In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Chapter 11 Case No. 19-30088 

REFILED CONDITIONAL OBJECTION OF HOLT OF CALIFORNIA TO MOTION OF DEBTORS PURSUANT TO 

11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 363(b), AND 503(b) (9) AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 6003 AND 6004 FOR INTERIM AND FINAL 

AUTHORITY TO PAY PREPETITION OBLIGATIONS OWED TO CERTAIN SAFETY AND RELIABILITY, 

OUTAGE, AND NUCLEAR FACILITY SUPPLIERS Page 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 

Mark D. Poniatowski, Esq. (#123405) 

Kimberly F. Leding, Esq. (#233618) 

Meera T. Parikh, Esq. (#217996) 

PONIATOWSKI LEDING PARIKH PC 

20980 Redwood Road, Suite 200 

Castro Valley, California 94546 

Telephone: (510) 881-8700 

Facsimile: (510) 881-8702 

Attorneys for Creditor 

Holt of California, a California corporation 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

 - and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

 / 

[ ] Affects PG&E Corporation 

[ ] Affects Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company 

[X] Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead 

Case, No. 19-30088 (DM). 

 / 

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) (Jointly Administered) 

REFILED CONDITIONAL OBJECTION 

OF HOLT OF CALIFORNIA TO MOTION 

OF DEBTORS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 

§§ 105(a), 363(b), AND 503(b) (9) AND 

FED. R. BANKR. P. 6003 AND 6004 FOR 

INTERIM AND FINAL AUTHORITY TO 

PAY PREPETITION OBLIGATIONS 

OWED TO CERTAIN SAFETY AND 

RELIABILITY, OUTAGE, AND 

NUCLEAR FACILITY SUPPLIERS 

DATE: February 27, 2019 

TIME: 9:30 a.m. 

CTRM.: 17 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 508 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 15:19:50 Page 1 of 6
 

In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Chapter 11 Case No. 19-30089 

CONDITIONAL OBJECTION OF HOLT OF CALIFORNIA TO MOTION OF DEBTORS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 

§§ 105(a), 363(b), AND 503(b) (9) AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 6003 AND 6004 FOR INTERIM AND FINAL 

AUTHORITY TO PAY PREPETITION OBLIGATIONS OWED TO CERTAIN SAFETY AND RELIABILITY, 

OUTAGE, AND NUCLEAR FACILITY SUPPLIERS Page 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 

Mark D. Poniatowski, Esq. (#123405) 

Kimberly F. Leding, Esq. (#233618) 

Meera T. Parikh, Esq. (#217996) 

PONIATOWSKI LEDING PARIKH PC 

20980 Redwood Road, Suite 200 

Castro Valley, California 94546 

Telephone: (510) 881-8700 

Facsimile: (510) 881-8702 

Attorneys for Creditor 

Holt of California, a California corporation 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION) 

In Re 

THE PG&E CORPORATION, 

Debtor. 

Tax I.D. No. 94-3234914 

 / 

In Re 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Debtor. 

Tax I.D. No. 94-0742640 

 / 

Chapter 11 Case No. 19-30089DM 

CONDITIONAL OBJECTION OF HOLT 

OF CALIFORNIA TO MOTION OF 

DEBTORS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 

105(a), 363(b), AND 503(b) (9) AND FED. 

R. BANKR. P. 6003 AND 6004 FOR 

INTERIM AND FINAL AUTHORITY TO 

PAY PREPETITION OBLIGATIONS 

OWED TO CERTAIN SAFETY AND 

RELIABILITY, OUTAGE, AND 

NUCLEAR FACILITY SUPPLIERS 

DATE: January 31, 2019 

TIME: 10:00 a.m. 

DEPT.: 17 

I. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

 The Motion Of Debtors Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 363(b), And 503(b) (9) And 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 6003 And 6004 For Interim And Final Authority To Pay Prepetition 

Obligations Owed To Certain Safety And Reliability, Outage, And Nuclear Facility Suppliers 

(“Critical Vendor Motion”) does not specifically identify the vendors that it considers to be 

critical and entitled to priority treatment. Creditor Holt of California (“Holt”) is the Caterpillar 

Case: 19-30089 Doc# 112 Filed: 01/30/19 Entered: 01/30/19 18:00:20 Page 1 of 5 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 508 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 15:19:50 Page 2 of 6
 

In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Chapter 11 Case No. 19-30089 

CONDITIONAL OBJECTION OF HOLT OF CALIFORNIA TO MOTION OF DEBTORS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 

§§ 105(a), 363(b), AND 503(b) (9) AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 6003 AND 6004 FOR INTERIM AND FINAL 

AUTHORITY TO PAY PREPETITION OBLIGATIONS OWED TO CERTAIN SAFETY AND RELIABILITY, 

OUTAGE, AND NUCLEAR FACILITY SUPPLIERS Page 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

equipment dealer in northern and central California with its corporate headquarters in Pacific 

Grove, Sutter County, California. Holt has been renting the Debtor critical Caterpillar earth 

moving and related rental equipment under a Master Rental Agreement for emergency and nonemergency safety related work on the Camp Fire and for the Debtor’s pipeline reconstruction 

project. The Debtor currently has 10 Holt units in its possession that the Debtor wants to 

continue to rent and owes Holt $453,980 in pre-petition arrearages, with about $150,000 incurred 

in the 21 days pre-petition. Holt considers itself a “Safety and Reliability Vendor”, a 

“Regulatory Compliance Vendor” and an “Operational Integrity Supplier” (collectively, “Critical 

Vendor”) by the Debtor’s own definitions in the Critical Vendor Motion. Holt has requested 

confirmation from the Debtor that the Debtor considers Holt a Critical Vendor, but has received 

no confirmation from the Debtor one way or the other. As such, Holt objects to the Critical 

Vendor Motion to the extent that the Debtor does not list the specific identity of the critical 

vendors, and relies on ambiguous, ill-defined criteria with no Court oversight to determine the 

identity of the critical vendors entitled to priority treatment under the Critical Vendor Motion. 

II. 

FACTS

 Holt is the Caterpillar equipment dealer in northern and central California with its 

corporate headquarters in Pacific Grove, Sutter County, California. Holt is in the business 

providing sales, rental, parts, service and related activities to its customers for Caterpillar 

construction, earthmoving, material handling, agricultural, power generation and related 

equipment. Holt has 16 locations throughout northern and central California. (Declaration of 

Darrell Weight In Support Of Conditional Objection Of Holt Of California To Motion Of 

Debtors Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(A), 363(B), And 503(B)(9) And Fed. R. Bankr. P. 6003 

And 6004 For Interim And Final Authority To Pay Prepetition Obligations Owed To Certain 

Safety And Reliability, Outage, And Nuclear Facility Suppliers (“Weight Declaration”). 

 On or about November 12, 2015 Holt and the Debtor entered into an agreement titled 

PG&E Contract No. 4400010093; Project Name: Rental Project; Job Location: Various PG&E 

Locations (collectively, the “Master Rental Agreement”). The Master Rental Agreement is 

Case: 19-30089 Doc# 112 Filed: 01/30/19 Entered: 01/30/19 18:00:20 Page 2 of 5 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 508 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 15:19:50 Page 3 of 6
 

In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Chapter 11 Case No. 19-30089 

CONDITIONAL OBJECTION OF HOLT OF CALIFORNIA TO MOTION OF DEBTORS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 

§§ 105(a), 363(b), AND 503(b) (9) AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 6003 AND 6004 FOR INTERIM AND FINAL 

AUTHORITY TO PAY PREPETITION OBLIGATIONS OWED TO CERTAIN SAFETY AND RELIABILITY, 

OUTAGE, AND NUCLEAR FACILITY SUPPLIERS Page 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 

currently in effect and expires on December 31, 2019. (“Weight Declaration”) 

 The Master Rental Agreement contains preferred rental pricing and rebates to the Debtor 

that are not generally available to Holt’s other customers. (“Weight Declaration”) 

 Holt is considered a critical vendor rated by the Debtor as one of the top equipment 

suppliers to the Debtor based on the Debtor’s written scoring system. Also, Holt is a critical 

vendor when the Debtor considers its 3 areas of focus: safety, fire clean up and support. 

(“Weight Declaration”) 

 During the emergency conditions of the Camp Fire, Holt supplied Caterpillar Earth 

Moving Equipment to the Debtor at the fire site within 5 hours of notification, which was critical 

in facilitating the staging areas for all of the first responders. Holt also supplied lighting and 

power on an emergency basis. (“Weight Declaration”) 

 Holt locations are close to the rental equipment locations so providing parts, service and 

support by Holt’s field personnel is available 24/7 and response time is minimized, which is 

particularly important in an emergency situation. (“Weight Declaration”) 

 During the past week the Debtor had approximately 17 units on rent from Holt, primarily 

used for fire clean up and pipeline reconstruction purposes. 7 of these units have been returned 

to Holt pre-petition at Holt’s request and 10 of these units remain in the possession of the Debtor. 

The Debtor has advised Holt that it wants to continue to rent these 10 units post-petition. 

(“Weight Declaration”) 

 The current amount due to Holt by the Debtor as of the petition date is $453,979.66. The 

approximate amount due from rentals for the 21 days prior to the petition date is approximately 

$150,458.69. (“Weight Declaration”) 

 Holt qualifies as a “Safety and Reliability Vendor” for the following reasons: 

a. Holt provides Caterpillar rental equipment that is highly specialized and closely 

integrated into the Debtor’s business operations; 

b. Holt was selected and qualified as a provider of critical goods; 

c. The Caterpillar equipment provided by Holt relates to services that the Debtor has 

identified as critical, such as earth - moving and waste - removal; 

Case: 19-30089 Doc# 112 Filed: 01/30/19 Entered: 01/30/19 18:00:20 Page 3 of 5 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 508 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 15:19:50 Page 4 of 6
 

In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Chapter 11 Case No. 19-30089 

CONDITIONAL OBJECTION OF HOLT OF CALIFORNIA TO MOTION OF DEBTORS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 

§§ 105(a), 363(b), AND 503(b) (9) AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 6003 AND 6004 FOR INTERIM AND FINAL 

AUTHORITY TO PAY PREPETITION OBLIGATIONS OWED TO CERTAIN SAFETY AND RELIABILITY, 

OUTAGE, AND NUCLEAR FACILITY SUPPLIERS Page 4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

d. The Caterpillar equipment provided by Holt relates to providing base camp 

services for the Debtor’s personnel. (“Weight Declaration”). 

 Holt qualifies as a “Regulatory Compliance Vendor” for the following reasons: 

a. The Caterpillar equipment provided by Holt relates to the management of 

vegetation that grows near the Debtor’s transmission and distribution lines, and 

vegetation management reduces the risk of creating dangerous or hazardous conditions 

within the Debtor’s service area. (“Weight Declaration”) 

 Holt qualifies as an “Operational Integrity Supplier” for the following reasons: 

a. Holt is a select supplier of the Debtor; 

b. The Caterpillar equipment provided by Holt, and the service provided by Holt, is 

vital so that disruption would raise safety risks; 

c. The Debtor would be unable to obtain comparable Caterpillar equipment and Holt 

service on a cost effective basis within a reasonable time; 

d. The Debtor does not have a sufficient current inventory of Caterpillar equipment 

to meet its needs while searching for an alternative vendor; 

e. Holt is a party to the Master Rental Agreement with the Debtor; and 

f. Holt is the owner of the Caterpillar equipment in the possession of the Debtor. 

(“Weight Declaration”) 

III. 

LEGAL ANALYSIS

 Holt agrees with the Debtor’s argument that there is ample authority for the Court to 

grant the Critical Vendor Motion, but contends that the Debtor must specify the critical vendors 

that will benefit from priority treatment. The Critical Vendor Motion does not specify the 

critical vendors, and instead seeks to appoint a “Supplier Management Committee” to make this 

determination based on vague and ambiguous criteria. Who is on the Supplier Management 

Committee? How are the members of the Supplier Management Committee selected? Is the 

selection of the Supplier Management Committee members subject to Court approval? Is it 

contemplated that the selection of critical vendors by the Supplier Management Committee that 

Case: 19-30089 Doc# 112 Filed: 01/30/19 Entered: 01/30/19 18:00:20 Page 4 of 5 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 508 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 15:19:50 Page 5 of 6
 

In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Chapter 11 Case No. 19-30089 

CONDITIONAL OBJECTION OF HOLT OF CALIFORNIA TO MOTION OF DEBTORS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 

§§ 105(a), 363(b), AND 503(b) (9) AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 6003 AND 6004 FOR INTERIM AND FINAL 

AUTHORITY TO PAY PREPETITION OBLIGATIONS OWED TO CERTAIN SAFETY AND RELIABILITY, 

OUTAGE, AND NUCLEAR FACILITY SUPPLIERS Page 5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

will benefit from priority treatment is subject to Court approval? 

 Unlike here, both cases within this Circuit cited by the Debtor in support of the Critical 

Vendor Motion specifically identified the critical vendors whose pre-petition claims were to be 

paid. In In re Laurel Fertility Care, Case No. 14-30404-DM-11 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. May 21, 2014) 

the critical vendor was identified as Mellowood Medical. In In re Montgomery-Sansome, LP, 

Case No. 17-30151-HLB (Bankr. N. D. Sept. 20, 2017), the Debtor included a chart itemizing 

14 payees by name, amount, category of creditor and explanation of why payment of the prepetition claim was required. 

Here, Holt meets the definition of a Critical Vendor and should be identified in the 

Critical Vendor Motion by the Debtor and approved by the Court as a Critical Vendor entitled to 

priority treatment. Otherwise, Holt objects to the Critical Vendor Motion and the Critical 

Vendor Motion should be denied. 

IV. 

CONCLUSION

Holt meets the definition of a Critical Vendor and should be identified as such in the 

Critical Vendor Motion. Otherwise, the Critical Vendor Motion should be denied. 

DATED: January 30, 2019 PONIATOWSKI LEDING PARIKH PC 

 /s/ Mark D. Poniatowski 

MARK D. PONIATOWSKI 

Attorneys for Creditor Holt of California 

 

Case: 19-30089 Doc# 112 Filed: 01/30/19 Entered: 01/30/19 18:00:20 Page 5 of 5 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 508 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 15:19:50 Page 6 of 6