Print đź–¨

House State Affairs met on March 18 to discuss a number of bills. This report covers all the bills the committee took up: HB 5 (Ashby), HB 10 (Paddie), HB 11 (Paddie), HB 12 (Raymond et al.), HB 13 (Paddie), HB 16 (Hernandez et al.), HB 17 (Deshotel et al.), HB 425 (K. King et al.), HB 1505 (Paddie), HB 1600 (Canales), HB 1672 (Holland), and HB 1715 (Buckley). Part one of the hearing can be found here and part two can be found here.

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

HB 1600 (Canales) Relating to the review date for certain governmental entities subject to the sunset review process

  • Canales – Extends the Sunset Review date for 18 agencies

HB 1600 is left pending

 

HB 5 (Ashby et al) (CS) Relating to the expansion of broadband services to certain areas

  • Ashby – Governor Abbott stated in the State of the State that broadband is no longer a luxury
  • This bill goes towards shared access and shared a
  • CS creates a State Broadband Office within the Comptroller’s office
  • Office will create a statewide broadband plan using granular data, not Census Data
  • Office will create a map using granular data
  • Office will administer broadband development program
  • Some areas need financial support and digital literacy training; some areas need broadband infrastructure
  • This bill is technologically “agnostic”
  • Raymond – This is an agnostic bill?
    • One of the challenges we have been working around is there are lots of ways to deliver broadband; need to do so in a way that does not favor one type of technology or provider
    • Raymond – You want people to compete, right?
    • Yes
  • Shaheen – Will someone testify to speak to the agnostic part of the bill?
    • Yes

 

Louis Acuña, Texas 2036 – For

  • This bill aims to close the digital divide; ensures the state is organized for success
  • Are many federal funds coming down specifically for broadband access
  • Texas 2036 and other entities have created the Digital Texas Coalition; will be around after the bill passes to aid in formation of the broadband plan

 

Randy Willis, Superintendent Granger ISD, Texas Rural Education Association, TASA – For

  • Pandemic has exposed the digital divide within the state
  • Notes their district 10% of students did not have internet access, and 10% of teachers did not either
  • State exams within the next few years will be required to be taken online; is a worry because of unreliable internet and lack of broadband infrastructure
  • Would like to see an increase in public school representation in the bill; rural students count
  • Howard – In terms of connectivity, part of it is getting the connectivity, but part is the adoption of it?
    • Yes; found when you bought hotspots there is only so much bandwidth and some teachers had instable internet
    • Need to look at being able to connect all zip codes with reliable internet; have a lot of providers who give different levels of services
    • Reiterates the worry concerning the move to online testing; every student, home, and school needs reliable internet
    • Our paradigm needs to shift; cannot teach like we have in the past

 

Suzi Kennon, President Texas PTA – For

  • Last session the state made strides to create a more equitable school system, now face how to make it technologically equitable
  • Provides examples of students struggling to connect and work online statewide; need is especially in rural Texas
  • Hunter – Big supporter of PTA, from the coastal side, we experienced instability like you described
  • Harless – Even in metropolitan areas, like mine, was extremely difficult for students to connect

 

Nora Belcher, Executive Director Texas E-Health Alliance, Digital Texas Coalition – For

  • Before COVID-19 most Americans had not had a virtual health encounters and providers did not provide that service
  • Last year, hundreds of providers moved to a virtual system over night; in the future, one in five visits will be virtual
  • Thanks Ashby for HB 4 and HB 5; need to have robust broadband and all of these things to work together

 

John Mason, AT&T – For

  • Will partner with policy members across the state to find a solution; have invested $8.2 billion in Texas recently
  • Creation of a broadband office and plan are critical for stakeholder input and implementation
  • Current FCC data notes there is a gap between adoption rates and subscriptions
  • Shaheen – Are geographic issues in getting internet; does AT&T have an opinion on the most effective one?
    • Hybrid approach between fiber, fixed wireless, wireless application; will vary
    • Shaheen – What about rural areas?
    • Wireless may be the most appropriate
  • Shaheen – Grant dollars are a combination of federal and state, concern is not investing in the correct type of hardware
    • Yes; when mapping is done, will be able to seek funding/bid on certain areas
  • Shaheen – Is the development office the entity who determines who wins those bids?
    • I believe so
  • Hernandez – In my area, do not have broadband access issues, but areas are reporting non access?
    • Have more affordable options for low-income households; are emergency broadband benefit by the FCC is a $3 billion allocation for people to get a $50 on their plans which will come out next month
    • Are working on project connectivity as well
    • Hernandez – Need to focus on urban as well as rural

 

Mike Hunsucker, Windstream and Texas Telephone Association – For

  • Texas Telephone Association has invested over $1 billion in rural areas to get services out there
  • Bill takes much needed action such as creating the broadband office and creation of a statewide plan
  • When a state has a plan, it increases the roll out especially in rural areas
  • Program will improve the wellbeing of the economy and the state as a whole; looks forward to working with leadership to ensure successful implementation

 

Mike Williams, President Texas Electric Cooperatives – For

  • Electric co-ops brought electricity to unserved areas and increased quality of life; this bill and rollout of broadband will do the same
  • Co-ops have provided broadband/fiber to those who have been passed over for service

 

Patrick Wade, Texas Grain Sorghum Producers – For

  • Bill’s impact on agriculture will help improve the sustainability of farms and ranches in Texas; most ranches have not internet access at all
  • Will help precision agriculture for higher yield using lower resources; will help ensure growers participate in the real-time market
  • Three provisions in particular will benefit farmers
  • Provides the office the flexibility to revise speed thresholds
  • Office can enter into third party contracts to ensure accurate mapping and an appropriate solution for specific areas
  • Office is avoiding prescribing specific technologies to have a one-size-fits-all approach

 

Jennifer Harris, Connected Nation Texas – On

  • Connected Nation works on broadband initiatives nationwide; worked initially in Texas for the 2010 state broadband initiative
  • Currently engaged in broadband data collection
  • Best practices to consider:
  • Thorough statewide plans create goals, guide investments, provide a framework for local planning efforts
  • State level funding programs positively complement existing federal initiatives particularly in high-cost areas
  • States that have their own mapping programs are often more accurate than the flawed FCC maps

 

Cathy Green, AARP – For

  • Broadband is important for AARP; provides anecdote of members who struggle to have access to services like telehealth, mental health treatment, vaccines, and income
  • Looks forward to helping in the development and implementation

 

Bill Sproull, Richardson Chamber of Commerce – For

  • Is also the chair of the Governor’s Broadband Development Council
  • Not only are there rural areas that do not have infrastructure, there is an affordability issue and aging broadband infrastructure in urban areas
  • Regional Chambers Coalition has also signed a letter to support HB 5
  • Plan needs to have regional characteristics and needs to be scalable; key is to architect deployments that will progress in capability over time

 

Richard Lawson, Verizon – For

  • Are primarily funded through private investment, but support efforts like this bill to bridge the divide in a technologically neutral way
  • State mapping language means that
  • Language could be improved by more closely aligning with the FCC mapping to avoid using state dollars on things that are already happening on a federal level
  • Another improvement would be to prohibit taxpayer overbuilding over areas where infrastructure already exists; could have a chilling effect on future private investment

 

Chance Sparks, American Planning Association – For

  • Not having a broadband plan limits economic development in rural areas and communities of color
  • Mapping component is important to better plan for better infrastructure and funding opportunities
  • Supports creating a broadband office; will give local communities a place to turn to

 

Wynn Rosser, TLL Temple Foundation, Texas Rural Funders – On

  • Are testifying “on” due to their funding position; have been working on broadband access and affordability for years
  • Broadband issues are not just in rural areas, but 90% of disconnected Texans are in rural areas
  • Texas is far behind other states in broadband planning, which disadvantages them from federal funding opportunities
  • Some zip codes in rural Texas pay over 400% for broadband that is less reliable and more slow
  • Texans need digital literacy skills and access to ensure economic vitality; notes Ward County missed out on economic growth due to their lack of access
  • Raymond – Who are other Rural Funders members? Just in East Texas?
    • Are 29 private entities, includes Methodist Healthcare, Stillwater, Carl and Flora King; are statewide, going through 501C3 process

 

Dan Finch, Texas Medical Association – For

  • Have seen the importance of broadband especially in Telemedicine; has grown by ten years in ten months
  • Only 1% of services were claimed in telemedicine in January 2020, but in April was 42%
    • October had fallen to 17-18%, believes that will be the new norm
  • Howard – Can you give a few examples of who telemedicine helped? In terms of mental health treatment, behavioral health, etc.
    • Was not solely a rural issue, but were enormous impacts in bridging that gap
    • In urban areas it helped with continuation of services even after practices were shut down
    • Notes radiology was able to be provided to rural/smaller communities
  • Howard – Before the pandemic, people were concerned with Telemedicine quality of care
    • Modernized the definition of Telemedicine in 2017, that the standard of care was the same as in-person and that the provider needed to be licensed
    • Pediatricians have reported better assessments of physical, emotional, and developmental health

 

Johnny Kampis, Taxpayer Protection Alliance – On

  • Language should specify no funding from the mechanisms should deploy infrastructure where it already exists; wastes taxpayer money and does nothing to close the divide
  • Should be allocated to the areas in true need, 1.2 million Texas do not currently have service
  • Raymond – Who are you with?
    • Taxpayer Protection Alliance, is a 501C3 from D.C.
    • Raymond – You have witnessed what in other states?
    • In Michigan, they built their own municipal broadband system; and did not get enough intake, so they attempted to get federal funds to supplement their costs
    • Raymond – As far as federal grants/funds, were there provisions in there that deal with what you are talking about?
    • Does not think so
    • Raymond – Is 1.2 million in Texas without service?
    • FCC says that
    • Raymond – Thinks it should be higher than that

 

Kevin Couch, Connect to Educate – For

  • State chapter of WISPA; provide fixed wireless to those in need with a floor of 25/3 megabits
  • Most providers are rural; are looking forward to start providing reliable broadband after mapping is completed

 

J.J McGrath, TechWave, WISPA, RDOF – For

  • ISDs, libraries, and other entities are continuously asking what the state is going to do in order to connect them; created Connect to Educate as a temporary solution
  • Most important piece is support for the system alongside infrastructure
  • Shaheen – Are a service provider?
    • Yes
  • Shaheen – Are you comfortable with the award piece of the broadband development grant program?
    • Yes
  • Shaheen – Are you comfortable with the makeup of the board? Are they technologically neutral?
    • Board did appear to be pretty neutral, but will go back to make additional comments if need be

 

Walt Baum, Texas Cable Association – On

  • Are currently building out to areas that do not have service; support this being a priority issue and support the office creating the plan
  • Broadband Funding Program should focus on underserved areas first; should have additional granularity in the mapping down to the address level
  • Would provide those shape-files, that shows address-level granularity, to the office
  • Language should be added that those already with 25/3 speeds are not eligible
  • Shaheen – The Broadband Development Program, do you have an opinion of the structure?
    • Have no objections now
    • Shaheen – You think it is fair right now? Is technology neutral?
    • Yes since it is only establishing speeds, and not the type of service
    • Shaheen – Is concerned about establishing those speeds, does not think it should be in there
    • Could be line with FCC guidelines
    • Shaheen – I would think it would need to be based upon another entity
  • Hunter – You want to start with underserved areas, what about if a hurricane blows through that causes lack of access?
    • Should be addressed in the challenge process
  • Hunter – How do you define underserved versus unserved?
    • Granularity of maps should come in to acknowledge speeds
    • Hunter – Should get with Ashby to ensure the definition of unserved is consistent

 

Daniel Gibson, TSTCI – For

  • Represent small rural providers; in a lot of rural areas, the infrastructure is there
  • Program would allow us to get to the customers outside of our service area

 

Michael Ward Jr, Austin Urban Technology Movement – For

  • Is just step one, need to address a skills gap; broadband is a barrier to increase those who are interested in technology, science and math
  • Need to address digital literacy and training the workforce; pandemic has showed the barriers of access
  • Read comments from a petition they launched in order to discuss the need of equitable access
  • Shawntrae Hart, Austin Urban Technology Movement – For

 

Ashley Harris, United Ways of Texas – For

  • Having skills to navigate new technologies is a requirement for digital connectivity; is critical because there is a middle skills job gap in the workforce
  • Hope to see digital connectivity in addition to infrastructure specifically in adoption, affordability and use; included more specific recommendations in written testimony

 

Closing

  • Ashby – Were questions regarding the funding sources; asking for state appropriations, largest source of the deployment are from the federal government
  • Ashby – Whether or not we are wasting taxpayer dollars; are guardrails to ensure it is a fiscally responsible bill
  • Ashby – Shaheen, concerning awarding grants; Comptroller will ultimately make the decision, but bill states the office may not favor a particular broadband technology
  • Ashby – In being more prescriptive in determining who can or cannot have broadband; we think that is too far, and the bill already says that we will award contracts to those in need
  • Ashby – Do not know many are unserved/underserved; numbers are based on old Census data, will have a clearer picture after we get FCC data
  • Ashby – Hunter’s comment on service is so poor, bill states if you do not have FCC minimum, eligible for funding from the program account
  • Ashby – No one has signed up against the bill, asks for favorable support
  • Raymond – Do we know how many counties have parts with no access?
    • A majority of counties
    • Raymond – Should be figured in the calculus; supports the bill
  • Shaheen – Broadband Development Program, are ethics provisions applied to this board?
    • Yes, chose the Comptroller’s office due to their transparency requirements

CS is withdrawn, HB 5 left pending

 

HB 425 (King, Ken et al.) Relating to the use of the universal service fund for the provision of broadband service in underserved rural areas

  • King – This bill was heard last session; creates a rural broadband service program
  • Only funds collected from providers who opt-in will be used for maintenance
  • USF currently collected from telecom will not be used for broadband support

 

Kevin Couch and J.J McGrath – For, not testifying

 

Carolyn Slavin, Self – For

  • A public-school librarian for Leander ISD; notes those in rural areas had difficulties in attending virtual school
  • Internet access is now a utility; would benefit all Texans
  • King – Is there a resource witness from the PUC on how the USF/ESF works?

 

Thomas Gleeson, PUC – On, Resource

  • USF assessment rate is 3.3%; cannot pay all obligations
  • King – How would the funding for this bill work?
    • PUC would establish a separate funding source
    • King – Would not affect current USF obligations? Or on shortages elsewhere
    • Correct
    • King – Unless the legislature does so, is up to the PUC to raise those rates?
    • Yes; have a current lawsuit concerning this
    • King – Can you speak to that lawsuit?
    • TCA and TSTCI sued to ask for rate to be raised so funding can pay all obligations
  • Paddie – Only at 30% because you did not raise the rate?
    • 25-30%; correct, no action was taken to raise the rate last biennium
    • Paddie – Are being sued for something the PUC is supposed to do?
    • In statute, says the PUC “shall” make all obligation

 

Closing

  • King – Infrastructure means having the same connectivity throughout the state

HB 425 left pending

 

HB 1505 (Paddie) Relating to attachments for broadband service on utility poles owned by an electric cooperative

  • Paddie – Is not ready for a vote today, is a work in progress; will have a substitute shortly
  • Is about speeding up timelines for deployment of broadband to rural Texas

 

Walt Baum, Texas Cable Association – For

  • Have over 4.5 million broadband subscribers; are for this bill as we believe it will speed up deployment of broadband in rural areas
  • When building in places with an electric co-ops, can be hurt be delays and additional costs; bill lowers barriers to entry
  • Bill does not remove attackers from individual pole attachment agreements; will not change these rates
  • Bill does not remove any obligation regarding landowner rights
  • Are not asking to pay full replacement costs, but believe some cost sharing, if applicable, makes sense
  • Timeline should be consistent with FCC rules
  • Smithee – This bill is not indented to regulate the price between the parties?
    • It does not do anything to the price we pay for attachments; is language that does talk about up-front costs if we have to replace poles
    • Smithee – Can you talk about the shared cost?
    • Bill says there will be a range if a pole is near or at the end of its useful life, the cost should be shared between attackers and the other party
  • Smithee – Purpose is to try to get broadband in rural areas, are rates regulated?
    • Our rates are not regulated, if companies are participating in RDOF, are restrictions on rates
  • Smithee – Why do we need a law to control the market forces between cable companies and co-ops? Seems like industry could be working together
    • Timelines and shot clocks of the bills do not have cost components; have been working with them

 

Robert Walker, Upshur Rural Electric – Against

  • Is promise for the bill, but takes issue with the funding impact to members, entities that receive RDOF funds, and speed it has to be done
  • Have issues with the bill because we struggle with identifying how much the pole has been paid for
  • Another issue is the recouped costs; time crunch creates an issue, asking for language in the bill for a pause for some of these time-crunch projects
  • Understands the share in some of the costs, if we are not adequately compensated, then rate payers will bear the brunt of that cost; bill does not do this fairly or accurately
  • Find cable companies do not get easements, is a land rights issue; have issues with cable companies attaching to poles without contracts, timelines may exacerbate this issue
  • Shaheen – Cannot seek reimbursement after the pole is there for a specific period of time?
    • Yes, have spoken with cable companies and Paddie about this
  • Shaheen – Is this a situation where you cannot add additional resources to expedite the timeframe? Isn’t this an opportunity for you to gain new revenue?
    • Is an option, will be opportunity to automate certain aspects
  • Raymond – This bill will provide you the opportunity to defray to costs of upgrades to your system, and is a valuable opportunity for a lot of Texans
  • Shaheen – Are no barriers in increasing prices to meet timelines?
    • No

 

Todd Baxter, Charter Communications – For

  • Bill will lower barriers to deployment and speed up the process of getting broadband to rural communities
  • Will invest approximately $586 million in rural, suburban, and urban unserved areas Texas; supplemented by the RDOF funds
  • Charter has stepped up in investment to ensure low-income Texans, teachers, students and the elderly have access; created two low-cost programs
  • Shaheen – Concern has been depreciation costs, is there a resolution for that?
    • Have had multiple meetings with co-ops and Paddie; are starting to see each other’s perspectives
    • 50% of East Texas has 10/1 megabits or less
    • Can find a solution about the depreciation issue
  • Shaheen – Is there a resolution?
    • The bill balances possible additional costs where the attachers pay; extraordinary circumstances provision in the bill also addresses this
  • Raymond – Is Texas the only state with electric co-ops? Have other states dealt with this issue?
    • No; all states are looking at this, the paradigm must shift nationwide
  • Raymond – Have other states already done something like this?
    • Some states already have regulatory/statutory authority over co-ops
    • Are paradigms we can shift
  • Raymond – Must be some kind of solution already out there
    • Trying to take the best of what is out there, and do what is best for co-ops

 

Eric Craven, Texas Electric Cooperatives – Against

  • Appreciate the chance to work things out, but have issues with the bill as filed
  • Cable industry has attempted cost shifting in other states, but have not been successful; SB 14 last session helped with broadband deployment
  • There are rules for electric cooperatives, even though other testimony disagrees with this; cable industry is notorious for not complying with pole attachment permitting processes
  • Timelines can impede the safety and reliability of the systems; bill cedes control of our systems to allow third-party entities to modify poles
  • Forces co-ops to allow any type of attachment on their poles
  • The cost shifting aspect of this bill is a huge issue for us; no other industry segment is required to pay such costs
  • Have offered a provision along the lines of what Georgia did; allows a cable company to work in the communications space to speed up the process
    • Has a penalty of 25% to create an incentive for an attacher to do so in a timely manner
  • Would be good if an affidavit were included with the application concerning easements
  • Raymond – Has your side looked at other states for examples of what to do? Is there a model state?
    • We have and we like what Georgia did; co-ops are now authorized to charge $27 in attachment, rate in Texas is around $11
  • Raymond – On the easement issue, what does that look like in other states?
    • Georgia requires an affidavit
  • Raymond – Is that feasible since Texas is on a deadline for the RDOF funds?
    • Are on RDOF funds
  • Raymond – You have already gotten permission of landowners for the most part, could put language that they object, would have to figure it out
    • After SB 14, can sit around and work things out, but others you have to go around them
  • Raymond – You are opposed because it does not address the affidavit?
    • Primarily opposed because of the safety and cost-shifting issues; is not the big objection
  • Raymond – You will be able to work this out
  • Metcalf – How do people attach to your poles without permission? Hopes coops and cable can work this out
    • Hear that it is contractors who are not properly trained, mostly just stumble upon it
    • Is wide-spread and not rare
    • Metcalf – What is being attached?
    • Could be cable, phone, fiber
    • Metcalf – What is the process to take it down?
    • Can remove it, but only if it is abandoned; have to contact the provider and the costs of that are not recouped by a pole attachment fee
    • Are concerned we will see more of that because of the pressure to get it done faster

 

Juli Blanda, Cable One West Division – For

  • Are not part of Charter or the RDOF, is one of the appointees of the Governor’s Broadband Development Council
  • Council found high cost and lengthy processes impede the path of broadband deployment
  • Bill gives attachers certainty and shortens lengthy processes and is an important step; is not currently transparency with co-ops
  • Need certainty to lessen barriers to deploy broadband especially in rural/unserved areas

 

Tom Giovanetti, Institute for Policy Innovation – For

  • Listening to previous testimony about why the system is slow, need to force change into the system
  • Have a process gap when it comes to electric co-ops, is no predictability/regulation
  • Solving the digital divide will need more than just this bill, but is a good first step
  • FCC has moved to put shot-clock requirements on other broadband rollout to eliminate barriers and delays; supports the bill not setting prices
  • Regulations in this case are appropriate because owners of the utility pole have undue leverage; cannot expect free-market conversations if someone has a monopoly
  • Slawson – What are intentional barriers here?
    • Notes there has been a history of “undo leverage;” unintentional delays and higher costs
  • Slawson – Co-ops are intentionally slowing things down?
    • Both intentionally and unintentionally
  • Slawson – You say there is no price setting mechanism in the bill, but what about the setting of a proportion of rates?
    • Is percentages of value, but discussion of price occurs during a negotiation
    • Slawson – Do you sense urgency from the cable side to absorb costs?
    • Yes
    • Slawson – Who bares the burden of the replacement cost?
    • Consumers pay for everything
    • Slawson – Who benefits the most?
    • The company and the customer

 

Johnny Kampis, Taxpayers Protection Alliance – For

  • Most important thing is getting internet to people quickly
  • Would ask that the committee look at rates with pole attachments that match FCC requirements

 

Darren Schauer, GVEC – Against

  • Co-op provides both electric and fiber broadband; recognizes the importance of equitable broadband access
  • Co-ops already have the urgency to bring broadband to rural Texas; notes land owners do not always allow companies on their properties or cable companies attach without easements
  • Legislation should include a require or certification that a cable company has secured the right to be on the property they wish to attach to poles
  • Are reliability and safety requirements of the grid that need to be maintained; concerned the time-crunch will cause companies to disregard these regulations
  • Pole attachment legislation as proposed will frustrate landowners, would jeopardize the safety of the electric grid, and push costs on to electric members

 

William Heatherington, Bandera Electric Cooperative – Against

  • Support removing obstacles from keeping rural Texans having internet access
  • This bill would allow the cable industry to put unjust regulations on co-ops and would jeopardize safety and reliability of the electric grid
  • This bill would be a step in the wrong direction

 

  1. P. Urban, Association of Electric Companies of Texas – On
  • Want to continue to work with Paddie and stakeholders
  • Are concerned about FCC interpretation as it relates to pole attachments and with the speed of pushing out attachment projects
  • Raymond – Asks if he would join the Governor’s coalition

 

Kaleb McLaurin, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers – On

  • Getting broadband to rural areas is our number one legislative priority
  • One concern with the bill as drafted; one fix would be to provide notice of a project to landowners

 

Kathi Calvert, Houston County Electric Cooperative – Against

  • Grateful for RDOF funds, but have a pole attachment process where companies can come to us and discuss their needs
  • Charter Communications did not contact us; noted they worked a company on a deal to split pole replacement costs
  • Technical details are in place for the safety of the public and the reliability of the system; members should not bare the full cost of upgrades especially in light of the February storm
  • Bill language undermines the ability to provide reliable service

 

Luke Platzer, Charter Communications – For

  • Regulators have recognized getting pole rules right is critical to expanding broadband
  • This bill will adopt many best practices and timelines to best implement these poles
  • Nothing in the bill grants an expanded right to property
  • Bill does not compromise safety of the grid; sets reasonable standards based upon already existing safety codes
  • Cost shifting standards help the new attacher not become fully responsible for upgrades wanted by the pole owner
  • Many safety concerns in other testimony
  • Concerns of incidents of attachers attaching without any contract, but the bill provides the pole owner to inspect and states there must be a contract
  • Pole replacement cost, bill only requires cost sharing if a pole was at the end of its service life
  • Raymond asked if other states regulate co-operatives, and about 20 states have comparable rules
  • Raymond – Was asking whether other states have set up new rules post RDOF funds?
    • Am not aware of new legislation since the end of RDOF auction

 

Closing

  • Paddie – As was mentioned, we are continuing to work on these issues
  • Paddie – Shares concerns of: safety and reliability, cost-shifting effecting customers, and accommodations for landowners
  • Paddie – Focus is getting broadband to rural areas quickly
  • Paddie – HB 5 alone, which we all support, will not connect anyone to internet, but this bill does
  • Smithee – Appreciates the efforts on this bill, but need to be fair

HB 1505 left pending

 

HB 1672 (Holland) Relating to use of electric energy storage facilities in the ERCOT power region

  • Holland – Storm made it clear we need more reliability in the grid battery storage and facilities would be able to provide an additional resource in widespread or singular outages in the grid
  • Bill aims to provide PUC with the clarity they requested

 

McCall Johnson, Broad Reach Power – For

  • House battery projects and are working on more during the summer; bill clears up confusion on who can operate batteries, which has slowed investment

 

Jason Ryan, CenterPoint Energy – For

  • More tools are needed to deliver electricity; bill is a step towards battery storage
  • Made recommendations for cost recovery and adjusting caps, 40 megawatts is not sufficient
  • Are 1,750 circuits in current system; current megawatt portion of sharing can restore only 1 circuit

 

Michelle Richmond, Texas Competitive Power Advocates – For

  • Members have generating capacity in the ERCOT market; bill recognizes the market is reliant upon fair competition in the market
  • Bill ensures energy storage resources will be maintained in the competitive market and allows avenue for contracting
  • Bill affirms competitive entities should hold the financial risk

 

Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club – For

  • Inside ERCOT, makes sense to allow generators to own storage, but the TDUs to contract
  • Agrees with CenterPoint that 40 megawatts are not enough, possibly raise to a higher number
  • Suggests the bill is not limited to storage

 

Katie Coleman, Texas Association of Manufacturers – For

  • Supported a similar bill last session; when deregulating the rules in the ERCOT market, this technology did not exist
  • Should be treated like
  • Want to ensure rates remain reasonable and to ensure division between rate-based and competitive wholesale market

 

Closing

  • Holland – Is a great opportunity for the state
  • King – They are leasing the batteries from a generator?
    • Yes
  • King – Can generation company bid in on the power they have on those batteries, they can do that?
    • Generators have a cap on how much they can generate in the market, and can be diversified
    • Can own more than 40 megawatts
  • King – Is this for the TDUs use or is it available to the generator?
    • The specific asset would have TDU come to the generator to create a contract for reliability, but they can use the battery, be it that it only goes for about 4 hours
  • Raymond – Thanks Holland for this proposal, would move passage now

HB 1672 left pending

 

HB 1715 (Buckley) (CS) Relating to provision of broadband infrastructure and connectivity by the Lower Colorado River Authority

  • Buckley – This bill allows for the LCRA’s existing infrastructure be used for broadband transmission services; could serve nearly 2 million Texans
  • They are not asking to be an ISP or a retail provider

 

Tom Oney, Lower Colorado River Authority – For

  • Operate on revenues providing services to Texans
  • Could take advantage of existing or planned infrastructure to be the “middle mile” of transmission services
  • Existing fiber could meet the needs to 100 Texas communities; would not be a service provider
  • Bill does not require additional build outs that are not already planned by LCRA
  • Would be funded through revenue with contracts through service providers, would be self-sustaining

CS withdrawn, HB 1715 left pending

HB 10 (Paddie) (CS) Relating to the governing body of the independent organization certified to manage the ERCOT power region

  • Paddie – Legislature was frustrated the ERCOT board; removes 5 unaffiliated members and adds three gubernatorial members who are Texas residents appointed by the Governor and Speaker of the House
  • These board members will not be paid, but eligible for reimbursements
  • Smithee – Wonders why ERCOT needs a board when the PUC has ultimate authority; does not know what purpose they serve
  • Smithee – Bill is a step in the right direction, should we put something in that says what the board is supposed to do
    • There are market segments, but we need to make sure we have independent-expert perspectives and ensure accountability and oversight
  • Smithee – ERCOT is a governmental entity or not? Is a concern to me
    • No
    • Smithee – Is kind of like the State Bar or TWIA board, no one knows
  • Smithee – If it is a governmental agency, should not have members who the legislature does not choose; still would be good to resolve what ERCOT is in this legislation
    • This is the vehicle to have those conversations
  • King – This is a good step, should there be paid board members; initially thought they should not, but the others are on the board full time and are paid by industry
  • King – Maybe if we could do what Smithee is talking about, then they would possibly be volunteers
  • Hunter – Supports this, need to do it fast; are bills we need to start moving
  • Hunter – Supports them not being paid; need to guarantee there is not an $803,000 salary for the CEO off the bat
    • This bill does not say anything about that
  • Hunter – ERCOT is a 501C4 and does not have state-sovereign immunity; need to look at the federal side
  • Raymond – When this gets to the floor, there will be amendments and the pay aspect is going to be a conundrum; intent was to get qualified individuals in the role
  • Raymond – May need to talk to other members about amendments before it gets to the floor
    • This is a subject that needs to be debated, may need consideration for compensation equal to their role
  • Raymond – For members watching, please reach out to Paddie before the floor

 

Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club – For

  • Sierra Club is a small part of the ERCOT board; has been a lack of residential consumer representation as OPUC is understaffed
  • If there are political appointees, may need to include language around appropriate qualifications
  • Raymond – Want consumers represented, can you give us ideas of what they would look like?
    • Someone who understands what is like to be a low-income Texan
    • Raymond – Would be a good idea, but need to figure out what that person looks like
    • Will go back and look at that

 

Katie Coleman, Texas Association of Manufacturers – On

  • Understands why there is tension on ERCOT government requirements; agrees with the Texas residency requirement
  • Concerned about the ability to find qualified candidates if they are unpaid political appointees
  • Is important that the unaffiliated appointees are experts in the subject matter; will be difficult to find those who will participate without pay
  • Hunter – Understands their position, but need to hear the voice of the people who are paying; if the program is too technical, then that is an admission the public is cut out
  • Hunter – Supports the unpaid provision
  • King – Chairman of the PUC is a non-voting member, should they be?
    • Is done that way because the PUC could ultimately overturn the decision
  • King – Should all PUC members be non-voting members? Should they not be able to speak?
    • Is helpful all three are at the meetings for input; often all three are there
    • Usually depends on the personality of the member, they typically call an open meeting to speak during the ERCOT hearing
  • Raymond – If turnover continues, only way to change that is to expand the pool of candidates is to increase the salary; provides an anecdote of telling the Governor they needed to increase the HHSC commissioner’s salary to $500,000 or $750,000

 

Closing

  • Members bring up good points about getting qualified members and having dissenting voices

CS withdrawn, HB 10 left pending

 

HB 11 (Paddie) (CS) Relating to the extreme weather emergency preparedness of facilities for providing electric service

  • Paddie – Requires generators to create emergency preparedness plans; PUC current recommendations now become mandates

 

Stan Brannen & Michelle Brannen, Self – On

  • Storm exposed utilities for not being prepared; if properly implemented and enforced will prevent another tragedy
  • This bill as presented is not enough; needs oversight and enforcement over the PUC as a whole
  • Created a bill with Paddie on enforcement of safety code standards for powerlines (HB 4150)
  • Before the winter storm, PUC had not reviewed a single report, was not a list of delinquent reports, and had not been forwarded along
  • Utilities need strict requirements, and the PUC was not following up on enforcement
  • New laws requiring utilities to winterize will not solve the issue without the PUC fully monitor; language should require PUC to reestablish the enforcement division
    • Bettencourt has filed a bill, hopes to build upon that
  • Raymond – Do we have a PUC resource witness that could update you?
    • Have been working with them, still hope to get the information requested
    • Calling to your attention the deficiency of how the PUC operates
  • Hunter – After everything you have seen, would you feel confident if the consumer had more involvement?
    • Yes; are tracking a number of bills this session
  • Hunter – Are you frustrated with the system? Would you like to see more opportunity where the people are involved? Any state agency should be including the taxpayer as much as industry?
    • Yes

 

Michelle Richmond, Texas Competitive Power Advocates – For

  • Would like to provide additional suggestions to enhance the bill:
  • Definition of extreme weather emergency discusses a high of 10 degrees, unclear if they are to weatherize to that specific degrees; should be clear in stature or rule
  • Bill should look at the entire supply chain, weatherization issues came from gas, water, and transportation as well
  • Funding mechanism for the transmission utilities to weatherize with cost recovery; does not exist for competitive generators
  • Would be more helpful if rules provided a timeline of when weatherization should occur

 

Julia Harvey, Texas Electric Cooperatives – For

  • Is critical legislation to improve resiliency of the network; appreciates how the bill recognizes
  • Agrees with strict PUC compliance and oversight in enforcing the law

 

J. P. Urban, Association of Electric Companies of Texas – For

  • Have been failings from the winter storm all along the system/industry
  • Will meet mandates that the PUC/legislature mandates
  • Hunter – You have made an effort to communicate with the legislature; need to address communication issues from the storm
  • Hunter – Work with Paddie to ensure we balance industry and the public
  • Howard – What is your opinion about mandating weatherization, should PUC regulate or ERCOT?
    • Does not know; the PUC is enforcement, but ERCOT has the technical piece
  • Howard – Should we not be talking about weatherization of the system? Should all entities be here like RRC?
    • Failing was mainly on the gas-powered infrastructure, have not taken a position on the weatherization of other parts of the system
    • Need the gas there to create power, is a winterization and contract issue
  • Howard – How do we pay for this?
    • Larger members are well-capitalized, worried about the medium and smaller producers
    • Should establish a SWIFT-type loan
    • Howard – Is still concern this should be an industry responsibility?
    • Incentive to winterize was not flawed initially, but weatherization focus has been on semi-cold and hot conditions; hard to answer that question

 

Katie Coleman, Texas Association of Manufacturers – For

  • Is a root cause to what occurred during the winter storm;
  • Have a suggested clarification to ensure referencing the specific types of generators you want to weatherize

 

Jeffery Jacoby, Texas Campaign for the Environment ­– Against

  • Support the premise behind the bill, but in its current form, does not protect Texans from a calamity
  • Takes issue with the weather emergency definition; notes areas that were without power for days would not meet the bill’s current definition

 

Bruce Thames, Thermon – For

  • Are a weatherization company; winterization is feasible and can be done affordably
  • Standards are important, but regional standards should be considered; should design to historic low temperatures and high windspeeds
  • Winterization is difficult in Texas; should include a provision for regular audits and self-checks
  • Infrastructure owners and operators need to know system is properly and thoroughly tested
  • Retrofitting existing sites is more costly
  • Some have suggested a reliability fund to help infrastructure harden against winter weather
  • Possible to operate winterization equipment using electricity, but can also use gas for winterization equip at well heads and other remote areas
  • Winterization is possible and cost effective for power and gas infrastructure, can be tailored to region
  • Howard and Thames discuss how winterization tech can be tailored to region
  • Howard – Because we have a diverse state, regional adaptation is important
  • Howard – Have heard testimony that winterizing is not appropriate because of heat, but have heard from you and others that tech is such that we can prep for heat and cold
    • Right, can insulate for cold and also use insulation to carry chilled water in summer
  • Howard – Seems very important to have regular audits; are there many companies like yours that specialize in winterization?
    • Roughly 2 companies globally; weatherization strategies can work here

 

Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club – For

  • Appreciate directive to PUC to come up with rules; audit and enforcement function is important, might make sense to have guidelines in legislation
  • Climate is changing, giving PUC some directive to consider this in setting rules is important
  • Suggest req for TDUs and municipals to have a requirement to file a public outage plan

 

Rep. Paddie closes

  • These are priority bills that we will move on quickly, definitely need to know if PUC needs tools to do this
  • Need to have extreme confidence that if we put a mandate in place compliance and enforcement are taken care of
  • Testing systems is important as well, needs to be accountability via audits, etc.
  • Excellent points made on definitions to make sure it’s done in the way we want
  • Work in progress, but our intent to move this and other priority bills like HB 10 quickly
  • Appreciates grid participants coming forward and sharing items to work on

HB 11 left pending

 

HB 13 (Paddie) Relating to the establishment of the Texas Energy Disaster Reliability Council

  • CS laid out
  • Seeks to expand on TERC which proved essential to collaboration between electricity and gas producers
  • TERC will submit biannual report on suggestions for grid reliability

 

Chance Sparks, American Planning Association – For

  • Addresses critical need to prepare critical infrastructure; req to keep records of critical infrastructure will hopefully prevent outages of needed services
  • Requiring TERC study of reliability is a good proactive step

 

Michele Richmond, Texas Competitive Power Advocates – For

  • HB 13 is necessary to bridge gap between industries
  • Suggests including experts from across both industries on the council or as consultants
  • Important to look at gas contract issues over the winter storm, was it gas wellheads freezing, redirected use, etc. & address this in coordination between industries going forward
  • Howard – These organizations are voluntary, have no budgets, staff
    • ERCOT’s working group was staffed by ERCOT
  • Howard – HB 13 will make sure something actually happens and groups are talking to each other
    • Absolutely, ERCOT put out a form to identify critical infrastructure for gas suppliers to supply electricity, this entity would be a great way to coordinate this

 

J.P. Urban, Association of Electric Companies of Texas – For

  • Supports previous testimony, big theme of Uri is breakdown of communication; formalizing process is the right way to go to have industries work together

 

Katie Coleman, Texas Association of Manufacturers – For

  • Agrees with other testimony
  • Should look to incorporate TCEQ, experts, representatives from the manufacturing community, etc.; manufacturers could actually export generation

 

Rep. Paddie closes

  • Another important bill we’re trying to move
  • Maybe there are other entities that need to be incorporated, particularly TCEQ and manufacturing; needs to be communication there as well

CS withdrawn, HB 13 left pending

 

HB 12 (Raymond) Relating to a study on a statewide disaster and extended power outage alert system and implementation of that system.

  • CS laid out
  • HB 12 would provide advance warning and clear guidance; thanks Speaker for declaring HB 12 one of the House priorities
  • Establishes official alert system, TDEM would provide up-to-the-minute notification and essential instructions
  • Failure to deliver messages to Texans has been key part of continuous testimony, will save lives
  • Likens disaster alerts to amber and silver alerts, relatively easy fix that will prevent future harm
  • Had legislation to improve communications after Harvey, but did not pass; need to pass it this time
  • TDEM will be able to find out what systems exist regionally and put together a statewide system
  • Few issues to resolve as it moves to the floor, but tremendous improvement as drafted
  • Harless – Very outspoken about lack of communication, why did we choose TDEM instead of DPS?
    • Raymond – TDEM manages emergencies, granted autonomy to manage these issues by the state; work very closely with the Governor’s office

 

Chance Sparks, American Planning Association – For

  • Essential tool for local communities to respond to disasters, would benefit all communities in the state; welcomes opportunities to work alongside legislature to implement statewide alert system

 

Michele Richmond, Texas Competitive Power Advocates – For

  • Communication was sorely lacking during the event, many were frustrated by lack of communication throughout

 

Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club – For

  • Suggests adding TCEQ in the list of agencies, particularly with startup and shutdowns; should also alert residents around industry of this

 

Oscar Rodriguez, Texas Association of Broadcasters – For

  • Highlights how local radio & television is required to install and maintain emergency broadcast equipment
  • Studying additional alert modalities is appropriate and needed, but should ensure partnerships with local broadcasters are leveraged; mobile-only can be affected by service outages
  • Paddie – Interested in working with TAB, broadcasters can play a vital role
  • Hunter – One other element broadcasters can help with is bilingual outreach
    • Absolutely, we’re prepared to do that, up to emergency management officials to be able to prepare those messages for these communities
    • Have an extraordinary number of local radio broadcasters who work well with many communities

 

J.P. Urban, Association of Electric Companies of Texas – For

  • Need to use all tools, including broadcasters to get the message out; absolutely something that is needed

 

Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen – For

  • No one-size solution, need a cross media approach, incl. push notification, broadcast alerts, etc.
  • Recommends inclusion of TCEQ, natural disasters are followed and preceded by industrial disasters with startups and shutdowns

 

Rep. Raymond closes

  • Hope is that we’re able to communicate with people when something is going on, thinking is that some entity with authority could get information out to people
  • Also have regional disasters, could be effective this way too
  • Will keep working on this, important to understand someone needs to take charge and let people know what’s going on

CS withdrawn, HB 12 left pending

 

HB 16 (Hernandez) Relating to a prohibition on the sale of wholesale indexed products by retail electric providers.

  • CS laid out
  • Bans sale of wholesale index products; customers of these products saw drastically increased bills and high charges complicated impacts of the weather disaster
  • Still allows sale of index products to industrial and commercial consumers, PUC would enforce

 

Michele Richmond, Texas Competitive Power Advocates – For

  • Great bill, residential customers don’t have expertise to shoulder index products, industrial and commercial consumers do
  • King – Would this bill prohibit fixed rate products rolling over to index products on expiry?
    • Most contract transfer to variable rate products, not sure if HB 16 would capture that
  • King – You don’t think these roll over into index?
    • You have to proactively sign up for products like Griddy
  • King – Do you think it’s prohibited under current law for contracts to roll over into index?
    • I don’t
  • King – Do you think we should
    • We don’t have a position on that, usually notices are sent out; something to look at
  • Shaheen – Griddy is everyone’s favorite punching bag; torn by this bill, should we be eliminating product or should we be doing a better job of warnings and disclosures
    • Customers of these products typically get great rates, there are disclosures
  • Shaheen – there are products and services out there that carry a large amount of risks like stocks; my understanding is that AG’s Office has addressed some concerns with Griddy
    • Understand your point; saw people on index products experience sticker shock during 2019, PUC went on a public education campaign
  • Shaheen – I know in negotiated contracts there are very highlighted warranty clauses, etc.; was just curious about this

 

J.P. Urban, Association of Electric Companies of Texas – For

  • A lot of good things have come from retail electric market; AECT thinks that tying retail electric plans to spot market is not a good idea for the average consumer
  • Sounds like industrials and commercials can still operate in this space, but average retail electric customer will not have expertise

 

Michael Jewell, Octopus Energy – On

  • Provides overview of Octopus Energy, offers fixed rate plans as well as an index plan, as well as other incentives
  • Octopus capped exposure to customers on the index product, froze payments; understand concern with index products, cap is present in other countries with index products
  • Need to ensure that caps aren’t skirted around by additional fees, etc.
  • Harless – how many customers do you have in Texas?
    • Proprietary, we’re small, but growing
  • Harless – You cap at 300%?
    • During the storm we capped at the EIA, less than the 300%
    • If we’re passing a law, should ensure we can’t go super high, but leave flexibility
  • Shaheen – Who is eating the cost above the cap?

 

  • The company does, can eat this cost by hedging, e.g. futures
  • Shaheen – Would HB 16 preclude you from offering this product?
    • Would not be able to offer it
  • Shaheen – You’re essentially passing protection of futures contracts to customers
  • Paddie – You have two fixed rate products and index? For those on your fixed rate plans with expired contracts, what happens to them?
    • Roll over to a different fixed rate, do not go to index
  • Paddie – You offer an index product & you’d like to continue to be able to offer that because consumers benefit the vast majority of the time? You’d like to see a cap for extreme cases?
    • Exactly, cap keeps situations like Griddy from happening

CS withdrawn, HB 16 left pending

 

HB 17 (Deshotel) Relating to a restriction on the regulation of utility services and infrastructure based on the energy source to be used or delivered.

  • CS laid out
  • HB 17 would prohibit local governments from restricting fuel choices in developments
  • If you’re buying a new home should have choice of fuel
  • CS exempts telecommunications companies
  • Working with environmental groups, have additional language that may be offered as another CS or at a later time; additional language would clarify that HB 17 does not restrict green energy promotion by local governments so long as fuel choice isn’t restricted, e.g. rebates, etc.
  • Paddie – To clarify that this additional language is not in here today; much like other bills there will be other modifications made before bills are finished
  • Raymond – So the bill would ban a city from prohibiting natural gas? Would you take a friendly amendment that they can ban use unless its produced in Texas?
    • Deshotel – Will think about I, would probably be looked at as a fracking bill

 

Jason Ryan, CenterPoint Energy – For

  • References written testimony submitted previously; natural gas is reliable and affordable
  • Harless – Heard testimony from RRC Craddick that 99% of homes didn’t lose gas, is that correct?
    • True for CenterPoint, lost service to 500 for a few hours
  • Paddie – Very few people lost natural gas at a time when a lot of people lost electricity

 

Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club – Against

  • Against the bill as filed
  • Have concerns about this bill, seeing this in a lot of states in response to some cities moving to all electric new construction
  • Concerned about broad language, nervous that bill could be used to prevent incentive programs like rebates for heat pumps or changes in code to promote solar or electric vehicles
  • Highlights examples in written testimony that could help mollify concerns
  • Against the bill because it takes away rights of local governments to pursue actions they wish to, but have particular concerns about broadness
  • Howard – Several bills today have been works in progress with promises to work with stakeholders, sounds like Rep. Deshotel was willing to consider an amendment on some of these concerns; trying to work in good faith
    • Haven’t seen the amendment, but happy to work with author and advocates
  • Paddie – Sounds like your larger issue it might limit other sources or advocacy?
    • Yes, education, incentives, etc.

 

Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen – Against

  • Against the bill as filed, natural gas failed at some point during the storm and competition in the market for limited supply could encourage it being available for electricity production
  • Also safety concerns with natural
  • Raymond – Can you remind me how many utility plans we have running wholly or partially on coal?
    • Around two dozen
  • Raymond – Trying to figure the big picture, you want more energy from coal than natural gas?
    • No, prefer coal less
  • Raymond – Do you want measures to move towards natural gas or do you want coal?
    • Don’t want to do anything to promote use or extend life of coal for energy production in Texas
  • Raymond – Is that not what you’re saying when you encourage electricity use over gas? A lot of electricity comes from sulfur
    • Today yes, but as grid gets cleaner it will get incrementally better for end users to have all electric
  • Raymond – You get where I’m going with this
    • Yes, need to look at all sources for detriments
  • Raymond – You’re proposing less gas and if it’s less gas, it’s more coal
    • All new energy coming on in Texas is clean energy
  • Paddie – All new energy is clean energy from what?
    • Wind, solar, distributed resources, etc.
  • Paddie – Intermittent resources, challenging when it comes to baseload
    • We have a lot of different sources that perform variably well in different circumstances
  • Harless – You said we saw natural gas fail in February?
    • In terms of generation

 

Jeffrey Jacoby, Texas Campaign for the Environment – Against

  • Agrees with previous testimony, need to consider what’s best for health and state in the future
  • No real threat that we will increase burning of coal by electrifying cities, gas plants produce electricity as well
  • On the local control angle, don’t believe it is in Texas’ best interest for cities to be told what to do on energy conservation
  • One of the most effective ways to prevent future outages is to promote energy efficiency and electrification; seems like author is willing to entertain language protecting promotion
  • Need to also focus on weatherization, HB 17 would not do anything alone to prevent outages

 

Todd Harkrider, Harky’s Chimney – For

  • Should be no limits on how energy is provided to homes, important for Texans to be able to enjoy gas fixtures

 

Brent Bennett, Texas Public Policy Foundation – For

  • Bans on utilities will place strain on impoverished Texans while providing no environmental benefits
  • Bans would not offset large amounts of greenhouse gas coming from developing countries, would not significantly reduce home emissions

 

Rep. Deshotel closes

  • Certainly willing to work with all stakeholders, not intent to ban energy incentives or force citizens to use gas
  • Banning fuel sources is in portions of long-term energy plans in some cities such as Austin
  • Howard – Have received 41 emails opposed to bill as filed, trying to look at this as with other bills that we’re working on this with all groups; realize there’s a lot of disagreement on what Austin chooses to do, local citizens make decisions appropriate for their communities
  • Howard – We’re talking about entities who may be losing certain markets as we transition to different energy sources
    • Deshotel – Appreciates comments & understand concerns; a lot of misinformation being spread about what is in HB 17, certainly willing to work with all parties
  • Harless – This is just about giving people a choice, correct?
    • Yes, not about forcing anything on anybody

CS withdrawn, HB 17 left pending

 

Vote outs

  • HB 315 voted out 12-0
  • HB 327 voted out 12-0
  • HB 587 voted out 12-0
  • HB 1082 voted out 12-0
  • HB 1322 voted out 12-0
  • HB 1600 voted out 12-0
  • HB 1118 voted out 12-0
  • CSHB 10 voted out 12-0
  • CSHB 11 voted out 12-0
  • CSHB 12 voted out 12-0
  • CSHB 13 voted out 12-0
  • CSHB 16 voted out 11-1
  • CSHB 17 voted out 12-0

 

Closing Comments

  • Paddie – Will continue to work on these bills, appreciate hard work on emergency items