Transcript Highlights:

• And that does not include the co-pay I had to pay when I went to the hospital; I had to pay $25.
• And then I had to go back to the pharmacy to pay another cost, which adds up to more than the $320-something
• Because it's a pay-or-play system. If the manufacturer doesn't pay, then their drug isn't included.
• As we circle back, we just want to go back to Senate Bill 868.
• I'd like to go back now.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on a broad set of health care bills focused on cost, market oversight, pharmaceutical access, transparency, hospital closures, and pharmacy access. Chairs John Lawn and Cindy Friedman opened by emphasizing recent health care reforms and the need for further action on the drug supply chain, PBMs, private equity, and affordability. The committee heard testimony on several measures, including a Betsy Lehman Center bill to make technical changes and create a permanent trust account for federal and private funding, and bills on hospital profits and fairness, hospital closures and health planning, pharmacy deserts, and health care market oversight and pharmaceutical access. No votes were taken during the hearing. On the hospital profits bill, physicians and labor advocates strongly supported capping hospital CEO compensation at 50 times the lowest-paid worker, requiring greater financial transparency, and directing penalties from high-margin public hospitals into a Medicaid reimbursement fund. Testifiers argued that executive pay is excessive while frontline staff and safety-net services are under strain. Committee members raised concerns about unintended consequences, including whether hospitals might shift workers to contract status or lose executive talent, and whether the bill would actually direct money to the safety net. Supporters responded that the measure is one piece of a larger effort and that the bill’s Medicaid reimbursement provisions would help underserved hospitals. Testimony on market oversight and pharmaceutical access centered on rising health care and drug costs, PBM practices, and the proposal to give the Health Policy Commission authority to set upper payment limits for certain drugs. Consumer advocates, disability advocates, an independent pharmacist, the Attorney General’s office, and others supported stronger oversight, citing premium increases, affordability problems, and the impact of high drug prices on patients and community pharmacies. Pharma and some industry witnesses opposed parts of the bill, warning that upper payment limits could disrupt access, create legal issues, and fail to address the broader supply chain. The committee also heard support for stronger hospital closure notice and public hearing requirements, and for a pharmacy deserts bill aimed at identifying and addressing closures like the one in Roxbury that affected thousands of patients.

Transcript Highlights:

• back it up.
• I think it's fine to pay for that.
• I just would submit that electric vehicles are paying, so they're paying in utility tax.
• We all pay other taxes. They're not paying road-use HIRF tax; that's my point. No, but Mr.
• We need to pay attention. We need to pay attention to the roads that we have.

Bills: SB1072, SB1111, SB1114, SB1116, SB1122, SB1179, SB1250, SB1308, SB1455, SB1456, SB1457, SB1487, SB1547, SB1549, SB1551, SB1552

Keywords: reimbursement rates, intellectual disabilities, community services, economic security, funding appropriations, automated license plate readers, law enforcement, privacy, data access, public records, behavioral health, patient brokering, appropriation, state funds, Maricopa County, claims review, medical necessity, American Indian health program, healthcare regulations, healthcare

Summary: The committee first approved the February 3, 2026 minutes and reordered the agenda to accommodate sponsors and speakers. SB 1114, which would appropriate $1 million to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to investigate behavioral health patient brokering statewide, was presented as a response to Medicaid fraud and exploitation of vulnerable Native American patients. After brief questions about why Maricopa County would handle statewide oversight, the bill received a do pass recommendation on a 9-0 vote with one member not voting. The committee then took up SB 1111, as amended by a strike-everything amendment regulating automated license plate readers. The amendment limited use to specified law enforcement purposes, required verification of alerts when feasible, imposed data-retention and handling responsibilities on agencies, and created a misdemeanor penalty for unauthorized release of data. Supporters from Phoenix, Tempe, Prescott Valley, the Arizona Chiefs of Police, and the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association argued the bill provides needed statewide guardrails while preserving a valuable investigative tool for missing persons, stolen vehicles, and serious crimes. Opponents from the ACLU, Institute for Justice, and private citizens raised privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns, warning about dragnet surveillance, unclear terms like “legitimate” law enforcement purposes, lack of public access to records, and the risk of misuse for immigration or abortion-related tracking. The committee adopted the amendment and then gave SB 1111 as amended a do pass recommendation on a 7-2 vote, with one not voting. Next, SB 1116, as amended, was approved. The bill requires appeals or adverse determinations on behavioral health claims under AHCCCS fee-for-service to be reviewed by someone with relevant clinical experience, and the amendment broadened the requirement to include medical-necessity denials and specified at least two years of similar clinical experience. Senator Werner said the measure was intended to curb inappropriate denials and improve payment for behavioral health providers serving Native communities. Access was neutral but said the bill’s terms were too broad and could require additional staff; the committee nonetheless adopted the amendment and passed the bill 10-0. Finally, SB 1122, as amended, was approved 10-0. The bill bars AHCCCS from requiring prior authorization for behavioral health services under the American Indian Health Plan, while the amendment prohibited 100% prepayment review and adjusted the corrective-action language. Senator Werner and provider representatives said the measure was needed because providers were being delayed or denied payment, contributing to closures, workforce shortages, and patient brokering. The committee then began hearing SB 1072, a major appropriation to increase reimbursement rates for home- and community-based services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, with testimony focused on severe caregiver shortages, overtime costs, and unassigned service authorizations.

Transcript Highlights:

• I pay more in property insurance than he pays in general risk, right?
• And back in the day when they were paying more for a stray dog than they were for a child that was served
• I may come back.
• The state has to pay 75%, and the federal government will pay 25%.
• We don't pay. There is no co-pay if we continue to have a high error rate.

Transcript Highlights:

• of that back later.
• A young person pays $5...
• But as I understand it, someone paying $36,000 in child care over the year will receive $900 back.
• How to pay for it? I'm good.
• How to pay for it?

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The joint House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees met to hear identical conformity bills, HB 2153 and SB 1106, which would align Arizona tax law with the federal Internal Revenue Code as of Jan. 1, 2026, including some retroactive provisions for tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bills would exclude three federal provisions: the higher federal SALT deduction, the new senior deduction as written in H.R. 1, and the deduction for interest on new car loans. They would instead include a $6,000 retirement-income deduction for taxpayers age 60 and older, a $6,000 Roth IRA contribution deduction, a higher dependent tax credit, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. JLBC estimated the package would reduce general fund income tax revenue by about $441.3 million in FY 2026. Members also discussed that the Department of Revenue’s forms had been issued assuming full conformity, and staff and supporters argued the bills were needed quickly to avoid confusion and amended returns during filing season. Committee members and sponsors largely framed the bills as tax relief and a way to provide certainty for taxpayers and preparers. Supporters said the package would help families, seniors, and workers, and noted that the Arizona version was negotiated to keep the overall tax relief roughly comparable to full conformity while shifting benefits away from the SALT deduction and toward child credits, retirement income, and child care. The sponsors also criticized the governor’s executive action and urged prompt passage so taxpayers would know how to file. Opponents argued the bills would reduce state revenue, worsen the budget outlook, and disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers and corporations. Several witnesses and members also raised concerns about the child care deduction, the retirement-income deduction, and the business expensing provisions, while supporters responded that the bill was designed to help working families and encourage saving and investment. Public testimony was mixed. The Arizona Society of Certified Public Accountants and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club supported the bills, emphasizing early conformity, filing certainty, and reduced confusion for taxpayers and software providers. Opponents included Save Our Schools Arizona, the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, Opportunity Arizona, and several individuals, who argued the package would deepen budget problems and favor the wealthy. One witness objected to a federal school-choice-related provision she said was being tied to the bill, though committee members said the measure before them was a tax conformity bill and not a school finance bill. The hearing included extended debate over the fiscal impact, the governor’s prior requests for some of the same tax changes, and whether taxpayers would need to file amended returns if the legislature later changed course. The transcript ends during testimony from NFIB, with no final committee vote or action shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• gas tax and then come back to a little bit more parity on what folks who own electric vehicles are paying
• gas tax and then come back to a little bit more parity on what folks who own electric vehicles are paying
• gas tax and then come back to a little bit more parity on what folks who own electric vehicles are paying
• That's who will pay this tax.
• He's hiding in the back. guest here. He's hiding in the back.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, teachers must pay out of their pocket, pay their own way to get started.
• And is it fair to say that the BA is the way to get a teacher pay raise, an educator pay raise to the
• Turn it back over to you, Chairman.
• I believe the question you asked is do school districts pay for... Do they pay vendors? Okay.
• If you can pay them that makes it a lot more attractive and say hey we're gonna pay you back. because

Bills: HB2, HB2

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, disaster preparedness, emergency management, flooding, mass fatality, mass casualty, fatality tracking, body recovery, autopsy, justice of the peace

Transcript Highlights:

• I did fail to mention that, and I'd be happy to go back to that at some point or continue to go back
• So we do pay for the coverage.
• So, Commissioner, go back to you.
• I have clients that are still waiting and they've just been put on the back burner, put on the back burner
• I have clients that are still waiting and they've just been put on the back burner, put on the back burner

Summary: The subcommittee held its first meeting on homeowners property insurance, with members from both parties introducing themselves and repeatedly noting that insurance affordability, roof condition, claims handling, and storm recovery are top concerns for their districts. Chair Yeager said the meeting was intended as an educational discussion rather than a legislative debate, and introduced a panel that included Insurance Commissioner Mike Yaworski, consumer Chad Carr, agent Mary Catherine Lawler, insurer executive Melissa Burt DeVries, and policyholder attorney Chip Merlin. The panel and members discussed major cost drivers in Florida homeowners insurance, including inflation, home age, roof age, mitigation features, claims history, litigation costs, reinsurance, and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund. Commissioner Yaworski said underwriting has become more sophisticated and that litigation costs, reinsurance, and replacement-cost inflation all affect premiums; he also said litigation is down about 30% and average requested rate increases have fallen from about 22.1% in 2022 to 0.8% today. DeVries said age of home, replacement cost, roof age, and coverage choices can materially change premiums, and explained that reinsurance is a major expense passed through to consumers. Merlin emphasized transparency concerns, argued that insurers are increasingly individualizing risk, and said consumers often struggle with coverage limits, deductibles, and claim denials. Members asked about flood coverage, hurricane deductibles, managed repair programs, mitigation credits, new insurer capitalization, and whether savings from reforms are reaching consumers. Yaworski explained that flood is generally excluded from homeowners policies and covered separately, that hurricane deductibles are mandatory in Florida and usually around 5%, and that the office tracks savings from reforms through rate filings and insurer discussions. He said the state is updating mitigation discounts and monitoring new entrants closely for solvency and market conduct. Several members and panelists said recent reforms have helped reduce some abuses and litigation, but many consumers are still seeing higher premiums because replacement costs and reinsurance remain elevated. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• So if somebody is tricked into paying a ton of money to one of these scammers, ...into paying a ton of
• We're back on. By your action, the amendment carries. We’re back on the bill as amended.
• 100% of the reliance should not be on the back of the banks, paying money market rates on checking accounts
• Then we can go back to the bill.
• There's nothing about who pays for it. So who's going to pay for these surveys?

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met with a quorum present and considered several bills. SB 106 on exploitation of vulnerable adults would allow service of process on scammers through the same nontraditional communication methods they use; it passed 8-0. CS/SB 280 on candidate qualification would create an enforceable party-affiliation requirement and a private right of action to disqualify noncompliant candidates; it passed unanimously. CS/SB 948 on flood disclosures was amended to extend disclosure requirements to residential leases, condo developer leases, and mobile homes, with tenant remedies if disclosures are not provided and flooding causes major losses; it passed 8-0. The committee also advanced CS/SB 498 on IOTA interest rates after a lengthy debate over legal aid funding and bank regulation. Supporters argued the bill would restore sustainability and fairness to the program by setting alternative interest-rate benchmarks, while opponents said it would cut funding for civil legal aid and that banks participate voluntarily. After testimony from legal aid leaders and bankers, the bill passed 7-2. SB 774, requiring clerks to electronically transmit certain mental health, substance abuse, and risk protection orders to sheriffs within six hours, was presented in response to a fatal Volusia County incident and passed 11-0. CS/SB 752 on defamation and online publication was amended to require removal from a website rather than the internet, then passed 8-2 after testimony from the media, a private attorney, and supporters who said it would help people harmed by false online reports. The committee also heard SB 832 on former phosphate mining lands, which would create a narrow defense against strict liability claims if notice and gamma radiation survey requirements are met. The bill was amended to clarify notice provisions and received support from industry and technical witnesses describing radiation surveys and reclamation practices. The transcript cuts off before the final vote on SB 832, so no committee action on that bill is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a process to go back.
• <00:15:28.319> it<00:15:28.440> starts<00:15:28.800> with back it starts with back
• are still paying in California customers are still paying claims<00:17:19.520> on<00:17:19.720
• of them and in California customers pay of them and in California customers pay for<00:17:36.559
• <00:19:22.919> of<00:19:23.200> Consulting for the paying of Consulting for the paying

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Senate hearing focused primarily on SB 1201, a wildfire measure that would create a wildfire recovery fund and allow securitization for electric utilities. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the bill, saying it would help protect customers, property owners, insurers, and the broader economy from future catastrophic wildfire liability while improving the utility’s credit profile and lowering financing costs. Support also came from DCCA Consumer Advocacy, the Attorney General’s office on written comments, Ulupono Initiative, Clearway Energy Group, IBEW Local 1260, Par Hawaii, KIUC, the Chamber of Commerce Hawaiʻi, Plus Power, and numerous organizations and individuals. Opponents or commenters raised concerns about the liability cap, victim compensation process, and fund structure, including the Hawaiʻi Association for Justice, the Hawaiʻi Regional Council of Carpenters, and the Hawaiʻi Insurance Council; Henry Curtis of Life of the Land supported the concept of a fund but questioned the catastrophe threshold and whether the fund would be empty without a prudency finding. Much of the discussion centered on whether the proposed fund would actually help restore Hawaiian Electric to investment grade, with senators comparing the proposal to California’s wildfire fund. Hawaiian Electric said the bill was only one part of a broader process, alongside physical risk reduction and settlement finalization, and argued that without the bill the utility would not regain investment grade. Senators also questioned the proposed $1 billion fund size, the fairness of ratepayer contributions versus shareholder contributions, and whether customers should pay for consulting and administrative costs; Hawaiian Electric said its proposed amendment would remove those consulting-related charges. The company also said the fund would accrue interest and, if unused, could be returned to customers, and that there would be replenishment and supplemental contribution mechanisms if the fund were exhausted. The Attorney General’s office said it still had further amendments to discuss, and the departments had not yet resolved where the fund should reside administratively, though Hawaiian Electric said it believed DCCA was the appropriate place but was open to alternatives. KIUC requested two amendments. No vote or final committee action was taken during the hearing, and the measure remained under discussion with questions and proposed amendments still outstanding.

Transcript Highlights:

• So they're having to pay the tax. They couldn't vote on anything.
• Okay, just broader looking back... Okay.
• You only pay the Taxation and Revenue Department once.
• And if you pay electronically, nothing will change.
• So we pay the Property Tax Division's cost of the sale, and then we pay the counties for distribution

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• How much does Athletics still have to pay back to the campus?
• How much does Athletics still have to pay back to the campus?
• No, but he said when they often cover other programs, there's usually a payment plan to go back and pay
• That's what they're calling back pay, and that amounts to about a half a million dollars in money that
• well as the back pay and the revenue well as the back pay and the revenue share<00:27:08.600>

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In fact, there are numerous cases of retirees getting retirement pay, being called back to work, back
• <03:07:17.120> to retirement pay uh being called back to retirement pay uh being called back
• So we look at it first as property and then we look at it as pay, and then it changes back again.
• So we look at it first as property and then we look at it as pay, and then it changes back again.
• So we look at it first as property and then we look at it as pay, and then it changes back again.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting began with committee process reminders from the chair, including rules for questioning witnesses, time limits for testimony, and how motions and committee reports are handled. The chair also discussed the committee’s history, emphasized a cooperative approach with agencies and the Judiciary, and noted that a special committee on the Family Division of Circuit Court had previously done useful work; he said a new subcommittee could be appointed later to continue looking at judicial-system issues. He also mentioned that the Speaker’s office was expected to name members to the DHHS oversight committee by Friday at 1. The substantive presentation was from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Bureau of Child Support Services. Attorney John Williams introduced the bureau team, and Bureau Chief Lisa Dekowski described the program’s mission: encouraging responsible parenting, family self-sufficiency, and child well-being by locating parents, establishing paternity, setting or modifying support orders, and enforcing court-ordered child and medical support. She said the bureau operates statewide under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, works with courts, employers, and other partners, and serves both in-state and out-of-state cases, with some international and tribal coordination. She also cited program scale, saying the bureau dispersed about $76 million to families in New Hampshire in fiscal year 2023 and that most collections go directly to families. Members asked about enforcement tools, especially passport denial. In response to a question about a case involving a very small shortfall, the bureau said the federal passport-denial threshold is $2,500 in arrears, not a few cents, and that denial remains in place until the balance is resolved or an arrangement is made with the agency, with hardship factors potentially considered. The bureau also explained that either parent can apply for services when a child support order exists and that the bureau can help initiate income withholding orders. No votes or formal actions were taken during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've also provided a handout to you all, which are outlined in that back-to-back handout.
• I'm going to go back.
• Prospective pay, which is how private-paying families pay providers, will bring stability to the lives
• We have to pay insurance. We have to pay. for your own families at home?
• We have to pay insurance. We have to pay assistance.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs held its third hearing, focused on how transitional kindergarten (TK) fits into California’s mixed-delivery early learning system, with an emphasis on the Central Valley. Opening remarks stressed that TK and child care should complement each other, not compete, and that families need both part-day school-based options and full-day, year-round care. Committee members outlined hearing goals around aligning TK with existing programs, understanding family needs, and examining the economic impact of early learning on workforce participation and local economies. Panelists from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Every Child California, Early Edge, Children Now, and others described TK’s rapid expansion to all four-year-olds, the growth in enrollment, and related changes to state preschool and after-school programs. Witnesses generally supported TK but warned that its expansion has shifted enrollment away from community-based providers, especially centers and family child care homes, creating financial strain, vacant classrooms, and staffing challenges. They urged stronger partnerships between school districts and community providers, more flexible licensing and facilities support, higher and more uniform reimbursement rates, permanent authority for state preschool to serve two-year-olds, and better compensation and training for educators across settings. Parents and providers testified about the importance of trusted, culturally and linguistically responsive care, the need for infant-toddler and home-based options, and the difficulty of affording child care when TK is not full-day or does not fit family schedules. Several speakers emphasized that many families still face long waits for subsidies and that reimbursement and payment delays threaten provider stability. Public comment echoed these concerns, with providers calling for true cost-of-care rates, more vouchers, support for transportation and nontraditional hours, and protection from insurance and facility costs that can force programs to close. State education officials said California’s UPK system works best when TK, state preschool, Head Start, and community-based providers are treated as a shared system, and noted that planning and implementation grants and local coordination efforts have helped build mixed-delivery partnerships. The hearing ended without formal votes or actions, but committee members indicated they would continue gathering input to inform future policy and budget decisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• If the money's not there, they got to come back. So they're coming back or not coming back.
• If the money's not there, they got to come back. So they're coming back or not coming back.
• If the money's not there, they got to come back. So they're coming back or not coming back.
• When it comes to pay paying for for.
• also, guess who pays the bill on that? also, guess who pays the bill on that?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, I will get back on that one.
• Okay, I will get back on that one.
• Okay, I will get back on that one.
• Okay, I will get back on that one.
• Salaries include not only base salary but also bonuses like merit pay and extra duty pay, which is pay

Summary: The committee first approved the May 18 meeting minutes and then received a Legislative Audit presentation summarizing Arkansas Department of Education grant distributions for fiscal year 2025. Auditors said the department distributed about $4.6 billion in grants overall, including $3.2 billion from the Public School Fund, $1.1 billion in federal funds, and $268 million from other state and miscellaneous sources, across 56 Public School Fund programs, 14 other state programs, and 29 federal programs. Members asked about specific recipients and programs, including ClassWallet, master principal bonuses, Economics Arkansas, and CDC surveillance funding; audit staff and Department of Education representatives explained that the report was only a distribution summary and not a recipient-level audit. Members also questioned why many districts showed lower funding, and staff said the decline was largely due to reduced federal and one-time COVID-related funds. Senators and representatives also discussed whether some incentive programs, such as master principal and national board bonuses, were tied to student outcomes, and whether Economics Arkansas was the sole entity named in special language for financial literacy funding; department staff said they would follow up on several details. The committee then heard a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on consumer price index projections from Moody’s Analytics and S&P Global, with discussion of CPI-U and core CPI estimates for future fiscal years. Dr. Carlos Silva explained that the forecasts generally trend toward about 2 percent over time and that recent projections may have understated actual inflation because of recent shocks. Members asked about the accuracy of past projections, and he said he would provide more detail later if needed. The bulk of the meeting focused on the final adequacy report on teacher recruitment, retention, and salaries. BLR staff reported that Arkansas had about 32,800 teachers and 473,000 students in 2025, with a statewide student-to-teacher ratio of about 14 to 1, average teaching experience of 11.9 years, and a slight increase in National Board Certified teachers. The report found that districts with higher poverty and minority concentrations generally had less experienced teachers, and that teacher shortages remained widespread, especially in special education, math, science, and foreign language. Members asked about licensure exceptions, alternative preparation pathways, incentives for ESL and special education endorsements, and the cost and return on investment of traditional versus alternative routes. Staff said some licensure exceptions are being phased out under Act 304 of 2025 and that they would follow up on several requested details. The report also found that teacher retention averaged 87 percent statewide in 2025, with districts retaining teachers at higher rates than charters, and that 30 percent of surveyed teachers were considering leaving the profession. Principals and teachers identified school leadership as the strongest positive factor in recruitment and retention, while workload and salary were the strongest negative factors. On salaries, BLR reported a statewide average teacher salary of $60,254 in 2025, with districts averaging $60,458 and charters $55,724. Arkansas ranked 45th nationally on average teacher salary in 2025, though its cost-adjusted ranking improved to 36th; among SREB states it ranked 12th, and among neighboring states it ranked fourth. Members asked about starting salaries, salary compression, district step increases, and whether the report should be shared more broadly with educators and school leaders. Staff said they would provide follow-up information on several questions, and the committee took no formal action beyond receiving the presentations and asking for additional data.

Transcript Highlights:

• Either, you know, they're not able to fund a budget to pay appraisers or pay to hire additional staff
• Under criminal justice and public safety, $330.6 million is provided to pay for a pay increase for correctional
• The pay as you go limit has capacity of $11.6 billion.
• That's going way back. I'm getting old, but.
• We do know that renters pay property taxes.

Transcript Highlights:

• back.
• It's a little surprising to see this many people come back here and say, 'Oh, this is holding DERs back
• The next header, auto-pay campaign, says an auto-pay campaign is the process of moving members off payroll
• The next header, auto-pay campaign says, an auto-pay campaign is the process of moving members off payroll
• You have approved a pay raise.

Bills: SB75, SB715, SB776, SB1299, SB1405, SB1968, SB2021, SB2077, SB2148, SB2321, SB2330, SB2411

Keywords: electric generation, reliability, ERCOT, Public Utility Commission, penalties, performance requirements, energy policy, construction contracts, compensatory damages, government delays, contractor, legislation, nonprofit donor privacy, membership lists, supporter confidentiality, volunteer privacy, association rights, public records exemption, Texas Public Information Act, government transparency

Summary: The Senate Committee on Business and Commerce heard Senate Bill 2021 by Senator Johnson, as substituted, on distributed energy resources (DERs). Johnson said the bill was intended to create a regulatory framework for DERs and virtual power plants, address interconnection and registration issues, and prevent regulatory capture as the industry grows. Testimony was split: Texas Electric Cooperatives asked for clarification so co-ops would not be unintentionally excluded from owning or operating DERs; AECT supported the bill as providing needed rules and customer protections; TABA, Texas Solar and Storage Association, Sierra Club, Texas Solar Energy Society, and several others opposed it or raised concerns that it was too utility-centric, imposed red tape, and could burden homeowners and small businesses with registration and interconnection requirements. Johnson repeatedly said the bill was not meant to stop rooftop solar or backup systems and that he was open to specific redlines and further changes. SB 2021 was left pending after testimony. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2330 by Senator Parker, which would end government payroll deduction for dues to certain public employee organizations, while exempting first responders under Chapters 143 and 147 and making other conforming changes in a committee substitute. Parker argued the bill was about government neutrality, transparency, and employee freedom from coercion, and said organizations can collect dues directly using modern payment methods. Supporters from Texas Public Policy Foundation, Texas Business Coalition, Freedom Foundation, ABC Texas, and Texans for Fiscal Responsibility said taxpayer-funded payroll systems should not be used to collect dues for private organizations, especially ones involved in political activity. Opponents, including ATPE, Texas Classroom Teachers Association, Texas Public Employees Association, and correctional employees, said payroll deduction is a convenient, secure service that helps professional associations and employee groups, and argued the bill would burden teachers and other public employees. Several witnesses and senators focused on the bill’s exemptions and whether it treated teachers differently from first responders. Senator Menendez questioned why some public employees were excluded while others were not, and a Houston police union representative said he moved from opposing to supporting the bill after being told the substitute would preserve meet-and-confer deductions under Chapters 143 and 147. Senator Parker closed by saying the bill was not meant to eliminate associations or payroll deduction entirely, only to remove the state as a middleman. SB 2330 was left pending, and the committee then recessed subject to call.

Transcript Highlights:

• paying their staff.
• We would like to see some protections maybe added back in from the exemption about prompt pay and prior
• Several different layers of people are having to actually pay for that, and it typically comes back to
• Why do I want to pay for that? Why do I want to pay for the cattle?
• Is the company going to pay? What are they not going to pay for?

Bills: HB139, HB1818, HB1942, HB1959, HB2221, HB2254, HB2563, HB2067, HB2275, HB3211, HB139

Keywords: HB 1818, Texas Insurance Code, Texas Department of Insurance, commissioner of insurance, health maintenance organization, HMO, insurer, utilization review, preauthorization, prior authorization, medical necessity review, health care services, medical care, insurance regulation, insurance examination, regulatory oversight, confidential records, public information exception, Chapter 843, Chapter 1301

Transcript Highlights:

• And Jose had back pain.
• You are all paying for it. We are all paying for it one way or another.
• Yet to go back into Laos.
• And this country will never be able to pay back what my parents did because they raised four engineers
• Insurance is who pays. That's what we're talking about here: who pays?

Transcript Highlights:

• pay lower premiums.
• Back? They did. Okay.
• I gave it back to them.
• Back. Thank you.
• We fought back.

Bills: HB712, HB722, HB946, HB1687, HB1809, HB1899, HB2528, HB2583, HB2741, HB2750, HB3021, HB3150, HB3265, HB3658, HB3812, HB3960, HB4392, HB4432

Keywords: prostate cancer, health benefit plans, insurance coverage, cost sharing, preventive health care, auto insurance, total loss evaluation, disclosure, insurance materials, vehicle appraisal, HB 946, Texas Insurance Code, automobile insurance claims, oral release, written release, settlement agreement, claim release, property damage, bodily injury, psychological injury