Concerning increasing the availability of homeowner's insurance in the state, and, in connection therewith, making an appropriation.
SB26-155 creates the Strengthen Colorado Homes Enterprise within the Division of Insurance as a government-owned business intended to improve the availability and stability of homeowners insurance in Colorado. The enterprise would collect an annual fee from insurers that sell multiperil homeowners policies in the state, beginning in 2027, and use that revenue to fund grants for homeowners to retrofit roofs with resilient, impact-resistant systems. The bill also allows some funding for workforce training and certification related to resilient roofing, and it directs the enterprise to commission a study of insurance risk and market conditions in high-risk wildfire areas.
The grant program is designed to prioritize primary residences and to consider factors such as household income, roof age, home size, local exposure to extreme weather, and the number of applicants. Homeowners receiving grants must use licensed contractors, comply with building codes, and install roofs meeting board-adopted resilient roof standards. Contractors receiving grant-funded work are prohibited from waiving insurance deductibles. The bill also requires insurers, in rate filings submitted on and after January 1, 2027, to show that savings from resilient roofs are passed through to policyholders through discounts or reduced premiums.
The bill’s impact on state law is substantial: it adds a new part to Title 10 establishing the enterprise, its board, fund, fee authority, reporting requirements, and grant program, and it adds a new section requiring a wildfire-risk study. It also amends insurance rating law to require annual reporting on resilient roofs, discounts, and wind/hail claims experience. The enterprise is structured to qualify as an enterprise under the state constitution, with legislative findings stating that the fee is not a tax and that the entity may issue revenue bonds, receive limited public grants, and operate outside certain constitutional spending limits so long as it meets enterprise criteria.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of proactive mitigation and market stabilization. The legislation frames home hardening as a way to reduce insurer losses, improve insurer participation, and increase competition in the homeowners insurance market, especially in areas affected by hail, windstorms, and wildfire. The bill’s structure suggests a policy consensus around using insurer-paid fees to finance resilience measures that are expected to benefit both homeowners and insurers over time.
The main points of contention are likely to center on the mandatory fee on insurers, whether insurers will ultimately pass costs through indirectly despite the prohibition on surcharging, and whether the enterprise’s activities should be funded through a quasi-public fee mechanism rather than general state revenues. Additional concerns may involve the scope of the board’s authority, the requirement that insurers demonstrate premium savings in rate filings, the administrative burden of reporting and data requests, and the balance between wildfire-risk interventions and avoiding competition with the private insurance market. The bill also contains safeguards and limits, such as a cap on fee revenue in the first five fiscal years and restrictions on how much revenue may be used for workforce training, studies, and administration.
The bill adds new statutory provisions to Colorado insurance law creating the Strengthen Colorado Homes Enterprise and a related grant program, while also amending insurer filing requirements under the rate-regulation statutes. It establishes a new fee on multiperil homeowners insurers, creates a dedicated enterprise fund, authorizes revenue bonds, requires annual reporting to the General Assembly, and directs the Division of Insurance to conduct or oversee a wildfire-risk study. It also imposes new obligations on insurers to disclose resilient-roof-related data in rate filings and to show that roof-hardening savings are reflected in premiums or discounts.
The bill is presented in a favorable light throughout the text, with legislative findings emphasizing climate-driven weather risks, rising insurance costs, and the need to strengthen homes to stabilize the market. The policy rationale is that mitigation will reduce claims, improve insurer financial stability, and expand availability of coverage. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded opposition or amendment debate in the supplied materials; the available context suggests the measure was advanced and ultimately signed by the Governor.
Likely areas of contention include the insurer fee, the possibility that costs could be indirectly borne by policyholders despite the anti-surcharge language, and whether the enterprise’s quasi-governmental structure is the appropriate mechanism for funding home-hardening grants. Stakeholders with different interests are built into the board—insurers, consumers, counties, and roofing/home-hardening experts—suggesting anticipated tension among those groups over fee levels, grant priorities, and standards for resilient roofs. The wildfire study and the requirement that insurers demonstrate premium savings may also draw scrutiny from insurers concerned about regulatory burden and from consumer advocates concerned about whether promised savings materialize.