Transcript Highlights:

• As a reminder, the original bill expands the types of consumer-owned utilities and affected market customers
• As a reminder, the original bill expands the types of consumer-owned utilities and affected market customers
• Recently, several food companies approached their utilities about electrification.
• could not place that load on their utility.
• could not place that load on their utility.

Bills: HB2537, HB2245, HB2296

Keywords: emissions, climate commitment act, environmental regulation, trade regulation, facility compliance, consumer-owned utilities, clean energy, port districts, market customers, energy transformation, distributed energy, renewable energy, energy resources, sustainability, energy policy, 904, all

Summary: The Environment and Energy Committee heard public testimony on House Bill 2537, which would revise Washington’s Climate Commitment Act treatment of emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) facilities. The bill would require Ecology’s post-2034 report to include methods for annual allowance reductions, leakage-risk adjustments, and consignment of some no-cost allowances for facility decarbonization projects. It would also add biennial emissions/product reporting, require facility decarbonization plans every four years, and tie continued no-cost allowances and penalty avoidance to those new reporting and planning obligations. The chair said the committee would not take action on HB 2537 that day, and the hearing was later closed after testimony. Supporters, including The Nature Conservancy, NRDC, Washington Conservation Action, Climate Solutions, Ecology, and Clean and Prosperous Washington, said the bill would provide needed clarity for post-2035 policy, better data on barriers to decarbonization, and a framework to keep EITEs on a path consistent with state climate goals while still addressing leakage concerns. Ecology said it generally supported the bill’s approach, though it recommended streamlining duplicative reporting and noted the work would require significant agency resources. Several supporters pointed to Quebec’s consignment model as a useful example and said the bill could help direct public funds toward real emissions reductions. Opponents and concerned parties from manufacturing, utilities, and labor—including the Association of Washington Business, WISPA, the Alliance of Western Energy Consumers, the Northwest Pulp and Paper Association, the Association of Western Pulp and Paperworkers, Food Northwest, Simplot, Kaiser Aluminum, Newcor Steel, and Cowlitz PUD—argued that the bill could increase compliance burdens, raise costs, and worsen leakage risk without solving major barriers such as electricity availability, permitting delays, and the high capital cost of industrial decarbonization. They emphasized recent facility closures and job losses, said many low-cost reductions have already been made, and urged more flexibility, better protection of confidential business information, and additional state investment in clean power and industrial upgrades. The committee also took up House Bill 2245 during the meeting, adopting a proposed substitute and voting 11-8 to report the substitute bill out of committee with a do-pass recommendation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before you is Senate Bill 6076, relating to streamlining consumer-owned utility procurement requirements
• The Pacific Northwest Utility Coordinating Committee reports a need of, The Pacific Northwest Utility
• We represent just shy of 9,000 utility workers across both investor-owned and, germane to this, consumer-owned
• utilities.
• everything, but it is a piece that will allow us to do more projects more efficiently by allowing consumer-owned

Bills: SB5984, SB6119, SB6076

Keywords: artificial intelligence, chatbots, regulation, technology, consumer protection, pollutants, tire regulation, 6PPD, environment, public safety, SB 6076, consumer-owned utilities, public utility districts, municipal procurement, competitive bidding, public works, clean energy, renewable energy, nonemitting generation, energy storage

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on three bills. SB 6076 would streamline procurement for consumer-owned utilities, especially PUDs, by raising contract thresholds and expanding bidding flexibility for clean energy, storage, transmission, and distribution projects through 2045. The sponsor and utility representatives said the changes are needed because of rising costs, supply-chain shortages, aging infrastructure, and growing electricity demand; labor representatives supported the bill as a way to keep union workers busy. No one testified in opposition, and the public hearing closed with 60 signed in pro and 3 con. The committee then heard SB 5984, a governor-request bill regulating AI companion chatbots. The bill would require disclosures that users are interacting with AI, impose special protections for minors, prohibit manipulative engagement techniques, require protocols for self-harm and suicide detection, and enforce violations under the Consumer Protection Act with a private right of action. Supporters included the governor’s office, the Attorney General’s office, privacy and child-safety advocates, parents, and researchers, who argued the bill is needed to address documented harms to children and vulnerable users. Opponents from the tech industry and free-speech groups argued the bill is overbroad, may sweep in general-purpose AI tools, and raises constitutional and implementation concerns. The hearing closed with 697 signed in pro, 219 con, and 477 other. Finally, the committee heard SB 6119 on 6PPD-containing tires. The bill would prohibit sale and distribution of tires containing 6PPD or regrettable substitutes beginning in 2035, create a mitigation fee on 6PPD tires, and dedicate revenue to Ecology, monitoring, salmon studies, and waste tire removal. Supporters, including salmon recovery groups, researchers, local government, and environmental advocates, said 6PPD-quinone is acutely toxic to coho salmon and that the bill would accelerate safer alternatives while funding mitigation. Opponents from tire manufacturers, retailers, trucking, and business groups said the bill is premature because no proven replacement is available, could raise costs, and may affect tire safety; Ecology said alternatives are still under review and the deadline may need reevaluation if no safe substitute is ready. No votes or final committee action were taken in the transcript.

Bills: SB 483, SB 522, SB 783, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1664, SB 1762, SB 1856, SB 1877, SB 1977

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

Bills: SB 483, SB 522, SB 783, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1664, SB 1762, SB 1856, SB 1877, SB 1977

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

Bills: SB 1169, SB 1285, SB 1583, SB 1611, SB 1898, SB 1976, SB 2160, SB 2161, SB 2658, SB 2661, SB 2662, SB 2692, SB 1055, SB 1359, SB 2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, groundwater management, water conservation, district planning, environmental regulation, sustainability, groundwater, conservation, fees, agricultural uses, water regulation, wastewater treatment, environmental testing, pollutants

Transcript Highlights:

• companies utilize if left to their own devices to provide dispatchable power?
• Microgrids, self-generated power stations, as we require for publicly owned utilities.
• SB 235 puts customer-owned microgrids under utility-style regulation. Good morning, Madam Chair.
• SB 235 puts customer-owned microgrids under utility-style regulation.
• SB 235 puts customer-owned microgrids under utility-style regulation, including new renewable requirements

Bills: SB78, SB235, SB22, SB310

Keywords: nuclear energy, renewable energy, sustainability, carbon emissions, energy regulation, microgrid, zero carbon resources, Public Regulation Commission, energy generation, electric utilities, motor vehicle manufacturers, licensing, dealers, franchise agreements, consumer protection, water supply, sewage improvements, environment, funding, Mora County

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 78, which would classify nuclear energy as renewable energy. Senator Thornton and supporters argued that New Mexico needs dispatchable, baseload power and that nuclear should be added to the state’s renewable portfolio standard because wind and solar are intermittent and require extensive land, mining, and battery storage. Supporters also emphasized nuclear’s zero-carbon profile, the safety record of U.S. Navy reactors, the possibility of small modular reactors, and the fact that New Mexico already uses nuclear-generated electricity from out of state. Opponents, including Senator O’Malley and Senator Charlie, argued nuclear is not renewable because it relies on finite uranium and creates long-lived radioactive waste, and they raised concerns about uranium mining impacts, waste storage, and the bill’s lack of a limiting principle. The committee voted 5-4 to do not pass the bill, with Senators Cervantes, Hamblen, O’Malley, Lopez, and Charlie voting yes on the do-not-pass motion and Senators Ezell, Scott, and Thornton voting no; the chair then explained that the vote reflected disagreement over whether nuclear should be labeled renewable, not opposition to nuclear power itself. The committee then heard Senate Bill 235, the Microgrid Oversight Act, with a committee substitute. Sponsor Senator Steinborn said the substitute would restore existing renewable benchmarks for microgrids, require large microgrids to meet zero-carbon targets by 2045, add reporting and PRC oversight, and close a loophole that could let utilities buy microgrid power and shift costs to ratepayers. Supporters, including environmental groups and community advocates, said the bill was needed to regulate large data-center microgrids such as Project Jupiter in Doña Ana County, which they said could drive major emissions, ozone, and nitrogen oxide pollution, strain water supplies, and undermine state climate goals. They also argued the bill would protect ratepayers and ensure transparency and community benefits. Opponents, including Americans for Prosperity, the Chamber of Commerce, oil and gas associations, Xcel Energy, PNM, Consumer Energy Alliance, and economic development groups, argued the bill would impose unnecessary regulation on private microgrids, slow investment, raise costs, and reduce flexibility for reliability projects and industrial development. They said microgrids are already regulated for safety and interconnection, and that the bill could discourage projects in New Mexico. In response, Steinborn said the bill was necessary because current law leaves a loophole for large polluting microgrids and because several major projects are already planned or underway. The committee heard extensive public testimony on both sides, but the transcript ends before a final vote on SB 235 is taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• companies, utilize if left to their own devices to provide dispatchable power?
• utilities.
• SB 235 puts customer-owned microgrids under utility-style regulation, including new renewable requirements
• SB 235 puts customer-owned microgrids under utility-style regulation, including new renewable requirements
• So there is a consumer protection, but this doesn't prohibit utilities from buying microgrid power or

Bills: SB78, SB235, SB22, SB310

Keywords: nuclear energy, renewable energy, sustainability, carbon emissions, energy regulation, microgrid, zero carbon resources, Public Regulation Commission, energy generation, electric utilities, motor vehicle manufacturers, licensing, dealers, franchise agreements, consumer protection, water supply, sewage improvements, environment, funding, Mora County

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:16:20.240><c> Utilities</c> foremost to protect consumers.
• Utilities foremost to protect consumers.
• utilities' rate of return, every investor-owned utility is entitled to a reasonable rate of return.
• > return</c> investor owned utilities rate of return investor owned utilities rate of return every<00
• is</c><00:38:11.839><c> entitled</c> every investor owned utility is entitled every investor owned utility

Bills: HF3458, HF3777, HF3778, HF3912

Keywords: electric utilities, service areas, Tribal lands, Minnesota statute, energy regulation, utility rates, public utilities, Public Utilities Commission, PUC, ratepayer, consumer protection, affordable energy, energy affordability, ability to pay, just and reasonable rates, rate regulation, electric rates, natural gas rates, energy conservation, renewable energy

Transcript Highlights:

• utilities or the governing body of a consumer-owned utility by October 1, 2026.
• It authorizes the UTC for investor-owned utilities or the governing body of a consumer-owned utility
• It allows a consumer-owned utility to refuse to provide electric service to a data center if the utility
• It changes the definition of consumer-owned utility under the Clean Energy Transformation Act to include
• port districts and to specify that a consumer-owned utility must have at least one customer in Washington

Bills: SB6171, SB5965, SB5982, SB6004, SB6010, SB5941, SB6050

Keywords: energy facilities, large energy consumers, regulation, environment, sustainability, retail bags, pollution, customer impact, consumer-owned utilities, clean energy, port districts, market customers, energy transformation, renewable energy, public entities, electric generation, contracting, SB 6010, Washington energy siting, EFSEC

Summary: The committee first moved into executive session on Senate Bill 5941, which would direct the State Building Code Council to exempt certain small school districts from the Washington State Energy Code requirement for onsite renewable energy systems on large new commercial buildings or additions. An amendment narrowing eligibility from districts with 1,000 or fewer students to 500 or fewer students was adopted, and the bill was then advanced from committee with a due pass recommendation to the Rules Committee. The committee then held a public hearing on Senate Bill 6171, a proposed substitute bill addressing emerging large energy use facilities, primarily data centers. Staff described provisions requiring utilities to adopt tariffs or policies to prevent cost shifts, require long-term contracts and curtailment/demand-response terms, add reporting and sustainability requirements, impose renewable energy targets, change cap-and-invest allowance treatment, and create a fee to fund energy assistance, weatherization, and higher education. The sponsor said the bill is intended to protect ratepayers, preserve grid reliability, improve transparency, and ensure data centers pay their full costs while supporting affordability and workforce investments. Testimony was mixed. Supporters included community action organizations, environmental groups, some utilities, state agencies, and student advocates, who emphasized ratepayer protection, transparency, clean energy planning, and funding for low-income energy assistance. Opponents and some local governments, ports, utilities, and industry representatives argued the bill is too prescriptive, could harm economic development and competitiveness, may conflict with existing utility practices and contracts, and could create problems with the Climate Commitment Act and CETA. No vote was taken on SB 6171, and the hearing closed with the bill left pending further committee action.

Bills: HB 346, HB 1360, HB 1510, HB 1606, HB 1804, HB 1805, HB 2156, HB 2391, HB 2767, HB 3022, HB 3044, HB 3272, HB 3293, HB 3493, HB 3809, HB 3824, HJR 110, HB 2463

Keywords: expedited service, business records, veteran-owned businesses, franchise tax, fee schedule, Texas Ethics Commission, election reporting, campaign finance, violation categorization, penalties, public disclosure, ethics, transparency, political subdivisions, administrative penalties, compliance, religious freedom, commission, government, advocacy

Bills: HB 346, HB 1360, HB 1510, HB 1606, HB 1804, HB 1805, HB 2156, HB 2391, HB 2767, HB 3022, HB 3044, HB 3272, HB 3293, HB 3493, HB 3809, HB 3824, HJR 110, HB 2463

Keywords: expedited service, business records, veteran-owned businesses, franchise tax, fee schedule, Texas Ethics Commission, election reporting, campaign finance, violation categorization, penalties, public disclosure, ethics, transparency, political subdivisions, administrative penalties, compliance, religious freedom, commission, government, advocacy

Transcript Highlights:

• Fixed income utilizing that.
• </c> utilities in the state, so they own utilities in the state, so they own everything,<00:52:11.480
• Another thing that we're able to look at is if a utility does not have enough capacity that they own
• Kentucky's own leaders have stood at the river and seen it with their own eyes.
• </c> seen it with their own eyes. seen it with their own eyes.

Bills: SB8

Keywords: utilities, public service commission, energy regulation, appointment, emergency declaration, tax increases, consumer protection, Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:51 Approval of Minutes 00:02:07 Legislator Comments 00:02:18 LIHEAP Public Hearing 00:04:19 PSC Update on RS 26 SB 8 00:32:18 WaterStep Presentation 01:04:08, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Members is Representative Metcalf's bill that allows securitization for storm costs for utilities in
• there's, there's a variety of faiths, um, including probably everybody on this diocese, all of our own
• We also. are not, uh, El Paso Electric is not a municipally owned utility.
• It is an investor owned utility and it serves the West Texas and New Mexico.
• Chair. um, if this discount were enacted, do you anticipate an increase in prices for consumers?

Bills: HB 346, HB 1360, HB 1510, HB 1606, HB 1804, HB 1805, HB 2156, HB 2391, HB 2767, HB 3022, HB 3044, HB 3272, HB 3293, HB 3493, HB 3809, HB 3824, HJR 110, HB 2463

Keywords: expedited service, business records, veteran-owned businesses, franchise tax, fee schedule, Texas Ethics Commission, election reporting, campaign finance, violation categorization, penalties, public disclosure, Texas Utilities Code, electric utility, retail electric provider, municipally owned utility, electric cooperative, vegetation management, tree trimming, line clearance, transmission line

Transcript Highlights:

• owned utilities to periodically include notice on customers' bills about how to request maintenance.
• counsel would be able to waive or invoke it based on their own individual advice.
• We utilize our park board to register our short-term rentals annually.
• I own the County Line restaurants across the state of Texas and New Mexico.
• The bill also respects the role of municipally owned utilities, allowing them to continue.

Bills: HB346, HB1360, HB1510, HB1606, HB1804, HB1805, HB2156, HB2391, HB2767, HB3022, HB3044, HB3272, HB3293, HB3493, HB3809, HB3824, HJR110, HB2463

Keywords: expedited service, business records, veteran-owned businesses, franchise tax, fee schedule, Texas Ethics Commission, election reporting, campaign finance, violation categorization, penalties, public disclosure, Texas Utilities Code, electric utility, retail electric provider, municipally owned utility, electric cooperative, vegetation management, tree trimming, line clearance, transmission line

Bills: HB346, HB1360, HB1510, HB1606, HB1804, HB1805, HB2156, HB2391, HB2767, HB3022, HB3044, HB3272, HB3293, HB3493, HB3809, HB3824, HJR110, HB2463

Keywords: expedited service, business records, veteran-owned businesses, franchise tax, fee schedule, Texas Ethics Commission, election reporting, campaign finance, violation categorization, penalties, public disclosure, Texas Utilities Code, electric utility, retail electric provider, municipally owned utility, electric cooperative, vegetation management, tree trimming, line clearance, transmission line

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a utility analyst at the Public Utilities Commission. >> Thank you. >> If I may supplement Mr.
• Need for clarification is that we've been dealing with large-scale utility or utility interconnection
• You said the utility was the main concern and the effect on the utility.
• </c> arguments is about the consumer. arguments is about the consumer.
• </c> going to be costing to the consumer. going to be costing to the consumer. &gt;&gt; Simple.

Bills: SB2033, SB2487, SB2497, SB2471, SB2829

Keywords: renewable energy, grid-ready homes, interconnection process, electric utility, energy independence, surcharge, customer access, energy storage, smart inverters, Public Utilities Commission, PUC, electric utility rates, ratemaking, performance-based regulation, performance-based incentives, performance incentive mechanisms, revenue adjustment mechanisms, cost control mechanisms, reward and penalty mechanisms, alternative ratemaking

Summary: The committee first reconvened on SB 2471 and SB 2829, both relating to the powers of artificial persons. After discussion with the Attorney General’s office and a prior Q&A period, the chair said the committee would defer decision-making again, with the intent to return with amended versions of both bills that could gain support from the administration and its lawyers. The measures were deferred to Tuesday, February 10, 2026, in Conference Room 229 at 9:30 a.m. The committee then took up SB 2180, relating to deposits of public funds. Members noted late testimony from the prior day’s joint hearing with the Housing Committee and moved to pass the bill out with amendments, including a defective effective date. The motion carried unanimously among those voting: the chair, vice chair, Senator Lamosao, and Senator Awa voted aye; Senator McKelvey was excused. The measure was adopted. A joint hearing followed on SB 2033, relating to renewable energy and a streamlined grid-ready homes interconnection process. The PUC supported the bill’s intent but raised concerns about the time, resources, and stakeholder input needed to establish the proposed process, and asked for clarification of terms such as “grid-ready homes” and the role of HERA. Hawaiian Electric said it supported the intent but opposed the proposed process and HERA funding use. The Hawaii Solar Energy Association strongly supported the bill, arguing that faster interconnection is needed to meet rooftop solar goals and lower costs over time. Testimony totaled 27 in support, two in opposition, and four with comments. Members questioned costs, consumer protections, and whether the bill would burden low- and moderate-income households; the bill’s supporters said amendments could clarify the definition of grid-ready homes and add guardrails, while acknowledging that upfront costs and interconnection costs would still need to be addressed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, I manage the municipally owned electric, water, and wastewater utilities, uh, in San Marcos.
• This bill specifically addresses Class A investor-owned utilities, also known as IOUs.
• It balances the interests of consumers and the financial viability of utilities.
• And these costs are real and the investor-owned utilities can only charge ratepayers.
• So the investor-owned utilities are, are, are, um, a private company versus a municipally owned utility

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:

• utilities (IOUs).
• utilities.
• , El Paso Water Utilities, and the...
• San Antonio Water System requires that these municipally owned utilities who exceed the water loss threshold
• The remaining utilities are struggling.

Bills: HB29, HB685, HB1633, HB1689, HB1690, HB1918, HB2010, HB2500, HB2608, HB2626, HB29

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:

• Ultimately harm both utilities and consumers.
• It balances the interests of consumers and the financial viability of utilities.
• consumer interests. place on the utility.
• The distinction between investor-owned utilities and municipally owned or other water supply corporations
• Investor-owned utilities can only charge rent.

Bills: HB29, HB685, HB1633, HB1689, HB1690, HB1918, HB2010, HB2500, HB2608, HB2626, HB29

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:

• ratepayer' on page 4, line 4, by deleting after the word 'the' and before the word 'for.' the word 'utility
• being passed on to residential, industrial, agriculture, and commercial ratepayers through higher utility
• Megan and her husband Kyle own and operate aimons breeder farm, where they are raising their two Daughters

Bills: HB2992, HB3183, HB3464, HB4170, HB4338

Keywords: HB2992, Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026, Corporation Commission, Oklahoma utilities, ratepayer protection, data centers, artificial intelligence computing, AI data centers, cryptocurrency mining, large load customer, electric rates, utility tariffs, cost causation, rate design, public power utility, municipal utility, electric cooperative, investor-owned utility, load growth, interconnection