AB1 adds an Article to the California Insurance Code that forces the Department of Insurance (DOI) to periodically evaluate and potentially expand the set of property‑level and communitywide wildfire mitigation measures that insurers must consider in their rating plans under the existing Safer from Wildfires regulations. The statute sets a firm cadence — on or before January 1, 2030, and every five years thereafter — for DOI to revisit the list of eligible home‑hardening measures and community programs.
The bill requires DOI to consult with specified state agencies (OES, Cal Fire, PUC, OPR), engage stakeholders, run a public participation process (including at least one public meeting and publication of preliminary and final lists), and, if it publishes a final list, begin Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking within 30 days. The practical effect: a transparent, recurring mechanism to consider adding materials and mitigation actions—such as noncombustible materials listed by the Office of the State Fire Marshal or measures aligned with Chapter 7A—that insurers must reflect in rates, which may change incentives for homeowners, insurers, and community programs.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the Department of Insurance to reassess the Safer from Wildfires regulations by Jan 1, 2030 and every five years after, to identify additional property and community mitigation measures to be recognized in insurer rating plans. When DOI selects measures for inclusion it must initiate APA rulemaking within 30 days of publishing the final list.
Who It Affects
Homeowners in high and very high fire hazard severity zones, admitted insurers writing residential property coverage in California, the Office of the State Fire Marshal and agencies involved in wildfire mitigation (OES, Cal Fire, PUC, OPR), and manufacturers of listed building materials.
Why It Matters
Creates a formal, recurring pathway to expand the catalog of mitigation measures that insurers must 'take into account' in rating, making insurer recognition of home‑hardening more responsive to new technologies and community programs. For market participants, that changes how mitigation investments translate into potential premium recognition and could stabilize coverage availability in high‑risk areas.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB1 inserts a new Article into the Insurance Code that turns the Department of Insurance’s periodic consideration of home‑hardening measures from ad hoc to mandated. It sets an initial deadline of January 1, 2030 and then a five‑year recurrence.
The statute does not itself add new eligible measures; instead, it prescribes the process DOI must follow to decide whether to amend the Safer from Wildfires regulations to list additional building hardening measures and community mitigation programs.
The bill prescribes a multi‑agency and public process. DOI must consult with the Office of Emergency Services, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), the Public Utilities Commission, and the Office of Planning and Research to assemble candidate measures.
DOI must also solicit input from 'relevant stakeholders' and run a public participation process that includes at least one public meeting, publication of a preliminary list for comment, and publication of a final list of measures DOI proposes to add.If DOI issues a final proposed list, AB1 obligates the department to initiate rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act within 30 days of that publication. The bill specifically calls out that DOI’s first round of consideration should examine whether to include construction materials that appear on the Office of the State Fire Marshal’s Building Materials Listing or that comply with the latest Chapter 7A provisions of Title 24, tying the insurance recognition to OSFM testing and Building Standards Code criteria.Practically, the statute aims to expand the range of actions and materials that insurers must consider in rate filings, which can produce stronger market incentives for homeowners to harden properties and for communities to pursue mitigation programs.
It also creates a predictable schedule for DOI and other agencies to evaluate technical developments — for example, newly tested noncombustible materials — so insurer rating can be updated to reflect demonstrably effective mitigation strategies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
DOI must consider updates to the Safer from Wildfires regulations on or before January 1, 2030 and every five years thereafter.
DOI’s review must include consultation with OES, Cal Fire, the PUC, and the Office of Planning and Research to identify candidate building hardening measures and community programs.
The statute requires at least one public meeting, publication of a preliminary list for comment, and publication of a final list of measures DOI proposes to include.
DOI’s initial consideration must evaluate including construction materials that appear on the Office of the State Fire Marshal’s Building Materials Listing or meet the most recent Chapter 7A standards.
If DOI publishes a final proposed list of measures, it must begin Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking to amend the Safer from Wildfires regulations within 30 days.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings — scale of wildfire risk and purpose
This section lays out why the Legislature is acting: high exposure of California residences to wildfire, prior state investments in mitigation, and the existence of the Safer from Wildfires regulatory framework. It anchors the bill’s purpose — to incentivize effective home‑hardening and community programs — and explicitly flags noncombustible materials listed by the Office of the State Fire Marshal and Chapter 7A compliance as examples of measures the department should consider.
Definitions — Building Materials Listing and Safer from Wildfires regulations
Narrow, functional definitions identify the 'Building Materials Listing' (OSFM’s biennial list under Health & Safety Code section 13144.1) and the existing Safer from Wildfires regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit.10, §2644.9). Those definitions tie DOI’s review directly to pre‑existing technical standards and the specific regulatory text it may amend.
Mandatory review schedule and scope
Requires DOI to perform its first formal consideration by Jan 1, 2030 and to repeat the consideration every five years. The provision directs DOI to evaluate both property‑level building hardening measures and communitywide mitigation programs, and instructs DOI to specifically consider OSFM‑listed materials and Chapter 7A‑compliant construction as part of its initial review.
Consultation and public participation requirements
Specifies a consultation list (OES, Cal Fire, PUC, OPR) and requires DOI to consult with 'relevant stakeholders.' It sets minimum public engagement steps: at least one public meeting to solicit suggestions, publication of a preliminary candidate list for comment, and publication of a final proposed list before initiating formal rulemaking. These procedural steps are designed to ensure technical input and public transparency before regulatory amendments.
Rulemaking trigger and timing
If DOI publishes a final list of measures it proposes to include in the Safer from Wildfires regulations, the department must start the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process within 30 days. That 30‑day trigger compresses the transition from deliberation to formal rulemaking and creates a firm, near‑term deadline for DOI to convert a proposal into a regulatory amendment process.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Homeowners in high and very high fire hazard zones — clearer, updated lists of recognized hardening measures can translate into insurer recognition in rates, creating stronger financial incentives to harden homes and potentially improving insurance availability.
- Residents in communities running organized mitigation programs — the statute explicitly contemplates communitywide programs as eligible for consideration, increasing the chance that community investments will be reflected in insurer rating plans.
- Manufacturers and suppliers of OSFM‑listed or Chapter 7A‑compliant materials — inclusion of such materials in DOI’s recognized measures creates market demand and a clearer path to insurer recognition.
- State wildfire and emergency agencies (OES, Cal Fire) — formal consultation rights and a recurring review schedule give these agencies a stronger voice in aligning insurance incentives with state mitigation strategies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Insurance — added, recurring workload to carry out technical reviews, stakeholder outreach, interagency consultations, and compressed‑timing APA rulemakings without an explicit funding source.
- Admitted insurers — may need to update rating plans, actuarial models, underwriting protocols, and compliance practices to account for newly recognized measures, which entails actuarial and operational costs.
- Homeowners who must pay for hardening measures — while the bill seeks insurer recognition, the upfront cost of retrofits or upgraded materials still falls to homeowners or community programs unless subsidized.
- Local governments and community organizations — expected to participate in consultations and potentially scale mitigation programs to meet criteria for insurer recognition, which can require staff time and matching funds.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing a stable, insurer‑recognized pathway that rewards effective home and community hardening against the risk of imposing rigid technical gates and administrative burdens that slow recognition or misallocate costs — i.e., how to encourage and credential meaningful mitigation without creating a bureaucratic filter that leaves too many homeowners unable to access the intended insurance benefits.
AB1 creates a predictable schedule and process for expanding the set of mitigation measures insurers must consider, but it leaves crucial implementation choices unresolved. The statute does not specify the evidentiary standard DOI must apply when deciding whether a measure 'demonstrably' reduces wildfire risk, nor does it set timelines for how long DOI’s rulemaking must take once initiated.
That means technical judgment calls — how strong the evidence must be, how DOI weighs community program effectiveness, and how insurers should quantify mitigation in ratings — will fall to agency rulemaking and are likely to be contested.
Operationally, the 30‑day requirement to initiate APA rulemaking after publishing a final list compresses DOI’s decision window and shifts pressure onto its internal capacity and its contractors for analytical support. The statute ties DOI’s candidate measures to OSFM listings and Chapter 7A standards; this reduces some technical uncertainty but also imports limitations: OSFM testing and Title 24 compliance are narrow gates that may exclude alternative or emergent mitigation strategies that lack that specific certification pathway.
Finally, the bill aims to generate insurer recognition of mitigation, but it cannot compel private actuaries to value measures in a particular way; divergent actuarial views or model limitations could blunt the intended market effect unless DOI’s follow‑on regulations set clear crediting rules.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.