Transcript Highlights:

• We urge your aye vote. Thank you.
• So with that, I request an aye vote.
• So I'll be voting no.
• Okay, we are going to entertain any vote. Okay, we are going to entertain any vote changes now.
• Entertaining vote changes. Johnson vote change for item number 27, AB 2511, from aye to not voting.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard a long agenda of health-related bills, with most items presented for later vote once quorum was reached. Early in the hearing, the committee adopted a consent calendar of multiple bills with motions for due pass to Appropriations, and it noted that AB 2029 had been pulled from the agenda. The committee also took up AB 1973, a bill by Aguiar-Curry to expand who may provide procedural abortion care. Supporters, including physicians and certified nurse midwives, argued the bill would align law with current training and improve access, while opponents said later-term abortion procedures require physician-level surgical training and raised safety concerns. The author emphasized hands-on training, consultation, and transfer protocols, and the bill was held pending quorum with a motion and second recorded. The committee then heard AB 1558 by Arambula, which would adopt the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act to speed the use of out-of-state licensed volunteers during declared disasters. Supporters from the Uniform Law Commission and the Red Cross said the bill would reduce delays and clarify legal authority for volunteer health workers; there was no opposition testimony. AB 2282 by Alanis, a temporary rural emergency stabilization center for Patterson while a permanent hospital is built, drew support from local emergency responders and a late opposition from the California chapter of ACEP. The chair praised the bill as a creative local solution and agreed to coauthor it; a motion and second were recorded, with the vote to occur later. Several public health access bills followed. AB 1843 by El-Hawari would limit prior authorization and align hepatitis C treatment coverage with medical guidelines; supporters said it would remove barriers to a curable disease, while health plans opposed it as a mandate, citing premium impacts and the recent SB 306 prior-authorization process. AB 2247 by El-Hawari would create the THRIVE program for mental health services for youth affected by gun violence; Youth Alive and other supporters described trauma-informed, community-based care, and the chair and another member asked to be added as coauthors. AB 2138 by Krell would expand access to certified peer support specialists in enhanced care management and remove automatic disqualifications based solely on criminal history; supporters said peers are essential to engagement and recovery, and the bill was held with a motion and second. Later, AB 1682 by Hart would require coverage of scalp cooling for chemotherapy patients, with emotional testimony from cancer survivors and clinicians; insurers opposed it as another mandate, but the author stressed the modest per-member cost and the bill was moved with a motion and second. AB 1879 by Dixon would standardize data reporting for alcohol and drug treatment facilities, including private providers, to improve statewide information on outcomes and access; the bill drew broad support from recovery organizations and the prior opposition was withdrawn after amendments. AB 1906 by Aguiar-Curry would require coverage of at-home cervical cancer screening kits without cost sharing; supporters cited improved access for rural and working Californians, insurers opposed it on affordability grounds, and the bill passed on a recorded roll call after quorum was established. Finally, AB 1556 by Haney would clarify and support drug-free recovery housing and return-to-use policies; supporters said it would expand sober housing options, while opponents warned it could allow evictions after relapse and conflict with Housing First principles. The hearing ended with the bill still under discussion and opposition-unless-amended concerns noted.

Transcript Highlights:

• So with that, I ask for your aye vote, or your vote when it's time. Thank you. Thank you.
• So with that, I request an aye vote.
• So I'll be voting aye.
• Okay, we are going to entertain any vote. Okay, we are going to entertain any vote changes now.
• Entertaining vote changes. Johnson vote change for item number 27, AB 2511, from aye to not voting.

Committee: House Health

Transcript Highlights:

• And they say, what's the best way to return capital to our shareholders and what projects do that?

Committee: Joint Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• And they say, what's the best way to return capital to our shareholders and what projects do that?

Committee: Joint Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee

Summary: The committee met to receive updates from the Tax Commissioner’s office on property tax relief programs and related compliance work. Commissioner Brian Croshys reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting that the Homestead program expanded significantly after HB 1158, that some households are “adjusting out” of eligibility as incomes rise, and that the committee may want to consider indexing income thresholds. Members asked for additional data on bracket breakdowns, possible costs of eliminating income limits for seniors, and how many households are zeroed out by the combined programs. Croshys also discussed the simpler administration of the disabled veteran credit, the growth in participation, and the heavy workload and auditing safeguards built into the new primary residence credit system. He said the department found no material compliance findings and that the program is designed to be digital-first, with county auditors and the Tax Commissioner’s office both involved in review and notification. The committee recessed for lunch and later reconvened, with the chair noting that more detailed PRC information would likely be available at a September meeting. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase, or “zero growth,” report and the 2025 statistical report. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and which jurisdictions showed the largest percentage changes in countywide, citywide, school district, and park district levies. In the statistical report, she summarized recent trends in assessed values: agricultural values remained relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed property values increased over the past five years. She also reviewed statewide tax levies by property class and clarified that centrally assessed growth figures were annual averages. Members discussed how shifts in land use and annexation can make it appear that tax burdens are moving from ag to residential/commercial property. Myers then summarized the interim study on the 3% levy limitation under HB 1176, saying most counties complied without budget changes, while some used hiring freezes, deferred purchases, or reserve funds; 23% of counties had to reduce levies, and the affected funds were mainly general, road and bridge, and weed control. She said 12 counties reported zero new growth in the data and that 35 counties reported not using all of their cap. The committee also received an oil tax presentation from Croshys on the stripper well extraction tax exemption. He outlined the number of active stripper wells, the production and revenue implications of the exemption, and projections for future biennia under different tax scenarios. He said the exemption represents substantial savings to operators but also corresponds to production tax revenue that would otherwise be collected, and he emphasized that future outcomes depend on oil prices, well counts, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly answered a question about why Red River wells have a different production threshold than Bakken wells, explaining it was tied to completion costs and lateral length. The committee then heard from Charlie Gorecki of the EERC, who presented an analysis of typical Bakken well decline curves and argued that most oil is produced before a well reaches stripper status, but that keeping wells open and investing in refracturing or other interventions can recover additional production. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; the main actions were receiving reports, asking for follow-up data, and scheduling further discussion for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• And they say, what's the best way to return capital to our shareholders and what projects do that?

Summary: The Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee met with a quorum, approved the March 17, 2026 minutes, and heard a lengthy update from Tax Commissioner Brian Croshys on property tax relief programs. He reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting increased relief after House Bill 1158 and House Bill 1176, but also discussing how some households “income adjust out” of eligibility over time. Members asked about indexing income thresholds, expanding eligibility by age alone, simplifying administration, county-level notices, and whether the county and state systems could be streamlined. Croshys said the programs are heavily used, largely administered at the county level, and that the department is still refining compliance and reporting; he also said there were no material findings or overarching concerns in the latest review. The committee agreed more detailed PRC information would likely come back in a September meeting, and the chair announced an afternoon recess for lunch before later reconvening. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase report, the zero-growth report, and a statistical report on property values and tax levies by class. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and identified counties and cities with the largest percentage changes in growth or decline. She also summarized recent trends: agricultural values remain relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed values have risen over the last five years; in 2025, residential property accounted for the largest share of statewide property tax levies, followed by commercial, agriculture, and centrally assessed property. Committee members asked about unusual zero-growth figures, the effect of annexation and land-use changes, and whether the 3% levy cap was forcing political subdivisions to use reserves or defer spending. Myers said many counties complied by using reserves, delaying capital projects, or limiting increases, and that some counties had not used their full cap. The committee then moved to the stripper oil extraction tax exemption. Commissioner Croshys reviewed the state’s oil tax structure and estimated the revenue impact of keeping stripper wells exempt from extraction tax while still paying production tax. He said the exemption saves operators hundreds of millions of dollars over a biennium, while the state still collects production tax on those wells. He also discussed projected impacts if the exemption were changed for future wells and noted that future outcomes depend on oil prices, production declines, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly explained the historical difference between the 35-barrel and 30-barrel thresholds for certain wells, citing differences in completion costs and lateral lengths. The committee then heard from EERC CEO Charles Gorecki, who presented an analysis of oil well life cycles and said most oil is produced before wells reach stripper status, but that refracturing or other reinvestment can significantly extend production and keep wells above the threshold for years.

Transcript Highlights:

• commitment plan, and obviously one of the big priorities is the return on investment for their shareholders

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and planning considerations associated with refinery closures. In opening remarks, the chair framed refinery shutdowns as a complex part of California’s decarbonization transition and said the committee would focus on environmental and land-use issues, while Vice Chair Gunda argued closures reflect years of policy-driven disinvestment and warned that supply disruptions and higher prices could harm working families. State agency witnesses from the Energy Commission, CARB, and the Water Boards described the state as being in a “mid-transition,” with declining gasoline demand, growing zero-emission vehicle adoption, and increasing conversion of some refinery assets to renewable fuels, but also with abrupt capacity losses that can force greater reliance on imports and storage. They emphasized the need for proactive planning, transparency, and coordination across agencies, and noted that refinery closures can stress pipelines, terminals, and other linked infrastructure, with potential liabilities falling to the state if those assets are not financially supported. The Water Boards explained their cleanup authorities and tools for refinery decommissioning, including investigation, monitoring, remediation, and enforcement under the Water Code, and said site-specific cleanup plans depend on contamination, groundwater conditions, and future land use. They noted that decommissioning can reveal previously inaccessible areas and require additional sampling or wells, and that cleanup costs can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Committee members pressed the witnesses on whether the state has enough information to plan for land transitions, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more standardized procedures or financial assurances are needed. The witnesses generally said existing tools are useful but that more transparency and better data sharing would help communities and policymakers understand liabilities and long-term redevelopment opportunities. Members also questioned the relationship between California policy, refinery closures, imports, and global emissions. CARB said its programs apply to transportation fuel suppliers whether fuel is refined in-state or imported, and that its climate and air-quality rules are designed to reduce emissions and avoid leakage. Some senators argued that California’s policies have accelerated closures and that demand has not fallen fast enough to offset lost refining capacity, while agency witnesses responded that closures are also driven by global market forces, aging infrastructure, crude quality, and changing fuel demand. The committee then heard from outside experts, including a Notre Dame professor who said closure costs are often underestimated and that stronger financial assurance requirements can shift company behavior, a Stanford/SLAC researcher who outlined five drivers of refinery closures, and an environmental attorney who discussed community impacts and lessons from the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational and focused on testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• commitment plan, and obviously one of the big priorities is the return on investment for their shareholders

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and policy considerations surrounding refinery closures. Chair Blakespear framed the hearing as part of California’s broader transition away from fossil fuels, emphasizing the need for proactive planning so communities, workers, and local governments are not caught off guard. Vice Chair Gunda argued that the state has long signaled a future away from oil, while also warning that closures can create supply instability, higher prices, and infrastructure stress if not managed carefully. Senators also raised concerns about consumer costs, supply reliability, the role of imports, and whether California’s climate policies are contributing to refinery disinvestment. The first panel included the California Energy Commission, CARB, and the State Water Resources Control Board. Gunda described California as being in a “mid-transition,” with gasoline demand gradually declining, zero-emission vehicle adoption rising, and refinery capacity shrinking through both conversions to renewable fuels and outright closures. He said the state needs a coordinated strategy that balances near-term supply stability with long-term decarbonization, and noted that refinery closures can shift liabilities onto pipelines, terminals, and potentially the state. CARB’s Matthew Boutill said the agency’s focus is reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases, and that state policies are already driving billions in annual investment in alternative fuels, EV infrastructure, and refinery conversions. Water Board representative Annalisa Kihara explained the cleanup authorities used at refinery sites, including investigation, remediation, and enforcement tools, and said decommissioning often reveals previously inaccessible contamination and may require new monitoring wells and additional site assessment. Committee members pressed the panel on whether the state has enough information to plan for land reuse and cleanup costs, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more legislative direction is needed. Gunda said there are still gaps in information and transparency, especially around liability and long-term community planning. Kihara said the Water Boards can require more data, cleanup, and timelines, but that refinery remediation is highly site-specific and can take tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Senators Menjivar, Stern, and Hurtado questioned demand trends, the pace of refinery closures versus demand decline, the role of imports and the Jones Act, and whether California should consider options such as state ownership or broader ecosystem planning. The panel generally agreed that closures are likely to continue and that the state should plan proactively rather than reactively. A second panel presented recent research on refinery closures. Emily Grubert said closure costs and remediation obligations are often underestimated and that California should better define end-of-life obligations and financial assurance requirements. Tham Herschbach outlined five drivers of refinery closures: declining California crude production, falling in-state gasoline demand, the shift toward renewable diesel and other alternative fuels, global refinery consolidation, and the growing availability of imported gasoline. Anne Alexander focused on community impacts, using the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure as a case study, and said refinery sites are often heavily contaminated, cleanup can take a decade or more, and communities are often left without clear information because refineries have little end-of-life planning or financial assurance requirements. No votes or formal actions were taken at the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• commitment plan, and obviously one of the big priorities is the return on investment for their shareholders

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Transcript Highlights:

• Please vote no.
• Please vote no. business. Please vote no. Thank<00:13:38.400><c> you,</c><00:13:38.480><c> Ms.
• I urge you to vote against this bill.
• I urge you to vote against this bill. I urge you to vote against this bill.
• We're going to go ahead and vote, too.

Transcript Highlights:

• A number of them testified against this, but they approved it on a 10-to-nothing vote because we, the
• Sweden, it's a corporation accountable to the government, regulated by the government, but run by shareholders
• I'm not a voting member of this committee, but in your next presentation, might be worth going into why
• I'm not a voting member of this committee, but in your next presentation, might be worth going into why

Summary: The Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee met to hear a series of presentations on the economics, financing, workforce, and community impacts of advanced nuclear deployment in North Dakota. William Bridge of Nucleon Energy presented the committee’s economic impacts and private-sector financing report, estimating construction and operating job impacts, local spending, and state/local tax effects for hypothetical SMR projects. He said the report assumes first-of-a-kind costs are still high, used a $6 million per megawatt nth-of-a-kind proxy, and estimated peak construction workforces of about 500 for a 200-MW plant and 1,000 for a larger facility, with roughly 100 operating jobs for a 200-MW plant. Committee members questioned security costs, capital cost assumptions, water and transmission siting constraints, and whether the model included fuel and waste; Bridge said the report included initial fuel in capital cost and that waste disposal is funded through existing federal mechanisms. Lori Brady of the Nuclear Energy Institute then outlined national nuclear workforce needs and NEI’s strategic workforce planning efforts. She described declining labor-force participation, retirements, and the need for a much larger future workforce, and said NEI has organized recommendations around career awareness, pipelines, training and qualification, policy support, retention, and nontraditional recruitment. She highlighted tools such as the Nuclear Works career website, the Nuclear Energy Academic Roadmap, the new federal Energy and Natural Resources career cluster, and the Nuclear Uniform Curriculum Program for community colleges. Members asked about AI, timing for training relative to plant development, and whether advanced manufacturing would reduce staffing needs; Brady said AI is not expected to replace workers and that training timelines depend on the specific project and staffing plan. The committee also heard from Gary Yaco, mayor of Red Wing, Minnesota, who described Prairie Island’s role in his community. He said the plant provides a large share of local property tax revenue, supports well-paid jobs, contributes to emergency preparedness funding and training, and is broadly supported by the city despite periodic protests and public concerns. He emphasized the plant’s security, regular drills with local and federal responders, and the absence of problems with dry cask storage. Later, Benton Arnett of NEI discussed the current financing landscape for advanced nuclear, explaining how tax credits, federal loan support, off-take agreements, and new business models are helping projects move forward. He said early projects face high upfront costs and long lead-time procurement, but that investor confidence is improving as federal policy and regulatory streamlining continue. The committee asked about waste funding, comparisons with natural gas, the effect of political shifts on investor confidence, and whether the market will narrow to a few winning technologies; Arnett said the industry is still sorting that out, but expects clearer winners in the late 2020s and early 2030s. The meeting concluded with an introductory presentation from Julie Kazeraki of DOE’s Office of Energy Dominance Financing, who said the office is focused on accelerating nuclear deployment through financing support.

Transcript Highlights:

• We just voted on the area code bill directing the Department of Energy.
• I think we still have to vote the bill out of committee.
• I just think it's probably ready to vote out of committee.
• </c> just think it's probably ready to vote just think it's probably ready to vote out<02:23:20.200><
• </c> be found imprudent and the shareholders be found imprudent and the shareholders would<04:39:00.639

Committee: House Science, Technology and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• All members vote who desire to vote. All members vote who desire to vote.
• All members vote who desire to vote. All members vote who desire to vote.
• All members vote who desire to vote. All members vote who desire to vote.
• All those vote who desire to vote. desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote.
• All those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote

Transcript Highlights:

• I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Let's call the vote. Do we have a motion? Yeah, we did.
• So we're respectfully asking for your aye vote. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Vote.
• Okay, I'll do a vote change on AB 1079. Vote change: Pathman, from not voting to aye.
• Kalra, vote change: aye to not voting. Sanchez, aye to not voting. Aye to not voting.
• Abstain, or not voting. Not voting. Item 5, AB 474, Ward. Asaly? No. No. Ward. Pacheco? No.

Committee: House Judiciary

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills. AB 316, by Assembly Member Krell, would prevent AI developers or deployers from arguing that an AI system’s alleged autonomy absolves them of civil liability. Supporters said it is a narrow, common-sense guardrail that does not change existing burdens of proof, while opponents from TechNet and the Chamber of Progress raised concerns about possible strict-liability effects. The bill was moved on a due-pass vote to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. AB 251, by Assembly Member Kalra, would let judges apply a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard when a skilled nursing facility or RCFE intentionally destroys evidence in elder abuse cases. Supporters said the measure is needed because vulnerable victims often cannot testify and electronic records are easily altered; opponents argued existing sanctions are sufficient and warned of more litigation. After discussion about the bill’s narrow scope and the governor’s prior veto concerns, the committee passed the bill to Human Services. AB 474, by Assembly Member Ward, would encourage nonprofit home-sharing for low-income homeowners, especially older adults, through tax and housing-law changes, but it also proposed changes to the lodger law. Supporters emphasized housing stability and companionship benefits, while the California Apartment Association and some members expressed concern about removing lodger protections; the author said he would continue working on that issue. The bill advanced to Human Services. The committee also passed AB 449, which would authorize the Civil Rights Department to run statewide media campaigns discouraging discrimination based on immutable characteristics. AB 1201, the “Reunity Act,” would give courts discretion to provide family reunification services to parents with violent felony convictions unless the offense involved force or a weapon against the child or reunification would likely endanger the child; supporters described it as a fairer, individualized approach, while some members raised concerns about domestic violence and child safety. AB 464, an anti-retaliation and accountability bill concerning sexual abuse in prisons, would extend reporting time, require 90-day monitoring, bar rehiring confirmed abusers, and strengthen reporting protections; survivors gave detailed testimony about retaliation, and the bill passed to Appropriations. Finally, AB 614 would standardize Government Claims Act deadlines at one year for all claims; the author and a civil rights attorney argued the current six-month deadline is too short for many injury and wrongful death victims, and testimony began from a parent describing a jail-related death claim.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the people who had to vote to establish the right to vote were the very people who were guilty of
• We had a Proposition 7 vote in Texas, with 1.6 million voters, and 76.5% voted in favor of... of this
• It failed by one vote, two-thirds, by one vote.
• where it was one state, one vote.
• vote could still... ...they'll be valid.

Bills: HB246 , HB796 , HB 1056 , HB1544 , HB1846 , HB2001 , HB2618 , HB2625 , HB2869 , HB2898 , HB3069 , HB3114 , HB3157 , HB3228 , HJR98 , HB246

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: federal directives, state authority, Tenth Amendment, government enforcement, local governance, gold standard, legal tender, currency, transactional currency, financial transactions, electronic payment systems, state finance, regulatory compliance, electric trucks, charging infrastructure, advisory council, transportation, sustainability, criminal penalties, official information

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd ask that you please join me in voting in support of Senate Bill 89.
• </c> voting in support of Senate Bill 89. voting in support of Senate Bill 89.
• I'd like to split my vote. Please do.
• Chairman, explain my vote. Please do. I think this is a great bill and I'm going to vote yes on it.
• Therefore, I'm proudly voting aye. Senator Williams, aye. And Chair Smith, I vote aye.

Summary: The committee met for an initial natural resources hearing with a quorum present and introductory housekeeping, including prayer, roll call, and recognition of guests. Chair Smith outlined ground rules for questions and then invited Kentucky Power and American Electric Power representatives to the table to discuss a proposed plan involving the Mitchell Power Plant and future generation needs in Eastern Kentucky. Witnesses Cindy Wiseman, Alex Vaughn, and AEP CEO Bill Fehrman said the company’s goals are to stabilize and lower rates, reduce rate volatility, and expand generation in the Commonwealth. They explained that Kentucky Power seeks legislative authority to securitize its 50% interest in the Mitchell coal plant, describing securitization as a refinancing mechanism that would lower annual plant costs by about $34 million and help offset roughly one-third of the expected cost of adding new generation in Kentucky. They emphasized that the proposal is not intended to close Mitchell, and said Kentucky Power currently has no plan to divest its interest; the company still needs the plant to serve customers while it pursues additional dispatchable generation in Kentucky. Members pressed the witnesses on the plant’s book value versus fair market value, whether the Mitchell interest had ever been assigned a nominal value, how any divestiture proceeds would be handled, whether Kentucky Power owns Wheeling Power, and how long Mitchell can continue operating. The company said it values Mitchell at net book value for accounting purposes, not fair market value, and explained that Wheeling Power is a separate AEP affiliate and that West Virginia affiliates have already proposed securitization of their share. Witnesses said Kentucky Power’s interest cannot technically operate past 2028 without additional environmental control investment, while the West Virginia side is depreciating through 2040. They also described the financing timeline, saying securitization would require enactment of legislation, a PSC financing order, bond issuance, and then parallel work to acquire or build new generation, with any reinvestment terms to be addressed through the regulatory process.

Transcript Highlights:

• An officer, director, shareholder, agent, or employee of a distributor may not play or conduct games.
• any executive orders issued by the President of the United States that have not been affirmed by a vote
• stance on whether or not it's appropriate to assess a fee afterward because the commission hasn't voted
• stance on whether or not it's appropriate to assess a fee afterwards because the commission hasn't voted

Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met to begin its study of charitable gaming and the ownership of alcoholic beverage establishments by licensed charitable gaming organizations, a study directed by Senate Bill 2334. Legislative Council gave an overview of the constitutional and statutory framework for charitable gaming, site authorizations, rent limits, proceeds, and recent legislative changes. The Attorney General’s Gaming Division then clarified the financial flow of gaming, explaining that in fiscal year 2025 North Dakota had about $2.5 billion in gross gaming proceeds, with roughly 88-90% paid back in prizes and about $256 million available to organizations after taxes; most of that activity came from electronic pull tabs. Members asked for more detail on winnings, replays, rent, and the breakdown of manufacturer/distributor revenues, and the AG’s office agreed to provide supplemental information. The committee also heard from the League of Cities and the Association of Counties about local site authorization. Cities said they have a limited role in approving gaming sites, can adopt policies after public hearing, may charge up to $100, and can set certain conditions, including local nexus requirements, but cannot require donations or force a specific charity or site. The League said it had worked with stakeholders on a model policy to provide more consistency, though members raised concerns that local requirements could become too restrictive for charities serving broader areas. Counties said the issue is mostly a city matter, with little county involvement beyond minimal site fees and general site approval. The North Dakota Gaming Alliance testified in support of the study and provided IRS-related material suggesting charities may use asset diversification, while emphasizing it had not taken a position on whether charities should own bars. Members questioned whether bar ownership is being used for site stability or to channel charitable gaming dollars, and whether city policies might disadvantage charities with broader missions. The committee also discussed the relationship between gaming organizations, manufacturers, and distributors, including restrictions on incentives and interference, and asked for more information on those entities and their ownership. Later in the meeting, the Racing Commission gave its regular update on live racing, pari-mutuel wagering, ADW providers, purse and promotion funds, a new TRPB contract, and concerns about cease-and-desist actions from other states. Finally, the State Hospital superintendent briefly reported on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s support services, including the SORT team, training, and security assistance for the hospital campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• A number of them testified against this, but they approved it on a 10-to-nothing vote because we, the
• Sweden, it's a corporation accountable to the government, regulated by the government, but run by shareholders
• I’m not a voting member of this committee, but in your next presentation, might be worth going into why
• I’m not a voting member of this committee, but in your next presentation, might be worth going into why

Committee: Joint Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• This past year, Voices in Voting, a nonprofit organization in our state for the past 30 years, joined
• But the reason why we declined that amendment was because there's a shareholder provision that was an
• In the spirit of human partnership, I humbly ask for your vote in support of SB 378, a vote that would
• We urge you to vote no on this policy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You can go ahead.
• We urge you to vote no. Thank you for your time and dedication to the people of our state.

Bills: AB568 , SB90 , SB133 , SB147 , SB229 , SB233 , SB240 , SB245 , SB280 , SB378 , SB393 , SB417 , SB434 , SB494 , SB495

Committee: Assembly Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• All members vote who desire to vote. All members vote who desire to vote.
• All members vote who desire to vote. All members vote who desire to vote.
• All those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote
• To vote, all those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote.
• All those vote who All those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote, all those vote

Transcript Highlights:

• A number of them testified against this, but they approved it on a 10-to-nothing vote because we, the
• Sweden, it's a corporation accountable to the government, regulated by the government, but run by shareholders

Committee: Joint Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee

Summary: The committee met to hear a series of presentations on advanced nuclear economics, workforce, community impacts, and financing. Nucleon Energy’s William Bridge presented a report estimating the economic impacts of hypothetical 200-megawatt and 600-megawatt SMRs, including construction and operating jobs, local spending, tax revenue, and the private-sector conditions needed to attract investment. He said the report used nth-of-a-kind cost assumptions, discussed security and water siting considerations, and argued that early community engagement and permitting work should be timed to when projects are closer to being economic. Committee members questioned cost assumptions, security staffing, transmission and water siting, and whether large reactors or SMRs are more likely to be financed in the near term. Lori Brady of the Nuclear Energy Institute then outlined national nuclear workforce needs and NEI’s strategic workforce planning. She described declining labor-force demographics, the need for hundreds of thousands of new energy workers by 2050, and six workforce priorities: career awareness, pipelines, training and qualification, policy support, retention, and non-traditional pipelines. She highlighted the Nuclear Works career website, the Nuclear Energy Academic Roadmap, the new federal Energy and Natural Resources career cluster, and the Nuclear Uniform Curriculum Program for community colleges. Members asked about AI, robotics, and when training should begin relative to future plant construction; Brady said AI is not expected to replace workers broadly and that training timelines depend on the specific project and staffing plan. Red Wing, Minnesota Mayor Gary Yako described hosting the Prairie Island nuclear generating facility. He said the plant provides a large share of the city’s property tax base, supports well-paid jobs, contributes to local emergency preparedness, and is a strong community partner through donations and employee involvement. He said the city supports relicensing, has regular emergency drills, and has had no issues with dry cask storage. The committee also heard from NEI’s Benton Arnett, who reviewed the current financing landscape, including federal tax credits, DOE loan authority, offtake agreements, and the shift toward project developers and special-purpose vehicles. He said early projects face high first-of-a-kind costs, but federal support and long-term power purchase agreements are helping make projects financeable. Finally, DOE’s Julie Kazeraki described the Office of Energy Dominance Financing and its role in supporting new nuclear, restarts, uprates, and supply chain investments, emphasizing that federal loan and tax-credit tools are intended to reduce upfront risk and improve project affordability.