Today marks the end of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s second bankruptcy in two decades.

After 16 months of legal wrangling in bankruptcy court, lobbying politicians, and pledging various reforms, Governor Gavin Newsom and other necessary bodies formally allowed the massive utility to exit Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Although it didn’t always look likely, the exit comes right on schedule based on a timeline laid out in state Assembly Bill 1054, legislation which lawmakers passed in a big hurry last summer.

Last fall, after the Kincade Fire and widespread power shutoffs, the exit might have been a huge story in the North Bay.

(Remember when Santa Rosa’s Shady Oak Barrel House apologized for selling its F*ck PG&E IPA? Simpler times.)

Instead, with the world in shambles, PG&E’s reentry into the world feels almost inevitable.

Still, despite rosy press statements from the Governor and PG&E, many questions remain in the months and years to come.

Has the utility changed enough in the last year to avoid starting another disastrous wildfire?

Nobody knows for sure, but it definitely has lots of maintenance work to complete. At the very least, the company is likely to continue using Public Safety Power Shutoffs to minimize the risk of fires for at least a few years.

Will wildfire victims be compensated fairly and quickly?

Under the approved plan, PG&E will pay a $5.4 billion cash payment on July 1, at least two cash installments in 2021 and 2022, and PG&E stocks to be doled out by the Fire Victim Trust, according to a PG&E statement.

It’s worth noting that many fire victims became increasingly critical of the deal on the table as the June 30 deadline approached.

Critics of the deal felt that fire victims—who were the last in line to negotiate a deal and the only group to be offered some stock options rather than all cash—were put in a tough position.

It was as if to say “Approve this deal or no one gets any money and it’s all your fault.”

To make matters worse, hundreds of fire survivors said that they did not receive information about the vote in time. Ultimately, the court accepted the original count—with over 85 percent of survivors voting in favor, according to PG&E—and the deal sailed through.

What happens if things go poorly and PG&E goes bust again?

Lawmakers now have a plan for that.

On Tuesday, Newsom signed Senate Bill 350. The bill, which was written by Senator Jerry Hill and co-authored by North Bay Senators Bill Dodd and Mike McGuire, lays out a Plan B if PG&E stumbles again by, for instance, starting another deadly fire.

The bill prepares the state to create Golden State Energy, a nonprofit which could take over PG&E through eminent domain if the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the state’s energy regulator, revokes PG&E’s permission to operate as the result of a future CPUC investigation.

“California must have a backstop in place to protect ratepayers and our state if PG&E does not meet the strict requirements for emerging from bankruptcy and for becoming a safe, reliable and sustainable energy provider,” Hill said in a statement released yesterday.

Will anyone trust PG&E again?

As Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network consumer group told the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this week: “There’s no trust. Trust has to be earned. They’ve got a long way to go.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday ordered bars and restaurants in 19 counties to close their indoor dining options for at least three weeks, as the state faces increasing numbers of Covid-19 cases and residents plan for the busy July 4 weekend.

The state saw 5,898 new cases on Tuesday, Newsom said during a noon press conference, adding that 110 deaths linked to the virus were reported in the 24 hours leading up to the announcement.

The order applies in Contra Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Merced, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Solano, Stanislaus, Tulare and Ventura counties.

Those counties were placed on the state’s new County Watchlist for more than three weeks. The list was created for those that show increased numbers of new cases and hospitalizations due to Covid-19.

While neither Sonoma nor Napa counties are affected by the closure order, Newsom also announced that the state is closing parking facilities at state beaches in Southern California and the Bay Area.

“I want to remind everyone that if we want to be independent from Covid-19, we have to be much more vigilant in terms of maintaining our physical distancing from others, and be much more vigilant as it relates to the prospects of being in situations where are transmitting Covid-19,” Newsom said.

Face masks are still required statewide for most indoor activities, however, and social distancing is either required or strongly encouraged in most places.

Newsom did not discuss statewide face mask requirements during the press conference, after hinting Tuesday that he would require local jurisdictions to step up their enforcement. He also indicated that the state has the financial resources to do so.

“We have conditioned $2.5 billion in our state budget on applying the spirit and the letter of the law as it relates to health directives at the county level,” Newsom said. “If local officials are unwilling to enforce and are being dismissive, we will condition the distribution of those dollars.”

Newsom also urged that residents refrain from holding family gatherings, which he said was one of the likely causes of the surge in new cases.

“This is about keeping you safe, keeping them safe, your friends neighbors and family members, and moreover just making sure we mitigate the spread and don’t do harm and damage to the lives of those that we love,” Newsom said.

The new restrictions, Newsom said, will be enforced by a “multi-agency strike team” made up of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the Department of Business Oversight, the Department of Consumer Affairs and the California Highway Patrol.

Violators could face fines, but most people will likely comply with the new restrictions, Newsom said.

“I’m not coming out with a fist,” he said. “We want to come out with an open heart, recognizing the magnitude of some of these modifications.”

On June 20, a man tore down Black Lives Matter artwork on a fence in Petaluma’s Leghorns Park. The action, which was witnessed by numerous protesters, kicked off a legal debate between police and protesters.

The Petaluma Police Department, citing advice from the Sonoma County District Attorney and Petaluma City Attorney, argue that although they do not condone the man’s actions, they also can’t do anything to stop him because the artwork is not formally permitted.

The action of removing the artwork could be considered free speech under the First Amendment, Deputy Police Chief Brian Miller said in an interview last week. He said that the District Attorney’s office advised that the man was “acting on behalf of the City” when he tore down and destroyed the signs.

Miller said that Police Chief Ken Savano discussed the artwork issue with William Brockley, an assistant district attorney, as well as Petaluma City Attorney Eric Danly.

Asked for comment, Brian Staebell, a chief deputy district attorney, said that Brockley spoke to the chief, but he did not say that the man was acting on behalf of the city or that his removal of the signs was protected speech. Staebell explained that the District Attorney’s office does not “advise police departments on who to arrest and who not to arrest and who to cite and who not to cite.”

Miller did not respond to a query asking why he told the Bohemian that Brockley had given that legal advice to the police when Staebell said that he definitely had not.

Petaluma City Attorney Eric Danly said, “The person who removed the signs was not acting as an agent of the City. It is unlikely that mere sign removal would qualify as expressive activity protected by the the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution.

In three cellphone videos of the man forcibly removing artwork and speaking with protesters on June 20, protesters claim that the man, whose name has not been disclosed by law enforcement, visited the park several times over the course of days to remove artwork created in support of the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests. In response, organizers now regularly drop by the park to keep an eye on the artwork.

In the videos, protesters form a line in front of the artwork and hold a somewhat heated conversation with the man, dressed in a hooded jacket, face mask and gloves, about the meaning of the nationwide protests. Eventually a protester calls the police, hoping they will be able to handle the problem.

In the videos, protesters discuss pressing charges against the man for destroying the artwork and hitting one woman in the face with his elbow while removing the artwork.

The police have opted not to press charges against the man for shoving and striking artists and removing the art.

In a videoed interaction, a Petaluma Police officer explains that he can not arrest or charge the man for removing and destroying the art work because the artwork exists in something of a legal grey zone.

Confused, one woman responds, “It sounds like there’s nothing we can do to stop him from ripping down the signs.”

The officer explained that the city was choosing not to enforce the municipal code that usually bars citizens from installing unpermitted art or signs in many spaces. Because the art was technically not permitted, the police could not prosecute the man for removing it, the officer says.

“We can’t play favorites, so to speak,” the officer comments. “If we’re charging him with taking down the signs, then we’d have to charge you for putting up the signs.”

He later tells a woman who had been struck by the man as he vandalized the artwork that she would have to “make a citizen’s arrest” if she wanted the matter pursued.

Indeed, the twisting legal logic of this episode leads to an odd place. If it stands, the man would essentially be allowed to remove and destroy the artwork with legal impunity. And it would open the door for anyone to destroy unpermitted signs and artwork that was located on City-owned property, including at City Council meetings or during a political protest or, to be a bit surreal, during the Butter & Eggs Day Parade.

Is Art only allowed to be displayed in public places if The Law approves of if?

City Attorney Danly said, “The signs have only remained on the fences by virtue of the City choosing not to enforce the section for the time being. As a result, there are not readily available or clear legal bases for the police department to prohibit the removal of signs that are prohibited from being affixed in the first place.”

Danly did not respond to yet another follow-up question about whether members of the public are allowed to remove and destroy the art work, which could be considered private property, similar to a car parked beyond the parking meter time limit on a public street. Although the car may be parked in violation of a municipal code, that does not give a public citizen permission to take the law into their own hands by removing and destroying the vehicle. Or does it?

The long term fate of the artwork may be addressed at a city council meeting next week, Danly says.

City staff are preparing an agenda item for the City Council’s Monday, July 6 meeting to formally permit the artwork. If that resolution is passed and the man returns to remove the signs again, police would be obligated to press charges.

But the Council members might want to ask Chief why he apparently told his officers that the man was expressing his right to free speech and acting on behalf of the city when he vandalized their private property, the artwork. And why Miller later claimed that the District Attorney and City Attorney had created that argument, when they did not.

And the most important underlying question looms huge: If the out-of-control man had been Black or Latino or Native American, would he be alive today?

Maria, a mother who has lived in Sonoma Valley for over a decade, lost hours at work due to Covid-19 and worries about the pandemic’s long-term effects on the children in her community.

As Covid-19’s economic impacts drive many vulnerable residents back to work even as Sonoma County’s caseload begins to skyrocket, those children may be left at home while their parents attempt to pay off debts accrued during the shutdown. Maria asked to use a pseudonym to protect her identity.

“We’re not going back to work for pleasure; we’re going back out of sheer necessity,” Maria, who speaks Spanish, told the Bohemian through a translator. “We are risking exposure to pay for our needs.”

Although she has not yet heard of anyone being evicted in Sonoma Valley, Maria says she has heard of many landlords asking for several months of rent at one time for families who have fallen behind on payments. While they still have housing, these families wonder how they will ever repay the debt. So far, three and a half months into the shelter-in-place orders, this question has not been answered at any level of government.

In the North Bay, similar to the rest of the state, tenants and landlords are governed by a patchwork of temporary eviction-protection ordinances passed in late March. The rules have paused legal eviction proceedings for the duration of the pandemic plus a few months, depending on which county one lives in.

Although tenants who miss payments because of Covid-19 or related economic impacts are currently shielded from evictions, many are racking up thousands of dollars in rent debt due to missed payments.

Once the crisis is over, depending on a tenant’s county’s local protection, their landlord may begin eviction proceedings if the tenant can’t repay the debt quickly enough.

Although no one knows how long the pandemic—or the related economic impacts—will last, some protections and government payments are scheduled to stop in the coming months.

Perhaps most important, the boosted unemployment payments offered under the CARES Act—an additional $600 per week on top of state unemployment benefits for those who qualify—are set to expire at the end of July.

The situation is even worse for undocumented workers and others who don’t qualify for

unemployment benefits. North Bay governments and nonprofits distributed hundreds of

thousands of dollars in direct aid for rent and other costs, but the funds were used up very quickly.

In May, Gov. Gavin Newsom established a $125 million fund for California’s two million-plus undocumented residents. In the end, only about 250,000 undocumented residents, a fraction of the two-million-plus estimated to live in the state, will receive $500 one-time payments.

Under the current rules, all of these overlapping factors could lead to a wave of evictions once the pandemic is declared over and the protections disappear.

In the early days of Covid-19 shelter-in-place orders, when the Multicultural Center of Marin (MCM), a San Rafael-based nonprofit, surveyed over 150 Canal residents, three quarters said paying rent was their biggest concern.

Three months later, that problem still hangs over tenants. While Douglas Mundo, MCM’s executive director, is quick to thank Marin County and state officials for extending the eviction protections, he fears that, at some point, the tenants will be at risk of eviction due to the rent debt.

“Even with all of those resources (from the county and nonprofits), it’s not enough,” Mundo says. “This is going to be longer than we expected… . We don’t know how long this will last.”

If the pandemic and the related economic impacts drag on without a solution, tenants will likely only rack up more and more rent debt.

New Normal?

On Monday, June 29, Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced legislation that would extend and expand a federal eviction moratorium which currently only covers renters living in housing financed by federally-backed mortgages or using federal-housing vouchers.

Still, Warren’s bill doesn’t touch the question of rent debt. But, according to a June 15 Urban Institute report, those missed payments are continuing to add up, especially if the CARES Act benefits are not replaced.

The report estimates 8.9 million renter households in American—20 percent of all renter households—lost at least one household income in April and May, likely impacting the household’s ability to pay rent.

If that continues, it could drive even more renting families into financial trouble.

In 2015, long before the pandemic, 54 percent of California renters paid more than 30 percent of their income per month for housing, according to the California Budget and Policy Center.

Paying that portion of their income for housing makes a family “rent burdened.”

The Urban Institute study compares what it would cost to altogether eliminate the rent burden for all American families—essentially filling in the financial hole that preceded the pandemic—to just bringing the level of rent-burden back to pre-pandemic levels, returning families to their “normal” level of financial burden.

It would cost $4.6 billion a month, on top of the current CARES Act and state-level

unemployment payments, to return those renter households to pre-Covid levels of rent burden, the study estimates. If the CARES Act benefits lapse, as they are currently scheduled to do in late July, it will cost an additional $8.7 billion per month nationwide to fill the gap with an income-support program, the Urban Institute estimates.

If the federal government offered direct rental assistance payments on top of the current CARES Act payments it is currently offering, it would take $1.8 billion per month to return renting households to pre-Covid levels of rent burden. It would cost almost six times as much—$11.9 billion per month—in direct rent payments on top of the CARES Act benefits to alleviate rent burden altogether, the study estimates.

In the interim, pending any massive social support bill, workers are left with a hard decision: return to work and risk contracting Covid-19 or stay home and continue accruing debt?

Maria says she has heard of other Latinx workers—who account for 74 percent of Sonoma County’s identified Covid-19 cases although they only make up 27.2 percent of the total population—picking up house-cleaning work and senior-care work to pay their bills.

But, if those families are expected to pay off the rent debt on top of other costs after the

pandemic, it won’t be a return to the pre-pandemic “normal.”

“Probably the only thing we can do, once the economy opens back up, is get a second or third job, but that means we’ll leave our children unattended and not cared for,” she says.