Insurance & Commerce- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (20)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB621
· 5 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…LECTRIC GENERATION FACILITIES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB621 Irvin TO CLARIFY ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS AGAINST A HEALTHCAR…”
|
TO CLARIFY ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS AGAINST A HEALTHCARE INSURER; TO RETROACTIVELY APPLY TO A HEALTHCARE CONTRACT … | Irvin | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB483
Act 957
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…ank you, Senator Missy Urban District 24. Good morning. Um, Senate Bill 483 is uh an efficiency bill, uh, the, we looked at the committ…”
|
TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE SECURITIES DEPARTMENT; … | Irvin | Notification that SB483 is now Act 957 |
|
HB1009
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND ENTITLEMENT HOLDERS UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. HB1009 A. Collins TO ALLOW PREGNANCY TO BE A QUALIFYING EVENT FOR…”
|
TO ALLOW PREGNANCY TO BE A QUALIFYING EVENT FOR ENROLLMENT IN CERTAIN HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1014
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1014 A. Collins TO REQUIRE COVERAGE OF IN VITRO FERTILIZATION UN…”
|
TO REQUIRE COVERAGE OF IN VITRO FERTILIZATION UNDER THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1354
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO REGULATE SECURITY MEASURES AT RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORES. HB1354 Lundstrum TO REGULATE PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS; TO AMEND…”
|
TO REGULATE PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL … | Lundstrum | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1408
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RY PRACTICES; AND TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VIOLATIONS. HB1408 Pilkington TO ALLOW QUALIFYING PATIENTS OR DESIGNATED CAREG…”
|
TO ALLOW QUALIFYING PATIENTS OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS TO PURCHASE MEDICAL MARIJUANA USING A FLEXIBLE SPENDING … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1409
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM. HB1409 Long TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; AND TO CREATE THE E…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; AND TO CREATE THE ELECTRIC RELIABILITY ACT. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1443
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RRENT ASSESSED VALUE OF A RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE PROPERTY. HB1443 Pilkington TO CREATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY…”
|
TO CREATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT; TO PROHIBIT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PAYMENT NETWORKS … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1659
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…rs and Staff Only'. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1659 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE; AND TO CLARI…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE; AND TO CLARIFY THE PRIORITY AMONG SECURITY INTERESTS AND … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1746
Act 997
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…m Wooten CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1746 M. Brown TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. REGULAR AGEN…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1746 is now Act 997 |
|
HB1868
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG A FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT OR A HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT. HB1868 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PAY A FAIR AND REASONAB…”
|
TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PAY A FAIR AND REASONABLE SERVICE FEE DIRECTLY TO A … | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1905
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS. HB1905 Lundstrum TO CREATE THE BUYER BEWARE ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A…”
|
TO CREATE THE BUYER BEWARE ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A REAL ESTATE LICENSEE REPRESENTING A … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB331
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORM COMMERCIAL CODE. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB331 G. Leding CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHER…”
|
CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHERITED CANCER MUTATIONS; AND TO CREATE THE GENETIC TESTING … | G. Leding | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB437
Act 945
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB437 Hester TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT.”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT. | Hester | Notification that SB437 is now Act 945 |
|
SB583
Act 990
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT. SB583 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COST LISTS RELATING TO PHARMACY SERVICES. | C. Tucker | Notification that SB583 is now Act 990 |
|
SB596
Act 940
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COST LISTS RELATING TO PHARMACY SERVICES. SB596 M. McKee TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; TO ESTABLISH A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; TO ESTABLISH A STATE ENERGY POLICY; TO REGULATE RETIREMENT … | M. McKee | Notification that SB596 is now Act 940 |
|
SB602
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB602 Crowell TO PROHIBIT INSURANCE COMPANIES AND APPRAISERS FROM…”
|
TO PROHIBIT INSURANCE COMPANIES AND APPRAISERS FROM REQUIRING AN INSURED TO USE CERTAIN FACILITIES TO … | Crowell | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB603
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…nt back, uh, several times and watched the testimony for uh SB 603, which eventually became”
|
TO CREATE EMMA'S LAW; AND TO REQUIRE AN AIR AMBULANCE TO CONTACT THE ARKANSAS TRAUMA … | C. Tucker | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1159
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1159 J. Richardson TO CREATE THE RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE SECURI…”
|
TO CREATE THE RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE SECURITY ACT; AND TO REGULATE SECURITY MEASURES AT RETAIL … | J. Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB639
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB639 Caldwell TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT. | Caldwell | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
I believe, Senator, you have 483 and 621. Is that correct? Would you
Chair
Unverified
0:41
like to start with 483? Yes, sir. OK, just go ahead and introduce
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
0:45
yourself for the record, and you, you may proceed with your testimony. Thank you, Senator Missy Urban District 24. Good morning. Um, Senate Bill 483 is uh an efficiency bill, uh, the, we looked at the committee, the insurance and Commerce Committee on the Senate side, um, looked at, worked with the insurance department. department about the different
reports that they are doing that were statutorily created. And so this is an efficiency bill to really get rid of some of the reports, uh, and or to move them to a more annual report basis, um, and so, uh, this is a bill that, like I said, uh, Senator, I'm actually running it for Senator Johnson, who's the chair of the Insurance and Commerce Committee in the Senate, asked me to work on this. Um, so it's streamlining some of these reports that the department
does, um, and or, uh, removing them altogether because they're either out of date or they've not been accessed by the, the members of the General Assembly. So the insurance department can come here and speak specifically. I'm sure about each one of the reports and kind of what their recommendation was and how they came to that recommendation, but the, this, this piece of legislation is based on their recommendation at the direction of, uh, Senator Hester and, um, Senator Johnson.
Chair
Unverified
2:07
Thank you for your presentation. Is anyone from the insurance department who could come to the table and speak on this. Just
Speaker 12
2:26
introduce yourselves for the record and proceed with your testimony. Hey, good morning. Alan McLean, State Insurance
Speaker 14
2:38
commissioner, and with me is Crystal Phelps, attorney at the insurance department, so she's worked with us and and Senator Ervin and Senator Johnson, it was just as Senator Urban explained that there's several reports that were brought to our attention that either we had not, not been utilized that much or we just, we'd do an annual report anyway to to to the General Assembly and to the governor's office, and so that has a whole lot of Insurance industry data in it in
terms of just market share of insurance companies and the number and names of insurance companies doing business in our state that is a really good compendium and compilation of the industry, so there are some of these that, that, that uh had been recommended to keep, we're just going to roll into that particular report, so nothing particularly controversial about any of it, I don't think. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from the committee?
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
3:43
Repented Wotton, you recognize for a question. I don't have a question. I have a motion at the appropriate time. Thank you, sir. Reverend Lustrom, are you good? Yes, sir. I was just
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:56
gonna do the same motion at the proper time. OK. No further testimony to
Chair
Unverified
3:58
anyone in the audience like speak against this bill? Anyone else would like to speak for this bill. We recognize the cloth for your bill. I'm closed. I appreciate the work from the department
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
4:15
working with us on these reports. Happy to. Happy to have a good vote.
Chair
Unverified
4:21
Thank you, Senator Representative, you're recognized. Make a motion do pass. We have a motion do pass, all in favor say aye. In your post, say no. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you.
Since you're there at the end of the table, would you like to proceed with 621. Members, this is SB 621. Yeah Senator Missy Urban District 24,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
4:47
Senate Bill 621. Um, members, I, um, let me explain the genesis of this bill. Um, and I know that there's probably opposition to it because they don't want to pay for the services that have already been rendered. Um, but back during COVID and the Trump administration, at the time, um, actually there was bipartisan support in Congress to allow for facilities that were not traditional hospitals to become temporary. hospitals. It was a federal program called Hospital
Hospitals Without Walls. Um, and it was a federal program that was designated, uh, by the CMS at the time under the Trump administration. So, uh, I passed a piece of legislation, uh, based on an executive order from Governor Hutchinson, and then I followed up with legislation to allow our um facilities, health care facilities to become temporary hospitals at the time during COVID, if you'll recall, you had a big ship that was parked, um, outside of New York City, uh,
Franklin Graham and Samaritan's Purse set up, you know, a temporary hospitals, um, and so we didn't know what the need was going to be, um, with hospitalizations, particularly when COVID first occurred. Um, and as you recall, there was a tremendous impact to our hospitals here locally. Many times you couldn't find a bed, etc. etc. So, The idea behind the program was to allow an ambulatory surgery center or other healthcare facility that would participate
in the program, be able to be designated as a temporary hospital. So what that meant was, uh, they had to go through and comply with all federal regulations and state regulations through the Department of Health and CMS to seek that designation. So they had to provide 24 hour nursing. They had to really transition into a hospital. Um, and so several facilities in the state of Arkansas did that, um, but we passed legislation to allow them to do that and to say that they
would be paid if they did that. That would be the reasonable thought. However, that, that they did all of that, uh, but the, but they were never paid. And so, what's frustrating for me as a member of the General Assembly is to pass a law that you think is going to work, but then doesn't work. And then to come back and have to now pass this bill to say, hey, if they're going to jump through all those hoops, and they're going to have to do all of that at the federal level and at the state level, and we have passed
a law that says, guess what, if they meet all these requirements, and they do all these things, then they should be paid for the services that they render under this temporary hospital. designation. And that's really what the bill does in front of you. Um, and I would argue that I wish. They had just followed the law. As had been passed and then we wouldn't have to be here today. But that did not occur. So, here I am with this bill, and I'm
happy to answer any questions. Thank
Chair
Unverified
7:54
you for your testimony. Questions from the committee.
Representative Eve you for a question. Thank you, Senator. How many temporary hospitals do we have
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
8:07
in Arkansas? Um, at the time, I, I, I think there may have only been 1
Speaker 32
8:12
or 2. And how far back are we? Going on,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
8:17
it was under Governor Hutchinson's, um, Administration. So this was
during the COVID time period, um, and so this occurred during this temporary
time frame, it occurred, um, in 20, I believe 2020. 3 so you're insurer. Yes. Hasn't paid
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
8:35
these 1 or 2 temporary hospitals since COVID. Yes
Is that, is that like gonna be Blue Cross, Ambetter, is it. Is there anybody from those groups that can tell us why they
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
8:55
haven't paid. I think that they disagreed with the way that the law, they, they said that the law, um, didn't have a start date or something. I'm not quite sure, but, um, they took it to court and the court said, well, there just needs to be a clarification in the law. So, that's why I'm here. I'm trying to clarify the law that I passed.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
9:21
Represent you recognized. I, I don't know whether this question's of Senator Irwin or
you, but do we have a, does it have a fiscal impact, and do we have a statement is there any fiscal
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
9:37
impact on this? I I, I believe at the time we excluded EBD so that there would not be a fiscal
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
9:47
impact or Medicaid. I'm sorry, I
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
9:50
didn't understand. EBD would be self-insured was excluded, and Medicaid. So at the time, we did not have fiscal impact. OK. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
10:00
Thank you, Woo, any further questions or if you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
10:06
Senator. Uh, so would you agree that the services rendered were the same like CPT code or billing code. I mean, the services were identical. It's just the physical location that they received care is what they're in question of. Yes. OK. Um, and so what you're trying to. Chief here is that an insurance company agreed to reimburse the services for the member who paid for them, and now they're disputing that because of a
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
10:33
address. Well, we passed the law that says that this would occur and that they could participate. Why participate if you're not going to get paid. So we, we created the law. I don't know if they agreed or not, but we passed the law that says this is what's going to happen. So, well, and I
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
10:50
would argue that in their contracts they agreed to cover those services. It's just now they're
Representative Aker
Unverified
10:54
disputing that they have the ability to decline that based on some sort of arbitrary definition of address perhaps,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
11:00
yes, OK, I'll let them speak to, I'll let them
speak for themselves, but thank you for bringing us. Thank you. at the end of the day, and I'll just say this, I think it's really important that we have these programs at the federal level for these types of designations in case we do find ourselves in a really bad situation. And, and, and that was the purpose behind the program, the designation, and for me to say, OK, the state of Arkansas is going to recognize this and our health care facilities can participate in it. Well, why would you participate in something that we need if you're not going to get paid, you know, to do it. I mean, I, that's just
insanity to me. So, I tried to pass the bill, I tried to make sure that it was very, very crystal clear, and that would make common sense to everybody in here and the world that if you're going to become a temporary hospital, then you should be able to be. paid for the care that you give to the patients that saved their lives. I mean, that just seems common sense to me, but apparently, you know,
there was not, that's not the way it was read. Representative Lindstrom, did you have a question? Yeah, I'm,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
12:08
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. Did we exclude EBD in the original bill? I, I believe
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
12:14
I did. Yes, I believe we did do that just because of the fiscal impact. And the insurance companies that are
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
12:21
choosing not to pay right now. They know this is due and it's been to court, correct? I believe that's correct. Do you know what the court? For
sure. I'm a little bit lost of why we wouldn't just pay the bill going on instead of going to court and the attorneys, that
type of thing, and then are we, the bill would say we would be on the hook for it,
Speaker 58
12:45
not the insurance companies. No, no, no, no, no.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
12:48
The, the state of Arkansas is not, the state of Arkansas is just the arbitrator of the policy. We, we're just saying, yes, we recognize that
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
12:57
to pay the bill, but we recognize that the health care, health care facilities that are ambulatory surgery centers are already or outpatient facilities, so to speak. Being able to trans, being able to Transition from like an
ambulatory surgery center or an outpatient center into a hospital should be something that if we need it, we, they are already stood up, built facilities that can transition pretty quickly into a hospital setting, but they're going to have to have some requirements. Obviously that they're gonna have to meet. And so at the state and federal level. One of those obviously is 24 hour nursing, but there's also, you know, several things in there that they have. to meet those standards. And so
they, they hired the extra help, they are the extra staff, they kind of jumped, they went through and jumped through all those different hoops to be able to do that. So, that what this bill does is just to make sure that if they do all that, then they should be able to be recognized then as a temporary hospital and be paid for those services that they render to those patients under that designation. So this is
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
14:03
in the future. We're not going back and retroactively. No,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
14:05
this is both future and retroactive. OK, that's. I'm trying
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
14:08
to get, yes, OK, all right, thank you.
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
14:13
Representative Ferguson, you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Have a quick question, Senator. If the insurer Didn't pay the hospital. That
means at that time period, the hospital wrote the bill off or they pass it on to the patient. No, I
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
14:33
think it's uncollected at this. So they didn't try to pass
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
14:36
it on to the patient and so the hospital, the temporary
hospital had to write it off for something of that sort of
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
14:44
it is. I, I can't, I'm not a CPA or an attorney, but I'm not sure if you can write this, you, I can tell you if there's a debt that we collect as a healthcare, we can no longer write that off of taxes. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not a CPA.
I don't know, I can't really answer your question. I really invite him in.
Chair
Unverified
15:05
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Senator Urban, I guess I'm wondering.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
15:16
So we're saying that we're going to require them to pay claims to individuals. Is that what you're asking? No,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
15:23
claims to the to the provider. So how do
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
15:27
we know, I mean, How do we know those are valid claims or not valid claims. I mean, we're, we're telling the insurance company to pay these claims. Without knowing what the claims are. No, they, they have the claims.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
15:39
You do billing we don't know what they are. Oh. Who
I mean, we, we do because it was services that were provided to the patients. We're, we're just saying that if you're, if you're designated to be a hospital, then you should be paid as a hospital. So
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
15:59
you're saying these claims would have been paid if it was in a a brick and mortar hospital.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
16:06
Well, yes, and these are brick and mortar facilities, but it's just a designation. OK, thank you.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
16:17
Representative Johnson, you recognized. I'm, I'm just trying to clarify, you were the drafting legislator, so your intent at the time of drafting the legislation, you feel pretty confident speaking to that and your intent was, hey, we're in a crisis situation. Our hospitals are overrun. There's the federal, there's a federal recognition of the of the need to have temporary hospital facilities, uh, that could happen again in the future, correct? So there is already in statute a definition of temporary facility, a
contracting language already in statute that we've already all passed, not you, but as a group, we agreed this was the right thing to do. Right. And so now there's a question of clarification of what qualifies as a temporary facility if they should actually be paid as a temporary facility. You, you're just trying to clarify that, correct? These are not questions of should a code be paid or not paid. It's, it's about what you know around how temporary facilities are find and contracted, and we thought
we had that language correct and apparently there's been some, you know, discrepancy about how that should be worded and now we're trying to clean up that wording to meet the original intent of
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
17:32
the legislation. OK. Representative Aker, you recognized. Thank you. And Senator, when you agree that insurance companies have the infrastructure to audit and validate claims and verify that those were rendered as they
Representative Aker
Unverified
17:40
were rendered, but that's not what's in dispute here. It's if they're going to have that discussion that's outside whether or not they should be paid or not paid. OK, thank you.
Chair
Unverified
17:51
Any further questions from the committee? Motion. OK. We'll have a motion at the appropriate time, not at this time though. Um. Thank you for your testimony. There's no one signed up, but is there anyone who would like to speak against this bill? I just come to the table and introduce yourself for the record, and proceed with your testimony, sir. I Sorry for not giving you an answer.
Speaker 89
18:35
So as Senator Ervin uh mentioned there were about 2, ASCs as we call
Speaker 88
18:41
them ambulatory, uh, surgery centers in the state that opted to participate in the federal hospitals without Walls program. The ASCs are a one-bed hospitals, uh, that don't have an emergency
room and typically they have to discharge patients within 23 hours. The federal program entitled them to take advantage of a higher reimbursement rate for federal for federal uh for individuals paid by the federal government, which have been Medicare and Medicaid. I went back, uh, several times and watched the testimony for uh SB 603, which eventually became
Act 723 of 2021, um, all the testimony that I saw, um, seemed to justify that the bill was focused on allowing the ASCs to return to an ASC status after having become a temporary hospital. Um, so this was after the 2nd wave of, of COVID, um, and there was nothing mentioned at that time in either the House or the Senate testimony with respect to to payments. Blue Cross did not
object, uh, to the bill at that time, um, and we complied with the law to allow ASCs to return immediately to their ASC status after having been designated a temporary hospital. As you know, uh, well, from the past week, hospital reimbursements vary, uh, depending on their tier rating on their size and scope of the facility, uh, you know, whether they're critical access hospital or the rule and, and so on.
The ASCs, um, as I mentioned, they're, they're one bed facilities, um, and so we felt that. them like they were, you know, Baptist or a Saint Bernard's or a Mercy was was not appropriate. Uh, instead, we offered rates that are comparable in in size and scope to the facilities that they are. We later, uh, offered an enhanced rate, um, but that was not accepted by them. When we entered into two
separate mediation efforts, uh, the second of which was court ordered both of those failed. The amount that these facilities believe that they are due, keeps growing after the fact. Um, they want this to apply to all of our policyholders, including our state contracts, um, I went back and looked at um S or A 723. I did not see anything in there that exempted EBD or our home.
Um So given the size of their financial demand as it exists now, we believe that the physical impact would be material. I want to point out this Act 7:23 did not require us to offer, um, These um facilities that don't have ERs, uh, and that are very, very small, the same contract rate schedule that we have in
place for a full service hospitals. Uh, it required us to maintain the network status of these facilities and according to the testimony, uh, the primary that was the primary purpose of the bill. Um Because a carrier, not us, refused to offer freeway health a healthcare freeway surgical center, a health care contract. The A did require carriers to have a health care contract with them, uh, which the law
specifically defined as a healthcare contract for the delivery of healthcare services to enrollees. That's the language from the bill. We have always had and always honored a healthcare contract with these facilities as defined in the 2021 law. The ASCs obviously disagree with us, um, but they also disagree with the court that ruled against him. Uh, they are now asking for a new law to backdate their contracts to when they
became temporary hospitals in 20 in 2020. Passing this bill sends a signal to anyone that thinks the law is unfair to them that they can petition the legislature to change the law. Uh, ex post facto, um, and have their contracts, um, adjusted accordingly. So that's the gravity of this bill, um. It's a question of law and it's also a question of constitutionality. Um, so regardless of your
opinion of the law and uh that, you know, what was in effect then and then after Act 7:23. It was the law of the land at the time and Blue Cross conducted its conducted its affairs according to the law as it existed then. Uh, so when Pulaski County Circuit Court, Judge Fox ruled that the ASCs were entitled to a to a hospital contract. I'll repeat that he ruled in their favor that they are entitled to a hospital contract as a temporary hospital.
But here's the essential part. Their contract can only be effective after July 28, 2021. That's what the ruling said, um. That's when Act 23 went into effect, and he did not grant them retroactive pay. Because that would have been unconstitutional. So the legislation is clear and the judge and Judge Fox ruled
accordingly, forcing retro retroactive payments is not fair. It's not legal, and it's unconstitutional. The ex post facto clause contained in Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution states that no ex post facto law shall be passed. Ex post facto is Latin for after the fact. There are also numerous other articles, clauses in the Constitution, the bills of attainder, uh, the Fifth Amendment for due, uh, process clause also prehis the
government from depriving a person of life, liberty, pursuit without due process of law retrospective laws. Like this, uh, impermissibly create unforeseen liability for past actions that were in full compliance of the law at the time. And finally, The Declaration of Rights in the Arkansas Constitution, Article 2 Section 19 says that no bill of attainder ex post facto law or law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed.
Chair
Unverified
25:39
I'd be happy to take any questions. Sorry about that. Represent and
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
25:55
I believe you were first in the queue of the question. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, The, the time facility you described and in time facility that, uh, Senator Irwin described are two dips. She said it was outpatient. You said it
was uh uh uh 23 hour hospitalization, I guess like the cabinet facility. You
Speaker 89
26:18
know, so, you know, outpatient, you know, you can stay, you just can't stay 24 hours, and that would be, I would
Speaker 88
26:25
think, similar to this. Where you are, um, you don't have an emergency room. Cabot does not have an emergency room, um, and, uh, and it's a short stay that I think
Speaker 89
26:36
a difference between maybe Cabot and this would just be a size, um.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
26:43
Well, Kevin has an emergency room. Oh does it. OK. right, OK, follow up, who is the litigation over? Or is it still in progress? I, I couldn't understand. You said it was effective July 28th based on a ruling by Judge Fox. Is it still in progress? The
Speaker 101
27:14
litigation or is the litigation completed the litigation is complete now. And uh effective July 28th. Correct. And and it was and there were appeals to the state Supreme Court, and that
Speaker 89
27:26
is that was finalized in February of this year. OK. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Eves, you recognized. Where are the facilities located, I think Senator Irvin said
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
27:35
there were 1 or 2. Well, you have ambulatory surgery centers all around the
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
27:44
state of Arkansas. And, and they They do have more than one bed. I'm not sure. Where
that comes from, but The facilities I've personally seen have more than one that I was asking about um how many of these temporary facilities are affected and you
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
27:56
said there are 1 or 2. And do you know where they're located? I think Jonesboro and Little Rock. How much is owed? I don't have that figure. And another question we he he
mentioned that the the amount that is owed keeps growing. Why does it keep
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
28:19
growing? I can't I can't speak to that. I was not part of those conversations, and we've never had this conversation before. Do you know
how much is the Senate committee there was nothing, nobody spoke against the bill in the Senate committee, so I'm not, this is new information for me. And I did
Speaker 111
28:37
not speak in the Senate committee because I, the bill
Speaker 88
28:41
had come up amongst a bunch of other things, and I hadn't
had time to to research it at that point, um. David, you said it
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
28:54
keeps growing. Why does it keep growing? I don't know. I just know through the
Speaker 88
28:57
legal process, the number, um, increased. Do you know how much is owed? For Assuming it's owed. I believe the one of the numbers that I heard was
In the 10s, was it over 10 million, between 10 and 20 million just from these one, these two facilities. Correct. And, and, yeah. Representative Ferguson, you're
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
29:33
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quick question. And correct me if I'm wrong, I thought I heard you say. Doing this process. Uh, Moe Cross.
Agreed to pay a certain rate to the temporary hospitals. However, You guys didn't think the rate. They should receive, should be the same as a Saint Bernard or some other hospital. Did I hear that correctly? Yes. And so there was a disagreement. The rate that you guys offered was much lower than the rate that you would normally pay Saint Bernard or Saint Vincent or maybe UAMS, right? It was lower, yes.
Speaker 89
30:24
But it wouldn't be the same rate you would pay, Saint Bernard or Saint Vincent or Baptist and, and all three of those have different rates.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
30:39
OK. All right, thank you. Where's the baker, you're next in the queue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, thank you, David. You did spend some time outlining the differences um between the larger hospitals, but. I
Representative Aker
Unverified
30:49
mean, would it be fair to say that these ambulatory systems did have their own challenges as
far as staffing, recruiting, setting up, facilitating. They don't have the marketing capacity, they don't have the brand name, they don't have the funnel of patients. They don't have the extra facilities and yet they still rendered the same level of care as a facility that has all those advantages. It
Speaker 89
31:11
wouldn't have been the same level of care because they don't have the same facilities, but they did
Representative Aker
Unverified
31:15
administered as a CPT code and a CBT code that you can audit. Can you give an example? Of how someone received subadequate care at one of these facilities that they would have
Speaker 89
31:26
received better care at Baptist. So, you know, they don't, they don't have all the, they have, they haven't invested in
Speaker 93
31:33
all the equipment that a larger, that's why the larger hospitals get more than
Representative Aker
Unverified
31:37
the smaller hospitals but they're filling in a specific need by being ambulatory and nimble and have their own challengers. I'm asking, do you have patients, examples of patients who receive subadequate care for the same service that was rendered. We never suggested that. they
Speaker 89
31:49
offered sub adequate care and we did also on the rates is where you're offering and we did
offer them an enhanced rate over what they would have received otherwise.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
32:02
OK, again, I think The service rendered was rendered. And if there's a rate for that and you don't have any
Representative Aker
Unverified
32:10
documentation that the patient suffered and somehow or received subadequate care. Then it
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
32:16
would seem that they should be compensated accordingly. Also, again, follow up, Mr. Chair, the implement the effective date. Also seems a little, um, Arbitrary or disingenuous
Representative Aker
Unverified
32:29
because there is no way to pass a law. I mean they made those, they cared for those patients in good faith leading up to whatever that signing date is, so I mean to Use the court as some sort of shield to block off a. 25% of claims that were rendered. Um, I do take issue with because I agree that you might have the constitutional argument to do so, but I think it is not operating in good faith if real care was rendered to your members and it's still going on uncompensated and then we're
just sticking a date in July as when we actually start
Speaker 88
33:04
caring for those patients financially, so we offered them an
Speaker 89
33:06
initial payment, and then we offered them an enhanced payment and then we also through the court process offered additional. On top of that.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
33:15
Yes, I, I understand and final follow up. I, I guess my question is, We're taking different people's word on the fact
Representative Aker
Unverified
33:23
that Baptist has 4 walls and has a, you know, world class heart surgeon, but that may be completely
irrelevant to the same claims that were rendered at these locations and so it seems that if the claim was rendered, the claim should be paid. And I think that like I said, I'll be in favor of this bill for those reasons. And we, and we have
Chair
Unverified
33:48
offered payment. Representative Richardson, you recognized. Thank you. So I, I just want to go back, I guess, to Representative Eads
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
33:56
was asking a question so you made the statement about where the costs were and how they keep going up,
but you, you don't know what they are. accurate, is that an accurate
Speaker 89
34:07
statement? So we know what we've and I would have to go back and and see um. What we have
Speaker 88
34:17
offered, we have actually, I just got confirmation from our, uh, from our team. We actually have paid them. Um, we just There's a dispute in the amount. When did you pay him?
We will have paid them back then when the contracts were were
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
34:37
entered. OK, and me not having any health care background, I kind of lean on everyone else, but I, I know that there's a certain way in which you guys pay for services rendered, but when we look at some of these, these pop-up or these emergency hospitals that are providing services to our constituents. I find it frustrating that, you know, they're providing a service and then they've got a scratch and claw to get paid for
what they've done, and I don't think it's any less than what would happen at a Baptist hospital than one of these pop-up hospitals, uh. I, I just, I just don't understand that, and I guess I never will because I'm not in the insurance field, but I do know that they, they have done a job and I expect for them to be paid at the rate in which they feel is necessary. I'm, I'm absolutely in support of the bill, so thank you for bringing it, Senator. Representative Johnson. Yeah, just, just
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
35:31
to clarify, I recognize that you paid them a
sum and then you offered them an enhanced sum and then on top of that offered them more money, but even with those offerings, it, it didn't match the same reimbursement rate they would have gotten in a traditional hospital or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Is that correct? Well, like I said, you know, each hospital, depending
Speaker 89
35:49
on their class, obviously, you know, they get different rates, but they felt like it should have been more. baby in
Speaker 88
35:55
the hospitals felt like they being the, you know, the ambulatory at the time they were
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
36:05
hospitals, temporary hospitals, right? At the time of care they weren't ambulatory surgery centers, they were temporary hospitals, correct. Any further questions from the committee? OK, sing then,
Chair
Unverified
36:15
thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for this
bill? Is there anyone else in the audience you'd like to speak against this bill. OK. Seeing no one represent urban, you're recognized.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
36:36
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you members of the committee for the questions. I think What, what I take issue with is the comments that, well, it's not appropriate or we didn't feel like it was appropriate to pay them. Well, the law said they were a temporary hospital. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, whether they were, it was an appropriate hospital, temporary hospital or not, because it didn't have an ER. Of course, a temporary hospital is not going to have an ER because
they are the ER. They, they're trying to fill a need at the time where we need them. Um, and I think it's really, really important um to close for the bill that we recognize that we are going to be in a situation, I hope we never are in a situation like we were in, but we were in a situation and we need to be able to have policy on the books of the state of Arkansas that are very clear that says you will recognize them as a temporary hospital. No matter what your opinion is or what you think is an appropriate
or not appropriate, but that when you with them and you contract with them, you need to follow the law and treat them as a hospital during that time and that designation. So, uh, with that, I'm closed. Thank you for your presentation, Senator Irvin
Speaker 13
37:52
has closed. For the bill a baker, you recognized. Motion I What, what is your
Chair
Unverified
37:57
motion, sir? Motion to pass. We have a motion do pass by Representative Baker.
All in favor say aye. And both say no. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you, members of the committee. Members weren't try to jump around to, to try to proceed with the ones that are gonna be as quick as possible. Representative Brown has a concurrence in a Senate amendment.
Speaker 137
38:37
Thanks chair Matt Brown, uh District 55, uh, members had a
concurrence on our uh UCC amendment bill that we did earlier, um, the Senate caught a drafting error specifically we passed Senate Bill 133 earlier in the session, which clarified that a crypto digital currency is not legal money with the UCC amendments we did a few weeks ago, we may have actually undone that definition, so this just simply syncs up the definition of that bill to the definitions 133, so there's no issue. It makes it very clear that crypto is not legal. Just a clarification from the chair. What bill number is this?
Chair
Unverified
39:13
I apologize. This is the first one on the agenda. This is HB 1746 concurrence in Senate amendment. Thank you. Any questions? For the brown. OK, a motion at the appropriate time. Is there anyone who would like to speak against this concurrence. Anyone, anyone else speak for at your website you know to close in Brown Clore good vote. President Dabe has recognized for a motion motion to concur in
the Senate amendment. All in favor say aye. Any opposed say no. Congratulations, you've passed your
concurrence. Senator Tucker. Members, this is SB 583. I just
Introduce yourselves for the record, and you, you may proceed with the testimony. State Representative Jeremiah Moore, House District 61.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
40:23
Clark Tucker, State Senator, District 14. I'm going to defer to my esteemed house colleague. Stained Thank you,
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
40:31
Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Um, Senate Bill 583, it's a pretty straightforward bill that was passed 35 to 0 in the Senate, um, it has to do with the private right of action for pharmacies to, um, collect
damages, uh, through the courts. The main point is that currently pharmacists have no way of pursuing recovery for their own losses when PBMs break the law. The insurance department can find the PBM, and that's great. They're doing a good job with that and I support that, but the Bonds collected go into the state treasury while they don't compensate the pharmacy for the pharmacy's loss as a whole, meaning time, effort, etc. And the pharmacies need to be able to recover uh for their own losses suffered as a result of PBMs breaking the law that we passed 7 years ago. That'll take any questions.
Chair
Unverified
41:21
Thank you, Representative. Questions from the committee. OK, then. Is anyone in the office like to speak against this bill. If anyone else pick for
this bill? OK. Um, but you got to close for your bill, representative, closed for my bill, and I would appreciate a good vote. Representative Moore is closed for his
Chair
Unverified
41:40
bill. Representative lady and you recognize for a motion. I have a motion to pass but la and all in favor, say I. And the post say no.
Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Resident Mcinon. I believe you're here on SB 596
Chair
Unverified
42:03
and Senator McKee. Y'all may go to the end of the table. Introduce yourselves for just for the record and proceed with your presentation. Representative Mindy McAlinden
Speaker 59
42:19
House District 10. State Senator Matt McKee, District 6.
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
42:27
Members, uh, in the, uh, Sense of brevity. This bill is a simple bill that basically just sets state policy with respect to energy production.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
42:38
And I think it's time that as a state we did that. I think it's time that we stopped letting federal courts set our policy and this is an attempt to do just that, be happy to answer the multitude of questions I know that will exist. All right. Any questions from committee?
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
42:57
Representative Ruin, you recognize. Thank you, Senator, you and I have discussed this at length and uh I still have the question. relative to Um, the two coal-fired plants that we have been under a Consent order that was entered by the Federal court are made by the federal court upon energy that they had to close one of
them within 8 years and then one of them within 10. Does your, does your bill require or ask them to Um Not abide by that ruling and keep those two plants open. And let me qualify that by saying that we passed a Senate Bill 307, which established um procedures by the Public Service commission and actions by utilities and that type of thing
to be able to supply adequate energy. To the state Are you taking this into consideration that they're under a federal order
to do that. I appreciate the question. That's I think it's a very important question. I think that these, this bill works very well with SB 307. Obviously, our goal is to provide reliable, affordable power to the people of Arkansas. So,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
44:27
uh, with the consent decree, that is a
decision that was made under different regulatory framework with a different federal administration. And all that is necessary if this bill passes is for the utilities to demonstrate to the Public Service commission that the early retirement of those two plants is in the public interest with respect to rates and reliability. So I think that they should have no problem doing that if that's the
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
44:56
case. All up. Well, I understand that point. We all want affordable rates and that, that
facilitation by our utility companies, not just energy, but Summit and all the rest of them. But We can't just Even though there's been a change in the administration, we can't just, uh, forego a federal court ruling. Can we? Well, we, we, we
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
45:24
got in the position we are in the United States and in Arkansas with respect to energy production because of litigation in federal court rulings. And I think it's time that the state
of Arkansas, the legislature here, sets forth our policy with respect to those two items. And if that leads to litigation, well, sometimes that's how we make these decisions. come to a conclusion on those issues, but as we know, court decisions are not always final. And so sometimes those things have to be revisited. I don't know if that will occur in this instance. I think the utilities have been telling us for a long time that this is the best thing for the people of Arkansas. And so if that's the case, they should be able to make that case and close the plants if that's the best thing for the ratepayers and their reliability.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
46:08
But it's still, we still have the point that it's a Federal court order that we do this. I mean, the only way to, for, well, at least in my experience, the only way for us to change that is for the federal court to make another ruling or say that they were wrong, which I not for me. And it's unfortunate that the federal court, the um
Judges maybe have been appointed by another uh, administration and that administration disagrees with the way we feel politically, but the point being the court has ruled. So it's the law of the land that we have to abide by, and that's what we have to do, and this is going to lead to more litigation, which will not cost them in right increases. But it I maybe lower energy costs, but
if we end up in a bunch of lawsuits, it's going to cost the taxpayers of the state. Is that correct assumption? I think,
I think the question is, is
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
47:19
energy policy in Arkansas going to be set by the state legislature, or is it going to be set by
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
47:25
federal courts and activists. Well, in conjunction, I, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I, I agree with you,
but we didn't do it. So now we're paying the price. Well, I think Federal court. Is that
not a fact? I mean, Is that not a fact that we have to, they have to, or we have to file another lawsuit and spend a bunch more money in order to overcome and all that time. This law moves forward. So I think we would all recognize that federal
court rulings are the law until they're not. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would add on that, I don't know how many of you have seen, but the Trump administration has issued some
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
48:12
executive orders aimed at keeping dispatchable reliable power online. The question is retiring these assets early, is that good for the ratepayers or is it not? So I think those are discussions that need to occur at the PSC and perhaps in the courts, and I think that's a discussion that needs to be had. Representative Eaves, you're recognized for your question. I don't
Chair
Unverified
48:32
believe there's any other questions in the queue.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
48:45
Senator McKee, um, First, I want to thank you for all the work you've done on previous legislation, um. Make sure we have plenty of reliable and cheap power, um, some of the testimony we heard On a previous bill talked about what it would cost to Upgrade the current coal plants that are due to be
retired to upgrade the scrubbers on those, and the numbers I heard were a billion apiece. Um
Is that still the case? And did the president's executive order
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
49:20
on April 8th change any of that? So I'm not familiar with all of the prices, and I think that that's an important thing for the Public Service commission to vet. I do know that the executive orders made available different loan programs and grant programs in order to facilitate the Updating of
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
49:34
those plants, whether it be with respect to environmental uh needs that they have or other needs. I'm still struggling with this bill. I'm kind of with you on
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
49:46
some of it and I'm not, um, on some of it. One of the reasons is Representative McAlinon said, I don't push the red no button enough, so that's a part of my thinking. Um, so some of the testimony was the scrubbers would be a billion a plant and then in the same breath it was going to be a billion or, you know, 1.5 to build a whole new plant that would be natural gas, so if it, I just guess I want to get your thoughts on if it does cost a billion to update the scrubbers would not be better. off to spend that billion on a new plant that runs on natural gas and again for the record,
not opposed to coal at all. I'm just thinking through the numbers here. So
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
50:21
I think that that's a very good question, and I'm, I'm not a, I'm not married to any one single source of electric generation. I'm not married to Cole. I'm not married to gas or any of the other forms. Uh, one of the things that we should consider is there are 133 new gas plants being built in the United States over the next several years. And if we think that that's not going to do something to the price of natural gas and the supply chain with respect to the items that are needed to build those plants. I think we're just mistaken. And so whether or not
this leads to keeping the coal plants open or closing them down and building gas plants if that's what's in the best interests of ratepayers. I just think those are conversations that need to occur at the Public Service Commission, and So we can get good numbers and have those conversations. All right. Any other questions from
Chair
Unverified
51:10
the committee? Representative McGrew, you're recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
51:21
Yeah, and he may have kind of already answered my question, but this back and forth the federal government between the past administration and the current administration and the executive orders that went out. Uh I sure can't keep up with it and I'm not sure what's, what's right and what's not. So do you have a take on that? Does this executive order change that also, uh, this is in the best interest for our Kansas to make sure that we have the power that we need.
We don't really care. Does this bill? Care whether we keep the coal. Plant open as long as we replace the energy. It purely looking at we want to
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
52:01
have enough energy for our Kansans, correct? That's correct. I, I'm, I'm not exactly sure how all the executive
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
52:06
orders will affect previous federal court rulings or consent decrees, but I think it's a conversation that we need to have nationally, right? It's not just about Arkansas, but Arkansas is in one of the areas of the country that has a lot of
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
52:21
early planned retirements. Uh, what was your second question? Uh My second question was just that we didn't, yeah, this bill doesn't set forth whether or not it's coal, natural gas, nuclear, as long as it's dispatchable, as long as it's there when the customers need it. And I think all this
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
52:37
discussion we've been having about energy and all the economic development that's going to come to Arkansas if we have the property. I think it's very important that we protect that energy and that's
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
52:48
what this bill does, correct? I think it does, and I don't, I've
said this in the Senate committee, I don't
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
52:54
ever uh judge people in the past for the decisions they made at the time based on the available options, right? But I think we find ourselves in a different regulatory framework and a different energy needs space. And so we have different needs. Nobody could have foreseen the needs that we have now 5 years ago. Right? So, so these are important conversations to have right now. Thank you. All right. Any other questions
Chair
Unverified
53:18
from the committee? Seeing none. We have several
people here to speak on this bill. John Bethel, if you would please come to the table. Introduce yourself. And
you may proceed with your testimony. Also your guests if they would
Speaker 170
53:48
please identify themselves as well. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm John Bethel. I'm the director of public affairs for Entergy
Speaker 171
53:54
Arkansas and with the committee's indulgence, the three of us will appear as a group. I'm Kurt
Justin Allen
Unverified
54:05
Casselberry, uh, work for Entergy Arkansas on resource planning. Uh, good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee. My name is Justin Allen. I'm
Speaker 169
54:12
an attorney here in Little Rock speaking today on behalf of Entergy. Uh, good morning, committee. Uh, we, we oppose Senate Bill 596. It inserts uh risks into the resource planning process and therefore it does not improve
Speaker 170
54:25
reliability. It will lead to lengthy, expensive litigation with a very low probability of success. It will require millions in legal fees and potentially billions in capital investments that could otherwise be spent in more beneficial ways for our customers and those of our co-owners. The uncertainty the bill creates will generate, uh, will jeopardize the state's economic development efforts. It is contrary to the goals set forth in Senate Bill 307 that was recently passed to ensure that the state has adequate
dispatchable, reliable and affordable power to generate Arkansas jobs. We stand ready to engage in the conversation of regarding the state's energy needs and possible additional steps to strengthen generation and transmission system in Arkansas to ensure adequate Dispatchable, reliable, and affordable energy throughout Arkansas. The better opportunity to have this conversation in a constructive and meaningful way would be in the insurance and commerce meetings during the interim, and I wanted to point
out that we do share and support Senator McKee and Representative McAlinden's desire to make sure that we have adequate resources to serve our customers because that's uh that's what we do. We've been doing it for over 100 years and intend to continue doing that and we agree that those are important. Topics that need discussion and agreement among state policymakers. Uh, an amendment to this bill would resolve our concern if you at page 8, line 13, insert a new paragraph F that would read this subchapter does not apply to the
retirement or repowering of any dispatchable electric generation facility under settlement consent decree, or other resolution of any litigation or legal proceeding executed or ordered before the effective date of this act, uh, and now Mr. Allen will address the legal issues presented by the bill and Mr. Casselberry will address the resource planning. issues created by the bill. Representative Wootton touched on this, uh, kind of the
Justin Allen
Unverified
56:23
legal practical implications of this bill and, and I'm not the policy expert by any means, but I think
as Mr. Bethel has noted, a lot of the language on the 1st 4 or so pages of this bill are probably correct. I think most people in this room would agree with some of the the policy goals to be nimble and flexible and have access to dispatchable energy. I think everyone agrees with that. The problem comes in on the bottom of page 5, starting on line 31. That language requires before you retire a dispatchable electric generation facility that the operator go to the
public service commission checked multiple boxes of criteria and get approval from the Public Service commission, and there is no exception here for the 3 energy facilities that are already scheduled to be closed pursuant to the federal court decree that has been discussed. Uh, it all began with litigation againsty alleging violations of federal environmental law and the operation of these three facilities. Entergy made the decision to resolve that in lieu of putting scrubbers on the plant to the
tune of several billion dollars, and these gentlemen can speak to that better than I can. Uh, and it was resolved in the form of a consent decree, which was signed off on by the Department of Justice under the first Trump administration. So that is in place and I can't sit here and guarantee, ladies and gentlemen, what a court will do in any particular case, but I think it's a safe bet that ultimately after litigation in one form or another, that federal preemption, the supremacy Clause would control,
and this bill would not be applicable to these 3 facilities, but I can't guarantee that. I don't know where that's going to play out. I don't know how long that's going to take. I don't know how much money that's going to cost, and I don't know what that's going to do to the state of electrical generation in Arkansas in the meantime. I see 3 options for energy, uh, if this word would become law. The first one is to ignore it. not apply to the Public Service commission and seek approval of the closure of these facilities. Well, what's the risks associated with that? Well, show
causal order is entered, these drug into the public service commission. It could be fine. It could lose its license to operate, and it could be disallowed recovery for the cost of decommissioning these units. 5 Senate Bill 596 uh were to become law. It's also likely that uh the other interests to the lawsuit would file another lawsuit or a compliant with the PS. see. Again, this is one option that would likely result in protracted litigation and uncertainty. A second option is to make
application with the Public Service commission. Well, we know what will happen immediately at that point. The other parties to the federal litigation will allege a violation of the consent decree. We will go back to federal court, um, ultimately, probably, uh Losey would lose because of federal preemption, but again, we don't know how long that'll take and what that'll do to the state of our electrical generation policy in Arkansas. The third option is to go back to the Federal court, Federal district court here in Little
Rock and petition to modify, to allow for this application to the public Service commission. We know that the other parties to the consent decree will vigorously oppose. The court almost certainly will deny it, but again, how long will that take? What kind of money will that cost and what will that do to the state of electrical generation in Arkansas. In one final point on the third option, even if we were to succeed in getting an amendment to the consent decree to comply with Senate Bill 596. The requirements of that consent
decree are now set forth in Title V5 clean air permits. For these facilities and any deviation from that is a legal violation subject to over $100,000 penalty per day per plant and also the white bluff deadline is in Arkansas's regional haze um state implementation plan, which is set forth in the Federal Register that too can be enforced by federal regulators. So there may be some other options, but to me, those seem to be the three most obvious ones, and none of them are good
for energy, for the right payers and for the state, uh, and that's why We oppose this bill and why the amendment Mr. Bethel referenced would address
Speaker 175
1:00:48
these concerns. I'd like to provide a few comments just from a resource planning perspective. You've heard, uh, Mr. Bethel and Justin talk about this word called uncertainty. And I can tell you from a planning perspective, the certainty provided by the consent decree is very important for us to replace this
generation capacity that we need and it's really simple. It's about the certainty of when and what. Right now, we know when we've got to do that. For the white bluff station, it's the end of 2028 for the independent station. It's the end of 2030 and what the what provides us the time to figure out what all we need to do to replace that. And I might say that we use this term retirement a lot in the conversation here. The consent decree does not
require us to retire those plants. It requires us to cease to use coal in those plants. And that's different. And part of the what is looking at the prospect of repowering those plants, burning natural gas or some other fuel as well as all the other technologies that are before us that we get to look at when we replace those facilities. So this certainty is just extremely important to get us there. If we're saddled with
litigation that takes away that certainty, that's a problem because as a planner, I don't have, I don't know when, I don't know what. Am I gonna have to continue to look at burning coal and investing. We talked about a billion dollars at each site for environmental controls. And that was a billion dollars back in 2018. It's probably more than that now. Right now, that's not on our radar because that's certainty with that uncertainty is gone, that goes back on our radar. And then about the
timing, we have this litigation that's not going to be costly, but it's gonna take a long time to resolve, most likely. So I don't know the timing there. And then, as Justin mentioned, the 28 and 2030 dates are in the Title 5 permits as well as the state's regional hays plan. So those are completely different than the consent decree. So there's all these kind of complexities that are introduced from a planner's perspective that I don't have right now. And then, when you just look at the practical aspects of this,
as we speak, there's a Herculean effort underway to get to where we need to get to as a state to provide all the energy we need for our customers and to attract the economic growth that we all desire. We passed this generating Arkansas Acts law that is meant to provide us opportunities that we've never had before to to attract these industries in this legislation we're talking about now is entirely inconsistent with that. So We've got, we've got a lot of
work to do in this Herculean effort is hard to turn on a dime. It's kind of like turning an aircraft carrier. You don't do that all at once, and you sure and you sure don't do that without cost. And then if you look at the coal plants themselves. They're 50 year old technology plants. So If you look at how they've been operating for the last 10 years. Today they're running about half as much as they did in 2015. Because they're 50 year old plants and they're lower-cost technologies out there, and that's showing up in how they're
running, so I don't have a crystal ball. I couldn't tell you what they're going to operate at this year or whatever, but I can tell you they're not operating as much. So all that to say is we have certainty right now. We won't have certainty if there are lawsuits filed. And at the end of the day, this is all about keeping rates low for our customers, keeping us competitive so we can track economic development projects, and I think this bill hampers that for sure. So happy to take questions if there are any. All right.
Chair
Unverified
1:04:49
Thank you for testimony. Is there any questions from the
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:05:00
committee? Representative Ferguson, recognize for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me bring this home a little bit to the lawyer at the end of the table. Looking at the bill on page. 6 Line 17 to 25.
There's a section here? It indicates it says the commission shall not approve the retirement
of a dispatchable electric generation facility authorized a surcharge for the decommission of the dispatchable electric generation generation facility. I take that to mean that the commission shall not approve. Uh Any
Yeah, uh, provider from, I guess, closing a plant. I think that's what it means, but then down further in that paragraph. It also indicates that the commission could issue Uh, acceptance that if they find that it was in the public interest of the public to have that facility decommissioned. I asked that question because of course in Jefferson County, we have a coal plant. It uh
quite bluffing between Redfield and Whitehall. It would be a benefit not only to Jefferson County but the Southeast Arkansas. And I'm wondering how this piece of legislation would affect That plant
Justin Allen
Unverified
1:06:42
So first of all, that plant is one of the three that we're talking about that has been subject to closure pursuant to the Federal consent decree. So currently pursuant to the federal consent decree in before 2031.
That facility has to stop burning coal. So that's one of our points here is that that has been decided and is subject to a federal consent decree, which again, the Department of Justice under the Trump administration approved and so what we're saying is because of that, by requiring energy to now have to go to the public service commission and looking at the language representative you're talking about and overcome a rebuttable presumption that generally it's in the public interest to close it. They're not only not going to approve it, but they're not
going to let them recover any costs to close. That's what that language you just referenced is
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:07:33
doing. And that was my second question. So my third question and final question, Mr. Chair, you've answered my second question. Uh, Isn't that going to add to the
Speaker 120
1:07:46
cost. Of Whenever you have to rebuild another facility. Yes.
Speaker 175
1:07:51
Yes. Uh, like I mentioned before, the uncertainty there.
Definitely add to the cost. We've got to look at things that we don't know are going to happen, like keeping the coal plant open and investing that billion dollars in those scrubbers that I mentioned minutes ago. Uh, we've got big plans for white love. White bluff is a very valuable site. And I mentioned that we're working very hard on those plans, and those plants will go before the Arkansas Public Service Commission. But That site is huge, 3600 acres. It has
You know, 1600 plus megawatts of generation on it. It has 1600 megawatts of generation interconnect there. That's the ability to, to connect whatever we replace it with to the power grid, and that means since it has that interconnect there customers get to use that for +00 cost. So that's a huge benefit to our customers. If we have to do something else, we may have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars just to interconnect to the vault power system, the big transmission lines.
So, yeah, if we don't have the surgery, it does increase the cost. White bluff is going to be a big part of energy. Arkansas's plans going forward. We spell that out in our IRP. There will be dispatchable generation there. There will be other technologies there. It's a
Speaker 171
1:09:20
huge benefit for economic development. So we need the certainty and we want to avoid those increased costs.
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:09:25
One last question, Mr. Chair. So you, you said something about if you have to do some other things
With that be maybe not building or refurbishing some of the plants if you have to
Speaker 175
1:09:44
close those. If we have to close it, if we, if we back up a little bit, it ceased to use coal. We're not necessarily retiring. One of the things that, yeah, one of the, one of the things on the table is looking at burning natural gas in our state has a lot of that. And so that's one of the things. Whether we do that, I don't know. If we do something else, it will be because it has superior economics, but it'll be there at that side. Oh, OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:10:08
Representative Da be recognized for your question. Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Bethel, that amendment that you offered in your, your testimony a few moments ago. Was that offered to uh the sponsors of this bill and if so, what was the response? And
Speaker 170
1:10:26
if not, why not? Yes, we did uh offer that to Senator McKee early on, and he he said that was inconsistent with the objective of the bill, I believe that yes ma'am.
Chair
Unverified
1:10:39
All right. Any other questions from the committee? See no representative McGrew, you're for
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:10:47
your question. Yeah, I guess I'm a little uh need some clarification on the planning of moving forward to building the other plant down there to hook on before there. Why can you not continue on with that, and if you continue on with that, which replaces a fire, why wouldn't the Public Service commission approve that and move forward. It seems like you kind of want to take the Public Service commission out, should they not still be left
Speaker 170
1:11:11
involved with this. And, and we would expect the public service commission to be involved, the risk and Kurt can help with. this is if we're, if we're required to continue burning coal at those units. It costs money to do that and that may take the money away from being able to invest in the next level of generation which would cause rates to go up for our customers even more if we're if we're doing both and you're investing in a uh an older facility with an uncertain future whereas under our current plans we would be investing in new facilities
with a much more certain future at a lower cost to our customers.
Speaker 175
1:11:45
Yeah, and you know, if, if you have to do dual plans because you don't know where you're going to end up. What, what, what you're gonna end up with is making financial commitments like with Mitsubishi and others for very expensive pieces of equipment that you may not need. And then that's gonna be a cost to you if you don't go down that road. That's kind of one. Yeah, I wouldn't say in dual
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:12:03
plans. I say why can't you go on with your plan to build the gas plant of what you're going to do beside there and and get it
Speaker 170
1:12:12
online so you won't have to do this. And I think we could do that, but as Mr. Allen said, if we, if we go before the public service commission with a proposal to uh either attempt to close the the coal plant or an attempt to extend the coal plant, that's going to trigger litigation that will be expensive and potentially lengthy, and he can speak to that in greater detail than. But that's the, that's the risk of moving forward under the provisions of the bill is that you will likely prompt that expensive lengthy litigation.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:12:45
Representative To you recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've heard a lot of talk this morning about the the cost and the expense, but what I hadn't heard is about the, what's going to happen to the people that work, for example, the new art plant, the one there in Independence County. I'm close to that area. I know a lot of those people and uh there's not been any mention of what the future is for them, and I'm just curious what this bill in some way help protect
their jobs, would you, would you speak to that? what
Speaker 175
1:13:20
your plans are. Yeah, I mean, all the, not only an independents, but a white bluff, there are people that work there and we're very concerned about that. They're our employees. And they've been involved with us as we plan the future after 2028 for white bluffing after 2030 for independence on those cease to use cold dates at both plants, both sites, they will be replacement generation there and
hopefully some of those folks will end up operating those new technologies that are there or like I said a minute ago, perhaps the repowering of either of those facilities. So, uh, Our our effort or our objective is to make sure those folks have opportunities with the with the new with the new arrangement that's at White Bluff and at Independence. So your
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:14:10
plans for new ar you elaborated quite extensively a while ago concerning what the future holds for white bluff,
but I noticed you didn't mention the one in Newark, so the plans the same for them or are they
Speaker 175
1:14:24
gonna be left behind. Yeah, it is. I, it wasn't on purpose, I can tell you, uh, independence is equally as important as white bluff, uh, I will also tell you, as you well know, probably thaty Arkansas does not own 100. percent of either of those sites. It has co-owners in those sites, and we have been working hand in glove with the co-owners. They have their
planning as well, and I suspect that they would echo a lot of the things I hope they would. A lot of the things that I've said this morning, that they have their plans. They're different than ours because they have different needs for their customers, uh, but, you know, they're going to be involved at that independent site and as well as the White Bluff site as we figure out how we're gonna trans po s ition out of that and execute our respective plans. OK, thank you. Representative Lustrom for your
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:15:19
question. Once more, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Do y'all receive any federal funding for closing a
plant? No, no, ma'am. OK. And there's no incentives coming to operate a federal or operate a coal plant? Are there any incidents to keep one open?
Speaker 200
1:15:38
Not to my knowledge, I'm not aware of any. I'm
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:15:41
not aware of any, OK. And then what does repowering a plant
Speaker 175
1:15:45
mean? It means using the existing uh facilities that are there, the,
the turban, uh, the, uh, the boiler and all the other facilities. Just burning a different fuel right now, it burns coal. Uh, we may want to repower it by not burning coal, but burning natural gas or, you know, some you, you, some, some coal plants have been converted to burn, you know, other things like garbage or or wood chips or something like that. OK, all right, thank you. Representative
Speaker 171
1:16:10
Lady, you're recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:16:24
Yeah, the plant there that we just talked about, I think, I think City War and Light is about 18% of that planet Newark I believe. Yeah, it would affect power supply there in Jonesboro, but, um, I don't know. You, y'all have talked about this, but I just want to try to clarify it. So You know, Senator McKee and Representative Mackinnon has worked on this for years. I was actually a co-sponsor last session. We didn't run the bill. I think it's a great idea.
Uh, but over the two-year period, a lot of things have changed. And a lot of things have changed recently with the new executive order that President Trump just put out about coal. But So my question is, these plants and you talked about this a little bit. Uh, so, They Getting close to their end of life, so those plants have been there what, 30 years? Is that
Speaker 175
1:17:24
right? No, bluff came online in
1980 and independence in 1983, so closer to 50,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:17:31
OK? So in your opinion, what's the normal life of a coal plant? Well,
Speaker 175
1:17:36
you know, it's, that's a question that the answer is, well, it depends on how you take care of it. Uh, but I think they're normally slated for like 60 years. But you know, it's kind of like you're old 20 year old car, it, it, it may run well and all that, but it doesn't get very good gas mileage because it doesn't have the latest and greatest technology on it. And that's what we see here as well.
Speaker 171
1:17:59
They're much more efficient resources out there, uh, that perhaps made lower rates better and be a better investment for customers than the coal plant. So as a
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:18:06
company, you could make the decision that you want to close that plant just because it's inefficient, it's old, it needs to be replaced because of the efficiency if no other reason. maintenance and so forth, uh, rather than a court order. You could be closing it for that reason. We always look at in
Speaker 175
1:18:24
our planning, what's the best thing for our customers. And so, yes, the answer to your question is
yes, but, but the burden proof is on us to demonstrate to the Arkansas Public Service Commission that the investments we want to make to shut down a plan or to add
Speaker 171
1:18:40
another one, provide benefits to customers in the
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:18:42
public interest. So if you shut down that plant, let's just
say Newark or the other one, and uh as you said, you could use the infrastructure that's already there in the high yard. The lines going out actually you could still use the steam generator if it's still operational in good shape. So
anything downstream from the actual Um, fuel burner. Could be used, right, yeah, it could so in that case you would put a fuel supply on there and that could be, uh, clean coal, couldn't it? I mean, it's possible. I'm not I'm not putting words in your mouth here, but it could be natural gas. It could be clean coal. It could be something else. It could be, it could be another fuel, yeah. And,
Speaker 208
1:19:24
and Representative Ladyman, one of the benefits of the, the terms of the consent decree that
Speaker 170
1:19:32
really works to the benefit of our customers is we were able to operate those plants for uh 8 and 10 years beyond that point of the agreement without making those expensive capital investments at that time, so we've been able to operate those at a lower cost to our customers for the last, you know, 10 years, which has been a real benefit to our customers and that was one of the provisions because otherwise we would have had to brought them into. compliance with the federal regulations sooner and so that that's been a a real benefit for
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:20:04
our customers. Big benefit and I may be repeating question I apologize, but, uh, in your opinion, how does the President Trump's executive order. Affect what you're doing in this situation in replacing plants. Does it affect
it? How does it affect it? Well, I'll give you my opinion. I'm not
Speaker 175
1:20:24
a lawyer. I'm a planner. I don't think it affects it at all because I don't think the executive order changes consent decrees. Uh, so we're continuing to move
Speaker 179
1:20:35
down our path that I have talked about before. I'm not going to repeat it, but
Justin Allen
Unverified
1:20:40
I don't think it affects it at all. And from my review of its representative, it's direct the Attorney General, the president's director and the attorney general to look at laws across the states. Look at state law and see if there's any state law in place that's contrary to the policy of the federal government or the federal law and to potentially pursue litigation against those states. We're obviously not talking about a state law in this case. Uh, my guess is if the EO were to have been directed
At these 3 facilities that it wouldn't be enforceable under separation of powers. Any other
Speaker 209
1:21:15
questions from committee? See no, thank you gentlemen for your testimony. We have
Chair
Unverified
1:21:21
other folks here to speak against this bill, but is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for this bill? See none. Sarah Tucker, if you would,
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
1:21:38
please go to the end of the table. Identify yourself and you
Sarah Tacker
Unverified
1:21:52
may proceed with your testimony. Good morning. My name is Sarah Tacker. I am an attorney here in Little Rock at PPGMR Law, and I am here representing Southwestern Electric Power Company. They are an electric utility serving 128,000 Arkansas customers on
the western edge of the state from Northwest Arkansas all the way down to Texarkana. I joked with my colleague that uh as long as I didn't fall down on my way up here, I should be fine and of course I tripped. Great way to start, uh, a testimony. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today regarding SB 596. 1st, I would like to say that SWEPO is in agreement with uh the concerns that energy expressed on 596,
but I'd like you to know that Swepco operates 12 electric generating units in 3 states, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, and 3 of those units are here in Arkansas. And this bill is going to impact more than just the 3 energy units that are at issue from Egi's testimony. I would also like to state that sweatco very strongly agrees with the policy goals stated in this legislation.
There is a critical need and a critical value that dispatchable resources bring to serving electric customers, reliability and resiliency are imperative and Arkansans have a need for cost-effective rights. The concern is that the bill is not necessarily going to deliver all of those things. First of all, this bill is going to fundamentally change a regulatory approach to generation retirement. Utilities are currently allowed to make
these managerial decisions and they go to the public service commission, generally after the fact and in pursuit of cost recovery to support those decisions are going to demonstrate to the Public Service commission that those decisions are in the public interest. This is now going to require a utility to go to the public. Service commission before they are able to make those general managerial decisions. Another concern is that the timing of the process mandated by the bill.
does not align with regulatory realities. I've been practicing in this area for 20 years and I have not ever seen a retirement decision and a replacement decision made at the same time. These decisions are often made years apart. And that is because the resource planning process is complicated and takes a very long time. A retirement decision might be made as an Egy's case, 10 years down the road. That's a little early to start making decisions about
replacement generation, particularly because the economics of replacement generation are going to be more time dependent. You are going to want to analyze the value of replacement generation for your customers when it comes a little bit closer to needing to build that plant. This bill is going to tie retirement and replacement together in a way that is actually going to make it more difficult for utilities to make generation. decisions, both a replacement
and a retirement decision. The bill also discourages a utilities, uh, efforts to generate electricity in the most reliable and resilient way by limiting some of those business decisions that utilities make. Again, those decisions are going to be addressed by the Public Service commission, but this bill is going to make it a before the fact rather than an after the fact review. There are a couple of uh
exemptions and or exclusions that if this bill were going to work, it would need to have and it doesn't have one of those is that it does not provide an exemption or an exclusion for a facility that is already beyond its economic useful life. Swapco has two plants right now that it is continuing to extend past its original retirement dates because it is currently economically feasible. For customers to do so. Those plants are 68 and 66 years old,
Well beyond their economic life. I, I think that this bill is actually targeted at plants that would be subject to early retirement decisions rather than these very old plants uh that are online and now you would need to go for a 68 year old plant, go to the Public Service commission and, and prove uh a checklist of things to show that it's in the best. interest of customers. I'd like to emphasize that Swepco is always looking at what is the
economic benefit to its customers from its decisions. That is a critical feature in all of the resource planning and, and this bill is, is not necessary in order to encourage the utility to do that. In addition to uh those issues, one problem for Swepco is that it is subject to 3 utility commissions. One in Texas, one in Louisiana, and the one here in Arkansas. Requiring pre-approval of retirement decisions is going to possibly
put Swepco into a conflicting situation with its other retail regulators. This may end up in a situation where Arkansas customers are going to have to pay more. If Texas says SWAPO should do one thing in Arkansas. instructs Texas to do another, that is going to put uh pressure on, uh, the, the, the bill size for Arkansas customers. This also does not address the
logistics of plants that are co-owned. Entergy mentioned some of that and SWEO agrees that that can be a critical problem. The one question that I would ask you to consider representatives is whether or not this legislation is necessary. Act 373 uh was just recently passed, and it did establish an energy policy for the state. It says it is the policy of this state to maintain adequate capacity of available reliable dispatch affordable, and resilient electric generation to provide
for the existing and reasonably projected future energy consumption needs of all consumers of electricity in Arkansas. It's not necessary to have another bill to establish the policy. You guys have already done that this session. I would also like to let you know that these conversations are already occurring at the Public Service commission. This bill essentially is an issue of timing, not subject matter. The substance of this is going to be addressed. The Arkansas retail regulator will be able to have
an opinion about this and to evaluate these decisions on behalf of Arkansas ratepayers. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak and I am happy to answer any questions that you have. Represent lady and
Chair
Unverified
1:29:07
you're recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, just a quick question. Those two older
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:29:13
plants you talked about where are those, are those in Arkansas and where is it gentry one of them?
Speaker 151
1:29:18
No, sir. That plant is Flint Creek. It, it is, it
Sarah Tacker
Unverified
1:29:21
is going strong and uh it's current retirement date, the end of its economic useful life is
currently set for 2038. So we've got a few more years with Flint Creek. So what are the two older ones? One is located in Shreveport, Louisiana, Arsenal Hill, and the other plant is located in Texas. OK, thank you.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:29:42
All right. Any other questions from committee? no. Thank you for your testimony.
Chair
Unverified
1:29:52
Seeing no others to speak for or against this bill signed up. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this bill.
See none. Senator McKee Representative McClendon recognized closed for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:30:12
you, committee, uh for your indulgence. You know, we've heard a lot about
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:30:18
How expensive and inefficient the coal plants are because apparently we all agree on the rest of the bill. It's kind of the gist I'm getting. Uh, if that's the case, all they have to do is demonstrate that
to the public Service commission. So I don't know, I, I can't understand. I mean, I can't understand why they would be opposed to that other than the quote unquote timing issue, but I think it's important that the Public Service commission is looking at these things ahead of time so that we don't get ourselves in a position because of the federal subsidies that were in place for a long time that our customers are experiencing black and brownouts, and I, I appreciate and I commend the utilities and how they've operated thus far.
Uh, but they're not closing the coal plants because they're inefficient or old. They're closing them because of an outdated interpretation of the Clean Air Act. That's why they're closing them. So all they have to do is demonstrate that that's the best thing for ratepayers and reliability. So in, in drafting this bill, I did not contemplate, nor did I intend to look at generation outside the state of Arkansas. I don't think that's going to be an issue. Um, and it specifically won't be an issue for the next 2 years. So if it, if it does pop up that that's something we need to deal
with in 2027. I'm happy to deal with that. But I appreciate your consideration, and I appreciate all the questions. You guys had some really good questions. I think this is a really important conversation and making sure that we make the right moves as a state to provide for economic development and to make sure that the folks that we represent have power when they need it at an affordable price is my goal, so I'd appreciate a good vote and appreciate your time. OK. What's the will of the committee? Uh
Chair
Unverified
1:32:09
Representative McGreg, you recognize All right, I have a motion to pass. That's a proper motion. We have some discussion on the motion. Representative Laman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:32:23
Chairman. Well, Senator McKee and Representative McLynn, I know y'all worked on this a long time, and, you know, I agree with what you're trying to do, and I hate to speak against your bill, but I feel like I have to, um.
Senator McKee, you know, that there's discussions at the highest level of state government about forming a working group that hopefully you and I both might be on and to talk about these problems that we've discussed for a couple hours here. And You know, I believe that's what we need to do. We need to sit down and have discussions because this industry is in such flux right now that we don't know exactly what's going to happen. Um I believe your bill would be a
really good starting point for that group to look at. And be the basis for an energy policy that we need for the state, which we don't have, you can talk to public service commission and Department of Energy and they say, yeah, we got a plan, but it's not complete. We need one. I think we could use this bill with the bill we've already passed as a base. To study, but the reason I'm opposed to the bill is I believe it might throw some roadblocks
in what we're trying to do. That's the reason I oppose the bill. Uh, I, I, I wish that you would consider maybe putting an interim study and we use it for the working group to work on. I don't think the timing is such that we have to do it today. So that's my input, but because of that, I have to
Chair
Unverified
1:34:05
be a no. Any other discussion? Representativeton recognized for discussion.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:34:11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to thank
The senator and the representative for your, your efforts here, but I'm concerned about the attack of concerned about the path that we're about to pursue. Relative to what has already been planned and the bill that we have already passed. And I hope that y'all will consider his representative Ladyman pointed out, including your law, your, uh, bill in the, in the study group because
energy and power, uh, for the state in an economic manner and for economic development is you both know, and that's the reason you've given so much time is a, is a plus for our state, and we must, we must. Be a leader in that. But I can't go along with the fact of the additional costs that we may face, um, From the lawsuit, from the consent order that's already
been in, in, um, made by the federal court and for that reason, I'll be a no vote, which Senator I discussed with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Any
Chair
Unverified
1:35:34
other discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor say aye. All poll
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
1:35:41
say no. Nos have it. Sorry your bill's failed. Up next, Senator Lenny.
Here to present Senate Bill 331. If you would go to the end of the table, introduce yourself, and you may proceed. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 221
1:36:09
Vice Chair, members of the committee, Greg Lettingson at District 30. Uh, Senate
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:36:13
Bill 331 is the last of several bills I have run on behalf of Susan G. Komen over the years. We have worked together as far back as 2017. I have worked with other organizations on bills to help our candidates in the fight against cancer, to give you a
little history, just how we got here back in 2019. I passed a law that established licensure for genetic counselors in Arkansas, as you all know, some forms of cancer are hereditary, and so sometimes you can get a test and it can tell you whether or not you have the gene for a particular type of cancer, and then you can go see a genetic counselor and they can Make recommendations as to what you might be able to do to reduce or eliminate your risk of that particular cancer. I spent a day with a genetic counselor back before running that bill and just one quick example, there was a young person who came in. It turns out their test had showed that they had
inherited their father's gene for stomach cancer. Her father had died at a young age, and so it was a devastating realization, but because of recommendations from that counselor, they were able to take steps that all but eliminated the threat of stomach cancer. What we want to do with Senate Bill 331. Just make sure that there's no reason somebody might not go get that test if they have a clear family history of cancer in their family, and it is a hereditary cancer. Just to make sure that they can get in there, find out for sure, and then take steps to again reduce or eliminate their risk. We do see it as an investment,
most importantly, in saving lives by giving people all the knowledge they need to survive, but also in downstream savings, Minnesota Department of Commerce, when they passed this legislation some years ago, performed a study that showed that the savings. downstream from reduced treatments by tackling this on the front end, outstripped the cost of the program in that state with that, I'm happy to take questions. All right. Representing Langstrom for a
Chair
Unverified
1:37:55
question. I'm a little confused, but I
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:38:00
stay that way. Haven't we already done something similar to this earlier there was a
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:38:04
Representative Fred Allen Hospital 1079 earlier this session. It's a great bill that proud to vote for and that Coleman also supports. We see the bills as kind of working hand in hand and that with both of them on the books we would cover even more people than any one bill would by itself. OK, just a
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:38:19
quick follow up. What are we talking about cost here and is this something What, what are we talking about cost? So there was
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:38:27
no fiscal note prepared when Kentucky passed this legislation, the
fiscal note for that legislation was 0 over in Oklahoma, which has a slightly larger population and about 13,000 more state employees than we do. Their fiscal note came in at $150,000 and I would also note that Coleman also passed this legislation there, so this bill is similar to that one. I believe the cost in Minnesota, which had a much larger population, the estimated fiscal note was about $300,000 but again, their studies showed significant downstream savings that would more than make up for the front end investment. And I appreciate you bringing
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:38:57
those other states in. That's, that's, that's very honest of
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:39:01
you to tell us there is going to be a cost. There will be a cost, yes, ma'am. OK, thank you. Representative Toshi recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Senator, you, you alluded to the fact about Representative Allen's bill, and I, I remember when he ran that bill and I've looked at your bill and compared it to his and yours, it looks like it's gonna be a little bit more expensive than what Representative Allen run and I thought his covered
everything, and you said, well, you'd have both of them, but you know as well as I do that your bill will come after his, and if it's signed into law after that, then yours is one that would uh that would take effect, not Representative Allen and Mr. Chairman, one last follow up and Representative Lumstrom also touched on this. There's a cost to this and I'm I don't have a physical impact
and, and was there a physical impact done on this bill? There was not one prepared, sir. Well, I think this committee needs physical impact. So you're requesting
Speaker 228
1:40:10
a fiscal impact Representatives. I am. I think we need to
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:40:13
look at that. All right. Well, with that being said,
Chair
Unverified
1:40:15
I believe we're going to have to wait on the fiscal impact on this bill and There's no further discussion on the matter. OK, I would note
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:40:24
this obviously is the last week. I don't know if they'll have time to prepare one, and again I don't know that this bill would preclude Representative Allens from taking the law, but I do think
the legislature's goal should be to protect as many people as possible, but I appreciate the committee's time on the last bill I will ever
Chair
Unverified
1:40:44
run in committee. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we're going to keep moving along here. We're going to move on to, uh, Senate Bill 437. 437. We have Brad Hall or Uh Senator Hester in the room. All right, y'all, uh,
patient right quick. We're gonna see if we can find them right quick. We have people here to speak. Uh, one second, I've been told, so hold on just one sec.
Speaker 209
1:42:11
All right. We're going to hear Senate Bill
Chair
Unverified
1:42:16
437, I believe, Representative Hall, if y'all would please identify yourself and uh you may proceed. James Eaton, House District
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
1:42:21
26. Brad Hall, state representative District 24. I've got some, uh, handouts here
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:42:35
if, uh, if it's OK to. Yeah, absolutely, and I believe
Chair
Unverified
1:42:41
this bill has that last amendment we voted on in committee. So this amendment does exist in this bill. If you want to speak to that as well. Representative Hall would be great. OK, so a lot
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:42:54
of you all are wondering why we're back here on the same bill. Uh, there's a lot of confusion on the amendment that we put on the last time on the height requirement, uh, in the state. And so we're here today to kind of clarify that confusion. And we've
also got some people here to speak for the bill that
wasn't able to make it here the last time. So what, what you've got there on your handout is a map of the state of Arkansas. Now, that is a street map, OK? Of all the highways and roads across the state of Arkansas. If you look at that map, and they say, You
would say, well, there's too many streets and roads on this map to ever be able to build a city. school The church or anything else.
By looking at that map. So what I'm saying is
when you look at maps with with red lines on them, it is confusing, like was handed out to you the last
Speaker 238
1:43:57
time. You know? We basically want to come back to the committee today and
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
1:44:03
Clear up any clarifications about the amendments was really what we were looking to do today. What this one does, it covers the entire state.
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:44:15
On 437. It covers the entire state for the regulations. And what we're doing here, and the reason we're doing this is because We've got an interim study that's coming in at the end of session. That's going to take a look at the windmill energy, uh, development projects across the state. And we're trying to get ahead if we do not act now. The companies will be coming in here.
And they will be saying, they'll be doing land leases and they'll be grandfathered in and there'll be nothing we can do about it. If we put regulations on right now, we can always take them off in 2 years once we see what the study shows, but we can never put them back on. I would see this
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
1:45:05
a little bit like the crypto of 2 years ago. We had to call a special session to correct that. So all we're trying to do is to get ahead of this. We can always relax our
regulations, but you can't really go back and increase regulations. I don't think the windmill industry would like it very much or wind turbine industry would like it very much if we said we're going to a 500 ft high on your windmills or your wind turbines and tell them to cut 200 ft off the windmill. Obviously, you can't do that. So we're trying to get ahead of this and give the interim study a chance to show what we really want to do. Appreciate your consideration. Any questions from the committee, Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:45:47
Lindstrom, you recognize for your question. Thank you, sir.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:45:50
Do we have a due date on that interim study? It seems like that should have already we're getting already
Speaker 242
1:45:56
been done. Well, they filed the bill, uh, the other
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:45:59
day. OK, that's OK, that's the, the missing link there. All right, thank you. All
Chair
Unverified
1:46:05
right. Representative Root and you recognized for your question.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:46:10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is, we're on here, is there a line from the north part of the state
to the south part of the state where this will preclude building a Windmill. That's
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:46:27
not this bill. This bill includes the entire state. OK. So You're
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:46:34
still intending to build them in East Arkansas. Where we have the crop dusting facility. No, sir.
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:46:43
What this does is this puts regulations across the entire state of Arkansas, where
everybody is dealing with the same regulations and not just part of the state. These regulations will be, uh, implemented on the eastern side of the state, just as well as they
are on the western side of the state. But they can still be built in East Arkansas. Yes, if they, if they go by the guidelines, and yes, they will be able to be built. This is not a moratorium by any means. Yeah,
Chair
Unverified
1:47:13
thank you. Representative Ferguson, you're recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quick
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:47:21
question. This amendment, is this the same amendment we had last week. Yes, sir. So nothing has
Speaker 120
1:47:26
changed in this bill from last week to this week. Now there's
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:47:30
some confusion because we had to change it twice last week because of a department error. All right, OK, thank you. Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:47:37
E recognize for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a question for you, I think. This is Senate Bill 437. Are we planning to run Senate Bill 639. Senate Bill 639
has been passed or has been asked to be passed over by Senator Caldwell.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:47:54
All right. Representative, you recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. you just stated a second ago, representing that this is not a moratorium, but I thought we established last week that this is a moratorium and there will be no, there's no one that's gonna be able to comply, correct? I that's what we heard last week, but now you're saying no, they're going to, but it's the same bill, so
in essence, this is killing the windmills in Arkansas, correct? For right now.
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:48:27
For right now, there's grandfathered in, uh, areas of the state that the project's already going
into, uh, and that's why I gave you that map. The gentleman that came up here the other day, he gave you a map and he had a bunch of red lines on it, and he said, look, if you look at that, there's no room in the state of Arkansas to put any windmills by looking at his map. And so that's why I wanted to show you how maps can be confusing because there's a map of the state of Arkansas with all the roads on it, and you cannot find a place to build. the city on that map according
to that map. I hope you understand what I'm trying to do the
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:49:02
the maps are unimportant to me. I don't care about the maps. My, my question really went to you just said this. That this is not a moratorium, and I understand those that are already being built or grandfathered in. That I understand, but you said this is not a moratorium, but last week in testimony, the testimony from the witness that you had with you said. It's going to be so burdensome,
no new windmills are going to be built, so is your intent that no new windmills be built after the passage of this because of the regulations are so onerous that no one can abide by them. I'm not talking about ones already in place or starting up, I'm talking about from this state forward. No, ma'am. I do not
Speaker 250
1:49:47
want a moratorium on the windmill industry. So your, so your testimony from last week is
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:49:52
different than what it was my testimony, it was him. I
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:49:55
did not say that it was too
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:49:59
witnesses said that. OK, thank you. Representative Wooldridge,
Chair
Unverified
1:50:03
if you would please, uh, let us know how this interim study could work in conjunction with this bill, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jeremy Wooldridge,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:50:10
Representative District one, and uh first of all, thank you, thank the committee for allowing me to be here and just add something to the conversation. Thank you to Senator Hester and Representative Hall for bringing this bill, um, the interim study has been submitted. Chairman Lynch is going to review that in agriculture. Our hopes is and the air applicators uh are
supportive of this bill. They're going to be here to testify for this. We're hoping that through the regulatory process, but this will kind of pump the brakes on the industry allow us an opportunity to study this over the interim and then come back in 27 with um some legislation that everyone can live with that everyone's happy with that creates the opportunity here in Arkansas, but make sure that we understand better than we do now what this impact will be. So I know the air applicators are
here. They're going to testify in favor of this bill. The interim study bill has been submitted and will be looking at that through the interim. So we're hoping that this bill as amended will pass, and then we can between the two have a better understanding of
Speaker 234
1:51:14
what we're working with as we move forward. All right. Any other questions
Chair
Unverified
1:51:19
from the committee, Representatives for your question. Representative Wools, can you expand just a little bit more on why we need
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:51:24
to pump the brakes on, um, I guess on wind energy. I mean, I I.
I feel like in some parts of the state that might be a valuable resource, um, especially in consideration of some of the other things we've passed, but I just want to get your take on, you know, I guess why
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:51:44
we want to pump the brakes. Thank you, Representative. I appreciate the question and for me, I kind of relate this back to crypto and what we went through last time, we passed a bill dealing with crypto at the end of the session, then had to come back and make some changes. My understanding, one of my constituents who's heavily invested in the air agriculture world. Uh, they've got some data that they're going to hand out
to you guys that, that I think will help to compel why I feel this way, but there's draft issues, there are issues with our ag pilots as they fly if there's no, if there's no regulatory aspect around where these windmills are placed, you know, an ag pilot that's loaded down, it may take 2 miles for them to go out and turn. I think there are safety concerns. I think that there are draft down when concerns kind of like the dicamba issues and others that we've dealt with, and I think that with agriculture being our number one industry in the state. That's what we have to
make sure that we're protecting, and I think this bill allows us to slow the process and get a proper study in place that we know that as we move forward, we're not making decisions for a year. or 2 years, we're making decisions for the next generation as we move forward. We know that those decisions aren't going to be harmful to our number one industry. Representative Tos you recognized
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:52:56
for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representatives. Just
kind of helped me to understand your, your suggestion
that we pass this bill, but you, because it's got problems, and then we're going to put it in the interim study, but this bill, if we pass it, and then we voted off the House floor, then it's going to go ahead and become law. So once it becomes law, but now you're saying we need to put in the interim study. Why would you not put it in the interim study to start with if you've got issues with it. I'm just a little confused on that strategy. Thank you, Representative.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:53:27
I appreciate that. So we're trying to work into tandem here. This bill was filed prior to the interim study. What I think that we have currently
is no regulation really. It's kind of for lack of a better term, the wild wild west windmills can go up and they can be anywhere in the state. This bill passes some regulations, so we're at least gonna have some oversight in the next 2 years from a regulatory standpoint that we're going to look at these projects specifically. I think that slows the process down. We make sure that we've got some regulation in place instead of just allowing an industry to be completely unregulated for the next 2 years. while we study it. So that's what I think that, that would be helpful.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:54:05
I understand that and that's an excellent explanation, but by the same token, what we're putting good regulations in place according to what you're testifying to. We're also putting bad regulations into place based on your testimony. Am I right or wrong? Um, I'm not sure I understand that part of it. I think that if
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:54:20
we pass this bill, we put the regulations in this bill in place, and if the study produces that there needs to be a change at the end of this two-year period like we do every session, we'd have the ability to look at this and address whatever
portions of the regulation are not good for Arkansas, repeal or change those, and then move forward with a with a proposed piece of legislation that is the best for the state of Arkansas as we move forward. OK, and
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:54:46
I apologize if I didn't make myself clear, but I, I've got
some crops. s here and here today that, that I think a lot of that's in my area and do a great job and I just want to make sure that we are not going to put something into law until this interim study is done, that's going to create a problem for them
instead of just waiting and doing an interim study and then coming out with a bill that uh that That's all the regulation, whatever we put in there is good, not putting one in as testimony that I've heard with good regulations and some issues in there that is causing some concern. There's where I'm having a little bit of a problem understanding the, the, the strategy or the process that we're trying to use here. Does that make sense? Yes, sir. Thank you.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:55:30
I couldn't agree with you more, um, the, the crop dusters that are here are going to speak
in favor of this bill. This is a bill that they feel like is
Chair
Unverified
1:55:43
helpful to their industry as we
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:55:47
move into this study. We root and you're for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Representative Tosh, represent the, my, my concern is for the crop dusters, you can you from the bill, I can determine that it will keep wind industry from coming into East Arkansas and building facilities
during the time we're in the interim study.
Thank you, Mr. Wootton, Representative Wootton, it will not keep them from coming in. It will place regulations on them that may be cumbersome, but the crop dusters and the air applicators, they support this bill. They think this bill is
helpful to them as we move into this interim study. Well, so the bill will permit them to go ahead if they meet the requirements of this bill, but there's nothing in this bill that right now, that will protect Them other than the fact that
the 300 ft limit has been removed. Is that correct? That's correct. They are comfortable
with this bill as it's written and they're supportive of it, and they're going to come and testify on
behalf of it in just a minute. Well, I'll be, I'll look forward to listening to their testimony. Thank you, as will I. Representative in your re for your question. Thank you,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:56:59
Mr. Chairman. Uh, you brought up and I talked to some of the crop dusters over there, and I understand their concerns, but you brought up turbulence from the wind turbines.
You know, there's an off switch on those turbines and, and they can be turned off when somebody's spraying in the area. And I've worked at wind farms for quite a few years, and there, there are wind farms that do shut down for situations like that. I mean, it's a very simple thing that can be in the contract. And you can shut them down. So turbulence there should not be any turbulence when you're flying close to those. All they got to do is turn them off.
Uh, we had a wind farm up in Michigan. We turned off for three months at night because it affected the bats. So I'm sure a company would agree to turn them off for, I don't know how long it takes to spray a 100 acre field or whatever, but I'm sure they'd be willing to do that if if necessary. So turbulence should not be in the formula. You agree or disagree. Well, I appreciate that. I'm not going to climb up there
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:58:05
and look for an off switch, so I had to take your word on that, but I agree
with exactly what you're saying and I understand. I don't claim to be an expert on wind energy or the industry as a whole. I just want to make sure that, that my crop dusters and their applicators are, are able to be heard. So that's the point of the interim study bills to bring wind industry, um, agriculture folks, crop dusting folks, everyone to the table, so we can make sure that, that we get something that everyone is pleased with. Well, I don't claim to be an expert either, but I worked
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:58:35
on for 13 years more than you don't have to climb the tower. There's a thing
called a control center. Oh, that's good. So alright. All
Chair
Unverified
1:58:46
right. Any other questions from the committee, Representative Tosh, you recognized for
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:58:51
your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's questions for the bill's sponsors and I had to step out for just a second and you may have covered it, but the regulations that we've got in this bill, there's not anybody that's carved out, in other words, the regulations, it's uh what's good for one is good for all, so we're covering the entire state with these regulations making no
exemptions. We're not carving anyone out. In my understanding that correct sir, you
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:59:16
are. correct. Everybody is is included. Everybody is included in this bill. OK. Thank you. Representative McGrew, you're recognized for your question.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:59:26
Yeah, a question, so nothing in this bill changed from
from last week when you ran the bill. The the gentlemen, there were 2 or 3 of them here that said that this would be a moratorium on windmills at this passed. Nothing in that changed, so I'm sure they probably didn't see it
was running again and so we're voting on the same bill that we voted on
Chair
Unverified
1:59:52
last week. Yes. All right. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none. We have people here that are signed up to speak for this bill. Uh, Matt Woolard, if you would please come to the end of the table and recognize yourself, and you may proceed with your testimony.
And there at the end is are you cold? Cole Hartley? Yes, sir. Cole Hartley, y'all would please
Speaker 265
2:00:25
identify yourself and you may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um and committee members, I appreciate y'all giving me the opportunity to speak about this bill today. My name's Matt Woolard. I'm the owner of Woollard Flying Service and a partner in LMN Farms in Corning, Arkansas. I'm a member of the agriculture, agriculture Aviation Association and currently serve as National Ag Aviation Association executive board. Hey, right quick if you would.
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
2:00:49
You, you have a handout. Would you like that handout to be presented? Yes, please. All right, we'll have staff hand that out while you
Speaker 265
2:00:56
give your presentation. And with me today is Cole Hartley. I'll let him introduce himself,
Cole Hartley
Unverified
2:01:00
and then I'm going to make a little presentation. Yeah, my name is Cole Hartley for chairman of the committee, thank
Speaker 269
2:01:05
you for letting me speak. Um, currently own and operate Hartley Flying Service in Stuttgart, Arkansas and I'm the current president of Arkansas Agricultural Aviation Association represent about 300 pilots and
Speaker 270
2:01:14
operators here in the state, and many of them are present here today.
Speaker 265
2:01:24
Staff is handling this pet, um, these pass outs to y'all, um, Arkansas leads the US in rice production with 49% of total production as of 2023. That's over 1.1 million acres. As I read through this bill and looking at the economics of it, um, with The, um, covering the whole state, this gives protection to our industry. Um, and, and gives us the
ability to take care of those 1.1 million acres. Um, farmers depend on air applicators to make as many as 88 applications a year to To those acres. Let's, I want to take a few minutes to uh discuss how, how wind energy and windmills could affect those acres. There's a safety aspect of making applications near wind turbines. These turbines themselves are large structures
which make it difficult to make applications near them. I have an hour of applicator that I spoke to about working in this windmill environment and he made the statement that there are times that they may have to wait over a week. At a time for wind shifts so that the turbine heads can turn to a line to where they can work inside of a wind farm. Uh Typical spacing of them make it very difficult for us to get in and get out of those to make those applications.
The wind turbines themselves disturb the air for miles downwind from which promotes movement of pesticides. This can cause significant crop damage to a farmer that maybe didn't choose to have wind turbines on its property. But there's no way for him to mitigate the risk they will cost his land. The meteorological evaluation towers used to for evaluation of wind conditions in these wind farms are small towns usually about 200 ft tall and have very small footprints. Those tires
have no markings and are very difficult to see from an airplane. When talking to these applicators, they say fields that are Have these wind farms installed become almost impossible for treatments. Between 2010 and 2022. There are 20 accidents involving tower structures and 10 of those were fatal in the United States. Last year alone, we had 13 fatal ag aviation accidents in the US
My industry is a is a dangerous injury as is. The unregulated construction of wind turbines will only make this worse. I ask you to consider ramifications of Of allowing these structures to be built in Arkansas. Thank y'all. Yes, so we're,
Speaker 269
2:04:18
uh, we're here to offer an alternative solution to this complex issue, as you heard from Representative Jeremy Woolridge, uh, we would like to find a common sense solution where all the stakeholders could come together to meet what would
be best for all of Arkansas instead of the few wealthy landowners driving this narrative. I Representative Woolworth will be filing a bill to put an interim study, not to die, but to allow all our Kansans to have a say in regulating the wind industry. And the bill would be proposed would be proposing to study what is the best practice regarding regulations from from other states to let us learn from their mistakes.
Speaker 270
2:04:54
We ask that you, we would ask for a carve out exemption only on rice acreage that could be certified using the USDA and FSA records.
would also ask for a grandfather in clause, so the entities that have spent money would not lose their investments. All we're asking is for a seat at the table. And we all work towards a common sense solution that every stakeholder has a say in. Uh Again, we'd like a yes vote on 437 just to get regulations in place. OK. Representative
Chair
Unverified
2:05:25
Toshare for your question. Thank I appreciate y'all's testimony
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
2:05:36
and thank you. I've just got one quick question, and yeah, I represent uh Craiggate County, a lot of Craighead, a lot of points there, and a lot of Jackson, not all of it, but a considerable amount of it. I represent a lot of rice farmers and other Bean farmers and so forth. And my question is simply this. If, if, if we pass this bill, is there any way this bill would have a negative effect on any of
the farmers that I represent and that I serve, whether I need to know. Will it have a negative effect on them and would they would have caused them any uh Any additional concerns or issues or expenses. As I understand the bill,
Speaker 265
2:06:24
no, it will not have a negative impact. We are the crop desk, y'all work closely
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
2:06:30
with the farmers and, and I know they're not here to speak, but I guess you're kind
of speaking for them today and I, and I need to know that. I want that on record because if it's going to have any negative impact, I need to know it
Speaker 265
2:06:46
now. Representative Tosh, I will speak, um, I own the crop doesn't service, yes, and I'm also a partner in a family farm and we farm around 5000 acres in Clay County, Arkansas. This bill protects those acres for me. As a farmer OK. What did I understand a
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
2:07:07
while ago something about rice farmers, and I wasn't real sure I that that their what was he said about rice farmers. How does that affect rice farmers? Um This the bill, the bill we
Speaker 269
2:07:18
put in the interim study. We would ask to carve out rice acreage. That. Yeah, yeah. Explain that
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
2:07:25
again to me why you're carving it out? I'm just curious. There's got to be a reason to get the
Speaker 269
2:07:30
windmills away from the rice acreage so we can, we can work with the airplanes. That makes sense.
Put a setback from rice acreage. Why? Because that's where we need the
Speaker 276
2:07:46
airplanes to be working. That's where they would affect us
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:08:03
most. Hm OK. Thank you. Representative Woo, you're recognized for your question. Like Representative Lanster, I guess I'm confused, but the first Paragraph says on this handout,
wind turbines could cause farmers to lose advantage. The first aerial spraying or crop dusting gets more challenging with every wind turbine project erected on America's farmland and And you're saying that you farmed 5000 acres and I sold them gas to many of y'all.
And I don't understand uh power. But in this last picture, And then the, the, yeah, in the, the first pitcher on the 2nd page, the only picture, it has a whole field full of them. And how I, I mean, I understand in the study, but it's not not gonna remove those from the field and then you testify that Help me out here. I mean, I
What Houses not going to impact your ability to fly and your ability to be safe. That's what I'm worried about. I mean, I'm worried about you, y'all crashing
Speaker 265
2:09:31
out there. Representative Senate Bill 437 has specific setbacks and regulations on where windmills will be able to be built in the state of Arkansas. It's, um, with that.
Those regulations, we at least have some protection. Right now we have nothing. If uh Uh, one of my customers wants to sign a contract with Windmill similar to what's going on south of Wynn, Arkansas right now. There's no guidance or structure for them to build those windmills. There's, there's nothing in the state protecting anybody. They can build them at will how they want to build them randomly, whatever, with some sort of regulation, then at least we do have.
direction that they have to adhere to to build windmills until this interim study is completed to see what is best for our state. If you look at that picture on that second picture you're talking about. I mentioned the meteorological towers, that white hour, that white arrow is a tower. You can barely see it in the picture, but if you get followed down to the bottom of that picture, you're gonna see a little brown spot. It's the base of that tower. That's trying to spot that from an airplane.
And that that's just one hazard that's constructed in these wind farms. If you go to the back page of that picture, the, the insect pitcher is a, um, ACA flying near a wind turbine. That airplane has a wingspan of 45 ft. Look at the mass of that windmill behind that airplane. How big that structure is. That's, that's a very intimidating structure to be flying near and around if
they're running, there won't be any applications made inside of that wind farm, even, and I know supposedly they have to have 8 miles an hour wind to be able to generate electricity. We generally make fertilizer applications 15 to 25 mile an hour winds. So those turbines would be sitting there spinning while we're trying to make an application. At a height of 650 to 70 ft above the ground. So we're looking at a clearance of those blades maybe 1520 ft of
clearance that we'd have around those blades on those, those things are
Speaker 278
2:11:55
sitting there spinning currently. Does, does that somewhat answer your question? Yes, I believe
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:12:01
it does, but, but, uh, again, following up on Representative Tulson, I would feel much better. That if we would not pass this bill today. But send it to interim committee and be sure it's studied, but Well, since the world was shaking his head no, so I guess we'll.
I mean, I, I understand what you're saying, man. I, may I ask you a question, sir. OK. OK, so
Speaker 265
2:12:28
if you do not pass this bill, there's no regulation in in the state to control how these things are built. With this bill, there's at least regulation saying how they are to be built. So a little bit
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:12:42
of something's better than a whole lot enough. Absolutely. OK. Well, I understand that that's country talk. Thank you.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:12:53
Representatives for you for your question. I'm in a conflict here. I that those farmers are private property owners and if they choose to put up a windmill, even though I think those things are detest them, but still the private property owner's right to do that. And if y'all can't spray, then they lose out on your services uh or you can charge more. uh, so I, I'm kind of struggling with, we're telling them not to do it, but then we're going to come back and give them regulations to do this. If it's in your way and you
can't fly. Then they lose, so uh. They can still, they can
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
2:13:30
still put it on their property. There's just regulations on their setbacks. yeah, we're not telling a private property
Speaker 281
2:13:36
owner that they cannot put in the windmills and but then you put more exemptions on rice farm
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:13:41
or more setbacks on rice farmers. Why would they that's not the bill. That is not in the bill. No, ma'am. No ma'am, that it's not
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
2:13:50
in the bill. That was his testimony. What he would like to see
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:13:55
happen. OK, all right, so we're not excluding or or exempting a particular group. This
Speaker 283
2:14:00
is everybody got to, this is all across the state, so I'm still in conflict
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:14:04
with private property owner's right, but I also get the the issue with
the flying, so. Uh, this is quite a conundrum. I OK Thank you. Representatives, you ask your question.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:14:20
Thank you. Can you go back to what you said a few minutes ago about your
exempting rice or you want to, what was that all about? We're not exempting rice. That was just his language. That was just his discussion that had nothing to do with what's in
this bill. Nothing at all about you had some kind of a setback for rice
Speaker 269
2:14:42
fields or something that's, that's nothing to do with 437 at all. That would be that would be on the bill we work on in the interim study later on. But, so hold on
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:14:51
then, so you're wanting some kind of a setback for rice. Why not all the other
Speaker 32
2:14:57
crops, we, I mean, do ag pilots spray
Speaker 269
2:15:00
all of those crops? Yes, we do, but we're just trying to find a compromise here, you know, right now we have, we have nothing, uh rice acreage is. What affects us the most, if that
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:15:11
makes any sense. Well, I'm, I'm with you on that for sure, um, and
I do agree if we don't do something, then, you know, ag pilots are going to get hurt or killed, um, but. Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying or whoever said it
down there that you wanted some kind of a setback for rice fields. That
that was just in the discussion. That has nothing to do with the bill itself. Was that in the discussion to what would be considered an interim study? Yes, yes, he said he would like to see that discussed in the interim study. OK, so there's no guarantees on that.
That's just, uh, OK, knowing that. It is the only thing you spray
Speaker 124
2:15:50
it rice fields. It's not, but it's, it's, you know, we go across rice a whole lot more than we go across any of these
Speaker 269
2:15:58
other crops. That's what makes what Arkansas Agricultural Aviation is so different than any other state because of so much rice being grown. Yeah, usually, you know, these other states, they, they maybe go over a corn field one time with one fungicide application. OK. In Arkansas, we make over rice 6 times, sometimes more than that, in a single season, so that's our concern. Yeah, right. Thanks for clearing that up. Representative Don will
Chair
Unverified
2:16:19
be recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Representative Lindstrom.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
2:16:29
Addressed what I was curious about it seems like, and I'm not sure I have a question because I think she really asked it but it, it seems like to me that, you know, on one hand you're wanting to limit these. But then the property owner can't do what they want to do with their property and if they want to put it in a wind farm. They learn, they learn how to spray. Down low and not up. I mean, it just is, I'm, I'm with her, so I was trying to think if I really
had a question. My other question would be, any of you fly out of state at some of these other states that have uh these wind farms and what regulations do they have on them? Can't really speak
Speaker 269
2:17:14
for other states, man, and that's what the interim study would look at is, you know, use their, take some of their
Speaker 289
2:17:20
rules and see what they've done so we don't, you
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
2:17:24
know, we don't make mistakes here. I understand, but it's my understanding Mississippi, Oklahoma, uh, Texas. Maybe in Missouri, they all have
wind farms. They all have farms that get sprayed. You know, and so my my question was just did any of y'all spray in any of these other states, and how have you handled with the, with their wind turbines. That's my only question. I understand what you're wanting in an interim study, but do you fly in
Speaker 269
2:17:50
other states? I've never flown in other states with these wind turbines. My business has sent aircraft up there and and they fly around pilots, yes, but you got to understand this is, uh, like I said, this is maybe
one application a year inside these turbines. It's not It's not 6 trips. Oh, I understand.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
2:18:07
I understand, believe it or not, I do know a little bit about farming, um, uh, but whether it's one trip or 6 trips, the wind farm had moved if you're in another state. So anyway, I, I apologize, but I think representing Lindstrom made the point I was trying to figure out. All right. Any other questions
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
2:18:25
from the committee? OK, CNN. Thank you gentlemen for your testimony. Thank
Chair
Unverified
2:18:30
you. All right, we don't have anyone else speak uh signed
up to speak for against this bill, but is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for? Against
the bill. I don't know Simon, if you would go to the other table, introduce yourself. Yeah, I got you. Thank you. You may proceed with your testimony. Good
Speaker 291
2:18:59
afternoon committee and Chairman. My name is Simon Mayhan. I was here last week. I'm the executive director of
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
2:19:05
the Southern Renewable Energy Association. We represent large scale wind developers, solar developers, battery developers, and I'm based here in Little Rock, um, our organization supports sensible regulation. And Senate Bill 437 is not that. Uh, we've testified in favor of House Bill 1525, which is representative Stimmel and Senator Ervin's bill to require construction and deconstruction standards for wind energy and
for solar energy. My understanding is the House meant is meant to vote on that bill later today, and we support that legislation. Even I, I, I do wanna Forgive the pun, but I want to clear the air. Even without new regulations, even without this this legislation, wind energy facilities may be required to seek approvals from, for instance, the federal aviation Administration, all the wind turbines, all the meteorological
towers, so long as they're over 500 ft tall are required to get reviewed and approved from the FAA. US Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, the MICon Independent System operator or the Southwest Power Pool, among other agencies. Wind energy contracts signed by electric utilities like Entergy, like Swepco, those contracts are reviewed by the Arkansas Public Service Commission.
Counties are enabled to develop their own rules. Wind farms have signed county road use agreements here in Arkansas. The counties ultimately still have control whether or not this bill passes. Furthermore, the private landowners have the most control. If a private landowner would like to lease their land for any purpose, whether it's a wind farm or a new radio tower or a skyscraper, they have that ability to say no, we don't want
that on our property. And so the local landowners have total control. I do want to respond to a few items mentioned about aerial applicators, and I, I very much respect the folks that are flying these planes, I would be terrified to do it. Um, but I do want to make clear that in many other states, such as Mississippi, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Texas, and many others that have aerial applications and wind projects, they can
coexist. You can look up on YouTube these. incredible videos of crop dusters in other states flying between the wind turbines. It's incredible that they're able to do it very talented flyers. I do want to note one of the speakers, one of the gentlemen here, mentioned that there were fatalities in their industry last year. I want to be clear, those fatalities were not because of wind energy. We did not cause those.
As I mentioned, the FAA is evaluates all wind turbines prior to giving a designation of no hazard or hazard. If you have a hazard designation, you can either resolve that hazard or not get built. The significant amount of regulation in this legislation requires additional work from the Arkansas Public Service Commission to be done and to develop the rules even further. For instance, the bill requires significant new regulation that the PSC has no experience
dealing with, including sound decibel limits, environmental impact statements, viewshed analysis, effects on tourism and others. No legislative fiscal impact statement has been conducted to evaluate the cost to the public Service commission to not only create the rules, but then also potentially implement the rules after, after it's put into place. As I mentioned beforehand, this bill is a effective ban on wind energy. I understand the desire to
get, you know, quote, get out ahead of the industry before we're developed, but let me ask you, what business, what industry would survive waiting for a two-year moratorium while the study is being taken place. You know, uh, the study committee, I think that's a great idea. We were not told about that committee. I just learned about that committee sitting here at the table. We're in favor of a study committee so long as we can be invited to participate. We have not been
invited to participate in any of these discussions that have been going on, and it's very frustrating because we can work with folks to alleviate real concerns and Protect the industries that we have here in Arkansas while co-developing wind energy resources. These are not mutually exclusive things. Just to sum up, each win project can represent hundreds of millions of dollars in private investment in rural communities, voluntary land leases help private property owners keep their property.
Wind power can help Arkansas's economic engine, especially in a time of booming power demand. are asked today is to keep the door open for balanced development across the state, especially where landowners are willing. Transmission access exists and we can work with other stakeholders. Again, we support reasonable regulation. We believe regulation should be using a scalpel, though, not a hatchet, and we asked that we not be excluded from developing those
regulations over the next couple of years. And with that, I'm available to answer any question. All right. Any questions from the committee? CNN Thank you for
Chair
Unverified
2:25:00
your testimony. Do I have anyone here to speak for this bill? You're speaking for this bill? If you would please go to the end
of the table, introduce yourself, and you may proceed with your testimony.
Jeff Tidwell
Unverified
2:25:23
Thank you, Chair of the committee. My name is Jeff Tidwell. I'm a, uh, operator and aerial applicator here, just east of Little Rock. And a while ago you spoke in the Midwest how they spray the crops there. Here in the Delta and the Grand Prairie, I mean when you're dealing with rice and other crops. We precision application. Which means we're allowed a 3 ft. Buffer either side of our pass line going through these fields. Because what we're putting out herbicides. If you double up, it could kill or damage the crop.
And in the Midwest when they spray the fields. It doesn't really matter. You're putting out fungicides, insecticides. It doesn't show up. You're going around, waving around the polls. It doesn't matter. They, they harvest their crop and everybody goes home. Here in Arkansas for very diversified. We have to fly rice, cotton, soybeans, corn, and what you put on one field. Will damage or kill the next field. So we have to be very precise in what we do. We're allowed sometimes. The width of this table.
Going the crop we spray in the one next to it and we can't damage the one next to it. So with that in mind, And there's no way to precision application will be gone. And I know just east of here, they're planning on building. These towers are going to be 600 ft in the near or above that. That's totally impossible to work around. And not only that, the environmental impact, the economic impact to the grower. Because The yields without precision
application, the yields are going to be down, which means less money per acre. And environmentally There's thousands of birds that get killed by these blades every year. And we're in a waterfowl migratory. Area And not only that, the nation's most protected bird, the bald eagle, are very, very numerous in this area. And that's the most protected bird in the nation. And that's what I told the people and They came to my office last summer. They had the lobbyists and 3 of
them from the company, and after they did their song and dance, I said. I'm not an advocate for wind turbine. It's not renewable. In 20 years they wore out. And they haven't broke even. And without subsidies from the federal government, state government. They couldn't exist. They wouldn't make a profit. It's just a burden to the taxpayer. And, and an eyesore. And when I come into Arkansas cross state line. It says the natural state.
There's nothing natural about 1000 acres of wind turbines. It's ugly. And they don't go away. And
Chair
Unverified
2:28:09
thank you for your time. If you would please
Seth Spate
Unverified
2:28:15
introduce yourself and you may give your testimony. My name is. My name is Seth. I am also a partner in Tidwell Flying Service and a partner in Prairie Ag Service in Desart, Arkansas. We operate 7 aircraft, um, we work from Pulaski all the way up
to Woodruff County, and I was, he kind of play on what he said, um, A lot of how this is going to affect us. Yes, they can spray in these in the Midwest. But it's not harmful. product that they're putting out that can harm the land or crop next to it. We do a lot of herbicide work, but the bulk of what we're talking about where our concern is, is dry work, dry fertilizer, because, you know, 50 to 70 ft off the ground.
At 160 to 180 miles an hour. Trying to do a precision application and agriculture is the largest industry in our state when you lose your precision, you lose yield, you lose dollars, you hurt farmers and Then from the environmental side of it. It's uh I challenge anyone who is for this to drive out to parts of Wyoming, Utah. Maybe some of eastern Montana,
Dakotas, and look at where these farms were wind farms were chosen not to be upgraded. Look at the dilapidated structures sitting out there and look at the taint land values that have happened in parts of those places and I really consider that we have a beautiful state here, and I just am not saying. As far as for our business and what we do and as far as for the benefit of the state, I think we're looking at a benefit of a very few at the cost. To many. I mean, I really do, and Uh
Representative Lungstrom, I like what you said about could charge more. Oh, I wish we could. I mean, but in the competitive in the competitive business that we're in, it's just And the last thing we want to do is put one more anchor on the debt burden on our customers because we have to have them to survive, just like they need us. So it's a mutual partnership and I'm trying to speak for the many, many farmers and landowners that we work for and represent today and say that
We deny them our ability to do precision application. It's going to deny them their bottom line, and I thank you all for your time and I appreciate you very much. Any questions from the committee? CNN. Thank you, gentlemen for
Chair
Unverified
2:30:50
your testimony. All right, do I have anyone here to speak against the bill. If you would please go to the end
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
2:31:13
of the table, identify yourself, you may proceed with your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jackson Brazil with Weyerhauser, uh, was here last Thursday and spoke to you guys on our thoughts on this bill and just kind of want to reiterate some of those things that I told you about and uh make it very clear that this bill is absolutely a moratorium on wind energy. Weyerhauser is not against regulation, uh, we're all for it, all for sitting down at the table with landowners, but this bill will
absolutely kill the opportunity for private landowners. To enter into a wind project in the state. you got a map earlier with all the the squiggly lines on it, and it said it showed you the spot so you couldn't build a school or whatever. I'll tell you we own 1.2 million acres in the state makes us the largest landowner in Arkansas. This bill would limit our ability to have a wind project to zero acres. It's not little.
White clean areas anywhere it's 0. we had to build the version of this bill 437 that made it through the Senate was a little bit of a compromise with the 300 ft barrier, uh, was going to limit our wind opportunities to 2 out of 7, so you think already, you know, we're talking about folks being able to put windmills wherever they want because there's no regulation, you would think somebody with 1.2 million acres would have a lot of places that you could feasibly put a wind project. We have
in the entire state, the compromise was going to limit that to 2. That compromise has been taken out. We very strongly oppose this bill and hope that you respect Arkansas private property rights. There's also a lot of talk about rice land and agriculture underneath the wind turbines for Weyerhauser that's not an issue for us because we're able to keep our trees in a sustainably harvest program while, you know, while we have wind turbines, it's, it's not a guarantee that if a farmer says,
hey, I want my farm to have a wind wind turbine on it now that they're going to continue to plant rice underneath that structure. If they decide that this is a more profitable avenue for them, and that's their decision as a private property owner. Uh, we should
Chair
Unverified
2:33:32
respect that decision. So thank, take any
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
2:33:37
questions. Representative Eubanks, you recognize for your question. Sir, I appreciate your position and I, I'm, and I understand uh Representative Lundstrom's question regarding private property rights. It, it seems
like To me this is not a permanent moratorium, but effectively it's only in place for 2 years to allow the uh interim study to take place at which point I suspect there would be changes, uh, I can't guarantee that I won't be here, but Uh, I think In the interests of the safety of of The pilots that, you know, are
flying the crop dusters, you know, I'm taking them at their word on, on. The obstacles that they have to deal with and so, but Would you not agree that this is In place just basically for sure that we
know 2 years. I would strongly disagree with that, and that is based on the conversations I've had in the Capitol throughout this session when there's been, uh, wind bill after wind bill going on since the beginning, and I've had multiple senators and
representatives tell me to my face that they were coming after the wind industry, and that was the point of these bills. So that that would be my position on that. Any other questions from the committee? saying no, thank you for
Chair
Unverified
2:35:01
your testimony. Is there anyone else here to speak for this bill. All right, you want to speak against this bill? You
Speaker 302
2:35:11
want to speak for or against. All right. Go to the end of the table.
Speaker 299
2:35:19
Identify yourself and you may proceed. Morning. Good afternoon, committee. I'm Max Braswell. I'm the executive vice president of the Arkansas Forestry Association. We have 1000 members in the state and collectively forced landowners
on 56% of this state, 80% of that land is owned by private individuals just like us. I just did the math. That's about 15 million acres of property owned in this state. I can tell you that we are not pro-wid. We're not pro solar. We're not anti-wind. We're not anti-solar. We're not anti-lithium or pro-lithium. For the most part, I think we would be pro lithium. But absolutely. Thank you,
Representative Lundstrom, um, and Representative Dalby for understanding the private property rights implications of these types of bills and picking winners and losers based on what we like and dislike or the aesthetics of those types of situations. I've watched these bills since the very first one was filed early in the session. We haven't spoken for or against them, but we had a lot of conversations. I do have members. One of them you've heard from,
uh, who has an actual interest in utilizing their property in this manner. We've had a number of landowners who've entered into a legitimate contractual agreements on solar projects. Uh, I have communicated to my members on a weekly basis. I would love to see us keep force in for. For as long as possible or forever, but there are times when people make decisions as private landowners to enter into legitimate contractual agreements for an alternative use of their property.
Um, I think what we're doing here is sending a strong message to those people who own that 15 million acres of property in this state that Those types of traditional foundational, um, Identifications of who we are could be in danger in the future if we decide, well, what's the next thing that we like or don't like. Maybe you don't like something that we're doing that's been a legitimate forestry practice in the state. So I am here not to argue the
merits of wind energy. I'm here asking you to remember that we've always placed those property rights, those private property rights at at the highest levels and would ask you to continue. Is this a kill the wind industry bill or not, I don't know. Uh, I think I am in agreement with just about everyone who's spoken against it. Put it in interim study. We've said that from the beginning. Study the issue, but would we be working so hard to put this bill out in front of the interim study if we didn't
have an ulterior motive, and I've heard some of those conversations as well, and it chills me to think that we would take the position of we'll tell you what you can do with your property. Of course, unless it's something that obviously has an absolute we're not, you know, burying nuclear waste on it or something along those lines. So absolutely I'm only here as the representative of the group of people that own more acres of land than anyone else in this state, including the Roe crop
folks, um, to just please put that at the top of your list when it comes to how you're making the decisions. It's foundational to who we are as a state, put the bill in interim study, and we can do all of the kinds of things that we want to get done, but, uh, let's head it at it from that direction. And that's my plea to you, um, and if you didn't like the bill last week, you should like it even less this week because the bill is here now and we've got the interim study that's filed, but
we still want to. pass this bill. Thank you, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Any questions the committee? Seen, thank
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
2:39:39
you for your testimony. We have everyone here to speak against the
Chair
Unverified
2:39:46
bill. You would go to the table. identify yourself and may proceed your testimony.
Speaker 304
2:40:04
There's, is it on? OK, thank you, Mr. uh, co-chairman, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, my name's Lauren Waldrop. I'm the executive director of the Arkansas Advanced Energy Association. Um, I actually come before you today in a personal capacity. I have no intentions of coming to the end of this table today, um, but there are some claims that were made um about farmers and um, so to that extent, I just wanted to provide a little bit of color. Um, my family, uh, still, um, has a farm, um, that we're actually
planting rice on, um, currently, um, and I would argue that this bill does harm farmers. It takes away their ability to choose what is best for their land and what is best for their operations. I don't know if y'all have seen commodity prices lately, specifically rice, um, but it's not great and we have seen multiple instances where um this acts farmers being able to lease their land acts as a diversified revenue. stream, um, and all sorts of, of
different types of renewable options, and so, you know, I think it has recently become politically trendy to ban wind projects. I'm not exactly sure why that is, but what I do know is that, um, one long standing conservative principle is this concept of property rights, and I think our farmers and our landowners are smart people, and I think we should continue to enable them to make those decisions for themselves. OK. Any questions from the committee?
Chair
Unverified
2:41:39
Annan, thank you for your testimony, ma'am. Anyone here to speak for
this bill? And want to speak against the bill. See no, Representative Hall, you recognize
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
2:41:52
a close for your bill. Thank you Mr. Chair, committee, uh, one thing that has been mentioned here is Arkansas has a $9.9 billion dollar tourism industry, OK, that these things can affect. Uh, we can't wait for 2 years on the interim study. If we wait 2 years, they will be signing land
leases with all kinds of people, and then once that's out, they will be grandfathered in and there's no way we can put the genie back in the bottle to say, uh, it's a complex problem, as you all all know sitting here today, we've we've discussed this, I guess, what, 2 days in a row now? It's very complex, but we want a common sense solution. Uh, that's why we need to pass this legislation to come together, all the groups, and do this study to find the best fix for the people in the state of Arkansas. Thank you. I'm close.
Chair
Unverified
2:42:51
committee? Motion to pass by Representative Richardson. That's a proper motion as
amended in discussion on motion Representative Laman, you recognized for discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, you
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:43:03
know, we sat through this a long time. I'll be brief, but this bill is a moratorium. And there's a lot of misunderstanding. I started
saying misinformation, but that's not right. It's misunderstanding. People don't understand when because they haven't been around it, uh, I'll give you an example. crypto was brought up as comparing this. Vestus, which is the largest and oldest win turbine manufacture in the world. They're from Norway. They've been building wind turbines for 140 years. For a long time in the states, so it's been around for a long time. It's not crypto. It's not new. We do need a bill. It was
brought up, setbacks, decommissioning that needs to be in a bill. It's not even in this bill, at least the setbacks are not. Um, so, We don't need to kill any type of energy production. If wind, solar, coal, gas, you name it. If it's a bad deal, it'll die on its own. Let's don't kill it. I All right. Any other discussion on the motion, Representative Richard, you're recognized for discussion. Thank
Chair
Unverified
2:44:08
you, Mr. Chair. I think one of the things
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:44:13
I kept hearing was the private ownership of, of people's property and that being taken away from them, but my understanding is that this is, this is not stopping people from putting wind turbines on their property is merely saying, hey, we, we need to have some type of understanding of what's going out there to make things easier and safer for these people to continue to move. So I, I don't see this is, is killing the wind. Uh, I, I see it as an opportunity for a continue for it to continue to move forward,
um, and allows for continued discussion for tweaks to be made as as we move forward with this, uh, with this whole
Chair
Unverified
2:44:50
process. So with that, I'll be voting for it. Representative Eubanks, you're
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
2:44:56
recognized for your motion or not motion, I'm sorry, discussion. I just want to sort
of remind the members that We have a moratorium in parts of the state now with regard to what people can do with private property rights in the Buffalo watershed. So, uh, I, I, I think
there is some precedent that's been set, uh, That We are already telling people what they can do with their land, so Just want to remind the members of that. Any other discussion. On the motion
Chair
Unverified
2:45:31
Alright, see you done. All those in favor say aye. I say no. I have, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee.
Committee before we adjourn, um, I believe we are done. That was our last Senate bill. So I just want to thank you for your work and appreciate your questions and thoroughness. We are adjourned.
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1746 M. Brown TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB331 G. Leding CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHERITED CANCER MUTATIONS; AND TO CREATE THE GENETIC TESTING ACT.=-
SB483 Irvin TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE SECURITIES DEPARTMENT; AND TO REVISE CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT.
SB583 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COST LISTS RELATING TO PHARMACY SERVICES.
SB596 M. McKee TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; TO ESTABLISH A STATE ENERGY POLICY; TO REGULATE RETIREMENT OF DISPATCHABLE ELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITIES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB621 Irvin TO CLARIFY ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS AGAINST A HEALTHCARE INSURER; TO RETROACTIVELY APPLY TO A HEALTHCARE CONTRACT FOR THE BENEFIT OF A TEMPORARY HOSPITAL FACILITY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB602 Crowell TO PROHIBIT INSURANCE COMPANIES AND APPRAISERS FROM REQUIRING AN INSURED TO USE CERTAIN FACILITIES TO REPAIR OR REPLACE DAMAGED MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY GLASS; AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.
SB437 Hester TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT.
SB639 Caldwell TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1659 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE; AND TO CLARIFY THE PRIORITY AMONG SECURITY INTERESTS AND ENTITLEMENT HOLDERS UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.
HB1009 A. Collins TO ALLOW PREGNANCY TO BE A QUALIFYING EVENT FOR ENROLLMENT IN CERTAIN HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS.
HB1014 A. Collins TO REQUIRE COVERAGE OF IN VITRO FERTILIZATION UNDER THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.
HB1409 Long TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; AND TO CREATE THE ELECTRIC RELIABILITY ACT.
HB1159 J. Richardson TO CREATE THE RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE SECURITY ACT; AND TO REGULATE SECURITY MEASURES AT RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORES.
HB1354 Lundstrum TO REGULATE PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS.
HB1905 Lundstrum TO CREATE THE BUYER BEWARE ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A REAL ESTATE LICENSEE REPRESENTING A SELLER TO DIRECT THE SELLER TO THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ASSESSOR FOR THE CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE OF A RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE PROPERTY.
HB1443 Pilkington TO CREATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT; TO PROHIBIT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PAYMENT NETWORKS FROM USING CERTAIN DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES; AND TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VIOLATIONS.
HB1408 Pilkington TO ALLOW QUALIFYING PATIENTS OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS TO PURCHASE MEDICAL MARIJUANA USING A FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT OR A HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
HB1868 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PAY A FAIR AND REASONABLE SERVICE FEEDIRECTLY TO A FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR FIREFIGHTING SERVICES BASED ON TIME ON SCENE.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE- HOUSE, Apr 14, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative John Maddox Chair
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 12
Speaker 14
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 32
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
Representative Aker
Unverified
Speaker 58
Speaker 63
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 89
Speaker 101
Speaker 111
Speaker 93
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 137
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 59
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
Speaker 170
Speaker 171
Justin Allen
Unverified
Speaker 169
Speaker 175
Speaker 120
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 200
Speaker 208
Speaker 179
Speaker 209
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
Sarah Tacker
Unverified
Speaker 151
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Speaker 221
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 228
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
Speaker 238
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
Speaker 242
Speaker 250
Speaker 234
Speaker 265
Cole Hartley
Unverified
Speaker 269
Speaker 270
Speaker 276
Speaker 278
Speaker 281
Speaker 283
Speaker 124
Speaker 289
Speaker 291
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
Jeff Tidwell
Unverified
Seth Spate
Unverified
Speaker 302
Speaker 299
Speaker 304
Speaker 306