Transcript Highlights:

• We have your presentation loaded on the computer for your use.
• the transmission system, the high-voltage power lines that move power from the power plants into the load
• As an example, Florida Power and Light had a per-occurrence limit of $350 million for each storm in a
• effect of Hurricane Andrew in our space is that commercial insurance coverage became significantly limited
• Madam Chair, I know we're almost against the time limit.

Summary: The committee met to hear invited presentations on storm recovery and storm protection from the Florida Public Service Commission, Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy, Tampa Electric, Chesapeake Utilities, and the Office of Public Counsel. The PSC reviewed the history of storm restoration financing and utility hardening efforts after major storms such as Hurricane Andrew, the 2004-05 hurricane seasons, Irma, and Michael, explaining storm reserve funds, storm recovery bonds, and the current three-year storm protection plan process. The commission’s role in approving plans and later reviewing prudence of actual costs was emphasized, along with the types of work included in the plans such as vegetation management, pole replacement, undergrounding, feeder hardening, and substation flood protection. The utilities described their own storm-hardening investments and recent storm performance. FPL said it has spent about $4.9 billion on storm protection and recovery-related efforts, highlighted improved restoration times during Helene and Milton, and said it is expanding undergrounding, feeder hardening, and smart-grid technology. Duke Energy reported more than 40,000 hardened poles and structures since 2021, major gains from self-healing grid technology, and faster restoration during recent storms. Tampa Electric described a roughly $200 million annual storm protection effort, including vegetation management, undergrounding, substation hardening, and new storm surge protections, and Chesapeake Utilities discussed its smaller-scale hardening program, vegetation work, pole replacement, and rapid restoration after Helene in Nassau County. Committee members asked about how utilities prioritize neighborhoods for lateral hardening, whether maps of planned projects could be shared, how much each utility has spent on undergrounding and hardening, and how reliability comparisons are normalized against the national average. Public Counsel Walt Trierweiler argued that storm recovery and hardening costs fall too heavily on investor-owned utility customers, said the current framework lacks a meaningful cost-benefit or prudence check at the planning stage, and urged broader sharing of storm costs because the benefits extend to the whole state. Senators also discussed whether the commission can review the reasonableness of approved programs and whether future reports or recommendations from Public Counsel would be helpful. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• So think about loading tigers, brown bears, in and out over this dock.
• So we take on their anesthesia residents to help them get the required case load and non-traditional
• species case load they need to credential as part of their residency.
• It's a very limited enrollment here, and there seems to be a growing demand.
• <00:36:21.520> enrollment here it's it's a very limited enrollment here it's it's a very limited

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Maternal leave is inadequate for many, and the invisible mental load is real and unsustainable.
• Maternal leave is inadequate for many, and the invisible mental load is real and unsustainable.
• We also know that there's an invisible mental load that many working moms hold between juggling work
• We also know that there's an invisible mental load that many working moms hold.
• We also know that there's an invisible mental load that many working moms hold between juggling work

Summary: The committee first approved the prior meeting minutes, then heard a presentation from Maddie San Juan of the Women’s Foundation of Arkansas on the report “Holding It All Together: Working Moms and Child Care in Arkansas.” She said the report found that Arkansas moms want to work, but child care costs, inflexible schedules, inadequate paid leave, and the mental load of caregiving are major barriers. She cited survey and focus group findings showing most mothers want full-time work, 69% identified child care costs as a barrier, and many said flexible hours were the most important workplace support. She also described county-level dashboard data, the high cost of infant and toddler care, and examples from working mothers about spending most or all of their paychecks on child care. Members asked questions about labor force participation trends, the meaning of the child care cost figures, and how flexibility could be implemented across industries. The presenter and members also discussed the broader economic-development impact of child care shortages and the need for public-private partnerships. The Department of Education then gave an update on early childhood programs. Officials said they are building internal dashboards to improve transparency and data access for school readiness assistance, including enrollment, application, and provider participation monitoring. They reported that the state is still moving forward with the CLASS transition and expects to release transition funding to providers in the coming weeks using Preschool Development Grant funds. They also clarified that OEP awards based on CLASS scores are separate from OEC’s work and that the data is FOIA-able. Officials warned providers about a temporary payment delay during the transition to a new system, saying payments will stop June 30 and resume around July 14, with any owed funds processed then. Members raised additional concerns about early childhood special education funding, overpayment recovery from a child care center, audit requirements for Head Start and SRA funds, the market rate survey, and the status of local leads after a recompete. Department staff said they would follow up on special education funding levels and audit rules, noted that the overpayment case is under appeal, and said the market rate survey is still in procurement. They also reported that 23 local leads will cover all counties starting July 1, with no major job-description changes, and described a new PDG Partners stakeholder group and an upcoming June 23 QRIS webinar to gather provider and parent input. The meeting ended with no further business and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Resources and State Department, having under consideration House Bill 2756, relating to utilities and high-load
• For new extra high load factor customers, et cetera, exempts the electric public service corporations
• The bill still unnecessarily limits the people who can act as an expert witness in a parenting time proceeding
• H.C.M. 2005, requesting that the Congress of the United States consider limitations on real property
• It addresses large high-load customers, but she says the state must address the risk of overbuilding

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, recorded attendance, approved the journal, and then moved into Committee of the Whole to consider several bills. Early floor action included House Bill 2369 on photo-enforced traffic citations, amended so the citation would be signed by the mayor rather than the municipality’s presiding judge; House Bill 2423 on advanced math course enrollment, amended to narrow eligibility to students showing high proficiency on statewide assessments and to remove duplicative reporting; House Bill 2481 on school district financial records, amended to change how the state responds to USFR deficiencies by directing districts to approved training programs; House Bill 2621 on special education/public school enrollment, amended to allow students placed in residential facilities to enroll directly in the district where they live; and House Bill 2756 on public utilities and high-load-factor customers, amended to extend reporting deadlines, exempt smaller utilities, and remove some integrated planning requirements. Each of these bills received do-pass recommendations from Committee of the Whole, with some senators raising concerns about math staffing, school funding, and data-center impacts on rates and infrastructure. The chamber then adopted the Committee of the Whole report and heard a proclamation supporting stronger Arizona and U.S. relations with Taiwan, including trade, technology, education, and Taiwan’s participation in international organizations. The Senate also calendared House Bill 2192 for additional Committee of the Whole consideration, adopted a Bolick amendment excluding telecom and broadband providers from the definition of online hosting platform, and advanced the bill with a do-pass recommendation. In third reading, the Senate passed House Bill 2249 on the parents’ bill of rights, House Bill 2482 on out-of-school facilities, House Bill 2641 on firefighting foam, House Bill 2661 on dependent children, House Bill 2662 on parenting time, House Bill 2673 creating a study committee on inmate mental health services, House Bill 2745 on legislative subpoena enforcement, House Bill 2752 on the Arizona Commerce Authority, House Bill 2895 on public education, House Bill 2923 on mental health services, and several concurrent memorials urging Congress to address foreign authoritarian property ownership and endangered species issues. Several members explained votes, often citing budget concerns, staffing shortages, or policy objections. Senators Epstein and others repeatedly argued that many problems in education and mental health require more funding and personnel rather than statutory changes alone. Senator Kuby and Senator Epstein also criticized House Bill 2756 as insufficient to address data-center costs, water use, and ratepayer impacts, though the amended bill passed. The session concluded with passage of House Bill 2192 on employment, committee announcements for the following Monday, and adjournment until April 20, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• In order to hear as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that
• For today, the testimony will be limited to four minutes total, which is two minutes for the support
• Unfortunately, my time and yours is very limited today, so I'm only going to tell you that the regulatory
• And there's just, there's limited recourse. You know, the transmission owner... We're trying to do.
• And there's just, there's limited recourse.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 13, which would restructure the CPUC to increase legislative oversight, add legislative liaisons, require more detailed and timely reporting on rate-setting decisions, and add a public advocate member. The author and supporters argued the bill would improve transparency, accountability, and geographic diversity in CPUC decision-making amid rising utility rates. Witnesses from TURN, San Joaquin County, SDG&E, and former CPUC Commissioner Loretta Lynch offered support or support-in-principle, while no opposition testimony was presented. Members generally praised the bill’s transparency goals, and AB 13 passed 10-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open for absent members. The committee then adopted the 2025-2026 committee rules and approved three consent items: AB 61, AB 365, and AB 406. The next bill, AB 99, would cap investor-owned utility rate increases above inflation except for specified costs such as safety, modernization, and fuel/commodity costs. The author and supporters, including a representative of the California Senior Legislature, said the bill was needed to protect ratepayers, especially seniors and low-income customers, from repeated rate hikes. Opposition came from utility labor, utilities, the Chamber of Commerce, and others, who argued the bill was too simplistic, could suppress labor costs, and did not account for major cost drivers such as wildfire mitigation, mandates, and net metering. Several members supported moving the bill forward as a starting point on affordability, while others criticized it as overly blunt. AB 99 passed 11-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open. The hearing then shifted to an informational panel on strategies to reduce California transmission costs. A Public Advocates Office staffer described a growing backlog of approved-but-unbuilt transmission projects, rising transmission access charges, and long project timelines driven largely by utility pre-application and construction periods. Panelists from Net Zero California and consulting firms presented research suggesting that public financing or public-private partnership lease models could reduce transmission costs by lowering financing, tax, and capital costs, with estimated savings of up to 57% and as much as $123 billion over 40 years. PG&E’s representative said the utility is already pursuing federal loan guarantees, grants, and a public-private partnership with Citizens Energy, but warned that state ownership could create tax, wildfire-liability, and governance risks. Members asked about the CPUC’s role, the causes of delays, and whether public financing could complement existing competitive solicitation processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• limitation for certain fraud offenses relating to Criminal Jurisprudence.
• limitation for certain fraud offenses relating to Criminal Jurisprudence.
• And does it also limit it to residential? Residential developments of HFCs? It's limited to HFCs.
• Either I'm sorry, I said it's limited to HFCs as an authority.
• No, I was answering your question that it is limited. Anything that HFC can do, it limits it.

Bills: HJR98, HJR8, HJR133, HB23, HB33, HB144, HB 109, HB 103, HB148, HB3809, HB1686, HB2217, HB2156, HB220, HB2421, HB2363, HB3773, HB421, HB2584, HB2615, HB2455, HB3711, HB2559, HB3747, HB2775, HB2886, HB3126, HB3666, HB3595, HB3260, HB3506, HB1638, HB3376, HB3826, HB3628, HB1349, HB3770, HB1831, HB1762, HB2614, HB3113, HB267, HB322, HB431, HB869, HB 1203, HB 1201, HB 1244, HB1875, HB1950, HB2152, HB2290, HB2341, HB2436, HB2809, HB2856, HB3012, HB2954, HCR56, HCR102, HB 107, HB1587, HB3684, HB658, HJR99, HB1399, HJR5, HJR2, HJR6, HJR31, HB1971, SJR3, HB1775, HJR72, HB502, HB3109, HJR98, HJR8, HJR133, HB 118, HB388, HB 114, HB205, HB2789, HB2791, HB499, HB2960, HB3163, HB3135, HB2427, HB1618, HB1672, HB1722, HB1338, HB787, HB2618, HB879, HB 1126, HB4134, HB3513, HB718, HB1536, HB1445, HB1640, HB1893, HB1734, HB3229, HB3306, HB 1276, HB3272, HB3276, HB3516, HB4145, HB1585, HB4810, HB2989, HB2558, HB3014, HB2742, HB1695, HB23, HB33, HB144, HB 109, HB 103, HB148, HB3809, HB1686, HB2217, HB2156, HB220, HB2421, HB2363, HB3773, HB421, HB2584, HB2615, HB2455, HB3711, HB2559, HB3747, HB2775, HB2886, HB3126, HB3666, HB3595, HB3260, HB3506, HB1638, HB3376, HB3826, HB3628, HB1349, HB3770, HB1831, HB1762, HB2614, HB3113, HB267, HB322, HB431, HB869, HB 1203, HB 1201, HB 1244, HB1875, HB1950, HB2152, HB2290, HB2341, HB2436, HB2809, HB2856, HB3012, HB2954, HCR56, HCR102

Keywords: Article V, federal government, fiscal restraints, constitutional amendment, term limits, nuclear energy, electric generation, funding, Texas nuclear development fund, advanced reactors, HJR 133, Texas constitutional amendment, ad valorem tax, property tax exemption, homestead exemption, surviving spouse, veteran, veterans benefits, service-connected death, presumed service-connected condition

Bills: SJR 4, SCR 36, SCR 37, SCR 38, SCR 39, SCR 40, SCR 41, SCR 42, SB 7, SB 30, SB 31, SB 32, SB 33, SB 34, SB 36, SB 37, SB 38, SB 39, SB 1851, SB 1852, SB 1853, SB 1854, SB 1855, SB 1856, SB 1857, SB 1858, SB 1860, SB 1861, SB 1862, SB 1863, SB 1864, SB 1865, SB 1866, SB 1867, SB 1868, SB 1869, SB 1870, SB 1871, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1874, SB 1875, SB 1876, SB 1877, SB 1878, SB 1879, SB 1880, SB 1881, SB 1882, SB 1883, SB 1884, SB 1885, SB 1886, SB 1887, SB 1888, SB 1889, SB 1890, SB 1891, SB 1892, SB 1893, SB 1894, SB 1895, SB 1896, SB 1897, SB 1898, SB 1899, SB 1900, SB 1901, SB 1903, SB 1904, SB 1905, SB 1906, SB 1907, SB 1908, SB 1909, SB 1910, SB 1911, SB 1912, SB 1913, SB 1914, SB 1915, SB 1916, SB 1917, SB 1918, SB 1919, SB 1920, SB 1921, SB 1922, SB 1923, SB 1924, SB 1925, SB 1926, SB 1927, SB 1928, SB 1929, SB 1930, SB 1931, SB 1932, SB 1933, SB 1934, SB 1935, SB 1936, SB 1937, SB 1938, SB 1939, SB 1940, SB 1941, SB 1942, SB 1943, SB 1944, SB 1945, SB 1946, SB 1947, SB 1948, SB 1949, SB 1950, SB 1951, SB 1952, SB 1953, SB 1954, SB 1955, SB 1956, SB 1957, SB 1958, SB 1959, SB 1960, SB 1961, SB 1962, SB 1963, SB 1964, SB 1965, SB 1966, SB 1967, SB 1968, SB 1969, SB 1970, SB 1971, SB 1972, SB 1973, SB 1974, SB 1975, SB 1976, SB 1977, SB 1978, SB 1979, SB 1980, SB 1981, SB 1982, SB 1983, SB 1984, SB 1985, SB 1986, SB 1987, SB 1988, SB 1989, SB 1990, SB 1991, SB 1992, SB 1993, SB 1994, SB 1995, SB 1996, SB 1997, SB 1998, SB 1999, SB 2000, SB 2001, SB 2002, SB 2003, SB 2004, SB 2005, SB 2006, SB 2007, SB 2008, SB 2009, SB 2010, SB 2011, SB 2012, SB 2013, SB 2014, SB 2015, SB 2016, SB 2017, SB 2018, SB 2019, SB 2020, SB 2021, SB 2022, SB 2023, SB 2024, SB 2025, SB 2026, SB 2027, SB 2028, SB 2029, SB 2030, SB 2031, SB 2032, SB 2033, SB 2034, SB 2035, SB 2036, SB 2037, SB 2038, SB 2039, SB 2040, SB 2041, SB 2042, SB 2043, SB 2044, SB 2045, SB 2046, SB 2047, SB 2048, SB 2049, SB 2050, SB 2051, SB 2052, SB 2053, SB 2054, SB 2055, SB 2056, SB 2057, SB 2058, SB 2059, SB 2060

Keywords: economic stabilization fund, state finance, constitutional amendment, budget management, financial security, public safety, university property, peaceful assembly, law enforcement coordination, disruptive protests, balanced budget, federal debt, fiscal responsibility, Texas governance, national budget, Tomato Suspension Agreement, trade, economic impact, tariffs, Texas-Mexico relations

Transcript Highlights:

• He said that also factors into this, but limiting the means and ability for a person to heat their home
• the the means and the ability to limit the the means and the ability for<00:19:57.159> ways<00
• <00:27:05.279> um demand and the increase in load um demand and the increase in load um that's
• <00:59:26.359> in load in load in there<00:59:28.280> and<00:59:29.200> to<00:59
• it to cities with a population limiting it to cities with a population of<01:31:08.000> 10,000

Bills: HF484, HF483, HF1447, HF1496, HF554

Keywords: natural gas, gas hookups, residential construction, energy policy, local control, state preemption, municipal regulation, county ordinance, electrification, climate policy, housing development, building codes, energy source, utility infrastructure, Minnesota Statutes chapter 326B, propane, utility service, building permits, local government, energy choice

Transcript Highlights:

• that needs to that the amount of load that needs to that needs<00:36:20.480> to<00:36:20.599>
• be<00:36:20.720> Prov<00:36:21.079> not<00:36:21.160> load<00:36:21.400>
• the<00:36:21.480> amount<00:36:21.680> of needs to be Prov not load the amount
• But yes, the funding is more limited than it has been in the past. Resolution.
• But yes, the funding is more limited than it has been in the past. So, Mr.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• we just use it and needlessly limit we just use it and needlessly limit ourselves.<00:09:34.560>
• <00:37:25.599> We what's the load of that facility. We what's the load of that facility.
• , of customers, capacity limits, of customers, capacity limits, infrastructure<01:20:00.560> impacts
• So members, undermining the base load.
• not limited to their electric bills. not limited to their electric bills.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um, this, uh, as you know, has to do with limitations on uh customer generators.
• on uh customer with limitations on uh customer generators<00:37:28.800> we<00:37:28.960> had
• to, reducing line loss, supporting voltage regulation, or peak load shaving.
• <00:45:20.319> reduction Efficiency damage SP load reduction Efficiency damage SP load reduction
• to reducing line loss but not limited to reducing line loss supporting<00:45:29.880> volage<00

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, we work again work with industry and in those areas we make sure that we are limiting the volumes
• Are you limiting permits, new permits, or are you just trying to focus on, The, the already permitted
• We're limiting pressures. We're limiting volumes. Vice Chairman Morales. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• And, and I think we're, we're certainly supportive of, of, of, of putting some reasonable limitations
• Um, explosive load growth is driving the need for new power generation as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• It would also include miticides, which is yield limiting.
• <00:13:55.600> And maticides, which is yield limiting.
• And maticides, which is yield limiting.
• It would limit it.
• carefully tailored bill that limits carefully tailored bill that limits neonic<00:41:41.200>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• You might teach a child which guns are loaded. All guns are loaded. Get an adult.
• You might teach a child which guns are loaded. All guns are loaded. Get an adult.
• You might teach a child which guns are loaded. All guns are loaded. Get an adult.
• You might teach a child which guns are loaded. All guns are loaded. Get an adult.
• You might teach a child which guns are loaded. All guns are loaded. Get an adult.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This report examined Hawaii's consumers and their debt loads.
• This report examined Hawaii's consumers and their debt loads.
• This report examined Hawaii's consumers and their debt loads.
• Here, it was very limited. We had the banks.
• , once the counties became term limited, once the counties became term limited, right?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You can't front-end load it or you're going to have some consumers that are mad.
• Because they're studying large loads and where that threshold should be.
• The normal limit for their loans or investments is $3 million.
• So, you know, we are not limited to geography or location when we speak of community.
• Their loads are growing. Their society is very keen on having non-emitting power.

Summary: The Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee met to review prior minutes and hear a series of presentations on advanced nuclear technology and state readiness. The committee approved the April 21, 2022 minutes. Nucleon’s William Bridge outlined the advanced nuclear landscape, distinguishing near-term light-water SMRs from more advanced Gen 4 reactors and microreactors, and emphasized that fuel supply, especially HALEU, remains a developing supply chain. He said light-water designs are the most deployable in the near term, while advanced reactors may be better suited for industrial heat applications and could face a 2- to 3-year delay from fuel availability. Representatives from NASEO described how other states are supporting advanced nuclear through task forces, roadmaps, pilot programs, financing tools, workforce and supply-chain efforts, and regional coordination. They highlighted the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative and stressed that states are focusing early on emergency preparedness, community engagement, waste management, affordability, and consumer protections. They also noted that some states are creating nuclear-ready community programs and cost-recovery guardrails, while public utility commissions are examining long-term lifecycle costs and rate impacts. North Dakota agencies then outlined their potential roles. The Public Service Commission said it would likely be involved in public-interest review, siting, and rate regulation, but noted current statutes may not fully address long-term nuclear projects, co-location, or decommissioning. The Department of Environmental Quality said it would continue to regulate radioactive materials and likely support emergency planning, while fission reactor oversight remains federal. The Department of Emergency Services said it would serve as the lead off-site preparedness agency, needing a radiological emergency program, training, exercises, equipment, and possibly industry funding. The Department of Water Resources said North Dakota has sufficient surface water, especially from the Missouri River, but that water planning would be important; it did not recommend statutory or budget changes at this time. The committee recessed for lunch after these presentations, with no additional votes or actions taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Each truck has a weight limitation, so each truck has an average of 25 tons of natural uranium ore.
• So, everything up to now has been well below the limit set forth by USDOT, and these limits are clearly
• And that We learned that by going to the mine site and watching the demonstration of how they load the
• There is a weight limit; I believe the total weight limit for an entire shipment is 80,000 pounds.
• We've got contaminated groundwater that is limited in extent.

Transcript Highlights:

• So there is an increased need to maintain and manage the roads better within the limited funds that the
• data that the The data that the DOTs have, they're all siloed and are not related to each other, limiting
• panel show up, which is a context-based panel, which provides insights into the data that is being loaded
• panel show up, which is a context-based panel, which provides insights into the data that is being loaded
• I'll give it a minute for it to load. There you go.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The House Science and Technology Committee met and heard two informational presentations, with no bills considered and no votes taken. Deloitte Infrastructure Insights presented a transportation AI tool, Infrastructure Insights Pro, focused on vulnerable road user safety and pedestrian crash analysis. The presenter described how the platform ingests agency data such as crash records, GIS layers, and project management systems to generate map-based insights, trust scores for data reliability, and draft concept reports. Members asked about how long similar reports took before AI, whether the tool had been used in other states, and whether it reduced cost or effort; the presenter said a report that once took six to eight months could now be drafted in hours, that the safety use case had been implemented at Caltrans, and that the main savings were in staff effort. The committee then heard from OCTA and Socure on digital identity, fraud prevention, and resident access to government services. The presenters argued that state and local governments should move toward a single, privacy-preserving digital identity experience that reduces multiple logins, improves security, and helps stop fraud by using contextual signals such as device, location, and document validation. They said Arizona already uses OCTA for more than 40,000 employees and some citizen services, and that Socure supports identity verification for public programs, including Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account. A lengthy discussion followed about Real ID, state digital IDs, privacy, Fourth Amendment concerns, federal funding, and whether identity systems could become a national ID or surveillance tool. The presenters responded that states should retain control, that verifiable digital credentials can limit what information is shared, and that Arizona could centralize resident identity with privacy guardrails while preserving choice. The committee adjourned without further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• the need for the facility, which is to include an examination of alternatives, including, without limitation
• convincing evidence that the cost of the line and associated facilities allocated to West Virginia load-serving
• portion of the cost of construction, operation, or maintenance can be recovered from West Virginia load-serving
• commit and agree that, upon receipt of a valid and approved request to serve West Virginia retail load

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Energy, Industry and Mining Committee met with a quorum and took up the engrossed committee substitute for House Bill 4012. Counsel explained that the bill shortens several Public Service Commission timelines for certificates of public convenience and necessity, including deadlines for final decisions and final submissions, with different timeframes for smaller water/sewer projects and very large projects. The bill also requires applications to justify the need for a facility by examining alternatives, including advanced transmission technologies, and adds requirements for electric transmission lines of 200 kilovolts or greater, including a showing that costs are roughly commensurate with benefits to West Virginia ratepayers and commitments to build necessary off-take facilities when requested. The committee discussed the bill briefly, and no amendments were offered. The vice chair moved to report the bill to the full Senate without recommendation as to passage, but with a recommendation that it be re-referred to the Committee on Energy, Industry, and Mining. The motion passed by voice vote. After the bill was reported, no further business was brought before the committee. The vice chair then moved to adjourn, and the committee adjourned by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• But But, um, you limit that, right?
• :41.080> that The current administration limits that The current administration limits that you
• So, you're limited a quarter at a time.
• large loads.
• to deal with um large loads. to deal with um large loads.

Bills: SB8

Keywords: utilities, public service commission, energy regulation, appointment, emergency declaration, tax increases, consumer protection, The first couple minutes of the livestream was cut off. This recording restored the beginning of the meeting Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:51 Approval of Minutes 00:02:07 Legislator Comments 00:02:18 LIHEAP Public Hearing 00:04:19 PSC Update on RS 26 SB 8 00:32:18 WaterStep Presentation 01:04:08, 958, all