SAN FRANCISCO — PG&E was jolted Tuesday by a fresh round of lawsuits from former San Francisco mayor Frank Jordan and other victims of the lethal North Bay infernos, alleging the utility had put profits before public safety.

The October wildfires in the Wine Country and nearby areas killed 43 people and torched at least 245,000 acres in six counties.

Jordan, along with his wife and guests, fled their Santa Rosa home, managing to grab only a handful of commemorative photographs before escaping the flames. The blaze destroyed their house, guesthouse and personal belongings.

PG&E has said it is cooperating with investigators from Cal Fire and the state Public Utilities Commission. The investigators have not yet determined what caused the fires.

Related Articles Marin fire officials advocate more preemptive burns

Marines from Camp Pendleton quickly train to help with Creek Fire nearing Mammoth Lakes

Bobcat Fire grows to 91,000 acres as buildings burn

3 people arrested in Oregon accused of setting up illegal roadblocks near wildfire evacuation zones

California wildfires: Firefighter killed battling blaze sparked by gender-reveal party The lawsuits allege, however, that PG&E disregarded mandatory safety practices and foreseeable hazardous risks associated with the utility’s infrastructure by failing to identify, inspect, manage and control vegetation growth near its power lines and other electrical equipment.

“This calamity was preventable,” Frank Pitre, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the new litigation, said Tuesday while announcing the lawsuits.

The attorneys said they and their clients don’t want to wait for the outcome of probes by the PUC, CalFire and PG&E to determine what caused the fires.

“We are tired of the cloud of secrecy that covers everything PG&E does,” Pitre said. “The only way we can get behind the cloud, the curtain, the veil of secrecy is to file these lawsuits. We want to draw our own conclusions to get to the truth.”

The utility acknowledged the new litigation Tuesday.

“We are aware that lawsuits have been filed,” PG&E spokesman Donald Cutler said. “There has been no determination on the causes of the fires.”

The lawsuits address the alleged use of reclosers — equipment that can automatically restart power in lines after a service interruption. If electricity pulses are sent through lines that are in contact with trees or other vegetation, that can set off a fire. PG&E is alleged to have been operating numerous reclosers during the time of the North Bay fires, although the precise locations of this equipment weren’t immediately clear. Some of PG&E’s devices were programmed to try up to three times to restore power by sparking electricity, the litigation claims.

“PG&E knew that its reclosers posed a great risk of wildfire,” one of the lawsuits alleges. “At a congressional hearing in 2015, PG&E’s senior vice president of electrical operations, Patrick Hogan, stated that PG&E had the ability to reprogram its reclosers during fire season to not restart power. Hogan claimed that shutting down power means ‘you take the reliability hit, but you gain the wildfire benefit.’ Despite this knowledge and ability, PG&E never reprogrammed all of its reclosers to prevent wildfires,” the complaint alleged.

Gregory Wilson, a Santa Rosa resident and one of the plaintiffs in the new litigation, recalled how he and his wife plunged into their backyard swimming pool to escape the heat, flames and drifting embers. They remained in the water for hours while the flames consumed their home.

“We jumped in the pool to survive,” Wilson, whose throat was damaged by extensive smoke inhalation, whispered Tuesday during the live-streamed press conference to announce the lawsuits. “For the next three hours, we watched everything burn around us. It’s a nightmare that you can’t even imagine.”

Two other plaintiffs, Willard and Lyn Anne Hay of Sonoma, said they escaped with their dog, but now must ponder the loss of their dream home, which once sat on 21 acres before their residence, a guest house and other structures were consumed by the conflagration.

The attorneys and plaintiffs also claim that PG&E knew that some of the components of its electrical system were aging and less reliable at the time of the fire.

“Despite this knowledge, PG&E did not maintain, repair or replace its equipment,” the litigation alleges.

PG&E has $800 million in insurance to cover any liabilities for the Wine Country fires. The utility stated on a recent conference call with analysts that it would ask the state PUC to authorize it to boost customers’ monthly electricity bills if actual North Bay fire expenses exceed that coverage.

San Francisco-based PG&E has been in hot water in recent years after the September 2010 explosion of a gas pipeline that killed eight people and destroyed a San Bruno neighborhood.

In the largest financial punishment ever imposed on a U.S. utility, the PUC levied a $1.6 billion penalty on PG&E for causing the San Bruno blast. In August 2016, a federal grand jury found PG&E guilty for crimes it committed before and after the explosion, including the utility’s obstruction of a National Transportation Safety Board probe into the blast. PG&E’s flawed record-keeping and shoddy maintenance of its gas system caused the San Bruno explosion, the NTSB determined.

In January, PG&E became a convicted felon when a federal judge sentenced the utility on six criminal convictions issued by the jury.

“No amount of advertising, no number of criminal convictions, including misleading the NTSB, seems to change a culture at PG&E that puts profits ahead of safety,” Pitre said Tuesday.

During the 12 months that ended in September, PG&E earned $2.06 billion in profits on revenue of $18.04 billion.