Transcript Highlights:

• As both the analysis of this committee states and the analysis of the Judiciary Committee states, this
• The committee analysis handles that point really well.
• We need to make sure we are in compliance with.
• We shouldn't need this bill. But we do.
• The analysis does an excellent job of summarizing.

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard several bills on AI, social media, rental cars, and account deletion. AB 316 by Assemblymember Krell would bar defendants from avoiding liability by claiming an AI system autonomously caused harm. Supporters argued it would preserve accountability as AI grows more powerful, especially in cases involving children, while opponents said existing tort law already covers these issues and warned the bill could create uncertainty and overbroad liability. The bill passed the committee 8-1. AB 656 by Assemblymember Schiavo, sponsored by Consumer Federation of California, would make it easier for users to delete social media accounts and personal information, with amendments shifting the deletion prompt into settings rather than on every screen. Supporters said platforms use dark patterns and make deletion unnecessarily difficult; opponents raised concerns about unintended deletions and possible conflicts with existing privacy law, though the author said the bill was being aligned with CCPA. The bill passed 9-0. The committee also approved the consent calendar. AB 1197 by Assemblymember Calderon would address rental car theft and misuse by allowing limited geofencing in specific situations and revising rules around renter liability when keys are returned and a police report is filed. Rental car companies and other supporters said the bill would help recover stolen or abandoned vehicles, while an opponent warned about privacy and possible consumer harms in edge cases. The bill passed 11-0. AB 1374 by Assemblymember Berman would require more upfront disclosure of the total price of rental cars, including mandatory fees, to curb hidden charges; supporters said consumers still face surprise costs, while opponents argued current law already requires disclosure and that the bill’s new wording could invite litigation. It passed 13-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• If the cost-benefit analysis was not included with a measure, the committee was to request the analysis
• We need to know those things.
• We need to know those things.
• analysis.
• care needs.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to review the history and current treatment of North Dakota health insurance mandates, with presentations from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, Sanford Health Plan, the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and the Insurance Department. The discussion focused on how mandates apply differently to fully insured, self-funded, ACA, Medicaid, and PERS plans; how the state’s benchmark plan and federal essential health benefits affect coverage; and how the existing process requires cost-benefit analysis and, for certain measures, a PERS pilot period before broader application. Presenters also reviewed the long list of existing state mandates, including provider, beneficiary, and coverage requirements, and noted that many were enacted decades ago and have not been revisited despite changes in medical evidence and treatment options. Witnesses from the carriers argued that mandates should be reviewed periodically because some are outdated, can create unintended costs, and may not align with current medical guidance. Examples cited included PSA screening, off-label drug coverage, prior authorization rules, step therapy, and cost-sharing provisions for mental health and substance use treatment. They emphasized that carriers often cover services without a mandate when supported by clinical evidence, and that mandates can shift costs to employers and employees, especially in the fully insured small-group market. They also suggested possible policy improvements such as clearer mandate definitions, better transparency around cost-benefit analyses, a regular 10-year review of mandates, and more timely submission of proposals through the interim process. PERS and the Insurance Department highlighted a recurring tension over what counts as a mandate and when a measure triggers the state’s defrayal obligation under federal law. PERS described its interim committee process, the April 1 deadline for fiscal-impact proposals, and the limited pilot program used for certain measures, noting that only a few bills have gone through the full pilot process. The Insurance Department explained that it views new benefit mandates through the lens of the ACA benchmark plan and essential health benefits, distinguishing true new benefits, such as infertility coverage, from changes to existing benefits, such as telehealth or insulin cost-sharing caps. No votes were taken on policy changes; the meeting was informational, with members asking questions about costs, applicability, transparency, and whether a periodic mandate review should be established.

Transcript Highlights:

• How we are dealing with the folks who have traditionally needed more than 116 feet.
• At this time, then, I know that we're behind and I still think we may need.
• and analysis...
• of which have analysis underway and continued discussions as we move forward.
• , the level three analysis, to include that assumption.

Summary: The committee met jointly with the Washington-Oregon Legislative Action Committee for an update on the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement (IBR) program. Members first adopted the proposed committee rules, then received program updates from staff on environmental review, permitting, design, tribal consultation, and public engagement. Staff said the project remains in the supplemental EIS process, with a final supplemental EIS and amended record of decision expected in early 2026, which would allow construction to begin. They also described ongoing work on Coast Guard navigation clearance, Section 106 historic-property coordination, and architectural guidelines for the bridge and five-mile corridor, emphasizing that the visualizations shown were conceptual and that public and partner feedback has already influenced design considerations such as accessibility and shared-use path connections. Members raised concerns about schedule delays, rising costs, and whether the project is being designed to be functional, safe, and economical. Staff acknowledged that the timeline has slipped from earlier expectations and said the delay reflects the complexity of the environmental and federal review process, as well as the need to avoid redoing steps. They said the updated cost estimate is being prepared now that design has advanced to roughly 30 percent, and that it will account for inflation, risk factors, and both fixed-span and movable-span options. Staff estimated a movable span would add more than $400 million and said the first construction work after environmental approval would likely be preliminary freeway and retaining-wall work in late 2026, followed by the bridge procurement. The committee also received funding and tolling updates. Staff reported that major federal grants have been executed, including Mega and Bridge Investment Grant agreements, and that state STIP amendments are advancing to allow access to federal funds. The tolling team described Level 3 traffic-and-revenue work, a bi-state tolling subcommittee process, and possible toll scenarios aimed at supporting either about $1.24 billion or $1.6 billion in toll revenue. Members questioned low-income toll relief timing, truck toll rates, and the effect of tolls on freight users. Staff said low-income discounts are being analyzed for both revenue and operational feasibility, that tribal exemptions and other policy exemptions are under review, and that the commissions expect to move into public outreach on toll rates and policies in 2026, with tolling on the existing bridges currently projected to begin in spring 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• This was not required for a regulatory analysis.
• This was not required for a regulatory analysis.
• Regulatory analysis and fiscal note were prepared.
• Regulatory analysis and fiscal note were prepared.
• So maybe that's a question we need to take up next session.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of system need in that time frame.
• of system need in that time frame.
• And it doesn't mean that we may still not need flex alerts, and we may still need to go into emergency
• So we do need some coordination.
• We haven't needed to use them.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:05:14.000> to completed fiscal notes who needs to completed fiscal notes who needs to
• <00:10:04.480> additional uh that you don't need additional uh that you don't need additional
• <00:29:11.679> to representative pindo that needs to representative pindo that needs to happen
• ensuring that they had what they need ensuring that they had what they need during<00:51:10.559>
• <00:55:56.280> IES conducting the analysis IES conducting the analysis IES representative<

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• any way a standard industry analysis of the needed contingency reserve.
• any way a standard industry analysis of the needed contingency reserve.
• any way a standard industry analysis of the needed contingency reserve.
• <00:47:15.839> of<00:47:16.119> needed this is not an analysis of needed this is not
• this is an analysis of contingency or this is an analysis of what's<00:47:18.480> needed<00:47

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• “Need to be corrected, please reach out.
• So we need to rely on IMPLAN for all of those pieces.
• , and more work needed, this is a place to start.
• I think what we're going to need to do is create some...
• Leone, is there anything else we need to do today?

Summary: The Financial Estimate Committee met on July 6, 2026, to begin work on the financial estimate for IP 28, after reviewing the statutory process and confirming that only IP 28 had cleared the signature threshold for consideration. Staff explained the committee’s duties under ORS 250.125 and the timeline for draft statements, public hearing, and final adoption. The committee also designated Carol Moreno C. Fuentes to file the committee’s eventual statements. Staff from the Department of Administrative Services and the Legislative Revenue Office presented preliminary analysis of IP 28, describing major uncertainties in estimating impacts because the measure is not a tax law change and would affect multiple industries and government functions. Preliminary figures discussed included an estimated $56.5 million loss in the current biennium and $6.7 million in reduced expenditures, with larger projected revenue losses of roughly $244.1 million to $258 million and reduced expenditures of $30.7 million to $34.9 million in 2027–29, plus $87.8 million to $88.3 million in increased expenditures. Analysts said the biggest effects would likely involve agriculture, fish and wildlife, hunting and fishing, local government enforcement, and possible shifts in state funding, but many impacts remained difficult to quantify. Committee members raised concerns about local government costs, law enforcement and prosecution burdens, impacts on the hospitality and recreation sectors, possible effects on tribal governments and treaty rights, and whether the measure would affect shellfish and crabbing. They also discussed the Humane Transition Fund, subsidies, possible litigation costs, and whether the statement should include broader uncertainty language and multiple scenarios. Members generally agreed the draft should be revised to better reflect uncertainty, clarify assumptions, and possibly use bullets or other formatting to improve readability. No vote was taken. The committee agreed to treat the current draft as a working version, with staff to revise it based on the discussion and return an updated draft before the next meeting scheduled for July 17 at 2 p.m., with both in-person and virtual participation available.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think the VA needs reform.
• We need to restore, you're right, accountability. We need to make.
• We need to leverage. We need to flatline our management. We need to flatline organizations.
• We need to streamline mission. We need systems that can do what we need them to do.
• Is it conceivable you'd have the analysis done at the VA and determine that in certain areas you need

Bills: SB124, SB201, SB275, SB410, SB478, SB607, SB610, SB611, SB654, SB702, SB787, SB831, SB892

Keywords: Department of Veterans Affairs, disciplinary procedures, accountability, personnel actions, whistleblower protection, cancer, military, aircrew, veterans, health study, toxins, morbidity, mortality, service members, mental health, community care, accessibility, treatment programs, substance abuse, appointments

Summary: During the meeting, various members engaged in extensive discussions surrounding 15 proposed bills related to veterans' affairs. Notably, concerns regarding recent VA workforce changes sparked debates, particularly about potential cuts and their implications for veterans' care and benefits. Chairman Moran emphasized the need for thoughtful reforms and coordination with stakeholders, urging responsible measures to prevent negatively impacting service delivery. The meeting highlighted a significant bipartisan effort to enhance veterans' access to essential health services, particularly in light of recent challenges faced by the VA workforce. Senator Blumenthal's assertions about the urgent plight of veterans due to cuts in personnel drew strong reactions, showcasing the deep concern among committee members regarding the current state of veteran services.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'd still need to go to governor and counsel. We still need to have a HEIFA hearing.
• Um, right now they are conducting structural analysis and load analysis of the existing infrastructure
• <00:18:29.760> and conducting uh structural analysis and conducting uh structural analysis
• > existing load analysis of the existing load analysis of the existing infrastructure<00:18:32.960
• <00:23:20.799> you're you're just using the analysis you're you're just using the analysis

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Capital Project Overview Committee met at 9:00 a.m. and first approved the September 29 minutes. The committee then considered University System of New Hampshire Capital Project 260001, a $70 million request involving two residence hall renovation projects at UNH. UNH officials said the work is needed to address aging 1970-era buildings, including heating, plumbing, and other deferred maintenance, and to improve student recruitment, retention, and living conditions. Members asked about the construction timeline, which was estimated at about four years, and about enrollment decline, which was estimated at roughly 15% over 10 years. The committee approved the project after discussion, with members noting the buildings’ age and need for repair. The committee next heard Capital Project 26003 from the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources for Cannon Mountain. Commissioner Sarah Stewart and staff described an $893,000 tranche, part of a larger effort to address deferred maintenance at the mountain, including guest facilities, lift infrastructure, a passenger ramp for scenic chairlift use, snowmaking improvements, a line replacement, a pump rebuild, and operations equipment. Members asked about the $6 million bonding limit established in 1999, and the department said it appears insufficient and may need updating in the future. The committee approved the Cannon Mountain request. The department also provided an informational update on the Cannon Mountain aerial tramway. Officials said a structural engineering firm is analyzing towers, terminals, and footings, with the goal of confirming the existing infrastructure can support a new tram system and refining bid specifications. They said the work is on track, with an updated cost estimate expected in January and a bid targeted for May. Members asked about the limited number of manufacturers capable of doing the work and whether the project could be delayed; the department said it is in active discussions with the likely bidders and pre-qualifying them. The meeting ended with brief discussion of informational reports, including a question about apparent delays in some New Hampshire Veterans Home projects, which staff said they would follow up on, and the committee adjourned with the next meeting set for March 16 at 9:00 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• All those in favor, well, Melinda, I need to take a roll call on this one. Either way works, Mr.
• We're understanding that analysis, and we get that data sooner than later.
• Okay, a preliminary... ...analysis. Yeah, yes, I'll hop in here.
• There's a lot of data, a lot of information to do that analysis.
• I agree, and I think we'd all agree more data and the more complex the issue, the more analysis is needed

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy executive committee met to approve the November minutes, which were adopted by voice vote. The committee then received an update from the Attorney General’s Office on two ongoing cases, Fowler and Joel Lynn, with briefing and oral argument timelines still pending. Michael Harbour of the Office of the State Actuary provided an actuarial update focused on ESSB 5357, explaining that the bill raised the assumed investment return from 7% to 7.25%, suspended UAL contribution rates for four years, and changed amortization for past benefit improvements; members asked for clarification on how those changes would affect long-term funding and contribution rates, especially for Plan 1 systems. A substantial portion of the meeting was devoted to committee discussion of interim priorities and the need for more analysis of recent pension legislation. Members emphasized the importance of understanding the fiscal impacts of ESSB 5357 and related pension changes before the September economic experience study, and several asked staff to provide a more preliminary walkthrough of the bill’s effects. The committee also discussed the LEOFF 1 study and broader questions about overfunding, including when a plan should be considered overfunded and whether overfunding should be addressed through merger or closure proposals. One member suggested reviewing the operating budget’s excess compensation proviso during the interim as well. Staff reviewed the draft 2025 interim work plan, proposing June topics including election of officers, a presentation on SB 5357 and its actuarial implications, and an initial LEOFF 1 study kickoff based on SB 5085 and HB 2034. The committee also placed excess compensation and demographic experience study items in a parking lot for possible later scheduling. The June agenda was adopted by roll call vote, with three ayes and three members absent or excused, and the meeting adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• analysis of LG and what that analysis analysis of LG and what that analysis shows<00:36:24.240><
• analysis also include the power plant issue<01:19:49.920> which<01:19:50.239> needed<01
• We haven't run the full analysis yet, but areas that we think need to be looked at more carefully.
• solar, we need a lot more rooftop solar. solar, we need a lot more rooftop solar.
• little bit of need need to be checked. little bit of need need to be checked.

Bills: HB2284

Keywords: energy assistance, low-income households, electricity costs, Hawaii home energy assistance program, energy efficiency, 910, house, all

Summary: The hearing covered House Bill 2284, which would create the Hawaii Home Energy Assistance Program in the Department of Human Services to help qualifying households pay energy bills and direct the Public Utilities Commission’s public benefits fee administrator to provide information and assistance to recipients. Testimony from the Division of Consumer Advocacy, DHS, and the Public Utilities Commission was in support. A committee member asked about how the program would interact with existing TANF-related energy assistance and whether rules could be adjusted to avoid duplicative benefits; DHS said logistics would need to be worked out and that the agencies would make the rules. The committees noted the bill’s $1.5 million appropriation and moved it forward with amendments, including blanking out amounts and noting them in the committee report. Both committees voted to pass HB 2284 with amendments, with the recommendation adopted. The committee then heard House Bill 2486, relating to plug-in or balcony solar. DCCA, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission stood on prior testimony in support of the bill’s intent. Multiple advocates and organizations, including Carbon Cashback Hawaii, 350 Hawaii, Bright Saver, Sierra Club of Hawaii, and others, testified in support, arguing that plug-in solar would lower electricity bills, expand access for renters and condo residents, and reduce emissions. Several speakers urged the committee to remove or avoid registration, reporting, feed-in tariff, interconnection fee, and other requirements they said would create barriers. Bright Saver testified that the systems are safe and would not back-feed during outages. No vote was taken on HB 2486 during the excerpt. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1568, which would prohibit the importation or storage of LNG in the state and the construction of related infrastructure. State agencies including the Consumer Advocate, Hawaii State Energy Office, Public Utilities Commission, and Hawaiian Electric opposed the bill, with the Energy Office arguing LNG would perpetuate oil use on Oahu and expose the state to price volatility. Supporters included Life of the Land, Sierra Club of Hawaii, Greenpeace Hawaii, 350 Hawaii, Earthjustice, Our Hawaii, and others, who argued LNG would lock Hawaii into another fossil fuel dependency, create major infrastructure costs and safety risks, and undermine the state’s renewable energy goals. Several testifiers cited climate and affordability concerns and urged the committee to reject LNG. The excerpt ends during testimony on HB 1568, before any committee action or vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have done the official thing that we need to do for Oregon. I don't know if we need...
• The purpose and need had not changed.
• And I think that that needs to be said. It needs to be publicized.
• and traffic and revenue analysis.
• That's exactly the diversion analysis.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we need a motion. We need a motion and a second. Thank you. All right.
• who need gasoline.
• Do we need something new here? Do we need an extra piece?
• Do we need something new here? Do we need an extra piece?
• We need a motion. Second. Thank you. All right. We need a motion. On the second.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 804, the Hydrogen Pipeline Safety Act, from Senator Arreguín. He said the bill would designate the State Fire Marshal as the safety regulator for intrastate hydrogen pipelines and require hydrogen-specific standards, while not mandating any pipeline construction or bypassing environmental review. Supporters included labor groups, utility employees, and the City of Burbank, while Air Products opposed unless amended, citing concerns about the bill’s specificity, fee structure, and the need for a hydrogen-specific rulemaking process. The committee discussed safety, fees, and regulatory certainty, and later passed SB 804 on a 9-0 vote to Emergency Management with commitment to take amendments. The committee then took up SB 905 by Senator Becker, aimed at reducing electricity rates by changing utility incentives. The bill would tie part of executive compensation to keeping rates below inflation, require more performance metrics, and allow the CPUC to consider lower returns on equity for certain lower-risk investments and alternative financing options. Support came from consumer, environmental, agricultural, and large energy user groups, while Southern California Edison, CalChamber, PG&E, and utility labor groups raised concerns that the bill could reduce investment, create regulatory uncertainty, and raise borrowing costs. After extensive discussion about utility affordability, wildfire costs, and capital markets, the committee passed SB 905 on a 7-1 vote to Appropriations. SB 913, also by Senator Becker, would create a clearer pathway for distributed energy resources such as batteries and smart thermostats to participate in the resource adequacy market and compete with utility-scale resources. Supporters said the bill would better use existing grid capacity, lower costs, and build on the state’s Demand Side Grid Support Program; PG&E opposed unless amended, saying the use case was not yet proven and was already being addressed in other rulemakings. After the committee accepted amendments, one opposition group moved to neutral and another said it might do so after reviewing the changes. The bill passed 8-0 to Appropriations and was placed on call. Several other measures were heard and advanced, including SB 1196 on faster utility hookups for small energization projects such as ADUs and EV chargers, SB 931 reauthorizing the Diablo Canyon Essential Services Mitigation Fund through 2028, SB 1158 reducing the frequency of joint reliability assessments from quarterly to twice yearly, and SB 1245 directing further study of California’s gasoline market and potential use of non-CARBOB fuel during supply disruptions. SB 1196 and SB 931 both passed with broad support and no opposition after amendments, SB 1158 passed without testimony, and SB 1245 drew strong support from consumer and environmental advocates but opposition from fuel industry and business groups concerned about costs, confidentiality, and fuel standards.

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to thank you and your staff for the analysis.
• There are no amendments in the analysis, but the analysis does raise a few potential areas to work on
• There are no amendments in the analysis, but the analysis does raise a few potential areas to work on
• We think it needs to be done in AB 8.
• We also think it needs, as I said earlier, it needs to be done in 378 because if 378 is the law that

Summary: The Assembly Business and Professions Committee heard several measures, including SB 402 by Senator Valadares, which would move existing qualification requirements for qualified autism service providers and related professionals from the Health and Safety Code and Insurance Code into the Business and Professions Code without changing the standards. Supporters said it was a technical cleanup that would improve consistency and legislative oversight, while an opponent argued the bill was unnecessary and could create access issues; another witness urged inclusion of the QABA credentialing board. The committee approved SB 402 on a due pass motion to the Committee on Health. The committee also heard SB 378 by Senator Wiener, aimed at online platforms that facilitate sales of illicit cannabis and intoxicating hemp products. Supporters, including labor, local government, and cannabis industry representatives, said the bill would help protect consumers, minors, legal businesses, and tax revenue by creating accountability for online marketplaces. Opponents from the hemp industry and TechNet argued the bill was overly broad, could sweep in legitimate platforms and payment services, and should better distinguish bad actors from compliant hemp businesses; members discussed implementation, enforcement through a private right of action, and coordination with AB 8. The committee passed SB 378 to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Senator Arreguín presented SB 779, which would establish minimum enforcement fines for Contractors State License Board citations where minimums are currently very low or absent, and would raise the board’s reserve cap from six months to 12 months. The sponsor said the changes would better match penalties to violations and help support consumer protection and board operations during economic downturns. There was no opposition, and the committee approved SB 779 as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. The committee also approved the consent calendar, which included SB 344 and AB 652, both sent to Appropriations. SB 508 was not heard because it had been pulled by the author.

Transcript Highlights:

• We’ve done some pretty comprehensive research and analysis and...
• Other supports they need every day to stay healthy and to live their lives.
• There will be less resources for other needed things.
• Okay, well, this analysis says that...
• And if you need more information, I'll get tickets to attend.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities held its quarterly meeting on September 10, with roll call, approval of the June minutes as amended, and welcoming remarks for newly appointed commissioner Rachel Caprilyan and reappointed commissioners. Chair Denise Garlick outlined plans for a statewide community hearing series, beginning with a November 4 hybrid hearing at Needham Town Hall focused on the Boston/Metro West region, and described the creation of a nonvoting advisory council to broaden the commission’s expertise across health care, transportation, housing, education, employment, business, and local disability commissions. Commissioners discussed the nomination process, the need for geographic diversity, and the goal of having the council in place by the December quarterly meeting. The main presentation addressed proposed federal Medicaid and SNAP changes in H.R. 1, with Jennifer Bertrand of the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council warning that the law could cut federal Medicaid spending by $1 trillion over 10 years, impose work requirements, require redeterminations every six months, restrict provider taxes, and reduce SNAP benefits. She said these changes could increase uninsurance, create administrative barriers, and threaten home- and community-based services, with a Massachusetts analysis projecting 141,000 to 203,000 MassHealth members could lose coverage over six months. Commissioners and attendees responded that the changes could harm people with disabilities, caregivers, and provider organizations, increase institutionalization risk, and intensify competition for limited state resources; several emphasized the need for disability groups and broader health care stakeholders to coordinate advocacy. Subcommittee reports highlighted recent and upcoming work. The Disability Employment Subcommittee reported on a June “Strength and Support” event, an August presentation by Run the Gamut, and an upcoming MAPC/Employment First workshop in Worcester, while the Long-Term Services and Supports and Health Equity Subcommittee discussed a presentation from the Lurie Institute for Policy Research on community living dashboards and disparities in Medicaid and LTSS. Commissioners also shared announcements about upcoming events, including the Paul Spooner Generational Leisure Summit, the Disability Policy Consortium’s John Winsky Memorial Award ceremony, the Massachusetts Health Council’s annual celebration, and a September 17 hearing on insurance coverage for hearing aids. The meeting ended with congratulations to commissioner Carl Richardson for an accessibility award and a motion to adjourn, which passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• a lot of work and still does need a lot of work.
• I think it needed a lot of work and still does need a lot of work, and I just want to confirm your commitment
• OIR needs direction.
• I'm happy to share a copy of the analysis with you.
• I've got a copy of the analysis that reflects the originally filed bill, and then I'm happy to do analysis

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several insurance, financial regulation, and public safety bills. The most extensive discussion centered on SB 1656, a major Office of Insurance Regulation bill covering reciprocal insurers, rate transparency, data calls, cybersecurity notification, and stronger oversight of continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs). The sponsor and OIR described the bill as aimed at transparency and preventing insolvencies, especially after recent CCRC failures. CCRC residents and industry representatives testified both in support and in opposition, with supporters emphasizing resident protection and opponents warning about liens, reserve requirements, management-company regulation, and higher costs. After debate and assurances that problematic provisions would be refined, the committee adopted a delete-all amendment and then reported the bill favorably. The committee also passed SB 1658, which creates a public records framework for the uniform mitigation verification of inspection form database while protecting policyholders’ personal information; a clarifying amendment was adopted before the bill was reported favorably. SB 1612 on financial institutions was approved after a substitute amendment restored current limits on credit union investments and kept only reimbursement, not salary, authority for certain board members and officers. SB 1740, an insurance bill intended to reduce premiums and insurer insolvency risk, was amended to prioritize rate-decrease filings and prohibit claim denials based solely on AI, then reported favorably. Two public-safety bills also moved forward. SB 1212 on firefighter health and safety would update OSHA-related protections, address toxic exposure in gear, encourage safer replacement equipment, and support best practices and mental health resources; an amendment refined terminology and added related provisions, and the bill was reported favorably. SB 1184 on residual market insurers was amended to preserve existing consumer protections and disclosure rules for excess and surplus lines and to clarify Citizens-related appointment requirements before being reported favorably. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly noted ongoing stakeholder negotiations and intent to refine several bills further in later committee stops.

Transcript Highlights:

• bill analysis.
• is consistent, but conflicts with other parts of the bill analysis. the section-by-section analysis
• I need to testify.
• This needs to change.
• . needs.

Bills: SB5, SB11, SB12, SB9, SB42, SB15, SB5, SB11, SB12, SCR1

Keywords: hemp regulation, consumable products, cannabinoids, occupational licenses, criminal offenses, SB 11, Texas attorney general, election crimes, election law enforcement, criminal prosecution, Election Code, Government Code Chapter 402, local prosecutors, county attorney, district attorney, grand jury, probable cause reports, state election offenses, voter fraud, election integrity

Transcript Highlights:

• And also, as noted in the analysis, very limited cost to the General Fund.
• Any fiscal impacts, as per the analysis, should be minimal.
• Any fiscal impacts, as per the analysis, should be minimal.
• The analysis estimates minor and absorbable cost, HCD.
• I do need this. The State Treasurer's Office and HCD. I do need these, sorry.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 13, 2026, and began by taking up a large consent calendar, moving a first group of bills to the floor consent calendar and a second group by due pass. The committee then heard and advanced a series of measures covering housing, public safety, health care, education, and local government issues. Among the bills discussed were AB 2641 on a sales tax exemption for pawnbroker redemptions, AB 2525 on a narrow Surplus Lands Act exemption for Mission Bay Park, AB 1732 and AB 2433 on student housing and the Affordable Homes Bonus Law, AB 2055 on boating safety and enforcement, AB 1579 on children’s crisis residential services, AB 2139 on a Surplus Lands Act amendment for an Inland Empire soccer project, AB 2041 on EMS reporting, AB 1973 on reproductive health scope for advanced practice clinicians, AB 1929 on health plan investment disclosures, AB 2700 on utility rates and wildfire victim compensation, AB 1809 on school job order contracting, SB 73 on election security, AB 2418 on commercial building permit timelines, AB 1970 on step therapy limits for serious mental illness and substance use treatment, AB 2361 on peer-to-peer vehicle-sharing liability, AB 1976 on bike and pedestrian project approvals, AB 2110 on tax increment financing for workforce housing, and AB 2146 on supportive housing documentation and vacancy rules. Testimony was generally supportive for the measures heard. Authors and sponsors emphasized consumer fairness, housing production, public safety, access to care, and administrative streamlining. Supporters included local governments, housing advocates, school districts, law enforcement groups, health care organizations, and affected individuals. AB 2700 drew especially extensive public testimony from wildfire survivors and local officials who urged stronger compensation for victims of PG&E-caused fires and relief from high utility costs. AB 2034 and AB 1790 were raised during public comment on bills not heard in committee, with several industry groups opposing AB 2034 and both supporters and opponents speaking on AB 1790’s Waters Edge issue. Most bills were reported out of committee on due pass motions, with several noted as amended or with members not voting on particular roll calls. The committee also read and approved a lengthy suspense calendar, then opened public comment on bills not presented that day before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we need a motion. We need a motion and a second. Thank you. All right.
• who need gasoline.
• Do we need something new here? Do we need an extra piece?
• We need to serve that growth.
• We need a motion. Second. Thank you. All right. We need a motion. On the second.

Keywords: 988, house, all