State lawmakers are debating whether public utilities should have protection from lawsuits if their wires cause a wildfire. The bill under consideration would require it to be proven by clear and convincing evidence that a utilities’ property caused a fire.
Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services joined The Show to talk about what to expect this week at the state capitol.
Full conversation
MARK BRODIE: Good morning Howie.
HOWARD FISCHER: Good morning. Another week in paradise here at the Capitol.
BRODIE: Another week in paradise indeed. So it sounds as though there might be some changes coming to this particular bill dealing with utilities and wildfires?
FISCHER: Exactly, I think this was essentially a dream of utilities to say, look, we don't want to wind up in a situation like Pacific Gas and Electric, which ended up actually having to file bankruptcy in California after their wires caused fires.
First of all, you've got wires that sag when they touch the trees. You also have the question of whether somebody should have cut off the power to some of these, these lines, particularly these high voltage lines. So utilities came in and said, well, look, you know, normal lawsuits require what they call a preponderance of the evidence is more than likely than less that something is true.
And they said, Well, that's, you know, tell you what we're going to do. We will come up with our own plans to mitigate and if we follow our plans, it takes clear and convincing evidence. Now that's not quite the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is much harder to prove.
BRODIE: Yeah.
FISCHER: They also wanted limits on what they call consequential damages. In other words, not just that we burn down your home, but that, you know you have to have someplace else to live. You know, we also torched your car, and therefore you need to rent a car and things like that. And that proved, I think, a little too much for a couple of folks.
The measure that's actually up for debate this afternoon in a Senate committee would go ahead and say no, tell you what guests do. Your plans find ways to prevent your wires from causing fires, we will give you some protections. But if you think you're getting the get-out-of-jail-free card, that's not going to happen.
BRODIE: Well, how, how much are they looking to scale back some of the protections for utilities?
FISCHER: Well, I think clear and convincing evidence is gone. I think there's no way they're going to say that, because, again, it's hard to prove.
You've got something else that's very important. Arizona has a provision in the Constitution under what they call Article 18, Section 6, which prohibits the Legislature from limiting the ability of people to sue and collect for damages. So even assuming they could get that through, it is probably suspect, because of the fact that we 'd be telling people, well, yeah, yes, you were damaged by the utilities, but you can't prove it to this particular standard.
The other thing that the opponents of the bill, as it passed, the house has gone for them, is it's not only supported by homeowners, but supported by insurance companies. Because the insurance companies figure if the utilities are not responsible, if we can't get our damages back that we pay to our homeowners and utilities, we're on the hook for these damages. Yeah, and so you have this, this fight of the titans, you know, Arizona public Service versus State Farm, if you will.
BRODIE: Right. So, Howie, there's another bill coming up in an appropriations committee tomorrow that would set aside $50 million to the Department of Public Safety for local border support.
Is this something that is sort of a statement bill that Republicans and other supporters are generally hoping to get in the budget? Or might this be something stand alone?
FISCHER: Well, I think anything with money needs to go into the budget. You can't just take $50 million out, even if you have an $18 billion budget and say we're going to give this away. You're right. It's, in some ways, a statement showing we are supportive of the border. We're going to do more. You know, the voters passed this Border Protection Act last year as the state taking an active role in water enforcement.
And so here's where we show we care about our local police departments. We care about our Sheriff's Department. We care about the cost of incarcerating people, but again, it's got to be part of the larger budget. Because remember, we not only have people trying to take money out of the budget in terms of spending it, we have people on the other end, like Senator Mesnard and Representative Olson who want to cut the amount of money going into the budget with tax cuts right. somewhere it's got to get fixed.
The other problem they have, of course, is getting past. Katie Hobbs, you know, the governor is not going to sign a budget she considers to be unbalanced. Now she has higher priorities, if within her mind, in terms of what has to be funded, perhaps, than Republicans do. So this is going to end up the thing that's going to keep us here at least another couple of weeks.
BRODIE: Well, Howie, very briefly, do you have a sense as to whether or not the governor thinks this $50 million should be in the budget?
FISCHER: I think she's willing to talk about it. I think she's willing to say, you know, we need to support our local law enforcement. It does plug in with her philosophy, which is one. We support border crime fighting. We do not support having the state take a role in immigration enforcement. And depending on the wording on it, she might be willing to do it.
But again, I think the price tag is going to be the thing that's going to sink this. She said, let's show me an entire budget. Show me how this fits in. Show me how we're also funding the other stuff. I mean, this whole fight over developmental disabilities, yeah, and whether we need $200 million there just to get through the end of this year, and that's what, where the rubber meets the road on this right?
