HB 490 revises Montana law governing wildfire risk and electric utilities by creating a statutory wildfire mitigation planning framework for electric facilities providers. The bill defines covered entities broadly, including regulated utilities, electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, certain other owners of electric facilities, and federally regulated transmitting utilities that engage in transmission and distribution activities. It requires these entities to prepare and implement a wildfire mitigation plan by December 31, 2025, with updates at least every three years, and to include specified elements such as risk-area identification, inspection and maintenance practices, vegetation management, equipment upgrades, de-energization procedures, restoration methods, cost estimates, public outreach, and coordination with fire protection plans.
The bill also establishes a review and approval process for those plans. Approval authorities vary by utility type, and the Public Service Commission may adopt rules for review of regulated utilities’ plans. Plans are subject to public comment, review by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and Montana Disaster and Emergency Services for plans before the commission, and approval based on whether the plan contains required components, is in the public interest, and reasonably balances cost and wildfire risk. Electric cooperatives must present incremental costs to their boards, but those costs are not part of the plan itself. The bill further requires annual reporting on wildfire mitigation efforts and compliance with the approved plan.
A major legal effect of HB 490 is to revise civil liability standards for wildfire-related claims against electric facilities providers. It bars strict liability and limits recovery to claims proving that the utility failed to exercise the care expected of a reasonable similarly situated provider and that the failure caused the damage. If a provider has substantially followed an approved wildfire mitigation plan, the bill creates a rebuttable presumption that it acted reasonably. It also limits punitive damages, sets a three-year limitations period, and includes special rules for tree contact outside an area the utility has a legal right to access or maintain.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress is favorable but not unanimous. It passed both chambers, often by wide margins, suggesting broad support for giving utilities clearer standards and liability protection while encouraging wildfire prevention efforts. At the same time, the votes on amendments and committee action show some resistance, especially in the Senate, where a motion to amend failed and final passage was more divided than in the House. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a utility reliability and wildfire-risk management measure, but one that also shifts legal protections in a way that drew some opposition.
The main point of contention is the balance between wildfire accountability and utility liability protection. Supporters appear to favor the bill’s effort to encourage proactive mitigation, provide certainty to utilities, and avoid strict liability for fires caused by factors beyond a utility’s control. Critics likely focused on the reduction in available legal theories, the rebuttable presumption tied to plan compliance, and the limits on damages and punitive recovery, which may make it harder for wildfire victims to recover. The bill’s treatment of cost recovery, de-energization decisions, and the scope of protected entities are also likely areas of concern.
HB 490 adds a new statutory part to Title 69, chapter 2, governing wildfire mitigation plans and civil liability for electric facilities providers. It imposes planning, reporting, and approval requirements on utilities and related entities, authorizes PSC rulemaking for regulated utilities, and creates a new negligence-based liability standard that replaces strict liability or broader common-law wildfire claims for covered conduct. It also affects potential plaintiffs, insurers, and utilities by limiting damages, establishing a limitations period, and creating a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness for entities that substantially follow an approved plan.
The bill’s overall sentiment appears supportive and pragmatic, with lawmakers advancing it through both chambers and ultimately enacting it. The strong final votes suggest broad agreement that wildfire risk management for electric utilities needed clearer statutory rules and that utilities should have incentives and protections when they adopt approved mitigation plans. However, the narrower votes on some amendments and in some Senate stages indicate meaningful concern about the liability protections and the extent to which the bill favors utilities over wildfire claimants.
The central controversy is whether HB 490 appropriately balances wildfire prevention with accountability for utility-caused fires. Supporters likely argued that electric utilities need certainty, a workable standard of care, and protection from strict liability because they provide essential public service and may face wildfire risks beyond their control. Opponents likely objected to the bill’s liability shield, the rebuttable presumption for utilities that follow approved plans, the restriction on punitive damages, and the exclusion of some evidence such as incremental costs from the substantial-compliance analysis. The Senate’s failed amendment motion suggests there was disagreement over how far the bill should go in limiting civil exposure and how much discretion approval authorities should retain.