Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, for example, the PUC has been directed to prioritize regionalization when granting certificates of
• it's uneconomical, and there's already tested on what's uneconomical or not, according to like the PUC
• Weiner's bill, but also what the PUC has to do when granting CCNs for wastewater service towards making
• Uh, the huge cries of the community, they did the PUC ordered this particular company to refund these
• The existing regulatory framework that the PUC has adopted and the legislature has mandated provides

Bills: HB 29, HB 685, HB 1633, HB 1689, HB 1690, HB 1918, HB 2010, HB 2500, HB 2608, HB 2626

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• The committee substitute adds two additional requirements applicable to the PUC.
• First, it requires the PUC to adopt a standardized application form for system improvement charges.
• I mean, they would just load the PUC up.
• And so it kind of got to a point where the PUC was, you know, And so it kind of got to a point where
• the PUC had, you know, file cabinets full of documents in order to get to where they needed to be to

Bills: SCR13, SB1248

Keywords: water rights, treaty compliance, Rio Grande, agriculture, drought, international water, Texas water supply, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, TPWD, harvest reports, wildlife harvest data, public information act, open records, confidentiality, hunter privacy, angler data, game animals, game birds, fur-bearing animals, nongame animals

Summary: The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs met without a quorum at first, then later established quorum and proceeded with testimony and votes. Senate Bill 1248, by Chair Perry, was explained as a narrow Open Records Act exception to protect harvest report location data collected through Texas Parks and Wildlife’s digital tagging system. Support testimony came from Matt Wagner of the Texas Chapter of The Wildlife Society, who said the bill would protect private land and sensitive biological information while preserving useful wildlife data. No one testified against the bill, and it was left pending until later in the meeting. The committee then heard Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, which urges the State Department and the International Boundary and Water Commission to press Mexico to comply with the 1944 Water Treaty and deliver its share of Rio Grande water. Senator Hinojosa, farmers, municipal officials, and other witnesses described severe water shortages in South Texas, low reservoir levels, crop losses, the closure of the Valley sugar industry, and the need for alternative supplies such as desalination, reuse, and drainage-runoff projects. Members also discussed treaty enforcement, regional drought, and the role of cartels and Mexican water storage, while emphasizing that Texas must also invest in its own water infrastructure. The committee also considered Senate Bill 740, which the committee substitute amended to require the Public Utility Commission to adopt a standardized application form for system improvement charges and complete related rulemaking by September 1, 2026, applying only to applications filed on or after that date. Members discussed concerns about water wholesalers using the process to delay cases and drive up costs, and the need for more transparency and PUC resources. The committee voted to adopt the substitute and report SB 740 favorably. After returning to the earlier items, the committee voted SB 1248 out favorably and recommended it for the local and uncontested calendar, and voted SCR 13 out favorably as well. The committee then recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• The PUC will consider the following five requirements as part of the public-interest determination: one
• and four, the results of a reliability assessment conducted by ERCOT and any other information the PUC
• We would prefer it to be at the PUC.
• We're not opposed to working with universities to... ...we would prefer it to be at the PUC.
• Speak now or forever hold your peace. ...we would prefer it to be at the PUC.

Bills: HB132, HB 11, HB14, HB132, HB1584, HB1606, HB5061, HB 1041, HB2286

Keywords: nuclear energy, Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, energy policy, regulation repeal, state energy strategy, licensing, reciprocity, regulation, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, interstate agreements, advanced reactors, energy security, grant programs, HB 132, Texas Government Code Chapter 418, Public Information Act, confidential records, homeland security, foreign adversary, terrorism

Summary: The committee first took up pending business and quickly reported several measures favorably, including HB 12, SB 1361, SB 1705, SB 1749, SB 1897, SB 2344, SB 2566, HB 3809, and HB 4215, with most sent to the Local and Uncontested Calendar. HB 12’s substitute clarified a limited midterm review of regulatory agencies tied to Sunset Commission recommendations. SB 2696’s substitute changed med spa regulation from a license to a certificate, with training instead of an exam, plus background checks, continuing education, and two-year renewals. HB 3809 dealt with battery energy storage decommissioning and recycling, and HB 4215 was reported without a substitute. SB 1978, concerning interconnection of electric facilities in ERCOT and federal jurisdiction concerns, was reported out on a 5-3 vote after debate, but then the chair later announced the bill was withdrawn and left pending subject to the call of the chair. HB 1899 was also reported favorably, with one nay. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 14, the advanced nuclear energy bill. Senator Schwertner described it as creating a Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, a nuclear permitting coordinator, a development fund, a completion grant program, and a workforce development program. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including representatives from Fermi America, Dow/X-energy, CPS Energy, Paragon Energy Solutions, Bridge to Nuclear, Aalo Atomics, and the Texas Association of Business, argued that Texas should lead in advanced nuclear, citing future baseload demand, data centers, industrial power needs, supply-chain development, and long-term energy diversification. Opponents, including Public Citizen, Texas Nuclear Watchdogs, Sierra Club, and individual citizens, argued the bill would subsidize unproven, expensive technology, create grants rather than loans, and expose taxpayers to major risk while doing little to meet near-term energy needs. Several members questioned whether the state should fund projects that may not produce grid power for years, and whether the bill’s grant structure and new office were justified. The committee also heard HB 5061, which Senator Schwertner said would prohibit unethical surveillance and misuse of confidential information by state contractors, create a confidential reporting system through the State Auditor’s Office, authorize Texas Rangers investigations, protect whistleblowers, and impose penalties including contract termination, fines, and contracting bans. No public testimony was offered, and the bill was left pending. HB 132, sponsored by Senator Hughes, would extend confidentiality protections for sensitive information to hostile acts by foreign adversaries; it was also left pending after no testimony. HB 1584 was then laid out, with Senator Schwertner explaining it would require utilities to maintain and update priority restoration lists for critical facilities after Hurricane Beryl exposed communication failures, but the transcript cuts off before any action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• John itur or someone from the PUC.
• >> I got a question for PUC. >> Senator Dart. >> Thanks. Sure.
• >> I got a question for PUC. >> Senator Dart. >> Thanks. Sure.
• >> I got a question for PUC. >> Senator Dart. >> Thanks. Sure.
• >> I got a question for PUC. >> Senator Dart. >> Thanks. Sure.

Bills: SB2671, SB2902

Keywords: permit processing, permitting reform, county permits, development permits, building permits, land use, construction delays, housing development, infrastructure development, county workforce, differential pay, salary incentive, performance bonus, recruitment and retention, expedited hiring, vacancy rates, permit backlog, government modernization, county mayor, county council

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs heard two measures. SB 2671, relating to essential permitting positions, drew no oral testimony beyond written comments from the Department of the Attorney General and the Office of Planning. The chair said the bill was intended to make government more efficient and reduce red tape in the permitting process. SB 2902, relating to renewable energy, received testimony from the Division of Consumer Advocacy, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, Kauai Island Cooperative, Bright Saver, and 350 Hawaii. Supporters described the bill as a way to expand access to plug-in or balcony solar, lower electricity bills, improve resilience, and broaden access for renters and apartment residents. Several testifiers urged amendments to avoid limiting the measure to condominiums, to remove condominium board approval language, and to eliminate utility or PUC registration requirements. The PUC said registration could help with safety, linemen protection, and circuit hosting-capacity concerns, and noted that improper installation or oversizing could create problems. After a brief recess, the committee voted to recommend both bills for passage with amendments and deferred each to April 19, 2042. The recommendations were adopted without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• With me today is Connie Corona, the PUC. PUC's Executive Director. Mr.
• Again, I'm Connie Corona, Executive Director of the PUC.
• Pages two and three have some highlights. from the PUC Sunset Bill last session.
• Senate Bill 1929, last session, required large crypto miners to register with the PUC.
• Bill 2555 from last session authorized electric utilities to file resiliency plans with the PUC.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, and if the utility fails to execute their plan, What does PUC do about it?
• At this time, has the Railroad Commission asked the PUC to ask a utility to sever power anywhere?
• For the PUC. Thank y'all for hanging around. I appreciate your testimony.
• efforts before the PUC has resulted in 2.2 billion dollars in savings.
• Is it PUC? Who is traffic copping? That list of applications, do you know?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have to go to the PUC even after you approve this bill for a financing order, I believe.
• PUC, can you provide further explanation as to the bankruptcy protections?
• All previous fires, they're allowed to apply to their PUC to recover in rates.
• Uh, why can't this be just requested from PUC in the normal course? Why do you need to right now?
• , because the amendment would require the establishment of the mechanism to go through the PUC.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint committees heard testimony on HB 982 HD1, a wildfire-related measure aimed at creating a wildfire recovery fund and a financing structure to address future catastrophic wildfire liability. The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Division of Consumer Advocacy, and the Public Utilities Commission submitted comments and were available for questions. Supporters included IBW Local 1260, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Clearway Energy Group, Hawaiian Electric, Par Hawaii, and others, while Charter Communications and the Hawaii Association for Justice opposed or raised concerns. Life of the Land supported the bill but urged changes to the definition of a catastrophic wildfire and noted concerns about prudency review language. IBW Local 1260 asked to restore language from the original draft, and Charter warned the bill could impair existing contract and indemnity rights unless amended. A major focus of the hearing was Hawaiian Electric’s position on the HD1 version. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the original bill but objected to the HD1 requirement for an additional $500 million shareholder contribution, arguing it was not feasible and could delay or prevent the fund from operating. The company said the bill would help protect customers and improve credit ratings by creating a dedicated revenue stream and a bankruptcy-remote financing structure, which it said would lower borrowing costs over time. Members questioned how the $1 billion securitization amount was chosen, whether credit rating agencies had indicated it was sufficient, and how the bill would work in bankruptcy; Hawaiian Electric said the amount was a balance among interests, not based on a specific agency directive, and that it would follow up on bankruptcy questions. Opponents and skeptics raised concerns about liability caps, the new claims process, and unclear language on damages above the fund’s limits. The Hawaii Association for Justice argued the bill limits victims’ remedies and gives too much authority to the new entity without clear guardrails. Committee members also pressed Hawaiian Electric on comparisons to California, the feasibility of the shareholder contribution, and whether alternative capital-raising or divestiture options had been considered. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided; testimony and questioning continued with follow-up information requested from Hawaiian Electric and others.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 740 Committee Substitute lays out, adds two additional requirements applicable to the PUC
• I mean, they would just load the PUC up. file cabinets full of documents in order to get to where they
• That's kind of where the origin of this is, and hopefully PUC will have more leverage to push it back
• I think 4.0 PUC has to take up that pattern and move forward with it.
• I'd like to point out one thing on here is we do continue to give more and more to PUC.

Bills: SCR13, SB1248

Keywords: water rights, treaty compliance, Rio Grande, agriculture, drought, international water, Texas water supply, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, TPWD, harvest reports, wildlife harvest data, public information act, open records, confidentiality, hunter privacy, angler data, game animals, game birds, fur-bearing animals, nongame animals

Transcript Highlights:

• 327, dealing with things that were required to do legally when it comes to municipalization at the PUC
• At the PUC or at local cities and things like that.
• What kinds of things would be addressed by going through the PUC through Rule 21?
• Also, the PUC already engages in these types of reporting and processes.
• Section 2, by the way, is a requirement on the PUC, not the utilities.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard several bills focused on utility affordability, transparency, clean energy, and consumer access. SB 327 would bar investor-owned utilities from using ratepayer funds to oppose municipal utility formation and would clarify the Public Advocates Office’s authority to inspect utility books; supporters framed it as a ratepayer protection and accountability measure, while utilities and industry groups raised concerns about municipalization language and data-request procedures. After discussion about the scope of the bill and existing guardrails from prior legislation, the committee voted SB 327 out on a due pass as amended basis to Appropriations, with the roll left open and later updated to 12-2. SB 1350, a hydrogen bill, would allow renewable portfolio standard credit for power plants using green hydrogen in turbines. The author and supporters said it would help California meet clean energy goals, support the Lancaster hydrogen project, and create jobs, while opponents, especially environmental groups, warned about NOx emissions, the risk of paper transactions, and the need for stronger safeguards on feedstocks and delivery. Members discussed amendments already taken and the need for continued work on environmental protections; the committee passed the bill 14-0 to Natural Resources. SB 868 would create a framework for plug-in or balcony solar devices for renters and others without rooftop solar, with safety standards and a cap on system size. Supporters said it would lower bills and expand access to solar, while utilities and some others raised safety and backfeed concerns and asked for more review through existing interconnection processes. The author and witnesses said the devices are small, non-exporting, and covered by safety certifications; the committee approved the bill 17-0, later updated to 18-0, and sent it to Appropriations. SB 1233 would require additional disclosure about utility cash on hand, capital structure, and related information in existing reports to help inform rates and affordability. Utilities opposed the measure as duplicative of existing proceedings and potentially delay-inducing, while supporters said it would improve transparency for ratepayers. The committee passed SB 1233 10-3 to Appropriations. The committee also dispensed with the consent calendar, passing the remaining consent items, including SB 925, SB 667, SB 952, SB 742, SB 929, SB 943, and SB 1138, and noted that SB 905 had been pulled from the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to thank the PUC and the DOT for working on this matter before us, and I think we're still very
• has been struggling to do to the proper authorities and allowing the PUC to really take focus on our
• to<01:01:01.599> thank<01:01:02.000> um<01:01:02.160> the<01:01:02.400> PUC
• and the DOT for want to thank um the PUC and the DOT for working<01:01:04.079> on<01:01:04.319
• to really take focus on our the PUC to really take focus on our energy<01:01:24.559> resiliency

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint Transportation and Public Safety hearing considered HCR 121/HR 117, which asks federal and state transportation and defense agencies to coordinate on expanding Kle Pass as an emergency exit route. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support from state departments and community representatives, though one member raised equity concerns about other communities needing similar access solutions. Both committees recommended passage, and the resolutions were adopted in tandem. The Transportation Committee then heard a series of road safety and mobility resolutions. These included HCR 43 on studying highway patrol and speed cameras in speeding hotspots; HCR 52/HR 48 on a sidewalk between Iroquois Point and Ewa Beach; HCR 57/HR 53 on traffic calming around Piywa Street in Waipahu; HCR 112/HR 108 on a pedestrian-first policy; HCR 129/HR 125 on safety and congestion near Haiku Elementary; HCR 131/HR 127 on rural air service and short takeoff/landing aircraft; HCR 136/HR 130 on reflective gear for pedestrians at night; HCR 137/HR 131 on school crosswalk safety at Kipapa Elementary; HCR 177/HR 173 on a summer streets pilot; and HR 43 on an emergency access road on the YNI coast. Testimony was mixed but generally supportive of pedestrian and school safety measures, while some transportation and bicycling advocates opposed the reflective-gear resolution as placing too much responsibility on pedestrians rather than improving the built environment. During decision-making, the committee advanced all measures. HCR 43 was amended to specify the study should include district court impacts. HCR 131/HR 127 was amended to shift the rural air service study from the Legislative Reference Bureau to the Department of Transportation. HCR 136/HR 130 was amended to change the reflective-gear proposal from a requirement to an encouragement. HCR 137/HR 131 and HCR 45/HR 38 were also advanced with technical or clarifying amendments, and the remaining resolutions were passed as is. Several members noted reservations or no votes on the reflective-gear measure, but all recommendations were ultimately adopted and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Bill 790 allows the PUC to create a simple certified resolution process for tenant complaints about a
• Senate Bill 790 allows the PUC to create a simplified complaint resolution process for water and wastewater
• This expedited dispute resolution process will be subject to PUC rulemaking.
• The adopted process may ultimately allow the PUC to settle a dispute through an online portal or without
• In the hearing, we do have a resource witness from the PUC here. Thank you, Senator.

Bills: SB480, SB767, SB790, SB971, SB1066

Keywords: water resources, interlocal contracts, local government, collaboration, planning activities, wildfire response, firefighting equipment, emergency services, state database, Texas Forest Service, customer complaints, Public Utility Commission, water service, complaint process, utility regulation, SB 971, Texas Water Assistance Program, Water Code, rural political subdivision, rural water

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, what, what does, uh, what is, what's PUC do about it?
• At this time, has the railroad Commission asked the PUC to, to ask a utility to sever power anywhere?
• For the PUC. Thank y'all for hanging around. I appreciate your testimony.
• efforts before the PUC has resulted in $2.2 billion in savings.
• Is it PUC? Who, who is traffic copying that list, um, of applications? Do you know?

Transcript Highlights:

• Does the PUC have any direction on this?
• Does the PUC have any direction on this?
• Next to testify we have the PUC, John Eamonn Moura, with comments in person.
• /c><00:52:53.400> alternative PUC may adopt alternate alternative PUC may adopt alternate alternative
• PUC,<00:53:57.240> John<00:53:57.520> E.

Bills: SB3326

Keywords: renewable energy, energy storage, cost reduction, public utilities commission, Hawaii energy policies, 910, house, all

Summary: The joint committees on Energy and Environmental Protection and Labor heard SB 3326, a bill concerning a study of separating transmission from generation in Hawaii’s electric system. Testimony was largely opposed. Life of the Land argued that true separation on an isolated island grid has not been shown to work anywhere and said the bill would waste taxpayer money. Hawaiian Electric and the Public Utilities Commission also opposed the measure, saying Hawaii already uses competitive bidding for new generation, that the bill would add cost, complexity, and reliability risks, and that a new study would duplicate prior work. In response to questions, the PUC explained its existing competitive bidding framework and said it had not seen an island system fully restructure in this way. The chair then amended the bill’s intent to require the PUC to open a proceeding for an independent, comprehensive analysis of the state’s energy pathways, including cost reduction, financial risk, state energy goals, and reliability, rather than narrowly focusing on separation. Both committees voted to pass SB 3326 SD2 with amendments, with the Energy committee adopting the recommendation unanimously and the Labor committee adopting it with one reservation and two no votes. The Energy and Environmental Protection Committee then took up SB 2497 SD2, which would require electric utilities other than cooperatives to provide transparent, publicly accessible customer bill impact analyses and annual reports to the PUC. The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and the PUC offered comments, with the PUC supporting the intent. Life of the Land said the proposed disclosure requirements would be too complex for most ratepayers to use meaningfully, while Hawaiian Electric said the bill could raise costs and slow projects, though it acknowledged some of the language changes and said much of the information is already available through existing planning and regulatory processes. Hawaii Clean Power Alliance and one individual testified in support. No vote was taken on SB 2497 SD2 during the excerpt. The committee also heard SB 3183 SD2, which would bar higher-income taxpayers from claiming the renewable energy technologies income tax credit for certain residential solar systems and would change refundability rules. The Department of Taxation, the Hawaii State Energy Office, and the Tax Foundation offered comments, while the Hawaii Solar Energy Association and numerous companies and individuals opposed the bill. Opponents raised concerns about impacts on financing models and the solar market. Members asked the Department of Taxation for data on how credits are claimed by homeowners versus third-party owners and on the refundability of the credit; the department said it did not have the information immediately available but would follow up. The chair indicated decision-making would likely be deferred to allow further review, and no vote was taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• A PUC.
• <01:46:20.880> a<01:46:21.119> PUC.
• >> Is there a sense of urgency by the PUC? >> Oh, yeah.
• that the PUC is holding them to account to do the best that they can?
• provision that any contract the PUC provision that any contract the PUC approved<02:36:24.800>

Bills: HB2284

Keywords: energy assistance, low-income households, electricity costs, Hawaii home energy assistance program, energy efficiency, 910, house, all

Summary: The hearing covered House Bill 2284, which would create the Hawaii Home Energy Assistance Program in the Department of Human Services to help qualifying households pay energy bills and direct the Public Utilities Commission’s public benefits fee administrator to provide information and assistance to recipients. Testimony from the Division of Consumer Advocacy, DHS, and the Public Utilities Commission was in support. A committee member asked about how the program would interact with existing TANF-related energy assistance and whether rules could be adjusted to avoid duplicative benefits; DHS said logistics would need to be worked out and that the agencies would make the rules. The committees noted the bill’s $1.5 million appropriation and moved it forward with amendments, including blanking out amounts and noting them in the committee report. Both committees voted to pass HB 2284 with amendments, with the recommendation adopted. The committee then heard House Bill 2486, relating to plug-in or balcony solar. DCCA, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission stood on prior testimony in support of the bill’s intent. Multiple advocates and organizations, including Carbon Cashback Hawaii, 350 Hawaii, Bright Saver, Sierra Club of Hawaii, and others, testified in support, arguing that plug-in solar would lower electricity bills, expand access for renters and condo residents, and reduce emissions. Several speakers urged the committee to remove or avoid registration, reporting, feed-in tariff, interconnection fee, and other requirements they said would create barriers. Bright Saver testified that the systems are safe and would not back-feed during outages. No vote was taken on HB 2486 during the excerpt. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1568, which would prohibit the importation or storage of LNG in the state and the construction of related infrastructure. State agencies including the Consumer Advocate, Hawaii State Energy Office, Public Utilities Commission, and Hawaiian Electric opposed the bill, with the Energy Office arguing LNG would perpetuate oil use on Oahu and expose the state to price volatility. Supporters included Life of the Land, Sierra Club of Hawaii, Greenpeace Hawaii, 350 Hawaii, Earthjustice, Our Hawaii, and others, who argued LNG would lock Hawaii into another fossil fuel dependency, create major infrastructure costs and safety risks, and undermine the state’s renewable energy goals. Several testifiers cited climate and affordability concerns and urged the committee to reject LNG. The excerpt ends during testimony on HB 1568, before any committee action or vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• stop and I'll answer other questions, but may I suggest let's talk about how now to take what is the PUC
• And even the CPC's affordability ratio calculator, which is a tool the PUC developed to assess utility
• That's a million more, which is sort of the informal target that the PUC has.
• That's a million more, which is sort of the informal target that the PUC has.
• We are a party in that proceeding before the PUC. So we'll see how it unfolds.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee held an informational hearing on the state of broadband affordability in California. Chair Tasha Berner said the committee was examining how broadband prices, access, and affordability are affecting households, especially after the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program and amid concerns about federal resistance to state broadband regulation. She noted the committee’s continued interest in policy options for 2026 and referenced prior legislation, including AB 353, that would have required affordable home internet as a condition of doing business in California. Industry witnesses from U.S. Telecom and CTIA argued that broadband and wireless prices have generally fallen in real terms even as inflation and other household costs have risen, citing competition, infrastructure investment, and faster speeds as the main drivers. They said California’s higher costs are tied to permitting delays, taxes, copper theft, and legacy obligations such as COLR requirements, and they urged the Legislature to preserve market incentives, reduce fees and regulatory burdens, and support infrastructure deployment. They also discussed fixed wireless access, federal BEAD funding, and Universal Service Fund reform, arguing that more entities benefiting from networks, including tech platforms, should contribute to support programs. Consumer and public-interest witnesses presented a different view, saying California still has a serious affordability and adoption problem, especially for low-income households. Sunny McPhee of the California Emerging Technology Fund said broadband adoption has improved dramatically over time, but about 500,000 households remain offline or underconnected and many low-income households still pay above the FCC affordability benchmark. Ernesto Falcon of the CPUC Public Advocates Office said California’s market is losing its competitive edge, with prices higher than in other states and meaningful price pressure coming mainly from fiber competition at the gigabit tier. He said roughly 4.8 million Californians are limited to one gigabit option and estimated that more competition could save consumers more than $1 billion annually. Both witnesses emphasized the need for stronger transparency, targeted subsidies, and a permanent affordability solution, including extending and refining the CPUC broadband Lifeline pilot and advancing SB 716. Public commenters, including representatives from cable providers, nonprofits, and digital equity organizations, largely supported SB 716 and a permanent broadband affordability program. Several urged the committee to remove a cap on the Lifeline program, expand the CPUC pilot, and invest in digital navigators, outreach, and enrollment assistance. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, after the chair thanked the witnesses and public commenters for their testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lyft is a file rates with the PUC.
• PUC, do you have a question? Sure. Yes.
• So, as it stands right now, motor carrier law is under jurisdiction of PUC or DOT? PUC.
• of PUC or DOT? of PUC or DOT?
• <01:09:01.640> I the PUC, and motor carrier law. I the PUC, and motor carrier law.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Transportation Committee met on March 31 and heard a series of resolutions focused on roadway safety, transportation access, and infrastructure coordination. Early measures included HCR 104/HR 96 on advancing coastal trails on O‘ahu’s North Shore and HCR 63/HR 57 on clarifying responsibility for Honouliuli Bridge and addressing safety, wildfire, and emergency access concerns. The Department of Transportation supported both, and a resident testified that the Honouliuli bridge is a single-lane emergency replacement on state land that has limited access for fire protection, heavy vehicles, permits, and repairs. DOT said it was working with DLNR and that jurisdiction may ultimately lie with the County of Maui, with research ongoing. The committee also heard HCR 62/HR 56 on alternative vegetation management along Hana Highway, HCR 43/HR 39 on raised crosswalks near Ala Wai Elementary, and HCR 52/HR 48 on integrating the safe system approach into county road design; these drew support testimony and no opposition. The committee then considered HCR 120/HR 112 on regulating transportation network companies under motor carrier law. DOT and the Public Utilities Commission offered comments, while Lyft opposed, arguing the legislature already created a TNC-specific framework in 2022 and that motor carrier law is not a good fit for app-based ride platforms. In questioning, PUC explained that TNCs would fall under both PUC motor carrier jurisdiction and DOT permitting, and DOT said it would follow up on enforcement questions. Members also discussed HCR 119/HR 111 on an indirect traffic disruption grant program, with the chair asking DOT to clarify how it enforces penalties when contractors or others fail to follow road closure requirements. Other measures discussed included HCR 96/HR 88 on moving to a demerit-point driver licensing system, which DOT supported; HCR 128/HR 120 on coordinating capital improvement planning for Hawaiian Home Lands developments, which DOT and DHHL supported; HCR 127/HR 119 on a state highway police force, which DOT supported; and HCR 125/HR 117 on a statewide plan for derelict utility poles and lines, which drew support from DOT, Hawaiian Electric, and Hawaiian Telcom, with DOT acknowledging it lacks current statutory authority to force immediate removal. The committee also heard HCR 58/HR 54 on school crosswalk safety for Mililani Elementary, HCR 55/HR 51 on using artificial intelligence to mitigate traffic and improve road safety, and HCR 54/HR 146 on expanding the Hele-On Shared Ride program on Hawai‘i Island. Supporters of the Hele-On measure said expanded service would help rural residents, kupuna, and people with disabilities reach medical appointments and daily activities, while noting cost and technology-access concerns; they said missed or delayed appointments are a real issue in remote areas. The final item discussed in the excerpt was HCR 64/HR 58 on minimizing rumble strip dimensions on Kūhiō Highway on Moloka‘i, with DOT saying it had already removed some strips where large emergency vehicles were affected on narrow curves.

Transcript Highlights:

• It requires the PUC to establish clear performance metrics on things we should know, like reliability
• OEIS and the PUC have both taken steps to, I guess, encourage us to underground where necessary, but
• The bill in print directs the PUC to assign a reduced return on equity for the identified categories
• So we view that provision as conflicting with where we want the PUC to finish that work.
• The PUC certainly can figure that out if they were to implement the provisions of this bill.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 804, the Hydrogen Pipeline Safety Act, from Senator Arreguín. He said the bill would designate the State Fire Marshal as the safety regulator for intrastate hydrogen pipelines and require hydrogen-specific standards, while not mandating any pipeline construction or bypassing environmental review. Supporters included labor groups, utility employees, and the City of Burbank, while Air Products opposed unless amended, citing concerns about the bill’s specificity, fee structure, and the need for a hydrogen-specific rulemaking process. The committee discussed safety, fees, and regulatory certainty, and later passed SB 804 on a 9-0 vote to Emergency Management with commitment to take amendments. The committee then took up SB 905 by Senator Becker, aimed at reducing electricity rates by changing utility incentives. The bill would tie part of executive compensation to keeping rates below inflation, require more performance metrics, and allow the CPUC to consider lower returns on equity for certain lower-risk investments and alternative financing options. Support came from consumer, environmental, agricultural, and large energy user groups, while Southern California Edison, CalChamber, PG&E, and utility labor groups raised concerns that the bill could reduce investment, create regulatory uncertainty, and raise borrowing costs. After extensive discussion about utility affordability, wildfire costs, and capital markets, the committee passed SB 905 on a 7-1 vote to Appropriations. SB 913, also by Senator Becker, would create a clearer pathway for distributed energy resources such as batteries and smart thermostats to participate in the resource adequacy market and compete with utility-scale resources. Supporters said the bill would better use existing grid capacity, lower costs, and build on the state’s Demand Side Grid Support Program; PG&E opposed unless amended, saying the use case was not yet proven and was already being addressed in other rulemakings. After the committee accepted amendments, one opposition group moved to neutral and another said it might do so after reviewing the changes. The bill passed 8-0 to Appropriations and was placed on call. Several other measures were heard and advanced, including SB 1196 on faster utility hookups for small energization projects such as ADUs and EV chargers, SB 931 reauthorizing the Diablo Canyon Essential Services Mitigation Fund through 2028, SB 1158 reducing the frequency of joint reliability assessments from quarterly to twice yearly, and SB 1245 directing further study of California’s gasoline market and potential use of non-CARBOB fuel during supply disruptions. SB 1196 and SB 931 both passed with broad support and no opposition after amendments, SB 1158 passed without testimony, and SB 1245 drew strong support from consumer and environmental advocates but opposition from fuel industry and business groups concerned about costs, confidentiality, and fuel standards.

Transcript Highlights:

• It requires the PUC to establish clear performance metrics on things we should know, like reliability
• OEIS and the PUC have both taken steps to, I guess, encourage us to underground where necessary, but
• The bill in print directs the PUC to assign a reduced return on equity for the identified categories
• So we view that provision as conflicting with where we want the PUC to finish that work.
• The PUC certainly can figure that out if they were to implement the provisions of this bill.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and with the PUC, uh John Itamura, the chair and commissioner of the PUC, along with um Jodi Endochai
• :05.760> along chair uh and commissioner of PUC along chair uh and commissioner of PUC along with
• So PUC is funding the money goes through PUC to consumer advocate, correct?
• >> The ASO for the PUC.
• So PUC provides the specific to um DCA.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In an Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing just a couple of months ago, the PUC reported that they are
• The PUC recently adopted changes to G.O. 131-D.
• Our bill was this big, and the cost increased by sixfold because the PUC does not want to do things to
• Our bill was this big, and the cost increased by sixfold because the PUC does not want to do things to
• If this bill passes and you direct utilities and the PUC to securitize this and everything else that's

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard two bills focused on electricity affordability and utility costs. AB 745, by Assembly Member Irwin, would restructure the California Climate Credit by shifting it from lump-sum payments to direct reductions in volumetric electricity rates and moving the credit to the summer months when bills are highest. The author and UC Santa Barbara economist Dr. Kyle Meng argued this could significantly lower summer rates and better help households during extreme heat. Supporters, including UCS, NRDC, and some labor representatives, favored the concept, with some urging that the gas climate credit also be redirected. No opposition testimony was presented, and the bill passed 18-0 to the floor. The committee then considered AB 825, also presented as an affordability package aimed at reducing electric bills by addressing wildfire mitigation costs, transmission financing, permitting delays, and a review of ratepayer-funded programs. The bill would authorize securitization for undergrounding expenses, remove the first $15 billion in undergrounding capital investments from the rate base for return purposes, create a public transmission financing program using Proposition 4 funds and IBank support, revive the California Power Authority as a public sponsor, and establish a task force to review energy efficiency and demand response programs. The author and witness Matt Friedman of The Utility Reform Network said the bill could save ratepayers billions over time through lower-cost public financing and securitization. Testimony on AB 825 was mixed. Support came from several consumer and clean-energy groups, while utilities and labor raised concerns about the bill’s impact on utility financial stability, wildfire fund participation, liability, and whether the $15 billion securitization cap could discourage undergrounding. Some witnesses also objected to the task force’s potential effect on energy efficiency and demand response programs. Committee members discussed the need to balance affordability with utility creditworthiness and wildfire safety, and several asked for more analysis of market impacts and liability issues. Despite those concerns, AB 825 passed the committee 13-0 and was sent to the floor.