[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6098850,"mediaKeyId","2821864-3fd96f19377946c266aea37bdd6691fe","parentId",2821864,"title","Committee backs wildfire-mitigation bill that gives PUC a role and a rebuttable presumption for utilities","audioSeconds",3740,"startMs",541000,"endMs",4281000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2821864-3fd96f19377946c266aea37bdd6691fe&start=541&end=4281","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2821864-3fd96f19377946c266aea37bdd6691fe/thumbnail_541000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6098850/Idaho/Committee-backs-wildfire-mitigation-bill-that-gives-PUC-a-role-and-a-rebuttable-presumption-for-utilities","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6098850-f825f4cf0d60504770b8624a8d04d1db/orig.mp4?Expires=1771189221&Signature=iwwHxQuVCWXVP6W5Ck35L3bac~VEILDSMLrslGthFzZjFZwfevubRNDC93NsWr4YiQNDC~jdDvU1kfa0aKWe87s088C79B7aEzH2wavMLJNZcNkI4y1riIhoGv1KY-btW5CmRix2I7VmoLbdBHrBxPWQvhNW5MFWepT9s8DcKuEFMEDJ6aSckNpKfpmro~hej7ZbJzk6swAOdvbXiP3tr5~bme5vHzzW-AcXZykjpiNxSAqsbCXi62iT5iZzeukgtjmH2Z9MNiiQU9TI3YHd6xnyKcfrK9AUjIFqWuX-Ge3C0iV12s~PAp0gKcdZk8TKIvaeBHwTMIcwEigaVkA~5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Idaho House of Representatives","date","2025-03-26T00:00:00Z","article","The House State Affairs Committee on March 24 voted to send Senate Bill 11-83, the “wildfire standard of care” bill, to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; the committee recorded a roll-call result of 11 in favor and 3 opposed. Representative Judy Boyle (sponsor) and multiple utility representatives and stakeholders testified during an extended hearing that addressed prevention measures, insurance and liability.

Boyle said the legislation is a “proactive bill to try to prevent wildfire” where powerlines and dead vegetation exist and described a process in which utilities would develop wildfire mitigation plans that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) would review and make available for local fire districts and communities to comment on. Under the bill, the State Forester (Department of Lands) would have a role in reviewing plans for fire prevention.

Will Hart, executive director of the Idaho Consumer‑Owned Utilities Association (ICUA), said ICUA’s 21 member municipal and cooperative utilities have invested more than $62,000,000 in wildfire mitigation over the past three years and that roughly nine of his consumer‑owned utilities would participate in the PUC review process. He testified the bill implements recommendations from the governor’s wildfire task force and “empowers the Public Utilities Commission to set clear and consistent expectations for utility wildfire mitigation plans.”

Jen Visser, director of government affairs for Idaho Power Company, and Tom Carter, vice president of Rocky Mountain Power, each testified in support and said the PUC approval would be a public process that creates more oversight and input from stakeholders. Visser explained the bill’s liability language and noted that Idaho Code 5‑311 (the wrongful‑death statute) and other code sections address who can collect certain damages; she distinguished the statute that lists types of damages from statutes that address who may recover them.

Opponents and observers, including Lance Giles of the Idaho Trial Lawyers Association, urged clearer statutory language to explicitly list medical and wrongful‑death code references in the bill’s “exclusive remedy” section, arguing the bill could be read to prioritize property damages over personal injury or death. Supporters including Hart, Carter and Avista general counsel Greg Hessler responded that the bill does not exempt civil claims and that the rebuttable presumption is a legal mechanism that a plaintiff may try to overcome in court.

Committee members asked multiple questions about how the presumption would work in practice. Supporters described the presumption as one that a court could overturn if plaintiffs show the utility caused the fire, leaving civil remedies intact. The bill also requires utilities that submit plans to file progress reports and documentation with the PUC showing steps taken and investments made to carry out approved plans.

Representative Dygert moved to send the bill to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation. After debate and two roll‑call votes (including a failed substitute motion), the committee approved the motion to send Senate Bill 11-83 to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation by a roll-call vote of 11–3.

If passed, the bill would create a pathway for both investor‑owned and consumer‑owned utilities to submit wildfire mitigation plans for public review at the PUC, attach a rebuttable presumption to compliance with an approved plan, and require periodic reporting on mitigation progress and expenditures.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House State Affairs - March 26, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The House State Affairs Committee voted to send Senate Bill 11-83 to the floor with a due-pass recommendation (11–3). The bill would let utilities submit wildfire mitigation plans to the Public Utilities Commission, create reporting requirements, and establish a rebuttable presumption about liability for utilities that comply with approved plans.","taxTitle","State Affairs, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Idaho","taxId",56906,"location","Idaho","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6098855,"Committee advances bill to tighten requirements for temporary administrative rules",421,99000,520000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2821864-3fd96f19377946c266aea37bdd6691fe&start=99&end=520","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2821864-3fd96f19377946c266aea37bdd6691fe/thumbnail_99000.jpg","/articles/6098855/Idaho/Committee-advances-bill-to-tighten-requirements-for-temporary-administrative-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6098855-59a986d41f9e27acd8747d0541491ded/orig.mp4?Expires=1771189221&Signature=Ms1uzU-4gqOilQ2d1Z0J2DYGjlXUZqM2HmL~3hFJmvD1rbZ9itVp6fBOlBPBFLhpMzDP4T1miYIN2sNBh2XjQynx0o5DFLdqRoABuOY8ifjaf~4-1GS29q0LWy4MPUm9nPHKyUXAOkXL4rQQLf4hHBKp5M1E9xEchxWy2SYxcAC6hKTMKLQuwScmPG4ULcVSe60CsR~MGTZNwF2tkFtBlUlxHM57HWvWmLXUfBYWmpKVWH0qXgyLnaDXtodJenUvlr8W8fHS~zGbMPZQDVHMXzVVKBdFDILwND-I8oFbX-hB2mv7KOxwmLIkNHA7mz02lUS0gCrl8sKlIIL0ZgPX7g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House State Affairs Committee on March 24 voted to send Senate Bill 10-76, as amended, to general orders. The bill, introduced in the committee by Representative Jeff Ehlers, would add explicit reasons and procedural safeguards for issuing temporary administrative rules and require greater documentation of the need for such rules.

Ehlers told the committee the bill lists permissible reasons to use temporary rules — including “an imminent threat, natural disaster, or protection of citizens’ rights” — and would require a separate statement explaining why a temporary rule was necessary. He said the bill would also subject temporary rules to the requirements of section 67.5223, the statute cited in the bill that requires a cost–benefit analysis and economic-impact review for rulemaking.

During discussion, Representative Barbieri pressed the sponsor about language on page 2 that prevents bringing back a substantially similar temporary rule within a set time period; the bill currently identifies 90 days as the threshold. Barbieri asked whether 90 days was necessary, and Ehlers said he viewed the figure as a “ballpark” and was open to amendment to shorten the period if colleagues preferred 30 or 60 days. Ehlers and a supporter, Russ Hendricks of the Idaho Farm Bureau, said the bill preserves an exception for immediate threats to health and safety.

Russ Hendricks testified in support on behalf of the Idaho Farm Bureau, calling the bill an “incremental step” to narrow when temporary rules may be used and to preserve negotiated rulemaking as the preferred process. Hendricks noted the bill’s subsection structure (A, B or C) offers multiple pathways depending on the circumstances, and reiterated that imminent-threat scenarios remain separate from the 90‑day provision.

The committee considered a substitute motion to send the bill to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; that substitute motion failed on a voice vote. The original motion to send Senate Bill 10-76 as amended to general orders carried on a voice vote.

If enacted as written, the measure would increase documentation and economic review requirements on agencies issuing temporary rules and create a limited time-based restriction on reissuing substantially similar temporary rules, with exceptions for imminent threats and other specified situations.

The committee moved on to other business after the vote.","The House State Affairs Committee voted to send Senate Bill 10-76, as amended, to general orders after debate about limits on use of temporary rules, cost–benefit review and a 90‑day reuse provision.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee backs wildfire-mitigation bill that gives PUC a role and a rebuttable presumption for utilities

Committee advances bill to tighten requirements for temporary administrative rules