California utility regulators could advance Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s high-stakes emergence from bankruptcy through two major proposals they unveiled this week.

A tentative decision from a California Public Utilities Commission administrative law judge Monday would approve PG&E’s plan to resolve its Chapter 11 case and pay victims of recent deadly wildfires that the company caused.

Also, one of the commissioners who governs the agency wants to not collect a proposed $200 million cash fine from PG&E over the 2017 and 2018 wildfires. The fine was included in a broader $2.14 billion proposed penalty against the company, most of which would come through making shareholders pay for wildfire expenses they could otherwise recover through rates.

Both proposals must still be acted on by the five-member utilities commission. The commission intends to take up the wildfire penalty proposal on May 7 and the bankruptcy plan proposal on May 21.

The success of both documents would be a big boost to PG&E, which is trying to resolve its bankruptcy case by June 30 in order to qualify for new state funding to protect itself from future fire costs. PG&E needs to get its exit plan approved in court and by the utilities commission.

Administrative Law Judge Peter Allen still had some harsh words about PG&E’s poor safety track record in his proposed decision to approve the bankruptcy plan.

“It is understandable that PG&E may want to shift the focus away from the history of its recent safety performance — which has ranged from dismal to abysmal — and instead seek to draw attention to its remedial efforts,” his proposal says. “At the same time, however, this is a cause for concern, as PG&E seems reluctant to take ownership of its own safety history and acknowledge its failings.”

In a statement, PG&E leaders said they appreciated the commission’s review of the company’s bankruptcy plan and called the proposed decision approving it “another positive step as we continue to work diligently to emerge from Chapter 11 and get wildfire victims paid fairly and quickly.” The company said it still needs time to “fully review all the modifications and changes” proposed by the commission but said it remains on track to meet the June 30 deadline.

The proposed bankruptcy plan approval broadly incorporates an outline for stricter oversight of PG&E that commission President Marybel Batjer unveiled in February. Under that outline, the commission would impose a series of increasingly severe punishments on PG&E if it continues to be a threat to public safety after its bankruptcy case ends. The commission could revoke PG&E’s operating license under the most extreme circumstances.

Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network consumer group, was pleased to see provisions that would prevent customers from paying higher rates over past wildfire costs or funding the professional fees PG&E incurred in bankruptcy.

“Our big concern is that PG&E has already used up all its chances, and the (commission) should immediately subject PG&E to enhanced oversight,” Toney said. “We don’t see the point in waiting for another disaster before they apply those higher standards.”

The commission also would have PG&E create new regional operating units, a step the company proposed, and revamp its board of directors.

Under the wildfire penalty proposal released by Commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen, the commission would technically impose a $200 million cash fine against PG&E — but never collect the money. PG&E had strenuously objected to the fine, which an administrative judge moved to add onto a different settlement the company had reached with regulatory staff. And the company said that if the fine were imposed, it would have to come from the same $13.5 billion trust intended to pay individual fire victims.

PG&E said Monday that it was still reviewing Rechtschaffen’s proposal and would respond within the 10-day time limit he established.

“The destruction caused by the wildfires of 2017 and 2018 was absolutely devastating,” the company said in its statement. “PG&E’s most important responsibility remains the safety of our customers and the communities we serve, and we are committed to doing right by the communities impacted by wildfires.”

April Rose Maurath Sommer, executive and legal director of the Wild Tree Foundation, a group involved in the regulatory proceedings, said she thought the commission didn’t go far enough. She had appealed the $2.14 billion penalty decision even before Rechtschaffen sought to change it, and she wanted the commission to preserve its ability to investigate the company’s conduct surrounding 2017 and 2018 fires.

Allowing PG&E to avoid the $200 million fine altogether is “the worst possible message you can send to the utility,” she said.

“It informs them that even when the commission has determined that a utility should be fined, if they are able to use some cunning and clever lawyering, they’re not going to have to pay,” she said. “It’s very disturbing.”

J.D. Morris is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jd.morris@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @thejdmorris