Transcript Highlights:

• So it's something that can be done kind of in any primary care office, other than the obviously more
• of the services discussed today are elective, the way we regulate PAs affects all areas of care.
• With the expertise of my primary care doctor, Dr.
• training is elective and not widespread beyond its own specialty.
• And advanced or specialized training is elective and not widespread beyond its own specialty.

Bills: H5013 , H5087 , H5115 , S2928

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Health

Keywords: celiac disease, gluten intolerance, autoimmune disorder, pediatric screening, child health, public health, screening pilot, early detection, 12-year-olds, cholesterol screening, lipid screening, health care providers, Department of Public Health, patient advocacy, family support, Massachusetts, preventive care, diagnostic screening, nutrition, gastroenterology

Transcript Highlights:

• Very special to Idaho, very special to the legislature, and very special to the contributions that he
• And it's a special thing.
• And as mayor of Boise, I'll continue to do what I've always done, what I've been elected to do, elected
• What I've been elected to do, elected twice now, to stand up for all Boiseans, proudly proclaiming and
• I've been elected twice.

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• They are a private, not-for-profit organization owned by the members they serve, locally elected boards
• The majority of anesthesia care in the VA system, as well as the U.S. military, and our primary anesthesia
• Sex trafficking victims, 2722 water residential lease, 2723 Big Gino groundwater, 2724 special plate
• Special guest speaker tomorrow is from the Secretary of Defense.
• Speaker Pro Tem, with your permission, the Health and Human Services Committee has a special meeting

Transcript Highlights:

• Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill?
• Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none.
• Any primary witnesses in opposition of the bill?
• I'm a Special Assistant Attorney General.
• Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill?

Committee: House Business and Professions

Transcript Highlights:

• Montero specializes in primary care sports medicine.
• We test for 37 primary conditions and about 27 secondary conditions.
• The Committee on Ethics and Elections submits its report with recommendations.
• Before we go back to the special order calendar, we have an introduction.
• be retained on the special order in their calendar.

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, opened with prayer and the Pledge, and heard several member introductions and recognitions. The Rules Chair moved CS/CS/SB 622 to the end of the special order calendar, which was adopted without objection. SB 80 on state land management was temporarily postponed, as were later bills SB 716 and CS/CS/CS/SB 1348. The chamber then took up a series of bills, often substituting House companions and adopting amendments before final passage. Measures approved included a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling plan (HB 295, 38-0), mitigation banking and land development changes with a phosphate mining lands amendment (CS/CS/SB 492, 35-3), aggravated animal cruelty with a searchable FDLE database and sentencing multiplier (HB 255, 37-0), the Spectrum Alert for missing children with autism and related training/funding (HB 711, 37-0), newborn screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (CS/CS/HB 1089, 36-0), and revisions to the My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program to expand eligible mitigation projects and adjust approval thresholds (CS/CS/HB 393, 37-0). The Senate also passed workforce education legislation allowing charter schools access to grant funding and expanding money-back guarantees (HB 1145, 37-0), a statewide study on automation and workforce impact (HB 827, 35-0), parole guideline revisions (HB 181, 37-0), court-appointed psychologist procedures in family law cases (HB 901, 37-0), sexual cyber harassment protections covering digitally forged intimate images (HB 1451, 37-0), a home health aide program for medically fragile children with training and reimbursement provisions (CS/CS/SB 1156, 37-0), substance abuse and mental health care changes including 988 oversight and involuntary examination procedures (HB 1091, 37-0), a feasibility study for a statewide pond data database (HB 1359, 37-0), and Department of Law Enforcement housekeeping changes and retired police dog reimbursements (HB 1053, 37-0). The most extensive debate centered on the charter schools bill (HB 443), which expanded charter autonomy, reporting parity, enrollment flexibility, and governance rules; after a delete-all amendment and a friendly amendment, it was placed on the third-reading calendar rather than immediately voted on. Several bills were briefly discussed with concerns about transparency, accountability, funding, and constitutional issues, but all bills brought to a vote during this segment passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• special districts, which includes the water management districts, mainly because all the dependent special
• So this slide is the statewide overview of 1,125 independent special districts or other special reporting
• So you can see for the independent special districts, charges for services For the independent special
• My question relates to special districts.
• And just this year, we actually created those through elections.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for a listening session focused on a presentation by Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research on local government revenues and expenditures. Baker reviewed statewide financial data for counties, municipalities, and independent special districts, using 2018-19 as a baseline year because it was stable and pre-COVID. She explained that counties rely heavily on taxes, with ad valorem taxes making up about 73% of county tax revenue and about 24% of total county revenues statewide, while municipalities rely more on charges for services and have a lower statewide ad valorem share of about 14.7%. She also noted wide variation across local governments, with some counties and cities highly dependent on property taxes and others using them minimally or not at all. Special districts were shown to be very different from counties and cities, with hospital-related revenues and expenditures dominating many of them, while water management districts were more reliant on ad valorem taxes and focused expenditures on the physical environment. Baker also summarized expenditure patterns: counties spent the largest share on public safety, while municipalities spent the largest share on general government services, followed by physical environment and public safety. She emphasized that local government structures vary widely and that the committee should study what characteristics are associated with greater property tax reliance. She said the next research steps would be to extend the analysis through later years, including the COVID and inflation period, and to examine institutional and legal factors that shape local fiscal structures. Members asked about unfunded mandates, fuel taxes, reserves, school taxes, millage rates, and how property taxes relate to specific services such as police and fire. Baker said the current analysis did not yet account for mandates or school taxes and that further work could examine links between revenues and expenditures, commercial versus residential tax burdens, and other factors. After the presentation, members reported back on local meetings with counties and municipalities. Several described large differences in millage rates, revenue mixes, and the impact of any property tax changes on fiscally constrained counties versus larger, wealthier ones. Concerns were raised about how local governments would replace lost revenue, especially for public safety and emergency response, and members discussed the need to consider both revenue replacement and ways to rein in spending. The co-chairs said the committee would continue gathering information, send members follow-up homework and requests for panel suggestions, and invite additional input from constituents, stakeholders, and local governments. The meeting ended with no votes or formal actions beyond adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today I do have some very special students.
• Today I do have some very special students from Albuquerque Public Schools.
• Got a long way to go, but he is going to be a primary care physician.
• But he is going to be a primary care physician, and so a great symbol of what Burrell does.
• Lorenzo Sanchez, who is from the South Valley and who also wants to go into primary care.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some delivery network companies have made the election; most have not.
• I—that’s really a better question for those that have made the election.
• There’s an election currently. If the proposal passes, then there’s no more election.” “Got it.
• So that would be the primary one.
• So that would be the primary one.

Summary: The subcommittee first received an informational update on the Governor’s Office of Service and Community Engagement (GoServe), including California Volunteers, the Office of Community Partnerships and Strategic Communications, and the Youth Empowerment Commission. GoServe reported strong participation in College Corps, Youth Service Corps, and Climate Action Corps, along with outreach results from OCPSC and the Trusted Messenger Network. The Department of Finance said the programs remain a priority but noted prior budget reductions, while the LAO said it had no new recommendations. Committee members raised questions about program diversity, geographic reach, administrative costs, and whether the programs duplicate existing volunteer opportunities; one member criticized the programs as costly and duplicative, while another emphasized the value of volunteerism and asked about the men’s service challenge. The item was informational only. The committee then heard an overview of the Board of Equalization’s property tax responsibilities and its first budget proposals since the 2017 reorganization. BOE described its role in county assessment oversight, state-assessed property valuation, and related tax administration. Members asked about BOE’s interaction with counties, property tax reassessments, and local tax notices; BOE explained it mainly works with county assessors and handles technical property tax questions, while local special district charges are generally outside its scope. The committee also considered a BOE proposal to implement SB 293, which would give additional time for certain intergenerational property tax transfer claims after the 2025 wildfires. BOE requested $154,000 for guidance, public materials, and inquiry response work, saying the change is urgent for wildfire-affected families, especially in Altadena. The LAO had no concerns, and the item was held open. BOE also presented an information technology modernization proposal for its state-assessed property program, seeking $3.2 million in 2026-27 and $3.1 million in 2027-28 to replace a 30-year-old mainframe system. BOE said the current system relies heavily on manual data entry and paper processes, creating inefficiencies, cybersecurity risks, and delays, while modernization would free staff for more audits and valuation studies. The LAO supported the need but urged a high bar for new IT projects; Finance said the project met the threshold of necessity. Members generally supported the upgrade but asked about audit gains, revenue impacts, and implementation risks, and the item was held open. Finally, CDTFA gave its department overview and then discussed a proposal to require all delivery network companies, such as Uber Eats and DoorDash, to be treated as marketplace facilitators for sales tax purposes. CDTFA said the current carve-out creates confusion for restaurants and small businesses because some DNCs collect and remit tax while others do not, and the change would improve compliance and shift reporting to larger platforms. Members debated whether the proposal amounts to a tax increase for consumers, with CDTFA and Finance arguing it is a consistency and compliance measure rather than a new tax, while others said it would likely raise consumer costs. The committee also discussed broader CDTFA issues, including local sales tax districts, revenue-sharing agreements, and the growth of special taxing jurisdictions. No votes were taken, and the agenda items were informational or held open.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll now move on to the primary witnesses in opposition.
• officials can administer the election effectively and to recognize the... ...can administer the election
• In last November's statewide special election, many of these voters had logistical issues either receiving
• election, had not received their mail ballot.
• systems and public faith in the results of our elections.

Committee: House Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• incredible election and they were stupendous.
• I'm very proud of our elections.
• What's the wait time for elections?
• I knew elections. I thought I was going to be doing all elections.
• Could you get your elections division head back up?

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the things I think some elected officials, we have to stay in our lane.
• Toward special projects.
• They are elected. They are elected and have some autonomy, and there lies a bit of a challenge.
• So Montana puts them in a sort of special property class with a lower mill rate.
• I think usually we see special provisions for refurbishment.

Summary: The committee met to review its interim schedule and then focused on a referral regarding political subdivision compliance with state law, especially levy limitations and reserve levels. State Auditor Josh Gallion explained the audit process, the Yellow Book standards, and key statutes governing political subdivisions, including the 75% cash reserve cap and mill levy limits. He said the auditor’s office has limited authority to force compliance, has only stepped in a couple of times to resume audits for fiscal irregularities, and is constrained by staffing shortages and a backlog of local government audits. Gallion used Stark County and Mountrail County as examples to show how reserve calculations affect levy decisions. He said Stark County’s 2023 general fund levy calculation should have been zero under the statute, but the county still levied mills, while Mountrail County had recently reduced or eliminated some county levies after building large reserves. Stark County Commission Chair Neil Messer responded that the county chose not to move excess funds into a capital projects fund because it wanted flexibility for future projects and emergencies, and said the county has since reduced its levy and committed reserves to major projects such as road work, a regional airport, and public safety facilities. Committee members questioned whether penalties should apply to auditors or elected officials and whether the statutes should be updated to reflect current revenue conditions. Association of Counties director Linda Svihovec and League of Cities director Matt Gardner both said they have been heavily training local officials on the new 3% property tax cap and reserve rules. Svihovec said the association has held dozens of training sessions and that the standard worksheets used statewide are designed to help counties comply; she suggested that a possible enforcement tool could be requiring an affidavit from taxing districts certifying compliance with the cap. Gardner said city auditors receive required training through the League of Cities and that he was unaware of any cities currently out of compliance. The committee took no formal action and indicated it would continue the discussion at its September 29 meeting, with members asked to review the legislative council memo on possible enforcement mechanisms and statutory changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• go into a primary election and a general election.
• Chairman, and Representative Daggerd, depends on who you elect.
• Chairman, and Representative Dagger, depends on who you elect.
• Moving to a countywide election, excuse me, moving to a countywide election while maintaining obligations
• It's very special.

Committee: House State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, Senator Axman and I both served on the special committee or special task working group.
• In 1986, we had a special session, and the special session included the fact that there was no money
• Our special session began September 2nd. Our special session begins September 2nd.
• during the January special session.
• any that conflict with special session rules.

Summary: The committee first approved minutes from prior meetings and then filled a vacancy on Legislative Management by appointing Senator Braunberger after a caucus recommendation. Members then took up an unusual appeal from the North Dakota Gaming Commission after the Administrative Rules Committee voided a rule that would have raised the poker tournament entry fee from $300 to $1,500. Legislative Council explained the administrative rules process and the grounds for voiding a rule, while Gaming Commission representatives argued the commission had statutory authority and that the issue should be left to the full Legislature. Several members raised concerns about legislative intent, precedent, and whether the matter should wait for the regular session. On a motion to disapprove the Administrative Rules Committee’s finding and restore the rule, the committee voted no, so the voiding of the rule remained in place. The committee then reviewed the fiscal impact statement for Constitutional Measure No. 1 on congressional age limits. Staff reported no current fiscal impact because no litigation had been filed, though members noted the possibility of future legal challenges if the measure were enforced. After that, the committee began hearing proposed bills for the upcoming special session, starting with several kratom-related measures. Representative Wolff withdrew her bill, saying it was redundant, while Representative Heinert presented a bill to legalize and regulate natural kratom for adults 21 and over under the Attorney General, with licensing, labeling, penalties, and a public health campaign. Senator Axtman presented a companion bill targeting synthetic kratom derivatives, placing them on the controlled substances list with penalties similar to marijuana. Legislative Council later outlined Representative Johnston’s separate kratom bill, which would regulate kratom under the Department of Agriculture with product registration, licensing, and enforcement provisions. The committee also heard Senator Hogue’s bill to address funding for the State Historical Society’s military museum project. He argued the state was in breach of contract and that delaying action would increase costs, so his bill would authorize a $35 million line of credit to keep construction moving while fundraising continued. Members questioned the relationship between the proposed line of credit, existing SIF funding, and the private fundraising requirement, but no vote was taken before the meeting moved on. Finally, Representative Sue Ann Olson began presenting a bill requiring the Class D driver’s license test to be administered in English, arguing it was a safety measure because road signs are in English and law enforcement encounters can be complicated by language barriers. The transcript cuts off before her testimony concluded or any action was taken on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair of Election Laws.
• an election.
• state elections.
• Um, my special election was December or two, March. Thank you.
• My special election was December to March, and I found it easier to contact people because they were

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Election Laws

Summary: The House and Senate Election Laws committees held a hearing focused on campaign finance and several local election-related bills. Office of Campaign and Political Finance Director William Campbell testified in support of H. 848 and S. 515, saying the campaign finance law needs modernization and highlighting proposals for stronger Super PAC disclosure, more timely reporting, improved security for campaign participants, and other reforms. He said the bills would help update a 50-year-old system to reflect legal, economic, and cultural changes. A major portion of the hearing concerned H. 868/S. 507, which would require earlier and more frequent reporting by ballot question committees. Witnesses from Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and others argued that ballot campaigns now involve tens of millions of dollars, much of it raised during periods with no real-time disclosure, and that moving these committees into the depository system would improve transparency without burdening grassroots signature-gathering. The committee also heard support for H. 811 and H. 812, which would allow municipalities to create citizen-funded election programs and require identifying information on political text messages, as well as S. 525/H. 875, which would bar political spending by foreign-influenced corporations. The committee also heard testimony on S. 2605, a Canton home rule petition to move town elections from April to November. Canton residents, a select board member, and a poll worker said the change would increase turnout, better align local elections with the November voting cycle, and give newly elected officials more time to prepare for town meeting. Senator Rausch also testified in support of S. 530, requiring presidential primary candidates to disclose recent tax returns. The hearing ended with no votes taken and the committee adjourning, with a note that the next hearing was tentatively scheduled for January 13.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are there any primary witnesses in opposition?
• , and that election will be statewide.
• Is there anyone here in primary opposition? Seeing none.
• Any primary witnesses in opposition? No opposition.
• Now he's a major, Special Forces Green Beret with seven deployments.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Military and Veteran Affairs heard several veteran-focused measures, with extensive testimony in support from veterans’ organizations and individual veterans. SB 888 would exclude VA service-connected disability compensation from household income calculations for the low-income disabled veterans’ property tax exemption, addressing a situation where disability benefits can disqualify veterans from tax relief. SB 1354 would prohibit military personnel from another state, territory, or district from entering California to perform military or law enforcement functions without the Governor’s express permission, while preserving Title X activity, training, and mutual aid arrangements. SB 623 would place the Veterans Bond Act of 2026 on the ballot to authorize a $1.25 billion general obligation bond for the CalVet Home Loan Program, which supporters said is nearing depletion of bond authority and remains a critical path to homeownership for veterans and military families. SB 1407 would increase the state income tax exclusion for military retirement pay and surviving spouse benefits to the first $40,000, subject to income caps, as a retention measure to keep military retirees in California. Supporters for the bills emphasized housing stability, affordability, retention of veterans in California, and the economic benefits of keeping military retirees and their income in the state. SB 888 and SB 623 drew broad support from veterans’ groups, county veterans service officers, and related organizations, with no opposition testimony. SB 1354 also received support from veterans’ advocates, while committee members sought clarification on training, mutual aid, and the bill’s scope, and the author agreed to work on amendments. SB 1407 drew strong support from veterans and military organizations, but also formal opposition from the California Tax Reform Association, which argued the state already provides generous veteran benefits and that the tax break would be unfair to other public servants. The committee voted to advance all four measures. SB 888 was approved and re-referred to Revenue and Taxation; SB 1354 was approved as amended and re-referred to Public Safety; SB 623 was approved as amended, given urgency, and re-referred to Housing and Community Development; and SB 1407 was approved and re-referred to Revenue and Taxation. The consent item, SCR 143, was adopted unanimously. After the initial votes, the committee later took add-on votes to confirm passage of SB 888 and SB 1354, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Let's see, none.
• , and that election will be statewide.
• Is there anyone here in primary opposition? Seeing none.
• Any primary witnesses in opposition? No opposition.
• Now he's a major, Special Forces Green Beret with seven deployments.

Committee: House Military and Veterans Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Public hearing of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions will come to order.
• , either through a traditional election or [Director Roberts continues] Run union representation elections
• These need to be resolved prior to any subsequent steps in the election process.
• Chairman, members of the special committee. I'm Anthony Benedetti.
• And then we submit it to the DLR for an election. Okay.

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 2522 / H. 5909, which would amend state labor law to treat the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) as a public employer and allow its employees to seek collective bargaining rights. The chair explained the Article 48 initiative process, noted that no opponents or members of the public had signed up to testify, and said written testimony would be accepted through March 20. The hearing focused on whether CPCS staff should be brought within the public-sector bargaining framework and how that would interact with the agency’s statutory duties. Expert testimony began with an NCSL analyst, who gave a national overview of public employee bargaining rights and examples of public defender unions in other states and localities, including Colorado, New York City, Indianapolis, Cook County, Maryland, and Illinois. Department of Labor Relations officials then reviewed prior failed organizing efforts at CPCS and its predecessor, explaining that earlier petitions were dismissed because the agency was not considered a public employer under existing law. They said passage of the initiative would not automatically unionize employees, but would allow a union to petition for an election or written majority authorization, with normal unit-appropriateness and supervisory/confidential employee issues still to be resolved. CPCS Chief Counsel Anthony Benedetti testified that the agency supports providing information to the legislature but is not taking a position for or against unionization. He described CPCS’s statutory responsibilities, size, and current efforts to expand staffing after recent indigent-defense crises, and said any new bargaining framework would need to operate alongside the agency’s obligations to provide counsel. Proponents from SEIU Local 888 and allied labor groups argued that CPCS employees have long been denied the same collective bargaining rights as other public workers, and that a union would provide just-cause protections, a voice on staffing and working conditions, and better support for recruitment and retention. CPCS attorneys and staff testified in favor of the measure, citing heavy caseloads, rapid expansion, inadequate supervision and office support, and the need for representation in disciplinary and workplace disputes. Committee members asked about bargaining-unit composition, the role of the DLR, the effect of unionization on attorneys’ ethical duties, and the use and cost of paid signature gathering. The hearing ended with no votes taken and no opposition testimony presented.

Transcript Highlights:

• I also want to lift up that just because state agency heads are not elected doesn't mean that they're
• Government, the elected officials need to do that, not the administrators.
• All students who are qualified must be eligible to enroll in a public primary or secondary school.
• The primary beneficiaries of this are public school students.
• The primary beneficiaries are public school students.

Bills: SB1142 , SCR1028

Committees: House Ways & Means , House House Ways & Means Committee of Reference

Keywords: scholarships, tax credit, education funding, nonprofit organizations, Arizona Revised Statutes, constitutional amendment, state revenue, tax policy, legislative approval, two-thirds vote

Transcript Highlights:

• So the sentence that was deleted was: 'in the period 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before
• a special or general election.'
• election.
• . through December 31st and January 1st through the 40th day of the special election.
• statements: May 1 before a primary, October 1 before a general, and 39 days before a special.

Bills: SB2156

Committee: House Government and Veterans Affairs

Summary: The subcommittee met to review HB 2156, which reorganizes North Dakota campaign finance disclosure law by repealing Chapter 16.1 and moving the provisions into a new Chapter 16.2 with mostly technical cross-reference updates. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State’s office walked through the bill section by section, explaining that most language is carried over from current law, with some cleanup to definitions, reporting requirements, public access rules, and filing procedures. The committee discussed how the new chapter would apply to candidates, candidate committees, political committees, political parties, ballot measure groups, and conduits. Several substantive issues were raised and adjusted during the discussion. Members questioned the open-records language for expenditures and contributions over $250, the use of “deposit” versus “receipt” as the reporting trigger, and whether the 48-hour supplemental reporting deadline should be changed to three calendar days; the group ultimately favored keeping 48 hours and using “deposit” consistently. They also clarified reporting dates, including changing one special-election deadline from 40 days to 39 days, and confirmed that balances of campaign funds would be reported but not made publicly available. The Secretary of State’s office also explained that the bill would make late fees public and that the chapter-wide penalty for willful violations remains a Class A misdemeanor. The main policy change debated at length was the late-filing fee schedule. Members expressed concern that the existing penalties were too low to deter intentional non-filers, and after discussion the committee agreed to increase the final late fee from $100 to $500 while keeping the new public posting of delinquent filers. The committee also reviewed an inflation-adjustment provision for reporting thresholds and the “ultimate true source of funds” language, which was described as existing law being carried into the new chapter. The meeting ended with the understanding that additional drafting changes would be made and that the bill would be ready for further committee action later in the week.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Barry said he was here yesterday for election law and that it is kind of weird to be on
• The Consumer Advocate has a special interest group: it's the retail residential ratepayers.
• consumer Advocate has a special interest consumer Advocate has a special interest group<00:44:20.880
• Democrats love to extract special favors for the solar industry or big wind.
• </c> be accountable to New Hampshire elected be accountable to New Hampshire elected officials<04:04:

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 610, which would fold the Office of the Consumer Advocate into the Department of Energy rather than fully eliminate consumer advocacy functions. The prime sponsor argued the current office is small, funded by a special assessment on ratepayers, and duplicative of DOE work. He said moving the function to DOE would streamline energy policy review, reduce bureaucracy, and better focus the larger agency on lowering residential energy costs. He also disputed claims that the Consumer Advocate is independent, saying the office is appointed through a political process similar to DOE leadership. Committee members and the sponsor discussed whether the bill would actually relocate existing positions or replace them, and whether the Department of Energy would absorb the cost of the transferred staff. The sponsor said the fiscal note shows roughly a million-dollar reduction in both revenue assessment and spending, and that the bill would effectively reduce the office from five positions to three. He also defended his cost estimates for energy-code-related housing impacts and said the Consumer Advocate has sometimes supported policies he считает increase costs, such as energy-efficiency measures and building code changes. He argued the office should focus more on energy supply and generation, including natural gas and nuclear, rather than efficiency alone. Representative Wendy Thomas testified in opposition, saying the Consumer Advocate is an important, fair, and impartial voice for ratepayers and warning that the bill was fiscally irresponsible because the incumbent could still be owed salary and benefits if the office were repealed. She also said the bill’s drafting was confusing and that the Consumer Advocate’s role is to push back on utilities on behalf of consumers. Other members raised questions about whether the DOE would simply inherit the same political appointment structure and whether the bill would meaningfully lower bills. No vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair indicated additional testimony would follow, and the Department of Energy was present to answer questions.