An act to add and repeal Sections 17052.13 and 17052.14 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to taxation, to take effect immediately, tax levy.
SB 269 would create the Fire Safe Home Tax Credits Act, a pair of temporary personal income tax credits for homeowners in fire-prone areas who spend money on wildfire risk reduction. One credit would apply to “home hardening” improvements such as roofs, vents, exterior walls, decks, fences, driveways, and chimneys that meet California Building Code Chapter 7A standards. The second credit would apply to vegetation management activities such as creating defensible space, establishing fuel breaks, thinning woody vegetation, and treating woody fuels. Both credits would be available for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, and before January 1, 2031, and would sunset on December 1, 2031.
The bill limits eligibility to taxpayers with a homeowners’ exemption on a dwelling or housing unit in a moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zone and with adjusted gross income at or below $140,000 for joint filers, heads of household, and surviving spouses, or $70,000 for single or separate filers. The home hardening credit would generally equal 50% of qualified costs, with a per-year cap that varies by fire hazard zone; the vegetation management credit would equal 50% of qualified costs up to a separate annual cap. The bill also requires taxpayers to reserve credits through the Franchise Tax Board, bars double-counting of costs paid with grants or incentives, allows carryforwards for unused credits, and directs the Legislative Analyst’s Office to report on usage and average credit amounts.
SB 269 would amend the Revenue and Taxation Code by adding Sections 17052.13 and 17052.14 and would create a new state income tax expenditure for wildfire mitigation. It would also require the Franchise Tax Board to administer a reservation process and could affect how taxpayers claim deductions or other credits for the same expenditures. Because it is designated a tax levy, the bill would take effect immediately if enacted.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history is supportive but cautious. The bill received a unanimous 5-0 do pass vote in committee and then was placed on the suspense file, which typically indicates fiscal concern rather than policy opposition. No committee transcript is available here, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to show direct support or criticism.
The main points of contention appear to be fiscal cost, administrative complexity, and the scope of the benefit. The bill’s original digest references an aggregate cap of $500 million per year, while the amended text shown in the bill body reflects a much lower $50 million annual cap, suggesting significant concern about program cost or scale. Other likely issues are whether the credits would primarily benefit lower-income homeowners in high-risk areas, whether the reservation system would be burdensome, and whether the state should subsidize mitigation costs that may already be required or encouraged through other programs.
SB 269 would add two new temporary personal income tax credits to California law for wildfire mitigation expenses, thereby reducing net tax liability for eligible homeowners in designated fire hazard severity zones. It would also create new administrative duties for the Franchise Tax Board to manage credit reservations and for the Legislative Analyst’s Office to evaluate the program, while temporarily modifying the tax code through new Sections 17052.13 and 17052.14 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The bill would sunset both credits in 2031 and would apply only to qualifying expenditures made during the 2026-2030 tax years.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was generally well received on policy grounds, as shown by the unanimous committee vote to move it forward. At the same time, its placement on the suspense file indicates that fiscal impact was a significant concern, likely due to the cost of the credits and the administrative structure needed to implement them. No transcript is available, so there is no direct record of broader debate or stakeholder testimony.
The most notable contention is the bill’s fiscal exposure: the digest and amended text show a large discrepancy in the stated annual cap, with the digest referencing $500 million while the bill text reflects $50 million, indicating uncertainty or negotiation over the program’s size. Another likely point of debate is eligibility design, since the credits are limited to homeowners with relatively modest income thresholds and properties in mapped fire hazard zones, which may leave out some wildfire-prone households. Administrative issues also matter, including the need to reserve credits in advance, document qualified costs, and exclude grant-funded or incentive-funded expenses. Supporters would likely emphasize wildfire preparedness and homeowner assistance, while fiscal committees would focus on cost control and implementation.