Key Points: A bill to reduce liability for utility companies that start wildfires has been amended The amendments remove many of the sweeping protections for utilities The new bill is tolerable for utilities and received far more approval from opponents A deal has been reached on a measure that proposed sweeping and arguably unconstitutional liability protections for the state's electric utilities for wildfires caused by their equipment.  The agreement eliminates major opposition from insurance companies and trial lawyers who had fought the proposal being pushed by Arizona Public Service Co., Tucson Electric Power and other utilities. While giving utilities new protection, it still allows some lawsuits against them if their equipment sparks a major blaze.  The Senate approved the changes negotiated between lawmakers, utilities, opponents and the governor's office on April 22. It now needs a formal vote before returning to the House, which had OK'd a much more robust liability shield for power companies in February. The deal ensures that utilities receive some new cover from lawsuits while still allowing people and businesses affected by wildfires to sue if utilities don't abide by their own wildfire plans. It still has opposition from lawmakers, with two Democrats questioning it during debate, although they praised the work done to amend the measure.  The amendments to House Bill 2201 authored by Sens. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, and Brian Fernandez, D-Yuma, remove many of the liability protections remaining in the bill after earlier changes pushed by Mesnard stripped it of the most contentious and legally dubious provisions sought by the utilities. They also restore the ability of people to win punitive damage awards from utilities. Those changes also ensure that the newly-mandated wildfire migration plans from utility companies are effective and are reviewed and approved by experts at the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Earlier provisions had the Arizona Corporation Commission reviewing plans for regulated utilities and the boards of public power entities like Salt River Project approving their own plans.  If utility providers follow the new plans, they will be assured that they cannot be sued for failing to take the necessary steps to limit the risk of sparking a wildfire. While far from the sweeping liability shield originally sought by the utilities, it's still a major win for them if it is adopted. "They’re still getting what they basically were looking for — a way that if they come up with a plan and they follow the plan that they don't have to worry about that excess liability,'' said Fernandez. "And that’s what this is all about.'' APS and the other utilities faced opposition from trial lawyers and national insurers, groups that normally are at odds but united to oppose the initial proposal.  For insurers, the sweeping liability shield in the original proposal would have barred them from recovering payments from homeowners or businesses for property damage caused by at-fault utilities that resulted in fires. Trial lawyers were against the measure originally because it made it virtually impossible to sue a utility company on behalf of their clients. Lobbyists for both groups told Capitol Media Services on April 22 that they no longer oppose the reworked bill. "It went from one of the worst bills in the country to one of the better bills in the country,'' said Marc Osborn, a lobbyist who represents Farmers, Geico, Nationwide and Allstate at the Capitol. Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, praised the work Fernandez and Mesnard did to come up with a deal, but still she ultimately opposed the measure. "Whereas it was a terrible bill before, it's simply now a bad bill as far as public policy because it amounts to a huge gift to the utilities,'' Kuby said. "It allows them to be negligent but not liable as long as they have a plan.'' Utilities in California, Oregon and Colorado have faced massive lawsuits after their equipment was found or suspected to be the cause of forest fires that in some cases consumed whole communities. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in California was forced to seek bankruptcy protection a year after its poorly maintained equipment sparked a 2018 fire that destroyed the northern California town of Paradise and killed 85 people.  That’s what APS and the other utilities fear — a massive wildfire that bankrupts the company.  APS, TEP, and the other utilities will still be sued if they fail to comply with the new wildfire mitigation plans they are required to create. However, if they do follow the plans, they can't be sued for failing to follow "best practices." Gone from the initial bill that passed by the House in February are the far-reaching bans on punitive and other damages initially sought by utilities.  Mesnard said during the floor debate on April 22 that utilities might be forced to take drastic action, such as shutting off power prematurely during high wind events if they didn’t get the new liability protections.  That could leave lots of people without power just because the utility is trying to protect itself from a potential lawsuit. Or, he said, the utility could decide to spend "a boatload of money'' to upgrade equipment to avoid a fire and subsequent lawsuit — money ultimately paid by their customers. "So that was the genesis behind the bill, as we don’t want to be facing that kind of crappy choice,'' Mesnard said.  Mesnard acknowledged that the initial version of the bill drafted by APS was far too generous to the utilities, which led him and others to drastically amend it.  "But it really comes down to the fundamental question: If they fulfill a plan, if they follow the rules and everyone knows in advance what the rules are going to be, should we give them a little bit of grace?'' Mesnard asked. "Because otherwise the cost will ultimately be paid by the ratepayer.''