AN ACT to create and enact a new chapter to title 49 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to strict liability and a wildfire mitigation plan of a qualified utility; and to provide for a report.
SB 2339 creates a new chapter in North Dakota law governing wildfire mitigation for certain electric utilities and transmission providers. The bill defines “qualified utility” broadly to include investor-owned electric public utilities, rural electric cooperatives, municipal electric utilities, municipal joint action agencies, and electric transmission providers. It also defines “hazardous vegetation” and authorizes these utilities to develop wildfire mitigation plans that identify high-risk areas, vegetation management practices, infrastructure inspection and upgrade procedures, recloser-disabling protocols, restoration procedures, cost estimates, public outreach efforts, and coordination with state or local wildfire plans.
The bill sets standards for those plans, requiring consistency with ANSI A300 Part 7 and the 2023 National Electrical Safety Code. For investor-owned utilities and transmission providers, plans may be filed with the Public Service Commission; for cooperatives and municipal utilities, plans may be submitted to their boards of directors or governing bodies. Plans must be updated or reapproved every two years, and utilities must publish them on their websites. The bill also allows annual compliance reports and requires publication of those reports when submitted.
SB 2339 changes state law by limiting the application of strict liability in wildfire-related damage cases against qualified utilities, meaning courts may not impose strict liability on those utilities for alleged wildfire damages. It also creates a rebuttable presumption that a utility exercised reasonable care if it prepares, publishes, and complies with an approved wildfire mitigation plan. The practical effect is to encourage formal mitigation planning while providing utilities with some legal protection if they follow the statutory process. The bill affects electric public utilities, rural electric cooperatives, municipal electric utilities, municipal joint action agencies, electric transmission providers, and the Public Service Commission, while also creating transparency obligations through website publication and periodic reporting.
The bill appears to have generally favorable support, especially in the Senate, where it passed overwhelmingly with only one dissenting vote on second reading. The House showed more division, with one second-reading vote initially failing and a later second-reading vote passing by a wider margin, indicating some initial uncertainty or disagreement before final passage. Overall, the voting history suggests broad support for wildfire preparedness and utility planning, but with meaningful concern in the House about the liability protections and regulatory approach.
The main point of contention is the bill’s liability provision. Opponents or skeptical members likely objected to the restriction on strict liability for wildfire-related damages, viewing it as a legal shield for utilities that could reduce accountability for fire-caused losses. Another area of debate is the balance between wildfire prevention and reliable electric service, especially the provisions on disabling reclosers and the potential impacts on public safety, first responders, and communications infrastructure. Supporters likely emphasized proactive vegetation management, transparency, and risk reduction, while critics focused on whether the bill gives utilities too much protection relative to affected property owners and communities.