Transcript Highlights:

• These particular programs that we're looking at represent somewhere around $8 or $9 million of those
• piece of their overall programs.
• Importantly, this bill does not eliminate or reduce funding or programs.
• Boy, I'm still comfortable over on the blue carpet as well. Thank you.
• It's just looking at two programs, not the whole $8 billion.

Committee: House Appropriations

Summary: House Appropriations took up Senate Bill 1347, sponsored by Representative Jeff Ehlers and Senator Cody Galloway, which would increase transparency and reporting for Idaho Housing and Finance Association homelessness-related federal funds, specifically the continuum of care and emergency solutions grants. The sponsors said the bill is intended to let the Legislature and Idahoans see who receives the grants, how the money is used, and what outcomes result, without cutting, capping, or redirecting any federal funds. They described IHFA as a state-created entity handling large amounts of federal money, and said the bill is a first step toward better oversight and data collection. In response to questions, the sponsors said JFAC would receive the reports but would not be required to take action, and explained that the February 1 reporting deadline was chosen to allow time for year-end data to be compiled while the Legislature is still in session. They also said about 60% of the requested information already exists in federal reporting, while about 40% would be new project-level or program-specific data not currently reported to the federal government. The sponsors said IHFA was neutral on the bill and that it had passed the Senate floor on party lines. Representative Harris moved to send Senate Bill 1347 to the House floor with a do pass recommendation. The motion passed by voice vote, with Representative Green recorded as voting no. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• and the non-lava program.
• and the non-lava program.
• and the non-lava program.
• </c> almost 50/50 between the lava program almost 50/50 between the lava program and<00:25:44.440><c>
• They went from a program with one insurer to a program with 18 insurers to now a program with about 32

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You have put forward a recommendation on the pre-approval program and process that Oregon has implemented
• , and nor were we asked to, evaluate the costs to the department if they were to implement such a program
• , and it happened during a period where our staff were still being combined from three different programs
• I'm really hung up on the drink issue, where you have a four-ounce drink called strawberry lemonade, blue
• razz, watermelon, and then the... ...drink called strawberry lemonade, blue razz, watermelon, and then

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee heard an audit on the Department of Cannabis Control’s oversight of cannabis packaging and labeling, focused on whether products are attractive to children. The auditor said the department’s rules are often vague, enforcement is inconsistent, and licensees are left to interpret standards without prior review. In a review of 80 packaging cases, the audit team disagreed with the department’s conclusions in 13 instances, and the report highlighted examples involving cartoon imagery, colorful fonts, candy-like references, flavor names, and cannabis beverages that resembled ordinary drinks. The auditor recommended clearer statutory definitions, possible consideration of plain packaging or pre-approval models like Oregon’s, better internal guidance, and stronger tracking and escalation for repeat violators. Committee members and Assembly Member Irwin emphasized the rise in poison control calls involving children under five since legalization and argued that legal-market packaging can contribute to accidental ingestion, especially when products resemble candy or drinks. Several members pressed the department on why items such as root beer, strawberry lemonade, and cherry pie strain names should be allowed if they may appeal to children. The Department of Cannabis Control responded that it has already centralized label review, added staff and technology tools, improved compliance-history tracking, and is using progressive discipline tools such as notices to comply, citations, embargoes, abatements, and license actions. The department also argued that the illicit cannabis and intoxicating hemp markets are major drivers of youth exposure and that enforcement resources must be balanced across those markets. Public health witness Dr. Lynn Silver urged stronger restrictions, including plain packaging, bans on added flavors and child-appealing imagery, lower THC limits for edibles and beverages, and a dedicated pre-market review process. Industry representatives from the California Cannabis Industry Association and the California Cannabis Operators Association agreed that youth protections are essential, but argued that clearer, objective standards are needed so compliant businesses can know the rules and enforcement can be consistent. They said most licensed products are already compliant, that the most blatant youth-targeted packaging is concentrated in the illicit market, and that the Legislature should refine definitions and guidance rather than rely on subjective case-by-case judgments. No formal vote or bill action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're a blue state.
• We're a blue state.
• </c><00:16:09.519><c> to</c> spittlebug response pilot program to spittlebug response pilot program to
• </c> management policies and the programs management policies and the programs that<00:59:46.559><c>
• ><01:09:26.239><c> program</c><01:09:26.640><c> activities</c> oversee and manage program activities

Bills: SB2309 , SB2317 , SB2318 , SB2319 , SB2321 , SB2323 , SB2332 , SB2405 , SB2485

Committee: Senate Agriculture and Environment

Keywords: agricultural loans, financial support, Hawaii agriculture, food security, revolving fund, agriculture, insurance, small producers, state support, biosecurity, farm coverage, public-private partnerships, agricultural policy, agricultural statistics, data collection, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, economic analysis, market development, grant funding, climate resiliency

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several agriculture-related measures, beginning with SB 2309, which would require the agricultural loan division to sell portions of its loan portfolio and use the proceeds to expand the agriculture loan revolving fund. The Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity and the Hawaii Farm Bureau supported the bill, along with several other organizations and individuals. A committee question focused on the risk of not finding a qualified buyer for the loan portfolio; DAB said a mandatory sale of the full amount could force a less favorable rate, while flexibility to sell different amounts could produce a more equitable return. The measure drew eight supporters and no opposition. The committee then took up SB 2317, which directs DAB to study insurance coverage for small producers and report back to the Legislature. DAB and multiple farm groups supported the bill. In response to a question about cost, DAB estimated about $250,000 would be needed, with the study likely covering crop, health, and liability insurance. The next measure, SB 2318, would establish an agriculture statistics program in statute. DAB said it strongly supported the bill and could ramp up quickly if positions were provided; the committee discussed whether a first report could be completed by year’s end if the bill became law midyear, and DAB said yes. SB 2319, which would fund and make permanent a full-time grant writer position at DAB, also drew strong support from DAB, the Hawaii Farm Bureau, Ulupono Initiative, the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, the local food coalition, and others, with testifiers emphasizing the position’s return on investment and success in bringing in federal funds. The committee also heard SB 2321, establishing a two-year pilot program to respond to the twoline spittlebug. DAB, ranching groups, and many others supported the bill, citing the pest’s spread and the need to act before it becomes unmanageable. A DAB pest control manager said he would need to research past response details and provide them later. Members emphasized the importance of early intervention. For SB 2323, which creates a farmland transition commission to study barriers to farmland access and recommend solutions, DAB offered comments and support for the intent, while farm groups generally supported the concept but raised concerns about the proposed age range and whether a separate commission was necessary. DAB said the Board of Agriculture likely would not have the capacity to perform the commission’s duties and estimated there would be costs to establish it, though no figure was available at the hearing. Finally, the committee heard SB 2332, which reestablishes the agriculture and food security special fund, creates a carbon emissions tax and dividend fund, gradually raises carbon-related tax rates, and provides a refundable carbon cashback credit. DAB supported the measure and deferred to Taxation on details; the Department of Taxation said it would stand on its comments, and the Attorney General’s office offered comments and recommendations. Carbon Cashback Hawaii and the County of Hawaii Department of Research and Development supported the bill, arguing it would reduce emissions, protect lower-income households, and be relatively simple to administer.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is budgeted by program administrators and spent across a portfolio of programs, ranging from appliance
• and implementing the programs in dark blue.
• Program overlap can occur when a third-party program is offered by multiple PAs or a program offering
• We need these programs.
• So it's not program by program, but it's across that portfolio.

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:

• And there is a program for Equalization that shows up now in Senate File 375.
• pool that is in County A, and the blue is the sharing pool in County B.
• </c><00:56:31.920><c> that</c> Grants that they have or programs that Grants that they have or programs
• </c> course to construct and every program course to construct and every program and<01:09:47.759><c>
• </c><01:10:48.640><c> are</c> and our justice system programs are and our justice system programs are

Committee: Senate Taxes

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Development to go over this agenda today, and what we will be doing is going through the different programs
• :04:04.320><c> under</c><00:04:04.920><c> this</c> the different programs under this the different programs
• So there are a whole bunch of programs.<00:27:39.200><c> So</c> programs. So programs.
• Like all these Blue Hawaii, Elvis. P.I. Like all these Blue Hawaii, Elvis.
• The blue bakery used to work for you up in Waipahu. Everybody had that, right?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it could be a bank, investment management firm, technology provider, a program manager, the office
• Is there like a—who, is there like an auditing program?
• is that it actually can alleviate a lot of stress put on the taxpayers and also taxpayer-funded programs
• through their employer, they have the opportunity to, the plan providers are that employers can offer Blue
• Cross Blue Shield or Cigna or a multitude of other offerings, and those employees can choose from those

Committee: Senate Commerce and Human Resources

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• America's heartbeat's red, white, and blue.
• America's heartbeat's red, white, and blue, 250 years of me and you.
• America's heartbeat's red, white, and blue, 250 years of me and you. You lived.
• America's heartbeat's red, white, and blue, 250 years of me and you. You're lifted up aloud.
• Idaho proud, red, white, blue. This 250 celebration is amazing.

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These particular programs that we're looking at represent somewhere around $8 or $9 million of those
• dollars, so a very small piece of their overall programs.
• Importantly, this bill does not eliminate or reduce funding or programs.
• Boy, I'm still comfortable over in the blue carpet as well. Thank you.
• It's just looking at two programs, not the whole $8 billion.

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• President, can we have a We can wear sunglasses because that blue jacket and that pink tie are pretty
• We had a discussion yesterday, so she inspired that, and I'm glad that you like my Carolina blue.
• I don't know if you're part of the Blue Angels or the Light Blue Angels or what we're gonna call you.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:22:39.200><c> and</c> collections and provide programming and collections and provide programming
• That's in blue is Kellen's old position.
• Um I I the grant program.
• </c><01:57:27.920><c> so</c> with their summer library program so with their summer library program so
• Is that the summer reading program?

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is our oldest grant program.
• Again, this program was established in 1987. Again, this program was established in 1987.
• programs, to the special mission-based programs, to our core participation loan programs, provide a
• That's the blue bar.
• So it depends on the program.

Summary: The committee received a compliance and budget update on Industrial Commission agencies and programs, including the Industrial Commission administrative office, the Oil and Gas Research Program, the Clean Sustainable Energy Authority, the State Energy Research Center, the Research Technology Park grant program, and related funds. Staff reviewed spending and balances for items such as electric grid resiliency grants, lignite research, enhanced oil recovery, the salt cavern business case study, and the new NDSU research and technology park grant. Members also discussed timing, carryover balances, matching requirements, and how some programs are structured to reimburse projects over several years rather than spend funds immediately. Karen Tyler of the Industrial Commission described the agency’s administrative budget, the grant management system nearing completion, and the transition to standalone audits and staffing after separating from other agencies. She also outlined the status of active grant rounds across lignite, oil and gas, renewable energy, outdoor heritage, and clean sustainable energy programs. Members asked about the length of active grants, demand for clean energy funding, and the possibility of future grant rounds. Tyler and members also discussed the salt cavern study, the need to better define its commercial value, and the research technology park grant’s cash-match requirement. Ron Ness then testified on enhanced oil recovery and broader oil and gas market conditions. He said North Dakota production remained steady, but future growth depends on infrastructure, longer laterals, and better use of natural gas and carbon dioxide for EOR. He described the state’s EOR grant round, the use of federal DOE funding to replace part of a state-funded project, and the expectation of additional grant rounds. Members asked about CO2 supply, storage, and the economics of using legacy fields and pipelines to extend oil production and support agriculture and industrial uses. The committee also heard from Bank of North Dakota President Don Morgan, who reviewed the bank’s mission, governance, lending verticals, disaster programs, and new initiatives. He said the bank is seeing deposit growth flatten and is responding to fintech competition by focusing on liquidity, risk management, and a new payment infrastructure initiative called Rough Rider Coin, which he emphasized is not crypto and not a public coin, but a banking payment rail for North Dakota institutions. Members asked about student loan rates, disaster lending, and how the bank’s lines of credit and balance sheet capacity are affected by deposit trends. Morgan said the bank remains profitable and continues to support agriculture, commerce, and industry through participation loans, student lending, and state-directed programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• You're not subject to the cap-and-trade program.
• The blue is the GGRF.
• The blue is the national average. The red is California.
• Yes, this program.
• Four billion in the program design should be the highest goal.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840 after last year’s reauthorization through 2045. CARB said the draft rule changes are intended to support affordability, market certainty, and the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets, while also addressing offsets, utility allowance transfers, leakage protections for industry, and post-2030 allowance budgets. Members emphasized the importance of completing the rulemaking on schedule this spring so the changes can take effect by September 1, 2026. A major focus was how allowances are allocated among electric utilities, natural gas utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. CARB explained that the proposal transfers natural gas utility allowances to electric utilities over time to support electrification and ratepayer protection, while maintaining free allowances for industry to reduce leakage risk and preserve in-state manufacturing and refining. Several members and panelists questioned whether the proposed utility changes could raise rates, whether the transition from gas to electric credits should happen faster, and whether the industrial allocation changes reduce climate credit and GGRF revenues more than necessary. CARB and panelists said they were open to additional data and comments, and noted that the proposal is still in public comment. The committee also discussed carbon capture, carbon removal, and refining. Members asked CARB to ensure that CCUS and CDR are clearly recognized as viable compliance pathways and to keep SB 905 rulemaking on track. On refining, members raised concerns about imported gasoline, leakage, and the need for better data on the carbon intensity of imported fuels; CARB said cap-and-invest applies to fuel suppliers at the rack, while life-cycle accounting issues are handled more through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and related modeling. CARB said it is continuing technical work on those data tools. In the second panel, the LAO, IEMAC, EDF, and SCAPA representatives generally agreed that the program faces real tradeoffs between affordability, ambition, and leakage protection. The LAO and IEMAC stressed that the Legislature should scrutinize how CARB divides the allowance “pie,” since more free allocations to utilities or industry mean less revenue for GGRF. EDF argued the program could be somewhat more ambitious in the near term without harming affordability, while SCAPA said the proposal would reduce allowances for publicly owned utilities and could undermine early decarbonization investments and ratepayer benefits. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Your success in extending the cap and invest program to 2040.
• You're not subject to the cap-and-trade program.
• The blue is the GGRF.
• The blue is the national average. The red is California.
• Yes, this program.

Committee: House Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policy heard an overview from CARB on proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, which was reauthorized through 2045 by AB 1207 and SB 840. CARB said the draft rules are intended to preserve affordability, market certainty, and progress toward the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets. The agency described the program’s main features, including the declining emissions cap, utility and industrial allowance allocations, offset changes, the allowance price containment reserve, and new reporting and oversight requirements. CARB also said the rulemaking is on a public comment timeline, with board consideration planned for late May and an effective date targeted for September 1, 2026. Committee members focused heavily on electricity affordability, the planned shift of free allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and whether the proposal would raise rates for investor-owned and publicly owned utilities. CARB said the proposal is meant to protect ratepayers from compliance costs and that the utility allocation is based on updated data showing utilities are greener than before, but members and utility representatives argued the transition should happen faster and that the current draft could reduce expected revenues and disrupt long-term planning. Members also pressed CARB on carbon capture and sequestration, asking that the regulations clearly recognize it as a compliance pathway, and on whether the SB 905 rulemaking for carbon capture should move forward on schedule. A second major topic was industrial allocations, especially for refiners and other sectors at risk of leakage. CARB said it is keeping all industries at high leakage risk through 2030, maintaining the current cap-adjustment approach, and leaving room for additional comments and data on whether refiners need more allowances to avoid economic leakage and preserve in-state refining. Members also questioned how imported gasoline is treated, and CARB explained that transportation fuel is regulated at the rack and through the low-carbon fuel standard, while cap-and-invest covers in-state tailpipe and smokestack emissions rather than full life-cycle emissions. CARB said it is open to using additional data, including SB 253 reporting, to improve fuel carbon-intensity estimates. The panel of outside experts largely agreed that the program must balance affordability, ambition, and leakage concerns, but they differed on how much allowance value should go to utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The Legislative Analyst’s Office emphasized that the Legislature should scrutinize CARB’s allocation choices now because they will be hard to change later. An IEMAC representative said the proposal appears to shift more allowance value to industry and utilities, which could reduce GGRF revenues, while EDF argued the cap could be tightened further in the near term without triggering price containment. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, warned that the proposal would reduce utility allowances and could raise costs for ratepayers and undermine early decarbonization investments. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've been able to increase our program count by 272 programs. over the last few years.
• The dark blue is adult students.
• Just to remind the committee, what we do in K-12 programs is we offer program support.
• What's the program cost?
• Most would elect that we don't keep this program; we move to a different type of program.

Committee: House A&B Education Subcommittee

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And each year we run Minnesota's only nonpartisan election protection program.
• There are more details about our Minnesota Votes election protection program in the written statement
• And each year we run Minnesota's only nonpartisan election protection program.
• There are more details about our Minnesota Votes election protection program in the written statement
• I'm Michael Stalberger, director of property and environmental resources for Blue Earth County.

Committee: Senate Elections

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Your success in extending the Cap-and-Invest program to 2040.
• You're not subject to the cap-and-trade program.
• The blue is the GGRF.
• The blue is the national average. The red is California.
• For the trajectory the program is being asked to follow.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview and discussion of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840. Chairs and members emphasized the program’s role in meeting climate targets while balancing affordability, and CARB described the proposal as intended to preserve market certainty, strengthen cost containment, address utility affordability, and support the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goal. CARB also noted the public comment period, the planned board hearing, and the goal of an effective date of September 1, 2026. Members questioned CARB on several implementation issues, including whether the rulemaking would be completed on time, the treatment of carbon capture and sequestration, the timing of the transfer of allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and the impact on ratepayers. CARB said it was on track to meet the May deadline, that CCUS/CDR could be further refined in the proposal and would also be addressed in a separate SB 905 rulemaking later in the year, and that it was seeking to protect ratepayers while inviting more utility data during the comment period. The committee also discussed refining-sector leakage risk, gasoline imports, and how imported fuel is accounted for under cap-and-invest versus the low-carbon fuel standard. A second panel of outside experts and stakeholders then testified. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and IEMAC representatives explained the major statutory changes, including putting offsets under the cap, shifting allowances from natural gas to electric utilities over time, and changing how allowance value is divided among utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. They stressed that CARB has significant discretion in setting the allowance “pie,” and that more free allocations to utilities or industry reduce GGRF revenues. EDF’s representative argued the proposal should be adopted this spring, said the utility transition should happen faster, and urged a tighter near-term emissions cap. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, opposed the proposed utility allocation changes, saying they would reduce expected allowances, undermine long-term planning, and could force higher rates or reduced decarbonization investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Health Professions and Programs Subcommittee will come to order. Nola, please call the roll.
• On December 12, 2024, a Lakeland woman was arrested for threatening to kill a Blue Cross Blue Shield

Summary: The Health Professions and Programs Subcommittee met with a quorum present and considered two bills. HB 361, by Rep. Nix, would reclassify registered interns as registered associates for clinical social work, marriage and family therapy, and mental health counseling, and would streamline supervision rules by removing the requirement that licensed supervisors be physically present in private practice settings. Supporters said the bill would modernize terminology, reduce barriers to practice, and expand access to mental health care while maintaining supervision and public safety. Several members raised concerns about possible unintended effects on community health centers and Medicaid workforce issues, but the bill drew broad support and passed 17-0, reported favorably. The committee then heard HB 1341, by Rep. Gonzales Pittman, which is aimed at preventing misuse of physician specialty titles and limiting those titles to practitioners who are actually board-certified in the specialty they claim. The sponsor emphasized that the bill does not address the general use of “doctor” or “physician,” only specialty designations such as dermatologist, gynecologist, neurologist, or plastic surgeon. Testimony in support came from medical and professional groups, including anesthesiologists and plastic surgeons, who said clearer titles help patients know who is treating them and improve safety. The Florida Optometric Association opposed the bill, arguing it could create confusion or omit optometric titles and other designations. Two amendments were adopted without objection. One removed a hospital name-tag requirement from the bill. The other changed a claims-denial provision so that denial letters need only disclose that a Florida-licensed physician in good standing made the decision, while the insurer must retain the physician’s identifying information for potential litigation or discovery. Some members supported the privacy protections, while others questioned whether the amendment was germane to the bill. As amended, HB 1341 passed 13-4 and was reported favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• the contract was signed, then everybody signed into the network, you began to have a contract with Blue
• Cross Blue Shield as a network pharmacy.
• cost of the impact on the state's public healthcare benefit... ...two public healthcare benefit programs

Committee: Senate Banking and Insurance

Keywords: 923, senate, all