ESSB 5928
In CommitteeSenate
Wildfire risk models
Concerning wildfire risk models and score disclosure.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires insurance companies to be more transparent about how they calculate wildfire risk for homes and to adjust risk scores or offer discounts when property owners or communities take steps to reduce fire risk. It also mandates that insurers submit their wildfire risk models and related justifications to the state Insurance Commissioner for review.
- Insurers must provide property owners with clear, written details about their wildfire risk score—including the score itself, its range, who created it, when it was made, and how to improve it—within 15 days of accepting or declining coverage, and in renewal/cancellation notices.
- Insurers must revise a wildfire risk score within 30 days of receiving documented proof of property- or community-level mitigation efforts (e.g., creating defensible space, forest treatments).
- Property owners can appeal their wildfire risk score or classification to the insurer; insurers must acknowledge the appeal within 10 days and respond with a decision within 30 days.
- Insurers must file detailed wildfire risk model information—including model description, how it affects premiums, actuarial justifications, and mitigation discounts—with the Insurance Commissioner as part of rate filings; this information is confidential and not publicly available.
- Insurers must incorporate property-specific (e.g., hardening homes) and community-level (e.g., forest treatments) mitigation actions into their risk models—or offer discounts to policyholders who demonstrate such actions—and must post discount information on their public websites.
Who is affected
- Property owners and homeowners — Homeowners and property owners applying for or holding property insurance in Washington may receive more detailed information about how their wildfire risk is assessed and have new rights to appeal or improve their risk scores.
- Insurance companies (insurers) — Must disclose wildfire risk scores and model details to applicants and policyholders, and must adjust scores or offer discounts when mitigation actions are verified.
- Insurance producers (agents/brokers) — Must file detailed wildfire risk model information with the commissioner and ensure models reflect mitigation efforts; may face oversight or enforcement if models are not transparent or fair.
- Washington Insurance Commissioner and Office of the Insurance Commissioner — Responsible for reviewing insurer filings, adopting rules, and enforcing transparency and fairness in how wildfire risk models are used.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (3)
Homeowners gain clear, timely, and actionable information about how their wildfire risk is assessed and how to improve it—including documented rights to appeal and receive revised scores—empowering them to make informed decisions and reduce insurance costs through verified mitigation.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (2), (3), (4), (5); Sec. 2(4)The bill mandates that insurers either incorporate property- and community-level mitigation into risk models *or* offer discounts to those who complete them—creating a direct financial incentive for homeowners to invest in fire resilience, potentially lowering premiums and reducing future wildfire losses.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4), (5); Sec. 2(2), (3), (4)By requiring insurers to justify models with actuarial data and include community mitigation (e.g., forest treatments), the bill encourages investment in broader fire-resilience infrastructure—shifting risk reduction from solely individual property upgrades to shared, systemic preparedness.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a), (2); Sec. 1(1)(e)
Potential Concerns (3)
Insurers face increased administrative and operational costs to develop, maintain, and update wildfire risk models; to process appeals and mitigation verifications; and to file confidential model details with the state. These costs may be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums or reduced service in high-risk areas.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), (3), (4), (5); Sec. 2(1)(a), (2), (3), (4)While the bill aims to reward mitigation, it does not provide state support (e.g., grants, low-interest loans) to help low- and moderate-income homeowners afford costly mitigation measures (e.g., fire-resistant roofing, defensible space upgrades), potentially widening the gap between wealthy and less-wealthy property owners in accessing discounts or coverage.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(b); Sec. 2(3), (4)Confidentiality of wildfire risk models prevents independent academic or journalistic scrutiny, limiting transparency about model accuracy, fairness, and potential bias—especially against marginalized or historically redlined communities—reducing accountability and public trust.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(c): 'All information filed under this subsection is considered trade secrets under RCW 48.02.120 (3) and withheld from public inspection'
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and moderate-income homeowners may benefit from the appeal and discount mechanisms, but lack resources to afford mitigation upgrades—limiting their ability to access the full financial benefits of the bill. Without targeted assistance, they may remain priced out of coverage or unable to qualify for discounts.
High-income homeowners and those in newer or well-maintained homes are best positioned to afford mitigation (e.g., fire-resistant materials, defensible space), qualify for discounts, and improve risk scores—making them the primary beneficiaries of the bill’s financial incentives.
Insurers face new compliance, modeling, and appeal-handling costs, but may benefit from reduced claims from better-mitigated properties over time. However, the requirement to offer discounts or revise scores may compress margins in high-risk areas where risk is already elevated.
Municipalities and fire districts may benefit from increased pressure on insurers to recognize community-level mitigation (e.g., forest treatments), potentially leading to greater state or federal funding for local fire-resilience programs.
The Office of the Insurance Commissioner gains expanded authority and responsibility for reviewing and enforcing model transparency, but faces new budgetary and staffing demands to review filings and adjudicate disputes—without specified new funding.