Transcript Highlights:

• </c> CEO of Minnesota Rural Electric CEO of Minnesota Rural Electric Association.<00:15:44.399><c> Cooperative
• ><c> overall</c> Residential electric rates and overall Residential electric rates and overall household
• </c> average Minnesota residential electric average Minnesota residential electric bills<01:10:06.800
• Those fees represent a real cost that, if it's not borne by the customer, that cost will be shifted onto
• Those fees represent a real cost that, if it's not borne by the customer, that cost will be shifted onto

Bills: HF3458 , HF3777 , HF3778 , HF3912

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> House Bill One: investor-owned electric gas and gas and electric companies cost recovery limitations
• Why are we paying to hook more people up to electric when electric is a scarcity right now?
• Her electric bill is sky-high, and she has to choose between paying for her insulin or electricity costs
• Between paying for her insulin or electricity costs.
• We're weeks into it, and it deals with electricity prices or electricity at all.

Transcript Highlights:

• Here with electricity, we're driving up the cost of electricity with the Green New Deal scam, and then
• we're driving up here with electricity we're driving up the<00:46:47.800><c> cost</c><00:46:48.000><
• ><c> green</c> the cost of electricity with the green the cost of electricity with the green new<00:46
• And we can't lower the cost of electricity for those who are hurting, but we could do that.
• And we can't lower the cost of electricity for those who are hurting, but we could do that.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate

Transcript Highlights:

• The success of this effort is predicated on keeping costs down for electric customers.
• They do drive down costs. There are other ways to drive down costs.
• Electricity rates are too high.
• Cost effectiveness is measured in two ways.
• of calfires costs associated with its services so it wasn't intended to really pay for their full cost

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also prohibits electric utilities from receiving allowances for electricity associated with this generation
• I don't see a fiscal note, and yet when no-cost allowances ultimately are reduced, won't there be a cost
• Additionally, under the Climate Commitment Act, the Department of Ecology issues electric utilities no-cost
• That section says that the smaller electric utilities, those with fewer than 25,000 retail electric customers
• factors to high electric bills.

Summary: The Environment and Energy Committee heard testimony on three bills. HB 2426 would allow the Pollution Control Hearings Board, with unanimous agreement of the parties, to use alternative board compositions for appeals, including a single member or other qualified environmental adjudicators, so long as one member is a Washington-licensed attorney and the panel has environmental law expertise. The bill sponsor and supporters from business and conservation groups said it was a narrow, consensus-based change intended to improve efficiency and predictability. ELUHO’s director supported the concept but flagged technical issues in the bill language about attorney and Growth Management Hearings Board member qualifications. HB 2416 would provide no-cost allowances under the Climate Commitment Act to Spokane’s waste-to-energy facility, which is not currently covered until the second compliance period. Supporters, including Spokane officials, labor, and local partners, said the facility protects a sole-source aquifer, provides waste disposal and electricity for about 13,000 homes, and faces large compliance costs that could raise rates and threaten jobs. Opponents from environmental groups and Ecology argued the bill would give the facility preferential treatment, subsidize most of its emissions through 2050, and fail to ensure real emissions reductions; AWB raised concern about market impacts if new allowances are added. No vote was taken. HB 2373 would require electric utilities to offer monthly bill discount programs with tiered income levels, expanded outreach and enrollment, and updated reporting on low-income energy assistance. The sponsor said the bill is meant to make assistance more consistent and accessible statewide, while utilities and rural co-ops warned it could create unfunded mandates and significant rate increases for non-low-income customers, especially in smaller systems. Supporters from community action agencies, Commerce, and some utilities said monthly assistance is needed because energy burdens are rising and current programs are patchwork, though several urged pairing the bill with state funding or amendments. The committee heard extensive testimony but took no final action on any of the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• supplied, the purity, pressure, or cost of gas service, the efficiency of electric light bulb, the voltage
• That drives up the cost of electricity. We have too much demand.
• There still has been no cost-benefit analysis of what these costs are going to be going forward.
• , I can't do anything about ending tariffs, the cost increases of aluminum, copper, electrical transformers
• THE COST INCREASES OF ALUMINUM, COPPER, ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS THAT ARE THROUGH THE ROOF THAT UNFORTUNATELY

Summary: The Senate convened, approved the prior journal, and then took up a series of utility and public service bills and resolutions. A resolution sponsored by Senator Scarcella-Spanton designating April 9, 2026, as Yellow Ribbon Day was adopted after remarks honoring veterans, active-duty service members, and their families. The chamber then moved through several Public Service Law measures focused on utility affordability, consumer protections, and PSC procedures, with some bills laid aside and others advanced. Among the bills passed were measures by Senators Mayer, Cleare, Hinchey, Comrie, and Parker. Debate on the Mayer bill centered on limiting utility expenses and fees recoverable in rate cases; supporters said it was part of a broader package to reform PSC practices, while opponents argued it would not lower current bills and had been softened from earlier versions. The Webb bill creating a residential utility usage monitoring program drew extended debate over whether it would meaningfully reduce costs, who would pay for the program, and whether it could lead to government monitoring of household usage; supporters said it would give consumers more control and transparency, while critics said it would not lower rates. The Gonzalez bill, which would add consumer protections during PSC investigations and delay shutoffs in certain circumstances, also passed after questions about whether it applied to rate cases, with the sponsor saying rate cases were explicitly excluded. Several members explained their votes, with supporters emphasizing affordability, transparency, and consumer protection, and opponents arguing the package would not address immediate rate relief and could burden ratepayers or encourage nonpayment. Senator Tedisco and others criticized PSC appointments and state energy policy, while Democratic sponsors argued the bills were part of a longer-term effort to reform utility regulation and address climate and affordability concerns. The chamber restored multiple bills to the non-controversial calendar before final votes, and the recorded results showed passage of the major utility bills by substantial margins, along with one amendment appeal being ruled nongermane and rejected.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's before you actually pay for the cost of the actual gasoline or the cost of the car.
• We have a cost of living crisis.
• Some may be different; some may have electrical, where you're going to need to bring in an electrical
• Some may be different; some may have electrical, where you're going to need to bring in an electrical
• And so the affordability costs...

Summary: The committee heard several local government-related bills, with testimony focused on permitting, transportation funding, EV infrastructure, and commercial revitalization. AB 1578 by Assembly Member Jackson would require elected local and state officials to take anti-hate speech training through existing sexual harassment training. Supporters said elected officials should understand the impact of their words on hate and democracy; opponents argued the bill lacked a definition of hate speech and could chill protected speech, especially around sex-based issues. AB 2083, also by Jackson, would authorize a regional child care special district serving Moreno Valley and Paris to expand child care facilities and programs for five years. The California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions opposed the bill’s mechanism but said it was working with the author. AB 1693 by Assembly Member Suber would streamline retail tenant improvement permits by extending a process similar to a prior restaurant permitting law, with qualified professional certification and tighter local review timelines. It drew broad support from retail, business, and property groups and no opposition. Assembly Member Gonzalez presented AB 1679, which would create a temporary commercial activation permit for pop-up businesses to operate in vacant storefronts for up to 120 days. Supporters said it would help fill vacancies and lower barriers for small businesses; there was no opposition, and the bill advanced. Gonzalez also presented AB 2418, which would set timelines for nonresidential plan checks and inspections and allow private plan checkers after excessive delay. Business groups supported it as a way to reduce costly delays, while local government groups had no position but continued discussions with the author; the bill advanced with amendments. Assembly Member Shevlin presented AB 1820, which would cap local permit fees for EV charging installations and create a statewide fee schedule. Supporters said fees vary too widely and can deter charger deployment, while cities and counties argued existing law already requires reasonable cost recovery and that the bill could undercut local budgets and public safety review. Assembly Member DeMaio presented AB 1783, which would prohibit state and local mileage taxes or road user charges. Supporters framed it as a defense against a new tax burden, while opponents said studying road user charges is necessary to address declining gas tax revenue and future transportation funding needs. AB 1693, AB 1679, and AB 2418 were moved forward with motions and roll calls; AB 1783 was taken up with a motion and roll call left open, and AB 1820 remained under discussion at the end of the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is not just an electric-vehicle-specific problem.
• This is only for electric vehicles.
• This is only for electric vehicles.
• The cost estimates are for TARP kits for the fleet statewide, as well as the ongoing cost for replacements
• There are also line items already covering these costs.

Bills: HB2109 , HB2139 , HB2192

Committee: House Transportation

Keywords: vehicle loads, public highways, transportation, road safety, infrastructure, HB2139, snowmobile registration, snowmobile fee, vehicle license fee, registration fee, Department of Licensing, RCW, vehicle registration, winter recreation, off-road vehicle, moped, motorcycle, trailer, recreational vehicle, vintage snowmobile

Transcript Highlights:

• electrical steel.
• Allocation of electricity. Yes, sir.
• sure that the customers that are putting the costs on from a cost standpoint are the ones ultimately
• cost allocation.
• It collects it when it's low cost and it discharges it when it's higher cost.

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Summary: The Senate Committee on Business and Commerce convened to discuss critical infrastructure and supply chain integrity, particularly focusing on Texas's power grid and associated vulnerabilities. The meeting highlighted Texas's recent ranking as 10th in electricity affordability, emphasizing the state's commitment to maintaining a reliable and resilient electric grid. New committee members introduced themselves, and the agenda included testimony from ERCOT and the Public Utility Commission regarding the implementation of the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act, which aims to mitigate risks posed by foreign entities to the power grid. Chad Sealy from ERCOT presented updates on the attestation process for market participants, revealing that over 1,500 entities had submitted attestations regarding their corporate structures and affiliations with designated foreign countries. Concerns were raised about the adequacy of the current vetting process, particularly regarding indirect relationships with foreign adversaries. Testimonies from the PUC and the Attorney General's office underscored the challenges of enforcing compliance and the need for improved legislative measures to enhance oversight and security. The committee also heard from experts, including Dr. Emma Stewart from Idaho National Laboratory, who discussed the evolving threats to the grid from foreign adversaries and the importance of securing communication systems. Recommendations included prioritizing inspections of critical components and enhancing collaboration with national laboratories to address vulnerabilities. The discussion concluded with an acknowledgment of the balance needed between ensuring grid security and maintaining affordability for consumers.

Transcript Highlights:

• Between 2021 and 2023, these programs saved nearly 2,000 gigawatt hours of electricity and cost California
• This chart groups large areas of electric revenue, which is another word for electric system costs, into
• costs related to the Electric Program Investment Charge, known as EPIC, and the California Alternate
• cost is how much it’s costing repairs?
• costs.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on how California Public Utilities Commission energy efficiency programs are budgeted, evaluated, and measured for cost-effectiveness. The chair framed the issue as not whether energy efficiency works, but how to ensure ratepayer-funded programs continue to deliver value as the portfolio has shifted from simple measures like lighting to more complex retrofits, electrification, workforce, and equity programs. CPUC staff outlined the statutory framework, the four-year budget cycle, recent spending of about $795 million in 2025, and the use of total system benefit (TSB) and the total resource cost (TRC) test, noting that some programs are exempt from cost-effectiveness requirements at the individual program level but not at the resource acquisition portfolio level. Utility, regional network, implementer, and advocacy witnesses offered differing views on the current metrics. PG&E described its portfolio as cost-effective overall and argued that cost-effectiveness should remain at the portfolio level to allow innovation and multi-year program flexibility. SoCalREN and the Energy Coalition emphasized the value of local government delivery, equity-focused programs, and the need to credit programs for broader benefits such as workforce development, market transformation, and electrification. The Public Advocates Office argued that ratepayer-funded programs should produce benefits greater than costs and raised concerns about the growing share of budgets going to programs that have not met cost-effectiveness thresholds. Several witnesses said the current math is too complicated and that different program types may need different metrics. Committee members repeatedly pressed witnesses on the complexity of the TRC and TSB calculations, the treatment of participant costs, and whether the state should use a simpler or more transparent framework. CPUC staff said the relevant issues are already being addressed in two open proceedings, with one budget application proceeding expected to conclude in roughly the second or third quarter of next year and a broader policy rulemaking ongoing. No votes were taken and no formal action was reported; the hearing functioned as an informational discussion and policy review.

Transcript Highlights:

• Including a plan for the studied mechanisms to replace the electrically electric vehicle search charges
• </c> comprehensive analysis of electricity comprehensive analysis of electricity used<00:03:35.120><c
• </c> mechanisms to replace the electrically mechanisms to replace the electrically electric<00:05:01.919
• </c> thing with electricity? thing with electricity? &gt;&gt; Mhm. &gt;&gt; Mhm. &gt;&gt; Mhm.
• In this case, it was electricity. fuel. In this case, it was electricity.

Summary: The working group approved the prior meeting minutes with one correction to reflect Laura Ziggler’s attendance. Staff then outlined the report due February 13, 2026, which must summarize the group’s activities and include findings and recommendations adopted by the group; the report will go to the governor and legislative transportation leaders. The chair emphasized that the group’s charge is broad and includes analyzing electricity used as vehicle fuel infrastructure opportunities and barriers, developing policy and funding recommendations for sustainable transportation funding, and reviewing other states’ laws and policies. Discussion focused heavily on how to replace declining gas tax revenue as more vehicles become electric. The chair framed the issue as a fairness and implementation challenge, noting that EVs are a growing share of the fleet and that the group should consider both policy and funding, not just one or the other. Members and guests raised several ideas already submitted, including a road user charge, changes to the EV charging tax, ending or modifying the EV surcharge, broadening the tax to publicly owned charging stations, reducing the charging level threshold to level 2, ending sales tax on electricity, addressing off-road use, and expanding the definition of auto parts to include charging equipment. Representative Elkins argued that charging based on electricity used at home is impractical for most vehicles, that public charging is already much more expensive than home charging, and that the current sales tax plus surcharge amounts to double taxation for public-charging users. He said a mileage-based user charge modeled on Utah’s approach is workable, could be phased in, and could preserve privacy by allowing a voluntary or alternative method for home charging estimates. Senator Howe responded that home electricity use can be estimated similarly to mileage deductions on taxes and said the state should tax all electricity used as fuel, regardless of charger level, if it can be identified. Other speakers echoed that all road users should pay a fair share and that the main challenge is implementation. Tony Kis of Quick Trip asked that a late letter be included in the record and urged clarification of the sales, use, excise tax, and collection rules to avoid double taxation and reduce administrative burden, noting the current monthly collection date and suggesting the group should streamline collection methods. No final policy decisions or votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So an electric motorcycle is just that, an electric motorcycle.
• :38.399><c> an</c> neighborhood electric vehicle, an neighborhood electric vehicle, an electric<04:02
• mo small electric a number of electric mo small electric motorcycles motorcycles motorcycles and<04:
• /c><04:19:21.120><c> bicycles</c> electric any of the electric bicycles electric any of the electric
• It electric power to an electric motor.

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:12:28.639><c> to</c> liability risk leads to higher cost to liability risk leads to higher cost
• But there's also a cost of equity, and really costs are based on a weighted average cost of capital.
• But there's also a cost of equity, and really costs are based on a weighted average cost of capital.
• But there's also a cost of equity, and really costs are based on a weighted average cost of capital.
• ’t have to take on that cost.

Committee: House Energy & Environmental Protection

Summary: The committee on Energy and Environmental Protection heard testimony on Senate Bill 897, which would create a Wildlife Liability Trust Fund within DCCA for administrative purposes. The chair opened by noting the hearing had to end by noon because of floor session, and that written testimony would be considered if not all witnesses could speak. Testimony included support from DCCA, the Attorney General’s office, the Public Utilities Commission, Charter Communications, Ulupono Initiative, AES Hawaii, Hawaiian Electric, Clearway Energy Group, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Hawaiian Telcom, and IBW Local 1260, with opposition or concerns from the Hawaii Association for Justice and some others. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the bill and asked for amendments, saying the fund would help address wildfire liability, protect customers and the economy, and support restoration of investment-grade credit; it also proposed a larger shareholder contribution and said the bill was part of a broader effort to raise settlement funds and improve grid safety and resiliency. Committee members focused heavily on whether the bill would actually lower costs for ratepayers and improve credit ratings. DCCA said there was a nexus between limiting liability, creating a sufficiently large wildfire fund, and transparent mitigation requirements, but acknowledged there was no guarantee of a credit-rating improvement or precise estimate of rate impacts. Members questioned Hawaiian Electric about the assumptions in its cost comparisons, the 30-year securitization structure, and whether funding could be shifted later to shareholders after credit was restored. Hawaiian Electric responded that the bill assumes the fund is paid through securitization, that removing that presumption could undermine the credit-rating benefit, and that its models suggest credit-spread savings could offset the customer charge over time; it also said it would follow up with additional analysis. The company and Ulupono both described the measure as a difficult but potentially necessary way to socialize wildfire risk and avoid a larger crisis later. The Hawaii Association for Justice opposed the bill’s liability caps and raised concerns about consumer rights, oversight discretion, statute-of-limitations changes, and evidence rules. Hawaiian Telcom suggested amendments to clarify compliance with FCC pole-attachment agreements. No vote or final action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided, and members indicated they wanted more analysis before being comfortable with the bill’s long-term ratepayer impacts.

Transcript Highlights:

• We can use it through the fuel cells and then to generate electricity for the electrical vehicle for
• So you have transmission costs, you have distribution costs and it looks like you guys are doing a good
• as, as, uh, represent little uh cost.
• For electricity generation, for electricity generation, and that's the question is if the US we're going
• Chairman, uh, Senator, so the, the last question as far as the, uh, the grid cost, the transmission costs

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> preventing us from seeing the true cost preventing us from seeing the true cost of<00:41:19.359>
• Data centers cost Minnesotans money as our water resources are depleted and cleanup costs are applied
• </c> giveaway that has already cost giveaway that has already cost minnesotans<01:15:16.520><c> over<
• ><c> from</c> electric worker Electrical Workers from electric worker Electrical Workers from around<
• </c><01:27:40.000><c> demand</c> governments the 247 electrical demand governments the 247 electrical

Bills: HF1277 , HF1006

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• As long as the cost is... ...to recover the cost of water through the rental charge, as long as the cost
• Peak gas costs 10 times what non-peak gas costs.
• , electric transmission and distribution costs, and utility profits from traditional regulation and financing
• cost of nuclear power.
• Lazard's 2025 cost of energy report shows that nuclear power remains the highest-cost electricity, roughly

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a wide range of late-file energy bills, with much of the discussion focused on battery storage siting, gas system expansion, propane consumer protections, gas workforce safety, and a Taunton home-rule petition on water rates for manufactured housing communities. Representative Sweeney urged support for H. 4689 and H. 4690, which would impose a moratorium and setback requirements for lithium battery storage facilities, citing fire risk, proximity to homes, and environmental concerns. Several local officials and residents from Oakham, Tewksbury, and other communities described proposed battery projects near homes, schools, wetlands, and conservation land, while industry and clean-energy advocates argued the bills would effectively block storage development and conflict with state energy goals and existing fire-safety standards. The committee also heard strong support for S. 2290/H. 3547, a bill to prevent gas expansion near environmental justice communities, from environmental justice advocates, municipal officials, and clean-energy groups. Testimony emphasized rising gas bills, the cost of new pipelines, methane and health impacts, and the need to avoid locking in long-term gas infrastructure costs. Witnesses also discussed related bills on gas workforce safety, gas shut-off valves, and gas meter replacement plans, with labor representatives supporting safety-focused measures and opposing changes they said would weaken inspections, while consumer and environmental advocates argued that some utility replacement practices are unnecessarily expensive and should be reined in to reduce ratepayer costs. Other testimony included support for H. 3518 on propane gas ratepayer protections, with the witness arguing for clearer contract terms and website price disclosure, and support for S. 2652, which would authorize Taunton to create a separate water billing rate for manufactured housing communities because residents there are effectively paying higher water costs through rent due to a single master meter. No committee votes or final actions were taken during the hearing, and members mostly asked brief clarifying questions or made no comment after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• At a time of growing electricity demand and climbing electric prices, we need to add significant generating
• increased costs.
• increased costs.
• Most subscribers save 10 to 20% on their monthly electricity costs, and those savings are guaranteed,
• costs.

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on Climate Change and Global Warming

Summary: The hearing focused on ways Massachusetts can accelerate solar deployment, lower costs, and preserve reliability as electricity demand rises and federal support for solar and other renewables changes. Chair Creem opened by emphasizing solar’s role in meeting climate mandates and peak demand, citing June heat-wave data showing behind-the-meter solar reduced wholesale prices and saved ratepayers money. Commissioner Elizabeth Mahoney of DOER said Massachusetts has grown from 3 MW of solar in 2008 to 3.5 GW today, highlighted SMART 3.0 as a flexible, evergreen incentive program, and said DOER is working on updated rates, interconnection reforms, flexible interconnection, net crediting, and a petition to the DPU to speed implementation. She also said Massachusetts joined the lawsuit over canceled federal Solar for All funding. Committee members and witnesses discussed several policy changes to speed projects before federal tax credits expire, including automated permitting, remote inspections, faster interconnection, and changes to caps on municipal and regional solar development. Senator Barrett pressed Mahoney on whether the 10 MW municipal cap and regional caps should be lifted, and on whether the state should increase its solar tax credit to offset the loss of the federal residential credit. Mahoney said the municipal cap should be revisited and that interconnection cost allocation and other market issues need to be worked out before lifting broader caps. She also said DOER is open to automated permitting and is already developing a permitting portal under the 2024 climate law. Industry and advocacy witnesses largely supported streamlining measures. Sunrun’s Bronte Payne urged removal of a proposed requirement that all net-metered facilities enroll in SMART, and recommended automated permitting, remote inspections, flexible interconnection, better hosting-capacity information, consumer protections, and continued support for Connected Solutions and virtual power plants. Permit Power’s Hannah Bernbaum and Solar App’s Matthew McAllister argued that smart permitting and remote inspections can significantly reduce soft costs and delays, with McAllister saying Solar App now operates in over 320 jurisdictions and saves about three weeks on average. They said remote inspections are already common and can be done safely with photos, video, and qualified third parties. Community solar and clean energy advocates, including CCSA’s Kate Daniel and Vote Solar’s Lindsay Griffin, supported a 10 GW solar target by 2035, a higher refundable state tax credit for low-income households, interconnection reforms, flexible interconnection, and preserving the option to build outside SMART so projects can retain renewable energy certificates. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and members requested follow-up materials and draft language from witnesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> revenues has not been due to electric revenues has not been due to electric vehicles,<00:03:40.560
• </c> skyrocketed another buck 50 um costing skyrocketed another buck 50 um costing us<00:14:09.040><c
• Thank revenue stream to fund our costs.
• <00:15:37.600><c> and</c><00:15:37.920><c> my</c><00:15:38.079><c> wife</c> electricity and my wife electricity
• Uh that's all I electricity for the EV.

Bills: HF2438

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• Reliability Administrator charge for cost recovery of certain expenses of the Hawaii Electricity Reliability
• Reliability Administrator charge for cost recovery of certain expenses of the Hawaii Electricity Reliability
• Reliability Administrator charge for cost recovery of certain expenses of the Hawaii Electricity Reliability
• </c> our resilience goals at much lower cost our resilience goals at much lower cost much<00:27:40.440
• </c> opportunity to have more electric opportunity to have more electric vehicles<00:54:17.960><c> in

Committee: House Energy & Environmental Protection

Summary: The House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection opened its first hearing of the session and heard testimony on several energy and environmental bills. On HB 470, relating to noise and leaf blowers, the Department of Health supported the bill’s intent to reduce noise pollution but raised concerns about using decibel limits alone and suggested using dBA measurements; testimony also noted the bill would regulate future sales rather than current use, and there were three additional testimonies, two in support and one in opposition. No questions were raised before the committee moved on. The committee then heard HB 742 on transit-oriented development, which would require HCDA to prepare a programmatic EIS for Ewa, Kapalama, and West Oahu improvements. UH supported the bill, HHFDC said it was already preparing a master plan and programmatic EIS for the Ewa area, and HCDA explained that the projects are already underway or completed, including infrastructure work funded by prior appropriations. Supporters said the bill would streamline environmental review and potentially reduce costs for future housing, while HCDA emphasized the work is already in progress. On HB 340, concerning a streamlined grid-ready home interconnection process and related cost recovery, DCCA provided comments, the Attorney General suggested changing a deadline to a specific date, and the PUC said it wanted to study the matter further while still meeting the 180-day reporting requirement. Solar and clean energy groups strongly supported the bill as a way to speed interconnection and advance grid-interactive technologies, while Hawaiian Electric supported the goal of more DERs but opposed the process, saying its interconnection performance has improved and that collaboration would be preferable to legislation. Members asked about newer technologies, UL 1741, and ratepayer impacts, and the Consumer Advocate said removing the cost-recovery section would alleviate its concerns. The committee also heard HB 243, requiring PV- and EV-ready new residential construction, which the Hawaii State Energy Office described as a cost-saving no-brainer because installing these features during construction is much cheaper than retrofitting later. The hearing then shifted to HB 350, expanding the water-heater systems that can satisfy building-permit requirements to include heat pump water heaters alongside solar hot water systems. The Energy Office supported the bill, Solar Ray supported the concept but asked for amendments to align efficiency standards and noted the bill’s removal of a 15-year lifespan limit for solar thermal systems, and Hawaii Solar Energy Association raised questions about how heat pump performance should be measured and whether PV-plus-heat-pump combinations should qualify. Committee members asked about impacts on smaller homes and ADUs, and the discussion remained focused on technical standards and possible amendments; no votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> complaints and such around of the cost complaints and such around of the cost that<00:19:00.600>
• His electricity last month was $723.
• our electricity rates go from 4.2 cents our electricity rates go from 4.2 cents per<00:36:13.920><c>
• rate was uh 28 by 28 house her electric rate was uh her<00:37:01.160><c> electric</c><00:37:01.480><
• </c><00:37:17.680><c> rate</c><00:37:17.960><c> was</c> her electric rate was her electric rate was $613

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 387, which would amend MSD governance and spending rules in Louisville. The sponsor said the bill was intended to add oversight and accountability in response to large MSD rate increases, though the original rate-approval provision had been removed because of concerns about contracts and bond ratings in Oldham and Bullitt counties. MSD Executive Director Tony Parrott testified that MSD is a public utility serving more than 800,000 people through wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection services, and argued that most rate pressure comes from federal and state mandates tied to a consent decree and other orders. He said MSD already provides annual notice and bond approvals through Metro Council, offers customer assistance programs, and needs flexibility for advertising, public notices, recruitment, and compliance. Members discussed stormwater funding, aging infrastructure, flood control, and the bill’s limits on advertising and other expenditures. The committee substitute was adopted and the bill passed on a roll call vote. The committee then considered House Concurrent Resolution 22, as substituted, which expressed support for exploring nuclear energy and included language noting Kentucky’s ability to use nuclear waste, uranium tailings, and spent fuel in ways described by the sponsor as cleaner. Supporters said Kentucky faces an energy shortage and that nuclear, including small modular reactors, should be part of the state’s future energy mix. Some members said they would support the resolution but wanted a feasibility study or noted that it does not carry the force of law. The resolution passed. Finally, the committee began House Bill 519, sponsored by Representative Fugate, which would prevent utility companies from passing demolition costs for retired coal-fired or fossil-fuel plants on to ratepayers. The sponsor cited sharply rising electricity bills in eastern Kentucky, the decline in coal employment, and the burden of demolition costs from the Big Sandy plant being placed on customers. He argued that utilities should absorb those costs rather than shifting them to ratepayers. The bill was introduced with a motion and second, and the committee was preparing to hear further questions and testimony when the transcript ended.