Transcript Highlights:

• Is it a flat fee? Um, perhaps the doctor could answer that. Is it a flat fee?
• A substantive provision that I'd like to point out is on page five, where it limits the applicable fees
• A substantive provision that I'd like to point out is on page five, where it limits the applicable fees
• limits the applicable fees to $5 for any limits the applicable fees to $5 for any advance<00:57:16.079
• So people have to take out back-to-back loans with separate fees. in fees.

Bills: HF2400, HF1724, HF3437, HF4333, HF2874, HF4052

Keywords: real estate, appraisers, disciplinary actions, sanction matrix, Minnesota Statutes, direct primary care, healthcare agreements, medical services, patient care, health insurance, mortgage fees, residential loans, commercial loans, finance regulations, investment properties, insurance, supplemental health insurance, short-term care, home health care, nursing care

Bills: HB184, HB235, HB546, HB557, HB584, HB747, HB902, HB930

Keywords: charitable pharmacy, healthcare fees, outpatient prescription, exemption, Louisiana Department of Health, sewerage systems, individual systems, community systems, local governance, legislation, installation regulations, protective custody, peace officers, mental health, emergency medical services, involuntary admission, long-term care, healthcare, pharmacy, residents

Bills: HB207, HB267, HB300, HB464, HB618, HB853

Keywords: Louisiana Auctioneers Licensing Board, auctioneer licensing, professional licensing board, board membership, gubernatorial appointments, consumer members, public at large, Public Service Commission district, East Baton Rouge Parish, venue, domicile, licensure requirements, licensed auctioneer, occupational licensing, state board governance, Act 138, home inspectors, licensing, term limits, Louisiana State Board

Transcript Highlights:

• utilities to demonstrate that the fees utilities to demonstrate that the fees are<01:04:26.559><
• I've seen fees that are 25% a year.
• I've seen fees that are 25% a year.
• I've seen fees that are 25% a year.
• I've seen fees that are 25% a year.

Bills: HF3458, HF3777, HF3778, HF3912

Keywords: electric utilities, service areas, Tribal lands, Minnesota statute, energy regulation, utility rates, public utilities, Public Utilities Commission, PUC, ratepayer, consumer protection, affordable energy, energy affordability, ability to pay, just and reasonable rates, rate regulation, electric rates, natural gas rates, energy conservation, renewable energy

Summary: The committee approved the March 5, 2026 minutes and then took up House File 3458, as amended, which would exempt tribes from utility exclusive rights and assigned service areas. The bill’s author and the Upper Sioux community chairman said the measure was prompted by a dispute over a solar project at the tribal casino and argued the issue is really about tribal sovereignty, not solar, citing tribal civil regulatory authority and prior court cases. The amendment A1 was adopted before testimony. Testimony was split. Chairman Kevin Jensel of the Upper Sioux community strongly supported the bill, saying the tribe should not be forced to follow utility service territories and that the state should correct a long-standing omission in law. Derek Mo of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association opposed the bill, warning it would undermine the regulatory compact, reliability, long-term planning, and financing for electric service, especially in tribal areas. Justin Johns of East Central Energy also opposed the bill, but emphasized that many cooperatives have productive tribal partnerships and said his co-op has worked successfully with the Mille Lacs Band on solar, resilience, and workforce efforts; he cautioned that removing service obligations could leave difficult-to-serve areas underinvested. Members discussed whether the Public Utilities Commission process already underway should be allowed to resolve the dispute and whether the bill’s scope could extend beyond the current solar issue. The chair responded that the bill was a legislative approach to a problem that had not been resolved and said the amendment addressed concerns about removing the obligation to serve. A roll call was requested, and the committee voted to re-refer House File 3458, as amended, to the General Register.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and before the period, the following language: and shall create and maintain separate tariffs applicable
• They must be fully compliant with applicable noise ordinances.
• Must be fully compliant with applicable noise ordinances, and they must submit prior to construction

Bills: HB2989, HB3724, HB2992, HB3464, HB4246, HB3989

Keywords: high-demand facilities, electric utilities, public infrastructure, water management, taxpayer-funded subsidies, decommissioning plans, local control, citizen initiative, referendum, HB2992, Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026, Corporation Commission, Oklahoma utilities, ratepayer protection, data centers, artificial intelligence computing, AI data centers, cryptocurrency mining, large load customer, electric rates

Transcript Highlights:

• health commitment as a shortcut or as a bypass to some of the other procedures that really should be applicable

Bills: SB3, HB70, HB49, HB60, HB151, HB164, SB17, SB35, SB164

Keywords: Public Regulation Commission, PRC, utility oversight fund, public utilities, utility regulation, commissioners, commission staff, chief of staff, ethics, Gift Act, revolving door, post-employment restrictions, consumer complaints, telecommunications, pipeline safety, natural gas pipelines, oil pipelines, license fees, regulatory oversight, administrative cleanup

Transcript Highlights:

• There are other fees that this bill addresses, like the right to a fee for appeal, and in my view, we
• In Arizona, however, there is a fee for some of these and the ability to charge a fee for others.
• However, there is a fee for some of these and the ability to charge a fee for others.
• This bill removes that fee and blocks future fees on any constitutional rights that we have.
• collection of the fees.

Bills: HB2205, HB2265, HB2413, HB2415, HB2418, HB2495, HB2589, HB2661, HB2720, HB2771, HB2833, HB2870

Keywords: criminal damage, trespassing, critical facilities, felony, Arizona Revised Statutes, court fees, public defender, criminal justice, legal aid, indigent defense, appeals, administrative assessments, sex offender, electronic monitoring, registration, public safety, youth protection, Kratom, narcotic drugs, regulation

Summary: The committee first heard HB 2415, which would tighten Arizona’s regulation of kratom by treating synthetic or highly concentrated 7-OH products as narcotic drugs, raising the legal sale age to 21, and imposing criminal penalties for prohibited sales or preparation. Supporters, including the sponsor, a recovering user, the American Kratom Association, and the Attorney General’s Office, argued the bill targets dangerous synthetic products while preserving natural kratom leaf products. Opponents, including the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, warned the amendment could sweep in users and create harsh felony penalties for possession. The committee adopted the Wynn amendment and then gave HB 2415 as amended a 6-3 do-pass recommendation. The committee then considered HB 2870, which would bar multiple Level 2 or Level 3 registered sex offenders from living together in the same residence unless they are related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The sponsor and neighborhood witnesses described a local home with six or seven offenders and said the arrangement frightened nearby families and children. Opponents argued the bill would destabilize housing for people on probation, increase homelessness, and interfere with supervision and rehabilitation; some also noted existing probation oversight and low sexual recidivism rates. After debate over whether the bill should instead target only certain housing settings, the committee voted 5-4 to give HB 2870 a do-pass recommendation. Next, HB 2413 was heard, requiring GPS or electronic monitoring for registered sex offenders who do not have a fixed address until one is established. Supporters said the bill would close a gap for homeless or transient registrants who otherwise report only every 90 days, while opponents raised due process, cost, and implementation concerns, noting that some offenders are already monitored through probation and that DPS does not itself supervise offenders. The committee passed HB 2413 on a 5-4 vote. The committee also heard HB 2720, which increases the penalty for purchasing prostitution to a class 6 felony and directs a $200 assessment to the anti-human trafficking fund. Supporters said it targets buyers and helps deter trafficking demand; opponents argued the bill could still ensnare trafficking victims and sex workers. The committee adopted a Bliss amendment clarifying the affirmative defense and use of funds, then approved HB 2720 as amended by an 8-0 vote with one member present. Finally, HB 2418, appropriating $600,000 from the General Fund to the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission for five major incident division task forces, was supported by county sheriffs’ representatives and passed unanimously by the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is zero cost because all of the fees offset the 19.6 million by FY 30. Is that correct?
• Actually, I think the fees are a little greater than the budget, or... ...actually, I think the fees
• ; on the single-family development, over six applications totaling $145 million.
• On the single-family development, over six applications totaling $145 million.
• , and on the single-family development portion, there are six applications.

Bills: HB70, HB93, HB95, HB139, HB140, HJR4

Keywords: Public Regulation Commission, PRC, utility oversight fund, public utilities, utility regulation, commissioners, commission staff, chief of staff, ethics, Gift Act, revolving door, post-employment restrictions, consumer complaints, telecommunications, pipeline safety, natural gas pipelines, oil pipelines, license fees, regulatory oversight, administrative cleanup

Transcript Highlights:

• members, Senate Bill 1760 relates to guardianships for persons who are incapacitated, changing the fee
• Generally, the bill would set a fee of $45 for filing a guardianship case transferred from another county
• members, Senate Bill 1760 relates to guardianships for persons who are incapacitated, changing the fee
• Generally, the bill would set a fee of $45 for filing a guardianship case transferred from another county
• Property owners can often face expensive legal fees just to clear these fraudulent claims.

Bills: SB302, SB1335, SB1734, SB1760, SB1975, SB2127

Keywords: probate court, statutory judge, reimbursement, court costs, court proceedings, judicial assignments, judge assignment, cost reimbursement, judicial expenses, estate management, statutory requirement, court expenses, estates, inheritance, representative duties, court authority, personal representative, real property, deed fraud, title fraud

Summary: The committee heard several probate, family law, judicial, property, and contract-related bills. Senate Bill 1335, relating to decedents’ estates, would remove outdated references to a clerk’s certificate, allow courts to remove personal representatives on their own motion with notice by qualified delivery method, and add independent administrators to provisions that referenced only independent executors; an estate-planning attorney testified in support, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 1760, concerning guardianship transfer fees and procedures, was described as setting a $45 filing fee for transferred guardianship cases and clarifying completion and dismissal procedures; it received no testimony and was left pending. Senate Bill 2127 would shorten the eligibility period for retired judges to serve as visiting judges from eight years to six, restrict practice in their assigned region for two years, and require conflict-related certification; it also was left pending without testimony. Senate Bill 302 would shift the cost of a traveling probate judge to the requesting estate or parties rather than the county; one witness registered in favor, no one testified, and the bill was left pending. The committee then considered a committee substitute for Senate Bill 252, which would clarify the parental presumption in conservatorship cases, require non-parents seeking relief against a parent to file an affidavit showing significant impairment to the child if relief is denied, require courts to state specific findings when overcoming the presumption, confirm the clear-and-convincing standard, and clarify that agreed prior orders do not defeat the presumption. The substitute was explained as consensus language from a work group, public testimony was reopened, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 1734, on deed fraud, would create a streamlined ex parte process for property owners to have fraudulent deeds declared void, modeled on the fraudulent lien statute; county clerk and title association representatives testified that it would provide a low-cost self-help remedy for a growing problem, and the bill was left pending subject to the chair. Senate Bill 1975 would prevent Texas contractors from being forced to litigate disputes in foreign jurisdictions and require disputes to be handled in the county where the project is located; it was presented as a repeat of a previously vetoed bill and was left pending. Finally, the committee took up a substitute for Senate Bill 1940, concerning transfer-on-death style beneficiary designations for manufactured homes. The substitute would allow one or more beneficiaries instead of only one, transfer the interest to surviving designated beneficiaries who survive by 120 hours, extend the application period for transfer to 365 days, void the designation if not timely filed, and require mailing by certified or registered mail with return receipt requested. The substitute was adopted without objection. The committee then recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fees, is there another one? I think maybe something from revenue.
• Is there a limit on the fees that a towing company can...
• With all these fees, once you get in the system, you...
• unnecessary fees.
• They've got a tow company, and these fees are going to come.

Bills: HB105, HB296, HB15, HB264, HB34, HB304, HB146, HB26, HB15, HB34, HB26

Keywords: law enforcement, retirement benefits, Alabama Peace Officers, agency-issued badge, agency-issued pistol, resisting arrest, custody, public safety, Alabama law, traffic infractions, traffic ticket, disposition, criminal contempt, vessel registration, boating fees, state funds, regulatory changes, water safety, compliance, false information

Transcript Highlights:

• way; it was written to be totally permissive, allowable, and it'll pay for itself in the process of fees

Bills: HB68, HB140, HB168

Keywords: foreign investment, agriculture, property rights, critical infrastructure, sanctions, HB140, private sewer systems, wastewater utilities, Public Service Commission, PSC jurisdiction, utility regulation, rate setting, rate consolidation, affiliated systems, common ownership, private utilities, sewer rates, wastewater management, Alabama utilities, Jefferson County Board of Health

Bills: HB79, HB437, HB646, HB1089, HB1099, SB173, SB180, SB260, SB424, SB476

Keywords: carbon capture, damages, environmental liability, legal liability, site restoration, expert witness, expert testimony, witness fees, pecuniary interest, conflict of interest, civil procedure, evidence law, Louisiana evidence code, Louisiana civil litigation, expert report, discovery, pretrial disclosure, litigation transparency, settlement, damages award

Transcript Highlights:

• This will save the ratepayers redundant engineering and administrative fees associated with the regulatory
• These additional fees easily run $25,000 to $50,000 a project.
• Development of capital improvement plans, master plans, and impact fee programs are highly regulated
• Remember, the intention, members, is to make sure that an appropriate employee at TCEQ reviews applications
• What this bill would do is allow this groundwater conservation district to raise the production fee rate

Bills: HB3115, HB5671, HB5693, SB790, SB1055, SB1302, SB1504, SB1625, SB1663, SB2692

Keywords: Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater, water wells, domestic well, livestock well, exempt well, metering device, well meter, groundwater conservation district, Special District Local Laws Code, Water Code, Section 36.117, groundwater regulation, water rights, aquifer management, municipal utility, retail public utility, groundwater export, water supply contract, election

Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources heard testimony on a series of water, utility, and groundwater-related bills. Early items included HB 5693, which would let Drainage District 7 hold board elections in November of odd-numbered years when a countywide election is occurring, and HB 5671, which would update the Johnson County Special Utility District by clarifying board eligibility, allowing bond issuance, and removing redundant TCEQ approval language to reduce costs and delays. Both bills were left pending after brief testimony from bill sponsors and local witnesses. The committee also heard SB 1504, which would update the Gulf Coast Authority to allow video-conference participation in meetings, and SB 1302, aimed at closing a TCEQ permitting loophole that allowed dischargers with prior denials or suspensions to reapply through an automated process without meaningful review. SB 2692 drew substantial discussion: it would change the signature threshold for outside-city-limits customers appealing municipal utility rates to the PUC by customer class. Valero supported the bill as a way to avoid requiring large-volume users to gather signatures from unrelated residential customers, while the City of Corpus Christi opposed it, arguing that lowering the threshold to one customer could trigger expensive appeals costing $500,000 to $1 million. A PUC witness said such cases are increasing and that the agency would need additional staff under the fiscal note. SB 790, creating a simplified PUC complaint process for small water and wastewater billing disputes, and SB 1663, expanding TCEQ notice requirements for nearby residents when groundwater contamination is discovered, were also heard and left pending. Additional bills included HB 3115, clarifying that the Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District cannot require meters on exempt domestic or livestock wells; SB 1055, raising the Southeast Texas Groundwater Conservation District’s production fee cap from 1 cent to 7 cents per 1,000 gallons; and SB 1625, requiring private water and wastewater utilities to report cybersecurity incidents to TCEQ and DIR. The committee then took up pending business and adopted a substitute for SB 7, which made several changes to water fund use, eminent domain coordination, and EDAP-related provisions, and voted 10-0 to report it favorably. The committee also adopted a substitute for HB 2347, a county water conservation program bill, and reported it favorably 9-1. HB 5675 and SB 2476 were each reported favorably 10-0. The meeting concluded with adjournment.

Bills: HB3115, HB5671, HB5693, SB790, SB1055, SB1302, SB1504, SB1625, SB1663, SB2692

Keywords: Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater, water wells, domestic well, livestock well, exempt well, metering device, well meter, groundwater conservation district, Special District Local Laws Code, Water Code, Section 36.117, groundwater regulation, water rights, aquifer management, municipal utility, retail public utility, groundwater export, water supply contract, election

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, under current statute, insurers must pay a $5 per vehicle year fee to support the motor Vehicle Crime
• The MVCPA collects these fees and handles refunds, but procedural gaps and inefficiencies persist under
• Uh, the fee now is $5 but only $2 goes to the NBCPA.
• Oversight to offer optional home delivery for an additional fee.
• Importantly, the bill preserves the current county handling fees.

Bills: HB 341, HB 469, HB 971, HB 1624, HB 2721, HB 2959, HB 3365, HB 3731, HB 3793, HB 3861, HB 3946, HB 3966, HB 4348, HB 4401, HB 4402, HB 4924, HB 4966, HB 5563

Keywords: affordable housing, zoning, development, community support, local regulations, bicycle lanes, traffic collisions, Texas Department of Transportation, study, public safety, bicycles, electric bicycles, scooters, road safety, transportation study, commercial vehicle, safety standards, enforcement, Texas counties, transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• , recording fees, along those lines.
• They're funded through self-generating fees, filing fees that, as your bill states, go into a fund, right
• They're funded through self-generating fees, of filing fees that, as your bill states, goes into a fund
• The fees are self-generated, right?
• Filing fees, I would say.” “Filing fees? I would say over $100. I really don't know.

Bills: HR192, HR193, HR194, HCR80, HCR81, HCR82, HCR83, HCR84, HCR85, HR188, HR189, HR190, HR191, SB134, SB140, SB281, SB331, SB384, SB389, SB415, SB451, SB458, SB479, SB504, SB523, HR38, HR96, HR160, HCR31, HCR61, SCR19, HB316, HB549, HB578, HB646, HB748, HB798, HB824, HB988, HB989, HB1001, HB1032, HB1081, HB1108, HB1129, HB1140, HB1157, HB1186, HB1192, HB1195, HB1198, HB1222, HB1244, SB73, SB89, SB128, SB149, SB191, SB196, SB238, SB318, SB340, HB225, HR1, HR17, HCR5, HCR4, HCR47, HCR32, HB362, HB893, HB990, HB1007, HB1153, HB1243, HB12, HB42, HB205, HB222, HB267, HB324, HB325, HB350, HB478, HB610, HB617, HB745, HB749, HB752, HB797, HB807, HB821, HB896, HB979, HB992, HB1000, HB1024, HB1050, HB1166, HB1172, HB1173, HB1207, HB1218, HB1223, SB162, SB349, SB350, SB382, SB383, SB127, SB244, SB256, HB911, HB306, HB366, HB1161, HB1230, HB59, HB481, HB772, HB897, HB1003, HB1008, HB1112, HB1180, HB1189, HB181, HB1118, HB901, HR20, HR74, HB284, HB393, HB458, HB459, HB525, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB614, HB682, HB733, HB773, HB864, HB996, HB1035, HB1058, HB1082, HB1113, HB1234, HB1240

Keywords: ACOG, maternal health, healthcare professionals, patient-physician relationship, obstetrics, gynecology, condolences, military service, veteran, community, memorial, visual acuity, student health, de-identified data, longitudinal analysis, education policy, property rights, carbon dioxide sequestration, expropriation, Landowner Bill of Rights

Bills: SB 10, SB 8, SB 15, SB 12, SB 6, SB 13, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, SB10, SB8, SB15, SB12, SB6, SB13, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4

Keywords: sex designation, restroom access, civil penalties, private civil right of action, women's privacy, law enforcement, department file, employee records, misconduct, confidentiality, Texas occupations code, election laws, attorney general, prosecution, criminal offenses, criminal prosecution, jurisdiction, hemp, consumable hemp, hemp-derived cannabinoids

Bills: HB248, HB249, HB997, HB1052, HB1193, SB1, SB161, SB218, SB220, SB289, SB435

Keywords: Compensation Commission, elected officials, salary evaluation, government accountability, Louisiana legislature, compensation, independent commission, salary adjustment, consumer price index, official journal, public notices, government transparency, local government, municipal website, school board notices, parish council, police jury, special districts, levee district, drainage district

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's a disposal fee as opposed to them being paid for it.
• The proposed application fee would also offset the internal costs of the man hours incurred at the Railroad
• If the technical permitting division recommends denial, the applicant can request a hearing.
• No, it's part of the application fee that they would have to pay.
• Instead of the permit fee being $2,500, it would be $100,000.

Bills: HB3619, HB3652, HB4572, HB4891, HB4941, HB5103, HB5105, HB5106, HB5224, HB5600

Keywords: surface estate, well plugging, Railroad Commission, landowner rights, liability, strategic reserve, gas supply, petroleum products, disaster response, Railroad Commission of Texas, energy security, emergency planning, oil and gas waste, environmental regulation, waste management, mining pits, groundwater monitoring, regulation, commercial disposal facilities, environmental standards

Bills: HB3619, HB3652, HB4572, HB4891, HB4941, HB5103, HB5105, HB5106, HB5224, HB5600

Keywords: surface estate, well plugging, Railroad Commission, landowner rights, liability, strategic reserve, gas supply, petroleum products, disaster response, Railroad Commission of Texas, energy security, emergency planning, oil and gas waste, environmental regulation, waste management, mining pits, groundwater monitoring, regulation, commercial disposal facilities, environmental standards