Transcript Highlights:

• Anyway, um, Chapter Ed 300 administrative minimum standards of public schools.
• Anyway, um chapter<00:23:14.559> ed<00:23:15.679> 300<00:23:16.400> administrative
• c><00:23:17.120> minimum chapter ed 300 administrative minimum chapter ed 300 administrative minimum

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the October 15 minutes and a brief discussion of the committee’s report process, including the likelihood of a minority report and a deadline of November 1 for any separate report. Members then heard from Jod Adams of the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools, who gave an overview of charter schools in the state: there are 37 charter schools, with 6,034 students last year, and schools are formed by certified teachers, parents, or nonprofit organizations. She said charter schools receive about $9,180 per pupil in adequacy aid and charter school grant funding, must fundraise for additional money, and are governed by their own boards under their charters and bylaws. Members asked about admissions, governance, transportation, and special education. Adams said charter schools are open enrollment, not geographically based, and may use lotteries when applications exceed available seats. She explained that districts and charter schools coordinate on special education and busing, with the sending district responsible for special education coordination and certain transportation obligations depending on where the student lives and attends. She also said charter schools are public schools, not selective, and that each school’s board operates independently of the local district school board, though some schools may have special arrangements. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on funding and statutory obligations. Adams and members discussed how special education aid follows the student, while charter schools do not receive some district-level aid such as catastrophic aid; free and reduced lunch funding and Title funds can go to charter schools. Members also raised concerns that some state laws and administrative rules do not clearly specify whether they apply to charter schools, creating confusion and, in some cases, causing districts to perform services such as dyslexia screening for charter students without additional funding. Adams agreed that clearer statutory language would help and noted that charter schools are subject to many state requirements, including testing and reporting, even though not every public-school rule applies to them.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chapter 5 is Department of State, yeah, so it'll probably be a Secretary of State.
• 02:45:26.399> a<02:45:26.600> cross<02:45:27.040> reference<02:45:27.920> chapter
• <02:45:28.319> five<02:45:28.560> is it's a cross reference chapter five is it's a
• cross reference chapter five is Department<02:45:29.120> of<02:45:29.279> State<02:45:29.920

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that actually was part of the beginning of the Wyoming Livestock Board's Chapter 15 trichomoniasis
• Livestock Board had been given the authority by the legislature to promulgate rules, I believe it was chapter
• to promulgate rules, I believe<01:59:46.800> it<01:59:47.040> was<01:59:47.199> chapter
• believe it was chapter 23 rules. Yes. believe it was chapter 23 rules.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chapter 49, 2010 House Bill 101 was the electricity generated from wind taxation.
• Chapter 104, 2020 House Bill 74, small modular nuclear reactor permitting, was adopted in 2020 and established
• Chapter<00:50:43.760> 104<00:50:44.960> uh<00:50:45.359> 2020's<00:50:46.160
• > House<00:50:46.400> Bill<00:50:47.119> 74<00:50:48.240> uh Chapter 104
• uh 2020's House Bill 74 uh Chapter 104 uh 2020's House Bill 74 uh small<00:50:48.800> modu<00:

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You filled me with hope about the next chapter of the great American story when you used your power to
• You filled me with hope about the next<07:39:10.000> chapter<07:39:10.478> of<07:39:10.638
• the<07:39:10.958> great<07:39:11.360> American<07:39:11.920> story next chapter
• of the great American story next chapter of the great American story when<07:39:13.120> you<07
• So as we navigate this dark chapter of our history, let us be guided by their persistence and inspired

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, July 14, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As he prepares to close this chapter, I want to thank Frank for his dedicated service to Bvard County
• His departure will be felt by everyone on Capitol Hill, but I know he will excel in his next chapter.
• , but I know he will excel in<07:33:47.200> his<07:33:47.360> next<07:33:47.600> chapter
• c> I<07:33:48.718> want<07:33:48.878> to<07:33:48.958> thank in his next chapter
• And I want to thank in his next chapter.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, May 7, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and I'm the vice president of public policy for the Alzheimer's Association, Minnesota North Dakota chapter
• costs outlined in article 6, sections 2 to 3, related to voluntary admissions or commitments under chapter
• Counties support the use of chapter 611 as an alternative to commitment.
• three related to voluntary admissions or commitments<01:13:00.400> under<01:13:00.719> chapter
• Counties support the use of chapter 611 as an alternative to commitment.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the bill itself is a change from what you see underneath that chapter law right now for the math learning
• The bill itself is a change from what you see underneath that chapter law right now for the math learning
• Then this bill, this legislation in this chapter of law, allows the amount to be due to the communities
• Then this bill, this legislation in this chapter of law, allows the amount to be due to the communities
• statement that any scholarship service provider that accepts payment from the program under this chapter

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met in executive session and first took up HB 193, which limits the maximum credits per course eligible for the Dual and Concurrent Enrollment Program. Representative Ladd said the bill clarifies that eligible courses may not exceed four credits and was requested by the community college system. Representative Earth offered an amendment to make the bill effective on passage, which the committee adopted 18-0. The committee then approved HB 193 as amended by an 18-0 OTPA vote and placed it on the consent calendar. The committee next retained HB 295, concerning School Building Aid program funds, after Representative Spillsbury said the building aid bills were complex and needed more work. The motion to retain passed 18-0, with the chair explaining that retained bills can be revisited later and that related language could be moved among building aid bills. HB 354 was not acted on because the chair said the Department of Education and others had suggested possible changes that should be worked out first. HB 366, another school building aid bill, was also retained 18-0 for the same reasons as HB 295. The committee then considered HB 494, which funds the math learning communities program. Representative Earth offered an amendment to flat-fund the program, reducing the proposed increase by a net $50,000 and keeping funding at current levels for the biennium. After discussion about budget pressures and the program’s role in supporting math instruction and professional development, the amendment passed 18-0, and the bill as amended was approved 18-0 and placed on consent. Finally, the committee took up HB 515, which would repeal charter public school eligibility for state school building aid. Representative Popovici-Muller moved inexpedient to legislate, arguing charter schools should not be treated differently from other public schools, while Representatives Luno and Damon opposed the motion, saying charter schools differ in governance and financial risk and should not receive limited state building aid. The motion failed 10-8, so HB 515 was sent to the regular calendar. The committee assigned Representative Damon to the minority report and Representative Popovici-Muller to the majority report, with a noon deadline the next day. The committee then began HB 716, an appropriation for the dual and concurrent enrollment program. Representative Ladd described the program as a successful affordability measure that saves families money and supports college access. Representative Earth offered an amendment to flat-fund the program at current levels, reducing the proposed increase by $500,000 in each year of the biennium. Shannon Reed of the Community College System said the change could limit enrollment or the number of funded courses, though students could still take additional courses at their own expense. Representative Ladd explained the program’s tuition structure and said the funding would help meet demand; the transcript cuts off before the final vote on HB 716.

Transcript Highlights:

• might be possible to add a section to the bill that creates a study committee to study the entire chapter
• might be possible to add a section to the bill that creates a study committee to study the entire chapter
• might be possible to add a section to the bill that creates a study committee to study the entire chapter
• <00:26:35.279> study<00:26:35.679> the<00:26:35.840> entire<00:26:36.679> chapter
• committee to study the entire chapter committee to study the entire chapter and<00:26:38.159>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session on a bill arising from the Lee case involving animal seizures and humane society involvement. Members and the commissioner discussed concerns about due process, lack of clear notice to animal owners, the need for owners to understand when they are surrendering ownership, and whether humane agents should have additional training or certification. Several members also questioned the role of the NH SPCA and humane societies, the absence of oversight, and whether there was any financial or policy conflict in their involvement. The commissioner said the Department of Agriculture does not have a direct relationship with humane societies, but does coordinate with police on seizures, and noted that problems tend to arise when agencies do not consult the department first. Testimony and discussion focused on possible fixes to the bill, including clearer written notice of rights, requiring a third-party qualified veterinarian or other neutral evaluator, establishing the condition of animals at the time of seizure for later court proceedings, and possibly using teleconferencing with a veterinarian in limited circumstances. Some members suggested the bill may need a broader study committee, while others said it should be amended now rather than delayed. The chair said the bill would be worked on further and sent to the subcommittee for more detailed review. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 250, which would allow local governing bodies to regulate dog muzzling. Representative Jodi Newell testified that the bill was intended to let municipalities respond to dangerous dogs, citing Keene’s attempt to require muzzling after a serious incident but lack of clear authority under current law. Deborah LeBlanc also testified about a dog attack that seriously injured her dog and said a muzzle requirement could have prevented the attack. Committee members asked about the incident, existing dog-control laws, and whether the dog had been leashed; the discussion suggested the bill was meant to clarify local authority over muzzling as a public safety measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• it's given to the parents of students who have exited a public school under the provisions of the chapter
• 03:44:40.080> provisions<03:44:40.520> of<03:44:40.680> the<03:44:40.840> chapter
• <03:44:41.199> so<03:44:41.399> they the provisions of the chapter so they the provisions
• of the chapter so they don't<03:44:42.279> survey<03:44:42.920> students<03:44:43.359>
• 15.638> this accept scholarship students under this accept scholarship students under this chapter

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first addressed House Bill 415, which would remove the requirement that schools provide menstrual products. Members supporting an ITL said the mandate was unfunded, had been in place since 2019, and was already working without complaints from districts. Other members opposed the bill, arguing menstrual products are essential and that the requirement helps students, especially those with fewer resources. The committee voted ITL on HB 415 by a roll call of 17 yeas, 0 nays. The committee then took up House Bill 388, concerning public reports on special education. Supporters of ITL said they agreed with the goal of transparency but were concerned about student privacy, especially in small districts, and thought the bill’s information requests went too far. They noted that related issues could potentially be addressed in another bill, HB 557. The committee voted ITL on HB 388, 17-0. House Bill 730, which would require schools and some colleges to provide information on adoption, was also moved ITL. The sponsor said adoption is personally important to him but that the bill was not the right vehicle and involved entities such as colleges and the Attorney General unnecessarily; he said related ideas might be folded into other bills later. The committee agreed and voted ITL, 17-0. The committee then discussed House Bill 671, a preschool/early literacy proposal involving a statewide nonprofit digital program, likely Waterford. Members raised questions about who would be covered, data privacy, prior use of federal ESSER funds, whether the program had measurable results, and whether the bill’s nonprofit requirement was too restrictive. Department of Education witness Melissa White said the state had spent $400,000 in FY22 and $600,000 in FY23 on a Waterford contract using ARP ESSER funds, but she did not have participant counts and said the department could not measure literacy gains for that population. She also said the bill’s funding level would likely require an RFP and that, if enacted as written, the program would probably still be Waterford-based. The discussion continued without a final vote in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• You will see the chapters are laid out in the table of contents when it talks to all the disciplines
• This brings us to the Chapter 159-G:6 exclusions section of this bill.
• Chapter 159-G:6, Roman numeral I, states: Quote, neither the court nor the Department of Safety shall
• I'm doing everything I can to stick to that. exclusions section of this bill chapter exclusions section
• of this bill chapter 159<06:00:30.718> G<06:00:31.120> colon<06:00:31.558> 6<06

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on House Bill 146, which would require longer retention and quicker disclosure of certain video recordings from traffic stops and similar motor vehicle violations when a citation is disputed. The prime sponsor described the bill as a response to a constituent who challenged a speeding ticket but could not obtain a cruiser video before it was deleted under the current 30-day retention practice. Supporters argued the bill is about fairness and access to potentially exculpatory evidence, and one member suggested a simple 60-day retention period might avoid confusion over different timelines. The sponsor also noted that the bill would not affect criminal cases and that victims and complainants should have access to the same evidence as law enforcement when a recording is relevant to a defense. Major Brendan Davey of the New Hampshire State Police testified in opposition. He said the proposal would create a different discovery standard for one type of evidence, could discourage agencies from adopting body-worn or cruiser cameras, and would add cost and administrative burden. He explained that the State Police already retain routine traffic-stop videos for at least 30 days, but keep videos much longer when complaints or possible litigation are involved, and said the current system balances efficiency with accountability. He also argued the underlying speeding case did not make the trooper video directly material to the citation, though he acknowledged the legislature could choose a longer blanket retention period if it wished. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee then opened a public hearing on House Bill 638, which would allow people serving life without parole sentences to become eligible for a parole hearing at age 60 after serving at least 18 years, provided they have had no major conduct violations in the prior 10 years. The sponsor said the bill is intended to give a narrow second look to a small number of elderly prisoners, citing the high cost of incarceration and the health challenges of aging in prison. He emphasized that the bill would not automatically release anyone, would not apply to capital murder convictions under RSA 630:1, and would still allow victims to participate in the parole process. Testimony on HB 638 was mixed. Alexander Bailey, a survivor of violent crime and domestic violence advocate, supported the bill, saying many survivors favor rehabilitation, second chances, and restorative justice, and that people in prison often age faster and face serious health and safety problems. Another supporter, Russell Roy, began offering a personal story about crime, addiction, and violence in Concord, but the transcript cuts off before his full remarks. Committee members asked about why age 60 was chosen, how released individuals would support themselves, and whether victims or families would be consulted; the sponsor said 60 was meant to limit eligibility and reflect the health realities of prison, and that parole boards already consider support networks and victim input. No action or vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And to quote from it, it says, "A health care provider aggrieved under this chapter may bring a civil
• 01:35:28.960> agreved<01:35:29.520> under<01:35:29.679> this<01:35:29.920> chapter
• <01:35:30.400> may provider agreved under this chapter may provider agreved under this chapter
• 01:36:12.719> agreved<01:36:13.360> under<01:36:13.679> this<01:36:13.920> chapter
• care provider agreved under this chapter care provider agreved under this chapter may<01:36:14.639

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the policy must also address and outline to its officers the ongoing standards enumerated in this chapter
• the policy must also address and outline to its officers the ongoing standards enumerated in this chapter
• the policy must also address and outline to its officers the ongoing standards enumerated in this chapter
• 01:28:12.080> enumerated<01:28:12.719> in<01:28:12.880> this<01:28:13.120> chapter
• <01:28:13.760> the standards enumerated in this chapter the standards enumerated in this chapter

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The opening of the Miller Family Health Center marks a new chapter of progress and preparedness for our
• Its new exhibit, America 250, A More Perfect Union, invites visitors to walk through the defining chapters
• :40:02.320> at<05:40:02.480> the<05:40:02.638> time<05:40:02.798> she chapter
• And she boasted at the time she chapter.
• Wooley chapter commander. General Lopez's service is beyond worthy of recognition by Congress.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• New Hampshire um that goes to the in New Hampshire um that goes to the Manchester<02:48:42.160> chapter
• <02:48:42.479> of<02:48:42.640> the Manchester chapter of the Manchester chapter of
• the New ascribed I'm not sure of the the New Hampshire<04:23:02.119> Nea<04:23:02.800> chapter
• <04:23:03.479> but<04:23:04.479> um<04:23:04.880> the Hampshire Nea chapter
• but um the Hampshire Nea chapter but um the national<04:23:05.439> Nea<04:23:05.880> has

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 232, which would protect health care workers’ conscience rights in connection with certain procedures, especially abortion and sterilization, and also referenced contraception. The prime sponsor, Rep. Mark Pearson, said the bill is meant to prevent medical professionals from being forced to participate in procedures that violate their beliefs, while still prohibiting discrimination against patients based on protected characteristics. He said the measure was intended to help retain health care workers in New Hampshire and noted he had added an amendment to address concerns about people taking jobs only to later refuse duties, as well as emergency situations where a provider is the only one available. Committee members raised concerns about how broadly the bill and amendment were written. Questions focused on whether the protections could apply to non-physician staff such as schedulers, receptionists, or pharmacy employees; whether a provider could refuse to schedule, refer, or otherwise assist with services; and how “emergency” would be determined in practice. Several members also questioned whether the bill could affect access to contraception, including pharmacy sales and procedures such as tubal ligation, and whether the language was clear enough to prevent confusion or unintended refusals of care. Pearson said the bill was not intended to allow refusal of emergency care or general patient discrimination, and he acknowledged some language could be tweaked. Rep. Paige Boerman, a maternal-child health nurse, testified in opposition, saying she had seen pharmacists question prescriptions related to miscarriage care and that the bill could create barriers to contraception and other reproductive health services. She warned that the lack of a disclosure requirement and the broad definitions could create risks, especially in rural areas with limited providers. She also pointed to problems she said had occurred in other states, arguing the bill could lead to delayed care in emergencies. The hearing ended after questions and discussion; no vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Persons holding such capital reserve funds and trust, as provided in this chapter, shall hold the same
• Persons holding such capital reserve funds and trust, as provided in this chapter, shall hold the same
• Persons holding such capital reserve funds and trust, as provided in this chapter, shall hold the same
• be exempt from the requirements<04:47:00.120> of<04:47:00.280> this<04:47:00.440> chapter
• of this chapter there's a similar<04:47:01.878> similar<04:47:02.240> provision<04:47:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 662, which would require public schools to include discussion of abortion procedures and show specified videos in health education classes. The prime sponsor argued the bill would ensure students receive medically accurate, age-appropriate, and nonpolitical information about abortion, saying the topic is important for informed decision-making and should be taught consistently statewide. He said the videos were intended for grades 9-12, that parents could opt out, and that the requirement was meant to supplement, not sway, students’ views. He also acknowledged the bill could be seen as limiting local control over curriculum and said the intent was to prevent the topic from being missed due to scheduling disruptions. Committee members questioned the sponsor about local control, the need for a video mandate, the source of his statistics, whether the bill could be biased or inflammatory, and whether the requirement should apply every year in high school. The sponsor said the videos were only a starting point, could be replaced by others, and were meant to be informational. He also said the bill was not intended to influence students’ decisions about abortion. Several supporters testified in favor, including representatives of New Hampshire Right to Life and others who said students should be told the “truth” about abortion and its consequences. They emphasized graphic or emotionally difficult aspects of abortion and argued that young people need this information to make informed choices. Opponents and skeptical witnesses raised concerns about prescribing curriculum, eroding local control, and the appropriateness of the material for younger high school students. The New Hampshire School Administrators Association said the bill was overly prescriptive, that health education standards are already set by the State Board of Education, and that the topics in the bill are not part of the current standards. That witness recommended the committee consider retaining the bill for further work or making it less prescriptive. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Environmental Policy Subcommittee took up HB 1621, which would require a baseline environmental impact study before development of certain manufacturing and storage facilities. Members said the concept had merit, but they could not resolve major drafting and implementation issues, including how to define covered facilities, what the study would require, and how enforcement would work at the municipal or county level. Several members expressed concern about unintended consequences and said the proposal was not ready; the subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend inexpedient to legislate (ITL), and the full committee later adopted that recommendation on a 16-0 roll call vote, placing the bill on consent. The committee then discussed HB 1053, involving electronically submitted pesticide use reports. Representative Comtois presented an amendment creating a department database and protecting confidential information, but said she still needed to check whether it was germane and to review administrative issues with the Department of Agriculture. After hearing from David Russo of the Division of Pesticide Control, the committee agreed to continue work on the amendment and took no action that day. The committee also reviewed HB 1186 on egg labeling and producer exemptions. Representative Comtois offered an amendment exempting small producers from most requirements except labeling, but Commissioner Sean Jasper asked for more time to review the impact and suggested the state might not need the existing egg law at all if federal USDA rules already cover the field. Members agreed to hold action until the following week. Finally, the committee began discussion of HB 1780 on penalties for violations involving seeds, plants, and nursery stock, focusing on labeling rules and germination-date requirements; testimony from industry and department representatives indicated they were working toward a compromise that would allow multiple relabelings, add production dates, and set a 36-month sale limit, but no final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• He has served as commander of the Space Coast chapter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and
• I wish her well in this next chapter and I thank her for her years of service. With that, Mr.
• I wish her well in this next chapter and I thank her for her years of service. With that, Mr.
• I wish her well in this next chapter and I thank her for her years of service. With that, Mr.
• about the next chapter of the United<05:06:43.280> States<05:06:43.520> engagement<05:

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, May 13, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The response was that custom slaughter is defined in statute and would be in the same chapter that this
• He said that custom slaughter is defined in statute and would be in the same chapter that this bill would

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee opened by noting member absences and then reviewed the governor’s HB 2 trailer bill language creating a solid waste site evaluation committee. The chair explained that Finance would want the committee’s input on the proposal and also announced a temporary change to the committee’s schedule, with additional Wednesday meetings planned around school vacation. The committee then moved into a work session on several bills. On HB 150, Representative Ktoa offered a simple amendment changing food-processing language from “washed and rinsed” to “cleaned and sanitized” in the processing area. Members agreed the change better matched food safety practice, and the committee indicated support for advancing the bill. On HB 307, dealing with homestead food production areas, members discussed proposed amendment language that would add clearer sanitary requirements, including handwashing access, sanitary storage, sanitizable food-contact surfaces, and pest exclusion. The committee also discussed whether to replace “potentially hazardous food” with “time temperature control safe food,” but several members favored keeping the existing term because it is already well defined in food safety law. The bill was held for further amendment work rather than being executed immediately. The committee spent substantial time on solid waste legislation. For HB 479, members recalled a prior plan for a letter to the solid waste working group and agreed to proceed with the bill in executive session, with an offer of drafting help from Representative Bixby. For HB 77, which would require DES to establish site-specific setback distances for proposed new landfills, Representative Penza said his amendment was not ready yet but was close, and the bill was left for further discussion. The most detailed discussion was on HB 2115, which would require landfill permit applicants to submit a report on the project’s harms and benefits. Representative Germana explained an amendment that would replace section one, expand the list of benefits to include economic potential and infrastructure improvements, and set up a third-party review process in which the applicant submits a list of reviewers, DES screens the list, and the commissioner selects a reviewer if no agreement is reached within 60 days. Members asked about who could serve as contractors, whether they had to be local, and how DES would judge qualifications; the response was that environmental engineering and similar firms could be used, local or outside the community, and that the process would remain somewhat flexible. Representative H. Haskins asked whether the legislature or subcommittee would be formally notified of preliminary review problems, and the chair said no additional notification process would be built in beyond existing practice. The committee planned to continue work on the bills in upcoming executive sessions, including after school break.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you want to review something on your own time, that Surface Owner Protection Act in Chapter 38 of
• Together, they are the foundation of the next chapter of North Dakota's economy.

Summary: The committee met at the Coteau Freedom Mine in Mercer County, approved the June 2 minutes, and heard an overview of the mine from Coteau Properties president Andrew Hawbaker. He described the Freedom Mine as the largest lignite mine in the United States, supplying coal to Dakota Gasification, Antelope Valley Station, and Leland Olds Station. He emphasized the mine’s scale, safety record, reclamation work, workforce needs, community involvement, and economic impact, including payroll, taxes, royalties, scholarships, and local hiring. Members asked about how long land stays in production, how quickly it returns to agriculture after reclamation, labor shortages, and how mining affects groundwater and water wells. Hawbaker said most tracts are mined for about three to five years, reclamation is coordinated with landowners, and the company continues to struggle to find electricians, welders, mechanics, operators, and engineers. The committee then heard from Public Service Commission Chairman Randy Christman on coal mining reclamation and permitting. He reviewed North Dakota’s coal mining history, the state’s reclamation laws, federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act primacy, bonding, permit renewals and revisions, prohibited mining areas, inspection and enforcement, and contemporaneous reclamation requirements. Christman stressed that North Dakota’s program is professional and thorough, with frequent inspections, financial assurance, and a 10-year revegetation monitoring period before bond release. He also discussed federal coal ownership issues that can delay mine plans, the treatment of prime farmland, and how reclamation differs for wind and pipelines. In response to questions, he said one challenge is sometimes releasing land too soon before long-term compaction issues are fully understood, and he noted that data centers do not currently have a comparable reclamation model because they typically own the land. In the afternoon, the committee received an update from Lignite Energy Council president Jonathan Fortner on the lignite industry. He said North Dakota’s lignite sector supports five commercial power plants, four mines, about 12,000 direct and indirect jobs, and more than $5.5 billion in economic activity, while helping keep the state’s electricity rates among the lowest in the nation. Fortner reviewed coal severance and conversion tax revenues, the lignite research fund, federal regulatory rollbacks, carbon capture policy, and the industry’s legal costs fighting federal rules. He also highlighted a study on large-load development, saying new data centers and critical mineral processing facilities could create major local tax revenue and help justify new baseload generation. Members asked whether new gas pipelines would crowd out coal plant development and whether the economic study included jobs and broader local impacts; Fortner said the industry sees room for both and that the study did include construction, operations, jobs, and tax effects.