Wildfire survivors urge lawmakers to speed accountability; utilities warn SB 9 26 could have unintended consequences

The House Judiciary Committee resumed public testimony on Senate Bill 9‑26, a measure proposing new financial consequences and rate restrictions for investor‑owned utilities found negligent in starting wildfires. Survivors of the Labor Day 2020 fires urged lawmakers to pass the bill to speed compensation and prevent companies from using delay tactics; utilities and business groups warned the measure could raise costs, reduce investment and create unintended regulatory and market consequences.

Survivors described multi‑year delays, ongoing displacement and trauma. “Pacific Power’s refusal to deenergize the line September 7 was just sheer greed,” said Dale Weese, who described losing irreplaceable family items and living for a year in a fifth wheel. Debbie Fawcett said, “Almost 5 years after Pacific Power’s fires destroyed our homes and life as we knew it, not one of us has received a dime from Pacific Power.” Taylor Hunter, who said she lost her home and animals, said the prospect of prevention and accountability “would be life changing for so many of us.”

Cody Byrne, co‑lead counsel in the class action against Pacific Corp, told the committee the bill would create incentives against delay by applying interest from the date of ignition and by limiting utilities’ ability to shift wildfire liabilities to ratepayers. “This legislation… would provide strong incentives for a utility that’s already been found negligent to not use delay and to weaponize delay as a defense strategy,” Byrne said, adding that thousands of survivors still lack judgments that would accrue interest under current practice.

Portland General Electric vice president Kristen Sharon said PGE supports raising standards for utility safety but warned SB 9‑26 A contains “unprecedented” financial limitations that could raise the cost of capital and discourage investment in clean energy. Sharon urged lawmakers to consider alternative measures such as bonding, maintaining an investment‑grade credit rating or directing the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to consider utilities’ ability to repay before approving corporate changes.

Business groups including Oregon Business & Industry and the Northwest and Intermountain Power Producers Coalition (NIPSI) warned the bill risks interfering with judicial process and the regulatory compact that governs utility rates. Paloma Sparks of Oregon Business & Industry said the bill’s prohibitions on dividends and its retroactive elements could undercut investor confidence and argued courts have tools to handle fraudulent transfers.

Public‑safety and fire‑mitigation advocates urged stronger reporting and evidence‑preservation requirements. Ralph Blomers, director of Fire Safe Communities for GO LA Alliance, contrasted Oregon’s lack of an immediate ignition‑reporting rule with California’s requirement that ignitions be reported within hours and said survivors still face destroyed evidence and protracted litigation.

Committee members pressed witnesses about whether the bill would accelerate payments to survivors or merely increase potential recovery later; proponents said the interest and anti‑avoidance provisions would change incentives and could speed resolution. The committee did not vote on the bill; work sessions and deliberations were carried over for additional technical review, and the chair said Legislative Counsel will be asked to brief the committee on drafting, statutory interaction and potential implementation implications.

Why it matters: The bill seeks to shift financial consequences for utility negligence from ratepayers to investor‑owned utilities and to limit corporate maneuvers that can prolong plaintiffs’ recovery. Survivors and plaintiffs’ counsel said the changes would provide leverage and urgency; utilities and industry groups warned of market, regulatory and investment risks that could affect customers and energy development.