Transcript Highlights:

• No regulatory analysis was required, as the proposed rules are not expected to have an impact on the
• A regulatory analysis or economic impact statement on small entities was not required by North Dakota
• A small entity regulatory analysis and impact statement were done on the proposed rules, although it
• A small entity regulatory analysis and small entity economic impact statement were...
• A small entity regulatory analysis and small entity economic impact statement were prepared and also

Summary: The committee approved the March 12, 2026 minutes and granted the Board of Medicine an extension of time to implement rule changes tied to House Bill 1620/1622, which concern North Dakota’s entry into the physician assistant licensure compact. The Board said it is waiting on compact rules, especially fee structures, before finalizing its own rules. The committee then took up extensive Office of Management and Budget personnel rule revisions, covering salary administration, recruitment, leave policies, funeral leave, service awards, appeals, and shared leave. OMB said the changes modernize HR practices and implement recent legislation, including new hire leave and enhanced annual leave for hard-to-fill positions; the committee raised concerns about the subjectivity and fairness of the hard-to-fill leave provisions, but no action was taken against the rules. The North Dakota Lottery presented emergency and regular rule changes, including updates tied to the Millionaire for Life game and miscellaneous clarifications. The Board of Examiners for Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology described rule updates that add speech-language pathology assistants to the rules, ease continuing education requirements for out-of-state applicants, expand temporary licensure, and clarify supervision standards. The State Electrical Board reviewed numerous code updates, including changes to electrical and fire alarm standards, receptacle labeling, countertop receptacles, and a major new conveyance/elevator inspection program added by the Legislature; the board said it is preparing to begin inspections by August 1. The Industrial Commission’s Geological Survey Division presented new rules implementing House Bill 1459 on critical minerals in coal-bearing formations, including permit, reporting, confidentiality, and royalty-related provisions. The committee asked about confidentiality of exploration data and drilling depth. The Public Employees Retirement System outlined rule changes implementing several bills affecting defined benefit, public safety, defined contribution, insurance, deferred compensation, and retiree health credit programs, and noted possible future proposals to add state EMS or create a LOSAP-style plan. The Department of Health and Human Services presented substance use disorder voucher rules implementing House Bill 1012, including allowing individuals to apply directly and setting reimbursement procedures; the rules were expected to have a $250,000 general fund impact already included in the budget. The longest discussion involved the Gaming Commission rules. Members questioned whether the commission had authority to raise poker tournament buy-ins from $300 to $1,500, viewing it as an expansion of gaming rather than a mere clarification. After debate, the committee voted to void that specific rule section for lack of statutory authority. The rest of the gaming rules covered higher raffle limits from House Bill 1192, the change from “bar” to “alcoholic beverage establishment,” veterans’ organization proceeds, credit ticket voucher kiosks, online raffles, and advertising restrictions; the presenter said several public comments led to revisions or withdrawals of proposed language. The meeting ended with discussion of upcoming Ethics Commission travel-reporting rules and scheduling the next committee meeting in September.

Transcript Highlights:

• That provides much more detailed analysis of local impact.
• but<00:08:47.680> in detailed analysis of local impact but in detailed analysis of local impact
• amount of local impact notes.
• fisal local impact note um local impact fisal local impact note um local impact notes<00:20:01.600
• So that's a local impact note.

Keywords: 1183, house

Bills: HB20, HB276, HB644, HB812, HB816, HB916, HB1131, HB1247, HB1518, HB1525, HB1537, HB1541, HB1546, HB1553, HB1562, HB1565, HB1566, HB1576, HB1577, HB1591, HB1605, HB1612, HB1613, HB1614, HB1618, HB1620, HB1650, HB1656, HB1658, HB1661, HB1664, HB1668, HB1676, HB1707, HB1711, HB1713, HB1715, HB1718, HB1727, HB1749, HB1756, HB1774, HB1776, HB1801, HB1802, HB1805, HB1813, HB1815, HB1831, HB1838, HB1853, HB1854, HB1859, HB1863, HB1871, HB1872, HB1918, HB1920, HB1952, HB1965, HB1966, HB1967, HB1969, HB1972, HB1973, HB1974, HB1975, HB1980, HB1985, HB2005, HB2023, HB2031, HB2033, HB2062, HB2113, HB2114, HB2116, HB2138, HB2139, HB2156, HB2158, HB2159, HB2171, HB2208, HB2268, HB2270, HB2272, HB2273, HB2276, HB2289, HB2310, HB2315, HB2335, HB2338, HB2339, HB2340, HB2343, HB2361, HB2384, HB2387, SB2338, SB2431, SB2438, SB2593, SB2907, SB2671, SB2321, SB3084, SB2401, SB3033, SB2972, SB3032, SB2806, SB3014, SB2108, SB2981, SB2973, SB2423, SB2078, SB2322, SB2397, SB2896, SB2088, SB2347, SB2408, SB2970, SB2851, SB2713, SB2697, SB2312, SB2192, SB2363, SB2530, SB3028, SB2024, SB3007, SB2599, SB2596, SB2662, SB2930, SB3334, SB2378, SB3019, SB3231, SB2240, SB2372, SB2175, SB2046, SB2298, SB2922, SB2835, SB3263, SB2174, SB2128, SB2006, SB2489, SB3134, SB2982, SB2425, SB2849, SB2797, SB2795, SB2575, SB2521, SB2765, SB2386, SB2852, SB2022, SB2117, SB2277, SB2387, SB2688, SB2885, SB3132, SB3219, SB2169, SB2591, SB2090, SB2983, SB888, SB3249, SB2611, SB2429, SB2463, SB3154, SB3131, SB3152, SB3315, SB2448, SB2054, SB2140, SB2520, SB2377, SB2986, SB2010, SB2189, SB2026, SB3010, SB2818, SB2002

Keywords: lava insurance, homeowners, insurance market, subsidy, Hawaii, condominiums, annual report, filing fee, real estate, developer, residency, property regime, PFAS, single-use plastics, environmental health, food ware, pollution reduction, local produce, agriculture, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Transcript Highlights:

• It's going to be a big impact on Hawaii on her loss. Thank you, Senator President. Thank you.
• > to<00:41:33.040> be<00:41:33.160> a<00:41:33.200> big<00:41:33.480> impact
• <00:41:33.840> of<00:41:33.960> Hawaii It's going to be a big impact of Hawaii It's
• going to be a big impact of Hawaii on<00:41:34.840> her<00:41:35.000> loss.

Bills: HB20, HB276, HB644, HB812, HB816, HB916, HB1131, HB1247, HB1518, HB1525, HB1537, HB1541, HB1546, HB1553, HB1562, HB1565, HB1566, HB1576, HB1577, HB1591, HB1605, HB1612, HB1613, HB1614, HB1618, HB1620, HB1650, HB1656, HB1658, HB1661, HB1664, HB1668, HB1676, HB1707, HB1711, HB1713, HB1715, HB1718, HB1727, HB1749, HB1756, HB1774, HB1776, HB1801, HB1802, HB1805, HB1813, HB1815, HB1831, HB1838, HB1853, HB1854, HB1859, HB1863, HB1871, HB1872, HB1918, HB1920, HB1952, HB1965, HB1966, HB1967, HB1969, HB1972, HB1973, HB1974, HB1975, HB1980, HB1985, HB2005, HB2023, HB2031, HB2033, HB2062, HB2113, HB2114, HB2116, HB2138, HB2139, HB2156, HB2158, HB2159, HB2171, HB2208, HB2268, HB2270, HB2272, HB2273, HB2276, HB2289, HB2310, HB2315, HB2335, HB2338, HB2339, HB2340, HB2343, HB2361, HB2384, HB2387, SB2338, SB2431, SB2438, SB2593, SB2907, SB2671, SB2321, SB3084, SB2401, SB3033, SB2972, SB3032, SB2806, SB3014, SB2108, SB2981, SB2973, SB2423, SB2078, SB2322, SB2397, SB2896, SB2088, SB2347, SB2408, SB2970, SB2851, SB2713, SB2697, SB2312, SB2192, SB2363, SB2530, SB3028, SB2024, SB3007, SB2599, SB2596, SB2662, SB2930, SB3334, SB2378, SB3019, SB3231, SB2240, SB2372, SB2175, SB2046, SB2298, SB2922, SB2835, SB3263, SB2174, SB2128, SB2006, SB2489, SB3134, SB2982, SB2425, SB2849, SB2797, SB2795, SB2575, SB2521, SB2765, SB2386, SB2852, SB2022, SB2117, SB2277, SB2387, SB2688, SB2885, SB3132, SB3219, SB2169, SB2591, SB2090, SB2983, SB888, SB3249, SB2611, SB2429, SB2463, SB3154, SB3131, SB3152, SB3315, SB2448, SB2054, SB2140, SB2520, SB2377, SB2986, SB2010, SB2189, SB2026, SB3010, SB2818, SB2002

Keywords: lava insurance, homeowners, insurance market, subsidy, Hawaii, condominiums, annual report, filing fee, real estate, developer, residency, property regime, PFAS, single-use plastics, environmental health, food ware, pollution reduction, local produce, agriculture, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Bills: HB20, HB276, HB644, HB812, HB816, HB916, HB1131, HB1247, HB1518, HB1525, HB1537, HB1541, HB1546, HB1553, HB1562, HB1565, HB1566, HB1576, HB1577, HB1591, HB1605, HB1612, HB1613, HB1614, HB1618, HB1620, HB1650, HB1656, HB1658, HB1661, HB1664, HB1668, HB1676, HB1707, HB1711, HB1713, HB1715, HB1718, HB1727, HB1749, HB1756, HB1774, HB1776, HB1801, HB1802, HB1805, HB1813, HB1815, HB1831, HB1838, HB1853, HB1854, HB1859, HB1863, HB1871, HB1872, HB1918, HB1920, HB1952, HB1965, HB1966, HB1967, HB1969, HB1972, HB1973, HB1974, HB1975, HB1980, HB1985, HB2005, HB2023, HB2031, HB2033, HB2062, HB2113, HB2114, HB2116, HB2138, HB2139, HB2156, HB2158, HB2159, HB2171, HB2208, HB2268, HB2270, HB2272, HB2273, HB2276, HB2289, HB2310, HB2315, HB2335, HB2338, HB2339, HB2340, HB2343, HB2361, HB2384, HB2387, SB2338, SB2431, SB2438, SB2593, SB2907, SB2671, SB2321, SB3084, SB2401, SB3033, SB2972, SB3032, SB2806, SB3014, SB2108, SB2981, SB2973, SB2423, SB2078, SB2322, SB2397, SB2896, SB2088, SB2347, SB2408, SB2970, SB2851, SB2713, SB2697, SB2312, SB2192, SB2363, SB2530, SB3028, SB2024, SB3007, SB2599, SB2596, SB2662, SB2930, SB3334, SB2378, SB3019, SB3231, SB2240, SB2372, SB2175, SB2046, SB2298, SB2922, SB2835, SB3263, SB2174, SB2128, SB2006, SB2489, SB3134, SB2982, SB2425, SB2849, SB2797, SB2795, SB2575, SB2521, SB2765, SB2386, SB2852, SB2022, SB2117, SB2277, SB2387, SB2688, SB2885, SB3132, SB3219, SB2169, SB2591, SB2090, SB2983, SB888, SB3249, SB2611, SB2429, SB2463, SB3154, SB3131, SB3152, SB3315, SB2448, SB2054, SB2140, SB2520, SB2377, SB2986, SB2010, SB2189, SB2026, SB3010, SB2818, SB2002

Keywords: lava insurance, homeowners, insurance market, subsidy, Hawaii, condominiums, annual report, filing fee, real estate, developer, residency, property regime, PFAS, single-use plastics, environmental health, food ware, pollution reduction, local produce, agriculture, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh you for legal analysis and study.
• You know, how is this analysis going to take place?
• <00:24:40.000> an<00:24:40.159> actual closed case analysis an actual closed case analysis
• inspectors is having a negative impact inspectors is having a negative impact to<00:32:24.399>
• <00:33:47.840> and<00:33:48.159> causes negatively impacts and causes negatively impacts

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If the cost-benefit analysis was not included with a measure, the committee was to request the analysis
• Just add a link with the cost-benefit analysis so that everyone has a copy of that cost-benefit analysis
• Last session, we tracked over 40 that would impact us.
• Last session, we tracked over 40 that would impact us.
• The department did all the analysis.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to review the history and current treatment of North Dakota health insurance mandates, with presentations from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, Sanford Health Plan, the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and the Insurance Department. The discussion focused on how mandates apply differently to fully insured, self-funded, ACA, Medicaid, and PERS plans; how the state’s benchmark plan and federal essential health benefits affect coverage; and how the existing process requires cost-benefit analysis and, for certain measures, a PERS pilot period before broader application. Presenters also reviewed the long list of existing state mandates, including provider, beneficiary, and coverage requirements, and noted that many were enacted decades ago and have not been revisited despite changes in medical evidence and treatment options. Witnesses from the carriers argued that mandates should be reviewed periodically because some are outdated, can create unintended costs, and may not align with current medical guidance. Examples cited included PSA screening, off-label drug coverage, prior authorization rules, step therapy, and cost-sharing provisions for mental health and substance use treatment. They emphasized that carriers often cover services without a mandate when supported by clinical evidence, and that mandates can shift costs to employers and employees, especially in the fully insured small-group market. They also suggested possible policy improvements such as clearer mandate definitions, better transparency around cost-benefit analyses, a regular 10-year review of mandates, and more timely submission of proposals through the interim process. PERS and the Insurance Department highlighted a recurring tension over what counts as a mandate and when a measure triggers the state’s defrayal obligation under federal law. PERS described its interim committee process, the April 1 deadline for fiscal-impact proposals, and the limited pilot program used for certain measures, noting that only a few bills have gone through the full pilot process. The Insurance Department explained that it views new benefit mandates through the lens of the ACA benchmark plan and essential health benefits, distinguishing true new benefits, such as infertility coverage, from changes to existing benefits, such as telehealth or insulin cost-sharing caps. No votes were taken on policy changes; the meeting was informational, with members asking questions about costs, applicability, transparency, and whether a periodic mandate review should be established.

Transcript Highlights:

• That analysis is ongoing, and I reiterate, sir.
• And you implemented a hiring freeze without any analysis?
• Senator, I can't talk to specifics on the actual analysis.
• , and the other 40% at least had minimal impact.
• It will be days, maybe weeks, before you see an impact.

Bills: SB124, SB201, SB275, SB410, SB478, SB607, SB610, SB611, SB654, SB702, SB787, SB831, SB892

Keywords: Department of Veterans Affairs, disciplinary procedures, accountability, personnel actions, whistleblower protection, cancer, military, aircrew, veterans, health study, toxins, morbidity, mortality, service members, mental health, community care, accessibility, treatment programs, substance abuse, appointments

Summary: During the meeting, various members engaged in extensive discussions surrounding 15 proposed bills related to veterans' affairs. Notably, concerns regarding recent VA workforce changes sparked debates, particularly about potential cuts and their implications for veterans' care and benefits. Chairman Moran emphasized the need for thoughtful reforms and coordination with stakeholders, urging responsible measures to prevent negatively impacting service delivery. The meeting highlighted a significant bipartisan effort to enhance veterans' access to essential health services, particularly in light of recent challenges faced by the VA workforce. Senator Blumenthal's assertions about the urgent plight of veterans due to cuts in personnel drew strong reactions, showcasing the deep concern among committee members regarding the current state of veteran services.

Transcript Highlights:

• We hope to have submitted to the Coast Guard a navigational impact report that talks about the impacted
• would have a lack of impact on that executive order.
• and analysis...
• would be in terms of revenue impacts.
• would be in terms of revenue impacts.

Summary: The committee met jointly with the Washington-Oregon Legislative Action Committee for an update on the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement (IBR) program. Members first adopted the proposed committee rules, then received program updates from staff on environmental review, permitting, design, tribal consultation, and public engagement. Staff said the project remains in the supplemental EIS process, with a final supplemental EIS and amended record of decision expected in early 2026, which would allow construction to begin. They also described ongoing work on Coast Guard navigation clearance, Section 106 historic-property coordination, and architectural guidelines for the bridge and five-mile corridor, emphasizing that the visualizations shown were conceptual and that public and partner feedback has already influenced design considerations such as accessibility and shared-use path connections. Members raised concerns about schedule delays, rising costs, and whether the project is being designed to be functional, safe, and economical. Staff acknowledged that the timeline has slipped from earlier expectations and said the delay reflects the complexity of the environmental and federal review process, as well as the need to avoid redoing steps. They said the updated cost estimate is being prepared now that design has advanced to roughly 30 percent, and that it will account for inflation, risk factors, and both fixed-span and movable-span options. Staff estimated a movable span would add more than $400 million and said the first construction work after environmental approval would likely be preliminary freeway and retaining-wall work in late 2026, followed by the bridge procurement. The committee also received funding and tolling updates. Staff reported that major federal grants have been executed, including Mega and Bridge Investment Grant agreements, and that state STIP amendments are advancing to allow access to federal funds. The tolling team described Level 3 traffic-and-revenue work, a bi-state tolling subcommittee process, and possible toll scenarios aimed at supporting either about $1.24 billion or $1.6 billion in toll revenue. Members questioned low-income toll relief timing, truck toll rates, and the effect of tolls on freight users. Staff said low-income discounts are being analyzed for both revenue and operational feasibility, that tribal exemptions and other policy exemptions are under review, and that the commissions expect to move into public outreach on toll rates and policies in 2026, with tolling on the existing bridges currently projected to begin in spring 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• Be the impact to diversion.
• impacts, and they in general have higher volumes and account for peak operational impacts to avoid understating
• these possible impacts as part of the environmental analysis, to make sure that the environmental impact
• and traffic and revenue analysis.
• That's exactly the diversion analysis.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• million impact to a city is very different than a $36 million impact to the state.
• So, of course, my city would be impacted as well.
• cost effects, and impacts on state spending.
• Done with respect to the analysis that we get for the fiscal impact.
• the detailed actuarial estimates, especially when it comes to premium impacts and consumer cost impacts

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the PEIS analysis looked at resources and found that for many types of resources, impacts are less
• But impacts for some resources range from less than significant to potentially significant impacts.
• They include impact analysis at a high level, so some of the work is already being done for the agencies
• analysis in the programmatic.
• Lastly, skipping down to eight, we're really challenged by the lack of cumulative impact analysis, not

Summary: The committee held a work session on state environmental policy act (SEPA) implementation and carryout bags. Ecology staff Diane Buterak described the Clean Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEISs) completed for utility-scale solar, onshore wind, and green hydrogen, plus a new PEIS underway for sustainable aviation fuel. She explained that PEISs provide broad planning-level analysis to help developers and agencies avoid or mitigate impacts, but do not replace project-level review. Members asked about permitting timelines, greenhouse gas emissions from different hydrogen production methods, water use, agricultural land conversion, battery fire risk, and tribal consultation. Buterak said the PEISs identify potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures, including fire response planning, early tribal outreach, and agrovoltaics as an option for solar projects. EFSEC’s Amy Hofkimer then presented the transmission-facility programmatic EIS required by SB 5165 for 230 kV and higher transmission projects. She said the statewide review covers new lines and certain upgrades/modifications, analyzes impacts to water, cultural and tribal resources, habitat, and other areas, and uses general measures, design considerations, avoidance criteria, and sensitivity maps to guide siting and corridor planning. She said the final document would be issued in early October. Questions focused on reconductoring, tribal lands, scenic areas, and whether the review could affect existing lines crossing tribal lands. A Grant County planning director, Jim Anderson Cook, said Ecology’s PEIS would help with cumulative impacts for clustered solar projects, but noted tight local review timelines and the need for strong pre-application coordination, especially on cultural resource studies and decommissioning plans. Yakama Nation attorney Shona Leverett argued SEPA is only an assessment tool and said tribes face barriers from short comment periods, limited confidential tribal input, weak cumulative impact analysis, and challenges in the FSEC process; she urged better upfront developer diligence and more effective tribal coordination. Puget Sound Energy’s Sarah Leverett said the utility needs efficient and predictable permitting to meet clean energy mandates while maintaining reliable service and aging infrastructure. She described the scale of needed clean energy and transmission buildout, including a 10-year process for the Energize Eastside transmission rebuild, and said more consistent SEPA and PEIS processes could help. Members asked about future generation sources, reliability, and hydropower as a firming resource; she said PSE is pursuing an “all of the above” approach and would welcome more firm, dispatchable clean energy options. The committee then shifted to carryout bags. Staff Jacob Lipson and Tracy Taylor reviewed Washington’s bag law, its preemption of local ordinances, the current 8-cent charge, the scheduled increase to 12 cents, and the 2025 change delaying the 4-mil thickness requirement until 2028 while adding a temporary 4-cent penalty for thicker bags. Ecology’s Peter Lyon said the agency emphasizes education and complaint-based enforcement, has received 872 reports, and has not yet imposed any fines. Commerce’s Kirk Esmond summarized a WSU study finding fewer plastic bags distributed but more plastic by weight, and said Commerce and Ecology support keeping the 2.25-mil standard and not allowing thinner single-use bags again. Retail industry testimony from Brandon Housekeeper said grocers comply with the law but oppose the added 4-cent penalty and thicker-bag requirement, citing higher costs and confusion in the policy changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the first line impacts 220 students, and then the second line impacts 220 students.
• the second line impacts 220 students. the second line impacts 220 students.
• um, type of analysis. um, type of analysis.
• <00:57:38.320> that a fiscal note and do an analysis that a fiscal note and do an analysis
• type of analysis would work. type of analysis would work.

Bills: HF1234, HF3528, HF3672, HF3679, HF3680, HF1944

Keywords: payment transparency, public contracts, contractor rights, government accountability, construction payments, barbering, licensing, examinations, barber schools, public safety, certifications, Barber Examiners Board, data transparency, Legislative Budget Office, state agencies, fiscal notes, public data, standard time, federal law, time zone

Transcript Highlights:

• tied resources so overall grid impacts tied resources so overall grid impacts would<00:15:20.639
• AARs are required by statute to provide a level of urban impact analysis comparable to an EIS.
• AARs are important because they provide a level of urban impact analysis comparable to an EIS.
• <00:37:26.640> analysis provide a level of urban impact analysis provide a level of urban
• impact analysis comparable<00:37:27.800> to<00:37:27.920> an<00:37:28.440> Eis<00

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It actually had a positive impact overall.
• Right now, you can do analysis for analysis' sake, but if you're finding things that are worthy of consideration
• If the environmental impact is enormous... ...what is the cost-benefit analysis?
• really going to have to nail it on air quality impacts, GHG impacts.
• And a complete ban, to the point of the Vice Chair, has a different type of impact and still an impact

Summary: The committee first heard SB 804, the Hydrogen Pipeline Safety Act, from Senator Arreguín. He said the bill would designate the State Fire Marshal as the safety regulator for intrastate hydrogen pipelines and require hydrogen-specific standards, while not mandating any pipeline construction or bypassing environmental review. Supporters included labor groups, utility employees, and the City of Burbank, while Air Products opposed unless amended, citing concerns about the bill’s specificity, fee structure, and the need for a hydrogen-specific rulemaking process. The committee discussed safety, fees, and regulatory certainty, and later passed SB 804 on a 9-0 vote to Emergency Management with commitment to take amendments. The committee then took up SB 905 by Senator Becker, aimed at reducing electricity rates by changing utility incentives. The bill would tie part of executive compensation to keeping rates below inflation, require more performance metrics, and allow the CPUC to consider lower returns on equity for certain lower-risk investments and alternative financing options. Support came from consumer, environmental, agricultural, and large energy user groups, while Southern California Edison, CalChamber, PG&E, and utility labor groups raised concerns that the bill could reduce investment, create regulatory uncertainty, and raise borrowing costs. After extensive discussion about utility affordability, wildfire costs, and capital markets, the committee passed SB 905 on a 7-1 vote to Appropriations. SB 913, also by Senator Becker, would create a clearer pathway for distributed energy resources such as batteries and smart thermostats to participate in the resource adequacy market and compete with utility-scale resources. Supporters said the bill would better use existing grid capacity, lower costs, and build on the state’s Demand Side Grid Support Program; PG&E opposed unless amended, saying the use case was not yet proven and was already being addressed in other rulemakings. After the committee accepted amendments, one opposition group moved to neutral and another said it might do so after reviewing the changes. The bill passed 8-0 to Appropriations and was placed on call. Several other measures were heard and advanced, including SB 1196 on faster utility hookups for small energization projects such as ADUs and EV chargers, SB 931 reauthorizing the Diablo Canyon Essential Services Mitigation Fund through 2028, SB 1158 reducing the frequency of joint reliability assessments from quarterly to twice yearly, and SB 1245 directing further study of California’s gasoline market and potential use of non-CARBOB fuel during supply disruptions. SB 1196 and SB 931 both passed with broad support and no opposition after amendments, SB 1158 passed without testimony, and SB 1245 drew strong support from consumer and environmental advocates but opposition from fuel industry and business groups concerned about costs, confidentiality, and fuel standards.

Transcript Highlights:

• A regulatory analysis or economic impact statement on small entities was not required by North Dakota
• However, a regulatory analysis was prepared, as the rules may possibly have a combined impact on the
• A small entity regulatory analysis and impact statement were done on the proposed rules, although it
• A small entity regulatory analysis and small entity economic impact statement were prepared and also
• A small entity regulatory analysis and small entity impact statement were prepared and attached to this

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• impact on the air quality around.
• Chair, expert representative, have you reviewed the industry analysis that estimates the four-year impact
• and are health impacts.
• impact.
• The LFC analysis around the original bill suggested a significantly lower impact. Mr.

Transcript Highlights:

• Right now, you can do analysis for analysis' sake, but if you're finding things that are worthy of consideration
• If the environmental impact is enormous..." "What is the cost-benefit analysis?
• "You're really going to have to nail it on air quality impacts, GHG impacts.
• And a complete ban, to the point of the Vice Chair, has a different type of impact and still an impact
• And a complete ban to the point of the vice chair has a different type of impact and still an impact

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Trying to figure out what analysis was made.
• Obviously, discriminatory impact effects are part...
• That they did a very thorough analysis in their report to me and I have confidence in that analysis.
• I'm confident that they did all analysis as necessary.
• I have not personally performed such an analysis. Mr.

Bills: SB 2, SB 5, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, HB4, HB1, HB3, HB20, HB22, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4, HB4, SB2, SB5

Keywords: disaster relief, flood preparedness, emergency funding, local government support, meteorological forecasting, school assessment, public education, accountability, transparency, education standards, STAAR, Texas Education Agency, TEA, public school accountability, school ratings, A-F ratings, assessment reform, student testing, benchmark tests, interim assessments

Transcript Highlights:

• The Vice Chairman asked whether anyone had done an analysis of the 50% initiative and whether the impact
• The Vice Chairman asked whether anyone had done an analysis of the 50% initiative and whether the impact
• The Vice Chairman asked whether anyone had done an analysis of the 50% initiative and whether the impact
• The Vice Chairman asked whether anyone had done an analysis of the 50% initiative and whether the impact
• The Vice Chairman asked whether anyone had done an analysis of the 50% initiative and whether the impact

Bills: SF0025, SF0027, SF0043, SF0066

Keywords: landowner licenses, hunting, wildlife management, quota hunt areas, game and fish commission, game management, hunting regulations, black bear, tracking dogs, wildlife conservation, conservation, contracting, supervisor, funding, districts, hunting licenses, donated licenses, life-threatening illness, vision impairment, nonprofit organizations