When a state bill to create a wildfire safety certificate was introduced to the Oregon House in February, opponents were concerned the proposal unfairly shielded power companies from lawsuits.
HB 3666 would have created a legal presumption that a utility “is acting reasonably with regard to wildfire safety practices” by virtue of possessing the certificate. Some lawmakers saw this as a “get out of litigation fee card.” The bill died in the House Committee on Rules April 11.
On May 22, an amended version of the proposal was added to SB 926, a separate bill banning power companies from charging ratepayers for legal losses from wildfires.
The amendment was published online minutes before a workshop by the House Committee on Judiciary. The committee suspended rules to consider the amendment.
SB 926 retained its original scope, banning utilities from charging ratepayers to recover settlements, court judgments, civil penalties or other litigation costs for wildfires caused by negligence. The amendment also added language allowing the Oregon Public Utility Commission to determine if a utility can issue dividends or initiate a stock buyback if it has outstanding wildfire judgments.
Committee Chair Rep. Jason Kropf (D-Bend) said the amended safety certificate language makes it clear a utility is not shielded from legal responsibilities to fire survivors. The revised proposal says issuance of a safety certificate “does not establish immunity” for a utility and does not relieve it of the obligation to prevent wildfires.
Kropf was a co-sponsor of HB 3666, and said the goal of the proposal is to prevent utility-caused wildfires by giving utilities clear expectations.
As with the original proposal, the revised safety certificate plan raised concerns. Committee member Rep. Farrah Chaichi (D-Beaverton) said, if the certificate is used in a negligence trial as evidence of a utility’s reasonableness, it “is still going to color some of the outcomes of litigation.”
Chaichi voted against adding the language to SB 926, but then voted in favor of the amended bill because “we can’t do nothing” for wildfire survivors.
Also voting against the amendment was Rep. Thuy Tran (D-Portland). The bill passed the committee unanimously after being amended, with a recommendation for passage on the House floor and a referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
If the bill is approved by the House, it would return to the Senate due to the significant revisions. If the Senate approves the House version, the bill would be sent to the governor’s desk for a signature. If the Senate rejects the changes or proposes its own revisions, a conference committee of both chambers will decide the fate of the bill.
Legislators have until the end of the 2025 session on June 29 to pass the bill.
The resurrection of the safety certificate did not surprise Sen. Fred Girod (R-Silverton), who was the original sponsor of SB 926. After SB 926 passed the Senate, Girod said members of the House were “pretty insistent” on passing HB 3666 and that it was likely to come up in amendments.
He said HB 3666 was “pretty much the opposite” of SB 926, in that the former offered protections for utilities while the latter prioritized fire survivors. Girod is himself a survivor of the Santiam Fire and a litigant in a class action lawsuit against PacifiCorp over the fire.
He said lawmakers are “trying to make sausage” and that the reintroduction of the safety certificate program gives SB 926 a better chance of clearing the House.
Girod said the goal was a compromise between giving utilities clear expectations for wildfire preparedness, and crafting regulations that prompt utilities to make good on wildfire judgments.
“What we’re trying to do is find some middle ground,” he said.
