Montana House advances bill requiring utility wildfire-mitigation plans and changing liability standard

House Bill 4 90, a bill that would require electric cooperatives and public utilities to prepare wildfire mitigation plans and changes the standard for utility liability in wildfire cases, advanced in the Montana House after floor debate and an amendment.

The bill, introduced and sponsored by Representative Bethany Regier, would require utilities and electric cooperatives to prepare wildfire mitigation plans that meet specified elements — including vegetation management, regular inspection and maintenance, equipment upgrades and coordination with state and federal agencies — and submit them for review. The bill declares that Montana will not adopt a strict liability standard for wildfire damage for utilities; instead, a plaintiff would need to show negligence. If a utility shows it substantially followed an approved mitigation plan at the location where a fire started, the bill creates a rebuttable presumption that the utility acted reasonably unless the plaintiff can prove otherwise.

The proposal offers a framework the sponsor described as a balance between protecting homeowners and ensuring utilities can continue to provide reliable service. "For wildfire mitigation plans to work and for utilities to continue to be able to deliver electricity, they need to prevent a standard of strict liability for wildfire from being established in Montana," Representative Regier said on the floor. She pointed to California’s model as an example of strict liability with large judgments and bankruptcies and warned against that outcome for Montana utilities and ratepayers.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill will prompt utilities to adopt and implement concrete fire-prevention measures while protecting rural cooperatives from potentially crippling liability. Opponents warned the changes limit recovery for homeowners and could raise insurance costs for property owners because non-economic damages would generally be limited unless there is bodily injury or death.

Key details and debate

- Plan requirements and review: The measure requires utilities to prepare wildfire mitigation plans that meet nine specifications; plans filed by regulated utilities would be reviewed by the Montana Public Service Commission, and plans would also be reviewed by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) and Montana Disaster and Emergency Services, according to supporters’ remarks in committee and on the floor.

- Liability standard: The bill explicitly states strict liability will not apply to electric cooperatives and utilities. To recover, a plaintiff must prove negligence — that the utility failed to meet the standard of care of a reasonable electric facilities provider in similar circumstances. If the utility substantially followed its approved mitigation plan at the ignition location, the bill creates a rebuttable presumption the utility acted reasonably.

- Damages and limitations: The bill retains recovery for property damage and compensatory damages. Non-economic damages (such as pain and suffering) would generally be recoverable only when the plaintiff suffered bodily injury or death. The bill allows punitive damages if gross negligence or intentional conduct is shown. A statute-of-limitations provision in the draft requires lawsuits to be filed within three years of the event.

- Amendments and process changes: Representative Joe Mercer moved an amendment (identified in committee as dot003) that made three principal changes the sponsor and others described on the floor: (1) clarified the bill’s title and scope language concerning the presumption and liability; (2) adjusted the tort standard language in one subsection; and (3) removed a six‑month service requirement on plaintiffs that would have shortened service timelines below Montana’s ordinary civil-service timetable. The amendment changed implementation language for mitigation plans from "may" to "shall," so that only after a plan is implemented does the rebuttable presumption apply, according to remarks from the sponsor and amendment proponent.

Floor and committee actions

- On the committee-of-the-whole amendment offered by Representative Mercer (dot003) the House recorded a roll-call of 58 in favor and 41 opposed; the amendment passed.

- After debate on the bill as amended, the committee motion that House Bill 4 90 "do pass" was approved by the House on second reading by a recorded vote of 98 in favor and 1 opposed.

Voices from the floor

- Representative Bethany Regier (sponsor) emphasized the need to avoid strict liability and to require utilities to adopt mitigation plans. "House bill 4 90 declares strict liability does not apply to electric cooperatives and utilities in Montana with regard to wildfires, but retains the ability of fire victims to seek reasonable compensation for their losses should a coop or utility be found negligent," she said.

- Representative Norma Zephyr spoke in opposition, arguing the bill shifts costs to homeowners through higher insurance premiums and limits recovery for property losses. "The loser in this bill is homeowners," Zephyr said, noting limits on non-economic recovery.

- Representative John France and Representative Running Wolf both urged support, saying the bill requires planning and cooperation that could reduce wildfire risk and protect both people and utilities.

Where it goes next and next steps

House Bill 4 90 passed second reading in the House and will proceed through the legislative process toward third reading on the House floor and then to the Senate if it continues to advance. Supporters urged further stakeholder work in the Senate to refine language; opponents asked for more protections for homeowners and clearer limits on insurer subrogation.

Votes at a glance (other bills recorded during the same floor session)

A series of bills were taken up and recorded on the House floor earlier in the day. The clerk’s roll-call tallies recorded on the official transcript for the session include the following outcomes (bill number — outcome — recorded vote tally as read on the floor):

- House Bill 532 — passed — 99 Aye, 0 No - House Bill 463 — passed — 99 Aye, 0 No - House Bill 466 — passed — 94 Aye, 5 No - House Bill 545 — passed — 98 Aye, 1 No - House Bill 561 — passed — 97 Aye, 2 No - House Bill 544 — passed — 88 Aye, 11 No - House Bill 576 — passed — 99 Aye, 0 No - House Bill 534 — passed — 95 Aye, 4 No - House Bill 546 — passed — 99 Aye, 0 No - House Bill 432 (4 32) — passed — 93 Aye, 6 No - House Bill 585 (5 85) — passed — 94 Aye, 5 No - House Bill 687 (6 87) — passed — 57 Aye, 42 No - House Bill 601 (6 01) — passed — 81 Aye, 17 No - House Bill 514 (5 14) — passed — 99 Aye, 0 No - House Bill 568 (5 68) — passed (second reading) — 97 Aye, 2 No - House Bill 567 (5 67) — passed (second reading) — 87 Aye, 11 No - House Bill 509 (5 09) — passed (second reading) — 74 Aye, 25 No - House Bill 535 (5 35) — passed (second reading) — 60 Aye, 39 No - House Bill 588 (5 88) — passed (second reading) — 60 Aye, 39 No - House Bill 745 (7 85) — passed (second reading) — 99 Aye, 0 No - House Bill 679 (6 79) — passed (second reading) — 78 Aye, 21 No - House Bill 530 (5 30) — passed (second reading) — 97 Aye, 2 No - House Bill 343 (3 43) — passed (second reading) — 54 Aye, 45 No - House Bill 212 (2 12) — passed (second reading) — 50 Aye, 49 No - House Bill 594 (5 94) — passed (second reading) — 57 Aye, 42 No - House Bill 547 (5 47) — passed (second reading) — 75 Aye, 24 No

(These tallies are transcribed from the House session record and are reported here exactly as recorded on the transcript.)

Ending

House Bill 4 90 emerged from the House committee-of-the-whole with an amendment that tightened implementation language for mitigation plans and passed second reading on a near‑unanimous recorded vote. The bill’s sponsor and floor supporters framed the measure as a preventive step that requires utilities to plan and act to reduce wildfire risk; opponents cautioned the changes would make property owners harder to fully compensate for losses. The bill will continue through the legislative process to the next floor stage and to Senate review if it remains on course.