Transcript Highlights:

• It clarifies that when regulators set utility rates, promoting affordable services for Minnesotans should
• <00:35:34.880> rates,<00:35:35.520> promoting<00:35:35.920> affordable utility rates
• ' rate of return, every investor-owned utility is entitled to a reasonable rate of return.
• rate of return investor owned utilities rate of return every<00:38:10.720> investor<00:38:11.119
• What it says is that, essentially, for the PUC-regulated utilities, when the PUC approves their rates

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

Summary: The committee approved the March 5, 2026 minutes and then took up House File 3458, as amended, which would exempt tribes from utility exclusive rights and assigned service areas. The bill’s author and the Upper Sioux community chairman said the measure was prompted by a dispute over a solar project at the tribal casino and argued the issue is really about tribal sovereignty, not solar, citing tribal civil regulatory authority and prior court cases. The amendment A1 was adopted before testimony. Testimony was split. Chairman Kevin Jensel of the Upper Sioux community strongly supported the bill, saying the tribe should not be forced to follow utility service territories and that the state should correct a long-standing omission in law. Derek Mo of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association opposed the bill, warning it would undermine the regulatory compact, reliability, long-term planning, and financing for electric service, especially in tribal areas. Justin Johns of East Central Energy also opposed the bill, but emphasized that many cooperatives have productive tribal partnerships and said his co-op has worked successfully with the Mille Lacs Band on solar, resilience, and workforce efforts; he cautioned that removing service obligations could leave difficult-to-serve areas underinvested. Members discussed whether the Public Utilities Commission process already underway should be allowed to resolve the dispute and whether the bill’s scope could extend beyond the current solar issue. The chair responded that the bill was a legislative approach to a problem that had not been resolved and said the amendment addressed concerns about removing the obligation to serve. A roll call was requested, and the committee voted to re-refer House File 3458, as amended, to the General Register.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, in some cities, municipally owned utilities adopt increased rates charged to tax-exempt entities
• House Bill 685 keeps a municipality from adopting an increased rate for water or sewer utility service
• for other entities that receive comparable utility service.
• A key concern is that some water utilities continue to allow the deterioration of drinking water wells
• There's been two rate increases. We're willing to pay for good water.

Bills: HB630, HB685, HB1318, HB2692

Keywords: outboard motors, certificate of title, vessel regulation, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, marine documentation, HB 685, municipal utility rates, water rates, sewer rates, local government code, rate discrimination, tax-exempt entities, sales tax exemption, ad valorem tax exemption, nonprofit organizations, charitable organizations, municipal water service, municipal sewer service, utility billing, public utilities

Summary: The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs met with no quorum at the start, but later reached quorum and took up several bills. House Bill 2692, codifying the San Antonio River Authority’s enabling legislation and making non-substantive modernization changes, received brief supportive testimony from the River Authority and was left pending before later being voted out favorably. House Bill 685, which would prevent municipalities from charging higher water or sewer rates to tax-exempt entities than comparable customers, also drew support and was reported favorably. House Bill 1318, clarifying compensation issues when a municipality decertifies part of a retail water utility’s service area, was heard without opposition and passed out of committee. House Bill 630, exempting certain older outboard motors from title requirements, likewise passed and was placed on the local and uncontested calendar. The committee spent the most time on Senate Bill 2497, relating to filtration systems for certain public drinking water systems. Senator Zaffirini described the bill as a response to ongoing secondary water quality complaints, while TCEQ testified that such contaminants are aesthetic rather than health-based and that the water remains safe to drink if primary standards are met. The Texas Rural Water Association opposed the bill as written, arguing filtration may not solve most water quality problems and could be costly for small systems, while a consumer witness from Floresville supported it and described repeated rate increases and brown water after a filtration system was removed. Members discussed narrowing the bill through a committee substitute and emphasized the need for flexibility and technical expertise; the committee substitute was adopted and the bill was reported favorably, with Senator Kolkhorst later asking to be recorded as voting no. The committee also heard Senate Bill 2850, which would create a pollinator task force to study habitat loss, public education, and best practices for protecting bees and other pollinators. Senator Menendez and invited witness Erica Thompson of Texas BeeWorks highlighted major colony losses and the economic importance of pollinators to Texas agriculture, and Environment Texas and the Texas Beekeepers Association supported the measure. Members discussed monarch butterflies, native grasses, milkweed, and conservation efforts, and the bill was reported favorably and sent to the local and uncontested calendar. After testimony, the committee also voted out several pending items, including House Bill 5560 with a committee substitute addressing water-loss penalties and infrastructure improvements, and then recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, in some cities, municipally owned utilities adopt increased rates charged to tax-exempt entities
• House Bill 685 prevents a municipality from increasing the rate for water or sewer utility service on
• other entities that receive comparable utility service.
• A key concern is that some water utilities continue to allow the...
• Water contaminants and repeated excessive rate increases.

Bills: HB630, HB685, HB1318, HB2692

Keywords: outboard motors, certificate of title, vessel regulation, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, marine documentation, HB 685, municipal utility rates, water rates, sewer rates, local government code, rate discrimination, tax-exempt entities, sales tax exemption, ad valorem tax exemption, nonprofit organizations, charitable organizations, municipal water service, municipal sewer service, utility billing, public utilities

Transcript Highlights:

• As a regulated utility, our rates are based on our costs.
• As a regulated utility, our rates are based on our costs.
• As a regulated utility, our rates are based on our costs.
• Current law allows utilities to collect interim rates for certain costs while the rate case undergoes
• <00:21:28.720> may capping interim rates, utilities may capping interim rates, utilities may

Bills: HF4236, HF4122, HF4377

Keywords: public utility, interim rates, utility rates, rate case, general rate case, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, PUC, rate increase cap, rate freeze, refunds, customer refunds, ratepayer protection, electric utility, gas utility, regulated utility, ratemaking, return on equity, rate base, test year, rate design

Transcript Highlights:

• our rates for 2024 and 2025.
• We did this to ensure that we balanced our rates based on cost, meaning the rates for each respective
• After doing so, we've received two appeals to the Public Utility Commission, one for 2024 rates and most
• recently for the 2025 rates.
• We respect the right of outside-city-limit customers to utilize the rate appeal process at the PUC.

Bills: HB3115, HB5671, HB5693, SB790, SB1055, SB1302, SB1504, SB1625, SB1663, SB2692

Keywords: Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater, water wells, domestic well, livestock well, exempt well, metering device, well meter, groundwater conservation district, Special District Local Laws Code, Water Code, Section 36.117, groundwater regulation, water rights, aquifer management, municipal utility, retail public utility, groundwater export, water supply contract, election

Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources heard testimony on a series of water, utility, and groundwater-related bills. Early items included HB 5693, which would let Drainage District 7 hold board elections in November of odd-numbered years when a countywide election is occurring, and HB 5671, which would update the Johnson County Special Utility District by clarifying board eligibility, allowing bond issuance, and removing redundant TCEQ approval language to reduce costs and delays. Both bills were left pending after brief testimony from bill sponsors and local witnesses. The committee also heard SB 1504, which would update the Gulf Coast Authority to allow video-conference participation in meetings, and SB 1302, aimed at closing a TCEQ permitting loophole that allowed dischargers with prior denials or suspensions to reapply through an automated process without meaningful review. SB 2692 drew substantial discussion: it would change the signature threshold for outside-city-limits customers appealing municipal utility rates to the PUC by customer class. Valero supported the bill as a way to avoid requiring large-volume users to gather signatures from unrelated residential customers, while the City of Corpus Christi opposed it, arguing that lowering the threshold to one customer could trigger expensive appeals costing $500,000 to $1 million. A PUC witness said such cases are increasing and that the agency would need additional staff under the fiscal note. SB 790, creating a simplified PUC complaint process for small water and wastewater billing disputes, and SB 1663, expanding TCEQ notice requirements for nearby residents when groundwater contamination is discovered, were also heard and left pending. Additional bills included HB 3115, clarifying that the Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District cannot require meters on exempt domestic or livestock wells; SB 1055, raising the Southeast Texas Groundwater Conservation District’s production fee cap from 1 cent to 7 cents per 1,000 gallons; and SB 1625, requiring private water and wastewater utilities to report cybersecurity incidents to TCEQ and DIR. The committee then took up pending business and adopted a substitute for SB 7, which made several changes to water fund use, eminent domain coordination, and EDAP-related provisions, and voted 10-0 to report it favorably. The committee also adopted a substitute for HB 2347, a county water conservation program bill, and reported it favorably 9-1. HB 5675 and SB 2476 were each reported favorably 10-0. The meeting concluded with adjournment.

Bills: HB3115, HB5671, HB5693, SB790, SB1055, SB1302, SB1504, SB1625, SB1663, SB2692

Keywords: Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater, water wells, domestic well, livestock well, exempt well, metering device, well meter, groundwater conservation district, Special District Local Laws Code, Water Code, Section 36.117, groundwater regulation, water rights, aquifer management, municipal utility, retail public utility, groundwater export, water supply contract, election

Transcript Highlights:

• Utilities can request a rate increase every 12 months with no cap on how much they can raise their rates
• Rate cases are a vital part of utility regulation that allow a utility to seek recovery of its reasonable
• , as it could discourage the filing of rate cases, resulting in rate shock when utilities eventually
• And the utilities routinely look to avoid rate shock.
• The PEC rules provide the formula for utility rate applicants to follow.

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:

• , El Paso Water Utilities, and the...
• We're willing to act as a utility on this issue.
• So it's part of the utilities' water loss.
• The remaining utilities are struggling.
• These other utilities also have not announced any kind of plan.

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:

• Rate cases are a vital part of utility regulation that allow a utility to seek.
• , resulting in rate shock when utilities eventually do file.
• There is not a guarantee of a rate of return for water and wastewater utilities.
• The PUC rules provide the formula for utility rate application.
• A large rate case with a lot of participants for a small utility, for some of these class D utilities

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

Bills: SB137

Keywords: sewer, wastewater, public service commission, PSC, utility regulation, private utility, regulated utility, affiliated system, consolidation, rate jurisdiction, rate setting, wastewater management entity, common ownership, control, Jefferson County Board of Health, local constitutional amendment, public utilities, Alabama Code Title 37, Alabama Code Title 22, certification

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

Transcript Highlights:

• It removes a provision requiring rate, fee, and charge parity when a municipal water or wastewater utility
• Number one, the bill essentially will require utilities to undertake a new rate study in order to comply
• So there will be time to procure a consultant to do the rate study, time to implement the rate study,
• The alternative would be for the utility to simply take the same rates, fees, and charges that it is
• could allow a utility to require connection fees, impact fees, and other rates and charges, including

Bills: S0936, S1724, S1014, S1498

Keywords: temporary door locking device, emergency safety, building code, training programs, fire exit security, utility services, municipal agreements, public meetings, rates and fees, public service commission, municipal utility, water service, wastewater service, property owners, annexation, civil action, community associations, condominium, homeowners associations, structural integrity

Summary: The Committee on Regulated Industries met with a quorum and took up four bills. First, it considered SB 1724 on municipal utility services. Senator Martin offered a late-filed delete-everything amendment that would require annual customer meetings for extraterritorial utility customers, cap use of gross utility revenues for general government at 10%, eliminate a 25% surcharge on customers outside city limits, reduce the rate differential cap from 50% to 25%, remove municipal natural gas utilities from the bill, and preserve certain existing bond-related surcharges until debt is retired or refinanced. The League of Cities raised implementation concerns about the July 1, 2026 effective date and the need for rate studies and budget adjustments. The amendment was adopted and the committee reported CS/SB 1724 favorably. The committee then heard SB 936 on temporary door locking devices from Senator McLean. The bill would define temporary door locking devices, allow them to be installed at any height, require the Florida Building Commission to add standards to the Florida Building Code, and require their use to be incorporated into safety plans, drills, and training. With no opposition or amendments, SB 936 was reported favorably. Next, the committee considered SB 1014 by Senator Mayfield, which would prohibit municipalities from refusing water or wastewater service solely because a property owner will not annex, and would require service expansion when a property is near a municipal main line, not served by another utility, and the utility has capacity. A committee amendment narrowed the bill to properties near a main line and reduced the distance threshold from 2,000 meters to one-half mile. The Florida League of Cities opposed the bill as amended, citing concerns about property size, annexation conflicts, enclave creation, and possible revenue impacts, but the bill was reported favorably. Finally, the committee heard SB 1498 on community associations from Chair Bradley. A strike-all amendment revised technical provisions on video conference recordings, turnover inspection reports, SIRS references, and electronic voting, and added two major policy changes: requiring associations to provide records to law enforcement and prosecutors and creating a second-degree misdemeanor for willful refusal, and prohibiting mandatory club or amenity fee schemes controlled by developers or third parties that generate profit beyond proportional expenses. Testimony in support described homeowner disputes involving concentrated board control, lack of transparency, and mandatory fees in communities such as Rosedale. The amendment was adopted and CS/SB 1498 was reported favorably. At the end of the meeting, Senator Bracey Davis asked to be recorded voting in the affirmative on tabs 1, 2, and 3, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 2160 places original jurisdiction over water and sewer utility rates with the Public Utility
• We would be considered a Class A utility rate case at the PUC, which would easily take 18 months.
• Their only form of recourse is to appeal that rate increase to the Public Utilities Commission.
• rate case expenses incurred in that rate case because utilities are able to recover those rate case expenses
• This bill allows customers outside the city limits to appeal their water rates to the Public Utility

Bills: SB1169, SB1285, SB1583, SB1611, SB1898, SB1976, SB2160, SB2161, SB2658, SB2661, SB2662, SB2692, SB1055, SB1359, SB2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, SB 1285, bats, bat protection, wildlife protection, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code Section 63.101, hunting bats, bat possession, bat sales, bat trade, pest control, licensed pest control professional, animal control officer

Transcript Highlights:

• rates and their service conditions for delivering service to residential and businesses.
• I don't have any investor-owned utility customers that are directly affected by it.
• If a judge won't order it, how does a utility go and cut people off?
• All utilities are working hard at this point. They've gotten the message.
• It's not going to affect their rate of return.

Bills: SB1169, SB1285, SB1583, SB1611, SB1898, SB1976, SB2160, SB2161, SB2658, SB2661, SB2662, SB2692, SB1055, SB1359, SB2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, SB 1285, bats, bat protection, wildlife protection, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code Section 63.101, hunting bats, bat possession, bat sales, bat trade, pest control, licensed pest control professional, animal control officer

Transcript Highlights:

• Investor owned utilities.
• If a judge won't order it, how does a utility go and cut people off?
• What do you do when you're the utility and you're trying to get more water?
• All utilities are working hard at this point.
• It's not going to affect their rate of return.

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, SB 1285, bats, bat protection, wildlife protection, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code Section 63.101, hunting bats, bat possession, bat sales, bat trade, pest control, licensed pest control professional, animal control officer

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to welcome everyone to our Utilities Committee meeting.
• rates.
• So that's a legal term used in the utility world, basically saying that the group that's causing extra
• They shall be subject to water impact assessments and be restricted on withdrawal rates.
• House Bill 2989 allows electric utilities to prepare a wildfire mitigation plan.

Bills: HB2989, HB3724, HB2992, HB3464, HB4246, HB3989

Keywords: high-demand facilities, electric utilities, public infrastructure, water management, taxpayer-funded subsidies, decommissioning plans, local control, citizen initiative, referendum, 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

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to focus on the utility rates.
• increases in utility rates in order to make up for any rate increase that they otherwise would have
• increases in utility rates in order to make up for any rate increase that they otherwise would have
• And it's not just tax rates; it's also utilities.
• As part of that process, USDA required the town to conduct a rate study and adjust our utility rates

Bills: HB2780, HB4029, HB4030, HCR2052

Keywords: judicial foreclosure, tax lien, redemption rights, excess proceeds, property auction, income tax, federal tax conformity, revenue analysis, legislative session, tax reporting, municipal fees, county fees, utility rates, moratorium, tax classification, local government, inflation, economic stability, tax increases, cost-of-living protection

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2780, a technical cleanup measure related to Arizona’s judicial tax lien foreclosure and excess proceeds process. The sponsor and a witness said the bill clarifies when a court should order a public sale, standardizes distribution of sale proceeds, and corrects inconsistencies left from prior reforms. No opposition was raised, and the committee approved HB 2780 unanimously on a 9-0 do pass vote. The committee then took up House Bill 4029, which would require the Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to evaluate the revenue impact of federal tax conformity changes earlier in the process, and would require the Department of Revenue to issue tax forms consistent with statute. An amendment was adopted to have OSPB and JLBC each make the evaluation and to require a governor’s report if the impact is $100 million or more, along with new reporting deadlines for DOR. Supporters argued the bill would force earlier action on conformity and prevent tax forms from diverging from statute; opponents said it added bureaucracy and could delay filing. The committee approved HB 4029 as amended by a 5-4 vote. The committee also heard House Bill 4030 and the related HCR 2052, both aimed at limiting local tax and fee increases. HB 4030 would bar municipalities and counties from adopting, imposing, or collecting increased fees, transaction privilege taxes, and utility rates from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2030. The sponsor said the measure was intended to protect taxpayers from inflation and rising local costs. Cities, counties, and utility representatives opposed the bills, warning they would hinder infrastructure financing, water and wastewater projects, road improvements, and public safety services, and could force general fund subsidies or delayed maintenance. Supporters argued local governments have seen substantial revenue growth and should be restrained from further increases. The committee did not reach a final vote on HB 4030 or HCR 2052 in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• This net metering bill is important to get the rates established for some of our smaller utility companies
• Retail rates are based on historic or embedded costs in 1983, when the Public Utility Commission established
• Retail rates are based on historic or embedded costs in 1983, when the Public Utility Commission established
• Utilities are utilizing these grid access fees.
• rates when we have average retail rates rates when we have average retail rates um<01:41:26.080>

Bills: HF845

Keywords: net metering, distributed generation, solar energy, rooftop solar, renewable energy, utility rates, electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, public utilities, Public Utilities Commission, net billing, bill credits, cost of service study, standby charge, qualifying facility, energy policy, clean energy, customer generation, interconnection, Minnesota Statutes 216B.164

Transcript Highlights:

• The recovery of legal expenses by electric and water utilities during rate proceedings.
• In Texas, utilities can only... charge customer rates approved by the PUC when a utility seeks a rate
• Rate cases are a vital part of utility regulation that allows a utility to seek recovery of its reasonable
• A utility can't function without putting those assets in rates.
• We also review rate cases. Expenses incurred by the municipally owned utilities.

Bills: SB483, SB522, SB783, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1664, SB1762, SB1856, SB1877, SB1977

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