Insurance & Commerce- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (36)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB480
Act 739
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…RY PRACTICES; AND TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VIOLATIONS. SB480 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INVESTMENT OF STA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INVESTMENT OF STATE FUNDS. | K. Hammer | Notification that SB480 is now Act 739 |
|
SB519
Act 958
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “if you want. Mr. Chairman, Senate Bill 519 has an amendment.”
|
TO AMEND THE STANDARD NONFORFEITURE LAW FOR LIFE INSURANCE; AND TO REGULATE THE PAYMENT OF … | J. Boyd | Notification that SB519 is now Act 958 |
|
HB1009
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1295
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1354
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 … |
|
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: “…EPARTMENT FOR FIREFIGHTING SERVICES BASED ON TIME ON SCENE. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS. 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 … |
|
HB1625
Act 974
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG A FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT OR A HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT. HB1625 Barnett TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSED HOME INSPECTORS. | Barnett | Notification that HB1625 is now Act 974 |
|
HB1659
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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. |
|
HB1813
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D FAMILY CHILDCARE HOMES BY HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PROVIDERS. 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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE REVOLVING LOAN FUND. HB1868 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PAY A FAIR AND REASONAB…”
|
TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PAY A FAIR AND REASONABLE SERVICE FEE DIRECTLY TO A … | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1905
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
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. |
|
HB1955
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT. HB1955 S. Meeks TO REPEAL THE SHIELDED OUTDOOR LIGHTING ACT. HB195…”
|
TO REPEAL THE SHIELDED OUTDOOR LIGHTING ACT. | S. Meeks | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1994
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERNING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSED HOME INSPECTORS. HB1994 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SELF-SERVICE STORAGE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITIES; AND TO REQUIRE NOTIFICATION BY A SELF-SERVICE … | A. Collins | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB331
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
SB420
Act 736
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB420 Hester TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT STATE PR…”
|
TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT STATE PROGRAMS; TO AMEND THE WATER AUTHORITY ACT; AND … | Hester | Notification that SB420 is now Act 736 |
|
SB437
Act 945
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB437 Hester TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT.e…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT. | Hester | Notification that SB437 is now Act 945 |
|
SB481
Act 779
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB481 Gilmore TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INS…”
|
TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS OF … | Gilmore | Notification that SB481 is now Act 779 |
|
SB483
Act 957
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. 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 |
|
SB527
Act 774
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 04/08/2025 @ 9:12 PM) Added SB527, SB602 & SB610 House Committee on Insurance and Commerce We…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ME ACT OF 2021; AND TO INCREASE … | Irvin | Notification that SB527 is now Act 774 |
|
SB544
Act 775
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CASH SURRENDER VALUE ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE POLICY. SB544 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT. | M. Johnson | Notification that SB544 is now Act 775 |
|
SB583
Act 990
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
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 |
|
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 |
|
SB610
Act 745
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB610 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE GENERATING ARKANSAS JOBS ACT OF 202…”
|
TO AMEND THE GENERATING ARKANSAS JOBS ACT OF 2025; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | J. Dismang | Notification that SB610 is now Act 745 |
|
SB611
Act 900
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB611 Dees TO AMEND THE SOCIAL MEDIA SAFETY ACT.”
|
TO AMEND THE SOCIAL MEDIA SAFETY ACT. | Dees | Notification that SB611 is now Act 900 |
|
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. |
|
HB1177
· 1 mention in chapter
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. |
|
HB1308
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “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 … |
|
HB1408
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1811
· 1 mention in chapter
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 … |
|
HB1950
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1950 Torres TO PROTECT LICENSED FAMILY CHILDCARE HOMES FROM TERM…”
|
TO PROTECT LICENSED FAMILY CHILDCARE HOMES FROM TERMINATION OF HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE COVERAGE; AND TO PROHIBIT … | Torres | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1956
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1956 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS NIGHTTIME ENVIRONMENT PROTE…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS NIGHTTIME ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT. | S. Meeks | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB475
Act 773
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB475 J. Dismang TO ESTABLISH THE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIV…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION ACT; AND TO REGULATE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS. | J. Dismang | Notification that SB475 is now Act 773 |
|
SB602
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 04/08/2025 @ 9:12 PM) Added SB527, SB602 & SB610 House Committee on Insurance and Commerce Wednesday…”
|
TO PROHIBIT INSURANCE COMPANIES AND APPRAISERS FROM REQUIRING AN INSURED TO USE CERTAIN FACILITIES TO … | Crowell | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
will be heard today. We will be coming back after session and staying as long as that occurs. If, if necessary, but we are definitely coming back after session to at least hear one bill, so. Well, what I'm asking the committee to do is anything that has any controversy whatsoever, we're going to push to the end so we can run through all the bills that do not as quickly as we can to try to get everything moving. So, um, representative Wing. If you want to come to the end of the table, identify yourself.
And what Bill, I believe you're going to present a Senate bill, but
Speaker 2
0:43
it's gonna be very quick, is my understanding. That's true. This is Senate Bill 480. Representative Wing, uh, District 70, North Little Rock and Sherwood, uh, members, this is just a cleanup bill, some language with regards to this came to us from the treasurer's office just cleaning up some outdated language and frankly some language that probably never should never applied because it came from the banking code and the treasurer's office is doesn't exactly fit into that mold, and that's all this is. 480 SB 480. Yes.
Speaker 5
1:12
Members, any questions? OK. Saying no questions, there's no one signed up. There's no one like speak against this
bill. And I want to speak for this bill. OK, seeing no one, I believe, represent Perry. Recognized should be We have a motion to pass by Representative Perry, all in favor say aye.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:33
Any opposed say no. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you very much. Thank you, committee. Real quick
Speaker 13
1:43
with it Right Um. Representative Wardlaw is going to run to Senate bills very quickly. Yes, sir. Uh,
Speaker 19
2:04
if you want. Mr. Chairman, Senate Bill 519 has an amendment.
Staff will circulate the amendment. Wereward law staff is circulating the amendment. Go ahead and explain
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:27
the amendment, please. Committee, when we ran the bill, the House bill to change life insurance payback. There were some language in there that probably wasn't constitutional because you can't do retroactivity. This bill fixes that language. The
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
2:39
amendment takes the days from 60 to 45, it's an agreed upon amendment. Appreciate a good vote. Representing Wardlaw's presented
the amendment. we have a motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor say aye. Reverend Wardlaw, please present you, you may present your bill as amended. That's the bill. OK. Reverend Warlocks closed, we have questions for
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:07
the law. Oh OK. Representative Richardson, you are recognized. Why do we change it to 45?
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
3:13
The original bill had 30. Once all the parties sat down yesterday, the agreements 45.
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
3:19
Bills completely agreed upon 100% easy deal. It's just fixing the unconstitutionality in the original bill. Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized. Thank
Chair
Unverified
3:26
you. I get the unconstitutionality part, but I thought
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:28
the 60 days was a good bill. I thought you ran a good bill the first time. I don't like changing the 30 days, 30 days, OK, all right. Since this delete 60 days. Yeah,
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
3:42
the amendment deleted 60, carried it to 45, which was a compromise between the two parties. Yeah. What's the 30?
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:51
The 30 was the original OK. Well. I'll, I'll trust your judgment on that. I, I thought you did
a good job the first time. I'm sorry you're changing it. Me too, but it's what we
Speaker 46
4:01
have to do to be legal. Further questions? Where in McCollum you recognize
Chair
Unverified
4:06
it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Boyd, what are you doing here? What am I doing here? Anything to say
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
4:18
about this one? Yeah, no, this is a good bill now. I mean,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
4:22
Basically, it does 3 things. It Puts in a start date which makes it constitutional. It goes from 30 days to 60 days, and I mean to 45 days, and if you want to understand the original concern was on a 1035 exchange where two companies have to work together and the company that is you know, doing the sending the money over could actually be the one slowing things down. And so we just felt like it needed to be a little bit more time. And then the third thing is, is in the original bill had an interest rate tied to the prime
rate. The challenge with that was It could discriminate between two different policyholders if, if I had the issue today and somebody else had it tomorrow. This sets the date in statute, which is probably again constitutional and it's a number that was already there. Everybody seems to be good with it, so it makes a, a good, good deal. rates actually higher than the prime rate, so everybody was really
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
5:12
happy with that because it still penalizes the company for holding it past the days that they're supposed to hold it. A motion at the proper time.
Any further questions from the committee. OK. Seeing none, there's no one signed up. There's anyone who likes to speak against this bill. Anyone else likes to speak for this bill? Representative Wardlaw, are you closed for your bill? I've been closed.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
5:40
Reverend Woods closed for his bill. McCollum, you're recognized. Motion to pass as a we have a motion to pass as amended. All in favor say aye. Any opposed say no.
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
5:55
You've passed your bill. I believe you're going to do one other. I'm going to do one other. It should be quicker, hopefully send a bill 481 is the copper comparable bill to the school insurance bill we passed out of here as a House bill a couple weeks ago. So this is just a companion bill from the Senate. I'm closed. War
Speaker 5
6:13
lost clothes for his bill. Questions from the committee. No questions. There's no one signed up, but
don't like speak against this bill. No one else for this bill. Ward law has closed. We have a motion to pass Representative Ebanks, all in favor say aye. And you say no. Congratulations, you passed your bills. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Where some Collins, you
Speaker 64
6:45
have house bills to run, so I'm going to recognize you. Members, these are, I believe, 1009 and 1,014. Sorry,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
6:52
no, just 1994. That's the only one running. You're only running
Speaker 5
6:56
1994. can we pull the others or you can. So, so 1009 and 1014, you can just move to defer, they're gone. OK, thank, thank you. And. You may proceed with, do you say 1994? OK. Thank you, sir. Just introduce yourself for the record and proceed. Sure, Andrew Collins,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
7:17
District 73. So, uh, this bill
is basically coming out of some incidents that happened where many storage
facilities were broken into, um, some of the belongings were scattered around the parking lot, and they were left out there for months and no one ever notified the tenants. There were some local news stories about this, and I had a constituent reach out to me as well about a different. incident. Um, so talk with the self storage Association negotiated and got the language that actually serves their interests as well as the tenants' interests where if the self storage facility knows about a break-in or a theft of
property. They just need to notify the tenant. It doesn't put any additional obligations on them. They don't have to even know, but if they do know, they just have to notify the tenant. It benefits the tenants, obviously, and it also benefits the self storage. because this thing shouldn't be happening, and they want to reestablish public trust in what they're doing, so that's it. Happy to answer any questions. We do have questions. I believe reference in McGrew, I believe you're first.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
8:28
Thank you, Chairman. You said, can you point in the building where I'm, I'm for this and,
and uh But Can you point in the bill where it says, because I'm concerned that the person that owns the facility doesn't know about it. If he's got a big facility and hadn't went he didn't know about it and it says in the bill that he has to notify within 5 days. What does it say that? Knowingly right at the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
8:51
very end there page 2, line 15. Well, there's two different ways it says it, so very inline 15 on page 2. The operator does not
have a duty or obligation to determine whether a lease space has been compromised, so they don't have to find out, but if they do find out, then they notify. And the other way that we do it is that compromise is defined on page 1 line 30 as that an operator has actual knowledge that any of these things happen, so that part again. Sure, that they have actual knowledge, that's in line 30 on page 1, so nothing gets triggered until they actually know something's happened, and that was something that was
important to the self-storage Association too. I
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
9:36
still don't. I still don't see because it says online 10. That they Must let them know within 5 days. I see the bottom says they're not obligated to, but it doesn't say if they,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
9:48
if they have. So let me, so you're looking at be there on, on 10, but it's
only if there's a compromise lease, OK? That's the trigger for anything happening. So the
definition of compromised is up on Page 1 line 30. So compromise means that an operator has actual knowledge that any of these things have happened. So nothing goes without actual knowledge. of that definition of compromise. On page 1. On
Speaker 75
10:16
page one line what line 30. So that word compromise is the operative word. Thank you very much. Thanks
Chair
Unverified
10:26
further questions from the committee. Whereas in one to you.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
10:33
Thank you. Um, going back to that word compromise, who decides? I mean, that's, that's a pretty big It it's a big open door to say, well, I just didn't know I was compromised or I did know or, I mean. It just seems a little subjective, I guess that's the word. Can you give me some comfort on that? Sure, it's a question of
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
10:55
proof. I mean, so if you, you would need to make your, your case that the person has actual knowledge, it may be difficult case to make, but it's one of those things that if it
ever does come out, you'll either have the evidence to support it, or you won't. Or you'll have to hire an attorney. I mean, I don't see how any of these things get settled without. I mean, that's, that's the process and the self storage law, you know, for, for things to be resolved that they need to be, but that's, that's the. That's the customer benefit basically that's the way that they can get recourse if they need to, as in this past situation. And the problem we're trying to
solve here, the problem we're trying to solve is that operators knew about break-ins and just didn't tell their tenants and so that is a problem and it was a problem for people who had this happen to them and they had no recourse. OK. I think that the solution, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, no, you go ahead. The solution is more to deter it, right? I mean, that's, that's the preferable solution, not to have a bunch of lawsuits, but for people to realize operators know this section occurred real well, actually, you know, own a self storage
myself and you know this section of code, you follow this section of code. If you know you need to notify tenants within 5 days, I would bet 99% already do. You're going to make sure you do that because you don't want to open yourself up to liability. That's how it's really supposed. to work. I
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
12:20
guess my concern is the market's going to dictate if you're not taking care of your property and and trash is laying out there or somebody got broken into, you're going to lose a customer. So the market would take care of it. So 99% of them are doing their job. 1% maybe aren't, and they'll lose customers. In this case it's already a regulated
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
12:37
industry. We have a section of code that deals with self storage, and they want, well, I won't say they want, but they see the value in communicating that this is one of the things you get when you, there's other things you get, you get a process, you get a lien, you get uh auction off sale. There are other things that are guaranteed for customers as well as operators. This is one of the things that would be a guarantee for customers in an already regulated industry, OK, all right, well, thank you. Representative Wharton, do you have a question?
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
13:08
Thank you Representative Collins is may be in there but I didn't see. Are they required to frequently inspect
Speaker 90
13:15
once a week or something? No. No, that, that's
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
13:19
a good practice, but that is, we're not getting into that level of granularity that's, that's up to the operator how they want to do their inspections. This is just if they do have knowledge, which they probably will within a week or two realistically, but there's different ways of managing a self storage facility.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
13:38
So how, how, how would they determine if it's, if all of the merchandise is scattered over the parking lot. Without inspecting the units as to which one it came from. Well, you have to have knowledge that it was
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
13:49
of a specific unit, and if you don't, then you don't have that knowledge. So if you don't know which unit was broken into, there's no evidence that there was a break-in at the unit. You just see stuff scattered around, um, there's no way you would know who to contact. So in this situation, you wouldn't have an obligation to contact that tenant. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
14:08
Tosh recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, I'm just kind of curious, you know, I ran legislation this session concerning storage facilities and part of that legislation was that for the storage facilities, uh, that they be able to renew their contracts and make sure there was a clear understanding between them and notification of what was in each storage facility without getting back into that bill, but All the things that we're
covering here today about who may have known or what should be known concerning, you know, notification, could not, could, could not all be covered in the in the contract. I mean, when you, when you established the contract between the person that is renting the storage facility with the storage facility owner, would that language not have been just better served if it was in the contract, say, and both agreed to that instead of having to run
legislation to do it. I'm just curious why that approach
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
15:15
wasn't used. Sure, that would be a good way to do it too, I think that those contracts don't typically have this sort of thing, and Again, this is a section of code where we have several things that are laid out in code regarding the kind of the outer parameters of what's expected and what's guaranteed for customer uh protection, so this would be one of those things would just be an outer guarantee if they want to negotiate
something more detailed in that contract. They can do that too, um, but that's, that's the thought behind it.
Speaker 5
15:50
Any further Refinished Tash. Are you good? OK. Any further questions from the committee?
OK seeing none. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak against this bill. Anyone else who I speak for this bill. President Collins, recognized
the close. I'm close. I'd appreciate a good vote. Resa Allen, you're recognized. We have a motion to pass by Representative Allen. All in favor say aye. Any both say no. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you. Representative Meeks, I believe you have 2 house bills, is that correct? Members, it appears
Speaker 96
16:39
this is 1955 and 1956. Yes, Mr. Chairman, with your approval, we'll start
with 1956. The two of these work in concert, uh, do have an amendment and just add Senator Ervin as a sponsor
Speaker 5
16:53
for the Senate. Motion to adopt the amendment by all in favor say aye. Resent makes
Speaker 96
16:58
you can proceed with your amendments with, with your bill as amended as amended. Thank you, uh, colleagues, this is a special bill for me for, for two reasons. Number 1, this is a topic that I actually started working on as a freshman, and number 2, this will be, since I'm a term
limited out, this will more than likely be the last bill of mine that actually present before a House committee, so I'm hoping that y'all can help me go out with the win here. Uh, what this bill does in a nutshell, Basically we, the first bill modernizes language. The second bill repeals the out outdated language. I wish I could get away with just that, but let me go into a little more details. Um, so back in the mid 1990s, the General Assembly passed the shielded Outdoor Lighting Act
with the laudable goal of having street lighting fixtures that were installed across the state to be healthier and more energy efficient, save taxpayer money, so forth. Uh, and while the tensions were, were good. Uh, unfortunately, the law was, it's very vague. Uh, it is way too simplistic and, and I have AG opinions to that effect and um as you can imagine with the passage of time, it is now woefully out of date. And so
what this bill does, it attempts to modernize that and it does it in a couple of very important ways. First off, uh, what I'm doing here is um I'm going to pull this the municipalities and the co-ops completely out of the, the law. Um, the, uh, municipalities and the co-ops, they have a locally elected boards, and so, um, you know, these issues going forward, they can, you know, deal with those
on a local issue. So this bill basically is going to apply strictly to toy and what it's going to require is that going forward through time, When they go to install brand new street lighting systems. So we're not talking about, they're gonna go replace everything now. We're not saying that when they're repairing single fixtures. This is when we're installing brand new equipment that they'll meet 3 standards. First one is that the uh outdoor lighting fixture be fully shielded. That's pretty much a standard they use LED lighting these days. That's pretty
standard, so no issues there. The second thing that would require is that the illumination is based on the standards set by the Uh, illumination, engineering society. If you've never heard of them, that's the organization that sets the national standards for lighting and construction and so forth. So, for example, whenever they go to build a building, Representative McGrew, you're probably very familiar with this. They're the ones that set the standards to determine how many light bulbs they are, where they're located at, what the lighting is to make sure you get
good lighting. The reason why that's in there is because if somebody decides to sue because the street lighting is too bright, this will of the courts an objective standard by which to make a decision on that. So that's why that's in there. The, the third part. And final part that they would have to do is based on the color temperature. So the, the, the color temperature of the bulb uh determines the color. So, um, if it is 7000 that's going to be a
blue uh uh white light, uh, it's a very harsh light. If you go down to the end of the spectrum, you get down to about 2500, and that's kind of a warm red light. So what the bill requires is that when they're installing on a primary streets, uh, busy corridors that they will use a 4000 Kelvin, that's a natural white lights kind of like what we've got in this room. That is a federal standard. So basically all we're going to be doing is adopting a federal standard there, so I'm not, you know, pulling pie in the sky. It's a federal
standard. And then in uh in uh residential areas. We're going to drop that to 3000 kelvin, so it's going to be more of a warmer red color. The reason why we don't, the reason why we want to do that, go into a little bit of science here is You were designed by God for a day-night cycle, right? During the day, there are certain hormones that are active in our bodies that make us alert and prepared for the day. At night, when we see the red light of sunset that starts to turn those hormones off and at dark we get melatonin production. Melatonin is important for us to have a
good restful night's sleep, or you, you have to have that darkness. Uh, y'all have probably seen all the articles that warn people about, you know, looking at your cell phone at night and being exposed to that. light at night because when we see blue light, blue light is what triggers those daytime hormones. So by installing the warmer red light at night, what we're doing is we are still providing plenty of light for safety and security, but it's a much more healthier life for our citizens as they're trying to
sleep. Uh, this session we've passed numerous bills on uh breast cancer and trying to, uh, um, you know, reduce that within our uh. Study after study has shown, believe it or not, that women that live in cities where there's a lot of this extra light at night, or almost twice as likely to get breast cancer as their rural counterparts. It's a huge risk factor and guys, we're not out of the woods either. For men, it's prostate cancer. These are hormone driven
cancers that are driven by this. Another study came out just a couple of months ago out of the blue, that said one of the highest risk factors for Alzheimer's. Disease for people under the age of 65 is exposure to this blue light at night. And so there are actually serious health ramifications for having poorly designed lighting systems in our neighborhoods at night. So, uh, the, so that, that's what they need to do. Now, it also adds some important exemptions that are not in the law right now, uh, that lies
allows for historic um recognitions for sports facilities, monuments, bridge lighting, um, we also for, uh, mental health, uh correction. facilities. None of these important exemptions exist in the current law, and then, uh, in order to make sure we're maintaining local control, the last exemption is that if a one of these lighting systems is going in in a local area, and it can't meet the needs of that
local community, then the city council can pass an ordinance exempting that project from this uh from the standard, um. The last thing that it does is this when Ey does outdoor lighting fixtures. They have to do a big uh rape case study and uh go to the public Service commission to see about setting those rates. What the last thing that this
bill does is it allows energy to go ahead and install any new fixtures, charge a reasonable rate for it, and then when they go to their next review case, Add the fixture to their, their list of offerings at this time, um, one of the reasons why this is important is the city of Gilbert, which is up along the Buffalo River. Um, they wanted to install Dark sky compliant lighting, and one of the reasons why they had trouble getting it done was because Entery didn't have one of these fixtures in a rape case. And so they were
going to have to wait and go through this long process with the public Service commission to get it done, and it actually took Senator Ervin to step in to allow this to get done. So this would allow energy more flexibility in working with cities to get this done. I don't think he's here. Oh, there he is. I do want to publicly thank Mr. Bethel from Energy for working with me on this. Uh, he provided a lot of the language in here. Uh, I think he said he's contacted most of the committee to let you know that energy is uh uh good with this,
uh, and so as far as I know, nutshell, there's no opposition to this. It brings back more local control and And uh helps us to have a, uh, you know, a better, more healthy lighting going forward. Uh, so if that committee, I will be happy to try to answer any questions anyone
Speaker 97
25:21
has. Thank you for your presentation. We do have a couple of questions. Wooton,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
25:27
you recognized. Representative Ms is in the, in the 1990s when the law does that
deal with the shade of the color of the street lights,
when that when that part of the discussion.
Speaker 96
25:39
Yeah, so, so the color temperature wasn't really scientifically known at that time, but it was the shielding, so the idea there was if we install lights where the light goes up into the sky. We're wasting energy and electricity. It's not doing any good there. If the lights going out to the side is creating. Blair, which is bad, especially for our elderly drivers. So what they wanted to do is they wanted to make sure that the light we're using is actually going
down to the ground where it's useful, um, uh, uh, uh, Senator Sam, uh, I think it was Ledbetter, he was the one that ran that bill. I don't know if you know him or
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
26:15
not, but he was the one who got it passed back then. So, so it did deal with the color and we're relative, you see some street lines that are real bright and you see others that have the, I call it an amber color or yellow color sulfur color. So, which one of these is
Speaker 96
26:35
permitted under your bill for street lighting. Right, so it'd be, so on the main thoroughfares there's gonna be 4K or less, and so the the ones that are kind of this natural white light, those will be allowed, the yellow ones would be allowed. The warm ones would be allowed. Basically the only ones that wouldn't be allowed are those really harsh blue ones, um, talking with both Andrey and the co-ops. My understanding is 4000 is kind of the industry standard for these now because it's a federal standard. Um, and so, uh, you know, I, I think, thankfully those blue
Chair
Unverified
27:06
ones are going away, but um, All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
27:16
Repent McGrew, you're recognized. Thank you, Chairman. And me, I appreciate what you're trying to do. This is an industry that has, when they did this night sky thing, if you
understand in in the 4000 K and degrees of Kelvin is the color of light, but When they did this, the lights can only shine down, not up into the sky, so we can see the stars
at night. If you're looking at a city block that's been done with this, it looks dark down through there because the buildings are not lit up because the light's all going straight now. To me, it makes it a little unsafer, but It's added a lot of cost to my industry and so one of my questions, and it says in here that the public Service commission is permitted to recover in prompt and timely manner all the best in expenses. So my question it might be for Bethel. I know we have a tremendous amount of, of uh street lighting and all
that is not compliant to this. It's all over the city of Hot Springs, all over the city of Little Rock. So what's the cost going to be and then the ratepayers are going to have to
Speaker 96
28:18
pay that cost. So so this is, this is not, we're going to go replace everything that's out there right now. This is just when we're installing new systems, so this is just gonna be. Going forward that we're gonna, we're gonna do this. Um, the cost, from what I understand is comparable with what we're, what we're doing now, so I don't see any major cost change. Mr. Bethel, I mean, I, I'd welcome you if you want to come to the
table, if it's OK with the chairman and would like to address that, but this is, as I understand it, this, this would allow whenever a they're going to install a new fixture unless they've done a rape case for it. They don't have any way of billing for that. So this just allows to go ahead and install any new fixtures, recover the cost for those and just charge a fee like they normally would. And then when they go to do another rape case, and they would just include that new option in the,
in the rape case. And, and like I said, Mr. Beth I'll let him introduce himself and maybe he can if
Speaker 5
29:17
he has any other words he wants to add. Yes, they're just introduce yourself for the record, who you're
Speaker 108
29:22
with and you may comment on the testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm John Bethel, director of public affairs for Intery Arkansas. And uh Representative McGrew, if I understand your question correctly, the, uh, we don't, I don't have the cost of what those fixtures are going to cost, but what we will do is, uh, we'll, we'll identify fixtures that comply with the
requirements of the bill and we'll develop a rate for those fixtures and then we'll take that proposal to the public service commission to add that fixture to our, our lighting rate schedule and then that's what the customers would pay those fixtures, uh, the LED fixtures are, are certain. more expensive than the uh the old mercury vapor lights and the uh and and all of those they are and and you can look at our, our current rate schedules and see that the, the LED fixtures are more expensive, but we are moving just because of the, the
industry's moving toward all LED fixtures and so you'll see more of those, and, but they will, we'll, we'll build the rate and that's how we were able to get to a neutral position on the bill is because we were concerned about how can we recover our costs? Uh, we do recognize
Speaker 110
30:25
it will cost something and And uh that's, we don't, I don't have the number of what that'll be.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
30:31
So it will be an additional cost to the ratepayer. Also, the parabolics on this type of light that there are a
lot less, the cone smaller doesn't spread out as far, so you won't have to add additional lights to cover the
Speaker 96
30:42
area, is that correct? necessarily, so it depends on the, on the fixtures. So I just don't wanna follow up on that. So, LED fixtures that are coming online, they last a lot longer and they have a lot less maintenance requirement. So, uh, and there are a lot more energy efficient. So there may be a little more upfront costs, but over the long run, they're going to be cheaper because of that, right? So, but, but yes, you, you can put lensing systems underneath them that they've got them in Conwa or they've got them over here in North Little Rock in the, I
think it's in the Argenta district. So when the light comes down, it hits a lens and then it spreads out. So, so you can still do this and get the coverage. It's just making sure you pick the lot the right fixture to get the job done.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
31:25
Well, in my experience on on parking lots when we used the night sky light we had to use more of those lights because
the whole purpose of that is to keep the light from spreading you on up. There's more design now that may let them spread out a little more. Right. But that's my concern is the cost to not only the general public on rights, but the cost.
businesses that are putting lights in that these lights may be more
Speaker 96
31:49
expensive. Well, it doesn't affect business. The businesses power property, they can put whatever lights they they want in. Uh, but remember, by when we install the poor lighting. There's also a health cost. Uh, what, what, what, you know, like I said, people in these areas, uh, or twice as likely. And I mean, you can Google it those, we got your laptops there Google light pollution, cancer. I mean it, you'll see all sorts
of things come up. There's a huge cost to not doing the right thing. So I, I, I understand your concern, um, but I, but I don't think it's as large of a concern as you know, thinking, hey, we're going to be spending billions of dollars we're not talking about that. by any means. Thank you. Representative
Chair
Unverified
32:39
Ferguson, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
32:47
Representatives is this a similar bill you had last session, uh, similar but not the same. There there's some distinct differences. OK. The reason why I ask
and, and maybe Mr. Bethel can answer this city Pine Bluff was looking at doing something similar to this just on our main thoroughfares. But when we looked at the cost of the city, it was going to be Kind of high. Do you remember that Mr. Bethel? Yes, sir, and it was, uh, you
Speaker 120
33:18
know, it was going to be quite a bit more expensive than their
Speaker 108
33:22
current lights that they had in place uh at the time we were, we were working with
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
33:27
the city on that, yes sir, that's correct. And in thinking about
that and thinking about this bill, it sounded similar to what we would have to do. I can't remember the figures, but it was something that at that time, uh past mayor didn't want to do, I think even I think you came down and It met with us, the city council
chambers with the mayor and everything, so that's my concern. It so can you speak to that if your memory serves it was uh when we
Speaker 108
33:57
did the comparison of of their current lights which were a lot of them were mercury vapor lights at the time and the cost of those versus the the LED fixtures that the city was looking at was significantly more expensive and that was the city as
Speaker 123
34:11
I recall, that was a, a factor in making the city's decision. Yes, sir. Aren't these lights similar?
Speaker 103
34:19
And this bill they they could be. It it depends that the bill doesn't require LED lights,
Speaker 96
34:25
it's just the industry, that's where it's going, uh, you know, in the next couple of years and, you know, maybe Mr. Bethel has a different thought on this, but that, I mean, that, that's where all lighting fixtures are going to be these LED fixtures. The mercury vapor is going away. The they're all going away, so the, the only question, it's not whether LEDs are coming. The LEDs are gonna be here, the, the cost is what that's going to be here.
The only question is the color temperature issue, so yeah, the only question is just gonna be the color temperature issue and um the, the cost for, you know, doing 4000 versus 3000. It means they'll have two fixtures instead of 1, and as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, not a lot. There's, is there
any, I don't know if there's really any cost difference between those two colors. I'm not. Sure,
Speaker 108
35:19
but I would assume probably not material, uh, and then, and we are phasing out the
mercury vapor lights because they're no longer manufactured and
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
35:30
available. Yeah. 11 last question, Mr. Chair. So Andy, you guys are going to
be proposing a different kind of lighting for cities. Yes, sir, if the
Speaker 108
35:42
bill passes, we'll, we'll develop uh a rate schedule for lights that conform to the requirements of the bill. But if the bill doesn't
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
35:52
pass, you're still telling me that you're going to be, uh,
recommending a different kind of lighting. Am I hearing that correctly? Yes, sir, and what
Speaker 108
36:02
we have been doing is working with our cities as we replace fixtures because we can't replace a mercury vapor fixture with a mercury vapor fixture anymore because they're not available and so we have begun to transition our city customers fixture by fixture to uh uh the LED fixtures. So there's gonna be an extra cost one way or
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
36:20
the other. Is that what you're saying? Yes sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
36:29
Represent Wooton, did you have a question? Yes, we've talked a lot about the health situation and
all of that, but is it a fact that proper lighting, and my question has to do with um private property, buildings and that type of thing, isn't it, isn't it a, a fact that it is a great deterrent to criminal activity. So that, that's an interesting question. Now, again, the bill doesn't address that, you know,
Speaker 96
36:59
I believe it's a private property owner, if you want to let your property up like the new So, go for it. I would question your sanity for doing that, but, you know, that's your writer's property, private property on that question, it, it depends. There have been studies that have been done that show that when we light an area up too much that it actually invites criminals because criminals like everybody else, they like to see what they're doing and um crimes of opportunities in study after study has shown those crimes actually can jump 40 to 50% in
areas that are overlit. Because what is, what ends up happening a lot of times is criminals can walk down a neighborhood in the middle of the night, and they can look in all the cars and see all the stuff that people have left in there, and they just open, you know, hey, you forgot to lock your car, I see all your stuff in there and grab it. Uh, when they've looked at issues with graffiti and vandalism. Those all go up in well lit areas. There have been studies that have shown where they've taken areas where there was a lot of graffiti and vandalism. They turned the lights completely
off, so it was. and it stopped because if a criminal's trying to vandalize an area that's dark, they're going to be over there with flashlights and it's going to draw attention to them. And so some so it's mixed, so yes, some and some instances, crime is deterred, but in some instances, crime is actually increased, so that's why it's a case by case basis on making sure we're wise about the lighting that we're installing.
And that, and that's what I'm trying to do with,
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
38:38
with the bill here. Yeah Representative McGre Gregest. Thank you, Chairman. So, irregardless of whether this bill passes or not, you're going to upgrade the LED lights. And this, this bill is not going to affect that one way
Speaker 108
38:49
or another, correct? Yes, sir, we're transitioning in that direction because the the that's what's available on the market, and I understand
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
38:55
and that does save money for, I don't know, I don't know if it'll say the ratepayers' money, but it saves energy money but
then also, uh, uh. The what I'm concerned is about the cutting down on the line. It'll be less lights on city streets. I've seen city blocks that have been lit this way versus the other way, the new way they look a lot darker for me would be a concern for me if my daughter was working down one of those streets, but uh and also one other small correction, mercury was outdone a long time ago. The new one is mental hali, no. And, and, and
Speaker 96
39:29
yeah, and, and again, representative to that concern that the bill doesn't
stipulate the uh You know how those are designed for lighting, that's a that's a function of how those systems are designed. The goal here is not to get rid of light. It's not to make it so dim that you can't see. Now, there have been, there are, there are cities that have done that. They've, they've made a nice dim glow, and that's a local choice. I'm not, we're not trying to do that. Um, all, all we're saying is that going forward, we want to use energy efficient fixtures that make sure that the light goes where it's supposed to and that it's
using a color temperature that's healthy. Humans, you know, it'd be similar to if, if I was at the courthouse lawn and I set up a sprinkler system there and half the water was going in the road and half the water was going on the on the lawn. I mean, we'd all agree that the half the water that was going out on the road is wasted, right? And so that's what the shielded fixtures are doing. We're trying to get rid of that waste and make sure it's going where it's actually useful and productive. So yeah, so, so yeah, my, my goal here is not to get rid of lights. My goal is, let's be
smarter about it and let's be uh make healthier choices about it. I mean, there's, there's actually, of course, this is in the future, I don't think anybody's done here this in Arkansas, but as part of these new smart cities that you're hearing about. They have street lights now that are um controlled from a central location and so say if uh you know, you call 911 and there's a problem at your house as the first responders show up, the street light that's closest will actually blink and flash to help first responders find where
they're going. Um, they have street lights that will dim at night, um, that, you know, and, you know, if there's something going on, the city can bring these things up. They have Wi Fi in them now, so, um, this technology is coming, uh, and, and of course, I I don't want to pay any more in my electric bill than anybody else does, right? But this is coming. The question is, do we install the healthier version or just do we just slap whatever the cheapest thing is up there regardless of the impacts. And my, and my hope is is with your
help, we're going to make sure going forward here in Arkansas we're going to choose the better,
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
41:45
smarter, healthier choice. I will say that I do believe it, it is. It's the smarter choice in some ways, especially the main reason all this started was so we could see the stars in that. I live out in the country for that reason, but my concern is in in the construction and it always costs a lot more money and in this particular instance, the taxpayers having to pay the bill
and, but, but again, I'm, I'm not completely against it. I'm on both sides of the issue. I see it. Right. But uh
Speaker 96
42:16
and I, and I've been there before on, on, on bills. I had 11 yesterday, and, and, and again, you know, for, for, for me representatives, that's how I got interested in this. Subject to begin with was was the the night sky because as you all know, I'm an astronomy educator, but it's way more than that. This is human health. This is wildlife. Uh this is energy conservation. Uh, we already
talked about the, the, the criminal aspect of it. So this touches a lot, a lot of different areas. OK, thank you. Any further questions? Thank you committee. Thank you for all the questions. There's no one signed up
there, but is there anyone in the attitude likes to speak against this bill. OK. Anyone else you'd like to speak for this bill? Representative Richardson, do you have an inquiry? Do we have anybody healthcare? I'm curious about the, the health.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
43:11
Impacts that he's saying he's had, do we have anybody signed up to
Speaker 96
43:15
speak. There's no one signed up to, and Representative, I if you want, I'm more than happy to delve into that and that further. Um, so, uh, what happened, OK, OK, OK, yeah, or like I said, if you get bored one night and just Google light pollution, human health, and there's all sorts of studies out there. It'll it'll help you sleep better. That's right. representative makes you recognize the clothes for your bill. All right, thank you, colleagues. So, um, as you know, I'm just gonna make two quick points.
Quick points to to finish up here. Uh, colleagues, I've been studying this for, for a very long time. Um, I, I know that maybe for some of you, I'm asking for a, a, a degree of trust here. I hope through the years I've earned that trust that this is a good bill. I don't, you know, like I said, my intention here is not to raise bills. These fixtures are coming regardless. It's just, are we going to install the healthier ones. Second and in my last pitch here to you.
is as we've gone through the years, uh, almost every one of you at this table has had bills, things you've been passionate about, that you've tried to run. Um, I've always been there to try to help you support you and, uh, you know, bills that you guys have been passionate about, uh, you know, I could go around the room, uh, you know, Representative Eaves had a very complicated, I know you're smiling there, but you had a very complicated energy bill. I've spent hours, you know, going through that with you, helping support you there. Representative Ladyman. Had the, you know, the term
limits bill, unfortunately, we didn't get it through, but I was there to help you and support you with that, uh, you know, Representative McGrew, I know, I know you're on the fence here, but, you know, when you had your lighting bell, I mean, I was there to support you on that bill, so maybe my hope is I've been there to support you all, and I'm hoping that you guys can help me out and support me with this one. So with that, I'm closed and uh appreciate a good smart. Thank you. That
Chair
Unverified
45:16
thank you for your, um, thank you for your presentation and your testimony. I
believe Representative Richardson asked to be recognized as amended. OK, so also we have a motion to pass as amended by Representative Richardson. Do I have any further discussion on
Chair
Unverified
45:30
the motion, President. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In all seriousness, uh, you know, this is a good thing. We're wasting energy. I don't like to waste energy, but just
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
45:39
talk about the uh the color of the lights. how that affects health and all that. I don't know whether
anybody else in here has worked in the chicken plant or not and went in the kill room where the chickens get killed, but I have. And we put blue lights in there because the color of the light affects animals as well as people. Those chickens calm down as soon as you put them in a room with the blue light. In our prisons we do similar things with lighting, so it does affect humans and it does affect animals and, you know, I like the bill. I know there might be some cost, but it is a good bill in my opinion. I used
Chair
Unverified
46:16
to be eliminating engineering society members, so I know a little bit about it. Thank
you. Any further discussion on the motion. OK, seeing none, we have emotion do pass as amended, all in favor say aye. Any post say no. Congratulations, you have passed
Speaker 96
46:34
your bill. Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate it. So the second bill is really easy. It just repeals the I do have an amendment to Senator Ervin to the to the bill, and it just
repeals the old now obsolete language. You said the first one was easy, so. Well, this one's even easier. Um, uh, 1966 or 19, this is 55 1955. Yeah, thank you. So So again, the amendment just add Senator Urban. Motion to
adopt the amendment to Senator Urban by representative Eubanks, all in favor say aye. The posts say no, you may present your bill as amended.
Speaker 96
47:17
Again, colleagues, it's just repeals the obsolete old 1990s bill and uh with that appreciate a good vote. Representative Lederman, you're recognized. OK. Anyone to speak against this
Speaker 5
47:34
bill for this bill. You recognize the close. Represent Ladyman, motion to pass as amended. Motion to pass as amended all in favor say aye and say no.
Congratulations, you passed both of your bills. Thank you represent the mix. Representative Barnett, you have a house bill, so I want to get to you. I believe is this HB 1625. Is that correct? Introduce yourself for the record and you may proceed with your testimony.
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
48:15
Good morning, everyone. Thank you, chair. I'm Lincoln Barnett
District 63. I'm before you today to present House Bill 1625, which is a consumer protection bill for homeowners in the course of speaking with constituents who live and work in my district. I was made aware of an issue that exists with within current code, in particular ACA 17-52-318 section A, which requires that home inspectors carry general liability. insurance. The issue with requiring home inspectors to carry general liability insurance is the fact that the
general liability policies that are currently required by law do not provide coverage for their actual home inspections. The General Assembly when passing this provision, aimed to protect consumers. However, the mere requirement of general liability insurance misses the mark in protecting consumers. House Bill 1625 removes the requirement for general liability insurance and replaces it with professional liability insurance, which is also known as errors and omissions insurance. These types of policies will ensure that the
home inspector's inspections are covered and in the unfortunate event that errors are made by the inspector, their policy will provide the coverage that is needed to protect the consumers. There are 2 cases in my district that I'm familiar with that our existing law has left those consumers without protection. Uh, one married couple who purchased a home for $250,000 after having it inspected only to file shortly after purchase that there were significant electrical problems overlooked by the home inspector. Those repairs were near the range of
$100,000 despite the evidence presented in court, the general liability insurance policy did not provide coverage. There was another case in which a couple purchased a home after having it inspected. The inspector simply stuck his head under a crawl space and took a photo and if he had done a thorough inspection, he would have found out that there were significant foundation problems with the home and that the supports were rotten. The new homeowners purchased a home and moved in and discovered the structural problems afterwards, costing
them about $75,000 to repair, and both those cases, the home inspectors had insurance and were found to be negligent in their inspections, how the insurance carriers would not provide coverage for the home inspector's errors under the general liability insurance policy. House Bill 1625 in its current form would address the existing loophole and write an unintended wrong, providing our constituents in this state with the intended consumer protections. So I'm before you today to ask for your support in strengthening consumer
protection in this state, and I'm willing to take any questions
Chair
Unverified
51:03
you might have. All right, Representative Ladyman, you recognized for your
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
51:08
question. Um, thank you for bringing this bill. I, I think it's a good bill, but, uh, there's a physical impact statement, right? For your bill? Yes, sir. And it shows no, no physical impact, but my question is, uh, the people, the industry, people that do these inspections is it going to be an extra cost for them? Have you talked to them the amount of coverage is
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
51:27
going to stay the same that they would
if they had the general liability that it's not changing, um, so I don't foresee it being, you know, too much of an additional cost, if any. They're just required to have the correct type.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
51:44
Of insurance. So are the inspectors on board with
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
51:47
this? I have not had any known opposition, but however, I did have a conversation with someone that was representing the Arkansas Association of Real Estate when I first drafted the
bill and filed it. I had language in there that said general liability insurance that covers errors and their concern was that general liability doesn't cover errors and that the correct policy needed to be errors or which is also known as professional liability insurance. All right, thanks. Representative Perry, you for your question. Thank
Chair
Unverified
52:22
you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Barnett, yes sir, I like the idea, but a couple of things. Uh, they still need liability
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
52:31
insurance because that's gonna cover their premises and operations for damage if they, if they cause damage to a particular home. What companies will offer professional liability insurance, professional liability, I understand, uh, on the side of it where if they fail to recognize, uh, You know, like you said, electrical or uh you know, something that was major should have been repaired or should have been pointed out.
Is this coverage available through an association through individual carriers, um, and, and watch the approximate
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
53:13
cost. I don't know. The quote unquote approximate cost in my conversations with the um having the fiscal impact done and with talking with the communication with the Arkansas real estate real estate inspectors, representatives that
reached out to me, um, they weren't concerned about the cost they were just wanting to make sure that we weren't requiring for them to have both and that it was clear in the language of the bill that it was professional liability because
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
53:51
that would actually cover the errors. OK, so follow up if you have your, you're crossing out general liability. So you know, it's wise to carry gin liability. You'd be crazy not to, but if we, if we're
requiring them to have professional liability, and I'm, I'm, I'm for the idea, but you want to make sure that it's available. And affordable. Does the association offer it because you don't want to mandate something that you can't get. Um, you know, it's kind of like an OBGYN. I mean, you know, they, their liability insurance is astronomical. This Could be, you know, depending on situation, you know, it could be $1000 a year, $2000 3000. I mean, it. Is it available?
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
54:40
There wasn't a concern expressed to me about availability when they communicated with me. Is there an
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
54:46
association? Is there someone from the association of Home Inspector association here that can answer that question. That maybe they have a group. professional liability policy. I'm not a, I don't see anyone here.
Yeah, I'm not seeing anyone there Representative Perry, uh, Representative Perry, so your question is, is, is there an errors and omissions,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
55:12
uh, just like there would be for an insurance agent or anything else that they would be able to ascertain to protect themselves. Is that what your question is? Right? Maybe the
insurance department could help us. If you would, Jimmy Harris, please come to the end of the table,
Speaker 170
55:32
identify yourself and, uh, Open to questions. Jimmy Harris, Arkansas Insurance Department, Deputy commissioner for market regulation. To answer your question, yes, there are professional liability
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
55:42
policies for contractors that are that are filed and approved, uh, at
Chair
Unverified
55:47
the department right now. OK. All right. So, it, it would be available just unsure of the cost, OK. Thank you. Representative McGurry, you're
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
56:00
for your question. One question for you because in errors and mission for me is generally in paperwork or something that administrative business have to not necessarily in contracts. So in contracting, does it cover the mechanical and physical work that they do. Does that, would that cover this and
what would, what would the charge amount be for an inspector.
Speaker 175
56:21
Yeah If I had to guess, I would say it's a few $100. I don't, I'm, I'm not positive on that because for commercial policies they don't have to file rates in Arkansas, uh, rights are, are deregulated for commercial policies here for for this particular policy though there are at least 10, I think because I looked
Speaker 176
56:45
whenever uh he reached out to me earlier, so it would cover rebuilding the foundation or Or some major cost on
Speaker 175
56:54
the house. It would, it would cover. Errors made. by the inspector. Um, there's going to be limits, uh, I, I, I am unsure. If it would cover to rebuild a foundation, you know, that, that's gonna be handled on a case by case basis by the insurance company, you know,
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
57:16
depending on what error was made. And I would say I'm, I'm for what you're trying to do. I'm
I'm in that industry a lot. I see a lot of home inspectors that really don't know what they're doing. I recommend you get you an electrician and plumber and a builder that really knows rather than home home inspector, not to badmouth them because there's really some good ones out there, but we also with the this goes through or not, maybe looking at the way that they're certified that they're that we make sure
they're really knowledgeable before they get there because you are addressing a problem that's real. Thank
you. All right, any other questions from committee? OK. Seeing no. Oh, Representative Wotton,
Chair
Unverified
58:00
you're recognized for your question. This is of
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
58:03
the chair, who, who performed the fiscal impact. Was it BLR staff or DFA or who, who performed the fiscal. Impact
Speaker 179
58:16
I want to say it was Arkansas insurance. Yes, the insurance
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
58:25
department, yeah, it was, it looks like BOR at the bottom prepared by BLR. Do you know if they looked at the insurance rates relative to the increase in costs for air and omissions or Because it, you know, it has no cost, but If it's a change from the insurance industry wouldn't there be an increased cost? Not. Not. Not. That's, that's the point.
Yeah, but it's going to be a cost to the consumer. Is it the, not to the well, yeah, well, the person, well, that's right, right. Yeah So there will be an increased cost more than likely is that, is that correct? There's the
Speaker 184
59:07
potential for it to be a cost. All right. That's what I wanted to get cleared. Thank you. Thank you, Representative.
Speaker 185
59:13
Any other questions from the committee? All right, um.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
59:20
anyone here to speak for this bill. Anyone here speak against this bill. Representative Barnett, you're recognized clothes
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
59:28
for your bill. OK. Um, again, I thank you all for your questions. Um, I know that there are concerns about whether or not this would be an additional cost to home inspectors, but I think when we're Put to the task of protecting consumers. I think if there is any additional costs and that it will save someone that has had a bad home inspection, and they'll
be able to be compensated when errors do occur. I think that's worthwhile, and I think it's important that our consumers are protected, especially when they are engaging in one of the most important aspects of their life, buying a home and so if an error occurs, we should be able as a general assembly. And that was the intent when the law was first put into action was to protect consumers, and I think this would be a step further and making that a Reality.
All right, and, uh, Representative Richardson, you recognized. All right, that is a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion. Seeing all those favor say aye. All the say no. Congratulations,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:00:34
Representative Barnett, you've passed your bill. Thank you. Representative Beatty. You've been very patient. We
appreciate that. I believe you have a Senate bill that you say is going to move fairly quickly.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:00:56
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, Representative Howard Beatty, District 95. Y'all just saved me
from state agencies and listening to Senator King, so I, I very well to sit here patiently wait. Um, tell, tell us the bill number. I'm sorry. It is, it is Senate Bill 420, uh, and with
your permission, I'll ask Secretary of Ag West Ward to join me at the table. Um, on Senate Bill 420, um, I get to the right page here. Uh, is to expand the eligibility for water development state
programs, amend the Act, uh, and the use of construction assistance money since January of 2021, the Arkansas Department of Ve has approved 477 water and wastewater projects totaling $2.5 billion in all 75 counties throughout the state. The current estimates right now for water and wastewater needs throughout the state over the next 20 years, about $13 billion. What 420 seeks to do is expand the definition of a qualified corporation and allow more
conversions to a public water authority. It seeks to expand the financial assistance, uh, eligibility to private entities for state water and wastewater programs consistent with federal water and wastewater programs, um, the expanded eligibility does not guarantee funding, uh, basically, this bill over, overall just to streamline the process for nonprofits involved in water distribution. Um, and into those water authorities enabling them to access funding more efficiently and support the development of
water infrastructure for the benefit of the public and various users in in their areas and with that I'm
Chair
Unverified
1:02:42
close to entertain any questions. Questions from the committee. Representative Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, um, so we spoke about this a little bit
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:02:53
is, are there some We some water. Our wastewater. facilities in a particular area
that we're trying to help or On that? Well, I,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:03:05
I think right now under existing law, some of the some of the private or uh nonprofit entities are excluded from, from seeking the um uh the launch under Natural Resources, uh, and this would expand and allow this primarily the one that comes to mind is liberty and in, in Pine Bluff right now would help that water district and that water
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:03:27
system. And is if, if, well, I'm trying
to see how to word this. So if is liberty a nonprofit? Or It is a for-profit profit, yeah. If, if they have any kind of, uh, violations or complaints or issues with regulations. Does that disqualify them for qualify for this? I Representative, I'm not certain about the
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:03:56
qualifications under the program as far as the grant
program or the or the loan program, they would have to meet all those qualifications. So if that would be an exclusion, they would be excluded, but just right now they can't even apply. So it would allow them to apply for these resources. OK. They still have to go through the process just like everyone else, and it's not guaranteed approval. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair
Unverified
1:04:25
Any further questions? Representative Ladyman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:04:28
would this be like we're talking about like a POA out in the county that maybe is nonprofit owned by
the property owners. That's the we're about, thanks. Represent McGre, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:04:42
you, Chairman. Yes, this would affect Hot Springs Village, which is in my district, which has over 17,000. It'd be one of the biggest cities if it was they, they have to meet all the requirements in municipalities have to have, but this would help the community and I support the bill and the motion do pass at the proper time.
OK. Um, any other questions? OK. Saying none. Is there anyone, there's no one signed up, is there anyone like speak against this bill? Anyone else like take for this bill.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:05:14
Representative Beatty, would you like to close? Mr. Chairman, I, I've closed. I noticed the lights turned
blue in the room a little bit there, so I'm feeling a lot better and um I appreciate emotion and and a good vote from the
committee. Thank you all so much. Is it. We have a motion to pass on the
floor. A motion do pass has been made. All in favor say aye. And say no. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Representative Gazaway, I believe you have
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:05:53
a Senate bill. This is, I believe, SB 544.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:06:16
Mr. Chair. With your permission, Mr. Benson join me at the table? Yes,
Speaker 5
1:06:21
go ahead and introduce yourself, sir, for the record, and you got, you may proceed with
Speaker 208
1:06:27
your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, John Vinson, CEO of the Arkansas Pharmacists Association.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:06:34
I'm State Representative Jimmy Gazaway District 31. Members, before you have Senate Bill 544, which is an act to amend the Arkansas Pharmacy Benefit Manager Licensure Act.
Essentially what the bill does is it gives the insurance department more. control and authority to take enforcement action against pharmacy benefit managers who violate existing Arkansas law. It includes the ability for the insurance department to place a pharmacy benefit manager on probation. It gives the insurance department the ability to assess a penalty of up to 12%, uh, for violations of
Existing laws under payment and other various violations or it gives the insurance department the ability to To craft some unique combination of probation or other types of enforcement actions against the pharmacy benefit managers again for their violations of Arkansas law. I don't think I have to tell this committee about the bad actors that pharmacy benefit managers have been the bad actions that they've taken against our independent pharmacies, the way that they
have, uh, steered patients to themselves. They uh underpaid claims. They've done a number of things that have put our independent pharmacy in jeopardy. I know many of you are well aware of this. And so this bill simply gives the insurance department more enforcement mechanisms, primarily is what it does, but Mr. Chair, with your permission, I would ask that Mr. Benson be allowed to explain. A little bit more in depth. You may proceed, Mr. Benson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So Senate Bill 544
Speaker 208
1:08:29
existing, they're in existence in contract, but it cleans up definitions for the insurance department. The one that's probably the newest is the term opt-out contract that is not in the current law or has not been clear, is a situation where pharmacy or their contracting entity is in a contract with the PBM and there's a term condition provided to them that says that they are automatically renewed unless they opt out, which is actually has some merit in terms of making sure patients don't
lose access and it's supposed to simplify. The administration of continuing, but if there are decreases in reimbursement that are take it or leave it, the pharmacy needs to have time to be able to evaluate that and not a short 5 or 10 day window to make those decisions, so this gives them some time to make that decision to and to make sure that that is communicated in a way that is not just the facts, that there are multiple attempts and that there's ability for the pharmacy to be able to review that information.
The other part of the bill, some of it is on the prohibited practices section, the opt-out contract defines what is valid and what is not allowed as I just explained. And then the part about giving the pharmacy to write to clarify and and uh Gather specific information and for the PBMs to file existing state laws and bulletins. I know it seems ridiculous to have to say that in a new hall that they have to follow laws, but it clarifies what needs to be in
the contract to ensure that they are following the law and not just a statement that says we will follow the laws. They need to have terms and conditions that are Arkansas specific in the contract and how they're going to follow the law in this bill clarifies that. The main part of the bill is the enforcement section, the 12% interest that he explained, and then also the um the making sure in practice, this is already being implemented, but it's not clear in the statute that there, if there is an underpayment and
there's a violation that's been determined that the PBM can't shoot and there wouldn't be an argument over who was responsible for that underpayment, and with that, I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you for your testimony. Rever Navi, she recognized for
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:10:50
her question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. OK. Is
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:10:55
this a bill that came from the pharmacy Association? Yes, we did work with
Speaker 208
1:11:01
Senator Mark Johnson and others, and it
goes back to when whenever we were having discussion again on rule 128 about that they're one of the biggest issues with what is happening in the pharmacies is lack of enforcement or lack of proper tools for enforcement. I know Senator Lee Johnson had a bill that came before this committee and it was his idea to increase and provide the fees, but on this one, this was a combination of the pharmacists Association and feedback from employees of the insurance department, feedback to us about what they were having trouble
Speaker 207
1:11:36
with, and we did help draft this with Senator Mark Johnson and Representative Gazaway. I mean, you
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:11:40
said something interesting. This seems like we're going to pass a law to make PBMs follow the other law that we passed. And what makes us think they're going to follow this law, and we've done everything we can for pharmacy at this point from banning pharmacies from owning or PBMs from owning pharmacies, uh. What more do we need to do to fix this problem? I mean, clearly PBMs seem to be not following current state law.
Speaker 208
1:12:09
Is, is this going to force them to follow state law now. What I would say is the insurance department's obviously not at the table, but a lot of the language in here are is feedback that I got back from the enforcement side of the insurance department. I know Booth ran, for example, on the interest piece of it. We asked him about that. That's consistent with other penalties that they have in the medical side of enforcement of of the medical laws for the insurance companies. Isn't there a law on the books now?
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:12:39
that that they should be enforcing when pharmacy, excuse
Speaker 216
1:12:41
me, PBMs break the law. Yes, I agree you're
Speaker 208
1:12:46
not enforcing that now. I'm just sharing with you feedback that I've gotten from the insurance department of Challenges and definitions and challenges with enforcement and we provided this feedback in this law. But thank you for the question. OK. Representative Allen, you recognized
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:13:03
him. Thank you all. Thank you all for bringing this bill, but if you look at page 5.
Line 11, it says a pay 12% interest per month if you do the calculation, that's 144% interest. Right, and
Speaker 208
1:13:21
we've asked, we did get that question on the Senate end about that being is that usury you want to comment on
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:13:27
that? So it's my understanding from the, it's a good point. It's a great question from conversations with the insurance department that this is not considered usurious, that it is considered a penalty, and while it does use the word interest, it's paid 12% per interest per month as a penalty, and this is
the same language that they use in other areas of the law related to medical providers. It's not considered usurious there, and it would not. It's the opinion of the insurance department
that it would not be considered usurious in this situation and it's
not a loan. It's not a loan either, and that's the other big thing. User is prohibited in relation to loans. This is not
Speaker 208
1:14:06
a loan. So what a lot of times the interest or the penalties or the underpayments as you've heard during the rule 128 discussion might only be $1 or $10 or
they're not a, a, they're not a million dollar hospitalization. And so there was discussion about whether should it be treble damages, should it be interest, how should it be? And we used Consistent terminology with what
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:14:30
they use in the medical representative Allen. OK, it's that 12% per violation per month or just 12% per month.
Speaker 208
1:14:39
It's 12% for the um underpayment on the, on the penalties per month. So if there's an underpayment to
resolve the underpayment if there were, if it was supposed to be paid at $15 and it was paid at $12 then it would be 12% interest per month on that underpayment. And you're supposed to file these complaints within a within a normally within a 30-day period to Representative Allen, so That's another reason why it's per month because you're supposed to file the complaints if they are underpayments within a 30-day time frame. So is that
12% on the difference of the total price. I believe it's on the, the way it's drafted and is on the underpayment, not on the total price, but
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:15:30
on the underpayment. Reps in Dalby. Do you still have a question. I think Senator, I mean, I think Representative Allen asked mine and I think reasonable minds can differ. It sure appears to be usurious to me, and I'd be curious. because they keep saying, oh, we charge this in medical claims. I'd like to hear from the insurance department because even on post judgment interest
is capped at 10%. And now we're, we're sticking something in the law. That just, I don't know, it just, but I agree with the line of questioning that Representative Allen, it was and I, the answers did not satisfy me, so I don't have a question. Is there anyone here
Speaker 5
1:16:06
from the insurance department who could come up and
Yeah. Speak to Representative Dalby's concernsan's concerns.
Speaker 232
1:16:19
Revser Alan concerns. Sir, just introduce yourself and who you're with and proceed with your testimony, please, Daniel Holland, PBM general counsel at the
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:16:44
Arkansas Insurance Department. I think my, my question really centered around what Representative Allen was asking
about this 12% and then the statement made, oh well, they, they're doing that for other. Other violations with other groups and I'd like to know what other groups and how this doesn't become usurious, uh, I think that certainly is going to give Well, it's gonna get litigation over it, quite frankly, I think, but you know, when we cap interest at 10% for other things and all of a sudden we're doing 12. I just want to know, is this
the common practice? Are we charging other people and other industries, the same thing and why my
Speaker 235
1:17:27
understanding is that that is a common practice in the medical health insurance industry and, and we
Speaker 237
1:17:33
do agree that it would not be usurious because this is a a penalty as opposed to um interest on on a loan or in a credit situation. So it is common, it, it does happen within within this the medical health insurance industry, but it has yet to
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:17:53
happen with with the PBM. Can you tell me what the interest rates are and the other uh facets
Speaker 235
1:18:01
of the industry that you're referring to. I actually cannot, um, I'd be happy to gather that information and get
Speaker 5
1:18:08
it, get it over to you. Thank you, Adobe. Any further questions?
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:18:13
Ladyman, you're recognized. Well, in order to try to understand what you're doing here. So this is Quantifying a penalty. A penalty, is that correct? You're using somehow you have to you
have to quantify what the penalty is for a violation. And are you using 12% of the violation to quantify the penalty. Is that what you're doing? Where
Speaker 237
1:18:39
am I off base here? That's my understanding is that it would be a
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:18:45
12% interest on the the the violation. So If it's $15 in They sell it for 12, so it's $3
they lose. So it's only 12% of $3 which is not a very big penalty. Yes, sir, for 12 months, that's not a very big penalty. Now if it's a $1000 drug and they're $100 under. Right? Yes sir, that's correct. But this is
Chair
Unverified
1:19:11
a method to quantify the penalties the way I look at it. Is that correct? Yes, sir, that's correct. All right, thank
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:19:19
you. Reson Boyton, you recognize for a question. Oh, Um, mines along the same line of representative Lederman and and
to answer, uh, Representative Darby, um, It's, it's used not as an interest rate, but it's used as a percentage of what the violation is, sir, that's correct. Representative Gassway, you're an attorney, can it, can't in language, can't we clarify relative to Um
The penalty being a penalty and not a, an interest rate that we're charging like for a loan, which you used, is it? Is that possible? I mean, is that permitted under, without it being called or user or user. Yes, and that's a
fair point when we this is language that was ported over from another area that
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:20:22
of the Uh, that's used in another section related to other industries in the medical field
as I understand it, to be clear though, it says 12% interest per month as a penalty. And so that's in the bill and so that In other contexts that's been interpreted as a penalty, not a loan. And if it's not a loan, it can't be considered usurious because it is a penalty and it's paid as a penalty and as Representative Ladyman said this is a way to figure the penalty as 12%. It would not be considered interest, so could it have been,
I mean, in light of your questions, could it have been more clearly defined, probably, do I think that it would result in it being struck down or held invalid or uh not accessible,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:21:16
no. But if follow up, if, but if we used a scale. That would completely do away with. In other words, if it's $3 Uh, fine or $3 12% of 3, but if we had, say, under a $50.
Penalty for up to $10 or $20 or $150 my problem comes about, I had one situation for one pharmacist that evolved around the the dillydally around the PBM and wouldn't pay it and then they paid it and then then they made up the difference on the cost of the prescription, they paid that, but then also had been a $500 penalty levied
against them, and they fought against that. So my, my question is, would we be better to use a scaled than than to use the percentage. Maybe so.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:22:21
I think you make a good point. The What happened here is the pharmers association talked with the insurance department about what type of enforcement mechanisms would be helpful to them, and this was the language that was given to the pharmacists Association from the
insurance department based on what they do in other contexts which has not been interpreted as interest or usurious in other contexts. Now, to your point, might there be a better way to do it. Maybe so, but, but we're late in the session and I don't think we're going to be able to make a change and if we want to give the insurance department the mechanisms that they need to hold the PBMs accountable because I don't think anyone here would likely disagree that they have not been bad actors.
This is what they've requested and this is
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:23:13
what we're trying to give them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll have a motion that's appropriate time.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:23:27
Thank you, Mr. Gassway. and you for a question. This is for the insurance department. My understanding is that pharmacists
are now reporting violations to the insurance department in the thousands of
instances where they're being underpaid by PBMs. And I'm And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seems like I'm not certain the insurance department can keep up with that amount of complaints now. How in the world are you going to keep up with the issues that will come up if we pass this bill because you're going to have to keep up with not only what you're already trying to keep up with, but also calculating accrued interest on these PBMs as they're underpaying pharmacists, and this is going to
If they continue to do it, uh, month after month after month. I mean, do you have a process or systems in place that would be able to send out statements of what they owe, you know, to every pharmacist that they're underpaying. I mean, I, I understand the, the point of the bill, and certainly want to do what we can to help pharmacists, and we've done a lot. Um, but how are you guys going to do that? I
Speaker 233
1:24:36
mean, Help me understand that, yeah, yeah, great question. Happy to answer. Um, so, so we, you know, historically there has been, it
Speaker 237
1:24:43
has been difficult to keep up with the number of complaints that came in. They do number in the thousands or they have in the past, um, the insurance department has ramped up staffing in the PBM division. I'm, I'm an example of that. I was hired recently to to do exactly what you're talking about. Uh, we're also in the process right now of hiring two other PBM coordinators. Analysts to help us with that, um, we've got um penalty structures that we're setting up to where we will actually
penalize PBMs for each of these violations, so I don't foresee a huge problem with adding interest to those those penalties for the violations. I think it will all be um are they paying now? Are they, I mean, they're not following current law,
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:25:27
and is there a penalty? Currently, when they underpay. Yes, right now we, we have authority to, to
Speaker 233
1:25:35
penalize them up to $5000. Are they paying it? Uh, when, when they've
Speaker 237
1:25:38
been asked to pay it or told to pay it, yes, they are.
Mr. Harris, would you like to come to the table? If you want to hear more about the insurance, I can about I, I think you might just come to the table and see
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:26:03
if there, if anyone has questions, they'll, they'll ask on that that that's come up, so. Where's Alan? Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wouldn't you agree that if the PBMs would stop breaking the law, they would not have to worry about the 12%.
I would 100% agree with that. OK, so I support what you're trying to
Speaker 5
1:26:22
do. Thanks further questions. Any further questions from the committee? OK. Thank you. um,
thank you for your testimony, gentlemen. We don't have anyone signed up to speak against, but is there anyone in the audit speak against this bill? Anyone else like to speak for this bill? Where's some guys, what do you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:26:44
closed for the bill and would appreciate a good vote. Thank you.
OK. We've had numerous people ask, I think you were first, Represent Wootton, you're recognized. I'm like a motion to pass. What a motion
Speaker 5
1:26:56
do pass, that's a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing that all in favor, say I. And they say no. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you guys way. Senator
Speaker 227
1:27:09
dismaying, I believe you have a couple of bills you'd like to proceed with.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:27:30
He would just introduce yourself for the record and, in which bill you'd like to proceed with first. Hey, Senator Jonathan Diang District 18,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:27:36
uh, Senate Bill 475. Thank you. members, yeah, go ahead.
475? You, you may proceed. All right. Thank you, members. Uh this really came to my attention back when we were having the debate over Rule 128 over the summer, you know, that was a very robust rebate that we had in council about what to do there. And one of the things I found about it and maybe y'all aren't uh familiar with either of these entities called PSAOs or pharmacy service, uh, administrative organizations and the way that these entities work, these are the actual entities that help create the contracts for independent pharmacists, so it's the
contract between the PBM and the pharmacist. And what we heard in that Rule 128 debate was that they were not following through and helping enforce those contracts enforce, in fact, they're reporting all of that burden on the insurance department. And so I followed up even with some of my local pharmacists and had conversations about the PSAOs that they are working with. And in fact, what was happening at their level is they no longer even try to work with the PSOs on trying to make sure they're getting paid enough because they're just dead end roads. They're not helping. They're paying their fees. They're helping create the
contracts, but these entities aren't helping, helping the pharmacist follow through in enforcing the contracts with the BBMs. And so they consulted with the insurance department and so what this bill is, is a licensing and registration, uh, bill for PSAOs in the state. It's one of the first times we've created a more robust definition for what a PSAO is, and with that, I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you for your testimony. Questions about the committee?
OK, saying no. There's no one signed up, but does anyone like speak against this bill? Anyone, anyone
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:29:41
else who'd like to speak for this bill, excuse me, Senator dismay, would you like to close if you will, once upon a time, 2 years, that's all I wanted. Uh, yes, no, I'm close. Thank you. Sarah Dimay has
closed for his bill. we have a motion to pass by Representative Dalby. All in favor say aye. Any posed say no. Congratulations you have passed your bill.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:30:07
Like, um, I have one more at the end and I don't remember what the uh number was, but I can tell you what it does. I believe it's 6:10. All right, Senate Bill 610, there was an engrossing and drafting error that BLR brought to us in, uh, Uh, Senate Bill 307, that was the, the job creations bill, um, again, it's just technical clean up brought to a straight from BLR. Thank you. Any questions from the committee?
None. There's no one that put into like speak against this bill. He didn't support this bill. You
close for your bill. I'm closed. Representative Aves. We have a motion do pass, all in favor, say I. He opposed past your bill. Thank you, Senator. Shell. Is there?
Senator D. OK the next one. Representative Waldridge. And do note, I did ask Senator Dez. I know he's been waiting patiently, so, but I did ask, so. OK Representative, would you please, um, Tell us
Speaker 259
1:31:36
the bill that you're going to run. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 602. Jeremy Wooldridge State Representative District one. Excuse me, you may proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you committee. Senate Bill 602 does or the
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:31:49
intention is to do exactly what it says in the title, and that's prohibit insurance companies and appraisers for acquiring an insured to use certain facilities to repair glass damage for vehicle safety. And basically what that is, what that's done, and what we're trying to accomplish, and I'd be happy for the Department of Insurance department to come up and help to clarify some of the language in this bill. I met with them prior to the meeting. I don't think there's anything
in, in the language that they're concerned about. There was some uh people that had reached out to me saying this had something to do with deductibles. That's, that's not accurate. This talks about deductibles being charged by a person that's fixing a window or glass but not by an insurance company for deductibles, but in essence, it just in here that you can use anybody you want to fix your glass, that, that they can't steer you towards a specific person or a contractor to do that. With that I'd be happy to answer any
Chair
Unverified
1:32:46
questions. Thank you. Questions by the committee. Uh, version
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:32:52
of Dolby, he recognized. Thank you, Representative, on page 2, somebody pointed this out to me and so I just want to see what what you. What you're taking is we're putting penalties under the deceptive trade practices Act. Uh, page 2 line 31 and making them subject to that, but the insurance companies fall under
the insurance department, so are we not having conflicting You know, uh, conflicting provisions as to what controls in this situation and can you, can you tell me, you know, how, how that's gonna work, so if you have the insurance department, but now we're tacking on these treble damages through the the septic tra practice just seems like the two are not, don't work together. Could you address that and I appreciate that
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:33:44
question, Representative. Um, could I ask the insurance department to come
up and clarify that. Yes, please come
up, introduce yourself and who you're with and if you would answer represent Davi's question. Jimmy Harris, Arkansas
Speaker 175
1:34:01
Insurance Department. Uh, Section 8 says, uh, in addition, uh, the panels available under the trade Practices Act, and then, you know, we would, we would look at that and stop. Uh, that, that encompasses every, every penalty we have. I know there's there's the two
under, uh, deceptive trade practices, I assume, um, that would be if somebody was, was, was going to go after the, the glass. Company. Um, but the trade practices, yes, that would, that would be plenty for us. So, so
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:34:36
the insurance department, if I understood if that's plenty for y'all so y'all are gonna abrogate your responsibility to some other act. Is that what you're wanting to do?
Speaker 175
1:34:54
bill, but the fact that there are penalties, uh, available on the Trade Practices Act here, that would allow us to enforce the bill. OK, thank
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:35:06
you. Thank you Do represent Wooton.
You're recognized. Um, I've had some questions raised about the compelled speech, um, Used in the, in the act or in
the bill, can, can you share, do you think the court review would be Forthcoming on, on, on this
rule. I'm, I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the
question, Representative it has, it has to do with compelled speech is ruled that it helped by some courts relative to the scrutiny of, of this bill and it comes forward as perhaps it might lead
to lawsuits or we in a defendable position with this legislation, should we have to go to
Speaker 175
1:36:04
court. The requirements put on put on an insurer in this bill. I, I would, I would have a problem. If an insurer was requiring an insured to use a certain glass company already. Uh, they, they already are prohibited from from
requiring an insured to go to a certain glass repair shop. Uh, so if, if your question I can we Enforce that, I would say yes, we, we can say an insurance company. Cannot Send their insured to a certain. OK, well,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:36:45
you didn't answer my question. I'm sorry. Well, you, you came close, but what I'm saying, would we be in a defendable position. I'm not
saying we would win, but do you think we could defend what we're getting ready to vote on here in the event should
Speaker 175
1:37:10
a lawsuit be filed. Thank goodness I'm an insurance man, not an attorney, but Yes, I, I would think that we could defend that. That we could defend. The act of saying you cannot steer your insurance to a
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:37:28
certain repair facility. Am I there? Am I, am I you're close. I mean, you, you, you hesitate, that's what worries, is what brings consternation to me is the fact that you, you, uh, push, appreciate your position, but really, we need to be careful, uh, and I know that any rule, any law can be declared unconstitutional, but only by one person, and that's a
judge. But if it should that occur, and should they find it's stands on its own, can we defend it? For our position, can we be defensive? I mean, can we not necessarily win. I realized the limitation of the court. But would it be defendable? This room. Yeah If you want the opinion of an
Speaker 259
1:38:21
insurance agent and a social worker, we think so.
Speaker 175
1:38:30
That and, and, and if you want an opinion from an attorney, I'll have to get someone else up here, but, but reading this, I, I I believe this bill reinforces expectations that are already in
Chair
Unverified
1:38:43
place. Thank, thank you. Thank you. Representative Perry, I believe you're next. English Thank
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:38:52
you, Mr. Chairman. So Representative Wooldridge, I'm trying to understand this, so I know insurance companies have preferred vendors. This
basically will take the pervert preferred vendor out of the glass claim, so. You can, you know, you have a glass claim and then, you know, whenever you call your agent or you turn in the claim on your phone or however, they can't say, hey, if you want to go to this place, their preferred vendor, you basically have to give them multiple choices or they, yeah, they can still have a preferred vendor. They
Chair
Unverified
1:39:24
just have to give an alternate choice to the consumer. In addition to the preferred vendor, correct?
OK. All right, thank you. Soundstrom. Thank
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:39:44
you, Representative Dobby. Just real quick, um, on
line 28 page 1. It says, well, motor vehicle safety glass repair practices and the definition is what it looks like we're. Changing the definition or at least adding a definition says motor glass, safety glass means glass for which a deductible
shall not be applied under the section one being repaired or replaced. So now, are we requiring all insurance policies because it says no deductibles, so now are we going to require that all insurance policies have this and no deductible applies because it seems like if that's what we're, we, we're going to require. Then I no longer have to pay that extra $100 I pay for my windshield replacement insurance. Now it's just all gonna be covered, at least that's what it appears that
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:40:33
you're saying. Is that correct? No, ma'am. And if you want to run a bill to do away with deductibles, you've got my full support, uh, but this doesn't do that. This is the deductible for the person that's repairing the glass. So if that person chooses to not, to not collect. Then, then that's what that's addressing or that's my understanding. Not the insurance company. Are you satisfied person are you
good? OK. No, any further? I represent recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, back to, uh, you know, Representative Woo's concerns about the compelled speech, you know, the language
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:41:17
in here, you know, in quotations, you have the right to choose a glass shop or a damage to your motor vehicle, blah blah blah. Can you give
me the line that you're discussing there? Is it 10 or 215 and 16 page 2. Why, why do we feel that that language
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:41:32
is necessary? necessary in there when it is already ill. Well, we're not supposed to be steering
people to uh Body shops, glass shops. My understanding is we're just trying to clarify what the
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:41:41
common practice has been, and that's why it's in there. Well, I mean, I still, I mean,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:41:48
my concern would be. I think that's the compelled speech part is we're going to be putting words into people's mouths potentially that they had to follow that script and that could potentially be a challenge that, uh, Wooten alluded to earlier. I understand. Thank you, Reverend Steinel. Further
questions from the committee. OK, saying none. So there there is no one signed up, but there's any, is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak against this bill. Anyone else likes to pick for this bill? Represent Wooldridge, you are recognized to close. Mr. Chairman. I'm closed,
Chair
Unverified
1:42:31
and I'd appreciate a good motion. OK. Thank you for your testimony.
Speaker 63
1:42:38
What is the will of the committee? OK. OK. We have a motion do pass by Resident McCollum. And the discussion on the motion?
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Say no. No. Your bill has failed for Wooldrich.
Speaker 5
1:42:57
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Senator
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:43:06
Dees, thank you for your patience. If you go to the end
of the table. I believe you have SB 611. Just introduce yourself for the record and
Speaker 5
1:43:16
you may proceed, sir. I apologize. There is an amendment, members that will be circulated by staff. If you would,
if you would like, sir, go ahead and explain the amendment first.
Speaker 276
1:43:29
Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. State Senator Tyler Dees District 35.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:43:33
Uh, there's an amendment being passed out and I'll describe that amendment and then we can talk about the bill
if adopted. So the amendment does a couple things. We, uh, we had a clean up for my good friend Senator Tucker as the esteemed lawyer has helped us review this bill to do it actually intended to do. I appreciate Senator Murdoch as well with his feedback and support to get the bill here, but really what this, the amendment does is takes out um the addictive algorithm, addictive feed section. I actually want it still to be in there, but that portion's being held up in federal court with some other states, so we felt, felt it'd be wise to remove that from our,
our bill. It also has a majority of this, this amendment when you take out a section is just cleaning up numbers in the order that they should be throughout the side, but it also um adds uh some amendments requested by some of these social media companies such as personal. identifiable information and on the last page you'll see where we just had an update to the notifications side and I'm happy to describe those more clear if needed, but I would appreciate the ability to adopt that emotion.
a motion to adopt the amendment by direction of Ebanks all in favor. Say aye. You
Speaker 94
1:44:47
may proceed with the bill as admitted. Thank you, members. So if you'll remember 2 years ago or so, the last
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:44:53
session when we brought this bill, uh, Arkansas was the first state to launch a social media safety act uh introduction. And so when, when leaders go first like this body has done, uh, I'm very proud of the work we did, but there's some things that got held up in court, some things we learned, uh, other states followed behind
us. Dozens of states have now passed social media. and tech bills to protect children, but we have all, all the states have continued to learn from each other for the right language and, and what this does is takes all the learnings that have been happening across the country and amends our social media Safety Act and so um you'll see that we've removed language that has been held up in some federal courts to try to make that streamlined. Um, and while also still with the mission to protect children online. And so for example, on on page 7, you'll see where we have struck
the of algorithm section, as I mentioned before in the amendment, but you will see that our heart is to continue protecting kids through notifications. We've got kids that are being staying up all night that are continuing to be hounded with dings and, and notifications throughout their day, and so this, this, even with the amendment adds some uh ability for notification to be shut off from 10 to 6 so they can sleep at night. Imagine that. It'd be wonderful, um, and it talks about the age of 16 and under.
But I can go on further, but really that's still the the intent, the heart, the AG's office has been involved to make sure that that the language is well, but really the ability to protect our children online is still the ultimate focus. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Senator. Questions from the committee. OK, no questions. There is no one
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:46:38
who has signed up to speak for or against this bill, but I'm gonna ask if there's anyone out there who'd like to speak against the bill.
OK. Anyone else you'd like to speak for the bill? Not then Senator Dees you
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:46:57
are recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Chairman Maddox. members, we, we've worked hard on this for the last 3 years, I'd say, and it's a continual effort that will constantly be making sure that we're keeping front and foremost, the protection of children online. We have listened to industry on this. We, we want to be reasonable whenever we can be, um, and still want, want to try to make
sure that that we're we're working well with the right policy and the right language, and I think we can be proud of those efforts that we are ensuring that parents are more involved, that children are safer, and I believe we're heading in the right direction with this bill. We appreciate do pass. Thank you for your testimony, sir.
Where the most Thank you. We have a motion to pass as amended by Representative Eubanks, all in favor say aye. And they both say no, congratulations, Senator, you've passed your bill. Thank you, members. Appreciate it.
Speaker 5
1:47:58
Members, we've worked through a lot of bills, but I do not want to cease
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:48:02
the meeting yet. Is there anyone else who would like to present a bill. In insurance and commerce at this
time, House, Senate. Oh yeah, Brent home. Oh, I apologize. I did not see Representative Hall. I apologize. Um, just come to the end of the table, sir. This is Senate Bill 437, I
believe. And there is an amendment which is being circulated by
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:48:43
staff. right Uh, members, we will be hearing 1177 by Representative Brown this afternoon that was moved, um. That was moved to this afternoon
to accommodate witnesses who were traveling. Um there are also a couple other bills I believe we're going to have to hear this afternoon. They're gonna have some witnesses.
So yes, we will convene 15 minutes after we adjourn. Thank, thank you so much. in before. Me. Sir, uh, Gentlemen, if you would just introduce yourselves for the record, you may proceed with your testimony. Brad Hall, state representative, District
Speaker 285
1:49:21
24. James Eaton, state representative, District 26. The bill we bring it to you today is Senate Bill
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:49:27
437. Uh, it deals with wind energy across the state.
First, I'd like to say, uh, I'm not a regulations guy. Uh, but the sheer size of these structures warranty it alone I apologize. I need the motion it's.
I apologize. Is there a motion to adopt? We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Motion to adopt the amendment all in favor say aye. Thanks, sir. Proceed with your bill as
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:49:57
amended. Thank you. Uh, as it stands, uh, these can be built anywhere and under any conditions. Uh, we all want regulations on our airplanes,
buildings, cars, etc. Uh, the oil and gas industry, uh, as well as electric companies are all regulated, uh, this is not a statewide moratorium. And like I said, I repeat, this is not a statewide moratorium. This is only regulation that is in place in other states such as Texas and Oklahoma. in the windmill industry is still thriving there. We are only one of two states who are not regulated currently.
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
1:50:37
I think if I was going to add anything to that, it would be. When I was a core court member a couple of years ago, the local, the county next to us came and said, Would you put a moratorium in and help us with our county. And I said, that's a county, that should be a county regulation. But the county didn't do anything. And so now the counties have came to me as a representative and asked me to help get some legislation in place to help stop this. I am a local control guy, but what's happening currently is uh
Representative Hall has said, we're, we're one of two states. So we're being inundated and it's typically small rural counties that's being inundated with,
uh, the wind turbines. So that's what encouraged me to get on board with this legislation. Thank
Chair
Unverified
1:51:23
you. Questions from the committee. Representative Layman you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:51:30
I got a question on page 2 there, line 5 through 8.
Where it says the construction operation win energy facilities can have significant potential impacts on the health safety and welfare of members of the community. Do you have any data to back that up? What kind of? I'm
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:51:51
sorry, Representative, uh, Mr. Chairman, could we have our expert come up here and speak? Yes, just have them
Speaker 64
1:51:58
come to the table and introduce yourselves so you can, if you can specifically answer that question, that'd be fine. I
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:52:08
Mhm Uh, my name is Julie Morton, and I don't claim to be an expert, but I have done quite
Speaker 295
1:52:23
a bit of research and I'm sorry, but I, I could not understand the question. I'm a little
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:52:29
hard of hearing. My question was, what are the health effects and the safety effects and the welfare effects. Do you have data to back up that statement.
Speaker 295
1:52:40
The health effects are Noise-related. Uh, shadow flicker related. Um The Ongoing effects of Vibration that these turbines cars, and also just the safety uh effects of these things actually fail and they catch on
fire and those shards of Fiberglass from these turbines can spread according to the National Institute of Health, up to 1 mile. So you've also got the effect of the fiberglass on the human body and on crop land, uh, there are farmers that have had this happen that have completely lost the use of their land. They don't even know for how long. Does that answer your question?
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:53:45
I'm not aware what state and what where did these happen, where it affected the land. If you got a specific instance that sir, I do.
Speaker 295
1:54:16
Here's an article from mechanicsville, Iowa. A farm in mechanicsville must clean up its 3rd wind turbine fire in less than a year and a half. Lightning caused the strikes to all three. Now the farm's owners are trying to figure out what's next. A Cedar County ordinance requires wind turbines that aren't producing energy must be taken down within the year. While the turbine's owners have to take care of that, the damage
left behind is the responsibility of the landowner. Let me try to skip to something that would more answer your question. I don't really know how you ever clean it up is this is the farmer speaking. Especially since the longer you wait, the harder it is to clean up. And since there's so much still here, I don't know what we're going to do with it. Freeman is now dealing with her
3rd turbine fire and she has learned from experience that cleanup takes forever. I might have more questions later.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:55:28
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Representative
Speaker 97
1:55:36
Lady and Representative Representative McGrew, I believe you're next for a question. Yes, uh,
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:55:42
I understand the cleanup. I'd also say is the owner of the windmill not responsible for the clean up to the fire.
To the property owner, so the property owner could go after the, go after the wind company to force them to do the
Speaker 295
1:56:00
cleanup that would take litigation if the if the company is not willing to do it under their easement, then it would take litigation and there you get into whether an individual landowner can find a billion dollars foreign corporation. And as it stands right now, there's no
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:56:15
regulations in Arkansas, so they're not the ones.
Speaker 207
1:56:20
for any, any negligence on their part.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:56:26
For all that, but that's uh my bigger question might be on page 10, you're limiting the things to be, you, you're limiting so much, it almost seems like there's no place to put them. It can't be within 1 mile of the school or hospital, a nursing home, a church, the city limits, the park, and airport, and then if you go down a little further, it says there's an in by environmental impact assessment required that covers almost everything in the world, so it seems like you're, you're essentially limiting that they can't be done here. That's my concern.
And they are building these in, was it Northeast Arkansas now
Speaker 295
1:57:03
and there's one under construction in Northeast Arkansas now, yes. And like I said, we chose uh let me explain how the basis of the bill was. Made and perhaps that would help you understand. I actually sat and read. 48 states. Regulations for 3 months and it was informative but very boring, but we then took What we felt would be palatable
and applicable to Arkansas. So these are regulations that we have found worked for other states and also that particular one, the National Institute of Health, uh, issue that I mentioned in that they say that when these things fail or catch on fire, that fiberglass can spread for up to 1 mile. Well, we don't want your children to be exposed to that type of danger, nor your father in the hospital, nor your mother in the
nursing home. So we feel that in order to ensure the safety of places where the public gathers that it's important that we give plenty of distance between what could be a
Speaker 298
1:58:15
disastrous situation. Do you have any documentation or
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:58:19
any proof where someone has been damaged by
Speaker 164
1:58:22
a piece of fiberglass, one of these? No, I do not. There's
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:58:27
also ice. They also throw ice from a blades. In the wintertime, so.
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
1:58:36
an issue another issue that hadn't been brought up, these wind turbines are also 20 ft taller than the Simmons Bank Building. So they're very large, uh, they're very large machines and if they were to have fire with that blade through, I think that's the reason of the distance of a mile. It is because of their advanced height. In the width of the blade. I think that's
the logic there representing the group. The ones permitted through the FAA right now.
Speaker 295
1:59:09
are all permitted to 681 ft to 698 ft tall. And then if you put them on a ridge, according to the FAA they will extend a half mile total into the air. We have more
Speaker 196
1:59:22
questions. Repent Boyton, you recognized. Um I'm
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:59:27
a little confused, which is not unusual. I've made that statement before, but this uh
Amendment has talks about the oil and gas commission and the lands and or you, or you You trying to force the windmills out of a portion of the state or put them in a portion of the state or what, what, what are we after here? Just to complete elimination. My concern is Excuse me, my concern is East Arkansas.
Where we have grass. Planning and we have crop dusters that have to fly in and out. So we don't need them. And personally, I don't see, you know, they only work when the wind's blowing. It's just like solar. They only work when the sun's shining. So And they don't produce all that much energy. So, let me be perfectly clear, I'm against them to start with, but I have
concerns relative to the crop dusters being able to apply the pesticides and and fertilizer and and other crop needs. So, Would this force them into When you talk about hills and ridges, that's the northwest part of the state. Yes, sir. But the eastern part of the state is flat and level and, and the wind blows constantly over there.
But how does this impact that?
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
2:01:16
Well, this was amended so it would pertain to all the state and, and, uh, not just, uh, over 300 ft elevation. So this now pertains to the whole state this pertains to you all also takes care of that. Yeah,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:01:28
yeah, it pertains to the whole state now. The whole state. Thank you. And, and Representative kind of to
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
2:01:35
address that too, uh, I was talking about, I was just talking about on the, the, the logic for the mile, if you're on a ridge top and it's 700 ft tall, it throws it a little
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:01:46
farther, obviously. So that's Representative Eaves, I think you were next actually. Thank you. How does, how does this
Speaker 295
2:02:05
affect windmill projects that are currently under construction. Well, there are 2 that are under construction now. Uh, one is the crossover wind project in Cross County and there is one in, uh, Carroll County, uh, the nimbus
scout wind project and they are both going to be exempt from this bill because they have Achieved what the bill describes as being under construction.
Speaker 211
2:02:32
Can you show me in the bill where they're exempt?
Speaker 314
2:02:37
Or being grandfathered in. OK, thank you. I said it's kind of. She
Speaker 295
2:02:58
Well, I said I could, but of course I don't have that. Marked down Actually, the definition of construction is what would exempt them. And that's on Page 3 3A Construct means the activity of clearing land, excavation, relocation of utilities, of wind
energy facility expansion or other action that would adversely affect the natural environment of the proposed site. So those both have met that criteria. All right, let me jump back in and
Chair
Unverified
2:03:47
get some other questions. I'll come back in. Representative Layman, you are recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, the first question,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:03:54
y'all at the end of the table. Have any of y'all ever been on a wind farm? Yes, sir. Yeah.
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
2:04:04
Yes, sir. My wife's family have them all around their
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:04:07
farm. Yes, sir. So what is the noise level? You talked about noise being a problem. What's the noise level at the property line on a wind farm.
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
2:04:17
I didn't take a, uh, reader when I was there at
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:04:21
the time. Well, I've worked on many wind farms. I've actually responded to towers that burn out in Uruguay and in South Texas. And also one that the The hub came off and flew
burned, but flew off. And you know, There are EPA regulations. There are OSHA regulations on all these things. Uh, that covers this. And I agree we need a bill to regulate wind farms. But this bill, I mean, you don't have the data here to prove some of your points in this bill. You, you don't know what the noise level is. You don't know whether that's a hazard,
Speaker 295
2:05:06
the noise level that we've included in the bill, we got from the Department of Energy. Well,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:05:17
what is the noise level 35 to 45 decibels. 35 to 45 decibels. Yes, sir. Do you know that the noise level in this
Speaker 295
2:05:23
room is probably 55 decibels. Yes, sir, I'm aware of that and I understand that the noise level is not great, but I also understand that there needs to be some designation of what the parameters on the noise level is. Well,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:05:38
Thank you. Where I representative Richardson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. uh.
So my, my only question is this, this amendment that you guys have brought down here. Is this the same amendment that was prescribed that was offered in the Senate then or and what's the difference if it's not? The
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
2:06:00
amendment on the Sinity and they wanted to do an elevation of 300 ft or more, and if he was under the sea level of 300 ft,
then you did not have any regulations at all, which is what Mr. Wooton was talking about. OK, and I just didn't, we, we just didn't feel that was fair to the other people in the state of Arkansas. OK, so what passed
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:06:23
out of there this change is what actually passed out of the Senate then, right? OK, thank you. Representative Eaves, are you back
Speaker 258
2:06:34
in the queue? I I've just got a bunch of
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:06:40
questions, uh, but we've got another meeting at 12. We may have to come back. I'm. I'm looking at page 20, line 2. 8 And I'm, I'm trying to reconcile what I'm reading in the bill versus what you have in the amendment, but it says the wind energy facility project. I is exempt from this subchapter, basically if the project is under development as of the effective date. So is under development the same as under construction?
Is a question for me. OK, um
Speaker 295
2:07:16
I'm just I'm, I'm just trying to understand the whole thing. It's a little it's, it's pretty complex, um. I would consider that underdevelopment would be the same as under construction, under development is not fully defined in the bill, but under construction is so. I am considering that underdevelopment means under construction, but you are you so are you saying that under
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:07:44
construction is defined in the bill. Yes sir, but under development is not. That's right. OK. Why did we use underdevelopment then in this case instead of under construction. I had no input into that language
Speaker 295
2:07:53
on the amendment, yes. I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to I know, I know you're not. Further questions from
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:07:58
the committee. Mhm No further questions? OK, thank you for your testimony.
I believe we do have some someone to signed up to, I do believe we have someone sign up to speak against the bill. Yes, sir. If you would go to the end of the table and you can introduce yourself. We Members of housekeeping matter, this, there are, it appears there are going to be numerous witnesses in this, so this has gone longer than I thought. Some members have to get the rules, so we're not going to vote on this until everyone gets back to be fair to everyone. So we're going to continue, but we're not going to vote until after
session. Um, sir, if you would come to the end
Speaker 326
2:09:00
of the stable and. So. Mr. Chairman, committee, I'm Bill Pasco. I'm here representing Cordelia Power, uh, my client is the one that has built 22 wind turbines in Cross County, uh, and Senator Holliwell's district. We've invested over $250 million in the project and we have a second
phase coming that will be in excess of that. And I'll be really simple today. Um, I'm gonna ask you to vote no on this bill because this is a surprise amendment. We haven't seen it. It just got handed out. There was a tough compromise on the Senate side. We brought everybody to the table to try to find a bill that uh folks could live with, and this guts that compromise, and it, it's last minute surprise.
We we've just seen it, so I will implore you to vote against the bill as amended because it goes 180 from what was agreed to on the Senate side. About all
Chair
Unverified
2:10:03
the parties. Thank you for your testimony, questions. Would you be willing to take questions if
there are any. I'm no expert, but I do know legislative protocol. Questions from the committee. OK, no. Thank you. Oh. So OK.
Thank you, sir. There's no one else signed up. I'm sorry. All right, are you against? OK, let me call fours first. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak for the bill? Sir, you, you may go to the end of the table, introduce yourself, who you're with and provide your testimony.
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:10:53
Hello, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Simon Mayhan. I'm the executive director of the Southern Renewable Energy Association. We are a trade association of a large scale renewable development companies, including wind energy developers. My family and I, we live here in Little Rock. Um, I'm here today to strongly oppose Senate Bill 437. As mentioned previously by Mr. Pascal, the Amendment that was passed
moments ago, strips out protections for projects that are under development. That's on page 20. Of the legislation. That was 21 of the legislation, let's see. that would protect projects that are currently under development, um, The legislation itself was borrowed very heavily from legislation that was passed in Tennessee in
2018, um, I was there in 2018 in Tennessee, in Nashville regarding this legislation and the regulations involved in this bill were designed specifically to ban wind energy in Tennessee. Since then, no wind farms have been built in Tennessee over the past 5 years. Meanwhile, nearby states like Oklahoma and Texas receive more than 40% of their power. from wind farms, so any of the really significant negative impacts from wind energy, we would have already seen them, but but we don't. Instead, states like Oklahoma have some
of the lowest electric rates in the country thanks to wind energy. As mentioned, we have a number of wind energy projects that are underway here in Arkansas. The newer technology is enabling these turbines to show up. Each individual win project can bring somewhere between 200 million and $300 million in local investment. that is in addition to the lease payments for the local landowners, as mentioned previously, the counties here in
Arkansas are able to make their own rules with regards to what gets built or what does not get built. This bill does not give those counties any additional benefit other than what they already have, um, throughout the bill, there are a number of extreme regulations that effectively el im in ate the ability to build wind energy projects throughout the state. It was mentioned earlier, there's a limitation. You're not allowed to be within a mile of parks,
churches, cities, airports, you name it, we have some literature to to pass out here in a moment to show you there's basically nowhere left in the state that you could actually build, um, as mentioned, the uh there were exemptions on page 20 of the bill that was passed. Out of the Senate that would exempt wind energy projects that are under development as of effective date of this Act. The amendment that was passed just moments ago strips that exemption out. During the Senate
discussion there was concern that the bill retroactively penalizes already constructing wind projects and they would have to comply with many of the regulations, and that's part of the reason that that amendment was put in on the Senate side was because of frankly, a constitutional concern that the bill would not be able to uh should not be applying to projects that are already underway. Um
You know, Arkansas, we need more power. We, we had a lot of discussions in the legislature this this past year about we have a lot of load growth that's happening, data centers are showing up. Wind energy resources are just one arrow in the quiver that that can be useful. We shouldn't be picking winners and losers when it comes to energy policy whenever we are shopping around for for a need for more energy. Again, these wind energy projects are voluntarily entered into with
private property owners. No one is forcing anyone to purchase the wind energy. I will mention the new wind project that is up in in Tunica, Mississippi. They're selling their power to the Amazon data center because Amazon requested that power and so if we if this legislation passes as is as amended today, it would effectively ban wind energy in the state and limit the ability for the state to draw additional economic development from s that want to purchase this
wind energy, so again I urge the committee to reject the bill,
Speaker 64
2:15:43
and I'm here for any questions. Thank you for your testimony
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:15:48
appears we do have a couple of questions, right, you're recognized. So If I understand correctly, I, I can't, I'm confused. It says on our calendar list or in our uh agenda. To create the Arkansas Wind
Energy Development Act. Yes, sir. But everything I'm hearing from you is that it'll prevent it. So, Yes, sir. Arthur the writer of the present, the presenter of the bill, would you clarify what we're talking about. Are we talking about development Act or are we talking about uh uh the failure to permit them to be built. No, so this is just regulating.
This is just the regulations regulations, the ones speaking against it seemed to think it. I, uh, let me get to my question. My question is, would it ever farmer who leases land to raise rice, I be advised to have a clause in their contract that no windmill would be built on their on the property that they've leased. If they wanted to use aerial application. That would be up to them.
I don't my question is, would they be well advised to
Chair
Unverified
2:17:17
do that. If they would like it to be crop dusted, I would say
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:17:23
probably. OK. Thank you. Yeah. I, I'll just add many of these states, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, they have crop dusters as well and significant wind energy penetration. Oftentimes my I'm not a crop duster, but my understanding is the aerial applicators tend to fly when the wind is not blowing or tries to
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:17:43
blow the least, and that's when the wind turbines are not spinning. If I may, Mr. Chairman, the point being it doesn't make any difference where the wind's blowing or not, you fly a crop duster to try to dust the field. That's an entirely different ball game. It's the structure is still there. When the windmill is whipping around or whether, uh, you know, it's still, it's still there. And it's not just, it's not just concern about
the crop duster is concerned about if, if it should. come off like we'll flump the fan or whatever you call it, fly off, and I know we've got a company here that builds those uh uh operations or builds those facilities. So, I mean, to, to, but Specifically to the crop dustries, it doesn't make any difference whether the wind's blowing or not, the structure is still there.
Chair
Unverified
2:18:47
I, I just reiterate many of the states that have wind farms have agricultural uses that the crop dusters in those states have figured out how to coexist with the resources. Representative Allen you for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
2:19:11
Thank you. OK. Mr. Chairman. I'm a little bit confused because just a second ago you were against it.
Chair
Unverified
2:19:19
Are you against the bill or for it? We're against the bill. OK. All right
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:19:33
You've answered my question. Representative Lady and you recognized for your question. Thank you. Uh, sir, are you familiar with the, uh, I forgot your name there at the end of the table. I'm Simon. Nice to meet you, sir. Are you familiar with, uh, Texas wind
farms. Generally, yes, sir. Do you know, I think it was mentioned
that Texas has a long, do you know
anything about the specifics of the Texas law because I know there's a, a,
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:20:02
a large number of wind farms down in southern Texas. Yes, sir. We are, I do not work on regulation or legislative work in in Texas. I'm generally aware that there are statewide rules regarding decommissioning of wind farms. We are in support of good regulation.
I will even go as far to say within this bill there are components that we think could be useful for Arkansas. However, uh, many of the other parts of this legislation are designed specifically to stop wind energy production in the state, um, as I mentioned, the, the bill reads almost verbatim from legislation that was passed. Boston, Tennessee 7 years ago that was designed specifically to stop wind farms.
Um, but we are more than eager to work with folks on reasonable regulation within the state regarding what we might be able to borrow from some of our neighboring states that have significant wind development. Uh, Paul,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:21:08
do you know, uh, the expert mentioned that this was based on other state regulations. Do you know which state regulation this bill's based on. She can come back up if she. She's allowed to,
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
2:21:20
she can answer that for you.
Speaker 196
2:21:23
OK. Do you want me to come up? Uh, yeah. Sure, you can come
Speaker 295
2:21:41
up, but let's, let's try to move this along if we can. Actually very little of this bill ended up being based on Tennessee. It more came out of Iowa, uh, even parts of it were from New Hampshire when dealing
with the viewscape. We did have some from Tennessee. We had quite a bit from Oklahoma, the oil and gas part of it is from Oklahoma. So I used, I wrote the bill. I know where I got the information and it was from Several varied states depending on multiple states is what you're saying, sir,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:22:12
yes sir, it right, thank you. Mhm. Thank you. Any further questions? OK.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:22:24
Sing and thank you for your testimony again. Or anyone else who would like to speak for this bill? Anyone else who'd like to speak against this bill May. I'm sorry, not representative. Mr. Maury, Please go
Chair
Unverified
2:22:42
to the end of the table, introduce yourself and who
Speaker 341
2:22:48
you're with. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Robert Moy with Swift Current Energy, uh, it's a common
practice for me to never come to the table to speak for or against the bill as a contract lobbyist. However, with the short notice of this amendment this morning, my client couldn't travel to be here in time to, to share a lot of the same remarks you've already heard this morning. Um, just to be brief, you know, again, I'll reiterate a lot of what Mr. Pascal said that this new amendment undoes an amendment that was made on the other end of the building that many of, uh, that my client along with my peer, our, our peers, I believe. I don't know that we can say we agreed to, but we were OK with, and that's what led to the bill making it down to this end of
the building and us being OK with it passing out in its form before it was amended this morning. Uh, I do want to address for our my project specifically that I'm talking to Representative Wootton, um, my client, we have met with all 3 aerial applicators in our project area, the just about, I'm going to say 90 to 95% of our project is in tillable agricultural production. And we were very intentional on meeting with all those guys on the very front end. We have taken their input. We are going to construct our
met towers, our meteorological towers within the next 6 months, uh, with. red paint with some other things that they requested to be on them just for their visibility. And then as we continue to develop our project over the next couple of years, we'll also take their input on whether it be other uh notification devices on when they're spinning, what time they're spending, uh, they, from my understanding, the technology and now allows to turn on and off with the switch of a button, so if they're flying in a particular field and it's putting out fertilizer or chemical. We, I believe we'll have the capability to turn
those off for safety. Um, I agree with Mr. Simon's comments that my company, we, we do also believe in very sensible regulations, but we do think that many of the things in the original bill here, uh, are very far overreaching, and it is with the intent of kill and wind projects, um, however, the, the language that was agreed upon by the other end that was has now been amended out is something that we simply do have a lot of problems with, um, and just wanted to again reiterate our
Opposition to this legislation as it's been amended
Chair
Unverified
2:25:06
this morning. Thank you for your testimony. Would you take some questions? Represent Allen, Greg Nest. Thank
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
2:25:12
you. So your testimony is that when the bill was in the Senate, you were, you are OK with the language. But between the bill coming leaving the Senate and coming down here, the language was amended. You all just a minuteed it this morning. Yes, sir. So you have not had an opportunity
Speaker 343
2:25:33
to see this. We had not seen it until you all just saw it this
Speaker 49
2:25:38
morning. OK, thank you. We had seen the the amendment this morning essentially gets the bill back to its original version
Speaker 341
2:25:43
when it was first filed by Senator Hester roughly 1.5 to 2 months ago. That bill was also heard in the Senate Insurance and Commerce Committee. It was voted down. Senator Hester worked with Senator Caldwell and I believe a few others to get to the First Amendment on the language, which is what the bill was as it arrived this morning and then now has been stripped
Speaker 49
2:26:04
out by way of the amendment you all just approved a little bit ago. So the bill is back
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
2:26:11
in its original form. Essentially, yes, sir. OK. So the only way you all could get it out of the Senate was with a compromise amendment. Is that correct? That's correct. So now the compromise amendment is gone. That's correct.
Speaker 346
2:26:22
So we're back at the original bill. Yes
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:26:30
sir. OK. Thank you, Representative Val Representer Wotton recognize.
Do we have a misnomer in the agenda that it's a development, development bill. It sounds like it's a control regulation type thing. Yes, sir. And it sounds like To I don't know what it sounds like. I mean, it's confusing to us. Relative to what do we need to do? I mean, that's an unfair question for
you, but uh, well, if you're against it, I guess you'd want us to be against it. But uh, I'm unclear by the title of development equ what it sounds like is prohibitive and it's preventing it. My worry is it's, that's my
Julie Morton
Unverified
2:27:22
fault. That, that's a title I took from the Oklahoma Wind Energy Development Act. OK. So, It
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:27:29
should have been, it should have been worded differently in our you're not the only one that
Speaker 307
2:27:39
has said that, so that, that is my error.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:27:42
OK. Thank you. Thank you. Further questions from the
committee? OK. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Is there anyone else you'd like to speak for this bill? Anyone else at this time would like to speak against this bill. OK, unfortunately, members, as I stated, we are not going to vote on this bill because there are other, there are more people coming to testify on both sides of this issue because obviously some circumstances have changed
very quickly. So I'm going to accommodate everyone and allow them to review this amendment in common and speak on that. So we're going to have to bump you guys to after session, unfortunately, but that's just how we're going to have to do it. So thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 5
2:28:25
Members We're not finished yet. Oh Representative Johnson, would
Speaker 64
2:28:41
you like to proceed with some Members, it would not be a meeting if Representative Johnson
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:28:58
didn't present. Yeah bothering I know. Representative Johnson District 47, in all fairness, this is a Senate bill I'm presenting, so. Um And would you identify the number, sir? Yeah, Senate Bill 527 and I have someone here at the table with me. I think the
committee will recognize but I'd still like to have her introduce
Speaker 358
2:29:15
herself. Good afternoon, Janet Man, DHS. Thank you. You may
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:29:19
proceed with your bill. Before I start, I do want to make one comment. Lots of folks sign up for uh co-sponsors' bills and sometimes for different reasons want to pull off a bill. I did have one member approach me wanting to pull off the bill, but as a co-sponsor, but because of the time constraints submitting the person off the bill was going to create it hard to get this through, and I wanted to make that comment publicly that Representative Clowney did request to be pulled off as a
co-sponsor. What this bill is is it renews the Medicaid waiver, um, you know, we chose to go through Medicaid expansion, quite. Some time ago now and periodically we have to renew our waiver to continue to provide that coverage for the members of the state of Arkansas and when we do, we have opportunities to make changes in the waiver to try to improve the waiver. That's what this bill is We're mainly doing a few things. One is we're adding community health workers, I'm sorry, FQHCs to the definition of community bridge.
and others, yeah, that's right. Community bridge
organizations, um, we're also right now we're required to collect cost share in anticipation of what the cost share might be for the next year. So we have to pay in forward what we anticipate the insurance company's cost share costs are going to be for the next year, and then we do a settle up at the end of the year. What this bill's going to allow us to do is move that cost share into the premium payment that's going to allow us to recover more in the way of premium tax. from the premium tax we get on premiums. We're also going to be recouping pharmacy rebates in
this bill. Currently pharmacy rebates under the expansion program go back to the commercial payers. This is going to require them to seek all rebates and then those rebates would come back directly to DHS. The other thing this bill does is it requests a change in the medical loss ratio. So currently the medical loss ratio is set at 8020. We're asking that to be shifted to 8510. The medical loss ratio is defined by how much. money insurance companies spend on medical costs versus administrative costs by raising it to 85. We're looking for them
to spend more of their dollars on medical issues and what doesn't get spent would revert back to the state. Additionally, there's a work requirement in this bill and have Director Mann here too. We'd be happy to answer any questions on the bill anyone
Chair
Unverified
2:31:34
has. We have a few questions, um, Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, I appreciate this, but when you,
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
2:31:40
you said the amount that we've been paying in the past or in the, in the back
end of it now will be added towards the premium. What kind of impact would that
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:31:55
be on premiums? Thank you for the question. So every year or every year, we, um, negotiate um the premium and the advanced cost share that is paid monthly for the eligible beneficiaries, and then at the end of the year we do reconcile. So what we're doing, um, with this is taking the premium and the advanced cost share and redefining that as the premium so that we can calculate the
premium tax. So we're actually continuing the process we're just trying to capture more premium tax for the state. Is there a fiscal impact on that. Yes, sir, I believe, um, the additional premium tax is approximately $12 million annually. gets to the positives. That
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:32:34
would be to the positive impact on the budget and regarding the premiums, I don't think the cost is
going to be any more to the insurance companies. We're just changing how it reports, so instead of reporting it as cost share, we're reporting it as premiums,
redefining it, so it shouldn't affect the premiums because the cost of the insurance is the same with the exception of a slight increase in the amount of tax they're going
Chair
Unverified
2:32:59
to have to pay. OK, thank you. Representative Acre you
Representative Aker
Unverified
2:33:06
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think one of the most interesting pieces of this is that it seems that we're going to be trying to Capture more of the rebate dollars that we previously were not capturing. Is that correct?
Speaker 365
2:33:19
Uh, yes, sir, it is correct. Um, currently, the state does not collect the
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:33:24
rebates from the QHP program and so this would be a major change to collect that and we would remit 90% back to the feds and 10% would stay in the state, which would be equivalent to how we are handling past population in the fee
Representative Aker
Unverified
2:33:37
for service population. what's the, what's the estimated fiscal impact on that 10% that will be added to your budget. There's a range of
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:33:45
estimates, so we are hoping for cost avoidance of up to $200 million a year.
Representative Aker
Unverified
2:33:50
Total dollars. How long have the QHPs
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:33:58
been operating in the state? I believe since
Chair
Unverified
2:34:04
January of 2014. Thank you Is Lindstrom, bringing us
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:34:11
for a question. Thank you, Chairman. Um, could you talk about the work component? In this on page 8 and tell us.
How you're going to monitor that. How this will remove people
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:34:28
if they're not working. Could you walk walk us through that? Um, yes, ma'am, thank you for the question. I'm going to start in the secretary and others are here to help me make sure I get it correct. So we have a sent a amendment to do a work requirement and we are going to be working with individuals and we want to have them on track for economic prosperity, so we will be working with them and developing personal development
plans and doing success coaching with our members and then if they are not on track, which we will be using an ated more automation by working with the launch system as it goes live also, then we will do exception reporting and if they are not on track, we will be suspending their coverage. That is different from what we've done in the past, which is removing them from eligibility. If they come into compliance, then the suspension can be
Speaker 370
2:35:16
lifted and they can receive their benefits. OK. Um, what,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:35:22
how long is that compliance period or that first period where you've got a shot at keeping this, do they get a A month or what's the process? because we have people taking advantage of the system. Extensively. I, I do
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:35:35
believe it's up to 3 months to be compliant and if they're not compliant, then they are removed and suspended until they become compliant. OK. Yeah, I'm gonna ask the secretary to join, if you don't
Speaker 358
2:35:46
mind, I want to make sure we get it correct. That'll be a negotiation.
Speaker 375
2:35:54
Good afternoon now Christy Putnam, Secretary of DHS, um, thank you for the question to answer that, that is one of the details that we will work through negotiation with CMS in negotiating the terms and conditions of the waiver itself. Um, so we will be able to put some parameters on the length of time before somebody can be considered noncompliant. That is something that we can certainly have discussions with the governor's office and the legislature about what parameters do we want to set for that, but to Director Mann's point, Deputy Mann's point, it could be we could set it for a 3 month period before they are
being suspended. It could be, you know, a two month period, but that is definitely something that we would have to negotiate with CMS in conjunction
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:36:33
with communicating with you all. Um Let's say the, the government says, no, we're not going to do any waivers. That's out. That strikes that portion of the bill, then are we still committed to a financial, I mean, the rest of the bill would
Speaker 264
2:36:48
still stand or no? I I believe it would, um, I don't see the current administration not wanting to pursue a work
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:36:56
waiver. I don't either, but I want to make sure that we have a strong work way there because we have so much that is, this is one of our biggest expenses, so I'm really concerned about that particular point, um, I'll step out and let some other
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:37:12
folks step back in. Representative Wooton, you're recognized. OK, when you say premium, are you talking about the premium that's paid by
the consumer. No, sir, I'm not. The Medicaid
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:37:27
program pays a premium to the carriers every month for the coverage of the expansion population. So this is what we are paying every month to the carriers. So we're going to increase that. No,
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:37:41
sir. Yeah, no, I don't think we're increasing anything. So currently the way the process works is if you're eligible for Medicaid expansion, you can go and pick one of a couple of plans on the marketplace and and then you know the state plays the premiums. We're not doing anything to change that process.
We're just redefining cost share to include it as part of the premium, the state would be covering that cost, not the individual, because we already cover the cost share part for the individual. Well,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:38:10
will this add to The bill that we had last week that we ended up calling a mess, but we approved. You know, how does this
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:38:19
impact that cost if you're referencing House Bill 1930 that Representative Wardlaw ran. I don't think this would have any impact or change on
that. I don't, I don't foresee this having a big impact on premiums the way we have it written now because again the cost for the insurance companies is essentially the same. The only difference is there's this $12 million total difference spread across all the insurance companies with regard How we're going to pay a tax now, but the cost share, they're not paying any more in the cost share. It's the same cost back and forth between the
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:38:50
DHS and the insurance carriers, but it would increase the premium. costs and would be adjusted after
The next year I heard the word adjusted.
Speaker 358
2:39:03
Yes, sir, we're increasing the premium tax, not the
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:39:11
premium premium that the carriers pay. Yes, sir. OK, but that would
be adjusted based upon What they, their outflow is yes, there's still be
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:39:18
that reconciliation process and so, you know, the amount of cost share that we're required as a state to pay now, that wouldn't change. That varies from year to year depending on how often, you
know, individuals access the health care system and then that reconciliation process stays the same. The only thing we're doing, the amount we're paying isn't changing. The amount we're on the hook for isn't changing. We're just, you know, creating a reporting mechanism that requires them to report that as part of the premium that We're paying already, not as the cost share. OK, thank
you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Further questions from the committee, Representative Richardson, you're recognized. So
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:40:00
my, my question is real simple. To my people at home. Tell me how
this helps them. This is a continuation of the Medicaid expansion program every 5 years under an 1115 waiver, we have to reapply. So we're trying, we with this legislation, we are reapplying for the expansion, um, it covered so that they can keep insurance. We're also trying to be better stewards of the state taxpayers' money by having these
Speaker 264
2:40:32
additional financial controls. About this Without this, we are not authorized to have expanded
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:40:42
Medicaid. It goes away. Thank you. Thank you very much and I would say one other comment by by recouping some of this money that we're going to recoup, that's extra money back into the coffers of DHS that can then be paid back as benefits in different places for the constituents back home.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:40:55
My next question, so thank you. are rich and further questions?
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:41:06
I'm sorry, Registered lustrom, you're recognized. I'd still like to know the total cost of this and where are we, where are we going to get cost savings? I was not a fan of
the Medicaid expansion program at all, so. I'm looking
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:41:23
for cost savings. Where are those cost savings? Yes, ma'am. So currently, um the Medicaid expansion program can cost anywhere from 2 to 2.5 billion at its highest during the pandemic. And so we are hoping to cost avoid um about
$300 million. The majority of that is going to come from pharmacy rebates. The additional will come from the MLR estimates, the medical loss ratio that um Representative Johnson referred to by asking the carriers to spend 85% of the Of their premiums versus 80% on medical services, that's estimated at a, um, anywhere from 50 to $100 million a year, depends, it is based on claims, so it has to be calculated every year, and then the additional is
12.5 million in premium tax. So we have a range of $261
Speaker 365
2:42:13
million in cost avoidance is a low estimate to 320 is a high estimate. OK. Have you done any calculations
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:42:21
about taking people. And requiring them to work. Now, ma'am, we have not done those
Speaker 370
2:42:27
estimates yet. We have, we are in the process with CMS going through acceptance,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:42:32
and then we'll do public comment on the federal side when we begin the negotiations of terms and
conditions and have a a clearer picture of what they're going to require of us to do and negotiate that out, then we can do the estimates on the work requirement. OK, all right, thank
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:42:49
you. If I could make one more comment to that and I'm going to ask y'all, I'm a member of the committee, I guess I ask a question. How many, how many lives are covered currently in managed in the expansion population approximately 225,000. OK, so a percentage of those are going to fall into this work requirement, so you will see some savings not only from the 250 to $320
million cost avoidance savings that we're going to recoup through the pharmacy rebates through the MLR ratio change through the cost share as reported as premium tax, but also, you know, presumably there are some of these folks that are going to have their coverage lost because of the work requirements. So that 1,025,000 number is going to drop and would create a savings through that. And, and if I may to
Speaker 375
2:43:30
that point, when we say coverage lost, that would be because they are working and have employer employer-based insurance. That is the goal. The goal here is not to be punitive, and I know
you all have heard me say that before. The goal is truly to figure out how can we provide enough supports for individuals who are currently covered on Medicaid to move to full employment, not half employment, full employment, so they have access to better economic stability, and they are able to access employer sponsored insurance or purchase a plan off the marketplace
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:43:58
that they can actually afford. I think that's a great comment.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:44:02
Thank you. for that extra comment on that, OK, 225,000 out of a state that's um 3.2 million. It's a
lot of people that are on those programs, and those are all, there's. There seems to be more people in the cart some days than there are pulling the cart and I just want to emphasize how important it is. We've got to cut spending and I'm hoping this is a method to do that. I'm, I'm kind of in the wait and see and hope that I don't know if that's gonna feed the bulldog when it comes down to we don't have money to cover. All the expenses that we are incurring. Thank you, Representative. Any further questions?
Speaker 5
2:44:43
OK. Thank you committee for the questions. Is there anyone represent Johnson, do you like him? No, I'm close from up. OK. Is there anyone, there's no one signed up, but is there anyone
who'd like to speak against this bill. OK. Is there anyone else like to speak for this bill? President John, do you recognize the gloves? I'm close to my bill. Make a motion
Speaker 5
2:45:01
to pass. OK. We have a motion do pass by Represent Johnson, all in favor, say aye. Any opposed say no. discussion I.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:45:16
You've passed your bill. Any further business before we break for lunch, I see some other legislators here. Any further business? twice. OK, we are going to reconvene 15 minutes upon adjournment to 1177 and to here on the other bill that we ceased the, the testimony on.
Agenda
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Number Sponsor Subtitle
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.
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.
SB420 Hester TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT STATE PROGRAMS; TO AMEND THE WATER AUTHORITY ACT; AND TO AMEND THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE REVOLVING LOAN FUND.
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.
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.
SB480 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INVESTMENT OF STATE FUNDS.
SB331 G. Leding CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHERITED CANCER MUTATIONS; AND TO CREATE THE GENETIC TESTING ACT.
SB483 Irvin TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE SECURITIES DEPARTMENT; AND TO REVISE CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT.
HB1955 S. Meeks TO REPEAL THE SHIELDED OUTDOOR LIGHTING ACT.
HB1956 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS NIGHTTIME ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT.
SB481 Gilmore TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AND STATE-OWNED PROPERTY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB519 J. Boyd TO AMEND THE STANDARD NONFORFEITURE LAW FOR LIFE INSURANCE; AND TO REGULATE THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON DEFERRED PAYMENT OF ANY CASH SURRENDER VALUE ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE POLICY.
SB544 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT.
HB1177 M. Brown TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT; AND TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT.
HB1408 Pilkington TO ALLOW QUALIFYING PATIENTS OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS TO PURCHASE MEDICAL MARIJUANA USING A FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT OR A HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
HB1625 Barnett TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSED HOME INSPECTORS.
HB1994 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITIES; AND TO REQUIRE NOTIFICATION BY A SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY TO AN OCCUPANT WHEN THE OCCUPANT'S LEASED SPACE IS COMPROMISED.
SB437 Hester TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT.ea
SB475 J. Dismang TO ESTABLISH THE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION ACT; AND TO REGULATE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS.
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.
SB611 Dees TO AMEND THE SOCIAL MEDIA SAFETY ACT.
SB527 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ME ACT OF 2021; AND TO INCREASE THE MEDICAL-LOSS RATIO IN THE ARKANSAS HEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ME PROGRAM.
SB610 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE GENERATING ARKANSAS JOBS ACT OF 2025; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
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.
HB1950 Torres TO PROTECT LICENSED FAMILY CHILDCARE HOMES FROM TERMINATION OF HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE COVERAGE; AND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LICENSED FAMILY CHILDCARE HOMES BY HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PROVIDERS.
HB1813 Gramlich TO ADOPT THE FAIR AND EFFICIENT TRANSMISSION COMPACT.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE- HOUSE, Apr 9, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative John Maddox Chair
Unverified
Speaker 2
Speaker 5
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 19
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 46
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 64
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
Speaker 75
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Speaker 90
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 96
Speaker 97
Speaker 108
Speaker 110
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 120
Speaker 123
Speaker 103
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
Representative Trey Steimel Chair
Unverified
Speaker 170
Speaker 175
Speaker 176
Speaker 179
Speaker 184
Speaker 185
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Speaker 208
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
Speaker 207
Speaker 216
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 232
Speaker 235
Speaker 237
Speaker 233
Speaker 227
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 259
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Speaker 265
Speaker 63
Speaker 276
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Speaker 94
Speaker 285
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
Julie Morton
Unverified
Speaker 295
Speaker 298
Speaker 164
Speaker 196
Speaker 211
Speaker 314
Speaker 258
Speaker 326
Simon Mahan
Unverified
Speaker 341
Speaker 343
Speaker 49
Speaker 346
Speaker 307
Speaker 358
Representative Aker
Unverified
Speaker 365
Speaker 370
Speaker 375
Speaker 264