Oregon lawmakers are debating a proposal intended to ease mounting pressure in the state’s home insurance market by forcing insurers to recognise wildfire prevention work when setting premiums and coverage terms.
Supporters frame the bill as overdue relief for homeowners reducing risk. Insurers agree on direction, though not on execution.
The proposal comes as coverage availability and affordability continue to deteriorate, especially in rural and fire-prone regions.
Jeff Golden, a Democrat from Ashland and the bill’s sponsor, said wildfire exposure now dominates the insurance equation across large parts of the state.
Golden said homeowners in drier areas struggle to secure affordable coverage as wildfire costs climb. The pressure, he noted, extends beyond Oregon, though local geography and fuel conditions make the problem acute.
Homeowners who take reasonable steps to lower wildfire risk should not be locked out of the insurance market.
The legislation, known as LC 182, targets how insurers use wildfire and catastrophe models. Under the proposal, insurers would need to either demonstrate how mitigation efforts factor into those models or offer explicit discounts and incentives to homeowners who meet recognised prevention standards.
Golden said the bill gives insurers a choice rather than dictating pricing outcomes. Companies offering wildfire insurance coverage could reward mitigation through premium reductions or explain, in concrete terms, how risk reduction work alters model outputs. Either way, prevention efforts would no longer be ignored.
The mitigation benchmarks referenced in the bill draw on standards developed by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, including the Wildfire Prepared Home designation.
These standards rely on fire science rather than cosmetic measures.
Golden described mitigation in two broad categories. One covers defensible space, including vegetation management around homes. The other focuses on home hardening, such as fire-resistant roofing, vents, and siding.
The bill does not mandate clear-cutting or state enforcement. Participation remains voluntary, driven by access to coverage.
