House committee advances wildfire mitigation and utility liability bill despite concerns over access and statute of limitations

Representative Dixon presented the committee substitute for House Bill 267, the Wildfire Mitigation and Liability Act, saying the measure was informed by a stakeholder working group and aims to "incentivize eligible utilities to develop and implement wildfire mitigation plans." The bill creates a rebuttable presumption that a utility that files and complies with an approved plan has acted reasonably, while preserving the right to sue for intentional or malicious conduct.

Jay Sturhan, senior vice president and general counsel at Tri-State Generation and Transmission, told the committee that rising insurance premiums and shrinking wildfire coverage have placed costs on rural ratepayers. "Without insurance, without affordable insurance, that is going to continue to be a cost that rural New Mexicans have to bear," he said, describing 50% and 33% premium increases the company had experienced in recent years.

Opponents and those raising concerns included Brent Moore, representing insurers, who warned the bill's rebuttable-presumption test and damage caps would make it difficult for wildfire victims to recover and would shift losses onto homeowners' policies. "The standard is so high that it will be very hard to meet, and the utilities will be shielded from liability," Moore said. The Office of the State Engineer/OSI urged clearer, scientifically based mitigation standards, citing California's mitigation guidebook as an example.

Committee members pressed sponsors on access to private property for mitigation work, the frequency of PRC inspections, and how costs would be distributed after a wildfire. Witnesses said plans must be filed, certified by the Public Regulation Commission and demonstrated annually; plans are slated for periodic updates (witnesses said plans are revisited or updated no more frequently than every five years, with annual compliance demonstrations).

Several members said they would support the bill only if concerns were addressed on the floor. Representative Montoya and others said the one-year statute of limitations and the "substantial compliance" standard needed revision. After questions and debate, the committee moved the committee substitute and recorded a committee 'do pass' recommendation (committee recorded an 8-to-3 margin).

The bill will proceed to further consideration, with sponsors and several committee members signaling a willingness to negotiate amendments on the statute of limitations, notice and remediation standards.