Transcript Highlights:

• And this is something that we've discussed extensively over the last couple of years.
• It's hard discussion sometimes.
• I think, again, it's a good-faith discussion on all fronts.
• We don't publicly discuss our investigative steps.
• Discuss with our constituents about it.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held its annual oversight hearing on the transportation fuels sector, focused on California’s fuel transition, the announced refinery closures by Phillips 66 and Valero, and the potential effects on supply, prices, and the broader fuel system. Committee leadership said the state needs a system-wide transition plan rather than a piecemeal approach, and state witnesses from CARB, the CEC, and DPMO described the fuel market as a complex, interconnected ecosystem involving crude production, refining, storage, imports, and delivery. They emphasized that declining gasoline demand from EV adoption is occurring alongside shrinking in-state refining capacity, which could increase volatility and price spikes if not managed carefully. CARB Chair Liane Randolph reviewed the state’s climate and air-quality programs, including AB 32, SB 32, the 2022 scoping plan, the low-carbon fuel standard, and vehicle emissions rules. She said these policies have reduced emissions substantially but that California still faces major ozone and PM2.5 problems, especially in disadvantaged communities. Randolph also said federal actions challenging California waivers could complicate the state’s clean-air efforts, and she noted that while liquid fuels will still be needed in some sectors, the state must continue reducing fossil fuel dependence while protecting public health. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda and DPMO Director Ty Milder presented data on gasoline demand, refinery throughput, crude imports, and price differentials. Gunda said the Legislature’s special-session laws gave the agencies transparency and planning tools, and that the CEC is developing a fuels transition plan while evaluating whether any regulatory tools should be used. Milder previewed DPMO findings that Californians have paid a long-running “mystery gasoline surcharge” averaging 41 cents per gallon since 2015, with higher margins concentrated in branded gasoline and among vertically integrated firms. He said the data show a concentrated market with some refiners doing well and others struggling, and that DPMO will continue investigating price behavior, competition, and supply risks. Members pressed the witnesses on whether state regulations contributed to refinery exits or higher prices, and on whether the agencies had adequately analyzed consumer costs. Witnesses said they had not yet implemented the new permissive tools from SB X1-2 and AB X2-1 because they were still assessing risks and benefits, and they stressed that refinery closures and capital decisions are driven by broader market conditions as well as regulation. No vote was taken; the hearing was informational, with the committee seeking updates and urging the agencies to develop a practical transition strategy that balances affordability, reliability, climate goals, and worker/community protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any questions or discussion?
• Any questions or discussion?
• Any questions or discussion?
• Any questions or discussion?
• Any questions or discussion?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee first took up HB 428, with Philip Sherman of the Building Code Review Board presenting a detailed amendment intended to reorganize building-code statutes and limit local changes. He said the proposal would move code-related provisions into RSA 155-A, preserve municipalities’ ability to adopt and administer local enforcement mechanisms and additional non-state codes such as housing or property maintenance codes, but prohibit technical amendments to the State Building Code. He also explained that local administrative functions like permits, fees, certificates of occupancy, plan review, and staffing would remain local, while any local ordinance would still need BCRB confirmation. Members discussed the distinction between administrative and technical amendments, the need to keep fire-code provisions separate, and a date error in the draft’s submission deadline; Sherman suggested the effective-date language should be corrected to reference July 1, 2024. The committee did not vote on the amendment and instead agreed to circulate the draft and revisit it in a later subcommittee meeting before bringing it to the full committee. The discussion then shifted to fire-code issues, with State Fire Marshal Sean Tumi explaining that fire-code-related provisions should be cleaned up in the fire-code statutes and that the state should restrict technical local amendments while possibly allowing limited administrative local standards for transparency and operational consistency. He gave examples such as driveway access, sprinkler connections, key boxes, and other fire-system details that could benefit from local standardization if clearly disclosed. He noted that a separate Senate bill, SB 94, may be a more appropriate vehicle for some of the fire-code language. The chair again emphasized the need for further review and scheduled another subcommittee meeting before the matter would go to the full committee. The committee then began HB 244, and Sherman introduced it as a cleanup of the older municipal-building-code provisions scattered through the RSA 67X series. He said the bill would consolidate and update those references, continuing the effort to align municipal enforcement and appeals provisions with the statewide building-code structure. The transcript cuts off before any further action or vote on HB 244.

Transcript Highlights:

• you missed a nice discussion this you missed a nice discussion this morning,<00:04:22.440><c> but</c>
• And I'm glad this discussion for you.
• </c> before we move to discussion? No. before we move to discussion? No.
• </c> on different sides of that discussion. on different sides of that discussion. What?
• </c> discuss and go over this proposal. discuss and go over this proposal.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? I do have a House substitute offered ending in 0.03F. It has been distributed.
• Any discussion on that substitute? Yes, Representative Fuchs. To offer an amendment? Go ahead.
• This amendment has been discussed with the representative, the bill sponsor, and was discussed with the
• Any discussion?
• Any discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, call the roll. Chairman Pollitt: Aye.

Committee: House Legislative Review

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I appreciate the discussion and look forward to more discussion on it. Guidelines.
• I appreciate the discussion and look forward to more discussion on it. >> Sparks for a question.
• Uh, Senator England, the discussion about cruel and unusual punishment, it's a two-part discussion.
• Uh, Senator England, the discussion about cruel and unusual punishment, it's a two-part discussion.
• forward to more discussion on and look forward to more discussion on it. it. it.

Committee: Joint Judiciary, Division B

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 3 February, 2026; 5:15 P.M., 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> about</c> We're having some discussions about We're having some discussions about whether<00:31:
• I voices to that particular discussion.
• </c><00:32:20.880><c> and</c> promise to continue that discussion and promise to continue that discussion
• </c><00:48:19.880><c> Yeah,</c> discussion. Senator Gruenhagen. Yeah, discussion.
• Discussion.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? Chair votes I.
• Any discussion? Chair to July 1st, 2015. Any discussion? Chair votes<01:08:08.720><c> I.
• Any discussion? Chair votes I.
• &gt;&gt; Any<01:09:33.920><c> discussion?</c> &gt;&gt; Any discussion? &gt;&gt; Any discussion?
• </c> discussion? Chair votes I. discussion? Chair votes I.

Bills: SB2309 , SB2317 , SB2318 , SB2319 , SB2321 , SB2323 , SB2332 , SB2405 , SB2485

Committee: Senate Agriculture and Environment

Keywords: agricultural loans, financial support, Hawaii agriculture, food security, revolving fund, agriculture, insurance, small producers, state support, biosecurity, farm coverage, public-private partnerships, agricultural policy, agricultural statistics, data collection, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, economic analysis, market development, grant funding, climate resiliency

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several agriculture-related measures, beginning with SB 2309, which would require the agricultural loan division to sell portions of its loan portfolio and use the proceeds to expand the agriculture loan revolving fund. The Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity and the Hawaii Farm Bureau supported the bill, along with several other organizations and individuals. A committee question focused on the risk of not finding a qualified buyer for the loan portfolio; DAB said a mandatory sale of the full amount could force a less favorable rate, while flexibility to sell different amounts could produce a more equitable return. The measure drew eight supporters and no opposition. The committee then took up SB 2317, which directs DAB to study insurance coverage for small producers and report back to the Legislature. DAB and multiple farm groups supported the bill. In response to a question about cost, DAB estimated about $250,000 would be needed, with the study likely covering crop, health, and liability insurance. The next measure, SB 2318, would establish an agriculture statistics program in statute. DAB said it strongly supported the bill and could ramp up quickly if positions were provided; the committee discussed whether a first report could be completed by year’s end if the bill became law midyear, and DAB said yes. SB 2319, which would fund and make permanent a full-time grant writer position at DAB, also drew strong support from DAB, the Hawaii Farm Bureau, Ulupono Initiative, the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, the local food coalition, and others, with testifiers emphasizing the position’s return on investment and success in bringing in federal funds. The committee also heard SB 2321, establishing a two-year pilot program to respond to the twoline spittlebug. DAB, ranching groups, and many others supported the bill, citing the pest’s spread and the need to act before it becomes unmanageable. A DAB pest control manager said he would need to research past response details and provide them later. Members emphasized the importance of early intervention. For SB 2323, which creates a farmland transition commission to study barriers to farmland access and recommend solutions, DAB offered comments and support for the intent, while farm groups generally supported the concept but raised concerns about the proposed age range and whether a separate commission was necessary. DAB said the Board of Agriculture likely would not have the capacity to perform the commission’s duties and estimated there would be costs to establish it, though no figure was available at the hearing. Finally, the committee heard SB 2332, which reestablishes the agriculture and food security special fund, creates a carbon emissions tax and dividend fund, gradually raises carbon-related tax rates, and provides a refundable carbon cashback credit. DAB supported the measure and deferred to Taxation on details; the Department of Taxation said it would stand on its comments, and the Attorney General’s office offered comments and recommendations. Carbon Cashback Hawaii and the County of Hawaii Department of Research and Development supported the bill, arguing it would reduce emissions, protect lower-income households, and be relatively simple to administer.

Transcript Highlights:

• [snorts] If not, discussion, comments?
• If not, Any further discussion? Okay.
• Any<01:04:21.039><c> further</c><01:04:21.359><c> discussion?</c> Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion? Okay. Milwaukee. Any further discussion? Okay.
• If Any further discussion on that? Okay.

Committee: Senate Labor and Technology

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard SB 2122, which would tie public service flexible spending account contribution and carryover limits to the annual IRS cafeteria plan caps. DEER supported the bill and said it would help the state keep pace with federal limits, though it suggested deleting the words “inflation/adjusted” and “for that calendar year” as unnecessary. HGA and UPW strongly supported the measure, saying state limits lag the IRS amounts and that higher caps would help employees offset rising health care costs. In response to questions, DEER said the plan has a fund balance of about $1.6 million but noted some risk if employees leave before contributing enough to cover reimbursements. The unions agreed to DEER’s suggested wording change so long as the bill still clearly required future increases to track the IRS limits. The committee then took up SB 2116, which would create a confidential process in the Attorney General’s office for anonymous complaints against public employees, with complaints forwarded to the appropriate agency and annual reporting required. DLIR and the Attorney General opposed the bill. The AG’s office said anonymous complaints cannot truly be guaranteed to remain anonymous, that existing laws already provide confidential complaint processes in specific areas, and that the AG would effectively be only a repository without meaningful authority over how complaints are handled. HGA and UPW supported the bill, saying it would begin a conversation about protecting complainants while discouraging frivolous complaints. In questions, senators raised concerns about how anonymous complaints would be investigated and whether the AG could serve as an appeal body; the AG said the proposal would likely require broader changes to existing complaint laws. The committee also heard SB 218, which would amend the amount a disbursing officer may deduct from an employee’s wages to repay indebtedness to the state. HGA and UPW supported the bill, saying it would create a more lenient repayment process for employees who were overpaid and should not have to repay large amounts in a single pay period. UPW said the bill would eliminate a provision allowing recovery of debts of $1,000 or less in one pay period, which it described as problematic for members. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii was listed in opposition, and additional comments were submitted by the state controller and the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly. Finally, the committee heard SB 2114, which would repeal the prohibition on certain exempt employees grieving suspensions or discharges and allow bargaining-unit members to grieve disciplinary actions. DHRD and the City and County of Honolulu opposed the bill, arguing exempt employees are at-will employees who serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority and already have other legal remedies for discrimination or harassment; they also said the issue is a negotiable matter under collective bargaining agreements. HGA and UPW supported the bill, saying exempt positions have increased in number and that just-cause protections would improve recruitment and retention. Senators questioned how unions would represent exempt employees and whether the bill would change the at-will nature of those positions; no vote or final action was taken on the measures in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's why the discussion is important. Thank you for correcting me.
• Paul will discuss in more detail.
• Chairman, and that is part of the discussion.
• Really is the policy question I'd love to have discussed.
• They will discuss the IEP needs and how we meet those at our school.

Committee: House Public School Capital Outlay Oversight Task Force

Transcript Highlights:

• We will be discussing that at some point in future meetings.
• Um and so we will be discussing that it.
• Um and so we will be discussing that in<00:34:25.760><c> at</c><00:34:26.079><c> some</c><00:34:26.320
• </c><00:36:06.000><c> of</c> to provide any meaningful discussion of to provide any meaningful discussion
• We will see if it's worth printing out some portions of that, some extracts for further discussion.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Special Committee on COVID Response Efficacy met briefly without a quorum because many members were tied up in legislative committee of conference work. The chair said the committee would resume in June and, in the meantime, directed members to the committee webpage and the 2024 committee’s report and COVID-19 after-action report, which he said could be reviewed for possible updates and legislative recommendations on how New Hampshire should respond to future pandemics. The chair then introduced two recent articles as framing material: one about the U.S. Supreme Court declining to hear a challenge to the Los Angeles Unified School District’s COVID vaccine mandate, and another about CDC internal emails and alleged failure to publicly acknowledge vaccine safety signals. He argued these examples raised concerns about mandates, transparency, and the balance between individual rights and public health, and said the committee would revisit the issue in future meetings. Representative Pollazok thanked the chair for presenting both legal and medical perspectives and suggested the committee focus on reviewing scientific methodology and the quality of evidence behind competing claims. A member asked whether vaccine pamphlets now include risks and benefits, and the chair responded that FDA-approved products should have patient inserts available on the FDA website, including sections listing adverse events from clinical studies and commercial use. He said he would research and email the committee copies or excerpts. Members also discussed how to evaluate studies over different time periods, dosing levels, and the timing of side effects, as well as the difficulty of comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated outcomes when definitions change over time. Before adjourning, the chair said the committee would ask the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services how it would monitor and assess vaccine or pandemic-related issues in real time and whether additional structures would be needed in a future emergency. He said the committee would likely take July and August off, resume in September, and aim to have a draft report by mid-October and a final report by late October ahead of the November elections.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? Any objections?
• On the amendment, any discussion? Any objections?
• On the one amendment, any discussion? Any objections?
• </c><00:19:23.760><c> Without</c> discussion? Any objections? Without discussion? Any objections?
• </c><00:20:26.000><c> Without</c> discussion? Any objections? Without discussion? Any objections?

Keywords: Senate streaming session for Wednesday, April 1, 2026, 960, senate, all

Summary: The Senate opened with an invocation by Father Mark Bilek of Westminster, introduced by the Senator from the 42nd District and praised by members for his community service and Lenten message of reconciliation. The prayer was journalized. The chamber then recognized several guests, including interns, family members, a shadowing student, and the doctor of the day, Dr. Ann Benfield, before moving to floor business. A scheduling note indicated a light floor agenda, with committee work later in the day and a longer floor session expected the next day. The Senate considered several second-reading committee reports and moved multiple bills to third reading, generally without objection. These included House Bill 229, increasing Maryland Transportation Authority bond capacity from $4 billion to $5 billion; House Bill 266, allowing resource-sharing revenues to support state communications infrastructure, with an amendment conforming it to Senate Bill 85; House Bill 472, extending and adjusting the theatrical production tax credit; House Bill 607, setting constitutional officers’ salaries; House Bill 810, creating a study on blockchain-based lease recordation verification with an amendment adding the Maryland Blockchain Association; House Bill 1095, granting a Calvert County property tax credit for former tobacco barns; House Bill 1142, creating a task force on county and municipal revenue structures; and House Bill 1165, addressing apprenticeship program accountability and completion. The Senate also advanced Senate Bill 956, authorizing the Maryland Transportation Authority to waive portions of video tolls or civil penalties on delinquent accounts, with a sponsor amendment. Members briefly joked about April Fools’ Day during the proceedings, but the chamber continued to adopt reports and amendments without recorded opposition. At the end of the session, leaders announced committee schedules for the afternoon and the next day, including Finance, Triple E, Budget and Taxation, and Judicial Proceedings meetings. The Senate then held a quorum call, confirmed 45 members present, and adjourned until Thursday, April 2 at 10:00 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• We discussed about some funds that DEQ has to do this.
• Now are the secretaries on ongoing discussions? All righty.
• I know the discussion beyond that would be on the actual...
• , so there has been discussion.
• And I'll remember... ...and we had lengthy discussion. So there has been discussion.

Committee: House Natural Resources & Environment

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to briefly discuss some methodology. We're going to go through some quick terminology.
• So my question is on that last slide with the extensive needs that we were discussing.
• Yes, the results that we were discussing earlier, those are all survey results from superintendents,
• You know, that would be a little bit of a departure from adequacy-specific discussion, since we'll be
• I appreciate the discussion. I think that's an important discussion.

Summary: The House/Joint Education committee continued its adequacy study with a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, focusing first on matrix spending and then non-matrix spending. Staff explained the methodology for mapping APSCN expenditure data to matrix lines, reviewed district and school categories used in the analysis, and highlighted key findings: foundation funding covered a large share of matrix costs but total spending on matrix items exceeded foundation funding, with classroom teachers making up the largest share. Members asked for additional breakdowns on waivers, superintendent survey responses, trend data, and spending by district type, size, and rural/urban status. Staff also noted limitations in tracking two matrix lines—salary enhancement for other employees and all personnel health insurance—because of coding and definition issues. The committee then reviewed non-matrix expenditures, including instructional aides, facilities, school safety, mental health, dyslexia services, gifted and talented, and career and technical education. Staff reported that non-matrix spending remained above $2 billion over the last three years, with most of it coming from other funds rather than foundation funding. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, mental health needs, school safety, food service, athletic transportation, and whether some items should be added to the matrix. The Department of Education clarified that the building fund reflects district-held funds for construction and maintenance projects, while the facilities partnership program is a separate state process for approved projects. In the final discussion, staff summarized total spending as more than $15,800 per student in 2025, with about 69% going to matrix resources and 31% to non-matrix resources. The chair explained the adequacy process and the committee’s role in setting future funding recommendations, and members discussed the recommendations worksheet included in the binder. The chair then proposed postponing the remainder of Part Two of the presentation until a May meeting after the fiscal session, along with inviting the Department of Education back for more detailed questions; with no objections, the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members discussion? Okay, we will. No further discussion. Mr. Vice Chair, please move the bill. Mr.
• Now for discussion. Mr. Vice Chair, please... Now, for discussion, for the questions, Mr.
• Members, discussion.
• We welcome the opportunity to discuss this with the sponsor.
• We're in discussion. Mr.

Bills: HB2775 , HB2874 , HB2940 , HB4014 , HB4067 , HB4115 , HCM2010 , HCR2051

Committee: House Federalism, Military Affairs & Elections

Keywords: international organizations, government resources, public institutions, Arizona Board of Regents, foreign adversaries, campaign finance, contributions, termination statements, reporting, penalties, electoral processes, healthcare, public benefits, eligibility verification, fraud prevention, Medicaid, SNAP, transparency, accountability, state land

Transcript Highlights:

• Today we will discuss the findings and recommendations in the recent audit report titled, "Department
• A fact worth mentioning here for our discussion purposes today is that the number of calls A fact worth
• And that's something that we can all consider and discuss today.
• We're going to discuss the audit report and we will go through the findings.
• And I think we will have a very fruitful discussion.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion? Hello again. Committee is no longer at ease.
• Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay.
• Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay.
• Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay.
• Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay.

Summary: The committee began with a work session on the Workforce Education Investment Act (WEA) Oversight Board, hearing from board co-chair Jane Broome and Joel Anderson of WASAC. They described the account’s origins as a public-private partnership intended to supplement, not replace, existing higher education funding, and emphasized the board’s role in oversight and outcomes. Members discussed the need for better data, especially outcome-based data, and concerns that recent budget actions have used WEA funds to supplant general fund support for higher education, particularly at the University of Washington. The presenters said WASAC staffing has improved transparency, but they urged the committee to preserve the original “do not supplant” intent and to keep WEA focused on high-demand programs, financial aid, and student success. The committee then held public hearings on three bills. SB 6251 would require public medical schools to use letter grades or a tiered grading system; the sponsor said the bill was meant to standardize grading, while both Washington State University and UW Medicine testified in opposition, arguing that pass-fail and competency-based systems better support collaboration, student mental health, and residency competitiveness. SB 6259 would make students ineligible for state aid and require repayment of aid if they are found by a court to have caused major damage to a public institution; the sponsor framed it as accountability for serious vandalism, while the lone testifier from WSU student government supported free speech but opposed the bill’s penalties as inequitable for lower-income students. SB 6235 would address the higher education “fund split” by requiring state funding of compensation and central services to return to 2023-25 levels over time and directing a study on essential student services; nearly all testimony from university, faculty, and community college leaders supported the bill, saying the current approach shifts costs to tuition, creates instability, and forces cuts to classes, staffing, and student services. In executive session, the committee advanced several bills. It adopted proposed substitutes and gave do-pass recommendations to SB 5978, SB 6209, SB 6217, and SB 6227, sending them to the Ways and Means Committee. The committee did not take action on SB 6235 in executive session. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, um, some may recall that we discussed this subject at interim committee meeting back in 2024
• this subject at interim discussed this subject at interim committee<00:04:42.240><c> meeting</c><00:
• These discussions really need to be had in the front end of these meetings.
• </c><00:14:27.560><c> for</c><00:14:27.800><c> a</c> for these discussions for a for these discussions
• before making a upfront discussions before making a decision. decision. decision.

Committee: Senate Veterans, Military Affairs, & Public Protection

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is before you for discussion for.
• All right, so up for discussion. All right, thank.
• No, Madam Chair, it's discussion that we needed, and we got some good discussion. Great.
• But as you saw, there's a lot of great discussion as well to be had.
• There isn't a program cap, but that has been discussed and certainly will be discussed.

Committee: Joint Revenue Stabilization & Tax Policy Committee

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Discussion impacts the Federal Government may have on funding for future elections.
• We have our attorney on hand, Mary Mooney, and we're happy to continue the discussion.
• Was it during the discussion of AB 15?
• That's up for discussion.
• be at the table having that that discussion.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So with that, I look forward to the discussion. Madam Speaker, point of order.
• Further discussion? I am ruling that the point of order is well taken.
• Any further discussion? I recognize Representative Green.
• Further discussion? Now recognize Representative Gilman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
• Any further discussion? Representative Freiberg. Representative Freiberg.