An act to add and repeal Chapter 1.8 (commencing with Section 4240) to of Part 2 of Division 4 of the Public Resources Code, relating to wildfire.
SB 1370 would require the Wildfire Fund Administrator to do more than submit a written report on alternatives to the current Wildfire Fund. Under existing law, the administrator must prepare a report by April 1, 2026, evaluating new models or approaches to mitigate damage, speed recovery, and more equitably allocate the burdens of natural catastrophes, including catastrophic wildfires, earthquakes, and other disasters. This bill adds a requirement that the administrator present those recommendations to specified Senate committees, including committees on Emergency Management, Energy, Utilities and Communications, Insurance, Judiciary, and Natural Resources and Water.
The report itself is broad and policy-oriented. It must address the affordability and accessibility of property insurance, alternative ways to socialize catastrophe risk, mitigation and technology measures to reduce wildfire ignition and spread, financing and insurance tools to speed recovery, and options for improving ratepayer protection while holding utilities accountable for safety. It also directs analysis of possible limits on wildfire litigation recoveries, programs for wildfire hardening and emergency response, land-use and insurance reforms, and potential replacement or supplementation of the Wildfire Fund through state-supported insurance, reinsurance, mutual funds, or other public financial safety nets.
SB 1370 would amend Public Utilities Code Section 719 to add a legislative presentation requirement to the existing Wildfire Fund report process. It does not create a new fund, change claim eligibility, or directly alter wildfire liability rules, but it expands the reporting and oversight obligations of the Wildfire Fund Administrator and increases legislative review of long-term wildfire risk financing and insurance policy options. The bill also authorizes use of Wildfire Fund assets or account assets to pay consultants and experts retained to prepare the report, and the section remains temporary with repeal scheduled for January 1, 2030.
The available vote history suggests broad support at the committee level, with a 13-0 vote to pass the bill out of committee and re-refer it to Appropriations. There are no committee transcript excerpts provided, so the public discussion record here is limited. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears to be framed as an informational and oversight step rather than a controversial substantive policy change, which may have contributed to the unanimous committee vote.
The bill’s most notable areas of potential contention are embedded in the required report topics rather than in the bill’s direct operative language. These include possible limits on wildfire litigation recoveries, restrictions on attorneys’ fees, caps on economic and noneconomic damages, limits on claims by insurers or public entities, and liability limits tied to fire perimeter or event-wide exposure. Other likely points of debate include whether to expand state involvement in property insurance or reinsurance, how to balance utility accountability with ratepayer affordability, and whether wildfire hardening, land-use, and insurance reforms should be pursued through public programs or market-based mechanisms. Because the bill only requires presentation of recommendations, it is less immediately divisive than a bill that would enact those policies directly.