Print đź–¨

Senate Business & Commerce met on March 14 to consider the following bills: SB 510 (Perry), SB 768 (Parker), SB 149 (Springer), SB 936 (Hancock | et al.), SB 1015 (King), SB 1016 (King), SB 1017 (Birdwell), SB 541 (Campbell), SB 130 (Campbell), SB 498 (Johnson), SB 895 (Johnson), SB 1001 (Schwertner). Part one of the archive can be found here and part two can be found here.

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight 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.

 

Vote Outs

CSSB 159 (Perry) (7-0) to local and uncontested

  • New committee substitute
  • Perry – CS to the CS clarifies 21 ours required in upper-level accounting classes

SB 315 (Hall) (9-0) local

CSSB 621 (Parker) (10-0) to local and uncontested

SB 58 (Zaffirini) (10-0) to local and uncontested

CSSB 222 (Nichols) (10-0) to local and uncontested

  • New committee substitute
  • Nichols – CS last week made changes to paid leave; CS all state employees are covered

CSSB 271 (Johnson) (10-0) to local and uncontested

  • New committee substitute
  • Johnson – Clarifies certain items of concern; security incident definition, local entities are subject to DIR rules reporting, exempts local governments from reporting requirements

SB 335 (Schwertner) (10-0) to local and uncontested

CSSB 640 (Schwertner) (10-0) to local and uncontested

  • New committee substitute
  • Schwertner – CS contains language adjustments requested by the Facilities Commission on jurisdiction transfers

 

New Business

SB 510 (Perry) Relating to the confidentiality of certain information maintained by state licensing agencies.

  • New CS; clarifies this only applies individuals not business entities; made automatic, not opt-in

 

Dr. Frances Douglas, Texas Psychological Association – For

  • Provider harassment by patients has increased through the years; have had their home addresses, personal phone numbers, etc. released through PIRs
  • Support bill and thank Perry for this bill

 

SB 510 left pending

 

SB 768 (Parker) Relating to the process for notifying the attorney general of a breach of security of computerized data by persons doing business in this state.

  • Parker – Requires notifications of data breeches to be submitted electronically; notification cannot be later than the 30 day the breech occurred

 

SB 149 (Springer) Relating to the authority of a municipality to regulate statewide commerce.

  • Springer – To encourage free flow of intra state commerce; businesses are subject to inconsistent regulations among municipalities
  • Regulations lead to frustration, rising costs, etc. do not want anymore “whac-a-mole” bills where we address in one area and have to come back and fix in future sessions
  • Texas Supreme Court has struggled with the pre-emption between state and local governments
  • Prohibits city-imposed regulations that frustrate the free-flow of commerce
  • City regulations are appropriate when it is essential to a uniquely local concern
  • If the state/federal government already regulate a certain activity, not unique
  • Cities can have regulations to address zoning, land use, and building codes
  • Cannot use pretense to impose regulations that effects how bus operates
  • Can when essential to protecting citizens physical safety
  • Can regulate a matter where legislature has provided expressed ability to do so; such as limits of public consumption, fire safety standards, signs/billboards, discharge of firearms, animal control ordinances, public health, etc.
  • Like when Denton when they banned fracking cannot keep addressing things once at a time
  • Birdwell – Need for a grandfathering clause? Period of time for a review of what is in place?
    • No; will not go into effect until September 1; if the committee wanted to move that to the end of the year will look at situations like that
  • Birdwell – Agree with the year, just want to accommodate cities who need to unwind
  • Johnson – Evidence that says all terrible regulations are killing job creation?
    • Are situations where that has occurred
  • Johnson – Seems to be a clear line of cities not being able to be cities; this seems to be doing the opposite of prior legislatures have said
    • If we have given them authority to regulate, would be in there; if we have not, then that is not the case
  • Johnson – Trying to flip the presumption?
    • Need to come to the state to regulate
  • Johnson – Allowed to pass ordinances for uniquely local concern; need to adopt a written statement of why it is unique; is a record for the courts? What are the standards we use to judge what a unique local concern
    • Yes – would need to justify how it is specially unique to that city
  • Johnson – Example of this? Cannot think of one
    • Could be in instances where there is potential geographic harm
  • Johnson – Seems like they do not have any regulatory authority left?
    • Provided a list earlier of the things cities can still regulate
  • Johnson – Cannot support this bill; local governments should have the ability to address their own issues
  • Kolkhorst – Predatory local lending ordinances and animal rights groups concerned the bills would wipe out their advances; not sure we can anticipate these unique instances
    • This bill passed four years ago under Speaker Phelan’s committee
  • Kolkhorst – Agree cities cannot shut down businesses, but could argue this bill either way; we argue for local control until we don’t like what they do; is intriguing bill but need to think it through
    • Need to take a wholistic approach to this instead of eliminating regulations city by city
  • Johnson – Local control has served the state well for over one hundred years
  • Middleton – Intent to deal with patchwork and the cost of over-regulations of business?
    • Correct; is about commercial predictability; need to address from a state perspective
  • Middleton – Like municipal ordinance intent in the bill
    • General law cities already operate like this, but see great cities like Muenster suffering

 

Sally Bocco, City of Galveston – Against

  • Bill raises concern for city of Galveston to balance regulations like noise ordinance/mowing requirements
  • Concerned how paragraph 3 inconsistent with regulation of local land use and building standards
  • Zaffirini – If the bill were to pass how would city be impacted?
    • Concerned about the changes to the National Flood Insurance ratings system, beach front concessions/operations, concerned about the “unique local concern” definition
  • Zaffirini – Suggestions on how to address that in the bill?
    • Have to get back to you; not our intent to over-regulate, but balance

 

Ann Baddour, Texas Appleseed – Against

  • Bill could go against intent of supporting small businesses; concerned after bill is passed will increase predatory lending
  • Would pre-empt ordinances that have been beneficial
  • Zaffirini – How would it increase predatory lending?
    • Fair lending standards ordinances have been set by 49 municipalities; have helped reduce these types of lenders; bill would remove this with nothing left in its place
    • This is about democracy in our local businesses

 

Dave Schwarte, Texas Neighborhood Coalition – Against

  • Asked the legislature to oppose any bills that would affect the zoning powers of cities from the proliferation of short-term rentals
  • Unintended consequences of bill would be every zoning decision would invite litigation, forbids cities necessary to enforce reasonable zoning
  • King – Have helped me understand the issue of short-term rentals
  • Johnson – Problem with dealing with short-term rentals is not unique to Arlington, but it effects Arlington in a unique way
    • Correct; most recent large city who has considered short-term rental ordinances is Fort Worth and there is debate in Plano
  • Johnson – Everything you have already done would be nullified?
    • Correct; trying to protect our city

 

Steve Scurlock, Independent Bankers Association – For

  • Banking is the most regulated industries; a city passed an ordinance limiting background checks
  • Have been additional regulations on top of existing in California and NY
  • Johnson – By advocating for this bill you putting your own interests over the rest of the state
    • Understand what you are saying; hopefully there can be negotiations and discussions
  • Kolkhorst – Regulations can sometimes squeeze free markets; are other bills to address specific areas of interest; do you think this could be modeled in a way to handle but still give cities ability to operate? I did not run for city council, do not want to be running a city
    • Hopefully will be thoughtful discussions on what appropriate regulations are

 

Jenny Andrews, Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops – Against

  • Concerned how this bill will affect city ordinances specifically payday landing, concrete batch plants locations, the location of sexual businesses
  • Too many unintended consequences to move this bill forward
  • Zaffirini – Concerned about locations of sexually oriented businesses and concrete batch plants?
    • Yes, and concerned it would affect those including payday lending ordinances

 

Evan Bole, City of Leon Valley – Against

  • 2017 became a home rule law city and are just beginning to understand ordinances for our community
  • If bill were passed, would have a rollback of 80% of our ordinances; would be going backwards

 

Kelsey Erickson Streufert, Texas Restaurant Association – For

  • For every $1 spent in restaurants generate $2.37 to the state’s economy
  • Keeping up with different regulations in each city in Texas is almost impossible
  • Committee can help with these compliance burdens

 

Mike Mahoney, Self

  • Fredericksburg second most STRs per capita in the state second to Port Aransas, but we are distinctively different than them
  • Bill’s “uniqueness” aspect is difficult to surmount; to take away communities’ ability to craft ordinances specific to their community
  • Cities need to maintain their regulations including advertising regulations

 

John Litzler, Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission – Against

  • Do not support this bill due to its effect on existing regulations against payday lending
  • Heard Springer say the solution would be to close the loophole in Chapter 393 concerning credit service organizations and we would support that
  • In the meantime need to allow existing protections to stay in place

 

Tedrick Woods, Living Word Fellowship – Against

  • Minister in Travis and Williamson County; bill would undo the work done by the faith communities against predatory payday loans

 

Bennett Sandlin, Texas Municipal League – Against

  • Appreciate Springers previous work with TML
  • Against this bill; is a super preemption and does not give us opportunity to have a serious public policy discussion
  • Worked on the fracking bill and cities maintained authority on placement of wells
  • Zaffirini – If you could get into a room with Springer, could work this out?
    • Would be interested
  • Johnson – Do you think this bill could be salvaged? Do not see it
    • We can, just need to be get away from super preemption and get specific on what you do not want cities doing

 

Ethel Strother, Texas Animal Control Association – Against

  • Have written a multitude of animal ordinances over my career; this bill would impact consumer protection and animal safety ordinances

 

Randy Turner, Self – Against

  • Live in Fort Worth and have practicing animal law for years
  • Strongly request you to vote against this law; if enacted will stop enforcement of all animal-related ordinances including grooming, kennels, etc.

 

Stacy Sutton Kerby, Texas Human Legislation Network – Neutral

  • Municipal ordinances allow cities to deal with special circumstances without going to the legislature; sometimes these issues do need to be elevated to the legislature
  • HB 1818 addressed retail pet sales last session passed in the House but failed in the Senate and subsequently 6 cities were able to pass such regulations

 

Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Sierra Club – Against

  • This is a radical bill; is going backwards on how we do business for 100 years
  • The fracking bill was a much better approach, was specific and debated with state and locals

 

Carissa Cox, American Planning Association – Against

  • Biggest concern about this bill being overly broad; good intent, but could have unintended consequences
  • Concerned about not allowing cities to regulate local land use; creates confusion to what is/is not allowed
    • Does this mean cities cannot regulate billboards/signs anymore
  • Creates conflict with other regulatory controls outside these sections of code like lighting for dark sky communities
  • Takes away cities’ ability to dialogue on these issues for incentive packages

 

Annie Spilman, NFIB – For

  • Small business owners have gone through the pandemic, labor shortages, etc. and uncertainty for small businesses are difficult to overstate
  • Seen cities go outside their regulatory jurisdictions like paid sick leave ordinances
  • Zaffirini – Thoughts on concerns others had about payday lending/concrete batch plants
    • If there are community needs in those jurisdictions that need to be passed so be it
    • Best option is for a consistent statewide piece of regulation to address those issues
  • Middleton – Are not saying you disagree with the ordinances on the books, just want balance?
    • Need to address cities going out of their jurisdictions
  • Middleton – Bill is just codifying what our state constitution already says?
    • Agree

 

Larry Taylor, Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute – For

  • TCCRI has supported these types of bills for over ten years
  • Need to support interstate commerce, patchwork ordinances are not supporting this
  • May need to work on wording, but can work through that

 

Tim Morstad, AARP – Against

  • Against bill as it would remove work we have done to put payday loan ordinances in place

 

Ana Gonzalez, Texas AFL-CIO – Against

  • Texas is the strongest when the state does not interfere in local affairs
  • Creates unnecessary state regulation specifically in environment and local employment ordinances
  • Zaffirini – How would repeal of law effect outdoor workers?
    • State and federal law do not require rest breaks; two cities passed ordinances to allow construction workers 10 minutes for a water break every four hours

 

Geoffrey Tahuahua, Associated Builders and Contractors – For

  • Addresses patchwork of regulations industry has had to face over the past 10 years; for example Austin contemplated banning construction during the pandemic and the state stepped in
  • Kolkhorst – Are issues usually in the larger cities?
    • For the most part yes; notes Dallas looked at banning small engines
  • Zaffirini – Thoughts on concerns others had about payday lending/concrete batch plants
    • Can only speak to my industry; is a policy question for Springer
  • Johnson – Conducted a review of ordinances in major/minor cities to have a sense of scope?
    • Have to readdress these issues each session through bills we have filed and through day to day working through federal/state/local regulations
  • Johnson – Can only speak for your industry, but this bill effects many other things, but you have concerns that can be addressed specifically?
    • Yes, but predictive scheduling and benefits permeate our and other industry
  • Johnson – If Campbell’s bill SB 130 passes, need this?
    • Would still need this, does not anticipate future needs
  • Johnson – Not only does this consider future problems, we are wiping out things we haven’t even thought of; bill is big government acting without much thinking

 

Arnie Davis Fields, League of Women Voters of Texas – Against

  • Believe local government should regulate Payday and auto title lending within their jurisdiction

 

Lois Figueroa, Every Texan – Against

  • Have concerns this bill would be undermining local democracy
  • Believe this bill is unworkable because of its confusing standards

 

Alex Gamez, The Humane Society

  • Broad bill would eliminate ordinances that have safeguards for animals/consumers
    • Notes the business Petland has shown no regard for our rule of law
  • Bill will tie the hands of local officials to manage pet populations; urge you to oppose

 

SB 149 left pending

 

SB 936 (Hancock | et al.) Relating to certain agreements with collective bargaining organizations related to certain publicly funded public work contracts.

  • Hancock – Expands prohibition of discriminating based on labor agreements to include local government money, governmental administered financial assistance, and money from rate-payers and user fees

 

Peter Bailey, Texas Water Infrastructure Network – For

  • Bill will ensure competition, transparency and accountability will determine how public funds are administered
  • Ensures cities cannot encourage or discourage PLAs

 

Thomas Kennedy, Texas State Building and Construction Trades – Against

  • Local municipalities adopt policies to encourage contractors to bid on work to finish jobs safely and on time

 

Geoffrey Tahuahua, Associated Builders and Contractors – For

  • Expands use of current law prevent discriminatory contracting procedures; do not have to negotiate with labor unions PLAs

 

HB 936 left pending

 

CSSB 1015 (King) Relating to periodic rate adjustments by electric utilities.

  • Have large bills, but this is one of the smaller designed to bring cost savings and efficiencies in the market place
  • Transmission/distribution are regulated and get to recover reasonable ROI in managing/building lines
  • Have a rate case every four years PUC reviews these expenses; are two processes in which expenses are considered TCOS and DCRF
  • TCOS is recovery from generator to substation; DCRF is for the lines from substation to homes/businesses
  • Higher voltage transmission infrastructure generator to substation TCOS is more expensive but has a much more efficient process before the PUC relative for DCRF
  • Bill aims to reduce administrative costs, attorney fees
  • Streamlines DCRF process to work like TCOS
  • Allows utility to submit to the PUC for rate recovery twice a year rather than once a year; helps with inflation/interest
  • Not restricted by what dates they occur within the year
  • Sets a 60-day timeline for administrative hearings like TCOS
  • Clarifies DCRF proceeding can be filed in the middle of a rate-case
  • Will allow TDUs to prudently recover like we already do for distribution

 

Tina Price – Against

  • Eliminates original safeguards negotiated in 2011 including municipal review

 

Nicholas Farenbach, City of Dallas – Against

  • Need adequate review of these filings, need cities in the mix to help review these filings
  • Notes Oncor’s current proposal recommended a decrease in their rates

 

Katie Coleman, Texas Association of Manufacturers – Neutral

  • Agree with concerns of rate increase collections outside of a rate case
  • Mainly concerned that the filed bill eliminated load growth adjustment; have worked with King to remove this aspect of the bill
  • Distributions do not go through ERCOT; SB 735 85(R) guaranteed a rate review schedule
  • King – In statute there is a full rate case every four years; if some rate adjustments were too high/low are trued up every four years?
    • Is a complete review every four years; do not want to create a process in which costs are passed on to consumers; want some vetting up front
    • Have a back-end process now that we did not have before
  • King – Are always a lot of attorneys involved on the city side, who pays those legal fees?
  • King – Attorney’s fees that build up from reviews ultimately get passed on to consumers?
    • Utilities’ and cities’ rate cases fees go into overall rates; some can be disallowed
    • Our members pay these attorneys fees; sometimes is cost-effective to pay for these fees because they found something cost effective
  • King – Is still OPUC and other entities representing consumers in these hearings?
    • Yes
  • King – Whatever we can do to streamline will ultimately save consumers money?
    • At minimum would defer those to the rate case

 

Jamie Mulden, Texas Coalition of Cities for Affordable Power and Oncor Steering Committee – Against

  • Bill makes major changes to PRA statute which will negatively affect rate payers
  • Is no description of substantive contents for such a filing and no requirement of review or order of the commission
  • Rates may go into effect without commission action to determine if they are reasonable/necessary
  • Eliminates existing requirements allowing for participation by OPUC and other affected parties; the jurisdiction of municipalities over PRA rates and rights to seek reimbursement for the cost of advisors
  • City jurisdiction is important; have an excellent record of assisting in these cases
  • Bill increases number of PRA filings to two a year and does not set limits on filing full base rate cases
  • Could lead to large rate increases without oversight

 

Jason Ryan, CenterPoint – For

  • Do not want to get bogged down in inefficient projects; do not want to repeat what happened during Uri
  • Support this bill as it treats poles and wires the same
  • If we do not pass this bill, will continue going through inefficient processes

 

CSSB 1015 left pending

 

SB 1016 (King) Relating to the consideration of employee compensation and benefits in establishing the rates of electric utilities.

  • Trying to make utility regulation more predictable and less litigious
  • Most costs end up passed through to customers
  • Would put into place something for electricity rate cases that was passed for gas cases in 2019, SB 1767 directed RRC to presume reasonable the total compensation paid to gas employees if it was consistent with compensation studies
  • Industry has compensation studies that examine average pay for a position, gets litigious because utility will make part of compensation based on merit accomplishments, e.g. $60k+$15k incentive pay
  • Incentive pay is often heavily debated in rate cases, leads to a lot of argument over salary range for each position

 

Nicholas Fehrenbach, City of Dallas – Against

  • Things like incentives based on shares, etc. should not be considered, there are financial metrics that aren’t required to disclose; narrow exclusion is not sufficient to protect ratepayers
  • King – You understand bill exempts executive positions?
    • Very narrow exemption for executives required to be disclosed under 17 CFR
    • There are upper ranking employees with incentives based on financial metrics not included in that disclosure
  • King – So issue is over executive definition
    • Executive and w2hich incentives are included

 

Jamie Mulden, Texas Coalition of Cities for Affordable Power and Oncor Steering Committee – Against

  • Incentive compensation is good practice
  • Utility rates should go towards paying utility services, stock benefits are already paid out
  • If you think financially based incentive program should be included, there is no reason or presumption to include this in rate hearings

 

Jason Ryan, CenterPoint Energy – For

  • Common sense legislation that reduces amount of time and litigation on something no one has a real problem with, just don’t have framework for consistent results
  • Current system leads to inconsistent results
  • Implements same system in place for gas for the electric utilities; looks at market studies for compensation

 

Katie Coleman, Texas Association of Manufacturers – On

  • Testifying “On” as Sen. king has pledged to work through issues
  • Would be good to have a standard in law to help deal with this
  • This bill goes a little too far, a better standard could be that it could be recovered from rate payers if performance metric indicates
  • If it is about boosting utility earnings, PUC should have discretion to look at this
  • Another issue is performance metrics tied to ESG that don’t necessarily benefit ratepayers

 

SB 1017 (Birdwell) Relating to the authority of a political subdivision to regulate an energy source or engine.

  • Birdwell – “Whac-a-mole” bill
  • Precludes political subdivisions from adopting ordinance that would prohibit usage of engines of choice or energy source
  • Does not prohibit ordinances regulating engines that are commercially reasonable, does not prevent contracting with businesses using a specific engine
  • CS laid out
  • Worked with TCEQ to ensure that there are no issues with TERP or SIP, CS adds language saying that it would not prohibit political subdivision from adopting TCEQ regulations or restrict engines used solely by the political subdivisions

 

Todd Staples, TxOGA – For

  • Cities around the country are considering banning use of everyday tools, some have gone so far as to ban gas pumps at convenience stores
  • Bill would protect energy choice
  • Many have backup generators, would protect access to engines they need

 

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

  • CS does make some improvements, but still Against
  • Concerned about how broadly the language is written, in particular “indirect” language; one thing to say cities can’t ban, another to say “indirectly restrict” or “limit access to” because there are legitimate concerns to municipalities, particularly in non-attainment areas
  • Very board reading could affect zoning of gas stations, etc.
  • Similarly, some cities have put restrictions on things like gas storage because of interaction with aquifers, etc.
  • Birdwell – Did something last session without the indirect; don’t think it affects things like above ground gas storage around Edwards Aquifer; look forward to working with you

 

Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen – Against

  • Persuaded by public policy case made by Dallas, case there for public health
  • May have a conflict with work done with Port Houston, includes clean air strategy plan & should make sure those can still happen

 

Devin Guinn, AquaGreen Global – For

  • Landscaping business requires access to gas powered equipment; Dallas has arbitrarily forced industry to use battery powered equipment
  • SB 1017 preserves ability to use tools that work
  • Have found battery-powered equipment does not meet rigorous need of job, battery-powered equipment is more costly and may require business retrofits
  • Birdwell – This is who I had in mind when I authored this, small business owners

 

SB 1017 left pending

 

SB 541 (Campbell) Relating to the barring of certain vendors from participation in certain contracts with the state or a political subdivision.

  • CS laid out
  • Campbell – Bans local govs from purchasing technologies on the Section 889, federal banned tech list
  • CS ensures it bans dangerous tech from companies not just in federal list
  • Section 889 list is the federal prohibited vendor list, SB 541 aligns Texas with what the federal government does
  • Johnson – Changes in CS?
    • Campbell – Defines governmental entity, first bill said “companies,” CS adds “technologies”

 

Tony Sauerhoff, Department of Information Resources – Resource

  • Chair Schwertner – How would this go practically? How would DIR implement? Bans Huawei, others?
    • Contracted agency would ban those, DIR would maintain prohibited technologies list that was started by Governor Abbott last month, contains companies like Huawei
  • Chair Schwertner – Can currently be done under executive order?
    • From a use standpoint, not a contracting
  • Campbell – Latest national security policy says the People’s Republic of China is a threat; how does this tech from hostile countries like China, Russia pose a threat?
    • About data and access to that data by hostile governments
    • Devices pull a lot of data off of our networks, also a threat from backdoors and malicious code
  • Johnson – Any precedent in Texas government or law for executive branch to designate vendors as threats to the state?
    • Can look into this
  • Johnson – Things this bill addresses concern me, but also concerning to have authority ceded to the executive branch; at whim of Governor could have one vendor off and one on, no checks & balances; how would Governor figure this out?
    • Can’t answer for Governor, but DIR works on list, no favoritism
  • Johnson – How is what Texas does under this law distinct from the federal law?
    • McCain Act does not apply to entities this will apply to
  • Johnson – Gives Gov the authority to expand beyond what federal government deems to be a threat
  • Campbell – Bill aligns with federal government, also allows Governor to add to
  • Johnson – Concerned this is a lot of control and undefined process, wondering how legislature could be involved in oversight
  • Campbell – Can look at aligning bill with federal government; staff also looked at report and collected info on access by foreign governments
  • Birdwell – What is the tactic used to make the determination? Are we depending on the federal government?
    • New initiative, no relying solely on federal gov, but looking to them to start and better align this with other efforts in the state
  • Campbell – Governor can expand further than federal government, has Homeland Security Council that provides information; will still look at this
  • Johnson – Wonder about a rpeortting requirement before the Council and Legislature
  • Campbell – Might be a good idea

 

SB 541 left pending

 

SB 130 (Campbell) Relating to wages and employment benefits.

  • CS laid out
  • Campbell – Codifies 3rd Court of Appeals decision that local paid leave ordinances are unconstitutional as they violate Minimum Wage Act
  • CS clarifies that SB 130 does not change Minimum Wage Act, authority of local govs to negotiate with employees, state or federal protections

 

Jonathan Packer, New Braunfels Chamber of Commerce – For

  • Support policies that protect employers from added regulatory requirements

 

Martin Gutierrez, San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce – For

  • State and federal level of government are the levels where matters of private employment should be handled
  • San Antonio paid leave ordinance created patchwork regulation, made it difficult for small businesses to navigate regulatory landscape

 

Amanda Posson, Every Texan – Against

  • Encourage committee to look at how paid leave benefits have been appropriate and effective workforce retention tool
  • Paid leave is effective particularly for women, supportive of families
  • Need to be able to use local workforce retention tools
  • 74% of small businesses support national paid leave program

 

Daniela Hernandez, Workers Defense – Against

  • SB 130 strips away essential protections for workers, workers are fighting for basic protections
  • State & federal law do not guarantee rest breaks, TX is one of the deadliest states for construction workers
  • Local govs are elected and best situated to make decisions for the community

 

Joe Hamill, ASFME – Against

  • Local elected officials in their communities are best situated to make laws & rules for their communities
  • Concerns that bill would undermine ability of local govs to make rules for their employees might have been addressed by CS

 

Leonard Aguilar, AFL-CIO – Against

  • Local govs are strongest when state isn’t interfering into how communities are run
  • SB 130 would repeal local regulations on water breaks, wage protections, etc.

 

SB 130 left pending

 

SB 498 (Johnson) Relating to the operation of statewide technology centers.

  • Johnson – State policy to only allow DIR to assist groups, SB 498 allows DIR to offer to singular local govs

 

SB 498 left pending

 

SB 895 (Johnson) Relating to modernizing the regulation of money services businesses.

  • Johnson – Relates to regulation of cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, etc.

 

Tom Glass, Texas Constitutional Enforcement – Against

  • Pushing back on World Economic Forum’s great reset in terms of ESG and also central bank policies
  • Bill is the way to grease skids for a new central bank digital coin into Texas
  • Code used to regulate Paypal and Venmo is not the right place to regulate crypto
  • Not sure what problem we’re trying to solve
  • Campbell – We know what happened with FTX, pretty much because it was unregulated, don’t want something like that to happen in the state, doesn’t hurt to have oversight
    • Don’t think that the aspects of crypto that need regulating are addressed by this bill; too broad

 

SB 895 left pending

 

SB 1001 (Schwertner) Relating to the regulation of electric vehicle supply equipment; requiring an occupational registration; authorizing fees; authorizing an administrative penalty.

  • Chair Schwertner – Refile from last year regarding vehicle charging standards, authorizes TDLR to create oversight for growing charging industry
  • SB 1001 will lay out technical requirements and standards for consumer protection
  • CS is still in drafting, CS removes “at no charge” to allow charging providers to partner private establishment, grandfathers older chargers, makes conforming date changes, adds immediate effectiveness provision
  • Nichols – asks for resource witness

 

Jessica Escobar, TDLR – Resource

  • Nichols – Can you walk through steps of how you would handle it?
    • Would start out with stakeholder workgroups, will put rules out for public comment after drafting, look at fees, cost to administer, impact on consumer protection and making sure we aren’t impeding business, etc.
  • Chair Schwertner – Currently you regulate motor fuel metering? Current fee scheduling?
    • Have various fees depending on type of device
    • Did have a reduction in all fees when they came to TDLR
  • Chair Schwertner – $54 every two years and $460?
    • On SB 1001, TDLR estimated $54/device for two years as a registration fee
  • Chair Schwertner – How many different occupation licenses do you oversee?
    • 37 programs, 200 license types, 800k licensees
    • Over 1m licenses with motor fuels

 

Sid Miller, Commissioner of Agriculture – Against

  • King – My understanding is that if you testify in official capacity you have to testify as “On”
    • Miller – Allowed to testify against as an elected official
  • King verifies the position requirements for elected officials, precedent of the Senate that elected officials testify as On
    • Believe I have the statutory authority, but will testify as myself against the bill
  • Miller – Bill is 99.99% good, but need to replace TDLR and TDA; TDA has always been the agency in charge of weights and measures, fuel metering is the only one that TDA does not do
  • Have been doing this for a long time, TDA has been working for 8 years to developing electric vehicle charging oversight program; have worked with numerous entities and agencies to get ready for the program
  • In 2022, represented TX in discussions on regulation, TDLR stated publicly that TDA would be the right agency to run the program
  • TDA started rulemaking, solicited public comment, had another stakeholder meeting last Friday
  • TDLR isa  good agency, but not the ones to run the charging program; has struggled to run fuel program
  • Sunset said TDA is a well regulated agency; Sunset said evidence of increased burden on TDLR is beginning to show
  • Fuel quality is run by both TDLR and TDA, TDA was able to respond to all complaints, TDLR has not responded to complaints effectively even with significantly lowered complaints and much lower response rate
  • Last year TDA had the program, it did 182k pump inspections, TDLR did 670
  • In 2020 TDLR licensed 16k locations, 2021 down to 15k, 2022 down to 13k; with growth of state many locations are not getting licensed or inspected
  • King – Your objection is that you would prefer the program would be with TDA
    • I think we’re the right agency
    • Have revised the fee structure, $16/device and annual registration of $400
  • Nichols – How do you calculate fee structure?
    • Modeled after the motor fuels program, won’t be much labor difference
  • Nichols – How do you calculate the admin or fee charge?
    • First calculate average mileage distance for the inspector to the area to be inspected, time, labor burden, programing staff, legal costs, etc. then come up with fee
    • Fee is approximate, adjusted after we get a track record, but think we’re pretty close because we have history of doing weights and measures
  • Chair Schwertner – Trying to square this with initial proposed rules, up until 3:51 fees were $2.5k per entity, $250/device and was adjusted yesterday to new amounts; doesn’t reflect stakeholder process
    • Changed fees after meeting with industry last Friday
  • Chair Schwertner – Why wasn’t there industry input before?
    • Started high
  • Chair Schwertner – Do you think you’re stepping on legislative intent to put this into TDLR
    • Best of my knowledge it didn’t pass, have statutory responsibility to implement weights and measures rules
  • Chair Schwertner – Why was motor fuels moved to TDLR?
    • Because we were doing too good of a job, cracked done on stations not in compliance, added a credit card skimmer program to inspect pumps
    • Convenience store association hired lobbyists to move it away from TDA
    • Cracked down on fuel quality program with grade mixing, dirty fuel, etc.
    • Industry decided there would be less oversight with TDLR
  • Chair Schwertner – Legislature’s prerogative to put this into whatever agency?
    • Wherever you want
  • King – Verifies that Commissioner Miller is testifying as an individual and left position as against the bill

 

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

  • Having a state agency with good standard regulation that will protect consumers with reasonable charges is very important
  • Initial rule had charges that would’ve made it difficult to develop electric vehicles; want choice but need good regulation

 

Jessica Escobar, TDLR – Resource

  • Chair Schwertner – You were transferred to TDLR along with the motor fuels program?
    • Could not tell you that, don’t recall beyond legislature moving the program
  • Chair Schwertner – Complaints and inspections done by TDLR?
    • When program was transferred there was a one year gap were authority hadn’t been transferred within Occupations Code, FY2020 was an anomaly
    • Average about 1.1k to 1.2k over last two years
    • Have been collecting significantly less penalties, TDLR is not trying to impede business, trying to ensure compliance and support consumer protection
    • If there is a complaint, will issue warning or take action when necessary; main thing is to remediate issues and ensure restitution; collected $15k in restitution for Texans
    • Restitution means more to consumers than issuing fines

 

SB 1001 left pending