I'm not clear if the home owners will have to pay for the tree removal or if PG&E will do the removal without charge. If homeowners have to pay for the removal, that could be a prohibitive expense for some.
I'm not too happy at the thought of PG&E employees digging around gas lines. After all wasn't the San Bruno explosion a result of pipe line work by PG&E workers?

Jess:

no, the San Bruno was NOT a result of PGE employees "digging around" a gas line. It was a failure of a poorly made and poorly maintained gas line.

The folks that planted or let trees grow in a utility easement are responsible for the removal of those trees. I can guarantee you the documents those folks signed when they purchased their properties showed the easements. Shame on them for planting trees in those easements.

PG&E has no inherent right to remove trees from this right of way. The actual safety issue is the time that it takes PG&E to shut down a gas line in an emergency leak situation. This is a matter of valve controls. It is expensive to upgrade these lines and PG&E is trying to avoid installing more valves than an absolute minimum. This is the real safety issue along with the condition of these old pipelines. PG&E is required to be able to shut down and depressurize the pipe in a shorter time period than is necessary to dig down to a pipe leak. PG&E is not even allowed to repair an active leak in a High Consequence Area (density of human occupation). PG&E must shut off the gas first before attempting a repair. Because PG&E can inspect these pipeline corridors on foot (this is in the federal PHMSA / DOT code) it has no legitimate need to use aerial patrols. This is preposterous.