logo
Bill on wildfire prevention work could give utilities immunity from lawsuits

Bill on wildfire prevention work could give utilities immunity from lawsuits

Yahoo27-02-2025

Sam Drevo walks by the burned foundation of his mother's home in Gates following the 2020 Labor Day fires. (Photo courtesy of Tyler Westfall)
A bill that would establish minimum wildfire prevention standards for electric utilities in exchange for an annual certificate from the Oregon Public Utility Commission would give them immunity from being held accountable in lawsuits, lawyers say.
If passed, House Bill 3666 would give utilities a state-sanctioned defense against lawsuits when their equipment starts fires, leaving customers holding the bag for damages caused by multi-billion dollar companies that provide electricity to nearly 75% of Oregonians, lawyers and survivors warn.
Rep. Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, filed the bill Tuesday to create standards for wildfire prevention work undertaken by utilities, she said. That would result in safer communities and help the utilities stay insured by avoiding costly lawsuits, she added.
But critics of the bill, including members of the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association who participated in workgroup meetings on the bill convened by Marsh, said the bill would be used as a 'get-out-of-jail-free card' for the utilities.
Each year, the large investor-owned electric utilities are required to submit wildfire prevention plans to the Oregon Public Utility Commission. Under House Bill 3666, the commission would review the plans and issue a 'wildfire safety certification' for 12 months if the plan meets new, state-established standards.
'A wildfire safety certification establishes that an applicant is acting reasonably with regard to wildfire safety practices and materially consistent with the applicant's wildfire protection plan or wildfire mitigation plan,' the bill states.
The PUC would also be given the authority and resources to monitor that the utilities do the work promised in their wildfire prevention plans.
But Cody Berne, a governor at large with the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association and an attorney at the Portland-based law firm Stoll Berne, which is representing survivors of the historic 2020 Labor Day fires, said utilities would use the certification to their advantage in court: They could argue they had 'acted reasonably' even if they were responsible for starting catastrophic fires like those in 2020 that killed 11 people and destroyed 4,000 homes.
In 2023, a Multnomah County jury found PacificCorp guilty of being reckless and negligent in a class action lawsuit over the 2020 Labor Day fires and awarded plaintiffs hundreds of millions of dollars. To date, according to the company's website, it's agreed or been ordered to pay more than $1 billion to residents and companies affected by the fires.
Berne said that the state should hold utilities accountable for their actions.
'The Legislature shouldn't give massive corporations a bailout over keeping communities safe,' Berne said.
Berkshire Hathaway, PacificCorp's owner, recently reported year-over-year revenues up 71% from 2023 to a record $14.5 billion, and operating profits of $47 billion, up 27% from 2023.
Representatives of the Trial Lawyers Association said they warned Marsh that the bill, which has not yet been assigned to a committee, would give utilities immunity from culpability in lawsuits. But she refuted that.
'We spent a lot of time talking about whether there should be additional legal protections associated with this, and we did not attach any of that,' Marsh told the Capital Chronicle. 'The bill does not have, you know, specific statements about what a safety certification implies, from a legal protection point of view; we didn't put those on.'
Marsh is among the lawmakers that utilities have courted through donations. Since 2018, she's received $10,500 from Portland General Electric, about $1,500 a year. In its latest donation Jan. 8, PGE gave her $1,000. She's also received $5,500 from PacifiCorp since 2018, including $1,000 from the company in October 2024. She's received about the same amount — $5,500 — during the last seven years from Idaho Power, an investor-owned utility serving about 20,000 customers in eastern Oregon.
State Rep. Jason Kropf, D-Bend, is co-sponsoring the bill, along with state Rep. Kevin Mannix, a Republican from Salem.
In workgroup sessions, Oregon's big monopoly utilities — PacifiCorp's Pacific Power and Portland General Electric, or PGE – advocated for the wildfire safety regulations in the bill and certification from the Public Utility Commission.
Kristen Sheeran, a lobbyist for PGE, said the bill doesn't give utilities 'absolute immunity' but she said the companies need to 'zero out the risk' to prevent insurance loss and skyrocketing premiums, which have tripled for the company in recent years, she said.
'What if the utility has done absolutely everything to reduce the risk of wildfire related to equipment, and then 100-mile an hour wind blows an ember from 5 miles away? Or a squirrel literally climbs into a transformer and creates a spark?' she said.
PacifiCorp representatives were also in the workgroup. A company spokesperson, Simon Gutierrez, did not address questions of whether the bill could be used by the company to shield itself from wildfire liability. In an email he said the bill is 'a meaningful and holistic solution to address the foundational issues posed by wildfire risk, seeking to strike a balance between accountability and criticality.'
Ted Case, executive director of the Oregon Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which represents 18 electric cooperatives in the state, also participated in the workgroup. He said the group supports the legislation.
And Bob Jenks, director of the consumer watchdog Citizens' Utility Board, who attended meetings as well, said the board hasn't endorsed or opposed the bill while waiting for a review from the board's lawyer. But he said having enforceable wildfire prevention standards could be helpful.
'Right now utilities submit wildfire mitigation plans, right? Those plans are accepted, and that's the end of it,' he said. 'What I pushed for is: there needs to be an auditing function for the commission to go and check to see if they're doing those plans,' Jenks said.
California's wildfire safety certificate program served as a precedent for House Bill 3666, Marsh said. But California laws on wildfire liability are far more robust than those in Oregon.
In California, big electric utilities are, by law, 'strictly liable' for any damages caused by their activity or equipment, regardless of fault or foreseeability. Because the private investor-owned utilities in California, as in Oregon, are considered state-sanctioned monopolies, California law dictates they be held accountable under the same damages laws applicable to state agencies or individuals. California also has a multi-billion fund to pay wildfire survivors, and utilities are required to pay into it. Oregon has no such fund to aid victims in the aftermath of a utility-caused wildfire.
Sam Drevo, a survivor of the 2020 Labor Day fires in the Santiam Canyon, is among those waiting for PacifiCorp to pay damages. Drevo said he was 'awestruck' that Oregon legislators would propose offering PacifiCorp any relief while he and many others are waiting for damages to be paid.
He and hundreds of other survivors have been forced to each sue PacifiCorp, submit to psychological evaluations, handover medical and financial records and in trial, show that they were not negligent.
Despite the jury verdict and settlements with hundreds of victims, PacifiCorp has never accepted its responsibility and the Oregon Public Utility Commission has never investigated, both sore points for survivors.
'Do you think the Legislature should be taking care of PacifiCorp while Oregonians who were burned up in 2020 and 2022 are still suffering, not able to rebuild and move on with their lives?' Drevo said. 'How it could even be brought to the Legislature in this moment is, to me, I mean — are they even representing Oregonians?'
The lone bill in the current session to pressure PacifiCorp to resolve the pending lawsuits with Oregonians is House Bill 3161, proposed by Rep. Jamie Cate, R-Lebanon.It would prevent utilities from raising rates while they are still facing years-long lawsuits over wildfire culpability and costs. The bill, in the the House Judiciary Committee, has bipartisan support but has yet to have a hearing.
On House Bill 3666, Cate said she can see some rationale for limiting the liability of utility companies who do good work keeping communities safe, but called it 'a slap in the face to victims if a company like Pacific Power could qualify for that protection.'
Cate said her bill has been sidelined by some supporters of Marsh's bill.
'I also think it's unfortunate that the push by proponents of absolving utilities from any liability has proven effective in killing a bill that could have helped hold Pacific Power accountable for their undeniable negligence. But doing so would have undermined the argument of why they need immunity from wrongdoing to begin with.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump escalates battle with Columbia University, threatens accreditation
Trump escalates battle with Columbia University, threatens accreditation

American Military News

time36 minutes ago

  • American Military News

Trump escalates battle with Columbia University, threatens accreditation

The Trump administration has launched a process to try to strip Columbia University of its accreditation over a finding the school had failed to meaningfully protect Jewish students from harassment. On Wednesday, the U.S. Education Department notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Columbia's accreditor, that the school was in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws and accordingly does not meet the commission's standards. The government issued the finding May 22. 'Just as the Department of Education has an obligation to uphold federal anti-discrimination law, university accreditors have an obligation to ensure member institutions abide by their standards,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. A rep for the accreditor confirmed it had received the letter that afternoon but declined to comment further. The threat to Columbia's accreditation is a serious one. Most federal funding, including financial aid, hinges on a school being accredited. While it appears that only accreditors could revoke Columbia's status, the accrediting entities themselves have to be recognized by the Education Department. 'Columbia is aware of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights today to our accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and we have addressed those concerns directly with Middle States,' said Columbia spokesperson Virginia Lam Abrams. 'Columbia is deeply committed to combating antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it.' The dramatic escalation of the Trump administration's assault on Columbia came as the New York City-based Ivy League school is negotiating with federal agencies over $400 million in canceled grants and contracts, mainly impacting medical research. The university has made various concessions to the government — including more oversight of Middle Eastern studies and ways of cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests — that have so far proved insufficient to restore the funding. McMahon's statement threatened the federal funding that Columbia receives through student financial aid. In a press release, the Education Department said accreditors must take 'appropriate action' against schools such as Columbia to come into compliance within a specified period. 'Accreditors have an enormous public responsibility as gatekeepers of federal student aid. They determine which institutions are eligible for federal student loans and Pell Grants,' McMahon said. 'We look forward to the commission keeping the department fully informed of actions taken to ensure Columbia's compliance with accreditation standards.' Columbia goes through the accreditation process about every 10 years and was recently being evaluated by the president of Johns Hopkins University, according to Stand Columbia Society, a group of faculty and alumni — who as of last month said the undertaking was 'going very smoothly.' 'Accreditation was never designed to be political. In fact, one of the things that has made accreditation so successful was how the apolitical and obscure machinery of quality control hummed in the background,' Stand Columbia wrote in a newsletter last month. 'But now, for the first time in a hundred years, that backstage machinery is being pulled into the political spotlight. Where it goes from here is uncertain. What's clear is that accreditation is no longer something most people can afford to ignore.' Columbia became the epicenter of campus protests against Israel's military campaign in Gaza when students pitched an encampment last spring calling on their administrators to divest from the war. The demonstration came to a head when a smaller group of protesters occupied Hamilton Hall, prompting the university to call in the NYPD and make mass arrests. More recently, dozens of students took over Butler Library to protest the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia graduate student, and what they see as Columbia's role in his arrest by federal immigration authorities in early March. Pro-Palestinian students and their allies have accused Columbia and the Trump administration of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. ___ © 2025 New York Daily News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade
South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade

Los Angeles Times

time2 hours ago

  • Los Angeles Times

South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit the Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach, even if that leads to more inmates. For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600-million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.' Raza writes for the Associated Press.

No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns

Los Angeles Times

time5 hours ago

  • Los Angeles Times

No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns

MEXICO CITY — More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. 'No More Weapons,' was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. 'Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal,' said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda,' said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico 'to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence.' The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. 'This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States,' Sheinbaum said Friday. 'But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico.' Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. 'In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. 'We want to help stop that flow.' On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. 'This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico,' Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. 'It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico.' In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ('Boss of Bosses') pistol; and a handgun dubbed the 'Emiliano Zapata,' emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic 'war' on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. 'The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups,' said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. 'And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns.' Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store