Transcript Highlights:

• But as we work through this process, go to the floor.
• So what I'm asking for is your consideration: should this be a mandatory process?
• I haven't seen SB 3, it's currently in process.
• This bill is important as we move through the process.
• But there is no 72-hour process for the volunteers in this bill.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• rulemaking process. rulemaking process.
• That was taken out through the process of session, and we'll add that back in.
• rule making process um that was<00:26:43.919> taken<00:26:44.320> out<00:26:44.720>
• > um was taken out through the process of um was taken out through the process of um session<00
• We also want to thank process.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• outreach and engagement, that's a good process.
• that we've outlined in that the process that we've outlined in that that that process<00:03:31.319><
• process including due diligence including<00:03:33.239> community<00:03:33.720> outreach
• <00:03:37.799> so engagement that that's a good process so engagement that that's a good process
• actually whether there's an OHA process actually whether there's an OHA process to<00:39:12.119>

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing focused on Senate Bill 4, which would transfer stewardship of Mauna ʻAla from the Department of Land and Natural Resources to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Committee chairs opened the meeting with housekeeping and noted the hearing was live-streamed, with a two-minute limit for testimony. Director Don Chang of the Board of Land and Natural Resources said DLNR had been working with OHA and had agreed to transfer certain lands subject to due diligence, including Kahana Valley and a parcel in Waimānalo, but urged the committee to finalize those mutually agreed parcels before taking on something new. He also described the current arrangement at Mauna ʻAla as a collaborative one involving the state and the royal trusts, with the state handling routine maintenance and the trusts contributing to larger repairs and improvements on a project-by-project basis rather than through direct annual appropriations. Testimony was mixed. Supporters argued that OHA is better positioned to steward the site because of its cultural mission, Native Hawaiian governance, and ability to protect sacred places with greater cultural competency and accountability. Several speakers emphasized that Mauna ʻAla is not a state park and should be cared for by those with direct cultural ties and experience, and some cited OHA’s recent financial reforms and partnerships as reasons for confidence. Others, including representatives of the Daughters and Sons of the Hawaiian Warriors Makakoa, opposed the bill, citing concerns about OHA’s past financial management, transparency, and the need for more public information and testimony before any transfer. One testifier also argued the land transfer itself was unlawful and rooted in the history of the overthrow and annexation. Members and testifiers also discussed the historical role of the royal trusts and family caretakers at Mauna ʻAla, with one descendant describing a long family stewardship and supporting OHA only if amended language preserved checks and balances and protected iwi and burial grounds. Another speaker said the family recognized James Mayo as kahu of Mauna ʻAla and supported the bill because prior DLNR efforts had not sufficiently protected traditional and customary rights. The hearing ended after public testimony and committee questions, with no vote or final action taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The process for these is a manual claims process.
• <01:57:49.560> server actually assaulted the process server actually assaulted the process
• requirements in 144g and legal process requirements in 144g and legal process as<02:03:14.079>
• um as it currently sits the the process um as it currently sits the the process which<02:46:05.720
• <02:46:13.680> is another staff member that process is another staff member that process is

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of refining its privitization process of refining its privitization process<00:24:03.080> to<
• 00:24:03.360> distinguish<00:24:03.960> between process to distinguish between process
• <01:14:23.280> from be fully engaged in the process from be fully engaged in the process from
• Thank you very much, Vice Chair. that process of us getting the funds uh that process of us getting the
• proper facility to do small processing proper facility to do small processing the<05:21:04.840><

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Finance received an informational briefing from the Department of Education on its budget request for the upcoming fiscal year. The Superintendent and staff described the department’s mission, enrollment and staffing scale, recent gains in NAEP reading and math, persistent attendance problems since the pandemic, and the need for resources to support student recovery, middle school math, and other strategic priorities. The department said its proposal is intended to be aligned with its 2023–2029 strategic plan, fiscally balanced, and reliable for schools, while also addressing inflation, workforce needs, and uncertainty in federal funding. Assistant Superintendent and CFO Brian Hallet reviewed federal grants, non-general funds, and the budget development process. He said federal funds make up about 11% of the department’s FY25 appropriation and warned that House budget proposals could threaten predictable funding for core programs. He also explained that the department began its biennial budget work in April 2024 and used an internal review group to identify possible reallocations. The department characterized its request as a “flat” budget proposal overall, with a large share devoted to continued funding for existing recurring needs, and noted challenges including a projected state funding decline, inflation, lingering pandemic impacts, recruitment and retention, and uncertainty about future federal support. A major topic was the department’s capital improvement program. DOE officials argued for a risk-based, proactive approach using lump-sum “buckets” to manage facilities and deferred maintenance across more than 21.5 million square feet at 268 sites. They said this would allow more efficient prioritization of projects and better coordination with complex area superintendents, principals, and legislators. Members asked about how legislative priorities would fit into the bucket system, county-versus-state property jurisdiction issues affecting school facilities, enrollment decline and staffing ratios, and how the department plans to adjust facilities and human resources to shifting enrollment patterns. DOE said it is studying enrollment trends, will brief the Board of Education next month, and is willing to provide further briefings to legislators. No votes or formal actions were taken during the informational briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Establishes a process to allow any resident to petition for modifications to an established EA.
• Establishes<00:10:09.440> a<00:10:09.600> process<00:10:09.839> to<00:10:10.080>
• allow<00:10:10.320> any Establishes a process to allow any Establishes a process to allow
• So in<00:16:12.959> the<00:16:13.199> process<00:16:13.440> of<00:16:13.680>
• So with that again thank you for the opportunity to testify. processing, market access and state processing

Bills: SB2064, SB2662, SB2862, SB2343, SB2075, SB2781, SB2927, SB3068, SB3015, SB2929, SB2938, SB3230, SB3249, SB3332, SB3216

Keywords: state architect, construction projects, design approvals, building codes, state agency oversight, government accountability, external consultants, procurement reform, cost efficiency, in-house expertise, gubernatorial appointments, senate confirmation, executive branch, accountability, civil service, SB2343, Hawaii Legislature, regular session, lengthened session, continuous legislature

Summary: The committee met on February 12, 2026, to take decision-making on measures previously heard earlier in the month. Several bills were deferred indefinitely or set for later discussion, including SB 2064 on the Office of the State Architect, SB 3068 on procurement, and SB 3216 after its contents were moved into another measure. SB 2862 on gubernatorial appointments, SB 2781, and SB 315 were all deferred to Tuesday, February 17 at 3 p.m. in Room 225 for further work. The committee also noted that if technical problems interrupted the meeting, it would reconvene later for outstanding decision-making. The committee passed SB 2343 on the Legislature with amendments incorporating language from SB 3216, technical changes, and a defective date of 2525. SB 2075 was advanced as a Senate draft 1 after amendments responding to constitutional concerns raised by the attorney general and SPO. SB 2927 on procurement was also passed with amendments clarifying debriefing requirements and adding technical changes, and SB 2938 on search and rescue was amended to place the position in Hima rather than the Governor’s office before being adopted. SB 3249 on procurement protests was amended to remove the term "frivolous," reduce the forfeiture to half the bond amount, and note unresolved issues, then adopted. The committee also took up SB 3332 on state-funded travel, amending it to remove certain lines, report travel by position number to protect confidentiality, remove subsection G, and add a defective date of 2525; it was adopted. SB 2929 on public notice was amended into a pilot project for counties with populations between 100,000 and 175,000, with a year-end report to the Legislature, and was adopted. Later, the committee returned to SB 2094 on environmental action levels, heard testimony from the Department of Health in support of its current scientific process and from an environmental caucus witness in strong support of the bill’s transparency and petition provisions, and then deferred decision-making to February 17 at 3 p.m. in Room 225. In the joint hearing portion, SB 3233 on agricultural workforce housing drew generally supportive testimony from ADC, the Farm Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, the Hawaii Farmers Union, and the State Procurement Office, with concerns focused on clarity, flexibility for smaller farms, and avoiding concentration of benefits in one large operation. The committee ultimately recommended passing SB 3233 with the State Procurement Office’s clarifying amendments and the Hawaii Farmers Union’s amendment to ensure workforce housing incentives benefit multiple farmers, and the measure was adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we are very comfortable with their process.
• our families to move through the grief process.
• Thank you for your time. ongoing forever process, but it ongoing forever process, but it absolutely<00
• the grief process. the grief process.
• <00:21:56.720> with states is keeps this process with states is keeps this process with accredited

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We oversee their accreditation process.
• Within that process, we've got to get around the state.
• That process was incredibly informative.
• We're still in the process of doing that.
• We are in the budget process right now.

Transcript Highlights:

• Through this process, the CPUC has been regulating TNCs for over a decade.
• If you can just walk us through that process.
• That decision was then appealed through the Commission's rehearing process.
• And so a lot of incidents are still going through that claims process.
• And so a lot of incidents are still going through that claims process.

Summary: The hearing focused on transportation network companies in California, with the chair framing it as an informational hearing on the history, regulation, safety, climate, accessibility, and data issues surrounding Uber, Lyft, and smaller or autonomous TNC services. The CPUC described its decade-long regulatory role, including safety rules, background checks, insurance requirements, reporting obligations, and two major legislative programs from 2018: the Clean Miles Standard and the Access for All program. Members asked about complaint trends, data collection and disclosure, program implementation, and how the CPUC uses annual reports for policymaking, compliance, and program oversight. Uber and Lyft said the statewide framework has supported growth while providing safety and access benefits, but both companies emphasized that insurance is a major cost driver and argued that California’s UM/UIM requirement is unusually high compared with other vehicles. They said the Clean Miles Standard is pushing electrification but faces headwinds from EV affordability and charging infrastructure, while Access for All has expanded wheelchair-accessible service but still needs continued support. They also discussed transit partnerships, wildfire response, and the potential role of autonomous vehicles, with both companies saying human drivers will remain important and that future regulation should account for new technology. The final panel, including the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and UC Berkeley researchers, presented evidence that TNCs have increased congestion and reduced transit ridership, especially in dense urban areas. They described prior research showing TNCs contributed to congestion growth in San Francisco and noted that this work helped spur local taxes on ride-hailing trips to fund safety and transit improvements. The panel also discussed the CPUC’s evolving data-disclosure decisions, arguing that public access to TNC trip data is important for understanding transportation impacts and informing local policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think the Chair laid out a rigorous evaluation process.
• So our process is a pebble-bed small modular reactor, 80 megawatts, fully modular, deployable.
• We kind of have a sunset process here where we go back through our agencies and determine whether or
• It could be part of the process of states talking to each other. Absolutely.
• It could be part of the process of states talking to each other. Absolutely.

Bills: HB132, HB 11, HB14, HB132, HB1584, HB1606, HB5061, HB 1041, HB2286

Keywords: nuclear energy, Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, energy policy, regulation repeal, state energy strategy, licensing, reciprocity, regulation, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, interstate agreements, advanced reactors, energy security, grant programs, HB 132, Texas Government Code Chapter 418, Public Information Act, confidential records, homeland security, foreign adversary, terrorism

Summary: The committee first took up pending business and quickly reported several measures favorably, including HB 12, SB 1361, SB 1705, SB 1749, SB 1897, SB 2344, SB 2566, HB 3809, and HB 4215, with most sent to the Local and Uncontested Calendar. HB 12’s substitute clarified a limited midterm review of regulatory agencies tied to Sunset Commission recommendations. SB 2696’s substitute changed med spa regulation from a license to a certificate, with training instead of an exam, plus background checks, continuing education, and two-year renewals. HB 3809 dealt with battery energy storage decommissioning and recycling, and HB 4215 was reported without a substitute. SB 1978, concerning interconnection of electric facilities in ERCOT and federal jurisdiction concerns, was reported out on a 5-3 vote after debate, but then the chair later announced the bill was withdrawn and left pending subject to the call of the chair. HB 1899 was also reported favorably, with one nay. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 14, the advanced nuclear energy bill. Senator Schwertner described it as creating a Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, a nuclear permitting coordinator, a development fund, a completion grant program, and a workforce development program. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including representatives from Fermi America, Dow/X-energy, CPS Energy, Paragon Energy Solutions, Bridge to Nuclear, Aalo Atomics, and the Texas Association of Business, argued that Texas should lead in advanced nuclear, citing future baseload demand, data centers, industrial power needs, supply-chain development, and long-term energy diversification. Opponents, including Public Citizen, Texas Nuclear Watchdogs, Sierra Club, and individual citizens, argued the bill would subsidize unproven, expensive technology, create grants rather than loans, and expose taxpayers to major risk while doing little to meet near-term energy needs. Several members questioned whether the state should fund projects that may not produce grid power for years, and whether the bill’s grant structure and new office were justified. The committee also heard HB 5061, which Senator Schwertner said would prohibit unethical surveillance and misuse of confidential information by state contractors, create a confidential reporting system through the State Auditor’s Office, authorize Texas Rangers investigations, protect whistleblowers, and impose penalties including contract termination, fines, and contracting bans. No public testimony was offered, and the bill was left pending. HB 132, sponsored by Senator Hughes, would extend confidentiality protections for sensitive information to hostile acts by foreign adversaries; it was also left pending after no testimony. HB 1584 was then laid out, with Senator Schwertner explaining it would require utilities to maintain and update priority restoration lists for critical facilities after Hurricane Beryl exposed communication failures, but the transcript cuts off before any action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the recovery phase, which is the process of rebuilding homes and communities.
• Also, we know that this process is going to be longer than most disasters.
• is not a two-month process.
• years as well, because this is not, you know, a two-month, two-month process.
• And like the process of a lot of stuff is just really draining mentally.

Summary: The committee heard a broad public safety budget hearing focused on youth justice funding, probation incentive grants, and disaster response and recovery. On the youth justice item, the Office of Youth and Community Restoration described a proposed change to the JJRBG funding formula that would shift resources away from a DJJ-based measure and toward county youth population, serious offenses, and step-down placements in less restrictive programs. Members asked about data on Native American youth; OYCR said statewide data are limited, but its SYTF data show about 1% of youth in secure youth treatment facilities were Native in 2024. The Department of Finance had no objections, and the item was discussed as a way to support alternatives to long-term incarceration. The committee then reviewed the community corrections performance incentive program for county probation departments. The Department of Finance proposed stabilizing the program with a maintenance payment, updating the performance baseline, and adding a growth factor; the LAO agreed the formula needed changes but recommended using 2022-23 data instead of 2021-23, using marginal rather than average cost assumptions, rejecting the growth payment and minimum guarantee, and adding stronger oversight through the BSCC. Finance said it was open to some technical changes but opposed a new BSCC audit framework, noting Judicial Council already surveys probation departments and that evidence-based practice use has increased over time. Members and staff indicated the proposal still needed further work. A major portion of the hearing focused on the January 2025 Southern California wildfires and state disaster response. A resident of Altadena gave emotional testimony about evacuation failures, loss of home, and the need for accountability. LAO and Cal OES outlined the disaster response and recovery system, including mutual aid, alert and warning, debris removal, FEMA and state funding streams, and the long timeline for reimbursement. Cal OES said it had pre-positioned resources, temporarily took over the county’s wireless emergency alert function for about three weeks, coordinated debris removal and recovery operations, and had already allocated more than $286 million in state funds. Officials also discussed the 100% federal cost share for emergency work for 180 days and the uncertainty created by changing federal processes and the cancellation of the BRIC resilience program. The committee also heard two smaller Cal OES items: a request to reappropriate about $22 million for the law enforcement mutual aid reimbursement program, which the LAO said should be placed in statute with clearer goals and reporting, and an update on Victims of Crime Act funding, where Cal OES said federal VOCA allocations have fallen sharply and that roughly $224 million would be needed to maintain current service levels if federal funding does not improve. Public comment included a request for funding to expand datacasting and emergency alert receivers for wildfire and earthquake warning.

Transcript Highlights:

• How are we working to immerse ourselves in that process?
• Is it within this whole process not meaningful to them?
• And I'm not aware of any public reporting on that process at this moment. And Mr.
• Many of you are familiar with the RPSP. process at the Higher Education Department.
• The lowest-performing institutions had no vetting processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:44:08.040> uh administrative uh rulemaking process uh administrative uh rulemaking process
• I want to say 285. we are processing them as best as we can we are processing them as best as we can
• We process it.
• We notify the respondent, and then that sitting process is the year-and-a-half process that's usually
• the uh process the resolution process<04:59:41.798> in<04:59:41.878> front<04:59:42.040

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session on the Department of Business and Economic Affairs’ budget, with testimony from division leadership on staffing, funding sources, and program changes. Early discussion focused on vacant positions in the agency, including a senior planner tied to FEMA requirements, a federally funded program assistant, a program specialist to be reclassified during a planning reorganization, and two Housing Champions positions that were authorized but not funded in the current biennium and are requested for 2026-27. The witnesses also explained that temporary welcome center positions are filled as funds allow, and that the agency’s requested general fund increase is driven largely by the Division of Travel and Tourism Development and its formula-based funding. Members then reviewed rest areas, welcome centers, outdoor recreation, economic development, procurement, and workforce opportunity lines. The department said there are 12 rest areas, with 5.8 million foot counts in FY 24, and that welcome centers are generally open year-round, though Sutton is currently closed and staffing relies on a mix of full-time and temporary employees. The outdoor recreation position is federally funded through USDA and supports business outreach, trade shows, and industry promotion. In economic development, the agency said increased dues reflect participation in the Northern Borders Regional Commission, and that a marketing line item is intended to support recruitment and promotion of growth industries such as advanced manufacturing and life sciences. The Apex Accelerator Program was described as a state-federal partnership requiring a state match and providing government contracting assistance to businesses, while the Office of Workforce Opportunity was explained as a federally funded WIOA-related effort administered through multiple agencies and subrecipients. A major point of discussion was the proposed reduction to the Small Business Development Center, which members said had generated significant public concern. The department described SBDC as a highly effective technical assistance program for new and small businesses, but said the cut was one of the few places it felt it had room to reduce funding. Members asked about federal support and matching requirements for various programs, and the department said less than half of its overall budget is generally funded by the state and that some programs require state match. The committee also discussed travel and tourism marketing and the Joint Promotional Program, with the department saying those funds support broader advertising campaigns and grants to chambers and trade associations for events such as Bike Week, Restaurant Week, and the Seafood Festival. No votes were taken during the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's quite a lengthy change process.
• There's a process. There's no PCIs.
• It's quite a lengthy change process. It's quite a lengthy change<00:44:35.160> process.
• changes are in process right now. changes are in process right now.
• <00:45:47.000> of has always been through the process of has always been through the process

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Report of KCNA Board Meeting 00:00:09 KCNA Transition to COT 00:35:55 KCNA Request for Proposals 00:42:00 Kentucky Wired Operations Company 00:42:30, 958, all

Summary: The Information Technology Oversight Committee met, approved the January 12, 2026 minutes, and then heard testimony from KCNA Chair David Couch, KCNA Director Jim Barnhart, and KCNA General Counsel Adam Adkins about the ongoing dispute involving KCNA, Excelacom, and the implementation of House Bill 314. Couch said the board and vendor had recently shown some willingness to work toward a settlement, and he emphasized the importance of KCNA’s broadband service to K-12 schools, noting that litigation had already cost about $1.4 million and could cost another $1.4 million if it continued. He also said the board had identified five immediate goals, including reconnecting 38 K-12 sites, de-escalating disputes, better understanding KCNA finances, protecting the state’s bonding rating, and examining whether duplicate networking hardware could be consolidated. A major portion of the discussion focused on whether House Bill 314 changed KCNA’s authority and how much control the Finance and Administration Cabinet and KCNA’s legal counsel have over operations and contracts. Senator Williams argued that the board now has authority to set policy, implement policy, and approve budgets, and questioned why the cabinet appeared to be exercising operational control. Adkins responded that HB 314 changed the reporting chain from the general government cabinet to the finance cabinet but did not alter the board’s authority, and said budget work on the Ice Miller contract predated HB 314. Couch and other members disputed that interpretation, saying the board had not been properly informed about a recent extension or increase in legal spending and that the board’s directives were not being followed. Representative Hodgson asked why the board could not terminate a contractor if it was not carrying out the board’s wishes, and Adkins replied that Ice Miller was not a party to the board’s contract and that the Finance and Administration Cabinet signs such agreements. The exchange ended with committee members and KCNA representatives agreeing to disagree on the meaning of the statute and the extent of board authority. No formal action was taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• still like the administrative processes still like the ideal<00:39:38.880> process<00:39:39.560
• What happens to the embryos after we're done with the child birth process?
• that there is a surgical process that there is a surgical process involved involved involved that
• that is just the the process we've used. that is just the the process we've used.
• <01:13:19.240> for rule making process for rule making process for regulating<01:13:21.280

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• so we purchased a we're in the process so we purchased a we're in the process of<01:24:31.239>
• <01:25:51.639> of infrastructure we're in the process of infrastructure we're in the process
• application process do you guys have any application process do you guys have any initiative<02:00:22.239
• One's about process in awarding.
• So we are in the process.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I was appointed by the governor. ...and went through the process last fall of sending some candidates
• Is that possible to actually have more transparency with this process?
• as much as you can, the process of reviewing applications?
• Do they also give you the list of probabilities, or is that a different application process?
• That's a different application process. We still go through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Summary: The Senate Natural Resources Committee met to consider several board nominations, beginning with four nominees to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission Appointment Recommendation Board. Michael Cravens, Jared Lyman, Nathan Reese (who submitted a written statement and did not attend), and Richard Williams each described their backgrounds in wildlife management, ranching, public lands, or conservation, and emphasized balance, pragmatism, and public service in selecting commission candidates. Members asked about their experience, perspectives on candidate evaluation, and the role of the board. Each nominee was advanced to the full Senate by separate motions, all approved on 7-0 votes with one member not voting. The committee then heard Darren Rasmussen’s nomination to the Arizona State Land Department Board of Appeals. Rasmussen discussed his long career in property appraisal at the private, county, and state levels, including work with county assessors and valuation training. Senators focused on his ability to bring transparency, statutory compliance, and consistency to state land appraisals and appeals. His nomination was also forwarded to the full Senate on a 7-0 vote with one not voting. Next, the committee considered the Arizona Livestock Loss Board nominees, Stephen Clark and Randy Dahl. Clark, who chairs the board, explained the board’s process for compensating ranchers for wolf depredation and described the distinction between confirmed losses and “probables.” Senators asked about reimbursement procedures, the range of Mexican gray wolves, and whether wolves had attacked humans in Arizona; Clark said there had been no human attacks in the state and that livestock losses had been compensated. Dahl was unable to attend but submitted a statement citing his farming background and business and engineering experience. Both nominees were confirmed by 7-0 votes with one member not voting. Finally, the committee heard from Carolyn Radajack and Stephanie Teske for the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. Radajack highlighted her prior service on the board’s investigative committee and her experience with disciplinary rules, while Teske emphasized her background as a sixth-generation rancher, veterinary assistant, and agriculture regulator, with a focus on rural livestock care and access to veterinarians. Senators discussed rural veterinary shortages, telemedicine, and the changing structure of veterinary practice. Both nominees were advanced to the full Senate on 7-0 votes with one member not voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• ... ...but without clear rules, that process is inconsistent and often unfair.
• Again, this bill ensures that when disaster strikes, Californians can rely on a fair process and a safe
• But the bill has gaps that, left unfixed, will be exploited in the claims process.
• So I'm also worried that if CalEPA comes up with their process, we inadvertently narrow theirs.
• And I know we're having... ...CalEPA comes up with their process that we inadvertently narrow theirs.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee met as a subcommittee at first because a quorum was not initially present, then later established a quorum and heard several bills. The main special-order item was AB 1795 (Gibson), which would create statewide standards for testing, inspection, and remediation of wildfire smoke damage in homes, with CalEPA and public health agencies developing science-based standards and insurers required to follow new claims-handling timelines. Supporters, including Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and wildfire survivors, said the bill would bring consistency and safety; insurers and consumer groups generally supported the concept but sought further amendments on scope, standards, and claim handling. The committee voted do pass as amended and refer AB 1795 to Appropriations, with the roll held open for later additions. The committee also considered AB 1576 (Ortega) on the Subsequent Injury Benefit Trust Fund, which would make changes intended to reduce litigation and employer assessments while preserving the program’s purpose of encouraging hiring of workers with prior disabilities. Labor-side witnesses supported the bill as a reform step, while business, public entity, and insurance groups opposed it, arguing it did not address the core structural problems and that a trailer bill was a better vehicle for broader reform. AB 1576 was voted do pass to Appropriations, with the roll held open. AB 1931 (Papan) would create an optional limited-lines license for utilities to offer home protection products for repairs to appliances and utility service lines. Support came from HomeServe, utilities, and industry groups, who said the bill would clarify current law and add consumer protections such as training, disclosures, and a free-look period; there was no opposition in the room. The committee passed AB 1931 to Appropriations. AB 2361 (Pacheco) would limit vicarious liability for peer-to-peer vehicle-sharing platforms like Turo while preserving insurance coverage requirements; supporters said it would align California with other states, while consumer attorneys opposed it as reducing accountability and consumer recovery. The committee passed AB 2361 as amended to Appropriations. AB 2098 (Kalra), heard later, would require employers to allow leave for workers to attend treatment for occupational injuries during work hours, subject to notice and business-necessity limits; labor groups supported it and business and insurance groups sought narrower standards. It was also voted do pass to Appropriations. The committee then completed roll-call add-ons and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• At this time, we'll ask for an update on grant-making process and budget review.
• Otherwise, I will move on to the grant-making process. Yes, Mr. Chair.
• And UVA was quite engaged in this process, and the students were very interested.
• And so, Carly, I guess now you move into the grant process. Yes, yes.
• So I wanted to update everyone on our grant-making process.

Keywords: American Revolution 250 Commission, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Fear of retaliation against those decisions can corrupt the deliberative process.
• You've been so respectful. in the process, and I think that this bill shows that.
• to the detriment of both that process, the permitting process at the agency level, and to the detriment
• to participate in the permitting process?
• Is there a concern that potentially we politicize this process?

Bills: SB203, SB317, SB731, SB801, SB823, SB867, SB1232, SB1380, SB1798, SB2082, SB2603, SB2607, SB2717, SB2797, SB2841, SB2919, SB3074, HB2, HB6, HB18, HB43, HB47, HB120, HB143, HB149, HB171, HB180, HB285, HB305, HB449, HB647, HB742, HB748, HB908, HB1024, HB1240, HB1306, HB1397, HB1443, HB1445, HB1533, HB1866, HB1902, HB2001, HB2011, HB2026, HB2282, HB2355, HB2402, HB2434, HB2440, HB2492, HB2516, HB2518, HB2560, HB2674, HB2688, HB2697, HB2712, HB2713, HB2715, HB3153, HB3161, HB3421, HB3424, HB3464, HB3486, HB3510, HB3627, HB3966, HB3986, HB4042, HB4044, HB4076, HB4263, HB4384, HB4396, HB4413, HB4426, HB4429, HB4945, HB4996, HB5033, HB5246, HB5436, HB5515, HB5667, SJR5, SB3, SB4, SB9, SB20, SB21, SB23, SB27, SB33, SB34, SB40, SB75, SB213, SB269, SB379, SB458, SB528, SB647, SB648, SB650, SB681, SB740, SB840, SB843, SB924, SB1061, SB1120, SB1121, SB1150, SB1188, SB1198, SB1202, SB1253, SB1318, SB1333, SB1405, SB1423, SB1535, SB1566, SB1574, SB1621, SB1709, SB1789, SB2037, SB2078, SB2268, SB2544, SB2570, SB2601, SB2778, SB1, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB1833, SB2155, SB2308, HB2525, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB1749, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3038, SB3045, SB1538, SB3071, SB3065, SB823, SB3062, SB3074, SB1380, HJR133, HB2715, HB2, HB26, HB388, HB2712, HB1633, HB685, HB1606, HB1458, HB1240, HB2791, HB1397, HB2061, HB647, HB4738, HB2563, HB128, HB766, HB2259, HB2358, HB4384, HB748, HB5180, HB3806, HB3804, HB3803, HB1522, HB3597, HB1612, HB4224, HB1314, HB1237, HB3126, HB2856, HB3114, HB3505, HB5652, HB2025, HB3395, HB18, HB2516, HB2713, HB24, HB519, HB609, HB1592, HB120, HB1533, HB2421, HB2273, HB2464, HB2011, HB5084, HB3424, HB4396, HB43, HB5686, HB2518, HB4310, HB180, HB149, HB4945, HB2434, HB3161, HB3745, HB4044, HB5155, HB5667, HB4996, HB2697, HB2492, HB2355, HB2282, HB2001, HB1902, HB1866, HB1445, HB1443, HB1306, HB1024, HB908, HB305, HB285, HB449, HB171, HB47, HB3464, HB2637, HB4263, HB5436, HB4429, HB3986, HB3966, HB3510, HB2560, HB2026, HB2688, HB4076, HB5246, HB3487, HB3486, HB4226, HB216, HB742, HB2402, HB143, HB5033, HB4413, HB4042, HB2440, HB4426, HB49, HB4112, HB3233, HB2310, HB5515, HB3627, HB2674, HB322, HB1481, HB126, HB3062, HB3421, HB3180, HB2530, HB2524, HB1916, HB3153, HB5650, HB4894, HB3120, HB1629, HB103, HB3234, HB3680, HB5698, HB3171, HB5693, HB2694, HB5664, HB3732, HB2508, HB2293, HB1991, HB2014, HB5331, HB5247, HB4751, HB4690, HB4668, HB4464, HB4395, HB4063, HB3833, HB3623, HB3214, HB3512, HB3250, HB3016, HB2520, HB2221, HB2213, HB3824, HB2067, HB1732, HB1562, HB700, HB1545, HB252, HB146, HB5596, HB1851, HB3619, HB3071, HB3556, HB851, HB4230, HB5320, HB5651, HB5670, HB5665, HB5437, HB5679, HB5699, HB5661, HB5662, HB5654, HB5672, HB5656, HB5149, HB4903, HB4743, HB4666, HB4377, HB4535, HB4129, HB3812, HB3801, HB3595, HB3057, HB2035, HB721, HB35, HB346, HB2974, HB2512, HB5695, HB5694, HB5671, HB5674, HB5688, HB1586, HB5154, HB2038, HB163, HB413, HB3463, HB3185, HB2761, HB2593, HB2348, HB2073, HB1828, HB1422, HB75, HB1871, HB108, HB2306, HB2017, HB1135, HB144, HB3689, HB5308, HB101, HB2193, HB5666, HB5677, HB5682, HB5680, HB5658, HB5696, HB4144, HB3159, HB3254, HB3866, HB3010, HB4520, HB3642, HB3928, HB3815, HB2686, HB2012, HB1960, HB227, HB654, HB1690, HB2128, HB4158, HB4530, HB4630, HB5659, HB1523, HB2078, HB2427, HB145, HB1973, HB3333, HB3697, HB3546, HB3225, HB3181, HB3133, HB3053, HB2885, HB2820, HB2294, HB2253, HB1661, HB1506, HB1234, HB640, HB621, HB551, HB521, HB493, HB272, HB229, HB223, HB201, HB186, HB119, HB2080, HB2818, HB5394, HB4795, HB4466, HB4454, HB3940, HB3749, HB3151, HB3284, HB1403, HB1106, HB2844, HB2851, HB1500, HCR141, HCR118, HCR127, HCR40, HCR59, HCR10, HCR135, HCR142, HCR9, HCR76, HCR108, SB823, SB1380, SB3074, HB47, HB143, HB149, HB171, HB285, HB305, HB449, HB742, HB908, HB1024, HB1240, HB1397, HB1443, HB1533, HB1866, HB1902, HB2001, HB2011, HB2355, HB2402, HB2434, HB2440, HB2492, HB2560, HB2688, HB2697, HB2712, HB3153, HB3161, HB3421, HB3424, HB3464, HB3486, HB3510, HB3986, HB4042, HB4076, HB4263, HB4413, HB4426, HB4429, HB4945, HB4996, HB5246, HB5515, HB2, HB2282, HB3627, HB5033, SR560, SR561, HB1904, HB2240, HB3686, HB3793, HB4202, HB1904, HB2240, HB3686, HB3793, HB4202

Keywords: student privacy, numerical class rank, education policy, academic programs, high school, monuments, memorials, public property, historical significance, civil penalties, local governance, SB 731, Texas, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, TDHCA, low-income housing tax credits, LIHTC, affordable housing, senior housing, 55 and older