Insurers and environmental group urge changes to House Bill 369, criticizing utility liability and energy definition
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Insurance groups APCIA and NAMIC and the Alaska Center for the Environment told the House Energy Committee they oppose key provisions of House Bill 369, saying its utility-liability language weakens accountability and that the bill's "diverse energy" definition could favor fossil fuels; the committee took no action and set the bill aside.
Cochair Representative Holland opened the House Energy Committee on March 24 and took public testimony on House Bill 369, an energy omnibus bill that includes a diversified portfolio standard for utilities and provisions on right-of-way and vegetation management.
Leanne Alexander, representing the American Property and Casualty Insurance Association, testified that APCIA "respectfully opposes House Bill 369 in its current form," focusing on sections 2 and 3 that address utility liability for fires. Alexander said the bill's language "ultimately establishes a liability framework that would significantly reduce utilities responsibility for fires that are ignited and spread by their equipment and activities," shifting "substantial financial risk on to Alaskans" and reducing utilities' incentives to pursue robust wildfire mitigation.
Alexander said the bill lacks clear standards, public engagement processes and meaningful state oversight for wildfire-mitigation plans, and warned that the drafting creates "a significant amount of uncertainty" about how the provisions would apply if enacted. Asked about examples from other states, she said APCIA opposed similar measures elsewhere and emphasized the basic legal principle that parties that cause harm should remain responsible for it.
Declan Farr, climate and clean energy program manager at the Alaska Center for the Environment, urged that the bill is too broad to be considered as a single omnibus measure and said individual elements should be considered separately to allow dedicated public input. Farr also said he opposes "a definition of diverse energy that includes, and in some cases, we believe favors continued reliance on fossil fuels," while expressing support for net metering and plug-in solar.
Christian Rattaj of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies urged the committee to preserve accountability and public-safety incentives, calling the proposed utility liability protections "contrary to this basic societal concept" of accountability and warning that the bill's liability structure is confusing, grants large legal advantages to utilities, and limits non-economic damages unless gross negligence is shown.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about how other states have approached similar legislation, whether homeowner insurance and inspection standards address danger trees near power lines, and how the bill draws the line between vegetation inside and outside utility rights-of-way. Witnesses suggested mitigation options such as undergrounding lines, insulating wires, targeted vegetation management, and public-safety power shutoffs as alternatives to broad liability shields, and said insurer and state practices vary by jurisdiction.
Cochair Holland closed public testimony after confirming no additional speakers and noted the committee would set HB 369 aside for the day; he also announced a Thursday presentation on the Alaska Energy Data Gateway from ASAP. The committee accepted written testimony by email to house.energy@akleg.gov and adjourned at 1:30 p.m.