For the People, Not the Powerful

Protect Idaho, Not Corporations: The Fight Against S1183 and H303

As we head into what will hopefully be our final week of the session, your elected legislators have some big decisions to make — and not just about the state budget.

Two major corporations, Idaho Power and Bayer, are each pushing bills that would grant them some level of legal immunity. After digging into both proposals, it looks like if these companies can show they’ve taken minimal mitigation steps or simply include certain scientific language on their product labels, they could be shielded from future lawsuits.

It makes you wonder — why would a corporation want to avoid responsibility for its actions and decisions? I’ll leave that for you to decide.

What I can tell you is this: based on everything I’ve reviewed, I will be voting no on both of these bills.

Let’s begin with Idaho Power:

Why are they pushing so hard for this kind of legislation? I can only share my opinion, but maybe — just maybe — it has something to do with the Valley Fire. “Idaho Power has reportedly agreed to an $800,000 settlement to help the state restore winter wildlife habitat that was burned during the Valley Fire last October in the foothills east of Boise.” Read full story HERE.

We started with S1124, which failed in the Senate on a 19-16 vote. But it was quickly brought back for reconsideration by Senator Nichols. We weren’t able to stop it from being revived, so it moved to the 14th order, where it ultimately died.

But that wasn’t the end of it. A new version of the bill was introduced in Senate State Affairs — now as SB1183.

The question is: will this new bill be more citizen-friendly, or will it simply give utilities the protection they’ve been after?

Some differences:

• S1124 offers stronger protection: immunity from liability (not just a presumption) if substantially compliant, unless egregious misconduct is proven. Non-compliance limits damages more explicitly.

• S1183’s presumption can be rebutted, exposing utilities to liability more readily, with damages capped but not tied to a compliance threshold.

• S1124: If access is denied or delayed (no 30-day notice period specified), utilities aren’t liable for damages caused by inability to perform mitigation or repairs.

• S1183: After requesting access via certified mail or electronic means and waiting 30 days with no response or denial, utilities can access property and aren’t liable unless their actions willfully or recklessly cause substantial damage.

• S1124: Approved plans are deemed “reasonable and prudent” in civil actions.

  - Non-public utilities not filing with IPUC can develop their own plans; if they meet 61-1803(2) criteria, courts give deference to these plans, aligning them with approved plans for similar utilities unless evidence shows otherwise.

• S1183: Simply states approved plans establish the utility’s duty, without addressing non-filing utilities or court deference.

In short, while the bills are very similar, S1183 seems like an attempt to revive S1124 with a slightly different angle — but the core protections for utilities remain largely intact.

Now, let’s take a look at who Idaho Power is contributing to. I have a problem with public utilities donating to political candidates — we can’t exactly stop paying our power bills just because we don’t like where their contributions are going.

And yes, I’ve heard the whole song and dance — that just because they give money to a candidate, it doesn’t automatically make that candidate their dance partner. I’ll respectfully disagree.

Once again, I’ll let you form your own opinion on that.

Also want to remind you who the top stock holders of IdaCorp is:

---

Let’s Look At Bayer:

“If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again” seems to be Bayer’s motto. Last year, they brought us S1245, which was defeated in the Senate by a 19-15 vote.

But we knew it wouldn’t disappear for long — they have too much money on the line to just walk away. Sure enough, it’s back this year as H303, now sitting in the House Agriculture Committee, waiting to see if the Chairman will allow a hearing.

So, what’s different between S1245 and H303? Here’s what I’ve found:

1. New language on liability:
   H303 includes updated language that slightly narrows who can bring a lawsuit against Bayer. While S1245 offered broad protections, H303 tries to tighten the scope, but in my opinion, it still leans heavily in Bayer’s favor.

2. Mitigation efforts expanded:
   H303 adds a section requiring some form of mitigation or “best practices” for Bayer to qualify for immunity. However, the standard for what qualifies as “mitigation” is vague and still leaves plenty of room for them to avoid real accountability.

3. Labeling requirements:
   The new bill mentions clearer scientific labeling, but once again, it relies heavily on the assumption that people will read and fully understand these labels — which doesn’t really address the heart of the issue for those affected.

In short, while H303 tries to appear more “citizen-friendly” on paper, it still looks like another attempt to limit Bayer’s liability and protect their bottom line.

Time to look at who Bayer contributes to:

To sum it all up — my position is clear. I will be voting NO on both the Idaho Power and Bayer bills because my priority is protecting the people of Idaho, not shielding powerful corporations from accountability.

I stand firmly where I’ve always stood — of the people, for the people, and by the people. And that will never change.

---

Bible Verse of the Week:

Galatians 6:9: "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.”

Quote of the Week:

Song of the Week: