SB 1540
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
SB 1540 requires insurers using wildfire risk models to submit them to the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) for review, incorporate community-level or property-specific mitigation actions into their ratings, and provide premium discounts when actuarially supported. Insurers must disclose risk scores, available mitigation discounts, and appeal rights to applicants and policyholders in writing within strict deadlines. The measure takes effect 91 days after the session ends, with requirements operative on July 1, 2027.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
To incentivize wildfire risk reduction and improve insurance affordability for mitigated properties by requiring insurers to recognize mitigation efforts in pricing and disclosures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Must submit wildfire risk models to DCBS for review; modify models to account for mitigation actions or offer actuarially supported discounts; post discount information and appeal processes on public websites; provide detailed written notices of risk scores and mitigation opportunities within 10 business days of application or renewal events; maintain an appeals process with specific response timelines.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Receive plain-language written notices of their wildfire risk score, the range of possible scores, and specific mitigation actions that could lower their score or premium; gain access to premium discounts if they undertake qualifying property-specific or community-level mitigation actions; obtain a formal appeals process for disputed scores or discount amounts.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Review submitted insurer models for mitigation accountancy; require model modifications if mitigation is not accounted for; adopt rules specifying qualifying mitigation actions for discounts; receive copies of denied appeals upon request.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Qualifying actions include forest treatment, fuel reduction, PUC-approved utility plans, IBHS Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood/Home certifications, State Fire Marshal certifications, defensible space, structure hardening, or compliance with Oregon Residential Specialty Code R327. These actions can trigger insurer model updates or premium discounts.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Insurers face compliance costs to submit models, modify underwriting systems, and implement new notice and appeals workflows. Models submitted are trade secrets exempt from public disclosure.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Discounts for mitigation are conditional on being 'actuarially supported,' meaning insurers may deny discounts if they cannot demonstrate actuarial justification, potentially limiting consumer savings.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Notice deadlines are tight (10 business days for adverse ratings and denials), requiring insurers to automate score generation and disclosure processes.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Homeowner in high-risk zone
A homeowner hardens their structure and establishes defensible space, obtaining IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home certification. The insurer's model is modified to reflect the reduced risk, or an actuarially supported discount is applied, lowering the premium by 40%. The homeowner retains affordable coverage that might otherwise be unavailable due to adverse rating.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Homeowner in high-risk zone
An insurer claims that specific property mitigation actions lack actuarial support and denies a discount. The homeowner appeals, but the process is delayed or denied. The homeowner faces unaffordable premiums despite undertaking risk reduction, potentially leading to non-renewal or financial hardship.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
The text permits trade secret exemptions and conditions discounts on actuarial support. These provisions create opportunities for insurers to restrict discount availability through data interpretation or classification decisions rather than genuine risk assessment.
Sources · Senate Amendments to Introduced
The measure balances consumer protection and wildfire risk reduction incentives against insurer compliance costs and the potential for disputes over actuarial support for mitigation discounts.
Increases transparency of wildfire risk scoring and provides clear pathways for policyholders to reduce premiums through verified mitigation.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Encourages investment in property and community-level wildfire mitigation by linking risk reduction to insurance affordability.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Imposes significant operational burdens on insurers to modify models, submit trade secrets, and manage new disclosure and appeals requirements.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Discount availability depends on actuarial support, which may be difficult for insurers to demonstrate for specific mitigation actions, limiting consumer benefits.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
No substantive change. The current Senate Amendments replace the core text of the bill with language that is substantively identical to the previous A-Engrossed version. Definitions, submission requirements, mitigation incorporation mandates, discount conditions, notice deadlines, appeal processes, operative date (July 1, 2027), and effective date provisions remain unchanged.
No substantive change identified.
Tradeoff: None.
high confidence. The bill text is complete and unambiguous regarding requirements, deadlines, definitions, and operative dates. The comparison shows no substantive change from the previous version.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
The amendment would require Oregon insurers using wildfire risk models to submit those models to the Department of Consumer and Business Services for approval, mandate that pricing and underwriting account for verified property- and community-level wildfire mitigation efforts, establish a standardized appeals process and plain-language disclosure requirements for adverse ratings, and create a statewide wildfire mitigation database managed by the State Fire Marshal. If adopted, insurers would face significant modeling and compliance obligations starting July 2027, while policyholders in high-risk areas would gain guaranteed transparency regarding their risk scores and potential pathways to premium discounts tied to verified mitigation actions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure aims to stabilize wildfire insurance affordability by forcing insurers to price risk based on verified mitigation efforts rather than geographic location alone, thereby incentivizing property-level and landscape-level fire prevention.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Must submit risk models to DCBS, modify underwriting algorithms to incorporate mitigation data, post discount and appeal information publicly, and issue strict-timeline written notices for adverse ratings.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Gain access to a centralized database of mitigation projects, standardized risk score disclosures, clear appeal rights, and potential premium reductions if they complete verified mitigation actions or live near certified community projects.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Bear administrative responsibilities to develop the statewide database, review and potentially disapprove insurer models, adopt implementing rules, and oversee compliance and appeals forwarding.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Their mitigation efforts become a recognized pricing factor if documented in the database or meeting defined certification standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Insurers must audit and potentially overhaul catastrophe/wildfire risk models by July 2027 to reflect verified mitigation data. Policyholders must document and submit proof of completed mitigation actions to qualify for discounts.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Insurers will incur IT, actuarial, and compliance costs to modify models and meet disclosure deadlines. State agencies face development and oversight costs, though legislative revenue offices note no direct state revenue impact. Homeowners bear upfront mitigation costs but may offset them through lower premiums.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Discounts apply only when actuarially supported and tied to specific, verified actions or proximity to community-level projects. The text incorporates definitions referencing national standards (e.g., Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety) and the Oregon Residential Specialty Code, but remains an Oregon insurance rating change that does not adopt those external standards as binding law.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
DCBS can disapprove models that fail to account for mitigation. Insurers must forward denied appeals to the director upon request. Failure to properly weight mitigation data could lead to pricing inaccuracies or coverage gaps during the transition period.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Homeowner in high-risk zone
Completes all required defensible space and structure-hardening measures, qualifies under the database standards, and receives a substantial, actuarially justified premium discount that makes their insurance affordable for the first time in years.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Policyholder adjacent to treated wildfire zone
An insurer's model fails to properly weight a newly certified community-level mitigation project due to data lag or technical incompatibility, resulting in an adverse rating and higher premiums despite proximity to risk reduction work, with the appeals process unable to correct the actuarial justification gap.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
The text grants discretion over actuarial justification and model modification without prescribing uniform technical thresholds, creating room for inconsistent application.
Sources · Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
The measure trades insurer modeling flexibility and administrative burden for standardized transparency and guaranteed consideration of verified wildfire mitigation in pricing. Upsides include increased pricing fairness for proactive homeowners, standardized risk disclosure, and incentivized landscape-level fire prevention. Downsides include significant compliance costs for insurers, potential premium volatility during model transition, and the risk that policyholders whose mitigation efforts fall outside narrowly defined actuarial or proximity thresholds will be excluded from benefits.
Increases pricing fairness for proactive homeowners by tying premiums to verified risk reduction rather than location alone.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Standardizes risk disclosure and creates a clear appeals pathway, reducing information asymmetry between insurers and policyholders.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Incentivizes landscape-level fire prevention by making community mitigation a recognized pricing factor.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Imposes significant IT, actuarial, and compliance costs on insurers to modify models and meet disclosure deadlines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
May cause premium volatility or coverage gaps during the transition period as models are recalibrated.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Excludes policyholders whose mitigation efforts fall outside narrowly defined actuarial or proximity thresholds, potentially leaving high-risk residents without relief.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text and official legislative summaries. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
The amendment requires Oregon insurers using wildfire risk models to submit them to the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) for review, mandates model modification if they fail to account for certified property or community mitigation actions, standardizes qualifying mitigation through added IIBHS certifications, tightens disclosure and appeal deadlines to business days, clarifies trade secret status under ORS 192.345, and delays the operative date to July 1, 2027. If adopted, insurers will face increased compliance and potential premium revenue adjustments, while policyholders in wildfire-prone areas will gain standardized discount eligibility, clearer risk scoring disclosures, and formal appeal rights.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to standardize wildfire mitigation recognition across Oregon’s insurance market and align the state’s framework with neighboring jurisdictions by adding Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IIBHS) certification pathways, while clarifying DCBS authority to mandate model updates when insurers ignore verified risk-reduction efforts.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Must submit wildfire risk models to DCBS, modify them if they do not account for certified mitigation actions, provide actuarially supported premium discounts for qualifying mitigation, update public website disclosures, and manage appeals within strict business-day deadlines. Trade secret protection is shifted to ORS 192.345.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Gain eligibility for premium discounts if they complete qualifying mitigation or reside in certified communities. Receive plain-language risk score disclosures, explicit appeal rights, and clearer timelines for insurer responses.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Gain explicit authority to review submitted models, require modifications when mitigation is ignored, adopt rules specifying qualifying actions for discounts, and oversee the forwarding of denied appeals.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Their wildfire reduction efforts become directly tied to insurance pricing if they meet certification thresholds or align with approved mitigation plans.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Insurers will incur IT and actuarial costs to adjust proprietary models or document how existing underwriting already reflects mitigation. Compliance monitoring and appeal processing will require dedicated staff resources.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Policyholders must track and submit proof of IIBHS or State Fire Marshal certifications to access discounts, creating a documentation burden that may delay premium relief.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
DCBS will need to develop rulemaking capacity and technical review protocols for model submissions, while the State Fire Marshal may face increased certification requests.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Shifting notice and appeal deadlines from calendar days to business days tightens insurer response windows, potentially increasing administrative pressure during peak application or renewal periods.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Homeowner in a high-risk wildfire zone
A policyholder completes IIBHS Wildfire Prepared Home certification and lives near a State Fire Marshal-certified fuel reduction project. The insurer is required to apply an actuarially supported premium discount that reduces annual premiums by 30%, making coverage affordable where it was previously priced out of reach.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Insurer with legacy modeling systems
An insurer’s proprietary wildfire risk model is deemed non-compliant because it fails to account for a newly certified community mitigation action. The DCBS Director mandates a costly model overhaul or forces mandatory discounts across thousands of policies, compressing underwriting margins below sustainable levels and triggering rate increases elsewhere.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The statute grants insurers discretion over actuarial justification and model modification thresholds without mandating independent verification of discount amounts, creating room for duty creep or inconsistent application of mitigation recognition standards.
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The measure balances insurer modeling autonomy and cost control against policyholder affordability and transparency by mandating verified mitigation recognition in pricing models, yielding clearer risk disclosure and potential premium relief for mitigated properties at the expense of increased regulatory compliance costs and potential rate compression for insurers.
Standardized discount eligibility reduces administrative friction and accelerates premium relief for homeowners who undertake verified wildfire mitigation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Plain-language risk score disclosures and formal appeal timelines improve market transparency and consumer recourse.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Mandatory model modification or discount requirements may impose significant actuarial and IT compliance costs on insurers, particularly those relying on legacy or proprietary scoring systems.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Tightened business-day deadlines and expanded DCBS rulemaking authority increase administrative burdens for both insurers and state agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text, staff measure summary, and fiscal/revenue impact notices. No enacted provisions or external speculation are used.
The amendment modifies qualifying criteria for wildfire mitigation discounts by changing conjunctive requirements to disjunctive ones and explicitly adding compliance with the Oregon Residential Specialty Code as an alternative to third-party certification. This expands the pool of eligible homeowners, requires insurers to adjust underwriting models and discount structures accordingly, and shifts regulatory review focus to DCBS.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The shift from conjunctive to disjunctive language and the explicit inclusion of state code compliance suggests an intent to lower administrative and financial barriers for homeowners seeking premium discounts, thereby increasing discount uptake without mandating dual certification.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gain broader, lower-barrier pathways to qualify for premium discounts through either state code compliance or third-party certification, rather than needing both.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Must revise catastrophe and wildfire risk models to recognize disjunctive mitigation criteria, update model submissions to DCBS, and adjust discount eligibility tracking.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Face expanded oversight duties to review insurer model submissions for compliance with the new criteria and potentially adopt implementing rules.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Staff Measure Summary A
Insurers will incur implementation costs to update underwriting models, revise DCBS filings, and adjust internal tracking for the new disjunctive qualification standards.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Homeowners may experience faster access to premium discounts if they meet state code standards, reducing reliance on costly third-party inspections.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
DCBS will need to establish review protocols and potentially adopt rules to verify how insurers incorporate the expanded mitigation definitions into actuarial justifications.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Homeowners in high-risk zones
A homeowner qualifies for a substantial premium discount solely by meeting state code standards, avoiding third-party certification costs and significantly improving insurance affordability during a regional coverage shortage.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Insurers and policyholders in wildfire-affected regions
Insurers fail to accurately weight the new disjunctive criteria in their models, leading to widespread mispricing of policies, triggering regulatory intervention, and causing temporary market instability.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The text legally permits insurers to offer discounts based on either code compliance or certification. Weak enforcement or misclassification could allow insurers to deny discounts by claiming a property's mitigation does not meet actuarial support thresholds or proximity requirements, effectively circumventing the discount mandate without violating the statutory language.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Expanding qualification pathways improves homeowner access to premium discounts but increases insurer compliance complexity and regulatory oversight burdens. Upsides include greater affordability and flexibility for policyholders, while downsides involve higher administrative costs for insurers and DCBS, with potential for inconsistent model validation.
Greater insurance affordability and reduced administrative friction for homeowners seeking mitigation discounts.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Increased implementation costs for insurers, expanded regulatory review capacity requirements for DCBS, and potential for inconsistent model validation across carriers.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
medium confidence. The amendment text clearly alters qualification criteria and expands eligibility pathways. However, the absence of official sponsor rationale, detailed actuarial projections, or finalized implementing rules limits certainty regarding actual discount uptake rates, insurer compliance costs, and regulatory enforcement mechanisms.
If adopted, this amendment would formally recognize compliance with Oregon Residential Specialty Code section R327 and the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety Wildfire Prepared Home certification as qualifying mitigation actions for residential property insurance discounts or risk score adjustments. This standardizes which wildfire risk reduction efforts insurers must consider when pricing policies, potentially expanding discount eligibility while requiring insurers to update underwriting models and regulatory filings.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to reduce ambiguity in insurance discount eligibility by aligning qualifying mitigation efforts with existing Oregon building code standards and a nationally recognized certification program. This alignment would simplify compliance verification for homeowners and underwriting validation for insurers.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Gain a clearer, standardized pathway to qualify for premium discounts or risk score improvements by meeting specific building code or certification standards, potentially lowering long-term insurance costs.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Must update catastrophe and wildfire risk models, underwriting guidelines, discount structures, and public disclosures to recognize the newly specified mitigation actions as qualifying criteria for rating purposes.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Will need to review insurer model submissions to verify they account for the new standards, potentially issue implementing rules, and manage appeals related to risk classifications or discount amounts.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Staff Measure Summary A
Their compliance determinations become directly tied to insurance pricing, which may increase demand for inspections and certifications but also formalizes their role in risk reduction incentives.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Homeowners may prioritize R327-compliant hardening or IBHS certification to secure discounts, shifting mitigation behavior toward verifiable standards. Insurers will incur administrative and actuarial costs to integrate these standards into model filings and customer communications. DCBS and the Fire Marshal will face rulemaking and review workloads, though legislative revenue analysis confirms no direct state or local revenue impact.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Revenue Impact Statement A
Homeowners in high-hazard zones
A homeowner completes R327-compliant defensible space and structural hardening, obtains IBHS certification, and secures substantial premium discounts that make continued occupancy financially viable without coverage denial.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Homeowners and insurers
An insurer’s model approval process at DCBS is delayed or misapplied, causing compliant properties to be systematically overpriced; homeowners face costly retrofits solely for discount eligibility while insurers delay recognition due to regulatory bottlenecks.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The amendment relies on external certifications and code compliance; without rigorous DCBS oversight or contractor licensing requirements, verification gaps could be exploited.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
The amendment standardizes mitigation recognition to improve insurance affordability and rating clarity, but shifts upfront compliance costs to homeowners and administrative model-update burdens to insurers and regulators.
Predictable discount eligibility reduces consumer confusion and dispute volume.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Alignment with established building codes encourages verifiable risk reduction.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Homeowners bear upfront retrofit costs that may not be recovered if insurer model updates are delayed.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Regulators face increased rulemaking and review workloads without dedicated funding.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Staff Measure Summary A
medium confidence. The amendment text is narrowly focused on definitional alignment, but its practical impact depends on insurer model adoption rates, DCBS rulemaking capacity, and homeowner retrofit costs, which are not fully detailed in the supplied documents.
23 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Follow the official text for SB 1540 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals.
Selected document summary
Substantial replacement
What the document says to change
Delete lines 5 through 8 and insert:
Oregon records no individual sponsors.
Presession filing record
Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President.
LC 182 draft
Date printed on LC draft: January 12, 2026
LC 182 became SB 1540
Mapping document posted: January 13, 2026 at 7:59 AM PST
LC0182_DRAFT_2026_Regular_Session
Senate Interim Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire introduction work session
Committee meeting: January 14, 2026 at 11:30 AM PST
HR D
Committee introduction motion
Committee meeting: January 14, 2026 at 11:30 AM PST
A motion was made to adopt the listed legislative concepts as committee bills.
Official vote: 4-0-1
Committee introduction allows consideration; it does not imply every member supported the introduced or final text.
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
The artifact has broad business or technology relevance, but it does not identify a concrete effect on Yex Labs LLC.
74% confidence · deterministic fallback
23 events
Full timeline
23 entries shown.
In committee upon adjournment.
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 1 · Room HR C · Requires an insurer that uses a catastrophe model or wildfire risk model or scoring method to provide the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services a description of each model or scoring method, along with related information, and an explanation of how the insurer uses the model or scoring method in underwriting decisions.
Amendment -A6 proposed
Senate Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Referred to Rules by order of the President.
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be referred to Rules. (Printed A-Eng.)
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 1 · Room HR D · Requires an insurer that uses a catastrophe model or wildfire risk model to provide the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services a description of each model, along with related information, and an explanation of how the insurer uses the model in underwriting decisions.
IS_Impact SB 1540 4
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -4 adopted
IS_Impact SB 1540 1
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -1 proposed
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 4 · Room HR D · Requires an insurer that uses a catastrophe model or wildfire risk model to provide the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services a description of each model, along with related information, and an explanation of how the insurer uses the model in underwriting decisions.
Amendment -1 proposed
Referred to Natural Resources and Wildfire.
Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk.
menting the requirements. ISSUES DISCUSSED: A bipartisan measure in Colorado, House Bill 1182 (2025) A similar measure in Washington State, Senate Bill 5928 (2026) Types
ASURE SUMMARY Outside of Oregon, in 2025, the Colorado General Assembly passed HB 1182, requiring certain insurers that use wildfire or CAT models to share certain in
re in Colorado, House Bill 1182 (2025) A similar measure in Washington State, Senate Bill 5928 (2026) Types of property-specific and community-level risk reduction work tha
heir models. The Washington State Legislature is considering a similar measure, SB 5928, in its 2026 legislative session. This Summary has not been adopted or officia
“Requires an insurer that uses a catastrophe model or wildfire risk model or scoring method to provide the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services a description of each model or scoring method, along with related information, and an explanation of how the insurer uses the model or scoring method in underwriting decisions.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.