Oregon lawmakers, regulators and insurers press for insurance solutions as wildfire losses climb

Salem — Chair Golden convened the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire on May 22, 2025, for an informational session on homeowners insurance amid growing wildfire risk, where state regulators, insurers and wildfire researchers described how data-driven mitigation and public–private partnerships could help stabilize availability and cost for affected homeowners.

The hearing brought into focus two linked problems: sharply higher wildfire-related losses and the need for reliable, science-based measures that let insurers recognize mitigation. "Insurance is all about transferring risk," Andrew Stolfi, director of the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) and state insurance commissioner, told the committee. He said Oregon has seen roughly $4,000,000,000 in estimated catastrophe losses this decade — about four times the preceding 40 years combined — and that trend is reshaping underwriting and pricing decisions.

Why this matters: higher losses and rising construction and reinsurance costs have led some insurers to reduce exposure or raise premiums, limiting homeowners' options in fire-prone areas. Committee members asked regulators and industry how the state can make insurance both available and affordable for homeowners who take mitigation steps.

Regulators' framework and transparency efforts

Commissioner Stolfi and Deputy Commissioner TK Keane described the regulatory framework created by Senate Bill 82 (2023), which requires insurers to consider wildfire mitigation actions — such as defensible space and home hardening — in underwriting and rating plans but does not force carriers to assign discounts without actuarial support. "The law does not require insurers to make up data or assign values, discounts, or incentives without actuarial support," Stolfi said. Keane added that DCBS and the state fire marshal are working with IBHS and private firms to develop the science and operational tools that would let insurers credibly account for mitigation.

Keane also described a current legislative proposal, House Bill 2563, intended to require insurers to provide clearer written explanations for rate increases and the factors that contributed to them; DCBS staff said consumer outreach teams explain rates across Oregon's 36 counties.

Industry models and how they are used

Representatives of the insurance industry and risk-modeling firms described the tools insurers use to assess wildfire risk. Kenton Bridal, president of the Northwest Insurance Council, and Verisk representatives outlined two common model types: address-level risk scoring tools and catastrophe models. "If an insurer can't get reinsurance, then they have to consider how many homes they can insure," Bridal said, describing reinsurance as a key determinant of how many properties a carrier can safely underwrite.

Juliana Anastasatos, vice president of wildfire at Verisk, described Verisk's FireLine address-level risk score and a separate catastrophe model used for capital and reinsurance decisions. FireLine produces a numerical hazard score from 0 to 30 that combines three main factors — vegetative fuels, slope (topography) and road access — and can be adjusted for defensible-space or home-hardening measures recognized by IBHS. "The fuels are by far the most important factor," Anastasatos said, noting Verisk updates fuels analysis at least annually and that carriers can request a review of a property's score through their insurer.

IBHS research and neighborhood-scale approaches

Steve Hawkes, senior director for wildfire at the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS), described IBHS research showing that a small share of fires causes the majority of structural losses and that ember exposure, wind-driven brand transfer and neighborhood factors drive conflagrations. "Less than 1% of the fires lead to over 95% of the structure loss," Hawkes said. He outlined IBHS's Wildfire Prepared Home standard (two designation levels) and a Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood standard intended to reduce parcel- and community-level ignition pathways, slow fire spread, and make neighborhoods act more like passive fuel breaks.

State fire marshal and partnership steps

Mariana Ruiz Temple, Oregon state fire marshal, said wildfires are increasing in size and complexity in Oregon and described a memorandum of understanding signed on May 2 between the Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office and IBHS to advance research, outreach, post-fire analysis and pilot projects. "This MOU signals that the state of Oregon is interested in how we can help promote public–private partnerships," Ruiz Temple said.

Committee perspective and next steps

Chair Golden framed the committee's central goal: to make "adequate insurance affordable to all Oregonians who are doing everything they reasonably can to reduce wildfire risk." Regulators and industry witnesses urged continued research, sustained investment in mitigation and a voluntary, community-focused approach that combines education, incentives and locally adopted standards. Commissioner Stolfi said availability — whether insurers will issue or renew policies in a given area — is at least as important as price and that restoring market competition depends on measurable, verifiable community risk reduction.

Quotes and clarifications in context

Speakers emphasized that the statutory framework requires carriers to consider mitigation but does not permit arbitrary crediting without actuarial evidence; industry witnesses described how catastrophe models inform capital, pricing and reinsurance requirements while address-level scores inform risk selection. Verisk said FireLine has been reviewed by insurance departments in multiple states and has included mitigation inputs since a 2022 update. IBHS said its standards are based on laboratory testing and post-fire field analysis and that pilot projects and demonstrations are planned.

No formal votes or binding policy actions were taken at the informational session; committee members asked presenters for further recommendations and for examples from other states that policymakers could consider.

Ending

The committee closed the hearing without formal action and signaled continued oversight and potential follow-up on how state policy, scientific research and insurer practices can be aligned to expand insurance availability for homeowners who adopt recognized wildfire mitigation measures.