March 25, 2019

March 25, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

PG&E Seeks Declaratory Judgment Confirming Bankruptcy Court's Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Rejection Of Power Purchase Agreements

PG&E Corporation and its utility subsidiary Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) recently filed the largest utility bankruptcy in U.S. history, and the sixth-largest corporate bankruptcy ever. As we noted prior to PG&E’s bankruptcy filing, one of the critical issues, in this case, is how PG&E intends to address its contracts with energy suppliers, including the solar and wind farms that sell energy to PG&E under long-term power purchase agreements (PPA).

These PPAs represent PG&E’s contractual commitments to approximately 350 counterparties totaling $44 billion, which is approximately three times PG&E’s 2017 gross revenues. Many of these PPAs are significantly above-market today, as they were entered into years ago when solar and wind power was much more expensive. A crucial issue in the PG&E case, and one that typically arises in utility bankruptcies, is whether a bankruptcy court alone has jurisdiction to approve a PPA rejection, or whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) must also approve such rejection.

In order for a utility to adjust rates or otherwise modify PPAs outside of bankruptcy, approval must be obtained from FERC. The Federal Power Act grants FERC exclusive jurisdiction over the rates, terms and conditions of such contracts, and FERC is prohibited from modifying contractual rates unless the rate “seriously harms the public interest.” In a bankruptcy, however, a debtor is permitted to reject contracts subject to bankruptcy court approval and render each contract counterparty as merely the holder of a general unsecured claim – for which recovery is often uncertain.

Importantly, the standard for bankruptcy court approval of a debtor’s contract rejection is a much lower standard than the FERC standard outside of bankruptcy. A bankruptcy court will approve a debtor’s contract rejection if the debtor exercised “sound business judgment,” and this lower standard usually results in bankruptcy courts approving contract rejections.

FERC asserted its position in the days prior to PG&E filing for bankruptcy protection by issuing an order finding that both the bankruptcy court and FERC have “concurrent jurisdiction to review and address the disposition of wholesale power contracts sought to be rejected through bankruptcy.” In response, PG&E filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court seeking (1) a declaratory judgment confirming the bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction over PG&E’s ability to reject any of its PPAs, and (2) injunctive relief against FERC prohibiting any further action FERC might take. PG&E’s complaint also seeks a ruling that FERC has no jurisdiction and that PG&E does not need FERC’s approval to reject any PPAs.

Bankruptcy courts across the country have ruled different ways in prior utility bankruptcies, with some finding that a bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to approve a PPA rejection and others finding that FERC must also approve a rejection. It is uncertain how the court will rule in the PG&E bankruptcy. Thus it is critical that PPA counterparties engage as active participants to preserve and enforce their rights, so as to maximize the value of their PPAs and ultimate monetary recovery.

© 2019 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

James Jim Van Horn Restructuring Insolvency Attorney
Partner

James "Jim" Van Horn focuses his practice on restructuring and insolvency law. He is a trusted adviser valued by clients for his practical, results-oriented approach and creative strategies in solving complex matters within the framework of their business goals. Jim is ranked as a Band 1 bankruptcy/restructuring attorney by Chambers USA and is named to The Best Lawyers in America.

Jim has deep experience working directly with senior management, investors, creditors and other stakeholders in matters ranging from out-of-court workouts, pre-packaged and pre-arranged Chapter 11...

202-371-6351
Ralph Dudziak, Barnes Thornburg Law Firm, Chicago, Corporate, Energy and Finance Law Attorney
Partner

Ralph Dudziak is a partner in the Chicago office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. As a transactional attorney in the firm’s Corporate Department, Mr. Dudziak concentrates a significant portion of his practice in the energy sector on project finance and development, renewable energy project construction and term lending, tax equity financings, back-leverage financings, other forms of secured lending, credit warehouses and securitizations, private placements, and leasing.

Mr. Dudziak’s wide-ranging experience includes advising a variety of clients in transactional matters. In the energy sector, Mr. Dudziak has experience negotiating the agreements that are inherent to energy projects, such as site control, power purchase, supply, EPC and operations and maintenance agreements. He represents lenders (both traditional and alternative), investors, tax equity investors, lessors, developers, private equity firms, manufacturers, leasing companies, insurance companies, renewable energy developers and government entities. Mr. Dudziak also represents infrastructure facilities in solar, wind, biomass, hydro and other renewable energy projects.

312-214-5618
William Ewing, Barnes Thornburg Law Firm, Atlanta, Corporate and Energy Law Attorney
Partner

William P. Ewing is a partner in the Atlanta office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, where he is co-chair of the firm’s Renewable Energy Practice Group and a member of the Corporate Department.

Mr. Ewing represents clients in the energy industry in a wide variety of transactions, including in partnership investments, financings, leasing transactions, acquisitions and sales of energy related assets. He has represented investors in a range of tax credit transactions, including renewable energy, refined coal, synthetic fuel, coke, new markets and...

404-264-4050