Texas's coming price-optimization bulletin regulates ratemaking method rather than rate level, and that is what makes it expensive for carriers. Governor Greg Abbott's August 24, 2026 directive orders the Texas Department of Insurance to bar the use of personal data unrelated to insured risk across every TDI-regulated product, pulling demand-elasticity and retention variables out of selected rates in a $19.75 billion homeowners market (TDI).

Key Takeaways

  • The scope is the departure. Price-optimization bulletins have almost universally been personal-lines instruments, and the NAIC model leaves commercial lines to a drafting-note choice. Abbott's covers all TDI-regulated products.
  • It regulates method, not level. Carriers must strip demand variables from selected rates and document every deviation from indication, which is a filing-support burden rather than a mandated rate cut.
  • The order lands as the book turns. The preliminary 2025 Texas homeowners combined ratio is 78.2%, improved from 98.3% in 2024 and 141.8% in 2021.
  • Four further workstreams arrive with it, including mandatory FORTIFIED roof recognition and an end to age-based decline or nonrenewal, with TDI's list of follow-on actions due September 14, 2026.

What the Directive Instructs TDI to Do

Abbott framed the pricing item in the language regulators have used since the middle of the last decade, describing price optimization as the use of "personal information unrelated to insured risk to determine prices" (Office of the Texas Governor, August 2026). The phrasing tracks the Ohio Department of Insurance description carried in the NAIC white paper almost word for word, which signals that TDI is likely to lift an existing model bulletin rather than invent a Texas-specific definition.

DirectiveScopeActuarial workstream it opens
Bulletin banning price optimizationAll TDI-regulated productsStrip demand variables from selected rates; document every deviation from indication
FORTIFIED roof status in ratingResidential propertyFile a mitigation relativity and its supporting loss experience
No decline or nonrenewal on property or component ageResidential property underwritingRe-estimate age relativities on a book no longer truncated by underwriting screens
Insurance fraud task forceStatewideClaim-cost containment; no immediate filing impact
Study of inflated claim costsHome, personal auto, commercial autoSeverity trend evidence for later rate proceedings

The scope line is the one carriers should read twice. State bulletins have almost universally been personal-lines instruments, and the NAIC model even carries a drafting note telling states to decide separately "whether the bulletin should also apply to commercial lines policies" (NAIC Casualty Actuarial and Statistical Task Force, November 2015). Abbott's directive answers that question up front by covering all regulated products, which sweeps in commercial property, commercial auto and every other line where a Texas insurer runs a competitive-position model behind its selected rates.

Four other instructions arrived alongside it: mandatory recognition of a home's FORTIFIED roof status in rate calculations, a prohibition on refusing to write or renew based on the age of the property or its components, an insurance fraud task force, and a study of inflated claim costs across homeowners, personal auto and commercial auto.

Where the Demand Model Sits in a Rating Plan

A filed rating plan contains two different numbers for the same risk class: the actuarial indication produced by the loss cost model, and the rate the insurer actually selects. Price optimization is the machinery between them. The Casualty Actuarial Society's ratemaking working party described it as "the supplementation of traditional actuarial loss cost models to include quantitative customer demand models for use in determining customer prices."

The American Academy of Actuaries put the same mechanism in business terms, calling it the step "in which the business manager goes from cost-based rates to final prices by integrating expected costs with expected consumer demand behavior, subject to target business objective(s)." Those objectives are usually profit, volume, retention, or a weighted blend, and the optimizer solves for a rate vector maximizing the objective subject to constraints on rate change dispersion and regulatory limits.

That is why a method rule costs more than a level rule. A mandated rate cut is a one-time hit to a filed number. Removing demand variables from the selection step changes how every future rate is built, and it removes the mechanism carriers have used to smooth the path between an indication and a rate the market will bear.

The practical consequence is a documentation burden rather than an immediate premium change. If a carrier's selected rate for a class sits below indication, the deviation now needs a justification that is not "retention in this segment is elastic." Capping rate change dispersion, phasing an indicated increase over renewal cycles, and holding a class flat because it is competitively exposed are all decisions that lived comfortably inside a selection process nobody had to itemize. Each becomes a line a filing has to support.

The second-order effect runs through dispersion. A carrier that can no longer dampen large indicated increases with demand-side judgment either files them or absorbs them. Filing them moves premium sharply for the classes the indication says are underpriced, which is exactly the population least able to shop. Absorbing them means writing below indication and documenting why, on a rate the regulator can now see was chosen rather than derived.

The Book Turned Before the Order Arrived

The timing is the part that complicates the policy. Texas homeowners ran a 141.8% combined ratio in 2021, improved to 98.3% in 2024, and the preliminary 2025 figure is 78.2%. Statewide average annual premium reached $3,506 in 2025 against $1,987 in 2020, a run-up that drew the political attention the directive answers. The order arrives at the point in the cycle where a book that has just repaired itself is the one being told how to select rates.

That matters for what the directive can achieve. A carrier earning a 78.2% combined ratio has room to file lower rates without any regulatory instruction, and competitive pressure in a market that profitable usually produces them. A method rule imposed at the same moment cannot easily be evaluated on outcome, because rates that fall over the next two years will fall for reasons the directive did not cause, and rates that do not fall will be attributed to it.

The FORTIFIED instruction runs into a related evidence problem. The standard is maintained by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, and mandating that a designation be recognized in rate calculations requires a relativity, which requires loss experience by designation status at Texas exposure volumes. That data is thin, because the designation is recent and adoption is concentrated. A carrier ordered to recognize the status has to pick a credit, and a credit picked without credible experience is precisely the kind of judgment the price-optimization half of the same directive is designed to remove from rate selection.

The age-of-property prohibition creates the sharper version of the same tension. Component age, particularly roof age, is among the better-supported predictors in homeowners rating, and removing it from underwriting eligibility pushes that risk back into the rate. A directive that simultaneously narrows what can be used to decline a risk and narrows the judgment available when selecting the rate for it leaves the indication carrying more weight than it did before, in a line where the indication is built on catastrophe model output that no one files as settled fact.

Further Reading

Sources