Costs
What the state thinks Zone Zero will cost you
California filed a detailed economic impact statement with the rulemaking package. These are its own numbers, not an estimate from a contractor trying to sell you something.
The headline figures
| Measure | Estimate |
|---|---|
| Average cost to an individual household | $960.54 |
| Range for a household | $227.74 – $2,554.83 |
| Average cost to a business | $968.63 |
| Added one-time cost per new building | $2,636 |
| Ongoing annual cost once established | $0 |
| Total statewide cost | $1.738 billion |
| Claimed statewide benefit over the decade | $55.18 billion |
Two places the filing contradicts itself, and what we have done about them.
The supplement's narrative gives the range for an individual as $232.77 to $2,686.53 — but those are the business totals from the preceding page, carried over in error. The residence table itself totals $227.74 to $2,554.83, and that is the range shown above.
The benefit figure appears as $55.18 billion in the supplement and $55.40 billion on the STD 399 form itself; the statewide cost appears as $1.738 billion in section B1 and $1.737 billion in section E3. The gaps are rounding rather than substance, but if you cite a figure, cite which section it came from. The alternatives table further down uses the form's figures, because that is where the comparison is set out.
Costs are spread over the first three years for gardening work, and over five years for tree, fence, gate and shed work. The state expects no ongoing costs once Zone 0 is established, on the reasoning that maintaining it costs about what existing defensible space maintenance already costs.
Where the money goes on a new build
The new-construction figure is unusually concrete, because it isolates just two changes:
| Item | Before Zone 0 | With Zone 0 |
|---|---|---|
| Mulch | Cedar bark | Gravel |
| Fencing | Wood | Metal |
| Subtotal | $1,106 | $3,742 |
| Difference | $2,636 | |
Typical service costs
Board staff gathered quotes for the four categories of work. These are the underlying figures behind the averages above, for a household hiring the work out:
| Service | Lowest | Highest | Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gardening | $0 | $600 | $284 |
| Gardening plus labour | $240 | $2,220 | $1,234 |
| Tree maintenance | $0 | $600 | $354 |
| Fences and gates | $75 | $1,116 | $131 |
| Fences and gates plus labour | $355 | $2,831 | $976 |
| Sheds | $109 | $769 | $380 |
| Sheds plus labour | $409 | $2,769 | $983 |
Three caveats the state does not put in the headline. The survey underlying these figures ran from 22 March to 5 April 2023 and drew 1,698 responses. The dollar figures are not inflation-adjusted to the effective date. And tree maintenance is printed with the same $354 average whether or not labour is included, while its range widens from $0–$600 to $75–$3,100 — the two cannot both be right, so use the range rather than that average. Treat all of it as an order of magnitude, not a quote.
How many people are already compliant
The same survey asked whether respondents' properties already met the requirements. Among 1,084 residential respondents, only 18% were compliant overall. By category:
| Category | Already compliant | Will hire labour | Will do it themselves |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gardening | 22.2% | 26.6% | 51.2% |
| Tree maintenance | 79.2% | 11.4% | 9.4% |
| Fences and gates | 62.7% | 20.9% | 16.3% |
| Sheds | 69.4% | 11.8% | 18.8% |
Gardening is the pinch point by a wide margin, and it is also the category most people intend to handle themselves.
The alternative the Board did not choose
The impact statement evaluated two alternatives alongside the proposal. The more stringent one — prohibiting all vegetation in Zone 0 and requiring immediate replacement of combustible fences and gates — scored a better cost-benefit ratio than the version adopted:
| Option | Total cost | Total benefit | Cost-effectiveness ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Less stringent | $1.236bn | $32.40bn | 26.21 |
| Adopted | $1.737bn | $55.40bn | 31.89 |
| More stringent | $2.547bn | $98.43bn | 38.65 |
The Board took the middle option. Its stated reasoning elsewhere in the package is affordability and implementation practicality rather than pure cost-benefit.
Jobs
The Board projects about 25,148 incremental full-time-equivalent jobs by 2028, against 267 lost in the enterprise sector during the first three years as compliance costs bite. Occupations affected: construction workers, gardeners, arborists, landscapers, and services tailored to compliance including proximity clearing and repair or replacement of vulnerable sheds, fencing and gates.
Ways to reduce what you pay
- Insurance discounts. The same work earns credits worth up to 16.4% of the wildfire portion of a FAIR Plan Dwelling Fire premium, and mandated discounts from admitted carriers. See how →
- Grants and assistance. The Board points to Climate Bond funding, CAL FIRE grants, local fire districts and Fire Safe Councils, and organised community work events. Availability varies sharply by county.
- Sequence by deadline. Only a short list is due immediately. Spreading the rest across the three- and five-year tiers is explicitly what the phase-in is for. See the tiers →
- Do the cheap work first. Moving firewood, clearing gutters and pulling mulch cost nothing and cover most of the immediate tier.
Source: Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement (STD 399) and supplement, Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, signed 20–21 August 2026, prepared as part of the emergency rulemaking package. Survey conducted 22 March – 5 April 2023, 1,698 responses. Benefit estimates derive from Gollner et al. (2025).