Transcript Highlights:

• Um, what, what does, uh, what is, what's PUC do about it?
• At this time, has the railroad Commission asked the PUC to, to ask a utility to sever power anywhere?
• For the PUC. Thank y'all for hanging around. I appreciate your testimony.
• efforts before the PUC has resulted in $2.2 billion in savings.
• Is it PUC? Who, who is traffic copying that list, um, of applications? Do you know?

Committee: House State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 740 Committee Substitute lays out, adds two additional requirements applicable to the PUC
• I mean, they would just load the PUC up. file cabinets full of documents in order to get to where they
• That's kind of where the origin of this is, and hopefully PUC will have more leverage to push it back
• I think 4.0 PUC has to take up that pattern and move forward with it.
• I'd like to point out one thing on here is we do continue to give more and more to PUC.

Bills: SCR13 , SB1248

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Keywords: water rights, treaty compliance, Rio Grande, agriculture, drought, international water, Texas water supply, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, TPWD, harvest reports, wildlife harvest data, public information act, open records, confidentiality, hunter privacy, angler data, game animals, game birds, fur-bearing animals, nongame animals

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we work closely with the PUC and DOE on energy issues.
• And then we work closely with the PUC and DOE on energy issues.
• And then we work closely with the PUC and DOE on energy issues.
• And then we work closely with the PUC and DOE on energy issues.
• And then we work closely with the PUC and DOE on energy issues.

Committee: House Science, Technology and Energy

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• With me today is Connie Corona, the PUC. PUC's Executive Director. Mr.
• Again, I'm Connie Corona, Executive Director of the PUC.
• Pages two and three have some highlights. from the PUC Sunset Bill last session.
• Senate Bill 1929, last session, required large crypto miners to register with the PUC.
• Bill 2555 from last session authorized electric utilities to file resiliency plans with the PUC.

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm pleased to lay out Senate Bill 790, which allows the PUC to create a simplified resolution process
• discrepancy between a tenant and an owner on a water or wastewater bill, the case must be resolved by the PUC
• Senate Bill 790 allows the PUC to create a simplified complaint resolution process for water and wastewater
• While this expedited dispute resolution process will be subject to PUC rulemaking, this adopted process
• We do have a resource witness from the PUC here. Thank you, Senator. Any questions for the bill?

Bills: SB480 , SB767 , SB790 , SB971 , SB1066

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Keywords: water resources, interlocal contracts, local government, collaboration, planning activities, wildfire response, firefighting equipment, emergency services, state database, Texas Forest Service, customer complaints, Public Utility Commission, water service, complaint process, utility regulation, SB 971, Texas Water Assistance Program, Water Code, rural political subdivision, rural water

Summary: The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs met on Texas Water Day and limited public testimony to two minutes. The chair emphasized the need to move quickly because of scheduling conflicts with other committees and noted the importance of water policy and related stakeholders. The committee heard several bills focused on water administration, rural utilities, emergency response, and public works contracting. Senate Bill 790 by Senator Alvarado would let the Public Utility Commission create a simplified process for resolving tenant complaints over water or wastewater bill discrepancies; it was described as a way to avoid lengthy contested-case hearings for small disputes. Senate Bill 971 by Senator Sparks would clean up conflicting statutory definitions of “rural political subdivision” so Texas Water Development Board programs are applied consistently; Texas Rural Water Association testified in support. Senate Bill 767, also by Senator Sparks, would expand and improve a statewide database of fire-response equipment so departments, including volunteer and rural departments, can locate and share resources more effectively during emergencies; fire service witnesses supported the bill and suggested annual updates to keep the database current. Chair Perry laid out Senate Bill 480 to clarify that local governments and special districts may enter interlocal agreements for water-related planning and research, including aquifer management and flood/water planning. He also presented Senate Bill 1066, which raises payment and performance bond thresholds for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department public works contracts to $150,000, arguing the change would reflect inflation and help smaller vendors on lower-risk projects. Witnesses were heard on the bills, with no opposition recorded in the transcript. The committee voted out all five bills favorably. SB 1066, SB 480, SB 767, SB 790, and SB 971 each received unanimous committee approval and were recommended to the local and contested calendar, with SB 767 noted as amended by a suggested annual-update requirement for the equipment database.

Transcript Highlights:

• The PUC will consider the following five requirements as part of the public-interest determination: one
• and four, the results of a reliability assessment conducted by ERCOT and any other information the PUC
• We would prefer it to be at the PUC.
• We're not opposed to working with universities to... ...we would prefer it to be at the PUC.
• Speak now or forever hold your peace. ...we would prefer it to be at the PUC.

Bills: HB132 , HB 11 , HB14 , HB132 , HB1584 , HB1606 , HB5061 , HB 1041 , HB2286

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Keywords: nuclear energy, Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, energy policy, regulation repeal, state energy strategy, licensing, reciprocity, regulation, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, interstate agreements, advanced reactors, energy security, grant programs, HB 132, Texas Government Code Chapter 418, Public Information Act, confidential records, homeland security, foreign adversary, terrorism

Summary: The committee first took up pending business and quickly reported several measures favorably, including HB 12, SB 1361, SB 1705, SB 1749, SB 1897, SB 2344, SB 2566, HB 3809, and HB 4215, with most sent to the Local and Uncontested Calendar. HB 12’s substitute clarified a limited midterm review of regulatory agencies tied to Sunset Commission recommendations. SB 2696’s substitute changed med spa regulation from a license to a certificate, with training instead of an exam, plus background checks, continuing education, and two-year renewals. HB 3809 dealt with battery energy storage decommissioning and recycling, and HB 4215 was reported without a substitute. SB 1978, concerning interconnection of electric facilities in ERCOT and federal jurisdiction concerns, was reported out on a 5-3 vote after debate, but then the chair later announced the bill was withdrawn and left pending subject to the call of the chair. HB 1899 was also reported favorably, with one nay. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 14, the advanced nuclear energy bill. Senator Schwertner described it as creating a Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, a nuclear permitting coordinator, a development fund, a completion grant program, and a workforce development program. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including representatives from Fermi America, Dow/X-energy, CPS Energy, Paragon Energy Solutions, Bridge to Nuclear, Aalo Atomics, and the Texas Association of Business, argued that Texas should lead in advanced nuclear, citing future baseload demand, data centers, industrial power needs, supply-chain development, and long-term energy diversification. Opponents, including Public Citizen, Texas Nuclear Watchdogs, Sierra Club, and individual citizens, argued the bill would subsidize unproven, expensive technology, create grants rather than loans, and expose taxpayers to major risk while doing little to meet near-term energy needs. Several members questioned whether the state should fund projects that may not produce grid power for years, and whether the bill’s grant structure and new office were justified. The committee also heard HB 5061, which Senator Schwertner said would prohibit unethical surveillance and misuse of confidential information by state contractors, create a confidential reporting system through the State Auditor’s Office, authorize Texas Rangers investigations, protect whistleblowers, and impose penalties including contract termination, fines, and contracting bans. No public testimony was offered, and the bill was left pending. HB 132, sponsored by Senator Hughes, would extend confidentiality protections for sensitive information to hostile acts by foreign adversaries; it was also left pending after no testimony. HB 1584 was then laid out, with Senator Schwertner explaining it would require utilities to maintain and update priority restoration lists for critical facilities after Hurricane Beryl exposed communication failures, but the transcript cuts off before any action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:22:00.480><c> an</c> this bill also uh provides the PUC an this bill also uh provides the PUC
• This isn't for an affordable price,' and the PUC then would intervene.
• </c> out to the uh the provider and the PUC out to the uh the provider and the PUC and<00:42:44.240><
• I think one of PUC then would intervene.
• </c> service where basically if if the PUC service where basically if if the PUC was<00:43:00.720><c>

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Actually, the PUC has required, on various projects, and other entities have as well, to use berms or
• under commerce's advisement to be puc under commerce's advisement to be able<00:53:57.640><c> to</c>
• This highlights the primary areas of regulation for the PUC.
• actively participates in myo and FK puc actively participates in myo and FK proceedings<01:16:32.880
• About our staff here briefly, the PUC currently employs a staff of 77 FTE at its downtown St.

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• My staff has continually reached out to you at the PUC.
• It's from the PUC. We've asked the PUC many times.
• under that PUC paradigm.
• Was this from the PUC, or is this our estimates?
• So those are the positions that the PUC is authorized to fill. So those are permanent.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 327, dealing with things that were required to do legally when it comes to municipalization at the PUC
• At the PUC or at local cities and things like that.
• What kinds of things would be addressed by going through the PUC through Rule 21?
• Also, the PUC already engages in these types of reporting and processes.
• Section 2, by the way, is a requirement on the PUC, not the utilities.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard several bills focused on utility affordability, transparency, clean energy, and consumer access. SB 327 would bar investor-owned utilities from using ratepayer funds to oppose municipal utility formation and would clarify the Public Advocates Office’s authority to inspect utility books; supporters framed it as a ratepayer protection and accountability measure, while utilities and industry groups raised concerns about municipalization language and data-request procedures. After discussion about the scope of the bill and existing guardrails from prior legislation, the committee voted SB 327 out on a due pass as amended basis to Appropriations, with the roll left open and later updated to 12-2. SB 1350, a hydrogen bill, would allow renewable portfolio standard credit for power plants using green hydrogen in turbines. The author and supporters said it would help California meet clean energy goals, support the Lancaster hydrogen project, and create jobs, while opponents, especially environmental groups, warned about NOx emissions, the risk of paper transactions, and the need for stronger safeguards on feedstocks and delivery. Members discussed amendments already taken and the need for continued work on environmental protections; the committee passed the bill 14-0 to Natural Resources. SB 868 would create a framework for plug-in or balcony solar devices for renters and others without rooftop solar, with safety standards and a cap on system size. Supporters said it would lower bills and expand access to solar, while utilities and some others raised safety and backfeed concerns and asked for more review through existing interconnection processes. The author and witnesses said the devices are small, non-exporting, and covered by safety certifications; the committee approved the bill 17-0, later updated to 18-0, and sent it to Appropriations. SB 1233 would require additional disclosure about utility cash on hand, capital structure, and related information in existing reports to help inform rates and affordability. Utilities opposed the measure as duplicative of existing proceedings and potentially delay-inducing, while supporters said it would improve transparency for ratepayers. The committee passed SB 1233 10-3 to Appropriations. The committee also dispensed with the consent calendar, passing the remaining consent items, including SB 925, SB 667, SB 952, SB 742, SB 929, SB 943, and SB 1138, and noted that SB 905 had been pulled from the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• So a lot of the projects under development, the list that we get, come from the PUC.
• It's the CAISO, it's the PUC, it's the Energy Commission.
• It's the KISO is the PUC, it's the Energy Commission.
• Do you see the PUC having a role to play in helping the IOUs also prioritize?
• The PUC has a proposed decision on the street right now for six... ...dollars per gigawatt.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Rylander here on behalf of a handful of supporters: TechNet, Cal Asian Chamber, the NAACP California and Hawaii
• which I think I just want to emphasize for the opposition: if you look, I read every sentence of the PUC

Summary: The committee heard several insurance-related bills. SB 371 by Senator Cabaldon would lower uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage requirements for rideshare companies from the current $1 million level to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per incident, with added transparency and data-reporting provisions. Uber, Lyft, and several business groups supported the bill as a way to reduce fares and improve affordability, while consumer attorneys, labor groups, and others opposed it as a major cut in protection for injured passengers and drivers. Committee members raised concerns about whether savings would actually reach riders and drivers, but the bill was approved on a do-pass vote to the next committee, with one member not voting. SB 487 by Senator Grayson would change how settlement or judgment proceeds are distributed when peace officers or firefighters are injured by a third party, ensuring they receive at least two-thirds of the at-fault party’s liability insurance limits in certain cases. Supporters, including public safety unions and an injured deputy sheriff, said current law can leave injured first responders with little or no recovery after employer reimbursement, while opponents representing cities, counties, and public agencies argued the bill would reduce recovery of taxpayer-funded workers’ compensation costs and lacked sufficient data. The committee members who spoke largely supported the bill, and it passed on a do-pass vote to Appropriations, with one member not voting. SB 616 by Senator Rubio would create an independent community hardening commission within the Department of Insurance to develop statewide wildfire mitigation recommendations and a post-catastrophe reporting process. The Department of Insurance, local governments, consumer groups, and fire-related organizations supported the measure as a way to improve wildfire resilience and insurance availability, while water agencies opposed provisions touching water infrastructure and warned of litigation and ratepayer impacts. The bill advanced on a do-pass vote to Appropriations, with some members not voting and one member voting no. The committee also heard SB 547 by Senator Perez, coauthored by Senator Rubio, which would extend wildfire-related insurance cancellation/nonrenewal moratoriums to commercial properties; insurers removed their opposition after amendments, and the bill passed to Appropriations on a do-pass vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• stop and I'll answer other questions, but may I suggest let's talk about how now to take what is the PUC
• And even the CPC's affordability ratio calculator, which is a tool the PUC developed to assess utility
• That's a million more, which is sort of the informal target that the PUC has.
• That's a million more, which is sort of the informal target that the PUC has.
• We are a party in that proceeding before the PUC. So we'll see how it unfolds.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee held an informational hearing on the state of broadband affordability in California. Chair Tasha Berner said the committee was examining how broadband prices, access, and affordability are affecting households, especially after the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program and amid concerns about federal resistance to state broadband regulation. She noted the committee’s continued interest in policy options for 2026 and referenced prior legislation, including AB 353, that would have required affordable home internet as a condition of doing business in California. Industry witnesses from U.S. Telecom and CTIA argued that broadband and wireless prices have generally fallen in real terms even as inflation and other household costs have risen, citing competition, infrastructure investment, and faster speeds as the main drivers. They said California’s higher costs are tied to permitting delays, taxes, copper theft, and legacy obligations such as COLR requirements, and they urged the Legislature to preserve market incentives, reduce fees and regulatory burdens, and support infrastructure deployment. They also discussed fixed wireless access, federal BEAD funding, and Universal Service Fund reform, arguing that more entities benefiting from networks, including tech platforms, should contribute to support programs. Consumer and public-interest witnesses presented a different view, saying California still has a serious affordability and adoption problem, especially for low-income households. Sunny McPhee of the California Emerging Technology Fund said broadband adoption has improved dramatically over time, but about 500,000 households remain offline or underconnected and many low-income households still pay above the FCC affordability benchmark. Ernesto Falcon of the CPUC Public Advocates Office said California’s market is losing its competitive edge, with prices higher than in other states and meaningful price pressure coming mainly from fiber competition at the gigabit tier. He said roughly 4.8 million Californians are limited to one gigabit option and estimated that more competition could save consumers more than $1 billion annually. Both witnesses emphasized the need for stronger transparency, targeted subsidies, and a permanent affordability solution, including extending and refining the CPUC broadband Lifeline pilot and advancing SB 716. Public commenters, including representatives from cable providers, nonprofits, and digital equity organizations, largely supported SB 716 and a permanent broadband affordability program. Several urged the committee to remove a cap on the Lifeline program, expand the CPUC pilot, and invest in digital navigators, outreach, and enrollment assistance. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, after the chair thanked the witnesses and public commenters for their testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• stop and I'll answer other questions, but may I suggest let's talk about how now to take what is the PUC
• And even the CPC's affordable affordability ratio calculator, which is a tool the PUC developed to assess
• That's a million more, which is sort of the informal target that the PUC has to get to all 5.8 million
• We are a party in that proceeding before the PUC, so we'll see how it unfolds.
• just in the area of the project, which is essentially there is a couple different ways in which the PUC

Committee: House Communications and Conveyance

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I do not know, maybe PUC. I am sure. Sorry for the sidetrack. Just really quickly.
• I don't know, maybe PUC. I'm sure. Sorry for the side track. Just really quickly.
• The PUC reported last fall that wildfire liability costs specifically are...
• The last time they did, PUC did an audit was in 2021.
• Does it need to be independent of the PUC?

Summary: The hearing focused on the SB 254 Natural Catastrophe Resiliency Study and its recommendations for addressing California’s wildfire risk, utility liability, and the financing of catastrophic losses. Committee members and presenters discussed the history of the wildfire fund created after the 2018 fire crisis and PG&E bankruptcy, the role of the California Earthquake Authority as fund administrator, and the report’s three broad policy pathways: continuing mitigation investments, more equitably allocating catastrophe costs, and considering expanded state involvement in catastrophe financing. Presenters emphasized that the report was intended as a neutral, stakeholder-informed analysis rather than an advocacy document, and that the status quo is not working well for survivors, ratepayers, insurers, or utilities. CEA, CPUC, and the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety each described their contributions and recommendations. CEA outlined options such as risk-tolerance standards for utilities, preserving safety certificate accountability, tying executive compensation more directly to safety, confidential near-miss reporting, liability reforms, and a fast-pay facility for survivors. CPUC stressed that wildfire mitigation and liability costs are a major driver of electricity affordability problems, and said the state should broaden how wildfire recovery and mitigation are funded beyond ratepayers alone. Energy Safety highlighted its wildfire mitigation plan oversight and recommended stronger safety reporting and stronger safety weighting in utility executive compensation. The modeling portion of the report estimated that a more durable wildfire fund could require about $36 billion in capitalization, with lower initial capital needs if risk transfer or liability reforms are used, but potentially higher ongoing premium or assessment costs. The report also examined state-backed insurer or backstop models, post-event funding mechanisms, and targeted community wildfire mitigation, which could reduce overall funding needs. Members raised concerns about the cost burden on ratepayers, the financial stability of utilities, the fairness of asking communities outside high-risk areas to pay, the role of local governments and home hardening, and whether broader climate-related liability or insurance reforms should be considered. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with plans for further committee hearings and stakeholder discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• In an Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing just a couple of months ago, the PUC reported that they are
• The PUC recently adopted changes to G.O. 131-D.
• Our bill was this big, and the cost increased by sixfold because the PUC does not want to do things to
• Our bill was this big, and the cost increased by sixfold because the PUC does not want to do things to
• If this bill passes and you direct utilities and the PUC to securitize this and everything else that's

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard two bills focused on electricity affordability and utility costs. AB 745, by Assembly Member Irwin, would restructure the California Climate Credit by shifting it from lump-sum payments to direct reductions in volumetric electricity rates and moving the credit to the summer months when bills are highest. The author and UC Santa Barbara economist Dr. Kyle Meng argued this could significantly lower summer rates and better help households during extreme heat. Supporters, including UCS, NRDC, and some labor representatives, favored the concept, with some urging that the gas climate credit also be redirected. No opposition testimony was presented, and the bill passed 18-0 to the floor. The committee then considered AB 825, also presented as an affordability package aimed at reducing electric bills by addressing wildfire mitigation costs, transmission financing, permitting delays, and a review of ratepayer-funded programs. The bill would authorize securitization for undergrounding expenses, remove the first $15 billion in undergrounding capital investments from the rate base for return purposes, create a public transmission financing program using Proposition 4 funds and IBank support, revive the California Power Authority as a public sponsor, and establish a task force to review energy efficiency and demand response programs. The author and witness Matt Friedman of The Utility Reform Network said the bill could save ratepayers billions over time through lower-cost public financing and securitization. Testimony on AB 825 was mixed. Support came from several consumer and clean-energy groups, while utilities and labor raised concerns about the bill’s impact on utility financial stability, wildfire fund participation, liability, and whether the $15 billion securitization cap could discourage undergrounding. Some witnesses also objected to the task force’s potential effect on energy efficiency and demand response programs. Committee members discussed the need to balance affordability with utility creditworthiness and wildfire safety, and several asked for more analysis of market impacts and liability issues. Despite those concerns, AB 825 passed the committee 13-0 and was sent to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um thermal energy networks are, per the bill, are subject to the same PUC oversight as electric and natural
• I want to thank our authors for their thoughtful work on this policy, the members of the PUC Deployment
• work on this policy, the members<00:02:26.360><c> of</c><00:02:26.440><c> the</c><00:02:26.520><c> PUC
• </c><00:02:27.040><c> Deployment</c><00:02:27.480><c> Work</c> members of the PUC Deployment Work members
• of the PUC Deployment Work Group,<00:02:28.200><c> which</c><00:02:28.360><c> is</c><00:02:28.440><c

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We appropriated the cash funds that continue to keep the PUC open.
• And then my question also in appropriations was with regard to the PUC meeting.
• And again, in the fiscal note, it just says the PUC is permitted to hold weekly meetings.
• I am also looking at whether they can expand the PUC further.
• I am also looking at whether they can expand the PUC further.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The PUC oversees the communications industry in California in areas that impact public safety, universal
• to modernize the California Lifeline The PUC approved multiple decisions to modernize the California
• The PUC also enhanced School, health, and safety.
• The PUC also enhanced the Lifeline Foster Youth Program to offer every current and former foster youth
• And we would love to work with the PUC on how to manage it.

Committee: House Communications and Conveyance

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If it's under the PUC, it would be a ratepayer-funded program.
• My staff has continually reached out to you at the PUC.
• It’s from the PUC. We’ve asked the PUC many times.”
• under that PUC paradigm.
• Was this from the PUC, or is this our estimates?

Summary: The committee first heard Issue 1 on trailer bill language to redirect funding for emergency demand-response programs. The Department of Finance proposed using about $26.9 million in General Fund originally set aside for the Distributed Energy Backup Assets program to bolster the Demand-Side Grid Support Program for summer 2026, and using about $70 million in CalCHAP interest to support ratepayer-funded demand response in summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or a successor program, while the LAO noted the General Fund money would otherwise revert to savings. Members pressed the administration on whether demand response remains important, whether DSGS has been successful, and whether the state should keep funding it through the CEC rather than shifting to a ratepayer-funded CPUC program. The CEC and CPUC said the programs are not directly comparable, emphasized different cost structures and enrollment metrics, and said a CPUC rulemaking is underway with a proposed decision expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up Issue 2, a budget proposal tied to SB 254 and the new transmission accelerator. GoBiz and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank described a five-year, roughly $26 million request to staff and administer the accelerator and manage Proposition 4 and AB 1207 funds for transmission financing. Members asked about state liability, ownership of financed lines, FERC revenue requirements, and whether the program would help underserved regions and offshore wind development. Staff explained that the accelerator would only consider projects already identified through CAISO’s competitive transmission planning process, and that state financing would be a small portion of large projects intended to lower overall costs to ratepayers. The LAO said it had no specific concerns but urged the Legislature to ensure the final language matches its intent. The committee also heard Issue 3 on petroleum market oversight. The CEC and its Division of Petroleum Market Oversight requested additional positions and funding to implement ABX2-1 and continue work on supply stabilization, refinery monitoring, and transportation fuels analysis. Members questioned why the work was funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether existing staff from the paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and whether the program had produced evidence of price gouging or improved supply conditions. CEC and Finance said the new positions are needed because the workload has expanded, while some existing staff remain on related analysis and reporting duties. The discussion ended without a vote in the transcript.