Oregon committee hears hours of testimony urging passage of bill to limit utility recovery after wildfire judgments

The Oregon House Committee on Judiciary held a public hearing on May 12, 2025, on Senate Bill 926, a proposal that would bar investor‑owned electric companies from recovering wildfire‑related liabilities from ratepayers and would limit certain corporate distributions while wildfire judgments remain unpaid.

The bill matters because survivors of the 2020 Labor Day wildfires said they remain unpaid years after jury findings or judgments and urged the legislature to change the economics that they say allow utilities to delay payment. Committee staff summarized the measure as prohibiting non‑consumer‑owned electric companies that serve 25,000 or more Oregon customers from seeking reimbursement from ratepayers for costs tied to wildfire negligence, including fines, judgments, litigation costs and infrastructure repair where the company’s misconduct caused the fire; it also would bar dividend and stock repurchases while wildfire judgments remain outstanding, direct courts to award 9% interest from the date of ignition, and apply some provisions to wildfires ignited after Jan. 1, 2020.

Survivors, local elected officials and lawmakers described losses of homes, businesses and community facilities and recounted court findings and trial experiences. Senator David Brock Smith of Senate District 1 told the committee the bill is “critically important” to constituents who “lost their homes” and remain unpaid. Fred Gerard, who said he is a plaintiff in a class action against Pacificorp, said a jury has already found the company negligent and “grossly negligent,” and described what he called delay tactics by the utility’s lawyers. “This really is a story about David and Goliath,” Gerard said.

Senator Jeff Golden, who represents parts of the Rogue Valley, urged the committee to remove the option of asking utilities to “please” do the right thing, and quoted the bill’s language: “It drops the word please from please do the right thing,” he said, describing provisions that would bar dividends, repurchases and other transfers until wildfire creditors are paid. Representative Jamie (Kate) (House District 11) said the measure would change the economics that encourage corporations to litigate and delay rather than settle, calling the approach a way to “shift the economics of dragging out these class action lawsuits.”

Dozens of fire survivors gave personal testimony about the Sept. 2020 fires in the Santiam/San‑Iam/San Am areas. Sam Drivo (identified in testimony as Sam Drivo) told the committee, “The bill said this bill says we matter,” and described witnessing power‑equipment arcing and multiple ignitions. Multiple witnesses described long court battles, depositions and examinations they said retraumatized victims; several said juries had already found Pacificorp liable or awarded damages. Janine James, who identified herself as the lead plaintiff in a dangerous‑specific case, said she had “spent the last 5 years working on my home and depleted a third of my retirement income,” and urged lawmakers to “send a message that safety and accountability matter.”

Nonprofit and community organizations also testified. Diane Turnbull, executive director of Upward Bound Camp in Gates, said the camp lost 33,000 square feet of buildings and has operated limited summer programming from tents, portable showers and porta‑potties since 2020. Woody Jackson, president of Friends of the Bridal‑Bush‑Cascade, said the nonprofit lost tools and records and has used personal savings to replace equipment.

Speakers pressed several policy points that would affect how the bill works in practice: committee staff said the measure applies to electric companies that are not consumer‑owned and that serve 25,000 or more Oregon customers; it directs courts to award 9% interest from the time of ignition for prevailing wildfire plaintiffs; and it would require an electric company with an outstanding wildfire judgment issued between Jan. 1, 2020, and Jan. 1, 2025, to pay taxes owed by the prevailing party when the utility satisfies the judgment if the judgment is still unpaid by Jan. 1, 2026. Witnesses also described what they said were utility behaviors in litigation — lengthy depositions, forensic psychological exams and other tactics — that survivors said had the effect of wearing plaintiffs down.

Committee members did not take a vote. At the close of testimony the chair announced the hearing would be continued; committee staff said remaining remote witnesses would be scheduled and the committee would confirm the continuation time the following morning. No formal action on the bill was recorded at the May 12 hearing.

The hearing brought forward competing civic concerns: survivors and local officials urged immediate legislative changes to ensure victims are made whole and to prevent ratepayers from absorbing costs they say stem from negligence; proponents said the bill is narrowly targeted at investor‑owned utilities as defined in the text summarized by staff. The committee will reconvene to complete public testimony and determine any next steps for SB 926.