That could wipe out half the $30 billion in liabilities that the state’s largest power utility feared it faces because of brutal wildfires linked to its power lines and transmission facilities over the past three years.

PG&E’s stock went up 75 percent after the Cal Fire report on Thursday before slipping 16 percent on Friday.

Former CPUC leader: Bankruptcy a ploy to win bailout

The ruling was cited in a Los Angeles Times analysis that questioned whether PG&E really needed to go into bankruptcy on Tuesday, as it had previously announced it would. Former California Public Utilities Commission President Loretta Lynch told the newspaper that the utility had “created this crisis” as part of a corporate strategy to scare the state Legislature into approving a sweeping bailout to minimize disruptions for its 16 million customers.

Yet Lynn’s view was at odds with several recent developments. Credit rating agencies only continued to see PG&E as in near-deathbed condition and last week, S&P Global Ratings downgraded the state’s other two investor-owned utilities – Southern California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

S&P said PG&E’s travails showed the risks that California utilities face because of “inverse condemnation” – a state law which says utilities are financially liable for damages from fires caused by their equipment even if the utilities had not been found negligent.

Meanwhile, PG&E’s contentious relationship with the federal judge overseeing its probation stemming from its six felony convictions in the 2010 natural gas pipeline disaster that killed eight people in San Bruno (pictured) took a sharp turn for the worse. There is relatively little precedent for federal judges to play such oversight roles in complex cases. This had led to speculation that San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William Alsup might be cautious in drawing conclusions after announcing in late November that he was reviewing PG&E’s role in recent wildfires in Northern California. Alsup was seen as lacking the background and experience of agencies like the CPUC and Cal Fire to evaluate the utility’s claims and evidence from wildfire sites.

Instead, the judge has already issued a preliminary ruling directly asserting that PG&E’s failure to properly insulate power conductors contributed to fire disasters in Northern California over the last two years, including the November blaze in Butte County that killed at least 85 people. A hearing is scheduled in Alsup’s courtroom Wednesday on his ruling, which could lead to the judge ordering PG&E to broadly upgrade its transmission equipment.

PG&E: Rates could go up five-fold

The San Francisco Chronicle reported last week that PG&E officials believed that compliance with a far-reaching Alsup order “could cost between $75 billion and $150 billion, requiring a one-year rate hike – at the low end of the spectrum – of more than five times current rates in typical bills.”

In its formal response to Alsup’s tentative ruling, PG&E indirectly questioned his expertise. The utility wrote that it is “committed to working aggressively and expeditiously with state and federal officials on system maintenance and upgrades and on wildfire mitigation efforts.”

“But the path forward to mitigating wildfire risk is best designed not through probation conditions, but rather through careful coordination with state and federal regulators, after appropriate consultation with other interested parties, based on the best science and engineering advice, with policy analysis that accounts for the full range of important but often conflicting social goals,” PG&E concluded.

State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, told the Bay Area News Group that he welcomed Alsup’s actions.

“A federal judge is actually saying things and hopefully will do something about the lack of maintenance at PG&E,” he said. “No one else has required that.”

Hill, whose district includes San Bruno, has long ripped the state Public Utilities Commission for what he sees as lax oversight of PG&E.

Harris, California’s Democratic attorney general, is leading in polling, fundraising and name ID in the race to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is retiring. But her inclusion on lists in publications like USA Today and the New York Times as a possible replacement to Antonin Scalia — the conservative Supreme Court justice who died over the weekend — is leaving observers in doubt.

“It would surprise me if she were very high up on the list,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political scientist at the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California. “I just don’t think it makes sense at this point, particularly since she is the frontrunner for the Senate.”

Why Harris Doesn’t Make Sense

Harris has little incentive to accept a nomination if it were to be offered by President Barack Obama since the nominee is not likely to get confirmed.

The U.S. Senate has the Constitutional responsibility to advise and consent to Supreme Court justices and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., issued a statement within hours of Scalia’s death saying the Senate won’t confirm a replacement until after the November presidential election, leaving Obama with little leverage.

But Bebitch and others agree that if and when he nominates someone, it would make sense for the nominee to have already been confirmed by the Senate, like a federal judge, so that Democrats could say: “Look, you already voted for this person once.”

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch — who Scotusblog argues is the most likely choice — also already survived a Senate confirmation. But neither Harris nor Lynch have judicial experience, which would likely be seized upon by opponents.

There’s no requirement that justices have judicial experience, but they usually do. With the exception of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, the Senate hasn’t confirmed a nominee without judicial experience since the early 1970s.

“Her lack of judicial experience would give opponents an easy rationale for opposing her,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College. “And by choosing a partisan political figure, Obama would enable opponents to accuse him of politicizing the court.”

Senate Race

It would be very difficult for someone to complete the tasks required of a Senate candidate while being subjected to a Senate confirmation process, so Harris would likely be forced to choose one or the other, and again, there’s little benefit to accepting the nomination in this instance. But just being mentioned helps her campaign, said Raphael Sonenshein, the executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at California State University Los Angeles.

“Getting on a list of 10 is always a plus for a candidate,” said Sonenshein.

But if she were to be nominated, and if she were to accept, it would likely throw the Senate race into turmoil, as Democratic candidates would rush in to challenge Rep. Loretta Sanchez, an Orange County Democrat, and two former CAGOP chairmen.

“There are only a few weeks until the filing deadline, and Democrats would be scrambling to find a better candidate than Loretta Sanchez,” said Pitney.

How This Plays Out In The Senate

Obama and Senate Democrats don’t have too many options if McConnell holds true to his word. Sooner or later, Obama will send a name to the Senate, and the Judiciary Committee will have to decide whether it’ll consider the nominee or refuse to play along.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats would label McConnell and Republicans as obstructionists — in press conferences, in campaign ads and in floor speeches. With the balance of power in the Senate hanging precariously on the 2016 election, and with an open presidential election, this will be one of the most politicized issues going forward.

Since the Senate operates largely on unanimous consent, Democrats would likely object at most, if not all, turns, thereby “shutting down the Senate,” predicts Jim Manley, a former top advisor to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

“The idea that a president with 11 months to go doesn’t have the right to nominate a replacement for a crucial Supreme Court seat is absolutely outrageous,” said Manley. “So I assume that the caucus will demand retaliation.”