Transcript Highlights:

• Moving to wildfire risk, utility wildfire risk, we will kick off with Vice Chair Hall calling folks up
• We've contributed to community wildfire protection plans, post-wildfire recovery plans, and, just like
• The wildfire fund was created under AB 1054.
• You should see that the California wildfire fund is essentially the cheapest form of wildfire insurance
• a couple of covered wildfires, and we were in the process of paying eligible claims from those wildfires

Summary: The committee first heard updates on the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) and related funding. Department of Ecology staff explained how MTCA and the hazardous substance tax support cleanup, prevention, stormwater, and local assistance programs, but said forecasted revenues have declined while appropriations and transfers have outpaced incoming funds. Ecology said the operating account will require underspending to stay balanced this biennium and that the problem is ongoing, with further reductions possible if forecasts worsen. Ecology also reviewed the state cleanup program, noting there are more than 14,500 cleanup sites in Washington and that new sites continue to be discovered faster than they are cleaned up. A question from Representative Lee raised the long-term issue of declining fossil-fuel-based revenue, and Ecology agreed that this is a future structural concern even though the current shortfall is driven more by forecasts and transfers than by fuel-use decline. The Pollution Liability Insurance Agency described its underground storage tank and heating oil programs, saying it has modernized from a reinsurance model to a financial assurance model with stronger state oversight and cleanup milestones. Russ Olson said the agency’s dedicated petroleum tax account is in strong financial condition, but emphasized the importance of preserving that funding source. He also discussed the loan and grant program for historic commercial releases and a new heating oil loan/grant program, while noting the agency is working on equity concerns where liens can be disproportionate to property values in smaller communities. Practitioners and advocates then offered differing views on MTCA’s performance: one attorney urged a collaborative review process to make cleanups faster, less expensive, and more certain, while another consultant argued the program is too conservative and process-heavy and should focus more narrowly on actual exposure and realistic cleanup standards. Environmental and community groups countered that MTCA is essential for cleanup, pollution prevention, stormwater control, and public participation, and that it is especially important for environmental justice communities such as the Duwamish Valley. Port and city representatives stressed that MTCA grants and cleanup funding are critical for large redevelopment projects, but said long timelines, permitting delays, and funding uncertainty can slow projects and jeopardize commitments. The committee then shifted to utility wildfire risk. Staff summarized recent legislation, including requirements for utility wildfire mitigation plans, creation of a wildfire mitigation standards work group, authorization for captive insurance by local governments and PUDs, securitization authority for disaster costs, and the existing wildfire response and resilience account. Chelan County PUD and Puget Sound Energy described extensive mitigation efforts such as vegetation management, grid hardening, undergrounding, AI smoke cameras, weather stations, enhanced operating settings, public safety power shutoffs, and community outreach. Both said wildfire risk is rising and insurance costs are increasing, and Chelan PUD asked the Legislature to restore funding to the wildfire response and resilience account. The Office of the Insurance Commissioner said a 2022 utility liability market study found insurance availability is tightening as perceived risk rises, and reported that a 2025 work group recommended restoring community resilience funding, requiring insurers to share wildfire risk scores and mitigation steps with property owners, and creating a grant program based on insurance industry wildfire standards. A PNNL scientist added that wildfire probability is increasing in parts of Washington and that mitigation requires long-term, landscape-scale coordination. The final speaker began describing California’s approach to wildfire risk, but the transcript cuts off before that presentation concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• These wildfires don't just burn trees.
• Over the last decade, we have spent $6 billion on wildfires. $38 billion, six times that much, on wildfire
• Wildfires, legal system abuse is compounding the disaster costs, and we're now seeing 87% of wildfires
• Wildfire seasons have turned into wildfire years and costs have increased 82% to address it over the
• We think that that piece of legislation is crucial on the wildfire side of the wildfire science side

Bills: HB471

Keywords: forest management, wildfire prevention, public lands, Tribal jurisdiction, Fix Our Forests Act, wildfire, forest health, hazardous fuels reduction, fuels treatment, prescribed burning, mechanical thinning, mastication, fuel breaks, fire breaks, wildland-urban interface, WUI, fireshed, fireshed management area, fireshed registry, Fireshed Center

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on H.R. 471, the Fix Our Forests Act, which aims to address the ongoing crisis of wildfires exacerbated by climate change and the need for updated forest management practices. Various committee members voiced concerns about past federal management failures and emphasized the necessity for collaborative approaches involving local communities and stakeholders in forest management. As discussions unfolded, there were varying perspectives on the implications of certain provisions in the bill, particularly around regulatory changes and their likely impacts on public participation and environmental reviews.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's how Marin Wildfire came about.
• This is Wildfire Preparedness Week.
• That's across our entire wildfire grant portfolio.
• That's across our entire wildfire grant portfolio.
• Mark Brown, with Marin Wildfire.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation strategies. The chair opened by stressing that California has reached a tipping point, with repeated community-scale wildfire losses, rising insurance costs, and growing utility wildfire mitigation expenses. The hearing was organized around four panels: what home hardening and defensible space are, community risk reduction and coordination, evaluation of current defensible space programs and proposed investments, and the future of home hardening and the California Wildfire Mitigation Program. The first panel featured IBHS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and local wildfire mitigation advocates. IBHS described wildfire spread through embers, flames, and radiant heat, emphasizing that structure separation, removing combustible materials within the first five feet of a home, and combining multiple mitigation measures significantly reduce loss. It highlighted its Wildfire Prepared Home and Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood standards, including an “essential” and “enhanced” level, and said California is ahead of other states but still needs scalable, standardized, and sustainably funded mitigation. The LAO outlined key policy questions for the Legislature, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, measurement of success, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. The chair and panelists discussed estimated costs, including roughly $15,000 for a basic retrofit and about $50,000 for more extensive ignition-resistant construction, and whether state funding should focus on the most cost-effective initial measures. The second panel focused on scaling adoption through local coordination, education, financing, and community-based programs. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption problem and said the state should not try to pay for every home, but instead target high-leverage interventions across the “customer journey,” including education, financing, trusted certification, and neighborhood network effects. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council described free home assessments, small retrofit grants, Firewise community support, and the importance of neighborhood-level action, local capacity, and cultural change. Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described its locally funded model, grant program, public education efforts, and an Ember Ready program that helps residents navigate home hardening and Zone Zero compliance. The chair repeatedly emphasized the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, stronger incentives, better insurance discounts, and more use of local, utility, federal, and private funding sources. The third and fourth panels addressed Cal Fire’s defensible space inspection program, the proposed defensible space financial assistance program, and broader state investments. Cal Fire said homes lacking compliant defensible space are far more likely to be damaged or destroyed and requested ongoing funding and staffing to stabilize inspections statewide; the LAO suggested the Legislature consider alternative funding sources such as GGRF or a reinstated SRA fee. Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal explained that Zone Zero sets a minimum standard, local governments cannot go below it, and grant prioritization will favor jurisdictions that submit inspections. Cal Fire also said the new defensible space financial assistance program would focus on ember-resistant zone-zero work and, in the Southern California counties covered by the legislation, would assist about 3,125 homes at an estimated $8,000 per home. In the final panel, the State Fire Marshal described California’s layered strategy of parcel-level home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, along with technical support, financial assistance, and incentives such as insurance discounts and builder marketing. The overall theme was that California must move from isolated efforts to a coordinated, science-based, and scalable statewide approach to reduce wildfire losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• The wildfire is a different threat.
• And it's a combination of wildfire risk.
• And that's how wildfire came about.
• This is Wildfire Preparedness Week.
• Mark Brown, with Marin Wildfire.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation tools, with members and witnesses emphasizing that California’s wildfire losses, insurance costs, and affordability pressures require a broader strategy than the status quo. The chair framed the issue as a tipping point for the state and asked witnesses to discuss how to scale mitigation, improve coordination, and make programs more effective and sustainable. Early testimony from the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety explained how embers, flames, structure density, and combustible materials drive community conflagrations, and described the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home standards, including a base “Prepared” level and an enhanced level. IBHS said California is ahead of other states but still needs standardized, verified mitigation, and noted research suggesting home hardening can reduce losses and improve insurability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office highlighted key policy questions for lawmakers, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. Members pressed for practical, lower-cost approaches, and witnesses repeatedly stressed that the first five feet around a home is critical, that many mitigation steps are DIY or relatively low-cost, and that financing will be necessary because many homeowners cannot afford full retrofits. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption challenge, not something the state can fully pay for, and recommended a blended model of education, low-interest loans, smaller grants, and insurance discounts to drive mass adoption. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council and Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described local programs using assessments, neighborhood-based Firewise efforts, grants, and resident participation, while also calling for better marketing, clearer standards, workforce development, and stronger links between mitigation and insurance benefits. In the later panels, Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal described the state’s layered approach: parcel-level hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation. Cal Fire said its defensible space inspection program needs ongoing funding and staffing to remain permanent, and the LAO said the proposal has merit but could be modified depending on budget conditions and alternative funding sources. Cal Fire also described a forthcoming defensible space financial assistance program focused on Zone Zero and vulnerable communities, estimating about $8,000 per home and roughly 3,125 homes served with the proposed funding. The State Fire Marshal clarified that local Zone Zero ordinances cannot be less restrictive than state minimum standards, though local governments have flexibility above that floor. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses returned to the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, consistent standards, targeted incentives, and sustained funding to move from pilot efforts to mass adoption.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first is pre-wildfire, which includes early warning and real-time monitoring of wildfire risk.
• We also mitigate the consequences of those wildfires by modeling the wildfire spread, for example.
• Next is post-wildfire, which occurs after the wildfire has happened.
• of these large-scale wildfires.
• These are all perfect conditions for drastic wildfires. Very drastic wildfires.

Transcript Highlights:

• rather than wildfire prevention.
• Sonoma County and Santa Rosa for future wildfires.
• suppression rather than wildfire prevention.
• And wildfires are not just a North Coast issue.
• In addition to wildfire response and recovery, what role do block captains play in wildfire prevention

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on lessons from the 2017 Tubbs Fire and how Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, and state partners have changed wildfire prevention, recovery, and rebuilding practices since then. Opening remarks emphasized that catastrophic wildfire is now a statewide issue, that California has shifted more toward prevention and resilience, and that Sonoma County’s recovery has become a model for other communities. Panelists included fire, water, permitting, community recovery, and insurance experts, who described how local experience has informed broader policy discussions. Santa Rosa fire and city officials described major changes in prevention and preparedness, including stronger public education, a vegetation management ordinance, an ignition-free/Zone Zero approach, and more detailed community wildfire protection planning. They said these efforts helped reduce damage in later fires, such as the Glass Fire, and noted ongoing challenges with prescribed burning, smoke management, grant delays, and maintaining vegetation treatments over time. Santa Rosa Water described improvements in regional coordination, backup power, generator redesign, and wildfire contamination response protocols after the city became the first utility to identify wildfire-related contamination in its water system. Community recovery leaders stressed the importance of block captain networks, neighborhood organization, and trusted local information in helping residents rebuild and avoid fraud. They argued for more formal support, training, and funding for block captain programs, as well as better long-term financing for local mitigation work and utility upgrades. Permit Sonoma officials said the county tried to balance speed and safety in rebuilding by streamlining permits, reducing fees, and helping residents rebuild to stronger standards, though they noted the loss of a major BRIC grant has slowed home-hardening outreach. Insurance advocate Amy Bach said wildfire risk reduction is increasingly influencing insurer behavior, with some companies offering discounts or more favorable treatment for Firewise communities and homes meeting wildfire-prepared standards. She urged continued funding for mitigation grants, better disclosure when insurers use aerial imagery to non-renew policies, and caution against removing wildfire coverage from standard homeowners policies. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken in the hearing; it was an informational discussion intended to gather testimony and policy recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• rather than wildfire prevention.
• Sonoma County and Santa Rosa for future wildfires.
• Sonoma County and Santa Rosa for future wildfires.
• And wildfire is not just a North Coast issue.
• play in wildfire prevention?

Summary: The hearing focused on lessons from the 2017 Tubbs Fire and how Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, and local partners have changed wildfire prevention, recovery, and rebuilding practices since then. Assemblymembers emphasized that the region has become a model for the state, with a shift from suppression to prevention, and panelists described improvements in defensible space, home hardening, vegetation management, alerting, and community coordination. The discussion also highlighted the continuing importance of sharing Sonoma County’s experience with other wildfire-impacted communities across California and beyond. Fire officials and local leaders described specific prevention measures now in place, including Santa Rosa’s vegetation management ordinance, ignition-free/Zone Zero requirements in rebuilding, restrictions on certain mulches, removal of dead and dying trees near roads and defensible space zones, and expanded prescribed burning authority. They also stressed the importance of community organization through block captains, Firewise/COPE-style networks, and the Mark West Area Community Fund. Speakers said these networks helped residents navigate recovery, avoid fraud and bad contractors, coordinate with local agencies, and support neighbors, but they argued that such efforts need more formal structure and stable funding. Water and permitting officials discussed how the fires changed their work. Santa Rosa Water described new regional coordination, generator and backup power upgrades, emergency training, and lessons learned about wildfire-related contamination in water systems, including the need to restore pressure, flush, and test quickly after a fire. Permit Sonoma said rebuilding was balanced by streamlining permits while still requiring safer, more resilient construction, and noted that reduced fees and one-stop permitting helped speed recovery. United Policyholders described helping residents maximize insurance proceeds, organize information, and avoid scams, while warning that insurance availability and affordability remain major barriers and that insurers are increasingly rewarding risk-reduction measures. Across the panels, the main policy requests were for faster and more flexible grant processes, more stable long-term funding for prevention and community programs, stronger support for home hardening and defensible space, better training and tools for local governments and legislative staff, and continued attention to insurance and utility-related resilience. No formal votes or actions were taken in the transcript excerpt; the hearing was informational and ended with a transition toward public comment and further discussion of remaining statewide wildfire policy needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the reality is the most damaging wildfires...
• Wildfire Service.
• Wildfire Service is going to take on all things related to catastrophic wildfire as well as prescribed
• urgent need for greater investment in wildfire resilience.
• our state and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires.

Summary: The subcommittee began by announcing a change in the agenda order, moving item 6 ahead of item 1 and then item 7, and noting there would be no votes taken on any items that day. Item 6 covered a proposed operational efficiencies control section for the Natural Resources Agency that would let multiple departments jointly fund landscape-scale or multi-jurisdictional projects and allow Finance to transfer climate bond funds to a lead state entity. The LAO said the proposal was reasonable but suggested the Legislature consider requiring summary notification on how it is used; Finance said it would consider that request. Item 7 focused on the 2026-27 biodiversity and nature-based solutions spending plan. Finance and the Wildlife Conservation Board described the climate bond funding for habitat restoration, wildlife crossings, public access, tribal nature-based solutions, and related work, including $111 million proposed for WCB and $30 million for Salton Sea habitat and public access projects. The LAO supported the overall approach but flagged the San Andreas Corridor Program as an area where the Legislature may want to specify geographic priorities. Members discussed the pace of Salton Sea work and whether the proposed projects would count toward disadvantaged community goals. Item 8 addressed Cal Fire’s aviation contract and staffing needs for wildfire response. Cal Fire said year-round fire activity, a larger and more complex aircraft fleet, and labor market pressures justified the proposed contract increase, including more mechanics, pilots, and maintenance support. The LAO recommended approval, saying the proposal addressed health and safety concerns. Members asked about contractor staffing, competition in the bidding process, and future technology for early fire detection and suppression. The committee then took up item 1 on golden mussel containment. Fish and Wildlife described the invasive species’ spread in the Delta, the task force and response framework, and a request for eight new positions funded by Prop. 4 to support control plans, outreach, monitoring, research, and coordination with partners and law enforcement. Members pressed the department on whether the state should fund more direct decontamination infrastructure and grants to local water managers, and on the realistic goal of containing the mussel. The chair and several members emphasized the urgency of the threat and requested an itemized breakdown of the $20 million request. The hearing then moved to a broader LAO overview of wildfire prevention and response funding, where the LAO summarized the state’s funding mix and warned that ongoing wildfire resilience funding will likely decline as one-time bond and GGRF funds are exhausted, prompting discussion of long-term funding options and the balance between prevention, suppression, and community hardening.

Transcript Highlights:

• We agree that wildfire is bad.
• Wildfire is one of those issues that is chronic.
• on the nation's most destructive wildfires, IBHS has created the Wildfire Prepared Home program, which
• And I mean, after every big wildfire, we do get a huge influx of wildfire proposals.
• And I mean, after every big wildfire, we do get a huge influx of wildfire proposals.

Summary: The hearing focused on California wildfire resilience, with the first panel discussing statewide funding, policy, and strategic priorities, and the second panel shifting to home hardening and defensible space. The LAO outlined the state’s wildfire risk, the large increase in resilience spending in recent years, and the fact that most funding has been one-time rather than ongoing. Testimony emphasized that wildfire risk varies greatly by region, that the state must balance response spending with prevention, and that success should be measured more carefully than by acres treated alone. Witnesses also noted the importance of local, federal, utility, and Proposition 4 funding sources, as well as the need for long-term maintenance and strategic prioritization rather than scattered projects. Cal Fire leadership and other witnesses stressed that California’s wildfire problem is not uniform: forested areas, chaparral, and wildland-urban interface communities require different strategies. In Northern California and forested watersheds, speakers emphasized fuels reduction, prescribed and cultural burning, strategic fuel breaks, watershed protection, and maintaining forest health. In Southern California, testimony focused on wind-driven fires, ember intrusion, ignition prevention along roads and power lines, and the limits of large-scale vegetation clearing. Several witnesses argued that the state should invest where it can leverage local and regional partnerships, support capacity-building programs like Regional Forest and Fire Capacity, and improve data systems to track treatment effectiveness and project outcomes. Members repeatedly pressed witnesses on how to prioritize limited funds, asking what should be done more of, less of, and first. The chair argued that protecting homes and communities through hardening and defensible space should be a major priority, especially near structures, while also acknowledging the need for broader landscape work and watershed protection. There was discussion of incentives such as insurance discounts, property tax treatment, and community certification for hardened homes, along with the need for multiple payers rather than relying on the state alone. Cal Fire reported new and expanding data tools, including treatment trackers, defensible space inspection dashboards, and a fuels treatment effectiveness program that evaluates whether nearby treatments affected wildfire behavior. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• wildfire mitigation grant program to new counties?
• I manage FEMA grants, so I don't just do wildfires.
• deployments on the nation's most destructive wildfires, IVHS has created the Wildfire Prepared Home
• are very vulnerable to wildfires.
• And then $185 million for wildfire prevention grants.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Every time we get hit with wildfires, the growing wildfire risks are driving up the cost of insurance
• Every time we get hit with wildfires, the growing wildfire risks are driving up the cost of insurance
• These water systems are not designed to combat wildfires, especially the climate-driven wildfires California
• This would be the first public wildfire model in the nation.
• SB 256, the Enhancing Infrastructure for Wildfire Mitigation Act, will strengthen California's wildfire

Summary: The committee met to hear seven Senate bills, first approving two consent items, SB 352 and SB 804, on motions to do pass to Appropriations. SB 542 (Limón) would require public notice and comment before issuing a financial responsibility certificate for an oil pipeline and require hydrostatic testing before restarting pipelines idle for five years or more; it was supported by the Center for Biological Diversity and passed the committee on a due-pass motion to Appropriations. SB 616 (Rubio) would create an independent community hardening commission within the Department of Insurance to coordinate wildfire mitigation and insurance-related recommendations; it drew support from the Department of Insurance and several local and industry groups, while water agencies, special districts, and the building industry raised concerns about water infrastructure standards, and it passed on a due-pass motion to Insurance. SB 429 (Cortese), which would establish a public wildfire catastrophe model and related university-based research and education program, received support from the Department of Insurance and outside groups and passed as amended to Appropriations. SB 256 (Perez) would strengthen wildfire mitigation and emergency response by expanding planning, improving PSPS communication, requiring utility coordination with emergency centers, and directing removal of permanently abandoned electrical facilities; utilities and business groups were generally neutral after amendments, while the author emphasized the bill’s connection to recent wildfire losses, and it passed as amended to Appropriations. SB 509 (Caballero) would require specialized training for local law enforcement on transnational repression targeting diaspora communities; it received support from the California Police Chiefs Association and immigrant-rights advocates, but drew extensive opposition from Hindu and civil-rights organizations concerned about bias, implementation, and First Amendment issues. Committee members discussed amendments to clarify cultural competency, diversity, and constitutional protections, and the bill passed as amended to Appropriations. After the hearing, the committee took final roll-call votes on the bills, with the consent items and SB 429, SB 256, and SB 509 moving forward, while SB 542 and SB 616 were also reported out on earlier motions.

Transcript Highlights:

• happens because the wildfires make the soil hydrophobic.
• But in wildfire counties where there are slopes, where there's a likelihood of continued wildfires, .
• also cover flooding that's a result of that wildfire.
• There's a wildfire and floods that occur after that.
• Do insurers have the option of excluding wildfire coverage?

Bills: SB154, SB187, SB193, SM3

Keywords: insurance, wildfire, flood damage, natural disasters, property coverage, water projects, appropriation, New Mexico, finance authority, infrastructure, New Mexico Finance Authority, funding, SB193, acequia, community ditch, irrigation works construction fund, water infrastructure, ditch infrastructure, irrigation, New Mexico water law

Transcript Highlights:

• County District Attorney to combat scammers targeting wildfire victims.
• So what are we doing now in the aftermath of these wildfires?
• So during and after the wildfires, During and after the wildfires, again, our priority has been to ensure
• I believe a public wildfire model would provide numerous benefits, including I believe a public wildfire
• By the way, this model on wildfire would be the first in the country.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 597, a bill to strengthen consumer protections for disaster survivors who use public adjusters. The author and the Department of Insurance said the measure would cap public adjuster fees at 15% for claims tied to declared disasters, require clearer contracts, prohibit solicitation during emergency conditions, and allow consumers to rescind contracts that were solicited during prohibited periods. Insurance industry groups supported the bill, while public adjuster representatives opposed it as written but said they were willing to work on revisions. The committee approved the bill and re-referred it to Appropriations; the roll call was ultimately recorded as 16-0. The committee then held its fourth oversight hearing on the Department of Insurance’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy, with Commissioner Ricardo Lara giving an extensive update on wildfire-related market reforms and consumer protections. He said the recent Southern California wildfires had not derailed the strategy and described actions including advance claim payments, a one-year moratorium on residential non-renewals in affected areas, a new fraud strike team, smoke-damage claim guidance, additional living expense protections, and a consumer claims tracker. He reported more than $12.1 billion in claims paid, over 37,000 claims filed, and more than 7,000 survivors assisted directly. He also discussed related bills and reforms, including AB 597, SB 495, SB 547, SB 429, SB 616, AB 888, and AB 2026. Members questioned the commissioner about the Fair Plan’s growing exposure, the $1 billion assessment, rate increases, non-renewals, underinsurance, and whether the reforms would actually stabilize the market. Lara said the assessment was already approved, that policyholders would not be hit with one large bill because insurers have two years to recover costs, and that the department was pushing insurers to use catastrophe modeling and reinsurance tools in exchange for commitments to write more policies in wildfire-distressed areas. He said the department expects to see market stabilization by 2026, though he emphasized the timeline depends on insurer participation, implementation of the new regulations, and future disaster activity. Members generally expressed support for the goals of the strategy while pressing for clearer expectations for consumers and faster action on mitigation and market reform.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've represented 21,000 wildfire survivors. 22 different wildfires.
• He's being paid to come back for wildfires.
• They have to wildfire risk.
• develop an impact. wildfire mitigation plans.
• Chairman, your committee's report on the panhandle wildfires found ineffective communication in wildfire

Bills: HB 13, HB143, HB144, HB145, HB366, HB470, HB805, HB912, HB13, HB143, HB144, HB145

Keywords: emergency communication, infrastructure, first responders, grant program, interoperability, Texas Interoperability Council, local governments, HB 143, Texas Railroad Commission, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Natural Resources Code, oil and gas, well site, surface facility, electrical power line, National Electrical Code, NEC, electrical safety, utility disconnect, service disconnection

Transcript Highlights:

• If their infrastructure... ...exposure to wildfire risks.
• We're talking about how can we reduce wildfires? We're talking about how can we reduce wildfires?
• You know, PNM supports wildfire mitigation.
• You know, P&M supports, you know, wildfire.
• And it takes one wildfire claim, a substantial wildfire claim, to wipe it out.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Firefighters and wildfire.
• These water systems are not designed to combat wildfires, especially the climate-driven wildfires.
• With extreme wildfires...
• The Enhancing Infrastructure for Wildfire Mitigation Act will strengthen California's wildfire mitigation
• urgent need to rethink how we assess wildfire risk.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:13:36.720> including to reduce the risk of wildfire including to reduce the risk of wildfire
• One, the bill says that a catastrophic wildfire is a wildfire that burns down a certain number of buildings
• although we are worried about wildfires although we are worried about wildfires and<00:22:36.600
• <00:24:54.520> risks everybody to drive down Wildfire risks everybody to drive down Wildfire
• work to do to hit to address Wildfire work to do to hit to address Wildfire safety<00:46:29.200>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint committees heard testimony on HB 982 HD1, a wildfire-related measure aimed at creating a wildfire recovery fund and a financing structure to address future catastrophic wildfire liability. The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Division of Consumer Advocacy, and the Public Utilities Commission submitted comments and were available for questions. Supporters included IBW Local 1260, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Clearway Energy Group, Hawaiian Electric, Par Hawaii, and others, while Charter Communications and the Hawaii Association for Justice opposed or raised concerns. Life of the Land supported the bill but urged changes to the definition of a catastrophic wildfire and noted concerns about prudency review language. IBW Local 1260 asked to restore language from the original draft, and Charter warned the bill could impair existing contract and indemnity rights unless amended. A major focus of the hearing was Hawaiian Electric’s position on the HD1 version. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the original bill but objected to the HD1 requirement for an additional $500 million shareholder contribution, arguing it was not feasible and could delay or prevent the fund from operating. The company said the bill would help protect customers and improve credit ratings by creating a dedicated revenue stream and a bankruptcy-remote financing structure, which it said would lower borrowing costs over time. Members questioned how the $1 billion securitization amount was chosen, whether credit rating agencies had indicated it was sufficient, and how the bill would work in bankruptcy; Hawaiian Electric said the amount was a balance among interests, not based on a specific agency directive, and that it would follow up on bankruptcy questions. Opponents and skeptics raised concerns about liability caps, the new claims process, and unclear language on damages above the fund’s limits. The Hawaii Association for Justice argued the bill limits victims’ remedies and gives too much authority to the new entity without clear guardrails. Committee members also pressed Hawaiian Electric on comparisons to California, the feasibility of the shareholder contribution, and whether alternative capital-raising or divestiture options had been considered. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided; testimony and questioning continued with follow-up information requested from Hawaiian Electric and others.

Transcript Highlights:

• So more specifically to this wildfire mitigation, if communities that may not be high in risk of wildfire
• The wildfire exposure...
• These standards form the backbone of CDI's Safer from Wildfires regulation and align with IBHS wildfire-prepared
• Be wildfire data comments. This is not yet achieved. Just. B. Wildfire data comments.
• That bill has to do with wildfire mitigation.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Insurance held an informational hearing on how climate change, wildfire risk, and related catastrophes are affecting California’s insurance market, affordability, and availability. Chair and members framed the issue as a statewide challenge tied to resiliency, land use, utilities, legal liability, and the FAIR Plan. Senator Becker noted the hearing was connected to SB 254 and its recent report, while the Vice Chair emphasized that the state’s current regulatory framework limits flexibility and that industry testimony would also have been useful. Amy Bach of United Policyholders described worsening availability and affordability, driven by climate impacts, insurtech/risk scoring, inflation, and the growth of surplus lines coverage. She said the Sustainable Insurance Strategy is beginning to show progress, but the FAIR Plan remains too large and non-admitted carriers create concerns because they are less regulated and do not share FAIR Plan or guaranty fund obligations. She stressed that mitigation incentives, grants, and voluntary insurer rewards for wildfire-hardening are important, but that many households cannot afford the needed improvements. In response to questions, she said underinsurance remains a major problem, especially after recent fires, and suggested stronger insurer responsibility for replacement-cost estimates or broader replacement-cost endorsements. Actuary Nancy Watkins and Stanford’s Michael Wara argued that California must both reduce wildfire risk and allow actuarially sound pricing if it wants a healthier market. Watkins compared the market to a household with rising expenses and said the state needs a mitigation framework focused on the highest-risk communities, especially older neighborhoods and homes near the wildland-urban interface. Wara said premiums must roughly equal expected claims plus expenses, and that California is “burning down too many houses,” which drives both availability problems and higher rates. He highlighted the role of structure-to-structure spread, older housing stock, utility ignitions, and the need to focus on community hardening, not just vegetation management. Both speakers said mitigation should be targeted, science-based, and sustained rather than one-time or scattered. Frank Freebalt of Cal Poly and Michael Gullner of UC Berkeley continued the discussion on fire modeling and risk reduction. Freebalt said the problem is best understood as a structure ignition and urban conflagration problem, requiring integrated land-use, utility, and community mitigation, with evidence-based priorities and better analytics. He emphasized that the state should focus on the highest-risk intersections first and that targeted mitigation can multiply the effectiveness of suppression and evacuation resources. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational and focused on testimony, questions, and policy discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this bill deals with wildfire preparedness for water systems. Anytime you're ready.
• wildfire damages.
• wildfire damages.
• a good step toward strengthening our state's wildfire readiness.
• People that start wildfires are very cunning, and they can figure out how to maximize a wildfire start

Summary: The Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee heard several bills focused on wildfire preparedness, industrial safety, and recycling oversight. SB 1153 by Senator Caballero would require urban retail water suppliers to add wildfire-specific procedures to emergency plans and coordinate with fire agencies; supporters said it would improve planning while recognizing water system limits, and the bill was framed as protecting ratepayers and infrastructure. SB 811, also by Senator Caballero, would create a comprehensive DTSC permitting and regulatory framework for metal shredding facilities; supporters argued it would set clear statewide standards and protect communities, while opponents said it would weaken hazardous waste protections and carve the industry out of existing law. SB 883 by Senator Umberg would impose new safeguards for facilities storing reactive chemicals such as methyl methacrylate after the Garden Grove evacuation, including backup cooling, public review, emergency planning, and state tracking; industry groups opposed the breadth of the bill and sought further clarification, while environmental and community groups supported it. SB 1010 by Senator Ashby would strengthen oversight of appliance recyclers by improving reporting, inspections, certification, and funding for enforcement; supporters said it would reduce emissions and improve compliance, while recyclers raised concerns about fees and certification requirements. Each bill drew extensive testimony from industry, environmental, labor, local government, and community representatives. Supporters generally emphasized public safety, transparency, and the need for clearer statewide standards, while opponents warned about overregulation, reduced flexibility, or unintended impacts on existing hazardous waste and recycling systems. Committee members also raised questions about transparency, liability, size-based treatment of facilities, and whether the bills were narrowly tailored enough to address the problems identified. The committee voted to advance all four measures to the Committee on Appropriations, with votes taken on call and some members voting no or not voting on certain bills. The final add-on votes showed SB 811, SB 883, SB 1010, and SB 1153 all passing out of committee, with the roll left open for absent members before the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• This mechanism has already been used in AB 1054 for wildfire spending, for PG&E to finance its wildfire
• How does this impact the wildfire fund?
• I'm happy to address those issues with respect to wildfire liability.
• They would need to submit wildfire mitigation plans.
• No one really knows what the market is for this after the LA wildfires.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard two bills focused on electricity affordability and utility costs. AB 745, by Assembly Member Irwin, would restructure the California Climate Credit by shifting it from lump-sum payments to direct reductions in volumetric electricity rates and moving the credit to the summer months when bills are highest. The author and UC Santa Barbara economist Dr. Kyle Meng argued this could significantly lower summer rates and better help households during extreme heat. Supporters, including UCS, NRDC, and some labor representatives, favored the concept, with some urging that the gas climate credit also be redirected. No opposition testimony was presented, and the bill passed 18-0 to the floor. The committee then considered AB 825, also presented as an affordability package aimed at reducing electric bills by addressing wildfire mitigation costs, transmission financing, permitting delays, and a review of ratepayer-funded programs. The bill would authorize securitization for undergrounding expenses, remove the first $15 billion in undergrounding capital investments from the rate base for return purposes, create a public transmission financing program using Proposition 4 funds and IBank support, revive the California Power Authority as a public sponsor, and establish a task force to review energy efficiency and demand response programs. The author and witness Matt Friedman of The Utility Reform Network said the bill could save ratepayers billions over time through lower-cost public financing and securitization. Testimony on AB 825 was mixed. Support came from several consumer and clean-energy groups, while utilities and labor raised concerns about the bill’s impact on utility financial stability, wildfire fund participation, liability, and whether the $15 billion securitization cap could discourage undergrounding. Some witnesses also objected to the task force’s potential effect on energy efficiency and demand response programs. Committee members discussed the need to balance affordability with utility creditworthiness and wildfire safety, and several asked for more analysis of market impacts and liability issues. Despite those concerns, AB 825 passed the committee 13-0 and was sent to the floor.