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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

Stephen Karotkin (pro hac vice) 

(stephen.karotkin@weil.com) 

Ray C. Schrock, P.C. (pro hac vice) 

(ray.schrock@weil.com) 

Jessica Liou (pro hac vice) 

(jessica.liou@weil.com) 

Matthew Goren (pro hac vice) 

(matthew.goren@weil.com)

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Tel: 212 310 8000 

Fax: 212 310 8007 

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP

Tobias S. Keller (#151445) 

(tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Jane Kim (#298192) 

(jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com)

650 California Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Tel: 415 496 6723 

Fax: 650 636 9251 

Attorneys for Debtors 

and Debtors in Possession 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

- and -

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Bankruptcy Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11 (Lead Case) (Jointly Administered)

DECLARATION OF RAKESH NIGAM IN SUPPORT 

OF DEBTORS’ MOTION PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 

§§ 363(b) AND 105(a) AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 9019

FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER (I) APPROVING 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLVING 

SERVICE DISCONNECTION OII AND (II) 

GRANTING RELATED RELIEF

Date: December 11, 2019

Time: 10:00 a.m. (Pacific Time)

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court, 

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Objection Deadline: December 4, 2019, 4:00 p.m. (PT) 

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).

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4666 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 17:30:51 Page 1 of

8
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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

I, Rakesh Nigam, pursuant to section 1746 of title 28 of the United States Code, hereby 

declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, 

information, and belief: 

I am the Director of Credit and Collection for Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(the “Utility”). The Utility is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PG&E Corporation (“PG&E Corp.” and, 

together with the Utility, the “Debtors”). In 2001, I joined the Utility’s Customer Care department and 

held various leadership and analyst roles with increased responsibilities. In 2011, I became a Principal 

Project Manager in Credit Policy and Operations at the Utility and was promoted to Manager, Business 

Analysis in 2013. I was appointed to my current position at the Utility in 2018. I have a bachelor’s 

degree in business administration from California State University, Sacramento. 

I am authorized to submit this Declaration (the “Declaration”) on behalf of the Debtors 

in support of the Debtors’ Motion Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 363(b) and 105(a) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 

9019 for Entry of an Order (I) Approving Settlement Agreement Resolving Service Disconnection OII 

and (II) Granting Related Relief (the “Motion”), filed contemporaneously herewith.1

 The facts set forth 

in this Declaration are based upon my personal knowledge, my review of relevant documents, or 

information provided to me by other members of my team working under my supervision and direction. 

If called upon to testify, I would testify competently to the facts set forth in this Declaration. 

As described in the Motion, the Utility has reached a settlement with the Utility 

Enforcement Branch of the Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division (“CPED”) of the California 

Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) that resolves a proceeding commenced by the CPUC to 

determine whether the Utility violated the Public Utilities Code or any of the CPUC’s General Orders, 

Decisions, Rules of Practice and Procedures or other applicable laws or requirements pertaining to 

certain power shutoffs (the “Disconnection OII”). 

A. The Disconnection OII Proceeding and its Resolution

On July 12, 2018, the CPUC issued an Order Instituting Investigation 18-07-008, 

commencing the Disconnection OII. The Disconnection OII relates to the Utility’s inadvertent failure 

1 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise herein defined shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms 

in the Motion. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4666 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 17:30:51 Page 2 of

8
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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

to provide at least 24 hours’ advance telephone notice to 6,255 customers of disconnections occurring 

between July 1, 2016 and July 18, 2016, as required by PG&E’s Electric Rule No. 8 A.2 Tariff. In 

addition, in error, the Utility disconnected 217 customers on Saturday, October 20, 2018. The Utility 

self-reported these violations to the CPUC on August 30, 2016 and October 29, 2018, respectively. 

 The CPUC held a prehearing conference on the Disconnection OII on October 30, 2018 

and shortly thereafter, the Utility and CPED commenced the settlement process. Subsequent 

negotiations culminated in a settlement of all issues in the proceeding. The Utility and CPED initially 

filed a Motion for CPUC approval of the settlement on April 15, 2019. Following this filing, certain 

interested stakeholders provided informal comments to the initial settlement agreement. In response, the 

parties agreed to revise the settlement agreement for added clarity. The Utility and CPED then filed a 

Motion for CPUC approval of the amended settlement agreement on May 9, 2019 (the “Settlement 

Agreement”). No parties filed any objections or responses to the motion and Settlement Agreement. 

On August 6, 2019, the Presiding Officer adopted the Settlement Agreement in a Presiding Officer 

Decision. A true and correct copy of the Presiding Officer Decision is attached hereto as Annex 1. A 

copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached thereto as Attachment A. Following an additional 30-

day review period, during which no parties filed any objections or responses, the Presiding Officer 

Decision was approved on a final basis by the CPUC as Decision 19-09-037, issued on September 18, 

2019 (the “CPUC Order”). 

B. The Material Terms of the Settlement Agreement

The key terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, as modified by the CPUC 

Order, are summarized below.2

i. Customer Account Credits

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, PG&E will provide a bill credit of $100 to each

of the 6,371 affected customer accounts that have not already received such a credit (the “Customer 

Account Credits”). Prepetition, 101 affected customers received a $100 credit through PG&E’s Quality 

2 This summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the provisions of the CPUC Order and of the 

Settlement Agreement. To the extent that any discrepancies exist between the summary described in 

this Declaration and the terms of the CPUC Order and Settlement Agreement, the CPUC Order and 

Settlement Agreement shall govern.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4666 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 17:30:51 Page 3 of

8
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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

Assurance Standard Provision #103 and, therefore, will not receive any additional credit under the 

Settlement Agreement. The value of the Customer Account Credits total $637,100 and are to be borne 

by the Utility’s shareholders. Any Customer Account Credits that are undeliverable will escheat to the 

State of California consistent with the Utility’s current practices. 

ii. Contribution to the REACH Program

The Utility shall owe a contribution to the Relief for Energy Assistance through

Community Help Program (the “REACH Program”) in the amount of $637,100 (the “REACH 

Claim”), to be paid by the Utility’s shareholders. The REACH Program provides support to Utility 

customers facing difficulties in paying their bills. 

iii. No Penalties

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the CPED and the Utility agree a penalty is not

warranted in this proceeding, in large part due to the Utility’s self-reporting and subsequent corrective 

actions. Absent the Settlement Agreement, the Utility could be subject to penalties of up to $50,000 per 

violation per day.4

 With over 6,000 customers affected over multiple days, such penalties could 

potentially be in the millions.

iv. Releases

Upon the CPUC’s adoption of the Settlement Agreement, subject to approval thereof by

this Court, the Utility and the CPED fully, finally and forever release, waive, and discharge the other 

party and their respective representatives, agents, officers and directors, heirs, subsidiaries, affiliates, 

successors and assigns of any claims that were raised or could have been raised as part of the 

Disconnection OII proceeding or the facts giving rise to that proceeding. The parties further agree that 

the releases contained in the Settlement Agreement will remain in effect and will be fully binding 

notwithstanding the discovery or existence of any additional or different facts; provided, however, that 

nothing in the Settlement Agreement shall be deemed to release the parties from any obligation 

3 PG&E’s Quality Assurance Standard Provision #10 provides that customer accounts may be credited 

for disconnections for non-payment when a customer was actually current with payments.

4 At the time of the disconnections at issue, California Public Utility Code sections 2107 and 2108 

provided for penalties of up to $50,000 per violation per day. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4666 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 17:30:51 Page 4 of

8
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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

thereunder. 

v. Bankruptcy Court Approval and Timing of Payments

Pursuant to the CPUC Order, the Utility is required to seek Bankruptcy Court approval

of the Settlement Agreement and authority to satisfy the Customer Account Credits and the REACH 

Claim within 90 days of the date the Bankruptcy Court authorizes the payment of such claim. Upon the 

Bankruptcy Court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement, the Utility intends to issue the Customer 

Account Credits in accordance with the authority granted to it pursuant to the Public Purpose Programs 

Order. With respect to the REACH Claim, the Debtors have agreed with the CPED that the Utility will 

satisfy such claim in accordance with the terms of a Bankruptcy Court order authorizing payment in full 

or in part of the REACH Claim. This authority would be in the form of an order of the Bankruptcy Court 

approving a chapter 11 plan of reorganization. 

C. The Settlement Agreement Should Be Approved

I actively participated in the negotiations with the CPED, the subsequent discussions with 

the Utility’s senior management in evaluating the potential benefits of the Settlement Agreement, and 

the Utility’s decision to enter into the Settlement Agreement. 

The Settlement Agreement is the product of extensive good faith, arms’-length

negotiations between the Utility and the CPED. Other Utility representatives and I attended multiple 

settlement conferences with the CPED, first in November 2018 and again in December 2018. Following 

these settlement conferences, the parties continued to correspond and hold teleconferences and meetings 

to finalize the Settlement Agreement. These efforts culminated in the filing of a motion for approval of 

the settlement with the CPUC on April 15, 2019, followed by a motion to approve the amended 

Settlement Agreement on May 9, 2019, which reflected informal comments received from interested 

parties. 

I believe that entry into the Settlement Agreement represents a sound exercise of the 

Utility’s business judgment and that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are fair and reasonable and 

in the best interests of the Utility, its estate, creditors, and other stakeholders. The Settlement Agreement 

fully resolves the Disconnection OII, eliminates the costs and uncertainties associated with further 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4666 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 17:30:51 Page 5 of

8
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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

litigation, including the possible costs of rehearing, appeal, and potential penalties that could otherwise 

be levied, and ultimately benefits the Utility’s affected customers as well as other similarly situated 

customers. 

Entry into the Settlement Agreement allows the Utility to avoid the risks and uncertainties 

of a continued CPUC proceeding, including the potential for penalties. At the time of the underlying 

disconnections, California Public Utility Code sections 2107 and 2108 provided for penalties of up to 

$50,000 per violation per day. As stated above, with over 6,000 customers affected over multiple days, 

such penalties could potentially be in the millions. By entering into the Settlement Agreement, the Utility 

is capping its liability in connection with the Disconnection OII at $1,274,200 (the aggregate amount of 

the Customer Account Credits and REACH Claims) and ensures it pays no penalties. Notably, the CPUC 

Order specifically provides that a penalty is not warranted in the OII proceeding, a finding that is not 

certain absent settlement and without which the Utility could face the risk of potentially substantial 

penalties in the millions of dollars. In addition, the Utility avoids the additional costs associated with 

further litigation of the Disconnection OII, including incremental costs associated with pursuing a 

rehearing or appeal of any adverse decision from the CPUC.

Furthermore, the Settlement Agreement benefits the Utility’s affected customers as well 

as other similarly situated customers because it contemplates a refund to the Utility’s existing customers, 

consistent with the Utility’s ordinary course business practices, and a contribution to the REACH 

Program. The Utility often provides account credits to customers to resolve customer complaints and 

issues, including those resulting from improper disconnections. Further, the Customer Account Credits 

proposed in the Settlement Agreement are modest in amount and will directly benefit the customers 

affected by the disconnections at issue. Likewise, the contribution to the REACH Program also benefits 

the Utility’s customers. As discussed above, the REACH Program provides funds to qualifying Utility 

customers who need assistance paying their bills and avoiding disconnection. Without the Settlement 

Agreement, any penalties payable by the Utility as a result of the Disconnection OII would be directed 

to the California General Fund and is not guaranteed to benefit the Utility’s customers. With the 

Settlement Agreement, the REACH Program contribution will directly benefit the Utility’s customers 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4666 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 17:30:51 Page 6 of

8
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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

who are the most at-risk for disconnection. 

For the above reasons, and because the CPUC has already approved the Settlement 

Agreement and determined it to be “reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in 

the public interest,” I believe the Settlement Agreement, as modified by the CPUC Order, should be 

approved. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4666 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 17:30:51 Page 7 of

8
1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under the penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is 

2 trne and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. 

3 

4 Dated: November 11, 2019 

 San Francisco, Cafffornia

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

� 

,..;j °" ;:: 13 

"' 0 � � Ji = i= tr) 14 c,:s Q.) - I!!!" > 0 � ..:i::- � � � 15

.c i:... " 

.:i c-- � 16 0 \D 0 

c., c-- >-

·i � 17

� 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Rak:esh Nigam 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4666 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 17:30:51 Page 8 of

8