Transcript Highlights:

• There are two individuals who provide public testimony. Chair opens up public testimony. Mr.
• Hearing none, we're going to open up public testimony.
• “Hearing none, we’re going to open up public testimony and close public testimony and leave Senate Bill
• Hearing none, we're going to open up public testimony and close public testimony and leave Senate Bill
• The chair opens up public testimony.

Bills: SB231, SB584, SB600, SB668, SB841, SB986, SB1003, SB1244, SB1625, SB1960, SB1963, SB1964, SB2026, SB2056, SB2368

Keywords: temporary emergency electric energy facility, temporary generation, emergency power, backup generation, mobile generator, portable generator, grid resilience, power outage restoration, transmission and distribution utility, TDU, Public Utility Commission of Texas, PUCT, Utilities Code Section 39.918, competitive bidding, lease authorization, emergency procurement, bulk power system, locational marginal pricing, reliability model, black start

Summary: The Senate Committee on Business and Commerce met with a quorum and first took up several pending and uncontested bills. It favorably reported SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2148, and SB 1968, and also moved SB 2321 to the local and uncontested calendar. The committee then heard SB 819, which would change how the Public Utility Commission reviews proposed utility-scale solar and related interconnection projects. The committee substitute would shift the default so interconnection is allowed unless the PUC affirmatively prohibits it within 180 days, limit denial to cases where harm substantially outweighs benefits, remove public meeting requirements, retain setback and financial assurance provisions, add optional application materials such as national security and environmental information, and restore local control over county tax abatements. The substitute was adopted and SB 819 was favorably reported to the full Senate on a 7-3 vote. The committee then took up SB 231, focused on CenterPoint’s use of large emergency generators after Hurricane Beryl. Senator King explained that the original bill was intended to prevent customers from being charged for non-mobile generators that were leased at great cost and did not match the bill’s emergency-response purpose. CenterPoint’s Jason Ryan apologized for the company’s communication failures and said the company would make customers whole through a combination of rate reductions, foregone storm-cost recovery, and a donation of the 15 large generators to ERCOT for about two years to address a San Antonio-area reliability issue, with the company absorbing the associated costs. PUC Executive Director Connie Corona said the commission could enforce the agreement through its contested-case process. Public testimony included consumer and reliability advocates, one of whom argued utility-scale microgrids should be preserved as a policy option. SB 231 was left pending. The committee also heard SB 986, which would create an alternative process for routine Public Information Act requests so local governments can make initial redactions without sending every routine exception to the Attorney General, while preserving an appeal path and training requirements. Supporters said it would reduce backlog and speed access to records; opponents argued it would shift the burden to requesters and encourage delay. The AG’s office testified that the process could improve efficiency and still fit within current timelines if used promptly. SB 986 was left pending. Finally, SB 584 was briefly laid out to require consumer reporting agencies that buy data from others to ensure the information complies with Texas law on excluded items such as bankruptcies, judgments, and tax liens, and SB 600 was heard on heir property. SB 600’s substitute would strengthen notice, require an attorney ad litem, add an heir’s bill of rights, allow settlement conferences, and require fair-market-value sales protections; supporters said it would curb predatory partition practices, while opponents warned some provisions could burden or diminish minority heirs’ property rights. SB 584 and SB 600 were left pending after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there public testimony? Amanda Frazier, APCIA, waiving in opposition.
• We have quite a bit of public testimony on this, so I’m going to limit public testimony to three minutes
• Seeing none, we do have some public testimony on the amendment.
• Let's talk about transparency and testimony. That's not true.
• We're in public testimony on the bill as amended.

Summary: The subcommittee considered a long agenda of civil justice and claims measures. HB 1173, relating to the Florida Trust Code, was presented as a clarification of standing in trust litigation after recent case law; after questions about who may sue, an amendment was adopted clarifying that an expressly named charity retains standing, and the bill passed 14-2. HB 1437, on attorney’s fees in motor vehicle PIP disputes, drew testimony from insurers and reform groups opposing a return to fee-driven litigation and from medical groups supporting fee recovery for prevailing parties; it passed 17-0. CS/HB 147, addressing prohibited debt-collection communications during nighttime and early morning hours, was described as a clarification of an outdated statute in light of modern communications, with support from business groups and no opposition in the vote; it passed 18-0. The committee then heard several claims bills against the Department of Children and Families. HB 6511, for relief of L.P., described severe injuries to a child after DCF allegedly failed to act on warning signs; a technical amendment was adopted and the bill passed 18-0. HB 6515, for relief of Michael Barnett, involved DCF’s alleged failure to investigate domestic violence that preceded the killing of three children and injury of a fourth; members asked about the settlement amount and the case’s circumstances, and the bill also passed 18-0. HB 1517, expanding wrongful death law to allow parents of an unborn child to recover for the child’s death, generated the most extensive debate. The sponsor said it aligns civil law with existing criminal definitions and excludes claims against mothers and providers of lawful medical care, including IVF; opponents warned it could be used to target reproductive care, support networks, and domestic violence survivors, while supporters framed it as a justice measure for families. An amendment clarifying damages rules for minors and unborn children was adopted, and the bill passed 13-4. Finally, HB 947, on evidence of medical damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases, sought to allow broader evidence at trial and to change “shall” to “may”; supporters said it would improve fairness and transparency, while opponents argued it would weaken post-2023 tort reforms and reintroduce inflated medical damages. The amendment was adopted and the bill was then taken up with additional opposition testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• I look forward to the testimony. of the witnesses on both panels and I now yield to Chairman Bost for
• National Commander, thank you for your thoughtful and solid testimony. your compelling testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. I want to welcome all the veterans who are here today.
• Our written testimony includes appropriations, recommendations for other critical programs.

Keywords: veteran services, Secretary Collins, healthcare provisions, contract cancellations, transparency, accountability, committee meeting, legislation

Summary: During this committee meeting, various bills were discussed with a specific focus on veteran services and healthcare provisions. Notably, the cancellation of critical contracts under Secretary Collins sparked significant debate, with representatives emphasizing the adverse impact on veteran care. The meeting featured testimonies from veterans and stakeholders who expressed their concerns regarding the potential fallout of these cancellations, demonstrating the urgency of transparency and accountability in management decisions. Discussions also delved into various legislative proposals aimed at improving services for veterans amidst these challenges.

Transcript Highlights:

• their testimony to 2 minutes or less. their testimony to 2 minutes or less.
• I think the testimony is in error.
• that's brought to a testimony. that's brought to a testimony.
• so um again, please keep your testimony so um again, please keep your testimony to<00:52:40.360>
• While I before we get to testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > might<01:21:50.880> remember during the testimony, you might remember during the testimony
• Have you asked have you testimony.
• I'm for the hearing my testimony.
• to provide testimony for HB1675.
• , forgot to mention that in my testimony, forgot to mention that in my testimony, so<05:19:54.718

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We got some public feedback. testimony and I just want to um give a testimony and I just want to um give
• Please state your name for the record and go ahead with your testimony.
• Please state your name for the record and go ahead with your testimony.
• As you know, my testimony is very detailed in terms of written testimony.
• accountability as you know my testimony accountability as you know my testimony is<00:28:53.760>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your public testimony. I appreciate that. Mr.
• So thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony. Next. That's it.
• Thank you very much for your testimony. Next. That's it.
• We've heard testimony that this budget will hurt children, and why?

Bills: HB4138, HB4139, HB4140, HB4141, HB4142, HB4143, HB4144, HB4145, HB4146, HB4147, HB4148, HB4149, HB4150, HB4151, HB4152, HB4153, SB1831, SB1832, SB1833, SB1834, SB1835, SB1836, SB1837, SB1838, SB1839, SB1840, SB1841, SB1842, SB1843, SB1844, SB1845, SB1846

Keywords: appropriations, education funding, health care, general fund, state budget, local funding, gaming, pari-mutuel, horse racing, regulatory assessment, first-time starters, budget implementation, federal funds, government services, budget stabilization, financial reporting, capital outlay, infrastructure, veterans services, highway construction

Summary: The committee met in a special joint appropriations session to review the FY 2027 budget package, including House Bill 4138 and Senate Bill 1831, the general appropriations or “feed” bills. Staff described the budget as including a one-time transfer of state funds, a 5% lump-sum reduction to most agencies’ discretionary general-fund budgets, continued funding for the state health insurance plan and school facilities, and various one-time restorations or reversions of prior appropriations. Members spent much of the meeting clarifying how the 5% reductions would work, noting that formula and mandatory funding such as K-12 basic aid are excluded, while the governor’s executive branch would decide how to implement the cuts within agencies. The chair repeatedly emphasized that the committee was not specifying line-item cuts and that agencies would have discretion over implementation. A large portion of the discussion focused on the practical effects of the budget on universities, public safety, health care, rural programs, and fund sweeps. Arizona Board of Regents and university representatives said the proposed reductions would amount to more than $85 million statewide and could affect programs such as the Arizona Promise Program, Teachers Academy, and tuition freezes, though no specific program cuts were written into the bill. Other testimony raised concerns about fund sweeps from encumbered balances, including university research funds, housing trust funds, utility regulation funds, and ADOT-related accounts, with some members warning about possible impacts on rural infrastructure and federal matching dollars. The committee also discussed the state employee health plan, including a $228 million general-fund infusion and proposed employee premium increases over three years, as well as questions about corrections, forestry and fire management, and rural critical access hospitals. Public testimony was largely opposed to the budget. Speakers from Opportunity Arizona, the Arizona Board of Regents, health care, and local government argued that the package would reduce support for education, housing, SNAP, health care access, and rural communities while preserving tax benefits for data centers and wealthy taxpayers. A mayor from Globe described severe flood damage and asked for state help for a flood relief fund, while a motorcycle safety advocate questioned a proposed transfer from the motorcycle safety fund. Committee members debated whether the budget’s effects should be described as speculative or as likely consequences of the broad cuts, and several exchanges became contentious over comparisons to the Great Recession and references to federal tax policy. The meeting ended with continued public testimony and no final vote taken in the portion provided, though leadership had earlier said the committee planned a mass roll-call vote on all the bills at the end.

Transcript Highlights:

• With that, we'll close public<00:03:35.599> testimony. public testimony. public testimony.
• He'll give testimony anyway.
• Any other testimony, Mr. Meyer? >> Mr. Chairman, no testimony. Anybody online?
• you very much for your testimony. you very much for your testimony.
• Representative Webber: will close public testimony. will close public testimony.

Bills: HB0116, HB0056

Keywords: water rights, beneficial use, industrial production, hydrogen, applications, public welfare, carbon capture, energy standards, public utilities, environmental regulation, state law, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Some of the witnesses have provided resources to accompany their verbal testimony. testimony, everything
• It was great to hear your testimony.
• But please state your name and your testimony.
• Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
• I want to thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We look forward to the testimony.
• We look forward to the testimony.
• We look forward to the testimony.
• We look forward to the testimony.
• Yes, okay, you may continue with your testimony. Thank you.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Public testimony should be limited to 2 minutes per witness.
• OK, thank you for your testimony. Oh, yes.
• Thank you for your testimony. The next witness is Travis Holler.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. The Chair calls Eric Standridge.
• I've witnessed a lot of testimony.

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 2215, which would clarify that property owners may challenge municipal zoning ordinances that are adopted without following Chapter 211 procedures, and would expressly waive municipal sovereign immunity for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus actions in those cases. The bill sponsor and witnesses argued it would simply enforce existing notice, hearing, and due process requirements and give landowners a practical remedy when cities fail to comply. Testimony in support came from attorneys and a landowner describing alleged zoning actions in Selma that they said occurred without proper notice or hearings and caused significant financial harm. After questions, the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2639, which would add disclosure and compensation requirements for local historic designations, including compensation based on the greater of repair/restoration costs or the difference in appraised value with and without the designation. The bill author said it was intended to address situations where historic designation delays or blocks redevelopment and to ensure property owners are fairly compensated. A property owner testified in support, describing an Austin case in which a demolition permit led to historic designation and what he said was a costly forced rehabilitation. Opponents, including a preservation advocate and an East Austin resident, argued the current process is already rigorous, rare, and balanced, and that the bill would undermine cities’ ability to preserve historic places and community heritage. During closing on SB 2639, the chair raised a concern that Section 3B appeared to apply retroactively to pending cases, which he said could be unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on retroactive laws. The committee did not resolve that issue during the hearing, and the bill was left pending. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll proceed to testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair calls Chris Jones.
• Proceed to testimony. Chair calls Chris Jones.
• Appreciate your testimony. Thank you.
• Now we'll proceed to testimony. Appreciate it. Chair calls Mary York.
• I appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much.

Bills: HB322, HB331, HB673, HB 1147, HB 1154, HB2488

Keywords: JET Grant Program, career education, technical education, community colleges, technology solutions, high demand jobs, first responders, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, benefits, compensation, presumption of disability, emergency services, healthcare, Medicaid, mental health, substance abuse, treatment access, cost, insurance coverage

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, seeing none, we'll move into public testimony. Is there any public testimony?
• Now the public testimony is over. We are now in debate on the amended bill.
• Very well, seeing none, do we have public testimony? And we do. We have none.
• Very well, we have no public testimony. Public testimony on the amendment.
• Very well, seeing none, is Is there any testimony on the amended bill?

Transcript Highlights:

• Any public testimony? Members, we're in debate on the bill.
• No public testimony. Anyone wishing to debate? Seeing none.
• Any public testimony?
• Chair: No public testimony. Members, we're in debate.
• Public testimony?

Transcript Highlights:

• Saenz, for that powerful testimony. Thanks for your courage in sharing it. Mr. Pizzaro.
• Thank you all for your testimony. Thank you very much, Senator Blumenthal. Mr.
• As I mentioned in my testimony earlier, what happens if my photos were to be publicly posted?
• in your testimony.
• Thank you for the witnesses for being here today, for your testimony, for your work.

Keywords: Stop CSAM Act, child exploitation, online safety, reporting requirements, tech accountability, NCMEC, survivor support, legislative testimony

Summary: The committee meeting centered around the urgent need to address child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online, focusing primarily on the testimony and discussions surrounding the Stop CSAM Act. Several witnesses, including representatives from law enforcement and advocacy organizations, highlighted the significant drop in reports of child exploitation cases despite an alarming increase in actual incidents. Concerns were raised about tech companies' reporting practices, with calls for more stringent requirements to ensure timely and accurate reporting of suspected abuse. The legislation aims to fortify protections for child victims by imposing stricter obligations on tech platforms to report incidents and support law enforcement in investigations.

Transcript Highlights:

• I appreciate the testimony.
• I appreciate the testimony.
• I appreciate the testimony.
• David, for your testimony.
• LaVoy's testimony.

Bills: HB2242, HB2446, HB2799, HB4502, HB2920, HB2790, HB5620, HB5060, HB5076, HB5080, HB5081, HB5128, HB5130, HB3847, HB5116, HB2969, HB4546, HB4202, HB5624, HB3964, HB4803, HB872, HB4775, HB4777, HB4961, HB5570, HB2988, HB4260, HB1375, HB5009, HB5411, HB5134, HB4388, HB3095, HB1387

Keywords: constables, civil rights, local government, law enforcement, policy-making authority, affidavit, medical bills, civil actions, reasonable charges, healthcare services, judicial statistics, court performance, family law, civil cases, efficiency reporting, court security, emergency management, harassment penalties, judicial safety, court committee

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills affecting civil practice, judicial conduct, and attorney regulation. HB 4961 and the similar HB 3095 would bar uninsured motorists from recovering non-economic damages after a collision, with HB 3095 also addressing certain exceptions and limiting economic damages in some cases. Supporters said the measures would encourage insurance coverage and fairness for insured drivers, while opponents argued they would unfairly punish injured people who were not responsible for the lack of insurance, including pedestrians, passengers, children, and others. HB 3095 drew constitutional concerns from witnesses, and the committee later withdrew the committee substitute and left the bill pending; HB 4961 was also left pending after questions about its scope, including passengers. HB 5570 would expand a continuing legal education exemption to attorneys appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate who serve on boards or commissions. The author and witness said the bill would free up time for public service while still requiring ethics training. A committee member raised a discrepancy in the number of attorneys covered, and the bill was left pending. HB 2969 would prohibit the State Bar from adopting rules or penalties that unreasonably burden attorneys’ religious exercise or free speech, especially in relation to sincerely held religious beliefs. Supporters framed it as a protection for lawyers of faith against an ABA-style speech code, while no one testified in opposition; the bill was left pending. HB 4260 would prohibit county judges and county commissioners from practicing law in courts over which they have jurisdiction. The author described it as an ethics measure to avoid conflicts of interest, but county officials and the County Judges and Commissioners Association opposed it, saying existing ethics rules already address conflicts and that the bill would impose hardships, especially in rural counties. The bill was left pending. HB 4388 would require all judges, including those who serve only in administrative roles, to remain subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct; supporters said some judges avoid discipline by relinquishing judicial functions, while opponents said the bill was unnecessary and could burden county judges who serve as administrators. It was also left pending. The committee also heard HB 5134, which would limit Rule 202 pre-suit depositions to people who have suffered or reasonably expect to suffer actual damages and allow attorney’s fees against abusive petitioners. The author said the bill would curb harassment and fishing expeditions, but members questioned how the standard would work in practice; the bill was left pending. Finally, HB 3964 would narrow common-law public nuisance claims by barring suits over lawful conduct, conduct already addressed by other remedies, and products, while preserving other causes of action. Supporters said the bill would prevent regulation through litigation and protect legislative authority; opponents said it would eliminate important remedies and that no Texas abuse had been shown. The author indicated he would revise the bill, and it was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Wood, please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
• That concludes the testimony.
• I want to thank Alex for her testimony.
• <00:51:22.280> um want to thank Alex for her testimony um want to thank Alex for her testimony
• for the record and begin your testimony for the record and begin your testimony uh<00:54:45.680>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thanks for your testimony a week or two ago.
• So, thank you. >> Thank you for the testimony.
• So, thank you. >> Thank you for the testimony.
• So, thank you. >> Thank you for the testimony.
• Uh >> Thank you for the testimony.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 241, which would provide information about alternative pain treatments rather than mandate services. Members cited support from the prime sponsor, medical organizations, insurers, and other stakeholders, and noted there was no fiscal impact. The committee voted unanimously, 7-0, to ought to pass the bill. It then took up House Bill 629, which raises a boat decal fee and dedicates the revenue to the dam maintenance fund. Members described the state’s deteriorating dam infrastructure, noting the large number of dams, the high-hazard sites, and the much larger funding need, while saying the bill would provide only a modest start. They also said boat owners generally did not strongly object to the fee. The committee voted 7-0 to ought to pass. House Bill 1042, concerning an increase in the unified contingent credit limit for New Hampshire Business Finance Authority projects, drew more divided discussion. Supporters said the higher cap would provide needed flexibility and liquidity for business development and that the state treasurer and BFA had explained the credit structure and low historical loss rate; opponents warned the increase would raise state exposure too much, too soon. After debate, the chair postponed the bill, then later returned with an amendment lowering the proposed limit from 450 million to 400 million, which the committee adopted unanimously. The committee then moved to ought to pass as amended. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 1411, which would have allowed withholding payments to the federal government in response to federal actions. Members opposing the bill argued that withholding employee-related funds would be unlawful and ineffective, while supporters said it could serve as a statement and suggested interim study instead. The committee rejected the bill on a 4-3 vote and voted to inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• If no further questions, we'll proceed to public testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Members, any questions?
• We will proceed to public testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Next witness is Brian Woods.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 5695, which would create the Sayers Ranch Municipal Utility District in Bastrop County between Elgin and Bastrop. Representative Gurdis said Bastrop County commissioners unanimously supported the district. There was no public testimony, the bill was left pending, and later reported favorably to the full House on an 8-0 vote. The main debate centered on Senate Bill 291, which would require condemning entities to pay landowner attorney’s fees if they fail to provide 10 years of appraisal reports with an initial offer in an eminent domain case. Supporters, including Rita Beving and Charles Maley, argued the bill would add an enforcement mechanism and better protect landowners in a process they described as intimidating and lopsided. Opponents, including Tom Zabel and Lisa Kaufman, said current law already provides a remedy through abatement and attorney’s fees under Section 21.047 of the Property Code, and warned the bill could create inconsistency, delay public infrastructure projects, and increase costs. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 5699, a simple MUD boundary change in Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 405 that would allow a tract to leave one district and join another. Representative Schofield said the landowner and district agreed to the change and to pay the tract’s share of debt. The committee substitute was adopted and the bill was reported favorably on an 8-0 vote. Later, the committee considered House Bill 5489, which would impose a four-year moratorium on impact fees. Representative Dyson framed it as an “active study” to test whether impact fees raise housing costs. College Station officials and other opponents argued impact fees help fund infrastructure for growth and that local governments should retain control; supporters said the fees are regressive and add to housing prices. The bill was left pending. The committee then heard Senate Bill 292, which would update the Landowner Bill of Rights to add information on surveys, require separate offers for property not sought in condemnation, and require the rights document to be delivered with the initial offer. Supporters said it would improve transparency and fill gaps in the current document, while opponents said it was unnecessary because the law already exists and warned against revisiting a 2021 compromise. The transcript ends during that discussion.