Judge Cathy Seibel
Under 11 USC §503(b)(9), Hudson sought administrative priority for $875,943 in electricity sold to reorganized debtor The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (A&P). Informed by the applicable definition of "goods," cases interpreting §503(b)(9), and the legislative history of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, bankruptcy court denied Hudson's motion. On appeal, district court vacated the bankruptcy court's Aug. 30, 2012, order and remanded the case. Despite holding that §503(b)(9)'s definition of "goods" conformed with that in §2-105(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), district court needed to know more about the delivery of electricity to determine whether the electricity supplied by Hudson met the UCC's definition of "goods" at the generator's meter, at customer's A&P's meter, or within the supply grid. Further, although the physics of electricity may be constant, the economic or business arrangements for its delivery are not. If Hudson's theory that electricity is always identified at the customer's meter fails, assessment of different supply arrangements may be needed to decide if the electricity sold in any given case is a "good."
