Transcript Highlights:

• For DWP, we at the PUC do not.
• and when we speak to PUC decision makers.
• when we speak to PUC decision makers.
• To address this structural flaw in the PUC process, the legislature should direct the PUC to routinely
• And the PUC picked 10.03.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing focused on electric rates, utility regulation, affordability, wildfire costs, and the California Public Utilities Commission’s role. Chair and members framed the discussion around the challenge of transitioning to a cleaner grid while maintaining reliability and keeping bills affordable. The hearing also served as the annual update from the CPUC and the Public Advocates Office, with testimony from Professor Severin Borenstein and CPUC President-designate Alice Reynolds. Borenstein gave a primer on utility regulation, explaining that generation is largely deregulated while transmission and distribution remain regulated, and that most rate-setting follows cost-of-service regulation. He emphasized that the hardest issue is setting the allowed return on equity: too high can raise bills and encourage capital-heavy spending, while too low can deter investment and harm reliability. He argued there is no silver bullet, said performance-based regulation and price caps have limits, and suggested some costs now charged through electric bills—such as climate programs, low-income subsidies, and wildfire-related public policy costs—might more appropriately be paid through the state budget. Reynolds described the CPUC’s oversight role, saying the commission reviews utility spending through general rate cases, balancing accounts, and other proceedings, and that affordability is addressed through front-end scrutiny, post-spend accountability, and legislative direction. She highlighted wildfire mitigation as a major driver of rate increases, noted recent progress on clean energy procurement and battery storage, and said the CPUC is working on return-on-equity decisions, FERC advocacy on transmission costs, and implementation of SB 254 and other statutes. Members pressed on a range of issues, including wildfire securitization, load growth from EVs and data centers, gas-system stranded assets, balancing accounts, and a water-service dispute in Keene involving Union Pacific. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with several follow-up commitments from the CPUC to provide data and updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• For DWP, we at the PUC do not.
• and when we speak to PUC decision makers.
• when we speak to PUC decision makers.
• To address this structural flaw in the PUC process, the legislature should direct the PUC to routinely
• And the PUC picked 10.03.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Barksdale English with the PUC, I think... Go ahead.
• Barksdale English with the PUC.
• This is Barksdale English with the PUC.
• Thanks for the question, Barksdale English, PUC.
• The PUC has a tough job.

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• For DWP, we at the PUC do not.
• and when we speak to PUC decision makers.
• To address this structural flaw in the PUC process, the legislature should direct the PUC to routinely
• The PUC should apply heightened scrutiny.
• And the PUC picked 10.03.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing focused on electric rates, utility regulation, affordability, reliability, and wildfire-related costs. The chair framed the discussion around the challenge of transitioning to a cleaner grid while keeping bills affordable and the system reliable, and noted the hearing also served as the annual update from the CPUC and Public Advocates Office. Professor Severin Borenstein gave a primer on utility regulation, explaining the split between deregulated generation and regulated transmission/distribution, the basics of cost-of-service regulation, and the role of return on equity. He argued that high allowed returns can encourage capital-intensive spending and that many public policy costs now embedded in rates would be better funded through the state budget, while warning that price caps or performance-based regulation are not silver bullets. CPUC President-designate Alice Reynolds described the commission’s role as economic regulator of investor-owned utilities and said affordability is being addressed through rate case scrutiny, reasonableness reviews, and legislative direction. She said wildfire mitigation and insurance costs have been major drivers of rate increases, but some wildfire-related costs are time-limited and will roll off rates over time. She also highlighted progress on clean energy procurement, battery storage growth, and integrated resource planning to meet climate goals while maintaining reliability. Reynolds said the CPUC is reviewing utility spending, disallowing imprudent costs where appropriate, and litigating at FERC to challenge transmission costs. Members pressed both witnesses on several issues, including whether rates are being inflated by legislative mandates and balancing accounts, whether utility returns are too high, and whether the state should shift more public-policy costs off electric bills and into the General Fund. Senators also raised concerns about load growth from data centers and ports, gas-system stranded assets as electrification advances, and whether the CPUC is over-regulating or discouraging innovation. Reynolds said the CPUC is working with the Energy Commission, CAISO, and the Air Resources Board on a holistic planning process, and pointed to tools such as interconnection reforms and demand flexibility. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with several follow-up requests for reports and data.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next we have Hawaii Kids Can. Hawaii Kids Can. Aloha, Vice Chair Tak.
• I'm from Hawaii Kids Can.
• AES Hawaii was next in support.
• Hawaii Farm Bureau in support. The Hawaii Farm Bureau stands on its written testimony.
• Hawaii Farm Bureau in support.

Committee: House Finance

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, it requires the PUC to re-evaluate the 4CP and directs the PUC to adopt rule changes regarding
• We're going to start with PUC and ERCOT, so have your questions ready.
• It's outside of the PUC process.
• So my question is, is the PUC timeline a detriment?
• process at the PUC to resolve the more technical considerations.

Bills: SB6 , SB11 , SB33

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: electric power, interconnection, utilities, ERCOT, large load customers, water supply, sewer service, demand management, school prayer, Bible reading, religious text, public schools, Texas Education Code, student prayer, silent prayer, meditation, religious liberty, First Amendment, Establishment Clause, church and state

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is a process that already exists in the PUC.
• And when we were asked to implement your bill and the PUC...
• No party rebutted that analysis in the PUC proceeding, and the PUC itself completely ignored this argument
• So the PUC process is just quite faulty.
• The PUC is currently considering a uniform methodology, correct?

Summary: The committee heard several energy-related bills, with AB 1715 drawing the most discussion. That bill would require the CPUC to create a searchable database of utility advice letters, protests, responses, and resolutions going back to 2020, and to require utilities to report state, federal, and other public financing so ratepayer savings from loans, grants, and similar funding can be tracked and passed through. The author and TURN said the bill is aimed at transparency, affordability, and preventing double recovery; committee amendments removed some language, and labor said the amendments would remove its opposition. Senators pressed on how “financial benefits” would be defined and whether the bill would require refunds to ratepayers, and the author said the CPUC would determine the details. The bill was later moved out of committee on a do-pass-as-amended vote to Appropriations. AB 1301, a CPUC/Public Utilities Code cleanup bill, was presented as a housekeeping measure to remove obsolete references, align deadlines, eliminate duplicative requirements, and extend the Energy Conservation Assistance Act sunset. The Public Advocates Office and Golden State Power Cooperatives supported it, and the committee advanced it do-pass as amended to Appropriations. AB 2463, which would require the CPUC to disclose the models and analysis used to set utility authorized return on equity, was described as a transparency measure for a process that is currently a “black box.” EDF and the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition supported the bill, while members noted the importance of understanding how utility profits are set; it also passed to Appropriations. AB 1813, on community solar and storage, generated substantial debate. The author said the bill is intended to fix a CPUC program that he argued is unworkable and inconsistent with the Legislature’s earlier direction, while supporters including San Diego Community Power, TURN, and many clean energy, labor, and local-government groups said it would make community solar viable for renters and others who cannot install rooftop solar. Opponents, including the Public Advocates Office, Southern California Edison, SDG&E, and PG&E, argued it would raise rates, create cost shifts to non-participating customers, and conflict with a recently adopted CPUC decision. The bill was moved out on a do-pass-as-amended vote to Appropriations, with some senators indicating support but also concern about affordability and pending amendments. AB 2111, which would require the CPUC to plan transmission using multiple demand and resource scenarios instead of a single forecast, was supported as a way to reduce bottlenecks, improve reliability, and avoid costly under-planning as electrification grows. Supporters said better scenario planning would help avoid transmission constraints that block new generation, while the committee raised questions about cost impacts and the role of current CPUC planning processes. The bill passed to Appropriations. The committee also took up AB 2266, which would consolidate related CPUC compliance reporting, require consistent reliability valuation across programs, and direct an evaluation if CAISO uses backstop procurement; supporters said it would reduce confusion and improve consistency, while opponents warned against forcing one valuation method across different resource types. AB 2266 was also moved to Appropriations. Finally, AB 2175 was taken up on consent and advanced without discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• ERCOT and the challenges we've had there, but the PUC...
• Has Sunset done that with the PUC? Yes, they have.
• The PUC now has stronger oversight. Of ERCOT?
• A lot of people didn't even know who the PUC was until Beryl.
• is reinstilling faith in the public's trust in the PUC.

Committee: Senate Nominations

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Keywords: HI Senate YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8tQ_IM11lI, 2026-07-02T01:22:43+00:00, 2.2.24, Data collected via generic collector engine, This video was aired on Olelo Channel 49 on April 9th, 2020. Footage courtesy of Olelo Community Media. Agenda The special committee will convene to assess and advise the Senate regarding the State of Hawaii's COVID-19 plans and procedures to include, but not limited to: 1) Confirm the development of the state departmental plans and procedures; 2) Review and assess current state departmental plans and procedures; 3) Review and assess whether state departmental plans and procedures are properly and timely implemented to safeguard public health and safety; and 4) To communicate and disseminate information obtained therefrom. The special committee will be meeting with the following: 11:00 a.m. Department of Labor and Industrial Relations Mr. Scott Murakami, Director 12:00 p.m. Governor's Coordinator on Homelessness Mr. Scott Morishige Behavioral Health Services Administration Mr. Edward Mersereau, Deputy Director Partners in Care Ms. Laura E. Thielen, Executive Director 1:00 p.m. Releasing of incarcerated persons Honorable Daniel Foley (Ret.), Special Master 2:00 p.m. Department of Public Safety Mr. Nolan Espinda, Director Please note that there may be committee members or invited speakers participating remotely via video or teleconference. Meeting of the Special Committee Senate State of Hawaii COVID-19 Friday, March 27, 2020 The meeting will be available for live viewing on Olelo Channel 49 on Oahu and will go out live for pick up by neighbor island public access channels. It will also be live-streamed via http://olelo.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=13. No public testimony will be accepted. If you require special assistance, please call 586-6800 or email your request to waysandmeans@capitol.hawaii.gov. -End of Agenda-, 912, senate, all, 2.2.42, 2.1.47

Transcript Highlights:

• That's 60 days before the PUC makes a decision.
• It's not clear, and we'll have PUC up a little later.
• I do want PUC and TCEQ’s resource witness to show up.
• I do want PUC and TCEQ’s resource witness to show up.
• So we've kind of fast-tracked that through PUC and TCEQ when a, that through PUC and TCEQ when a provider

Bills: SB863 , SB1190 , SB1261 , SB1413 , SB1624 , SB1662 , SB1663 , SB1855 , SB1967 , SB2124 , SB2204 , SB1623

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Keywords: Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, water loss, municipally owned utilities, Texas Water Development Board, administrative penalties, water audit, water infrastructure, water supply, state water plan, water management strategies, water financing, municipal bonds, revenue bonds, public debt, obligations, TWDB

Summary: The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs heard several water-related bills, with testimony focused on drinking water quality, groundwater contamination notice, flood infrastructure funding, water rights conservation, and utility service areas. SB 1662 would limit TCEQ’s advance notice to public water systems to no more than 24 hours before testing after a consumer complaint, to reduce the chance of temporary treatment affecting results. SB 1663 would allow TCEQ to notify private well owners, groundwater conservation districts, and nearby residents by direct means about known groundwater contamination, rather than relying mainly on first-class mail and annual reporting. SB 2124 would move the deadline for publishing the Texas Groundwater Protection Committee’s annual report from April 1 to June 1. Witnesses on the first two bills described long-running water quality problems and delayed notice in their communities and supported the measures. No opposition was recorded, and each bill was left pending for a later vote. The committee also heard SB 1967, which would expand eligibility for Flood Infrastructure Fund financing to multipurpose projects that both reduce flooding and create water supply. Senator Hinojosa and Hidalgo County representatives described the Delta Reclamation Project as a shovel-ready example that would capture flood and drainage water, treat it, and produce new potable supply while also providing detention and flood mitigation. A Sierra Club witness also supported the bill, saying such projects could help manage floodwaters and reduce polluted discharges to bays and estuaries. The bill was left pending. A lengthy and divided discussion followed on SB 1413, which would expand the streamlined expedited release process for landowners seeking removal from a water or sewer CCN in additional counties. Senator Nichols said the bill was a property-rights measure aimed at legacy monopolies and bad actors who use CCNs to hold landowners hostage, while supporters described cases where developers could not get timely service, including fire flow, or were asked to fund infrastructure without reasonable recoupment. Opponents from rural water corporations and utility associations argued the bill would undermine investment in water infrastructure, strand debt, and weaken the return on planned expansion. PUC and TCEQ resource witnesses explained that compensation is handled case by case through appraisal and can include stranded costs, planning, design, construction, and some legal fees, but members noted the statute is unclear and discussed possible committee substitute language. Public testimony was closed with the bill left pending. Later, SB 1624 would allow the Texas Water Trust within the Texas Water Bank to hold donated water rights for conservation purposes and protect them from use-it-or-lose-it cancellation, and SB 863 would address Edwards Aquifer utilities that straddle the aquifer boundary by allowing them to continue using Edwards water within their certificated areas under specified conditions. Both bills were laid out, received no public opposition in the hearing, and were left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• , including how and when we communicate with PUC decision makers.
• So attached to all of those requests is a PUC process.
• Why did the PUC determine that?
• The PUC ignored this evidence in the proceeding.
• The PUC ignored this evidence in the proceeding.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held an oversight hearing with leaders from the CPUC, Public Advocates Office, CAISO, the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety, and the Energy Commission. Chair Petrie-Norris framed the hearing around high utility bills, wildfire risk, grid reliability, clean energy buildout, and the state’s long-term decarbonization goals, and also noted it was CPUC President Alice Reynolds’ final week at the commission. Each agency gave an update on its role: the CPUC described efforts to reduce rate increases while maintaining reliability and clean energy procurement; the Public Advocates Office focused on affordability and the need to control underlying utility costs; CAISO discussed transmission planning, market operations, and the upcoming extended day-ahead market; Energy Safety reviewed wildfire mitigation oversight and inspections; and the Energy Commission highlighted clean energy growth, EV adoption, storage, efficiency, and gasoline price monitoring. A major theme was affordability versus the costs of the clean energy transition. Reynolds said the CPUC has lowered utility revenue requests, reduced utility returns, adopted a base services charge, and reworked net metering, while also continuing to manage wildfire-related costs and support resource adequacy and demand flexibility. Sarazawa argued that recent rate decreases may not be durable because billions of dollars in wildfire and other utility costs are still pending or unbilled, and she urged tighter use of general rate cases, lower-cost financing, program reform, and more equitable rate design. Members pressed the agencies on whether state policy is sufficiently accounting for labor, local economic development, and the cost impacts of transmission and procurement decisions, especially where out-of-state resources are being considered. CAISO and the Energy Commission emphasized that the state’s planning and market reforms are helping lower costs and improve reliability. CAISO said the Western Energy Imbalance Market has produced billions in benefits, the extended day-ahead market is on track to launch, and transmission planning is being aligned with long-term resource needs while reducing queue delays. The Energy Commission said California is now getting roughly two-thirds of its power from clean sources, has added massive amounts of storage and renewables, and is seeing strong EV and charger growth that can help spread fixed grid costs. Energy Safety reported thousands of inspections, hundreds of notices of non-performance, and a decline in reportable ignitions, while noting that major fires show more work is needed. Members also raised concerns about the SB 100 report delay, memo and balancing accounts, the future of battery storage, and whether decarbonization zone pilots will affect residential and commercial customers.

Transcript Highlights:

• We want the PUC to have a voice in the process, and they still will with a public notice.
• It would allow Idahoans, Idaho communities, and even the PUC to weigh in.
• The system where the PUC is.
• Idaho citizens and communities, and even the PUC, would be on unequal footing before the FCC.
• Idaho citizens and communities, and even the PUC, would be on unequal footing before the FCC.

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• was submitted to the PUC.
• If the PUC takes no action, the interconnection is allowed.
• was submitted to the PUC.
• If the PUC takes no action, the interconnection is allowed.
• So you are the representative of the PUC today? Yes, sir. Good morning.

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

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

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

Summary: The Senate Committee on Business and Commerce met with a quorum and first took up several pending and uncontested bills. It favorably reported SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2148, and SB 1968, and also moved SB 2321 to the local and uncontested calendar. The committee then heard SB 819, which would change how the Public Utility Commission reviews proposed utility-scale solar and related interconnection projects. The committee substitute would shift the default so interconnection is allowed unless the PUC affirmatively prohibits it within 180 days, limit denial to cases where harm substantially outweighs benefits, remove public meeting requirements, retain setback and financial assurance provisions, add optional application materials such as national security and environmental information, and restore local control over county tax abatements. The substitute was adopted and SB 819 was favorably reported to the full Senate on a 7-3 vote. The committee then took up SB 231, focused on CenterPoint’s use of large emergency generators after Hurricane Beryl. Senator King explained that the original bill was intended to prevent customers from being charged for non-mobile generators that were leased at great cost and did not match the bill’s emergency-response purpose. CenterPoint’s Jason Ryan apologized for the company’s communication failures and said the company would make customers whole through a combination of rate reductions, foregone storm-cost recovery, and a donation of the 15 large generators to ERCOT for about two years to address a San Antonio-area reliability issue, with the company absorbing the associated costs. PUC Executive Director Connie Corona said the commission could enforce the agreement through its contested-case process. Public testimony included consumer and reliability advocates, one of whom argued utility-scale microgrids should be preserved as a policy option. SB 231 was left pending. The committee also heard SB 986, which would create an alternative process for routine Public Information Act requests so local governments can make initial redactions without sending every routine exception to the Attorney General, while preserving an appeal path and training requirements. Supporters said it would reduce backlog and speed access to records; opponents argued it would shift the burden to requesters and encourage delay. The AG’s office testified that the process could improve efficiency and still fit within current timelines if used promptly. SB 986 was left pending. Finally, SB 584 was briefly laid out to require consumer reporting agencies that buy data from others to ensure the information complies with Texas law on excluded items such as bankruptcies, judgments, and tax liens, and SB 600 was heard on heir property. SB 600’s substitute would strengthen notice, require an attorney ad litem, add an heir’s bill of rights, allow settlement conferences, and require fair-market-value sales protections; supporters said it would curb predatory partition practices, while opponents warned some provisions could burden or diminish minority heirs’ property rights. SB 584 and SB 600 were left pending after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• service when another service is provided and removing what we see as a duplicative process from the PUC
• A day or two after the notice goes out, the application goes to the FCC, the governor, the PUC of each
• Customers, the PUC, and public interest groups all have a stake and an opportunity to weigh in on the
• These steps that are in the FCC discontinuance process are also identified in the Idaho PUC rules.
• Idaho citizens and communities, and even the PUC, would be on unequal footing before the FCC.

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Summary: The Senate State Affairs Committee began by approving the March 11 and March 13, 2026 minutes and then advanced the gubernatorial reappointment of Bud Tracy to the State Building Authority to the Senate floor with a recommendation for confirmation. The committee then heard House Bill 650, a federalism-related measure described by the sponsor and Idaho Farm Bureau testimony as reaffirming constitutional limits on federal and state power; it was sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation after brief discussion and no opposition. The committee next took up House Bill 674, which would streamline telecom service discontinuance by relying on the FCC process rather than duplicating review at the Idaho PUC. Lumen representative Rick Gutierrez testified that the FCC process already requires customer notice, identification of alternatives, public comment, and review of whether service can be discontinued without leaving customers without options; supporters argued the bill removes duplication, while opponents said it shifts final decision-making away from Idaho and could weaken state oversight. After debate over state sovereignty, consumer protection, and whether the FCC or PUC should be the final decision-maker, the bill passed 6-3 and was sent to the floor. The committee then considered Senate Bill 1365, which would exempt certain religious organizations from donor-disclosure requirements when they participate in ballot-measure advocacy, so long as related spending stays under 10% of prior-year receipts. The sponsor, Secretary of State Phil McGrane, and several pastors argued the current rules chill church participation and force disclosure of unrelated donors; opponents raised concerns about transparency, enforcement, and the possibility of churches becoming vehicles for political spending. A motion to send the bill to the 14th order failed, and a substitute motion to hold the bill in committee passed 5-4. Finally, Senate Bill 1411, expanding disclosure rules to paid in-person canvassing and related political activity, was introduced as a transparency measure aimed at paid campaign efforts; it was sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation, with Senators Toews and Shippy recorded in opposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• c><00:04:41.120><c> regulate</c><00:04:41.600><c> most</c> Um the PUC does not regulate most Um the PUC
• </c> primary areas of regulation for the PUC primary areas of regulation for the PUC and<00:05:16.240
• /c><00:48:07.119><c> the</c> can't make it and the PUC has the can't make it and the PUC has the ability
• </c><00:56:29.839><c> wasn't</c> sale and feeling that the PUC wasn't sale and feeling that the PUC wasn't
• That was denied by the PUC to review that.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Then the PUC could approve a utility to issue bonds.
• I want to be sure that the PUC is taking a look at, I mean, you tell me it is.
• The other question, of course, is: Can the PUC allow for partial securitization?
• I want to be sure that the PUC is taking a look at, I mean, you tell me it is.
• I want to be sure that the PUC is taking a look at, I mean, you tell me it is.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> You got anybody from the PUC You got anybody from the PUC commissioner?
• PUC. PUC.
• </c> PUC order 26029. PUC order 26029.
• </c><00:30:01.440><c> order</c><00:30:01.760><c> was</c> same PUC order and that PUC order was same PUC
• </c> had a list of things the PUC could do. had a list of things the PUC could do.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with housekeeping items, approved the minutes and consent agenda, and reminded the public that JLCAR’s role is limited to determining whether agency rules are within statutory authority, not to decide policy. Testimony was to be limited, and members noted that policy concerns should be addressed through the legislature rather than the committee process. The first major item was Public Utilities Commission rule 25-215 concerning natural gas suppliers. Staff said the proposal had been postponed because the PUC appeared to lack authority to impose fines and penalties in this rule set, especially suspending or revoking registrations, and recommended either a conditional approval removing those provisions or a preliminary objection for lack of statutory authority. PUC counsel responded that the cited authority had been incorrect, that the Department of Energy now has most registration rulemaking authority, but argued the commission still has jurisdiction over mediation and dispute resolution and may still have authority over fines because natural gas suppliers are not expressly excluded from public-utility status. Committee members discussed the split between PUC and DOE authority and the possibility that the transition in authority had not been fully cleaned up in statute. The committee then voted to grant a waiver of the time limit and postpone the item for another month so the agencies could work with counsel and clarify which parts of the rule could proceed. Members also urged that any needed legislative fix be brought forward quickly, noting that the Senate was not taking up non-germane amendments and suggesting the House as the likely venue for a cleanup bill. The committee next took up Department of Energy EN900 and EN1000 rules. Staff said the EN900 net-metering rules had been postponed previously and that the main remaining issue was a retroactive requirement in EN909.03(b), which the agency agreed to revise so the language would apply only on or after the 2026 effective date of the chapter. The agency described the EN900 rules as implementing net metering authority transferred from the PUC and expanding the chapter to cover municipal group net metering and low- and moderate-income community solar projects. The EN1000 interconnection rules were described as implementing 2024 legislation requiring uniform procedures for distributed energy resources. The department said both sets of rules were developed through extensive stakeholder input and asked for approval subject to the oral amendment already discussed."}】【。json

Transcript Highlights:

• Utility Commission of Texas, also known as PUC.
• Y'all, the PUC, you're unelected officials, right? That's correct.
• There's no elected official at the PUC. That's correct.
• Okay, so no determinations in contracting at PUC are.
• The PUC allows for, and I want to focus on the PUC allows for my questions on investor-owned utilities

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Articles VI, VII, & VIII

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , including how and when we communicate with PUC decision makers.
• So attached to all of those requests is a PUC process.
• Why did the PUC determine that?
• The PUC ignored this evidence in the proceeding. They paid no attention.
• The PUC ignored this evidence in the proceeding.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• TCEQ and the PUC are authorized to permit a public utility agency to serve as a temporary manager or
• Under current TCEQ... ...which are their PUC-approved rates and service conditions.
• They already have to include them in their PUC tariff.
• The PUC is going to come after them if they don't provide continuous and adequate service.
• Groundwater districts don't have administrative penalty authority like the TCEQ or the PUC.

Bills: HB4530 , HB4931 , HB5559 , HB5560

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: water rights, Texas Water Trust, water bank, environmental conservation, water quality, instream flows, aquifer, water injection, Edwards Aquifer, environmental regulation, groundwater, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water conservation, drought, utility regulation, water use restrictions, Public Utility Commission, civil penalties, drought contingency, environmental protection

Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources met with a quorum present and first took up several pending bills for reconsideration and committee substitute adoption. House Bill 2692, relating to codification and clarification of local laws concerning the San Antonio River Authority, was reported favorably to the full House and sent to the Committee on Local and Consent Calendars by an 11-0 vote. House Bills 1407, 1520, 1535, 2970, 4153, 291, 3663, and 3915 were also reconsidered or laid out as pending business, with committee substitutes adopted where needed and each bill reported favorably, generally by unanimous vote, to the full House and then to Calendars or Calendars/Calendars-related referral as applicable. The committee then heard House Bill 4530, which would expand the Texas Water Trust framework to include groundwater rights, require Texas Water Development Board review and approval of groundwater dedications, and notify local groundwater districts when groundwater rights are placed in the trust. The bill’s author and witnesses from the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and Chispa Texas supported the measure as a conservation tool and a way to create a clear process for voluntary donations; a Texas Water Development Board witness testified neutrally. The bill was left pending. House Bill 4931, relating to an aquifer storage and recovery project in Medina County, drew support from the author, the Medina County judge, and a regional water alliance witness, who described severe stress on the Edwards Aquifer, low levels at Medina Lake, and the need for a local water-supply tool. The bill was left pending. House Bill 5559, which would clarify enforcement of drought contingency plans for investor-owned water utilities and involve the PUC in model plan development, received support from groundwater district representatives but also concerns from water company and utility witnesses about enforcement authority, approval procedures, and potential conflicts with existing obligations to provide continuous service; the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. House Bill 5560, which would raise the maximum civil penalty for certain groundwater conservation district enforcement actions from $10,000 to $25,000 per violation, prompted debate over whether current law is already sufficient; supporters said the higher cap would better deter overpumping, while opponents argued existing penalties are already severe. That bill was also left pending, and the committee adjourned subject to call of the chair.