“How many fire victims are successfully going to be precluded from bringing their claims?” Steven Skikos, a lawyer appointed by the court to represent victims’ interests, asked the judge Monday. “That is the battle here.”

Judge Montali indicated sensitivity. “Why should we have a corporate control battle when we really ought to be prioritizing the victims?” he asked. But after Mr. Skikos said he intended to file a motion to delay the cutoff date, the judge was noncommittal on when it might be considered. If there is merit for an extension, the judge said, the issue could also be addressed after the deadline.

PG&E’s ultimate exposure will be probably influenced by findings in other courtrooms.

Judge Montali has asked a federal district judge to estimate the potential wildfire damages, with testimony from expert witnesses set for January. And in response to lawsuits by wildfire victims, a California Superior Court judge has scheduled a January trial to re-examine whether PG&E was responsible for a devastating 2017 fire in the wine country, which the state initially concluded was not caused by the utility.

PG&E has said it will pay all claims approved by the court. While its plan stipulates an amount for damages to wildfire victims, a lawyer familiar with the case said the figure was a placeholder in negotiations and efforts to secure funding for reorganization plans, not a maximum payout.

Lawyers presenting the rival plan said they were prepared to revise their proposed numbers as well.

Other interests will have to be weighed in the case. Regulators and consumer watchdog groups warn that PG&E’s plan does not do enough to protect ratepayers against the prospect that they will have to absorb liability costs in their bills.