Committee hears bill to fund home-hardening grants for wildfire-prone homes

House Bill 3172 would establish a wildfire-prepared-structure grant program to subsidize fire-resistant rebuilding and retrofits for homes and accessory dwelling units in the wildland-urban interface, the House Climate, Energy and Environment Committee heard March 6.

The bill would direct the Oregon State Fire Marshal, in collaboration with the Department of Consumer and Business Services, to create and run a grant program that pays for specified “home hardening” measures for people rebuilding after wildfire and for proactive retrofits for low-income homeowners living in higher-risk areas. Representative Pam Marsh, the bill sponsor, told the committee the proposal includes a dash-2 amendment that modifies eligibility and award criteria.

Marsh said home hardening complements defensible-space work and is currently missing from Oregon’s mitigation strategy. “Home hardening means using building materials and design choices that reduce the chances of wildfire,” Marsh said, listing examples such as heat-resistant siding, metal roofing and double‑paned windows. She described the bill as a modest way to support fire survivors and low-income homeowners and asked for the committee’s support.

Mariana Ruiz-Temple, Oregon State Fire Marshal, told the committee the office supports the dash-2 amendment and would implement a grant program that publishes an eligible‑retrofits list, establishes ranking and award criteria, and reports on program outcomes. “When one house or structure catches on fire, it begins that cascading effect by igniting the next structure and then the next structure,” Ruiz‑Temple said, explaining why retrofits and building choices can reduce community risk.

Witnesses described existing models the bill would build on. Representative Marsh noted a post‑2020 program administered by the Department of Consumer and Business Services that offered incentives—up to $6,000 in value—for people rebuilding after the 2020 wildfires to adopt specified fire‑resistant options. Daniel Whelan of Sustainable Northwest and Kyle Smith of The Nature Conservancy supported the bill, citing longer fire seasons and the number of housing units in Oregon’s wildland‑urban interface. Whelan said wildfire seasons have lengthened sharply; Smith said more than $12.7 billion of homes in Oregon face wildfire risk.

Committee members asked about administration and costs. Marsh and Ruiz‑Temple said the dash‑2 amendment allows two pathways: the State Fire Marshal could award grants directly to individuals, or the office could issue block grants to participating counties to administer locally. Marsh told the committee she did not request a specific appropriation in the bill text but suggested $5 million to $10 million would be a useful initial allocation and that funding could be part of a larger wildfire package. Ruiz‑Temple said counties would be engaged in drafting criteria and that not every county may have staff capacity to administer grants locally, which is why a state-administered option is included.

Several members raised practical implementation questions: whether the program would pay for materials and installation (sponsors said the program is designed to make a menu of options available and to subsidize selected measures, and that full costs would not necessarily be covered), whether local offices of emergency management and building officials would be involved (Ruiz‑Temple said yes), and how the program would connect with existing defensible‑space efforts and the Community Wildfire Risk Reduction grants created under Senate Bill 762.

The public testimony tracked an emphasis on protecting rebuilding homeowners and enabling low‑income retrofits in the wildland‑urban interface. No formal action or vote was taken; the committee closed the public hearing and moved on to other agenda items.

The committee record shows the bill is written to (1) require the State Fire Marshal to establish and implement a grant program, (2) publish an eligible retrofits list, (3) create award ranking and criteria, and (4) require reporting and oversight back to the legislature. Sponsors said counties able and willing to administer the grants should be able to do so, but the state program would provide a fallback for counties lacking capacity.

Next steps: the committee held the public hearing but did not take a vote during the March 6 session. Staff and sponsors indicated they expect the program’s funding level to be addressed during budget or wildfire‑funding deliberations.