Concluding PG&E Corp.’s bankruptcy was always going to be an extremely expensive undertaking, but the company has recently provided a clearer sense of just how costly the process is likely to become.

A key document PG&E filed with state regulators shows its plan to resolve the case and pay victims of fires its power lines caused comes with an eye-popping price tag of $57.65 billion. That would appear to make the company’s exit from protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code one of the priciest undertakings of its kind.

The exit plan would be funded partly by PG&E raising more than $44 billion in new financing. State law requires PG&E to resolve its bankruptcy without raising rates. Most of the financing, about $28.5 billion, would come through new debt held at the company and subsidiary Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

The debt and equity raise could be a historic effort of its own.

“This ... will be the largest capital raise in the utility industry and one of the largest in corporate history,” said Jason Wells, chief financial officer of PG&E Corp., when he was questioned on Feb. 28 at a public hearing before the California Public Utilities Commission.

The comments from Wells were among many insights revealed when PG&E executives and others spent seven business days, from Feb. 25 through Wednesday, answering questions at the utilities commission’s office in San Francisco. The hearings were an essential step related to PG&E’s bankruptcy, because state regulators must sign off on the company’s plan to resolve the case.

Wells made his remarks as he answered a question about a related request the company made to state regulators. As it prepares to exit bankruptcy, PG&E is also asking the commission to conclude a long-running review of the company’s commitment to safety in its corporate culture. PG&E wants the commission to decide that the company should not be forced to sell off its gas division or become a government-run utility, among other drastic options for structural changes.

Such a decision from the commission is not necessary for PG&E to resolve its bankruptcy, but “the more that we can provide stability, the more effective this capital raise will be,” Wells said.

Still, the way PG&E is funding its path out of bankruptcy is unusual, according to UC Hastings law Professor Jared Ellias.

“Most companies that go into bankruptcy don’t borrow this much money on the way out,” Ellias told The Chronicle. “You just have a lot of money going into this company at once. And the fact that (PG&E) is able to do it is also something that’s unique and speaks to how enthusiastic Wall Street is about this company.”

The bankruptcy exit plan would, if finalized, fund more than $25 billion in settlements related to fires blamed on PG&E, including the 2017 Wine Country wildfires and the 2018 Camp Fire in Butte County. One of the settlements would establish a $13.5 billion trust to pay individual fire victims — but some of them have recently begun speaking out against the deal.

A leading critic of the settlement has been Will Abrams, whose Santa Rosa home burned in the 2017 Tubbs Fire. He took an active role in the recent regulatory hearings, grilling PG&E Corp. CEO Bill Johnson for about two hours, and also asked many questions of other executives, including Wells.

Abrams asked Wells about an issue that many fire victims have raised with regard to the $13.5 billion settlement: the fact that it would be funded partially with stock. But victims wouldn’t get stock directly, Wells said, echoing earlier statements from lawyers involved in the bankruptcy case. The trust would receive stock — owning nearly 21% of PG&E shares — and an administrator would cash the equity out over time in order to pay victims’ claims.

Still, Abrams wanted to know whether fire victims would be able to control how and when the stock is sold and if they would be able to vote as a group of shareholders. Wells indicated that the victims’ stock — at least through the trust — likely would be able to vote together, though the details were still being worked out. But the timing of when victims’ shares get sold would be subject to controls, he said.

“Providing the market with some stability as to when and how those shares will be disposed helps support a better stock value and, therefore, a higher recovery for victims,” Wells said.

Abrams said he thought the arrangement was unfair.

During the marathon commission hearings, Abrams asked some tough questions of PG&E executives and at times sparred with attorneys for the company. Some of those moments came when Andy Vesey, CEO of the PG&E utility subsidiary, took the stand Feb. 27.

At one point, Abrams started asking Vesey about PG&E’s efforts to improve its standing with customers, given the fact that its equipment has caused fires that killed more than 100 people in recent years. Abrams wanted to know whether PG&E would go above and beyond its legal requirements in order to be forthright with the people it serves.

“Is waiting for the law to tell you to do something that is right the way to rebuild trust and to be a good corporate citizen?” Abrams asked.

Vesey said his “No. 1 responsibility” since joining PG&E last year has been “to make sure that we don’t create more victims.”

“It’s been my sole focus since I have come here,” Vesey said. “It is what I am absolutely committed to.”

In order to qualify for a new multibillion-dollar fund to protect itself from future fire costs, PG&E needs to get its bankruptcy judge and the utilities commission to approve its exit plan by June 30. The company has made a lot of progress toward meeting that deadline, and completing the recent commission hearings was part of that.

But the plan is by no means a done deal. The five utilities commissioners must still vote on a decision, and it’s not yet clear how any of them will act.

Commission President Marybel Batjer attended part of the hearings, which came months after regulators began the process of reviewing how PG&E should conclude its bankruptcy.

“I appreciate the tremendous amount of time and effort the parties have put into the proceedings so far and believe it underscores the monumental importance of the issue that is before us,” Batjer said at the hearings’ outset.

Apart from its bankruptcy exit plan, PG&E might ask the commission to let it recover about $7 billion to help pay for wildfire claims. But PG&E says it would use proceeds from shareholder tax benefits to keep the rate impact neutral.

Wells told a lawyer for The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group, that if PG&E’s $7 billion request is denied by the commission, the company has not yet decided what it will do. But it is possible that PG&E could at that point ask permission to recover the cost of fire claims through rate increases, Wells said.

As the commission weighs the PG&E bankruptcy, it is also considering a proposal from Batjer that could establish an escalating enforcement process should the company continue to endanger the public when the case concludes. The most severe consequences would involve the commission seeking to put someone else in control of the company or revoke its operating license.

PG&E and other groups are expected to weigh in on that proposal by Friday.

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