Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prescribed Fire Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances prescribed-fire bill that creates claims fund, reciprocity and securitization language
Summary
Senate Bill 007 would create a prescribed-fire claims cash fund to reimburse limited damages from properly conducted burns, allow certification reciprocity for burners trained in other states and clarify securitization authority for utilities; committee sent the bill to appropriations 10–3.
The Energy & Environment Committee voted May 20 to advance Senate Bill 007 to the appropriations committee after testimony from firefighting, conservation and state fire officials describing the measure as a tool to reduce liability barriers that currently deter prescribed burns.
Representative Melissa Weinberg, the bill sponsor, described prescribed fire as “one of the most effective tools we have to reduce hazardous fuel loads, restore forest health and protect lives and property,” and said the measure creates “a prescribed fire claims cash fund, which allows limited reimbursement for damages in cases where burns were conducted properly and within state regulations.” She also said the bill expands certification access by including reciprocity for trained professionals from other states.
Witnesses from conservation and fire organizations supported the proposal. Bridal Witt of Western Resource Advocates said similar funds in California, Oregon and Washington have encouraged prescribed burning and helped spur private insurance options for burners. Von Jones of the Division of Fire Prevention and Control said the bill would reduce a major barrier to implementing prescribed burns — liability exposure — and noted the bill aligns with the Colorado Fire Commission’s multi-year work on prescribed fire strategy.
Officials acknowledged funding limits in the current fiscal note. Committee questions noted a revised fiscal estimate showing a $186,000 figure, down from earlier requests near $1,000,000, and that the department does not plan to staff the program until the claims fund is actually funded. Weinberg and other witnesses said the claims program would not begin until an appropriation, donation or grant funded the cash fund, and that reciprocity is a central feature to expand the trained workforce.
Witnesses also noted the bill includes an amendment clarifying that securitization in Title 40 may be used by utilities, with Public Utilities Commission approval, to finance wildfire mitigation plans. Bridal Witt said securitization could help avoid severe rate increases and reduce costs for ratepayers when regulated utilities pursue wildfire mitigation financing.
The committee then voted to send the bill to appropriations with a favorable recommendation; the roll call reflected a 10–3 approval. The committee’s action was procedural — advancing the bill — while implementation details, appropriations and program design remain contingent on future funding decisions.
Key clarifications from testimony: the initial fiscal note shows insufficient funding to stand up staff or claims payments immediately; the bill ties any program start to the availability of fund dollars; the bill’s claims cap is structured as a maximum percentage of the fund (the committee heard descriptions of a 10%-per-claim limit in the current draft so single claims do not exhaust the fund); and the sponsors noted other states’ programs set higher per-claim caps (examples cited: $2,000,000 in California, Oregon, Washington).
