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

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.