PG&E opposes the bondholders’ plan because, in its view, it allows them to acquire a large stake in the company on the cheap. “We are disappointed that the bankruptcy court has opened the door to consideration of a plan designed to unjustly enrich Elliott and the other ad hoc bondholders and seize control of PG&E at a substantial discount,” James Noonan, a PG&E spokesman, said in an emailed statement. He added that PG&E was working toward a “fair resolution of all remaining individual wildfire claims.”

PG&E’s plan would pay $8.4 billion to wildfire victims, while the bondholders are offering up to $14.5 billion.

The final number in part depends on what is found in other courts. A federal district judge will estimate potential wildfire damages, and is set to hear testimony from expert witnesses in January. And a California Superior Court judge has scheduled a January trial to determine whether PG&E’s equipment caused a 2017 blaze in the wine country, known as the Tubbs fire.

PG&E has said it will pay all claims approved by the court.

The bankruptcy battle has repercussions in PG&E’s service area, which encompasses most of Northern and Central California. The state’s goal is for the company to emerge with the financial wherewithal to undertake measures intended to head off wildfires caused by PG&E’s power lines.

In addition, under a law enacted this year, the bankruptcy must be completed by June for the company to tap a new state fund being set up to help pay for the catastrophic costs of future wildfires. A provision of California’s constitution makes a utility responsible for damage caused by its equipment even when no negligence is involved.

As recently as August, Judge Montali had allowed PG&E to retain the exclusive right to plan its exit from bankruptcy. But after that, the group representing those with wildfire liability claims formally told the court it backed the terms of the bondholders’ plan and their request to end PG&E’s sole right to propose a reorganization.