Senate State Affairs debates wildfire liability bill; committee sends SB 11-24 to 14th order for amendments

Senate State Affairs spent much of the day debating Senate Bill 11‑24, the Wildfire Standard of Care Act, a measure that ties limited civil liability for electric utilities to compliance with wildfire mitigation plans approved by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC).

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jim Woodward (Legislative District 1), said the measure stems from the governor’s 2024 wildfire report and is meant to set a clear, prospective standard of care so utilities and courts know in advance what constitutes reasonable wildfire mitigation. "If you follow your wildfire mitigation plan, you have met the standard of care unless you have done something that is willful or reckless," Woodward said in closing remarks.

Proponents — including Will Hart, executive director of the Idaho Consumer and Utilities Association (ICUA), Michael Darrington of United Electric, and utility witnesses from Idaho Power, Rocky Mountain Power and Avista — described escalating reinsurance costs and the existential risk wildfire litigation poses for small, member‑owned co‑ops and some investor‑owned utilities. Will Hart told the committee that many small utilities face insurance caps around $20 million while premiums have risen sharply, and urged the committee to "support rural Idaho and send Senate Bill 11‑24 to the floor with a due pass recommendation." Tom Carter of Rocky Mountain Power described lengthy mitigation plans and said PUC review provides accountability: “This legislation is not about immunity. It’s about limits tied to performance of the utility.”

Opponents — including the Idaho Trial Lawyers Association (Evan Mortimer), Farm Bureau Insurance (Jared Stedman), the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (Elizabeth Kreiner), and timber and landowner representatives — said the bill’s liability language is too broad, risks removing negligence claims, and would shift costs to homeowners, landowners and public insurers. "This legislation is essentially the fox designing the hen house," Mortimer said, arguing co‑ops could set private standards of care. Several insurance witnesses warned that limiting subrogation or negligence could reduce reinsurers’ willingness to write policies and would push costs onto property owners.

Legal counsel for ICUA, Ken McClure, and the bill’s sponsors said the bill’s purpose is forward‑looking: approved mitigation plans would define the standard of care prospectively, PUC review would be public, and "substantial compliance" would allow courts to distinguish trivial departures from material failures. McClure said the bill does not eliminate negligence claims where conduct is willful, reckless or where a utility fails to meet meaningful elements of an approved plan.

Testimony included several quantitative points cited by witnesses: United Electric said it invested more than $855,000 in vegetation management and grid hardening over three years; Idaho Power said it has invested $134.8 million in Idaho mitigation work and anticipates $414 million more over five years and $290 million for transmission rebuilds; Rocky Mountain Power said it has spent $1 billion systemwide and plans another $1.2 billion over three years. Insurance and reinsurance witnesses described rapid premium increases and constrained capacity — for some layers going from roughly $4,000–$5,000 per million to quotes as high as $23,000 per million in recent months.

After extended questioning and debate — including concerns about how "substantial compliance" and "minor deviations" would be litigated and whether co‑ops that decline PUC review would receive the same protections — the committee considered two motions. Sen. Mark Harris moved the bill to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation. Sen. Brandon Shippey offered a substitute motion to send the bill to the 14th order for possible amendment. The substitute motion passed on roll call, recorded by the clerk, 5–4; senators recorded as voting aye were Recti, Shippey, Adams, Den Hartog and Toews (the roll also noted Vice‑Chair Burt and Chairman Guthrie recorded aye), and senators Harris and Anthony recorded no votes. The committee adjourned without sending the bill directly to the floor.

What’s next: SB 11‑24 will be placed in the 14th order for the Senate calendar, meaning sponsors and stakeholders can continue drafting amendments before floor consideration. Committee testimony and the PUC’s prospective rulemaking or review process were identified repeatedly as the next venues to refine standards, definitions of "substantial compliance," and subrogation language.

(For a detailed list of witnesses, precise testimony excerpts and the committee roll call, see the committee transcript.)