Committee examines HB 252 wildfire mitigation rules for utilities, sponsor proposes narrowing scope to rail-belt providers

The House Energy Committee heard invited testimony and policy context for HB 252, an electric utility wildfire mitigation bill, during a second hearing on Feb. 3.

Joe Coleman of the Council of State Governments West summarized a multi-state review of wildfire/utility legislation, highlighting common elements in Western states: mitigation plans filed with a regulator, liability frameworks that often shift from strict liability toward negligence or rebuttable presumptions when utilities implement approved plans, funds or bond measures to address wildfire damage, and rules about how mitigation plans are approved. "If you shut the power off... people could be on life support machines," Coleman said while noting public-safety power shutoffs are a last resort and can cause severe secondary consequences.

Committee members questioned liability standards, statutes of limitation, insurance and subrogation (insurers recovering from responsible parties). Members asked whether punitive damages and compensatory recovery could be separated so homeowners can recover economic losses while punitive remedies are reserved for gross negligence; Coleman cited Montana and other states as examples with differing approaches.

Sponsor staff Aidan Nickel told the committee the sponsor is preparing amendments to clarify several concerns raised in consultation with utilities and wildfire experts: utilities would not be required to clear vegetation outside their rights-of-way, the bill's application would be limited to the five rail-belt utilities to reduce DNR workload, DNR's authority to impose requirements on plans would be constrained to avoid excessive cost burdens, utilities would consider shutoffs as one of several mitigation tools rather than be required to use them, and utilities would be asked to publish mapping data so community wildfire protection plans and emergency responders can coordinate with mitigation efforts.

Members and staff debated whether to produce a committee substitute or proceed via amendment filings. Sponsors expressed interest in moving the bill forward quickly with an amendment deadline but agreed to collaborate with utilities and members to produce a CS if needed. The committee intends to hear three or four rural utility CEOs later in the week and deferred final action on HJR 27 because of time.

No formal vote on HB 252 occurred at the Feb. 3 hearing; staff will circulate proposed language and coordinate with utility stakeholders and DNR on plan details.