Gov. Gavin Newsom wants the Legislature to agree to sweeping reforms in wildfire liability rules by July 12, before lawmakers start a one-month recess.

After first calling on legislative leaders to shape new policies to help investor-owned utilities deal with a hotter, drier, more fire-prone era in April, Newsom put forward his own plan last week. It’s most significant change is an end to the state’s unusual “inverse condemnation” law that requires utilities be held liable for damages if their equipment sparks wildfires whatever the circumstances. Like predecessor Jerry Brown, Newsom thinks a more reasonable rule is to allow utilities to escape liability if there is evidence that their equipment was properly maintained – a standard used in most other states.

Newsom says this rule and the establishment of a $21 billion fund to help cover the cost of future blazes – paid for equally by shareholders and ratepayers of Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric – would go a long way toward stabilizing the state’s power grid and helping PG&E out of bankruptcy.

Thanks to a quirk, ratepayers might not even notice their share of the tab. That’s because a $2.50 monthly surcharge first imposed on utilities’ customers in 2002 to deal with heavy costs from the 2000-2001 energy crisis that is supposed to end next year would be renewed through 2035 to pay ratepayers’ share of the wildfire fund.

Brown’s call for weaker liability rules was rejected

But Brown got nowhere with his call last year to end “inverse condemnation.” And Newsom will face the same obstacles – and a new one. That’s the fact that many lawmakers may be ambivalent at best about helping PG&E come out of the bankruptcy process it initiated in January over at least $30 billion in claims from harsh wildfires in Northern California in recent years. 

The reputation of the state’s largest utility has been in a free-fall since a 2010 gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno that killed eight people and led to PG&E’s conviction of six federal felonies for shoddy maintenance and interfering with federal investigators. 

Yet after the utility promised it would do a far better job in inspecting and maintaining gas transmission lines, in December, the California Public Utilities Commission revealed that it had found that PG&E managers pressured workers to falsify “tens of thousands” gas safety inspections from 2012-2017.

The revelations stunned CPUC President Michael Picker – leading him to suggest for the first time that PG&E be taken over by the state, be broken up into smaller parts or otherwise go through a radical overhaul. 

The view that PG&E status quo must end has been highly popular among Bay Area politicians, who cite the fact that Sacramento started up its own municipal utility nearly a century ago in response to poor, costly service from PG&E.

In May, San Francisco Mayor London Breed said the city was preparing a formal, multibillion-dollar offer for some of PG&E’s key assets. Breed said her city had a “unique opportunity” to bolster its “long-term interest.”

Help PG&E with bankruptcy? Or break it up?

State lawmakers from the Bay Area include some of PG&E’s most forceful critics, starting with Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo. Even before the revelation in December about PG&E’s years of falsifying gas inspection records, Hill had already called for the utility to be taken over by a public agency or coalition of agencies.

Hill and other lawmakers are unlikely to accept changes in “inverse condemnation” until PG&E is overhauled. One of the main reasons previous calls to change the rule have been opposed was because of concerns that letting up pressure on PG&E to meet safety standards would lead the utility to be reactive instead of proactive in maintaining its equipment.

Against this backdrop, Newsom’s push to get his fire relief plan approved by July 12 doesn’t appear realistic.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and his wildfire “strike force” surprised some with the vagueness of its most important recommendation: That it’s time to revise the “inverse condemnation” state law that holds energy utilities can be held fully responsible for fires that were caused by their equipment even if the equipment was properly maintained. The law appears to be an existential threat to Pacific Gas & Electric, the state’s largest investor-owned utility, which filed for bankruptcy protection in January after being blamed for fires that resulted in $30 billion in damages.

Newsom’s pointed deference to state lawmakers – saying he hoped they could hash out a plan by mid-July – is an example of the “leading from behind” management gambit, which has a mixed history. Just as the Obama administration did with aspects of its foreign policy, the Newsom administration is expecting its allies to take the helm. The governor said he believes progress is more likely with him in the background.

“I’m purposely not including my personal opinions because I actually want to accomplish something. And I believe it’s incumbent upon me to create the conditions where we can actually get something done, versus to assert a political frame,” Newsom told Capitol reporters.

The governor may also perceive political risk if he puts out his own specific blueprint for how PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric can survive in a hot, dry era in which massive wildfires are common annual events.

Tactic seen as best for long-range causes

Leadership experts, however, think the “lead from behind” gambit works better for issues with low stakes or for long-term causes – for the most famous example, Nelson Mandela’s decades-long effort to end apartheid in South Africa – and isn’t necessarily right for addressing pressing problems.

Jack Dunigan, a longtime management consultant who runs The Practical Leader website, believes that “it works best in times and places of non-crisis. If a child is running into the street and into traffic, it is not the time to convene a focus group to discuss the threats of playing in the street. It is the time for action. Leading from behind, as [Harvard business professor Linda] Hill describes it, works best in non-threatening, non-urgent conditions.”

Given that PG&E emerged in 2004 after three years in bankruptcy and returned to regular operations, that may suggest that there is no urgent reason for Newsom to take a bolder approach. But the idea that the Legislature will be able to come up with a plan in three months or less is difficult to square with its recent history – and the intense dislike that many state lawmakers and Northern California residents have for scandal-scarred PG&E.

In January, after PG&E’s bankruptcy filing, state Sen. Bob Hertzberg told a Sacramento TV station, “Nobody in the Capitol wants to bail out PG&E, period, exclamation mark, end of story, full stop. They just don’t.”

While lawmakers don’t hold Southern California Edison and SDG&E in such contempt, any attempt to help them deal with wildfire liabilities that also protects PG&E would face tough sledding.

This background is why Newsom’s predecessor, Jerry Brown, got nowhere last year with his proposal to give state judges the flexibility to limit the amount of liability a utility has for wildfire damages based on circumstances – including consideration of the importance of a utility being able to continue to provide power to millions of customers.

Further complicating the prospects for relatively quick approval is that “inverse condemnation” is written into the California Constitution. Changing it would appear to require a vote of the public as well as two-thirds approval of both the state Assembly and Senate.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s has called for a first-ever water tax and an added fee on phone bills at a time when the state is enjoying what recently departed state Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor called “extraordinary” budget health. Newsom said last week that experts now forecast a $21.5 billion budget windfall in 2019-20. Until recent years, the optics of asking the public to pay more with an overflowing budget would have seemed impossible to overcome.

Specific details have not yet emerged on Newsom’s plan, but it’s expected to be similar to a rejected 2018 proposal from state Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, to tax residential customers 95 cents a month to help fund water improvements in rural farming communities in the Central Valley and throughout the state.

It would raise about $110 million to get clean water to what the McClatchy News Service estimated last year to be 360,000 people without such access. Others looking at the problem see it as much worse. Newsom said 1 million residents face health risks from their own water supplies.

Newsom emphasized what a priority the water tax would be for him on Friday by taking his cabinet on a “surprise” tour of affected Central Valley communities.

The dairy industry would also face $30 million in new fees. The $140 million annually that Newsom hopes to get from his plan is dwarfed by money already available from a $7.5 billion 2014 state water bond. While the largest chunk of the bond – $2.7 billion – was reserved for water storage projects, one of its listed priorities for the remaining $4.8 billion was providing access to clean water.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jon Coupal saw Newsom’s water tax plan as part of a historical continuum. He told the Sacramento Bee it was only the latest example “of California’s knee-jerk reaction to default to a new tax whenever there’s a new problem.”

But Newsom depicted his 2019-20 budget as reflecting discipline, touting its emphasis on continuing to add to the state’s rainy day fund and his commitment to prepay some of CalPERS’ and CalSTRS’ unfunded long-term liabilities. Finance officials say every $1 billion prepaid now saves more than $2 billion in the long haul.

Governor cites urgent need to upgrade 911 system

Newsom also confirmed that he wants to add a 20- to 80-cent fee on monthly cellphone and landline bills to upgrade the 911 emergency notification system. That would take a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

A similar proposal died late in the legislative session amid fears that it was a regressive tax that could cause headaches for incumbents on the November ballot.

But Newsom depicts the fee as a vital part of upgrading a 911 system that has outdated technology and is not up to the challenge of keeping safe a state facing devastating wildfires on a yearly basis.

The 911 fee was part of a larger wildfire-response program Newsom announced last week in the aftermath of last fall’s Camp fire in Butte County that killed at least 86 people and destroyed about 14,000 homes and the Woolsey Fire in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties that caused three deaths and torched 1,500 homes.

The governor wants to add $105 million to the $200 million already earmarked for improved wildfire response efforts in fiscal 2019-20. The extra money would be used to boost forest clearing efforts, to expand emergency fire rescue crews and more.

A California Public Utilities Commission report that Pacific Gas & Electric failed to fulfill its responsibilities to properly maintain

On Dec. 21, the CPUC released a dramatic statement saying it would consider drastic steps to address the “serious safety problems” it says the utility has long condoned. The commission said a break-up of the agency into smaller regional utilities or a state takeover would be among the possible changes it examined.

“This process will be like repairing a jetliner while it’s in flight. Crashing a plane to make it safer isn’t good for the passengers,” said CPUC President Michael Picker. “This is not a punitive exercise. The keystone question is would, compared to PG&E and PG&E Corp. as presently constituted, any of the proposals provide Northern Californians with safer natural gas and electric service at just and reasonable rates.”

CPUC looking at seven possible major changes

The CPUC statement said seven possible changes would be considered.

– Having “some or all of PG&E be reconstituted as a publicly owned utility or utilities.”

– Replacing some members of PG&E’s Board of Directors with members “with a stronger background and focus on safety.” 

– The replacement of existing corporate management.

– Adoption of a new corporate management structure with regional leaders overseeing regional subsidiaries.

– Linking PG&E’s “return on equity” – the profits it shares with its investor-owners – to its safety performance.

– Breaking the utility’s natural gas operations and its electric transmission operations into separate companies.

– Ending the arrangement in which PG&E is controlled by a holding company so it becomes “exclusively a regulated utility.”

Picker’s statement was a remarkable turnaround from his comments on Nov. 15, when his upbeat remarks about the ability of PG&E to survive its fourth consecutive year of devastating wildfires in Northern California led the utility’s stock price to spike.

It reflected the anger among CPUC officials over a staff report released Dec. 14 that found the utility had systematically neglected natural gas infrastructure despite being fined $1.6 billion and convicted of six felonies in federal court over the 2010 disaster in San Bruno, a suburb of San Francisco.

Utility facing 500 lawsuits relating to fires it may have caused

Even if PG&E survives in something like its present form after the CPUC’s review, its future is still very cloudy.

Because of claims that PG&E was responsible for the devastating Camp Fire that killed 85 people in Butte County in November, U.S. District Judge William Alsup announced he was reviewing whether PG&E had violated terms of its federal probation in the San Bruno case.

PG&E also disclosed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing roughly 500 lawsuits with more than 3,100 plaintiffs over claims the utility was responsible for many of the dozens of wildfires in Northern California since 2016.

It is also facing wildfire-related lawsuits from the state Office of Emergency Services, Cal Fire, Calaveras County and other government agencies.

But while the CPUC is apparently ready for major changes at the utility, it’s not clear yet how state lawmakers feel.

On Nov. 19 – even as criticism of PG&E swelled as confirmed deaths grew in the Camp Fire – Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, was reported to be considering introducing legislation to help the utility deal with wildfire costs.

Holden helped pass a law earlier this year that allowed PG&E to spread out the costs from the liabilities it faced from 17 wildfires in 2017.

Pacific Gas & Electric – the giant investor-owned utility that serves 16 million Californians – appears to be facing its gravest crisis since its founding in 1905.

The initial indications that PG&E’s equipment may have sparked the Camp Fire that killed at least 88 people in Butte County – the deadliest blaze in state history – initially led at least some state lawmakers to consider new legislation to try to insulate PG&E from potentially devastating liabilities. Earlier this year, the Legislature passed and Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a measure that lets PG&E spread out the costs from 17 Northern California wildfires in 2017 and have its customers pay some of its bills.

The Bloomberg news service reported that Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, may introduce legislation to help PG&E in coming days.

But a federal judge and the president of the California Public Utilities Commission have shaken PG&E’s hopes that it can avoid crushing new blows.

Judge demands answers on PG&E, Camp Fire

U.S. District Judge William Alsup has ordered PG&E to provide evidence proving its negligence didn’t cause the Camp Fire – raising the prospect that the utility could be found guilty of violating the terms of its five-year criminal probation that began in January 2017.

The probation was imposed then by U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson – along with the maximum possible fine of $3 million – after PG&E was convicted of six felonies related to the 2010 San Bruno disaster (pictured above). A PG&E natural gas pipeline that was found to have been poorly maintained exploded, killing eight, injuring more than 50 and wiping out 38 homes. The utility was convicted of five felonies for failing to keep the pipeline safe and a sixth felony for impeding investigators.

Judge Alsup was assigned to monitor PG&E’s probation. In a statement, Alsup said his goal was determining what “federal, state or local crimes might be implicated were any wildfire started by reckless operation or abandonment of PG&E power lines” or “inaccurate, slow or failed reporting of information about any wildfire.” If Alsup concludes that PG&E violated its probation, the utility could face unprecedented punishment from the judge.

Two days after Alsup’s announcement, CPUC President Michael Picker said he had concerns about whether PG&E’s “culture” had enough of a commitment to public safety. At a CPUC board meeting in San Francisco, the utility was ordered to implement 60 safety recommendations from a commission consultant.

Picker’s critique came less than two weeks after he stuck up for PG&E, challenging the idea that the Camp fire could or should put the utility into bankruptcy. “It’s just not good policy,” Picker told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It doesn’t work out.” This stabilized PG&E’s stock price.

The new tone from Picker was a departure from the normally close relationship between the CPUC and PG&E.

Those who have called for the CPUC to be reformed and to be much tougher with the utilities it oversees often cite the $1.6 billion “fine” the utility commission levied in 2016 on PG&E for the San Bruno disaster. More than half of the fine – $850 million – was actually a requirement that the utility upgrade its natural gas pipeline system.

Critics said this amounted to likening the improvements that PG&E had to make to a penalty.

Picker joined in the 4-0 CPUC board vote for the “fine.”

How much of wildfire costs not covered by insurance should be paid by California’s giant investor-owner utilities has been a significant issue since at least 2007. That’s when wildfires ravaged northern and eastern San Diego County, killing two people and destroying more than 1,300 homes.

San Diego Gas & Electric argued that it should be allowed to pass on $379 million in related costs. But the California Public Utilities Commission and state courts – noting the evidence that poorly maintained equipment had been blamed for much of the damage in two state investigations – have rebuffed SDG&E. The utility’s most recent setback came just last week when the state 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego rejected a call to overturn previous rulings.

But during SDG&E’s long fight for a utility-favorable interpretation of liability laws, the debate has become far more high-profile. With six of California’s all-time 10 worst wildfires occurring since September 2015 in areas served by Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison, the question of what to do to keep the state’s two largest investor-owned utilities in business has emerged as one of the thorniest, most contentious issues in Sacramento.

Now, with Northern California reeling from its deadliest fire ever in Butte County, and with a large area of Ventura County and northwest Los Angeles County ravaged in the past two weeks, PG&E and Edison are confronted with a perverse twist on their successful efforts to get the Legislature to give them relief from huge wildfire costs.

Law protecting utilities doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1

Senate Bill 901 – the main measure passed in late summer to insulate utilities from the extreme costs of fires – doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1. That means its provisions to limit utilities’ liabilities if it could be shown they properly maintained their equipment in fire-prone wilderness areas won’t help PG&E or Edison with this fall’s blazes.

Instead, the old standard that led to negative rulings against SDG&E will be used in assessing damages. Given that utilities’ equipment is blamed for helping start the latest round of wildfires, that could be apocalyptic for the finances of PG&E. As of Monday afternoon, the Camp Fire had killed 77, with nearly 1,000 people unaccounted for, and torched 151,000 acres and nearly 13,000 structures.

In the Woolsey fire northeast of Los Angeles, three people have died, while more than 96,000 acres and 1,400-plus structures have burned.

In coming days, the focus is likely to be on how many of the missing in the Camp Fire are dead. It could end up as one of the five deadliest natural disasters in the United States in this century – nearly as lethal as Hurricane Katrina.

But eventually the focus will return to whether PG&E can survive the latest conflagrations even as it deals with potential losses in the billions from previous fires – and how much more state lawmakers and Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom should do to help the utility survive in its present condition.

Its company valuation plunged by more than one-third after the severity of the Camp fire became evident, only to jump somewhat late last week after the president of the state Public Utilities Commission offered supportive comments.

“It’s not good policy to have utilities unable to finance the services and infrastructure the state of California needs,” Michael Picker told Bloomberg News. “They have to have stability and economic support to get the dollars they need right now.”

PG&E has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy before, in April 2001, when the utility was squeezed by sky-high energy costs after the blackouts of winter 2000-2001. It emerged from bankruptcy three years later.

Lawmakers have little goodwill for ‘criminal’ PG&E

But a huge scandal since then has left Northern California lawmakers with less goodwill toward the 113-year-old utility, whatever Picker’s views and whatever their willingness to pass SB901.

In 2010, a PG&E transmission line exploded in the San Francisco suburb of San Bruno, leaving eight dead and destroying 38 homes. In 2017, a federal judge found the utility guilty of five felonies for its failings to safely maintain the gas line, and a sixth felony for obstructing the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation into the disaster.

Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, routinely refers to PG&E as a “criminal” institution. Last week, he renewed his call to break up the utility, saying it could no longer be trusted to act in the interest of public safety.

PG&E shares closed at $23.26 in Monday trading. That was down 58 percent from its 52-week high of $55.66.