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-

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

 - and -

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

☐ Affects PG&E Corporation 

☐ Affects Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company 

☒ Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in 

the Lead Case, No. 19-30088 (DM).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Bankruptcy Case

No. 19-30088-DM

Chapter 11

Jointly Administered

Date: December 11, 2019

Time: 10:00 AM

Place: Courtroom 17

 450 Golden Gate Ave.

 16th Floor

 San Francisco, CA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND

THE EXCLUSIVE SOLICITATION PERIOD

The court has considered the Motion of Debtors Pursuant to 

11 U.S.C. § 1121(d) to Extend the Exclusive Solicitation Period 

(Dkt. No. 4825) and oppositions filed by The City of San Jose 

(Dkt. No. 4981), the Public Advocates Office (Dkt. No. 4982) 

joined by TURN, The Utility Reform Network (Dkt. No. 4983) and 

Signed and Filed: December 6, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

December 06, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5017 Filed: 12/06/19 Entered: 12/06/19 16:01:52 Page 1 of

3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

the limited objection of the California State Agencies (Dkt. No. 

4976). 

No purpose would be served by proceeding with the scheduled 

hearing on the motion on December 11, 2019. The objections are 

overruled and the motion is GRANTED. Counsel for Debtors should 

upload their proposed order, Exhibit A to motion.

The State Agencies’ limited objection is a protective 

position only, preserving their position in response to Debtors’ 

representation that they are current on post-petition 

obligations. The State Agencies do not offer a substantive 

objection to the motion. 

The City of San Jose’s objection accuses the Debtors of 

making an end run on the court’s Exclusivity Termination Order 

(Dkt. No. 4167). The City cites cases for the proposition that 

once exclusivity is terminated, any party may file a plan. That 

misconstrues the court’s intention in, and the plain words of,

the Exclusivity Termination Order. That order terminated 

Debtors’ exclusivity “. . . solely as to the TCC and the Senior 

Noteholders so that they can proceed with their proposed plan. 

It will deny the oral and written requests by other parties that 

exclusivity should be terminated globally”. By its own terms, 

therefore, the court was only permitting the proponents of the 

TCC/Noteholder plan to proceed with their alternative plan. 

Debtors affirmatively acknowledge the impact of that order 

by the present motion. Specifically, the motion and the 

proposed order granting it extend the Exclusive Solicitation 

Period to the Debtors and to the TCC and the Ad Hoc Noteholder 

Committee.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5017 Filed: 12/06/19 Entered: 12/06/19 16:01:52 Page 2 of

3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3-

If there is any doubt about what the Debtors expected to 

obtain by the current motion, the absence of any opposition by

the TCC and/or the Ad Hoc Noteholder Committee speaks volumes.

If the City of San Jose or any other party wishes to file 

their own plan, the Bankruptcy Code instructs them how to 

proceed in § 1121(c) and (d).

The Public Advocates Office’s opposition, while contending 

that Debtors’ plan is not confirmable, is incorrect in 

contending that the current motion prohibits the right of any 

other party from proposing a plan or seeking to terminate 

further the current status of Debtors’ exclusivity. The 

confirmability of the Debtors’ plan is not before the court at 

present. The Public Advocates Office and TURN are both free to 

follow the same advice the court offers to the City of San Jose 

in the foregoing paragraph if they wish to seek permission to 

propose a plan.

**END OF ORDER**

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5017 Filed: 12/06/19 Entered: 12/06/19 16:01:52 Page 3 of

3