A legislative subcommittee reviewing Senate Bill 23‑39 delayed action and asked parties for further analysis after witnesses disputed a proposed amendment that would allow an alternative electric reliability standard in vegetation-management and wildfire mitigation plans.

At a meeting called by Chairman Doctor, members considered an amendment that would remove the word “and” on page 3, insert an alternative standard and add the phrase “electric reliability standard FAC‑003” as an option alongside the existing standard language. The change would make compliance with either the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard AA3, part 7 or the electric reliability standard FAC‑003 acceptable under the bill’s procedures for vegetation-management plans.

The proposed amendment prompted two sharply different reactions from industry witnesses. Miss McLeod, an industry representative who said her company sent the amendment language, told the subcommittee that ANSI standards were intended as voluntary “best practices” and contain explicit comments advising against being adopted as law. "Listed in those standards are comments that say these should not be adopted by law but should rather be serving as a guide when you develop, you know, ..." McLeod said, arguing that making the ANSI language mandatory would remove local flexibility for landowners who object to specific methods such as particular chemicals and could “possibly be hurting our members.”

John Ward, speaking for State Farm Insurance, said his client found the alternative standard advocated by "Minn Kota" unacceptable. "I think they have some concerns about language in there that does not have, I guess, fire protections is one of the biggest concerns," Ward said, adding that an industry expert told him the FAC‑003 language “relates more to the power grid staying in power ... rather than dealing with actually, like, the fire mitigation part of it.” Ward said he did not support adding the carve‑out and urged the committee to compare the standards side‑by‑side.

Committee members expressed concern that an "or" construction could create ambiguity that allows adoption of a lesser standard. Representative Conmey said the amendment could permit plans that do not include fire‑mitigation measures and weaken protections. "But now we're weakening what they actually have to do, potentially," Conmey said, and urged staff and witnesses to compare the two standards directly.

The subcommittee did not vote on the amendment. Chairman Doctor and members directed the interested parties to provide written comparisons and analysis and scheduled a follow‑up meeting next week to revisit the amendment. John Ward agreed to send the committee an analysis by the requested deadline.

The subcommittee adjourned with no formal action taken on the amendment to Senate Bill 23‑39.