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).

President Donald Trump is under fire in Northern California not for the usual reasons – that Trump loathing is so intense in the region that many liberals think Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s saying Trump might someday turn out to be a good president is a

Last week, Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, and Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, blasted the White House for omitting Northern California fire victims from a request for Congress to appropriate $44 billion for disaster relief. Thompson told the San Francisco Chronicle that the Trump administration was “playing political games.”

This week, the White House fired back. White House spokeswoman Helen Ferre said the administration is “fully committed to assisting the victims of the California wildfires in their hour of need,” according to a report from the Chronicle’s Washington bureau.

Ferre said the fine print on the $44 billion request showed that Golden State wildfire victims could expect to get part of $23.5 billion requested for the Disaster Relief Fund, which is overseen by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Unlikely political couple: California Dems, Texas Republicans

But Ferre’s comments were unable to calm a larger furor over the administration’s disaster-relief request – one in which Texas Republicans and California Democrats made for a most unusual political couple, with both upset over what they see as a White House unable to grasp their needs.

Texas has sought $61 billion to help the Houston region recover from Hurricane Harvey – more than eight times the $7.4 billion that Gov. Jerry Brown sought for California wildfire relief. With damages from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico expected to be bigger than Texas’ and California’s requests combined, there’s fear that the Trump administration will balk at the federal government footing huge bills in the wake of disasters.

Texas newspapers have had days of headlines in which Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and GOP Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn have teed off on the Trump White House. Abbott said its plan was “completely inadequate,” the Dallas Morning News reported.

But a House Republican from Southern California could end up with a big say over the size of the relief package. That’s because Congress will ultimately decide how much disaster relief is appropriated, not Trump. While the president can veto a relief package, he can’t directly shape it.

That’s why Rep. Thompson and officials from Sonoma and Santa Rosa counties have already begun lobbying Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Corona, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, for his help.

Only one House Republican signed the governor’s letter requesting $7.4 billion in federal aid – and it was Rep. Ed Royce of Fullerton, who represents the district just west of Calvert’s.

But after a Thompson-escorted tour of a devastated area in Sonoma County, Calvert offered reassuring words, telling the Chronicle he would work to ensure all disaster areas get “the relief they need.”

Pacific Gas & Electric and its shareholders could face a huge financial blow from this month’s massive wildfires in the wine country of Northern California – unless they can get the state Public Utilities Commission to overturn a recent precedent-setting ruling made by its staff involving disastrous wildfires in 2007 in San Diego County. The PUC apparently is taking the request seriously, putting off a decision on whether to uphold the ruling.

The Bay Area News Group reported on Oct. 10 that Sonoma County fire dispatchers received many calls about downed PG&E power lines and exploding electrical transformers the night of Oct. 8, when fast-spreading fires began that eventually killed 42 people, incinerated nearly 9,000 structures and burned more than 245,000 acres. Cal Fire and the PUC are investigating whether PG&E is partly or entirely responsible for the inferno because it failed to trim trees near power lines, as is required by state law.

Now the Bay Area News Group is reporting that PG&E officials are pleading with the PUC to be able to shift the cost of such disasters to ratepayers even if a utility is to blame. PG&E faces billions of dollars in claims from this month’s fires but says it only has $800 million in insurance.

A PG&E official told PUC staffers that the state’s three giant investor-owned utilities – PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric – have been put in an “untenable situation” because of growing wildfire risks and a tough insurance market.

PUC judges said SDG&E couldn’t escape $379 million in wildfire costs

But two months ago, two PUC administrative law judges – S. Pat Tsen and Sasha Goldberg – rejected a request for $379 million in relief from SDG&E in a case with parallels to PG&E’s situation. The ruling dealt with three 2007 fires in San Diego County that killed two people, destroyed 1,300-plus homes and charred more than 206,000 acres.

Based on evidence gathered by Cal Fire and PUC investigators, the judges concluded that SDG&E was responsible for the fires because of failure to do adequate tree trimming near a power line and because of slow responses to equipment malfunctions. The judges also rejected claims that excessive winds that couldn’t have been expected were responsible – a claim PG&E is making about this month’s fires despite evidence to the contrary.

Because of these circumstances, the judges said it would be improper to ask SDG&E ratepayers to cover the $379 million in costs that the utility had to pay after settling billions of dollars in claims and getting reimbursed by its insurers.

Suggesting it might have some sympathy for both PG&E and SDG&E, the PUC on Thursday again put off a vote on whether to ratify the administrative law judges’ decision.

PG&E’s call to let it shift disaster costs to ratepayers was immediately slammed by consumer groups – and not just because they saw this as the utility trying to duck responsibility for this month’s massive fire. They warned it would lead the state’s three large utilities to cut back on wildfire safety efforts, knowing they wouldn’t be held responsible for their lax efforts.

Fears that PG&E already does an inadequate job were bolstered Tuesday by the San Francisco Chronicle’s report that over a recent five-year span, PG&E missed the deadlines to complete more than 3,500 work orders in Sonoma County, many of which were safety-related.

With roots dating back to 1852, PG&E is an iconic California company that has endured its share of hard times, including going into Chapter 11 bankruptcy from 2001-2004 because of huge losses during the 2000-2001 state energy crisis.

But 2017 is shaping up as the 112-year-old utility’s most fraught year ever. On Jan. 26, a federal judge found PG&E guilty of five felonies for its failings in preventing a 2010 explosion of its gas line in San Bruno, a suburb of San Francisco, and a sixth felony for obstructing the National Transportation Safety Board’s official inquiry into the disaster. Judge Thelton Henderson leveled the maximum fine possible of $3 million.

Eight people were killed and 38 homes were destroyed in the San Bruno explosion and fire, which led to a record $1.6 billion PUC fine in 2015.

Nationally, the focus has been on the numbers illustrating the extent of the disaster – 200,000-plus acres charred, at least 40 dead and hundreds missing, perhaps more than 10,000 structures burned. But for those most directly affected, there are much more long-term fears. After Hurricane Katrina hammered New Orleans in 2005, Louisiana officials said it led to a “lost decade.”

It’s clear that dozens of wineries suffered some damage, and several were destroyed or badly damaged, including White Rock Vineyards, Ancient Oak Cellars, Paradise Ridge and Signorello Valley. The city of Santa Rosa suffered body blows to its visitor industry with the destruction of the Hilton Sonoma Wine Country hotel, Willi’s Wine Bar, the Cricklewood steakhouse, the Fountaingrove Inn and several other tourist mainstays.

This weekend, in small towns and unincorporated areas west of the main fire damage, about two dozen hotels and hundreds of private rentals were in good condition and remained open. But in hard-hit communities, with the focus remaining on firefighting efforts, it’s not clear yet how bad the damage has been to popular tourism centers, wine facilities and more. The idea that rebuilding might be quick and relatively easy is tough to square with grim images from Napa and Sonoma counties.

Authorities also emphasize that while they are optimistic, it is not a sure thing that the current fires will be contained in coming days, and they warn that windy, dry conditions could spur new infernos.

The concern about the wildfires’ economic toll is well-grounded. According to wine industry research, in 2014, tourism and wine production were responsible for about 100,000 jobs in Napa and Sonoma counties, generating $26 billion annually for the regional economy.

The region’s tourism-wine industry has already faced recent disruptions. In 2015, nearly 2,000 homes in Lake, Napa and Sonoma counties were torched by the Valley Fire.

Area already had shortage of skilled construction workers

But the latest wildfires mean another headache for the industry may only worsen: the high cost of housing, which can make it difficult to find workers for modest-paying hotel and restaurant jobs and often complicates efforts to bring in agricultural laborers.

Last month, according to realtor.com statistics, the median home price was $876,200 in Napa County and $750,000 in Sonoma County.

Average rents for modest single-family homes in the Napa area were about $2,400 before the blazes, with comparable figures in Sonoma County. Still, earlier this year, a real-estate blogger wrote that it was possible to find monthly rentals of $1,500 or even a little less.

But that claim could be ancient history in the wake of the fires taking nearly 6,000 homes – so far – out of an already-tight market. While many will be rebuilt, real-estate agents see an even-tighter market ahead, especially in Sonoma County, which has so far lost about 2,800 homes. That’s 4 percent of the county’s 67,000 housing units.

A Bay Area News Group report offered a downbeat take on how quickly the region’s housing stock might bounce back. With insurers paying for the rebuilding of homes, there will be a massive demand for skilled construction workers – and the region already had a shortage of such workers before this month’s fires, the article noted.

One expert offered hope that the wine country price shock would be limited – but for a reason that’s troubling in its own right.

“Pricing can go down, possibly, because the area is burned out and not an attractive place to live,” economics researcher Randall Bell told the Bay Area News Group.