Urban Fire Forum 2025: Reviewing the five papers on safety and leadership

Explainer: What is the Urban Fire Forum and what did it address?

On 24 September 2025, the Urban Fire Forum convened at NFPA headquarters in Quincy, Massachusetts. Chiefs from Australia, Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, Slovenia, the United Kingdom and the United States attended.

The Forum exists as a working meeting. It brings together leaders of the largest metropolitan fire departments to examine shared challenges, exchange operational knowledge and set out common positions.

Each year the discussions are framed by immediate pressures on the fire and emergency services. The 2025 agenda centred on wildfire-initiated urban conflagrations, lithium-ion battery fires, national coordination, mutual aid and the role of fire service leadership in shaping policy.

The outcome of this meeting was the endorsement of five position papers and one informational bulletin. The papers cover codes and standards, apparatus specification, national advocacy, communications networks and wildfire risk.

In this article, IFSJ outlines the key messages from each paper and presents them as reference points for departments, policymakers and partner organisations.

Who was present

Distinguished guests

Jim Pauley, President and CEO at the National Fire Protection Association, attended on behalf of the standards body that develops widely used consensus codes.

Donna Black, Acting Administrator at the United States Fire Administration, was there representing the US federal agency that supports fire and EMS programmes nationwide.

Commissioner Darren Klemm, President of the AFAC National Council for Fire and Emergency Services, represented Australia’s peak coordination forum for fire authorities.

Chief Fire Officer Marco Antonio Sánchez Guerrero, President of the Mexican Fire Chiefs Association, brought the perspective of Mexico’s fire chiefs to the Forum.

Chief Fire Officer Stephan Wevers, President of the Federation of European Fire Officers, represented European fire leadership.

Chief Inspector Peter Holland, Crown Premises Fire Safety Inspectorate, attended on behalf of the UK government’s fire safety oversight function.

Chief Fire Officer Milan Dubravac, President of CTIF, represented the international association that links fire and rescue services across countries.

Metro Chiefs and presenters

The Metro Chiefs in attendance included Chief Keith Bryant, Chief Paul Burke, Chief John Butler, Chief Mary Cameli, Chief Steve Dongworth, Chief Mike Duran, Commissioner Annette Nance-Holt, Chief Patrick Kennedy, Chief Richard Liebmann, Chief Ernest Malone, Chief Anthony Marrone, Chief Dan Munsey, Chief Randy Royal, Chief Chuck Ryan, Chief Douglas Schrage and Commissioner Jeffery Thompson.

Additional presenters and contributors included Dr Jeff Burgess, Jeremey Criner, Bob Duval, Al Gillespie, Chief Aaron Guggenheim, Shelby Hall, Dr Sara Jahnke, Dr Stephen Kerber, Victoria Lutz, Karen Berard-Reed, Michael Spaziani, Michele Steinberg and Dalan Zartman.

This group combined operational leadership from large metropolitan fire departments with research, policy and technical expertise from NFPA staff, academics and partner organisations.

Paper 1: Confronting the risk of wildfire-initiated urban conflagrations

Escalating threats in the wildland-urban interface

The Urban Fire Forum paper begins by highlighting how rapid expansion of the wildland-urban interface (WUI) has placed millions of people and properties at heightened risk of wildfire.

Wildfires are a natural part of many ecosystems, but human development into fire-prone landscapes has dramatically increased exposure.

The paper notes that extreme weather linked to climate change, combined with vulnerable building patterns, has created a global crisis.

Abandoned agricultural land, invasive plants and unhealthy forests add to fuel loads, while new residential developments continue to push into high-risk areas.

The United States alone has an estimated 45 million homes located in wildfire-prone zones.

Most of these homes are susceptible to ignition either through direct flame exposure or through embers, which are a common cause of structure fires during large wildfires.

Once a structure ignites, it can spread fire to nearby homes, creating chain reactions that escalate into full-scale urban conflagrations.

International examples show this is not a US-only problem.

Fires in Chile, Portugal, France, Spain, Greece and Turkey demonstrate that urban conflagration risk exists in many regions.

Even island nations in the Caribbean, once thought immune, now face rising wildfire dangers as weather and development patterns change.

Case studies of catastrophic events

The paper reviews several disasters that illustrate how destructive wildfire-initiated urban conflagrations have become.

The 1991 Oakland Hills fire in California caused $14 billion in property damage (adjusted to 2025 values) and killed 25 people, including three responders.

That fire stood as the worst in US history for more than two decades.

Since 2017, however, five US wildfires have surpassed Oakland in terms of devastation.

These include the Tubbs Fire in 2017, the Camp Fire and Woolsey Fire in 2018, the Lahaina Fire in 2023 and the Palisades and Eaton Fires in 2025.

Together these disasters caused 242 deaths and $63.4 billion in losses.

The Eaton Fire in Los Angeles alone inflicted more than double the property losses of the Tubbs Fire despite similar geographic size.

The document also references European data, where more urban areas are now considered at wildfire risk than in either North America or Asia.

Growing evidence demonstrates that fire intensity, frequency and community vulnerability are converging in dangerous ways.

Understanding risk in communities

Effective risk reduction starts with understanding both environmental and social vulnerabilities.

The paper cites decades of research showing that the “home ignition zone” – the 30 metres surrounding a structure – is the most critical determinant of whether a building will ignite during a wildfire.

When structures are located within 100 feet of each other, their ignition zones overlap, meaning the vulnerability of one building directly affects its neighbours.

Collective action is essential.

Communities that fail to adopt shared ignition reduction measures have a far higher likelihood of burning together.

The report stresses that wildfire preparedness must consider demographics such as age, education, language and socioeconomic status when planning evacuations and shelters.

Smoke exposure as well as fire spread must also be addressed.

The paper warns that without a data-driven approach to risk, communities will remain underprepared for escalating wildfire conditions.

Fire departments are urged to conduct community-level wildfire risk assessments and to integrate findings into planning, zoning and emergency management.

Applying preventive measures through codes and standards

The Urban Fire Forum emphasises that codes and standards are among the most effective tools available for reducing wildfire risk in the built environment.

It calls for adoption and enforcement of consensus-based model codes such as NFPA 1 Fire Code, NFPA 1140 Standard for Wildland Fire Protection and the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC).

The paper cautions against weakening codes through amendments driven by short-term cost concerns.

It argues that opposition to safety standards often relies on unproven claims of economic burden.

In contrast, decades of research from organisations such as NFPA, NIST, FEMA and Headwaters Economics demonstrate that applying wildfire-resilient standards is cost-effective when compared to the scale of losses avoided.

The fire service is positioned as a critical advocate for these measures, with a responsibility to educate local officials and community leaders on the science of structure ignition and the long-term benefits of resilience-focused codes.

Beyond building standards, the paper also recommends promoting land use and zoning policies that incorporate wildfire safety, including requirements for water supply, road access and subdivision design.

Fire departments are encouraged to play a leadership role in creating Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) that address evacuation, fuel management and cross-jurisdictional cooperation.

Training, readiness and collective action

Training gaps remain a major vulnerability.

According to NFPA’s fifth needs assessment of the US fire service, 87% of structural fire departments are responsible for WUI responses, but 78% report unmet training needs.

Two-thirds lack appropriate protective clothing for wildland operations and 71% would need state-level assistance for incidents involving more than 20 structures.

To address these shortcomings, the report calls for modernised curricula from USFA and NWCG, virtual and accessible training courses and greater inclusion of wildfire content across structural fire service programmes.

It also calls for new PPE standards, including respirator requirements for WUI environments and proper fit for female firefighters.

The Forum stresses that preparing for wildfire-initiated urban conflagrations requires engagement across the entire fire and life safety ecosystem.

This includes fire leaders, policymakers, designers, builders, community members, educators and service providers.

Resources such as NFPA’s Firewise USA programme, Wildfire Community Preparedness Day and Certified Wildfire Mitigation Specialist credential are highlighted as practical tools for communities.

The concluding message is clear: suppression alone cannot protect communities from future disasters.

Only a proactive approach combining science-based codes, community-wide risk reduction, rigorous training and cross-sector collaboration will alter outcomes.

Paper 1 Summary: Confronting the risk of wildfire-initiated urban conflagrations

The Urban Fire Forum paper highlights growing risks from wildfire-initiated urban conflagrations, intensified by climate change and expanding development into fire-prone zones.

It reviews historic disasters such as the 1991 Oakland Hills fire, alongside recent fires including the Tubbs, Camp, Woolsey, Lahaina, Palisades and Eaton incidents.

Research shows that ember ignition within the home ignition zone often leads to chain reactions of burning structures in densely built areas.

The paper calls for adoption of standards such as NFPA 1, NFPA 1140 and the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code to strengthen resilience.

It emphasises urgent needs for expanded training, protective equipment and proactive measures like land-use planning, fuel management and community-level wildfire assessments.

Paper 2: Safeguarding communities – a fire service advocacy toolkit

Rising threats from deregulation and weakened oversight

The paper opens by warning that the United States is experiencing a rapid push toward deregulation, with safety codes and standards facing deliberate erosion.

For over a century, public safety has relied on rigorous codes developed through non-profit consensus processes, but these are increasingly being undermined by legislation driven by well-funded interest groups.

Recent years have seen several states pass laws delaying or blocking updates to building and fire codes.

In practice, this means new buildings may be constructed under outdated rules that lag 10 to 15 years behind current research.

At the same time, enforcement mechanisms such as permitting and plan reviews are being stripped away, leaving communities more exposed to preventable risks.

Examples cited in the paper include the removal of long-standing requirements for dual exit stairways in apartment buildings, rollback of fire sprinkler provisions in larger residential properties and even legal changes that allow building in disaster-prone areas.

These moves not only weaken protections but also sideline fire service professionals whose expertise is critical in shaping effective safeguards.

The report stresses that while the public remains largely unaware of these changes, history shows that disasters such as Grenfell Tower in 2017 or the Oakland Ghost Ship fire in 2016 tend to expose the cost of ignoring codes.

Waiting for tragedy to act, the paper argues, is a dangerous and recurring cycle that must be broken.

Why the system of safety has delivered results

The advocacy toolkit describes the US codes and standards system as one of the most successful public-private partnerships in history.

Originating from tragedies such as the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, which directly led to the development of what is now NFPA’s Life Safety Code, this framework has consistently driven improvements in public safety.

The report notes that government policy has long directed federal agencies to rely on voluntary consensus standards.

By using standards created through an open process rather than government regulation alone, costs to taxpayers are reduced, efficiency is improved and independent oversight is maintained.

A critical aspect of this system is funding.

Standards development organisations, including NFPA, sustain their work through sales and licensing of codes, which are copyrighted as original works.

This independence ensures that standards are not directly shaped by industries they regulate, unlike government or corporate-funded initiatives.

However, the paper warns that copyright protections are increasingly under attack from companies arguing that incorporation into law should void ownership rights.

Such changes could strip organisations of the resources needed to maintain and update standards.

The paper emphasises that weakening this model not only undermines safety but risks creating an unsustainable burden on government agencies, which would face huge costs if they were forced to take over development themselves.

Consequences when codes are ignored or bypassed

The toolkit highlights how disregarding safety codes can have deadly outcomes.

The Grenfell Tower fire in London serves as a central example, where combustible cladding and poor enforcement contributed to 72 deaths.

Similarly, the Ghost Ship warehouse fire in Oakland, California killed 36 people and exposed years of ignored violations.

The paper also explores ongoing debates that epitomise the risks of legislative shortcuts.

A key issue is the push in multiple states to permit mid-rise residential buildings with only a single exit stair.

Legislators in Tennessee, Colorado and Virginia have enacted or studied provisions allowing such construction, bypassing traditional consensus-based processes that balance design innovation with safety.

The concern, according to NFPA, is that decisions driven by housing affordability goals are ignoring decades of technical research.

The paper notes that when policymakers remove long-standing safety provisions without technical substantiation, the credibility of the entire fire safety ecosystem is threatened.

Firefighters, inspectors and engineers depend on consistent rules; fragmented exceptions make enforcement harder and compromise community protection.

Other worrying examples include laws in North Carolina, Utah and Ohio that freeze or strip back code requirements, as well as legislation in New Jersey establishing “self-certification” by design professionals.

This latter system risks conflict of interest by allowing architects and engineers to certify compliance without rigorous external review, creating vulnerabilities if oversight is weak.

Advocacy strategies for the fire service

The advocacy toolkit sets out detailed steps for how the fire service can resist these trends and reassert its voice in policy.

It recommends six major areas of action.

First, fire chiefs should take proactive leadership by monitoring early warning signs through relationships with fire marshals and by building partnerships across departments and community groups.

Political relationships with local and federal legislators are critical for raising awareness and the toolkit even suggests that fire service leaders consider running for office themselves.

Second, influencing the legislative process requires forming coalitions with building officials, insurers and disability advocates, using both storytelling and evidence to shape debates.

Third, when tragedies occur, the fire service should use after-action reports and media campaigns during the post-disaster “window of opportunity” to push for reforms.

Fourth, chiefs are urged to participate directly in codes and standards development by joining committees and bringing NFPA regional directors into their departments for regular updates.

Fifth, engagement with elected leaders is essential, particularly in supporting measures like the Pro Codes Act, which protects public access to standards and helps safeguard independent development.

Finally, the paper calls for broad public outreach.

Campaigns such as NFPA’s “Safety Doesn’t Happen by Chance,” Fire Prevention Week, Home Fire Sprinkler Week and Firewise initiatives should be leveraged to educate citizens and mobilise civic groups.

By making safety visible and connecting it to everyday life, communities can become more invested in resisting deregulation.

Conclusion and call to action

The toolkit concludes with a clear warning: special interests are systematically eroding the system of safety and the fire service will feel the effects first.

Weakened codes not only put the public at greater risk but directly endanger firefighters who must respond to emergencies in unsafe buildings.

To protect lives, the fire service must act collectively to defend consensus-based standards.

This means educating the public, confronting misconceptions about cost, engaging legislators and asserting leadership in code processes.

The system has worked for over a century because it is independent, technical and inclusive.

Losing it would undermine decades of progress and expose communities to preventable tragedies.

The campaign “A Code for Every Moment” embodies this message, urging fire professionals and the public to learn more and speak up at DontChanceSafety.org.

By reinforcing the value of codes at every opportunity, the fire service can safeguard communities today and preserve safety for future generations.

Paper 2 Summary: Safeguarding communities – a fire service advocacy toolkit

The Urban Fire Forum paper warns of deliberate efforts to weaken safety codes and standards in several US states through deregulation.

Examples include laws reducing requirements for fire sprinklers, dual exit stairs and enforcement mechanisms, alongside “self-certification” legislation for building professionals.

The report stresses that voluntary consensus standards, funded through copyright and licensing, remain central to affordable and independent public safety.

It cites cases such as the Grenfell Tower fire and Ghost Ship fire to show the deadly consequences of bypassing codes.

The toolkit outlines strategies for fire chiefs to lead advocacy, build coalitions, engage legislators and support initiatives like the Pro Codes Act.

It concludes with a call to defend the system of safety through campaigns such as “A Code for Every Moment.”

Paper 3: Support for a national fire apparatus specification

The procurement crisis facing fire departments

The Urban Fire Forum paper begins by outlining the current apparatus procurement crisis, which has left no fire department unaffected.

Whether large metropolitan or small volunteer, nearly every organisation has been impacted by escalating costs, extended delivery timelines and system-wide inefficiencies.

Historically, the apparatus market was relatively predictable.

Between 2011 and 2019, pumpers were delivered within 8–12 months, aerial units within 12–18 months and specialty vehicles within 18–24 months.

This stability collapsed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Work stoppages, component shortages and supply chain disruptions caused delivery times to double or triple.

By 2025, reports showed that many departments faced lead times of up to four years, with prices climbing towards $2 million per truck.

A Reuters article in May 2025 highlighted the extent of the crisis, noting that the International Association of Fire Fighters had even called for an antitrust investigation.

Manufacturers countered that inflation, industry consolidation and regulatory changes had all contributed to the strain.

The paper makes clear that the result has been inequities across the fire service, with wealthier jurisdictions better able to absorb delays and costs, while smaller departments struggle to maintain readiness.

The problem of excessive customisation

A major factor compounding the crisis is the culture of high customisation within the fire service.

According to NFPA, there were nearly 30,000 fire departments in the United States in 2020.

If even 30% of these departments purchase apparatus in a given year, that equates to almost 9,000 different models.

By comparison, the entire US car market offers roughly 400 unique models across 40 brands.

This extreme fragmentation in the apparatus market creates inefficiencies in design, manufacturing and delivery.

Custom specifications also make training and maintenance more complicated, with firefighters often required to learn different pump panels, hose layouts and controls even within the same department.

The report argues that, just as personal protective equipment is largely standardised without losing utility, apparatus could also be procured through more uniform specifications.

Streamlining designs would reduce costs, shorten lead times and support interoperability during disaster responses when units from multiple jurisdictions must work together.

While manufacturer stock programmes offer some efficiency benefits, these are proprietary and controlled by dealers, limiting broader accessibility and failing to address the underlying issue of system-wide inefficiency.

Learning from past disruptions

The paper traces today’s challenges back to three major stress points.

The first was the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to widespread work stoppages, declining sales and a shortage of essential components such as microchips and commercial chassis.

With suppliers prioritising the automotive sector over fire apparatus manufacturers, the industry was left at a disadvantage.

The second was regulatory pressure.

In 2022, engine manufacturers announced new US Environmental Protection Agency standards for 2027, adding strain to an already stressed production system.

Fire departments responded by placing orders early, creating a surge of demand that manufacturers could not absorb.

The third factor is consolidation.

With fewer manufacturers operating at scale, apparatus buyers face less competition and fewer options.

This consolidation, combined with surging demand, has accelerated cost escalation.

Together, these factors have created a procurement system where delays ripple through budgets and affect frontline services.

Hiring, equipment upgrades and community programmes are all squeezed when apparatus purchases consume a greater share of limited resources.

Recommendations for a national specification

The Urban Fire Forum paper proposes four recommendations to address the crisis.

The first is establishing a National Fire Apparatus Specification (NFAS) Task Group led by the Metro Chiefs, IAFC, NFPA and IAFF.

This group would include fire service leaders, engineers, manufacturers and procurement specialists, ensuring all perspectives are represented.

The second is developing a tiered system of modular specifications tailored to urban, suburban and rural departments.

Menu-based options would allow for interoperability while still meeting unique operational needs.

The third is integrating the NFAS into national purchasing cooperatives such as Sourcewell and HGACBuy.

This would provide departments with pre-approved, non-proprietary procurement pathways, reducing reliance on bespoke contracts.

The fourth is advocating for incentives and grants that prioritise departments adopting the NFAS.

By linking funding eligibility to participation, national and state-level programmes could accelerate adoption.

These recommendations aim to create a procurement environment that is more transparent, predictable and sustainable.

A call to leadership and collaboration

The paper closes with a call for fire service leaders to embrace a nationally recognised apparatus specification as a way to safeguard operational readiness and fiscal responsibility.

It stresses that the goal is not to eliminate innovation or ignore local needs but to provide a strategic alternative to the fragmented, unsustainable models that currently dominate.

By drawing parallels to Henry Ford’s streamlining of the automobile industry, the report frames NFAS as an opportunity for the fire service to take ownership of its future.

With smarter standardisation, departments can access reliable apparatus more quickly, maintain consistent training and reduce maintenance burdens.

The Urban Fire Forum urges chiefs to collaborate with national associations, manufacturers and policymakers to shape NFAS into a practical and widely adopted solution.

As the report notes, aligning apparatus procurement with shared specifications will not only reduce costs and delays but also strengthen disaster response capabilities and overall resilience of the fire service.

Paper 3 Summary: Support for a national fire apparatus specification

The Urban Fire Forum paper identifies a procurement crisis affecting all fire departments, with escalating costs and delivery delays of up to four years.

It cites COVID-19 disruptions, EPA 2027 engine standards and industry consolidation as drivers of long lead times and rising apparatus prices.

The report highlights excessive customisation, with nearly 9,000 models purchased annually compared to 400 car models across the US market.

Fragmentation has led to inefficiency, inconsistent training and inequitable access to apparatus between wealthier and smaller jurisdictions.

Recommendations include establishing a National Fire Apparatus Specification Task Group, developing modular tiered specifications, integrating procurement into cooperatives and linking grants to adoption.

The paper concludes that national specifications would lower costs, accelerate delivery and strengthen operational readiness across fire departments.

Paper 4: Support for advancing national fire and emergency services capabilities

A shifting landscape for national support

The Urban Fire Forum paper opens by noting that the American fire service is undergoing a period of transition.

Federal support, long relied upon for training, intelligence sharing and leadership development, has been reduced or redirected.

The closure of the Emergency Management and Response Information Sharing and Analysis Center created gaps in situational awareness and intelligence infrastructure.

At the same time, reductions in National Fire Academy programmes have limited access to specialised training and leadership development.

International representation has also changed.

For example, leadership of the World Fire Congress has shifted from the United States Fire Administration to the International Association of Fire Chiefs and NFPA, with Metro joining them on the Executive Steering Committee.

These developments reflect a broader redistribution of roles and responsibilities at the global level, requiring new strategies to sustain collaboration.

The paper explains that these changes, while challenging, also provide an opportunity for innovation.

The continued development of the National Emergency Response Information System shows that some initiatives remain on track, offering potential for new approaches in knowledge sharing and research.

Building on the One Voice initiative

Launched in 2022, the Fire Service One Voice initiative has already demonstrated the benefits of unified messaging.

By coordinating around issues such as firefighter cardiac health, data collection, emergency medical services, lithium-ion battery safety and recruitment, the initiative has amplified the fire service’s influence in national discussions.

The position paper argues that future success will require broader participation.

A genuinely unified message must include local, state, national and international organisations, making advocacy more representative and inclusive.

To reflect this evolution, the initiative has adopted the slogan One Mission, One Message, Many Voices.

The aim is to show that coordinated advocacy is not just the responsibility of national bodies but a collective endeavour across all levels of the fire service.

By enhancing credibility and extending reach, this expanded initiative can help sustain momentum in policy discussions, public awareness campaigns and resource development.

Recommendations for unified advocacy

The Forum outlines several recommendations to strengthen advocacy.

First, it calls for re-establishing federal-level support for critical infrastructure such as intelligence-sharing systems and leadership development programmes.

Second, it encourages deeper engagement with Congress and federal agencies on emerging risks such as lithium-ion batteries, wildfires and climate-driven disasters.

Third, it emphasises the need for ongoing collaboration with research institutions, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology, universities and international research bodies.

Fourth, it urges investment in firefighter health and safety, particularly in mental health, cancer prevention and cardiac wellness.

Finally, it stresses the importance of proactive recruitment and diversity initiatives to build a workforce prepared for future challenges.

Areas of opportunity

Despite recent reductions, the paper points to areas of opportunity.

Federal emergency response grants remain an important resource and aligning advocacy around the need to sustain and expand them could yield results.

Similarly, emerging partnerships with the Department of Energy and Department of Transportation show that fire service issues are increasingly relevant across sectors, particularly where energy transition and infrastructure resilience are concerned.

The Forum also notes that increased global collaboration offers pathways to exchange best practices and amplify the fire service’s voice.

Participation in CTIF and FEU meetings, for example, ensures that the US remains part of the international conversation on fire safety.

A call for leadership

The document closes with a clear call to action for chiefs across the United States to engage more fully in advocacy.

It states that chiefs cannot afford to remain reactive in the face of systemic shifts.

Instead, they must take proactive roles in shaping policy and advancing national fire and emergency services capabilities.

The Forum concludes that advancing a unified message through the One Voice initiative, restoring lost federal infrastructure and building global connections are essential for maintaining both operational effectiveness and firefighter safety.

This is described as an ongoing responsibility, requiring persistence and commitment from leaders at every level of the fire service.

Paper 4 Summary: Support for advancing national fire and emergency services capabilities

The Urban Fire Forum paper outlines reductions in federal support, including closure of the Emergency Management and Response ISAC and limits on National Fire Academy programmes.

It notes the shift of World Fire Congress leadership to IAFC and NFPA, with Metro joining on the Executive Steering Committee.

The Fire Service One Voice initiative, launched in 2022, is highlighted as a successful example of unified advocacy on firefighter health, EMS, recruitment and battery safety.

The position paper stresses the importance of coordinated messaging under the expanded theme “One Mission, One Message, Many Voices.”

Recommendations include restoring federal support, increasing collaboration with research institutions and advancing firefighter health and diversity initiatives.

The Forum calls for chiefs to actively engage in advocacy and policy to sustain national capabilities and operational effectiveness.

Paper 5: Statement in support of reauthorization of FirstNet

Origins of a dedicated public safety network

The Urban Fire Forum paper begins by revisiting the origins of FirstNet.

The First Responder Network Authority was created after the September 11 attacks, when communication breakdowns between agencies hampered response efforts.

The 9/11 Commission Report highlighted the urgent need for an interoperable and resilient communications system dedicated to public safety.

Congress responded in 2012 by passing the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act.

This legislation established the FirstNet Authority to oversee the creation and management of a nationwide broadband network.

The goal was to ensure that firefighters, police officers, paramedics and other first responders could communicate seamlessly during emergencies, regardless of jurisdiction or incident type.

The paper emphasises that FirstNet is not just another mobile network.

It is purpose-built for emergency services, designed to provide priority access and uninterrupted communication when conventional networks may fail or be congested.

Its creation represented a landmark investment in national preparedness.

Oversight and governance of FirstNet

The FirstNet Authority provides governance and oversight to ensure that the network continues to evolve in step with the needs of public safety.

It manages the contract with AT&T, oversees reinvestment of user fees and ensures that the system remains secure and reliable.

The Authority gathers input directly from first responders, public safety agencies and other stakeholders, integrating their feedback into network development decisions.

By aligning FirstNet with operational realities, the Authority ensures that the network remains robust and relevant.

The paper notes that oversight has direct consequences for effectiveness.

The reliability of emergency response communications depends not only on technical infrastructure but also on governance that is transparent, responsive and accountable.

Without the Authority’s stewardship, the network could drift away from its public safety mission.

Capabilities and nationwide reach

FirstNet provides capabilities that are critical during emergencies.

The paper highlights always-on priority and ruthless preemption, which guarantee that first responders have access to the network even during peak congestion.

This means that emergency personnel are never competing with the public for bandwidth when lives are at stake.

Advanced tools such as real-time data sharing, video streaming and location tracking expand situational awareness.

These capabilities allow incident commanders to see unfolding events in greater detail, allocate resources more effectively and make faster decisions.

The scale of FirstNet’s coverage is also notable.

Its footprint extends over 2.99 million square miles, making it the largest network of its kind in the United States.

Deployable assets further extend its reach by restoring connectivity in disaster zones.

The paper points to hurricanes, wildfires, floods and mass casualty incidents as examples where FirstNet deployables have sustained critical operations.

Growth, adoption and looming deadlines

The network has experienced rapid growth since its inception.

From zero users in 2012, FirstNet now supports more than 7 million connections across over 30,000 public safety agencies.

Adoption has expanded to cover every state and territory, confirming that it has proven both effective and valuable.

However, the paper stresses that the FirstNet Authority has a statutory sunset in February 2027.

Without Congressional reauthorization, oversight and strategic direction could lapse.

The initial authorisation was framed as a proof of concept, but the results have demonstrated FirstNet’s necessity.

The position paper states clearly that reauthorisation is not optional if the network is to remain effective.

Continuity of governance is essential to sustain innovation, protect reliability and guarantee that public safety remains at the centre of network evolution.

Recommendations for reauthorisation

The Urban Fire Forum sets out three main recommendations.

First, it calls for immediate engagement with Congress to secure reauthorization.

Fire chiefs are urged to provide legislators with specific examples of FirstNet’s role in past disasters, including hurricanes in North Carolina and Texas, wildfires in California, Oregon and Hawaii, flooding in central Texas and aviation incidents in Washington, DC.

These real-world cases demonstrate the tangible benefits of the network.

Second, it encourages stakeholder engagement at state and local levels.

Fire service leaders should explain the value of FirstNet to administrators and elected officials, building broader support beyond federal institutions.

Third, it urges coordination with state associations representing fire, EMS, law enforcement and emergency management.

Unity across responder groups is described as foundational.

The paper argues that only a united coalition can ensure Congress recognises the broad necessity of FirstNet.

The conclusion emphasises that FirstNet has moved beyond being an experiment.

It is now a critical element of public safety infrastructure.

Reauthorisation is essential not only to preserve its current capabilities but also to allow for further innovation and development.

Paper 5 Summary: Statement in support of reauthorization of FirstNet

The Urban Fire Forum paper describes FirstNet as a nationwide broadband network for emergency responders, created in response to the 9/11 Commission Report.

It explains that the FirstNet Authority provides governance, oversees contracts with AT&T and reinvests revenue to sustain network development.

Capabilities include always-on priority, ruthless preemption and deployable assets supporting 2.99 million square miles of coverage across the US.

The report states that FirstNet now supports more than 7 million connections across 30,000 public safety agencies nationwide.

It warns that the Authority will sunset in February 2027 without Congressional reauthorisation, threatening oversight and innovation.

Recommendations include federal engagement, state and local advocacy and coordination across fire, EMS, law enforcement and emergency management associations.

Commentary and analysis

What the five papers are trying to solve

Taken together, the Urban Fire Forum papers aim to close practical gaps that chiefs are dealing with now: erosion of codes and standards, a broken apparatus market, reduced federal support for leadership and intelligence networks, rising wildfire exposure at the urban edge, and the need to lock in a purpose-built communications backbone for major incidents.

Rather than new theory, they propose levers that departments and policymakers can actually pull: defend consensus standards, standardise core apparatus specifications, rebuild national coordination, push common messaging, and secure FirstNet oversight for the next phase.

Codes and standards have become a policy fight, not a technical one

The advocacy toolkit frames codes as a working system that has delivered steady risk reduction through consensus processes, and it treats current rollbacks as a political problem more than a technical one.

That lens matters because once legislatures start rewriting long-standing exit routes, sprinkler triggers or plan-check powers, you cannot fix it with guidance notes.

Expect more attention on copyright and incorporation-by-reference disputes because that is where the funding for ongoing standards work lives. If that revenue is hollowed out, governments inherit the cost of writing and maintaining the rules, and the cadence of updates slows.

Apparatus: standardisation as the quickest path to shorter lead times

On trucks, the forum’s national specification idea goes straight at the bottleneck: too many bespoke builds for a small market.

Lead times lengthened during and after the pandemic, and costs rose sharply, with units reaching about $2 million and waits stretching toward four years in some cases. A May 2025 report highlighted consolidation and supply chain pressures as drivers, and documented calls for antitrust scrutiny.

Regulation is part of the backdrop. Heavy-duty engine and greenhouse-gas rules tighten from model year 2027, which has already encouraged pre-buy behaviour in adjacent fleets. Even if apparatus are a niche, any surge in vocational chassis demand ripples into fire builds and parts availability.

A tiered national spec will not suit every use case, but a modular menu could cover most of the market without killing operational nuance. The trade-off is clear: fewer options at order time in exchange for predictable pricing, faster builds, consistent controls, simpler training, and better interoperability at mutual-aid scale.

Leadership and intelligence: rebuild the missing links and widen the tent

The Forum’s leadership paper reads like a plan to patch the holes left by programme changes and closures.

The Emergency Management and Response ISAC wound down in June 2025, which removed a long-standing information-sharing hub for the sector.

USFA’s National Emergency Response Information System is moving forward, with an explicit goal of delivering analytics and decision support across all hazards. That is a rational pivot, but it needs sustained engagement from departments and clean data flows to work.

The “One Voice” update is a practical response to a noisy policy space. If the campaign really does carry “many voices,” it becomes harder for statehouses to ignore fire service positions on codes, workforce, and battery risk.

FirstNet: the clock is the message

The FirstNet Authority sunsets in February 2027 unless Congress acts.

Connections have grown past seven million across more than 30,000 agencies, with AT&T reporting coverage of about 2.99 million square miles and deployables filling disaster gaps. The usage case has been proven, but oversight continuity is not automatic.

Hill coverage in recent weeks points to reauthorisation momentum, but also to debate over scope and governance. Chiefs will need district-level proof points ready, because the strongest argument here is operational, not abstract.

Wildfire-initiated urban conflagration: planning as structure protection

The wildfire paper treats WUI fire as a structures problem as much as a vegetation problem.

The practical levers it highlights are all within reach of local leaders: home-ignition-zone work, adoption and enforcement of WUI-capable codes, and land-use decisions that avoid building vulnerability into new streets.

The message is blunt. Suppression capacity cannot outrun embers in a dense estate built to old patterns.

What might actually change next

If the national apparatus specification gains a mandate through purchasing cooperatives and grant preference, expect a visible shift in bid books within one budget cycle.

If state associations align behind the advocacy toolkit, the debate over exit counts, plan review powers and sprinkler thresholds will move onto firmer ground, because chiefs will be presenting the same evidence package rather than fragmented local arguments.

If the Fire Intelligence Network concept lands, start by watching for regional pilots paired with NERIS outputs, then build-out to fusion-centre partnerships where wildfire, grid stress and transport risk intersect.

If FirstNet gets a clean reauthorisation, agencies can plan for the next tranche of capabilities without hedging for a governance gap. If it stalls, contingency plans for priority access during major events will climb the agenda.

The rub

None of these papers will deliver a result on their own.

Each one asks chiefs to convert them into procurement rules, planning policy, budget lines and briefing packs for elected officials.

That is the work. And that is where the outcomes will be decided.