Committee adopts amendment and advances wildfire mitigation bills after debate over utility protections
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The committee amended Senate Bill 2339 to replace mandatory language with permissive language for wildfire mitigation plans, advanced SB 2339 as amended and companion SB 2340; members debated whether the bills grant utilities immunity and whether plans should be mandatory.
The House Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 12 approved an amendment and advanced Senate Bill 2339, a bill addressing wildfire mitigation plans (WMPs) for utilities, along with its companion, Senate Bill 2340, which mandates a study of fire service operational response needs.
Representative Doctor moved the subcommittee amendment labeled 02/2001 for SB 2339; Representative Olsen seconded. The amendment struck the word “shall” and inserted “may” on a provision directing annual submission language, converting a mandatory duty to permissive language on one line of the draft. The committee adopted the amendment by voice vote and then voted to give SB 2339 a “do pass as amended” recommendation to the full House.
Representative Johnson opposed final passage, saying the bill creates “a carve out” that could make it harder for uninsured or underinsured residents to pursue claims against utilities after a wildfire. Johnson urged making WMPs mandatory and recommended giving the Public Service Commission (PSC) authority for approval and monitoring. Representative Khamenei and others also said they would not support the bill as written because it incentivizes voluntary plans rather than requiring them.
Supporters said the bill conditions the availability of certain protections on utilities’ meeting standards. Committee discussion referenced compliance with American National Standards Institute A300 Part 7 and the 2023 National Electric Safety Code as the standards utilities must meet to qualify for the bill’s benefits. A sponsor noted the difference between investor-owned utilities (already regulated by the PSC) and rural cooperatives, which are governed by local boards and were resistant to PSC oversight; the permissive “may” language reflected that compromise.
The committee then advanced the companion SB 2340 (the operational study) with a separate do-pass recommendation.
Roll-call votes recorded on SB 2339 as amended showed the following positions in committee: Chairman Porter — yes; Vice Chair Anderson — yes; Vice Chair Novak — yes; Representative Conmee — no; Representative Doctor — yes; Representative Fosse — yes; Representative Haggard — yes; Representative Hedlund — yes; Representative Johnson — no; Representative Marshall — yes; Representative Olsen — yes; Representative Ruby — no. The motion carried and SB 2339 was recommended to the floor as amended.
SB 2340, the companion study, also received a due-pass recommendation on a subsequent roll call and was discussed as part of the package with SB 2339.
Committee members directed floor placement and said the sponsor should coordinate which bill is presented first so both measures appear appropriately on the calendar.