Transcript Highlights:

• And together we attorney at the PUC.
• The PUC does not regulate investors.
• So, currently the PUC regulates the PUC.
• </c><01:10:35.120><c> maintains</c> significantly, the PUC maintains significantly, the PUC maintains
• Um and the PUC also and pipelines.

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Right now, the CCN doesn't get notified when the landowner wants to go to PUC.
• I do want PUC and TCEQ's resource witness to show up. So, public witnesses: Ms.
• Jeff Kersbaum, Natalie Scott, TCEQ and PUC Resource Witnesses. Thank you.
• The current PUC decertification compensation process is subjective.
• I appreciate that perspective directly to the PUC. The one case that I do not think...

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

Transcript Highlights:

• few slides, is PAD 5, which includes California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii
• I heard a colleague mention, what's a cost-of-service model if you want to give some extra—this is PUC
• So both the PUC and CEC have been working on figuring out transmission corridors that allow for trucks
• would imagine, either at a federal or state level, regulatory decisions about those, you know, PIMSA or PUC

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing on managing the transportation fuels transition, fuel pricing, and supply reliability. Chair Allen opened by discussing prior legislation, including SB 1322 and special session measures, that expanded reporting to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and gave the state tools to study gasoline costs, refinery margins, inventories, and potential supply disruptions. He framed the hearing around refinery closures, rising imports, global conflict affecting crude markets, and the need to balance affordability, reliability, and the state’s long-term clean-fuels transition. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda, CDTFA Chief Deputy Director Gentian Droboniku, and DPMO Director Ty Miller presented data showing California’s growing dependence on imported crude and refined products, declining in-state refining capacity, and stable-to-tight inventories that are being supported by higher imports. They said the new transparency laws have improved understanding of the market and pointed to the proposed Gateway Pipeline, marine imports, and distribution constraints as important supply issues. CDTFA and DPMO emphasized that retail margins, especially for branded gasoline, have widened significantly, with large price gaps between branded stations and hypermarts/unbranded stations, and that some of the recent price increases were tied to the Iran conflict while earlier spikes were more consistent with localized market behavior and possible price gouging. DPMO also said it is investigating high-priced branded stations, monitoring algorithmic pricing under AB 325, and continuing to analyze diesel spot-market transparency. The CEC and CARB also discussed the Transportation Fuels Transition Plan and the SB 237 assessment, describing them as efforts to plan for a managed decline in fossil fuel demand while protecting workers, communities, and consumers. They said California’s climate goals remain centered on an 85% greenhouse gas reduction by 2045, with continued use of liquid fuels expected but with lower-carbon alternatives, more efficient vehicles, and alternative fuels playing a larger role. Committee members focused heavily on workforce impacts, the need for concrete transition planning, and whether the agencies could provide a clearer picture of what California’s fuel system will look like under the state’s long-term goals. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• This would likely simplify as well as reduce the workload of the PUC.
• The PUC would get double the time it has today to process these cases.
• It maintains the ability of the PUC to fully review the.
• , and we give the PUC more time, not less, to review those costs.
• We have talked with the PUC staff and PUC chairman about the mechanism, and again, how we think it helps

Bills: HB842 , HB1907 , HB2844 , HB2892 , HB3439 , HB4211 , HB4536 , HB5111 , HB5138 , HB5182 , HB5247 , HB5269 , HB5323 , HB5435 , HJR201 , SB871 , HB3896 , SJR40

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: power lines, Gulf Coast, weather-related outages, Public Utility Commission, infrastructure, government contracts, Chinese companies, information technology, cybersecurity, state regulations, food safety, mobile vendors, licensing, permitting exemptions, health inspections, nonprofit organizations, personal information, government disclosure, privacy, criminal penalties

Transcript Highlights:

• out the summary of budget recommendations for the Public Utility Commission of Texas, also known as PUC
• PUC is currently appropriated $5 billion to to implement the four programs within the Texas Energy Fund
• When does, is the PUC planning to implement this directive from the governor?
• Um, y'all, the PUC, um, you're, you're unelected officials, right?
• There's no elected official at the PUC. OK.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• When I asked the PUC what they were doing on DERs, they said, 'We're working on it.'
• I've worked with the PUC on this. I've worked with ERCOT on this.
• I've worked with the PUC on this. I've worked with ERCOT on this.
• We've been working on this at the PUC for at least the last two or three years.
• Perhaps, but I haven't seen it, and the PUC hasn't come up with it.

Bills: SB75 , SB715 , SB776 , SB1299 , SB1405 , SB1968 , SB2021 , SB2077 , SB2148 , SB2321 , SB2330 , SB2411

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Keywords: electric generation, reliability, ERCOT, Public Utility Commission, penalties, performance requirements, energy policy, construction contracts, compensatory damages, government delays, contractor, legislation, nonprofit donor privacy, membership lists, supporter confidentiality, volunteer privacy, association rights, public records exemption, Texas Public Information Act, government transparency

Summary: The Senate Committee on Business and Commerce heard Senate Bill 2021 by Senator Johnson, as substituted, on distributed energy resources (DERs). Johnson said the bill was intended to create a regulatory framework for DERs and virtual power plants, address interconnection and registration issues, and prevent regulatory capture as the industry grows. Testimony was split: Texas Electric Cooperatives asked for clarification so co-ops would not be unintentionally excluded from owning or operating DERs; AECT supported the bill as providing needed rules and customer protections; TABA, Texas Solar and Storage Association, Sierra Club, Texas Solar Energy Society, and several others opposed it or raised concerns that it was too utility-centric, imposed red tape, and could burden homeowners and small businesses with registration and interconnection requirements. Johnson repeatedly said the bill was not meant to stop rooftop solar or backup systems and that he was open to specific redlines and further changes. SB 2021 was left pending after testimony. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2330 by Senator Parker, which would end government payroll deduction for dues to certain public employee organizations, while exempting first responders under Chapters 143 and 147 and making other conforming changes in a committee substitute. Parker argued the bill was about government neutrality, transparency, and employee freedom from coercion, and said organizations can collect dues directly using modern payment methods. Supporters from Texas Public Policy Foundation, Texas Business Coalition, Freedom Foundation, ABC Texas, and Texans for Fiscal Responsibility said taxpayer-funded payroll systems should not be used to collect dues for private organizations, especially ones involved in political activity. Opponents, including ATPE, Texas Classroom Teachers Association, Texas Public Employees Association, and correctional employees, said payroll deduction is a convenient, secure service that helps professional associations and employee groups, and argued the bill would burden teachers and other public employees. Several witnesses and senators focused on the bill’s exemptions and whether it treated teachers differently from first responders. Senator Menendez questioned why some public employees were excluded while others were not, and a Houston police union representative said he moved from opposing to supporting the bill after being told the substitute would preserve meet-and-confer deductions under Chapters 143 and 147. Senator Parker closed by saying the bill was not meant to eliminate associations or payroll deduction entirely, only to remove the state as a middleman. SB 2330 was left pending, and the committee then recessed subject to call.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to hear from PUC and ERCOT and...
• I think this batch process in the PUC, particularly the PUC rulemaking in 58481 specifically addresses
• We think the PUC is making good progress on this.
• We hope that ERCOT and PUC are able to stick to those dates.
• When you were at the PUC and when you left the PUC, do you feel like there was enough staff to deal with

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c> taking this, but we do see with the PUC, taking this, but we do see with the PUC, the<04:03:41.040
• </c> would align the authorities of the PUC would align the authorities of the PUC um<05:20:02.560><c
• </c><05:40:20.718><c> was</c> that was authorized by the PUC was that was authorized by the PUC was devastating
• The PUC hearing these cases is exceedingly rare.
• The PUC hearing these cases governments.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• PU PUC took action to address it in its PU PUC took action to address it in its rate<00:03:31.920><c>
• </c><00:03:37.519><c> recently</c> additional process, the PUC recently additional process, the PUC recently
• </c> Representative Greenman, um the PUC Representative Greenman, um the PUC currently<00:24:16.480><
• to let them regulate guise of the PUC to let them regulate it?
• You've heard about the PUC uh in this.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 76, as amended by the adopted A1 amendment, and the chair moved the bill to be re-referred to the general register. The bill would limit the amount investor-owned utilities can charge ratepayers for executive compensation, capping recoverable pay for the top 10 executives at the governor’s salary. Representative Greenman argued the measure would protect customers from paying for lavish executive pay and said it would not affect what executives are paid, only what can be recovered from ratepayers. She cited recent Public Utilities Commission action and ongoing rate cases as evidence the issue is real and recurring. Supportive testimony came from a Minneapolis resident describing financial hardship and rising utility bills, a local worker who said customers have no choice of utility provider and should not fund monopoly executive pay, and advocates from the Energy and Policy Institute and Utility Reform Now, who said ratepayers should not subsidize excessive compensation and that the bill is a targeted reform. Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy opposed the bill’s premise by defending the current regulatory process. Their representatives said the PUC already reviews executive compensation in rate cases, generally allows only limited recovery, and has used that process for decades. Xcel also emphasized its affordability programs and said executives help secure savings and investments for customers. Members discussed whether the legislature should set a bright-line rule or leave the issue to the PUC. Representative Greenman said the bill is needed because the PUC process can take years and the legislature should establish a clear standard for all investor-owned utilities. Some members supported the bill as a response to an affordability crisis and the lack of consumer choice, while others said the legislature should focus on broader energy-cost issues and existing regulatory tools. The committee did not take a final vote on the bill in the portion of the meeting provided, but the amendment was adopted and the bill was moved for re-referral to the general register.

Transcript Highlights:

• They already have to include them in their PUC tariff.
• This just puts PUC and TCEQ rules expressly into statute.
• Members, we do have a resource witness from the PUC if there's any questions for them. No?
• 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: HB 4530 , HB 4931 , HB 5559 , HB 5560

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

Transcript Highlights:

• PUC. PUC. &gt;&gt; That<00:18:47.600><c> is</c><00:18:47.760><c> correct.
• </c><00:18:55.840><c> they</c> they are referring to the PUC they they are referring to the PUC they
• </c> &gt;&gt; Um so what it did was allow the PUC &gt;&gt; Um so what it did was allow the PUC rules<
• Um, so once the energy developed the rule, it no longer became a PUC rule.
• I know they're still writing rules between PUC and energy and shifting the authorities.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and adopted the consent calendar without objection. It then took up Department of Safety Rule 25161 on administrative license suspension forms. After discussion of a staff concern that the rule text should expressly require a defendant’s signature or refusal to sign, and the officer’s witness signature, the agency agreed to revised language. The committee voted to grant conditional approval with those edits. The committee next considered Department of Agriculture rule 192, concerning importation of bovines and domestic animals. Staff identified several issues, including an overly broad federal citation, an unclear definition of infection, a possible conflict between provisions on telephone-issued permits and documents that must be carried, and missing struck-through repeal language. Because the department had not proposed written fixes, members moved to postpone the item until next month, and the motion passed. A second Agriculture item, 25207, was discussed as a long-expired set of rules that the agency said were still needed to run its programs; the committee granted conditional approval. The Public Utilities Commission’s competitive natural gas supplier and aggregator rules prompted the most extensive debate. Staff argued the cited statutes did not clearly authorize the commission to impose fines on natural gas suppliers, while the agency responded that authority could be read from related Department of Energy transition language and general rulemaking provisions. Members discussed whether the issue reflected a statutory gap created when responsibilities were split between the Department of Energy and the commission. The committee ultimately voted to waive and postpone the item to next month so the attorneys could work out the authority question. The committee also postponed Department of Energy items 219 and 220 at the agency’s request, and it noted that the Liquor Commission’s emergency rule had been revised to reduce reporting from monthly to quarterly before being reissued, with the item also postponed.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> PUC over that. PUC over that.
• We need more the PUC is saying.
• </c> to the PUC, but there it is. to the PUC, but there it is.
• </c> Current law does not authorize the PUC Current law does not authorize the PUC to<01:17:11.320><c
• Uh so, the PUC those big spikes.

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They would talk to the PUC, the PUC would talk to the Department of Justice, and then they would talk
• So what happens before the PUC, if you can picture this, is the three PUC commissioners are sitting at
• So what happens before the PUC, if you can picture this, is the three PUC commissioners are sitting at
• The PUC favors a particular method.
• So if that party doesn't come before the PUC and meet its burden of proof, then the PUC is obliged to

Committee: House Science, Technology and Energy

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Heinz Strader: I think this process, this batch process in the PUC, particularly the PUC rulemaking in
• We think the PUC is making good progress on this.
• We hope that ERCOT and PUC are able to stick to those dates.
• Raymond: When you were at the PUC and when you left the PUC, you know, do you feel like there was enough
• Raymond: Whether it's ERCOT or PUC.

Committee: House State Affairs

Summary: The Committee on State Affairs convened to discuss data centers and their impact on Texas's energy infrastructure. The meeting featured testimony from key representatives of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) and ERCOT, who outlined the evolving landscape of energy generation and the challenges posed by the rapid growth of data centers. Notably, ERCOT reported over 450,000 MW of generation resources planned for connection, with a significant portion attributed to data centers, which now represent around 87% of new large load interconnection requests. The committee explored proposed changes to the interconnection process, including a new 'batch study' approach aimed at streamlining the approval of multiple projects simultaneously. This change is intended to address the challenges of managing numerous simultaneous requests and to provide more certainty for developers regarding their energy needs. Testimonies emphasized the importance of ensuring that the costs of infrastructure upgrades are borne by the data centers rather than residential ratepayers, with discussions around the financial commitments required from developers. Several data center developers also provided testimony, highlighting the economic benefits of their projects, including job creation and increased local revenues. They expressed concerns about the potential for a moratorium on future growth due to the new interconnection rules and emphasized the need for a collaborative approach to address water usage and environmental impacts. The committee plans to continue discussions on these topics in future hearings, with a focus on balancing economic growth with energy reliability and resource management.

Transcript Highlights:

• Heinz Strader: I think this process, this batch process in the PUC, particularly the PUC rulemaking in
• We think the PUC is making good progress on this.
• We hope that ERCOT and PUC are able to stick to those dates.
• Raymond: When you were at the PUC and when you left the PUC, you know, do you feel like there was enough
• Raymond: Whether it's ERCOT or PUC.

Transcript Highlights:

• that lacks the same level of expertise as the PUC.
• It requires PUC approval and a showing of ongoing eligibility.
• the PUC if they no longer qualify.
• I've met with the PUC staff and they seem to like that idea. Of course they do.
• Anna Givens with the PUC, if you'll please come up.

Bills: HB 106 , HB144 , HB145 , HB252 , HB1732 , HB2221 , HB2467 , HB2468 , HB2517 , HB2518 , HB2963 , HB3016 , HB3689 , HB3960 , HB4386 , HB4490 , HB4751 , HB5247 , HJR175 , HB2213

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Keywords: HB 106, oil and gas, Railroad Commission of Texas, overhead electrical lines, electrical distribution system, power line maintenance, administrative penalty, Natural Resources Code, oil and gas lease, well operator, energy safety, utility infrastructure, regulatory compliance, cleanup fund, oil and gas regulation and cleanup fund, production safety, leasehold operations, electric utility, distribution poles, inspection

Summary: The committee first handled pending business, including reconsidering a failed vote on SB 715 and then reporting several measures favorably. SB 1978 was reported from committee on a committee substitute, and a series of House bills — including HB 431, HB 1522, HB 1922, HB 3228, HB 3229, HB 3803, HB 3804, HB 3805, HB 3806, HB 4219, HB 4238, HB 434, HB 1584, and HB 4739 — were moved out of committee, most to the local and uncontested calendar. The votes on these items were overwhelmingly or unanimously in favor, with committee substitutes adopted where applicable. The committee then heard HB 2963, a right-to-repair bill for consumer electronics. The author said the bill would require manufacturers to provide parts, tools, and documentation on fair and reasonable terms while preserving trade secrets and excluding certain categories such as medical devices, motor vehicles covered by an MOU, critical infrastructure, and commercial-only transactions. Supporters from the Texas Public Policy Foundation and Environment Texas argued it would strengthen property rights, help small businesses, and reduce e-waste. Opponents, including representatives of SafeLight Auto Glass and LKQ, said they supported right-to-repair in principle but objected to the bill’s automotive MOU exemption and broader scope, warning it could create uncertainty and leave some manufacturers and repair shops outside the framework. The bill was left pending after testimony. Members also heard HB 2467 on salary parity for State Fire Marshal investigators, HB 252 on allowing some state agencies to pay certain employees twice monthly, HB 2468 on public improvement district notice and a buyer’s right to terminate, HB 4386 on annuity contract exchanges and surrender timelines, HB 4751 creating a Texas Quantum Initiative and related fund, and HJR 175 proposing a constitutional amendment protecting Texans’ ability to use mutually agreed-upon mediums of exchange, including cash, bullion, and digital currency. Testimony on HB 4751 was largely supportive but included questions about whether the state needs a new coordinating structure and funding mechanism for quantum research and commercialization. HJR 175 drew discussion about barter, taxes, and concerns over central bank digital currency. Each of these items was left pending after hearing testimony. The committee also heard HB 2221, which would update insurance anti-rebating laws to allow more wellness and value-added services in life and health insurance, with supporters saying it would encourage healthier behavior without requiring data monitoring. Finally, the committee took up a package of utility and wildfire-related bills from Chairman King’s portfolio: HB 106, requiring oil and gas operators to maintain certain overhead electrical lines; HB 144, requiring utilities to submit pole inspection and management plans to the PUC; and HB 145, requiring wildfire mitigation plans and allowing utilities to self-insure under certain conditions. Utility, co-op, and insurance representatives generally supported the safety and resiliency goals of HB 144, while asking for clarifications and less frequent reporting; HB 145 was introduced as a broader wildfire-risk and liability measure. These bills were also left pending after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before we begin hearing Senate as we are going to hear from our invited witness, PUC Chairman Thomas
• I know the B- BNC, we, in our interim report, discussed or put in there that the PUC should complete
• Still English, the executive director of the PUC, and Mr. Vegas, the present CEO of ERCOT.
• Parker Sparksdale English, PUC Deputy Executive Director, Mr. Pablo Vegas.
• by the PUC as OK from a reliability standpoint from the grid.

Bills: SB 6 , SB6 , SB504 , SB765 , SB815 , SB929

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Keywords: hemp, consumable hemp, hemp-derived cannabinoids, CBD, cannabidiol, CBG, cannabigerol, delta-8, delta-9, intoxicating hemp, hemp gummies, hemp vape, edibles, cannabinoid regulation, hemp licensing, retailer registration, product registration, QR code labeling, child-resistant packaging, minor access

Transcript Highlights:

• ERCOT and PUC are doing that.
• criticizing the PUC.
• A pause by the PUC until the end of the 90th Legislature, along with the further data that PUC and ERCOT
• A pause by the PUC until the end of the 90th legislature, along with the further data that PUC and our
• I trust the PUC staff.

Summary: The Senate Business and Commerce Committee held its third interim hearing on Texas electric grid reliability and 765 kV transmission lines/private property rights. Chair Schwertner opened by noting record ERCOT summer demand of 91,089 MW and emphasized the committee’s focus on managing rapid load growth, ensuring adequate generation, and protecting homeowners, businesses, landowners, and ratepayers. The committee also adopted strict two-minute limits for public testimony and planned to hear invited witnesses first, then public testimony. PUC Chairman Thomas Gleeson, ERCOT CEO Pablo Vegas, and OPUC Chief Counsel Benjamin Barclay testified on Senate Bill 6 implementation, large-load interconnection, transmission cost allocation, and market design. Gleeson said the PUC has adopted or is finalizing rules on net metering/co-location, large load interconnection standards, and a transmission cost recovery rule that would move from 4CP to 12CP, lengthen the interval to 30 minutes, and add a minimum demand charge to better allocate costs to large loads. Vegas explained ERCOT’s new batch process for large loads, saying it provides year-by-year capacity allocations, clearer financial obligations, and a transmission plan; he reported 205 GW eligible for Batch Zero, with 65 GW classified as baseload, 25 GW in an intermediate category, and 114 GW as allocated load. Barclay supported the changes as better protection for residential and small commercial customers, while warning that the minimum demand charge may need an exit-fee concept to address stranded costs if large loads leave. Members pressed witnesses on whether additional market changes are needed to attract dispatchable thermal generation and whether DRS/DRRS Plus could become a capacity-market substitute. Gleeson and Vegas said the current market still favors solar, batteries, and other low-variable-cost resources, and that more incentives may be needed for gas and other thermal generation; Gleeson said the commission’s reliability standard assessment will begin this year and conclude next year with a 2029 outlook. They described DRS as an ancillary service for intraday reliability and DRS Plus as a proposed real-time revenue mechanism for thermal resources during scarcity, not a forward capacity market. Senators also questioned whether 12CP could still be gamed, whether curtailment authority under SB 6 should be expanded from EEA 2 to earlier stages, and whether the batch process should be bifurcated so traditional industrial loads are handled differently from data centers. Witnesses said the batch process is intended to prevent speculative projects from driving transmission costs, that most large-load projects are data centers, and that future rules may need to better distinguish among types of large loads.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:22:22.159><c> and</c> as a normal process with the PUC and as a normal process with the PUC and
• So it's PUC for consideration.
• The PUC wants a high discount rate.
• </c> group of stakeholders led by the PUC group of stakeholders led by the PUC went<00:41:53.599><c>
• Eliminate need for PUC interference.

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's with the PUC. The company gets what the PUC gives to them.
• And that's with the PUC. The company gets what the PUC gives to them. And that's with the PUC.
• The company gets what the PUC gives to them.
• And that is just what the data at the PUC has shown.
• That's how the PUC equalizes that.

Summary: The committee heard several energy and water affordability bills, with extensive testimony on SB 254 by Senator Becker, SB 541 by Senator Becker, SB 453 by Senator Stern, SB 292 by Senator Caballero, and SB 473 by Senator Padilla. SB 254 was presented as a broad utility affordability package addressing short-term climate credits, a Power Fund, tighter scrutiny of rate increases and utility profits, wildfire spending, securitization of future utility costs, and streamlining. Supporters, including TURN and several environmental and public power groups, said it could lower bills and reduce long-term costs; opponents from investor-owned utilities, labor, business, and local government raised concerns about market impacts, insufficient analysis, and the breadth of the bill. The committee approved SB 254 on a 6-3 vote and placed it on call. SB 541 focused on load flexibility and using existing grid capacity more efficiently. Senator Becker described it as a transparency and planning measure to identify cost-effective load shifting and reduce peak demand, while supporters said it could improve resiliency and save money. Several CCAs and utilities opposed the bill in print or unless amended, arguing that some language implied a mandate and that the concept needed more cost-effectiveness analysis; the author said amendments would remove language dividing the state goal among retail suppliers and clarify that the bill is not a procurement mandate. The committee passed SB 541 as amended to Appropriations on a 9-1 vote and left it on call. SB 453 by Senator Stern would return unspent ratepayer-funded microgrid program dollars and was described as a way to keep the lights on and redirect unused funds. It drew support from local government and environmental groups, with PG&E expressing concern about how the bill would affect its ability to spend awarded funds. The committee passed SB 453 as amended to Appropriations on a 12-0 vote. SB 292 by Senator Caballero would require more granular outage and reliability reporting, including census-tract-level data, to better inform resilience planning after PSPS events; utilities opposed unless amended, citing duplicative reporting and regulatory overlap, but the bill passed 12-0 to Appropriations. SB 473 by Senator Padilla would require or expand water utility decoupling to promote conservation and affordability. Supporters, including water utilities, labor, business, and local government groups, argued decoupling stabilizes revenue, supports conservation, and can keep rates lower for low-use customers. The Public Advocates Office opposed, saying prior pilot data showed no conservation benefit and about $1 billion in added costs, and that the CPUC had already rejected similar requests. Committee members questioned the conservation and capital-investment effects of the different rate structures; the author and supporters argued decoupling helps utilities fund infrastructure while allowing lower fixed charges for low-use customers. The transcript ends during that discussion, before a final vote on SB 473 is shown.