Insurance & Commerce- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (29)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1531
Act 630
· 5 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…Johnson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR SEVERE OBESITY TREATMENTS. HB1531 Achor TO PROHIBIT PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS FROM RESTRIC…”
|
TO PROHIBIT PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS FROM RESTRICTING OR LIMITING PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS TO A LIMITED DISTRIBUTION NETWORK … | Achor | Notification that HB1531 is now Act 630 |
|
SB437
Act 945
· 5 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “move back to the one that we broke off with at the break SB 437. you can The”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT. | Hester | Notification that SB437 is now Act 945 |
|
HB1700
Act 638
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1700 TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT; AND TO C…”
|
TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT; AND TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS OF AN ADVERSE … | Achor | Notification that HB1700 is now Act 638 |
|
HB1333
Act 627
· 3 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…m Wooten CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1333 Hudson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR BREASTFEEDING AND LACTATION…”
|
TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR BREASTFEEDING AND LACTATION CONSULTANT SERVICES. | Hudson | Notification that HB1333 is now Act 627 |
|
HB1424
Act 628
· 3 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…VERAGE FOR BREASTFEEDING AND LACTATION CONSULTANT SERVICES. HB1424 L. Johnson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR SEVERE OBESITY TREATMENT…”
|
TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR SEVERE OBESITY TREATMENTS. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1424 is now Act 628 |
|
HB1602
Act 633
· 3 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…A LIMITED DISTRIBUTION NETWORK OF OUT-OF-STATE PHARMACIES. HB1602 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT; TO ESTABLISH FEES UNDER THE ARKANSAS … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1602 is now Act 633 |
|
HB1771
Act 651
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1771 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURES TO POLICYHOLDERS; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURES TO POLICYHOLDERS; AND TO REQUIRE MONTHLY REPORTING BY INSURERS. | R. Murdock | Notification that HB1771 is now Act 651 |
|
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. |
|
HB1177
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. DEPARTMENT. HB1177 M. Brown TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT; AND TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ARKANSAS … | M. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1295
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…UOUS SERVICE OFFERS. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1295 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING COLLECTION…”
|
TO CREATE THE HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING COLLECTIONS TRANSPARENCY ACT. | L. Johnson | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1308
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG A FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT OR A HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT. HB1308 Steimel CONCERNING UNFAIR PRACTICES RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL…”
|
CONCERNING UNFAIR PRACTICES RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE REPAIR CONTRACTS; AND TO REGULATE SOLICITING RESIDENTIAL … | Steimel | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1533
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1533 Gramlich TO CREATE THE DECENTRALIZED UNINCORPORATED NONPROF…”
|
TO CREATE THE DECENTRALIZED UNINCORPORATED NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION ACT. | Gramlich | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1659
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TIES FOR VIOLATIONS. 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. |
|
HB1811
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1811 Steimel TO AMEND PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LAW; AND TO REQUIRE…”
|
TO AMEND PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LAW; AND TO REQUIRE REASONABLE PROOF OF PAYMENT OF A … | Steimel | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1820
Act 652
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1820 TO REGULATE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL AND CONTINUOUS SERVICE OFFERS…”
|
TO REGULATE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL AND CONTINUOUS SERVICE OFFERS. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1820 is now Act 652 |
|
SB331
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EPARTMENT FOR FIREFIGHTING SERVICES BASED ON TIME ON SCENE. 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. |
|
SB596
Act 940
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LECTRIC GENERATION FACILITIES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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. |
|
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. |
|
HB1813
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1813 Gramlich TO ADOPT THE FAIR AND EFFICIENT TRANSMISSION COMPA…”
|
TO ADOPT THE FAIR AND EFFICIENT TRANSMISSION COMPACT. | Gramlich | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1868
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “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
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “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. |
|
SB483
Act 957
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB483 Irvin TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STAT…”
|
TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE SECURITIES DEPARTMENT; … | Irvin | Notification that SB483 is now Act 957 |
|
SB583
Act 990
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “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 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
Let's go ahead and take our seats, members. We've got a lot to try to do by 7 o'clock. Representative Hudson.
Chair
Unverified
0:24
Representative Hudson is here on HP 1333 to concur in a Senate amendment, is that correct?
That's correct, Mr. Chair. Go ahead and introduce yourself for the record,
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
0:36
and you may proceed. Thank you. Ashley Hudson, District 75. Colleagues, I'm here on House Bill 1333. You'll remember that we passed it out of this committee and off the floor a few weeks ago. When it got down to the Senate, Senator Scott realized that there were a couple of typos in it, and so this just corrects those. One of the typos refers to registered lactation consultants. We don't register them in Arkansas. We certify them, so that changed.
And then also there was a typo where on page 1, line 34, it said health care provided, and it should have said health care provider. And those are the only two changes to the bill. Thank you for your presentation. Any questions
from the committee? Okay, seeing none. To anyone who'd like to speak against this amendment, anyone else speak for
Chair
Unverified
1:21
it? You recognize to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am closed for my bill
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:26
and would ask the committee for a good vote. Thank you. Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized.
Do pass. We have a motion. Do pass. We have a motion to concur in the Senate Amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. Thank you. You have passed your amendment. Representative Johnson, would you like to go to the end of the table for your amendments? Just introduce
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:07
yourself for the record, sir, and which one you're going to start with, and you may proceed.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:12
Representative Lee Johnson, District 47, House Bill 1424. We're just concurring on an amendment. This was the Obesity Bariatric Surgery Bill.
We had agreed with Blue Cross Blue Shield to make some amendments on the Senate side. We made those amendments. We're just bringing it down here for concurrence. and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Questions from the
Speaker 19
2:28
committee? Reservives? What did you change? Some of the, I believe we
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:33
changed some of the definitions around what we were defining, but to be honest with you, sir, I'd have to go
back and look closer to give you more details. Let me look at it real quick, and I'll tell you what I think we changed.
I'll tell you the gist of what we changed. What we tried to do was change it to align with what we do in EBD. So we tried
to change it to line it up with what we did in the EBD bill, the criteria for that. So as far as the details of what it was, I'd have to look those up. The gist of it was to try to make it align more with what we were already doing with EBD. Since we had taken EBD call, we took EBD out of that bill because we were already covering it for EBD. So we were trying to make those two things line up better. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
3:23
Thank you, Representative Ace. Further questions? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak against the amendment? Anyone else who'd like to speak for the amendment?
Representative Johnson, you're recognized to close for your amendment. I'm recognized for my amendment. Representative Johnson, close for his amendment. We have a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. All
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:50
in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. No. Congratulations, you've passed your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And we also need a concurrent amendment on House Bill 1602. Yes. And now Representative East has me frantically searching for the section we amended, which I can now reference. Thank you, sir. This was the bill on PBM licensure fees. We didn't change anything other than just who has access to the data. You know, in that bill also there was a lot of reporting data on how PBMs were made up based on their bank identification numbers.
And there was some concern about how that data might be accessed and who could access it. So protecting the data but also allowing the pharmacist to get access to the data. And there's some language in the second page of that bill now that's new that we added that was a request from the Pharmacy Association. I'd be happy to answer your questions on that amendment. Any questions from the committee? Seeing none. So anyone would like
to speak against this amendment, anyone would like to speak for the amendment, you're recognized to close for your Senate amendment. Close for my amendment. Make a motion to pass.
We have a motion to concur on the Senate amendment. All in favor say
Speaker 25
5:04
aye. Aye. Many opposed to say no. You have passed your Senate amendment. Representative Acre, you
Representative Aker
Unverified
5:16
have HB 1531 concurring the Senate amendment. Yes, that's correct, committee. Representative Acre, District 71. The amendment to House Bill 1531 is a clerical adjustment that helps give some clarity to the manufacturers that they do not have to prospectively recruit participants, but they
shall just review applications, which was the intent. It also provides some FDA language that they requested for some clarity. Questions from the
Chair
Unverified
5:40
committee? Okay, seeing none. Does anyone like to speak against
Speaker 29
5:45
this amendment? Anyone else for this amendment? Recognize to close. I'm closed for the amendment. I make a motion. Do pass for the concurrence of the amendment. We have a motion
to concur in the Senate amendment. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed, say no. You've passed your amendment.
Representative Aker
Unverified
6:02
Amendment to House Bill 1700. Same clerical clarification requested by the insurance parties involved just on the logistics of when the prioritization is denied and how the appeal process moves forward. Questions from the committee? Seeing none, is there anyone who likes to speak against the
Speaker 26
6:17
amendment? Anyone else for the amendment? You recognize to close. I'm
Speaker 29
6:22
close for the amendment, and I make a motion to do pass for concurrence of the amendment. We have a motion to concur
Speaker 28
6:28
on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Aye.
Speaker 25
6:32
Any opposed, say no. We've passed your concurrence. Excuse me. Representative Perry. Go ahead and introduce yourself and
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
6:56
you may appreciate it. I apologize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark Perry, District 66. The amendment of House Bill 1771 is adding Senator Murdoch as co-sponsor, changing it
from 25 enrolled or employees to 50, and changing the total medical claims to 10,000. So
with that, take any questions. Questions from the committee? Seeing none, is there anyone would like to
Chair
Unverified
7:18
speak against this amendment? Anyone else speak for it? Recognize to close. I'm closed and make a motion to concur.
We have a motion to concur in the Senate Amendment. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed to say no? You've passed your concurrence.
Speaker 25
7:37
Regent Brown, you have a concurrence in the Senate Amendment. We are
Speaker 35
7:41
not doing 1177 yet, but you have 1820? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown, District 55. Colleagues,
Speaker 36
7:48
I have an amendment on 1820. I'm sorry, my brain's kind of spaghetti after today. It was to add an additional industry that's exempted from the statute. The industries that were exempted are ones that are already regulated by some entity. So, like, for example, your local utility company is regulated by the PSC, so your consumer can go to the PSC if they have a complaint.
The intent of the bill is to cover these people out there that are not regulated, like your, you
Speaker 28
8:14
know, Internet subscriptions and things like that.
Thank you for your presentation. Questions from the committee? no questions anyone like speak against this amendment anyone speak for it you recognize
Speaker 25
8:27
the close I'm close I appreciate the vote of a motion to concur in the Senate amendment by representative Eubanks all in favor say aye the opposed say no you have passed your
Speaker 39
8:37
concurrence thank you Reverend Johnson, you're not in the room.
Chair
Unverified
9:26
to the one that we broke off with at the break, SB 437.
Members, we're back to the bill that we stopped on previous two. There are witnesses who have signed up to speak against. We're going to try to move fairly quickly.
We're not going to limit testimony at this time, but know that it could
Speaker 25
10:29
be a possibility. Yes, SB 437. Representative Eubanks is recognized. Yeah, I have a motion to expunge the vote by which we adopted the amendment. Representative, you may submit a motion to expunge the amendment that was adopted this morning.
All in favor say aye. Excuse me. Is there any discussion on that motion? Okay.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
10:48
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The motion has been expunged. Thank
you. You are recognized to proceed. We'd like to
Chair
Unverified
11:07
recognize a new amendment, please. Yes. There's going to be another amendment.
Speaker 25
11:12
It's going to be circulated by staff. As they're circulating the amendment, please explain the amendment for the
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
11:22
committee, please. Okay, what we had earlier, we had some language that wasn't right, and so we've worked with the groups that did not agree with the bill. and we've come up with some new language. And it clarifies what underdevelopment means, and it also has a date from which it starts.
We have a motion to a question on the amendment. Representative
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
11:59
Richardson, you're recognized. So you changed the underdevelopment, or you clarified it, correct? Yes. And that was the biggest issue
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
12:10
that? Yeah, because it was very vague. Okay. And then also, like, they had no date from what to go
back from what had started underdevelopment.
You see what I mean? Okay. You
Speaker 57
12:23
have to have a firm date. Representative Wharton, I believe you
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
12:32
have a question. Thank you. It's been a long day. My question is, you have April 9th in here, but how long do they have before they can't
do any development in that part of the state, in any part of the state?
Speaker 61
12:51
Is it final April 9th? They can do the developments. It's just after today's date, they have to go by the new regulations. Well, what about those
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
13:02
under construction? They're free from it because they did not know about the regulations coming. It'd be a lawyer fest if you, you know, you could never do it. You could never go back
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
13:16
in time. So, well, what I'm saying, you can grandfather those in.
Yes. But what's to keep those people who are promoting that windmill power from going out and securing more before the date? Because it's right here.
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
13:31
I put the date on here. From this date forward, you have to
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
13:36
go by the regulations. So if they sign a contract for land, they have to go by these? They have to go by the new regulations. Okay,
Speaker 25
13:48
thank you. Yep. Any other questions or just discussing the amendment at this time?
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
13:52
Are there any other questions on the amendment? Reverend Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So with the new changes, your bill primary mirrors the bill that was passed in the Senate. Am I
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
14:10
correct? Yes, everything except the 300 feet in elevation from sea level. The reason, the 300 feet, it splits the state in half, and it just does no good to split the state in half.
Speaker 25
14:26
Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Any further questions on – we're just discussing the amendment. Any further questions on the amendment? Okay. We
have a motion to adopt the amendment by Representative Eubanks. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed to say no. No. The
Speaker 25
14:40
amendment has passed. You're recognized to present your bill as amended. Okay. it's been a little bit of a
Speaker 72
14:46
long day do we have questions where were we in the questions
Speaker 25
15:00
we were going to allow you to present the bill as amended
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
15:07
if there's if you wanted to i mean it's we pretty much explained the
Speaker 25
15:10
amendment earlier so you it's your present you've explained the bill and now you've explain the amendment, so you're ready to take questions. Members, are there questions on the
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
15:30
bill as amended? Representative Wooten. I've got to try to figure out how to count this, because I don't want to have to be a no vote on the bill.
But I'm still concerned relative to the plight impairment that this is going to create to the point that rice farmers won't be able to get someone to fly into those things. I don't care whether you've got a switch to turn them off, and I appreciate that technology. But I worry about, I don't know how many of you have ever worked with crop dusters, but it's a dangerous job.
I've provided fuel to them for years in East Arkansas and up around Walter Ridge and all through the state. And so I became acquainted with the dangers that they face out there. And to have a structure that's over 300 feet tall in the middle of a field or at a borderline or whatever you want, it's an obstruction and it's a danger. And I think, you know, they're in a depressed area already. The farmers are depressed from the standpoint of the sale of the crops.
And then to have this added to it, it makes me uneasy as to what the rice former, and I'll use rice because it's a different application approach than that of corn. So I just have a problem with what
we're doing here. The only way we could have them not in
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
17:05
the rice fields is do a moratorium on them and say that you can't have them all in the state of Arkansas.
That would be the only way
Speaker 61
17:16
that you could do that. Well, that might be,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
17:22
you know, we're talking about life and death here. Oh, I understand. I mean, that's the reason I'm trying to make the point about it. I mean,
it's not, you know, you don't dust crops in the mountains in the high elevated. But that's, Representative
Speaker 1
17:38
Wooden, we're still in the question phase, so. You have a question? Well, my question is,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
17:46
how are we going to do this if we approve this bill
and then worry about the crop dusters and their occupation and chosen career out there? One thing is that
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
17:59
before this bill was amended, all of that area you're talking about had no regulations at all. They could build them 700 feet tall if they wanted to. And so this bill here actually has regulations that affects that area you're talking about. So you are now in with the rest of the state.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
18:23
Representative Blademan, ready to answer for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got a question on page 11, line 17. What is the definition of a view shed? What is that? A view-shed analysis. You need it. It requires anyone building a wind farm a view-shed analysis for state and federal parks and forests,
historic and cultural science, public parks and recreational areas, private conservation land. What is that? How do I do one of those? Mr. Chair, can I get Ms.
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
19:02
Julie Morton to come back and speak to us, answer that for us? Maybe
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
19:07
it's like being able to view from a certain angle, point of view, or something. I don't know. I have no idea. Chief
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
19:15
can come to the table. Is that defined in the bill?
Speaker 44
19:23
Ma'am, I think you're one at the end of the table. I don't know if you
Speaker 25
19:48
should have. Can you use that in a sentence? I know you did it earlier, but just introduce yourself for the record, please. Yes.
Julie Morton
Unverified
19:53
You may not have heard the question, but... What is it? What is a viewshed analysis? Yeah. My name is Julie Morton. A view-shed analysis is just taking into account what the physical view is going to be if these wind turbines are interfering with the natural view. In other words, how is this going to affect the view of these facilities?
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
20:29
Is that so I can't see them from any of these places?
Julie Morton
Unverified
20:35
Well, it is going to be taken into consideration if you're going to be visible, what is the effect going to be? So what if I
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
20:45
can't see them, but you can? Who determines whether you can see them or not? I'm sorry, say that again? Who determines whether you can view these wind turbines from these five different places?
Julie Morton
Unverified
20:59
That's going to be up to the Public Service Commission to make those analysis once they're presented with the data that the wind company itself will have to provide. Okay,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
21:14
here's something else the wind company will have to provide. Tell me what this is. Hydrogeological assessment of areas of water within a minimum of four miles of the perimeter of the wind energy facility or wind energy facility expansion including bodies of water, flowing water, storm water, wetlands, groundwater, aquifers, and private wells.
Wind does not need water. Why is water in a
Julie Morton
Unverified
21:42
windstorm? Well, that refers more to the construction. In other words, in the mountains, particularly in the harsh terrain of the mountains, like in Carroll County, for instance, you've got underground streams, And according to the USGS, some of those sources of water for the people's wells can be up to four to five miles away. Well, if you construct a turbine that destroys that origin of that water, then those people's wells will be dry and their families will be without water.
So that was based on the USGS data that we gathered that said that within a four-mile radius in certain types of terrain, you could be affected by just the construction itself of the turbine. Any further
Speaker 100
22:43
questions, Representative Blederman? No. Okay, thank you.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
22:47
Reverend Wooden. Would you clarify the statement again relative to what you said about it beats what we've got now? Would you elaborate on that?
On the bill we have now versus what it was? Yeah, right, right. Well, the bill and the fact that apparently there's no regulation relative to where they're located. No, there is no. Right now, there is no regulation. Yes. Yes, sir.
Speaker 61
23:17
Go ahead and elaborate, if you will. Right
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
23:21
now there is no regulations at all on the wind industry at all. They can put them anywhere they want to, as tall as they want to, whatever they want to. Now, the one I brought in here before I meant it the first time, it carved the state in half. They said the Delta had no regulations and you could do what you wanted to in the Delta. But in the Ozarks, we wanted to regulate them.
And we did not feel that it was right to protect us, you know, in the Ozarks and leave you hanging out there to dry in the Delta. And so that's why we have done what we've done with the amendment. So this is
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
24:05
really a compromise. Yes. But it gives some control over those. Yes, sir. Yeah. So you're included. All right, thank you. Any other questions?
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
24:15
Reverend Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So I'm trying to read this. Have you taken, so what's the difference in the foot, the footage elevation? Have we, you had a, you had
one, but now you've taken it out? Yes, what
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
24:32
it was before, it was if you were over 300 feet sea level
elevation, you had to abide by the regulations. If you were under 300 feet sea level, then there was no regulations at all on you. You could do what you wanted to. And we didn't feel that was correct.
We felt like if we were going to do something, it needed to cover everybody in
Speaker 32
24:56
the state instead of just one area. Okay. So it's not the same that they had at
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
25:04
the Senate? It's not exactly the same that they had in the Senate, but it's a compromise we've all
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
25:10
made, and everybody's good with it now. Or, well,
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
25:14
I'm okay. Reverend Tosh, you're right now. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize. I was in another committee this morning, and you may have answered this,
but the non-participating landowners, what provisions have been made in this bill in regards to
Julie Morton
Unverified
25:35
property rights? I'll let Julie. There's a 2,500-foot setback from a non-participating landowner's property line. So they will have about a half-mile distance setback from their property line.
That's the biggest protection that we've given them. But also
Speaker 38
25:59
with that, Representative Tosh, also with that,
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
26:01
they can opt out. If they think that's too restrictive, they can sign a paper that says we don't have to have that safety or buffer zone. That's the property owner's right, obviously, if they choose that. That's a part of this provision.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
26:18
Okay, so they're granted liability protection in this if they so choose?
Is that correct? Well, liability protection. Yeah. In other words, if somebody decides and they put these up on an adjoining land and for some reason they don't stay within the guidelines that you just described, the 2,500, what protections do they have? Well, that's what we're trying to. Currently, they
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
26:43
have nothing. They don't really have a setback either. And this isn't going to give them liability. That's going to have to come from we're trying to get this part of the regulation is to get bonded and insured.
Currently, they aren't required that. So that's part of this process.
Chair
Unverified
27:00
Okay. Representative Richardson, you're recognized. Thank you. So
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
27:05
I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. We're increasing all the regulation for all of the wind turbines. Increasing regulation, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank
Chair
Unverified
27:19
you. Any other questions? President McGurk. uh a
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
27:26
couple of questions with all this added regulation first of all two questions one
do you know of another state where they've had this much regulation and with this regulation what areas in
Julie Morton
Unverified
27:46
arkansas does it leave where they can go i've read regulations that were far lengthier than these from other states and states have come back even, after their initial round of regulations and added regulations, after they realized exactly the effect of these types of projects. So this is not abnormal. These are regulations
that the wind industry sees in 48 other states in one form or the other. So these are not draconian or extreme regulations. I specifically tried to limit what we put into the bill so that it would be palatable and would be in line with
Speaker 117
28:32
what other states have done. Okay, the second question. With all
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
28:41
these regulations, what areas can they be put in?
Because it seems like with all the environmental relations, the four miles, all of that, that it would limit very little land left in
Speaker 117
28:55
Arkansas where these could go. There's always going to be places where they can
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
29:00
go. I didn't ask that. How much
Julie Morton
Unverified
29:03
area is left? Well, I don't know specifically how much area is left. I know that in the Delta particularly, there are massive tracts of land that probably none of these regulations are going to affect.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
29:18
I would disagree with that. If they can't be
close to the water, they can't be four miles away. There's not that much area. But I appreciate
Chair
Unverified
29:27
your question. Any other questions? Okay, saying none, thank you for your testimony. We do have witnesses signed up to testify against the bill. The first one who signed up is Cole Hartley.
Four of the bill. Okay. Is there anyone else, anyone who wants to speak against SB 437? You may go to the table and introduce yourself and who you're with and proceed with your testimony. I do want to say we've got house bills we have to get done before 7 o'clock when we go back in, so we have to move this along quickly. So let's try to move it along.
Jackson Braswell
Unverified
30:18
No, I'm going to allow him to. Yeah, I'm not going to take too much of your time, I promise. Thank you for your time. My name is Jackson Braswell. I'm with Weyerhaeuser. We're a timber company here in Arkansas. We own about 1.2 million acres of land in the state. Been operating since 1956. Just recently made a $500 million investment in the state to build a new mill in Monticello, And I'm here to testify against Senate Bill 437.
As a private landowner, we're always looking for the best way to maximize the value of our land and our acreage, especially when you find stable, predictable revenue that can help offset the peaks and valleys of the economy. One such opportunity we have identified is that of wind energy. We support wind energy as it is extremely compatible with our timberlands. We are able to generate significant revenue from wind at multiples higher than timber, and we only have to set aside a very small percentage of productive timberland. In addition, the recreation and hunting opportunities
are also able to coexist with our operating wind projects on our footprint. We understand that there has to be a balanced approach, and as such, we're committed to working with the bill sponsor and other committee members to strike a balance on the proposed legislation. We hope this committee is supportive of private property rights and is willing to work with us to preserve this right. At the same time, we also acknowledge there will be non-participating landowners and other entities that need to have a buffer from wind projects. We have successfully sited seven projects on our property and every time we have worked
with the surrounding landowners and communities to take into consideration all concerns. Finally, not only have these projects generated additional revenues for the company, the local communities have received significant revenues, oftentimes game-changing revenues for our local communities. Communities are able to invest the revenue in areas such as local public works projects and their schools, just to name a few. The legislation that's drafted today would likely remove this potential revenue stream from not only us, but the communities that we live and operate in. We strongly believe that preserving private property rights as well as insulating the communities from wind projects can coexist,
and we are more than willing to roll up our sleeves and work with legislators to make that happen. Thank you guys, and we'll
be happy to take any questions. Thank you for your testimony, sir. Any questions
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
32:40
for the witness? Representative Dalby. Just real
quick. I couldn't quite understand from your statement, what are you opposed to in this bill? Because you've got wind turbines, you've got wind, supportive of wind, so why do you not like this bill?
Jackson Braswell
Unverified
32:56
Because the amount of regulations in this bill are equivalent to a moratorium on wind projects, and we firmly believe that.
These set of regulations are going to be almost impossible to adhere to to the point where the wind energy is going to die in the state. And before today's amendment, the 300-foot level, that was going to cut our wind prospects in half, and we would still have the delta to maybe be able to have some wind projects. With that being removed, we will have zero. And we're not against regulation. We're open to that. But this amount of regulation is stringent enough that it will be a moratorium,
Speaker 132
33:37
and I believe that that is the goal of this bill. Further questions? Okay, seeing none,
Chair
Unverified
33:47
thank you for your testimony, sir. Next we have Cole Hartley to speak for the bill. Just introduce yourself and who you're with
and proceed with the testimony. And again, please be as brief as
Speaker 25
34:04
possible. Yes, sir, my name is Cole Hartley.
Cole Hartley
Unverified
34:08
I'm speaking on behalf of the Arkansas Agricultural Aviation Association. I own a flying service in Stuttgart, Arkansas, along with serving as the current president of the Agricultural Aviation Association. I represent the interest of 284 individual commercial aerial applicators and 128 commercial aerial firms registered in the state of Arkansas. I'd like to talk about this bill. I've testified on a similar bill previously and want to reiterate what a huge impact these wind turbines will have on Arkansas Ag.
and ag aviation and ag in the state so I'm sure you're already aware wind turbines placed in an ag aviation environment only increase the risk to us that we face daily the risk it's already incredibly high the Arkansas Delta is full of ag aircraft for over nine months out of the year we have more ag aircraft working in a smaller area than almost anywhere in the world with all that being done at below wind turbine Heights please not let our rich farm ground be taken over by this industry men farms will severely affect our ability to service crops
from the air and without that capability our farmers will be forced to face more one more challenge and they certainly don't need it right now i've heard people say that they've spoken to local ag operators and aviators and have been told quote that these guys will only increase their prices and just work around these turbines that's true that we'll have to increase our prices but we just won't work around these turbines. This will add multiple layers of complications that make our job incredibly difficult and cause our jobs to be incredibly dangerous.
I promise you that there's not one single pilot that's just okay with working around these turbines. If our farmland's dotted with wind turbines, it's not really a matter of if but when there will be an ag aviation accident because of them. Are you okay with letting that happen? We're the very people elected to look out for our best interest while giving us representation. Now's the time that we plead with you to support us in a way that would truly protect us and protect our safety and families in front of a money-making opportunity.
Additionally, I'd like to discuss the economic impact this bill will have on the Delta and Prairie regions. You're taking out valuable farmland in a low wind production area. Yes, the landowner will make money off of these leases, but as their farmland dwindles away, what about the tractor and grain cart drivers? What about the local diner that serves the workers' lunch? What about the crop consultants, well drillers, chemical dealers, basically everyone who has made a living here? How does this impact their long-term security in an area that's already losing population at an alarming rate?
I just don't see how the positives outweigh the negatives here. While we see alternate energy as important, does taking our rich farm ground out of production really make sense? There must be cheaper and more efficient ways to create energy. Again, thank you for letting me speak. please consider our industry moving forward any
Speaker 121
37:09
questions okay thank you for your testimony sir do we have anyone else speak
against the bill yes sir come to the table introduce yourself and who you're with and
try try to be as brief as you can yes
Speaker 136
37:31
sir i do have a handout He did already
Speaker 25
37:37
speak, but this bill has been amended. Staff, we'll circulate your hand out. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 26
38:05
There you go. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Simon
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
38:27
Mahan. I'm the executive director of the Southern Renewable Energy Association. We represent the wind industry, large-scale solar batteries and transmission, and we're based out of Little Rock here.
The materials I wanted to share with you includes this map of all the red dots all across Arkansas. This represents all the areas that you would not be allowed to construct a wind project because you are within a mile of a church, a school, a hospital, a park, an airport. This is just one part of the regulations within this bill. As mentioned earlier, the amendment that was just recently passed
stripped out a 300-foot demarcation line of where wind projects could be built in the state. There's an additional map that I provided that showed the blue area of a topology map of Arkansas where wind projects could have been developed. As the gentleman from Weyerhaeuser mentioned, the piling on of multiple regulations from multiple different states into one single bill effectively acts as a moratorium. As I mentioned earlier, much of this bill is borrowed from a Tennessee law that was intentionally designed to ban wind projects.
And Tennessee has not built any wind projects since the law was passed. The final thing I'll mention, you know, we have an awful lot of states nearby, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Missouri, that have agricultural lands with wind turbines on them. Wind turbines use 1% of the property, meaning that the property owner can still choose to use their land as they see fit while earning some additional revenue for themselves.
And so, you know, counties are allowed to establish their own regulations on our industry, and we would encourage a no vote on this legislation to allow for us to work with our private property owners and with the local counties. Thank you for your testimony. Questions
from the committee? Seeing no questions. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 25
40:50
Anyone else to speak for the bill?
Mr. Morey? Again, please introduce yourself. Don't be cumulative, if you don't
Speaker 145
41:07
mind. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, committee. Robert Morey here on behalf of Swift Current Energy. To reiterate something that Representative Eaton said earlier, yes, it's been a very long day. Today was my first time to
Speaker 146
41:18
speak against a bill, and now this is my first time to speak for a bill, and it just happens to be the same piece of legislation.
I have worked hand-in-hand with Representative Hall and Representative Eaton today, as well as some other stakeholders and some other members of the body. To get to what this amended language says tonight, I just wanted to come back down and clarify that we have worked very closely with him. We are okay with this language. Not to belabor any points, just wanted to ask you
Speaker 147
41:49
for a favorable vote on the bill as amended
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
41:55
now. Questions? Representative Dalby. Just real quick. Robert, does this bill kill wind energy in Arkansas, or does it support wind energy?
Speaker 149
42:03
I'm hearing, I can't tell. Speaking on behalf of the SWIFT Current project
Speaker 146
42:11
that's currently under development, we are exempted out. and the potential expansions of our project, we are exempted out of being regulated out of being developed. Theoretically, yes, it would be long-term, a moratorium. Like the guy from Weyerhaeuser said, it would create a pretty big burden of regulation. But speaking just for my project, we're exempted out from any future regulation.
Speaker 56
42:37
Any further questions for Mr. Mori? Representative Layman. Thank you,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
42:43
Mr. Chairman. So just to clarify, you're only speaking for your clients that are already building wind farms.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
42:52
Yes, sir. Thank you. Representative Tosh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If we pass this bill, you know, I represent a lot of farmers and a lot of farmland, and if we pass this bill, will this bill hurt the farmers that I represent?
Speaker 145
43:11
It depends on their stance on wind energy. That's a very tough question to answer. This
Speaker 146
43:16
project that I represent, I said it this morning, roughly 90% to 95% of our project footprint is in rice fields, bean fields, corn fields, cotton fields. Those guys signed up to be a participant of the project because they could still farm underneath the wind turbines. And to reiterate another point from this morning, I've been a part of personally at least two meetings with aerial applicators or crop dusters because we wanted their input.
We wanted them to be very clear on the very front end about what our project was looking like and also to seek their input as we developed it to make things as safe and clear to them as possible.
Speaker 145
43:55
That's a very tough question to answer. I mean, it just depends on the area and depends on the personal property
Speaker 146
44:00
rights of the individual or the personal belief of the individual with the property. Any other questions from the committee?
Chair
Unverified
44:14
Representative Layman, you recognize your question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
44:17
in your opinion, if one of our farmers in the Delta wants to put in a wind farm in the future, not the ones you're representing, they wouldn't be able to do that with this bill? They'd be able to. It'd just be a lot
Speaker 146
44:30
tougher today. It'd be a lot tougher after this bill goes into effect than it is today. Well, if you look at
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
44:37
that map, very few of them would be able to. A lot of them would not have that option. It's their land.
They want to put up turbines. A lot of them wouldn't be able to do that on their
Speaker 146
44:52
own land. I completely hear your point. And just speaking on behalf of only my project, we are okay to proceed as moving forward. I have not taken a
Speaker 19
45:02
look at the map myself, but I understand your question. Thank you.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
45:10
Thank you, Representative Waiteman. Further questions from the committee? Representative Wooten. My question is, did y'all foresee some type of legislation like this coming forward when you chose the sites that you built on?
No, sir. In other words, it just happens to answer that we've
got this bill today versus what y'all planned. Do you mind re-asking that question? I'm a little confused. In other words, you
didn't use any other legislation around the country in picking the sites that you picked. You chose them based on just availability and the fact that you could have access to them.
Speaker 56
45:53
Correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Representative Wooden. Any other questions for Mr. Morey? Thank you,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
46:04
Mr. Morey, for your testimony. Thank you. Okay. Or staff, maybe. So this amendment that we just passed, that has to go back to the Senate to be voted on? Because we modified what the Senate voted on? Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 26
46:19
you. I believe we have someone else speak for the bill. Anyone speak for the bill? Representative Moore.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
46:30
Jeremiah Moore, House District 61. I'll be very brief. Committee, this is a very complicated and complex issue, and I appreciate your deliberation on this subject. This is a very good bill. The previous iteration of this bill dissected the state between those that were above the 300-foot above sea level line versus those who weren't. What this bill does is it creates uniform regulation across the state for all players except those that have current wind interests in Arkansas.
This protects those that have already spent money, some in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions in some cases, and exempts them out because we don't want them to play by rules that did not exist when they started their investment. I care deeply about this issue, and if wind energy is going to exist in Arkansas, we need to have responsible and considerate regulations in this state. Thank you. Thank you, Representative. Questions for Representative Moore?
Speaker 26
47:31
Thank you for your testimony. Does anyone else like to speak against this bill? Anyone else would like to speak for this
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
47:44
bill? You're ready to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
you, Mitty. Here's the facts, folks. It's not sustainable. The wind does not always blow. It's highly subsidized. And what happens when the subsidies subside? What happens to the windmills once the companies have left? Who takes them down? What happens to them?
If we don't act now, we're in trouble. We can't wait for two more years. So with that, I'm close. Thank you for your
presentation. What is the will of the committee? We have a motion do pass as amended by Representative Eubanks. Is there a discussion on the motion? Representative Lateman, you recognize for
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
48:28
discussion on the motion? Well, we do need regulations on wind, I agree, but this bill goes way too far.
I came down here to kind of cut back on regulations that are not required. Now, some of these, there are some good points in this bill, but 20 pages? I mean, and farmers who own their own land, now think about this, they will not be able to put a wind farm on their land if they choose to. This would keep them from doing that. It's their own land. Now, you can have guidelines for people who live around them. And counties and cities, they can have local.
What I'm hearing from is northwest. I don't hear anybody down there from the eastern part of the state where the delta is. So counties and cities. I had a bill when I was mayor for the city I was mayor of for wind turbines. City council didn't pass it, but you can do that. I may fail here too, but let me tell you, I mean, I've looked at regulations that this has more regulation than the state of California does. Maybe that's a good thing for some of y'all, but it is stricter than any regulations.
In Iowa, there's tons of farms and ranches that have wind turbines, and they farm right up to the turbine, And I'm sure they spray their soybeans just like we do. Now, yeah, it is a problem. But, you know, if you're going to spray crops, you spray the farm you get a contract with, I guess. So if you don't want to spray the crops under the turbines, well, don't spray that farm, right?
If you're spraying the farm next door, you're not flying around the turbines. But there's just so much regulation in there. We need a bill, but we need a better bill. This is not a good bill, and I'll be voting against
it. Any further discussion on the motion at this time, members? Okay. Seeing none, we have a motion do pass as amended. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No.
Speaker 25
50:45
The bill has failed. Thank you for your
Chair
Unverified
50:49
presentation. Thank you, guys. Representative Johnson, would you
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
51:12
Mr. Chairman, Lee Johnson, Representative Lee Johnson, District 47, can I go ahead and present the amendment?
Yes, sir. This amendment has changed its language after a request from a few folks just clarifying a few things around how reports are made and the definition of a health insurer. Happy to take any questions on the
Speaker 25
51:32
amendment. This is amendment to 1295. Correct. Members, questions on the amendment that Representative Johnson just explained? Okay. Motion. Make a motion we adopt the amendment. Motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed, say no. The motion to adopt has passed. You may proceed with the bill
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
51:56
as amended. Yes. Members, we heard a lot of testimony yesterday around insurance premiums, health insurance premium rates, how they might or might not be affected by different things we do in and out of this committee as legislators. One of the things that I'm trying to do, and I'm trying to do that with this bill, is create some transparency and reporting processes for the Arkansas Insurance Department and also for this committee to try to look at the financial state of our health
insurers. I don't think anyone's trying to cripple the health insurance market in the state. I think we ought to have a fair reporting process so we can understand why premiums may or may not need to go up based on the financial health of our health insurer institutions. So this bill creates some definitions at first. Then it has a transparency reporting section that requires health insurers to make a report by March 1st annually to the Arkansas Insurance Department with a lot of different factors considered. You can read through those factors in the bill.
It also requires that report to come to the House and Senate Insurance and Commerce Committee, and it also requires that report to be made available to individual enrollees so they can have better information around open enrollment time periods. And then the second section of the bill is a section on premium increased prohibitions. This is the same section that we amended into House Bill 1930 yesterday, and this just asks the insurance department to include factors such as risk-based capital and also medical loss ratio and defining what can and cannot be included in
a medical loss ratio when looking at rate increases. So again, just trying to give our insurance department, our committee, more information around the financial health of our health insurers in the state, and try to give them a chance to have a better
justification around rate increases, and I'd be happy to answer any questions on the bill. Thank you for your presentation. Questions
from the committee? President Lundstrom, are you? Yes. Good. I have
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
53:56
a question. Okay. The financial impact on this is between $10 million and $30 million?
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
54:03
Sorry, that was before we amended out the cost-sharing section. So there was a section of cost-share where we were going to require the insurance companies to do cost-share collections. That was in the first part of the bill in the first draft. That section of the bill has been completely amended out. I think Grant Wallace is here, and I'd be happy to have him come to the table to give any information on any potential fiscal impact to the state. But with
that part amended out, I don't think there's any fiscal impact. Mr. Wallace, would you go down to
the end of the table and introduce yourself and speak on that issue real quick, please?
Speaker 170
54:39
Thank you. Grant Wallace, Employee Benefits Division, the director. And, yes, we agree that with that cost sharing, that was the biggest factor in driving that $10 to $30 million price tag. With that amended out, we're okay. And with the amendment that was presented, we're additionally okay with
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
55:01
the bill as it is right now. Just a quick follow-up. There's nothing that precludes EBD from doing research now on the projects, on our employee insurance, correct?
Speaker 173
55:11
We do have, obviously, we have all the data around claims and all of that information, so correct. We
Speaker 170
55:17
could respond to any request that a legislator would have around that data. Okay, I'm just trying to figure out
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
55:24
why, if we can do this. Can you help me? This
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
55:28
is specifically, as we define health insurer, we're looking specifically at the commercial payers in the
state, so Blue Cross Blue Shield, Centene, Aetna, Humana, United, not EBD. We already have access to EBD and how they run their finances.
What we're trying to do is give the Arkansas Insurance Department better information regarding our commercial payers so that if they say, hey, look, you're going to do A, B, and C, we're going to have to raise rates, we want to see for sure that their profit margins aren't 200%, right? If their profit margins are really low and they need to raise rates, we want them to be financially viable and healthy. This is just
about trying to empower AID with more information to make those kind of determinations around rate increases.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
56:09
Okay. Thank you. I'm not comfortable with it, but I understand where you're going.
Speaker 170
56:14
And if I may add, from my seat, and I know I'm not going to make some of my counterparts happy with this, but it actually would benefit EBD to know what the commercial payers are doing and how we can remain competitive when we're going out to bid and look at our contracts and making sure that we're remaining competitive and being responsible with our rates and what we are actually paying and doing with our reimbursements and all of those things as well. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 121
56:44
Thank you, Representative Lundstrom. Further questions from the
committee? Okay, seeing none. Does anyone like to speak against this bill? I see someone is making their way
Derek Smith
Unverified
57:04
to the table. Mr. Tis, introduce yourself, and you might proceed with
your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Derek Smith. I'm with the Mitchell-Williams Law Firm here in Little Rock, Arkansas,
and I'm here on behalf of America's Health Insurance Plans. This will come as no surprise to Representative Johnson. Most of the provisions regarding the reporting are unnecessary. If you go to the Arkansas Insurance Department's website right now, you can find the annual statements, annual financial statements audited of every health insurance company doing business in Arkansas. It includes their balance sheets. It includes their expense statements.
It includes their revenue statements. It is a full-fledged audited financial report. You can find that information now. As far as the restrictions on premium increases, we think that adding RBC information to a premium or to a rate request is inappropriate. RBC is a financial solvency mechanism. It is something that we want insurance companies to have high RBC levels. You encourage an insurance company to have an RBC level over 650 because it provides the cushion in case the premium collected in any given year is insufficient to meet claim demands.
So you want that. By potentially punishing carriers that have high RBC levels, by using that as a consideration to deny a rate increase or a rate filing, you actually discourage companies from having these healthy balance sheets that we all want. And so for these reasons, I would encourage a no vote. Thank you for your testimony. Questions for
Mr. Smith from the committee? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for this bill? Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak against
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
59:11
this bill? Seeing no one, Representative Johnson, you recognize the close. I'll just say one thing in closing. You
know, we had testimony yesterday from several hospital executives who talked about cash stays on hand, and we know that the health of an institution is reflective of how much cash they have, and I certainly want our health insurers to be healthy, but there's healthy and then there's gluttonous, right? I mean, how much money do you need in your risk-based capital?
And I think it is a fair justification if it's 650 percent, great. That means you're in good shape. If it's more than that, great. But what if it's 2,000 percent? What if it's 3,000 percent? Risk-based capital, I believe, is a function of how much capital you have versus how much risk you take. And to be healthy, you want that to be at least 6.5 times. But do you want it to be 10 times, 20 times? At some point, taking that into account, I think, has a reasonable bearing on whether or not insurers need to raise rates to recoup their losses. And so I think it is a fair thing to consider.
And I'd be happy to take any questions. If there's none, I'd be happy to close
for the bill. Any further questions for Representative Johnson? Okay.
Speaker 26
1:00:16
Seeing none. I'm closing the bill. Make a motion do pass. I have a motion do pass. As
Speaker 25
1:00:20
amended. As amended by Representative Johnson. Is there discussion on the motion? no discussion all in favor say aye any opposed
say no the ayes have it and you've passed your bill represent johnson i believe you stated you're not going to proceed on the next bill we can
move it to deferred is that correct okay and that is 1868 members represent brown you are here on 1177
Speaker 28
1:00:46
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown, District
Representative Brown, do you want to expunge your previous amendment? No, Mr. Chair. This would be a
Speaker 35
1:01:23
keep the previous amendment, and this would be a new amendment,
Speaker 25
1:01:28
further amending. I'm sorry. Thank you. There's another, there's an additional amendment coming out. Staff is passing out the amendment. As it's being passed out, go ahead and explain the amendment, sir. Members, you may recall, this
Speaker 36
1:01:39
was that Franchise Practices Act involving insurance agencies that we talked about quite a while. I don't remember how long ago it was. One of the issues that some members had some concern with was that there was some retroactivity language in the bill.
We made an amendment committee take that out. Some members still had some concerns that this bill could affect a pending litigation. So this amendment will kick the effective date of the act should it be passed two years out to give plenty of time for that lawsuit to finish and resolve one way or the other and to make it clear that we're not trying to affect that current lawsuit. Reps. Brown has
Speaker 39
1:02:13
explained the amendment. Are there any questions for Representative Brown just on the amendment? Representative Aker, are you recognized?
Representative Aker
Unverified
1:02:23
Thank you, Representative Brown. I have a question just on how legal stuff works. Would any future lawsuit before this date be, would this affect any lawsuit that would be filed between today and this date? They would have
Speaker 181
1:02:38
to litigate that lawsuit with the effective date being where
Speaker 36
1:02:41
it's at. I actually don't know the answer to that. There is some issues when it comes to lawsuits when you deal with procedural versus remedial, and I guess it would depend on what the actual nature of the lawsuit is. Generally, the legislature can change remedies, but they can't change procedure.
Maybe I had that backwards. I'm sorry. It's been a long day. But it would depend
Representative Aker
Unverified
1:02:58
on the case. Okay. So we wouldn't be able to tell agents that if they filed their own lawsuit before this date that they would be exempt in any way? Is that – or we don't know? Well, it's going
Speaker 177
1:03:09
to depend on the lawsuit. But I would think if the lawsuit was filed and finished, then obviously it wouldn't
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:03:14
be affected by this bill. I got you. Right. Okay. Thank you. Question on the amendment from Representative Eves? I think it's on the amendment. I think I heard you say this. I just want to clarify. This amendment would prevent this bill, should it pass,
from having any effect on the lawsuit that is currently going on for the shelter agent in
Speaker 36
1:03:33
Harrison? Right. This gives plenty of time for that lawsuit to finish up one way or the other, and then this
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:03:39
wouldn't kick in until, like I said, two years down the road. I understand the timing, but does it affect the case, the details? No. If this passes, we're saying shelter's
Speaker 36
1:03:47
not a franchise. No, if this passes, we would say that starting two
Speaker 177
1:03:51
years from now, as a matter of law, we would clarify the insurance agencies are not franchisees protected by the
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:03:57
Franchise Practice Act. But the current case can't look to this bill and say the legislature has determined that as of this date, this is the case.
Speaker 36
1:04:05
I mean, I guess that they could in the case say the legislature has done something, but it wouldn't be law yet, so I don't
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:04:12
see how they could use that. They couldn't use it as authority. It would be law. It just
Speaker 25
1:04:21
wouldn't be in effect, right? Well, it wouldn't be effective yet, yes. Any other questions on the amendment for
Chair
Unverified
1:04:27
Representative Brown? No questions? Will Representative Lundstrom be recognized? I still feel
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:04:33
like we're putting our finger on the scale. I didn't like the bill the first time, so I'm not for the amendment.
I'm just not for any of it. I've just assumed it died here. and we need to come back and address it later, that's fine. But if there's an ongoing lawsuit, this just looks like we're trying to influence it. And I think we've talked about this before, so I'm
Speaker 39
1:04:58
out. I don't know if this helps. Okay. We're still speaking on the motion to adopt the amendment. Are there other questions for
Representative Brown on the adoption of the amendment?
Okay. Seeing none. What's the will of the committee on the amendment adoption? We have a motion to adopt the amendment made by Representative Perry. Motion to adopt the amendment is made by Representative Perry. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. The
Speaker 137
1:05:32
amendment has passed. You'll recognize to proceed with your bill as amended. Thank
Speaker 36
1:05:37
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Members, of course, I've already presented this to you all before.
I know it's late and I know I belabor the point. So unless the committee has any questions, I'd be glad to step aside and let any folks for or against testify
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:05:55
on the bill. Representative McGrew. I guess my question is, if this is not going to affect Act 27, we're going to be in session in 27. Why are we doing this now?
Speaker 36
1:06:07
I think because we already have the bill filed and we're all here ready to go. You know, obviously, if something were changing now and then, I mean, who knows what happens in the future.
The amendment to kick it two years down the road was hopefully showing good faith on our part that we're not trying to affect this current litigation, but we are wanting to go ahead and fix this in our code because I do think that this is a problem that keeps repeating, and it will continue to repeat in the future if
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:06:29
we don't fix it. But this bill doesn't fix it for two years from now, so it wouldn't make any difference whether we pass this now or if we wait two years till the litigation is over and then there's no concern about whether this will affect that or not, correct? Well,
Speaker 36
1:06:43
litigation will be done by then, so I would argue that it won't affect litigation
one or the other. Thank you, Representative McGuire. Any further questions from the committee? Okay, seeing none. Thank you for your presentation. We do have, I believe we have people signed up to speak against the bill. If you would, just come to the table, and you're welcome, frankly, to come to the table together and introduce yourselves, who you're with, and just proceed with your testimony, please.
Rg Ernest
Unverified
1:07:18
Hello, committee members. My name is R.G. Ernest, and I'm here on behalf of my father, Roger Ernest. Thank you for all of your hard work, first. I will keep this as brief as possible. I know everyone has had a very long day. When I was here in February, I explained how this bill is meant to end my dad's current lawsuit against this insurance company that terminated him. After he was terminated, he met with a law firm that took great care to understand the services that he provided to his insurance company.
The law firm carefully examined the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act and the two cases cited in this particular bill. Ironically, my dad sued under the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act because of these cases, not despite them. These cases show that agents like my dad, who are fully authorized to bind certain policies and make changes to those policies, should be protected by the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act because of the substantial investment they have to make in their agencies,
unlike agents who just solicit applications. The Arkansas Franchise Practices Act in these cases were fully briefed by the attorneys in this particular case over many months, and the judge determined that an agent like my dad may be protected under the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act. In the February hearing, it was, I would say, misstated that my dad had no viable claim under the act because his contract was signed before the effective date of the Arkansas
Offranchise Practices Act. He, and also it was a claim that he had other claims that had been made against this defendant insurance company, presumably with the idea being that the case would be able to continue even with this bill in place. Neither of those is true. My dad's actual contract was signed after the act became effective. It was signed in 1985. What was distributed to the committee was a copy of my grandfather's contract, which was included in the complaint,
but only as a way of showing the progression of this family agency. So my dad's contract is clearly in the effective time of the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act, and he has no other claims against this defendant insurance company. So, as Representative Brown said, this bill may be used as authority against him in his current litigation. I believe that the defendant insurance company will use this bill to substitute this legislature's judgment for the judge's judgment to completely destroy this case.
And I ask that you consider how much time and money he has spent in order to have his day in court and how unfair it may be to upend his case after coming this far. And as for the assertion that this will be done in two years, we really can't say that for certain. We know that the appellate courts move slowly, particularly these days. But I think maybe you've possibly heard enough.
And also, I do have copies of all of the documents that I just referred to. I can provide those with you or for you. I'm sorry. But I think maybe you've heard enough from the lawyers. So I'll ask my dad to say just a few
Speaker 186
1:11:02
brief words. Yes, I know. First of all, I appreciate being able to speak to you.
Speaker 25
1:11:07
I'm sorry, sir. I didn't mean to interrupt
Speaker 186
1:11:10
you. Please introduce yourself. I'm sorry. Yes, I'm Roger Ernest, and I am the other part of the shelter situation that we've got going.
And I just wanted to briefly, and I will be brief, I just wanted to briefly tell you about our agency and the situation involving this whole thing, only I'll put it in a nutshell. My dad was the first adjuster in the state of Arkansas for this company, and I used to ride with him to settle claims. And I got interested in insurance. I went to the University of Arkansas and got my degree in insurance. Started when I was 21. I was the youngest agent they ever had. And we built a really good agency.
I mean, it was just a supreme agency, and that's how they referred to us. Went through all the years of working, and then we, of course, I can't get into the litigation or anything like that, but just simply had the rug pulled out from under us in regard to what happened, and before I knew it, we were terminated, and there's an agent in this agency now that lives out of town, and he was from out of town, and his contract, kind
of give you, let you read between the lines, his contract is less than half of what our contract was. And, uh, we've, we've been humiliated. Uh, it's, it's been quite a situation in a small town, uh, 13,000 people. We've been, uh, he has, we've counted 20 billboards in and around our area. And, uh, it's just with his face on it and it's just, that part's been humiliating. So that's to get to the bottom line. That's the reason for our, uh, uh, lawsuit. That was the only thing that
we could do. I was left with a building that I built for shelter insurance to sell their product. We were left with thousands of dollars worth of novelties and almanacs and things that we were stuck with. If I'd have been an employee, of course, that wouldn't be the situation, but we're an independent contractor as a franchisee. And so that's where the point is, what about the franchise situation? And our situation is this.
We're, of course, as you know, battling a multi-billion dollar company with 2 million plus people paying the litigation and the fees for law. And I'm using my retirement account. And I just would appreciate the fact of non-interference. If we could just let this litigate out, let it go through the court system, let us keep with the same law, the franchise law that we are challenging and talking about
without any amendments to it, and just would truly appreciate your no vote in this
Speaker 26
1:14:19
you for your testimony. It appears we have a couple of questions. Representative
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:14:26
Wooden? You're recognized. So your position as an attorney would be legislative intent, even though they're reaching back,
would stand the test of the possibility that they would reach back. And say that the intent of this body was to make a change in the franchise law that could be applied but was not in effect when your dad wanted to question
or was treated like he was treated. I think if I understand your question
Rg Ernest
Unverified
1:15:10
correctly, it could, the legislature's intent today, even though what has been proposed is this amendment that would be effective in, I think, 2027, the legislature's intent could be used as, to influence this current case.
Because when the legislature speaks, judges listen. And so, yeah, it could be used as authority to affect the outcome.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:15:38
So Representative Eves' position, or as the question he asked, was the same. So you substantiate that it's possible for the court to reach back. Yes, absolutely. Thank
Speaker 56
1:15:50
you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Wooten. Further questions from
the committee for either of these witnesses?
Representative Gramlich, you are recognized. I have a motion. Representative Gramlich, you are recognized for a motion. Those are opposed to on action. Lay on the table. Okay. Representative Gramlich has made a motion to lay on the
Speaker 25
1:16:17
table. That is a non-debatable motion. Therefore, we will vote. We have a motion to lay this on the table. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. No. The no's have it.
The motion does not carry. Any further questions for the witnesses? Okay. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Thank you, both of you. Is there
anyone else who would like to speak for this bill? Okay. Anyone else who
Chair
Unverified
1:16:54
would like to speak against this bill? Okay.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:17:00
Representative Brown, you recognize the close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we had discussed
Speaker 36
1:17:14
at length the last time this bill was brought up or the first time it was brought up, the issue before us is that the Franchise Practices Act was passed back in the 70s. At the time it was passed, it was to cover franchisees who are not regulated, you know, McDonald's, Burger King's, a gas station with its supplier, things of that nature. and over the years it has been tried to be used in court as a method of calling insurance agents
franchisees so that they are entitled to certain things under the act including notice and things of that nature and every single time it's come up it's been beat back that no you're not franchisees because there's a fundamental difference a franchisee owns the product they're being sold owns the product that's being sold and they pay the franchisor a franchise fee so your local McDonald's sells the burger. It owns the burger. It sells the burger. It pays McDonald's a fee for having the right to use their name and sell burgers under their name. What makes a different insurance agent different is that an insurance agent sells policies that are issued by its
insurance company. It is an agent of the company, and the policies they sell, they are then paid commission on those policies. They don't have any ability to rewrite those policies or go on and make change. All they can do is add riders or take riders off, but they cannot change the policies themselves, and that's the fundamental difference. And so as a result, to the extent these laws, these cases have been brought both in Arkansas and other states, every time, I think the one example we found in a state with a different law, they've always been kicked back by the courts, you're not a franchisee. And so the purpose of this bill is to simply clarify in our law, which Wisconsin did in their law, which is what our law is based off of,
and was the first law that was passed back in the 70s. And I apologize if it was Wisconsin or Michigan or one of those northern states, can't remember which one. We're doing the same thing they did, which is say, hey, just to clarify, an insurance agent is not a franchisee. I know there's a lot of concern from the committee that this was being used for some strategic purpose. That's why we amended to take out the retroactivity clause, and we also took it out, kick it out for two more years to make it clear that we're not wanting to affect this current litigation, but we want to go ahead and have it in place so that we can stop these future cases being filed because it's the same thing. They're getting filed, they have to be litigated, they lose, they get filed, they get litigated, they lose.
And so we want to bring some clarity to the law and
fix that. And with that, I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you for your presentation, Representative Brown. What is the will of the committee? We have a motion do pass by Representative Ferguson as amended number one and number two. That is a proper motion. Is there any discussion
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:19:35
on the motion? Representative Perry. Not to bring back, but back when this was originally introduced, I've been on both sides of this.
I was an independent contractor with a farmer's insurance. I had an agency for 23 years. didn't have a franchise. I was an independent contractor. I could sell their product and I was paid a commission. On the flip side of that, we also own the franchise Subway stores. We actually pay a royalty to Subway for selling Subway under their model situation. So it's a clear definition and I think if it changes to where it declares people a franchise on the insurance side of it,
then the insurance companies would end up having to file regulations with the state, and it would be a total mess-up. So that's why I'm for this bill. Thank you,
Representative Perry. Any further discussion on Representative Acre? You recognize for discussion on the motion. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Aker
Unverified
1:20:34
Chairman. Thank you, Representative Brown, for bringing this. I do have the utmost respect. Like I said, I believe we've discussed at length, and I trust your intent. Like I said, I trusted you with my organs.
Representative Aker
Unverified
1:20:51
I think my concern with this bill is not in the discussion of franchisee versus franchise. I think that that argument definitely has merits. My concern is when we codify precedent, we remove the opportunity for anyone in the future who feels that their business varies from that precedent. And I think for me that makes it difficult to vote, and I'll be a no today. But I do appreciate the intent and the due diligence you put forth on this. Thank you,
Speaker 29
1:21:17
Mr. Baker. Any further discussion on the motion?
Okay. Seeing none, we have a motion do pass as amended. Amendment number one and number two. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. No. The bill has failed. Thanks for making me. I know it's a tiki bill, but I appreciate all this. Are we done? Members, we are finished. We only have Senate bills left. We will be meeting Monday morning to finish up the three Senate bills.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1295 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING COLLECTIONS TRANSPARENCY ACT.
HB1308 Steimel CONCERNING UNFAIR PRACTICES RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE REPAIR CONTRACTS; AND TO REGULATE SOLICITING RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTORS AND TREE CONTRACTORS.
HB1811 Steimel TO AMEND PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LAW; AND TO REQUIRE REASONABLE PROOF OF PAYMENT OF A DEDUCTIBLE TO RECOUP RECOVERABLE DEPRECIATION UNDER PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LAW.
HB1868 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PAY A FAIR AND REASONABLE SERVICE FEE
DIRECTLY TO A FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR FIREFIGHTING SERVICES BASED ON TIME ON SCENE.
SB331 G. Leding CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHERITED CANCER MUTATIONS; AND TO CREATE THE GENETIC TESTING ACT.
HB1531 TO PROHIBIT PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS FROM RESTRICTING OR LIMITING PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS TO A LIMITED DISTRIBUTION NETWORK OF OUT-OF-STATE PHARMACIES.
HB1700 TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT; AND TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS OF AN ADVERSE DETERMINATION NOTICE UNDER THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT.
HB1771 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURES TO POLICYHOLDERS; AND TO REQUIRE MONTHLY REPORTING BY INSURERS.
HB1820 TO REGULATE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL AND CONTINUOUS SERVICE OFFERS.
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.
HB1177 M. Brown TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT; AND TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT.
SB437 Hester TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT.
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.
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.
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.
HB1533 Gramlich TO CREATE THE DECENTRALIZED UNINCORPORATED NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION ACT.
HB1813 Gramlich TO ADOPT THE FAIR AND EFFICIENT TRANSMISSION COMPACT.
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.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE- HOUSE, Apr 9, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Chair
Unverified
Representative John Maddox Chair
Unverified
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 19
Speaker 25
Representative Aker
Unverified
Speaker 29
Speaker 26
Speaker 28
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 35
Speaker 36
Speaker 39
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 57
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Speaker 61
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 72
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
Speaker 44
Julie Morton
Unverified
Speaker 100
Speaker 32
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 108
Speaker 38
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
Speaker 117
Jackson Braswell
Unverified
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 132
Cole Hartley
Unverified
Speaker 121
Speaker 136
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
Speaker 145
Speaker 146
Speaker 147
Speaker 149
Speaker 56
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 164
Speaker 170
Speaker 173
Derek Smith
Unverified
Speaker 177
Speaker 181
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
Speaker 137
Rg Ernest
Unverified
Speaker 186
Speaker 190
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Speaker 42