SB 926 addresses utility-caused wildfire liability and wildfire risk management for large electric companies in Oregon. The bill applies to electric companies serving more than 25,000 retail electricity consumers and limits what costs those companies may recover from customers when a court or jury finds that a wildfire resulted from the company’s negligence or a higher degree of fault. In those circumstances, the company may not pass through to ratepayers certain litigation costs, settlement costs, fines or penalties, or costs to repair or replace company property damaged in the wildfire.
The bill also creates several procedural protections for wildfire plaintiffs. It requires an electric company with outstanding wildfire judgments above a specified threshold to ask the Public Utility Commission to investigate proposed dividend, profit, stock, or ownership-interest payments and allows the commission to suspend those payments and impose conditions while the judgment remains unpaid. It authorizes courts, in qualifying wildfire cases, to require a security or bond, to award prejudgment interest from the date of the wildfire or liability, and to enter supplemental judgments for additional tax liabilities tied to the final judgment.
In addition, SB 926 establishes an annual wildfire safety certification process. Electric companies must apply to the Public Utility Commission and may receive certification if they have an approved wildfire protection plan, are implementing it, have addressed deficiencies, and demonstrate a commitment to wildfire safety. The certification is evidence of compliance with wildfire safety standards, but it does not provide immunity from wildfire damage claims or eliminate the duty to use reasonable care. The bill also requires the commission to adopt implementing rules and sets a deadline for the first application.
Finally, the bill directs the Public Utility Commission to commission a third-party study on catastrophic wildfire risk and recovery, including the effects of wildfire liability on utility finances, insurance, capital access, reliability, clean energy goals, and compensation for affected communities. The study must produce interim findings for the 2026 session and recommend a stakeholder process for future legislation, and the costs of the study are to be paid by electric companies rather than ratepayers. The bill takes effect immediately as an emergency measure and applies its litigation provisions to wildfires ignited on or after January 1, 2020.
Overall, the bill appears to have support but also reflects a balancing effort between wildfire victims, utility customers, and electric-company financial stability. The recorded votes show clear committee and floor approval in the Senate and unanimous committee approval in the House committee stage, suggesting generally favorable sentiment. The main point of contention is the extent to which wildfire-related costs should be borne by utility shareholders versus customers, and how far the state should go in restricting utility distributions and imposing financial safeguards while still preserving utility access to capital and reliable service.
SB 926 would amend Oregon utility law, including ORS chapter 757, by adding new wildfire-related restrictions and procedures for large electric companies. It would bar recovery from retail electricity consumers of specified wildfire-related costs after a finding of negligence or greater fault, require Public Utility Commission oversight of certain distributions when wildfire judgments remain outstanding, create a wildfire safety certification program, and authorize court-ordered security, prejudgment interest, and supplemental tax-related judgments in qualifying wildfire cases. It also directs the commission to conduct a wildfire risk and recovery study and to fund that work through assessments on electric companies rather than ratepayers.
The bill’s recorded votes indicate generally favorable sentiment, with strong approval in the Senate and unanimous approval in the House committee vote on the amended version. The structure of the bill suggests lawmakers were trying to respond to wildfire accountability concerns while also preserving utility reliability and financial viability. The inclusion of a study and stakeholder process indicates an effort to continue developing a broader policy solution rather than settling every issue in this bill alone.
The central contention is how to allocate wildfire costs and risk between electric companies, their shareholders, and customers. Supporters of the bill’s restrictions are likely focused on preventing utilities from shifting negligence-related wildfire costs onto ratepayers and ensuring victims can recover damages. Opponents or skeptics may be concerned that the bill’s limits on dividends, stock repurchases, and cost recovery could affect utility creditworthiness, access to capital, insurance costs, and ultimately electric reliability and rates. There is also an implicit tension between creating a certification process that recognizes wildfire mitigation efforts and making clear that certification does not shield a utility from liability.