j 6' 

fVL llp-'fY1f rD ~&Cf ~S ~ (;>o c.S' 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S 

SPECIAL AGREEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL STANDBY SERVICE 

This is an agreement, between VALERO REFINING COMPANY - CALIFORNIA, a 

(Customer), and PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E). This agreement 

will be herein referred to as "Agreement". 

Customer has requested PG&E to provide standby service at Customer's premises at 

3400 East Second Street, Benicia, Calfornia, County of Solano, California, under 

one of the standby options designated below: 

[ ] Option 1 - Standby service for customers whose supply requirements would otherwise 

be delivered through PG&E owned facilities (including Independent System Operator 

controlled transmission facilities), are regularly and completely supplied through 

facilities not owned by PG&E. 

The non-utility owned generating facilities have a total rated capacity of 

approximately kVA. 

All PG&E power deliveries will be made under Schedule S -- Standby SeNice. 

[ ] Option 2 - Standby service for customers who regularly take electric service from 

another public utility but desire PG&E to reserve its generation, transmission or 

distribution capacity for their use: 

Customer currently is supplied regular electric service from another utility's 

generation, transmission, or distribution system; Customer may be alternately 

served by PG&E by means of a double-throw switch. Both PG&E and the other 

utility have consented to this arrangement. Customer's maximum demand from 

electric equipment on his premises is kW. 

All PG&E power deliveries will be made under Schedule S. 

This option will expire the day after the Commission ends the rate freeze ordered by 

Assembly Bill 1890. 

[ ] Option 3 - Standby service for customers who require PG&E to reserve transmission 

or distribution capacity and stand ready at all times to deliver electricity on an 

irregular or non-continuous basis: 

Customer has a) a premise which is normally, in part but not in whole, served by 

non-utility owned generation facilities with a total rated capacity of less than 50 

percent of Customer's maximum demand for that premise, orb) a premise which 

qualifies for back-up service under the provisions of Special Condition 7 of Schedule 

Form 79-285 

Page 1 of 4 

Revised October 2002 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 21 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 24

of 54
S (See Option 4) but chooses not to elect Option 4 or currently lacks the necessary 

on-site metering to bill Option 4 properly, or c) electrical equipment which is used on 

an irregular or non-continuous basis. The total rated capacity of Customer's 

generation facilities or irregularly utilized equipment is kV A. 

Customer will be billed for all PG&E power deliveries on the otherwise applicable 

rate schedule; however, Special Conditions 1 through 6 and 8, 9, and 1 O of 

Schedule S will also apply to Customer's service. 

[X] Option 4 - Standby service for customers who do not meet the criteria described in 

Option 1 and 2 above, but elect to receive back-up and maintenance portion of their 

total standby requirements under the provisions of Special Condition 7 of Schedule 

S: 

At least 50 percent of Customer's maximum electric demand is served by a nonutility owned generator, and all necessary metering has been installed (by May 1 , 

1994, or the effective date of the contract) by PG&E to separately measure 

Customers net on-site generation and on-site load requirements. Customer would 

otherwise, except for such generation, qualify for service under Schedule E-19 

(mandatory), E-20 or E-25. 

Customer will be billed for the back-up and maintenance portion of the premises' 

total service requirements under the provisions of Special Condition 7 of Schedule S, 

and for its ordinary supplemental power requirements (on-site load in excess of the 

capability of the customer's non-utility owned generation) under the provisions of the 

otherwise applicable rate schedule. All back-up and maintenance power deliveries 

by PG&E will be billed in accordance with Schedule S, subject to a Summer Season 

Operating Capacity Adjustment of _Q_ kW. 

PU Code 353 exemption: 

Standby service for customers who qualify for exemption under PU Code 353 and 

elect to take this exemption. 

[ ] Customers with supplemental power requirements: 

For customers with supplemental power requirements (on-site load in excess 

of the capability of the customer's non-utility owned generation) under the 

provisions of the otherwise applicable rate schedule, Special Conditions 1 

through 7 of Schedule S will not apply. (Option 3) 

[ ] Customers with excess generation: 

For those customers who operate electric generation equipment capable of 

serving their entire load and elect to take this exemption, Special Condition 1 

(reservation capacity) will not apply. All other applicable charges of Schedule 

Swill apply. (Options 1, 2 and 4) 

Terms and Conditions 

1. Customer has requested PG&E to stand ready at all times to deliver or supply and 

deliver electric energy to Customer's premises on an as-needed basis. Such 

standby service shall be provided to Customer in accordance with and subject to 

Form 79-285 

Page 2 of 4 

Revised April 2002 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 22 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 25

of 54
PG&E's applicable rates and rules as established from time to time by, and on file 

with, the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission). 

2. PG&E shall be granted, without cost to it, all necessary rights-of-way and 

easements, satisfactory to PG&E, in both location and form of document, to 

establish such service. 

3. All necessary service facilities to accommodate Customer's load shall be furnished 

by PG&E and Customer as specified in electric line extension and service rules or 

the otherwise appropriate extension agreements. Any necessary extensions and 

reinforcements of PG&E's distribution and transmission facilities that are furnished 

by PG&E at Customer's expense in accordance with either a separate line extension 

or special facilities agreement, in accordance with the applicable tariffs. 

4. All facilities furnished by PG&E to provide electric service at all times shall be and 

remain the property of PG&E notwithstanding that they may be affixed to Customer's 

property. PG&E may remove such facilities upon termination of the Agreement. 

5. During the term of this Agreement, Customer grants to PG&E the right to operate, 

maintain, replace, and repair PG&E's facilities on Customer's premises necessary to 

provide standby service hereunder and all rights necessary for access to and from 

such facilities at all reasonable times. 

6. All standby electric service provided shall be three phase, 60 hertz, alternating 

current at an electromotive force of approximately 230,000 volts. Allowable 

variations in this frequency and voltage are specified in PG&E's electric Rule 2. The 

delivery point for PG&E's standby service shall be considered the point where 

conductors owned, or under license by Customer, contact PG&E's conductors, or as 

otherwise designated by applicable rules. 

7. The initial reserved capacity for standby service shall be 40,000 kW (Reservation 

Capacity) and shall be billed monthly at the rate described in the "Rates" section of 

Schedule S 

8. If the Customer is already receiving standby service from PG&E under a preceding 

contract, that contracted or reserved capacity, or the amount of capacity to which 

that contract has been subsequently ratcheted, shall automatically become the 

Customer's Reservation Capacity, until the ratchet period ends unless the 

Reservation Capacity has been increased in accordance with the preceding 

paragraph. 

9. Customer elects to receive any backup and maintenance service that is to be billed 

under the provisions of Schedule Sunder the following terms: .JLFirm Service Only, 

___ Nonfirm Service, or Nonfirm Service with Underfrequency Relay. 

(See Schedule S for eligibility and definitions of these terms.) 

10. If Customer has a generator and wishes to operate that generator in parallel with 

PG&E's system, Customer must also execute either a power purchase agreement, 

or parallel operation agreement, or applicable interconnection agreement with 

PG&E. Interconnection and operation of all non-utility owned generation paralleling 

with PG&E's system will be treated in accordance with electric Rule 21. Customers 

may need to meet those requirements as imposed by other governing entities having 

Form 79-285 

Page 3 of 4 

Revised April 2002 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 23 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 26

of 54
jurisdiction including the Independent System Operator and the Western Systems 

Coordinating Council. 

11. Customer shall pay PG&E the monthly charges for the standby service provided 

hereunder at any established office of PG&E. 

12. The initial term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one (1) year from the date 

the standby service under this Agreement is first made available to Customer as 

such date is established in PG&E's records and shall continue thereafter from year 

to year. Customer may terminate this Agreement at the expiration of the initial or 

any subsequent one-year term, or PG&E may terminate this Agreement in 

accordance with its tariffs, provided that written notice of such termination is given to 

the other party at least thirty (30) days prior to such termination date. 

13. Customer may, with PG&E's written consent, assign this Agreement to a subsequent 

owner of the premises if the assignee will, in writing; agree to perform the obligations 

of the Agreement. 

14. This Agreement shall, at all times, be subject to such changes or modifications by 

the Commission as it may from time to time direct in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 

Dated this 31st day of December , 2002. 

VALERO REFINING COMPANY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

BY: 

(Signature) (Signature) 

William H. Buckalew, Jr. 

(Type I print name) (Type I print name) 

TITLE:Vice President & General Manager TITLE: ____________ _ 

Mailing Address: 

3400 East Second Street 

Benicia, CA 94510-1097 

Mailing Address: 

Form 79-285 

Page 4 of 4 

Revised April 2002 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 24 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 27

of 54
EXHIBIT B

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 25 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 28

of 54
. · .. 

! '-...---

' ' 

'-"[ 

JUN 5 2008 

~ IW~Dlf' 

Valero Generation/Fulton Control Center 

GENERATION OPERA TING 

COMMUNICATION AGREEMENT 

• 

' 

, 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 26 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 29

of 54
. 

Pacific Gas & Elecbic Company 

GENERATION OPERATING. COMMUNICATION AGREEMENT 

This Agreement sets up operating responsibilities and associated procedures for 

communications between Valero and Fullon Control Center. The Agreement also 

establishes procedures for safe work on electric systems and routine test prooodures. 

1. DEFINITIONS 

When underlined, !he following tenns shall have the following' meanings: 

"Clearance Point" - The points th!ll isolate equipment from posaible sources of 

ene<gy. PG&E may, from time 1D time, reqUest that the Valero provide a 

Clearance Point so that work can lie sately pe!limned on the PG&E eleclrlc 

system. 

Fullon Conlro! Cen!er - The PG&E loCatlon, idenlilied In this Agreement. with 

operational jurisdiction over FQClily and subsfalion, The Fullon Con!m! 

Center ' Is staffed 24 hours a day. 

'Emergency" -An actual or Imminent C01idllion or siluation, which jeopardizes the 

.PG&E Distribution System lnleqplly. 

"Interconnection Facilitles" - All apparatus ,installed to inten:Onnect and deliver 

power between PG&E system and Valera's substation. 

Interconnection Facilities Include, but are nllt · limited to, connection, 

transform~tion, swttching, metering, and communications equlpmen~ as well 

as any necessary additions, modifications and reinforcements to the PG&E 

system necessitated as a result of interconnecting the Faciltty to the PG&E 

system. Interconnection Facilities also include control and safety equipment 

to protect (1) the PG&E system and its customers from faults occurring at the 

Valera's Facility and substation, and (2) the Valera's Facility and substation 

from faults occurring on the PG&E system or on the system of others to 

which the PG&E system Is directly or indirectly connected. 

"Non-Tesf' •• A pro~~ure used by PG&E in connection with work on a live line or 

near an energized circuit In a Non-Test PG&E will request that the Valero 

I • . 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 27 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 30

of 54
'-'I 

contact the Fulton Control Center before re-energizing a circuit following an 

automatic trip. 

"PG&E Electric System lntegr!lv" - The condition under which a Distribution 

System Is deemed safe and can reliably perforin Its Intended functions in 

accordance with the safety and reliability rules of PG&E 

OPERATION OF GENERATION FACILITY.AND SUBSTATION 

Valero shall maintain operallng communications with Fulton Control 

Center. The operating communications shall include, but not be 

llmlted to, system paralleling or 0eparallon, scheduled and 

unscheduled shutdowns, equipment clearances, levels of operating 

voltage or power faCtors, and dally operating reports as provided 

below. 

All oral operallng communications shall be conducted through Fulton 

Cotitro.1 Center. Valero l!!lr9"S to maintain a 24-hour phone contact so 

that PG&E can give lnsf!uctionstoValem or Its designated operator. 

Valero will 1"001ve l!ufpul 1lliftage or pPW0r filclor Instructions from 

Fulton Control.Center. Valem shall operate ifs Facility to maintain the 

specified output voltage or ...--fador acmrdlng to 8eolric Rlile 21 

at the point of inteioonnection. 

In the event Valero's telemetering goes down and Valero is exporting power 

Into PG&E system the following infonnation shall be provided: 

Valero agrees to telephone a daily operating report to the 

Fulton Control Center at least twice each day. At a minimum, 

the daily operating report shall include: 

a. Hourty readings of delivered capacity In kW since 

the last report. Readings shall be taken at the 

end of each hour. 

b. Total energy, In kWh, delivered to PG&E since the 

last report. 

2 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 28 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 31

of 54
Valero agrees to notify Futton Control Center of the following: 

a. 'The current names and 24-hour phone numbers of the personnel 

responsible for operating and maintaining the Facility. 

b. Any Emergency situation, or any request that PG&E de-energize a 

portion of the system under its control. 

c. Any changes in the mechanical or electric condition of the Facuity 

or substation that may affect the reliabOlty of eHher the Facility or 

the PG&E electric system. 

d. Immediately upon discovery, any mlsoperation or Inoperable 

condition of a P.G&E-requlred lnterconnecUon relay or ciroutt 

breaker. 

e. Immediately upon discovery, any cirouil breaker that has operated 

by a PG&E-required Interconnection relay, along with the relay 

targets that caused the cin:ult breaker to operate. 

f. Plans to n'lailuaHy parallel or sep8rate from the PG&E system and 

the times of acfual nianual paralels and separations. Emergency 

separations shaO be reporled as soon ail condllk!ils pennil 

Under normal conditions, Valero .shall give as much advance notice as 

possible (minimum of 7 days) to Ute Futton Conb;ol Center when 

planning to perform work that may affect PG&E's electric system. At a 

minimum, the notice shall Include: 

a. Nature of the work to be perfonned. 

b. Date and time work will begin. 

c. Date and time work will be completed. 

d. Apparatus to be cleared and the Clearance Points required. 

e. Name and telephone number of the person in charge of the work. 

f. Whether or not protective grounds will be Installed. 

If Valero wishes to perform work on tts own facilities which would 

normally qe energized by PG&E-controlled source(s) of energy, Valero 

may request that PG&E open, lock and tag PG&E's associated 

3 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 29 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 32

of 54
i I, 

disconnect device to Isolate Valera's facUttles from PG&E source(s) of 

energy. PG&E will also establish disconnect devica(s) as an open 

Clearance Polnt(s\ and Install ''Man on Line" tags (see PG&E's S1466). 

Valero agrees that any work It perfonns is at Its own risk. Valero shall 

_ take all necessary steps to ensure that work Is conducted in 

compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and 

regulations. 

Valero must open Its Interconnection disconnect switch if PG&E 

requests a Clearance Point. A qualified PG&E employee will observe 

that the switch is open, then proceed to lock It open with a PG&E lock, 

and attach a fllled--0ut "Man-on-Line" tag to Indicate it is a Clearance 

Point. 

In an Ememency. Valero agrees to expedltlously open the 

Interconnection disconnect switch upon notification from the Fulton 

Control Center. 

Valero agrees to the following conditions regarding a Non-Test 

requested by PG&E: 

a. Valero shall not re-energize the affected circuits, whether manually 

or automatically, without first receMng the approval of the Fulton 

Control Center. 

Under normal conditions, PG&E will give advance notice (minimum of - - • -------- ·' ··-"-~-----·---··-·- --~-·-···~~- -- - "'·4'"•"•" '" .. ,, . . . 

7 days), of plans to perform work, which will affe(:t Valero's l\Ccess to ,., ______________ --·---· . ······. ··---------· -----·····-

the P~_&E ~lectrlc system. PG&E reserves the right to charge Valero 

the additional cost for work performed during times other than normal 

business hours (Non-Holidays, Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 

5:00 P.M.) when the schedule of such work Is negotiable, as 

determined by PG&E. PG&E will provide Valero with an estimate of 

the additional cost and if Valero still desires the work to be performed 

during non-normal business hours and PG&E does perform the work, 

PG&E shall charge Valero the actual costs of the work, the amount of 

which shall·not exceed the cost estimate . 

. 4 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 30 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 33

of 54
The following reference materials are available for use by Valero and 

Its operating personnel. . Copies were delivered to Valero on 

September 16, 2002.from the Fulton Control Center. 

PG&E Standard Practice No. S1466 - A document listing all the 

standard operating -0rders followed by PG&E system operators. 

PG&E Standard Practice No. S1403 -- A document describing 

approved PG&E clearance procedures and Instructions for obtaining 

clearances. 

PG&E Interconnection Handbook and Electric Rules 2, 14, and 21 

Specific Operating Instructions: 

• Prior to closing either or both Valero ne Breaker 1-2 and Tie Breaker2-3, Valero 

will contact Fulton Control Center to receive approval. 

• Prtor to manually opening Bahia circuit breakers 222 or 232, Fulton Control 

Center will notify Valero to open the respective high side Valero bank circuit 

switcher (476 or 496). 

• Prior to manually closing Valero circuit sw!lcher476 or 496, Valero will notify 

Fulton Control Center to close the respective Bahia circuit breakers (222 or 

232). . 

5 . 

I 

I 

t 

I 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 31 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 34

of 54
EXHIBIT C 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 32 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 35

of 54
 

 Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 19762-E 

Cancelling Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 15526-E 

 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

San Francisco, California 

U 39 

 

ELECTRIC RULE NO. 14 Sheet 1 

SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY AND INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY 

 

 (Continued) 

Advice Letter No: 2328-E-B Issued by Date Filed January 23, 2003

Decision No. 02-12-045 Karen A. Tomcala Effective January 1, 2003

Vice President Resolution No. 

1C1 Regulatory Relations 

END USE CUSTOMERS AND THEIR AGENTS 

PG&E will exercise reasonable diligence and care to furnish and deliver a continuous and 

sufficient supply of electric energy to the customer, but does not guarantee continuity or 

sufficiency of supply. PG&E will not be liable for interruption or shortage or insufficiency 

of supply, or any loss or damage of any kind of character occasioned thereby, if same is 

caused by inevitable accident, act of God, fire, strikes, riots, war, or any other cause 

except that arising from its failure to exercise reasonable diligence. 

PG&E shall be the sole judge of whether it is operationally able to receive or deliver 

electric energy through its electric distribution system. Such judgement shall be 

non-discriminatory and without regard to the supplier or electric service provider to the 

end-use customer. 

Under no circumstances shall PG&E be liable to its customers or their agents for any local 

or system deficiencies in supply stemming from inadequate power bids or power 

deliveries over the Independent System Operator (ISO) grid. Similarly, PG&E shall not be 

liable to any customer, or electric service provider, for damages or losses resulting from 

interruption due to transmission constraint, allocation of transmission or intertie capacity, 

or other transmission related outage, planned or unplanned. 

PG&E specifically maintains the right to interrupt its service deliveries, without liability to 

the Customers or electric service providers (ESPs) affected, when, in PG&E’s sole 

opinion, such interruption is necessary for reasons including, but not limited to, the 

following: 

1. Safety of a customer, a PG&E employee, or the public at large. 

2. Breach of code or regulation on either PG&E-owned or customer-owned facilities. 

3. Emergency affecting or likely to affect PG&E’s distribution system, the ISO grid or 

any other system through which PG&E directly or indirectly receives power. 

4. Maintenance, improvements, repairs, or expansion of PG&E’s distribution system. 

(T) 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 33 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 36

of 54
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

San Francisco, California 

U 39 

 

 Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 15527-E 

Cancelling Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 11326-E 

 

ELECTRIC RULE NO. 14 Sheet 2 

SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY AND INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY 

 

 (Continued) 

Advice Letter No: 1737-E Issued by Date Filed January 29, 1998

Decision No. 97-10-087 Thomas E. Bottorff Effective March 10, 1998

Vice President Resolution No. 

2C3 Rates Account Services 

When PG&E deems it necessary to make repairs or improvements to its system, PG&E 

will have the right to suspend temporarily the delivery of electric energy. In all such 

cases, reasonable notice will be given to the affected Customers, or their agents, and the 

making of such repairs or improvements will proceed as rapidly as may be practicable. If 

practicable, and without additional cost to PG&E, such work will be done at a time that will 

cause the least inconvenience to the majority of those involved. In some instances, 

PG&E will be required to initiate an interruption upon order of the ISO so work may be 

done on the ISO transmission grid. In those instances, PG&E will make best efforts 

attempt to provide affected customers, or their agents, with notice, but shall not be liable 

for interruption if notice cannot be provided in a timely manner. PG&E will be responsible 

for answering all outage related inquiries by the customer and its ESP. 

In case of shortage of supply and during the period of such shortage, PG&E will make 

such apportionment of its available supply of energy among its customers, consistent with 

transmission allocation provided by the ISO by zone, and orders or directions provided by 

the California Public Utilities Commission, acting either directly or by a power 

administrator or other official appointed by it for that purpose. In the absence of such 

order or direction by the California Public Utilities Commission, PG&E will, in times of 

shortage, apportion its available supply of energy among all customers in the manner 

which it deems most fair, reasonable, and appropriate for the efficient operation of its 

distribution system and that of the ISO grid. 

A Scheduling Coordinator or an ESP may be authorized, under a commercial contract 

with its customers, to apportion its available supply of energy among its customers. 

PG&E will accept requests for and make delivers of these apportioned supplies as long as 

such deliveries do not affect PG&E’s ability to deliver service to other end-use Customers, 

regardless of supplier, that would otherwise not be affected by the shortage or 

approportionment thereof. 

(T) 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

(T) 

(N) 

| 

| 

| 

| 

(N) 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 34 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 37

of 54
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

San Francisco, California 

U 39 

 

 Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 35394-E 

Cancelling Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 

 

ELECTRIC RULE NO. 14 Sheet 3 

SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY AND INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY 

 

 (Continued) 

Advice Letter No: 4643-E Issued by Date Filed May 21, 2015

Decision No. Steven Malnight Effective May 21, 2015

Senior Vice President Resolution No. 

3C8 Regulatory Affairs 

ELECTRIC EMERGENCY PLAN ROTATING BLOCK OUTAGES FOR TANSMISSION 

LEVEL CUTOMERS 

For the purposes of this Section only, transmission level customers are those customers 

that are served from a "single customer substation" as defined in PG&E’s Electric Rule 1 

or without transformation at one of the standard transmission voltages specified in 

PG&E’s Electric Rule 2, Section B.1. 

Transmission level customers, except for those customers meeting the CPUC’s criteria for 

essential use or those otherwise exempt from rotating outages in accordance with CPUC 

Decisions, will be incorporated into PG&E’s rotating outage block plan and subjected to 

load interruptions when rotating block outages are ordered by the ISO. PG&E will, to the 

extent practical, follow the applicable principles and procedures specified in PG&E’s 

Electric Rule 14, by the CPUC, and by the ISO. To the extent feasible, PG&E will 

coordinate rotating outages applicable to customers who are fossil fuel producers, 

pipeline operators and users to minimize disruption to public health and safety. PG&E 

shall not include a transmission level customer in an applicable rotating outage block if 

the customer’s inclusion would jeopardize system integrity. Transmission level customers 

who are not exempt from rotating outages may submit an Optional Binding Mandatory 

Curtailment (OBMC) Plan to PG&E in accordance with PG&E’s Electric Schedule OBMC. 

If PG&E approves a customer’s OBMC Plan, the customer will become exempt from 

rotating outages and will be subject to the terms and conditions of PG&E’s Electric 

Schedule OBMC and its associated agreement. 

Non-exempt transmission level customers shall be required to undergo rotating outages 

applicable to the customer’s assigned rotating outage block by either (1) implementing the 

load reduction on their own initiative, in accordance with subsection a, below; or (2) 

having PG&E implement the load reduction through PG&E-owned remote-controlled 

equipment in accordance with subsection b, below. A transmission level customer shall 

normally be subject to the provisions of subsection a. If PG&E approves a transmission 

level customer’s request to have PG&E implement the customer’s load reduction, then the 

customer will be subject to the provisions of subsection b, below. If a transmission level 

customer subject to subsection a, below, exceeds the threshold specified in subsection c 

below, then the customer will be subject to the provisions of subsection c.(i) or (ii), below. 

(N)

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

(N) 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 35 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 38

of 54
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

San Francisco, California 

U 39 

 

 Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 35395-E 

Cancelling Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 

 

ELECTRIC RULE NO. 14 Sheet 4 

SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY AND INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY 

 

 (Continued) 

Advice Letter No: 4643-E Issued by Date Filed May 21, 2015

Decision No. Steven Malnight Effective May 21, 2015

Senior Vice President Resolution No. 

4C8 Regulatory Affairs 

A. Customer-Implemented Load Reduction

 Notification of Required Load Reduction. When the ISO orders implementation of 

rotating outages, PG&E shall notify transmission level customers in an affected 

rotating outage block to drop their load. Within 30 minutes of such notification, the 

customer must drop its load down to or below its Authorized Residual Ancillary Load. 

Unless otherwise notified by PG&E to do so, the customer shall not return the 

dropped load to service until 90 minutes after PG&E sent the notification to the 

customer to drop its load. 

Method of Notification to Drop Load. PG&E will notify transmission level customers 

through a call to a telephone number designated by the customer. The customer is 

responsible for informing PG&E, in writing, of the telephone number and contact 

name for purposes of receiving the notification of a rotating outage. If the customer 

does not provide PG&E with a telephone number, PG&E will notify the customer in 

writing of the number to be utilized, which will be the official number for notification, 

unless the customer provides an alternate number to PG&E within 15 days of the 

customer’s receipt of such written notice. The telephone number may be to a 

customer owned and maintained business telephone, cellular phone, or separately 

designated telephone line. If PG&E makes two attempts to notify the customer to 

drop load in conjunction with a rotating outage, and such attempts are unanswered, 

the 30 minutes notification period in which to drop the load will commence with the 

time of the second call, even if the call was unanswered. 

Excess Energy Charges. If a transmission level customer fails to drop load within 

30 minutes of notification by PG&E, and/or fails to maintain the entire load drop until 

90 minutes after the time notification was sent to the customer, PG&E shall assess 

Excess Energy Charges of $6 per kWh for all kWh usage in excess of the Authorized 

Residual Ancillary Load. Such charges will be based on the total kWh usage during 

the applicable rotating outage penalty period, less the product of Authorized Residual 

Ancillary Load in kW and the applicable rotating outage penalty period in hours. If 

applicable, Excess Energy Charges will be determined by PG&E following the 

rotating outage and applied to the customer’s energy bill. Failure to make payment 

within the timeframe specified in PG&E’s Electric Rules 8 and 9 may result in 

termination of service pursuant to PG&E’s Electric Rule 11. 

(N)

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

(N) 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 36 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 39

of 54
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

San Francisco, California 

U 39 

 

 Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 35396-E 

Cancelling Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 

 

ELECTRIC RULE NO. 14 Sheet 5 

SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY AND INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY 

 

 (Continued) 

Advice Letter No: 4643-E Issued by Date Filed May 21, 2015

Decision No. Steven Malnight Effective May 21, 2015

Senior Vice President Resolution No. 

5C8 Regulatory Affairs 

A. Customer-Implemented Load Reduction (Cont’d.)

Authorized Residual Ancillary Load. Authorized Residual Ancillary Load is load that is 

deemed to be equivalent to five (5) percent of the customer’s recorded Maximum 

Demand from the customer’s prior billing month. This minimum load level is used as a 

proxy to allow for no-load transformer losses and ancillary substation equipment 

loads. 

For customers that are net-generators, Excess Energy Charges shall not apply during 

periods of pre-scheduled verifiable generator maintenance or if the customer’s 

generator suffers a verified forced outage. The scheduled maintenance must be 

approved in advance by both the ISO and PG&E, but approval may not be 

unreasonably withheld. 

B. PG&E-Implemented Load Reduction 

 Non-exempt transmission level customers may seek, in writing, to have PG&E drop 

the customer’s entire load during all applicable rotating outages. If PG&E agrees to 

such an arrangement, PG&E will implement the load drop by using one of the 

following methods: 

1. For transmission level customers whose load can be dropped by existing PG&E 

remote-controlled equipment, PG&E will implement the load drop during a 

rotating outage applicable to the customer. The customer will be responsible for 

dropping load in accordance with the provisions of subsection a, above, including 

receiving Notification and being subject to Excess Energy charge provisions, 

until PG&E has provided written notice to the customer of the effective date that 

PG&E will assume the responsibility for curtailing the customer’s load. After 

receiving written notice from PG&E, the customer will not receive Notification or 

be subject to the Excess Energy Charge provisions set forth in subsection a, 

above. PG&E shall be the sole judge of the suitability of utilizing existing PG&E 

remote-controlled equipment to shed the customer’s load. PG&E or the customer 

may terminate the arrangements under this subsection upon thirty (30) days 

advance written notice. 

(N)

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

(N) 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 37 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 40

of 54
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

San Francisco, California 

U 39 

 

 Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 35397-E 

Cancelling Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 

 

ELECTRIC RULE NO. 14 Sheet 6 

SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY AND INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY 

 

 (Continued) 

Advice Letter No: 4643-E Issued by Date Filed May 21, 2015

Decision No. Steven Malnight Effective May 21, 2015

Senior Vice President Resolution No. 

6C8 Regulatory Affairs 

B. PG&E-Implemented Load Reduction (Cont’d.)

2. For transmission level customers whose load cannot be dropped by existing 

PG&E remote-controlled equipment, the customer must request the installation 

of such remote-controlled equipment at the customer’s expense in accordance 

with PG&E’s Electric Rule 2, Section I, Special Facilities. The customer will be 

responsible for dropping load in accordance with the provisions of subsection a, 

above, including receiving Notification and being subject to Excess Energy 

Charge provisions, until all of the following have been completed: 1) payment by 

the customer for the installation of such equipment, 2) installation and testing of 

such equipment is complete, and 3) PG&E has provided written notice to the 

customer of the effective date that PG&E will assume the responsibility for 

curtailing the customer’s load. After the three (3) requirements listed above have 

been met, the customer will not receive Notification or be subject to the Excess 

Energy Charge provisions set forth in subsection a, above. PG&E or the 

customer may terminate their arrangements under this subsection upon thirty 

(30) days advance written notice. 

C. Non-compliance 

 A non-exempt transmission level customer subject to subsection a, above, shall be 

considered non-compliant with a single rotating outage event if the customer fails to 

reduce its load, averaged over the applicable rotating outage penalty period, to a 

level equal to or less than twenty (20) percent of the customer’s recorded Maximum 

Demand from the customer’s prior billing month. 

If a customer is non-compliant during any three (3) rotating outages in a three (3) 

year period, then the customer will be reassigned to the manual rotating outage block 

that is expected be curtailed next, and the customer will be expected to comply as 

required pursuant to subsection a, above, with subsequent applicable rotating 

outages. Further, such a customer must select, via written notice to PG&E, one of the 

two options below within fifteen (15) days after receiving written notice from PG&E. A 

customer failing to make a selection within the specified time frame will default to 

subsection c.(ii) below. The three (3) year period shall commence with the first failure 

to drop load as specified in this subsection. 

(N)

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

(N) 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 38 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 41

of 54
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

San Francisco, California 

U 39 

 

 Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 35398-E 

Cancelling Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 

 

ELECTRIC RULE NO. 14 Sheet 7 

SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY AND INTERRUPTION OF DELIVERY 

 

 

Advice Letter No: 4643-E Issued by Date Filed May 21, 2015

Decision No. Steven Malnight Effective May 21, 2015

Senior Vice President Resolution No. 

7C7 Regulatory Affairs 

C. Non-compliance (Cont’d.) 

1. Subject to PG&E’s Electric Schedule E-OBMC Optional Binding Mandatory 

Curtailment Plan. The customer shall become subject to PG&E’s Electric 

Schedule OBMC. The customer shall submit an OBMC Plan, in accordance with 

PG&E’s Electric Schedule E-OBMC, within thirty (30) days of receiving written 

notice from PG&E. Pending the submittal of the OBMC Plan by the customer and 

pending the review and acceptance of the OBMC Plan by PG&E, the customer 

will remain responsible for dropping load in accordance with the provisions of 

subsection a, above, including the receiving of Notification and being subject to 

Excess Energy Charge provisions. Customers subject to this subsection that in 

turn fail to meet one or more requirements specified in PG&E’s Electric Schedule 

E-OBMC shall be transferred to subsection c.(ii), below. 

2. PG&E Implemented Load Reductions. PG&E shall proceed with one of the 

following: (1) For those customers where PG&E already has load drop 

equipment with remote-control capability installed, PG&E will drop the customer’s 

entire load for all applicable subsequent rotating outages in accordance with the 

provisions of subsection b, above, except the customer shall not have the option 

to terminate their obligations under subsection b. PG&E shall be the sole judge 

of the suitability of utilizing existing PG&E remote-controlled equipment to shed 

the customer’s load. (2) For customers where PG&E does not have load drop 

equipment with remote-control capability installed, PG&E shall install such 

equipment at the customer’s expense in accordance with PG&E’s Electric Rule 

2, Section I, Special Facilities. After such equipment has been installed, PG&E 

will drop the customer’s entire load for all applicable subsequent rotating outages 

in accordance with the provisions of subsection b, above, except the customer 

shall not have the option to terminate their obligations under subsection b. 

Pending the installation of such equipment, the customer will remain responsible 

for dropping load in accordance with the provisions of subsection a, above, 

including receiving the Notification and being subject to Excess Energy Charge 

provisions. 

(N)

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

(N) 

Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 Page 39 of 39

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 42

of 54
From: caed_cmecf_helpdesk@caed.uscourts.gov

To: CourtMail@caed.uscourts.dcn

Subject: Activity in Case 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Valero Refining Company California v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company

 Amended Complaint.

Date: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:28:10 PM

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT

 RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. 

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States

 policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to

 receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is

 required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To

 avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

 However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do

 not apply.

U.S. District Court

Eastern District of California - Live System

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered by Jaskowiak, Nathan on 9/11/2017 at 3:26 PM PDT

 and filed on 9/11/2017 

Case Name: Valero Refining Company California v. Pacific Gas & Electric

 Company

Case Number: 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB

Filer: Valero Refining Company California

Document

 Number: 20

Docket Text:

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Pacific Gas & Electric Company by

 Valero Refining Company California. Attorney Jaskowiak, Nathan Randall

 added.(Jaskowiak, Nathan)

2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Alexander James Bukac alexander.bukac@kyl.com, maricel.schilt@kyl.com 

Francisco Guerra, IV , PHV fguerra@wattsguerra.com, khays@wattsguerra.com 

John Cox john.cox@kyl.com, maricel.schilt@kyl.com 

Laura Joy Edelstein ledelstein@steptoe.com 

Mark Fassold , PHV mfassold@wattsguerra.com, khays@wattsguerra.com 

Michael Dockterman , PHV mdockterman@steptoe.com 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 43

of 54
Mikal C. Watts , PHV mcwatts@wattsguerra.com, khays@wattsguerra.com 

Nathan Randall Jaskowiak nathan.jaskowiak@kyl.com, lori.carmichael@kyl.com,

 maricel.schilt@kyl.com 

2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB Electronically filed documents must be served conventionally

 by the filer to: 

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document description:Main Document 

Original filename:n/a

Electronic document Stamp:

[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1064943537 [Date=9/11/2017] [FileNumber=8950468-0

] [3143af392b24392b83fd3b08c6bd46bc4a2a7abbfba74f406b51b60f26135ddc41a

16d021384bbd20883667411b2620d32637358889b1488e089cb5605a501d2]]

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 44

of 54
EXHIBIT 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 45

of 54
2/2/2019 LIVE 6.2.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116212961535762-L_1_0-1 1/7

CIVIL,CLOSED

U.S. District Court

Eastern District of California - Live System (Sacramento)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:17-cv-01350-TLN-EFB

Valero Refining Company California v. Pacific Gas & Electric

Company

Assigned to: District Judge Troy L. Nunley

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan

Demand: $75,000,000

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Date Terminated: 01/31/2019

Jury Demand: Both

Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other

Jurisdiction: Diversity

Plaintiff

Valero Refining Company California

a Delaware corporation

represented by Francisco Guerra, IV , PHV 

Watts Guerra, L.L.P. 

Four Dominion Drive, Bldg. 3 

Suite 100 

San Antonio, TX 78257 

210-527-0500 

Fax: 210-527-0501 

Email: fguerra@wattsguerra.com 

LEAD ATTORNEY

PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Fassold , PHV 

Watts Guerra, L.L.P. 

Four Dominion Drive, Bldg. 3 

Suite 100 

San Antonio, TX 78257 

210-527-0500 

Fax: 210-527-0501 

Email: mfassold@wattsguerra.com 

LEAD ATTORNEY

PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mikal C. Watts , PHV 

Watts Guerra, L.L.P. 

Four Dominion Drive, Bldg. 3 

Suite 100 

San Antonio, TX 78257 

210-527-0500 

Fax: 210-527-0501 

Email: mcwatts@wattsguerra.com 

LEAD ATTORNEY

PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alexander James Bukac 

Law Offices of John Cox, P.C. Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 46

of 54
2/2/2019 LIVE 6.2.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116212961535762-L_1_0-1 2/7

3030 Holyrood Drive 

Oakland, CA 94611 

814-758-8056 

Email: alex.bukac@jcoxlawfirm.com 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan Randall Jaskowiak 

Keesal Young and Logan 

450 Pacific Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

415-398-6000 

Fax: 415-981-0136 

Email: nathan.jaskowiak@kyl.com 

TERMINATED: 06/19/2018

John Collier Cox 

Law Offices Of John Cox, P.C. 

3030 Holyrood Drive 

Oakland, CA 94611 

415-939-6303 

Email: john.cox@jcoxlawfirm.com 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

a California corporation

represented by Laura Joy Edelstein 

Steptoe & Johnson LLP 

One Market Street 

Steuart Tower, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

415-365-6770 

Fax: 415-365-6670 

Email: ledelstein@steptoe.com 

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Dockterman , PHV 

Steptoe & Johnson LLP 

115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100 

Chicago, IL 60603 

312-577-1243 

Fax: 312-577-1370 

Email: mdockterman@steptoe.com 

PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael E. Flynn-O'Brien 

Steptoe & Johnson LLP 

1 Market Street 

Suite 1800 Steuart Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

415-365-6713 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 47

of 54
2/2/2019 LIVE 6.2.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116212961535762-L_1_0-1 3/7

Fax: 415-365-6699 

Email: mflynnobrien@steptoe.com 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Katherine Jackel 

vote.org 

1270 Grove Street 

# 301 

San Francisco, CA 94117 

917-304-0534 

Fax: 917-304-0534 

Email: sarah@vote.org 

TERMINATED: 05/15/2018

Date Filed # Docket Text

06/30/2017 1 COMPLAINT against Pacific Gas & Electric Company by Valero Refining Company

California. Attorney Cox, John added. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0972-7138524)

(Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Cox, John) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

06/30/2017 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Pacific Gas & Electric Company* with answer to complaint

due within *21* days. Attorney *John Cox* *Keesal, Young & Logan* *450 Pacific

Avenue* *San Francisco, CA 94133*. (Washington, S) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

06/30/2017 3 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2

VDRP) (Washington, S) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

06/30/2017 4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Plaintiff Valero Refining Company

California. (Cox, John) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

07/05/2017 5 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Pacific Gas & Electric Company served on

7/3/2017. (Jaskowiak, Nathan) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

07/24/2017 6 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric

Company. (Edelstein, Laura) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

07/24/2017 7 STIPULATION Extending Time to Respond to Complaint by Pacific Gas & Electric

Company. Attorney Edelstein, Laura Joy added. (Edelstein, Laura) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

08/03/2017 8 PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION and PROPOSED ORDER submitted by Valero Refining

Company California for attorney Mikal C. Watts to appear Pro Hac Vice. (Filing fee $ 225,

receipt number 0972-7191218) (Cox, John) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/03/2017 9 PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION and PROPOSED ORDER submitted by Valero Refining

Company California for attorney Mark Fassold to appear Pro Hac Vice. (Filing fee $ 225,

receipt number 0972-7191249) (Cox, John) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/03/2017 10 PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION and PROPOSED ORDER submitted by Valero Refining

Company California for attorney Francisco Guerra IV to appear Pro Hac Vice. (Filing fee

$ 225, receipt number 0972-7191264) (Cox, John) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/04/2017 11 PRO HAC VICE ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/3/2017 ADDING

attorney Mikal C. Watts, PHV for Valero Refining Company California. (Washington, S)

Modified on 8/7/2017 (Washington, S). (Entered: 08/04/2017)

08/04/2017 12 PRO HAC VICE ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/3/2017 ADDING

attorney Mark Fassold, PHV for Valero Refining Company California. (Washington, S)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 48 (Entered: 08/04/2017)

of 54
2/2/2019 LIVE 6.2.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116212961535762-L_1_0-1 4/7

08/04/2017 13 PRO HAC VICE ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/3/2017 ADDING

attorney Francisco Guerra, IV, PHV for Valero Refining Company California.

(Washington, S) (Entered: 08/04/2017)

08/16/2017 14 PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION and PROPOSED ORDER submitted by Pacific Gas &

Electric Company for attorney Michael Dockterman to appear Pro Hac Vice. (Filing fee $

225, receipt number 0972-7213487) (Edelstein, Laura) (Entered: 08/16/2017)

08/16/2017 15 PRO HAC VICE ORDER adding Attorney Michael Dockterman, PHV for Pacific Gas &

Electric Company, signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/16/17. (Kastilahn, A)

(Entered: 08/16/2017)

08/21/2017 16 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Briefing Schedule for PG&E Motion to

Dismiss by Pacific Gas & Electric Company. (Edelstein, Laura) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/21/2017 17 MOTION to DISMISS by Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Motion Hearing SET for

10/5/2017 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before District Judge Troy L. Nunley.

(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order)(Edelstein,

Laura) Modified on 8/23/2017 (Mena-Sanchez, L). (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/23/2017 18 STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/22/2017

ORDERING PG&E shall file and serve any motion to dismiss Valero's Complaint by

8/21/2017 and notice any motion to dismiss for hearing on 10/5/2017; Valero shall file and

serve any opposition to any motion to dismiss the Complaint by 9/14/2017; PG&E shall

file and serve any reply to Valero's opposition by 9/28/2017.(Reader, L) (Entered:

08/23/2017)

09/11/2017 19 STIPULATION re Punitive and Exemplary Damages by Valero Refining Company

California. Attorney Bukac, Alexander James ADDED. (Bukac, Alexander) (Entered:

09/11/2017)

09/11/2017 20 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, with Jury Demand, against Pacific Gas & Electric

Company by Valero Refining Company California. Attorney Jaskowiak, Nathan Randall

ADDED. (Jaskowiak, Nathan) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

09/11/2017 21 MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy M. Krueger for District Judge Troy L.

Nunley on 9/11/2017: Pursuant to the filing of the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20 ),

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17 ) is DENIED as MOOT. Accordingly, the

hearing set for 10/5/2017 is VACATED. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Krueger, M) (Entered:

09/11/2017)

09/12/2017 22 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME to respond to the 20 First Amended

Complaint by Pacific Gas & Electric Company. (Edelstein, Laura) (Entered: 09/12/2017)

09/14/2017 23 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Valero Refining Company California. (Bukac, Alexander)

(Entered: 09/14/2017)

10/23/2017 24 ANSWER by Pacific Gas & Electric Company.(Edelstein, Laura) (Entered: 10/23/2017)

10/23/2017 25 DEMAND for TRIAL by JURY by Pacific Gas & Electric Company. (Edelstein, Laura)

(Entered: 10/23/2017)

10/26/2017 26 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on

10/25/2017: ORDERING Discovery due by 6/29/2018; Designation of Expert Witnesses

due by 8/30/2018; supplemental list of expert witnesses due 20 days after the designation

of expert witnesses; All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, TROs or

other emergency applications, shall be heard no later than 12/6/2018; A Joint Final Pretrial

Conference Statement due by 3/28/2019; Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/4/2019 at

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 49

of 54
2/2/2019 LIVE 6.2.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116212961535762-L_1_0-1 5/7

02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before District Judge Troy L. Nunley; Trial briefs not

later than 14 days before trial; Jury Trial set for 6/3/2019 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2

(TLN) before District Judge Troy L. Nunley. (Washington, S) (Entered: 10/26/2017)

11/09/2017 27 JOINT REQUEST to MODIFY 26 Pretrial Scheduling Order by Pacific Gas & Electric

Company. (Edelstein, Laura) Modified on 11/13/2017 (York, M). (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/14/2017 28 MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy M. Krueger for District Judge Troy L.

Nunley on 11/14/2017 GRANTING the parties' Joint Request to Modify the Pretrial

Scheduling Order (ECF No. 27 ). Accordingly, the Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 26

) is hereby modified to extend the period of designating rebuttal experts from twenty (20)

days to thirty (30) days after the designation of expert witnesses. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY)

(Krueger, M) (Entered: 11/14/2017)

11/16/2017 29 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Protective Order by Pacific Gas & Electric

Company. (Edelstein, Laura) (Entered: 11/16/2017)

02/06/2018 30 STIPULATION and AMENDED PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Pacific Gas &

Electric Company. (Edelstein, Laura) Modified on 2/7/2018 (Benson, A.). (Entered:

02/06/2018)

02/08/2018 31 AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund

F. Brennan on 2/7/2018. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

05/14/2018 32 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Michael E. Flynn-O'Brien on behalf of Pacific Gas &

Electric Company. Attorney Flynn-O'Brien, Michael E. added. (Flynn-O'Brien, Michael)

(Entered: 05/14/2018)

05/15/2018 33 DESIGNATION OF COUNSEL re Withdrawal of Sarah K. Jackel as Counsel by Pacific

Gas & Electric Company. (Edelstein, Laura) Modified on 5/15/2018 (Benson, A.).

(Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/17/2018 34 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by John Collier Cox. (Cox, John) (Entered:

05/17/2018)

06/14/2018 35 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for amending deadlines in pretrial scheduling

order re 26 Scheduling Order by Pacific Gas & Electric Company. (Flynn-O'Brien,

Michael) (Entered: 06/14/2018)

06/18/2018 36 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/14/18,

ORDERING that the Pretrial Scheduling Order is AMENDED as follows: Close of Fact

Discovery due by 8/24/18, Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 10/19/2018,

supplemental expert disclosures due by 11/16/18, and the deadline for hearing on

dispositive motions is 2/7/2019. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 06/18/2018)

06/19/2018 37 NOTICE of WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL Nathan R. Jaskowiak as Counsel for Plaintiff

Valero Refining Company-California by Valero Refining Company California. (Bukac,

Alexander) (Entered: 06/19/2018)

07/19/2018 38 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by Alexander Bukac. (Cox, John) Modified on

7/19/2018 (Benson, A.). (Entered: 07/19/2018)

10/19/2018 39 MOTION to AMEND the 20 Amended Complaint by Valero Refining Company

California. Motion Hearing set for 12/6/2018 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before

District Judge Troy L. Nunley. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration

of John Cox, # 3 Exhibit Second Amended Complaint, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Proof of

Service)(Cox, John) Modified on 10/22/2018 (Washington, S). (Entered: 10/19/2018)

11/21/2018 40 OPPOSITION by Pacific Gas & Electric Company to 39 Motion to Amend. (Attachments:

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 50

of 54
2/2/2019 LIVE 6.2.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116212961535762-L_1_0-1 6/7

# 1 Declaration of L. Edelstein in Opp. to Valero's Mot. for Leave to Amend, # 2 Exhibit

A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D)(Edelstein, Laura) (Entered: 11/21/2018)

11/29/2018 41 REPLY by Valero Refining Company California re 39 Motion to Amend. (Attachments: #

1 Declaration of John Cox, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6

Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Cox, John) Modified on 11/30/2018 (Krueger, M). (Entered:

11/29/2018)

11/30/2018 42 MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy J. Fabillaran for District Judge

Troy L. Nunley on 11/30/2018: On the Court's own motion, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend

(ECF No. 39 ) is hereby SUBMITTED without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set

for 12/06/2018 is VACATED. If the Court determines oral argument is necessary, it will be

scheduled at a later date. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Fabillaran, J) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

12/03/2018 43 OBJECTIONS by Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company to 41 Reply,. (FlynnO'Brien, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2018)

01/10/2019 44 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Pacific Gas & Electric Company.

Motion Hearing set for 2/7/2019 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before District Judge

Troy L. Nunley. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Statement

of Undisputed Facts, # 3 Declaration of Laurie Edelstein, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6

Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit 7, # 11 Exhibit 8, # 12

Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit 10, # 14 Exhibit 11, # 15 Exhibit 12, # 16 Exhibit 13, # 17 Exhibit

14, # 18 Exhibit 15)(Edelstein, Laura) Modified on 1/14/2019 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered:

01/10/2019)

01/10/2019 45 REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Pacific Gas & Electric Company in re 44 Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Edelstein, Laura) Modified

on 1/14/2019 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 01/10/2019)

01/18/2019 46 APPLICATION for Temporary Stay of Proceedings by Pacific Gas & Electric Company.

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Laurie Edelstein, # 2 Proposed Order)(Edelstein, Laura)

(Entered: 01/18/2019)

01/21/2019 47 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Valero Refining Company California to 46 Application for

Temporary Stay. (Bukac, Alexander) (Entered: 01/21/2019)

01/22/2019 48 NOTICE of Request to Seal Document(s) pursuant to L.R. 141 by Valero Refining

Company California. (Cox, John) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019 49 OPPOSITION by Valero Refining Company California to 44 Motion for Summary

Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit,

# 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit,

# 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19

Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit)(Cox, John) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019 50 REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Valero Refining Company California in re 44

Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Cox, John)

(Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/28/2019 51 ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/28/19 DENYING 46 Application

for Temporary Stay. (Mena-Sanchez, L) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/30/2019 52 NOTICE of FILING BANKRUPTCY Upon the Record as to Pacific Gas & Electric

Company by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Edelstein, Laura) (Entered: 01/30/2019)

01/31/2019 53 MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy M. Krueger for District Judge Troy L.

Nunley on 1/31/2019: Pursuant to the Notice of Filing Bankruptcy by Defendant Pacific

Gas & Electric Company filed on 1/30/2019 (ECF No. 52 ), this action is hereby STAYED

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 51

of 54
2/2/2019 LIVE 6.2.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116212961535762-L_1_0-1 7/7

and is now ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. The case may be reopened at the request of

the parties. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Krueger, M) (Entered: 01/31/2019)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

02/02/2019 16:56:46

PACER

Login: rlapping:4027442:0 Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search

Criteria:

2:17-cv-01350-TLNEFB

Billable

Pages: 6 Cost: 0.60

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 52

of 54
EXHIBIT 3

Subject to Motion to File Under Seal

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 53

of 54
EXHIBIT 4

Subject to Motion to File Under Seal

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 315-2 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 20:13:27 Page 54

of 54