Opposition dooms Oregon bill aimed at wildfire insurance discounts

SALEM — Opposition from the insurance industry doomed a bill intended to reward Oregon with more affordable insurance rates if they take wildfire mitigation steps.

Under Senate Bill 1540, companies who use wildfire risk models to make insurance decisions would have to demonstrate to state regulators how they take into account risk mitigation measures.

Otherwise, insurers would still have to provide discounts to landowners who take actions meant to increase their property's resilience to wildfire.

Despite negotiations that appeared fruitful throughout the 2026 short legislative session, the insurance industry remained uncomfortable with some of SB 1540's language at the session's recent conclusion.

"We are not in a position to be supportive of the bill at this time," said Kenton Brice, president of the Northwest Insurance Council, during the final hearing on SB 1540. "Our concern is the more prescriptive we make this legislation, the more difficult it is for insurers to comply."

If it's tough for insurance companies to follow the bill's requirements, that will disrupt the overall insurance market in the state and ultimately make insurance more expensive for landowners, Brice said.

However, Brice said the insurance industry would support using SB 1540 as a "study bill" to continue negotiations and arrive at a consensus in time for the 2027 long legislative session.

"We are not in opposition to the concept, although we don't love the concept of having it in statute about how we manage discounts for property owners," he said.

Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, said he was disappointed the bill ended up dying in committee, as lawmakers in Oregon modeled the proposal on legislation on which the insurance industry was neutral in Colorado.

In fact, proponents of SB 1540 made additional concessions to the insurance industry that went beyond what was contained in the Colorado legislation, which passed last year, Golden later told Capital Press.

"They kept telling us they needed a little more and needed a little more, and they got it but opposed it anyway," Golden said. "It surprised us because we kept hearing all session: 'We're so close, and we're liking it better all the time.'"

Despite the concept's approval in Colorado, that bill still hasn't been enacted due to continued discussions about specific regulatory provisions, said Brice of the Northwest Insurance Council. Also, Oregon isn't as far along in data-collection about wildfire mitigation steps as is Colorado.

"We don't want this to end up like the Colorado bill, which is still in negotiations in the rule-making phase. We'd like to not see that occur in Oregon."

Jordan Haedtler, a representative of the Climate Cabinet Action nonprofit, disagreed that discussions in Colorado have gotten off-track, and urged Oregon lawmakers to speak with regulators in Colorado before accepting that characterization.

In Colorado, homeowners are already working to implement wildfire resilience measures based on the legislation, Haedtler said. "We're already seeing results there. I would expect to see similar results if you pass SB 1540."

Regarding the concept's future outlook, Golden said he hopes the idea is resurrected, but he won't be there to push for any eventual bill, as 2026 marked his final legislative session before retirement.

Though he'll no longer be in the statehouse, Golden said "nobody is indispensable" and landowners in wildfire-prone areas are still in dire need of such legislation.

"We're talking about a fundamental threat to our whole system of home ownership," he said.

Some property owners are unable to obtain any insurance, let alone affordable insurance, and cannot wait until lawmakers develop a "perfect bill" to address the problem, Golden said.

"I wish some of the folks in the insurance industry were in the shoes of people who can't get insurance," which would likely hasten the process, he said.