HB 227-ELECTRIC UTILITY LIABILITY  2:49:57 PM CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 227, "An Act relating to liability of an electric utility for contact between vegetation and the utility's facilities." 2:50:32 PM CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on HB 227. 2:50:50 PM LYNN ELLIOTT, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, testified in opposition to HB 227 because the bill lacked a vegetation management plan. She opined that an improved vegetation management plan unique to each co-op and situation could re-balance the risk to the public with the cost of implementation and limit liability. In addition, she recommended adding a provision to allow utilities immunity from a trespass claim if they identify a hazard and provide notice to the landowner. 2:52:57 PM MICHAEL ROVITO, Deputy Director, Alaska Power Association (APA), testified in support of HB 227. He highlighted the ambiguity in the law surrounding the application of liability when vegetation from outside the right of way contacts power lines. This ambiguity has led to costly lawsuits against utilities even when the tree originates outside the right of way, he said, adding that the bill would establish clear direction to the court if a lawsuit were filed following damage caused by vegetation. Importantly, he stressed that HB 227 would not prevent any party from filing a lawsuit against a utility or insulate utilities from liability. He added that electric utilities already operate under robust vegetation management plans unique to their service areas. 2:55:24 PM CHRISTIAN RATAJ, Senior Regional Vice President, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, testified in opposition to HB 227. He stated that the overwhelming trend nationally is to promote wildfire prevention and mitigation, not granting legal immunity for any stakeholder. He shared his understanding that nothing in the bill focuses on reducing wildfire risk and would merely shift responsibility in liability onto homeowners and businesses, thereby excusing the most capable professionals from doing their part in prevention. He spoke in favor of providing utilities conditional immunity. 2:58:34 PM PHILLIP WEIDNER, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 227. He characterized the bill as a "free pass" to electric utilities and opined that the concept of immunity is a great danger to citizens. He referenced the McKinley wildfires and said if the bill were to pass, it would disenfranchise victims and grant immunity to Matanuska Electric Association (MEA). He said the legislature should not be in the business of granting immunity to wrongdoers. 3:01:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked Ms. Elliott to speak to the increase in homeowners' insurance if the bill were to pass. MS. ELLIOTT said amending liability laws to financially shield utilities would shift the burden from one entity to another, thereby shifting the associated cost of losses resulting from utility involved ignition to property owners. She stated that if HB 227 were to pass, homeowners and small business owners would face unintended consequences and adverse impacts. 3:02:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked why other states had not adopted similar legislation. MS. ELLIOTT said she was not aware of any other state that had adopted this kind of immunity. She explained that in most states, plaintiffs suing a utility for wildfire damage must show that the utility acted with recklessness or negligence. 3:05:27 PM CHAIR VANCE closed public testimony on HB 227. She announced that the bill would be set aside.