The federal government believes it is owed nearly $4 billion from Pacific Gas and Electric Co. because the company’s failure to prevent its power lines from starting some of California’s worst wildfires is akin to intentionally starting the disasters.

An attorney representing the Federal Emergency Management Agency advanced that argument in court on Wednesday as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali weighed the government’s claim. The lawyer, Michael Tye, was citing a federal law that FEMA is using as its basis to pursue payment from PG&E through its bankruptcy case.

PG&E poorly maintained its power lines despite knowing that they were likely to cause fires as a result, Tye said.

“Not only did they have knowledge that these faulty lines existed, but they had knowledge that fires would result from them,” Tye said of PG&E leaders.

The government’s request could have a huge impact on the outcome of the year-old PG&E bankruptcy. A settlement between PG&E and fire victims’ lawyers requires that any money for the federal or state governments must come from the same $13.5 billion trust intended to pay individuals. So if FEMA prevails, it would leave a lot less money available for tens of thousands of people who lost homes in fires blamed on PG&E power lines, attorneys for victims say.

Government lawyers insist they do not want to take any money away from the people harmed by fires PG&E started. FEMA previously told The Chronicle that if it did not seek the money from PG&E, federal law may require it to bill fire victims for a small portion of the overall cost so they are not paid for the same loss twice.

PG&E and lawyers for a committee of fire victims involved in the case urged Montali, the bankruptcy judge, to reject FEMA’s claim and another one from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services on legal grounds. The vast majority of the state’s $2.7 billion request overlaps with FEMA’s.

Montali did not rule on the matter at the conclusion of a hearing in San Francisco. He thanked attorneys on all sides for a “spirited debate” and said he would make a decision as quickly as possible.

Eric Goodman, an attorney for the victims’ committee, warned Montali that allowing FEMA’s claim “would severely dilute the recovery” for people whose homes burned down. But Montali indicated he could not toss the government requests on those grounds alone.

Goodman and Paul Zumbro, an attorney for PG&E, said the law compelled Montali to prevent the company from paying anything to FEMA for its response to the 2015 Butte Fire, the 2017 Wine Country wildfires and the 2018 Camp Fire.

Zumbro contrasted the PG&E-caused fires against another major emergency, the deadly 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which was intentionally caused by a person.

“That is a far cry from anything that PG&E is alleged to have done,” Zumbro said.

Goodman echoed that point.

“I will admit that we have said some things about PG&E in this case, but we have never accused them of arson,” he said.

The company and victims’ committee, which have aligned in support of the same plan to end the bankruptcy case, also asked Montali to reject the $2.7 billion request from the state emergency services office. All but $290 million sought by the office is really for services paid by FEMA, so any PG&E funds paid for the overlapping bills would be returned to the federal government.

If Montali grants the wishes of PG&E and the committee, it could increase pressure on California. In that case, FEMA might “rely even more heavily” on the state emergency office “to assert its rights to everything it is legally entitled to,” said California Deputy Attorney General Matthew Heyn.

And paying the state office does not have to come at the expense of fire victims, Heyn said.

“We object to the plan structure,” he told the judge. “We think the survivors should get paid all of the $13.5 billion, and PG&E needs to find a way to separately pay the government agencies.”

Matthew Troy, another lawyer for the federal government, sought to distinguish the requests from FEMA and the state emergency office. He said the two agencies’ rights to seek payment from PG&E arose from different code sections, meaning they presented distinct legal issues.

Still, Goodman, the victims’ committee lawyer, said the judge should throw out both claims. The result would “free California” from its duty to help FEMA recover any of its $4 billion and “a huge cloud in this case is instantly lifted,” Goodman said.

Zumbro, PG&E’s lawyer, said the money sought by the federal and state emergency response agencies was “putting a great deal of pressure on the case” due to the “complex and intricate settlement framework.”

He told Montali that “the time is now” for the judge to resolve the problem. Setting the FEMA and state emergency services office claims aside would allow attorneys to have more productive efforts to resolve smaller claims from other state government agencies, Zumbro said.

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