Transcript Highlights:

• Today, I sit in front of you Gable.
• You don't pay for our roads." But is that true?
• We pay our fair share. The years. We pay our fair share.
• We also pay taxes and franchise free.
• <01:12:46.000> of<01:12:46.080> you, this what's in front of you, this what's in front

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The front steps of Minnesota, our front steps of the State Capitol, which are currently unable to be
• But now you have a bill in front of you that says that we should appropriate the money to pay for the
• But now you have a bill in front of you that says that we should appropriate the money to pay for the
• So we're essentially paying a tax.
• We see up in the front, folks, popular, I guess, today.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House took up Senate File 3432, a public safety bill requiring identifying equipment and insignia to be removed from emergency vehicles sold to the public. The chamber first adopted a House language amendment, then debated a broader security package that would fund judicial and courthouse security, Capitol security measures, short-term protection for legislators facing credible threats, State Patrol deficiency funding, and additional BCA analysts and investigators to assess threats statewide. Supporters framed the bill as necessary to protect public safety, democracy, and First Amendment activity at the Capitol and courthouses; they also said the package was pared down from larger requests and based on security reviews. The House adopted an A-1 amendment clarifying that BCA staff could investigate threats statewide, and later rejected a Schultz A-3 amendment that would have eliminated all appropriations in the bill. The A-3 was defeated on a 37-94 vote after the House upheld the Speaker’s ruling that a proposed school-safety secondary amendment was not germane, with that appeal decided 69-62. A major theme of debate was whether the Legislature should prioritize security for members and the Capitol before passing school safety funding. Several members argued they could not support spending tens of millions on Capitol and legislative security without first funding school safety for all students, including public, charter, private, and tribal schools. Others defended the bill as necessary because of recent threats and violence, including the June 14 tragedy, and said the Capitol security changes were based on professional recommendations. Some members also criticized the new security setup as overly restrictive or “security theater,” while supporters said the measures were needed to keep the public, staff, and lawmakers safe. After the A-3 was defeated, the bill was read for third time and members continued floor debate. The discussion remained split between those emphasizing immediate Capitol and legislative security needs and those insisting school safety should come first. Representative Agbaje then moved to table the bill, and the clerk began a roll call on that motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• And who pays for that testing?
• And who pays for that done on the land? And who pays for that testing? testing? testing?
• We now have a bill in front of us.
• We now have a bill in front of us.
• <01:42:55.520> some egregious because they might pay some egregious because they might pay

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• plate that you can now put on the front plate that you can now put on the front of<01:57:41.199>
• <01:57:45.840> of said you could put it on the front of said you could put it on the front
• It's a cover front of your vehicle?
• front plate is<01:57:59.440> underneath.
• plate is because it's covering the front plate.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, Senator Talbot, so you've got Amendment Set 4741 in front of you.
• And so they pay, often, the list price.
• If on the front end they're coming back and you're only paying four instead of $10 with $4 million in
• If it's eight, they negotiate on the front end what the PBM keeps.
• And so what the state is doing here is saying you have to pay your PBM, you have to pay them up front

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The House Insurance Committee met on April 29 with a quorum present and considered several insurance- and health care-related bills. SB 192, concerning dental reimbursement and payment methods, was amended to clarify opt-in for electronic acceptance and then reported as amended. SB 84, which expands prostate cancer screening coverage for men over 40 and bars cost-sharing, was also amended and reported as amended after testimony from the American Cancer Society supporting earlier detection and reduced out-of-pocket barriers. SB 275, dealing with reimbursement and network access for certified registered nurse anesthetists, was reported favorably with broad support from nurse anesthetists, hospitals, and related groups. SB 169, a biomarker testing cleanup bill, was amended to clarify legislative intent and reported as amended. The committee spent substantial time on two major drug-pricing bills. SB 401 would create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board to study selected prescription drug prices, collect manufacturer and related pricing data, and report findings to the legislature; amendments narrowed the scope, addressed confidentiality, and delayed implementation. Supporters said it would provide transparency similar to Texas and help lawmakers understand drug pricing, while opponents warned about government overreach and confidentiality concerns. SB 387, the companion PBM reform bill, would restrict PBM compensation to flat fees and performance bonuses, require rebate pass-throughs, limit formulary practices, expand audit and reporting requirements, and create enforcement mechanisms; it was amended to delay implementation, refine definitions, and address ERISA-related concerns. Supporters argued it would curb PBM abuses and lower drug costs, while opponents from the Pelican Institute and PCMA said it would interfere with private contracts, reduce flexibility, and could raise premiums. After a roll call vote, SB 387 was reported with amendments. The committee also took up SB 241, which requires certain insurance adjusters and appraisers to include license numbers in written communications. After amendments narrowing the requirement to individual claims and public adjusters, the bill was reported as amended. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly raised concerns about unintended consequences, especially for cities, school boards, and other non-ERISA plans, and sponsors said they would continue working on the drug-pricing bills before floor consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you're from Puerto Rico, you're going to pay three times as much.
• You're going to pay three times as much.
• That's what our pay proposal moving forward.
• So $57 to $60 million... ...pay proposal moving forward.
• Somehow, someone paying thousands and...

Summary: The Appropriations Committee took up SB 2B, a major immigration bill by Senator Gruters, described by supporters as a Trump-aligned package to strengthen Florida’s role in immigration enforcement. The bill would create a grant program for local law enforcement, expand jail-ICE agreements beyond sheriff-operated jails, establish a chief immigration officer and a state immigration enforcement council, require more coordination on E-Verify and detention-bed reporting, allow immigration status to be considered in bail decisions, increase penalties for certain offenses tied to illegal reentry and voting, and repeal in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. Much of the sponsor’s presentation and debate emphasized focusing on criminal offenders, improving coordination with federal authorities, and using state resources to support detention and enforcement. Committee questioning focused heavily on the tuition-waiver repeal, reimbursement for jail costs, E-Verify coverage, and whether the bill could lead to street-level immigration enforcement in schools or churches. Senator Smith, Senator Pizzo, Senator Polsky, Senator Sharief, and others challenged the tuition repeal as unfair to students who were brought to Florida as children and argued for grandfathering current students or studying the fiscal impact first. Senator Fine defended the repeal as ending a state subsidy for people who are not lawfully present and argued the change would save tens of millions of dollars. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri testified that the bill was limited to jail-based enforcement, said there was no current street-level 287(g) program in Florida, and stated he did not believe the bill raised concerns for law enforcement or schools/churches. A representative of the Florida Supervisors of Elections supported the voting-related section, while a Florida Highway Patrol representative said state agencies would need additional funding if they were expected to take on more enforcement duties. The committee adopted Senator Gruters’ late-filed amendment correcting a drafting error. Senator Smith’s amendment to require an OPAGA study on the tuition-waiver policy was withdrawn after discussion, and his handwritten amendment to delete the repeal of in-state tuition for undocumented students failed on a roll-call vote. The bill then advanced as amended, with several members speaking in debate both for and against it. Supporters framed it as a focused public-safety and enforcement measure; opponents criticized the special-session process, the cost, and the tuition repeal’s impact on students already enrolled.

Transcript Highlights:

• Homeowners won't be paying property tax.
• For example, if a taxpayer ends up paying zero dollars in property taxes, they may be required to pay
• But a new resident who is still required to pay most of their property taxes may pay a prorated fee to
• I can't afford to pay for the fire.
• They will pay more. Renters won't get an exemption. They're going to pay more, too.

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, the proposed constitutional amendment on property tax relief, which would reduce assessment growth on non-homestead property, expand homestead exemptions, create a new exemption for new homesteaders, and direct counties, cities, and school districts to use property tax revenues for specified core services. Senator Avila presented the measure as the governor’s plan to provide historic relief and argued that local governments should tighten budgets and prioritize core functions. Senators raised concerns about the lack of fiscal scoring, the breadth and ambiguity of the permitted uses, the effect on special districts and local services, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. The committee adopted several amendments, including Avila’s amendment clarifying that ad valorem revenues could be used for county and municipal operations and administration and other expenditures not prohibited by law, and Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal. Other amendments failed, including proposals to allow user fees and non-ad valorem assessments, add a sunset, redirect tourism development taxes, narrow the small-business provision, and change the ballot title to reference local service reductions. Grall’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund requirement was adopted, while the committee also rejected Berman’s title-change amendment and Smith’s sunset and tourism-tax amendments. The committee then returned to the bill as amended for questions, including extended debate over whether the proposal would affect noncitizen residents, the impact on local government finances, and whether local governments would respond with higher fees or special assessments. The meeting ended with the bill still under discussion after the final round of questions, with Avila saying he would continue working with the governor’s office on the language before the next vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, she's right in front of me. Don't try and trick me. Whenever you're ready, Madam Chair.
• We're not front-loading programs. We're not front-loading systems. We're looking at the back end.
• Oh, oh, can we go ahead with the memorial in front of you very, very quickly, I promise.
• Can refuse to pay the facility fee, and then it's passed on to the patient?
• It doesn't pay, and that's simple. And I don't know why we can't just figure that out.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Please go ahead and come back to the front.
• And so I think the adage is, you know, you can pay now or you can pay later.
• It also prohibits using taxpayer funds to pay for these suits.
• We just can't front the money, even though we have the goals.
• Me and say, well, can we get pay phones back in schools?

Summary: The committee continued hearing testimony on Senate Bill 2252, which would expand early literacy and numeracy screening, parent notification, intervention supports, and teacher training, including math academies and early childhood supports. Supporters from Texas 2036, Good Reason Houston, Texas Business Leadership Council, and several parents argued that early identification of skill gaps, clearer data for families, and stronger teacher preparation would improve student outcomes, workforce readiness, and long-term earnings. They cited low math proficiency statewide, the importance of early intervention, and examples of districts using screeners and data dashboards to guide instruction and resource allocation. One witness also highlighted home visiting as a family-support model, while another urged more funding for pre-K partnerships and stronger support for parents with reading materials and guidance. A district special education administrator testified neutrally, saying the bill reflects practices already used in her district but expressing concern that it could reduce local control and teacher discretion by standardizing screening and tying it to funding. A Texas Classroom Teachers Association representative supported the intent but warned that mandatory math academies and intervention academies could burden teachers if implemented like prior reading academies, and a substitute teacher/teacher-of-the-year witness asked for clearer protections around special education information and pay for alternative certification candidates. After public testimony closed, SB 2252 was left pending. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2253, as substituted, which would phase out routine hiring of uncertified teachers over time, require parent notification when a teacher is uncertified, and expand high-quality preparation pathways such as university programs, residencies, improved alternative certification, and grow-your-own programs. Senator Creighton said the bill responds to the rise in uncertified teachers and aims to strengthen the teacher pipeline with more structured preparation, mentorship, and oversight by SBEC. Invited testimony strongly supported the measure: a Texas Tech researcher said uncertified teachers and fast-track programs are associated with significant learning losses, while year-long residencies and mentored pathways produce stronger outcomes and higher earnings for students. Leaders from Dallas College and Sam Houston State University described successful residency and grow-your-own models, high completion and retention rates, and the need for paid residencies and stipends so candidates can afford to enter the profession. Committee members asked about the difference between mentorship and residency, the cost-effectiveness of paid residencies, retention incentives, and how to scale the model statewide. The committee also adopted the substitute for SB 2253 and later paused to vote out several other bills, including SB 1191, SB 1786, SB 226, SB 326, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 365, SB 1401, and SB 1067, all of which were reported favorably, many with unanimous votes and some placed on the local and uncontested calendar.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this, again, helps us on the compliance front.
• And this, again, helps us on the compliance front.
• So that is the process on the individual application front.
• So that is the process on the individual application front.
• or 6% and they're paying 2.7?

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

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:33:09.360> off a $1.8 8 billion slush fund to pay off a $1.8 8 billion slush fund to pay
• <00:36:52.320> increases<00:36:52.960> in It pays for the needed increases in It pays
• How do we pay for this? How question. How do we pay for this?
• paying for their incompetence and greed. paying for their incompetence and greed.
• This fight is won in front of us.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So this bill creates a second front door to treatment through the emergency room.
• I thank Chair Day and Chair Edwards for the opportunity to speak in front of you all.
• I went in front of the court again and a half. The case was overturned.
• When she returned, she was murdered in her front yard in front of her three children.
• So they think straight out that they have to file, they have to go in front of the court.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on several Judiciary bills, with the largest portion focused on S. 1178/H. 2052 to reduce mass incarceration and end life without parole. People incarcerated at MCI Framingham, MCI Norfolk, and NCCI Gardner described personal growth, rehabilitation, restorative justice work, family separation, and the belief that parole eligibility after long sentences would better reflect public safety and human development. Speakers emphasized that life without parole removes hope and can undermine rehabilitation, while supporters argued that many lifers are older, less likely to reoffend, and could contribute positively if given a chance at parole review. Committee members did not take votes during the hearing. The committee also heard testimony on S. 1139 to restore the statute of limitations for wrongful death claims involving tobacco use, with Sen. Keenan explaining that a recent SJC decision had cut off claims where the injured person did not sue within three years before death. He said the bill would restore families’ ability to seek redress in cases involving long-latency tobacco harms like COPD. Another major topic was S. 1205, which would add abusive litigation to the definition of coercive control in domestic violence law; Sen. Michael Moore said the bill would stop abusers from using repeated court filings to harass and financially burden survivors. The committee also took up S. 1114 on automatic record sealing, with Sen. Friedman and others arguing that the current petition-based process is slow, burdensome, and disproportionately harms people with criminal records, especially Black and Latino residents. Testimony also supported H. 1965/S. 1132 on compensation for wrongful conviction, with advocates and sponsors describing a faster administrative claims process, transitional support, and higher compensation without the current cap. Sen. Payano testified for S. 1241 to expand educational programming for incarcerated emerging adults, saying education reduces recidivism and improves reentry outcomes. A substantial portion of the hearing focused on S. 2522, an update to Massachusetts’ shield law for reproductive and gender-affirming care. Sen. Friedman, the Attorney General’s office, and DPH Commissioner Robbie Goldstein said the bill is needed to strengthen protections against out-of-state legal attacks, protect patient and provider data, clarify enforcement authority, and add a state-level EMTALA-style emergency care requirement. Committee members asked detailed questions about prescription labeling, the prescription monitoring program, attorney discipline, custody and full faith and credit issues, and whether the bill’s enforcement language could create unintended limits or conflicts. The Attorney General’s office said it would provide follow-up written testimony on several technical questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, it's basically would allow the money up front, but then if the tenant pays rent on time and for a
• It's all documented up front.
• It's all documented up front.
• It's all documented up front.
• >> So let's say the tenant pays the first month's rent, you pay the security deposit, a nonprofit pays

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• what Entergy pays, no more, no less.
• So we continue to pay for that.
• We pay our own litigation expenses. My clients pay for their own attorneys.
• I think it's—I don't have the statute in front of me.
• I think it's I don't have the statute in front of me.

Bills: SB483, SB522, SB783, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1664, SB1762, SB1856, SB1877, SB1977

Keywords: utility, proprietary information, customer data, data protection, electric service, customer information, emergency communication, electric utility, privacy, certification, public accountants, interstate licensing, accounting, regulatory amendment, energy efficiency, construction regulations, building codes, Texas, sustainability, cost-effectiveness

Summary: The Senate Business and Commerce Committee met with a quorum and first took up pending business, voting out several bills. Senate Bills 1697, 1569, 1202 as substituted, 1029, 1364, 1185, 924, 1008 as substituted, 264, 1376, and 1358 as substituted were reported favorably, with some sent to the local and uncontested calendar. The committee also adopted a substitute for SB 1202 and later corrected votes on several measures. SB 924 and SB 1376 drew some opposition, while the rest of the pending bills were reported without dissent or with limited nays. The committee then heard testimony on SB 1856, which would create an annual capacity-cost recovery rider for Entergy Texas customers in the MISO region. The author and Entergy argued the bill would better match rates to actual capacity costs and improve transparency, while the Texas Association of Manufacturers and the Public Utility Commission raised concerns about the short 10-day review period, rider proliferation, and the preference for full rate cases over piecemeal adjustments. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard and left pending SB 522 on CPA reciprocity, SB 1664 requiring TDUs to provide clearer, standalone rate-change disclosures, SB 1877 expanding OPUC’s access to market data, SB 1254 and SB 1255 as TDLR cleanup bills on professional employer organizations and mold assessors, SB 1341 updating manufactured housing rules, SB 1239 on sovereign debt and Texas governing law, and SB 1259 streamlining the surveyor-in-training licensing process. Additional bills discussed included SB 1977, which would cap recoverable legal expenses in electric, water, and sewer rate cases; OPUC and some consumer advocates supported the idea as a way to reduce ratepayer costs, while utility representatives warned it could discourage participation and increase rate shock. The committee also heard SB 1762 clarifying that geothermal energy conservation wells are not battery resources, and SB 783 allowing SECO to proceed with future energy-code rulemaking for state-funded buildings. Both drew supportive testimony from industry and environmental groups. All remaining bills heard during the meeting were left pending, and the committee recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't have that information in front of me.
• So that differential pay is like the difference between sort of what the district has to pay a substitute
• And then after sick leave is exhausted, they have to pay differential pay, which is at least 50% plus
• Costs currently once differential pay kicks in. Got it.
• As I'm trying to remember, our own bargaining agreements, do classified employees pay differential pay

Summary: The committee heard an overview of the May Revision’s Proposition 98 changes for K-12 and community colleges. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, full payment of the prior settle-up, and larger deposits into the school rainy-day fund. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF updates were reasonable, but urged caution about the settle-up approach and recommended using more of the available funding to protect ongoing programs and build budget resilience. Members focused heavily on the size of the proposed $3.9 billion settle-up, the $10.3 billion reserve deposit, declining K-12 enrollment, and how much of the new funding should be ongoing versus one-time. The committee then reviewed the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described the May Revision’s higher SCFF COLA, additional funding for enrollment growth, a student support block grant, apprenticeship adjustments, and continued funding for deferred maintenance, Calbright, Common Cloud, and credit for prior learning. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended prioritizing the statutory COLA increase, noted that more than half of districts are already above current-year growth targets, and said the new adult learner demonstration project should be rejected because districts already have tools to support similar services. Members also discussed a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall, which Finance said was discovered too late for the May Revision and would need to be addressed later. Finally, the committee took up the proposed implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the California Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career to build eligibility and data systems, along with trailer bill changes to set up state approval processes. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, that California lacks the needed infrastructure, and that the state will need emergency regulations, data linkages, and ongoing funding beyond the one-time proposal. The LAO agreed that some initial funding is needed but warned that the amounts and ongoing costs remain uncertain and that the Legislature should carefully draft the trailer bill language. Members asked about timing, other states’ actions, and how the state would ensure the program is ready for students and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Once somebody pays off the this works.
• to have to pay. to have to pay.
• already<01:40:03.920> pay<01:40:04.080> for We pay for taxpayers already pay for We
• have it in front of me. I'm sorry. have it in front of me. I'm sorry.
• benefit of paying for child care. benefit of paying for child care.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Homeowners won't be paying property tax.
• For example, if a taxpayer ends up paying zero dollars in property taxes, they may be required to pay
• But a new resident who is still required to pay most of their property taxes may pay a prorated fee to
• I can't afford to pay for the fire.
• They will pay more. Renters won't get an exemption. They're going to pay more, too.

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account. Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would say we didn't hear a lot of concern about cost and whether data centers would be willing to pay
• I should have written down the list in front of me: Umatilla, Nez Perce, Colville.
• Matilla, Nez Perce. front of me. You Matilla, Nez Perce. Colville.
• The data centers pay 67% of all the taxes in Quincy, got a brand-new hospital just a month ago, got me
• . ...a lot on surveys and studies, all of our environmental work we did up front, rather than filing

Summary: The Joint Committee on Energy Supply, Energy Conservation, and Energy Resilience opened by electing Senator Shoemake as chair and Representative Alex Ibarra as vice chair. Members then moved into a series of work sessions focused on data centers, transmission, and workforce needs tied to Washington’s clean energy and grid planning challenges. Kate Bruns and Glenn Blackman presented preliminary findings from the governor’s Data Center work group, created under Executive Order 25-05. They said the group met for six months, received more than 1,000 public comments, and included representatives from agencies, industry, tribes, labor, utilities, environmental groups, and research institutions. The presenters emphasized that data centers are expected to be the largest source of load growth over the next five to ten years, creating concerns about grid capacity, ratepayer impacts, forecasting, water use, backup generation, and compatibility with Washington’s energy and climate laws. They described nine recommendations, including protecting existing energy and climate policy, improving forecasting, seeking more clean power and transmission, and encouraging flexible data center operations. A proposed tax incentive change that would have expanded eligibility while tying the exemption to new clean electricity sources narrowly failed in the work group. Members asked about tribal consultation, cooling technologies, and local benefits from data centers; the presenters said tribal consultation was ongoing and a final report would follow. Keegan Moyer of West Tech then outlined a regional transmission study showing major strain on the Western grid from load growth, electrification, resiliency needs, and limited transmission capacity. He said the 10-year study identified about 12,000 line miles of needed projects across the West, with roughly $56 billion in estimated costs, including planned projects, reliability upgrades, and new interregional transfer projects. He stressed that many projects are upgrades within existing rights-of-way, but new corridors are still needed, and he previewed recommendations on permitting, equipment procurement, cost allocation, and project sponsorship. In response to questions, he discussed the difficulty of crossing jurisdictional “seams,” the role of federal coordination, landowner compensation, eminent domain as a last resort, and the limited role of public financing beyond a federal GRIP grant. Stephanie Scott of Commerce presented the transmission workforce study, which focuses on substation technicians, line workers, and line clearance tree trimmers. She said current workforce levels are far below what will be needed under a clean energy expansion scenario, and that active projects are essential because apprenticeship training depends on thousands of hours of hands-on work. She highlighted barriers such as high upfront CDL and pre-apprenticeship costs, the need for wraparound supports, and the importance of expanding access for women, people of color, and tribal communities. Members asked about tribal utility apprenticeship programs, utility-run training pipelines, and whether the study included funding sources; Scott said the report would include an inventory of apprenticeship programs and tribal considerations, but revenue ideas were outside the study scope. Finally, Brant Johnson of Grid United described the North Plains Connector as a case study in large transmission development. He said the project, a 420-mile, 3,000-megawatt HVDC line connecting Montana and North Dakota, has relied on early stakeholder engagement, route changes, tribal consultation, and coordinated federal and state permitting to reduce risk and shorten timelines. He said the project aims for permits by the end of 2026 and construction beginning in 2028, with an earliest commercial operation date of 2032. In response to questions, he discussed the challenges of crossing regional seams, interconnection queues, land acquisition and compensation, eminent domain, and financing, noting that the project is primarily privately financed with a $700 million federal grant covering a portion of costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• So these facilities will continue to pay real estate taxes.
• these facilities will continue to pay these facilities will continue to pay real<01:03:21.119>
• They shouldn't be uh having to pay bill.
• This is a result of how payers pay chiropractors.
• Why are we paying it?

Bills: HF1669, HF4709, HF3531, HF4048

Keywords: tax credits, sustainable aviation fuel, environmental policy, corporate franchise, Minnesota taxation, electricity generation, property tax exemption, renewable energy, incentives, economic development, fuel delivery, tax exemption, retail transactions, diesel exhaust fluid, fuel lubricants, healthcare tax, gross receipts tax, hospitals, chiropractors, healthcare providers

Transcript Highlights:

• Today she's paying $4,300 a month.
• Um, today she's paying $4,300 a rent.
• as you go, pay whatever, right?
• as you go, pay whatever, right?
• <00:37:25.200> privately for people paying privately for people paying privately there<00:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all