Bill Description: Senate Bill 1124 would require electric companies to prepare and abide by wildfire mitigation plans in exchange for a liability shield from litigation for wildfire damages.
Rating: -1
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
Senate Bill 1124 would create Chapter 18, Title 61, Idaho Code, titled the "Wildfire Standard of Care Act." This act would require "each electric corporation that is a public utility" to "adopt and file a wildfire mitigation plan with the [Idaho Public Utilities] commission for its review and approval."
The fiscal note for the bill estimates that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) will need two additional Full Time Positions (FTPs) at an ongoing cost of $182,800 (plus $4,600 one-time costs).
While this mandate creates new costs, prudent planning to mitigate the harm caused by wildfires is not an inherently objectionable purpose for government spending.
(0)
Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws that discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion or which apply laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such characteristics. Conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal protection under the law?
Unfortunately, the underlying purpose of the wildfire mitigation plans appears to be less about mitigating wildfires than mitigating liability. The bill says, "An electric corporation that substantially complies with a commission-approved wildfire mitigation plan and whose acts or omissions are not an intentional tort or willful or reckless misconduct … may not be found liable in any civil action brought to recover damages or impose liability, including for death of or injury to persons or property, resulting from any unplanned or uncontrolled fire, or for any action or omission taken in substantial compliance with the wildfire mitigation plan."
Even "if an electric corporation fails to substantially comply with an essential element of a commission-approved wildfire mitigation plan and that failure is the actual and proximate cause of harm to the plaintiff," the bill would still limit what damages a plaintiff may recover "such actual economic damages for property loss as expressly provided in section 38-107(2), Idaho Code; and damages for personal injury subject to the limitations expressly provided in section 6-1603, Idaho Code."
Only in cases where "an electric corporation fails to substantially comply with an essential element of a commission-approved wildfire mitigation plan and that failure is the actual and proximate cause of harm to the plaintiff, and its act or omission constitutes an intentional tort or willful or reckless misconduct" would a plaintiff be allowed to recover punitive damages. And even then, the damages would be limited to $250,000 or three times the compensatory damages contained in such judgment.
Individuals have a right to seek redress and restitution under the law when they suffer harm due to negligence, not just "an intentional tort or willful or reckless misconduct." Electric utilities have a duty of care that should not be suspended simply because they prepare and abide by a wildfire mitigation plan.
(-1)
