Transcript Highlights:

• If done correctly, I think it'll reduce rates for the ratepayers and provide stability in uh the electrical
• in his presentation, but the words ratepayer and ratepayer impact.
• And so that's not in the ratepayer realm, but I don't see ratepayers being insulated from these impacts
• And so that's not in the ratepayer realm, but I don't see ratepayers being insulated from these impacts
• They belong to ratepayers.

Bills: SF0102, SF0113

Keywords: energy transmission, load growth, Wyoming energy authority, transmission planning study, public utilities, regional cooperation, hand count audit, ballots, election integrity, transparency, voting system, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• However, the current program, the LMI program, still creates a burden of cost on ratepayers, and I'm
• However, the current program, the LMI program, still creates a burden of cost on ratepayers, and I'm
• However, the current program, the LMI program, still creates a burden of cost on ratepayers, and I'm
• Mueller, but those are ratepayer reimbursements. So, the answer to your question is yes.
• Does it have to be a program that has an impact on the non-subscribing ratepayers?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Lots of ratepayer funds have gone toward wildfire mitigation projects aimed at decreasing the risk of
• I rise to present SB 886 to protect ordinary ratepayers from having to pay for the energy infrastructure
• We must protect existing utility ratepayers from being unfairly stuck with increased demand not caused
• It ultimately reduces costs that get passed down to the State Water Project ratepayers.
• This reduces costs that get passed down to the State Water Project ratepayers.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, approved the journals, and confirmed three gubernatorial appointments: Doreen Diyamo to the State Water Resources Control Board, Dr. Anne Maria de Mars to the State Athletic Commission, and Ronald Fiore to the State Athletic Commission. The chamber then took up a series of floor items, including SB 73 on election security, SB 929 on annual reporting by the California Energy Commission, SB 1370 on wildfire-related oversight testimony, SB 983 on Port of San Diego contracting authority, SB 1367 on restricting new detention-facility land use approvals, SB 1257 on annual reporting of immigration enforcement incidents, SB 1103 on retailer reporting related to immigration enforcement, SB 1399 on continuing DOJ reviews of immigration detention facilities, SB 873 on limiting ICE arrests near courthouses, SB 1292 on pilot camera/sensor enforcement for curb management, SB 878 on insurance prompt-payment penalties, SB 958 on CEQA clarification for building-height impacts, SB 924 on low-income energy assistance, SB 1057 on certification changes for nurse assistants and home health aides, SB 1092 on resident bid opportunities for mobile home park sales, SB 1123 on considering consumer benefits in regulatory analysis, SB 1233 on utility rate transparency, SB 1237 on pay equity reporting enforcement, SB 886 on data-center cost allocation, SB 905 on utility executive incentives and ratepayer protections, SB 909 on public works wage enforcement, and SB 925 on a statewide fusion-energy roadmap. Most of the debate centered on election security, immigration enforcement, utility rates, housing and land use, and environmental/CEQA policy. SB 73 drew sharp support and opposition over ballot custody and law-enforcement access at voting locations, with supporters framing it as a response to election interference and opponents arguing it would hinder legitimate investigations and raise constitutional concerns; the urgency clause and the measure both passed. Immigration-related bills were defended as protections for vulnerable communities and court access, while opponents argued they would obstruct enforcement and public safety. Energy and utility bills were presented as ratepayer protections and transparency measures, with supporters emphasizing affordability and accountability and opponents warning about regulatory burdens and impacts on business and utility operations. SB 954 generated extensive discussion over whether it appropriately refined last year’s CEQA exemptions for advanced manufacturing or improperly rolled back housing-related reforms; supporters said it added needed guardrails and labor/environmental protections, while opponents said it would add bureaucracy and uncertainty. Several measures passed on recorded votes, including SB 73, SB 929, SB 1370, SB 983, SB 1367, SB 1257, SB 1103, SB 1399, SB 873, SB 1292, SB 878, SB 958, SB 924, SB 1057, SB 1092, SB 1123, SB 1233, SB 1237, SB 886, SB 905, SB 909, and SB 925. SB 958 passed unanimously without objection, and SB 925 also passed unanimously. The transcript ends during continued debate on SB 954, with supporters and opponents still discussing the bill’s CEQA, housing, labor, and manufacturing provisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The result of these changes will save ratepayers an estimated $5.7 million per year.
• And while that's not a huge amount of money, the only way we can save ratepayers cash these days is by
• But the main way this bill saves ratepayers money is the reduction for Class one thermal RECs from 2.2
• And since ACPs are more expensive than RECs, that ends up costing ratepayers more money because, as you
• Uh, if I believe you said that the ratepayers would save $5.7 million a year.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 219, which would revise the renewable portfolio standard by changing several class definitions, eliminating Class 2, lowering the utility obligation for Class 1 thermal renewable energy certificates from 2.2% to 1.7%, and adjusting alternative compliance payments. Representative Vose said the bill would save ratepayers an estimated $5.7 million annually, arguing that Class 2 is already saturated and that the changes would not materially affect renewable energy development. Members questioned the fiscal impact, with an amended fiscal note cited as showing a $1.2 million reduction in general fund revenue, and some members raised concerns that the bill could weaken one of the remaining incentives for renewable investment. The committee also reviewed the bill’s history, including that it had been added to HB 2 and then removed in conference committee. No vote was taken in the work session. The committee then heard House Bill 164, concerning local records retention and the creation of a local records manager position. Secretary of State David Scanlan testified that the position has existed in statute for years but has never been funded, and said the need has grown as records management has become more digital and ADA accessibility has become more important. He described the bill as a way to help towns preserve and digitize records, especially for smaller communities with limited resources, while keeping records locally when possible. Members asked about the fiscal note, the potential cost of a public website and storage system, and whether the state could start by funding the position alone; the secretary said the staffing cost estimate remained accurate but that storage costs could rise over time. Several members expressed support and suggested further discussion with the Department of Information or other agencies. The work session was then closed without action. Finally, the committee opened House Bill 365, which would provide proof of U.S. citizenship assistance for indigent voters. Secretary Scanlan said the bill is intended to help voters comply with the new voter registration documentation requirements by allowing the state to verify eligibility through federal, private, and other state databases, and by providing vouchers to cover the cost of obtaining documents such as birth certificates. He compared the proposal to the earlier voter ID law, which he said was successfully implemented with accommodations for voters lacking acceptable ID. Members asked how “indigent” would be defined and how the process would work for out-of-state-born applicants; the secretary said indigency would likely be based on a voter’s statement of inability to pay and that the state would help identify where to obtain records and, if necessary, verify them through outside databases. The discussion continued as the transcript ended, with no vote recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Sorry, could you repeat your... very, very destructive to ratepayers?
• Sorry, could you repeat your... very, very destructive to ratepayers?
• Sorry, could you repeat your... very, very destructive to ratepayers?
• Sorry, could you repeat your... very, very destructive to ratepayers?
• on the ratepayers' account.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint committees heard testimony on HB 982 HD1, a wildfire-related measure aimed at creating a wildfire recovery fund and a financing structure to address future catastrophic wildfire liability. The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Division of Consumer Advocacy, and the Public Utilities Commission submitted comments and were available for questions. Supporters included IBW Local 1260, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Clearway Energy Group, Hawaiian Electric, Par Hawaii, and others, while Charter Communications and the Hawaii Association for Justice opposed or raised concerns. Life of the Land supported the bill but urged changes to the definition of a catastrophic wildfire and noted concerns about prudency review language. IBW Local 1260 asked to restore language from the original draft, and Charter warned the bill could impair existing contract and indemnity rights unless amended. A major focus of the hearing was Hawaiian Electric’s position on the HD1 version. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the original bill but objected to the HD1 requirement for an additional $500 million shareholder contribution, arguing it was not feasible and could delay or prevent the fund from operating. The company said the bill would help protect customers and improve credit ratings by creating a dedicated revenue stream and a bankruptcy-remote financing structure, which it said would lower borrowing costs over time. Members questioned how the $1 billion securitization amount was chosen, whether credit rating agencies had indicated it was sufficient, and how the bill would work in bankruptcy; Hawaiian Electric said the amount was a balance among interests, not based on a specific agency directive, and that it would follow up on bankruptcy questions. Opponents and skeptics raised concerns about liability caps, the new claims process, and unclear language on damages above the fund’s limits. The Hawaii Association for Justice argued the bill limits victims’ remedies and gives too much authority to the new entity without clear guardrails. Committee members also pressed Hawaiian Electric on comparisons to California, the feasibility of the shareholder contribution, and whether alternative capital-raising or divestiture options had been considered. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided; testimony and questioning continued with follow-up information requested from Hawaiian Electric and others.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you tell me how that will affect the utility companies and what that will do to ratepayers?
• Can you tell me how that will affect the utility companies and what that will do to ratepayers?
• The problem is their idea is we'll just pass it on to ratepayers.
• You know that they won't absorb that cost; they're going to pass it on to our constituents as ratepayers
• Anyway, I just share that with you because I know the ratepayers at the end are going to end up absorbing

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:12 Introduction of Guests 01:09 HB 88 Discussion 01:46 HB 88 Roll Call Vote 03:24 HB 346 Discussion 04:20 HB 346 Roll Call Vote 21:58 Chair Comments 24:31, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first considered House Bill 88, which was described as a short bill to clarify procedures for Waste Management boards, including term limits, appointments, and making sure consolidated governments actively recruit community members and make openings easier to find. The sponsor said the bill was intended to resolve confusion about members staying on after terms expire. The bill received no opposition, passed the committee unanimously, and was reported favorably for the floor. The committee then took up House Bill 346, as amended by a committee substitute. The sponsor explained that the bill responds to a dispute over air emission fees, especially for emergency generators and backup generators used for worker safety and limited non-emergency testing. The bill would exempt emergency generators and backup generators operating 100 hours or less for maintenance/testing from fees, while also removing an existing 4,000-ton cap so the per-ton fee would drop for most permitted sources. Members discussed the possible impact on utilities and ratepayers, with concerns raised that costs could be passed through to consumers and affect coal-dependent areas. The sponsor and another member argued the change would generally reduce fees for most sources and incentivize emissions reductions; the cabinet was described as neutral, and the affected utilities were identified as TVA, LG&E, East Kentucky Power, and Big Rivers, with only TVA having raised comments. The committee substitute was adopted, and the bill passed the committee with a favorable recommendation, though one member voted no and several members explained yes votes while expressing ongoing concerns about future rate impacts. At the end of the meeting, members briefly discussed broader concerns about utility surcharges and the need to monitor the effects of legislation on ratepayers, but those comments were not part of the bill under consideration. The chair noted that future meetings may include more bills and could start earlier if needed, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• 05.800> state<00:08:06.240> and<00:08:06.480> Minnesota's<00:08:06.960> ratepayers
• the state and Minnesota's ratepayers the state and Minnesota's ratepayers from<00:08:07.600>
• in a direction of undermining base load electricity and driving up our electricity cost for our ratepayers
• <00:14:41.120> Um resources uh to uh their ratepayers.
• Um resources uh to uh their ratepayers.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so when we're left with what is the cost to the ratepayer, the rate analysis that we've done, so
• this is one part of a total capital improvement program and so there are other pressures on our ratepayer
• And important to a ratepayer that I can predict your rate.
• Romero, can you tell me what your ratepayer pays? If you have it on a gallon or some other metric.
• Texas ratepayers our members include engineers plant managers operators municipal directors scientists

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So along with that, we have programs such as DSGS, ELRP, and some of the non-ratepayer-paid programs
• That includes some potential ratepayer programs, but non-emergency programs such as the balancing area
• One, of course, we're concerned about impacts to ratepayers, and so looking at those issues, as well
• Simply, it has not been worth the $13 million a month that ratepayers have been paying to keep these
• Those are savings that can help affect ratepayers, keep costs low, and keep the lights on in a clean,

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Minnesota Xcel ratepayers are getting 1,600 MW of clean energy for free.
• And we created a couple things, a renewable development account, money that Xcel ratepayers will help
• And we created a couple things, a renewable development account, money that Xcel ratepayers will help
• And we created a couple things, a renewable development account, money that Xcel ratepayers will help
• They filed now and said, "Here's what it's going to mean for ratepayers.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The program focused first on Minnesota’s energy and affordability agenda, with Senator Nick Frentz discussing the state’s clean-energy leadership, rising electricity demand, and the Senate’s 100% clean energy framework. He said Minnesota’s clean energy growth supports jobs, lowers costs for ratepayers, and includes recent wins such as sustainable aviation fuel tax treatment in the supplemental budget. Frentz also said the Senate passed an energy omnibus bill that continues clean-energy permitting reforms, promotes conservation and demand response, and includes a nuclear study rather than lifting the nuclear moratorium. Frentz spent much of the interview defending data centers as both a challenge and an opportunity. He said large hyperscale projects can create major construction jobs and substantial local property-tax revenue, while a 2025 law requires data-center companies to contribute to low-income energy assistance and report water use. He pointed to the Google data center planned for Pine Island as an example, saying it is air-cooled, will pay $5 million a year, and will fund 1,600 MW of clean energy at its own expense, which he argued could save Xcel ratepayers money over time. He also said climate change is already driving higher costs through homeowners insurance and storm damage. The second segment highlighted Senator Zach Duckworth’s housing and banking bills. Duckworth said Senate File 4168 would make it easier to finance investment properties by giving buyers more flexibility to roll closing costs and lender fees into payments, while keeping strong protections in place for primary residences. He emphasized that the bill is not about predatory lending and is intended to expand options for informed investors. He also described Senate File 4652 as an anti-fraud, no-cost measure that lets bank customers name a trusted contact so banks can alert someone if suspicious activity is detected. Duckworth said both bills passed unanimously in both chambers, and he credited quick action and good working relationships across the aisle for their success. The program closed with a broader reflection on the end of session and the Senate’s political climate. It noted that 15 senators are retiring and two are leaving for higher office, and that final floor votes often split along party lines, including one bill passing 34-33. Several retiring senators used farewell speeches to urge civility, compromise, and putting people first, while the segment emphasized that despite partisan conflict, quiet bipartisan cooperation still produced much of the session’s enacted legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Beyond that it goes to ratepayers. Is that right?
• Um, all the leftover money would be rebated back to the ratepayers. >> Okay.
• ... or forcing the ratepayer to subsidize.
• ... or forcing the ratepayer to subsidize.
• ... or forcing the ratepayer to subsidize.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ECC supports the provisions that would seek to hold residential ratepayers harmless, as well as the surcharge
• maintains our priority to achieve 100% clean, carbon-free energy by 2040, and ensures that current ratepayers
• short time frame to maximize the use and value of existing grid infrastructure, minimize costs to ratepayers
• Transmission investment is a driver of increased costs to ratepayers.
• Utilities will testify here today to concerns regarding cost impacts to ratepayers from VPPs and the

Bills: HF2928, HF2912, HF2297

Keywords: water appropriation, data centers, environmental review, energy conservation, permit application, carbon-free energy, geothermal energy, renewable energy, Macalester College, appropriation, sustainability, solar energy, pollinator programs, license plates, agrivoltaics, environmental sustainability

Transcript Highlights:

• turn the $3 million back to the ratepayers and have the project come up with the funding itself.
• taking this from ratepayers, this RDA. taking this from ratepayers, this RDA.
• and you come up with the ratepayers and you come up with the funding<00:25:06.160> yourself.
• <00:25:25.160> So, ratepayer money out of the RDA fund.
• So, ratepayer money out of the RDA fund.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And we agreed that there are risks to other ratepayers as data centers develop in the state of Washington
• We also have recommendations having to do with ratepayer protection.
• We also have recommendations having to do with ratepayer protections.
• To cost allocation to ratepayers. If you're crossing a seam, who do you go to?
• And which ratepayers are you benefiting? What's the process for that? It doesn't really exist.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Energy Supply, Energy Conservation, and Energy Resilience opened by electing Senator Shoemake as chair and Representative Alex Ibarra as vice chair. Members then moved into a series of work sessions focused on data centers, transmission, and workforce needs tied to Washington’s clean energy and grid planning challenges. Kate Bruns and Glenn Blackman presented preliminary findings from the governor’s Data Center work group, created under Executive Order 25-05. They said the group met for six months, received more than 1,000 public comments, and included representatives from agencies, industry, tribes, labor, utilities, environmental groups, and research institutions. The presenters emphasized that data centers are expected to be the largest source of load growth over the next five to ten years, creating concerns about grid capacity, ratepayer impacts, forecasting, water use, backup generation, and compatibility with Washington’s energy and climate laws. They described nine recommendations, including protecting existing energy and climate policy, improving forecasting, seeking more clean power and transmission, and encouraging flexible data center operations. A proposed tax incentive change that would have expanded eligibility while tying the exemption to new clean electricity sources narrowly failed in the work group. Members asked about tribal consultation, cooling technologies, and local benefits from data centers; the presenters said tribal consultation was ongoing and a final report would follow. Keegan Moyer of West Tech then outlined a regional transmission study showing major strain on the Western grid from load growth, electrification, resiliency needs, and limited transmission capacity. He said the 10-year study identified about 12,000 line miles of needed projects across the West, with roughly $56 billion in estimated costs, including planned projects, reliability upgrades, and new interregional transfer projects. He stressed that many projects are upgrades within existing rights-of-way, but new corridors are still needed, and he previewed recommendations on permitting, equipment procurement, cost allocation, and project sponsorship. In response to questions, he discussed the difficulty of crossing jurisdictional “seams,” the role of federal coordination, landowner compensation, eminent domain as a last resort, and the limited role of public financing beyond a federal GRIP grant. Stephanie Scott of Commerce presented the transmission workforce study, which focuses on substation technicians, line workers, and line clearance tree trimmers. She said current workforce levels are far below what will be needed under a clean energy expansion scenario, and that active projects are essential because apprenticeship training depends on thousands of hours of hands-on work. She highlighted barriers such as high upfront CDL and pre-apprenticeship costs, the need for wraparound supports, and the importance of expanding access for women, people of color, and tribal communities. Members asked about tribal utility apprenticeship programs, utility-run training pipelines, and whether the study included funding sources; Scott said the report would include an inventory of apprenticeship programs and tribal considerations, but revenue ideas were outside the study scope. Finally, Brant Johnson of Grid United described the North Plains Connector as a case study in large transmission development. He said the project, a 420-mile, 3,000-megawatt HVDC line connecting Montana and North Dakota, has relied on early stakeholder engagement, route changes, tribal consultation, and coordinated federal and state permitting to reduce risk and shorten timelines. He said the project aims for permits by the end of 2026 and construction beginning in 2028, with an earliest commercial operation date of 2032. In response to questions, he discussed the challenges of crossing regional seams, interconnection queues, land acquisition and compensation, eminent domain, and financing, noting that the project is primarily privately financed with a $700 million federal grant covering a portion of costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• In Michigan, ratepayers paid approximately $80 million over four months to keep a coal plant running.
• In Michigan, ratepayers paid approximately $80 million over four months to keep a coal plant running.
• In Michigan, ratepayers paid approximately $80 million over four months to keep a coal plant running.
• Ratepayers in California have borne more than $27 billion in wildfire-related costs just between 2019
• There is now legislation that they're moving forward to essentially make sure that ratepayers aren't

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, February 25, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill will save ratepayers $3.6 billion, non-solar ratepayers, $3.6 billion between now and 2045,
• Those are the only ratepayers that would be affected by this bill. Got it.
• You know, the Public Advocates Office, which is here to advocate for ratepayers and the public, put out
• No, it brings down the total cost of the whole system for all ratepayers.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 21, 2025, with 86 bills on the agenda. The committee first approved two consent motions covering a group of bills eligible for the Assembly floor consent calendar and another group of unanimous bills not eligible for floor consent. Several bills were then heard individually, with authors and supporters emphasizing that many had no or minimal state costs and were aimed at climate, health, or regulatory improvements. Among the bills discussed were AB 39 on local planning for electrification and EV charging infrastructure; AB 1129 allowing local health jurisdictions to opt into reporting birth defects and early-life health conditions; AB 1332 to allow narrow direct shipment of medicinal cannabis to seriously ill patients; AB 1056 phasing out transfer of certain gillnet permits except for a one-time family transfer; AB 408 creating a new Medical Board health and wellness program for physicians; AB 546 requiring health plans to cover portable HEPA air purifiers for vulnerable people during wildfire emergencies; AB 942 revising rooftop solar subsidy rules to reduce costs for non-solar ratepayers; and AB 967 expediting licensure for out-of-state physicians. Supporters generally framed these bills as improving access, equity, public health, or affordability, while opponents on AB 942 and AB 967 raised concerns about implementation, workload, contract issues, and impacts on existing programs. The committee took action on each bill after testimony and questions. AB 39, AB 1129, AB 1332, AB 1056, AB 408, AB 546, AB 942, and AB 967 were all moved out of committee on roll call votes, with some members voting no or not voting on certain measures. The suspense calendar was then read and deemed approved, and the committee opened general public comment, where speakers voiced support for bills including AB 715, AB 1138, AB 782, AB 98, AB 53, AB 258, AB 330, AB 650, AB 649, AB 1048, and AB 425. The meeting adjourned after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• What we don't want to do is ultimately penalize ratepayers with high administrative fees.
• onto new ratepayers, consistent with one of the hearings we had this morning.
• With conventional 30-year financing, almost a third of that cost is placed on existing ratepayers before
• That allows us to shift more of the costs from existing ratepayers to the growth in the future customer
• It allows us to shift more of the cost from existing ratepayers to the growth and the future customers

Bills: SB863, SB1190, SB1261, SB1413, SB1624, SB1662, SB1663, SB1855, SB1967, SB2124, SB2204, SB1623

Keywords: Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, water loss, municipally owned utilities, Texas Water Development Board, administrative penalties, water audit, water infrastructure, water supply, state water plan, water management strategies, water financing, municipal bonds, revenue bonds, public debt, obligations, TWDB

Summary: The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs heard several water-related bills, with testimony focused on drinking water quality, groundwater contamination notice, flood infrastructure funding, water rights conservation, and utility service areas. SB 1662 would limit TCEQ’s advance notice to public water systems to no more than 24 hours before testing after a consumer complaint, to reduce the chance of temporary treatment affecting results. SB 1663 would allow TCEQ to notify private well owners, groundwater conservation districts, and nearby residents by direct means about known groundwater contamination, rather than relying mainly on first-class mail and annual reporting. SB 2124 would move the deadline for publishing the Texas Groundwater Protection Committee’s annual report from April 1 to June 1. Witnesses on the first two bills described long-running water quality problems and delayed notice in their communities and supported the measures. No opposition was recorded, and each bill was left pending for a later vote. The committee also heard SB 1967, which would expand eligibility for Flood Infrastructure Fund financing to multipurpose projects that both reduce flooding and create water supply. Senator Hinojosa and Hidalgo County representatives described the Delta Reclamation Project as a shovel-ready example that would capture flood and drainage water, treat it, and produce new potable supply while also providing detention and flood mitigation. A Sierra Club witness also supported the bill, saying such projects could help manage floodwaters and reduce polluted discharges to bays and estuaries. The bill was left pending. A lengthy and divided discussion followed on SB 1413, which would expand the streamlined expedited release process for landowners seeking removal from a water or sewer CCN in additional counties. Senator Nichols said the bill was a property-rights measure aimed at legacy monopolies and bad actors who use CCNs to hold landowners hostage, while supporters described cases where developers could not get timely service, including fire flow, or were asked to fund infrastructure without reasonable recoupment. Opponents from rural water corporations and utility associations argued the bill would undermine investment in water infrastructure, strand debt, and weaken the return on planned expansion. PUC and TCEQ resource witnesses explained that compensation is handled case by case through appraisal and can include stranded costs, planning, design, construction, and some legal fees, but members noted the statute is unclear and discussed possible committee substitute language. Public testimony was closed with the bill left pending. Later, SB 1624 would allow the Texas Water Trust within the Texas Water Bank to hold donated water rights for conservation purposes and protect them from use-it-or-lose-it cancellation, and SB 863 would address Edwards Aquifer utilities that straddle the aquifer boundary by allowing them to continue using Edwards water within their certificated areas under specified conditions. Both bills were laid out, received no public opposition in the hearing, and were left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• In this way, New Hampshire ratepayers will not incur the cost of projects.
• They've got huge amounts of this being built, and the ratepayer subsidies are still there.
• They've got huge amounts of this being built, and the ratepayer subsidies are still there.
• Um, you have said over and over that the ratepayers are not stupid.
• Um, you have said over and over that the ratepayers are not stupid.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, uh, section two has to do with ratepayer protection, which is centered at the department.
• They'd issue an order of notice on it, and that individual ratepayer wouldn't have to go through the
• They'd issue an order of notice on it, and that individual ratepayer wouldn't have to go through the
• That's a big ask when it comes to residential ratepayers.
• That's a big ask when it comes to residential ratepayers.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As you've heard, it's related to our state's ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs.
• Lowering energy costs is an issue I ran on by rebating the renewable energy fund back to ratepayers.
• This bill seeks to do the same for the renewable energy fund and provide important ratepayer relief.
• So it's a much greater impact than the $2 you're getting back as a ratepayer. Thank you very much.
• Koll said it is a dedicated fund of ratepayer money that should be used for its intended purpose.

Keywords: 1189, house, all