Transcript Highlights:

• We want to be as efficient in doing that.
• So on costs, first off, Chairman Gleason, so you talked about cost allocation and how the commission
• that those who cause the costs pay the cost.
• and to be energy efficient as well.
• Additional data centers in ERCOT can be served efficiently and cost effectively by these underutilized

Transcript Highlights:

• That is efficiencies, innovation, collaboration.
• And our vehicles are getting more efficient.
• But that total cost was $167,000.
• increases in ballot printing as paper costs and printing costs have gone up.
• And I think it would be rather small because I think it would be more cost shifting than cost savings

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• safe efficient energy in Minnesota. safe efficient energy in Minnesota.
• Efficiency is one of the best things.
• We have a tenth of the cost extraction.
• Efficiency is one of the efficiency. Efficiency is one of the best<00:23:42.200> things.
• Uh but efficiency through best things.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• These green bars show an option, a low-cost option, and I'll show you what we mean by low cost in the
• show some increase in electric costs show some increase in electric costs through<00:13:55.959><
• has ways to say it's getting too cost has ways to say it's getting too cost costly<00:14:59.800>
• costs as we move to that lower cost costs as we move to that lower cost higher<00:29:58.600>
• the utility resource plans for the amount of efficiency resource the utility expects to acquire cost-effectively

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The cost of housing, whether you're renting or trying to buy, has soared to a historic... ...highs.
• Bringing these existing structures back online is a clear, cost-effective solution.
• As MassINC Policy Center notes, ...is a clear, cost-effective solution.
• Now, some may raise concerns about the cost to the Commonwealth.
• It's true that the cost of the incentives to the Commonwealth is unpredictable, as the cost of rented

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a hearing on several housing-related bills, with chairs Adrienne Madaro and James Eldridge framing the discussion as part of the Legislature’s broader response to the state’s housing crisis and noting that many of the bills build on the 2024 Affordable Homes Act. The chairs reviewed hearing procedures, including the three-minute oral testimony limit, the option to submit written testimony, and the hybrid format. No votes were taken during the hearing. Testimony began with support for H. 3278, a bill to create a graduated deed excise tax for affordable housing. Representative Worel argued that higher-end real estate transactions should contribute more to fund affordable housing production, saying the measure would not burden working families and would help address racial inequities in homeownership and displacement. Representative Soder then supported H. 3247, which would promote redevelopment of abandoned buildings through expanded tax incentives for renovating vacant properties for sale or rent, arguing that it would bring blighted units back into use and generate future tax revenue. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3040/S. 1969, residential improvement or R-PACE legislation. Robert Giles of Home Run Financing and Nicole Steele of Amalgamated Bank described the program as a voluntary, assessment-based financing tool that could help homeowners pay for energy efficiency, resilience, and other major repairs without upfront costs, and said it could complement existing Mass Save programs while expanding access to more homeowners. In contrast, Judith Lieben of the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute opposed H. 3039/S. 1946, the Housing Development Incentive Program bill, arguing it would expand subsidies for market-rate and luxury housing in Gateway Cities instead of directing resources to low-income renters. Representative Hawkins also testified in support of H. 3121, which would end large investor control of homes in Massachusetts by imposing an excise tax on large owners of small residential properties and using the revenue for first-time homebuyer down payment assistance. After testimony and a few member questions, the chairs asked whether anyone else wished to testify and then adjourned the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do costs by person, so increased OIT cost for the extra person.
• We do costs by person, so increased OIT cost for the extra person.
• We do costs by person, so increased OIT cost for the extra person.
• We do costs by person, so increased OIT cost for the extra person.
• We do costs by person, so increased OIT cost for the extra person.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard the Banking Department’s fiscal year 2026-2027 budget presentation from Commissioner Amelia Galeri. She described the department as a self-funded consumer protection regulator overseeing two main areas: the Banking Trust Division, which supervises state-chartered banks, credit unions, and trust companies, and the Consumer Credit Division, which oversees more than 7,000 licensees including mortgage and money transmitter businesses. She said the department’s budget is about 86% salaries and benefits, with 53 positions all filled, and explained that the agency funds itself through fees, fines, and end-of-year assessments on regulated entities. Galeri said the department is facing workload growth from several directions: continued growth in the trust industry, increased fintech supervision, and a new requirement to regularly examine auto dealers that take finance applications, which adds about 300 exams over two fiscal years. She said the department was directed to flat-fund its budget based on 2025 levels but was allowed to increase travel and training. To stay within that limit, she said the department reduced office space, went paperless, converted administrative and licensing positions into examiner positions, and expects to defund an embedded DOJ database administrator position once a new SharePoint system is fully implemented. Members asked about how the department’s revenue and assessments work, including whether fees were increasing and how much existing banks would pay. Galeri said fees are not being raised, most banks pay little or no fines, and assessments are based largely on asset size, with trust companies paying the bulk. She also explained that fines are set by statute, generally capped at $2,500 per violation for consumer credit entities, and said she would not recommend increasing that cap. The committee then voted to accept the Banking Department’s budget proposal as presented in HQ1, with a motion and second and no discussion. The transcript then moved to the Department of Energy budget. Commissioner Jared Chakin and Chief of Operations Lenny Radio discussed federal program funding, including LIHEAP fuel assistance and weatherization. They said the apparent drop in fuel assistance funding from FY 2024 actuals to the budgeted amount is due to the loss of ARPA and CARES Act supplemental funds, while weatherization remains a federally constrained program with a waiting list and limited flexibility. Members also asked about a proposed transfer from the renewable energy fund; staff said the transfer would still allow the department to carry out its statutory duties for the year, though the committee deferred deeper discussion until House Bill 2.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the district would bear the cost, all the cost of restarting, and the district has no other source
• revitalization projects cost, like, general sense?
• I think $30 million was the total cost.
• And I placed my order for a sandwich that cost me $4.73.
• This bill provides a more efficient and accessible path while still... ...providing a more efficient

Bills: HB2174, HB2496, HB2744, HB2863, HB2910, HB2938

Keywords: insurance regulation, modeling organizations, financial disclosure, rate-making, predictive models, revitalization districts, construction contracts, infrastructure, municipal services, intergovernmental agreements, user fees, landowner agreements, overtime, wages, employee rights, industrial commission, complaints, adjudication, landlord, tenant

Summary: The Commerce Committee heard and advanced five bills. HB 2174, as amended by a strike-everything, redefined “advisory organization” as a modeling and data organization and allowed models used by insurers for rate-making to be filed with DIFI, with DIFI able to require supporting data to verify compliance. The sponsor said the measure was the product of extensive stakeholder negotiations and technical cleanup. The committee adopted the amendment and then approved the bill 10-0 for a due-pass recommendation. HB 2496 would require revitalization district construction contracts to include payment protections allowing contractors and subcontractors to pause or stop work if the district fails to pay. Supporters argued it was a fairness measure to prevent contractors from being forced to continue work without payment; opponents, including bond counsel and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, warned it could disrupt public infrastructure projects, misalign incentives, and create bond-financing concerns. The committee passed the bill 9-1 with one member present. HB 2910 would extend from 10 to 20 days the time a contractor has to contest an ROC recovery fund claim after notice. The sponsor and Home Builders Association said it was a minor, technical change and requested more time to respond to claims. The committee approved it 10-1. HB 2938, the “penny” bill, would require Swedish rounding for cash transactions when pennies are unavailable, with an amendment clarifying taxes and fees are calculated before rounding and protecting businesses complying with the rule. The sponsor described inconsistent business practices and support from stakeholders; the committee adopted the amendment and passed the bill. HB 2744 would authorize the Industrial Commission of Arizona to investigate and adjudicate overtime wage violations at the state level. Supporters from the carpenters’ unions said federal enforcement is too slow and workers need a faster path to recover earned wages; the Industrial Commission said it would need additional FTEs and spending authority but not general fund money. One member opposed expanding agency authority over private wage disputes, but the committee ultimately passed the bill 10-1 and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, the real cost, Mr.
• They want lower costs.
• It cuts cost. It cuts straightforward. It cuts cost.
• Energy efficiency efficiency standards.
• <02:47:50.720> I efficiency. Remember, we told you so. I efficiency.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, March 27, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , their discretionary costs where we could.
• while maintaining fiscal discipline around new workload and costs. efficiencies while maintaining fiscal
• discipline around new workload and costs.
• This is what it's going to cost.
• fixing HVAC, we're going to be paying more in energy costs. this is what it's going to cost.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on the Governor’s May Revision proposals for labor, public safety/judiciary, and transportation, and no votes were taken. In Part A on labor, the Employment Development Department reviewed proposals for EDD Next document management system funding, updated UI loan interest costs, disability insurance and paid family leave benefit and administration adjustments, WIOA funding changes, UI administrative and benefit changes, school employee benefit adjustments, an EMT training reappropriation, and a technical correction tied to EDD Next. PERB discussed funding tied to AB 28 and AB 1, including litigation-related workload and new jurisdiction over legislative employees. DIR presented proposals for legal unit reclassifications, two major IT modernization projects, a new Cal/OSHA emerging technologies unit, a COIA reappropriation, and trailer bill language on electronic assessment payments and the DWC director salary cap. CalHR proposed additional funding for a consolidated employee assistance program contract, and CalPERS and CalSTRS presented budget adjustments tied to investment costs and state contribution changes. Members focused heavily on UI debt and interest payments, asking the administration for a plan to reduce the outstanding loan and relieve employers. Finance said no specific repayment plan was included in the May Revision, while LAO said the state’s UI tax structure is structurally insufficient and that any debt payoff should be paired with tax-system reform. Senators also questioned EDD Next costs and timelines, PERB’s caseload and staffing needs, and DIR’s emerging technologies unit, with LAO noting that the unit would appear focused on physical workplace safety rather than broader AI labor issues. CalHR said the new EAP contract would consolidate services, improve access to clinicians, and lower costs relative to the current model. CalPERS defended higher external management fees as part of a strategy to pursue higher net returns, while some members pressed for more transparency about private investments; CalSTRS said it was not prepared to address investment-strategy questions at this hearing. Public comment in Part A was dominated by advocates urging support for an immigration enforcement emergency relief fund, along with comments supporting the Jails to Jobs proposal, the Apprenticeship Innovation Fund, and additional PERB funding. The chair noted that many of the immigration-related requests might fall under other committees and said staff would follow up. In Part B, Finance and LAO outlined judicial branch and DOJ May Revision items, including funding for court interpreter services, appellate court security, lactation room implementation delays, courthouse construction reappropriations, and DOJ budget increases. LAO recommended approving the language-access proposal with a report on reducing interpreter cost growth and reducing the General Fund backfill for state court facilities by $10 million on an ongoing basis.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:24:02.080> the Currently, that would only cost the Currently, that would only cost the
• states' costs.
• what are our neighboring states cost. what are our neighboring states cost.
• presentation and um for efficiency presentation and um for efficiency purposes purposes purposes
• executive branch and our efficiency executive branch and our efficiency budget<01:32:47.920>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Costs must not be inappropriately assigned to the cost causers.
• costs will ultimately be paid by Minnesotans and by our members.
• Eventually, all of these costs will be passed on to consumers.
• Minnesota businesses and families have made it clear that costs matter to them and that costs in Minnesota
• We are worried that this legislation will increase our costs, the cost to our customers. for something

Bills: HF2928, HF2912, HF2297

Keywords: water appropriation, data centers, environmental review, energy conservation, permit application, carbon-free energy, geothermal energy, renewable energy, Macalester College, appropriation, sustainability, solar energy, pollinator programs, license plates, agrivoltaics, environmental sustainability

Transcript Highlights:

• High cost, outdated regulations, and over regulations.
• That is cost savings.
• It will also focus on increasing regulatory efficiencies.
• And maybe be more efficient without incurring these additional costs of starting up a whole new department
• Will the reorganization lead to more efficiency?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:22:22.239> and<01:22:22.440> coste install more energy efficient and coste install
• more energy efficient and coste effective<01:22:23.120> HVAC<01:22:23.719> systems<01:
• Thank you, Sander Jang, for authoring this impactful bill for promoting energy-efficient and cost-effective
• <01:24:52.679> and<01:24:52.880> coste promoting energy efficient and coste promoting
• energy efficient and coste effective<01:24:53.520> HVAC<01:24:54.000> systems<01:24:54.480

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it creates some efficiencies there as well.
• The project never actually showed the total cost; the bill never actually showed the total cost of the
• You doubled the efficiency.
• You doubled the efficiency.
• And now today, when we’re building them, they went from a $788 million cost to a $3 billion cost, just

Summary: The committee met for an informational hearing focused largely on the state capital outlay process and House Bill 2. Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration/Facility Planning and Control described how the office prepares and administers the capital outlay bill, said the bill has grown substantially over five years, and argued that recent changes in culture, staffing, project management, cash-flow analysis, and use of third-party support have more than doubled project expenditures and improved delivery. Members asked about the use and cost of third-party project managers, delegation of smaller projects to agencies, hiring difficulties, and whether the changes represented better interpretation of existing law versus statutory changes. Husser said some statutes were amended, some internal customs were removed, and the office would provide a list of those changes. He also explained that the office is trying to move away from overly rigid practices and toward faster project completion while still following public-bid and oversight rules. A major portion of the discussion centered on the size and structure of the capital outlay bill, especially the gap between Priority 1 cash capacity and the much larger Priority 5 backlog. Husser said the current annual Priority 1 limit is tied to construction inflation and is about $574 million, with additional surplus funds also available, but that the bill contains far more Priority 5 funding than can realistically move in a five-year plan. He and members discussed dormant projects, scope creep, legacy projects that have sat in the bill for years, and the problem of false expectations for non-state entities. Proposed solutions included limiting Priority 5 to five times Priority 1, requiring annual re-endorsement by members, setting district or project caps for non-state projects, requiring time limits and reporting for grant-like non-state projects, placing matches in escrow, requiring design readiness before submission, and consolidating the many existing reporting requirements into one clearer report. Members also discussed bundling multiple projects under one agency project, which the House had begun piloting for LSU, UL Lafayette, Southern, and DOTD, and which Husser said could improve flexibility, reduce overappropriation, and better reflect actual spending. Baker then explained cash-flow management and the commitment process, saying FPC now analyzes projects annually to estimate what can actually be spent in the next fiscal year and uses commitments to allow projects to proceed when future-year funding is expected. He said overappropriations can result from poor cash-flow estimates, delays, dormant projects, or projects coming in under budget, and that the office is already reworking cash-flow assumptions and reappropriating savings where possible. Members also raised concerns about change orders and low bids; staff said project managers review change orders closely, require concurrence on non-state projects, and sometimes reduce scope to keep projects within budget. After FPC’s presentation, the committee heard the beginning of Louisiana Economic Development’s capital outlay discussion, where LED explained that its projects generally fall into three categories, including the Economic Development Awards Program and Site Readiness Program, both used to support targeted economic development and job creation.

Transcript Highlights:

• or a cost shift or an increased cost to the participant. ...cost, or a cost shift, or an increased cost
• under public safety, predisposition costs, funding state-defined Medicaid, funding costs of medical
• When we look at construction costs in our county, in 2020, the cost to build an office facility was $300
• Efficient and run.
• Chair, it's interesting looking at the idea of being more efficient when we look at the overall costs

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes heard first from city representatives through the Florida League of Cities, who argued that property taxes are a stable local revenue source that funds core services such as police, fire, parks, public works, and stormwater work. Casey Cook emphasized that cities are optional governments with widely different tax bases and service levels, that exemptions shift the burden to fewer taxpayers, and that transparency already exists through TRIM notices, public budgets, and local hearings. Sarah Campbell of Fernandina Beach, T. Michael Stavris of Winter Haven, and Stephen O’Kee of Port St. Lucie described their budget processes, the share of general-fund revenue coming from property taxes, reserve policies, debt and capital planning, and the impact of inflation, minimum wage increases, and personnel costs. They all said local governments need predictable revenue and that any property tax changes would require careful consideration of replacement funding or service reductions. Members questioned the city panel about whether homebuyers are clearly informed about city versus county taxes and services, the role of HOAs, how many lobbyists cities employ, reserve levels, average salaries, and whether utility revenues are used only for utility purposes. The panel said TRIM notices, realtor listings, and city websites provide tax information; HOAs generally do not provide emergency services; lobbyists help local governments track Tallahassee legislation; reserves vary by city and fund; and utility revenues are generally restricted, though some cities use limited transfers. Members also asked about revenue replacement if ad valorem taxes were reduced or eliminated, and the panel said options would likely include user fees, service cuts, or other local revenue shifts. The chair also asked about public safety consolidation, and the response was that such decisions are local and may shift costs rather than create true savings. The committee then heard from county representatives after an overview by the Florida Association of Counties’ Davin Suggs, who framed counties as shared partners with the state and emphasized the gap between rising market values and the shrinking share of taxable value after exemptions and assessment limits. He said counties face a mismatch between revenue based on taxable value and expenses driven by real-world costs, and noted that most counties either held millage steady or lowered it without reaching rollback rates. He also highlighted that property taxes are only one part of county revenue, with charges for services and intergovernmental revenue often larger in some counties, and that public safety at the county level includes more than law enforcement, such as EMS, emergency management, inspections, and corrections. Deborah Manzo of Okeechobee County described a fiscally constrained rural county with limited staff, a county-supported airport, heavy reliance on property taxes for the general fund, and major cost pressures from inflation, insurance, retirement, and state and federal mandates. She said the county lowered millage slightly over recent years but still depends on multiple revenue sources and special assessments, and she flagged Medicaid, medical examiner costs, and possible firefighter workweek changes as significant concerns. Bay County Administrator Mark McQueen said his county’s budget is shaped by Hurricane Michael recovery, non-discretionary obligations, and rapid growth; he described ongoing FEMA reimbursement delays, substantial borrowing to cover disaster costs, and continuing interest expenses while the county waits for reimbursement. The county panel was still in progress when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• We want to be as efficient in doing that.
• So on costs, first off, Chairman Gleason, so you talked about cost allocation and how the commission
• that those who cause the costs pay the cost.
• and to be energy efficient as well.
• Stacy Doré: Additional data centers in ERCOT can be served efficiently and cost effectively by these

Summary: The Committee on State Affairs convened to discuss data centers and their impact on Texas's energy infrastructure. The meeting featured testimony from key representatives of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) and ERCOT, who outlined the evolving landscape of energy generation and the challenges posed by the rapid growth of data centers. Notably, ERCOT reported over 450,000 MW of generation resources planned for connection, with a significant portion attributed to data centers, which now represent around 87% of new large load interconnection requests. The committee explored proposed changes to the interconnection process, including a new 'batch study' approach aimed at streamlining the approval of multiple projects simultaneously. This change is intended to address the challenges of managing numerous simultaneous requests and to provide more certainty for developers regarding their energy needs. Testimonies emphasized the importance of ensuring that the costs of infrastructure upgrades are borne by the data centers rather than residential ratepayers, with discussions around the financial commitments required from developers. Several data center developers also provided testimony, highlighting the economic benefits of their projects, including job creation and increased local revenues. They expressed concerns about the potential for a moratorium on future growth due to the new interconnection rules and emphasized the need for a collaborative approach to address water usage and environmental impacts. The committee plans to continue discussions on these topics in future hearings, with a focus on balancing economic growth with energy reliability and resource management.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it creates some efficiencies there as well.
• The project never actually showed the total cost.
• The project never actually showed the total cost.
• You doubled the efficiency.
• And now today, when we're building them, they went from a $788 million cost to a $3 billion cost, just

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held an informational hearing on the state capital outlay process, with Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration’s Office of Facilities Planning and Control (FPNC) presenting a detailed review of House Bill 2 and proposed improvements. They said FPNC administers about 54% of the bill, while other agencies administer the rest, and emphasized that the capital outlay program has improved significantly over the last few years, with project expenditures more than doubling due to better cash-flow management, staffing changes, and more efficient project administration. They also explained how the bill is structured by priorities, how the priority-one cash line of credit is capped and adjusted for construction inflation, and how the bill has grown into a much larger, longer-range plan than a true five-year program, especially on the non-state side. A major theme was that the bill contains too many dormant, legacy, and low-priority projects, which creates false expectations and ties up funding. Committee members pressed the presenters on culture change, third-party project management, staffing shortages, and the use of technology and statutory interpretation to speed projects without sacrificing compliance. Husser and Baker said they had reduced internal bureaucracy, used staff augmentation because of hiring difficulties, delegated smaller projects to agencies when appropriate, and improved cash-flow analysis so projects can move forward with less money up front. They also discussed overappropriations, dormant projects, and the need to reappropriate unused funds to projects that can actually spend them. The presenters offered several recommendations and considerations: limit the number and size of new projects, reduce scope creep, require more regular endorsement of long-running projects, consider caps on priority-five funding, impose time limits and reporting requirements on non-state grant projects, and possibly require non-state entities to escrow or otherwise demonstrate their match earlier. They also suggested bundling related projects together, expanding that approach beyond the current pilot, and improving transparency by showing full project funding history and the first year each project appeared in the bill. No votes were taken, and the meeting remained informational, with members generally supportive of the efficiency reforms while also raising concerns about false hope, dormant projects, and the need for clearer expectations and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the second one was cost. You talked about, well, we know the cost.
• The cost, the cost, the cost. All right, just being sure. And then the second one was cost.
• You talked about, well, we know the cost. The cost is $20 billion.
• But at what cost? What cost are we considering?
• It needs to be considered at what cost. At what cost?

Summary: The hearing opened with budget framing from the chair and the LAO, who said the May Revision addresses roughly a $14 billion budget problem and that the environment and transportation subcommittee’s proposals account for about $1.9 billion of the solution. The LAO urged members to focus on solutions that do not worsen out-year deficits, to preserve reserves, and to defer major policy changes that are not necessary to pass the budget, including the newly introduced water-related trailer bills. Members also raised concern about a late-dropped Olympic-related trailer bill, which the LAO likewise suggested should be deferred for fuller review. The first major item was the Delta Conveyance Project and related water quality control plan trailer bills. The administration argued the proposals would streamline permitting, water rights proceedings, judicial review, and land acquisition, and would clarify DWR’s bond authority for the project. DWR said the project is needed to protect water supply reliability against drought, earthquakes, sea level rise, and other climate-related disruptions, and that the tunnel would help move water when conditions are wet and safer for the environment. Committee members from both parties questioned the timing, the use of budget trailer bills for major policy changes, the scope of the CEQA and water-rights changes, the lack of a bond cap, cost growth, and eminent domain protections. The LAO recommended deferring both water trailer bills without prejudice. Public comment was sharply divided, with labor, water agencies, and some business groups supporting the project as climate adaptation and reliability infrastructure, while environmental, tribal, fishing, county, and community groups opposed it as an attempt to bypass public process and weaken protections. The committee then briefly heard the DMV’s Digital Experience Platform fee trailer bill, which would reinstate a $1 system improvement fee to help fund the vehicle-registration phase of the project. DMV said the fee would raise about $7 million annually and offset roughly $59 million to $60 million of project costs, while the LAO noted it would help but would not solve the Motor Vehicle Account’s broader structural gap. The hearing then moved to California High-Speed Rail, where the new CEO presented an updated plan and said the project remains a major climate and infrastructure investment. He reported a revised Merced-to-Bakersfield cost range of $34.9 billion to $38.5 billion, said the agency is trying to reduce risk through direct procurement of materials, and argued that stable annual funding is needed to avoid higher costs from delays.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a great system, but we still need it to be efficient, cost-effective, safeguards for these individuals
• Because it's a cost to move. The cost is one that...
• Because it's a cost to move. The cost is one that...
• That's an off-site cost. Chair: ...cost to move.
• cost me $800 a day.

Bills: SB1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards

Summary: The committee heard a Legislative Budget Board presentation and then testimony from the Department of Public Safety on the Article 5 public safety budget. LBB said DPS’s 2026-27 recommendation totals $3.7 billion, down from the prior base, while FTEs rise by 856.7. Major items included increased funding for driver license services and customer support, new trooper funding and recruit schools, crime lab operations, border security, and reductions tied to one-time facility, vehicle, and aircraft spending. The committee also discussed new riders, including one to lapse unused trooper funds and require reporting after recruit schools. Members focused heavily on driver license operations, questioning why prior staffing increases and a prior efficiency study had not solved long wait times, high call abandonment, and appointment delays. DPS and LBB said the agency receives about 22,000 calls per day, answers only about 9 percent, and is seeking more staff plus technology upgrades such as automation, kiosks, and better online processing. Senators also raised concerns about rural access, REAL ID document requirements, and whether the department should rethink its processes rather than simply add employees. DPS leadership then described needs for the Williamson County training academy, additional troopers, Capitol and Alamo security, border operations, aircraft and vehicle replacement, and regional headquarters in El Paso and San Antonio. Members asked about Operation Lone Star costs, overtime, pursuit safety, border crime, oilfield theft, and sexual assault kit and toxicology backlogs. DPS said border deployments remain focused on criminal threats, that overtime is partly driven by deployments and staffing shortages, and that the sexual assault kit backlog is down to 118 cases with a goal of zero by April. The committee later recessed and began the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission budget presentation, where LBB outlined a $115.1 million recommendation and noted ongoing costs for the AIMS technology project.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a combination of a few months of actual cost and estimated costs.
• It gives us a lot of efficiencies, drives down costs, and makes it the most effective use of our time
• and keep costs down and manage cost.
• and keep costs down and manage cost.
• And then it's followed up with an SPP Cost Recovery Clause to evaluate those costs.

Summary: The committee met to hear invited presentations on storm recovery and storm protection from the Florida Public Service Commission, Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy, Tampa Electric, Chesapeake Utilities, and the Office of Public Counsel. The PSC reviewed the history of storm restoration financing and utility hardening efforts after major storms such as Hurricane Andrew, the 2004-05 hurricane seasons, Irma, and Michael, explaining storm reserve funds, storm recovery bonds, and the current three-year storm protection plan process. The commission’s role in approving plans and later reviewing prudence of actual costs was emphasized, along with the types of work included in the plans such as vegetation management, pole replacement, undergrounding, feeder hardening, and substation flood protection. The utilities described their own storm-hardening investments and recent storm performance. FPL said it has spent about $4.9 billion on storm protection and recovery-related efforts, highlighted improved restoration times during Helene and Milton, and said it is expanding undergrounding, feeder hardening, and smart-grid technology. Duke Energy reported more than 40,000 hardened poles and structures since 2021, major gains from self-healing grid technology, and faster restoration during recent storms. Tampa Electric described a roughly $200 million annual storm protection effort, including vegetation management, undergrounding, substation hardening, and new storm surge protections, and Chesapeake Utilities discussed its smaller-scale hardening program, vegetation work, pole replacement, and rapid restoration after Helene in Nassau County. Committee members asked about how utilities prioritize neighborhoods for lateral hardening, whether maps of planned projects could be shared, how much each utility has spent on undergrounding and hardening, and how reliability comparisons are normalized against the national average. Public Counsel Walt Trierweiler argued that storm recovery and hardening costs fall too heavily on investor-owned utility customers, said the current framework lacks a meaningful cost-benefit or prudence check at the planning stage, and urged broader sharing of storm costs because the benefits extend to the whole state. Senators also discussed whether the commission can review the reasonableness of approved programs and whether future reports or recommendations from Public Counsel would be helpful. No votes or formal actions were taken.