Phillip Burton Federal court house building entrance San Francisco
Phillip Burton Federal Court House. San Francisco, California. (Photo: iStock.com/Nicolas McComber)

A California bankruptcy judge ruled Friday that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) does not have jurisdiction over energy contracts PG&E has brought to its bankruptcy proceedings.

In his memorandum, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali said that while FERC has argued energy contracts are its purview, bankruptcy courts are able to handle nearly any type of contract.

As such, Montali came to a definitive decision about FERC’s jurisdiction and control over which contracts are dismissed in the Chapter 11 proceedings.

“Debtors are entitled to this court’s declaratory judgment that (1) FERC does not have concurrent jurisdiction over its decision to permit Debtors to reject (or assume) executory contracts under Section 365; and (2) that the FERC Denial and its two prior rulings described above are of no force and effect and are not binding on Debtors in these cases,” Montali wrote.

The result of this decision is relatively straightforward. The court is asserting its aptitude for understanding and properly deciding about the power purchase agreements PG&E plans to shed as they work through bankruptcy proceedings.

This past April, FERC argued in court it should have a say in the proceedings, as they have the ability to help PG&E exit the market “in an orderly way to ensure it doesn’t turn off the lights, according to testimony obtained from Law360.

Amid the proceedings, PG&E has made headlines for, among other things, doling out bonuses to execs and being the target of a group of seven community choice aggregators who wanted to strip PG&E of its ability to supply electricity.

Renewables Might Be First Contracts to Go

Experts believe that PG&E’s renewables contracts are most at risk in the bankruptcy proceedings. S&P Global said as much this past April in an article weighing the future of the bankruptcy proceedings.

They analyzed an investor note from Credit Suisse in which the company said it was likely that PG&E would shed their renewable energy contracts in light of the overwhelming cost of the California wildfires.

Author:
Energy Pages is an online trade publication and business directory for the retail energy industry. We publish editorials, resources, case studies, practical information and industry news. Our content is about and for industry leaders, innovators, investors and influencers.

Your Opinion Matters

Have Something To Say About This Story?

Sign Up for the Energy Pages Digest

Our weekly must-see brief

You May Also Like

Understanding NAESB and the FERC Version 3.1 Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NOPR)

As you may already be aware, FERC has proposed to adopt Version 3.1 of the NAESB Standards. Today we will provide an overview of the upcoming North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) Version 3.1 Standards which have been proposed for adoption by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Our organization has been involved with NAESB since its inception in 2002, and with the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB), the precursor to NAESB, before that.

NEM: Choice Works in Connecticut and Nationally

Connecticut Consumer Counsel fails to consider important facts

Energy Brokers Support Broker Regulation in Texas

Industry insiders say proposed broker rules will create “more sound marketplace”, benefit consumers through accountability.

Arizona Commission Opens Study of Retail Electric Market Opening

On December 3, in one of the first substantive moves to address energy competition in Arizona, the Arizona Corporation Commission held a special open meeting. The purpose of the three-hour meeting was to discuss in detail the possibility and ramifications of opening Arizona up to competitive retail energy and/or natural gas.