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.

California’s three large investor-owned utilities are renewing efforts to allow them to make ratepayers cover the costs of wildfires that authorities blame on utilities’ mistakes or poor maintenance.

Pacific Gas & Electric officials made this clear last week when they announced they expected to have at least $2.5 billion in liabilities from the wildfires that scarred the wine country of Northern California last October. That sum is only for 12 relatively small blazes that the state blames on PG&E’s failure to maintain equipment and clear brush near power lines. Authorities are still looking at what caused the biggest blaze – the Tubbs fire – which torched more than 3,000 homes in Sonoma County and is blamed in the deaths of 22 people.

PG&E CEO-President Geisha Williams used a conference call with analysts to make the case for state legislation to protect electricity utilities from bankruptcy in an era in which huge wildfires – blamed on hotter, drier weather – are more common than ever. PG&E only has an estimated $840 million in insurance coverage to deal with the 200 and counting lawsuits from the wine country conflagrations.

Williams said “flawed” state laws made utilities responsible for fire risks that were beyond their control. But in a decision-making process that began last summer – before the wine country blazes – and ended after they were finally put out, the California Public Utilities Commission rejected a similar argument put forward by San Diego Gas & Electric. In August, CPUC staff recommended that commissioners reject an SDG&E request to pass along to ratepayers $379 million in unrecovered costs from 2007 wildfires that ravaged San Diego County. After three months of wavering, the CPUC board voted unanimously in late November to deny the request.

Williams said negative media coverage of the October fires complicated utilities’ efforts to get help from the California Legislature. But some utility watchdogs are still wary of state lawmakers, whom they see as sending out mixed signals on wildfire liabilities.

On the one hand, the state Senate voted 39-0 in May and an Assembly committee voted 15-0 last week for Senate Bill 819. It would ban the CPUC from allowing utilities to pass along to ratepayers the costs of fines or penalties as well as the cost of damages that were “caused” by a utility’s infrastructure. Only costs the CPUC deems “just and reasonable” can be shifted from shareholders to ratepayers under the legislation. PG&E and Southern California Edison expressed “concerns” about the bill without formally opposing it, according to a legislative analysis.

Benign bill pushing responsibility – or stealth bailout?

But another bill that had similarly lopsided support in the Senate is drawing a very mixed response. Senate Bill 1088 passed the Senate 34-2 in late May and survived an Assembly committee vote last week with eight lawmakers in support, two in opposition and five declining to vote.

It would require utilities “to submit a safety, reliability and resiliency plan to the California Public Utilities Commission every two years.” It would also require the state Office of Emergency Services “to adopt standards for reducing risks from a major event and requires the office to update the standards at least once every two years.”

Supporters – including PG&E, SDG&E, labor unions and some counties hit hard by last year’s blazes – depict the measure as a benign attempt to make sure utilities are prepared to handle their responsibilities.

But critics see the language requiring the state to regularly “update” how it evaluates risks posed by the biggest blazes as potentially giving legal ammunition to the utilities – specifically, to their arguments that emerging, more dangerous conditions should change what costs can be shifted on a “fair and reasonable” basis to ratepayers.

Formal opponents of SB1088 include groups which have standing to challenge utilities’ proposed rate hikes (The Utility Reform Network and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates); business interests (the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, the Western States Petroleum Association and farm groups); and green activists (most notably the California Environmental Justice Alliance).