Transcript Highlights:

• Anyone interested in submitting written testimony during the hearing, please submit 13 copies to our
• You will hear periodically.
• I can imagine an interim committee hearing where you would want to hear from elementary school one in
• I'd like to hear what those two sections are that you have.
• Due to obvious circumstances, we're hearing the bill here as opposed to in the other chamber.

Bills: SB8 , SB 8

Committees: Senate Education , Senate Education K-16

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm calling this hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order. We do not have a quorum yet.
• There are three bills on consent, so these three bills will not be presented for a hearing, but they
• And members of the public in the hearing room will have an opportunity to state their position.
• And in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time
• Rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

Committee: House Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing of the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy.
• Number one, as is customary, I will maintain decorum throughout today's hearing.
• disrupts or to hear as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct
• Okay, seeing and hearing none, we'll bring it back to the committee.
• So I'm looking forward to hearing them. I appreciate it. Thank you.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• The Chair hears none. Senate Bill 268 is left pending. Okay, I do want to...
• Hearing none, Senate Bill 1467 is left pending. Senate Bill 1467 is left pending.
• Chair hears none. Senate Bill... ...2024 is left pending. Thank you.
• Hearing none, we will proceed to testimony and reserve your right. The Chair calls Dr.
• The Chair hears none. Senate Bill 227 is left pending.

Bills: SB2024 , SB227 , SB268 , SB1467 , SB1580 , HB5537 , SB1313 , SB1677 , SB918 , SB331 , SB2207 , SB2721

Committee: House Public Health

Keywords: e-cigarettes, marketing prohibition, youth protection, criminal penalties, public health, school funding, education reform, state budget, property taxes, equity in education, health care, licensing, complaint procedure, disciplinary action, law enforcement, death records, vital statistics, healthcare, trauma facility, Medicaid

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing and hearing none, public testimony is closed. The bill is left pending at this time.
• Seeing and hearing none, public testimony is closed. The bill is left pending at this time.
• Wheeler's name, because you will hear it again in this.
• Seeing and hearing none, public testimony is closed. Bills left pending at this time.
• By all in for or against Senate Bill 1807, seeing and hearing none, public testimony is closed.

Bills: SB82 , SB1807 , SB2254 , HB 119 , HB 130 , HB581 , HJR98 , SB1988 , SB 18 , SB 34

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• The two-hour limit was not waived for the committee hearing.
• Chairman, in the recent hearing we held on this issue, we had five witnesses.
• He wanted to hear from the parliamentarian the justification of your decision.
• This is the point of this hearing. It is to protect people. Next amendment.
• The hearing is adjourned.

Bills: SB163 , SB558

Committee: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

Keywords: civil rights, higher education, discrimination, complaints, awareness campaign, antisemitism, education, Civil Rights Act, IHRA definition, federal enforcement, Jewish community, anti-discrimination laws, Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, Protecting Students on Campus Act, First Amendment, Senator Tim Scott, free speech, college campuses, legislation, Trump administration

Summary: The committee meeting primarily focused on reviewing two significant bills: S558, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2025, and S163, the Protecting Students on Campus Act. Senator Tim Scott introduced S558, emphasizing its importance in combatting anti-Jewish violence and harassment, and providing the Department of Education with necessary tools to investigate incidents of anti-Semitism on college campuses. The bill sparked a vigorous debate among members who expressed concerns over potential implications for free speech, particularly regarding its definitions of anti-Semitism, and whether it would infringe upon First Amendment rights.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is what I'm hearing. You say. I just want to verify that on the record.
• Thank you for hearing me today. Thank you thing. >> But Dean, the Littles Esquire.
• And until you hear that story, you can't even imagine that this is possible.
• But we we hear examples of that not working. Then we need to rectify them.
• But also when there's medical evidence and we need to hear that we need to hear the genetic testing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> &gt;&gt; Can you Can you hear me? &gt;&gt; Can you Can you hear me?
• </c> hear us better. Um, but thank you, Mr. hear us better. Um, but thank you, Mr.
• </c> public hearing on 105 public hearing on 105 and<05:31:06.558><c> uh</c><05:31:07.680><c> wait</c
• Can you hear &gt;&gt; Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me?
• Seeing none, I'm going to close a public hearing on 1357. Um, that concludes our hearing on 1357.

Committee: House Housing

Summary: The subcommittee first took up House Bill 1598 and an amendment, 2026-0463H. Elliott Barry and Nick Norman testified that the amendment reflected a hard-fought compromise balancing concerns from all sides, and they urged no further changes. With no questions from members, the subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend the bill with the amendment to the full committee, 3-0, and closed the subcommittee. The housing committee then moved through several executive session bills. HB 1010 was amended with 2026-0274H, described as clarifying and implementing prior housing law (HB 631) governing residential units above office and retail space; the amendment was adopted unanimously and the bill was reported ought to pass as amended on a 17-0 vote and placed on consent. HB 65 was then voted ought to pass and also placed on consent, with members saying it was duplicative of the compromise reached on HB 1010. HB 1349 was reconsidered for a clarifying vote and again received unanimous support for its prior disposition, 17-0, and was placed on consent. The committee next took up HB 1523, which concerned homeowners associations. An amendment, 2026-0380H, removed Section 5’s Attorney General enforcement mechanism, added HOA conflict-of-interest approval language, and delayed the effective date to give stakeholders more time; it was adopted unanimously. The bill then passed 18-0 as amended and was put on consent. The committee also voted ITL on CACR 16, a constitutional amendment related to sleeping or homelessness issues, after debate over unintended consequences and whether it protected a basic right; the vote was 10-8, with a majority report assigned and a minority report to be written. Later, HB 108, dealing with inclusionary zoning, was voted ITL 10-8 after members argued the bill imposed unrealistic burdens and could halt development; a minority report was noted with amendment 0149H. HB 7, concerning ADUs and restrictive covenants, was also voted ITL 10-8 after discussion of unintended consequences and a proposed amendment to encourage second ADUs; it was sent to the regular calendar with a minority report and amendment 0289H. HB 1120, on water-related subdivision requirements, was ITL’d 17-1 and placed on consent, with one member noting a study amendment had been offered. HB 1143, addressing housing-provider obligations and municipal enforcement powers, was ITL’d 17-1 and placed on consent. Finally, HB 1145, a fee/tax proposal tied to housing development, was ITL’d 11-7; members debated whether it would discourage development, and a minority report was assigned.

Transcript Highlights:

• e e e Chair: Okay, we'll open up the public hearing on House Bill 552 and hear from the prime sponsor
• Then we'll close the public hearing on House Bill 648, and we'll quickly reopen the hearing on House
• </c> that we do and do not regulate they hear that we do and do not regulate they hear insurance<04:11
• But that's why this hearing process is a little different than most hearing processes.
• </c><04:39:40.798><c> yeah</c> going to have done all our hearings yeah going to have done all our hearings

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on House Bill 552, which would remove the “full-time student” requirement for children ages 19 to 25 covered under the state retiree health insurance plan. The prime sponsor said the change would align retiree coverage with state employee and ACA plans, would not cost taxpayers because retirees pay the premiums, and could even reduce administrative burden and possibly state costs. The chair noted the bill simply removes the words “if full-time student” from statute and said the proposal affects very few retirees and has no cost to the state. No opposition was presented, and the chair closed the hearing on HB 552 after no further testimony. The committee then opened a public hearing on House Bill 648, which would require commercial insurance coverage for glucose monitoring devices and supplies for people with diabetes. The prime sponsor, a retired dietitian and diabetes educator, gave extensive testimony describing diabetes as common, costly, and serious, and argued that continuous glucose monitoring is important for managing type 2 and gestational diabetes, preventing hypoglycemia, and improving safety and decision-making. She said CGMs can alert users to dangerous blood sugar changes, help people understand how food, activity, and medication affect glucose, and save lives while offering a strong return on investment. During questions, a committee member asked whether the bill should specify that the monitoring be tied to prescribed treatment, and the sponsor agreed that adding “prescribed” would be appropriate. The member also asked about the proper threshold for coverage and whether the bill should be tied to fasting-test diagnosis; the sponsor responded that A1C is only one measure of control and does not show daily fluctuations, and said she was not prepared to recommend a specific threshold but could provide clinical guidelines later. No vote was taken during the hearing, and the sponsor indicated support for the bill’s general approach to broader CGM access.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hear no objection. &gt;&gt; Any objections? Hear no objection.
• </c> hearing of the prayer. hearing of the prayer.
• &gt;&gt; I hear you.
• I hear you. Yeah.
• I hear you. Yeah.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> does not change that we sometimes hear does not change that we sometimes hear claims<00:17:02.480
• </c> state's housing crisis as you'll hear state's housing crisis as you'll hear lots<00:17:53.360><c
• </c> attached or detached so I I'm hearing attached or detached so I I'm hearing what<00:44:26.559><c
• </c><01:32:53.600><c> how</c> recess until 1:15 and we'll hear how recess until 1:15 and we'll hear how
• I'm going to open the public hearing on HB 459 and recess the public hearing until 1:15. Thank you.

Committee: House Housing

Summary: The House Housing Committee heard testimony on HB 577, a bill to expand accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in New Hampshire. The sponsor and supporters described the state’s housing shortage and argued the bill would make it easier for property owners to build ADUs by right, up to 950 square feet, either attached or detached, while still requiring compliance with building codes, septic/water limits, and other local requirements. Supporters said the measure would help seniors age in place, provide housing for young adults, caregivers, and workers, and make better use of existing property such as garages and barns. Representative Reed raised concern that removing language related to short-term rentals could allow ADUs to be used for that purpose rather than long-term housing. The sponsor said he was open to clarifying language on short-term rentals, and another witness explained that current law already allows municipalities some choice on ingress/egress requirements, while the bill would standardize that and leave the design choice to the property owner. Several supportive witnesses followed, including the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, the Business and Industry Association, AARP, Housing Action New Hampshire, 603 Forward, and New Hampshire Youth Movement. They emphasized affordability, property rights, workforce housing, intergenerational living, and the need for statewide consistency. A Derry resident testified that his existing garage space could be converted into an ADU under HB 577, but current local rules prevent that because it is detached; he said the bill would let him rent it affordably. Supporters also argued that ADUs can increase property values and help homeowners cover mortgages and taxes. In opposition, the New Hampshire Municipal Association said the bill would impose a local zoning mandate, could add density pressure on already stressed infrastructure, and did not guarantee that new units would be affordable or workforce housing. No vote or final committee action was taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing none, Senator Johnson moves that we adopt the committee substitute. Is there objection?
• Hearing none, the substitute is adopted.
• Hearing none, it is so ordered. Stop. Yeah, yeah. For the local and uncontested calendars.
• Hearing none, it is so ordered. It's the we asked for. Yeah, I'm remembering. Sorry. All right.
• Hearing none. So ordered. Is that it? Very well.

Committee: Senate Jurisprudence

Summary: The Committee on Jurisprudence met and considered two bills. House Bill 3783, relating to court-ordered counseling in certain suits affecting the parent-child relationship, was taken up with a committee substitute. Senator Johnson explained that the substitute clarifies that a court may not order a victim of family violence or abuse by the other parent to pay any part of the counseling costs. The committee adopted the substitute without objection and then voted 5-0 to report HB 3783 favorably to the full Senate, with the recommendation that it do pass and be printed, and to place it on the local and uncontested calendar. The committee then considered House Bill 4170. Senator Hughes moved to report the bill favorably to the full Senate, and the motion passed by a 5-0 roll call vote. The committee also agreed without objection to recommend HB 4170 for placement on the local and uncontested calendar. After completing business, the committee recessed at the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Senate Education Committee hearing. There are 31 bills on today's agenda.
• We'll now hear from witnesses in support. Please use the mic at the railing.
• We’ll now hear from those in the audience. Please use the mic at the railing.
• So I do think it's prevalent enough that every student should hear about it.
• We'll hear from any other me-toos in support.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• We are holding our hearing in the O Street Building.
• Items will be voted on at a future hearing.
• Are you not hearing? Can you hear it? We can hear it. I'll even pay attention to it. All right.
• Are you not hearing? Can you hear the? We can hear it. I'll even pay attention to it. All right.
• We have concluded our agenda for today's hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are holding this committee hearing in Room 2100 of the O Street Building.
• That is very different than a lot of what we were hearing about today.
• I hear you on that.
• I hear the good-faith argument too.
• Again, I hear the argument about good faith.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The committee heard SB 934 by Senator Wiener, which would extend the statute of limitations for malpractice claims arising from conversion therapy and clarify how expert testimony and scientific evidence may be used in those cases. Supporters, including a survivor, a licensed therapist, and LGBTQ advocacy groups, described conversion therapy as harmful and argued survivors often cannot come forward within current filing deadlines. Opponents, including civil justice and conservative legal groups, argued the bill was a workaround to recent Supreme Court rulings and raised concerns about free speech, evidentiary standards, and whether the bill could chill legitimate therapy. Committee members largely focused on whether the bill was limited to conversion therapy malpractice claims and not broader gender-affirming care; the bill was moved on a 7-2-1 vote to Senate Appropriations and placed on call. The consent calendar was also adopted on a 6-0 vote and placed on call. The committee then heard SB 1092 by Senator Allen, a housing bill aimed at manufactured home parks. The bill would give residents or their designated representatives a right to make a competitive bid when a park owner intends to sell, lease, or transfer a park, with notice and response periods intended to give residents time to organize financing. Supporters said the measure would preserve naturally occurring affordable housing, especially for older and lower-income residents, and help resident-owned cooperatives or nonprofits buy parks before investor buyers do. Opponents from park owner and realtor groups argued the bill would burden private property rights, devalue parks, and create unconstitutional takings and litigation risk. Committee questions centered on the bill’s timelines, whether residents would have 120 days to express interest and another 120 days to close, and whether the purchase agreement would be binding if accepted. The author and supporters said the second period was needed for due diligence and financing, while opponents said the structure could still delay sales and reduce market value. Several members expressed support for the bill’s goal but asked for further clarification or possible tightening of the timing and good-faith provisions; no final vote on SB 1092 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll hear from... And that concludes my presentation.
• We'll hear from Christina Carver with Community Solutions.
• I'm having a difficult time hearing you.
• They actually had a hearing yesterday where this was discussed.
• Okay, we will now hear from the Division of Tourism.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• If a network failure happens, which, who knows today, uh, might be necessary to reschedule the hearing
• You can kind of tell if you could hear yourself in the speaker; then it can hear you.
• But if you can't hear yourself in the speaker, then you got to come up.
• speaker then it can hear you but if you can't<00:11:18.399><c> hear</c><00:11:18.480><c> yourself</c>
• Can you hear me? >> Yep. Go ahead. >> Thank you, sir. Uh, good afternoon, Mr.

Bills: HB1849 , HB2000 , HB1753 , HB1511 , HB276 , HB1513 , HB2188 , HB1876

Committee: House Consumer Protection & Commerce

Summary: The committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce met on February 10, 2026, and heard testimony on several bills. HB 1849 relating to licensing drew comments from DCCA’s Professional and Vocational Licensing Division and the Hawaii Real Estate Commission, both of which stood on written testimony. The Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights testified in strong support, emphasizing that some immigrants, including DACA recipients, are already contributing in Hawaii and that the state should help create pathways for them to remain and advance professionally. No vote or final action was taken on HB 1849 during the portion shown. The committee then heard HB 2000, the wheelchair right-to-repair bill. Encart opposed the measure, arguing that repair delays are largely driven by insurance prior authorization and that wheelchair repairs involve FDA-regulated medical devices where improper repairs could create health risks. Peter Fritz testified in support, saying the bill was modeled on similar laws in other states and that he had personal experience through his sister’s use of a wheelchair. Members questioned whether repairs done outside insurer networks might not be reimbursed, and Fritz said that was a concern but that the need for timely repair outweighed it. The committee also discussed HB 1753 on social media, where DCCA’s Office of Consumer Protection supported the bill but suggested an amendment to the definition of personal information. On HB 1511 relating to consumer protection, DCCA’s Insurance Division supported the bill, while the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and the Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association offered comments seeking to preserve legitimate manufacturer and dealer communications about vehicles, warranties, recalls, and related services. The committee also took up HB 276 HD1 and HB 1513 on condominiums. The Hawaii Real Estate Commission offered comments on HB 276 HD1. For HB 1513, the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority supported the bill, but DCCA’s Insurance Division opposed it, warning that diverting HHRF funds could weaken reinsurance arrangements and raise premiums for consumers who rely on the fund. Members questioned whether the proposed condo loan program would need HHRF money and whether the amounts in the bill were necessary, and the division said it opposed using HHRF for that purpose. The committee also heard HB 2188 on housing, where OCP supported the measure and the Hawaii Association of Realtors raised concerns about conflicts with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the use of tenant screening reports, noting that a working group is already addressing landlord-tenant issues. Members asked OCP to research how other states handle similar laws and whether additional language is needed to avoid federal conflict. Finally, on HB 1876 relating to mental health, the Department of Health’s Adult Mental Health Division supported the bill but said it remains opposed to harmful, non-evidence-based treatment modalities; Pride at Work Hawaii also testified in strong support. No final votes or committee decisions were reported in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I didn't hear that. >> Oh, we cannot do that.
• Thank I hear you, sir. Thank &gt;&gt; all right. Thank I hear you, sir.
• </c> public hearing now. public hearing now.
• And um I think at the public hearing you'll hear from some people a lot more educated about this than
• We'll go into the public hearing now.

Bills: SB174 , SB39 , SB40 , SB206 , SB200 , HB169 , HB345 , HB381 , HB25 , SB174 , SB39 , SB40 , SB206 , SB200 , HB169 , HB345 , HB381 , HB25

Committee: House State Government

Keywords: business taxes, annual reports, Alabama Tax Tribunal, tax appeals, local government, board governance, occupational licensing, Sunset Law, public accountability, training requirements, SB40, Houston/Hunter Act, firearm hold agreement, gun storage, temporary firearm storage, firearms dealer, federal firearms licensee, FFL, civil immunity, gun owner

Transcript Highlights:

• I have yet to hear a great explanation for that.
• I mean, I am hearing that the McDonald's has to be knocked down, then I hear from Dorn that the McDonald's
• We will hear from the cities how popular these devices are.
• I do hear from constituents who care about safety.
• I do hear from constituents who care about safety.

Bills: SB1024 , SB1032 , SB1059 , SB1062 , SB1064 , SB1097 , SCM1001 , SCR1004

Committee: Senate Appropriations, Transportation and Technology

Keywords: roadable aircraft, registration, vehicle title, license plates, aviation safety, corrections oversight, funding, state budget, criminal justice, reform, appropriation, Department of Transportation, right turn lane, traffic improvement, infrastructure funding, transportation funding, authorization, road improvements, intersection safety, transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• So we are now going to hear from Protocol Services.
• Glad to hear that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
• Oh, I didn't hear it ringing again.
• I didn't hear it, but go for it, Madam Chair.
• Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Thank you.

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee