Transcript Highlights:

• But it's not a cap.
• , that extra student fee.
• Fees at the school, like Peter said, that extra student fee, and anything else that we have to add in
• And this isn't the first time I heard about the 44% cap.
• We do cap-and-gown graduation. Their first cap and gown and their family ceremony.

Summary: The Careers and Workforce Subcommittee met to discuss apprenticeship education and workforce development, with panelists from Santa Fe College, the Florida Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, ABC East Coast/ABC Institute, and Piper Fire Protection. Members heard that apprenticeships are growing in Florida, with panelists emphasizing that these programs offer paid, tuition-free training, progressive wage increases, and strong job placement in high-demand fields such as HVAC, electrical, fire protection, and construction. Panelists also described efforts to expand into new areas like accounting, cybersecurity, network infrastructure, and surgical technology, while stressing the importance of aligning programs with employer demand. A major topic was funding and reimbursement. Panelists said the current model is complicated and often leaves providers with only a portion of the funds appropriated for apprentices, with one provider saying reimbursement can be as low as 44% and others describing caps, contract delays, and inconsistent CareerSource support. They argued that more of the money should reach training providers, that small businesses need more support to participate, and that transparency and contract reform could help expand enrollment and improve program quality. Several also raised barriers such as instructor approval rules, paperwork, and facility costs. Members asked about admission criteria, program costs, employer incentives, outreach to high school students, and whether apprenticeships should have greater access to other funding sources. Panelists said the main requirements are being employed and willing to work and learn, and that outreach through schools, career fairs, community partnerships, and public awareness campaigns is essential. They also discussed articulation agreements that can provide college credit for apprenticeship training and suggested statewide credit recognition and possible direct funding to providers as policy improvements. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with the subcommittee adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh we're also increases in fees.
• reshuffleling kind of fees a little bit? reshuffleling kind of fees a little bit?
• 1st, but it's going to be rolling in over... uh fees are. they change uh the fee uh fees are. they change
• We are uh uh going to be fees.
• cap that down to the minstate level. cap that down to the minstate level.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, you could have, like, somebody at Cap High School in a particular CTE program, maybe not.
• So, you could have, like, somebody at Cap High School in a particular CTE program, maybe not.

Bills: SB2901, SB2902, SB2903, SB2904, SB2905, SB2906, SB2907, SB2908, SB2909, SB2910, SB2911, SB2912, SB2913, SB2914, SB2915, SB2916, SB2917, SB2918, SB2919, SB2920, SB2921, SB2922, SB2923, SB2924, SB2925, SB2926, SB2927, SB2928, SB2929, SB2930, SB2931, SB2932, SB2933, SB2934, SB2935, SB2936, SB2937, SB2938, SB2939, SB2940, SB2941, SB2942, SB2943, SB2944, SB2945, SB2946, SB2947, SB2948, SB2949, SB2950, SB2951, SB2952, SB2953, SB2954, SB2955, SB2956, SB2957, SB2958, SB2959, SB2960, SB2961, SB2962, SB2963, SB2964, SB2965, SB2966, SB2967, SB2968, SB2969, SB2970, SB2971, SB2972, SB2973, SB2974, SB2975, SB2976, SB2977, SB2978, SB2979, SB2980, SB2981, SB2982, SB2983, SB2984, SB2985, SB2986, SB2987, SB2988, SB2989, SB2990, SB2991, SB2992, SB2993, SB2994, SB2995, SB2996, SB2997, SB2998, SB2999, SB3000

Keywords: geological subsurface characterization, groundwater, geothermal resources, environmental review, Hawaii groundwater and geothermal resources center, scientific research, non-extractive, public trust doctrine, clean energy, greenhouse gas, carbon sequestration, climate change, energy policy, Hawaii state energy office, emissions reduction, sustainable development, fare-free transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, public transit, tax on petroleum

Bills: SB2901, SB2902, SB2903, SB2904, SB2905, SB2906, SB2907, SB2908, SB2909, SB2910, SB2911, SB2912, SB2913, SB2914, SB2915, SB2916, SB2917, SB2918, SB2919, SB2920, SB2921, SB2922, SB2923, SB2924, SB2925, SB2926, SB2927, SB2928, SB2929, SB2930, SB2931, SB2932, SB2933, SB2934, SB2935, SB2936, SB2937, SB2938, SB2939, SB2940, SB2941, SB2942, SB2943, SB2944, SB2945, SB2946, SB2947, SB2948, SB2949, SB2950, SB2951, SB2952, SB2953, SB2954, SB2955, SB2956, SB2957, SB2958, SB2959, SB2960, SB2961, SB2962, SB2963, SB2964, SB2965, SB2966, SB2967, SB2968, SB2969, SB2970, SB2971, SB2972, SB2973, SB2974, SB2975, SB2976, SB2977, SB2978, SB2979, SB2980, SB2981, SB2982, SB2983, SB2984, SB2985, SB2986, SB2987, SB2988, SB2989, SB2990, SB2991, SB2992, SB2993, SB2994, SB2995, SB2996, SB2997, SB2998, SB2999, SB3000

Keywords: geological subsurface characterization, groundwater, geothermal resources, environmental review, Hawaii groundwater and geothermal resources center, scientific research, non-extractive, public trust doctrine, clean energy, greenhouse gas, carbon sequestration, climate change, energy policy, Hawaii state energy office, emissions reduction, sustainable development, fare-free transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, public transit, tax on petroleum

Transcript Highlights:

• Interchange fees are fees that card acceptors pay to card Interchange fees are fees that card acceptors
• In the European Union, they have imposed caps on the... compete on every other type of fee, interest,
• In the European Union, they have imposed caps on the interchange fees that can be set by these networks
• So the U.K., Australia, they have capped interchange fees.
• In Australia, the federal government conducted a study once they capped interchange fees, and not only

Summary: The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee heard several bills, beginning with AB 407, which would expand the California Pollution Control Financing Authority. The author said the measure would increase flexibility and access to resources, and the bill was approved 7-0 and sent to the Committee on Local Government. The committee also adopted the consent calendar, which included AB 76, by a 7-0 vote. A lengthy portion of the meeting focused on AB 1065, which would prohibit swipe fees on the sales tax portion of credit card transactions. Supporters, including small business owners, restaurant and grocery representatives, and a payments-policy expert, argued the bill would reduce costs for merchants and consumers and rein in dominant card networks. Opponents, including banks, credit unions, and payment industry groups, argued the bill is likely preempted by federal law, would be difficult to implement, and could disproportionately affect community banks and credit unions. After extensive questioning about preemption, fraud, implementation, and consumer impacts, the committee rejected the bill on a 6-0 vote, but then granted reconsideration by a 7-1 vote. The committee then heard AB 1365, which would create the Cal Account Program, a zero-fee, zero-penalty state banking account for unbanked and underbanked Californians. Supporters said the program would help low-income households, survivors of abuse, and others facing barriers to traditional banking, while opponents from community banks and credit unions argued existing low-cost accounts and the Bank On program already address the need and raised concerns about cost, feasibility, and duplication. The bill advanced on a 6-0 vote and later received enough votes on the reopened roll to move forward to the Committee on Labor and Employment. The committee also approved AB 1052, which would create a legal framework for digital assets and address unclaimed digital property and restrictions on public officials issuing or promoting digital assets, and AB 1180, which would create a pilot program for paying state fees with digital financial assets and require a report on broader adoption. Both bills passed with broad support after brief testimony and discussion. Final roll calls later confirmed AB 1052 and AB 1180, along with AB 407 and AB 1365, were moved out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• “That's just based on raising the cap for every adult, right?
• One was an increase for Medicaid fees for the pediatric portion.
• And that's where the separate cap came from.
• The rate changes and then the cap change.
• , the $500 to $1,000 cap increase.

Summary: The Administrative Rules Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council reviewed several agency rules and requests. It approved without objection an Insurance Department amendment implementing Act 261’s holding company system requirements, two State Board of Election Commissioners rules on poll watchers/provisional voting and certified election monitors, and a Treasurer of State rule removing DEI-related membership requirements to comply with Act 938. The committee also held over for a month a Department of Education request related to excluding a rule from reporting requirements so it could be discussed further with the Department of Commerce. A major portion of the meeting focused on the Department of Human Services’ request to be excluded from rulemaking for Acts 567, 568, 967, and 1025. DHS said federal CMS guidance created comparability and other issues for the Medicaid-related dental and diagnostic lab provisions, making it difficult to implement the acts as written by their effective dates. DHS outlined possible paths, including broader adult dental coverage, waivers, or splitting the dental rate increase from the special-needs cap increase. The Arkansas State Dental Association disputed DHS’s approach, arguing Act 1025 is workable, that the pediatric rate increase should move forward separately, and that DHS should continue pursuing the law rather than stop rulemaking. Committee members questioned both sides extensively about CMS correspondence, waiver timelines, fiscal impact, and whether the acts could be severed. After testimony from DHS, the Dental Association, and a public commenter, the committee adopted a motion not to exclude DHS from reporting requirements for Acts 567, 568, 967, and 1025, meaning DHS must continue the normal rulemaking/reporting process. The committee then accepted the Division of Higher Education’s report, which recommended repealing three of its 32 rules and keeping the remaining 29 in effect. It also received routine written updates on older and newer rulemaking items and filed the monthly updates without further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• On the chart on page seven, there are three categories: licensing, refund, and fee cap.
• cap?
• Some states put a fee cap in. So you'll see a fee cap.
• My position is that we should let the market decide the fee cap.
• using a cap of $3,000, the $3,000 cap using a cap of $3,000, the $3,000 cap should<01:53:40.400>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee focused primarily on a bill concerning long-term care insurance rate increases and consumer notice. Members and staff discussed replacing or supplementing a proposed public hearing requirement with annual reporting, website updates, and consumer-facing disclosures about approved rate increases, carriers writing the products, and how the products work. Several participants emphasized that long-term care policies are long-term products, that rate increases can be spread over many years for actuarial reasons, and that consumers need better information about trends and the impact of increases. A major point of disagreement was whether the bill should try to cap premium increases. One member argued the real problem is unexpected increases of 15% to 20% and urged a statutory cap to protect consumers. Insurance department representatives and others responded that hard caps had been struck down in prior case law, that the department’s core responsibility is solvency, and that carriers need sufficient premium to pay future claims. They also said the market is struggling because many carriers stopped selling the product, leaving in-force policies to bear the cost, and that overly restrictive caps could cause insurers to withdraw from the state. The discussion then shifted toward a compromise requiring carriers to notify policyholders before a rate increase is approved and allowing a 60-day comment period. Participants debated whether the notice should come from the carrier, how confidentiality rules would apply before approval, and what the department should do with public comments. The department said it already reviews filings carefully and that submitted rates are often adjusted before approval; lawmakers noted that prior commissioners had pushed back on increases in some cases, including a seven-year moratorium. No final vote was taken in the excerpt, and the chair repeatedly tried to move the subcommittee along to other bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• fees.
• At least eight states already cap late fees, and at least four states address fees imposed just to pay
• fees.
• , holding fees, payment portal fees, and internet and cable fees—fees that were likely undisclosed at
• It eliminates the following fees: holder fees, lease renewal fees, amenity fees, renter's liability insurance

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hybrid hearing on a broad slate of landlord-tenant and home rule bills, with most testimony focused on rent stabilization, tenant opportunity to purchase (TOPA), tenant fees, access to counsel, algorithmic rent fixing, and tenant protections in subsidized housing. Chairs Cyr and Haggerty outlined the hearing procedures and noted that written testimony could also be submitted. Several members and invited speakers emphasized that the committee was hearing from both local officials and residents affected by housing instability, especially in Somerville and other communities facing high rents and displacement. Supporters of rent stabilization and local-option rent control argued that Massachusetts needs tools to prevent displacement while new housing is built. Senator Eldridge, Senator Jalen, Somerville officials, tenant organizers, and residents described steep rent increases, no-fault evictions, and the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing. Somerville’s home rule petition was described as allowing annual increases tied to CPI plus 2%, capped at 5%, with exemptions for owner-occupied two- and three-family homes and a 15-year exemption for new construction. TOPA supporters said it would let tenants or their designees buy buildings before speculative buyers, preserving affordable housing stock; opponents, including small landlords and property managers, argued rent control would reduce supply, discourage investment, and that TOPA could delay sales and harm properties. The committee also heard testimony on bills to curb junk fees and regulate tenant charges, including limits on late fees, lease renewal fees, payment portal fees, attorney’s fees, and other add-on charges. Advocates said these fees can add hundreds of dollars a month and disproportionately harm low-income renters and renters of color. Another major topic was algorithmic rent fixing: Senator Moore and Representative Sabadoza said landlords should not use software such as RealPage to coordinate pricing, citing federal antitrust actions and arguing that competition is essential to lowering rents. Additional testimony supported a statewide right to counsel in eviction cases, with legal services providers saying representation dramatically improves outcomes and can save the state money, and a bill to create an office of tenant protections to better enforce sanitary code violations. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a lot of work, you have to get caps, you have to update caps, create those new strategies and caps
• We are funded by licensure fees. I know that those fees would otherwise go to taxpayers.
• Licensing fees. Big deal.
• We haven't raised fees since September 2015, like I said, and the fees have... Remain flat.
• Consider lowering those fees.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• from the schools, the tuition and fees from the schools, the tuition and fees which<00:10:12.080
• because things like tuition and fees because things like tuition and fees have<00:13:56.240>
• The 4-year tuition and fee cap was capped at a 2% increase for each fiscal year 26 and 27.
• <00:17:47.679> cap<00:17:48.160> was The 4-year tuition and fee cap was The 4-year
• tuition and fee cap was capped<00:17:49.120> at<00:17:49.360> 2%<00:17:50.240> increase

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And because Cap-and-Trade allows the continued omissions, I think Cap-and-Trade should be a part of the
• is as long as the cap is really limiting GHG emissions.
• And in particular, the cap and trade program.
• This fee is a relatively, well, it's not.
• And so I wouldn't think of this fee as a fee that is the folks in SRA paying for their own fire protection

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's small-cap stocks, mid-cap stocks, and large-cap stocks. cap stocks.
• While I understand there are fees and that I have to pay fees, the duplicate fees are a issue in this
• Lower fees.
• Or is this just fee on top of fee on top of fee that goes to the general fund that just... you know,
• On the permitting fees, one thing I do want to comment on to help the city, we actually did 120% cap

Bills: SB264, SB542, SB924, SB1008, SB1029, SB1036, SB1057, SB1058, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1376, SB1569, SB1664, SB1697, SJR50

Keywords: SB 264, Texas Workers' Compensation Act, group self-insurance, self-insured groups, workers' compensation, Texas Department of Insurance, commissioner of insurance, certificate of approval, guaranty fund, trust fund, wind down, dissolution, labor code, insurance regulation, employer coverage, risk pool, business and commerce, trade workforce economic development, property owners' association, water conservation

Transcript Highlights:

• , like, parking, but I have never seen exorbitant fees at East Bay Parks.
• doing cap and invest next.
• That's going to capped industries. Those folks already have to comply with the cap.
• How many staff work on the cap-and-invest program at CARB?
• They both identified one of those issues as the cap-and-trade system.

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• group 5's proposed maximum cap in House Bill 1.
• You have to get caps, you have to update caps, create those new strategies and caps.
• When reviewing fees charged by other medical boards across the country, Texas is not the highest fee
• Um, licensing fees, big deal. Um.
• We haven't raised fees since September 2015, like I said, and the fees have remained flat.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a specific fee on facilities in that area.
• We also oppose the proposal to enact a fee cap and a tax levy on CalPACE providers.
• We also oppose the proposal to enact a fee cap and a tax levy on CalPACE providers.
• We also oppose the proposal to enact a fee cap and a tax levy on CalPACE providers.
• We also oppose the proposal to enact a fee cap and a tax levy on CalPACE providers.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• One on Kauaʻi we’re looking at right now, but you haven’t asked them for putting a cap on the user fees
• One on Kauaʻi we’re looking at right now, but you haven’t asked them for putting a cap on the user fees
• One on Kauaʻi we’re looking at right now, but you haven’t asked them for putting a cap on the user fees
• One on Kauaʻi we’re looking at right now, but you haven’t asked them for putting a cap on the user fees
• One on Kauaʻi we’re looking at right now, but you haven’t asked them for putting a cap on the user fees

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 410, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ biennium operating budget. OHA asked for a modest increase over its base budget, including $1.2 million to fund 13 new full-time positions for a strategy and implementation team tied to its long-term plan, with emphasis on housing, education, health, and economic resilience. OHA also described a broader effort to work directly with executive branch departments to improve outcomes for Native Hawaiians. Testimony was largely supportive, with several individuals speaking in favor and one testifier expressing strong frustration about Native Hawaiian rights and access to resources. The chair noted there were 38 additional written/supporting testimonies and three in opposition. Members asked about OHA’s funding sources and public land trust revenues; OHA said it is not receiving the full 20 percent share, described a public land trust working group and system issues, and said a related bill would seek funding to begin an inventory. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then considered House Bill 304, which would make the Hawaiian version of a law binding when the law was originally drafted in Hawaiian and later translated into English. The Judiciary supported the bill, saying it reinforces Hawaiian as an official language and looks to the original language for legislative intent. The Attorney General supported the intent but recommended narrowing the bill with a proviso to avoid ambiguities, limiting it to laws originally drafted in Hawaiian that were not later amended, codified, recodified, or reenacted in English. Public testimony was generally supportive, though one speaker raised broader sovereignty concerns. Members questioned how many laws would be affected and whether the proposed amendment would undercut the bill; the Attorney General said the amendment was meant to address uncertainty in interpretation. No final action was reported. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 603, which would direct OHA to administer a Native Hawaiian business marketing program to promote Native Hawaiian-owned businesses through marketing and technical assistance. OHA supported the concept, saying a label or branding program could help consumers identify and support Native Hawaiian-owned businesses, but requested that funding be redirected to a working group to study program design, implementation, enforcement, and long-term viability. The chair noted four supportive testimonies had been received, and a member asked OHA to confirm that its programs serve all Hawaiians, not only those eligible for homelands; OHA said it serves all Hawaiians in the state. The transcript ends before any vote or further action on HB 603.

Transcript Highlights:

• The utilities also cover part of the attorney's fees of the claimants.
• over this period in attorney's fees.
• And last one from my colleague: Did you consider any equity caps, CEO compensation caps for the IOUs,
• And there's a number of states that have adopted caps on non-economic damages.
• And then there's prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and possible reforms to California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the high and growing wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh tradeoffs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The chair emphasized that the SB 254 report is an inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations, and that the Legislature’s role is to evaluate the options publicly. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described severe ongoing displacement, housing insecurity, delayed compensation, and frustration with what they characterized as opaque and unfair compensation structures. They argued for greater transparency, clearer accountability for utilities, stronger oversight of wildfire mitigation spending, and incentives tied to safety performance. They also urged faster survivor payments, but only if they are full, fair, and not financed by shifting more costs to taxpayers or ratepayers. Committee members asked about gaps in the SB 254 report, the meaning of “full” compensation, and how a fast-pay facility might work. The second panel included the California Earthquake Authority, RAND, PG&E, LADWP, Consumer Attorneys of California, and the Public Advocates Office. Tom Welsh of CEA explained the report’s process and the current wildfire fund structure, including that utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims, and prudency reviews can require reimbursement to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon outlined how roughly $38 billion has been paid to survivors, insurers, and public entities since 2017, and noted substantial litigation costs and cost-shifting among stakeholders. Utility representatives supported reforms that preserve financial stability and reduce risk, while consumer and public-interest advocates opposed shifting more costs to ratepayers and stressed accountability, audits, and safety-linked recovery. No votes or formal actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are other fees beyond the out of state fee that were also defined in statute.
• There's a desire for a new fee.
• Here's a listing of the fees that are thought to exist and statute there are over 40 fees, fines and
• We have a systemwide cap on out of state students and that cap is 10% for undergraduates.
• is a systemwide cap.

Transcript Highlights:

• or fees that they might need for the amenities that folks have lost.
• over this period in attorneys' fees.
• Did you consider any equity caps, CEO compensation caps for the IOUs, and then kind of bring you back
• Did you consider any equity caps, CEO compensation caps for the IOUs, and then kind of bring you back
• Others have caps.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and broader options for reforming California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the scale of wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh trade-offs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described long delays in compensation, housing insecurity, and what they viewed as a system that protects utility shareholders more than victims. They urged greater transparency, clearer accountability for utility spending and safety performance, faster and fuller compensation for survivors, and reforms such as independent audits and better alignment of utility incentives with wildfire prevention and restitution. The second panel began with Tom Welsh of the California Earthquake Authority, who explained that the SB 254 report was intended as a broad inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations. He described the report’s process, including stakeholder submissions, workstreams, and a convergence process, and outlined the current wildfire fund structure: utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims after a covered wildfire, and the CPUC later determines prudency and possible reimbursement back to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon summarized compensation data, saying utilities paid about $38 billion between 2017 and 2024, with major shares going to injured parties, insurers, and public entities, while litigation costs and survivors’ own losses remain substantial. He noted that legal fees and delays reduce the amount survivors ultimately receive. Utility and public-interest witnesses offered differing views on the report’s pathways. PG&E’s Tyson Smith said the report shows inaction is the worst outcome and argued for community wildfire risk reduction, equitable allocation of catastrophe costs, and state-led resilience tools. LADWP’s Fernando Valero emphasized the vulnerability of municipal utilities and cities, and supported inverse condemnation reform, a state-sponsored liability insurance framework, damages and subrogation limits, and stronger insurance access. Consumer Attorneys of California’s John Fisk argued that IOU-caused fires are not natural disasters but the result of negligence and sometimes criminal conduct, and opposed reducing utility liability while supporting stronger oversight and audits. The Public Advocates Office’s Nathaniel Skinner focused on affordability, saying ratepayers already bear large and growing wildfire costs and warning against shifting more costs onto bills without measurable risk reduction and tighter accountability. Committee members then began questioning witnesses about what counts as measurable mitigation, how to define full and fair compensation, and how any fast-pay process should work.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's just based on raising the cap for every adult, right?
• That's just based on raising the cap for every adult, right?
• Do we have something similar to that within fee-for-service Medicaid?
• A modest fee increase is all we asked for: 60% of the 50th percentile.
• The only state that pays less of a percentage of a dentist's normal fee is Texas.

Summary: The Administrative Rules Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council reviewed several agency rules and requests. The Insurance Department’s amendment to its holding company system rule was reviewed and approved, as were two State Board of Election Commissioners rules: one clarifying poll watcher conduct, vote challenges, and provisional voting, and another increasing pay for certified election monitors and defining training, observation, and report-writing compensation. The Arkansas Financial Education Commission also had its rule reviewed and approved after removing membership requirements tied to DEI language to comply with Act 938. The committee held over the Department of Education’s request to be excluded from reporting requirements for one month to allow further discussion about who should write or implement the rules. A major portion of the meeting focused on the Department of Human Services’ request to be excluded from reporting requirements for Acts 567, 568, 967, and 1025. DHS said CMS had raised comparability and other federal approval concerns, especially for the dental and diagnostic lab provisions, and that it might not be able to meet the acts’ effective dates. DHS described several possible paths forward, including broader benefit changes, waivers, or splitting the dental provisions so the pediatric rate increase could move separately from the special-needs adult cap increase. The Arkansas State Dental Association disputed DHS’s conclusion that the acts could not be implemented as written, argued that Act 1025 is workable, and urged DHS to continue pursuing implementation and preserve the September 1 effective date where possible. Public testimony also supported expanded dental access for adults with disabilities and special needs. After discussion, the committee voted not to exclude DHS from reporting requirements for those acts. The committee then reviewed the Division of Higher Education’s Act 781 report. The division said it has 32 rules in effect, asked to repeal three rules—two replaced by new rules and one no longer supported by authority or current law—and to continue the remaining 29 rules. The committee approved that request, with the repeals effective upon adjournment of the Legislative Council meeting on January 16, 2026. The meeting concluded with no questions on the remaining written rulemaking updates from prior and current sessions, which were filed without further action.