Transcript Highlights:

• Beef is more expensive, orange juice is more expensive, coffee is more expensive, and that's before we
• fruit and more expensive vegetables.
• And now a second round of tax cuts is projected to be even more expensive.
• But it is very expensive.
• or prescription drugs more expensive or Medicaid and Medicare.

Committee: Senate Senate Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• The net reduction in carbon emissions, this is point number three, would be small and expensive.
• It's still expensive.
• That's even now, right now, even more expensive.
• And until we can get really, really cheap electricity, that will remain expensive.
• Second, it is the wrong way and an extremely expensive way to try to protect workers.

Summary: The subcommittee heard testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the credit would help decarbonize aviation, support refinery transitions, and keep fuel production and jobs in California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited climate benefits, and would reduce diesel excise tax revenue that supports highways, local streets and roads, and other transportation programs. A major point of debate was whether the credit would simply shift limited feedstocks from renewable diesel to SAF rather than create new low-carbon fuel supply. Professor Aaron Smith and the LAO said that because feedstocks such as used cooking oil, tallow, and vegetable oils are limited and already used in other fuel markets, the policy could increase SAF at the expense of renewable diesel, with possible increases in fuel prices and little net emissions benefit. Administration and CARB staff disputed that outcome, saying additional waste-based feedstocks are available and that the policy would not meaningfully raise gasoline or diesel prices. Senators focused on feedstock availability, impacts on road funding, fairness to consumers, and whether the proposal was really aimed at preserving specific refineries such as Phillips 66. Public comment was sharply divided. Labor representatives, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, airports, and some local residents supported the proposal, emphasizing jobs, refinery investment, and aviation’s need for a liquid-fuel decarbonization pathway. Environmental and transportation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, World Resources Institute, Earthjustice, California Environmental Voters, counties, cities, and trucking and asphalt associations, opposed it, citing weak net climate benefits, possible fuel-price impacts, and losses to transportation funding. No vote was taken; the chair announced all items would be held open for a future hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So they're going to go to the most expensive place, but they won't have insurance.
• Most expensive place, but they won't have insurance.
• It's too expensive.
• I recognize the care I give as a hospital-based physician is more expensive.
• It's very expensive. Most of us can't afford Epic and some of these other systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• So they're going to go to the most expensive place, but they won't have insurance.
• And so that's going to... ...most expensive place, but they won't have insurance.
• It's only going to be more expensive on all of us moving forward. And the lack...
• It's too expensive.
• I recognize the care I give as a hospital-based physician is more expensive.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees focused on the cost of federal instability for California health coverage, access, and affordability. Opening remarks from members of both houses emphasized that California’s coverage gains under the Affordable Care Act are now threatened by federal policy changes, including the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits, H.R. 1, and new federal regulatory actions. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the risk that low-income, immigrant, and working Californians could lose coverage or be pushed into less comprehensive plans. The first panel reviewed the federal landscape and state response. Don Joyce described the ACA’s coverage expansions and warned that H.R. 1, regulatory changes, and broader federal retrenchment could reduce coverage and weaken meaningful benefits. Covered California Executive Director Jessica Altman said the loss of enhanced premium tax credits is driving major affordability problems, with average monthly premiums projected to rise sharply and enrollment already down, especially among middle-income consumers. HCAI’s Elizabeth Lansberg explained the Office of Health Care Affordability’s role in slowing spending growth, monitoring consolidation, and setting spending targets, including lower targets for high-cost hospitals and new primary care investment goals. Members asked about bronze plans, high-cost hospitals, administrative burdens, provider taxes, and whether federal advisory changes could affect required benefits such as immunizations. The second panel examined population impacts and cost drivers. UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Miranda Dietz said most Californians get coverage through employers, Medi-Cal, or Covered California, and that affordability problems are widespread across all groups. She projected that California could have up to 2 million more uninsured residents by 2030, largely from Medi-Cal losses, and said higher premiums reduce wages and increase medical debt. Christoph Stremakis of the California Health Care Foundation highlighted survey data showing widespread concern about medical bills, skipped care, and medical debt, and argued that a large share of spending is wasted through administrative complexity, inflated prices, and underinvestment in prevention. Committee members pressed the panel on whether California can sustain coverage without new revenue, how cost-growth targets affect workers and families, how medical debt relief programs like Los Angeles County’s could be expanded, and how OCA can address uncompensated care, consolidation, and prior authorization burdens.

Transcript Highlights:

• And raising a child in this society is really, really expensive.
• And this condition can cost, with the treatment, ...expensive.
• Thank you for on the operating expenses to deliver EMS in that community.
• Additional expenses will be needed for maintenance and upkeep, causing significant stress.
• So I always have the fear in the world. expenses that are not covered by medical insurance.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services held a lengthy public hearing with more than 70 people signed up to testify, focusing mainly on health insurance and health care access bills. Early testimony centered on H.1257/S.712, which would require insurance coverage for medically necessary treatment of genetic craniofacial conditions. Supporters included legislators, dentists, and medical experts who said these conditions are not cosmetic, can severely affect eating, speech, pain, and social functioning, and often create major financial hardship because insurers deny coverage. A related dental bill, H.1262/S.676, drew technical testimony from the Life Insurance Association of Massachusetts about implementation issues with the 2022 dental loss-ratio law, while the Massachusetts Dental Society supported H.1306/S.696 on transparency in dental network leasing and opposed H.1262. Representative Gentile also testified for H.4013, which would ban for-profit acute care hospitals and for-profit health insurers in Massachusetts, arguing that profit incentives undermine patient care. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to H.1261/S.799, a bill to protect patients from surprise ambulance bills. Municipal fire chiefs, Boston EMS, nonprofit ambulance providers, and the bill’s Senate sponsor said the measure would require insurers to pay ambulance providers directly and promptly, cap patient out-of-pocket costs, and reduce confusion caused by out-of-network billing. Witnesses described ambulance services as essential public health infrastructure and said current billing practices can discourage people from calling 911 or leave municipalities and nonprofits unable to recover costs. Committee members asked about unpaid debt, municipal billing burdens, and how the bill would affect rates and reimbursement. No votes were taken during the hearing. The committee also heard extensive testimony on H.1249/S.805, which would require screening for PANS/PANDAS in medical and clinical settings. Legislators, clinicians, parents, a teen with the condition, and educators described PANS/PANDAS as an infection-triggered inflammatory illness that can present as sudden psychiatric symptoms and is often misdiagnosed as a mental health disorder. Supporters said routine screening at well visits, emergency rooms, and other clinical settings would help identify children earlier, reduce unnecessary psychiatric treatment and hospitalizations, and improve outcomes. Testifiers repeatedly urged favorable action, emphasizing the personal and financial toll on families and the potential for early treatment to prevent long-term harm. The hearing concluded with continued testimony on these bills; no committee action or votes were announced.

Transcript Highlights:

• They will make all other borrowing more expensive.
• Additionally, securitizing wildfire expenses is already allowed today.
• They will make all other borrowing more expensive.
• Additionally, securitizing wildfire expenses is already allowed today.
• We are financing these projects in one of the most expensive ways possible.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Summary: The committee heard several energy and utilities bills focused on wildfire resilience, affordability, electrification, and clean energy development. AB 706, by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry, would create a fund to support projects that beneficially use forest biomass waste from wildfire mitigation and forest restoration; supporters said it would reduce open burning and emissions while providing firm renewable power, and the bill passed 13-0. AB 39, by Assembly Member Zbur, would require larger cities and counties to adopt local electrification planning for EV charging and building decarbonization, with emphasis on disadvantaged communities; it passed 9-0. AB 1167, by Assembly Member Berman, would bar investor-owned utilities from charging ratepayers for lobbying, promotional advertising, and similar shareholder-benefit activities, and would add transparency and penalties; utilities opposed parts of the bill as overly broad, but the measure passed 7-0 with members noting continued work on the language. The committee also advanced AB 1417 on offshore wind community benefits and transparency. The bill, presented by Assembly Member Stephanie Nguyen, would require reporting of developer funding to local and tribal communities for capacity-building and expand the voluntary offshore wind and coastal resources protection program to allow such grants. After amendments, industry groups that had opposed the bill moved to neutral, and the measure passed 9-0. AB 367, by Assembly Member Bennett, would require backup power, tank topping, and facility hardening for water districts in high fire-risk areas in Ventura County; water agencies opposed unless amended due to cost and liability concerns, but the bill passed 10-0. Later, AB 745, by Assembly Member Irwin, would allow investor-owned utilities to finance undergrounding through securitization and disallow a return on equity for undergrounding projects. Supporters argued it would lower ratepayer costs; utilities argued it would effectively discourage undergrounding and could raise other costs. The bill passed 7-4. AB 1423, also by Assembly Member Irwin, would apply reliability standards to state-funded EV chargers installed before 2024; supporters said taxpayers should not fund unreliable infrastructure, while charging-network groups raised retroactivity and legal concerns, including issues with the Electrify America consent decree. The bill passed 13-0. Finally, AB 388, by Assembly Member Rogers, began discussion of a narrow change to the electrical corporation definition and the “over-the-fence” rule to facilitate green hydrogen projects; supporters emphasized decarbonization and job creation, while Southern California Edison raised concerns about regulatory oversight and customer protections. The transcript cuts off before a vote on AB 388.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:01:33.439><c> that</c> borrowers to cover other expenses that borrowers to cover other expenses
• They don't have a problem with the concept, but we don't want to make it expensive, right?
• They don't have a problem with the concept, but we don't want to make it expensive, right?
• They don't have a problem with the concept, but we don't want to make it expensive, right?
• </c> income and it would be very expensive income and it would be very expensive for<00:36:13.280><c>

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Affordability isn't just about the cost of daily expenses. Thank you.
• Affordability isn't just about the cost of daily expenses.
• You cannot make Washington more affordable by making it more expensive.
• You cannot make Washington more affordable by making it more expensive.
• That's just not how it works. more affordable by making it more expensive.

Summary: This was a Republican response to the Governor’s State of the State address, delivered by Sen. Keith Wagoner. The speaker argued that Washington is facing an affordability crisis driven by recent tax increases, high living costs, and what he described as unsustainable state spending. He cited inflation in housing, fuel, food, and other essentials, along with concerns about crime, homelessness, drug overdoses, and declining student outcomes, as evidence that the state is failing residents. A major focus was the state budget and tax policy. The speaker criticized Governor Ferguson and the Democratic majority for signing a budget he said included the largest tax increase in state history, followed by a projected revenue shortfall. He also objected to proposed new taxes on items like fuel, cell phones, storage units, and employers, warning that these measures would be regressive and could pave the way for a state income tax. He said Republicans support property tax relief and a spending limit, and he accused Democrats of rejecting those ideas. The response also highlighted cuts to Medicaid in the 2025 budget, saying reductions disproportionately affected people with disabilities, seniors, and long-term care services. The speaker framed this as inconsistent with claims of compassion and said the state should not raise taxes while cutting care for vulnerable residents. He urged viewers to testify on legislation, contact lawmakers and the governor, and support what he called fiscally responsible, common-sense policies during the short legislative session.

Transcript Highlights:

• It’s a top-five expense for all small businesses, after occupancy costs and payroll.
• But we are a small business sitting in a town which is very expensive to operate.
• And then separate checks in the old days, I mean, they're just expensive now for us.
• Ordering online is more expensive, and the card is not present.
• It's my third largest expense on my P&L. Ms. Moore, good morning. Does the Mass.

Summary: The commission met to hear testimony on the future of credit card payments and swipe fees, with a focus on impacts to small businesses, especially restaurants and retailers. Members and witnesses discussed interchange fees, processing fees, chargebacks, fraud risk, rewards programs, and the growing use of card-not-present and digital wallet transactions. Several witnesses urged the commission to support legislation that would prohibit fees on the tax and tip portions of transactions and allow businesses to pass credit card fees on to customers if they choose, while others warned that state regulation of interchange could reduce fraud protections and harm consumer rewards programs. Small business owners and trade groups described rising costs and thin margins, saying card fees are now among their largest expenses and are often charged on money that is merely passing through the business, such as sales tax and gratuities. Restaurant representatives said the current system shifts fraud and chargeback losses onto merchants, with little ability to negotiate rates or recover disputed funds, and argued that transparency and fee relief would help keep independent businesses open. Retailers gave similar testimony, citing rising swipe fees, complex statements, and the burden of online and phone transactions. A representative from the airline industry opposed interchange reform, arguing that airline credit card rewards are popular with consumers and support travel and jobs in Massachusetts. Credit union representatives cautioned that state-level interchange limits could weaken fraud prevention and force higher rates or reduced services, while the National Restaurant Association and a payments-policy attorney countered that banks and networks already operate under fee caps in other contexts and that interchange rates are fixed rather than competitive. Commission members asked questions about how chargebacks work, how fees are broken down, whether businesses can negotiate with processors or POS providers, and how consumer behavior has shifted toward cards, online ordering, and delivery since the pandemic. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a very expensive way to take down a ton of pollution, and the aviation sub-part of that is part
• Is that fair to say that this is an expensive way to go for what you get?
• Is that fair to say that this is an expensive way to go for what you get?
• It's a very expensive way to take down a ton of pollution, again.
• Is that fair to say that this is an expensive way to go for what you get?

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy

Summary: The committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy heard testimony on several transportation and clean-fuel bills. Supporters of H. 3535 argued for delaying or pausing enforcement of Massachusetts’ zero-emission vehicle sales mandate, saying the current ACC2 timeline is unrealistic given low ZEV sales, limited charging infrastructure, dealer inventory concerns, and potential economic impacts on dealerships, consumers, and tax revenue. Opponents of that approach, including automakers and clean transportation advocates, said the state should stay on course with electrification and that the mandate is necessary to meet climate goals. The committee also heard support for H. 3570/S. 2326 to update vehicle emission standards for municipal and utility fleets, with municipal utility representatives saying current electric truck technology, charging access, and costs make the rules impractical for critical public services. A major portion of the hearing focused on S. 2246, the Freedom to Move Act, which would require MassDOT and regional planning agencies to set vehicle miles traveled reduction goals and align transportation spending with climate targets. Supporters said the bill would better coordinate transportation planning, encourage transit, biking, and walking, and help Massachusetts meet emissions goals while saving money and improving public health. Some committee members raised concerns that the bill could duplicate existing transportation climate mandates and could disadvantage rural residents who must drive long distances; witnesses responded that the bill is meant to add coordination and flexibility, not impose a one-size-fits-all solution. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3448, which would set deadlines to electrify school buses and public fleets and create programs for private fleet electrification. Advocates said fleet electrification is a practical way to cut emissions, improve air quality, and save money over time, especially for schoolchildren exposed to diesel exhaust. Several witnesses also supported low-carbon fuel standard bills H. 3576 and S. 2251, arguing they would reduce fuel carbon intensity and generate revenue for charging and clean-fuel investments. Others, including a coalition opposed to private jet expansion, objected to the bills’ treatment of sustainable aviation fuel, saying it is not scalable, is expensive, and could create land-use and food-supply tradeoffs. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the hearing excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The audit will uncover unallowable expenses like luxury perks and sweetheart real estate deals, executive
• We have to convince our community that these expenses are worthwhile.
• Right, on the central admin expenses.
• Is that marketing and advertising expenses? It's not that the... ...job is harder.
• An administrative expense is probably something we should consider looking at. Any other questions?

Bills: HB1540 , HB3837 , HB5571 , SB370 , SB2425

Committee: House Delivery of Government Efficiency

Keywords: government review, Texas Sunset Act, regulatory oversight, agencies, sunset provisions, autonomous vehicles, regulation, safety, criminal offense, Autonomous Vehicle Commission, registration, regulations, Level 4 automation, Level 5 automation, self-driving technology, traffic laws, permit system, collision reporting, safety standards, Automated Vehicle Commission

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:07:13.759><c> just</c> million dollars in annual expense just million dollars in annual expense
• The wages I get are an expense for the homes, but we also have to be able to provide for our families
• It is expensive to try to get more staff in.
• Today we are number five, so we're fifth most expensive in the country.
• </c><00:25:12.320><c> for</c><00:25:12.520><c> the</c> it is for an expense for the it is for an expense

Bills: HF1419 , HF500

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Summary: The committee took up House File 500, which would require the legislature to fund the Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board’s standards before they could take effect. An author’s DE2 amendment was adopted first; the amendment was described as pausing the board’s standards unless the legislature estimates and fully pays the cost for each nursing home. The bill author argued that mandates without money create serious consequences for seniors and providers, and said the measure would keep budget authority with the legislature rather than an appointed board. Supporters, including nursing home operators and the Long-Term Care Imperative, said the board’s holiday pay and minimum wage standards would create large unfunded costs, citing estimates ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for individual facilities and more than $200 million statewide. They argued that some facilities could face debt, reserve depletion, or reduced access to care if the standards are not funded. Opponents, including SEIU workers and union leaders, said the board has improved staffing, recruitment, morale, and worker safety, and that caregivers deserve higher wages and holiday pay. They argued the bill would weaken the board’s ability to address chronic understaffing and would shift focus away from worker protections. Members also debated whether nursing home reimbursement rates have already risen enough to cover wages and whether the problem lies with how funds are used by providers. After public testimony closed, several members spoke in opposition and support. A roll call was requested, and the committee voted 9-7 to re-refer House File 500, as amended, to the Committee on Labor and Workforce and Economic Development Finance and Policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• The least expensive, by most measures, is the electronic payment system.
• It's less expensive than Apple Pay.
• It's even less expensive in most cases than processing cash and checks.
• by most measures is the electronic payment system it's less expensive than Apple Pay it's less expensive
• It's even less expensive in most cases than processing cash and checks.

Summary: The Special Commission on the future of credit card payments and their impacts on small businesses heard testimony from credit union, retail, banking, and payments industry representatives. Much of the discussion focused on proposals to exclude sales tax and tips from interchange fees, the Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act and related litigation, and whether similar state action in Massachusetts would help small businesses or instead create a patchwork that burdens state-chartered institutions. Witnesses from defense and community credit unions argued interchange helps fund fraud prevention, cybersecurity, member services, and low-fee products, while retail and NRF representatives said merchants are paying significant swipe fees and that state laws like Illinois’s are aimed at reducing costs that are not being passed on to consumers. Several witnesses emphasized that the current payment system provides security, fraud protection, rewards, and access to credit, and that many of the costs merchants complain about are actually bundled processor or acquirer fees rather than interchange itself. Others countered that small businesses are struggling with rising overall costs and that Massachusetts should consider reforms such as allowing surcharging, improving transparency in merchant contracts, and studying collection costs. There was also discussion of the recent Visa/Mastercard antitrust settlement, with industry witnesses describing it as meaningful relief for merchants and opponents saying it is temporary and incomplete. No formal votes were taken on legislation. The commission accepted oral testimony, noted that written testimony would be accepted through July 31, and concluded the meeting by unanimously voting to adjourn. The chair and members said they would continue gathering testimony and work toward recommendations, with the chair stressing the need to find a fair middle ground that supports both small businesses and the broader payments ecosystem.

Transcript Highlights:

• Land is expensive. However, the expiration comes at a time when solar is struggling.
• Land is expensive, utility hookups are late, and the federal government is canceling solar tax credits
• These scams involve California residents creating out-of-state shell companies to buy expensive cars
• It is expensive, an expensive upfront investment.
• tax code reflect the reality that getting sick is not a luxury expense.

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several tax and revenue measures, beginning with SB 1329 on solar property tax assessment. The author and solar industry witnesses argued the bill would create a uniform statewide method, provide certainty for developers, and exclude tax credits and other intangibles from valuation; county assessors and several counties opposed it, saying it would reduce assessed value and depart from market-based appraisal. The bill was moved to Appropriations on a 2-0 vote and placed on call. The committee also heard SB 1406 to close the “Montana tax loophole” used to avoid California vehicle taxes, with support from the California Teachers Association and no registered opposition; it passed 2-0 and was placed on call. SB 984, conforming California law to the federal tipped-income deduction, drew support from the restaurant industry, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and enrolled agents, and passed 3-0 to Appropriations, on call. Later, the committee considered wildfire- and energy-related tax credits. SB 1084 would create a fire-safe home tax credit for home hardening and defensible space improvements; supporters said it would reduce wildfire losses and insurance costs, and it passed 3-0 on call. SB 1118 would provide credits for backup generators and solar battery systems in high fire-threat areas; the author framed it as a resilience measure for households and small businesses, but members raised concerns about cost, diesel use, and whether the credit would reach lower-income households. The bill was moved 1-0 and placed on call, with the chair and other members noting unresolved budget and policy concerns. SB 1424, expanding a partial sales tax exemption to zero-emission vehicle refueling equipment, received support from hydrogen and electric transportation groups and passed 4-0 on call. The committee also advanced SB 1249, a senior tax deduction for taxpayers ages 86 to 90, with support from LeadingAge California and senior advocates; members noted it was narrowly targeted and passed 4-0 on call. SB 1113, conforming California tax law to the federal tonnage tax regime for U.S.-flag international shipping companies, drew support from maritime industry groups and opposition from ILWU over the fiscal impact; it passed 4-0 on call. SB 1137, the Medical Expense Deduction Act, would allow a targeted deduction for medical expenses for lower-income taxpayers; supporters said it would help families facing high out-of-pocket costs, and it passed 4-0 on call. Finally, SB 1415 would extend a partial welfare property tax exemption to mixed-income housing that includes moderate-income units; supporters said it would help finance “missing middle” housing, while assessors and housing stakeholders requested amendments and guardrails. The bill was also moved forward on a committee vote and placed on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• means that during peak times, we don't have to buy as much electricity from the dirtiest and most expensive
• Reducing demand means we don't have to spend as much on expensive grid infrastructure again.
• Energy costs are one of the most unavoidable household expenses.
• Go ahead, turn on that power plant, even though it's going to be more expensive.
• That same thing is also true for... ...more expensive. That same thing is also true for energy.

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on Climate Change and Global Warming

Summary: The committee held a hearing on the value of Mass Save, with opening remarks emphasizing that despite past criticisms the program has delivered major energy, cost, climate, and equity benefits. The chair cited large avoided system costs, strong benefit-cost ratios, and recent legislative changes that set emissions goals, restricted fossil-fuel equipment incentives, and increased focus on low- and moderate-income households. Department of Energy Resources Commissioner Elizabeth Mahoney testified that Mass Save has weatherized hundreds of thousands of homes, reduced bills, avoided emissions, and that the current plan includes budget controls after the DPU ordered $500 million removed from the approved budget. She said the governor’s proposal to have only electric utilities administer the program was intended to reduce administrative costs and align with current implementation trends. Members questioned Mahoney about what counts as marketing and administration, and she said the category includes traditional advertising as well as community-based outreach, customer resource centers, and other customer engagement work, much of it in low- and moderate-income communities. She said administrative and marketing costs are under 5% of the budget, while more than 80% goes to incentives and direct program delivery. Several witnesses then focused on workforce and contractor impacts. Dave Betcher of Abode Energy Management and Rick Taglienti of Rogers Insulation said Mass Save sustains small businesses, creates careers, and supports thousands of jobs; both warned that budget cuts would reduce hiring, training, and work in homes and businesses. They also described a broad ecosystem of suppliers, trainers, and service providers that depends on stable program funding. Other witnesses addressed cost-effectiveness, affordability, and emissions. Anna Johnson of ACEEE said Massachusetts remains a national leader, with Mass Save returning about $2.80 per dollar invested, reducing peak demand, and lowering bills for participants, especially through weatherization and heat pumps. Kyle Murray of Acadia Center said the program is statutorily required to be cost-effective and has avoided billions in supply and infrastructure costs for all ratepayers, including nonparticipants, by lowering overall demand and peak prices. Amy Boyd-Rabin of the Environmental League of Massachusetts argued that efficiency is the cheapest way to meet climate targets and that cutting the budget would force more expensive power generation. The hearing also featured testimony on equity and housing: Mary Wampo described historic under-service to renter-heavy and lower-income communities and said recent reforms, including designated equity communities and performance incentives tied to equity, are helping correct that imbalance; Brian Biot and James Collins of LEAN/ABCD described low-income delivery systems and wraparound services; Barney Heath and John Nannari said Mass Save incentives are essential to affordable housing, passive house construction, and keeping projects on time and on budget. The final witnesses highlighted Connected Solutions and electrification: Sunrun’s Bronte Payne said the virtual power plant program saved more than it cost and helps avoid peaker plants and grid upgrades, and Highland Electric Fleets’ Ben Sondaga said electric school buses can provide similar grid benefits while lowering transportation costs for districts.

Transcript Highlights:

• The most common expense related to school safety was for school resource officers.
• spent $44 million on these expenses, or $93 per student, in 2025.
• And then that final category was for dyslexia-related expenses.
• . and then related facility expenses.
• And those are typically encapsulating any kind of facility or building-type expenses.

Summary: The House/Joint Education committee continued its adequacy study with a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, focusing first on matrix spending and then non-matrix spending. Staff explained the methodology for mapping APSCN expenditure data to matrix lines, reviewed district and school categories used in the analysis, and highlighted key findings: foundation funding covered a large share of matrix costs but total spending on matrix items exceeded foundation funding, with classroom teachers making up the largest share. Members asked for additional breakdowns on waivers, superintendent survey responses, trend data, and spending by district type, size, and rural/urban status. Staff also noted limitations in tracking two matrix lines—salary enhancement for other employees and all personnel health insurance—because of coding and definition issues. The committee then reviewed non-matrix expenditures, including instructional aides, facilities, school safety, mental health, dyslexia services, gifted and talented, and career and technical education. Staff reported that non-matrix spending remained above $2 billion over the last three years, with most of it coming from other funds rather than foundation funding. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, mental health needs, school safety, food service, athletic transportation, and whether some items should be added to the matrix. The Department of Education clarified that the building fund reflects district-held funds for construction and maintenance projects, while the facilities partnership program is a separate state process for approved projects. In the final discussion, staff summarized total spending as more than $15,800 per student in 2025, with about 69% going to matrix resources and 31% to non-matrix resources. The chair explained the adequacy process and the committee’s role in setting future funding recommendations, and members discussed the recommendations worksheet included in the binder. The chair then proposed postponing the remainder of Part Two of the presentation until a May meeting after the fiscal session, along with inviting the Department of Education back for more detailed questions; with no objections, the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll let you not only expense equipment, we'll let you depreciate the assets that you actually build
• or the depreciation expense, offsetting their taxes to encourage people to build in our country."
• The same thing is happening with the expenses.
• We're decoupling from a bonus that allows first-year full expensing.
• I'm going to expense a new—I don't know—a new CT scanner." You're taking all that away.

Bills: SB240

Committee: House House Taxation & Revenue

Keywords: capital outlay, capital projects, severance tax bonds, general fund appropriations, supplemental severance tax bonds, UNM School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, infrastructure, state buildings, courts, schools, higher education, road improvements, water and wastewater, tribal infrastructure, tribal projects, public safety, housing, emergency services, bonding

Transcript Highlights:

• We want to maintain name accreditation, and that's expensive.
• And I'll I'll show you what those operational expenses are.
• Then the supply expenses and transport expenses are beyond our control.
• And it's very expensive over many months.
• I have put First and foremost, our operating expenses.

Transcript Highlights:

• 2022, for every dollar collected in premiums, some insurers in California spent $1.13 in claims and expenses
• Housing is already too expensive for many Americans, and even if families can afford to buy a home, they
• These tariffs will make just about everything needed to rebuild and repair houses more expensive.
• And the expenses keep rising faster.
• They're not expensive.

Committee: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee

Keywords: homeowners insurance, natural disasters, insurance costs, climate change, disaster preparedness, federal policies, bipartisan solutions

Summary: The meeting reviewed critical issues surrounding the rising costs and accessibility of homeowners insurance across the United States, particularly in light of increasing natural disasters linked to climate change. Members engaged in extensive discussions regarding the implications for families and the economy, citing significant increases in premiums and decreasing availability of policies in high-risk areas. Supervisor Peysko highlighted the direct impact of federal policies on local communities, emphasizing the growing burden on homeowners as they face skyrocketing insurance costs amidst a backdrop of environmental challenges and regulatory constraints. The committee expressed a unified call to action for bipartisan solutions, focusing on improving building codes and enhancing disaster preparedness measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• , I mean, their primary expenses are going to be facilities and personnel, right?
• The expenses just aren't the same. And maybe you can educate me about that.
• And the expenses are not identical down to the penny, right?
• Things are more expensive. Every year we go along. Year that does account for more things.
• Things are more expensive. Every year we go along, things get more expensive.

Committee: All ARKANSAS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (ALC)

Summary: The Arkansas Legislative Council meeting began with approval of the December 2025 minutes and a presentation from the Bureau of Legislative Research on the December revenue report. Dr. Carlos Silva said gross collections were about $4.02 billion, up slightly from the prior year, and net available for distribution was also above last year but down modestly from the previous month because of higher-than-expected corporate income tax refunds. Members asked about corporate tax trends, tariffs, and inflation, and Silva said it was too early to call the corporate decline a trend and that tariff effects would likely show up mainly in sales tax collections. The council then adopted several subcommittee reports, including the Executive Committee Subcommittee, Administrative Rules, Hospital/Medicaid/Developmental Disabilities, Occupational Licensing Review, PEER, Review, State Insurance Program Oversight, and Personnel. The PEER report drew the most debate because of a Department of Agriculture grant tied to Perry County and Central Arkansas Water; members discussed whether removing the Perry County portion would affect the grant’s competitiveness, and the report was ultimately adopted with the item included. The Review Subcommittee also heard questions about a BDO contract for the rural health transformation program, with DFA explaining that the contractor would manage the program while state agencies would make funding decisions consistent with the state’s application. A major portion of the meeting focused on the Education Freedom Account appropriation tied to LEARNS. Senators and representatives debated whether the program helps families or diverts money from public schools, with supporters arguing it funds students and choice and opponents arguing it is costly, vulnerable to fraud, and harms public school funding. Department of Education officials said roughly 28,000 private school students and 17,500 homeschool students were participating, that EFA students must submit standardized tests annually, and that the requested $32 million was to cover existing participants. After multiple substitute motions and extended debate, the body rejected a motion to strip out the $32 million and then adopted the report and related motions. The meeting ended after routine approvals of additional agency items and adjournment.