Transcript Highlights:

• So basically what we also have coming up here, we are in the process of promulgating rulemaking, which
• So that's where we are with the rulemaking for advanced birth centers.
• On the behavioral health teaching hospitals, I'm seeing that the rulemaking and the process is still
• To date, all boards and councils have approved the application and initiated rulemaking.
• To date, all boards and councils have approved the application and initiated rulemaking.

Summary: The Senate Health Policy Committee received updates from the Agency for Health Care Administration and the Department of Health on implementation of 2024 health care laws. AHCA reviewed progress on workforce and reimbursement measures in Senate Bill 7016 and related bills, including FRAME and TEACH funding, graduate medical education reporting, behavioral health teaching hospitals, acute hospital care at home, advanced birth centers, non-emergent care access plans, and rural emergency hospitals. Agency officials said several programs are already operational or have begun payments, while others are still in rulemaking, federal approval, or report-preparation stages. Senators asked about timing, funding reversion concerns, and whether appropriated dollars would be spent on schedule, especially for behavioral health teaching hospitals and the new birth center category. The Department of Health then reported on practitioner licensure and public health programs. MQA described implementation of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, the Mobile Act licensure pathway, massage therapy enforcement changes, background screening expansion, liposuction safety requirements, pharmacist HIV post-exposure prophylaxis authority, and chiropractic dry needling. Public health staff updated the committee on FRAME and dental loan repayment, the Sinati screening grant program, the cancer research and innovation changes, the health care innovation council and loan program, the pediatric rare disease grant program, telehealth maternity care expansion, newborn screening for congenital CMV, the sickle cell registry and grants, and the swimming lesson voucher program. Members focused questions on how practitioners were being recruited to underserved areas, the pace of licensure approvals, and whether new programs were on track to use appropriated funds. The committee also heard a lengthy update from the Office of Medical Marijuana Use. The director reported more than 900,000 qualified patients, real-time seed-to-sale tracking now integrated across most dispensaries and labs, and ongoing compliance work on product testing, advertising, diversion, and patient safety. Senators questioned the decline in qualified physicians, how THC potency is labeled and verified, and what the agency can do about diversion to non-patients. The director said the office relies on complaints, inspections, lab audits, and coordination with law enforcement, and that patients can be suspended if violations are confirmed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Since initiating a rulemaking in 2012, the Commission has addressed major policy issues impacting TNC
• We initiated rulemaking to address TNC issues following Uber's launch in California.
• Since initiating a rulemaking in 2012, the Commission has addressed major policy issues impacting TNC
• Through this process, the CPUC has been regulating TNCs for over a decade when we initiated rulemaking
• , and whether it can be changed through rulemaking if needed.

Summary: The hearing focused on transportation network companies in California, with the chair framing it as an informational hearing on the history, regulation, safety, climate, accessibility, and data issues surrounding Uber, Lyft, and smaller or autonomous TNC services. The CPUC described its decade-long regulatory role, including safety rules, background checks, insurance requirements, reporting obligations, and two major legislative programs from 2018: the Clean Miles Standard and the Access for All program. Members asked about complaint trends, data collection and disclosure, program implementation, and how the CPUC uses annual reports for policymaking, compliance, and program oversight. Uber and Lyft said the statewide framework has supported growth while providing safety and access benefits, but both companies emphasized that insurance is a major cost driver and argued that California’s UM/UIM requirement is unusually high compared with other vehicles. They said the Clean Miles Standard is pushing electrification but faces headwinds from EV affordability and charging infrastructure, while Access for All has expanded wheelchair-accessible service but still needs continued support. They also discussed transit partnerships, wildfire response, and the potential role of autonomous vehicles, with both companies saying human drivers will remain important and that future regulation should account for new technology. The final panel, including the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and UC Berkeley researchers, presented evidence that TNCs have increased congestion and reduced transit ridership, especially in dense urban areas. They described prior research showing TNCs contributed to congestion growth in San Francisco and noted that this work helped spur local taxes on ride-hailing trips to fund safety and transit improvements. The panel also discussed the CPUC’s evolving data-disclosure decisions, arguing that public access to TNC trip data is important for understanding transportation impacts and informing local policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the rulemaking board with rulemaking authority actually has the authority to say you don't even have
• You said you had experience in rulemaking.
• that the rulemaking would still exist?
• that the rulemaking would still exist?
• that the rulemaking would still exist?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I have, like, procedural rulemaking questions next.
• I have like procedural rulemaking questions next.
• I'm going to answer that question focusing on the current rulemaking.
• Can you provide an update on the status of that rulemaking?
• And that is what we're set to do as part of that rulemaking.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) to examine its history, current operation, and possible future changes in California. Chair Tasha Berner said the hearing was prompted in part by AT&T’s 2023 request for relief from COLR obligations and by broader concerns about public safety, affordability, universal service, and access to modern broadband and telecommunications. The first panel featured a telecommunications expert who traced COLR back to universal service principles and explained how states have handled COLR differently, including full deregulation, limited rural obligations, or transition pathways tied to competition and customer protections. Members asked about affordability, federal and state processes for service withdrawal, and whether COLR remains necessary given modern competition. CPUC staff then described California’s COLR framework, explaining that universal service rests on access, reliability/quality, and affordability, and that COLR requires carriers to provide basic service, including voice-grade calling, 911 access, relay services, and Lifeline. Staff said AT&T’s application sought relief in nearly all of its territory, but no replacement COLR came forward during the proceeding, and public participation hearings drew thousands of comments and strong concern from rural and vulnerable customers. The CPUC outlined its ongoing rulemaking to reconsider whether the 1996 COLR rules and 2012 basic-service definition still fit current conditions, with workshops and public hearings scheduled and a proposed decision expected later in the year or into 2026. Members pressed staff on geographic outreach, wireless coverage, whether broadband can be part of basic service, public safety during wildfires, and what reporting and complaint processes currently exist. In the final panel, industry and public-interest witnesses sharply disagreed. A U.S. Telecom representative argued COLR is outdated, costly, and copper-focused, and said reform should allow technology-neutral alternatives such as wireless, fiber, and satellite while preserving reliable voice and emergency access. The CPUC Public Advocates Office countered that COLR remains a necessary public safeguard, especially for rural and low-income customers, and argued that any transition should maintain or improve service, with public benefits such as broadband investment and continued protections for 911, disability access, and affordability. Committee members focused on the difference between an obligation to serve everyone and a mere option to serve, and on whether the Legislature should provide clearer guidance as the CPUC’s rulemaking moves forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're getting into the rulemaking process, so I won't spend too much time on this.
• We typically have three rulemaking processes we follow.
• We also have two other types of things that might lead to some rulemaking.
• So that could be normal rulemaking or expedited rulemaking, but if it's out of sync with our three-year
• So we're not putting the deadline of December 1 on that particular rulemaking.

Summary: The committee heard first from Ferndale city officials and a representative of FutureWise on annexation planning. Ferndale described its “annexation blueprint” or phased annexation plan as a way to tie urban growth area planning, capital facilities, and eventual annexation together earlier in the process. Speakers argued that counties often allow incremental development in urban growth areas without city-level standards, impact fees, or coordinated infrastructure planning, which can leave cities and taxpayers with higher future costs and make annexation less likely. Members raised questions about fire districts, county revenue loss, and whether annexation incentives or interlocal revenue-sharing agreements could help. FutureWise supported requiring annexation phasing in countywide planning policies, using pre-annexation agreements, and applying city standards in urban growth areas to make annexation more predictable and less contentious. The committee then received a primer and update from the State Building Code Council (SBCC). Staff explained the council’s composition, standing committees, technical advisory groups, and rulemaking process, including normal, expedited, and emergency rulemaking. They described the ongoing 2024 code cycle and the separate work underway on Senate Bill 5491 and related legislation concerning single-stair residential buildings and multiplex housing. Members discussed how the legislature can better direct the SBCC, the difference between prescriptive and performance-based code approaches, and the importance of involving technical experts early. The SBCC also addressed concerns about the wildfire urban interface code, noting that problems arose when code language and maps were developed on different timelines and applied to urban areas in ways that were not anticipated. Several members asked about regional differences, especially energy code impacts in eastern Washington and the role of natural gas. SBCC representatives said the council can use climate zones and appendices for some regional variation, but statewide statutory targets still constrain the energy code. They emphasized that the council is largely reactive to legislative direction and public proposals, and that clearer legislative intent would help avoid ambiguity in future code development. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• in uh the regulatory or the rulemaking in uh the regulatory or the rulemaking authority<00:21:39.120
• rulemaking authority. rulemaking authority. >> Thank<00:28:47.360> you.
• <01:24:47.440> and bill that's focused on rulemaking and bill that's focused on rulemaking
• can then start that that rulemaking can then start that that rulemaking process<01:33:24.639>
• Um, there's no rulemaking authority with this.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It removes expedited rulemaking from Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board.
• It removes expedited rulemaking from Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board.
• It removes expedited rulemaking from Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board.
• But my concern in listening to that answer is that the changes that this makes the rulemaking harder,
• and this removal of expedited rulemaking and this removal of expedited rulemaking definitely<00:

Bills: HF500, HF718, HF1096, HF1246, HF1469

Keywords: nursing home, employment standards, worker rights, Minnesota Statutes, labor compensation, workforce development, job training, economic stability, low-income, career pathways, education funding, Summit Academy, employment, STEM programming, GED preparation, Neighborhood Development Center, NDC, small business, entrepreneurship, business training

Transcript Highlights:

• The rulemaking has questions related as to what constitutes basic service.
• And so when we look at the new rulemaking...
• Can you provide on the update on that status of that rulemaking?
• Set to do as part of that rulemaking.
• We have to do all of this within the context of COLA rulemaking.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Chair, Senator, the Environment Improvement Board is the body that's going to set rulemaking.
• and then other rulemaking authority to the local board.
• The local agency would propose the rules for rulemaking; the board would then conduct the rulemaking
• different rulemaking procedures and outcomes than you are in Santa Fe.
• More and more, we're delegating authority to a process outside of here, to rulemaking.

Transcript Highlights:

• IT SEEMS TO ME THE AGENCY AT THIS TIME IT WOULD NOT BE PRUDENT TO ENGAGE IN UNNECESSARY RULEMAKING.
• WOULDN'T THAT ANALYSIS BE INITIATED BY THE RULEMAKING PROCESS?
• THE RULEMAKING PROCESS HAS NOT BEEN INITIATED FOR THESE PROVISIONS.
• THE RULE DOES NOT REFER TO A DOCUMENT THAT SETS OF STANDARDS OUTSIDE OF THE RULEMAKING PROCESS.
• >> YOU'RE SAYING 2718 WHEN IT SAYS THE RULEMAKING AUTHORITY WANTS TO RE-REVIEW THE RULE?

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As we continue to work with the CPUC, we aim to find agreement on how this bill can help the rulemaking
• As we continue to work with the CPUC, we aim to find agreement on how this bill can help the rulemaking
• As we continue to work with the CPUC, we aim to find agreement on how this bill can help the rulemaking
• And so, as the Assembly Member noted, the current rulemaking calls into question some of these existing
• And so as the assembly member noted, the current rulemaking calls into question some of these existing

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee met with Chair Tasha Berner presiding and reviewed one item, AB 2790, a committee bill concerning the California Teleconnect Fund. The chair opened with extensive ground rules on orderly conduct and public comment, then the committee secretary called the roll and established a quorum. The bill was described as updating eligibility and administrative procedures for the CTF, clarifying treatment of non-instructional facilities, and revising how applicants coordinate CTF applications with the federal E-Rate program. Supporters said the measure responds to concerns raised in a prior oversight hearing about CPUC rulemaking that could make the program harder for schools and other eligible entities to use. Kim Lewis of CENIC said the bill would preserve continuity, stability, and fairness for broadband support to educational and research institutions, while Christina DeCaro of the California Library Association and Kimberly Rosenberger on behalf of Superintendent Tony Thurmond also voiced support. No opposition testimony was presented. The committee then voted to pass AB 2790 and refer it to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. The roll was left open briefly for additional votes, and the bill ultimately passed 9-0 before the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• rural oral, excuse me, oral rulemaking rural oral, excuse me, oral rulemaking in<00:09:28.480>
• They would have to do additional rulemaking to do that.
• We can enter rulemaking whenever. So we've done that in the past with our moose seasons.
• We can enter rulemaking whenever. So we've done that in the past with our moose seasons.
• We can enter rulemaking whenever. So we've done that in the past with our moose seasons.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first handled routine business, approving the consent calendar and the minutes. It then took up a Department of Employment Security rule, 24193, where the only issue was that a form had not been incorporated by reference. The department submitted an oral conditional approval request with revised language, and the committee approved the rule conditionally. A second Employment Security rule, 195, raised concerns that the notice language was too broad and vague and could amount to oral rulemaking; because the agency had not yet finalized revised language, the committee granted a one-month waiver so the rule could return next month with a conditional approval proposal. The Department of Safety’s contact person notification program rule, 24237, drew comments about Social Security number collection, unclear drafting on one section, and ambiguity about which application needed a signature. The agency agreed to remove Social Security number references from the rules and forms and to adopt the suggested clarifying language with minor edits. After discussion about why the identifiers were needed, the committee approved the rule conditionally with the oral changes. The committee then moved a previously consent-calendar item, OPLC rule 2547, off consent after Representative Maguire objected that the renewal application form was too health-care-focused and user-unfriendly for other professions; the agency said it would revisit the form, and the committee postponed action until next month without needing a waiver. The final major item was Fish and Game’s HB 2548, which changes licensing and permit rules for taking deer, bear, moose, turkey, and furbearing animals. Staff noted extensive public testimony, including a coalition submission, and said the main dispute was over what data the agency should rely on in setting seasons and take limits. Fish and Game explained that declining trapper participation made capture-per-unit-effort data less reliable, so it also uses hunter surveys and UNH research projects funded in part by federal money; the agency said current trapping removals are very low and do not appear to threaten populations. Committee members and public witnesses questioned whether the agency’s responses to comments were sufficiently specific under the new public-comment law, but no final vote on the Fish and Game rule was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• AND THEN ON THIS ESSENTIALLY WE WILL GO TO THE RULEMAKING PROCESS AND WHEN WE DO FINISH THIS PROCESS
• THAT IS WHERE WE ARE FOR THE RULEMAKING WITH ADVANCED BIRTH CENTER. NONEMERGENT ACCESS PLANS.
• SINCE THE RULEMAKING IN THE PROCESS IS TAKING QUITE SOME TO TIME.
• WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A GREAT WAY FOR US TO GET MORE KNOWLEDGE BEFORE WE WENT INTO RULEMAKING AND ONCE
• TO DATE ALL BOARDS AND COUNCILS HAVE APPROVED APPLICATION AND INITIATED RULEMAKING.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Like when this passes, the Board of Ed would begin rulemaking on it.
• <00:35:06.120> on Board of Ed would begin rulemaking on Board of Ed would begin rulemaking
• would go, and so we are enacting rulemaking.
• the Board of Ed about how rulemaking the Board of Ed about how rulemaking would<00:36:06.000>
• . rulemaking. rulemaking.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The caucus of the whole received an update from Representative Kornheiser on House Bill 955, focusing on the Ways and Means amendment and how it aligns with Act 73 and the House Education Committee’s broader education transformation work. She said the amendment was assembled from separate pieces developed earlier in the session and covers three main areas: planned property tax updates, steps needed for the future education finance system and foundation formula, and policy changes to support collaborative education service agencies and district mergers. She emphasized that the bill is aimed at the future state of the system, with many provisions tied to later effective dates and pending reports. Kornheiser described the property tax provisions as further defining the new non-homestead/second-home classification so the Tax Department can continue form development and data collection before rates are set, and she said the bill also advances regional assessment districts and a more regular reappraisal cycle. On education finance, she said the amendment adds school construction and school debt provisions, reserve guidance, pre-K funding study language, special education funding protections, and transportation-related follow-up work so those pieces can fit the foundation formula. She also framed the bill as reducing cost drivers in the system, citing health care savings, reference-based pricing, mental health coordination, special education scale, deferred maintenance, and larger-scale school organization. During questions, members asked about merger support funding, transportation timelines, private equity ownership of school transportation, tuition restrictions for approved independent and public schools, and the timing and finality of the second-home tax definitions. Staff explained that merger support would be reimbursed through AOE for committee expenses and would not count against excess spending thresholds, that transportation and other grant categories will be addressed in future reports and decisions, and that the transportation study does not explicitly name private equity but could encompass staffing and cost issues. They also confirmed that the tuition-related provisions apply to approved independent, in-state public, and out-of-state public schools receiving tuition, but only when the foundation formula takes effect. No votes were taken during the caucus; the update was informational, with the bill noted as having been referred to Appropriations and expected to come up for action later in the week.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I believe that collaborative rulemaking aligns with this mission by ensuring continued access while
• We do not have an active rulemaking in progress.
• related to foraging or must state the reasons for not doing so as part of the rulemaking process.
• related to foraging or must state the reasons for not doing so as part of the rulemaking process.
• State the reasons for not doing so as part of the rulemaking process.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, director Bhutai under rulemaking Um, director Bhutai under rulemaking authority.<00:27:16.240
• >> So they don't do rulemaking now. >> No, the rulemaking when you're talking about is the USDOE
• They're not doing the rulemaking.
• if we put the rulemaking authority under DLIR?
• The rulemaking authority will be three.

Bills: SB3179, SB2872, SB2391, SB3282, SB2836, SB2181

Keywords: educational workers, harassment, workplace safety, temporary restraining orders, investigation procedures, retired education employees, teacher shortage, rehired retirants, entry level salary, collective bargaining agreements, pension benefits, education, teacher salaries, automatic increments, collective bargaining, teacher retention, workforce development, Pell grant program, short-term education, eligibility

Summary: The joint committee first heard SB 3179, which would require the Department of Education and charter schools to report harassment incidents involving educational workers and adopt procedures for handling them. DOE supported the bill, while the Attorney General recommended clarifying amendments to limit the measure to harassment directed at workers because of their position, to limit DOE legal assistance to temporary restraining order actions, and to clarify whether the harassment must come from outside the school system. Members also discussed whether the bill should cover non-DOE individuals on campus, whether investigations could be handled in-house, and whether training should be embedded in existing workday or school-year training rather than added as a separate requirement. The committee later voted to pass the bill with amendments as SD1. The committee then took up SB 2872, which would require retired teachers or administrators rehired into shortage or hard-to-fill positions to be paid the entry-level salary for that position. DOE supported the bill, and the Attorney General requested clarifying language about its effective date and that it would not affect already matured rights and duties. The Employees’ Retirement System administration emphasized that the bill should retain a 12-month break in service to preserve the pension system’s tax-exempt status and noted the importance of consistent classification of eligible positions. Members expressed support for using retired educators to help fill staffing gaps, but no final action was taken in the portion provided. The committee also heard SB 2391, which would provide annual step increases for public school teachers under bargaining unit 5, subject to funding. The Attorney General said the bill could conflict with collective bargaining procedures and Chapter 89, while DOE said unit 5 includes more than teachers and asked that the benefit be considered for other bargaining units as well, with funding provided if enacted. HSTA strongly supported the measure, arguing that annual step movement is already recognized in the collective bargaining agreement as a recruiting and retention tool. Testimony totals were noted as 16 in support, two in opposition, and three comments. Finally, the committee heard SB 3282, which would establish a statewide framework for the federal workforce Pell Grant program to fund short-term workforce education and training. The Attorney General suggested clarifying that the matter is one of statewide concern because UH is involved. UH and the Chamber of Commerce supported the bill, and DLIR testified that it is coordinating with DOE, the Workforce Development Council, and national groups on implementation. Members questioned whether the Workforce Development Council or DLIR should handle rulemaking and administration, and DLIR said the council is advisory while the department has grant administration expertise. The committee then moved into decision-making after discussion of possible amendments and implementation concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• Would you be open to an oral amendment to the amendment to remove the rulemaking authorization?
• As you're well aware, I have never voted aye on any bill that ever authorized rulemaking in this body
• And if not, if they can't establish a committee using the rulemaking, then we would have to actually
• I already have language in there stressing rulemaking, so I don't know that we're not arguing the same
• Now we can do it properly and just take out the rulemaking, tell them to make the board.

Bills: HB2424, HB2608, HB2775, HB2805, HB2908

Keywords: Arizona political parties, precinct committeeman, precinct committeemen, proxy voting, party bylaws, county committee, state committee, qualified elector, election administration, political party rules, precinct representation, adjoining precinct, county party meeting, proxy attestation, notary public, witnesses, transitional housing, military veterans, grant program, housing services

Summary: The committee first heard HB 2908, which would impose criminal penalties on faithless Arizona Article V convention delegates, require delegates to take an oath, and direct the legislature and governor to ratify any approved amendment through the normal legislative process. The sponsor argued the bill adds guardrails to any future convention, while Common Cause Arizona opposed it as ineffective and insufficient to prevent a runaway convention. After debate about whether the bill could meaningfully constrain delegates, the committee voted 5-2 to return HB 2908 with a do pass recommendation. The committee then considered HB 2608, a veterans housing measure creating a military transitional housing grant program at the Arizona Department of Housing with a $7 million General Fund appropriation in FY 2027 and changes to the military transitional housing fund. Testimony focused on revisions to the bill, including limiting use of funds to new construction and requiring veteran-led or veteran-managed organizations. Several members said the bill was too similar to prior versions and had not gone through the Veterans Caucus process. On a motion to table, the committee voted to lay HB 2608 on the table. After a recess, the committee took up HB 2805, as amended, which creates a secure online portal for nomination petition signatures for local governing board candidates and related election administration changes. The sponsor said the bill was intended to give school board candidates and other local candidates equal access to the state’s electronic signature system, while members debated whether requiring candidates to declare party affiliation would undermine nonpartisan races. The Gillette amendment was adopted, and the committee then voted 5-2 to return HB 2805 as amended with a do pass recommendation. Finally, the committee heard HB 2775, which would bar the state and its subdivisions from using state assets or money to implement or enforce rules, taxes, or policies of international organizations, and would add restrictions on Arizona public universities’ dealings with certain foreign entities. Members discussed a proposed amendment to create oversight of foreign funding at Arizona State University and the Board of Regents, but raised concerns about rulemaking authority and constitutional issues. The committee ultimately voted to hold HB 2775 for further work, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think you mentioned something about expedited rulemaking.
• Why did we go with expedited rulemaking instead of full rulemaking? Sorry, thanks, Madam Chair.
• I think you mentioned something about expedited rulemaking.
• Why did we go with expedited rulemaking instead of full rulemaking? Sorry, thanks, Madam Chair.
• rulemaking?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Chair, Senator, so you're right, there's not rulemaking language in here.
• There's not rulemaking language in here.
• If the rulemaking that she then said... Then it would be optional.
• If the rulemaking that she did said this could be an optional rider, then it would be.
• Or if that's what came out of the rulemaking, then that would be.

Bills: SB154, SB187, SB193, SM3

Keywords: insurance, wildfire, flood damage, natural disasters, property coverage, water projects, appropriation, New Mexico, finance authority, infrastructure, New Mexico Finance Authority, funding, SB193, acequia, community ditch, irrigation works construction fund, water infrastructure, ditch infrastructure, irrigation, New Mexico water law

Transcript Highlights:

• That's something that's going to be made in rulemaking.
• Do we know when rulemaking will happen?
• When can we expect rulemaking to begin? Mr.
• these regulations do not change in the rulemaking.
• That's not going to change in the rulemaking process at all.