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 chapter, transcript
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 |
|
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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Chair
Unverified
0:28
Yeah, thank you. 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, and you may
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
0:41
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 um 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 healthcare provided and it should have said healthcare provider, and those are the only two changes to the bill. Thank you for your
presentation. Any questions from the committee? OK, anyone who'd like to speak against this amendment anyone
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:28
else speak for it, you recognize the clothes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am close to my bill and
would ask the committee for a good vote. Thank you, Represent Langstrom, you pass. Of a motion do pass. Maybe most to concur in the Senate amendment all in favor say aye. I say no. Thank. Thank you. You have, you have passed your amendment. Representative Johnson, you have, would you like to go to the end of the table for your
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:59
amendments? Just introduce yourself for the record, sir, and which one you're going to start with, and
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:18
you may proceed. 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
Speaker 19
2:33
to answer any questions, questions from the committee. Where's the vis? What did you
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:38
change? Some of the, I believe we've changed some of the definitions around what we were defining, but I, 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, to align with what we do in
EBD, so we've tried to change it to line it up with what we did in the EBD bill that 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 a line more with what we're already doing with DBD since we had taken EB you call we took NBD out of that bill because we were already covering it for EBD, so we're trying to make those two things line up better. Thank you, Representative. Further questions?
Chair
Unverified
3:35
Seeing no, anyone in the I should like to speak against the amendment. Anyone else likes speak for the amendment. Reson Johnson, you
recognize the clothes for your amendment. Reg Johns is closed for his amendment. We have a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. All in favor say aye. Any
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:55
pose say no. Congratulations, you've passed your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we also need a concurrent
amendment on House Bill 1602. Yes, now, now Representative E has me frantically searching for the section we amended, which I can now reference. Uh, thank you, sir. This was the bill on on PBM um. Uh PBM licensure fees. We didn't change anything other than just who has access to the data, you know, and that bill also there was a lot of reporting data on how PBMs are 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, but, 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 any questions on that amendment. Any questions from the committee? Saying that. So
we would like to speak against this amendment. Anyone, anyone I expect for the amendment, you recognize the close for your Senate amendment. Close for my amendment. Make the motion to pass. We have a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. All in favor say
Speaker 25
5:08
aye.po say now you've passed your Senate amendment. Representative Aker. You have HB 1531 concurring Senate
Representative Aker
Unverified
5:21
amendment. Yes, that's correct, committee. Representative Acre District 71, uh, 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 um participants, but they shall just review applications, which was the intent. It also provides some
Chair
Unverified
5:41
FDA language that they requested for some clarity. Questions from the committee.
Speaker 29
5:50
OK no. Does anyone like to speak against this amendment? Anyone else for this amendment right to close. I'm close 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
Representative Aker
Unverified
6:07
amendment. Uh, amendment to House Bill 1700, same clerical
clarification requested by the insurance parties involved just on the logistics of when the prior authorization is denied and how the appeal process moves forward, so. Questions from the committee. Jing Nan,
Speaker 26
6:22
is there anyone who likes to be against the amendment. Anyone else
Speaker 29
6:27
for the amendment, you recognize to close. I'm close for the amendment and I make a motion to do pass for concurrence of the amendment. We have a
Speaker 28
6:33
motion to concur in the amendment. All in favor say aye. And the person
Speaker 25
6:38
you've passed your concurrence. Hey, excuse me, Representative Perry.
Go ahead and introduce yourself and you
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
7:01
appreciate it. I apologize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Mark Perry, District 66. The amendment, uh, 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.
Chair
Unverified
7:23
Seeing Nas everyone likes to speak against this amendment.
Any anyone else speak for it to recognize the close. I'm closed and make a motion to concur. We have much to concur in the Senate Amendment. All in favor say aye, aye. Can you
Speaker 25
7:41
both say no. You've passed your concurrence. Where's in Brown, you have a concurrence in the
Speaker 35
7:46
Senate amendment. We are not doing 70 1177 yet, but you have 1820. Uh, yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown District
Speaker 36
7:53
55, uh. Uh, colleagues, I have an amendment on 1820. I'm sorry, my brain's kind of spaghetti after today. It was to add an
additional uh industry that's exempted from the statute, these were the industries that were exempted are ones that are already regulated by some entities. So like for example, the uh your local utility companies is regulated by the PSC so your consumer can go to the PSC if they have a complaint. They intended the bills to cover these people out there. They're not regulated like you're, you know, internet subscriptions and things like
Speaker 28
8:19
that. Thank you for your presentation. Questions from the
committee. No questions. Anyone like to speak against this amendment. In no respect for it, you recognize the clothes. I'm
Speaker 25
8:32
closing. I appreciate you though motion to concur in the Senate amendment by representing view banks, all in favor say aye. The post I know you've passed your concurrence. Thank you.
Speaker 39
8:42
Represent Johnson, you're, you're not in the room. OK.
Chair
Unverified
9:31
move back to the one that we broke off with at the break SB 437. you can The
that's been. I We're back. Members, we're back to the bill that we stopped on previous to there are some, 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 be a possibility.
Speaker 25
10:19
Yes, SB 437. Represent Eubanks is recognized. Yeah, I have a motion to expunge the vote by which we adopted the amendment. Represent UMex submitted a motion to expunge the amendment that was adopted this morning. All in favor say, excuse me, is there
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
10:50
any discussion on that motion? OK. All in favor say aye. Any post say no. The motion has
been expunged. Thank you You are recognized to, to proceed. we'd
Chair
Unverified
11:12
like to recognize in a minute, please. Yes. There's going to be another
Speaker 25
11:16
amendment. It's going to be circulated by staff as they're
circulating the amendment, please explain the amendment for the committee, please. OK.
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
11:27
Well we had earlier, uh, we had some language that wasn't right, and uh, so we worked with the, uh, groups that did not agree with the bill, and we've come up with some new language, and it, uh, it, it clarifies what underdevelopment means, uh, and it also has a date from which It starts.
We have a motion to a question on the amendment, Representative Richardson
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
12:04
you Reno. So You changed the Underdevelopment or you clarified it, correct? Yes. And that was the biggest issue that And, yeah,
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
12:15
because it was very vague, and then also like they had no date from what to. Go back from What had
started under development, you see what I mean? Like.
Speaker 57
12:28
You have a firm date, so. Representative, I believe you have
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
12:37
a question. Uh Thank you. It's been a long day. My, my question is, uh, you have April 9th in here. But how, how long do they have? Before they
can't do any development in that part of the state in, in any part of the state. Is it, is it final April
Speaker 61
12:59
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 under
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
13:07
construction. They're, 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 can never go back
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
13:21
in time. So Well, I'm, I'm saying you can, you can grandfather those in. 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
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
13:36
right here, I put the date on here from this date forward. You have to
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
13:41
go by the regulations. So if they, if they sign a contract for land, they have to go by these. They have to go by the new regulations. Yes, sir. Yeah. Any other,
Speaker 25
13:53
any other questions on or just discussing the amendment at this time. Are there any other questions on the amendment? River valley.
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
14:03
Mr. Chair. With, with the new changes, you'll be a primary. mors the bill that was passed in the Senate. Am I correct? Yes, everything except the 300 ft
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
14:15
and elevation from sea level. The reason the 300 ft, it splits the state in half and uh uh It just does no good to split the state in half. I mean, I just. Uh
Speaker 25
14:34
OK. Any further questions on, we're discussing the amendment. Any further questions on
the amendment? OK. We have a motion to adopt the amendment by view banks. All in favor say aye. Any post say no. The amendment
Speaker 25
14:45
has passed, you're to present your bill as amended. OK. Go go. It's been a little bit of a long day,
Speaker 72
14:51
um. Yeah Do we have questions? Where were we in the questions?
Speaker 25
15:09
We were going to allow you to present the bill as amended if there's,
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
15:12
if you wanted to, I mean, it's, we, we pretty much explained the amendment earlier, yeah,
Speaker 25
15:15
so you, it's your position you've explained the bill and now you've explained the amendment, so you're, you're ready to take questions. Members, are there questions on the bill as amended. Reverendorton I've got
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
15:35
I've got to try to figure out to count this because
I, I don't want to have to, to, to be a no vote on the bill, but I'm, I'm still concerned relative to the plot impairment that this is going to create to the point that rice farmers won't be able. To get someone to apply into those things. I don't, I don't care whether you've got a switch to turn them off and, and I appreciate that technology, but I worry about if you
I don't know how many of you have ever worked with crop dusters, but it's a, it's a dangerous job. I provided fuel to them for years and East Arkansas and and up around Walnut Ridge and all through the state. And so I became acquainted with the dangers that they face out there and they have a structure that's over 300 ft tall in the middle of a field or in a borderline or whatever you want, it's an obstruction and it's a danger, and I think
I, you know, we're, they're in a depressed area already farmers are depressed from the standpoint of the cell, the crops, and then they have this added to it, just makes it, it makes me uneasy as to what the rice farmer, um, and I'll use rice because it's, it's a different application approach than that of corn. So I, I,
I just, I have a problem with what we're doing here. Or
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
17:13
if the only way we could have them not in the rice fields is do a moratorium on them and say that you can't have them all in the state of Arkansas.
Speaker 61
17:21
That would be the only way that you could do that. Well, that might
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
17:27
be, you know, we're talking about life and death here. Oh, I understand. Yes, sir. I mean that's, that's the reason I'm trying to make the point about it. I mean, it's not, you know, you don't, you don't
dust crops in the, in the, in the mountains in the
Speaker 1
17:43
elevated uh but that's we, we are, we're, we're still on the question phase, so. you have a question
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
17:51
or well, my question is, What, how, how are we going to do this if we approve this bill and then, and then worry about the crop dusters and their occupation and chosen career out there. One thing
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
18:04
is that uh before this bill was amended, all of that area you're talking about had no regulations at all. They could build on 700 ft tall
if they wanted to. And so this bill here actually has regulations that affects that area you're talking about. about. So you're now in with the rest of the state. Reps some vitamin, ready to ask for a
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
18:33
question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I got a question on page 11, line 17. What is the definition of a view shared. What is that?
You shared analysis. You need it, it requires anyone building a wind farm, a view shared 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, could I get, uh, Ms. Julie Morton to come
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
19:07
back and speak to us. Answer that for us. Maybe it's like,
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
19:12
uh, being able to view from a certain angle, point of view or something, I don't know.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
19:17
I have no idea. She can come to the table, um. Is that defined in the bill? That Ma'am? I think you're one at the end of the
Speaker 44
19:29
table. I don't know what this shit is. You can use that in a sense. OK like that.
Speaker 25
19:54
Go and introduce, I know you did it earlier,
Julie Morton
Unverified
20:03
but just introduce yourself for the record, please, and Yes. If you, you may not have heard the question, but what is it Yeah, uh, my name is Julie Morton, uh, of, of viewshed analysis is just Uh, 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. Is that, so I,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
20:36
I can't see them from any of these places. Well, it is
Julie Morton
Unverified
20:40
going to be taken into consideration if, if If you're going to be visible, what is the effect going to be? So what if I can't see
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
20:50
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
Julie Morton
Unverified
21:05
these 5 different places. 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. OK, here's something
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
21:19
else the wind company will have to provide. Tell me what this is, uh, hydrogeological assessment of areas of water within a minimum of 4 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 that refers
Julie Morton
Unverified
21:47
more to the construction. In other words, in the mountains, particularly in the Karsh terrain of the mountains like in Carroll County, for instance. You've got uh underground streams and
according to the USGS, some of those sources of water for the people's wells can be up to 4 to 5 miles away. Well, if you can 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 4-mile radius
in certain types of terrain, you could be affected by just the construction itself of the
Speaker 100
22:48
turbine. It Any further questions, Representative Laderman? No, OK, thank
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
22:55
you, Reverend Wharton. Um Would you clarify the statement again relative to what you said about it, it beats what we've got now.
Would you elaborate on that, uh, On the bill we have now versus what it was and the fact that apparently there's no regulation relative to where they're located. There is no right now there is no regulation. Yes. Yes,
Speaker 61
23:20
sir. Go, go ahead. Right now there is no regulations
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
23:26
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. Uh, now,
The one I brought in here, uh, before I minted 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. Or 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
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
24:13
is really a compromise but it gives some control over those, yeah, yes, so you're, you're included,
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
24:20
any other questions? Reverend Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman I'm trying to read this. Have you taken, so what's the difference in the, the, the foot, the footage elevation. Have we, you had a You had
one. But now you've taken it out. Yes, what it
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
24:37
was before it was if you were over 300 ft sea
level elevation, you had to abide by the regulations. If you are under 300 ft, sea level, then you did not, there was no regulations at all and you could do what you wanted to. And we didn't feel that was correct. We felt like if we're gonna do something that needed to cover everybody in the state. Instead of just, you know, one. One area. Hm, OK. So it's not the
Speaker 32
25:01
same that They had at the sin. It's not exactly the same that they had in the Senate, but it's
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
25:13
a compromise we've all made and
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
25:19
everybody's good with it now. Well, OK, yeah, you recognized. 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 or in regards
Speaker 108
25:38
to language that protects their property rights.
Julie Morton
Unverified
25:40
I'll let Julie, there's a 2500 ft setback.
From a nonparticipating landowner's property line. So they will have a half, about a half mile distance set back from their property line. That's the biggest protection that we've given them. But also with that Representative Tash. Also with
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
26:06
think that's too restrictive, they can sign a paper that says, we don't, we don't have to have the half, you
know, that safety or buffer zone. That's the property owner's right. Obviously, if they choose that. That's
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
26:23
a part of this provision. OK, so they're granted liability protection in this if they so choose. Is that correct? Well, liability protection in other words, if somebody decides and they put these up on an adjoining land and and for some reason they don't stay within the guidelines that you just described, the 2500, what protections do they have? Well,
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
26:48
that's what we're trying to currently they have nothing. They don't really have a setback either. But what we're, 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 injured. Currently, they don't have to, they aren't required that. So that's
Chair
Unverified
27:05
part of this process. OK. Richardson, you recognized. Thank you. So
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
27:10
I just, I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. We're, we're Increasing all the regulation
Chair
Unverified
27:20
for all of the wind turbines, increasing regulation, correct? Yes.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
27:31
OK, thank you. Any other questions, President McGurk. Uh A 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 Arkansas does it leave where they can go.
Julie Morton
Unverified
27:52
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 a This is not abnormal. This is, 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, uh, regulations. I specifically tried to limit, uh, what we put into the bill so that it would be palatable and would be in line with
Speaker 117
28:37
what other states have done. OK, the second question, with all these regulations, What areas
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
28:46
can they be put in because it seems like with all the environmental issues, the 4
miles, the all of that, that it would limit very little land left in
Speaker 117
29:00
Arkansas where these could go. There's always going to be places where they can't.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
29:05
What, how much is left? Well, I
Julie Morton
Unverified
29:08
don't know specifically how much area is left, um, I know that in the delta particularly there are Massive tracts of land that probably none of these regulations are going to affect. I would disagree with that if
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
29:25
they, if they can't be close to the water, they can't be 4 rounds. There's, there's not that
Chair
Unverified
29:32
much area. But I appreciate your question. Any other questions? OK, 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. the
For the bill. OK. 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, 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, let's try to move it along. No,
Jackson Braswell
Unverified
30:27
I'm gonna allow him to, yeah, I'm not, I'm not gonna take too much of your time, I promise. Uh, thank you for your time. Uh, my name is Jackson Braswell. I'm with Warehauser. Uh, 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 were able to generate significant revenue from wind at multiple higher multiples higher than timber, and we only have to set aside a very small percentage of productive timberland. In addition to 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 cited 7 projects on our property, and every time we have worked with
the surrounding landowners and communities to take into consideration. concerns. Finally, not only have these project 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 is 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're 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 from the, for the witness,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
32:45
Representative Dalby. Just real quick, uh, I
couldn't quite understand from your statement, what are you opposed to in this bill because you've got wind turbines, you got wind.
We have supportive of win, so why do you
Jackson Braswell
Unverified
33:01
not like this bill because the amount of regulations in this bill are equivalent to a moratorium on wind projects, and we firmly believe that. These The 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 ft level that was going to cut our win 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 0. And it's not we're not against regulation. We're open to that, but this amount of regulation is stringent enough that it will
Speaker 132
33:40
be a moratorium, and I believe that that is the goal of this bill. Other questions? OK,
Chair
Unverified
33:52
thank you for your testimony, sir. Next we have Cole Harley to speak for the bill.
Just Introduce yourself and who you're with and Proceed
Speaker 25
34:09
with the testimony. And again, please be
Cole Hartley
Unverified
34:11
as brief as possible. Uh, yes sir. My name is Cole Hartley. I'm speaking on behalf of the Arkansas Agricultural Aviation Association, uh, I own a uh Flying service in Stuttgart, Arkansas along with serving as the current president of the Agricultural Aviation Association. Represents to 284 individual commercial firms. And uh
Or 284 individual commercial aerial applicators and 128 commercial air firms registered in the state of Arkansas. Uh, 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. And aviation and ag in the state. Um I'm sure you're already aware wind turbines placed in ag aviation environment only increased the risk. To to us that we face daily, the risk that's already incredibly
high. Arkansas Delta is full of ag aircraft for over 9 months out of the year. We have more ag aircraft working in the smaller area than almost anywhere in the world. With all that being done at a low wind turbine heights. Please not let our rich farm ground be taken over by this industry. In farms will severely affect our ability to service crops from the air and without that capability, our farmers will be forced to face more and more challenge than they certainly don't need it right now. I've heard people say that uh we'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. Uh, that's true that we'll have to increase our prices, but we just won't work around these turbines. So I had multiple layers of complications 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 OK with working around these turbines. Uh, if our farmlands 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 OK with letting that happen? Uh, you're the very people elected to look out for our best interests. 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, 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 positive outweigh the negatives here. While we see alternate energy is important as taking our rich farm ground out of production really makes sense. There must be cheaper and more
efficient ways to create energy. Again, thank you for letting me speak and please consider our
Speaker 121
37:14
industry moving forward. Any questions? I thank you for your testimony, sir. Do I
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
Speaker 136
37:36
can. Yes sir. I do have a handout. see
Speaker 25
37:43
He did already speak, but this bill has been amended. And I'll be staff will circulate your hand out. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you Uh Yep.
Speaker 26
38:17
Thank you He's against it. Yeah. Yes sir, he's speaking against you, man.
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
38:32
I'm sorry, you can introduce yourself and proceed. I appreciate it. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Simon 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 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 1 mile of a church, a school, a hospital, a park, an airport. Uh 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 ft 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 the topology map of Arkansas where when projects could have been developed as a 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 is not built in. Win projects since the law was passed. The final thing I'll mention, um, You know, we have an awful lot of states nearby, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Missouri, that have agricultural lands with wind turbines on them, um, wind turbines use 1% of the property.
Meaning that the property owner can still choose to use their land as they see fit, uh, 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.
Speaker 25
40:53
Questions from the committee. Say no questions. Thank you, sir. Anyone
else to speak for the bill? This morning Again, I. always been yourself
Speaker 145
41:12
don't be cumulative if if you don't mind. Absolutely, thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for, thank you committee. Robert Moy here on behalf of Swift Current Energy, um, to reiterate something that Representative Eaton said earlier, yes, it's
Speaker 146
41:24
been a very long day. Um, this, today was my first time to speak against the 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, um, hand in hand with Representative Hall and Representative Eaton today, uh, as well as some other stake. colors and some other members of the body to get to what this amended language says tonight. I just wanted to, to come back down and clarify that I have, we have worked very closely with him. We are OK with this language, um, not to believe any points, just wanted to ask you
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
42:00
as amended now. Questions Representative Dolly. Just real quick. Robert, does this bill kill wind energy in Arkansas or does it support wind energy.
Speaker 149
42:11
I'm hearing. I can't tell. Speaking on behalf of the Swift Current project that's
Speaker 146
42:16
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, it would be long term, a moratorium like the guy from Weyerhauser said. You create a pretty big burden of regulation. Um, but speaking just for my project, we're, we're exempted out from any future regulation. Any further questions
Speaker 56
42:43
for Mr. Moore. So Representative. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
42:48
just to clarify, you're only speaking for your clients that are already building wind farms. Thank you.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
42:57
And representative, thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we pass this
bill, I, you know, I represent a lot of farmers and a lot of farmland and, and uh if we pass this bill with this bill hurt the farmers that I represent. Depends on their stance
Speaker 145
43:16
on wind energy. That's a very tough question to to answer this project that I represent. I said
Speaker 146
43:21
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 for to be a participant of the project, uh, 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 2 meetings with with aerial applicators or 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 their input as we developed it to make things as safe and clear to them as possible.
Speaker 145
44:01
That's, it's a very tough question to answer. I mean, it just depends on the area, it depends
Speaker 146
44:05
on the, the personal property rights of, of the individual or the, the, the personal belief of the,
Chair
Unverified
44:17
the individual with the property. Yeah. Any other questions from the committee, Representative Lehman, you recognize your question. Thank
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
44:22
you, Mr. Chairman. So, in your opinion, if a one of our farmers in the delta wants to put in a wind farm in the future, not the
ones you're representing. Uh, they wouldn't be able to do that with this bill.
Speaker 146
44:35
They'd be able to just be a lot tougher today here it'd be a lot tougher after this bill goes into effect than it
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
44:42
is today. Well, if you look at 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. They, they probably a lot of them wouldn't be able to do that on their own land.
Speaker 146
44:57
I completely hear your point and just speaking on behalf of only my project, we're, we're OK to
proceed as moving forward. I have not taken a look at the
Speaker 19
45:07
map myself, but I understand your question. Thank you. grabs a vitamin.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
45:15
For other questions from the committee, Represent Wootton. I my question is, is, did, 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 happenstance that we've got this
bill today versus what y'all plan. Do you mind reasing that question? I'm a little confused. In other words, you didn't use any other
legislation around the country in in thinking that in picking the sites that you picked. You chose them based on just availability and the fact that you could have access to them. Correct. OK. Thank you. Daswood. Any other questions for Mr. Morey?
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
46:05
Thank you, Mr. Moore for your testimony. OK. Our staff maybe. Uh, 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. OK, yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. I
Speaker 26
46:24
believe we have someone to speak for the bill. Any anyone speak for the bill some more.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
46:36
Jeremiah Moorehouse District 61. I'll be very brief. Committee, this is a very complicated and complex issue, and I appreciate your deliberation on this subject, um. This is a very good bill. The previous iteration of this bill dissected the state between those that were above the 300 ft 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 they 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 consider it regulations in this state. Thank you. Thank you,
Speaker 26
47:34
Representative. Questions for Representative Moore. Thank you for your testimony. So
anyone else like to speak against this bill? You know I was like, anyone else would like to speak
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
47:49
for this bill. Yeah, you ring us to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Thank you, Mit. Uh, here, here's the facts, folks. Uh, 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, uh, once the companies have left, who takes them down? What happens to them? Uh, if we don't act now, we're
in trouble. We can't wait for 2 more years. So with that I'm closed. Thank you for your,
thank you for your presentation. What is the will of the committee the motion do pass as amended by references of Eubanks is our discussion on the motion. There's a lady and you recognize for
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
48:33
a discussion on the motion. Well, there's, we do need regulations on wind, I agree, but this bill goes way too far.
I, 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, this would keep them from doing that. It's their own land. Now, you can have guidelines for people who live around them. Um, 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, but you can do that. I may fail here too, but um 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 uh, but it is stricter than any regulations. And uh Iowa. There's tons of farms and ranches that have wind turbines and, and they farm right up to the To the turban and, and I'm sure they spray their soybeans just like we do. Now, yeah, it's a problem, but you know, if you're a, 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. Uh, but there's just so much regulation in there, uh, we, 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. This time, members. OK, seeing none, we have a
motion do pass as amended. All in favor say aye. I say
Speaker 25
50:50
no. The bill has failed. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. President
Chair
Unverified
50:54
Johnson, would you like to proceed with your house bill? uh I mean, I agree.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
51:17
Mr. Chairman, Lee Johnson. Representative Lee Johnson, District 47, can I go ahead and present the amendment? 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
Speaker 25
51:37
any questions on the amendment. This is Amendment 21295, members. Questions on the amendment that Johnson just explained. OK.
Motion. Make a motion we adopt the amendment. Motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor say aye. Ah. Any post say no. The, the motion to adopt has passed, you may proceed
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
52:01
with the bill as admitted. 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, 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 insurance institutions, so this bill creates some definitions at first, that it has a transparency reporting session 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. 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 you that we amended.
House Bill 1930 yesterday, and this just asked 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 better justification around. increases, and I'd be happy to answer any questions on the bill.
Thank you for your presentation. Questions from the committee. Reson
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
54:01
Lindstrom, are you? Good. I have a question. OK. Um, The financial impact on this is between
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
54:08
10 and 30 million. 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, uh, 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 amended out. Um, 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 fiscal impact to the state, but that part of mended out, I
don't think there's any fiscal impact. Mr. Wallace, would you go down to the table, introduce yourself and speak on
Speaker 170
54:47
that issue real. Please. B. 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 OK and with the amendment that was presented were additionally OK
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
55:06
with the bill as it is right now. Just a quick follow up. There's nothing that precludes EVD from doing research now on the projects on our um employee
Speaker 173
55:16
insurance, correct? We do have. Obviously we have all the data around claims and all of
Speaker 170
55:22
that information, so correct, we could respond to any requests that a legislator would have
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
55:27
around that data. OK, I'm just trying to figure out why if we
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
55:33
can do this. This is specifically as we as we define health insurer, we're looking specifically at the commercial payers
in the state. So Blue Cross Blue Shield is in team, 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 Arkansassurance 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 marg. 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. OK,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
56:14
thank you. I, I'm not comfortable with it, but I understand where you're going. And
Speaker 170
56:19
if I may add, from my seat and I know I'm not going to make some uh 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 and doing in this with our reimbursements and all of those things as well. OK, thank you.
Speaker 121
56:49
Thank you, Representstrom. Further questions from the committee.
Good thing then. She like to speak against this bill.
Derek Smith
Unverified
57:03
Say someone's making their way to the table. Mr. Just 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 uh 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 uh their It includes their expense statements. It includes their revenue statements. It is a full fledged audit financial report. You can find that information now. Um, 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 uh potentially punishing carriers that have high RBC levels by using that as a consideration to deny a rate increase or 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. Same, thank you for the testimony. Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for this bill? who'd like to speak against this bill. saying they want
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
59:16
to represent John, she recognized to close. I 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 to I think it is a fair justification if it's if it's 50% great, that means you're in good shape. If it's more than that, great. What if it's 2,000%? What if it's 3,000% 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 um 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? Gooding no close
Speaker 26
1:00:21
from a bill, make a motion to pass. I have a motion do pass as amended by Representative Johnson, is there
Speaker 25
1:00:25
a discussion on the motion? No discussion, all in favor say aye. Any person they know. The eyes have it and you've passed your bill.
Representative Johnson, I believe you stated. You're not going to proceed on the next bill. We can move it to deferred. Is that correct? OK. And that is 1868 members. Represent Brown. You are
Speaker 28
1:00:51
here on 1177. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt
Speaker 177
1:01:01
Brown, District 55, and we do have an amendment.
Represson Brown, do you want to expunge your previous amendment. No, no, Mr. Chair,
Speaker 35
1:01:28
this would be a keep the previous amendment, and this will be a
Speaker 25
1:01:33
new amendment, further amending. I'm sorry. Thank you. There's another, there's an additional mimic coming out. Staff is passing out the amendment, um, as it's being passed out, go ahead and explain the amendment, sir. Uh, you may recall this
Speaker 36
1:01:44
was that franchise uh 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, in the bill. We made an amendment committee to take that out. So members still had some concerns that this bill could affect a pending litigation. Uh, so this amendment will kick the effective date of the Act should it be passed 2 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. Epsom Brown has
Speaker 39
1:02:18
explained the amendment. Are there any questions for Representative Brown just on the amendment.
Speaker 25
1:02:25
Representative Representative Acre you recognized. Thank you Representative
Representative Aker
Unverified
1:02:29
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 to litigate that
Speaker 181
1:02:43
lawsuit with the effective date being where it's at. I
Speaker 36
1:02:46
actually don't know the answer to that. There is some issues when it comes to lawsuits and deal with procedural versus remedial, and I guess it would depend on what the actual nature of the lawsuit
is, generally, you know, the legislature can change remedies, but they can't change procedure or maybe I had that backwards. I'm sorry, it's been a long day, um, but it would depend
Representative Aker
Unverified
1:03:03
on the case. OK, so we wouldn't be able to tell agents that if they filed their own lawsuit before this date that that that they would be. Exempt in any way, is that or we don't know. Well, he's been on
Speaker 177
1:03:14
the lawsuit, but I would think that the lawsuit was filed and finished, then obviously it wouldn't be affected by this
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:03:19
bill. OK, thank you. Question on the amendment from Representative Eaves. I think it's on the amendment. Does, uh,
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's currently going on for the shelter agent in Harrison, right? This gives plenty of
Speaker 36
1:03:38
time for that lawsuit to finish up one way or the other, and then this wouldn't kick in until like I said, 2 deers
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:03:44
down the road. I understand the timing, but does it affect the case, the details, I mean, we're, if this passes, we're saying shelter is not a franchise. Now, if this passes, we would
Speaker 36
1:03:52
say that starting 2 years from now, As a matter of law, we would
Speaker 177
1:03:58
clarify the insurance agencies are not franchisees protected by the franchise Practices Act.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:04:02
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. I mean, I guess that they could in the case
Speaker 36
1:04:11
say legislature has done something, but it wouldn't be law yet, so I don't see how they could use that as they couldn't use it as authority I guess it
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:04:17
would be. It just wouldn't be in effect, right? Well, wouldn't be effective yet, yes. Any other questions on the, on
Chair
Unverified
1:04:29
the amendment from Representative Brown for Representative Brown. Hm, no questions. Well, lunch
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:04:38
from you. I still feel 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, I've just seen 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 out.
Speaker 39
1:05:01
I, I don't know if this helps. OK. we're still speaking on the motion to adopt the amendment. Are there other questions for
Representative Brown on the adoption of the amendment. Seeing none. Um It was the will of the committee on the amendment adoption. We have a motion to adopt. The amendment made by Resident Perry, most to adopt the amendment is made by Resent
Perry, all in favor say aye. I'll say no. The, the
Speaker 137
1:05:37
amendment has passed. Here us to proceed with your bill as amended. Thank, Thank you committee
Speaker 36
1:05:42
members, of course we've, I've already presented this to y'all before. I know it's late. I know I labor the point. So unless the committee has any questions, I'd be glad to step aside and let any folks for or against testify on the bill. Representative Representative McGro. I guess
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:06:03
My question is, if this is not going to affect the 27. We're going to be in session in 207. Why are we doing this now?
Speaker 36
1:06:12
I think because we already have the bill filed and we're all here ready to go, um, 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 we don't fix it.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:06:35
But this bill doesn't fix it for 2 years from now, so it wouldn't make any difference whether we pass this now or if we wait 2 years till the litigation is over and then there's no. No concern about whether this will affect that or
Speaker 36
1:06:48
not. Well, litigation will be done by then, so I would argue that it won't affect litigation one
way or the other. Representative McGreg, any further questions? From the committee? Kept saying then. 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
Rg Ernest
Unverified
1:07:23
testimony, please. Allow committee members. My name is RG Ernest, and I'm here on behalf of my father, Roger Ernest. Um, uh, thank you for all of your hard work first. Uh, 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 in 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 agents 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 franchise Practices Act. Um, he and, 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 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 from is in the effective time of the Arkansas franchise Practices Act, and he has no other claims against this defendant insurance company. Um, 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, 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 2 years. We really can't say that for certain. We know that the appellate courts move slowly,
particularly these days, but I, I think maybe you've possibly heard enough and, and also I, I do have copies of all of the documents that I just referred to. I can provide those with you, uh, 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 brief words. Yes, I know
Speaker 186
1:11:07
first of all, I appreciate being able to speak to you. I will, I'm sorry, sir. I didn't
Speaker 25
1:11:12
mean to interrupt you. Please introduce yourself for
Speaker 186
1:11:16
the record. Uh yes, I'm Roger Earnest, and I am the other part of the shelter situation 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 and I'll put it in a nutshell, uh, 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 build a really good agency. I mean it was just supreme agency and that's how they referred to us, uh, went through all the years of, of working and then uh we uh Uh, of course, I can't get into the litigation or anything like that, but, uh, just simply had the rug pulled out from under us in regard to what happened and
uh before I knew it we were terminated. And there, there's an agent in this agency now that lives out of town and he was from out of town and uh his contract kind of give you, let you read between the lines. Its contract is less than half of what our contract was. And we've been humiliated. It's been quite a situation in a small town of 13,000 people. We've been
Uh, he has, we've counted 20 billboards in and around our area. And 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 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 al 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 about the franchise situation and I, we, our situation is this we're we're, of course, as you know, battling a uh multibillion dollar company with 2 million plus people paying the the litigation and the fees for law, and I'm using my
retirement account and uh I, I just I would appreciate the fact that of noninterference if we could just let this litigate out, let it go through the court system. Let us keep with the same uh 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 situation, so thank you.
Speaker 26
1:14:25
Thank you for your testimony. It appears we have a couple of
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:14:31
questions. Woo, you recognize. 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.
Yes, 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 the To
question or was treated like he was treated. I think if I understand your question correctly,
Rg Ernest
Unverified
1:15:15
it could the the 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
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:15:43
outcome. So Representatives Eve's position are asked the question he asked was the same. So you substantiate that. It's possible For the court to reach back.
Speaker 56
1:15:57
Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative
Wooton. Further questions from the committee for these for either of these witnesses. Representative Graham, like, you are recognized. Represent Graham like you are recognized for a motion. OK. Representative Gramlich has made a motion. To lay on the table that is a non-debatable motion.
Speaker 25
1:16:22
Therefore, we will vote. We have a motion to lay this on the
table. All in favor say aye. Any post say no. The noes have it. The motion does not carry. Any further questions from For the witnesses. OK. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Thank both of you. Anyone else, is
there anyone else who has signed that who would like to speak for this bill.
Chair
Unverified
1:16:59
OK. Anyone else who'd like to speak against this bill. OK. Represent Brown, you reckons to close.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:17:14
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, As we had discussed at length, uh, the last time this
Speaker 36
1:17:19
bill was brought up or the first time it was brought up, uh, 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 Kings, a gas station with its supplier, things of that nature. And over the years, um, 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 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 changes. 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, the extent these laws, these cases have been brought both in Arkansas
and other states, uh, 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 clarifying 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, I think, and I apologize it was Wisconsin or Michigan, or one of those northern states. I can't remember which one. We're doing the same thing they did, which is say, hey, just to clarify, an insurance aid 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 out kick it out
for two more years to make it clear that we're we're not wanting to affect this current litigation, but we want to go ahead and have it in place so 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 appreciate a good vote. Thank you for your presentation, Represent Brown. was the will of the committee. We have a motion do pass by Representative Ferguson
has amended, as amended number 1 and #2. Um, that is a proper motion. Is there any discussion on the
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:19:40
motion? Representative Perry. Not to, not to bring back, but back when this was originally introduced. I've been on both sides of this. I was, I was an independent contractor with a farmer's insurance. I had an agency for 23 years. I, I 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, 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, it'd be a total mess up, so that's why I'm, I'm for this bill. Thank you, Representative Perry.
Fur any further discussion on the Representative Aker. He recognized for
Representative Aker
Unverified
1:20:39
discussion on the motion. Thanks Chairman. Thank you, Representative Brown, for bringing this. Um, I do have the utmost respect. Like I said, I believe we've discussed at length, and I trust your intent. I said I trusted
Representative Aker
Unverified
1:20:56
that one sink in. I, I think, um, 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 note today, but I do appreciate the intent and the due
Speaker 29
1:21:22
diligence you've put forth on this. Thank you, Maker.
Any further discussion on the motion. OK, seeing none, we have a motion do pass as amended
Amendment number 1 and 2, all in favor say aye. In the post, say no, no. The bill has failed. I know, I know it's a bill, but I appreciate y'all. We done? Uh, members, we are finished. We only have Senate bills left. Um, we will be meeting Monday morning to finish up the 3
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
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
Speaker 1
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 170
Speaker 173
Derek Smith
Unverified
Speaker 177
Speaker 181
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
Speaker 137
Rg Ernest
Unverified
Speaker 186
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Speaker 42