Pacific Gas and Electric Company#Wildfires

In the 1850s, manufactured gas was introduced to the United States for lighting. Larger American cities in the east built gasworks, but the west had no gas industry. San Francisco had

street lights only on Merchant Street, in the form of oil lamps.{{cite book |last1=Coleman |first1=Charles M. |title=P. G. And E. of California: The Centennial Story of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 1852–1952 |date=1952 |publisher=McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc. |oclc=3920159}} Charles M. Coleman worked for PG&E's publicity department when he authored this history{{rp|11}}{{citation |title=The History of Gas Lighting in San Francisco |work=Pacific Gas and Electric Magazine |volume=1 |number=3 |date=August 1909}}

Three brothers—Peter, James, and Michael Donahue—ran the foundry that became the Union Iron Works, the largest shipbuilding operation on the West Coast, and became interested in manufacturing gas{{rp|11}}{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rbAFNxPiVmcC |title=National Trust Guide/San Francisco: America's Guide for Architecture and History Travelers |last=Wiley |first=Peter Booth |year=2000 |publisher=Wiley |isbn=0471191205 |page=46 |access-date=October 10, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160507191640/https://books.google.com/books?id=rbAFNxPiVmcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=National+Trust+Guide%2FSan+Francisco%3A+America%27s+Guide+for+Architecture+and+History+Travelers&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wFnOT-mjHoTs2QXlvKnODA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=National%20Trust%20Guide%2FSan%20Francisco%3A%20America's%20Guide%20for%20Architecture%20and%20History%20Travelers&f=false |archive-date=May 7, 2016 |url-status=live }} Joseph G. Eastland, an engineer and clerk at the foundry, joined them in gathering information. In July 1852, James applied for and received from the Common Council of the City of San Francisco a franchise to erect a gasworks, lay pipes in the streets and install street lamps to light the city with "brilliant gas". The council specified that gas should be supplied to households "at such rates as will make it to their interest to use it in preference to any other material".{{rp|11–12}} Eastland and the Donahue brothers incorporated the San Francisco Gas Company on August 31, 1852, with $150,000 of authorized capital. It became the first gas utility in the West. Its official seal bore the inscription "Fiat Lux"—let there be light—the same slogan later adopted by the University of California. There were 11 original stockholders, and the three Donahue brothers subscribed for 610 of the 1,500 shares.{{rp|12}}

The original location for the gas works was bounded by First, Fremont, Howard and Natoma streets south of Market, on what was then the shore of the San Francisco Bay. Work on the plant started in November 1852, and finished a few months later. On the night of February 11, 1854, the streets of San Francisco were for the first time lighted by gas. To celebrate the event, the company held a gala banquet at the Oriental Hotel.{{rp|13}} Gas lighting quickly gained public favor. In the first year of operation, the company had 237 customers. That number more than doubled the next year, to 563. By the end of 1855, the company had laid more than 6 ½ miles of pipe and 154 street lamps were in operation.{{rp|15}}

The growing popularity of gas light led to competing gas companies, including the Aubin Patent Gas Company and Citizens Gas Company. The San Francisco Gas Company quickly acquired these smaller rivals. However, one rival did provide serious competition.{{rp|26–30}} The Bank of California founded the City Gas Company in April 1870 to compete with the gas monopoly held by the Donahue brothers' operation.{{cite book |title=Rulers and Rebels: A People's History of Early California, 1769–1901 |last=Shoup |first=Laurence H. |year=2010 |publisher=iUniverse.com |isbn=978-1450255905 |page=217 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-wAOHIF1y_IC&pg=PA217 |access-date=December 26, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160502225038/https://books.google.com/books?id=-wAOHIF1y_IC&pg=PA217&dq=%22one+of+the+largest+and+most+lucrative+monopolies%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yHHQT6ezAYf66gHlz-B7&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22one%20of%20the%20largest%20and%20most%20lucrative%20monopolies%22&f=false |archive-date=May 2, 2016 |url-status=live }} City Gas began operation in 1872 and initiated a price war with the San Francisco Gas Company.{{rp|26–30}} In 1873, the two companies negotiated a consolidation as a compromise and the Bank of California gained part ownership of "the most lucrative gas monopoly in the West". On April 1, 1873, the San Francisco Gas Light Company was formed, representing a merger of the San Francisco Gas Company, the City Gas Company, and the Metropolitan Gas Company.{{rp|26–30}}{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/sanfranciscospot00pete |url-access=registration |quote=San Francisco's Potrero Hill. |title=San Francisco's Potrero Hill |author=Peter Linenthal and Abigail Johnston |year=2005 |publisher=Arcadia Publishing |isbn=0-7385-2937-0 |page=[https://archive.org/details/sanfranciscospot00pete/page/37 37] |access-date=December 26, 2015 }}

Gas utilities, including San Francisco Gas Light, faced new competition with the introduction of electric lighting to California.{{rp|80–82}} According to a 2012 PG&E publication and their 1952 commissioned history, in 1879, San Francisco was the first city in the U.S. to have a central generating station for electric customers.{{rp|59}} To stay competitive, the San Francisco Gas Light Company introduced the Argand lamp that same year. The lamp increased the light capacity of gas street lamps, but proved to be an expensive improvement and was not generally adopted.{{rp|80–82}} Meanwhile, the demand for electric light in the stores and factories of downtown San Francisco continued to grow. The first electric street light was erected in 1888 in front of City Hall, and the electrical grid supporting it was gradually extended. A second generating station was constructed in 1888 by the California Electric Light Company to increase production capacity.{{rp|57–63}}

New competition also emerged in the 1880s in the form of water gas, an improved illuminant patented by Thaddeus Lowe. The United Gas Improvement Company, a water gas manufacturer organized after purchasing the Lowe gas patents, acquired a lease and then an interest in San Francisco's Central Gas Light Company on November 1, 1883.{{rp|46–48}}{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JPjqRIIWHcoC&q=San+Francisco%27s+Central+Gas+Light+Company |title=Concise Encyclopedia of the History of Energy |last=Cleveland |first=Cutler J. |year=2009 |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=978-0123751171 |pages=155–156 |access-date=December 26, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160624061709/https://books.google.com/books?id=JPjqRIIWHcoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Concise+Encyclopedia+of+the+History+of+Energy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FVrOT_7BCePq2QXyo8y9DA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=San%20Francisco's%20Central%20Gas%20Light%20Company&f=false |archive-date=June 24, 2016 |url-status=live }} United was acquired by the Pacific Gas Improvement Company in 1884. Under the management of president Albert Miller, Pacific Gas Improvement developed into a formidable competitor to San Francisco Gas Light.{{rp|46–48}} His sons, Horace A. Miller and C. O. G. Miller (Christian Otto Gerberding Miller), acting as Secretary and President, respectively, eventually owned and controlled not only the Pacific Gas Improvement Company but also the Pacific Gas Lighting Company (Pacific Lighting Company).

In 1888, San Francisco Gas Light built its own water gas plant at the Potrero gas works. The manufacturing of water gas proved successful due to the increased availability of inexpensive petroleum. The company decided to construct a modern gas works with both updated water gas manufacturing technology and a modern coal-gas plant as a hedge against shortages in the supply of oil.{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-tRMAQAAIAAJ&q=water-gas&pg=PA542 |title=The History of Gas-Lighting in San Francisco |last=Jones |first=E.C. |year=1910 |publisher=The Technical Publishing Company |volume=24 |access-date=May 13, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130622020921/http://books.google.com/books?id=-tRMAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA542#v=onepage&q=water-gas&f=false |archive-date=June 22, 2013 |url-status=live }} In 1891, the North Beach Gas Works was completed under the direction of San Francisco Gas Light president and engineer Joseph B. Crockett. The facility was the largest gas holder in the U.S. west of Chicago.{{rp|84}}

In 1896, the Edison Light and Power Company merged with the San Francisco Gas Light Company to form the new San Francisco Gas and Electric Company.{{rp|71}}Consolidation of gas and electric companies solved problems for both utilities by eliminating competition and producing economic savings through joint operation.{{rp|80–82}} Other companies that began operation as active competitors but eventually merged into the San Francisco Gas and Electric Company included the Equitable Gas Light Company, the Independent Electric Light and Power Company, and the Independent Gas and Power Company.{{rp|90}} In 1903, the company purchased its main competitor for gas lighting, the Pacific Gas Improvement Company.{{rp|46–48}}

{{clear left}}

File:Pacific Gas and Electric Company plant in Sacramento, California (1912).jpg

John Martin and Eugene J. de Sabla, started out as gold miners along the Yuba River,{{cite book |last1=Hughes |first1=Thomas Parke |title=Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930 |date=March 1993 |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press |isbn=978-0-8018-4614-4 |language=en}} harnessing hydroelectric power, building hydro plants in Nevada City (1895),{{cite web |title=Pacific Gas and Electric Company |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/pacific-gas-and-electric-company |website=Encyclopedia.com |access-date=18 July 2023}} and Northern California.

In the early 1890s, Martin, de Sabla, Alfonso Tregidgo, and later, Romulus Riggs Colgate, began developing a hydroelectric powerhouse on the South Fork of the Yuba River.{{cite news |title=Hydroelectric Hatched Locally |url=https://www.theunion.com/news/hydroelectric-hatched-locally/article_d517307a-1c8e-54da-ad14-301bea07257e.html |access-date=18 July 2023 |work=The Union |agency=NCS Import |date=18 April 2006 |location=Grass Valley, California |language=en}}

In 1899, Martin and de Sabla formed Yuba Power Company. In 1900, Martin and de Sabla created the Bay Counties Power Company, constructing a 140-mile transmission line for an electric railway in Oakland. In 1903, John Martin and Eugene de Sabla started the California Gas & Electric Company to acquire and merge gas and electric power businesses, and bought many utilities like Oakland Gas Light & Heat Company, United Gas & Electric Company, and, in 1905, San Francisco Gas & Electric Company.

In 1905, Martin and de Sabla formed Pacific Gas and Electric Company.{{cite news |last1=Moss |first1=Steven J. |title=Publisher's View: Pacific Gas and Electric Company |url=https://www.potreroview.net/publishers-view-pacific-gas-and-electric-company/ |access-date=18 July 2023 |work=Potrero View |date=16 February 2019}}{{Cite web|url=http://www.buttecreek.org/documents/HistoricProperties_DC_Project.pdf|title=DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project, Draft Historic Properties Management Plan, Volume I, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, February 2008, p.42 "Genesis of Pacific Gas and Electric Company" (P.58 of PDF)}}{{cite web |title=Eugene De Sabla and Family |url=https://www.cagenweb.org/nevada/bios/EugeneDeSabla.pdf |website=CAGenWeb |access-date=18 July 2023}}{{cite web |title=Nevada County : Eugene De Sabla Biography |url=https://www.cagenweb.org/nevada/bios/DeSabla.html |website=CAGenWeb |access-date=18 July 2023}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.cagenweb.org/nevada/bios/EugeneDeSabla.pdf|title=Eugene de Sabla and Family, Reprint: Nevada County Historical Society Bulletin 63:1 Dec 2009, California GenWeb}}{{cite news |title=Obituary for Eugene de Joly Sabla |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/128120677/obituary-for-eugene-de-joly-sabla/ |access-date=18 July 2023 |work=The Boston Globe |publisher=newspapers.com |date=20 January 1956 |pages=25}}{{cite news |title=Volume 85 |date=1907 |publisher=William Buck Dana Company |page=725 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XlROAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22Eugene+de+Sabla%22+%22Pacific+Gas%22+%22Electric+Co.%22&pg=PA725 |access-date=18 July 2023 |language=en |work=Commercial and Financial Chronicle |quote=Pacific Gas & Electric Co., San Francisco . ... in by the shareholders of the preferred stock, of which John Martin and Eugene de Sabla are large owners .}}

According to PG&E's 2012 history timeline on their webpage, the San Francisco Gas and Electric Company and the California Gas and Electric Corporation merged to form the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) on October 10, 1905.{{cite web |url=http://www.pgecorp.com/150_non_flash/index.html |title=150 Years of Energy: The History of PG&E Corporation |work=PG&E Website |access-date=June 20, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120629010809/http://www.pgecorp.com/150_non_flash/index.html |archive-date=June 29, 2012 |url-status=live }} The consolidation gave the California Gas and Electric Corporation access to the large San Francisco market and a base for further financing. The San Francisco Gas and Electric Company, in turn, was able to reinforce its electric system, which until then had been powered entirely by steam-operated generating plants, which could not compete with lower cost hydroelectric power.{{rp|227–233}} After the merger, engineers and management from each organization made plans to coordinate and unify the two systems.{{rp|227–233}} However, the two firms maintained separate corporate identities until 1911.{{rp|227–233}}

PG&E began delivering natural gas to San Francisco and northern California in 1930. The longest pipeline in the world connected the Texas gas fields to northern California, with compressor stations that included cooling towers every {{convert|300|mi|km}}, at Topock, Arizona, on the state line, and near the town of Hinkley, California. With the introduction of natural gas, the company began retiring its polluting gas manufacturing facilities, although it did keep some plants on standby. Today a network of eight compressor stations linked by "40,000 miles of distribution pipelines and over 6,000 miles of transportation pipelines" serves "4.2 million customers from Bakersfield to the Oregon border".{{cite web | url=http://www.pge.com/en/about/environment/taking-responsibility/compressor/index.page | title=Compressor Stations Environmental Restoration Activities at Compressor Station Properties | publisher=Pacific Gas and Electricity | date=2015 | access-date=April 16, 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160425085324/http://www.pge.com/en/about/environment/taking-responsibility/compressor/index.page | archive-date=April 25, 2016 | url-status=live }}

In the 1950s and 1960s, at both the Topock and Hinkley compressor stations, a hexavalent chromium additive was used to prevent rust in the cooling towers, which later was the cause of the Hinkley groundwater contamination. It disposed of the water from the cooling towers "adjacent to the compressor stations".{{cite web | url=https://www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/cleanup/topock.html | title=Waste Programs Division: Cleanups: Topock Compressor Station Groundwater VRP Site | publisher=Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (AZDEQ) | date=2015 | access-date=April 16, 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160427104736/https://www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/cleanup/topock.html | archive-date=April 27, 2016 | url-status=live }}

PG&E was significantly affected by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The company's assorted central offices were damaged by the quake and destroyed by the subsequent fire. Its San Francisco Gas and Electric Company subsidiary in particular suffered significant infrastructure loss, as its distribution systems—miles of gas mains and electric wires—were dissevered. Only two gas and two electric plants, all located far from the city, survived the destruction.{{rp|235–236}}{{cite web |url=http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906/power.html |title=Little Light for Weeks to Come |date=April 30, 1906 |publisher=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=June 20, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120629085720/http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906/power.html |archive-date=June 29, 2012 |url-status=live }} These functioning facilities—including the new 4,000,000-foot crude oil gas works at Potrero Generating Station—played critical roles in San Francisco's rebuilding efforts.{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-tRMAQAAIAAJ&q=water-gas&pg=PA542 |title=The History of Gas-Lighting in San Francisco |last=Jones |first=E.C. |year=1910 |publisher=The Technical Publishing Company |volume=24 |access-date=June 20, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130622020921/http://books.google.com/books?id=-tRMAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA542#v=onepage&q=water-gas&f=false |archive-date=June 22, 2013 |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906/gas.html |title=The Story of the Restoration of the Gas Supply in San Francisco after the Fire |publisher=The San Francisco Museum |access-date=June 20, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120629085628/http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906/gas.html |archive-date=June 29, 2012 |url-status=live }} Many of PG&E's utility competitors ceased operation following the Great Earthquake. The company's substantial capital allowed it to survive, rebuild, and expand.{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=peAWR1Viy6EC&q=pg%26e+san+francisco+1906+earthquake&pg=PA61 |title=Soul of the Grid: A Cultural Biography of the California Independent System Operator |last=O'Donnell |first=Arthur J. |year=2003 |publisher=iUniverse |isbn=0595293484 |access-date=December 26, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160528172825/https://books.google.com/books?id=peAWR1Viy6EC&pg=PA61&dq=pg%26e+san+francisco+1906+earthquake&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HcHfT_y4JaGe2gXN0OWeCg&ved=0CGoQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=pg%26e%20san%20francisco%201906%20earthquake&f=false |archive-date=May 28, 2016 |url-status=live }}

File:Map of Central California Showing Power Plants and Transmission Lines of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company c 1912.png

In 1906, PG&E purchased the Sacramento Electric, Gas and Railway Company and took control of its railway operations in and around Sacramento.{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cEbgbhxPVXYC&q=Pacific+Gas+%26+Electric+Company+streetcar+company+sacramento&pg=PA8 |title=Sacramento's Streetcars |last=Burg |first=William |year=2006 |publisher=Arcadia Publishing |pages=8, 101 |isbn=0738531472 |access-date=December 26, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160504224746/https://books.google.com/books?id=cEbgbhxPVXYC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=Pacific+Gas+%26+Electric+Company+streetcar+company+sacramento&source=bl&ots=JkJL5OLRnG&sig=KCqJ94SA9EskWJPK2aPw6LWOJIA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hI0qUKvEFobciQLPrYEI&ved=0CFMQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=Pacific%20Gas%20%26%20Electric%20Company%20streetcar%20company%20sacramento&f=false |archive-date=May 4, 2016 |url-status=live }} The Sacramento City Street Railway began operating under the Pacific Gas & Electric name in 1915, and its track and services subsequently expanded.{{cite book |author=Fickewirth, Alvin A. |title=California Railroads |location=San Marino, California |publisher=Golden West Books |year=1992 |pages=100, 117 |isbn=0-87095-106-8}} By 1931 the Sacramento Street Railway Division operated 75 streetcars on {{convert|47|mi|km}} of track.{{cite book | author=Demoro, Harre W.| title=California's Electric Railways| publisher=Interurban Press|location=Glendale, California| year=1986| page=201| isbn=0-916374-74-2}} PG&E's streetcars were powered by the company's hydroelectric plant in Folsom.{{cite web |url=http://www.midtownmonthly.net/life/sacramento-1910/ |title=Sacramento: 1910: The End of An Era |last=Foster |first=Tim |date=April 1, 2010 |work=Midtown Monthly |access-date=September 8, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120102141047/http://www.midtownmonthly.net/life/sacramento-1910/ |archive-date=January 2, 2012 |url-status=live }} In 1943, PG&E sold the rail service to Pacific City Lines, which was later acquired by National City Lines. Several streetcar lines were soon converted to bus service, and the track was abandoned entirely in 1947.

During this same period, Pacific City Lines and its successor, National City Lines, with funding from General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California (through a subsidiary, Federal Engineering), Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks, were buying streetcar lines and rapidly converting most of them to bus service. This consortium was convicted in 1949 of federal charges involving conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce in the sale of buses and supplies to National City Lines and its subsidiaries. The actions became known as the Great American Streetcar Scandal or the General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy.{{cite journal |url=http://www.intransitionmag.org/archive_stories/streetcar_scandal.aspx |title=Revisiting the Great American Streetcar Scandal |date=Summer 1999 |first=Al |last=Mankoff |journal=InTransition Magazine |publisher=New Jersey Transportation Planning Authority |location=Newark, New Jersey |access-date=April 2, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150519024213/http://www.intransitionmag.org/archive_stories/streetcar_scandal.aspx |archive-date=May 19, 2015 |url-status=live }}

File:Pacific Gas and Electric Company General Office Building.jpg]]

Within a few years of its incorporation, PG&E made significant inroads into Northern California's hydroelectric industry through purchase of existing water storage and conveyance facilities. These included many reservoirs, dams, ditches and flumes built by mining interests in the Sierras that were no longer commercially viable.{{cite web |url=http://ceres.ca.gov/snep/pubs/web/PDF/VII_C08.PDF |title=Historical Water-Use Priorities and Public Policies |last=Larson |first=David J. |year=1996 |publisher=Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project |page=171 |access-date=July 26, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121111042740/http://ceres.ca.gov/snep/pubs/web/PDF/VII_C08.PDF |archive-date=November 11, 2012 |url-status=dead }} By 1914, PG&E was the largest integrated utility system on the Pacific Coast. The company handled 26 percent of the electric and gas business in California. Its operations spanned 37,000 square miles across 30 counties.{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=g07Q9M4agp4C&q=Sacramento+Electric+Gas+and+Railway+Company+PG%26E&pg=PA276|title=Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930|last=Hughes|first=Thomas Parke|year=2003|publisher=The Johns Hopkins University Press|isbn=0801846145|pages=278–279|access-date=December 26, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160426044450/https://books.google.com/books?id=g07Q9M4agp4C&pg=PA276&dq=Sacramento+Electric+Gas+and+Railway+Company+PG%26E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oDf3T-PsAsbvqwHh6q2LCQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sacramento%20Electric%20Gas%20and%20Railway%20Company%20PG%26E&f=false|archive-date=April 26, 2016|url-status=live}}

The company expanded in the 1920s through strategic consolidation. Important acquisitions during this period included the California Telephone and Light Company, the Western States Gas and Electric Company and the Sierra and San Francisco Power Company, which provided hydropower to San Francisco's streetcars.{{rp|277–283}}{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gOIP7_Qj_XMC&q=%22Western+States+Gas+and+Electric+Company%22+PG%26E&pg=PA15 |title=On This Day in Arcata |author=Arcata Union, Arcata Eye |year=2008 |publisher=Arcadia Publishing |isbn=978-0738556826 |pages=15 |access-date=December 26, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160428124218/https://books.google.com/books?id=gOIP7_Qj_XMC&pg=PA15&dq=%22Western+States+Gas+and+Electric+Company%22+PG%26E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_hz3T5fbEojWqgHVhpmLCQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Western%20States%20Gas%20and%20Electric%20Company%22%20PG%26E&f=false |archive-date=April 28, 2016 |url-status=live }} These three companies added valuable properties and power and water sources. By the end of 1927, PG&E had nearly one million customers and provided electricity to 300 Northern Californian communities.{{rp|277–283}}

In 1930, PG&E purchased majority stock holdings in two major Californian utility systems—Great Western Power and San Joaquin Light and Power—from The North American Company, a New York investment firm. In return, North American received shares of PG&E's common stock worth $114 million. PG&E also gained control of two smaller utilities, Midland Counties Public Service and the Fresno Water Company, which was later sold.{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QowwEAPqiToC&q=PG%26E+The+North+American+Company&pg=PA64 |title=Historic Kern County: An Illustrated History of Bakersfield and Kern County |last=Brewer |first=Chris |year=2002 |publisher=Historical Pub Network |isbn=1893619141 |pages=64–65 |access-date=December 26, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160428184950/https://books.google.com/books?id=QowwEAPqiToC&pg=PA64&dq=PG%26E+The+North+American+Company&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bfXtT6arK9TU6QHm-q2bCg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=PG%26E%20The%20North%20American%20Company&f=false |archive-date=April 28, 2016 |url-status=live }} The acquisition of these utilities did not result in an immediate merger of property and personnel. The Great Western Power Company and the San Joaquin Company remained separate corporate entities for several more years. But through this final major consolidation, PG&E soon served nearly all of Northern and Central California through one integrated system.{{rp|291–298}}

The gas industry market structure was dramatically altered by the discovery of massive natural gas fields throughout the American Southwest beginning in 1918.{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JPjqRIIWHcoC&q=natural+gas+PG%26E+pipeline&pg=PA171|title=Concise Encyclopedia of the History of Energy|last=Cleveland|first=Cutler J.|year=2009|publisher=Academic Press|isbn=978-0123751171|pages=167–168|access-date=December 26, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160508152935/https://books.google.com/books?id=JPjqRIIWHcoC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=history+of+natural+gas+in+california&source=bl&ots=_ei5nzYZ8J&sig=_37MCGIirF7XOHb3DSFJvC-dKIc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vHoAUP60EsTgqgGBzMSkBw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=natural%20gas%20PG%26E%20pipeline&f=false|archive-date=May 8, 2016|url-status=live}} The fuel was cleaner than manufactured gas and less expensive to produce.{{rp|299}} While natural gas sources were abundant in Southern California, no economical sources were available in Northern California. In 1929, PG&E constructed a 300-mile pipeline from the Kettleman oil field to bring natural gas to San Francisco.{{rp|300}}{{cite web |url=http://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/history/History_of_Calif.pdf |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20120130203740/ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/history/History_of_Calif.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 30, 2012 |title=Oil and Gas Production: History in California |publisher=State of California Department of Conservation |page=7 |access-date=January 31, 2019 }} The city became the first major urban area to switch from manufactured gas to natural gas. The transition required the adjustment of burners and airflow valves on 1.75 million appliances. In 1936, PG&E expanded distribution with an additional 45-mile pipeline from Milpitas.{{rp|306}} PG&E gradually retired its gas manufacturing facilities, although some plants were kept on standby.{{rp|304}}

Defense activities boosted natural gas sales in California during World War II, but cut deeply into the state's natural reserves.{{rp|306–307}} In 1947, PG&E entered into a contract with the Southern California Gas Company and the Southern Counties Gas Company to purchase natural gas through a new 1,000-mile pipeline running from Texas and New Mexico to Los Angeles.{{rp|306–307}} Another agreement was reached with the El Paso Natural Gas Company of Texas for gas delivery to the California-Arizona border. In 1951, PG&E completed a 502-mile main that connected with the El Paso network at the state line.{{rp|306–307}}

During this period of expansion PG&E was involved in legal proceedings with the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the company's status as a subsidiary of the North American Company. As outlined by the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, a utility subsidiary was defined as a utility company with more than 10% of their stock held by a public utility holding company. Though 17% of PG&E stock was held by the North American Company at this time, PG&E filed with the SEC to be exempted from subsidiary status on the grounds that 17% ownership did not give the North American Company control and because the North American Company occupied only two board member spots.{{rp|314–316}}{{cite web |url=https://archive.org/stream/sixtyyrsinlawpub00phlerich/sixtyyrsinlawpub00phlerich_djvu.txt |title=Sixty Years in Law, Public Service and International Affairs |last=Phleger |first=Herman |year=1953 |publisher=University of California |access-date=December 26, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208195742/http://www.archive.org/stream/sixtyyrsinlawpub00phlerich/sixtyyrsinlawpub00phlerich_djvu.txt |archive-date=December 8, 2015 |url-status=live }} The North American Company backed PG&E's request by stating that they were involved in business operations in a limited capacity.{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5ntBTyhZydQC&q=North+American+Co.+v.+Securities+and+Exchange+Commission&pg=SA5-PA10 |title=Bittker on the Regulation of Interstate and Foreign Commerce |author=Boris I. Bittker and Brannon Denning |year=1999 |publisher=Aspen Publishers |isbn=0735503648 |access-date=December 26, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160617163937/https://books.google.com/books?id=5ntBTyhZydQC&pg=SA5-PA10&lpg=SA5-PA10&dq=North+American+Co.+v.+Securities+and+Exchange+Commission&source=bl&ots=5AoWfliN0S&sig=PYKT-1aDz0f3jLsBSQC-UZLGNYY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XwUTUPLiEuiWjALD6ICQDA&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=North%20American%20Co.%20v.%20Securities%20and%20Exchange%20Commission&f=false |archive-date=June 17, 2016 |url-status=live }} The request remained unresolved until 1945 when the North American Company sold off stocks that brought its ownership to below 10%. The SEC then ruled that PG&E was not a subsidiary of the North American Company.{{cite book |url=https://www.sec.gov/about/annual_report/1946.pdf |title=Twelfth Annual Report of the Securities and Exchange Commission |year=1957 |publisher=Securities and Exchange Commission |access-date=September 7, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170610034156/https://www.sec.gov/about/annual_report/1946.pdf |archive-date=June 10, 2017 |url-status=live }} In 1948, the North American Company sold its remaining stock in PG&E.{{rp|314–316}}

In 1957, the company brought online Vallecitos Nuclear Center, the first privately owned and operated nuclear reactor in the United States, in Pleasanton, California. The reactor initially produced 5,000 kilowatts of power, enough to power a town of 12,000.{{cite news |title=Atomic Plant Starts Making Electricity |newspaper=The Reading Bee |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cRErAAAAIBAJ&pg=5174,4827835&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |date=October 25, 1957 |access-date=August 23, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160122190221/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cRErAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m5oFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5174,4827835&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |archive-date=January 22, 2016 |url-status=live }}{{cite news |title=U.S Lags in Atoms for Peace Race |newspaper=The Milwaukee Sentinel |author=Bem Price |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=hnBIAAAAIBAJ&pg=7257,833085&dq=pacific-gas-and-electric+nuclear&hl=en |date=December 22, 1957 |access-date=August 23, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160122220034/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=hnBIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bRAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7257,833085&dq=pacific-gas-and-electric+nuclear&hl=en |archive-date=January 22, 2016 |url-status=live }}

In addition to nuclear power, PG&E continued to develop natural gas supplies as well. In 1959, the company began working to obtain approval for the import of a large quantity of natural gas from Alberta, Canada to California, via a pipeline constructed by Westcoast Transmission Co. and the Alberta and Southern Gas Company on the Canadian side, and by Pacific Gas Transmission Company, a subsidiary of PG&E, on the U.S. side.{{cite news |title=Gas Export Okayed by Alberta Board |newspaper=The Sun |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RIllAAAAIBAJ&pg=904,4723667&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |date=March 24, 1959 |access-date=August 23, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160123011257/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RIllAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_4kNAAAAIBAJ&pg=904,4723667&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |archive-date=January 23, 2016 |url-status=live }}{{cite news |title=New Western Gas Pipeline Hearing Set |newspaper=The Spokesman Review |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=w5wzAAAAIBAJ&pg=3610,1716849&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |date=August 18, 1959 |access-date=August 23, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160123014706/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=w5wzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y-cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3610,1716849&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |archive-date=January 23, 2016 |url-status=live }} Construction of the pipeline lasted 14 months.{{cite news |title=Premier Leads in Dedication of Alberta-California Pipeline |newspaper=The Edmonton Journal |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TP9kAAAAIBAJ&pg=2263,1531058&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |date=February 10, 1962 |access-date=August 23, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160123010719/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TP9kAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NoINAAAAIBAJ&pg=2263,1531058&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |archive-date=January 23, 2016 |url-status=live }} Testing began in 1961,{{cite news |title=Testing gas line |newspaper=The Leader-Post |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XNdlAAAAIBAJ&pg=5229,888385&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |via=Google News |date=December 5, 1961 |access-date=August 23, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160122183417/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XNdlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DTwNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5229,888385&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |archive-date=January 22, 2016 |url-status=live }} and the completed 1,400-mile pipeline was dedicated in early 1962.{{cite news |title=Historic pipeline dedication |newspaper=The Leader-Post |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jtVUAAAAIBAJ&pg=4462,3180204&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |via=Google News |date=February 17, 1962 |access-date=August 23, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160123015213/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jtVUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NTwNAAAAIBAJ&pg=4462,3180204&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |archive-date=January 23, 2016 |url-status=live }}

PG&E began construction on another nuclear facility, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, in 1968.{{cite news |title=Start-Up Cleared For Controversial Calif. Atomic Plant; Start-Up Cleared For Calif. A-Plant |author=Jay Mathews | author-link = Jay Mathews |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3S8G-CRH0-0009-W06M&csi=8075&oc=00240&perma=true |date=September 10, 1981 |access-date=August 23, 2012}}{{dead link|date=December 2023}} Originally slated to come online in 1979, the plant's opening was delayed for several years due to environmental protests{{cite news |title=Nuclear Protest Leads to Lawsuit |author=Wallace Turner |newspaper=The New York Times |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3S8G-S650-0009-22HD&csi=6742&oc=00240&perma=true |date=February 14, 1982 |access-date=August 23, 2012}}{{dead link|date=December 2023}} and concerns over the safety of the plant's construction.{{cite news |title=Nuclear power; Cracks in the fabric |newspaper=The Economist |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3SJ4-G180-0008-W23T&csi=7955&oc=00240&perma=true |date=November 28, 1981 |access-date=August 23, 2012}}{{dead link|date=December 2023}}{{cite news |title=Action on Plant in California Delayed Again by U.S. Panel |newspaper=The New York Times |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3S8G-K520-0008-N2NX&csi=6742&oc=00240&perma=true |date=March 27, 1984 |access-date=August 23, 2012}}{{dead link|date=December 2023}}{{cite news |title=Court Will Not Allow Nuclear Plant to Open |newspaper=The New York Times |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3S8G-H8W0-0008-N4KY&csi=6742&oc=00240&perma=true |date=October 3, 1984 |access-date=August 23, 2012}}{{dead link|date=December 2023}} Testing of the plant began in 1984,{{cite news |title=Coast Nuclear Plant Heats Its Reactor Core |newspaper=The New York Times |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3S8G-GY90-0008-N0P9&csi=6742&oc=00240&perma=true |date=November 4, 1984 |access-date=August 23, 2012}}{{dead link|date=December 2023}}{{cite news |title=Diablo Produces Electricity |newspaper=Cloverdale Reveille |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XjolAAAAIBAJ&pg=931,333432&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |date=November 19, 1984 |access-date=August 23, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160122170504/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XjolAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DBMGAAAAIBAJ&pg=931,333432&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |archive-date=January 22, 2016 |url-status=live }} and energy production was brought up to full power in 1985.{{cite news |title=Full Power Is Set at Diablo Canyon |newspaper=The New York Times |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3S8G-BB30-0007-J00H&csi=6742&oc=00240&perma=true |date=May 7, 1985 |access-date=August 23, 2012}}

During the construction of the Diablo Canyon plant, PG&E continued its efforts to bring natural gas supplies from the North to their service area in California. In 1972, the company began exploring possibilities for a 3,000-mile pipeline from Alaska, which would travel through the Mackenzie River Valley and on to join with the previously constructed pipeline originating in Alberta.{{cite news |title=U.S. looking northward to meet energy needs |author=Peter Hayes |newspaper=Ludington Daily News |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wNJOAAAAIBAJ&pg=5754,5171427&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |date=December 1, 1972 |access-date=August 23, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151211143132/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wNJOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=G0oDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5754,5171427&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |archive-date=December 11, 2015 |url-status=live }}

In 1977 the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline project received approval from the U.S. Federal Power Commission{{cite news |title=Arctic gas pipeline wins approval from U.S. judge |author=Garry Fairbairn |newspaper=The Montreal Gazette |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CXswAAAAIBAJ&pg=3626,362237&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |date=February 2, 1977 |access-date=August 23, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151211070426/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CXswAAAAIBAJ&sjid=x6EFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3626,362237&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |archive-date=December 11, 2015 |url-status=live }} and support from the Carter Administration.{{cite news |title=Alaskan gas pipeline gains administration support |author=Gladwin Hill |newspaper=The Dispatch |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Kj8eAAAAIBAJ&pg=6773,2925725&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |date=July 26, 1979 |access-date=August 23, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151211160152/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Kj8eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Fb8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6773,2925725&dq=pacific+gas+and+electric+company&hl=en |archive-date=December 11, 2015 |url-status=live }} The pipeline still required approval from Canada. Plans for the pipeline were placed on hold in 1977 by a Canadian judge.{{cite web |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/mackenzie-valley-pipeline-37-years-of-negotiation-1.902366 |title=Mackenzie Valley pipeline: 37 years of negotiation |date=December 16, 2010 |publisher=CBC |access-date=August 23, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120821201322/http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/12/16/f-mackenzie-valley-pipeline-history.html |archive-date=August 21, 2012 |url-status=live }} Justice Thomas R. Berger of British Columbia shelved the project for at least 10 years, citing concerns from First Nations groups, whose land the pipeline would have traversed, as well as potential environmental impacts.

In 1984 the great-grandson of PG&E's founder George H. Roe—David Roe published his book entitled Dynamos and Virgins during the time when there was a growing antinuclear-power movement.{{cite book |last=Roe |first=David |title=Dynamos and Virgins |location=New York |date=1984 |isbn=9780394528984 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/dynamosvirgins0000roed/page/201 201] |url=https://archive.org/details/dynamosvirgins0000roed/page/201 }} David Roe, who was an environmentalist and the Environmental Defense Fund's West Coast general counsel, "mounted an assault on the longstanding assumption that steady growth in coal- and nuclear-generating capacity was the only solution to the nation's energy needs". He based his arguments on an economic analysis "aimed at showing that a shift to energy conservation and alternative energy sources alone could slake the thirst for electricity".

As of December 1992, PG&E operated 173 electric generating units and 85 generating stations, {{convert|18450|mi|km}} of transmission lines and {{convert|101400|mi|km}} of distribution system.

In 1997, PG&E reorganized as a holding company, PG&E Corporation. It consisted of two subsidiaries—PG&E, the regulated utility, and a non-regulated energy business.

In the later 1990s, under electricity market deregulation this utility sold off most of its natural gas power plants. The utility retained all of its hydroelectric plants, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant and a few natural gas plants, but the large natural gas plants it sold made up a large portion of its generating capacity. This had the effect of requiring the utility to buy power from the energy generators at fluctuating prices, while being forced to sell the power to consumers at a fixed cost. The market for electricity was dominated by the Enron Corporation, which, with help from other corporations, artificially pushed prices for electricity ever higher. This led to the California electricity crisis that began in 2000 on Path 15, a transmission corridor PG&E built.

With a critical power shortage, rolling blackouts began on January 17, 2001.

In 1994, PG&E caused the Trauner Fire in Nevada County, California through criminal negligence. The fire burned many acres of land and destroyed a schoolhouse and twelve homes near the town of Rough and Ready, California. PG&E was found guilty of causing the fire and of 739 counts of criminal negligence.{{Cite web|url=https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PG-E-Guilty-In-1994-Sierra-Blaze-739-counts-of-2821364.php|title = PG&E Guilty in 1994 Sierra Blaze / 739 counts of negligence for not trimming trees|date = June 20, 1997}}

In 1996, one of PG&E's substations in the Mission District of San Francisco caught fire. PG&E was eventually found legally culpable for the fire due to criminal negligence, according to an investigation in 2003.{{Cite web|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Fires-at-PG-E-s-SF-substations-a-recurring-11119604.php|title=Fires at PG&E's SF substations a recurring problem|date=May 4, 2017}}

The 1999 Pendola Fire in the Plumas and Tahoe National Forests burned nearly 12,000 acres and was found to have been caused by poor vegetation management by PG&E.{{Cite web|url=https://www.theunion.com/news/local-news/pge-to-pay-close-to-15m-in-fire-settlement/|title=PG&E to pay close to $15M in fire settlement|first=The Union|last=Staff|website=www.theunion.com|date=July 31, 2009 }}

{{Main|California electricity crisis}}

In 1998, a change in the regulation of California's public utilities, including PG&E, began. The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) set the rates that PG&E could charge customers and required them to provide as much power as the customers wanted at rates set by the CPUC.

In the summer of 2001 a drought in the northwest states and in California reduced the amount of hydroelectric power available. Usually PG&E could buy "cheap" hydroelectric power under long-term contracts with the Bonneville Dam and other sources. Drought and delays in approval of new power plants and market manipulation decreased available electric power generation capacity that could be generated in state or bought under long-term contracts out of state. Hot weather brought on higher usage, rolling blackouts, and other problems.

With little excess generating capacity of its own, PG&E was forced to buy electricity out of state from suppliers without long-term contracts. Because PG&E had to buy additional electricity to meet demand, some suppliers took advantage of this requirement and manipulated the market by creating artificial shortages and charged very high electrical rates, as exemplified by the Enron scandal. The CPUC refused to adjust the allowable electric rates. Unable to change rates and sell electricity to consumers for what it cost them on the open market PG&E started hemorrhaging cash.

PG&E Company (the utility, not the holding company) entered bankruptcy under Chapter 11 on April 6, 2001. The state of California tried to bail out the utility and provide power to PG&E's 5.1 million customers under the same rules that required the state to buy electricity at market rate high cost to meet demand and sell it at a lower fixed price, and as a result, the state also lost significant amounts of money. The crisis cost PG&E and the state somewhere between $40 and $45 billion.Weare, Christopher (2003); The California Electricity Crisis: Causes and Policy Options; p. 3–4; San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California; {{ISBN|1-58213-064-7}}.

PG&E Company, the utility, emerged from bankruptcy in April 2004, after paying $10.2 billion to its hundreds of creditors. As part of the reorganization, PG&E's 5.1 million electricity customers will have to pay above-market prices for several years to cancel the debt.{{citation needed|date=February 2021}}{{when|date=February 2021}}

Facing potential liabilities of $30 billion from multiple wildfires in the years 2015–2018, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), on January 14, 2019, began the process of filing for bankruptcy with a 15-day notice of intention to file for bankruptcy protection.{{Cite news |last1=Efstathiou |first1=Jim Jr. |last2=Varghese |first2=Romy |title=A PG&E Bankruptcy May Be What California Needs for a Utility Fix |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-14/pg-e-bailout-hopes-crushed-as-california-shows-little-interest |newspaper=Bloomberg News |date=January 14, 2019}}{{cite news |last=Iovino |first=Nicholas |title=PG&E Files for Bankruptcy, Citing Wildfire Liabilities |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/ceo-resigns-and-pge-files-for-bankruptcy/ |newspaper=Courthouse News Service |date=January 14, 2019}} On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation, the parent corporation of PG&E, filed for bankruptcy protection.{{Cite news |first=Sharon |last=Bernstein |title=PG&E files for bankruptcy as California wildfire liabilities loom |newspaper=Reuters |date=January 29, 2019 |access-date=January 29, 2019 |url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pg-e-corp-files-chapter-11-bankruptcy-protection-082001142--finance.html}}{{cite web |title=PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Case No. 19-30088 |url=https://restructuring.primeclerk.com/pge/ |website=Prime Clerk |access-date=November 22, 2019 |quote=bankruptcy reorganization proceedings}} Because fire survivors are unsecured creditors with the same priority as bondholders, they would only be paid in proportion to their claim size if anything is left after secured and priority claims are paid; this nearly ensured that they will not get paid in full.{{Cite web|url=https://www.modbee.com/news/state/california/article224753875.html|title=Erin Brockovich to lead protest against PG&E bankruptcy at Capitol in Sacramento|website=modbee|access-date=January 26, 2019}}{{when|date=February 2021}} PG&E had a deadline of June 30, 2020 to exit bankruptcy in order to participate in the California state wildfire insurance fund established by AB 1054 that helps utilities pay for future wildfire claims.{{cite news |last1=Morris |first1=J.D. |last2=Gardiner |first2=Dustin |title=Newsom authorizes $21 billion fund to protect utilities from fire costs |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Newsom-authorizes-21-billion-fund-to-protect-14091454.php?psid=hOl5s |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |date=July 12, 2019}}{{cite news |last=Nikolewski |first=Rob |title=California regulators approve funding for controversial wildfire law |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/story/2019-10-24/california-regulators-approve-funding-for-controversial-wildfire-law |newspaper=The San Diego Union-Tribune |date=October 24, 2019}}{{cite web |last=Gonzales |first=Richard |title=Calif. Governor Seeks To 'Jumpstart' PG&E Bankruptcy Talks; Threatens State Takeover |url=https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01/775621356/calif-governor-seeks-to-jumpstart-pg-e-bankruptcy-talks-threatens-state-takeover |website=npr.org |date=November 1, 2019}}

On August 16, 2019, liability for the Tubbs Fire was potentially added when U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali ruled that a fast-track state jury trial could proceed to resolve who is at fault for the Tubbs Fire. Cal Fire determined that customer equipment was at fault, but lawyers representing wildfire victims claimed that PG&E equipment was at fault.{{Cite news |last=Johnson |first=Julie |title=Bankruptcy judge clears way for trial against PG&E on Tubbs fire |url=https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/9911377-181/bankruptcy-judge-clears-way-for?sba=AAS |newspaper=The Press Democrat |date=August 16, 2019}}{{Cite news |last=Morris |first=J.D. |title=PG&E's role in the 2017 Tubbs Fire to go to jury trial |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-s-role-in-the-2017-Tubbs-Fire-can-go-to-14339267.php |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |date=August 16, 2019}}{{Cite Q|Q114357413|access-date=2 October 2022}} This trial was scheduled to begin January 7, 2020 in San Francisco. The court case was superseded by the Restructuring Support Agreement (RSA) of December 9, 2019{{cite web |title=RESTRUCTURING SUPPORT AGREEMENT |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/75488/000095015719001393/ex10-1.htm |publisher=U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |date=December 9, 2019}} and by the approved bankruptcy reorganization plan, wherein PG&E accepted liability for the Tubbs Fire.

Liability for the Kincade Fire that started October 23, 2019 was potentially added, because initially it was unknown whether or not PG&E was at fault for the fire.{{cite news|last=Ezyk |first=Nicholas |title=PG&E's Bankruptcy: A Bad Sign for American Utilities |url=https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/11/07/pges-bankruptcy-a-bad-sign-for-american-utilities.aspx |newspaper=The Motley Fool |date=November 7, 2019}} On July 16, 2020, which was after PG&E exited bankruptcy, Cal Fire reported that the fire was caused by PG&E transmission lines.{{cite web |last=Fusek |first=Maggie |title=Kincade Fire Caused By PG&E Equipment, Cal Fire Says |url=https://patch.com/california/healdsburg/kincade-fire-caused-pg-e-equipment-cal-fire-says |website=Patch |date=July 17, 2020 |quote=Cal Fire investigators determined the Sonoma County wildfire that destroyed 374 homes and structures was traced to PG&E equipment.}} Damages would not be covered by the settlement for wildfire victims that was part of the PG&E bankruptcy.{{cite web |last=Balaraman |first=Kavya |title=PG&E faces further investigation after California officials blame utility for Kincade Fire |url=https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pge-faces-further-investigation-after-california-officials-blame-utility-f/581874/ |website=Utility Dive |date=July 20, 2020}}

PG&E settled for $1 billion with state and local governments in June, 2019,{{Cite news |last=Morris |first=J.D. |title=PG&E to pay $1 billion to local governments affected by wildfires |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-to-pay-1-billion-to-local-governments-14015902.php |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |date=June 18, 2019}}{{Cite Q|Q114357300|access-date=2022-10-02}} and settled for $11 billion with insurance carriers and hedge funds in September, 2019.{{Cite news |last1=Chediak |first1=Mark |last2=Deveau |first2=Scott |title=PG&E's $11-billion settlement with insurers sets up a clash with fire victims |url=https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-13/pge-settlement-california-fires |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=September 13, 2019}}{{Cite news |last1=Thomas |first1=Owen |last2=Egelko |first2=Bob |title=PG&E takes step out of bankruptcy with $11 billion insurance settlement |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Insurer-group-reaches-11-billion-settlement-with-14437028.php |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |date=September 13, 2019}} Representatives for wildfire victims say PG&E owes $54 billion or more, and PG&E was offering $8.4 billion for fire damages, Cal Fire, and FEMA.{{Cite Q|Q114385805|access-date=2022-10-03}} If more than 500 homes were completely destroyed by the Kincade Fire, and PG&E was found to be at fault, then the parties agreeing to the settlements may have the option to back out of the agreements.{{cite news |last=Checiak |first=Mark |title=How a New California Wildfire Could Upend PG&E's Bankruptcy Case |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-25/how-a-new-california-wildfire-could-upend-pg-e-s-bankruptcy-case |newspaper=Bloomberg News |date=October 25, 2019}} Later PG&E offered a $13.5 billion fund to cover claims of the wildfire victims. FEMA originally requested PG&E for $3.9 billion from the wildfire victims fund, threatening to take the money from individual wildfire victims if PG&E did not pay,{{cite news |title=Open Letter to California Wildfire Survivors from FEMA Region 9 Administrator Robert Fenton |url=https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2020/01/16/r9/open-letter-california-wildfire-survivors-fema-region-9-administrator-robert |publisher=(Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) |date=January 16, 2020 |quote=Release Number: RIX-RA-20-01}}{{cite news |last=Von Kaenel |first=Camille |title=State, feds asked to drop PG&E claims |url=https://www.dailydemocrat.com/2020/01/18/california-congressmen-ask-federal-and-state-government-to-drop-pge-claims/ |newspaper=Daily Democrat |date=January 18, 2020}} and Cal OES had an overlapping $2.3 billion request,{{cite news |title=Wildfire Victims Blast FEMA And Calif. Claims Against PG&E |url=https://www.law360.com/energy/articles/1245793/wildfire-victims-blast-fema-and-calif-claims-against-pg-e |publisher=Law360 |date=February 20, 2020}} but they later settled for $1 billion after all wildfire victims are paid.{{Cite Q|Q114386329|access-date=2022-10-03 |quote=Federal agency dropped threat to sue victims of California wildfires if utility refused to pay for emergency services}}{{cite news |last=Liedtke |first=Michael |title=PG&E settles key battle over $13.5B wildfire victims' fund |url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article241064521.html |newspaper=Associated Press |date=March 10, 2020}}{{cite news |last=Kasler |first=Dale |title=PG&E settles with FEMA over billions in wildfire claims, avoiding bankruptcy fight |url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article241070636.html |newspaper=The Sacramento Bee |date=March 10, 2020}}{{cite news |last=Johnson |first=Julie |title=FEMA agrees to let wildfire victims get paid first in PG&E bankruptcy |url=https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/northbay/fema-agrees-to-let-wildfire-victims-get-paid-first-in-pge-bankruptcy/ |newspaper=The North Bay Business Journal |date=March 10, 2020}}

Claims for wildfire victims consist of wrongful death, personal injuries, property loss, business losses, and other legal damages.{{Cite web |title=Camp Fire Lawsuit Information |url=https://www.pgelawsuitguide.com/camp-fire-lawsuit/ |publisher=Skikos Attorneys At Law |website=pgelawsuitguide.com |access-date=October 14, 2019}} U.S. District Judge James Donato was assigned to the estimation process for the claims of wildfire victims, including whether or not personal injury and wrongful death claims can include damages due to emotional distress.{{cite web |title=PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Civil Case No. 3:19-cv-0527 |url=https://restructuring.primeclerk.com/pge/Home-DocketInfo?DocAttribute=4208&DocAttrName=CIVILDOCKETFORCASE3%3A19-CV-05257-JD |website=Prime Clerk |access-date=November 22, 2019 |quote=wildfire claims estimation proceedings}} Judge Donato was scheduled to begin hearings February 18, 2020 to determine how to do the estimation and how much PG&E needs to put in a trust fund for wildfire victims.{{cite news |last=Gibson |first=Kate |title=Deadline extended for California fire victims to seek compensation |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pge-california-fires-deadline-extended-for-victims-to-seek-compensation/ |newspaper=CBS News |date=October 29, 2019}}{{Cite Q|Q114385792|access-date=2022-10-03 |quote=Chapter 11 rules give the giant California utility what amounts to a lid on compensation}} Bankruptcy judge Montali said that the costs to government agencies will not be subject to the estimation process because those costs can be calculated "down to the penny."{{Cite web |last=Iovino |first=Nicholas |title=Government Wildfire Claims Against PG&E Won't Be Estimated |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/government-wildfire-claims-against-pge-wont-be-estimated/ |publisher=Courthouse News Service |website=www.courthousenews.com|date=August 27, 2019}} The court case was superseded by the Restructuring Support Agreement (RSA) of December 9, 2019 and by the approved bankruptcy reorganization plan.

On October 9, 2019, Judge Montali allowed the proposed reorganization plan of the senior bondholders to be considered along with PG&E's proposed plan. The proposal of the senior bondholders had the support of the committee of wildfire victims, who said their claims may be worth $13.5 billion.{{Cite news |last=Christie |first=Jim |title=Judge opens door to PG&E wildfire victims, noteholders filing rival reorganization plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pg-e-us-bankruptcy/judge-opens-door-to-pge-noteholders-filing-their-own-reorganization-plan-idUSKBN1WO2SL |newspaper=Reuters |date=October 9, 2019}}{{Cite Q|Q114386424|access-date=2022-10-03}}{{Cite news |last=Scaggs |first=Alexandra |title=PG&E Stock Is Tumbling Because Its Bankruptcy Just Got Riskier for Shareholders. Here's Why. |url=https://www.barrons.com/articles/pg-e-stock-slumps-after-judge-rules-bondholders-can-propose-bankruptcy-plan-51570711538 |newspaper=Barrons |date=October 10, 2019}} The proposal of the senior bondholders would give them control of the company with PG&E shareholders losing out, and PG&E called the proposal an "unjustified windfall".{{Cite news |last=Garber |first=Jonathan |title=PG&E shareholders could get wiped out |url=https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/pge-shareholders-could-get-wiped-out |newspaper=Fox Business |date=October 12, 2019}} Later PG&E reached an agreement with the bondholders and the committee of wildfire victims so that PG&E's proposed plan would be the only plan under consideration and the bondholders would not take control of the company.{{Cite Q|Q114386364|access-date=2022-10-03 |quote=Settlement with bondholders ends threat of a rival chapter 11 plan for the embattled California utility}}

File:Gavin Newsom speaks about PG&E's reorganization plan - November 2019.ogg

On November 12, 2019, PG&E in its proposed reorganization plan provided an additional $6.6 billion for the claims of wildfire victims and other claimants, increasing the amount to $13.5 billion, similar to the amount in the rival reorganization proposal of the senior bondholders.{{cite news |last1=Chediak |first1=Mark |last2=Deveau |first2=Scott |title=PG&E Is Offering $13.5 Billion in Compensation to Wildfire Victims |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-11/pg-e-offering-13-5-billion-in-compensation-to-wildfire-victims |newspaper=Bloomberg News |date=November 12, 2019}}{{cite news |last=Scaggs |first=Alexandra |title=PG&E Stock Is Up Because the Company Is Offering More to Wildfire Victims |url=https://www.barrons.com/articles/pg-e-stock-is-up-bankruptcy-california-wildfire-victims-51573573721?mod=RTA |newspaper=Barron's |date=November 12, 2019}}{{cite news |last=Garber |first=Jonathan |title=PG&E wildfire victims face uncertain road to recovery |url=https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/pge-wildfire-victims-uncertain-recovery-road |newspaper=Fox Business |date=November 12, 2019}}{{cite news |last=Wade |first=Will |title=PG&E Working to Fill $4.6 Billion Financing Hole in Bankruptcy |url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bankrupt-pg-e-half-financing-174442052.html |newspaper=Yahoo! Finance |date=November 18, 2019}}{{cite news |last1=Kasler |first1=Dale |last2=Bollag |first2=Sophia |title=Bankrupt PG&E increases offer to California wildfire victims. Here's the utility's new plan |url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article237489584.html |newspaper=The Sacramento Bee |date=November 18, 2019}}{{cite news |last1=Chediak |first1=Mark |last2=Deveau |first2=Scott |title=PG&E is near $13.5-billion deal with wildfire victims, sources say |url=https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-04/pge-nears-deal-with-wildfire-victims-sources-say |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=December 4, 2019}} In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), this puts the total amount for fire claims at $25.5 billion.{{cite web |title=FORM 8-K Current Report for PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, November 16, 2019 |url=https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/75488/000095015719001333/form8k.htm |publisher=U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |date=November 16, 2019}} This consists of $11 billion to insurance companies and investment funds, $1 billion to state and local governments, and $13.5 billion for other claims. The $11 billion settlement to insurance companies and investment funds was opposed by the state of California Governor Gavin Newsom and by the committee of wildfire victims.{{cite web |title=Governor opposes $11B PG&E insurance settlement |url=https://www.frantzlawgroup.com/documents/Governor-opposes-$11B-PGE-insurance-settlement.pdf |publisher=Frantz Law Group |access-date=November 25, 2019 |archive-date=June 22, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200622115833/https://www.frantzlawgroup.com/documents/Governor-opposes-$11B-PGE-insurance-settlement.pdf |url-status=dead }}{{Cite Q|Q114386404|access-date=2022-10-03 |quote=PG&E promised $11 billion in cash to insurers, and fire victims say the deal is getting in the way of a chapter 11 plan settlement}}{{cite news |last=Brickely |first=Peg |title=Newsom Slams PG&E Insurance Deal as Wildfire Settlement Takes Shape |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/newsom-slams-pg-e-insurance-deal-as-wildfire-settlement-takes-shape-11575504749 |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |date=December 4, 2019 |quote=California governor criticizes $11 billion pact that locks up votes for company’s bankruptcy plan}} Later Governor Newsom{{cite news |last1=Thompson |first1=Don |last2=Nguyen |first2=Daisy |title=PG&E reaches bankruptcy deal with California governor |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/pge-reaches-bankruptcy-deal-with-california-governor |newspaper=Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) |date=March 20, 2020}} and the wildfire victims{{cite news |last1=Guiney |first1=Brian P. |last2=Kim |first2=Sichan |title=PG&E's $58B Bankruptcy Plan Moves Closer to Approval |url=https://www.pbwt.com/bankruptcy-update-blog/pges-58b-bankruptcy-plan-moves-closer-to-approval/ |newspaper=Patterson Belknap |date=June 8, 2020}} approved the bankruptcy reorganization plan.

On December 6, 2019, PG&E proposed to settle the wildfire victim claims for a total of $13.5 billion, which would cover liability for its responsibility originating from the Camp Fire, Tubbs Fire, Butte Fire, Ghost Ship warehouse fire, and also a series of wildfires beginning on October 8, 2017, collectively called the 2017 North Bay Fires.{{cite news |last=Gonzales |first=Richard |title=PG&E Announces $13.5 Billion Settlement Of Claims Linked To California Wildfires |url=https://www.npr.org/2019/12/07/785775074/pg-e-announces-13-5-billion-settlement-of-claims-linked-to-california-wildfires |newspaper=National Public Radio |date=December 7, 2019}} The offer was tendered as part of PG&E's plan to exit bankruptcy.{{cite news |last=Acharya |first=Bhargav |title=Bankrupt PG&E reaches $13.5 billion settlement with California wildfire victims |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-wildfire-pg-e-us/bankrupt-pge-reaches-135-billion-settlement-with-california-wildfire-victims-idUSKBN1YB03M |newspaper=Reuters |date=December 6, 2019}}{{cite web |author=PG&E |title=Disclosure Statement to the Plan |url=https://restructuring.primeclerk.com/pge/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=MzM5MzQx&id2=0 |website=Prime Clerk |date=March 17, 2020 |page=159 |format=PDF}} Wildfire victims will get half of their $13.5 billion settlement as stock shares in the reorganized company,{{Cite Q|Q114357402|access-date=2022-10-02|quote=California utility offers to fund part of settlements with stock. Some, though, don’t want to own ‘the company that burned their houses down.’}}{{cite news |last=Iovino |first=Nicholas |title=PG&E Emerges From Chapter 11 Bankruptcy |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/pge-emerges-from-chapter-11-bankruptcy/ |newspaper=Courthouse News Service |date=July 1, 2020}} adding to the uncertainty as to when and how much they will be paid.{{Cite Q|Q114357276|access-date=2022-10-02|quote=Hedge funds, other investors stand to make billions from complex chapter 11 case while fire victims, paid part of settlement in stock, face uncertainty about cashing out}}{{cite news |last=Morris |first=J.D. |title=Full funds for PG&E fire victims may not be ready for 6 years, lawyer says |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Full-funds-for-PG-E-fire-victims-may-not-be-ready-15322648.php |newspaper=The San Francisco Chronicle |date=June 7, 2020}} On June 12, 2020, because of uncertainties in the value of the liquidated stock, in part because of the financial market impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, PG&E agreed to increase the amount of stock.{{cite news |last=Penn |first=Ivan |title=PG&E Gives Wildfire Victims More Stock in Bankruptcy Plan |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/business/energy-environment/pge-wildfire-victims-stock.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=June 12, 2020}}{{cite news |last=Iovino |first=Nicholas |title=PG&E Boosts Stock for Fire Victims in Bankruptcy Case |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/pge-boosts-stock-for-fire-victims-in-bankruptcy-case/ |newspaper=Courthouse News Service |date=June 12, 2020}} Wildfire victims will be paid in cash, funded partly from the cash portion of the settlement, and partly from stock that will be liquidated into cash on a schedule and at a price that is not yet determined.{{cite web |title=Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) for Fire Victims |url=https://restructuring.primeclerk.com/pge/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=MzQ2MjQ2&id2=0 |website=Prime Clerk |access-date=August 28, 2020 |format=PDF download}}

On December 17, 2019, regarding the Ghost Ship warehouse fire, which was not a wildfire, Judge Dennis Montali allowed the plaintiffs' case claiming that the fire was caused by an electrical malfunction to continue against PG&E. This case, if successful, would receive money from PG&E's $900 million insurance money, but would not be eligible to be part of the $13.5 billion allotted for the claims arising from the wildfires.{{ cite news | url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Judge-allows-Ghost-Ship-families-to-move-forward-14913630.php | title=Judge allows Ghost Ship families to move forward with civil case against PG&E | last1=Morris | first1=J.D. | last2=Cassidy | first2=Megan | newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle | date=December 17, 2019 | access-date=December 23, 2019| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191218060630/https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Judge-allows-Ghost-Ship-families-to-move-forward-14913630.php | archive-date=December 18, 2019 | url-status=live | quote=The judge’s decision frees Ghost Ship plaintiffs to seek payout from what plaintiffs’ attorneys say is a $900 million pot of insurance money, but disqualifies them from a cut of the $13.5 billion settlement that will be shared with wildfire victims. }} On August 18, 2020, PG&E settled the civil lawsuit for 32 of the victims, out of the 36 who perished in the fire.{{cite news |last=Debolt |first=David |title=Pacific Gas and Electric settles Ghost Ship fire lawsuit |url=https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2020/08/18/pge-settles-ghost-ship-fire-lawsuit/ |newspaper=Times-Herald |date=August 19, 2020}} The amount of the settlement was undisclosed, but it was limited to the amount available under PG&E's insurance coverage for the year 2016.

On June 16, 2020, PG&E pleaded guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter for those that died in the Camp Fire, for which it will pay the maximum fine of $3.5 million and end all further criminal charges against PG&E. This action does not alleviate PG&E of any future civil claims by victims of the Camp Fire which would fall outside the bankruptcy proceedings, as well as how existing litigation against PG&E may be handled.{{cite web | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/business/energy-environment/pge-camp-fire-manslaughter.html | title= PG&E Will Plead Guilty to Involuntary Manslaughter in Camp Fire | first = Peter | last = Eavis | date = March 23, 2020 | access-date = March 23, 2020 | work = The New York Times }}{{cite news |last=Ortiz |first=Jorge L. |title=PG&E pleads guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter for 2018 Northern California fire |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/16/camp-fire-pg-e-pleads-guilty-84-counts-manslaughter-2018-blaze/3199591001/ |newspaper=USA Today |date=June 16, 2020}}

On Saturday, June 20, 2020, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali issued the final approval of the plan for the reorganized PG&E to exit bankruptcy, meeting the June 30, 2020 deadline for PG&E to qualify for the California state wildfire insurance fund for utilities. On July 1, PG&E funded the Fire Victim Trust (FVT) with $5.4 billion cash and 22.19% of stock in the reorganized PG&E, which covers most of the obligations of its settlement for the wildfire victims.{{cite news |last=Penn |first=Ivan |title=PG&E, Troubled California Utility, Emerges From Bankruptcy |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/business/energy-environment/pge-bankruptcy-ends.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=July 1, 2020}}{{cite news |title=Fire Victim Trust Funded July 1st |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fire-victim-trust-funded-july-1st-301087017.html |newspaper=PR Newswire |date=July 1, 2020}} PG&E has two more payments totaling $1.35 billion cash, scheduled to be paid in January 2021 and January 2022, to complete its obligations to the wildfire victims.

On January 14, 2019, following the departure of CEO Geisha Williams, who had led the corporation since 2017;{{Cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pge-ceo-bankruptcy-20190113-story.html|title=PG&E Chief Executive Geisha Williams leaves as utility readies for possible bankruptcy|work=Los Angeles Times|access-date=2019-01-23}} PG&E corporation announced that it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in response to the financial challenges associated with catastrophic wildfires that had occurred in Northern California, in 2017 and 2018.

On January 15, 2019, PG&E stated it did not intend to make the semiannual interest payment of $21.6 million on its outstanding 5.40 percent Senior Notes, due January 15, 2040, which has a total capital value of $800 million. Under the indenture, the company had a 30-day grace period (expired on February 14, 2019) to make the interest payment, before triggering a default event.{{Cite web |url=http://cbonds.com/emissions/issue/56491 |title=Pacific Gas & Electric, 5.4% 15jan2040 |website=www.cbonds.com |access-date=January 15, 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190116225447/http://cbonds.com/emissions/issue/56491 |archive-date=January 16, 2019 |url-status=live }}

PG&E Corporation filed for bankruptcy on January 29, 2019. The company's disclosure statement was approved on March 17, 2020.{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pg-e-us-bankruptcy/pge-wins-approval-for-23-billion-bankruptcy-financing-package-idUSKBN2133VQ|title=PG&E wins approval for $23 billion bankruptcy financing package|date=March 17, 2020|work=Reuters|access-date=2020-05-10}}{{cite web|url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/23/confused-about-pges-bankruptcy-heres-what-you-need-to-know/|title=Confused about PG&E's bankruptcy? Here's what you need to know|date=January 24, 2020|publisher=Mercury News|access-date=2020-05-10}}

According to Cbonds, the company has 32 bond issues, and their outstanding amount is approximately equal to $17.5 billion.{{Cite web|url=http://cbonds.com/organisations/emitent/33997 |title=Pacific Gas & Electric — Company card|website=www.cbonds.com |access-date=January 15, 2019}} PG&E expects procedures to take two years.{{cite web |last1=Gheorghiu |first1=Iulia |title=A PG&E bankruptcy timeline: The road to Chapter 11 and beyond | url=https://www.utilitydive.com/news/a-pge-bankruptcy-timeline-the-road-to-chapter-11-and-beyond/547154/ |website=Utility Dive |access-date=May 2, 2019 |date=March 11, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190401055604/https://www.utilitydive.com/news/a-pge-bankruptcy-timeline-the-road-to-chapter-11-and-beyond/547154/ |archive-date=April 1, 2019 |url-status=live }} In April, as the bondholders crafted a plan to bring the company out of bankruptcy, Governor Gavin Newsom expressed his concern that new board members would have little knowledge of California and lack expertise in how to run a utility safely.{{Cite web|url=https://www.kqed.org/news/11736188/governor-blasts-pge-charging-utility-is-focused-on-quick-profits-over-safety|title=Governor Blasts PG&E, Says Utility Is Focused on 'Quick Profits' Over Safety|last=Brekke|first=Dan|date=March 28, 2019|website=KQED|language=en-us|access-date=29 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190329043825/https://www.kqed.org/news/11736188/governor-blasts-pge-charging-utility-is-focused-on-quick-profits-over-safety|archive-date=March 29, 2019|url-status=live}}

In April 2019, PG&E announced a new CEO and management team, led by former head of Progress Energy Inc and the Tennessee Valley Authority Bill Johnson, that would assume charge of the company, as it went through bankruptcy.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/business/pacific-gas-electric-new-ceo.html|title=PG&E Reveals New C.E.O. and a Revamped Board of Directors|last1=Penn|first1=Ivan|date=2019-04-03|work=The New York Times|access-date=2019-04-04|last2=Eavis|first2=Peter|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|last3=Hepler|first3=Lauren|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190404155015/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/business/pacific-gas-electric-new-ceo.html|archive-date=April 4, 2019|url-status=live}}

On November 1, 2019, Governor Newsom issued a statement calling upon PG&E to reach a "consensual resolution" to the bankruptcy case, intending to convene a meeting of PG&E Corporation's executives and stockholders, as well as wildfire victims. If an agreement could not be reached, the State of California "will not hesitate to step in and restructure the utility".[https://www.gov.ca.gov/2019/11/01/governor-newsom-outlines-state-efforts-to-fight-wildfires-protect-vulnerable-californians-and-ensure-that-going-forward-all-californians-have-safe-affordable-reliable-and-clean-power/ Governor Newsom Outlines State Efforts to Fight Wildfires, Protect Vulnerable Californians and Ensure That Going Forward, All Californians Have Safe, Affordable, Reliable and Clean Power]. Office of the Governor of California, November 1, 2019{{cite news|last=Gonsales|first=Richard|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01/775621356/calif-governor-seeks-to-jumpstart-pg-e-bankruptcy-talks-threatens-state-takeover|title=Calif. Governor Seeks to 'Jumpstart' PG&E Bankruptcy Talks; Threatens State Takeover|work=NPR|date=1 November 2019|access-date=3 November 2019}} A week prior, Newsom had declared PG&E's "greed and mismanagement", along with the utility's lack of focus on hardening its grid and under-grounding its transmission lines in vulnerable areas, as reasons for its inability to deliver electricity and the shutdowns. "They simply did not do their job," said Newsom.{{Cite news|url=https://abc7news.com/gov-newsom-slams-pg-e-for-mismanagement-and-greed/5647901/|title=Kincade Fire: Gov. Gavin Newsom slams PG&E for mismanagement, greed as cause of wildfire remains under investigation|last=Woodrow|first=Melanie|publisher=ABC7|date=2019-10-24|access-date=January 2, 2020}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/california-fires-tick-kincade-10-25-2019/h_474fc273447a57c9a88371d3dc45e778|title=Newsom says PG&E did not do their job and should be held accountable|last=Moon|first=Sarah|publisher=CNN|date=2019-10-25|access-date=January 2, 2020}}

A proposal to turn PG&E into a customer owned cooperative, initiated by San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, has received backing from more than 110 elected officials that represent majority of PG&E customers{{Cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-05/leaders-representing-majority-of-pg-e-customers-want-a-takeover|title=Leaders Representing Majority of PG&E Customers Want a Takeover|date=December 5, 2019|work=Bloomberg}} and include 21 other mayors.{{Cite news|url=https://abc7news.com/politics/mayors-pushing-to-make-pg-e-customer-owned/5674662/|title=22 mayors, including San Jose's, pushing to make PG&E customer owned|last=David|first=Louie|date=November 6, 2019|work=ABC7 News}} The City of San Francisco offered to buy PG&E's electrical infrastructure within the city for $2.5 billion in September 2019 (while PG&E was in bankruptcy), but the offer was rejected by PG&E.{{Cite web |title=San Francisco Offers to Buy PG&E Electric Grid in the City for $2.5 Billion |url=https://www.kqed.org/news/11773007/san-francisco-offers-to-buy-pge-electric-grid-in-the-city-for-2-5-billion |access-date=2022-10-30 |website=KQED |date=September 8, 2019 |language=en-us}}

In March 2020, PG&E asked a federal court to approve $454 million in bonuses just days after asking another federal judge (William Alsup, who was overseeing PG&E's criminal probation related to the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion) not to force the utility to hire more tree trimmers.{{Cite web |title=PG&E Seeks OK for $454M in Employee and Executive Bonuses |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/pge-seeks-ok-for-454m-in-employee-and-executive-bonuses/ |access-date=2022-10-30 |website=www.courthousenews.com |language=en-US}}

As part of its emergence from bankruptcy, it will pay wildfire victims $13.5 billion; half of that amount will be paid in company stock, resulting in 70,000 fire victims owning 22% of the company.{{ cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/business/energy-environment/pge-camp-fire-california-wildfires.html | title=PG&E Pleads Guilty to 84 Counts of Manslaughter in Camp Fire Case | last1=Penn | first1=Ivan | last2=Eavis | first2=Peter | newspaper=The New York Times | date=2020-06-16 | access-date=2020-06-16 | quote=About half of the $13.5 billion in compensation PG&E is paying wildfire victims will be in the form of company stock, leaving roughly 70,000 of them owning a little more than 22 percent of PG&E once it leaves bankruptcy. The company also plans to pay off its bond debt in full and its existing shareholders will continue to own a big chunk of PG&E, an unusual outcome in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases like this one. }}

This bankruptcy of PG&E Company was the largest utility bankruptcy in U.S. history,{{cite news |last1=Chediak |first1=Mark |last2=Church |first2=Steven |title=PG&E's Plan to Cap Fire Liabilities at $18 Billion Draws Ire |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-09/pg-e-files-plan-to-exit-largest-ever-utility-bankruptcy-in-u-s |newspaper=Bloomberg News |date=September 10, 2019}} and was one of the most complex bankruptcies in U.S. history.{{cite news |title=PG&E reaches bankruptcy deal with California governor |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/20/pge-reaches-bankruptcy-deal-with-california-governor.html |newspaper=CNBC |date=March 20, 2020}}

In November 2020, it was announced that Patti Poppe would be leaving CMS Energy on December 1, 2020, to become CEO of PG&E Corporation on January 4, 2021.{{Cite web|last=Morris|first=J. D.|date=2020-11-19|title=PG&E names Michigan utility chief as new CEO|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-names-new-CEO-15736251.php|access-date=2020-12-27|website=SFChronicle.com|language=en-US}}{{Cite web|date=2020-11-18|title=Consumers Energy chief Patti Poppe takes on big challenge with new job; 'Michigan will always be home'|url=https://www.crainsdetroit.com/people/consumers-energy-chief-patti-poppe-takes-big-challenge-new-job-michigan-will-always-be-home|access-date=2020-12-27|website=Crain's Detroit Business|language=en}} In April 2022, it was reported that PG&E Corporation CEO Patti Poppe received over $50 million in total direct compensation for her work in 2021, with $40 million of that being in company stock.{{Cite web |date=2022-04-07 |title=PG&E's top boss harvests total exec pay that tops $50 million |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/07/pge-ceo-patricia-poppe-total-exec-pay-tops-50-million-wildfire |access-date=2022-10-30 |website=The Mercury News |language=en-US | quote=Poppe’s $51.2 million total pay package was enriched primarily by $41.2 million in awards of stock, the annual SEC filing shows. The PG&E CEO also was awarded a bonus of $6.6 million and a base salary of $1.3 million. }}

In June 2020, PG&E announced that it planned to move its headquarters to 300 Lakeside Drive in Oakland.{{cite press release| title=As Part of Commitment to Reimagining PG&E for the Future, Company Plans to Relocate Headquarters to Oakland and Will Seek to Sell San Francisco Headquarters Complex| url=https://www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page?title=20200608_as_part_of_commitment_to_reimagining_pge_for_the_future_company_plans_to_relocate_headquarters_to_oakland_and_will_seek_to_sell_san_francisco_headquarters_complex| publisher=Pacific Gas & Electric| date=June 8, 2020| access-date=December 4, 2020}} The move will happen in phases, starting in 2022 and completing by 2026.{{cite news| last=Avalos| first=George| date=October 2, 2020| title=PG&E details timing of headquarters shift to downtown Oakland| work=The Mercury News| location=San Jose| url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/02/pge-oakland-hq-move-utility-east-bay-real-estate-fire-gas-electric/| access-date=December 4, 2020}}

In December 2024, the Department of Energy offered PG&E a $15 billion loan, to "expand hydropower generation and battery storage, upgrade transmission capacity through reconductoring and grid enhancing technologies, and enable virtual power plants throughout PG&E’s service area." {{ cite news | url=https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-12-17/pg-e-offered-15-billion-federal-loan | title=PG&E is offered $15-billion federal loan to improve grid, expand storage capacity | last=Petersen | first=Melody | newspaper=Los Angeles Times | date=2024-12-17 | quote=The Biden administration has been hurrying to release more money from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act before President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January. The loan guarantee is the biggest commitment to date from the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office. The money would be provided to PG&E in installments over several years. Loan office officials must approve the projects it pays for. }} {{Cite web |last=Gardner |first=Timothy |date=2024-12-17 |title=US offers California's PG&E record $15 bln loan to bolster power grid |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-agrees-15-bln-loan-pge-wsj-reports-2024-12-17/ |access-date=2025-01-13 |website=Reuters}}{{Cite web |title=LPO Announces Conditional Commitment to Pacific Gas & Electric Company to Expand Hydropower Generation, Battery Energy Storage, and Transmission |url=https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/lpo-announces-conditional-commitment-pacific-gas-electric-company-expand-hydropower |access-date=2025-01-14 |website=U.S. Department of Energy |language=en}}

{{More citations needed|section|date=February 2019}}

PG&E's utility-owned generation portfolio consists of an extensive hydroelectric system, one operating nuclear power plant, one operating natural gas-fired power plant, and another gas-fired plant under construction.{{Cite web|title=Diablo Canyon Power Plant|url=https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system-works/diablo-canyon-power-plant/diablo-canyon-power-plant.page|website=www.pge.com|access-date=2020-05-01}} Two other plants owned by the company have been permanently removed from commercial operation: Humboldt Bay Unit 3 (nuclear) and Hunters Point (natural gas).{{Cite web|title=NRC: Humboldt Bay|url=https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/humboldt-bay-nuclear-power-plant-unit-3.html|website=www.nrc.gov|language=en|access-date=2020-05-01}}{{Cite web|title=Power Plant Plan Not Sitting Well On Potrero Hill / Residents worried about pollution|url=https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Power-Plant-Plan-Not-Sitting-Well-On-Potrero-Hill-2960740.php|last1=Pena|first1=Michael|last2=Writer|first2=Chronicle Staff|date=2001-01-23|website=SFGate|access-date=2020-05-01}}

PG&E is the largest private owner of hydroelectric facilities in the United States including 174 dams. According to the company's Form 10-K filing for 2011, "The Utility's hydroelectric system consists of 110 generating units at 68 powerhouses, including the Helms pumped storage facility, with a total generating capacity of 3,896 MW ... The system includes 99 reservoirs, 56 diversions, 174 dams, 172 miles of canals, 43 miles of flumes, 130 miles of tunnels, 54 miles of pipe (penstocks, siphons and low head pipes), and 5 miles of natural waterways."{{cite book |author=PG&E Corporation |title=10-K Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2011 |date=February 16, 2012 |page=22 |access-date=July 14, 2012 |url=http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC/Document.Service?id=P3VybD1odHRwOi8vaXIuaW50Lndlc3RsYXdidXNpbmVzcy5jb20vZG9jdW1lbnQvdjEvMDAwMTE5MzEyNS0xMi0wNjU1MzcvZG9jL1BHRUNvcnBvcmF0aW9uXzEwS18yMDEyMDIxNi5wZGYmdHlwZT0yJmZuPVBHRUNvcnBvcmF0aW9uXzEwS18yMDEyMDIxNi5wZGY= |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130521142136/http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC/Document.Service?id=P3VybD1odHRwOi8vaXIuaW50Lndlc3RsYXdidXNpbmVzcy5jb20vZG9jdW1lbnQvdjEvMDAwMTE5MzEyNS0xMi0wNjU1MzcvZG9jL1BHRUNvcnBvcmF0aW9uXzEwS18yMDEyMDIxNi5wZGYmdHlwZT0yJmZuPVBHRUNvcnBvcmF0aW9uXzEwS18yMDEyMDIxNi5wZGY= |archive-date=May 21, 2013 |url-status=live }}

The single largest component is the Helms Pumped Storage Plant, located at {{Coord|37|02|13.78|N|118|57|53.63|W|name=Helms Pumped Storage Plant}} near Sawmill Flat in Fresno County, California. Helms consists of three units, each rated at 404 MW, for a total output of 1,212 MW. The facility operates between Courtright and Wishon reservoirs, alternately draining water from Courtright to produce electricity when demand is high, and pumping it back into Courtright from Wishon when demand is low. The Haas Powerhouse is situated more than {{convert|1000|ft|m}} inside a granite mountain.[https://books.google.com/books?id=vtsDAAAAMBAJ&dq=popular+mechanics+atomic+submarine&pg=PA101 "Powerhouse Inside Mountain has Six Mile Waterfall", March 1959, Popular Mechanics] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160426101943/https://books.google.com/books?id=vtsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA101&dq=popular+mechanics+atomic+submarine&hl=en&ei=PC7aTMvrN8Wt8Ab6z6jTCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=true |date=April 26, 2016 }} the Haas Powerhouse at the Wishon Reservoir

The Diablo Canyon Power Plant, located in Avila Beach, California, is the only operating nuclear asset owned by PG&E. The maximum output of this power plant is 2,240 MWe, provided by two equally sized units. As designed and licensed, it could be expanded to four units, at least doubling its generating capacity.Statement made repeatedly by Dr. Bill Wattenburg during his weekly radio show in 2007 and 2008, broadcast on radio station KGO out of San Francisco, California. Over a two-week period in 1981, 1,900 activists were arrested at Diablo Canyon Power Plant. It was the largest arrest in the history of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement.{{cite web|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-168285572.html|title=Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon}} {{dead link|date=February 2019|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}

In June 2016, PG&E announced plans to close Diablo Canyon in 2025. This would make California free of operating commercial nuclear power plants, but will mean the loss of 2256 MW of generation that produced over 18,000 GWh of electricity per year.

The company operated the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3 in Eureka, California. It is the oldest commercial nuclear plant in California and its maximum output was 65 MWe. The plant operated for 13 years, until 1976 when it was shut down for seismic retrofitting. New regulations enacted after the Three Mile Island accident rendered the plant unprofitable and it was never restarted. Unit 3 is currently in decommissioning phase. Based on PG&E's schedule of planned decommissioning activities, which incorporates various assumptions, including approval of its proposed new scope, decommissioning of the Unit 3 site is expected to conclude in 2019.{{Cite web|url=http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M088/K640/88640387.PDF|title=Decision D1402024 – Adopts Phase 1 of the Triennial Review of Nuclear Decommissioning Costs and Activities as related to Huboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3|access-date=August 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170215003037/http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M088/K640/88640387.PDF|archive-date=February 15, 2017|url-status=live}}

Pacific Gas & Electric planned to build the first commercially viable nuclear power plant in the United States at Bodega Bay, a fishing village fifty miles north of San Francisco. The proposal was controversial and conflict with local citizens began in 1958.Paula Garb.[http://jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_6/wellockvol6.htm Critical Masses: Opposition to Nuclear Power in California, 1958–1978 (book review)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100704163707/http://jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_6/wellockvol6.htm |date=July 4, 2010 }} Journal of Political Ecology, Vol 6, 1999. In 1963, there was a large demonstration at the site of the proposed Bodega Bay Nuclear Power Plant.Office of Technology Assessment. (1984). [http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1984/8421/842111.PDF Public Attitudes Toward Nuclear Power] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101108022505/http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1984/8421/842111.PDF |date=November 8, 2010 }} p. 231. The conflict ended in 1964, with the forced abandonment of plans for the power plant.

{{More citations needed|section|date=February 2019}}

File:Gateway Generating Station rectified.jpg, a combined-cycle gas-fired power station in Antioch, California that began operating in 2009]]

Built in 1956, two natural gas/fuel oil units at Humboldt Bay Power Plant produced 105 MWe of combined output. These units, along with two 15 MWe Mobile Emergency Power Plants (MEPPs), were retired in the summer of 2010, and replaced by the Humboldt Bay Generating Station, built on the same site.{{cite web |url=https://www.wartsila.com/energy/learn-more/references/utilities/humboldt-bay-generating-station-usa |title = Humboldt Bay Generating Station, USA}} It produces 163 MWe using natural gas for fuel and fuel oil for backup on Wärtsilä Diesel engines. The new facility is 33% more efficient and produces 85% fewer ozone-forming compounds, and produces 34% fewer greenhouse gas emissions. It has a closed-loop cooling system, eliminating use of water from Humboldt Bay for cooling.

As part of a settlement with Mirant Services LLC for alleged market manipulations during the 2001 California energy crisis, PG&E took ownership of a partially constructed natural gas unit in Antioch, California. The 530 MW unit, known as the Gateway Generating Station, was completed by PG&E and placed into operation in 2009.

On May 15, 2006, after a long and bitter political battle, PG&E shut down its 48-year-old Hunters Point Power Plant in San Francisco.{{cite web|date=May 15, 2006|title=PG&E Hunters Point Power Plant Officially Closes|url=http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications+and+Outreach/Publications/News+Releases/2006/pge_060515.ashx?la=en|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121208221052/http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications%20and%20Outreach/Publications/News%20Releases/2006/pge_060515.ashx?la=en|archive-date=December 8, 2012}}

PG&E broke ground in 2008 on a 660 MW natural gas power plant located in Colusa County. It began operation in December 2010, and serves nearly half a million residences using the latest technology and environmental design.{{update inline|date=April 2013}} The plant will use dry cooling technology to dramatically reduce water usage, and cleaner-burning turbines to reduce CO₂ emissions by 35 percent relative to older plants.{{cite web|url=http://www.colusa-sun-herald.com/news/-2039--.html|title=PG&E charges ahead|access-date=May 13, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110708180134/http://www.colusa-sun-herald.com/news/-2039--.html|archive-date=July 8, 2011|url-status=dead}}

On April 1, 2008, PG&E announced contracts to buy three new solar power plants in the Mojave Desert. With an output of 500 MW and options for another 400 MW, the three installations will initially generate enough electricity to power more than 375,000 residences.[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/01/BUA1VTCJT.DTL PG&E backs 3 solar plants in the Mojave] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120513063304/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2008%2F04%2F01%2FBUA1VTCJT.DTL |date=May 13, 2012 }} by David R. Baker, San Francisco Chronicle, April 1, 2008

In April 2009, PG&E's Next100 blog reported that PG&E was asking the California Public Utilities Commission to approve a project by the company Solaren to deliver 200 megawatts of power to California from space. This method of obtaining electricity from the sun eliminates (mostly) the darkness of night experienced from solar sites on the surface of the earth. According to PG&E spokesman Jonathan Marshall, energy purchase costs are expected to be similar to other renewable energy contracts.{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090415122120/http://www.next100.com/2009/04/space-solar-power-the-next-fro.php |url=http://www.next100.com/2009/04/space-solar-power-the-next-fro.php |archive-date=April 15, 2009 |access-date=July 22, 2013 |title=Space Solar Power: The Next Frontier? |work=Next100 |publisher=Pacific Gas & Electric}}

{{More citations needed|section|date=February 2019}}

Beginning in the mid-1970s, regulatory and political developments began to push utilities in California away from a traditional business model. In 1976, the California State Legislature amended the 1974 Warren–Alquist Act,{{Cite web|url=http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-140-2005-001/CEC-140-2005-001-ED2.PDF|title=Full text of the Warren-Alquist Act, see section 25524.2|website=Energy.ca.gov|access-date=February 26, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060928162328/http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-140-2005-001/CEC-140-2005-001-ED2.PDF|archive-date=September 28, 2006|url-status=live}} which created and gives legal authority to the California Energy Commission, to effectively prohibit the construction of new nuclear power plants. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed as an intervenor in PG&E's 1978 General Rate Case (GRC), claiming that the company's requests for rate increases were based on unrealistically high projections of load growth. Furthermore, EDF claimed that PG&E could more cost-effectively encourage industrial co-generation and energy efficiency than build more power plants. As a result of EDF's involvement in PG&E's rate cases, the company was eventually fined $50 million by the California Public Utilities Commission for failing to adequately implement energy efficiency programs.

In the early first decade of the 21st century, the CEO of PG&E Corporation, Peter Darbee, and then-CEO of Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Tom King, publicly announced their support for California Assembly Bill 32, a measure to cap statewide greenhouse gas emissions and a 25% reduction of emissions by 2020. The bill was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006.

In 2014, PG&E had a renewables mix of 28%.{{cite web|url=http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8323|title=Biennial RPS Program Update Section 913.6 Report – January 2016 – Page 5.|publisher=California Public Utilities Commission|access-date=April 20, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160509135558/http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8323|archive-date=May 9, 2016|url-status=live}} By 2016, 32.9% of PG&E's power sources were renewable.{{cite news|last1=Tarantola|first1=Andrew|title=California is set to hit its green-energy goals a decade early|url=https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/20/california-green-energy-goal-2020/|access-date=December 27, 2017|publisher=Engadget|date=December 20, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171227121335/https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/20/california-green-energy-goal-2020/|archive-date=December 27, 2017|url-status=live}}

During 2017, PG&E announced that 80% of the company's delivered electricity comes from GHG-free sources, including renewables, nuclear, and hydropower. Around 33% comes from renewable sources, thus meeting California's goal of 33% of electricity coming from renewables by 2020, nearly three years in advance.{{cite web|last1=Lillian|first1=Betsy|title=PG&E Hits California's Renewables Goal Years Ahead Of Schedule|url=https://nawindpower.com/pge-hits-californias-renewables-goal-years-ahead-schedule|website=North American Wind Power|date=February 21, 2018|access-date=February 21, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221220032/https://nawindpower.com/pge-hits-californias-renewables-goal-years-ahead-schedule|archive-date=February 21, 2018|url-status=live}}

In February 2019, PG&E submitted its Wildfire Safety Plan{{Cite web |title=2025 Wildfire Mitigation Plan Updates {{!}} Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety |url=https://energysafety.ca.gov/what-we-do/electrical-infrastructure-safety/wildfire-mitigation-and-safety/wildfire-mitigation-plans/2025-wildfire-mitigation-plans/ |access-date=2025-02-09 |language=en}} to the California Public Utilities Commission outlining its efforts to prevent wildfires caused by electrical equipment. It has sense increased its preventative efforts and engagement in discussions around climate adaptation as extreme weather conditions increase.{{Cite web |title=2024 Key Trends |url=https://bcse.org/market-trends/2024-key-trends/ |access-date=2025-02-09 |website=Business Council for Sustainable Energy |language=en-US}}

In June 2020, PG&E announced a 12-month R&D effort along with Socalgas and Twelve to convert raw biogas into carbon neutral methane. This technology would enable energy from renewable resources (such as wind and solar) to generate fuel from landfills, sewage, and dairy farms.{{cite web |title=&E, SoCalGas and Opus 12 Announce Advancements in Technology that Converts Carbon Dioxide to Renewable Natural Gas |url=http://www.pgecurrents.com/2020/06/23/pge-socalgas-and-opus-12-announce-advancements-in-technology-that-converts-carbon-dioxide-to-renewable-natural-gas/ |website=PG&E Currents |access-date=14 August 2020 |archive-date=December 4, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201204232124/http://www.pgecurrents.com/2020/06/23/pge-socalgas-and-opus-12-announce-advancements-in-technology-that-converts-carbon-dioxide-to-renewable-natural-gas/ |url-status=dead }}

Pacific Gas and Electric Company reported Total CO2e emissions (Direct + Indirect) for the twelve months ending 31 December 2019 at 4,510 Kt (-60 /-1.3% y-o-y).{{Cite web |title=Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Sustainability Report for 2020Q4 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211012025114/https://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2021/assets/PGE_CRSR_2021.pdf |url=https://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2021/assets/PGE_CRSR_2021.pdf|archive-date=October 12, 2021 }} [https://analytics.exerica.com/App/Name/Pacific%20Gas%20and%20Electric%20Company/Total%20CO2e%20Emissions%20-%20Location-Based%20Scope%201%20%2b%20Scope%202/2019Q4/12/2020Q4 Alt URL]

In 1970, the Pit River Tribe began a boycott of PG&E. The tribe claimed that the land being used by PG&E was rightfully theirs and that they should receive the profits from it. People subsequently sent boycott checks to the tribe, including musician Buffy Sainte-Marie who sent a $150 check.{{Cite news|title=PG&E boycott begins|date=1970|work=Akwesasne Notes|editor-last=Gambill|editor-first=Jerry|issue=5|volume=2|page=33}}

{{Main|Hinkley groundwater contamination}}

From 1952 to 1966, PG&E dumped "roughly 370 million gallons" of chromium 6-tainted wastewater into unlined wastewater spreading ponds around the town of Hinkley, California.{{rp|228}} PG&E used chromium 6—"one of the cheapest and most efficient commercially available corrosion inhibitors"—at their compressor station plants in their cooling towers along the natural gas transmission pipelines.{{cite journal |url=http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/volumes/26/2/banks.pdf |title=The 'Erin Brockvich effect': How media shapes toxics policy |journal=Environs |volume=26 |number=2 |date=2003 |pages=219–32 |access-date=April 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160207212454/http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/volumes/26/2/banks.pdf |archive-date=February 7, 2016 |url-status=live }}{{rp|}}{{citation |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-mar-12-ca-7856-story.html |title=Digging for the Truth: With tensions over accuracy in film running high, 'Erin Brockovich' pays attention to real-life detail |date=March 12, 2000 |first=Robert W. |last=Welkos |access-date=April 13, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130706033058/http://articles.latimes.com/2000/mar/12/entertainment/ca-7856 |archive-date=July 6, 2013 |url-status=live }}

PG&E did not inform the local water board of the contamination until December 7, 1987, stalling action on a response to the contamination.{{cite web | url=https://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/13/12290/how-industry-scientists-stalled-action-carcinogen | title=How industry scientists stalled action on carcinogen | publisher=Center for Public Integrity | date=March 13, 2013 | access-date=April 14, 2016 | author=David Heath | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160318060651/http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/13/12290/how-industry-scientists-stalled-action-carcinogen | archive-date=March 18, 2016 | url-status=live }} The residents of Hinkley filed a successful lawsuit against PG&E in which the company paid $333 million— the largest settlement ever paid in a direct-action lawsuit in U.S. history.{{cite web | url=http://sbcsentinel.com/2013/09/pge-hit-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-lingering-hinkley-contamination/ | title=PG&E Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Lingering Hinkley Contamination | publisher=San Bernardino County Sentinel | date=September 28, 2013 | access-date=April 13, 2016 | author=Venturi | location=Hinkley | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160412134855/http://sbcsentinel.com/2013/09/pge-hit-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-lingering-hinkley-contamination/ | archive-date=April 12, 2016 | url-status=live }} The legal case, dramatized in the 2000 film Erin Brockovich, became an international cause célèbre.{{citation |title=Erin Brockovich's Biggest Debunker, Debunked: A closer look finds serious flaws in the research of a scientist trying to disprove an infamous California cancer cluster |first=David |last=Heath |date=June 3, 2013 |url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/05/erin-brockovich-hinkley-california-junk-science |work=Center for Public Integrity via Mother Jones |access-date=April 13, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130607194155/http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/05/erin-brockovich-hinkley-california-junk-science |archive-date=June 7, 2013 |url-status=live }}{{rp|}}{{cite news|url=http://www.sbsun.com/environment-and-nature/20150318/hinkley-continues-to-shrink-desert-town-set-to-lose-only-market-gas-station-post-office?source=most_viewed|title=Hinkley continues to shrink: Desert town set to lose only market, gas station, Post Office|date=March 18, 2015|first=Jim|last=Steinberg|access-date=April 17, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304073426/http://www.sbsun.com/environment-and-nature/20150318/hinkley-continues-to-shrink-desert-town-set-to-lose-only-market-gas-station-post-office?source=most_viewed|archive-date=March 4, 2016|url-status=live}}{{citation |title=Possible Interference in the Scientific Review of Chromium VI Toxicity |series=Senate Hearing |location=Los Angeles, California |date=February 28, 2003 |work=Senate Health and Human Services Committee}}{{citation |url=http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/pdf/crpanelrptfinal901.pdf |title=Scientific Review of Toxicological and Human Health Issues Related to the Development of a Public Health Goal for Chromium(VI) |work=Chromate Toxicity Review Committee via OEHHA |date=August 31, 2001 |pages=32 |access-date=April 14, 2016 |first1=Russell |last1=Flegal |first2=Jerold |last2=Last |first3=Ernest E. |last3=McConnell ToxPath |first4=Marc |last4=Schenker |first5=Hanspeter |last5=Witschi |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160428105452/http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/pdf/crpanelrptfinal901.pdf |archive-date=April 28, 2016 |url-status=live }}{{cite journal |last1=Borneff |first1=J |last2=Engelhardt |first2=K |last3=Griem |first3=W |last4=Kunte |first4=H |last5=Reichert |first5=J. |series=Carcinogens in water and soil |number= XXII |title=Experiment with 3,4-benzopyrene and potassium chromate in mice drink|journal=Arch Hyg Bakteriol |date=1968 |volume=152 |pages=45–53}}{{cite journal |title=Corporate Corruption of Science— The Case of Chromium(VI) |first=David |last=Egilman |journal=International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health |date=2006 |volume=12 |pages=169–176 |url=https://asopossos.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/ijoeh_april06-cr62.pdf |series= |issue=2 |doi=10.1179/oeh.2006.12.2.169 |pmid=16722197 |s2cid=27619936 |access-date=April 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205122727/https://asopossos.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/ijoeh_april06-cr62.pdf |archive-date=February 5, 2017 |url-status=live }}{{citation |url=http://www.iveyengineering.com/class-action-lawsuits-2/ |title=6 Class Action Lawsuits that Changed U.S. History |work=IVEY Engineering |date=November 20, 2012 |access-date=April 14, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160423144737/http://www.iveyengineering.com/class-action-lawsuits-2/ |archive-date=April 23, 2016 |url-status=live }} In response, in 2001, at the request of the CalEPA, the Chromate Toxicity Review Committee was formed to investigate the toxicity of chromium-6 when ingested. In 2003, a Senate hearing revealed that the committee's members included expert witnesses from PG&E, who had influenced the final August 2001 report which found in PG&E's favor concluding that other reports were alarmist with "spuriously high" statistics and that further evaluation should be handled by academics in laboratory settings not by regulators.{{rp|29}} In July 2014, California became the first state to acknowledge that ingested chromium-6 is linked to cancer and as a result has established a chromium-6 maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 parts per billion (ppb).{{cite web |url=http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/chromium6/LettertoPWS-StateAdoptionofaHexavalentChromiumMCL-20140620.pdf |title=State Adoption of a Hexavalent Chromium MCL |access-date=October 8, 2014 |publisher=California Department of Public Health |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141013225132/http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/chromium6/LettertoPWS-StateAdoptionofaHexavalentChromiumMCL-20140620.pdf |archive-date=October 13, 2014 |url-status=live }} In setting the regulations, it was acknowledged that in "recent scientific studies in laboratory animals, Hexavalent Chromium has also been linked to cancer when ingested". Previously, when older chromium MCLs were set, "at the time Total Chromium MCLs were established, ingested Hexavalent Chromium associated with consumption of drinking water was not considered to pose a cancer risk, as is now the case."{{citation |url=http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/chromium6/chromium_fact_sheet_2015_final.pdf |title=Fact Sheet: Frequently Asked Questions about Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water |work=California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) |date=2015 |access-date=April 14, 2016 |location=Sacramento, California |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160428041437/http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/chromium6/chromium_fact_sheet_2015_final.pdf |archive-date=April 28, 2016 |url-status=live }}

By 2013, PG&E had cleaned up 54 acres, but it is estimated the remediation process will take another 40 years. PG&E built a concrete wall barrier that is about a half-mile-long to contain the plume, pump ethanol into the ground to convert chromium-6 into chromium-3, and have planted acres of alfalfa. They created a chicken farm to use the alfalfa. PG&E uses irrigation to maintain these large circles of green in the otherwise desert area, and was asked to stop because of the ongoing danger of residents inhaling chromium 6.

In 2015, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region served PG&E with a new order "to cleanup [sic] and abate the effects of the discharge of chromium waste or threatened pollution or nuisance". By the time of the report, the plume had expanded to "8 miles in length and approximately 2 miles in width, throughout the Hinkley Valley and into Harper Dry Lake Valley", polluting new areas.{{citation |series=Science for Sale |title=Protecting Americans From Danger in the Drinking Water |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/protecting-americans-from-danger-in-the-drinking-water |work=PBS |date=March 13, 2013 |access-date=September 7, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205122812/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science-jan-june13-taintedwater_03-13/ |archive-date=February 5, 2017 |url-status=live }}{{citation |title=Clean-up and abatement order |work=The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region (Water Board) |date=2015 |number=R6V–2015–0068 |location=San Bernardino County |url=http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2015/docs/r6v_2015_0068.pdf |access-date=April 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160428070326/http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2015/docs/r6v_2015_0068.pdf |archive-date=April 28, 2016 |url-status=live }}{{rp|2}} In early 2016, the New York Times described Hinkley as having been slowly turned into a ghost town due to the contamination of the area with owners unable to sell their properties.{{cite news|last1=Lovett|first1=Ian|title=Gas Leak in Los Angeles Has Residents Looking Warily Toward Flint|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/us/gas-leak-in-los-angeles-has-residents-looking-warily-toward-flint.html?_r=0|access-date=January 24, 2016|work=The New York Times|date=January 23, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160127150136/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/us/gas-leak-in-los-angeles-has-residents-looking-warily-toward-flint.html?_r=0|archive-date=January 27, 2016|url-status=live}}

Epidemiologist John Morgan{{citation |work=Loma Linda University Health |title=John Morgan |date=2015}} produced a 2010 report for the California Cancer Registry in which he argued that there was no cancer cluster in Hinkley related to chromium 6.{{cite web | url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/705830/hinkley-cancer-cluster-or-not.txt | title=Community Cancer Assessment in Hinkley California, 1988–1993: Hinkley cancer-cluster or not | publisher=The Desert Sierra Cancer Surveillance Program (DSCSP) | date=September 25, 2000 | access-date=April 14, 2016 | first1=John W. |last1=Morgan |first2=Thomas |last2=Prendergast}} In one study, Morgan had claimed that cancer rates in Hinkley "remained unremarkable from 1988 to 2008" saying that "the 196 cases of cancer reported during the most recent survey of 1996 through 2008 were less than what he would expect based on demographics and the regional rate of cancer."{{citation |last=Schwartz |first=Naoki |date=December 13, 2010 |url=https://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/12/13/survey_shows_unremarkable_cancer_rate_in_ca_town/ |title=Survey shows unremarkable cancer rate in CA town |work=The Boston Globe |access-date=April 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304134243/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/12/13/survey_shows_unremarkable_cancer_rate_in_ca_town/ |archive-date=March 4, 2016 |url-status=live }} In 2013, the Center for Public Integrity found glaring weaknesses in Morgan's 2010 analysis that challenged the validity of his findings. "In his first study, he dismisses what others see as a genuine cancer cluster in Hinkley. In his latest analysis, he excludes people who were exposed to the worst contamination."

{{Main|Metcalf sniper attack}}

On April 16, 2013, a team of gunmen opened fire on the Metcalf transmission substation in Coyote, California. The attack damaged 17 high-voltage transformers, causing more than $15 million in damage. The team also cut a fiber-optic telecommunications cable owned by AT&T. PG&E and AT&T offered a $250,000 reward for anyone who had information leading to the arrest of the culprits,{{Cite web |title=PG&E Offers $250,000 Reward In San Jose Substation Attack |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/pge-offers-250000-reward-in-san-jose-substation-attack/ |access-date=2022-07-31 |website=www.cbsnews.com |date=April 10, 2014 |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |title=$250,000 Reward Offered In Vandalism Of San Jose AT&T Wires |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/250000-reward-offered-in-vandalism-of-san-jose-att-wires/ |access-date=2022-07-31 |website=www.cbsnews.com |date=April 17, 2013 |language=en-US}} however, they were never found. The Federal Bureau of Investigation found that it was not domestic terrorism,{{Cite news |title=Sniper Attack On Calif. Power Station Raises Terrorism Fears |language=en |work=NPR.org |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/05/272015606/sniper-attack-on-calif-power-station-raises-terrorism-fears |access-date=2022-07-31}} and The Department of Homeland Security claimed they had evidence that it may have been an 'inside job'.{{Cite web |last=Pagliery |first=Jose |date=2015-10-16 |title=Sniper attack on California power grid may have been 'an insider,' DHS says |url=https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/technology/sniper-power-grid/index.html |access-date=2022-07-31 |website=CNNMoney}}

PG&E equipment has often been the cause of wildfires in California.{{cite web |url=https://www.sfgate.com/news/amp/PG-E-settles-forest-fire-suits-for-29-5-million-3407791.php |title = PG&E settles forest-fire suits for $29.5 million| date=March 15, 2012 }} PG&E has been found guilty of criminal negligence in many cases involving fires. These include the 1994 Trauner Fire,{{cite web|title=PG&E Guilty In 1994 Sierra Blaze / 739 counts of negligence for not trimming trees |author=Jim Doyle |publisher=San Francisco Chronicle | date= June 20, 1997 | url=https://www.sfgate.com/news/amp/PG-E-Guilty-In-1994-Sierra-Blaze-739-counts-of-2821364.php}} a substation fire in San Francisco in 1996, the 1999 Pendola Fire,{{cite web|title=PG&E to pay $14.75M for Pendola fire damage |author=Michael Shaw | date=July 28, 2009 |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/07/27/daily25.html}} a San Francisco substation fire in 2003, the Sims Fire and Fred's Fire in 2004,{{cite web|url=https://www.sfgate.com/news/amp/PG-E-settles-forest-fire-suits-for-29-5-million-3407791.php |title=PG&E settles forest-fire suits for $29.5 million |author=Demian Bulwa | date= March 15, 2012| publisher=San Francisco Chronicle }} an explosion and electrical fire in San Francisco in 2005, the 2008 Rancho Cordova Gas Explosion,{{cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2011/12/02/us/california-gas-fine |title=California gas utility fined $38 million for 2008 explosion that killed 1 | author=Michael Martinez | publisher=CNN |date=December 2, 2011}} the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion,{{cite web|title=PG&E RECEIVES MAXIMUM SENTENCE FOR 2010 SAN BRUNO EXPLOSION | author=Kate Larsen |date=January 26, 2017 |publisher=abc7news |url=https://abc7news.com/pge-fine-pacific-gas-and-electric-san-bruno-fire-explosion/1722674/}}

2014 Carmel Gas Explosion,{{cite web|title=PG&E to pay $1.6 million to settle suit over Carmel blast |author=Rachel Swan | date=June 9, 2017 |url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-to-pay-1-6-million-to-settle-suit-over-11209644.php}} 2015 Butte Fire, 2018 Camp Fire, among others.{{cite news |url=https://www.abc10.com/article/news/investigations/the-history-of-pges-problems/103-b7badd6e-8eea-4ae3-a935-8628ba98b87e |title = The history of PG&E's problems {{!}} abc10.com| newspaper=Abc10.Com | date=March 11, 2019 }}

Approximately forty of the 315 wildfires in PG&E's service area in 2017 and 2018 were allegedly caused by PG&E equipment.{{cite news|page=A1 | title=PG&E faced new scrutiny: Role in wildfires: Many workers spotted Butte County blaze early |author1=Erin Allday |author2=Roland Li | date=January 1, 2019 | publisher=San Francisco Chronicle}}

PG&E was on probation after being found criminally liable in the 2010 San Bruno fire.{{cite news |page=A1 |title=PG&E faces new scrutiny: Federal prosecutors: Utility may have violated San Bruno probation |author=J.D. Morris |publisher=San Francisco Chronicle |date=January 1, 2019}} Following that fire, a federally appointed monitor initially focused on gas operations, but his scope expanded to include electricity distribution equipment following the fires in October 2017. A separate case involved allegations the utility falsified gas pipeline records between 2012 and 2017, and as of January 2019 was still being considered.

PG&E, like two large Southern California utilities, is now required to submit an annual wildfire prevention plan. The California law judges who reviewed the plan submitted in February 2019 suggested more metrics and maintenance partnerships with local governments, but recommended approving the plan. They also recommended investigating whether disabling equipment that restarts power transmission could reduce the need for power shutoffs. PG&E has filed a motion which in May 2019 had not yet been ruled upon, to amend this plan to move some of the deadlines further out.{{cite news |title=PG&E wildfire plan faces scrutiny |author=J.D. Morris |date=May 1, 2019 |page=D1 |publisher=San Francisco Chronicle}}

State law follows a principle of "inverse condemnation" for wildfire liability, which means that utilities are held responsible for damages resulting from {{em|any}} fire caused by their equipment, even if their maintenance on equipment and surrounding vegetation was done to standards.{{ r | LAT_1 | p=1 | q=Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders on Wednesday declined to embrace requests from Wall Street to change California's controversial wildfire liability law, instead throwing their support behind a proposed multibillion-dollar fund to help utilities pay for wildfire damages and legislation to more clearly define when ratepayers would pick up the bill for claims. The state leaders said they would continue to explore "the impact of strict liability" on ratepayers, wildfire victims and the utilities. California uses the legal principle of "inverse condemnation" to determine liability and holds utilities responsible for wildfire property damages even if negligence isn't proved.}}

This policy resulted in $30B of liability for PG&E from the 2017 & 2018 fires and drove it to bankruptcy proceedings.{{ r | LAT_1 | p=1 | q=PG&E filed for bankruptcy protection in January in anticipation of massive legal fees resulting from wildfires linked to its electrical equipment in recent years. State law requires utilities to pay for such fires, regardless of whether a company's negligence may have caused the blaze.}}{{ r | LAT_2 | p=1 | q=Under state guidelines, a utility or its customers are responsible for paying property damages from wildfires linked to the company's equipment. With aging infrastructure electrifying remote areas of increasingly hot and dry terrain, the cost and risk have grown significantly in recent years. Pacific Gas & Electric filed for bankruptcy, anticipating some $30 billion in liability for fires in 2017 and 2018, earlier this year.}}

In July 2019, a new $21 billion wildfire trust fund was created to pay for damages from future wildfires, started with a 50-50 balance of utility and customer monies and also reduced the liability threshold for utilities to where customers must prove negligence before companies are held liable.{{ r | LAT_2 | p=1 | q=California's investor-owned utility companies have agreed to open up their wallets to pay into the state's wildfire fund in exchange for less financial responsibility when blazes are linked to their equipment. ... The fund, propped up by $21 billion split equally between utility customers and shareholders, is meant to act as a second insurance policy for publicly traded electricity companies and to offset concerns from Wall Street about massive monetary liabilities that have threatened to upend the energy market in California. ... The law takes $10.5 billion from electricity customers through the continuation of a charge on monthly bills that was set to expire next year. In return, wildfire costs that would typically lead to higher bills for customers will instead be paid out by the fund, potentially avoiding price hikes. ... For their $10.5 billion, the utilities are allowed to tap into the fund to pay wildfire damages that exceed insurance coverage. The law also shifts the burden of proof in regulatory proceedings — another benefit for the utilities — and requires outside groups to intervene to prove that the company failed to properly manage its system to prevent the fire.}}

As of 2019, public utilities in the state of California have a total of 26,000 miles of high voltage transmission lines, and 240,000 miles of distribution lines. Distribution lines bring electricity directly to consumers; two-thirds statewide are above ground.{{ r | USN_1| p=1 | q=California has 25,526 miles of higher voltage transmission lines, and 239,557 miles of distribution lines, two-thirds of which are overhead, according to CPUC. }}

For transmission lines, the cost of undergrounding is about $80 million per mile{{ r | SFC_1 | p=1 | q=Those transmission lines, typically supported by tall, steel-lattice towers, carry electricity at high voltages across long distances. They are far more expensive to place in the ground than the lower-voltage distribution lines that bring electricity directly into residential neighborhoods. "It makes undergrounding distribution look cheap — think like $80 million a mile," Wara said. "You basically dig a trench and build a building around the transmission line." PG&E has more than 18,000 miles of transmission lines. }} while for distribution lines, the cost of underground lines is about $3 million per mile, compared to overhead lines at about $800,000 per mile.{{ r | USN_1| p=1 | q=It costs about $3 million per mile to convert underground electric distribution lines from overhead, while the cost to build a mile of new overhead line is less than a third of that, at approximately $800,000 per mile,... }}

The state's largest utility, PG&E, has 107,000 miles of distribution lines, 81,000 miles of which are overhead. The cost in 2019 to convert all of PG&E's overhead distribution lines to underground lines would cost a total of $240 billion, or $15,000 per PG&E customer. (This cost estimate is only for distribution lines, not the higher voltage transmission lines.){{ r | USN_1| p=1 | q=PG&E, the state's largest utility, maintains approximately 81,000 miles of overhead distribution lines and approximately 26,000 miles of underground distribution lines. It also has about 18,000 miles of larger transmission lines, the majority of which are overhead lines. At a cost of $3 million per mile, undergrounding 81,000 miles of distribution lines would cost $243 billion. PG&E has 16 million customers; distributing that expense equally would amount to a bill of more than $15,000 per account. }}

In July 2021, PG&E announced that it plans to bury an additional 10,000 miles of its distribution lines over the next 10 years, (about 9% more; 25% are already underground) to reduce the risk of wildland fires.{{ r | NYT_2021-07-21 }} It already has 27,000 miles of distribution lines underground, but these are generally not in high fire risk areas.{{ r | NYT_2021-07-21 }} (Nationwide, 18% of distribution lines are underground, partly because all new commercial and residential developments are built this way.){{ r | NYT_2021-07-21 }} This project has been estimated to cost about $4 million per mile, or $40 billion in total, though PG&E's CEO stated that she hopes that they can get costs down to a total of $15–20 billion.{{ cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/business/energy-environment/pge-underground-powerlines-wildfires.html | title=PG&E Aims to Curb Wildfire Risk by Burying Many Power Lines - The California utility said the work would involve about 10,000 miles of its network, a project potentially costing tens of billions of dollars. | last=Penn | first=Ivan | newspaper=The New York Times | date=2021-07-21 | quote=About 18 percent of the country’s electric distribution lines are buried, including those for nearly all new residential and commercial developments, according to the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group. }} The costs are likely to be passed on to the utility's 5.5 million customers, who already have some of the highest electricity rates in the nation.{{ cite news | url=https://www.npr.org/2021/07/21/1019058925/utility-bury-power-lines-wildfires-california | title=PG&E Will Bury 10,000 Miles of Power Lines So They Don't Spark Wildfires | last= | first= | newspaper=Associated Press | date=2021-07-21 | access-date= | pages= | quote=Most of the costs will likely be shouldered by PG&E customers, whose electricity rates are already among the highest in the U.S. }}

On June 19, 1997, a Nevada County jury in Nevada City found PG&E guilty of "a pattern of tree-trimming violations that sparked a devastating 1994 wildfire in the Sierra".{{citation |title=PG&E Guilty In 1994 Sierra Blaze: 739 counts of negligence for not trimming trees |first=Jim |last=Doyle |work=SF Chronicle|date=June 20, 1997}} "PG&E was convicted of 739 counts of criminal negligence for failing to trim trees near its power lines—the biggest criminal conviction ever against the state's largest utility."

File:SanBrunoFireNight.jpg

{{Main|2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion}}

On the evening of September 9, 2010, a suburb of San Francisco, San Bruno, California, was damaged when one of PG&E's natural-gas pipelines that was "at least 54 years old, 30 inches (76.2 centimeters) in diameter and located under a street intersection in a residential area "...exploded sending a "28-foot section of pipe weighing 3,000 pounds flying through the air, fueled by blowing natural gas". The blast created a crater at the epicenter and "killed eight people and injured nearly five dozen more while destroying about 100 homes". The USGS reported that the shock wave was similar to a 1.1 magnitude earthquake. Following the event, the company was heavily criticized for ignoring the warnings of a state inspector in 2009 and for failing to provide adequate safety procedures.{{cite news | url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/State-inspector-warned-PG-E-of-safety-risks-in-09-2453426.php | work=San Francisco Chronicle | first=Jaxon | last=Van Derbeken | title=PG&E inspection methods questioned in May audit | date=December 16, 2010 | access-date=December 20, 2010 | archive-url=https://archive.today/20120707021205/http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-12-16/news/25194054_1_pg-e-gas-lines-pacific-gas | archive-date=July 7, 2012 | url-status=live }} The incident then came under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). On August 30, 2011, the NTSB released its findings, which placed fault for the blast on PG&E. The report stated that the pipeline that exploded, installed in 1956, did not even meet standards of that time.{{cite news | url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/30/california.pipeline.explosion/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 | work=CNN | title=NTSB hits pipeline owner, regulators in deadly California blast | date=August 31, 2011 | access-date=August 30, 2011 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121110133814/http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/30/california.pipeline.explosion/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 | archive-date=November 10, 2012 | url-status=live }}

PG&E was charged with "twelve criminal felony counts alleging violations of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act.The Pipeline Safety Act is available at 49 U.S.C. §§ 60101–60301 (2012). PG&E pleaded not guilty to the "criminal counts in both the initial and superseding indictments, opting to put the prosecutors to their proof".{{cite journal |url=http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Warin-Schenker-Refusing-to-Settle-ACLR-2015.pdf |pages=20 |journal=American Criminal Law Review |volume=52 |title=Refusing to settle: why public companies go to trial in federal criminal cases |access-date=April 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160509041802/http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Warin-Schenker-Refusing-to-Settle-ACLR-2015.pdf |archive-date=May 9, 2016 |url-status=live }}{{rp|517}}Indictment, United States v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., No. 3:14-cr-00175 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2014) [hereinafter PG&E Indictment] On April 1, 2014, a United States grand jury in San Francisco charged PG&E with "knowingly and willfully" violating the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act.{{citation |first=Karen |last=Gullo |title=PG&E Charged by U.S. Over Fatal 2010 Pipeline Explosion |work=Bloomberg |date=April 4, 2014 |access-date=April 17, 2016 |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-01/pg-e-charged-by-u-s-over-fatal-2010-pipeline-explosion |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151029153413/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-01/pg-e-charged-by-u-s-over-fatal-2010-pipeline-explosion |archive-date=October 29, 2015 |url-status=live }}Indictment, United States v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., No. 3:14-cr-00175 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2014) [hereinafter PG&E Indictment].

In August 2015, the California Public Utilities Commission levied a $300 million fine against PG&E which they paid. PG&E also "refunded $400 million to gas customers and agreed to pay $850 million for gas-system safety improvements. It also settled more than $500 million in claims involving victims of the disaster and their relatives."{{citation |title=Rising Through The Ranks: Interview with PG&E CEO Tony Earley |url=http://www.thestreet.com/story/13511049/1/rising-through-the-ranks-interview-with-pg-amp-e-ceo-tony-earley.html |work=The Street |first=Valerie |last=Young |date=March 30, 2016 |access-date=April 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160415220704/http://www.thestreet.com/story/13511049/1/rising-through-the-ranks-interview-with-pg-amp-e-ceo-tony-earley.html |archive-date=April 15, 2016 |url-status=live }}

Even in the years following the disaster, PG&E failed to implement legally mandated safety procedures aimed at preventing similar disasters. A CPUC report was issued in December 2018{{cite web |url=https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=401:56:0::NO:RP,57,RIR:P5_PROCEEDING_SELECT:I1812007 |title = Proceeding Details}} that concluded that between 2012 and 2017, PG&E failed to locate and mark gas pipelines in a timely manner because of staff shortages, and management counted, possibly, "tens of thousands" of late tickets as completed on time. Contractors rely on this process to know where they can safely dig.{{cite news| title=PG&E suspected of gas line violations |author=Gwendolyn Wu |page=A11 |publisher=San Francisco Chronicle |date=December 15, 2018}} PG&E was fined $110 million for these legal violations.{{cite web |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-false-records-penalty-could-grow-from-65-14985037.php |title = PG&E false records penalty grows from $65 million to $110 million| date=January 18, 2020 }}

{{Main|Butte Fire}}

In September 2015, the deadly and destructive Butte Fire ignited in Amador and Calaveras counties. It killed two people and destroyed hundreds of structures. An investigation found PG&E responsible for the fire after a gray pine tree came in contact with one of their powerlines.{{cite web |last1=Maccarthy |first1=Guy |title=Cal Fire confirms PG&E caused Butte Fire |url=https://www.uniondemocrat.com/localnews/4266954-151/cal-fire-confirms-pge-caused-butte-fire |website=Union Demorcrat |access-date=January 14, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190114210441/https://www.uniondemocrat.com/localnews/4266954-151/cal-fire-confirms-pge-caused-butte-fire |archive-date=January 14, 2019 |url-status=live }}

{{Main|October 2017 Northern California wildfires}}

In October 2017, PG&E was responsible for their own lines and poles starting thirteen separate fires of the 250 that devastated Northern California. These fires were caused by "electric power and distribution lines, conductors and the failure of

power poles".

calfire>{{citation |title=CAL FIRE Investigators Determine Causes of 12 Wildfires in Mendocino, Humboldt, Butte, Sonoma, Lake, and Napa Counties |first=Michael |last=Mohler |work=CALFIRE |date=June 8, 2018 |url=http://calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/newsreleases/2018/2017_WildfireSiege_Cause.pdf |access-date=July 12, 2018 |archive-date=July 12, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180712184113/http://calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/newsreleases/2018/2017_WildfireSiege_Cause.pdf |url-status=dead }} Pending further investigation, the following fires have been confirmed by CAL FIRE investigators to have been started by PG&E equipment:

• Redwood Fire, Mendocino County
• Sulphur Fire in Lake County
• Cherokee Fire, Butte County
• 37 Fire, Sonoma County
• Blue Fire, Humboldt County
• Pocket Fire, Sonoma County,
• Atlas Fire, Napa County
• Norrbom, Adobe, Partrick, Pythian and Nuns fires of Sonoma and Napa County
• Cascade Fire, Yuba County{{cite web |title=CAL FIRE Investigators Determine the Cause of the Cascade Fire |url=http://calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/newsreleases/2018/Cascade%20Fire%20Cause%20Release.pdf |website=Cal Fire news release |access-date=January 14, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181116001601/http://www.calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/newsreleases/2018/Cascade%20Fire%20Cause%20Release.pdf |archive-date=November 16, 2018 |url-status=live }}

{{Main|Ghost Ship warehouse fire}}

On December 2, 2016, in Fruitvale, Oakland, California a fire broke out in a former warehouse that had been illegally converted into an artist collective with living spaces known as Ghost Ship. 80-100 people were at an event in the space and 36 were killed. The plaintiffs claim that the fire was caused by an electrical malfunction. A civil case was put forward against PG&E, alleging blame.{{ cite news | url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Judge-allows-Ghost-Ship-families-to-move-forward-14913630.php | title=Judge allows Ghost Ship families to move forward with civil case against PG&E | last1=Morris | first1=J.D. | last2=Cassidy | first2=Megan | newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle | date=2019-12-17 | access-date=2019-12-23 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191218060630/https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Judge-allows-Ghost-Ship-families-to-move-forward-14913630.php | archive-date=2019-12-18 | url-status=live | quote=The Ghost Ship plaintiffs’ civil case against PG&E contends that the blaze that killed 36 people in an Oakland warehouse on Dec. 2, 2016, was caused by an electrical malfunction. Officials never determined a cause for the inferno, but a lead investigator testified during criminal proceedings that she believed it was sparked by an electrical failure. }}

In August 2020, PG&E settled a civil lawsuit for 32 of the victims, out of the 36 who perished in the fire. The amount of the settlement was undisclosed, but it was limited to the amount available under PG&E's insurance coverage for the year 2016.

{{Main|Tubbs Fire}}

The Tubbs Fire was a wildfire in Northern California during October 2017. At the time, the Tubbs Fire was the most destructive wildfire in California history,{{cite web |url=http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_statsevents |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060622050708/http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_statsevents |archive-date=June 22, 2006 |title=Statistics & Events}}{{cite web|url=http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Top20_Destruction.pdf|title=Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires|website=CAL FIRE|access-date=October 20, 2017|archive-date=June 26, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190626025601/http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Top20_Destruction.pdf|url-status=dead}} burning parts of Napa, Sonoma, and Lake counties, inflicting its greatest losses in the city of Santa Rosa. Suspicion for the cause of the fire fell on PG&E, but the company seemed to be cleared of responsibility in this incident after Cal Fire released the results of its investigation on January 24, 2019, upon which news the company's stock price jumped dramatically.{{Cite web|url=https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/9207814-181/cal-fire-says-tubbs-fire|title=Cal Fire: Private equipment, not PG&E, caused Tubbs fire|last1=Callahan|first1=Mary|last2=Johnson|first2=Julie|date=January 2, 2019|website=Santa Rosa Press Democrat|access-date=January 25, 2019}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.pressdemocrat.com/business/9207983-181/pges-stock-soars-on-new|title=PG&E's stock jumps 75 percent as financial outlook brightens|date=January 2, 2019|website=Santa Rosa Press Democrat|access-date=January 25, 2019}}

On August 14, 2019, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali, the federal judge for the 2019 PG&E bankruptcy proceedings, presided over a hearing for victims of the Tubbs Fire, and they presented their case for a fast-track state civil trial by jury to resolve if PG&E is at fault for the Tubbs Fire, rather than customer equipment causing the fire as determined by Cal Fire. On August 16, 2019, the judge ruled that the trial can proceed "on a parallel track" because "it advances the goals of this bankruptcy." After the judge's ruling, the company's stock price sank by 25%.{{cite news |last=Morris |first=J.D. |title=PG&E shares plunge 25% after judge allows Tubbs Fire trial |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-shares-plunge-27-after-judge-allows-Tubbs-14348295.php |newspaper=The San Francisco Chronicle |date=August 19, 2019}}

On December 6, 2019, PG&E proposed to settle the wildfire victim claims for a total of $13.5 billion, which would cover liability for its responsibility originating from the Tubbs Fire, Camp Fire, Butte Fire, and also a series of wildfires beginning on October 8, 2017, collectively called the 2017 North Bay Wildfires. The offer was tendered as part of PG&E's plan to exit bankruptcy. The court case for the Tubbs Fire was superseded by the Restructuring Support Agreement (RSA) of December 9, 2019 and by the approved bankruptcy reorganization plan, wherein PG&E accepted liability for the Tubbs Fire.

{{Main|Camp Fire (2018)}}

In November 2018, PG&E and its parent company were sued in the San Francisco County Superior Court by multiple victims of the Camp Fire – the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history.{{cite web |last1=Baldassari |first1=Erin |title=Camp Fire death toll grows to 29, matching 1933 blaze as state's deadliest |url=https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/11/11/crews-continue-to-battle-strong-winds-in-deadly-camp-fire/ |website=East Bay Times |access-date=November 12, 2018 |language=en |date=November 11, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181112141334/https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/11/11/crews-continue-to-battle-strong-winds-in-deadly-camp-fire/ |archive-date=November 12, 2018 |url-status=live }} The Camp Fire destroyed more than 18,000 buildings, including 14,000 homes, being particularly devastating to poorer residents. Approximately 90% of the population of the town of Paradise, California as of June 2020 remains dispersed in other parts of the state and the country.The Guardian, 16 June 2020 [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/16/pge-california-wildfire-camp-fire-paradise-guilty-plea?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other PG&E Confesses to Killing 84 People in 2018 California Fire as Part of Guilty Plea: The fire, Which Completely Devastated the Town of Paradise, Was Blamed on The Company’s Crumbling Electrical Grid] The lawsuit accused PG&E of failure to properly maintain its infrastructure and equipment.{{cite web |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/PG-E-sued-by-Camp-Fire-victims-13389460.php |title=PG&E sued by Camp Fire victims |author=Morris, J.D. |work=San Francisco Chronicle |date=November 13, 2018 |access-date=November 15, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181114220336/https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/PG-E-sued-by-Camp-Fire-victims-13389460.php |archive-date=November 14, 2018 |url-status=live }}

The cause of the fire, as indicated by PG&E's "electric incident report" submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission, was a power failure on a transmission line on November 8, just 15 minutes before the fire was first reported near the same location. Later investigation revealed that a "broken hook may have allowed a piece of electrically charged equipment to swing free and come close enough to the tower to arc, providing the spark that ignited the blaze."{{Cite web|url=https://www.kqed.org/news/11747485/cal-fires-official-finding-pge-equipment-touched-off-camp-fire|title=Cal Fire's Official Finding: PG&E Power Lines Touched Off Camp Fire|website=KQED|date=May 15, 2019 }}

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and state utility regulators are investigating PG&E to determine if they complied with state laws.[https://www.apnews.com/d35f16e96afc4482bf10909d2e52fbfa Utility emailed woman about problems 1 day before fire] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115140711/https://apnews.com/d35f16e96afc4482bf10909d2e52fbfa |date=November 15, 2018 }}, by Martha Mendoza and Garance Burke, AP News, November 13, 2018{{cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/us/utility-contacted-woman-about-power-line-problems-day-before-deadly-wildfire|title=Utility contacted woman about power line problems day before deadly wildfire, report says|last=Chamberlain|first=Samuel|publisher=Fox News|date=November 12, 2018|access-date=November 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181113030840/https://www.foxnews.com/us/utility-contacted-woman-about-power-line-problems-day-before-deadly-wildfire|archive-date=November 13, 2018|url-status=live}}

As a result, both Pacific Gas and Electric Company and parent company PG&E Corporation together{{Cite web|url=https://restructuring.primeclerk.com/pge/|title=Prime Clerk|website=restructuring.primeclerk.com}} filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 29 following the California required 15-day bankruptcy waiting period.{{cite news | url = https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/14/business/pge-bankruptcy-wildfires/index.html | title = PG&E, utility tied to wildfires, will file for bankruptcy | date = January 14, 2019 | access-date = January 14, 2019 | work = CNN.com | first = Chris | last = Isidore | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190114141543/https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/14/business/pge-bankruptcy-wildfires/index.html | archive-date = January 14, 2019 | url-status = live }}{{cite web | url = https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/75488/000095015719000032/form8k.htm | title = Form 8-K – Current report: SEC Accession No. 0000950157-19-000032 | website = EDGAR | publisher = Security and Exchange Commission | date = January 14, 2019 | access-date = January 14, 2019 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190130220841/https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/75488/000095015719000032/form8k.htm | archive-date = January 30, 2019 | url-status = live }} PG&E settled criminal proceedings with a fine, pleaded guilty to one felony count of illegally starting a fire, and 84 felony counts of involuntary manslaughter.{{Cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/879008760/pg-e-pleads-guilty-on-2018-california-camp-fire-our-equipment-started-that-fire|title=PG&E Pleads Guilty On 2018 California Camp Fire: 'Our Equipment Started That Fire'|first=Vanessa|last=Romo|date=June 16, 2020|website=NPR |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20231224233004/https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/879008760/pg-e-pleads-guilty-on-2018-california-camp-fire-our-equipment-started-that-fire |archive-date= Dec 24, 2023 }}

Civil lawsuit proceedings continued, and were resolved by settlement. On July 1, 2020, PG&E funded the Fire Victim Trust (FVT) with $5.4 billion in cash and 22.19% of stock in the reorganized PG&E, which covers most of the obligations of its settlement for the wildfire victims. PG&E has two more payments totaling $1.35 billion in cash, scheduled to be paid in January 2021 and January 2022, to complete its obligations to the wildfire victims.

{{Main|Kincade Fire}}

The Kincade Fire was a wildfire that burned in Sonoma County, California. The fire started northeast of Geyserville in The Geysers on 9:24 p.m. on October 23, 2019, and subsequently burned {{convert|77,758|acre|ha|0|abbr=on}} until the fire was fully contained on November 6, 2019. The fire threatened over 90,000 structures and caused widespread evacuations throughout Sonoma County, including the communities of Geyserville, Healdsburg, and Windsor. The majority of Sonoma County and parts of Lake County were under evacuation warnings.{{Cite web|title=Kincade fire burns into history as Sonoma County's largest blaze |first1=Guy |last1=Kovner |url=https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/10239056-181/battle-against-kincade-fire-takes|date=2019-10-30|website=Santa Rosa Press Democrat|language=en|access-date=2020-05-06|archive-date=November 14, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191114224706/https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/10239056-181/battle-against-kincade-fire-takes|url-status=dead}} The fire was the largest of the 2019 California wildfire season.

Initially, it was unknown whether or not PG&E was at fault for the fire. On July 16, 2020, which was after PG&E exited bankruptcy, Cal Fire reported that the fire was caused by PG&E transmission lines. Damages would not be covered by the settlement for wildfire victims that was part of the PG&E bankruptcy.

{{main|2019 California power shutoffs}}

Recognizing that the "2017 California wildfire season was the most destructive wildfire season on record," the CPUC issued Resolution ESRB-8 in July 2018. The resolution supported the use of de-energization as a means to mitigate wildfire risks and established notification, mitigation, and reporting requirements.{{Cite web|url=https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/safety/emergency-preparedness/natural-disaster/wildfires/PSPS-Report-Letter-10.31.18.pdf|title=PG&E Public Safety Power Shutoff Report to the CPUC

|date=31 October 2018 |website=PG&E |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230604195701/http://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/safety/emergency-preparedness/natural-disaster/wildfires/PSPS-Report-Letter-10.31.18.pdf |archive-date= Jun 4, 2023 }} The first of those Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) undertaken by PG&E occurred on October 14, 2018, and lasted until October 16th for the majority of customers. Since then there have been PSPS outages on June 8 and 9, 2019, and throughout the rest of the summer. In October 2019, PG&E began to shut off power to many regions, as a preemptive measure to help avoid wildfires caused by electric lines.{{Cite web|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/PG-E-power-shut-off-257-000-Bay-Area-residents-14500945.php|title = PG&E: Massive power shut-off to hit 800,000 customers, could extend nearly a week|date = October 9, 2019}}

The shutdown of nearly {{convert|25000|mi|km}} of electric lines was expected to affect more than 2 million people, of PG&E's 16 million total served. Power was projected to remain off for up to several days after the high winds subside as all of the shutdown lines must be inspected for wind damage.{{Cite web|url=https://news.yahoo.com/victim-own-failure-why-pg-235612401.html|title='A victim of their own failure': Why PG&E's massive power shutdown in California was inevitable|website=news.yahoo.com|date=October 10, 2019 }} By two days into the preemptive blackout, winds began to subside, and PG&E restored power to some 500,000 customers of a total of approximately 800,000 who lost power.{{Cite news |date=2019-10-10 |title=Unprecedented California Blackout Ending as PG&E Restores Power |language=en |work=Bloomberg.com |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-10/unprecedented-california-blackout-spreads-with-millions-in-dark |access-date=2023-07-11}}

Since 2018, PG&E has increased its efforts to prevent and mitigate wildfires including a 24/7 threat-monitoring center, multiplying its vegetation regulations around utility poles from four to 15 feet and adding 100 weather stations in high-risk areas. The company's strategy also includes augmenting public service power shutdowns when needed.{{cite web |last1=Sacks |first1=Brianna |title="A New Paradigm": California Residents Are Having Their Power Shut Off Over Wildfire Fears |url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/briannasacks/a-new-paradigm-california-residents-are-having-their-power?bfsource=relatedmanual |website=BuzzFeed News |language=en |date=16 October 2018}}

Power shutoffs in California continued in 2020 and 2021.{{Cite web|url=https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/consumer-support/psps/utility-company-psps-post-event-reports|title=Utility Company PSPS Post Event Reports|website=www.cpuc.ca.gov|access-date=January 28, 2022|archive-date=January 28, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220128210457/https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/consumer-support/psps/utility-company-psps-post-event-reports|url-status=dead}} In 2021, the company announced it had included a new technological strategy that uses machine learning models with more predictive capabilities. They can inject these predictions of fire spread directly into the PSPS decision-making process, so they can make more accurate PSPS implementations.{{cite news |last1=Duffy |first1=Mike |title=PG&E releases 2021 plan for public safety power shutoffs |url=https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/pge-releases-2021-plan-public-safety-power-shutoffs/103-96bc1c01-00e3-4ad8-8e7b-fe8fe59cab4a |work=abc10.com |date=3 August 2021}}

In 2021, California fined PG&E $106 million (US) for violating guidelines in 2019 PSPS executions by insufficient communication with the public.{{cite web |last1=Nemec |first1=Richard |title=PG&E Fined $106M for 2019 Power Shutoff Events |url=https://naturalgasintel.com/news/pge-fined-106m-for-2019-power-shutoff-events/ |website=naturalgasintel.com |language=en |date=2 June 2021 | quote=The ALJ’s decision cites the violations as a “failure of PG&E’s website, which was unavailable or non-functional during the majority of the duration of a PSPS event, inaccuracy of its online outage maps, inaccessibility of its secure data transfer portals to its public safety partners, and PG&E’s failure to provide advanced notification of [PSPS] events to approximately 50,000 customers and 1,100 medical baseline customers during the three PSPS events in Fall 2019.}}

On January 4, 2022, CalFire determined that "the Dixie Fire was caused by a tree contacting electrical distribution lines owned and operated by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) located west of Cresta Dam." CalFire forwarded the investigative report to the Butte County District Attorney's office, the same federal office that prosecuted PG&E in 2018 following the Camp Fire.{{Cite web | url=https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/edwez51p/dixie_fire_release.pdf | title=CAL FIRE Investigators Determine Cause of the Dixie Fire | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220118192820/https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/edwez51p/dixie_fire_release.pdf | archive-date=January 18, 2022 }}

{{main|Zogg Fire}}

The Zogg Fire (named that because it started at Zogg Mine Road and Jenny Bird Lane) was a wildfire that burned 56,338 acres (22,799 ha) in southwestern Shasta County and northwestern Tehama County, which are both in California, in the United States, as part of the severe 2020 California wildfire season. The fire was first reported on September 27, 2020, and was not fully contained until October 13, 2020, by which time it had destroyed much of the communities of Igo and Ono, killing four people and destroying 204 buildings

In March 2021, investigations concluded the fire began when a grey pine tree fell on power lines belonging to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).The tree reportedly had been potentially identified for removal, but had not been removed after the Carr Fire in 2018.

In 2014, PG&E rolled out the "Pipeline Pathways" project, later rebranded "Community Pipeline Safety Initiative", a $500 million four-year effort to clear trees along the almost 7,000 miles of high pressure gas transmission pipeline in California. PG&E said that removing trees was necessary to 1) provide emergency access should an incident occur under a tree and 2) protect pipelines from tree roots. Many communities have protested the removal of private and public trees.{{cite web|url=https://www.chicoer.com/2015/01/26/update-pge-crews-start-cutting-trees-near-oroville-cemetery-despite-protests/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190312071448/https://www.chicoer.com/2015/01/26/update-pge-crews-start-cutting-trees-near-oroville-cemetery-despite-protests/|url-status=dead|archive-date=March 12, 2019|title=Update: PG&E crews start cutting trees near Oroville Cemetery despite protests|publisher=Chico ER News|date=January 26, 2015|author1=Barbara Arrigoni|author2=David Pollak|author3=Ryan Olson}} {{cite web |url=http://www.modbee.com/news/article26829364.html |title=PG&E tree-cutting in gas easements upsets Riverbank residents |publisher=Modesto Bee |date=July 8, 2015 |access-date=January 12, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180113035456/http://www.modbee.com/news/article26829364.html |archive-date=January 13, 2018 |url-status=live }} {{cite web |url=http://abc7news.com/news/walnut-creek-says-no-to-pg-e-tree-removal-program/21545/ |title=Update: Walnut Creek says no to PG&E tree removal program |publisher=ABC 7 News |date=January 1, 2015 |access-date=January 12, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180112160317/http://abc7news.com/news/walnut-creek-says-no-to-pg-e-tree-removal-program/21545/ |archive-date=January 12, 2018 |url-status=live }} According to local opposition groups, PG&E's safety claims for tree removal are incorrect and tree removal makes aerial monitoring of pipeline faster and cheaper.{{cite web|url=http://www.savelafayettetrees.org|title=Save Lafayette Trees|website=Save Lafayette Trees|access-date=October 10, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327102158/https://www.savelafayettetrees.org/|archive-date=March 27, 2019|url-status=live}} In 2017, several lawsuits have been filed in Contra Costa County Court by the non-profit organization Save Lafayette Trees stating that PG&E did not conduct the proper CEQA reviews or provide ample public notice before signing agreements for tree removal.{{cite web |url=https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/category/spoken-word-kpixtv/3705475-lawsuit-filed-to-stop-pge-plan-to-cut-trees-in-lafayette/ |title=Lawsuit Filed To Stop PG&E Plan To Cut Trees In Lafayette |publisher=KPIX 5 News |date=July 27, 2017 |access-date=January 22, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190123010726/https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/category/spoken-word-kpixtv/3705475-lawsuit-filed-to-stop-pge-plan-to-cut-trees-in-lafayette/ |archive-date=January 23, 2019 |url-status=live }}

PG&E's California-wide tree removal may have in fact caused widespread, increased stress corrosion cracking (SCC), according to PG&E's own dead tree root studies: "Given the fact that the tree roots were shown to cause coating damage, one must conclude that they also will increase the likelihood of SCC. It also is possible that decaying tree roots could create or increase the potency of an SCC environment at the pipe surface by increasing the amount of CO2 in the soil." (Source: from "Effects of Tree Roots on External Corrosion Control", 3/25/15, Det Norske Veritas, section 3.3 Stress Corrosion Cracking, p. 165 of final TRIA report){{cite web |url=https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/de4240_c1f7a14968484cb38abd4d23fcdca2c8.pdf |title=Effects of Tree Roots on External Corrosion Control |publisher=Det Norske Veritas |date=March 25, 2015 |access-date=August 8, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190813235343/https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/de4240_c1f7a14968484cb38abd4d23fcdca2c8.pdf |archive-date=August 13, 2019 |url-status=live }}

In the middle of 2010, PG&E rolled out new electronic meters that replaced traditional mechanical electric meters. Customers whose meters were replaced with smart meters reported seeing their energy bills increase and accused the company of deliberately inflating their bills and questioned the accuracy of the meters. Subsequently, the California Public Utilities Commission commissioned an investigation. Based on the assumption that "the information received was accurate and complete information and documentation", the research company reported that of the 613 Smart Meter field tests, 611 meters were successfully tested and 100% passed Average Registration Accuracy. One meter was found to have serious errors and was malfunctioning on arrival, while another was found to have serious event errors upon installation. These meters were, therefore, excluded from testing.{{cite report | url = http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2B0BA24E-E601-4739-AC8D-DA9216591913/0/StructureExecutiveSummary.pdf | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101008132745/http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2B0BA24E-E601-4739-AC8D-DA9216591913/0/StructureExecutiveSummary.pdf | url-status = dead | archive-date = October 8, 2010 | title = PG&E Advanced Metering Assessment Report | page = 11 | author = Structure Consulting Group, LLC | location = Houston, Texas | date = September 2, 2010 |access-date=January 14, 2019}} There were also complaints that the company did not honor customers' request not to have their mechanical meters replaced. Although the contractor that installed the meters would honor these requests, PG&E would eventually replace them anyway.

In 2010, PG&E was accused of attempting to stifle competition with Proposition 16, which mandated approval from two-thirds of voters to start or expand a local utility. Critics argued that this would make it harder for local governments to create their own power utilities, effectively giving PG&E a monopoly. The company was also rebuked for supplying $46 million to support the ballot measure when opponents raised $100,000 in the campaign. The proposition was voted down with 52.5% in opposition and 47.5% in favor.{{cite news | url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-jun-10-la-me-california-prop16-20100610-story.html | work=Los Angeles Times | first1=Marc | last1=Lifsher | first2=Dianne | last2=Klein | title=PG&E's customers vote down Prop. 16 | date=June 10, 2010 | access-date=August 31, 2011 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120128091626/http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/10/local/la-me-california-prop16-20100610 | archive-date=January 28, 2012 | url-status=live }}

In December 2011, the non-partisan organization Public Campaign criticized PG&E for spending $79 million on lobbying and not paying any taxes during 2008–2010, instead getting $1 billion in tax rebates, despite making a profit of $4.8 billion and increasing executive pay by 94% to $8.5 million in 2010 for its top five executives.{{cite web|last=Portero|first=Ashley|title=30 Major U.S. Corporations Paid More to Lobby Congress Than Income Taxes, 2008–2010|url=http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/264481/20111209/30-major-u-s-corporations-paid-lobby.htm|work=International Business Times|date=December 9, 2011|access-date=December 26, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107173713/http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/264481/20111209/30-major-u-s-corporations-paid-lobby.htm|url-status=live|archive-date=January 7, 2012}}

On February 28, 2002, after the collapse of Enron, which used dubious accounting and partnerships to hide its debt, PG&E announced to restate results dating back to 1999, to show leases related to power plant construction that had been previously kept off its balance sheet.{{Cite web|url=http://www.ijonline.com/Articles/10020/Preview|archive-url=https://archive.today/20131017205914/http://www.ijonline.com/Articles/10020/Preview|url-status=dead|archive-date=October 17, 2013|title=PG&E to restate results, show off-balance sheet leases}}

On June 27, 2003, PG&E National Energy Group, a unit of PG&E Corporation, revised its 2002 Form 10-K/A to reclassify certain offsetting revenues and expenses, which net to zero. PG&E revised its 2002 Form 10-K/A accordingly to reflect the change.

In 2014, a California state government investigation revealed that some top executives of PG&E had been in regular communications with high-ranking officials at the state regulatory body California Public Utilities Commission for years.{{Cite web|url=https://www.kqed.org/news/10564656/10-emails-detail-pges-cozy-relationship-with-its-regulators|title = 10 Emails That Detail PG&E's Cozy Relationship with Regulators| date=June 19, 2015 }} PG&E and also been allegedly "judge shopping" during this time. PG&E Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Brian Cherry, Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Tom Bottorff, and Vice President of Regulatory Proceedings Trina Horner were all fired after the email scandal was revealed.{{cite web| url = https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2014/12/cpuc-executive-director-paul-clanon-michael-peevey.html| url-status = dead| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20141218143524/http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2014/12/cpuc-executive-director-paul-clanon-michael-peevey.html| archive-date = 2014-12-18| title = PG&E email scandal: Top executive at California utility regulator to step down - San Francisco Business Times}}

The PG&E and other investor owned utilities that are essentially granted monopoly status in California are guaranteed a negotiated fair rate of return on equity (ROE). PG&E's ROE rate was set at 10.4% and a return on rate base (ROR) was set at 8.06% by the CPUC in December 2012.{{cite web | url=http://eec.ucdavis.edu/files/02-06-2014-The-Future-of-Electricity-Prices-in-California-Final-Draft-1.pdf | title=The Future of Electricity Prices in California Final Draft | work=UC Davis | access-date=April 17, 2016 | author=Jonathan Cook | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205122610/http://eec.ucdavis.edu/files/02-06-2014-The-Future-of-Electricity-Prices-in-California-Final-Draft-1.pdf | archive-date=February 5, 2017 | url-status=dead }}{{citation |url=https://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_3362-G.pdf |title=Extended Tax Relief Act |date=December 20, 2012 |work=PG&E |access-date=April 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150911025405/http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_3362-G.pdf |archive-date=September 11, 2015 |url-status=live }} PG&E electricity rates are among the highest in the United States. In his 2013 paper Jonathan Cook of the UC Davis Energy Efficiency Center, described the 'unique factors' that explain why PG&E's rates are higher than other utilities in California.{{rp|27–8}} According to Cook, PG&E procures 60% of its electricity supply from third party generators and 40% from nuclear, fossil fuel and hydroelectric power plants.{{rp|27–8}} Many of the dams that produce PG&E's hydroelectric power were built in the early 1900s and require high maintenance. The cost of hydroelectric power maintenance is estimated to rise from $28 million in 2012 to $48 million.{{rp|28}} PG&E "current and near-term capital expenditures are dominated by Diablo Canyon and its hydroelectric system".{{rp|28}} Operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses are expected to rise especially with new regulations in place after the Fukushima accident.{{rp|28}} PG&E uses less natural gas than its competitors and is expected "to experience slower price growth rates" particularly if there are high emission allowance prices.{{rp|29}}

{{As of | 2021}}, PG&E electricity rates are 80% above the national average, mostly because of high fixed costs, which consume between 66 and 77% of system-wide expenses and do not change based on how much electricity is consumed.{{ cite news | url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/12/heres-why-your-electricity-prices-are-high-and-soaring-report/ | title= Here's why your electricity prices are high and soaring - PG&E customers pay 80% more than national average: report | last=DuSault | first=Laurence | newspaper=San Jose Mercury News | date=2021-03-12 | quote=So why are prices so high? One reason is that California’s size and geography inflate the “fixed” costs of operating its electric system, which include maintenance, generation, transmission, and distribution as well as public programs like CARE and wildfire mitigation, according to the study. Those costs don’t change based on how much electricity residents consume, yet between 66 and 77 percent of Californians’ electricity bills are used to offset the costs of those programs, the study found. }} These fixed costs include maintenance, generation, transmission, distribution, and wildfire mitigation. According to a study by the nonprofit think tank Next 10 with the energy institute at UC Berkeley's Haas Business School, net-metering causes higher electricity rates, because many households with solar are not paying their share of the system's fixed costs, even though they rely on the system for much of their electricity.{{ r | SJMN_2021-03 | p=1 | q="When households adopt solar, they're not paying their fair share," Fowlie said. While solar users generate power that decreases their bills, they still rely on the state's electric grid for much of their power consumption — without paying for its fixed costs like others do. }}

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) launched an investigation in December 2018 into PG&E's "locate and mark" practices. CPUC had found that PG&E falsified tens of thousands of "Call Before You Dig" records.{{Cite web|url=https://www.kqed.org/news/11712721/cpuc-investigators-found-pge-falsified-thousands-of-call-before-you-dig-records|title=CPUC: Investigators Found PG&E Falsified Thousands of 'Call Before You Dig' Records|website=KQED|date=December 15, 2018 }} Additionally, the company violated state laws, endangered its own employees, and endangered California residents through various illicit company practices every year between 2012 and 2016. The company was fined $110 million by the State of California.{{cite web |url=https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/120811-pge-facing-increased-penalties-for-failing-to-locate-mark-underground-natural-gas-pipelines |title = PG&E Facing Increased Penalties for Failing to Locate, Mark Underground Natural Gas Pipelines - Natural Gas Intelligence| date=January 21, 2020 }} This all occurred subsequent to the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion which PG&E caused due to similar malpractice.{{Cite web|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-s-other-big-problem-Regulators-detail-gas-13547293.php|title = PG&E's other big problem: Regulators detail gas record falsification claims|date = January 20, 2019}}

PG&E responded by instituting a "Corrective Action Plan", issuing a statement about safety being important, and firing several employees. Nick Stavropoulos, its COO and president, announced a retirement at the time though the company did not say whether it was directly a result of CPUC's findings.{{Cite web|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/PG-E-links-executive-departures-to-corrective-13473274.php|title = PG&E links executive departures to 'corrective actions' over safety charges|date = December 18, 2018}}

In December 2024, the U.S. Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office announced it would extend a $15 billion (US) low-interest loan to support the modernization of PG&E’s hydroelectric power structure. This investment also will enhance transmission lines critical for renewable energy integration, data center operations, and the growing fleet of electric vehicles. Initially requested as a $30 billion (US) loan, the amount was reduced due to concerns over the company’s repayment capacity. As the largest loan ever sanctioned by the DOE Energy Loans Program, this represents key funding for PG&E, particularly as it navigates the aftermath of its complex bankruptcy proceedings and legal challenges related to California's wildfires.{{cite news |last1=Patterson |first1=Scott |last2=Blunt |first2=Katherine |title=Exclusive {{!}} Biden Administration Agrees to Record $15 Billion Loan to PG&E |url=https://www.wsj.com/us-news/climate-environment/biden-pge-record-loan-climate-change-grid-update-55b2fe6e?page=1 |work=WSJ |date=17 December 2024}}

In 2009 the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) unanimously approved a resolution that would allow the South San Joaquin Irrigation District to purchase PG&E's electric facilities in Manteca, Ripon and Escalon.{{cite news |author=Dennis Wyatt |url=http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/72342/ |title=LAFCo treating SSJID differently than Lathrop power provider |publisher=Mantecabulletin.com |date=April 24, 2013 |access-date=July 7, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305104155/http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/72342/ |archive-date=March 5, 2016 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}{{cite web |url=http://www.savewithssjid.com |title=Facts not Fear: Save 15 Percent on Your Electric Rates with SSJID |publisher=Savewithssjid.com |access-date=July 7, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140716074357/http://www.savewithssjid.com/ |archive-date=July 16, 2014 |url-status=live }}{{citation |title=SSJID Board Unanimously Approves Filing Application With San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission: Board Support is First Step Toward 15% Savings on Retail Electric Rates in SSJID's Service Territory |url=http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20090903006171/en/SSJID-Board-Unanimously-Approves-Filing-Application-San |date=2009 |work=Business Wire |access-date=April 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160505201236/http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20090903006171/en/SSJID-Board-Unanimously-Approves-Filing-Application-San |archive-date=May 5, 2016 |url-status=live }} In March 2016, San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Carter Holly has rejected PG&E claims that South San Joaquin Irrigation District lacks sufficient revenues to provide electrical retail service to the cities of Manteca, Ripon, and Escalon and surrounding farms."{{citation |title=SSJID wins power play |first=Dennis |last=Wyatt |date=March 14, 2016 |access-date=April 17, 2016 |url=http://www.mantecabulletin.com/m/section/38/article/133121/ |work=Manteca Bulletin |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160508173905/http://www.mantecabulletin.com/m/section/38/article/133121/ |archive-date=May 8, 2016 |url-status=dead }} The Municipal Service Review (MSR) found that SSJID's customer rates would be 15 percent lower than PG&E rates.

{{Portal|San Francisco Bay Area|Companies}}

• Diablo Canyon Power Plant
• Erin Brockovich
• Hinkley groundwater contamination
• Grid-tied electrical system
• List of articles associated with nuclear issues in California
• Raker Act
• San Diego Gas & Electric
• Southern California Edison

{{Reflist|refs=

{{ cite news | url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-wildfire-liability-law-gavin-newsom-legislature-20190529-story.html | title=Newsom and legislative leaders decline to embrace changes to California's wildfire liability law | last=Luna | first=Taryn | newspaper=Los Angeles Times | date=2019-05-29 | access-date=2019-10-16 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190602055944/https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-wildfire-liability-law-gavin-newsom-legislature-20190529-story.html | archive-date=2019-06-02 | url-status=live }}

{{ cite news | url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-25/california-utilities-agree-to-pay-10-5-billion-into-new-wildfire-fund| title=California utilities agree to pay $10.5 billion into new wildfire fund | last=Luna | first=Taryn | newspaper=Los Angeles Times | date=2019-07-25 | access-date=2019-10-16 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190801003122/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-25/california-utilities-agree-to-pay-10-5-billion-into-new-wildfire-fund | archive-date=2019-08-01 | url-status=live }}

{{ cite news | url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/11/bury-california-power-lines-wildfire-blackout-fix-unlikely-work/3946935002/ | title=California power lines spark wildfires and prompt blackouts. Why not just bury them? | last=Wilson | first=Janet | newspaper=USA Today | date=2019-10-11 | access-date=2019-10-27 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191015030035/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/11/bury-california-power-lines-wildfire-blackout-fix-unlikely-work/3946935002/ | archive-date=2019-10-15 | url-status=live }}

{{ cite news | url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/Put-PG-E-s-power-lines-underground-It-can-be-14565060.php | title=Put PG&E's power lines underground? It can be done — expensively and slowly | last=Morris | first=J.D. | newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle | date= 2019-10-27| access-date=2019-10-27 }}

}}

{{Commons category}}

• {{Official website|https://www.pgecorp.com}}

{{Finance links

| name = PG&E Corporation

| symbol = PCG

| reuters = PCG.N

| bloomberg = PCG:US

| sec_cik = 1004980

| yahoo = PCG

| google = PCG:NYSE

}}

{{Electric Utilities in CA}}

{{Authority control|state=expanded}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Pacific Gas And Electric Company}}

Category:1905 establishments in California

Category:Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange

Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2001

Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019

Category:Energy companies established in 1905

Category:Energy in California

Category:History of San Francisco

Category:Hydroelectric power companies of the United States

Category:Natural gas companies of the United States

Category:Nuclear power companies of the United States

Category:Electric power companies of the United States

Category:Former components in the Dow Jones Utility Average