Transcript Highlights:

• Tim, the only thing I would add to this is I think we need to, if we go into this, that that cap has
• So we've allowed this to occur within long-term care, and I don't remember what the cap is there, but
• We have to have some type of cap to begin with it.
• We have to have some type of cap to begin with it, at the very least, in my opinion.
• But that's, you know, and we could, I don't, I think developing a cap is not rocket science.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee began with roll call and a brief update on remaining work, then took up Senate Bill 2213, the “science of math” bill. Members clarified that the appropriation for the program was not included in the DPI budget and would remain attached to the policy bill for now. The committee adopted the amendment and then gave the bill a do pass recommendation, 21-2. The committee next considered Senate Bills 2036 and 2037, both juvenile justice/Human Services bills involving mental health and criminal responsibility evaluations for minors. Testimony explained that the bills create new processes and require DHS to contract with specialized providers, with appropriations of $500,000 in 2036 and $300,000 in 2037. Members debated whether the funding should come from existing DHS resources or remain as separate appropriations, and whether the programs were one-time or ongoing. The committee adopted amendments on both bills and then recommended both do pass, with 2036 passing 14-6 and 2037 passing 17-4. The committee then heard Senate Bill 2021, the Information Technology Department budget. Representative Bosch outlined major themes in the budget, including migration from PeopleSoft and the mainframe, onboarding/off-boarding automation, double-counting of IT spending, and the transition of education technology from PowerSchool to Infinite Campus. Members also discussed a study amendment related to a statewide enterprise resource planning system, and added language on grant management and compliance management. The committee adopted the amendments and gave the budget a do pass recommendation, 20-0-3. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 2011, the Highway Patrol budget. Representative Pyle explained the House changes, including shifting some one-time costs to the motor carrier electronic permit fund, funding for body armor, breath tests, road course resurfacing, fleet costs, handgun replacement, and carryover authority for federal technology funds. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed the budget 21-0-2. The committee then began Senate Bill 2399, a Human Services bill on Medicaid reimbursement for psychiatric residential treatment facilities, but deferred action after testimony from a facility representative and committee discussion about therapeutic leave days, reimbursement rates, and whether a cap on reimbursable days should be set in statute or rule. The chair said the committee would seek more information from DHS and take the bill up the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• We, I think, took your offers on the tuition cap, I'm sorry. And also the LME cap, I'm sorry.
• cap tuition cap,<00:31:13.919> I'm<00:31:14.080> sorry.
• And also um the LME uh cap, I'm sorry.
• is capped at the U of M Twin Cities.
• That obviously impacts the state grants at nonprofit colleges because our tuition cap is capped at the

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I do want to acknowledge that there were some other changes made on the cap on the developers fee, and
• <00:10:36.639> on some other changes made on the cap on some other changes made on the cap
• P-tabs are calculated at 1.15 per with a cap of 16,000 annually.
• Bingo is at 0.488 per with a cap of 17,600.
• of 16,000 annually Bingo per with a cap of 16,000 annually Bingo is<00:32:35.440> at is at is

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 169, which would change the tax structure for charitable gambling. Representative Robbins offered and the committee adopted the A1 author’s amendment, described as a technical correction to ensure sports-themed tip boards are not inadvertently taxed under the bill. Robbins then presented the bill as a way to replace the current tiered combined net receipts tax on charitable gambling with a flat 5% rate, arguing charities were being overtaxed and that prior promises of relief had not been fully delivered. Chair Stevenson pushed back on several of Robbins’ factual claims, correcting the record on the status of E-pull tabs, the share of charitable gambling revenue they represent, and the amount of tax relief already enacted in 2023 and 2024. He said E-tabs were not eliminated, that the revenue split between paper pull tabs and E-tabs is closer to 45/55, and that charities had already received a $15 million tax cut plus savings from reduced developer fees. Robbins responded that the changes still significantly reduced revenue and that the bill was intended as a middle-ground approach. Testimony largely came from charitable gambling and veterans groups in support of the bill. Rachel Jenner of Allied Charities of Minnesota said nearly 1,000 charities depend on charitable gambling, cited high taxes and fees, and said many organizations were seeing revenue declines after the new E-pull tab rules took effect. Dr. Christy Jano of the American Legion Department of Minnesota said charitable gambling funds support veterans, youth, and community programs, and that a flat 5% tax would help posts continue those efforts. Members asked about the size of the revenue drops and how much gambling proceeds go to overhead and operating costs; Jenner said the losses varied by organization and that it was too early to know the long-term effect, while Jano said some expenses are used for property taxes and building upkeep. The committee then moved on to additional testimony, including Tim Angstrom, but no final vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• CBCs understand what their operational and admin caps are, you know, funding is.
• CBCs understand what their operational and admin caps are, you know, funding is.
• have multiple DCF contracts, does that impact their cap?
• What is the statutory cap on executive compensation? You're recognized.
• And you said a moment ago, though, that if a CBC has multiple contracts, they can exceed that cap.

Summary: The Human Services Subcommittee met with a quorum present and took up a presentation from the Department of Children and Families on HB 7089, which revises how Florida’s community-based care (CBC) lead agencies for child welfare are funded. Representative McFarland described the bill’s background, arguing that the prior formula relied too heavily on outdated, static factors and produced inequities among CBCs. She emphasized that the new approach is intended to provide a more stable, transparent, and statute-based funding method that better supports prevention, case management, and family services while reducing year-to-year political uncertainty. DCF Chief of Staff Casey Penn explained that HB 7089 required an actuarially sound, reimbursement-based formula developed with CBC and provider input. The new model uses a cost-based structure with three tiers: Tier 1 for operational and administrative costs, Tier 2 for per-child/per-month service costs, and a possible Tier 3 incentive component for performance measures if the Legislature chooses to fund it. The model includes regional growth factors, inflation adjustments, a 2% risk corridor for Tier 2, a hold-harmless provision for agencies that would otherwise receive less than prior funding, and the ability for CBCs to retain some state general revenue savings. DCF said the model produced a total budget need of about $1.392 billion, roughly $28.6 million above the prior year after offsets, and that the department is also updating its child welfare case management system to improve data quality and future modeling. Members asked about whether prevention spending is captured, how Tier 3 incentives would work and how much they might cost, how the formula accounts for insurance, hurricanes, child acuity, and staffing costs, and whether CBC executives’ compensation is capped. DCF said prevention is included in the model but is not yet separately broken out due to data limitations, Tier 3 is optional and not yet costed, and the formula can incorporate additional growth factors if needed. On executive pay, DCF explained that compensation is limited by statute for CBC contracts, but multiple contracts and non-state funding sources can affect total compensation; staff later clarified that CBC CEOs with multiple contracts had been reviewed for compliance. The meeting ended after questions, and Representative Miller moved to adjourn; the subcommittee adjourned without any vote on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe their testimony was such that a five-month cap, or maybe a five-times cap, would be more appropriate
• I believe their testimony was such that a five-month cap, or maybe a five-times cap, would be more appropriate
• Help me understand the $1,000 cap.
• Help me understand the $1,000 cap so it would...
• Help me understand the $1,000 cap so it would...

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate VMAP Committee met with a quorum and heard three bills. Senate Bill 144, sponsored by Senator Danny Carroll, would require destruction of firearms used in homicides and allow destruction of certain defaced, hazardous, unsafe, or owner-requested firearms, while prohibiting agencies from intentionally damaging firearms before transfer and requiring written agency policies. Senator Tichenor asked about lost auction revenue; KSP said it could not track homicide weapons separately, that auctions bring in about $1.2 million annually, and that most proceeds support Kentucky Homeland Security. Senators Boswell and others said they generally oppose destroying firearms but supported moving the bill forward; the bill passed favorably with no nays. House Bill 191, sponsored by Representative Aaron Thompson and presented with state and veterans’ officials, would align Kentucky law with federal changes to allow additional burials in state veteran cemeteries for certain National Guard and Reserve veterans, their spouses, and dependents who were not previously eligible. Testimony explained the bill would cover veterans who served in reserve components without Title 10 activation, including those who assisted during floods, fires, and tornadoes, and clarified eligibility rules for spouses and children. Senators asked about minimum service and dependent eligibility, and the committee passed the bill favorably and unanimously. Senate Bill 198, sponsored by Senator David Yates, addressed protection of veterans’ benefits by regulating third-party claims consultants. The committee adopted a substitute adding definitions and accreditation-related provisions, and Yates said the bill was intended to curb abusive fee practices and direct penalties to the special license plate fund for veterans. He explained the bill’s fee limits, including a cap tied to three times the monthly increase in benefits and an overall ceiling, while senators questioned whether the cap might discourage good actors and how the dollar limits would work. A veteran witness, Bob Casher, supported the bill and urged more public information on free claims assistance; the committee held further action while allowing guest comments, and the discussion focused on balancing consumer protection with access to legitimate consultants.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> 6 million is the cap. >> Is the cap.
• >> 6 million is the cap. >> Is the cap.
• >> 6 million is the cap. >> Is the cap.
• >> 6 million is the cap. >> Is the cap.
• That was a cap. cap. cap.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• C-CAP for less than $100,000 a year. C-CAP for less than $100,000 a year.
• cases involving centers billing C-CAP cases involving centers billing C-CAP over<00:37:18.800>
• of 2019, there's only been two C-CAP of 2019, there's only been two C-CAP cases<01:08:23.880>
• So, members, um, I did a FOIA request. um boom, start billing C-CAP again. um boom, start billing C-CAP
• unique<01:19:48.720> C-CAP unique C-CAP unique C-CAP children<01:19:50.680> served.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that the cap on...? So, that retainer is the cap on the spending, or is it...?
• It would be the cap during that two-year spending.
• I have not approached that cap with this firm at all.
• I believe we had to get extra money on one or two occasions at a different time, but we've set the cap
• We've set the cap a little higher so that we don't have to do that anymore.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman—I think what this bill is doing is it's capping all of us.
• That's why he got these caps. What I'm saying is, I'm not speaking for him.
• Put a cap. That means we'll have to put a cap also on the private money to be fair.
• Does that mean we all should put a cap on the other people with their hands in the pot?
• The last thing we want to hear is a cap.

Bills: SB210, SB225, HB280, HB287, HB94, HB88, SB157, HB7, HB8, HB42

Keywords: hospital liens, medical billing, government healthcare, insurance claims, patient rights, blood tests, DUI, law enforcement, traffic offenses, chemical analysis, public nuisance, event liability, local government, community health, legal action, transparency, reporting, public safety, regulation, accountability

Transcript Highlights:

• senators have CAP program in their district.
• senators have CAP program in their district.
• Had the CAP program all over our counties and um most of the senators have CAP program in their district
• CAP-HC was a recipient of the Getting to Work grant in 2024 to 25.
• CAP-HC was a recipient of the Getting to Work grant in 2024 to 25.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They just have to prepare a recommendation that meets the cap. >> Yep.
• included in the spending under the cap. included in the spending under the cap.
• . cap. cap.
• And so the FACTS could decide that a budget cap was advisable as part of the mission or a tax cap or
• And so the FACTS could decide that a budget cap was advisable as part of the mission or a tax cap or

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We reduced the ask for salaries down to, we're capping it at 10% of the current budget.
• It's a 10% cap. That is correct, yeah. Okay. Members, we do have some questions.
• Language that limits the, that caps the raises that people could receive from this appropriation.
• Do you speculate that he would agree to some kind of cap, either a percentage cap, or—I was even thinking
• Yeah, I do not believe that the treasurer would be opposed to conversations about a cap.

Keywords: 1204, all

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So there's already a cap there.
• So there's already a cap there.
• So there's already a cap there. When we procure these assets... So there's already a cap there.
• from the cap.
• , lift the $1,000 cap on residential solar tax credits, lift the $40 cap on Mass Class One RECs, and

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on H. 4144, the Governor’s Energy Affordability, Independence, and Innovation Act, with the administration arguing the bill would lower bills in the short and long term while expanding clean energy supply and innovation. The Governor and Secretary said the bill would reduce or restructure charges on customer bills, reform Mass Save, expand securitization as a financing tool, speed interconnection, create energy-ready zones, strengthen consumer protections in competitive supply, and allow broader state procurement of energy resources. They said the package could save consumers billions over time and would help address high energy costs, especially during extreme heat and winter spikes. Committee members pressed the administration on several provisions, especially securitization, asking whether the bill requires an apples-to-apples comparison of total costs over time, including interest and lost tax revenue, versus paying through rates. Administration witnesses said DPU review and public comment would be required and said they would work to clarify the language if needed. Members also questioned the bill’s solar and procurement provisions, including reduced net metering compensation for some large facilities, the scope of all-resource procurements, and whether hydro, solar, and nuclear would be included; the administration said those resources were contemplated and that procurement would still be reviewed by DPU. Other questions focused on the short-term relief from bill changes, the treatment of low- and moderate-income discounts, and whether the bill’s heat pump and Mass Save reforms would help customers who cannot afford upfront costs. Several witnesses and committee members discussed Mass Save reforms, including securitization of program costs, on-bill financing, pre-approval of rebates, and shifting program administration away from gas utilities. Administration witnesses said the changes were intended to reduce volatility, lower administrative costs, and better align costs with long-term savings. Questions also touched on geothermal permitting, municipal participation in offshore wind procurement, and the proposed repeal of the ballot requirement for nuclear power, which the administration defended as preserving future options under heavy review. No votes were taken during the hearing portion described. Supportive testimony came from labor, environmental, business, planning, and development groups. The AFL-CIO, NECA, and the Environmental League of Massachusetts backed the bill, emphasizing lower bills, job creation, labor standards, just transition protections, and cleaner energy. NAIOP, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, and MAPC supported provisions on energy-ready zones, interconnection reform, microgrids, extreme-heat shutoff protections, and Mass Save improvements. A HEET representative praised the bill’s use of securitization, geothermal, and utility financing tools but urged guardrails and workforce protections. Overall, testimony was broadly favorable, with most witnesses calling for refinements rather than opposing the bill outright.

Transcript Highlights:

• current caps for salary increases that could happen in a fiscal year?
• So it doesn't change the cap on a salary increase.
• But it doesn't move anything above the cap. Just a quick follow-up, Mr. Chair, if I may.
• But it doesn't move anything above the cap. Just a quick follow-up, Mr. Chair, if I may.
• But it doesn't move anything above the cap. Just a quick follow-up, Mr. Chair, if I may.

Keywords: Consideration of HB 491 02:14 Consideration of HB 738 07:58 Guest presentation by Taiwan Consul General Elliott Wang 25:20 Consideration of HCR 50 36:37 Consideration of SB 19 49:29, 958, all

Summary: The House State Government Committee met with a quorum and first considered House Bill 491 by Representative Steve Riley. The committee adopted a proposed committee substitute, then heard that the bill would raise the threshold for certain capital project and equipment purchases from $200,000 to $500,000, remove a requirement for a special board meeting when replacing a board of regents member, allow certain employees or contractors to perform capital construction work up to $500,000, remove limits on retired police officers working at postsecondary institutions, and speed release of pension information to employers. Members asked about reporting and oversight of the higher threshold, and the witness said the records are maintained by institutions and available upon request. HB 491 passed on a 19-0 roll call vote. The committee then heard House Bill 738 by Representative Griffey, relating to state personnel and the constitutional officers. The bill would give independently elected constitutional officers more flexibility to hire unclassified employees and set salaries for classified employees up to the midpoint without Personnel Cabinet approval, while leaving pay scales, appropriations, and funding limits unchanged. Representative Griffey and witnesses from the auditor’s office said the measure was intended to reduce red tape, address salary compression, improve pay equity, and help recruit and retain staff; they also said it would allow offices to fill policy roles needed for audits and other work. Members questioned the fiscal note, salary caps, and whether the bill would affect future budget requests. The bill passed 18-1, with one pass, and the chair noted it would move favorably to the House floor. After those bills, the committee briefly welcomed Taiwan’s consul general, Elliot Wang, and Representative Adam Bowling spoke about Kentucky’s relationship with Taiwan, including trade, investment, and prior assistance during disasters. Wang described Taiwan’s economic ties with the United States, ongoing trade and investment developments, defense and education cooperation, and people-to-people exchange programs, noting Kentucky was the first state to sign an education cooperation MOU with Taiwan in 2021.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a schedule, and those represent rate caps. So...
• My information is that cap credit card interchange fees at 0.3%. Is that correct?
• We don't, I don't find any capping that we're doing.
• We're not capping anything; we're taking something out.
• In Europe, they capped the rates at 0.3%.

Bills: SB231, SB584, SB600, SB668, SB841, SB986, SB1003, SB1244, SB1625, SB1960, SB1963, SB1964, SB2026, SB2056, SB2368

Keywords: temporary emergency electric energy facility, temporary generation, emergency power, backup generation, mobile generator, portable generator, grid resilience, power outage restoration, transmission and distribution utility, TDU, Public Utility Commission of Texas, PUCT, Utilities Code Section 39.918, competitive bidding, lease authorization, emergency procurement, bulk power system, locational marginal pricing, reliability model, black start

Transcript Highlights:

• HERE'S WHAT THE BILL PROPOSES: IT RAISES THE CAP ON SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY TO $500,000 PER PERSON AND $1
• AGAINST A PRIVATE ONE AND GIVES GOVERNMENT ENTITIES THE OPTIONS TO SETTLE LEGITIMATE CLAIMS ABOVE THE CAP
• GOD BLESSED THEM, BUT THERE'S ENOUGH MONEY FOR THE CAP TO GO UP TOO.
• WE KNOW IF THE INCREASING CAPS GO IN WE WILL SEE AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF CASES.
• WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT INCREASING CAPS, THE MONEY YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS YOUR MONEY TOO.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, last year we ran a piece of legislation that capped the surcharge at 2% on the customer for
• So the cap is only what they're being charged by the credit card company.
• The cap is at 2% or whatever they're being charged by the credit card company, whichever is higher.
• It would be to raise the cap so it'll be the actual charge, not greater than a cap.
• I mean, if we want to put a cap on that, you know, like I said, I'm willing to do that, but the whole

Bills: HB3041, HB4428, HB4429, HB1064, HB3265, HB3721, HB3028, HB3313, HB3588, HB3020

Keywords: credit card transactions, payment methods, service charge, consumer rights, financial regulation, public finance, pension, pension fund, retirement system, board of trustees, proxy voting, proxy proposal, shareholder vote, shareholder activism, fiduciary duty, pecuniary factors, nonpecuniary factors, ESG, environmental social governance, social goals

Transcript Highlights:

• I think our cap, our MSRP cap, should be raised on the price of a vehicle, and it including just like
• I don't think we should do income caps at this stage.
• And then in addition to that, we also have 177 million proposed as part of the CAP program.
• And I think the intention for most people when they thought of cap-and-invest, cap-and-trade at the time
• And I think the intention for most people when they thought of cap-and-invest, cap-and-trade at the time

Summary: The meeting began with a budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit trailer bill. Assembly Members Ávila Farías and another member spoke in support, emphasizing union jobs, refinery investments, and the need to decarbonize aviation. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s proposal would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold in California from 2026 to 2036. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it is a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions, has uncertain environmental benefits, could significantly reduce transportation revenues, and conflicts with the spirit of voter restrictions on transportation taxes. Committee members questioned whether the credit would mainly benefit out-of-state producers, whether firms would have diesel tax liability to use the credit, and whether the proposal would shift production away from renewable diesel and raise fuel prices. Administration and CARB staff said the credit is intended to support aviation decarbonization, preserve jobs, and help keep California on track toward its 2045 climate goals. LAO and UC Berkeley testimony countered that the policy could mostly subsidize existing technologies, that feedstock supply is limited, and that the net emissions benefit may be small relative to the cost. Members also asked about the effect on local streets and roads, SHOP, and trade corridor funding; Finance estimated a $165 million annual revenue impact would reduce those programs, while LAO said the reductions would mean fewer projects over time. No vote was taken, and the chair said the issue would remain open for further discussion. The committee then moved to a zero-emission vehicle incentive trailer bill proposing a one-time $200 million appropriation to CARB for a new point-of-sale incentive program focused on first-time buyers and leases of new and used light-duty ZEVs. Supporters said the program would help offset the loss of the federal EV tax credit, maintain momentum in California’s ZEV transition, and use a one-to-one match with participating automakers to double the state’s investment. LAO recommended rejection, saying the proposal does not meet the high budget bar this year, lacks enough program detail to evaluate, is unlikely to move sales significantly given the size of the appropriation, and could duplicate existing state and utility programs. Members asked about current incentives across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty sectors, the recent decline in ZEV sales, and whether the program would help lower-income buyers rather than subsidize purchases that would have happened anyway. CARB said the proposal is meant to fill a gap in the light-duty market, where sales fell sharply after the federal credit expired, and noted existing programs for other vehicle classes. The Department of Finance also addressed a separate question about the Motor Vehicle Account, saying a previously planned GGRF transfer was no longer needed because updated forecasts showed the fund had sufficient balances, though LAO said the account still has a structural long-term imbalance. The discussion ended before any vote or action on the ZEV proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• Caps total credits at $20 million annually with carryover provisions.
• Caps total credits up to $2 per gallon.
• Really though, we're not looking at it as only supporting what is going to be capped, right?
• . cap. cap.
• We're looking at this capped, right?

Bills: HB1986, HB1694, HB1695, HB2030, HB1673

Keywords: clean fuel standard, alternative fuels, carbon intensity, emission reduction, greenhouse gases, transportation, sustainable aviation fuel, tax credit, greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy, Hawaii, economic development, carbon footprint, aviation sector, renewable fuels, local production, energy resilience, agricultural innovation, job creation, clean vehicles

Summary: The committee on Energy and Environmental Protection heard testimony on three measures related to cleaner fuels. On HB 1986, which would require the Department of Transportation to adopt rules for a clean fuel standard by January 1, 2028 and include reporting and public informational sessions, testimony was largely supportive from state commissions, fuel companies, airlines, and other industry and advocacy groups. Supporters said the bill would create a long-term framework for reducing emissions and developing cleaner fuels in Hawaii. Opposition came from Energy Justice Network, which argued that so-called clean fuels are not carbon-free, would be costly, and could delay a needed transition to electrification. The department later said it was monitoring the bill and was concerned about costs. No vote or final action was taken in the hearing. The committee then heard HB 1694, a sustainable aviation fuel tax credit bill that would provide a per-gallon credit for SAF, cap annual credits at $20 million, require reporting, and sunset in 2035. The Department of Taxation testified on administration, while the Department of Transportation said it supported the measure as a short-term strategy to jump-start SAF until the clean fuel standard ramps up. Airlines, fuel companies, the Hawaii Food Industry Association, the Hawaii Renewable Fuels Coalition, and others supported the bill, saying it would send a market signal, help close the cost gap with conventional jet fuel, and encourage local production and investment. Opponents, including Energy Justice Network, Life of the Land, and Ted Metros, argued the bill would be expensive, could lock in a transitional fuel system, and would not produce enough fuel to meet demand. Committee members asked about the likely impact and the share of total fuel demand the credit could support; DOT said the supported gallons would be only a very small percentage of annual demand and that the credit was intended to work alongside the future clean fuel standard. Finally, the committee took up HB 1695 HD1 on renewable fuel, which expands the renewable fuels production tax credit. Testimony was again mixed but generally supportive from the Department of Transportation, Department of Taxation, Island Energy Services, airlines, the Tax Foundation, Pana Pacific, and the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Supporters said the measure would encourage local feedstock production, create agricultural opportunities, and help attract investment in renewable fuels. Pana Pacific requested an amendment to explicitly include camelina in the definition of renewable feedstocks. Opponents, including Energy Justice Network and Life of the Land, repeated concerns about cost, imported feedstocks, and the risk of undermining full electrification goals. The hearing transcript does not show any vote or final committee action on HB 1694 or HB 1695 HD1.