Transcript Highlights:

• net producing solar, not just a solar panel used as the source of power for a light in a place where
• So this isn't just solar.
• the solar?
• has the solar panels on.
• solar generation.

Committee: House Utilities

Summary: The committee first took up House Committee Substitute for House Bills 21, 22, and 1626, which would combine the bills and add a clawback/refund provision for construction work in progress in base rates if costs were imprudently incurred or a project is not placed in service in a reasonable time. Supporters argued Missouri should remove its CWIP ban to stay competitive with neighboring states and attract utility investment, while opponents warned about unknown costs and timelines for ratepayers. The substitute was adopted, and the committee voted the combined bill do pass by 12 ayes and 7 noes. The committee then considered House Bill 2711, as amended by a substitute, dealing with broadband-related property tax treatment. The sponsor explained the substitute narrowed the bill to new installations, added a seven-year sunset, and aimed to clarify assessment issues. Supporters said the measure would help expand broadband infrastructure and improve service in underserved areas, while opponents argued the tax break should not apply to upgrades within existing service territories and questioned whether the bill truly expanded access. The committee adopted the substitute and voted the bill do pass by 12 ayes and 7 noes. The remainder of the hearing focused on House Bill 2762, a broad solar/wind/water measure. The sponsor described provisions setting a $2,500 per megawatt tax on solar nameplate capacity, creating more uniform assessment rules, establishing setbacks for solar facilities, limiting eminent domain use, and including smaller sections on water district dissolution and wind turbine lighting. Testimony was mixed: solar developers, Clean Grid Alliance, Renew Missouri, and Missouri Farm Bureau supported clearer rules, grandfathering, and setbacks they viewed as reasonable, while landowners and local residents raised concerns about property rights, transparency, runoff, glare, noise, and the impact of large solar projects on neighboring farms and homes. No final action on HB 2762 was taken in the portion provided, but the chair said a committee substitute would be developed to address the solar issues more comprehensively.

Transcript Highlights:

• to as the in-fenced area of a solar production.
• power plant that is net-producing solar.
• Well, it's solar. I mean, I'm surrounded by... Well, solar.
• that has the solar panels on them.
• generation and proper local taxation of solar generation.

Committee: House Utilities

Transcript Highlights:

• And so solar garden and solar standard.
• </c> Solar Garden Program. Solar Garden Program.
• </c> than utility scale solar. than utility scale solar.
• solar capacity.
• and</c><00:36:09.119><c> the</c> solar, the solar industry, and the solar, the solar industry, and the

Bills: HF3556

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• is community solar, so it's even more than utilities have provided on solar right now.
• is community solar, so it's even more than utilities have provided on solar right now.
• is community solar, so it's even more than utilities have provided on solar right now.
• is community solar, so it's even more than utilities have provided on solar right now.
• solar Gardens area is solar area and the solar Gardens area is that<00:26:12.640><c> they've</c><00:26

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> of solar energy. of solar energy.
• in owning solar energy.
• of solar by 2020.
• </c> community solar standard in Minnesota. community solar standard in Minnesota.
• </c> The idea of community solar is simple. The idea of community solar is simple.

Transcript Highlights:

• able to access solar.
• The technology ensures that solar.
• ><c> bills</c><00:04:10.560><c> and</c> solar reduces electricity bills and solar reduces electricity
• Plug-in solar... very, very anxious to see plug-in solar very, very anxious to see plug-in solar systems
• </c> rooftop solar. rooftop solar.

Bills: SB2671 , SB2902

Committee: Senate Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs heard two measures. SB 2671, relating to essential permitting positions, drew no oral testimony beyond written comments from the Department of the Attorney General and the Office of Planning. The chair said the bill was intended to make government more efficient and reduce red tape in the permitting process. SB 2902, relating to renewable energy, received testimony from the Division of Consumer Advocacy, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, Kauai Island Cooperative, Bright Saver, and 350 Hawaii. Supporters described the bill as a way to expand access to plug-in or balcony solar, lower electricity bills, improve resilience, and broaden access for renters and apartment residents. Several testifiers urged amendments to avoid limiting the measure to condominiums, to remove condominium board approval language, and to eliminate utility or PUC registration requirements. The PUC said registration could help with safety, linemen protection, and circuit hosting-capacity concerns, and noted that improper installation or oversizing could create problems. After a brief recess, the committee voted to recommend both bills for passage with amendments and deferred each to April 19, 2042. The recommendations were adopted without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that how much the fee would be for a solar developer to put solar panels on the state reforestation
• Will that be the fee that a solar company will be paying the State of New York for developing a solar
• to bring solar and wind power onto state reforestation areas?
• We'll put those flexible solar panels.
• We'll put those flexible solar panels.

Summary: The Senate opened with the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the prior day’s journal, and then recognized several guest groups, including the Shenendehowa High School girls varsity cross country team and tennis champion Jolie Chichak, as well as the Downsville Central School Student Council. Senator Tedisco introduced the Shenendehowa athletes, highlighting their state and federation championships and strong academic records, and Senator Oberacker introduced the Downsville students. The chamber extended courtesies to the guests. The Senate then moved through the calendar, passing a series of bills and resolutions. Among the measures approved were a bill designating Overdose Awareness Day, a real property tax bill, a public authorities bill, several education-related bills, a private housing finance bill, a workers’ compensation bill, and a labor law bill. Some items were laid aside before later being taken up, including the cannabis bill and the environmental conservation bill. Votes were largely unanimous or near-unanimous, with a few recorded negatives on certain bills. The most extensive debate centered on Calendar 261, Senator May’s environmental conservation bill concerning renewable energy installations and transmission on state reforestation lands. Senator Walczyk and others questioned whether the bill would allow solar, wind, battery storage, tree cutting, herbicide use, and reduced environmental review, while supporters argued the bill was mainly about transmission corridors, climate goals, and preserving flexibility for DEC oversight and mitigation. After debate, the bill was restored to the non-controversial calendar and passed 42-13. The Senate also passed Calendar 353, Senator Ramos’s labor law bill addressing class action wage recovery and statutory damages. Supporters said it would clarify the law so workers can recover full wages in class actions, while opponents warned it could encourage litigation against small businesses over technical payroll errors. The bill passed 47-8. The Senate then completed the calendar and adjourned until March 4, 2026, with intervening days as legislative days.

Transcript Highlights:

• Louis City on solar is what? I may want to have solar panels on every house.
• Because solar takes, you've got to realize solar to be over 5 megawatts is taking a lot of acres that
• Well, the solar panel...
• She said they are not against solar on roofs, community solar situations, or solar on industrial buildings
• If you remove the tax credits on wind or solar, it's going to put solar up... ...credits on wind or solar

Committee: House Utilities

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2383, Representative Simmons’s bill addressing theft of copper and other infrastructure-related property. After a brief executive session and no further discussion, the committee voted the bill do pass by a roll call of 17 ayes, 1 no, and 1 present. The committee then heard House Bill 2711, sponsored by Representative Deal, which would lower the assessed valuation of broadband communications equipment from 33.5% to 12% for new broadband equipment placed in service after August 28, 2026, with a proposed sunset period discussed as part of a substitute. Representative Deal and several industry witnesses, including AT&T, Verizon, Missouri Cable Association, Missouri Broadband Providers Association, Missouri Chamber, and electric co-ops, argued the measure would improve Missouri’s competitiveness, encourage private investment, and help expand broadband in rural and underserved areas. Opponents, including county assessors, argued the bill would reduce local tax revenue, create unequal treatment, and could become a precedent for other industries. Committee members questioned whether the bill would apply only to new builds or also to upgrades and existing infrastructure, and whether the tax relief would actually drive expansion into rural areas. The committee then began hearing House Bills 2402 and 2816, which deal with solar energy siting and taxation. The sponsors described the bills as setting local assessment rules for solar projects, establishing a per-megawatt valuation, requiring larger setbacks from homes, schools, and churches, and limiting the amount of tillable land that can be used for solar in a county, while also addressing Chapter 100 agreements and decommissioning concerns. Supporters, including Missouri Farm Bureau and county officials, said the bills would provide needed guardrails, local control, and more consistent taxation. Opponents and affected landowners said existing solar projects have caused glare, dust, noise, and property value concerns, while some developers said they wanted clearer statewide rules and consistency for future projects. The committee did not take final action on the solar bills before going into recess.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are some solar farms or solar plants, whatever you want to call them, that people do have agrovoltaics—they
• They create a company called Diamond Solar. It's an LLC.
• We're not against solar on roofs. We're not against solar in community solar situations.
• We're not against solar on roofs. We're not against solar in community solar situations.
• If you remove the tax credits on wind or solar, it's going to put solar up around my calculations here

Summary: The House Utilities Committee resumed hearing on House Bills 2402 and 2816, which address utility-scale solar development. The chair asked witnesses to keep comments to informational purposes, and testimony focused on setbacks, taxation, land conversion caps, county authority, decommissioning, and impacts on neighboring landowners and rural communities. Several witnesses said they supported solar in limited settings such as rooftops or industrial sites, but opposed or wanted changes to the bills’ treatment of agricultural land, especially the proposed 4% cap on cropland conversion and the 500-foot setback from homes. Testimony from landowners and farm groups emphasized concerns about property rights, viewshed impacts, fire risk, drainage and floodplain issues, and the loss of agricultural tax base and local economic activity. They argued the proposed $2,500 per megawatt tax was too low and suggested higher rates, with some recommending $6,000 per megawatt or more, along with decommissioning requirements and stronger county-level protections. A Renew Missouri representative supported much of the bill but preferred a smaller setback and raised constitutional concerns about changing solar land from agricultural to commercial assessment. Other witnesses, including a county commissioner, described local regulations already in place in some counties and asked for clearer statewide standards. Industry and utility representatives said the legislation was generally workable but needed further discussion on setbacks and property tax treatment. Clean Grid Alliance and related witnesses argued that tax comparisons with other states should account for total tax burden, not just nameplate taxes, and said higher taxes would raise electricity costs for consumers. Ameren Missouri said it was acceptable with most provisions, but cautioned against overly aggressive real-property assessments and noted its current and planned solar buildout. The hearing ended without a vote; the committee adjourned after taking testimony on both bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are some solar farms or solar plants, whatever you want to call them, that people do have agrovoltaics
• A 2020 study... industrial scale solar development.
• We're not against solar on roofs. We're not against solar in community solar situations.
• If you remove the tax credits on wind or solar, it's going to put solar up around, my calculations here
• You mentioned the solar and the wind.

Summary: The House Utilities Committee resumed and then concluded a hearing on HB 2402 and HB 2816, both dealing with utility-scale solar development. The chair asked witnesses to testify for informational purposes where they supported some provisions but opposed others, and the discussion centered on setback distances, taxation, cropland conversion caps, local control, and decommissioning/oversight. Several witnesses described concerns about large solar projects encircling farms, impacts on neighbors, glare, fire risk, wetlands, and property values, while others emphasized the need for reasonable statewide standards and the importance of preserving Chapter 100 agreements and county flexibility. Testimony from landowners and advocacy groups largely urged stronger protections: higher setbacks, more local authority, lower caps on cropland conversion, and higher tax rates than the bill’s proposed $2,500 per megawatt. Some witnesses argued solar should be taxed as commercial property rather than agricultural land, while others raised constitutional concerns about changing agricultural assessment. A county commissioner described local regulations his county adopted, including road agreements, decommissioning bonds, hydraulic studies, and buffering, and said counties need clearer rules, especially where there is no zoning. Industry and utility representatives said the bills were generally workable but wanted further discussion on setbacks and tax treatment. They argued tax comparisons should account for the full package of taxes and incentives, not just nameplate taxes, and said higher taxes can raise electricity costs for customers. Ameren Missouri said most of the bill was acceptable, but cautioned about how real property would be assessed and noted its current and planned solar buildout. The committee took no vote; after hearing the final witness, the chair closed testimony on HB 2402 and HB 2816 and adjourned the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> solar incentives that encourage solar solar incentives that encourage solar for<00:19:04.039><c>
• solar solar rewards these funding from solar solar rewards these projects<00:19:13.799><c> span</c><00
• installers, and Xcel's solar customers that want to go solar.
• installers, and Xcel's solar customers that want to go solar.
• rewards solar energy today solar rewards solar energy production<00:51:21.480><c> incentive</c><00:51

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• So solar radiation modification, solar radiation reflection methods.
• The current chair is married to a solar lobbyist who advocates on behalf of solar.
• As you heard, maybe the solar...
• Each solar panel...
• stop generating from the solar panels. ...off in a solar farm.

Committee: House Special Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• a solar farm?
• owning the solar plant.
• owning the solar plant.
• owning the solar plant.
• Off-grid and I use solar.

Committee: House House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2150, which continues the State Land Department until July 1, 2030. Members questioned the commissioner extensively about agency procedures, backlog, appraisals, auction practices, privilege claims in the Fontamonte audit, and the Coyotes land transaction. The committee also discussed the Griffin amendment, which required quarterly updates, a public hearing on the department’s strategic plan, changes to conceptual land use plans and five-year disposition plans, and legislative findings. After debate over oversight and accountability, the amendment was adopted and HB 2150 was returned with a do pass recommendation by a 6-4 vote. The committee then considered House Bill 2975, which would suspend the State Land Department’s solar scoring map and require new mining and housing resource maps, with the amendment changing the mapping deadline and requiring the maps to be posted online. Supporters said the bill would improve fairness and maximize trust revenue for schools by avoiding favoritism toward solar; opponents argued the solar map is only a guidance tool and that removing it could reduce transparency and revenue. The department said it was neutral but asked for additional staff or consultant support if the bill passed. The committee adopted the amendment and passed HB 2975 as amended on a 6-4 vote. House Bill 2781 followed, addressing solar plant decommissioning, restoration, financial assurance, insurance, and a remediation fund. The amendment narrowed the bill to decommissioning standards and limited its reach to projects receiving permits after the effective date. Testimony focused on the need to ensure solar sites are restored and that taxpayers are not left with cleanup costs; several speakers cited abandoned or aging energy infrastructure as a cautionary example. The committee adopted the amendment and passed HB 2781 as amended by a 6-4 vote. Finally, the committee began House Bill 2267, which would classify certain utility-scale wind or solar projects within four miles of residential property as a public nuisance, with exceptions and grandfathering for existing projects. The sponsor argued the bill responds to concerns about large renewable projects near homes and property value impacts, while the amendment narrowed the scope to utility-scale wind and solar and excluded rooftop solar and existing projects. The transcript cuts off before any final action on HB 2267.

Transcript Highlights:

• Louis City on solar is what? I may want to have solar panels on every house.
• There are some solar farms or solar plants with, Um, there are some solar farms or solar plants, whatever
• We're not against solar on roofs. We're not against solar in community solar situations.
• or solar.
• Solar is between 28 and 117. Solar is between 28 and 117 megawatt hours.

Committee: House Utilities

Transcript Highlights:

• So solar radiation modification, solar radiation reflection methods.
• For example, you'll probably hear testimony on the solar side that solar electricity is very inexpensive
• We use nuclear and coal and natural gas, wind and solar, and that's solar, of course, that has brought
• solar.
• “In the solar industry.

Committee: House Special Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The committee first took up several executive-session items and voted H.J.R. 189 do pass by a roll call of 11 ayes, 1 no, and 1 present. It then adopted a committee substitute for House Bill 2139, with the substitute removing specific references to Sharia law and broadening the language to apply to foreign law generally; the committee then voted the House Committee Substitute for HB 2139 and HB 2175 do pass by 10 ayes and 2 noes. The committee also adopted a substitute for House Bill 3051 that removed manufacturer language and focused the bill on car dealers and the Department of Revenue, then voted that House Committee Substitute do pass by 7 ayes, 5 noes, and 1 present. Later, the committee adopted an amendment and substitute for House Bill 2908 and HB 2990 and voted that combined committee substitute do pass by 13 ayes and 1 no. The bulk of the meeting was devoted to House Bills 2388 and 2656, which would ban geoengineering, weather modification, and cloud seeding in Missouri. Sponsors and supporters argued the bills were needed to stop pollution, protect air, water, soil, agriculture, and public health, and to mirror laws or proposals in other states such as Tennessee, Florida, and Louisiana. Testimony from supporters included claims that these practices are already occurring, that federal and private actors are involved, and that the bills would provide a needed state-level prohibition and deterrent. Several witnesses also argued that weather modification and geoengineering raise consent, environmental, and health concerns, while a Missouri Farm Bureau representative said the organization opposes unregulated commercial weather modification as a proactive measure. The committee also heard extensive testimony on a solar-energy bill, House Bill 2478, presented as a vehicle for a committee substitute focused on safety issues around solar farms. The sponsor said the substitute would likely address setbacks, fire safety, alarms or notification systems, soil testing, and liability/decommissioning concerns, while trying to balance landowner rights with neighboring property owners’ safety. Witnesses in support raised concerns about fire risk, toxic materials, runoff, and the loss of agricultural land, and some urged stronger civil liability provisions. Committee members questioned whether the bill should be handled at the county level, whether existing legal recourse already exists for damaged neighbors, and which provisions would remain in the substitute. No final vote on HB 2478 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm wondering why solar, as distinct from anything else?
• and many of them can produce a lot of solar.
• But solar is an easier avenue, more generally accepted.
• Tell me, what are the terms of those solar partners' leases?
• If it's a community solar project, it may not be.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Revenue

Summary: The committee heard testimony on H. 3256, a bill stemming from the Massachusetts Cranberry Revitalization Task Force that would remove Chapter 61A barriers for certain renewable energy projects on non-producing agricultural land. Supporters said the bill would let farmers separate adjacent land from Chapter 61A without a municipal right of first refusal, avoid rollback and advance tax penalties, and use small solar or other renewable projects to generate supplemental income while keeping the farm in operation. Testimony emphasized that the proposal is intended to be “farm-first,” limited to marginal or accessory land, and could also produce local tax revenue for municipalities. Some members raised concerns about whether the bill should be limited to solar, the appropriate project size, impacts on other agricultural sectors, and whether future sales or conversion back to other uses should trigger local rights of first refusal. Witnesses said the bill had been reported favorably in a prior session and noted that similar projects typically involve 20-year leases with extensions. The committee also took testimony on S. 2009, which would authorize regional transportation ballot initiatives. MAPC and Transportation for Mass argued that the bill would give municipalities and groups of municipalities a flexible tool to raise local revenue for transportation projects such as transit, roads, bridges, bikeways, and pedestrian infrastructure, with sunset provisions so the revenue ends when the project ends. They said the measure would not raise taxes on its own, but would allow local voters to decide whether to adopt a revenue source, and pointed to examples from other states where similar initiatives funded major transit and infrastructure projects. No votes were taken during the hearing. Testimony was also heard on S. 1922, which would create a Massachusetts fund allowing voluntary taxpayer donations to the UN Least Developed Countries Fund or related 501(c)(3) nonprofits supporting climate-vulnerable communities. Climate Reality Project representatives said the bill would let Massachusetts residents support climate resilience projects in the world’s poorest countries at no cost to the Commonwealth, and could serve as a model for other states. Senators questioned how recipient countries and nonprofits would be selected, what safeguards would exist regarding countries such as Yemen, and how taxpayers would know where donations would go; witnesses said the fund would be administered through the UN system and that they would provide more clarification. Rep. Michelle Ciccolo also testified on H. 3051, seeking a one-year deferral of the higher interest rate that applies when deferred property taxes become due after the death of a senior or veteran, saying the current jump to 16% can burden heirs and discourage use of the deferral program. The hearing concluded without any votes or committee actions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, it revises provisions about solar facilities to require erosion and sediment control plans to
• rather than require the Department of Environmental Protection to develop best management practices for solar
• I requested eliminating solar fields. I requested eliminating golf courses.
• I requested eliminating solar fields. I requested eliminating golf courses.
• driver's license may never communicate location or transaction data back to the government or have the retailer

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up a long agenda of bills, many of them amended. Early action included PCS for CS for HB 639, which would expand an existing Fraternal Order of Police specialty license plate to all Floridians, tighten specialty plate rules for future applicants, require financial projections and reporting, and create several new specialty plates. After questions about Florida nexus requirements and a successful amendment adding a Florida Film Legacy plate, the bill was reported favorably 26-0. PCS for CS for HB 1169, limiting local governments’ use of excess building-code enforcement funds for construction of the code-enforcement building, also passed unanimously after testimony from the Florida Home Builders Association. The committee then approved HB 139, expanding whistleblower protections for state, local, and contract employees who file ethics complaints, with support from the Florida Commission on Ethics. PCS for HB 273, which would make special districts eligible for certain state and federal grants and direct pay options, passed 24-1 after testimony from both supporters and opponents. Members also approved CS for HB 1087, a public-records exemption for certain stablecoin issuer information, and CS for HB 1085, updating the local government cybersecurity grant program by moving it to Cyber Florida at USF, adding a sunset, and limiting consecutive awards. Several environmental and local-government transparency measures drew extended debate. CS for CS for HB 1417, a broad environmental bill, was amended to remove several provisions, retain others on the Environmental Regulation Commission, springs, solar facilities, Indian River Lagoon septic deadlines, and coastal resiliency partnerships, and then passed 24-0 amid mixed testimony from DEP, water management districts, and environmental advocates. CS for HB 1457, creating a framework for regional stormwater management systems and water quality enhancement areas, passed 24-0 after discussion of port impacts. CS for HB 1329, requiring local budgets to be posted earlier, retained longer, and made searchable, and adding a 10% budget-cutting exercise, passed 17-6 after strong opposition from local-government groups who argued it would be costly and duplicative. The committee also approved CS for HB 4091 creating a special district for stormwater and flood control in Sarasota and Manatee counties, and then took up CS for HB 995, a major overhaul of Public Employees Relations Commission and union-related procedures, including registration, dues disclosure, election rules, leave-time limits, and expedited bargaining over legislatively appropriated salary increases; that bill was still under questioning when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• A lot of that is because Oahu, the recent solar projects have packed solar panels tighter.
• have packed solar recent solar projects have packed solar panels<00:55:36.319><c> tighter.
• solar.
• mentioned a solar component. Is that mentioned a solar component.
• /c><01:38:11.600><c> pretty</c><01:38:11.840><c> small</c> solar solar is actually a pretty small solar

Bills: SCR48 , SCR28 , SCR74 , SCR62 , SCR60 , SCR89 , SCR147 , SCR179 , SCR182 , SCR59 , SCR54 , SCR180

Transcript Highlights:

• The people that are wanting to build solar, they need clarity.
• This has been raised in several different solar bills.
• Their solar project.
• And that would impact the solar facility the most.
• I have never been a great fan of solar, but it's here.

Committee: House Utilities

Transcript Highlights:

• Clerk: HB 1606 by Metcalf, relating to the notice provided to a retail electric customer of a procedure
• relating to the inclusion of recycling or disposal provisions in certain lease agreements of wind or solar

Bills: HB 118 , HB388 , HB 114 , HB205 , HB2789 , HB2791 , HB499 , HB2960 , HB3163 , HB3135 , HB2427 , HB1618 , HB1672 , HB1722 , HB1338 , HB787 , HB2618 , HB879 , HB 1126 , HB4134 , HB3513 , HB718 , HB1536 , HB1445 , HB1640 , HB1893 , HB1734 , HB3229 , HB3306 , HB 1276 , HB3272 , HB3276 , HB3516 , HB4145 , HB1585 , HB4810 , HB2989 , HB2558 , HB3014 , HB2742 , HB1695 , HB29 , HB 125 , HB145 , HB171 , HB255 , HB50 , HB363 , HB 116 , HB491 , HB1495 , HB368 , HB 1285 , HB1905 , HB2002 , HB917 , HB2723 , HB2067 , HB 1238 , HB745 , HB 1188 , HB1606 , HB2003 , HB2147 , HB2355 , HB2546 , HB2495 , HB2818 , HB2249 , HB3228 , HB3240 , HB1507 , HB658 , HB1748 , HB1851 , HB1922 , HB2798 , HB 107 , HB1587 , HB3684 , HB 118 , HB388 , HB 114 , HB205 , HB2789 , HB2791 , HB499 , HB2960 , HB3163 , HB3135 , HB2427 , HB1618 , HB1672 , HB1722 , HB1338 , HB787 , HB2618 , HB879 , HB 1126 , HB4134 , HB3513 , HB718 , HB1536 , HB1445 , HB1640 , HB1893 , HB1734 , HB3229 , HB3306 , HB 1276 , HB3272 , HB3276 , HB3516 , HB4145 , HB1585 , HB4810 , HB2989 , HB2558 , HB3014 , HB2742 , HB1695 , HB609 , HB630 , HB420 , HB767 , HB1708 , HB1404 , HB2457 , HB140 , HB227 , HB913 , HB2198 , HB2763 , HB 1261 , HB 1135 , HB1318 , HB2358 , HB2765 , HB2735 , HB3307 , HB 1242 , HB2842 , HB333 , HB201 , HB694 , HB2415 , HB155 , HB272 , HB405 , HB519 , HB 1136 , HB 1275 , HB1437 , HB1532 , HB1675 , HB1868 , HB1888 , HB1990 , HB2286 , HB2523 , HB3129 , HB3251 , HB3354 , HB3479 , HB3803 , HB3804 , HB3805 , HB3806 , HB3887 , HB4163 , HB4238 , HB 1240 , HB1842 , HB2029 , HB2622 , HB3255 , HB654 , HB4643 , HB4945 , HB3611 , HB3724 , HB3623 , HB3810 , HB4127 , HCR78 , HCR12 , SB767