EDITORS: Please do not use
"Pacific Gas and Electric" or "PG&E" when
referring to PG&E Corporation or its National Energy Group.
The PG&E National Energy Group is not the same company as Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, the utility, and is not regulated by the
California Public Utilities Commission. Customers of Pacific Gas
and Electric Company do not have to buy products or services from
the National Energy Group in order to continue to receive quality
regulated services from Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
UPDATE: PG&E ISSUES STATEMENT FOLLOWING BANKRUPTCY COURT RULING
SAN FRANCISCO - Pacific
Gas and Electric Company today issued the following statement after
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court issued its decision on preemption and
"Based on the Court's ruling,
PG&E will be able to proceed with its plan of reorganization.
"The court concluded that
state law may be preempted based on a showing of the need for preemption
in order to implement the plan. Therefore, the Court's decision
allows PG&E to proceed with its plan of reorganization, with preemption
issues ultimately being addressed in the confirmation process.
"Specifically, the Court
'Nonetheless, the court
believes that the Plan could be confirmed if Proponents are able
to establish with particularity the requisite elements of implied
preemption. If the Disclosure Statement is amended consistent
with this Memorandum Decision, the court will approve it and let
the Proponents test preemption at confirmation.'
"Thus, while the Court did
not accept the utility's argument that federal law automatically
preempts state law, the ruling does provide that preemption is possible,
if necessary to confirm the utility's plan of reorganization.
"The Court also rejected
arguments made by the California Public Utilities Commission and
the Attorney General that PG&E's plan inappropriately seeks to escape
from state regulation. '?/span>
The State, the Commission
and other objectors have argued that Proponents are abusing the
bankruptcy process to escape the Commission's jurisdiction. To
the extent that this is a 'facial invalidity' objection the court
"PG&E intends to move forward
with its plan, taking into account the Court's direction in this