HB1032 – Requires utility planning for wildfire risks and identification of best management practices.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dent (R; 13th District; Kittitas County) (Co-Sponsors Graham – R;  Chapman, Ryu, Reed, and Ramel – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 14th and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate unanimously April 8th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5039 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources January 13th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 15th. Replaced by a second substitute, and passed out of Appropriations February 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 4th.

Substitutes –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it. The 2nd substitute would drop DNR’s role in reviewing private utilities’ plans, assigning that responsibility to the UTC, and authorizing private utilities to seek to recover the costs and investments of their plans in rate proceedings there.

Summary –
Requires each electric utility to create a wildfire management plan by October 31, 2024 and update it every three years. An independent consultant selected by the State Energy Office after consultation with stakeholders and the public would develop the format for the plans and a list of recommended actions to be included in them, including best practice guidance for those actions. Each utility’s plan would include a review of its specific circumstances and incorporate the appropriate identified actions from the list; abutting utilities could develop collaborative plans. Private utilities’ plans would be reviewed by the Utilities and Transportation Commission and public utilities’ would be reviewed by their governing boards, in consultation with various other agencies. Reviewers would provide feedback to the utilities, but as I read the bill, it doesn’t quite require their approval of the plans. (They’re to “confirm” whether it contains the appropriate recommended actions.)  The bill also disclaims any State responsibility for subsequent problems.)

The consultant’s list is to include actions related to:
(a) Vegetation management along transmission and distribution lines and near associated equipment;
(b) Infrastructure inspection and maintenance repair activities, schedules, and recordkeeping;
(c) Modifications or upgrades to facilities and construction of new facilities to incorporate cost-effective measures to minimize fire risk;
(d) Preventative programs, including adoption of new technologies to harden utility infrastructure;
(e) Operational procedures;
(f) Identification of appropriate widths for vegetation management and rights-of-way, including the consideration of fire-resistant vegetation alternatives;
(g) Protocols for disabling reclosers and deenergizing portions of the electric system along with associated communication plans for impacted parties and the public, including highly impacted communities, vulnerable populations, and persons reliant on electricity to maintain necessary life functions; and
(h) Public and interested parties’ engagement and communication plans addressing wildfire safety and risk mitigation.

Each electric utility’s protocols have to include plans for mitigating the public safety impacts of deenergizing portions of the system, considering the impacts on critical first responders, local and tribal governments, health and communication infrastructure, and those populations at increased risk. Decisions about whether or not to shut down parts of the system are reserved to the utilities.