As wildfires intensify, utilities want liability protections
Alex Brown,
Tribune News Service
As climate change drastically increases the frequency and severity of wildfires, power companies say they're facing growing risk for payouts that could bankrupt them or require massive rate hikes on customers. Across the West, electrical utilities are pushing state lawmakers to grant them legal immunity or limit damage payouts if their equipment sparks a blaze. They're backing bills, which have passed or been proposed in at least eight states over the past few years, that would require the utilities to follow plans to limit their risks of causing a fire, such as trimming trees or burying power lines. In exchange for taking those steps, lawmakers would give utilities protection from lawsuits that could expose them to billions of dollars in damage claims. 'We're only one wildfire away from bankruptcy,' said Shawn Taylor, executive director of the Wyoming Rural Electric Association, a group that represents electrical cooperatives. 'Even if we avoid bankruptcy, we'd have huge rate increases to cover the cost of a lawsuit.'
Already, utilities are facing soaring insurance premiums because of the magnitude of claims they would face if they caused a fire. Taylor and other industry leaders argue that power companies should be granted relief if they take actions to limit their risk. In 2019, Pacific Gas and Electric Company in California declared bankruptcy over its roughly $30 billion liability from a series of wildfires caused by its equipment, including the devastating Camp Fire. And in Oregon, PacifiCorp is facing billions of dollars in damage claims due to its role in the state's 2020 Labor Day fires. PacifiCorp has been a key player backing liability bills in five states, the Oregon Capital Chronicle reported. The proposals face strong opposition from wildfire victims, insurance companies and trial lawyers. Those groups say the bills don't do enough to protect residents from dangerous electrical infrastructure. And insurers say their own customers could pay the price if lawmakers protect utilities.
'When you push in one side of the balloon, it comes out somewhere else,' said Greg Van Horssen, a representative for State Farm Insurance, delivering testimony before the Montana House Judiciary Committee in February. 'If we have a problem with recovering costs for burnt-down houses in Montana, from an insurance company's perspective, we only have one option, and that's to raise the rate of homeowners' insurance.' Utah became the first state to limit utilities' liability when it passed a law in 2020. The law protects companies from negligence charges if they have a wildfire mitigation plan in place, and it puts limits on the damages victims can collect, using a fair market value figure that can fall well short of the full cost to rebuild. This year, Idaho and Wyoming have enacted similar measures, and Montana lawmakers have sent a proposal to the governor. A bill in Arizona has cleared the House, while a North Dakota bill passed the Senate but was narrowly defeated in the House. An Oregon measure is still in committee. Alaska has also considered liability legislation in recent years.
Utah state Rep. Carl Albrecht, a Republican who sponsored that state's liability law, said it has compelled power companies to trim trees, bury lines and take other steps to ensure they are complying with their safety plan. He said utilities are frequent targets of litigation. 'People look at the utility as deep pockets that can pay out a lot of damages,' he said. 'It's whoever has the best attorneys and can sell their case in court.' Michele Beck, director of the Utah Office of Consumer Services, serves as an advocate for Utah energy customers. She said it's difficult to protect electrical customers and wildfire victims at the same time.
'The costs for ratepayers are substantial, and it's reasonable to try and find a balance between these extremely high jury awards,' she said. 'I admit, it's a devastating loss for people who are impacted (by wildfires), but somebody is also paying on the other side.' In Oregon, consumer advocates are similarly torn. 'It is a difficult place to be, having utilities close to bankruptcy and unable to make investments that are necessary to provide service,' said Bob Jenks, executive director of the Oregon Citizens' Utility Board, a nonprofit representing ratepayers. 'At the same time, the principle that customers shouldn't be bailing out utilities for bad practices is a critical standard.' PacifiCorp says it faces more than $45 billion in liabilities, much of that driven by the 2020 Labor Day fires in Oregon. Multiple juries have found the company liable for failing to cut power to its lines. The massive costs PacifiCorp is facing have limited the company's ability to invest in its infrastructure and clean energy, Jenks said. PacifiCorp did not grant a Stateline interview request, but the company has been involved in shaping legislation across several Western states.
Oregon state Rep. Pam Marsh, a Democrat, said her bill would not give utilities legal immunity. It would establish a certification process to ensure utilities are mitigating wildfire risk. 'The utilities need somebody else to help them identify the risk they're carrying,' she said. 'We never meant that if you got a safety certification in April that you're bulletproof over the next year for any sort of wildfire liability.' But some legal experts told the Oregon Capital Chronicle that utilities would likely use their compliance with the certification process in a legal defense against wildfire claims. In Arizona, a liability measure has passed the House and advanced in a Senate committee. The bill would protect companies from lawsuits if they follow mitigation plans. Utility leaders say it's necessary to ensure they can continue providing service.
'Unlike other businesses that might stop doing business in an area where risk has grown too high, we have an obligation to serve customers,' said Joe Barrios, senior media relations specialist with Tucson Electric Power. 'Wildfire liability costs and higher insurance costs are passed along to customers through the rates that they pay. (This bill) helps to maintain service affordability.' But state Rep. Alex Kolodin, a Republican, believes the proposal violates a state constitutional provision that bars the state from limiting residents' right to sue. And he said that limiting utilities' liability will reduce their incentive to take safety measures. 'I wouldn't want to be the legislator who voted for this, and then the utility causes a fire that burns down 200 houses in my district,' he said. 'Then I have to explain to my constituents why they can't recover any damages. 'Sorry, guys, it's because your legislator is an idiot.'' Brandon Vick, a regional vice president with the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies trade group, said utility groups have made a coordinated push across several Western states this session. He noted that more and more residents in fire-prone areas are going without insurance coverage, leaving them with no recourse if they can't seek damages from a utility.
'Utilities are rightfully concerned that they're gonna do something that causes a catastrophic wildfire,' he said. 'The question we've been posing is, who should be responsible when that ultimately happens? [These bills] are really pushing that liability onto the people who can least afford it.' Several states are also considering a wildfire fund similar to the one California enacted in 2019. Such measures allow utilities to set aside money, funded by a mix of rate increases and shareholder contributions, which they can later tap into to help cover damages caused by wildfires. Marsh, the Oregon lawmaker, said her proposal would allow wildfire victims to quickly access funding to rebuild their lives. Residents would still have the option to forgo payouts from the fund and sue utilities for full damages. The bill died in committee amid opposition from wildfire victims who characterised it as a bailout for utilities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
4 days ago
- Gulf Today
Reclaiming the US Flag for ‘No Kings Day'
Paul Loeb, Tribune News Service Will marchers carry flags on "No Kings Day"? On June 14, more than 1,000 local demonstrations will challenge President Donald Trump's North Korean-style military parade for his birthday with our defense of democracy. The 14th is also Flag Day and the 250th anniversary of the US Army. The flag can't replace protest signs. But it complements and amplifies them. The demonstrations send a message that even as Trump and his allies wrap themselves in their flags, they are betraying the best of America. They highlight a culture of corruption where the only Americans who matter are allies of Trump at the top and persons or institutions who would challenge this become subjects of attacks. Our flags make clear, in contrast, that we are defending Americans' fundamental right to speak out, without which all other rights become meaningless. They're a message to all who agree with us but also to all those Americans who voted for Trump or stayed home, rejecting both candidates. Because to change the direction of our country, the support of at least some of these people will be essential. As "No Kings Day" reminds us, 'The flag doesn't belong to Donald Trump. It belongs to us.' But at most anti-Trump protests, flags have been absent or marginal. I counted one when several thousand people marched in Seattle this past May Day, plus scattered Uncle Sam and Statue of Liberty images. That may be because carrying the flag feels uncomfortable, a false embrace for many who've marched to challenge American wars, call out racial injustice, or push back against corporate power. But the flag also stands for legacies of courage and sacrifice that should give us all hope and strength, like the classic World War II image of GIs raising it over Iwo Jima. The flag represents the imperfect but essential mechanisms of democracy that Trump's regime so profoundly threatens, ones that allow us to keep working for justice. In defending these mechanisms and the rule of law, Thomas Jefferson condemned the very Alien and Sedition Acts whose remnants Trump is now abusing. These acts created the power of kings, Jefferson warned, writing of threats to the 'constitutional rights and liberties of the States and by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal.' These acts first targeted 'the friendless alien,' Jefferson wrote, but 'the citizen will soon follow.' Flags have long been part of the protest tradition and may have even more impact when those speaking out are being marginalized or attacked. American labor activists from the radical IWW union carried them at the Lawrence Textile 'Bread and Roses' Strike. They fly next to Martin Luther King Jr. in photos from the 1963 March on Washington and his talks at anti-war rallies. This year, demonstrators who helped defeat South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol's dictatorial power grab waved South Korean flags along with their signs. Some recent anti-Trump rallies have featured them. But they need to become protest staples to help take the flag back. A recent Vietnam trip reminded me of the power of national pride. Americans are welcomed now, even as museums, statues, and street names commemorate heroes in what they call 'the American war,' and the related fights against the Japanese and French occupations. But Vietnam also honors 13th, 15th, and 16th-century kings who resisted and eventually defeated repeated invasions by the Chinese and Mongols. The country's leadership could have dismissed them as the embodiment of now-discarded feudalism. Instead, they present their stories as part of a continuing story of resistance, a history they highlighted during the war as Ho Chi Minh and other leaders talked of fighting for their country, not communism. Whatever the limits of Vietnam's current regime in terms of democracy, this worked because the roots of national patriotism ran deeper than any particular ideology. The threat to American democracy that those of us marching address is internal, of course (with help from white South African billionaires Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and David Sacks). But the lesson of patriotism and national pride as a wellspring of resistance still holds true. I've learned to appreciate those who bring flags to social justice protests. And I finally bought my own the other week at my local hardware store to complement a 'Don't Putinize America' sign I plan to carry. The young woman at the counter's initial look seemed to mark me, an older white man, as a likely Trump supporter. When I said I was buying it for the Trump protest, 'No Kings Day,' she broke into a grin. No matter our anger or disappointment for America failing to achieve much of what it should be, we need to defend what we have had and the possibility of what could be. Making the flag our own helps us do that.
Gulf Today
4 days ago
- Gulf Today
Empathy for animals should cross the party divide
Ashley Byrne, Tribune News Service When you hear the name Richard Nixon, what's the first thing that comes to mind? My answer might surprise you: the Endangered Species Act. Nixon signed this critical bill into law in 1973 after it sailed through Congress with nearly unanimous bipartisan support, stating, 'Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed.' This landmark piece of legislation is responsible for saving many species from extinction, including the peregrine falcon, the gray wolf and the bald eagle. Before Nixon, Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958. While it hasn't effectively ended animal suffering during slaughter, both the Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush administrations worked to strengthen it. Barack Obama ended government funding for experiments on chimpanzees and oversaw the recoveries of numerous wildlife species. Throughout our nation's history, consideration for other species has never been a 'liberal cause' or a 'conservative cause.' It's an issue that we've been united over far more than we've been divided. If we polled Americans and asked, 'Do you support cruelty to animals?' it's likely that almost 100% of respondents would answer 'no,' regardless of their political affiliation. Considering that PETA has worked with such right-wing figures as Senator Bob Dole and G. Gordon Liddy, it's strange when I hear someone falsely suggest that 'only the left cares about animals' or that 'PETA is left-wing.' As a PETA spokesperson, I've been invited to appear on many conservative media platforms and have found much common ground on animal protection issues, including with hosts Tucker Carlson and Jesse Watters. Recently, under President Donald Trump, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have committed to significantly reducing or eliminating many experiments on animals in favor of the sophisticated, human-relevant methods that PETA scientists have been urging the agencies to adopt for years. The president's appointee, NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, practically quoted their appeals when he noted, 'This human-based approach will accelerate innovation, improve healthcare outcomes, and deliver life-changing treatments. It marks a critical leap forward for science, public trust, and patient care.' PETA's Los Angeles office, the Bob Barker Building, is named in honor of a staunch PETA supporter and lifelong Republican. One of the few things that GOP strategist Mary Matalin and her husband, Democratic consultant James Carville, agree on is working with PETA to oppose 'ag-gag' bills, which seek to criminalize documenting abuse of animals raised for food—the very evidence that authorities have frequently relied on to prosecute egregious acts of cruelty. After PETA exposed extreme suffering and death at a Virginia facility that bred beagles for experiments—resulting in its closure and the rescue of nearly 4,000 dogs — Virginia lawmakers unanimously passed five PETA-backed bills providing better protection to animals bred and sold for experiments, which Governor Glenn Youngkin swiftly signed. The state has since passed additional laws requiring more transparency at publicly funded animal testing facilities and giving primates who've been experimented on a chance to retire to accredited sanctuaries. Other conservative leaders have endeavored to ban private ownership and breeding of primates and to put an end to the archaic mink fur farming industry in the US. There's nothing 'left' or 'right' about our ability to recognize that other living beings have the capacity to suffer or about our desire to treat them humanely. Go to any dog park and you'll see guardians sharing conversations, treats and water bowls — oblivious to any political lines that might strongly divide them, simply connecting over their shared appreciation for animals. At a time when things are divisive, it's helpful to remember our mutual respect for other species. And as we work together to promote kindness to animals, we may even find that we have more for one another.
Gulf Today
06-06-2025
- Gulf Today
Why Medicaid work requirements won't work
Kathryn Anne Edwards, Tribune News Service The US labour market is a truly astonishing thing to behold. It includes 171 million Americans, as young as 14 and older than 90, some who never finished elementary school and others with PhDs. It is resilient and dynamic, shrinking during recessions but growing again after. It provides the majority of Americans with the majority of their income. All of which is to say: It is common to look to the labor market as a kind of salve for all economic wounds. Whatever the problem is, the solution is to get people working. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. For all its strength, the labor market is encumbered by the low-wage labor market — where work doesn't support a stable living, and where jobs are so bad they're more salt than salve. This is a reality that Republicans in Congress, in their current push to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, ignore. They are making policy for a labor market that doesn't exist. The 'low-wage labor market' is a vague designation. It's typically defined as those workers who have relatively or absolutely low hourly earnings, such as the bottom quintile or quarter of wage earners, or earners below some nominal wage cutoff. Whatever the definition, however, there are some aspects of the low-wage labor market that are obvious: The low-wage labor market is large. At least 39 million workers in the US earn less than $17 an hour, which is the equivalent of $35,360 annually. That is just below 138% of the poverty threshold for a family of three — the income needed for parents to be eligible for Medicaid in states that expanded it under the Affordable Care Act. Earnings in the low-wage labor market are volatile. Earnings volatility measures change in wage income from one month to the next. Instability at both the very top and very bottom is so great that economists have a term for it: the 'wild ride.' Recent research from the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project shows that low-wage earners see more spikes and dips in income than any other group, with the dips being especially large. They have the most volatile earnings when measured by the coefficient of variation, regardless of whether the household has a single or multiple earners. That volatility can be partly attributed to unpredictable hours. Many low-wage earners are employed in shift work, in which their hours and schedule can vary week to week, often with little notice. According to Harvard's Shift Project, two-thirds of workers in retail and food service get less than two weeks' notice of their schedule, half get less than one week's notice, and 70% report that the timing of their scheduled shifts changes at least once a month. This flexibility is more likely to be imposed by employers rather than requested by employees; the more volatile the hours, the fewer hours typically worked. Low-wage jobs usually also have low-quality benefits. Of private-sector workers in the bottom 25% of the wage distribution, 30% do not have access to any type of leave, whether it is sick, holiday, vacation or personal. Some 56% do not have access to an employer-sponsored health-care plan, while 84% do not have access to an employer-sponsored dental plan. And 50% do not have access to a defined-contribution retirement plan. The bottom line is clear. Working Americans are eligible for social benefits such as Medicaid not only because their pay isn't high enough, but also because it isn't reliable enough. Classic labour theory holds that workers are balancing two conflicting goals: the consumption of purchased goods, and the consumption of leisure time. The former requires time at work; the latter requires time away from work. It is up to the worker to calibrate how much of each they want. Of course, economists will try to predict how workers and consumers will react to any change in their earnings. If a worker gets a wage increase, the 'income effect' would push them to work less: They can still consume the same amount of purchased goods but also have more leisure time. Alternatively, a wage increase could trigger the 'substitution effect,' pushing them to work more: The price of leisure (foregone wages) is now more expensive. But what if that worker gets a non-wage increase from a public benefit? There is no substitution effect, just the income effect — that is, they would work less. This is the economic foundation for the idea that public benefits discourage work. Work requirements are meant to counter this incentive. It sounds reasonable. But for at least 39 million Americans, work brings low wages, unstable earnings, unpredictable hours and few benefits.
