Transcript Highlights:

• the rate studies at least up to 95 percent of the suggested rate study.
• rate study.
• rate study.
• rate study.
• We provided that to them, and then the rates came out based on that rate.

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 754, which would add physical therapists to Idaho’s direct primary care statute so they can enter direct payment agreements with patients without those arrangements being treated as insurance contracts. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would improve access, especially for patients who need frequent therapy or live in underserved areas, and emphasized that it would not expand physical therapists’ scope of practice. One member objected that the bill’s wording could blur the definition of primary care and create scope confusion. After testimony from a physical therapy association representative and a small business health care provider, the committee voted to send the bill to the floor with a do-pass recommendation, with several members recording no votes. The committee then took up House Bill 724, which would add and clarify safety-related rights for children in foster care, including safe placement, access to medical and forensic exams after abuse disclosures, basic necessities, and consideration of safety in visitation and placement decisions. The sponsor said the bill is a narrow child-safety measure that does not alter parental rights or removal standards, while foster parents, a psychologist, former foster youth, and others testified in support with accounts of abuse, unsafe placements, and inadequate oversight. Some members raised concerns about enumerating rights in statute and about broad language that could have unintended future consequences; a substitute motion to send the bill to amending order failed on a roll call vote, and the original motion to send the bill to the floor with a do-pass recommendation passed. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 759, a budget-related measure to reduce Medicaid residential habilitation funding and require a new audit/rate study of home and community-based services. The sponsor said the reduction reflects a governor’s budget recommendation and that the audit would help determine appropriate rates and spending. Providers and family members of people with disabilities testified that the bill was too vague, that prior rate studies were not fully followed, and that any reductions could harm staffing and services; they asked for clearer standards, collaboration, and assurance that rate-study results would actually be used. A motion to hold the bill until a later date was offered, but the sponsor opposed delaying the budget item and the committee continued discussion toward a floor recommendation.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> from having a rate case today. from having a rate case today.
• mandatory rate hikes.
• It equals mandatory rate hikes. thing. It equals mandatory rate hikes.
• c> rate.
• </c> rate decrease? rate decrease?

Bills: HB475

Committee: Senate Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development

Keywords: 923, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Rebase Medicaid rates for ambulance service. So this isn't increasing rates.
• When we say rebase, that's really kind of aligning the rates to a new target rate.
• rate.
• And so again, it would align those rates to the Medicare lowest rural quartile rate. Mr.
• It really should be in the rate.

Committee: Senate Appropriations - Human Resources Division

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Senate Appropriations HR Division met with all members present to review the medical services portion of the HHS budget. Sarah Aker, Executive Director of Medical Services, walked the committee through several budget items, including HCBS cost-to-continue adjustments, the DD bed assessment, expansion of value-based purchasing, targeted rate increases for home health and QSP services, and the cross-disability waiver. Members generally supported the targeted increases for home health and QSP, and Aker explained that the cross-disability waiver funding would support startup work, service design, and infrastructure ahead of a planned July 1, 2028 implementation. The committee spent significant time on rate-setting and provider payment issues. Members discussed ambulance rate rebasing, with several senators expressing concern that the proposed increase was too high relative to peer states; the committee ultimately moved toward reducing that item to $1 million rather than zero so it could be revisited in conference committee. They also discussed a House-added critical access hospital networking grant and similarly leaned toward reducing it to $1 million. Aker explained the department’s value-based purchasing plans, including use of a vendor selected through RFP, and clarified how the department’s existing Medicaid managed care and hospital value-based programs work. A major portion of the meeting focused on long-term care and basic care payments, including a House-added extension of the $5 per day basic care add-on and a proposed shift in nursing facility incentive grants toward a withhold-based model. Senator Mathern indicated he would bring an amendment to delay or modify the withhold change, and Aker said the department would prefer language that directly addresses whether a withhold may be implemented. Members also discussed 1915(i) services, FMAP changes, the Medicaid legacy system modernization carryover, and a House-added legislative intent section on medical assistance. The committee adjourned for the morning with plans to return later to continue Human Services budget work and revisit unresolved items in conference committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know that the LEOFF 2 contribution rates that were adopted in '24, they had adopted rates through '
• None of the rates on the prior slides reflect any minimum rate levels.
• And so we put in place the minimum rate legislation to keep our rates steady, to ensure that we're not
• You know, minimum rate legislation is designed to create stability in the rates.
• The rates being prepared under employer contribution rate slide. Don Schwab, go ahead. I knew that.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we are asking L&I to publish the indicated rate for each class, and what that rate should have been
• So, for example, in 2026, the break-even rate from our actuaries In 2026, the break-even rate from our
• rate and the 4.9% that we took.
• rate is based within their risk class on their own individual... ...rate is set, each employer's rate
• However, the actuarial rate, the rate used to keep the system fully solvent, would have been 13%.

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 6136, which would require Labor and Industries to publish actuarial indicated workers’ compensation rates for each risk class and disclose when rate increases are capped below those indicated levels. The sponsor and supporters from the hospitality, retail, business, and construction sectors said the bill would improve transparency about how rates are set and how reserve funds and investment earnings are used to hold down premiums. L&I testified that the bill would require publication of a large amount of rate-setting information, but said it was already developed in the normal process and that the bill had no fiscal impact. Questions focused on reserve use, advisory committee involvement, and how the actuarial calculations interact with investment returns. The committee then moved to executive session and took action on several bills, adopting substitutes or amendments and advancing bills including SB 5292, 6014, 5972, 5869, 5874, 6058, 6039, 5944, and 6180, with most sent to Rules and SB 5292 sent to Ways and Means. The committee then heard Senate Bill 5847, which would expand injured workers’ access to medical care by allowing treatment outside the L&I provider network when no provider is available nearby, limiting employer steering to specific providers, shortening utilization review timelines, allowing provider deviation from L&I guidelines when medically appropriate, and expanding continued treatment and cancer monitoring. Labor and worker advocates argued the bill would better reflect the Murray decision and reduce delays in care, while L&I and employer groups said the current evidence-based guideline system works for most claims and warned the bill could weaken quality controls, create vague standards, and increase costs. Testimony also raised concerns about the 15-mile access rule, the employer communication restrictions, and the appeal process for provider removal. The sponsor said the goal was to improve individualized care and continue working with stakeholders. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 6067, which would change workers’ compensation time-loss calculations so that 100% of the employer-paid health insurance contribution is included in the benefit calculation instead of the current partial inclusion. Supporters said the bill would help injured workers keep health coverage during recovery and reduce pressure to choose between medical care and income, while opponents argued it would not guarantee the money is actually used for health insurance, could be diverted to other uses or attorney fees, and would significantly increase costs for employers and the accident fund. L&I said the bill would require IT and administrative changes and estimated substantial ongoing benefit costs. The hearing ended without further action on SB 6067, and the chair closed the session after public testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• 114 staff to energy rate-making and 29 staff for water rate-making.
• as other proceedings that can impact rates outside of the general rate cases.
• PG&E's rate case, San Diego Gas & Electric's rate case, for example.
• the rate case.
• Demand response proceeding is rate setting because we're authorizing... The rate case.

Summary: The committee first heard Issue 1 on trailer bill language to redirect funding for emergency demand-response programs. The Department of Finance proposed using about $26.9 million in General Fund originally set aside for the Distributed Energy Backup Assets program to bolster the Demand-Side Grid Support Program for summer 2026, and using about $70 million in CalCHAP interest to support ratepayer-funded demand response in summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or a successor program, while the LAO noted the General Fund money would otherwise revert to savings. Members pressed the administration on whether demand response remains important, whether DSGS has been successful, and whether the state should keep funding it through the CEC rather than shifting to a ratepayer-funded CPUC program. The CEC and CPUC said the programs are not directly comparable, emphasized different cost structures and enrollment metrics, and said a CPUC rulemaking is underway with a proposed decision expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up Issue 2, a budget proposal tied to SB 254 and the new transmission accelerator. GoBiz and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank described a five-year, roughly $26 million request to staff and administer the accelerator and manage Proposition 4 and AB 1207 funds for transmission financing. Members asked about state liability, ownership of financed lines, FERC revenue requirements, and whether the program would help underserved regions and offshore wind development. Staff explained that the accelerator would only consider projects already identified through CAISO’s competitive transmission planning process, and that state financing would be a small portion of large projects intended to lower overall costs to ratepayers. The LAO said it had no specific concerns but urged the Legislature to ensure the final language matches its intent. The committee also heard Issue 3 on petroleum market oversight. The CEC and its Division of Petroleum Market Oversight requested additional positions and funding to implement ABX2-1 and continue work on supply stabilization, refinery monitoring, and transportation fuels analysis. Members questioned why the work was funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether existing staff from the paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and whether the program had produced evidence of price gouging or improved supply conditions. CEC and Finance said the new positions are needed because the workload has expanded, while some existing staff remain on related analysis and reporting duties. The discussion ended without a vote in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• State Ratings for Fitch Ratings, and I think Mr. Kim is via Zoom. Yes, I am. Oh, there you are.
• My name is Eric Ben—I am an analyst at Fitch Ratings. I manage the rating stream.
• </c> rating that process happens in a rating rating that process happens in a rating committee<00:12:
• </c><00:13:04.959><c> and</c> rating is we publish that rating and rating is we publish that rating and
• </c><00:13:52.320><c> for</c><00:13:52.560><c> US</c> ratings data our average rating for US ratings

Committee: Senate Capital Investment

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These sections adjust substance use disorder treatment service rates based on the recent rate study and
• rate."
• We just want to make sure that the rate increases as opposed to taking 72% of the modeled rate.
• rates.
• rate.

Bills: HF2434

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Keywords: healthcare, personal care assistance, worker retention, disability services, state funding

Transcript Highlights:

• The recommended metrics are a 21% access rate and an affordability rate of $10,149, a graduation rate
• of 21%, a graduation rate of 21%, a retention... $149, a graduation rate of 21%, a retention rate of
• How many institutions are below a 40% passage rate? A 40% passage rate in graduation rate, or?
• rate.
• rate.

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee heard and advanced House Bill 1145, which clarifies that public charter schools may participate in the CAP Grant Fund. The bill’s amendment expanded a separate “money-back guarantee” concept for state colleges, requiring participating institutions to offer six eligible programs and refund tuition if graduates do not find qualifying employment within six months under standardized job-search requirements. Members asked about refund rates, student notification, fiscal impact, and whether the proposal accounted for disability or out-of-state job searches. Public testimony on the amendment and bill was in support from Nathan Hoffman of the Foundation for Florida’s Future, and the committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably as a committee substitute by a 16-1 vote, with Representative Aristide voting no over the charter school issue. The committee then received presentations on the William L. Boyd IV Effective Access to Student Education (EASE) Grant and the private nonprofit college sector. Department of Education staff explained that EASE, created in 1979, provides tuition assistance to eligible full-time undergraduates at participating private institutions, with a 2024-25 maximum award of $3,500 and an additional EASE Plus incentive of up to $850 for students in high-demand fields. The department reviewed the program’s funding history, disbursement process, and accountability metrics, including access, affordability, graduation, retention, and postgraduate employment/continuing education. Members asked about award proration, eligibility for other aid, religious-program restrictions, and why some institutions had low or unavailable graduation-rate data. ICUF President Robert Boyd argued that EASE is a strong return on investment and described ICUF institutions as not-for-profit, four-year schools serving many Pell-eligible, adult, military, and minority students. He said the sector produces a significant share of Florida’s bachelor’s, graduate, nursing, and education degrees, and highlighted ICUF’s dashboard with additional transparency metrics, program earnings data, and net price calculators. Boyd and members discussed graduation and completion rates, NCLEX passage rates, affordability, institutional flexibility, and whether schools with lower graduation rates should be compared differently because of their student populations. The presentations ended with no further business, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, lower rate, but it would still be a rate, not the same as today.
• So, lower rate, but it would still be a rate, not the same as today.
• in rate cases usually.
• in rate cases usually.
• in rate cases usually.

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Senate hearing focused primarily on SB 1201, a wildfire measure that would create a wildfire recovery fund and allow securitization for electric utilities. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the bill, saying it would help protect customers, property owners, insurers, and the broader economy from future catastrophic wildfire liability while improving the utility’s credit profile and lowering financing costs. Support also came from DCCA Consumer Advocacy, the Attorney General’s office on written comments, Ulupono Initiative, Clearway Energy Group, IBEW Local 1260, Par Hawaii, KIUC, the Chamber of Commerce Hawaiʻi, Plus Power, and numerous organizations and individuals. Opponents or commenters raised concerns about the liability cap, victim compensation process, and fund structure, including the Hawaiʻi Association for Justice, the Hawaiʻi Regional Council of Carpenters, and the Hawaiʻi Insurance Council; Henry Curtis of Life of the Land supported the concept of a fund but questioned the catastrophe threshold and whether the fund would be empty without a prudency finding. Much of the discussion centered on whether the proposed fund would actually help restore Hawaiian Electric to investment grade, with senators comparing the proposal to California’s wildfire fund. Hawaiian Electric said the bill was only one part of a broader process, alongside physical risk reduction and settlement finalization, and argued that without the bill the utility would not regain investment grade. Senators also questioned the proposed $1 billion fund size, the fairness of ratepayer contributions versus shareholder contributions, and whether customers should pay for consulting and administrative costs; Hawaiian Electric said its proposed amendment would remove those consulting-related charges. The company also said the fund would accrue interest and, if unused, could be returned to customers, and that there would be replenishment and supplemental contribution mechanisms if the fund were exhausted. The Attorney General’s office said it still had further amendments to discuss, and the departments had not yet resolved where the fund should reside administratively, though Hawaiian Electric said it believed DCCA was the appropriate place but was open to alternatives. KIUC requested two amendments. No vote or final committee action was taken during the hearing, and the measure remained under discussion with questions and proposed amendments still outstanding.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Metro Council in Louisville for any rate Metro Council in Louisville for any rate increase<00:04
• </c><00:19:33.120><c> or</c> would conflict with Bond ratings or would conflict with Bond ratings or
• our electricity rates go from 4.2 cents our electricity rates go from 4.2 cents per<00:36:13.920><c>
• </c><00:37:17.960><c> was</c> her electric rate was her electric rate was $613<00:37:20.839><c> um</c
• payer so in addition to our the rate payer so in addition to our electrical<00:37:35.640><c> rate</c

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:04 HB 387 Discussion 01:06 HB 387 Roll Call Vote 28:30 HCR 22 Discussion 29:26 HCR 22 Roll Call Vote 31:09 HB 519 Discussion 35:36 HB 519 Roll Call Vote 38:37, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 387, which would amend MSD governance and spending rules in Louisville. The sponsor said the bill was intended to add oversight and accountability in response to large MSD rate increases, though the original rate-approval provision had been removed because of concerns about contracts and bond ratings in Oldham and Bullitt counties. MSD Executive Director Tony Parrott testified that MSD is a public utility serving more than 800,000 people through wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection services, and argued that most rate pressure comes from federal and state mandates tied to a consent decree and other orders. He said MSD already provides annual notice and bond approvals through Metro Council, offers customer assistance programs, and needs flexibility for advertising, public notices, recruitment, and compliance. Members discussed stormwater funding, aging infrastructure, flood control, and the bill’s limits on advertising and other expenditures. The committee substitute was adopted and the bill passed on a roll call vote. The committee then considered House Concurrent Resolution 22, as substituted, which expressed support for exploring nuclear energy and included language noting Kentucky’s ability to use nuclear waste, uranium tailings, and spent fuel in ways described by the sponsor as cleaner. Supporters said Kentucky faces an energy shortage and that nuclear, including small modular reactors, should be part of the state’s future energy mix. Some members said they would support the resolution but wanted a feasibility study or noted that it does not carry the force of law. The resolution passed. Finally, the committee began House Bill 519, sponsored by Representative Fugate, which would prevent utility companies from passing demolition costs for retired coal-fired or fossil-fuel plants on to ratepayers. The sponsor cited sharply rising electricity bills in eastern Kentucky, the decline in coal employment, and the burden of demolition costs from the Big Sandy plant being placed on customers. He argued that utilities should absorb those costs rather than shifting them to ratepayers. The bill was introduced with a motion and second, and the committee was preparing to hear further questions and testimony when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Rate can be set by the ambulance company, whatever rate they want.
• rate I mean it rate or somebody sets the rate I mean it it<00:18:37.880><c> will</c><00:18:38.039><c
• per of Medicare rate of Medicare per of Medicare rate of Medicare rate<00:25:22.520><c> is</c><00:25:
• c> rate</c><00:25:35.000><c> must</c><00:25:35.200><c> be</c> mandate the rate must be mandate the rate
• rates the board of rates I don't set the rates the board of fire<00:59:46.119><c> Commissioners</c><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee discussed three ambulance reimbursement bills and tried to distinguish their approaches. House Bill 185 would require insurers to pay the full amount billed by an ambulance provider when there is no contract rate, with no balance billing to the patient; the Insurance Department clarified that emergency ambulance services are already covered under the benchmark plan, so the bill’s reference to policies without ambulance coverage is effectively meaningless. House Bill 725 would set reimbursement at 325% of the Medicare rate for non-contract ambulance services and prohibit balance billing. House Bill 316 was described as addressing the broader problem that Medicare/Medicaid rates are low and that current balance billing shifts costs to patients or municipalities; its sponsor said the bill would require insurers to pay a rate that gives providers a fighting chance to remain in business, and he viewed 325% of Medicare as the most logical option. Members debated whether insurers should pay the billed amount, a negotiated in-network rate, or a regulated percentage of Medicare. Some argued that out-of-network ambulance providers are underpaid and that in-network rates are often too low to sustain service, especially for emergency providers who cannot steer patients. Others said ambulance companies should not be able to bill whatever they want and questioned the fairness of charging insured patients or insurers more than the service is worth. There was also discussion of whether rate schedules should be reviewed by an oversight body and whether different costs in rural areas justify different reimbursement levels. A recurring issue was balance billing and who ultimately bears the shortfall. Several members said balance billing harms patients and often does not get paid, leaving cities and towns or property taxpayers to cover the difference for municipal ambulance services. Others argued that shifting the cost to insurance premiums would spread the burden more fairly, though it could raise premiums by a few dollars per person per month. No vote or final action was taken in the excerpt; the discussion focused on clarifying the bills and weighing their policy tradeoffs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Plan should have adequate rates.
• rate making.
• We submitted a rate filing with a need for a 40.8% rate increase.
• no rate increase or even a rate decrease depending on where they’re located.
• rate on the book, though.

Committee: House Insurance

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That rate study was done.
• the rate studies at least up to 95% of the suggested rate study.
• rate study.
• saw those rates.
• So we're for rate studies.

Committee: House Health and Welfare

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• rate making.
• We submitted a rate filing with a need for We submitted a rate filing with a need for a 40.8% rate increase
• no rate increase or even a rate decrease depending on where they’re located.
• We're working with the department on our rates, right? So to get adequate rates, that will help.
• rate on the book, though?

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focusing on its rapid growth, financial stability, rate adequacy, and role in the homeowners insurance market. Committee members described the Fair Plan as increasingly functioning as a “safety net” rather than a true insurer of last resort, while Fair Plan representatives said the plan was created by statute, is privately funded by member insurers, and is now taking on more business because of non-renewals and limited availability in the admitted market. They emphasized that the plan offers residential and commercial coverage, but not a full HO-3 homeowners policy, and said expanding into that product would require major new staffing, vendor, and claims infrastructure. A major topic was pricing and assessments. Fair Plan officials said their rates have historically lagged their projected costs, especially because reinsurance costs were not fully recoverable in rates until recently. They reviewed recent filings, including a 2023 filing that was reduced from an estimated 80% need to a 35.8% request after working with the Department of Insurance. They also discussed the plan’s reinsurance tower, a new catastrophe bond, and the $1 billion assessment triggered by the 2025 Los Angeles fires after losses exceeded available capital. They said AB 226 helped secure a $600 million line of credit to reduce assessment risk, and they thanked lawmakers for supporting that measure. Members raised constituent concerns about coverage limits, underinsurance, and misinformation from agents. Fair Plan officials said they do not deny applicants because their homes exceed the plan’s $3.3 million limit; instead, policyholders can combine Fair Plan coverage with excess insurance. They said broker training and webinars are being expanded to address misunderstandings, and they noted that raising the cap would depend on achieving actuarially sound rates and sufficient financial capacity. Members also asked about smoke claims from the 2025 fires; the Fair Plan said it has paid covered smoke claims under California law, reviewed closed claims, and removed the “sight and smell” language from its policy form after litigation and CDI action. Public commenters from the insurance industry, builders, agriculture, and nonprofit service providers largely urged faster depopulation of the Fair Plan, more adequate rates, and reforms to the clearinghouse process. Some warned that the Fair Plan is now competing with the admitted market because it can be cheaper in some areas, while others said the plan is still essential because the private market is not serving high-risk or specialized properties. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, but committee members and Fair Plan representatives agreed to continue working on rate, transparency, and depopulation issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• from the rate study.
• We also implemented a 5.32% COLA to provide our rates. And no rates were reduced.
• So, in the rate risk study, there were actually some recommendations to reduce rates.
• Fiscal year 24 rate study, fiscal year 25 implemented the rate increase. fiscal year 26.
• We have um different rate structures for what we call, um, like an incentive rate versus a standard rate

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• You can also see the pass rates here and the comparison to the U.S. pass rate.
• You can also see the pass rates here and the comparison to the US pass rate.
• in Florida. rate in Florida.
• Our PM pass rate is 96%.
• And our NCLEX rates went up.

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Higher Education

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education met to focus on nursing education funding, workforce supply, and Florida’s low NCLEX pass rates. The chair emphasized that Florida ranks last nationally in nursing exam pass rates and said the committee wants to use budget decisions and a forthcoming nursing bill to improve outcomes. The Florida Center for Nursing at USF presented preliminary workforce and education data showing RN supply is moving toward equilibrium with demand through 2037, while LPN shortages are projected to worsen, especially in some regions. The center also reported on enrollment, retention, faculty vacancies, and NCLEX trends, noting Florida still underperforms the national average but has shown some recent improvement, including higher RN pass rates in 2024 despite fewer test takers. The center highlighted that students who test sooner after graduation tend to pass at higher rates. A panel of nursing education leaders from public universities, state colleges, technical colleges, and private institutions described how prior state pipeline and line-item funding helped expand enrollment, simulation labs, faculty hiring, student support services, and partnerships with hospitals. UNF, Galen College, College of Central Florida, Keiser University, and Lorenzo Walker Technical College each reported strategies such as expanded simulation, mental health and social work support, test-prep and remediation, and efforts to grow faculty pipelines. Several speakers said faculty recruitment and retention remain major barriers because of salary competition with hospitals, faculty debt, and aging faculty. Technical college representatives also stressed the need to strengthen LPN pathways, English-language support, and LPN-to-RN bridge programs. Members asked for ideas to improve NCLEX outcomes and discussed possible policy options, including student loan forgiveness, critical shortage supplements for faculty, incentives for students to test soon after graduation, and possible changes to timing or regulation around NCLEX eligibility. Several witnesses supported more flexible or recurring funding, while noting that one-time line funding has been useful for simulation, scholarships, and faculty support but is harder to sustain. The committee adjourned after the discussion, with the chair saying the ideas would be considered in future funding and policy decisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• as other proceedings that can impact rates outside of the general rate cases.
• So this would be for Edison’s rate case, PG&E’s rate case, San Diego Gas and Electric’s rate case, for
• case, energy rate case, yes?
• the rate case.
• Demand response proceeding is rate setting because we're authorizing... ...the rate case.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• rates.
• rate that the action.
• and driving up rates?
• What percentage of rates can be attributable to that rate increases and our overall rates?
• Why is that something that's affecting my rates and making my rates go up?

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The payment error rate.
• That we've been able to get that payment error rate to go down, so our intent is to use our 2026 rate
• Based on the error rate that you are trying...
• Federal payment error rate, when calculating the payment error rate, does the federal take into account
• rates compared to where we are?