Insurance & Commerce - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (32)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB596
Act 940
· 11 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “uh, you have 596. 596 Senate Bill 596. We've got there's an amendment on this. I've got a copy. I…”
|
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
· 11 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
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 |
|
SB527
Act 774
· 8 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB527 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ME A…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ME ACT OF 2021; AND TO INCREASE … | Irvin | Notification that SB527 is now Act 774 |
|
SB104
Act 514
· 6 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…int Penzo CONCUR IN HOUSE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle SB104 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LI…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT; TO PROTECT PATIENTS' RIGHTS AND ACCESS … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB104 is now Act 514 |
|
SB257
Act 515
· 5 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…HTS AND ACCESS TO MEDICATIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB257 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE MEDICAID FAIRNESS ACT; TO EXTEND THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE MEDICAID FAIRNESS ACT; TO EXTEND THE APPEAL PERIOD FOR PROVIDERS IN THE … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB257 is now Act 515 |
|
SB323
Act 516
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “SB323 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE HORIZONTAL PROPERTY ACT.”
|
TO AMEND THE HORIZONTAL PROPERTY ACT. | J. Bryant | Notification that SB323 is now Act 516 |
|
SB475
Act 773
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
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 |
|
HB1290
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LECTRIC GENERATION FACILITIES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1290 L. Johnson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR MENTAL HEALTH WELLNESS E…”
|
TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR MENTAL HEALTH WELLNESS EXAMINATIONS; AND TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS SUPPORT OF … | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1314
Act 512
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1314 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN AUDITS OF HE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN AUDITS OF HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS; AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS … | Irvin | Notification that HB1314 is now Act 512 |
|
HB1424
Act 628
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1424 L. Johnson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR SEVERE OBESITY TREATMENT…”
|
TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR SEVERE OBESITY TREATMENTS. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1424 is now Act 628 |
|
HB1426
Act 569
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NONEXPORT FACILITIES. HB1426 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE HEALTHCARE CONTRACTING SIMPLIFICATI…”
|
TO AMEND THE HEALTHCARE CONTRACTING SIMPLIFICATION ACT. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1426 is now Act 569 |
|
HB1531
Act 630
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1531 Achor TO PROHIBIT PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS FROM RESTRIC…”
|
TO PROHIBIT PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS FROM RESTRICTING OR LIMITING PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS TO A LIMITED DISTRIBUTION NETWORK … | Achor | Notification that HB1531 is now Act 630 |
|
HB1602
Act 633
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1602 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT; TO ESTABLISH FEES UNDER THE ARKANSAS … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1602 is now Act 633 |
|
HB1703
Act 570
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…VERAGE FOR BREASTFEEDING AND LACTATION CONSULTANT SERVICES. HB1703 L. Johnson TO PROVIDE A DRUG REIMBURSEMENT PROCESS FOR CERT…”
|
TO PROVIDE A DRUG REIMBURSEMENT PROCESS FOR CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1703 is now Act 570 |
|
HB1735
Act 813
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1735 Eaves TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES DAMAGE P…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES DAMAGE PREVENTION ACT; AND TO REVISE MEMBERSHIP IN THE … | Eaves | Notification that HB1735 is now Act 813 |
|
HB1736
Act 603
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1736 M. Brown TO AMEND ARTICLE 9 OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.”
|
TO AMEND ARTICLE 9 OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1736 is now Act 603 |
|
HB1737
Act 584
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1737 M. Brown TO AMEND THE TRANSMITTING UTILITY ACT; AND TO AMEN…”
|
TO AMEND THE TRANSMITTING UTILITY ACT; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "TRANSMITTING UTILITY" TO … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1737 is now Act 584 |
|
HB1746
Act 997
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1746 M. Brown TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1746 is now Act 997 |
|
HB1771
Act 651
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RUG REIMBURSEMENT PROCESS FOR CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS. HB1771 Perry TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURES TO POLICYHOLD…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURES TO POLICYHOLDERS; AND TO REQUIRE MONTHLY REPORTING BY INSURERS. | R. Murdock | Notification that HB1771 is now Act 651 |
|
HB1788
Act 571
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OLICYHOLDERS; AND TO REQUIRE MONTHLY REPORTING BY INSURERS. HB1788 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH CARE CONSUMER ACT;…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH CARE CONSUMER ACT; AND TO REDUCE THE TIME ALLOWED FOR … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1788 is now Act 571 |
|
HB1826
Act 866
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O REGULATE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL AND CONTINUOUS SERVICE OFFERS. HB1826 Bentley TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR DELIVERY OF A NEWBORN IN A…”
|
TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR DELIVERY OF A NEWBORN IN A LICENSED BIRTHING CENTER. | Bentley | Notification that HB1826 is now Act 866 |
|
HB1859
Act 561
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1859 Rose TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MASTECTOMIES.”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MASTECTOMIES. | Rose | Notification that HB1859 is now Act 561 |
|
SB437
Act 945
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB437 Hester TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT.”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT. | Hester | Notification that SB437 is now Act 945 |
|
SB592
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB592 D. Wallace TO REQUIRE A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TO RENEW CERT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TO RENEW CERTAIN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT AT THE HIGHEST INTEREST … | D. Wallace | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB602
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Johnson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR SEVERE OBESITY TREATMENTS. SB602 Crowell TO PROHIBIT INSURANCE COMPANIES AND APPRAISERS FROM…”
|
TO PROHIBIT INSURANCE COMPANIES AND APPRAISERS FROM REQUIRING AN INSURED TO USE CERTAIN FACILITIES TO … | Crowell | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
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 |
|
HB1296
Act 556
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1296 L. Johnson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES PROV…”
|
TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES PROVIDED IN MOBILE UNITS. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1296 is now Act 556 |
|
HB1320
Act 626
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1320 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CRISIS STABILIZATION…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CRISIS STABILIZATION UNITS AND HEALTHCARE INSURERS. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1320 is now Act 626 |
|
HB1333
Act 627
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1333 Hudson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR BREASTFEEDING AND LACTATION…”
|
TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR BREASTFEEDING AND LACTATION CONSULTANT SERVICES. | Hudson | Notification that HB1333 is now Act 627 |
|
HB1820
Act 652
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1820 M. Brown TO REGULATE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL AND CONTINUOUS SERVI…”
|
TO REGULATE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL AND CONTINUOUS SERVICE OFFERS. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1820 is now Act 652 |
|
HB1821
Act 560
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1821 Wardlaw TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INS…”
|
TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER … | Wardlaw | Notification that HB1821 is now Act 560 |
|
SB615
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB615 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ENERGY; TO REGULATE NO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ENERGY; AND TO REGULATE NONEXPORT FACILITIES. | C. Penzo | Died on Senate Calendar 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
Speaker 5
4:19
house clean, OK. Senate state agencies come to order chairs decorum. Our insurance and commerce. I'm sorry, it's been
Chair
Unverified
4:29
a long week. uh Senator Bryant, come forward. We need to concur on the House amendment on hey right, we have a motion to concur on the House amendment on
Senate Bill 323. motion by Senator Ervin, seconded by Senator Boyd, any discussion, all in favor say aye, all opposed like side.
Speaker 12
4:57
Thank you, Senator. Uh, next we will We will do uh Senator Irvin, Senate Bill 527. You have
Amendment is not here. Senator
Chair
Unverified
5:23
Dismay. Senator Dismay, we have Senate Bill 475. We need to expunge the voice amendment motion by Senator Irvin, seconded by Senator Boyd all in favor. Say aye. I'll oppose like sign. He is engrossed the amendment to place a House sponsor on, uh, Pharmacy. This is the one that
has already been vetted, uh, There's no one to testify for
Speaker 12
5:54
or against, uh, do you make a motion by Senator Boyd, second by Senator McKee, uh,
Chair
Unverified
6:02
on a approval of that bill. All in favor say aye aye, all oppose like side. Alright, thank you,
Chair
Unverified
6:21
Senator Penzo, you have uh concurrences for Senate Bill 104 and 257. Do you want to tell
Speaker 12
6:30
us about those or just do it. OK, motion by Senator Boyd. Seconded
Chair
Unverified
6:37
by Senator McKee, we have 22 on 104 2 amendments. You got them in your packet I'm gonna
Chair
Unverified
7:25
We need to, yeah, those are engrossed. We're just concurring on the house amendments. motion by Senator Boyd already seconded by Senator Irvin, uh, concur on Senate Bill 104's amendments, all in favor say aye. All opposed like sign. We need to concur on Senate
Speaker 12
7:47
Bill 257 House amendments. Let's look at those for a
Chair
Unverified
8:27
Senate Bill 257 House amendments by motion by Senator Ervin, seconded by Senator Boyd. All in favor, say aye. I oppose like sign. Thank you, Senator. Did Give me a quick.
Speaker 22
9:13
OK. Yeah, I, I'd like to see the, I think. Well that's. OK, and I, and I think I have. Give me a sec.
Chair
Unverified
10:41
So, uh, the amendment for 527 is here. We need to expunge the vote on the amendment that we did. Uh. All in favor say aye. All opposed likesan right, the, uh, we expunged the vote on that amendment. Do I need to sign these
Speaker 12
11:08
or you already sent it? OK. All right.
This is going to be the amendment for
Chair
Unverified
11:23
Senate Bill 527. This amendment includes the amendment we just expunged right, Senator. All right. Just introduce yourself and you recognized to explain the amendment from 527. Thank
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
11:38
you. Senate Bill 527. This is Senator
Missy Irvin, District 24, um, so yes, members, we had done a verteal amendment which we just expunged, but that verbal amendment is now in the new, um, amendment. So the new amendment seeks some clarity around the work waiver that was submitted. to CMS by DHS and the secretary is here to explain that portion of it if you want me just to talk about the amendment or we can adopt the amendment let's do the amendment and then we can then
Chair
Unverified
12:19
that's all right. Yep, so I'll make a motion to adopt the adopt the amendment for 527 seconds for Senator Penzo. All in favor say aye, all opposed like sign, thank you. Go ahead and and present your bill
Speaker 12
12:31
if we would have your guests introduce theirselves at this time. Thank you. Good morning, Janet Man, DHS.
Speaker 60
12:46
Good morning, Christy Putnam, Secretary DHS. Thank
Chair
Unverified
12:50
you for being here and you're recognized senator and however you want to do the presentation. Thank you.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
12:55
I, I think, uh, we've had a lot of, we've had discussion on the bill, and so I want to
speak specifically to some of the questions that members had about the work language and the work waiver, so I'm going to let Secretary Putnam and Janet
Mann discussed that portion of the bill, and then I'm happy to take any questions.
Speaker 60
13:19
Good morning. So we know there have been questions about the work requirement. The amendment includes language that requires a Requires that a participant uh follow all federal and state work requirements, but in addition to that, providing required information to demonstrate compliance, and then we've also included in the amendment for Senator Ervin's request and our desire to make sure that we strengthen it. The consequences for not complying, which is suspension, and that is now included in the in the
amendment to require that the individual knows that they will be suspended if they are not compliant with
Chair
Unverified
13:57
the work requirement. Just a question, will that uh is that OK with our application with CMS. Is that, is that provision OK? Yes, sir.
Speaker 58
14:05
It is it is consistent with the amendment waiver amendment for work requirement that was submitted to CMS last week. Yes sir. All right, thank you. I would I would further add
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
14:15
that it's important to understand and acknowledge, you know, we're trying to follow the model that
other states have followed that have not been tossed out by a court, and so I I think that's the trick in the way we have this written and the way we submit it, of course we have the administration to approve it, but then we also have to navigate what a court may say, and so this this language is very specific to allow us to maintain the work requirement in the waiver and in this program.
Speaker 18
14:51
Is there any other questions? Seeing none. Uh, you are there. There's no one here to speak for against the bill. Is there anybody in the audience wants to speak for against the bill,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
15:08
seeing none. You want to close your bill. Thank you. I'm closed for the bill. I
appreciate the hard work with the everybody collaborating on this legislation. It's been a lot of long long collaboration, but it's good policy, and I appreciate a good vote. I'll
Speaker 12
15:22
make a motion to pass as amended motion by Senator Irvin, second by Senator Boyd as amended motion. Any discussion. So I appreciate the work that's been done, but also don't just walk the line, push the land on these work requirements and what we can get done in all times and if in the future we can go further, let's let's do that. Senator Penzo, you got
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
15:53
I just wanted to say thank you for making the amendment and I think it's a better bill now based on what I've been told, and I'll look forward to you researching a little more you want
Chair
Unverified
16:05
to push the line also, yes, I agree. Thank you very much. Yeah. We have a motion in a second, all in favor say aye. I oppose like sign. Thank you, Senator. Senator McKee.
Speaker 75
16:23
Great Absolutely. Uh The Senate Bill 610? It don't matter. Senator McKee is going to do 2
Chair
Unverified
16:56
Senator Kroll. Don't let me forget you, OK. Shine
Chair
Unverified
17:12
Senator McKee, we have an amendment. The members have that amendment 610. 2 minutes.
Speaker 80
17:26
I don't know. I don't keep up with that. No, no, no, I'm sorry. One. You have it. I don't
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
17:50
have The members find a copy of it. OK members, uh. Matt McKee, State Senator District 6, The amendment to
Um, Senate Bill 610 just takes care of some additional engrossing errors that were discovered in
Speaker 12
18:03
the process. All right. Motion to adopt the amendment by Senator McKee, seconded by Senator Ervin, all in favor. Say aye. You want to present Senate Bill 610. Yes, as amended.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
18:19
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Matt McKee, State Senate District 6, Senate Bill 610 really just takes care of some technical corrections in the generating
Arkansas Jobs Act that were discovered after engrossing, and so they're pretty innocuous, but they, they align the sections correctly. There's any questions? On Senate Bill
Chair
Unverified
18:40
1610 as amended, seeing none, there's no one signed up for or against Senate Bill 610. Uh, you know close. I'm
Speaker 12
18:49
closed. Appreciate a good vote and I'll make a motion for due pass as amended
Chair
Unverified
18:55
motion by Senator McKee to pass as amended.
Uh, I'll second that. All in favor say aye. I'll pose like sign. Thank you, Senator. Next,
Speaker 87
19:12
uh, you have 596. 596 Senate Bill 596. We've got there's an amendment on this. I've got a copy. I'm sorry.
Unknown speaker
19:40
Correct. I Does everybody have the amendment?
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
20:12
For Senate Bill 596. All right. I haven't explain your amendment, Matt McKee State Senate District 10 members of this amendment basically just cleans up some language that I thought
Chair
Unverified
20:25
was important. And move for adoption. Moves for adoption on amendment 596 2nd by
Speaker 12
20:30
Senator Boyd, all in favor say aye. I opposed, like son. Thank you, Senator presenting 596 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
20:42
Members We've had a lot of discussion about utilities and electricity and availability and economic development and all those things that are involved with that this session. One of the things that we have to take into account. is Making sure that the decisions that we make as a state put us in the best position. To provide reliable electricity
for our people that we represent and for the businesses that we hope will move here. So this bill seeks to put in place a framework. To give our utilities, to give our PSC. some direction to set some guidelines and some parameters. Some priorities that we as a state feel like are important to protect the health and safety and wellness of the people that we represent, um, I think it's also important that we have the
conversation of what direction we're going to go with respect to the environmental directives that have come down from the national level and make sure that those are the appropriate ways to take care of the people we represent, um, and what role should the PSC play in that process, so I'd be happy to take any questions. I know that there's probably a lot of people that want
Chair
Unverified
22:06
to speak about this, Senator, there is we have adopted an amendment for this is Senate Bill 596. If you want to
Speaker 18
22:16
pull it up in your packet and the amendment should be
Speaker 97
22:33
there. I The Senator Murdoch have the amendment he can have, yeah, is
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
22:38
that 596? here. All right, Senator Boyd has a question. Senator McKee, thank you for bringing this bill. Could you clarify me with me exactly what's in here that encourages the storage, long term storage
of used nuclear and or recycling of nuclear and does it have anything that suggests that nuclear should be disposed of or recycled in one part of the
Speaker 99
22:57
state over another part of the state police. Thank you for that question, Senator Boyd. I'm not
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
23:02
aware of anything in this bill that deals in the slightest with the storage or dis po s al of nuclear
Speaker 34
23:09
material. Thank you. Is there any other
Speaker 4
23:14
questions? Seeing none, there are 2 here to speak.
Speaker 87
23:19
Against 596. First, uh, Justin Allen. Just come to the
Speaker 12
23:30
table together and then y'all can introduce yourself. Sorry, there's 3. Just OK.
Speaker 101
23:51
Go ahead. I will start off, Mr. Chairman. I'm John Bethel and I'm the
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
23:55
director of public affairs for Entergy Arkansas.
Speaker 106
24:02
All right, go ahead. I'm Kirk Casselberry. I work for Enter Arkansas Resource Planning. Justin Allen would right Lindsey and Jennings here on behalf of EnterG
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
24:13
Arkansas. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, members of the committee, uh, start off and say that we at Entergy share,
Speaker 108
24:23
Senator McKee's, uh, interest and concern and desire to make sure that Arkansas has sufficient supplies of uh dispatchable reliable and affordable electric. Energy we've been, we've been doing that for over 100 years and look forward to continuing to do that, uh, we do oppose Senate Bill 596 and just go through some reasons why it inserts risks into the resource planning process and therefore doesn't improve reliability,
it's going to lead to expensive litigation with a low probability of success. It will require millions in legal fees and potentially billions in capital investment that could otherwise be spent in more beneficial ways for our customers and those of our co-owners. Uh, the uncertainty that the bill creates will jeopardize the state's economic development efforts. It's contrary to the stated goals recently enacted in Acts 373 that seeks to ensure that the state has adequate dispatchable, reliable and affordable power to generate Arkansas jobs.
We stand ready to engage in the conversation to address the state's energy needs and possible additional steps to strengthen the electric generation and transmission system to ensure adequate dispatchable, reliable and affordable energy to customers throughout Arkansas. The better opportunity to have that conversation in a constructive and meaningful way would be through the insurance and Commerce Committee meetings during the interim. Mr. Allen will address the legal issues presented by the bill and Mr. Casselberry will address the resource issue resource planning issues. by the bill. Thank you.
Justin Allen
Unverified
26:01
Some members, I think the core of the bill, the core of our problem with the bill is on page 5, starting on line 31. And what the bill would require is a utility such as Entergy. Uh, before it retires a generation facility to apply to the public Service commission to get permission to retire that facility. And this goes to the issues of the White Bluff facility in the Independence County facility, coal-fired generation plants that are scheduled to be retired
in the coming years as a result of a consent decree that came out of litigation in federal district court. Handful of years ago, 3 or 4 or 5 years ago, I believe. Uh, so as a result of that consent decree, which was approved by the Department of Justice under the first Trump administration, those two facilities are going to be retired in the upcoming years, and that's based upon litigation that was filed against Entergy claiming that Entergy was operating those facilities in violation of
federal environmental laws and Entergy was faced with some difficult decisions. Ultimately agreed to a settle. moment that provided a glide path for the closure, retirement of those facilities. Otherwise, the option to bring the facilities in compliance with federal law was going to cost energy and the ratepayers in the billions with a B billions of dollars, so difficult decisions had to be made. Those decisions were made again the federal court approved the settlement in the Department of Justice approved the settlement, those
facilities are scheduled to be again closed a converted. In the next few years. This bill would be designed is designed, and if it becomes law, will require energy to make application to the public Service commission and get its approval to go forward with those closures. There are in, in my mind, 3 options for energy if this bill were to become law. One would be to ignore it.
And energy, I believe, would have legitimate legal reason to ignore it because the law would be preempted by the federal court order, and there's case law under the supremacy doctrine that would strongly support the notion that if this bill becomes law that it's preempted by the federal court order. So option one would be we're just going to ignore it, we're not going to apply to the PSC. What are the problems with that? PSC could disagree with Entergy and say, hey, act whatever of
2025 requires you to come to us and get approval for for closure of this. You, you need to come in, show calls, you're potentially going to be exposed to fines. You're going to risk your license for operation in the state of Arkansas and the PAC may say we're not going to let you recover costs for the decommissioning of these because you're not following Senate Bill 596 or what a ideas, and there also could be other interests that could file a complaint with the PSC or file
a lawsuit. All of that, one or both of those proceedings are going to be lengthy. It could take years, cost millions of dollars and costs and fees and throw the state of electrical power generation in Arkansas into a state of uncertainty. Option 2 would be to make the application, OK? This bill becomes law. We're going to go to the PSC and ask for permission to decommission these plans. Without doubt, the other parties to the federal lawsuit and the consent decree are going to
immediately go back to federal district court and say that energy is in violation of the consent decree. More litigation, more money, more uncertainty and likely Ey would lose that battle for the reasons I stated earlier based on federal preemption. The federal district court would almost certainly say that the new Arkansas law is not applicable to the decommissioning of these two facilities because of preemption. But again, how long that will take, how much that will cost, what that will do to the state
and these gentlemen can speak more to what that looks like, but to the state of energy in Arkansas electrical uh availability for existing industry and business and future business and industry, it's problematic. A third option. would be to petition the federal court and ask the other parties to the consent decree to modify the consent decree to. Allow or call for energy to go to the PSC and make the application called for by this bill. Obviously the other
parties to that consent decree and that litigation will vigorously oppose that, and I Dare say it's highly unlikely the federal district court, the 8th Circuit or beyond, would agree to that modification, but again, that would result in protracted litigation money and the uncertainty, uncertainty that we've already discussed. And then one last note on the legal front, even if we were to succeed in amending the consent decree, the requirements of that consent decree are set forth in in entergies Title VI Clean Air
permits. And for these two facilities, so any deviation from the closure plans as a legal violation of those permits and subjects energy up to $117,000 in penalties per day, and the white bluff closure deadline is in Arkansas's regional hayes state implementation plan, and that can be regulated by the state and federal government as well as third parties. Those are the three options I see for Ey if this bill becomes law, and
Speaker 105
31:45
for the reasons I've stated, none of them are good ones. My comments will come from the perspective of a resource planner because that's what I do. And uh just, just so everybody understand resource planning is the process of putting in place plans to make investments in the right kind of generating resources to meet the needs of our 728,000 customers and importantly in these days, the we got a lot of opportunities in economic
development area and we got to have generation to do that, so. Again, I will talk about the resource planning, the practical aspects of this as well as economic development because since they are so tightly linked. Justin mentioned this word called uncertainty a lot in his comments, and I want to kind of focus in on that. Because the consent decree that he talked about provided certainty, certainty that we need to execute on the plans we need to do to replace white bluff and independences as well
as other other opportunities we have at both those sites in the economic development area. But where we are right now, we have certainty. We know that by 2028, We have to cease to burn coal at White Bluff and by 2030 have to cease to burn coal at at independences, and that provides us what we need to know to put together the analysis and all of our plans to make decisions about what we would need to do at those sites to provide the right type of generation in the
right amount of generation we need to again meet the needs of our customers as well as attract economic development prospects. So what we're doing now is looking at everything we all the options on the table, including burning natural gas at those units. It's important for everybody to understand that those units, you know, the consent decree itself just required that they burn that they ceased to burn coal, but you can repower those to burn natural gas. We're looking at that. We're looking at many other options out there with
different kinds of technologies, different kind of capabilities that, that, that. and these are enormous sites, 3600 megawatts 3600 acres of White Bluff, 1900 acres at Independence, and we are looking at those, we being not only energy Arkansas, but all of our co-owners and how best to do that, and we couldn't do all that work without the uncertainty. If we were faced with, well, I don't know if the plants are going to be there in burning coal, and if they are, I
don't know. Do I have to invest in environmental controls to keep them going. If all that's interjected, that all that means is obviously the certainty goes away as well as all of our plans have got to be put on hold because we have a hard, fast deadline now we're looking to meet and we don't really know what's going to happen. We don't know if we're taking a left turn or right turn where we're going right now we know exactly where we're going, so that's extremely important to
what we're trying to do. And then don't lose sight of the fact that there's inter capacity there with transmission that I've said many times is not gold, but it's platinum. And we can take advantage of that for the benefit of our customers because we have the certainty to make sure we have the plans in place so we can claim that interconnection capacity. If we don't get there in time, then that goes to others, to the detriment of our customers. So I can't, I can't say how much the certainty is for the resource planning
process. It's extremely important. And then lastly, we know that the APSC has the authority over resource planning. We've said that many times they can, they can, they will see our plans. We will file them with them, and it's the burden of proof is on us to demonstrate that they're in the public interest, and they have the authority to make the decisions on whether those are plans are appropriate or not, and we will do that on these plants at White Bluff and Independence as well as any
other resources that we had. So, so that's a, that's our thought process on certainty. And if I could just briefly pivot to economic development. I could tell you that without exaggeration, every day I'm in a meeting with economic development prospects that want to come to our great state, and they're looking at us because we have low affordable rates. We have many other options, and we want them to come here. But it's without question that
energy supply is extremely important. They all, whether they're steel mill or a data center or a manufacturing facility or whatever they're talking about large uses of electricity. high paying jobs, big investments in our state, and they have got to have a clear path to yes, to come to Arkansas, and if that path is encumbered with uncertainties about, well, we're in litigation over this or that or we have to tell them I'm not for sure we
can add that generation because fill in the blank, that is a detriment to our efforts to to be successful in the economic development front, and frankly I think it's really counter and inconsistent with the generating Arkansas Jobs Act of 2025 that this legislator passed and is a fantastic tool to help us on the economic development front. But I, I will also say that I echo what John said. We really understand and appreciate
Senator McKee's desire to have a conversation about this, and we're certainly willing to engage in that conversation if there are improvements to be made on the APSC's process or others, but I also want to stress the fact that we don't want to mess anything up. We want to make sure that we get the economic development growth we have, we don't want this bill to impede upon that. We want to execute on the right resource plans. provide affordable low-cost electricity to our customers and so we can grow our state. Happy to take questions if there are any.
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
37:54
Go ahead, Senator Murdoch. Thank you and uh thank
you for um your your dissertations individually and collectively on on how you see this. As I read to be able to understand it. What Senator McKee is simply
doing and is, is entering a safeguard for the state, if you will, as it relates to making sure we have the energy
available and necessary and that the closing basically discussion is the closing of something is retire. and how that's done. What I'm hearing you say, I want to be clear on this because I won't Senator McKee to address this when he can, as you're saying it's going to present a legal problem, a real legal quagmire more than anything if we enter into this well intended. Um, piece of legislation that to protect the consumers. That's what this is, as I read it.
But what you're saying specifically legally is that it's going to cause a quagmire legally and it's going to be just a myriad of lawsuits. Is that what is that? Am I hearing that correctly? 100%. OK. And so, Let me quickly get to this. Give me the solution. I know we're talking about a discussion and you saying you may not have a solution, but you won't have a discussion because you see the the the conversation need here. Is there a solution that you feel could make this better.
Speaker 108
39:25
Yes, Senator, I think that the solution would be to amend the bill to exclude units that were already scheduled for retirement subject to a federal consent decree. I think it's actually 3. There's Lake Katherine, the gas fire. unit is also covered by that consent decree, and if we were to exclude those from the other provisions of the bill. I think we don't have any serious reservations about the other provisions of the bill and would be willing to work forward on that process or as I suggested,
maybe it would be better to take this into a further discussion over the next next couple of years and really come out with a with a better developed, uh, process that addresses the things that we need to do. On, on discussions in the interim. OK, I'm OK for that year. Senator Johnson. Thank
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
40:17
you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my tardiness, something unavoidable came up this morning. Gentlemen,
thank you for being here. And Justin, I'm probably going to run this one by you the lawyer guy, but I any of you please respond. uh Loperbright decision more or less said that Chevron was wrong and agencies don't make law. Congress makes law. Uh, the consent decree. In my way of reading it.
was based on agency-made law, and you're in violation, therefore, please, you know, say uncle, admit you were and uh we'll we'll all do this and so again again, John, your company situation you were dealing with the world as it was at that moment, and I appreciate that, but I also see that we have a total change with The loper Bright decision from the
The interpretation that was under Chevron. We have a new administration that is a little more amenable maybe to this, and I'd asked if you could comment on how this environmental change and legal change and are all 2 or 3 more maybe, uh, it could affect this process. I'm and I'm, I recognize some of the logistical things deferred maintenance that may be pushes this into a realm of
economic uncertainty that if we hadn't had this, y'all would have been doing the the regular routine maintenance and things, but could you just comment on how those things kind of come together and how this bill could could be either detrimental or or or advantageous to to all of us in keeping our baseload generation in place. Senator, I'll certainly try.
Justin Allen
Unverified
42:26
Had Loper Bright been decided prior to the entry of the consent decree. It's very possible, and I wasn't personally engaged in
the litigation on behalf of Entergy, but it's very possible Entergy's view towards a settlement would have been different. They probably could have gone to the federal district judge and said the EPA or the relevant federal federal regulator regulator was incorrect in their the rule promulgation and their interpretation and application of the law. passed by Congress, but that wasn't the case at the time. going back couldy now argue to the federal district court in
light of local Bright and the abolition of Chevron Chevron deference that energy was not and is not operating those plants in violation of federal law, maybe, but it gets back to the fundamental point that will be a lot of lawyers doing a lot of arguing over a lot of time that will create the uncertainty that we were
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
43:24
talking about. Well, I appreciate your answer,
and I actually agree with it, although what is good litigation and what is a waste of time is very subjective
and subject to situations that we can't even predict, but I see myself in a position that someday with that you've got 307 y'all can have this new generation, but it is not going to come on. Day after tomorrow and we've got to bridge over to that, and I feel like this is what Senator McKee and Representative McClennon are trying to do so I'll accept that if the others, other two would like to comment, that's fine, but that was, yeah,
Speaker 105
44:08
it was a great explanation, yeah, just briefly, I mean, like you just said, it's not going to come on day after tomorrow. It takes time to make these large investments and do all the engineering necessary to do to, you know, provide the resources that we need on the time frame that we need it. And you know that's my comments a minute ago about just from a planning perspective, a practical perspective, you got to move ahead. And then I would also add that everybody needs to keep in mind that these coal plants are not spraying
chickens. I mean, they're over 50 years old, it's 50 year old technology. It's kind of like you're if you're driving an old worn out car and it's 20 years old, it's still all worn out car with not the greatest technology. Same for these coal plants and, and that's not an anti-coal comment at all. I'm not anti-coal. I'm not anti-thing. I'm anti bad economics. And so we have to look really closely at just the fact that it's that vintage of a plant, and there are lower cost, cheaper, more efficient options that perhaps
might be a better choice for our customers. That's what we're doing. In fact, the data kind of wears that out. If you look at how much the coal plants have actually operated in the last 10 years. It's on a glide path down, and it's because they're not they're not as competitive as they once were. I mean, there are in my soul makes the decisions about which ones to run in 2024, the coal plants ran less than half of what they ran in 2015. And so that's just a function of
just reality of being practical, being older, being less efficient. And so, you know, there's that to consider as well, as well as what I said about the time element of making sure we're there to get something
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
45:52
replaced. OK, John, do you want to add anything? I just point out and I think Mr. Gastlebury can confirm we do have plans to have adequate dispatchable, reliable generation on
Speaker 108
45:59
the same schedule as these plants will be coming offline ceasing to burn coal and that we won't be in a situation where we don't have adequate dispatchable reliable power. Well, I'm sure that Senator
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
46:12
McKee and I will be in joint energy over the next 2 years. Bring you all in to tell us about progress on that. So we look forward to that. Thank you very much for
Speaker 142
46:20
your interest. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tell me. What's cheaper
Speaker 18
46:26
than coal. That statement was made. Well, um, It depends
Speaker 105
46:33
on the price of natural gas and the price of coal is the short answer to that right now natural gas is priced at like $4 and it's a heat rate
like 6500, so it costs like $25 to produce the megawatt hour of of natural gas fired energy and coal price is about a little more than somewhere in the high twenties. So right now natural gas is cheaper. Per megawatt hour. And that's why you see the coal plants not operating very much. How many natural
Speaker 12
47:06
gas do you, I mean, besides the Lake Catherine, are you a owner in.
Speaker 34
47:17
How many do we have or or planning, Energy
Speaker 105
47:19
Arkansas. Entergy Arkansas has a lot. I mean, we have the hot spring unit which is a highly efficient unit, uh, we have the Union Power Unit around the elevator Hot Springs obviously around hot springs. We have the Wata plant right across the Louisiana line, which is another highly efficient unit, much more efficient than either white bluff or independents, and then, you know, the, the new unit at Lake Catherine 5 that is currently being considered at the APSC is
another load following gas-fired unit that that that we will soon have hopefully, but yeah, we have a lot and we'll be adding more. I mean, you look at our integrated resource plan. We, we have a plans for the next, I think, till 2034, you know, roughly 9 years from now to add another 1200 megawatts of load falling natural gas fired resources. And then the planes in White Bluff and ISIS. That's what we look forward to talking to you guys about. I think you're going to see some really exciting stuff there, not only for the replacement of those resources,
but for economic development purposes too. So,
Chair
Unverified
48:20
uh, has there ever been a consideration for a hybrid? And Androgen, hybrid coal, gas, hybrid where you, you lower your emissions of coal by by having gas combination. Is that any in place
Speaker 12
48:35
anywhere? Yeah, I mean, it's That's something that, that certainly is
Speaker 105
48:43
considered, but there are a lot of complexities
with that just like there would be complexities and hydrogen as well as cost, burning hydrogen at the coal plants or or some of our other natural gas fired plants or our new ones. But we look at it all. All right. Is there any other questions? Saunn, thank you for your testimony. Thank you.
Speaker 12
49:25
All right. Hello Seeing no other uh for or against, uh, Uh, you want to close your meal? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
49:47
worked closely with Energy on several projects this year, and I appreciate them and their testimony and the work that they do. They have provided reliable power for us for a long time.
Um, you know, the, the comment was made about uncertainty. And I think that there's a lot of uncertainty in the gasification of our electrical grid. Last I heard there are 133 gas-powered fire, gas powered electrical plants slated to be built in the United States. And I think closing Base load generation for environmental concerns is insanity. Doing away with 3200 megawatts of dispatchable generation doesn't make any sense to me
now. I don't fault anybody for operating within the framework that they operated within when they signed the consent decree. They had choices that they could choose from, and they went the way that was best at that time. I think we live under a different framework now, and we have different needs and those needs include generating as much power as we can as fast as we can. So this, this bill does not guarantee the Uh, the coal plants remain open. This bill just says they have to
demonstrate that it's the best thing for the Arkansas ratepayers. It's the best thing for Arkansas businesses and consumers. And so all I want is to make sure that we ensure that reliability. We're planning for the future, which I know that they do. But I want to make sure that the incentives that were out there are appropriate and that we're operating in the best way for our voters, so I'd appreciate a good vote. I'm closed for the bill. I'd like to move for adoption as amended motion.
Speaker 52
51:30
second, any discussion that's as amended discussion. If it's permissible chair,
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
51:38
excuse me. Um So really the clarity point, so PSC. will simply be providing the guardrails, and they will take into consideration hopefully if this is passed, all of the
things that they testify to as being cautions for us that we
need to be mindful of from, you know, a quagmire of legal, uh, situations that could hold up uh the things that we need to meet the needs of our projects, prospective projects, and uh just our needs. And so And this and and and and and PSC may agree with them. On what they choose to do with some of these uh plants or whatever, so this is not
If I understand it correctly, necessarily. Eliminating their plans, but it's putting something in place from our side
to watch over and at least Speak to the concerns that we have to make sure we can meet the need. That's what we're trying to do here. Can I address that? Go ahead, go ahead, you remember you're
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
52:58
in discussion and yes, I mean we got here because of
litigation. Right, that's why we're in the position that we're in. So to say that any litigation moving forward is a bad thing. I don't necessarily agree with that. That's how we make, that's how sometimes we come to determinations in our country, right? It's a valuable process. It's an adversarial process where conflicting views clash against each other and hopefully we come out with a better product at the end. And so moving forward, yes, the PSC may determine that the closure of the coal plants is
the best option for ratepayers in Arkansas, but I want them to have the authority and the ability to make those determinations
Speaker 12
53:45
for the ratepayers. I appreciate that question. more discussion. Uh
Chair
Unverified
53:50
All in favor say aye. All opposed like
Speaker 159
53:54
sign. All right, thank you, Senator. You passed Senate bill 596, uh, Senator Crow.
Speaker 162
54:07
I don't think. Talk, talk to. it's hot. This is Senate Bill 602. There's an amendment on this. Motion
Chair
Unverified
54:32
by Senator Boyd, second by me on adopting the amendment.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
54:39
All it is is a a a co-sponsor on the House end, and
Chair
Unverified
54:43
we had a misspelling of a word. All in favor say aye. I'll oppose like sign all right, your bill is amended.
Speaker 18
54:49
Just introduce yourself. Do you have anybody that
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
54:52
needs to come to the table? No, Senator Steve Carl, District 3. This is a pretty simple bill. It's a consumer protection bill to ensure that vehicle owners can choose their own autolas companies to repair. or replace their windshield when a consumer, when consumers are our customers are transferred to a third party administrator.
Most don't realize they're not talking to the insurance company, but some of these third parties are affiliated with a Aglass repair company and so they will try and force them to go to those companies. It's kind of like if you dent your car, you should be able to pick who would go, who you go get your car picked from. Simply clarifying this, the insurance companies are doing it right. It's the third party administrators. Is there any questions? You got a question?
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
55:47
Boyd. So, thank you, Senator Karl for bringing this. So Senate 2366-206 already for prohibits requiring that repairs be made by a particular repair shop as a condition of claims payment. So with knowing that, you know, are we really just restricting consumer choice. And so there's already statute that
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
56:11
that does that and like I said, the insurance companies like Shelter, you know, if I, if I, State Farm, whomever. If I'm dealing with them and say, hey, I'm going to go here. and and I talked to my local agent and say, Can you do this? It's fine. This what happens most of the time is these online ones. When you do that claim, they say, OK, call this number, and it's the the um the TPA and they don't realize they're not talking to the insurance company, the TPA says, All right, I will have blank and
lank company come out to your place. Well, I'd rather go to the place just two blocks down. Well, we can't guarantee they're going to be there and they can get it done this week, so let's just do this. That's what we're trying to do is Make sure
that they are aware of the law and that they can't do it and make sure they're they know they're included. OK. Thank you for
Speaker 87
57:06
your answer. You bet. you know the questions, seeing none, I have no one signed up to speak for or against this bill.
Speaker 18
57:13
Is there anybody wants to do so, seeing none, you want to close
Chair
Unverified
57:19
your bills, close your bill what's the will of the committee. Motion by Senator McKee, seconded by Senator Penzo, all in favor say aye. I'll oppose
Speaker 4
57:28
like. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for being patient. Uh, Senator Penzo. You have SB 6155. Yeah, and
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
57:39
I've got somebody here that's going to come up and testify with me.
Speaker 34
57:49
Thank you Yes, sir. Just introduce yourself, both of you just go ahead and introduce yourselves, Senator Penzo, you can begin Penzo, Senate
Jordan Tinsley
Unverified
58:03
District 31. My name is Jordan Tinsley. I'm a vice president of
development at a company called Bernhard. Prior to that for about 10 years, I was an attorney in private practice practicing public utility regulatory law on behalf
of large industrial and commercial customers.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
58:27
Go ahead, Senator Pinzo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 615 protects customers' energy choices without undermining utility revenue. This is a targeted fix that aligns with federal law, supports grid, reliability, keeps utilities whole, and benefits all stakeholders. Utilities are not losing money. Customers already pay for the readiness through demand charges, grid fees. Facilities charges, penalties
for not curtailing during events and standby service pricing. This, this bill doesn't change any of these. It simply prohibits discriminatory pricing against customers who use their own energy for private onsite needs without exporting to the grid. This is not a free ride. Customers fund the infrastructure they rely on just like efficient users do. Energy efficiency is a direct parallel. Utilities have long accommodated reduced usages.
Usage from LED lighting, smart thermostats, efficient appliances, insulation, and building retrofits. These measures reduce utility sales just like self-generation, but they are encouraged through utility-backed programs because they benefit the entire system. Self-generation with non-export systems is simply the next evolution of energy efficiency. Customer owned grid conscious and cost effective for everyone. Federal law already supports
this model through rates must not discriminate against any qualifying facility. Utilities must interconnect with QFs to enable sales or purchases. Utilities must sell supplementary backup, maintenance power and interruptible power upon request. This bill brings Arkansas law into line with existing federal obligations, specifically protecting non-export facilities that are being wrongly penalized under recent net metering changes. This bill fixes
misapplication of 2023's net metering law. The law passed last session aimed to reform net metering, but since then utilities have misclassified non-export facilities as net metering systems denied or delayed interconnections imposed unnecess. fees despite these systems pushing zero power back to the grid, seeking no compensation and meeting on site needs only. Backup generators are already go through utility reviewed
interconnection processes, sea energies, DR 071 application, which includes non-export options and safety compliance checklists. This bill ensures fair treatment, supports your reliability, honors federal law, and protects customer choice, all while keeping utilities whole and strengthening the grid for everyone. You know, let him add anything if he would like to at this point. Thank you, Senator for questions if not absolutely, um.
Speaker 190
1:01:28
What I would add is that the federal law that the senator is referring to is called the public utility regulatory Practices Act. That was an act that was passed by a bipartisan Congress in 1968 in the midst of the energy crisis that gripped the nation back then and just like now, the country was struggling with how do we get domestic energy production. How do we get more of that? How do we get it? quickly and how do we get it
without placing an undue burden on electricity ratepayers, and the policy that they enacted was designed to incentivize private actors generally businesses with large electric and gas loads to install their own generation capability. And in order to make it possible for customers to do that businesses with large electric and gas loads. Congress again in a bipartisan fashion, play some
guardrails around those facilities which are now known as qualifying facilities or small power producers. In order to obtain the protections of the public utility regulatory Practices Act, however, a customer that is choosing to install those facilities has to go through a very burdensome and expensive regulatory process at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Washington DC despite that, there has been a
number of investments in these facilities, and these facilities are creating domestic. energy capacity in the manner that the law was intended and have done so for decades. What this bill does is recognize that the state can create a streamlined path for customers to do those very same things and to access those protections without incurring the expensive and burdensome process of going
through FERC, which I can tell you, you know, to get a to get a qualifying facility. application approved at FERC, you've got to hire a DC lawyer that's going to bill you about 800 or $900 an hour, OK, so we're talking about real money, um. But what this bill does specifically is kind of clarify something that was said in this very room 2 years ago when the cost shifting Prevention Act was
passed by this body, and I mean cards on the table. I was opposed to that bill, but that's the law of the land now, and I appreciate the concerns that drove this committee and the legislature to approve that bill. This bill just clarifies that f ab il ities that are not selling power back to the utility. are not net metering facilities, so I heard somebody say in the hallway that there's a net metering bill running today that
couldn't be further from the truth. This is the opposite of a net metering bill because what this clarifies is that to be net metering, you have to sell the electricity or some portion of it that you're generating back to the power company. These facilities do not do that. These facilities merely offset the customers' own usage on site, whether that's at their manufacturing facility, or that's at a public school.
There's no opportunity, at least under the rules that this bill requires the PSC to promulgate for these facilities to export power to the utility and therefore there is no potential for cost shifting, which was the concern that was expressed and that was dealt with two years ago. If the utility is not having to pay the customer for any amount of power, period. There is no way for there to be a cost shift associated with
these facilities. Now the utility may disagree, and they may get up here and tell you the opposite of that, but what they're talking about is lost revenue. It is not a cost shift. It is just the mere fact that a customer is modifying its behavior behind its meter. Such that they don't need to buy as much of the utility's product. So this is akin to the utility saying that somebody who goes and buys more efficient kitchen
appliances is shifting costs to other customers. It's akin to the utility saying that somebody who sets up their house with smart lights that turn off when they leave the room is shifting costs to other customers. The bottom line is that that is not a conservative position that allows the utility to reach into areas, private property. that they have no business being in. We should not allow the power company in this state or
the utilities in this state to dictate the behavior of their customers behind the meter. And in what other economic sector is the legislature dictating to the people and businesses of Arkansas that they have to buy a commodity from a particular entity. The bill that just got passed by this committee about who's going to install your autolas recognized that that is not a good conservative policy. We
need to allow customers to shop where they want, and if they want to generate their own power and they want to incur the cost necessary to install the facilities that have enabled them to do that on their property in a manner that is not harmful to their neighbors or that is not disruptive to the election. grid, then why would anybody want to stand in the way of that, you know, this is about. The right of private entities to
take actions behind their electric meter that the utility has no business interfering with, and that was recognized by the sponsors of the cost shifting Prevention Act in this very room when they told this committee that the cost shifting Prevention Act did not apply to behind the meter generation. Thank you for all
Chair
Unverified
1:07:57
that explanation for every explanation we'll get back to it with. Is there any, any questions?
Speaker 12
1:08:11
Seeing none, I think we have 22 people, 1 speak, uh, 4 and 1 to speak against. Uh, you, you're, you're the 4, so you've done your thing, OK, unless you want to do more. I'd love to do more, sir. I can tell. Senate Bill 615 uh John Bethel against, uh, John, if you will, introduce yourself. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Committee. I'm John
Speaker 108
1:08:38
Bethel, director of public affairs for
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:08:42
Entergy Arkansas, and I would point out that this bill is not necessary to accomplish the objective that the uh that's just stated for one, to
Speaker 195
1:08:51
comply with federal law and customers that have facilities behind their meter and want to have facilities that are in compliance with the with the public utilities regulatory Policy Act. They take service under our Large and small coin tariffs and have for years. Customers can do that and have been able to do
that for a long time. And secondly, this essentially undo backs away from the customer cost shifting protections that were included in the cost shifting Prevention Act that you enacted last session, the net metering. It really the having a non-exporting facility as is outlined in this can occur under the existing net metering law or under the existing coin tariffs that are in place and the net metering law.
has the protections of making sure that those facilities don't shift costs to customers by number one, they're not putting putting power back because they would not be able to do so if you made them operate not in parallel, and then number 2, it also prevents combining renewable non-exporting facilities with interruptible service and what that prevents is that customer. Getting a discount for
interruptable service but not providing the level of interruption that the discount is being, they're being compensated for. And then uh So it ought to continue to prohibit the combination of such facilities with renewable service, and then the size limits that are included in the net metering statute to prevent facilities that put power back from being larger than a 5 megawatts for a commercial customer and 25 kilowatts for a residential customer were
designed to protect because part of the rates for all customers include some fixed costs in the in the in the kilowatt hour charge, not. For our largest customers, but for the small general service and the residential class and also under the Act, it hits under the bill, it specifically has provisions that allow power to be put back to the utility and it has provisions where the facility will be sized at the customer's maximum monthly
usage, and that means that in every other month that facility is going to generate more power than the customer needs and we'll put power. back to the utility. And so, very simply, this bill is not going to accomplish what the description says that it is, and there are already measures in place and that have been in place for a long time that allow customers to have behind the meter generation if they don't want to put power to the utility, they don't have to. If they do want to put power to the utility, there are tariffs that
already account for that, and I'll be happy
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:11:57
to take questions. All right, Senator Murdoch. Thank you, chair. Um, John, as, as we look at matters such as these when they come before us. Obviously this is what you do, so you're a micro on these 2 or 3 bills a session we see a myriad of bills and these come at us in this manner, um, when I look at page 2, beginning in
line 4 and it tells me that PSC will be involved in this process from the hearing, the evaluation. That For many of us, that's our watchdog, that's our guard rail, you know, not discounting what you say or even what the bill says. It's us having, because this gets to be very technical. These type of bills, and there's so much. Down the line and post of this. So do do you agree or do you have the confidence that PSC
will help us to regulate those even those concerns that you're now articulating. I
Speaker 108
1:12:58
think they will certainly do their best and will try, but the bill as written allows the export of power under
Speaker 195
1:13:04
the under its terms. It allows facilities that are sized such that they will in all months but one produce more power
Speaker 108
1:13:12
than the customer consumes, and And there are already a commission approved rate mechanisms that allow customers to do what the bill is is purported to do. A customer can
Speaker 195
1:13:23
already have a non-exporting system under either the net metering regulations or under the large and small cogen tariffs, and there was also mention of backup generators, backup generators do not operate in parallel with the electric utility system. This bill would enable a
Speaker 108
1:13:38
system to operate in parallel with the utility system, it is completely different and so it has the potential to put power if you want to have a backup generator or other system, it is physically impossible for that system to put power to the
utility, and if you were to
Speaker 195
1:13:55
improve this bill by making that not possible and also make it to where you don't combine interruptible service with this
Speaker 108
1:14:03
facility and so I think the bill as written doesn't put guardrails on the public service commission's decision making process, and that could still happen under the way the bill's drafted, which would shift costs to other customers, so the long
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:14:17
answer that you gave me is that you don't think PSC involvement in this process protects us. You
think we're still vulnerable even with PSC involvement in the in in the arrangement. You think we still are left vulnerable or do you not have confidence that they will referee or officiate
Speaker 156
1:14:38
as you are. I think the bill leaves that leaves leaves
Speaker 108
1:14:44
doesn't give give sufficient customer protection, even with the Public Service commission in place because it still allows the combination with interruptible
service, and it still allows the facilities to put power back to the utility that would shift costs to other customers, and so that would leave it obviously at the discretion of the commission,
Speaker 195
1:15:07
and I would assume they would try to avoid that, but in before the net metering law was revised last session, the commission did authorize the combination of net metering and interruptible service
Speaker 108
1:15:19
to the detriment of other customers and the General Assembly made that a prohibition when when you
approved the changes to the net metering law, and so that That's 11 aspect that the bill has that would put customers at
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:15:34
risk. Yes, so I appreciate that and the testimony further convolutes and supports really what I'm trying to say to you that puts a committee in a situation individually. I understand you are the doctor of this from your standpoint in
your presentation, chair, is it possible? Does it make sense that PSC be a part of this conversation. I'll accept that
Speaker 203
1:15:56
if Danny will do that. Absolutely And
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:16:02
as you come, my question is quite simple. I'm just trying to because
Speaker 130
1:16:06
from the bill presentation on Senator. let her introduce herself and then, and then Danny Hofer, chief of staff at the
Speaker 206
1:16:16
PSC. Go ahead, Senator. Thank you. Sorry,
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:16:18
chair. So real simply just trying to make sure as a comedian as I get this, although I'm an engineer, but
still I'm getting this in real time and there's a lot to deal with digest a subtract, and divide and properly place a vote. You're in this bill as part of, as I see it as being The watchdog for us. I presented that to Mr. Bethel who said we're still vulnerable. Do you feel comfortable with where you are in this bill that you that the concerns that he that he mentioned will be properly dealt
with through this process, or are we vulnerable? So
Speaker 210
1:16:59
I'll, I'll start by with a I guess a preface to my answer. Sorry, I feel like I want to adjust my mic here. Um, so we I know I always give this preface. We don't have any position on this bill. So in terms of the information I'm going to give you, it's just going to be to try to answer your question, but without taking any kind of position without offering any kind of Um, support or, um, lack of
Speaker 209
1:17:27
support for the bill. Well, support us. We
Speaker 212
1:17:33
need that's always, that is always our goal. Um, no, so, uh, part of PSE precedent, um, and, and what we're charged with is we uh Any issue, any order issued by the PSC, uh, must prevent, uh, Unreasonable cost shifts, so that already exists in everything that we do that, um,
An order that comes out of the PSC is going to evaluate the docket, the information before us, whatever the application is,
Speaker 210
1:18:07
and, and it's looking to prevent any unreasonable cost shift. OK,
Speaker 128
1:18:14
so specifically To the concerns that
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:18:20
Mr. Bethel articulated that, and I asked him a specific direct question about the vulnerability of the
consumers and us as a state by virtue of if this is passed, again, I reiterate, I see you in here as being what you kind of stated so do can we feel comfortable if we rely upon
you? Do you feel confident in your protecting us inside of
Speaker 210
1:18:49
this. type of legislation. I don't perceive this legislation to change the PSC's role in our charge with preventing those unreasonable cost shifts. Thank you.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:19:03
Senator McKee, chair. So I want to make sure that I
understand the framework, right? so currently if you are in interruptible customer. You cannot be a code generator. And maybe I'm
Speaker 208
1:19:28
ahead, Danny. Uh, so, specifically if you are, uh,
Speaker 209
1:19:35
Taking service under an interruptible tariff,
Speaker 210
1:19:37
you cannot also simultaneously take service, sorry, I should not use the word tariff. It has nothing to do with taxes.
Speaker 209
1:19:45
It's just what we call like a rate schedule. Um, if you take service under an interruptable rate schedule. Uh, It is not compatible. You're not
Speaker 210
1:19:54
eligible with also taking service under a net metering rate schedule. Not necessarily net metering
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:20:01
because we don't, we don't net meter anymore, right? But
Basically, if you hang on just a second, if you are an interruptible customer, and so you tell the utility we're not going to we're going to accept that you're going to cut off our power for certain limited periods of time when you need it in other places, right? That's an interruptible customer, but if you at the same time say I can generate my own power during those times when the utility is not providing my power, then you cannot be an interruptable customer. Or have an interruptible tariff and I'm going to use the word.
Because I know what it means.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:20:43
I, I can answer the question, Senator McKee. The customers can have self-generation and can be
Speaker 108
1:20:49
be interruptible, those systems that are operating in that way do not operate in parallel with the utility system. OK, please explaining that they have the ability to put power to the utility that they are, they are connected physically and power can go both ways. Customers that currently take interruptible
service and have self generation, their self-generation is physically separate from the utility system and doesn't put power back, and we have a number of customers that are in that situation. The law that changed for the net metering customers to prevent those because those customers put power back and forth. They, they don't give the level of interruption that is corresponding to the level of discount that they receive. This bill would create the opportunity for that to happen, but the answer to your question is you can have self-generation
that is physically. from the utilities network and have interruptible service. We have customers that do that. You just can't provide power
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:21:48
back to the that's correct system
and have a thing, can I have him address that also. Your question. Thank you for that
Speaker 189
1:21:56
opportunity, Senator McKee. I appreciate the question. It's a good question. My answer is different from Mr. Bethel's. There are facilities in Arkansas right now as we speak that generate their own
Speaker 190
1:22:11
power in parallel with the utility grid that the utility is required to provide interruptible service to under federal law, under PERPA. One of the requirements of PERPA is that the utility cell interruptible power to that. customer in a nondiscriminatory fashion, and there are a number of PEPA facilities in Arkansas that typically use combined heat and power or their own gas-fired generation to supply their own
electricity behind the meter and they're largely large industrial customers. I hold on a second,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:22:51
receive the level of interruption compensesurate with the discount. What I hear is, well, they're not without power, so we're not going to give them a discount, but you're not providing them power during the interruptible phase, right? And it, and it hinges upon for
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:23:12
the and I agree with Mr. Tinsley's response was correct. I wanted to, uh, correct my, my response to
Speaker 108
1:23:17
some of the customers that take service under the coin tariffs are able to do that, but this is different. But uh when they, if this is different because if a customer declares I have 100 megawatts of firm load, and I have 50 megawatts of interruptible load, and if they have a generator, say a solar facility that during The day whenever they're interrupting and it's putting power back to the utility, and we call for the interruption.
They don't provide the same 50 megawatts of interruption that we have given them the discount. The discounts based on that level, and unless you sync that up and this bill doesn't require that to happen, uh, you could have a situation that's the reason why it was prohibited in the net metering statute of the customer getting a larger discount than they
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:24:01
are being compensated. OK, so when, when, when, so
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:24:05
they're generating 50 megawatts of solar, say, and they Put that back on utilities lines and so they're receiving Compensation for that in the
Speaker 131
1:24:16
form of an interruptible tariff if they are uninterruptible tariff if they are, and we call for an interruption and they're putting
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:24:23
power to us. They're not providing the interruption. Or the the level of interruption that we've contracted for. Is that when
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:24:32
you say interruption, do you mean when you cut off their power, They start using the power that they're generating
so they're not providing as much back to the
system as they would be had you not cut off the power. We don't cut off their power. They,
Speaker 108
1:24:47
they, uh, they scale back their operation, but when they, when they do that, if they are not doing that at the level for which they have contracted, then they are receiving a discount for a higher level. We have taken that to the market and we're not able to deliver to the market, the transaction results in them getting so they're they're not. Cutting back
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:25:06
their level of power because they're they're transferring it to the power that they would be putting it back on the low. On the grid. I'm sorry.
Speaker 218
1:25:18
They're, they're putting power to us when they
Speaker 108
1:25:21
would otherwise not be putting power to us or they're not, they're not providing if we're, if we're expecting them to produce their load to us by 50 megawatts, and they reduce it by 40. Then we're not getting the service and they're not providing their side of the service for which they've received the discount they're receiving a larger discount to the detriment of the other customers. We're not trying to prevent them from being able to do that. We're trying to make it to where it's a fair transaction.
Speaker 189
1:25:48
Address it and then I'm done. Thanks again for the opportunity to address that. So this this argument, I think with all due respect to Mr. Bethel is a total red herring, and I do have a lot of respect for Mr. Bethel. I first met him when I
Speaker 190
1:26:05
was a teenager inning for Scott Trotter. He's a local attorney years ago and have always enjoyed my debates with Mr. Bethel, but It should not matter to the
utility how a customer curtails its load at the time of a curtailment as long as they are not placing the demand on the utility's capacity that they otherwise would. There are a number of companies in Arkansas that have to shut down their operations during these curtailments, timber companies, for example, they literally turn off their equipment and send their Crew's home during these curtailments. There's a lot of them that do that. There are
other companies that say when we get curtailed, we're going to generate our own power, and we're going to turn on our generators when the when the utility tells us that we need to generate that we need to curtail our load and we're going to remain operational during those curtailments. This bill would provide an opportunity to those businesses that currently are shutting down their operations, sending their workers. home, taking money out of their workers' pockets taking money out of our economy. It would give them an opportunity to say,
OK, now I think it's actually economic for me to remain operational during these curtailments because rapidly advancing technology, whether the utility likes it or not, is making it more and more feasible and economic for customers to generate their own power supply, whether you like it or not, that is what the market is doing, and that's what free markets do and that's why conservatives love free markets, right? The market is making that more economic. We are not in the world we were in when the oil
and railroad barons electrified the United States over a century ago when we needed people with very deep pockets to make those investments for the benefit of the rest of the country. We are now in a world where a customer can make an economic decision to supply their own power. There is no potential. For this to be uneconomic for other customers or disruptive to the utility, especially with the watchdog, as Senator Murdoch has
described having a role to promulgate rules in this bill that are designed to ensure that if these systems export unintentionally that that is done in a safe way that is not going to be disruptive to the reliability of the electric grid, and I don't know why anybody would be opposed to us putting some free kilowatt hours on the electric grid that the utility doesn't have to pay for if these systems unintentionally export power. The bottom line is that these customers would build
these facilities without any expectation of compensation for excess generation from the utility period. There is no potential for cost shifting, and that is why Senator Disma sat here two years ago and told this very committee that we're not not regulating this in the cost shifting Prevention Act, but the reason we're here today is because Intergy is the only utility in the state that is not adhering to that statement that Senator Disma made in this room.
The other utilities in this state, the co-ops, as far as I know, are not taking the position that Senator or that Mr. Bethel is taking here today, which is effectively that systems that do not export kilowatt hours to the rid are somehow net metering facilities. I don't know what you're
Speaker 231
1:29:49
doing. I'm responding to Senator McKee's question, OK, do it quickly. Yes, sir.
Speaker 190
1:29:54
So literally what they're talking about, Senator
McKee is lost revenues. It's not cost shifting. These customers that are are interruptible as long as they get back to the firm demand that they have specified to the utility, they are providing what the utility is contracted for, and they are due the compensation that they are being provided. Yes, sir. So I don't know if I agree with
Chair
Unverified
1:30:21
everything that came out of your mouth. Yes sir, but I appreciate all of it, uh, the, uh, I mean,
Speaker 12
1:30:33
They have to plan their base load and have to be able
Chair
Unverified
1:30:37
to uh serve everybody and if you're
Speaker 12
1:30:43
sticking, you know, Load onto the system that they can't account for. Then It's gonna, it's, I mean you can only, you know, use what you've got and they have to make that plan, not you. Because you as a customer, know, you know, if you're a company, know what you're going to be using pretty much daily. But they have to account for
everybody, and you don't. You have to count for yourself. And I get where they're coming from on this thing, but it's the PSC's job to make the make
Speaker 235
1:31:14
this happen. And uh no. So, uh, Can you make this functional. Can the PSC make this functional. That's my one question. When you say can we make this functional?
Speaker 210
1:31:30
Do you mean can we make the bill functional, or can
Speaker 97
1:31:36
we accomplish or or it's When you say can we make this functional? Do you mean can we make the bill functional, or can we
Speaker 12
1:31:44
accomplish or or address the concerns without the bill is supposed to be a non-export facility. It sounds to me like they are, there is a
Speaker 210
1:31:52
possible of export, which, which makes a difference in the system. So I am not an engineer, but it is my understanding that these facilities are not intended to export I think and somebody here with more information or more expertise on this, please correct me that If there is backflow, I believe
it is small and unintentional. Am I correct on that, that it's a fairly negligible amount. That's absolutely correct. And I'm not, am I, do you
Speaker 108
1:32:17
agree with that? Uh Not necessarily, but it's the, the quantities that it does say inadvertent or unintentional, but it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be significant because the facility is size at the highest monthly usage. So Can I address that? I'll be brief.
Speaker 18
1:32:39
Thank you. I, uh, Senator Penzo. And, uh, I
Speaker 12
1:32:45
mean. I think a percentage, not not the total of the highest monthly use, I think would be more acceptable. Uh, do you understand what I'm saying? I think that's what the the electric providers are worried about, uh, if you've
Speaker 147
1:33:01
got it at the highest monthly, month load average then Then it, it.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:33:10
With the, with the PSC be able to
Speaker 210
1:33:15
establish What he's saying. I think if it was explicitly stated in the legislation that the PSC should by rule establish that without that, um, I, I always feel more concerned if, if the legislation is especially prescriptive of what the PSC should establish or not.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:33:33
OK, because it says acceptable methods of export limitation in the bill.
Speaker 210
1:33:42
In terms of the rules that that PSE should
Speaker 245
1:33:47
promulgate? Yeah. On Page 2 line 13. Um, So
Speaker 210
1:34:01
I think I mean, it definitely says acceptable methods. It doesn't necessarily state um amount. It just says methods, so that, that would be my only um
If if you were looking for me to be especially
Speaker 18
1:34:18
cautious on that. We can, we can, if, if you guys wanna, you know, get to the side
Speaker 4
1:34:23
and and do that. I would feel more comfortable because I think the energy energy and the providers would. So are you saying slip away from the table a little bit, come up with some
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:34:31
language, come back to a verbal I don't, I don't want to slow you down. It's too late. Yeah, no,
Speaker 4
1:34:38
that's kind of curious how we would do this, OK, huddle up, huddle up, I think, I think that.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:34:46
We'll, we'll, we'll, we'll do that. We'll let the next person in the queue and then I'll come back and see you. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 12
1:34:54
you for, for everybody's testimony. We will, uh, we will return back to this bill in a in a few minutes, can you all want to step out in the
Speaker 147
1:35:03
hall or back here in this back room. Yeah chances.
Speaker 87
1:35:16
are at Senator D's. Uh This is Senate Bill 611. 611. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tyler
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:35:32
Dees, state Senate District 35. Just a minute, Senator. Yes, sir. 611.
Speaker 5
1:35:54
Oh, we went from From energy to social media. Yes sir, the natural transition All right,
Chair
Unverified
1:36:03
Senator Deans, introduce yourself. Do you have anybody to come to the table, just myself today,
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:36:07
Senator Tyler Dees District 35. Thank you, members. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senate Bill 61 is before you. This is an amendment to the Social Media Safety Act that we passed in 2023, and here's basically what this bill does. We, we were, if you remember, we were one of the first in the
country. I believe first in the country in this This vein to step in this direction to protect kids online through social media and seeing the damaging ramifications of how it's affecting our kids. It really caught our attention. We knew we had to step in. So being a leader in the country um in this space, our state moved forward with that act that passed in 2023. Well, uh, when leaders go first, we don't always get everything exactly right. We're, we're plowing new
ground and so this is an attempt to come back and learn from what other states have done. who followed behind us and so this amendment takes up some of those those directions and so really what this does is continues with the mission to protect kids through social media and allows us to address some of the things that were challenged in court, but really we believe this is, this is a great fix
since a direction that the state needs, so it's going to protect children and the examples are on page 7, so I'm going to take you to page 7 where um After after we get through some definitions, page 7 really talks about what the aim is here. So at the top of page 7, line 2, a social media platform shall not, and what what it describes is the things that are really harming kids, so shall not have technology algorithms that lead to addictive feeds. This is the
doomsday scrolling that a lot of descriptions describe it as a social media platform shall not generate notifications to minors between 10 and 610 p.m. and a.m., so the bombarding of notifications and dings and alerts that are keeping kids awake and addicted to their screens, targeted advertising to children, it calls out the, the issues with the contemporary understanding of addiction and compulsory behavior that is really attacking our kids, you'll see too that we're asking that social media accounts,
social media platforms have the default. privacy settings and safety settings tied to children's accounts, so you'll see a lot of these themes of what we're trying to do. It also at the end, works with the Attorney General's office about the ability to go after issues where where this is not being addressed. It creates a crimes against children fund for any awards there. And then
finally on on the very end about effective date. It gives a year out to try to be reasonable for social media accounts and businesses to adhere to these changes in the law. I don't think they'll need a year to get ready for this, but especially with other states that have already passed similar legislation, but we want to try to be reasonable to make sure
Speaker 230
1:39:17
that there's time to implement this, so that's what the social
Speaker 12
1:39:28
media amendment to the Social Media Safety Act does with Senate Bill 61. Is there any questions? Senator Murdoch The questions see none, uh. There's no one
Speaker 259
1:39:37
signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there anybody in the audience for or against the bill, seeing none,
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:39:43
uh, you want to close your bill. Thank you, members. It's it's an
honor to continue this mission. It's definitely needed and so I appreciate a good vote to continue the efforts to protect our
Chair
Unverified
1:39:53
kids online. All right, motion by Senator Murdoch, seconded by Senator
Boyd, any discussion, all in favor, say aye. I opposed like sign. Thank you. That was a lot shorter. Thank you members. We went through social media
Speaker 192
1:40:07
really quick Senator Benzo, do you have something worked out
Speaker 152
1:40:18
on I believe so. Would you like to read what we've got before we get started? You you
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:40:22
want me to just go ahead and tell you what we came up with.
Speaker 34
1:40:30
What, what I got to remember what bill it was, Senator,
Chair
Unverified
1:40:39
6:15. That's right, yes. Senator Penzo, please everyone get 615 out, so, so let's have a, a reading of OK, so, so on page 2, right, that feller can leave the table. Bye.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:41:00
Go ahead, Senator Penzo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Page 24, we're going to strike December of uh it's struck here and I can't read it. We're going to strike the date and put in March 1st of 2026, March 1st. That will give the PSC more time. All right. To promulgate the rules, um, down under that. Line 17 where it says the A, B,
and C, we're going to add a D, OK, and put any necessary limit on capacity size. OK. And then of course semicolon
Speaker 18
1:41:55
and. All right. As in the staff work that. You just, just a minute. Go
Speaker 12
1:42:02
ahead. Yeah. All right. You think she can read that? OK. All right. All right, uh, I, I mean, this is fairly substantial. I want to suspend the rules motion by Senator Penzo to spender, seconded by Senator Boyd. All in favor. Say aye. All right, Senator Penzo, she has your amendments, uh, and
all the members heard the amendment motion by Senator Penzo on the amendment, seconded by Senator McKee, all in favor of that that verbal amendment. Uh, Say ah. Say aye. All opposed like and uh thank you, Senator. That is amended. Sorry, I'm, I'm running on fumes and I guess I'm having glitches. I'm
getting older. Uh, you want to close your bill. I think everybody in opposition and everybody is, is good now. Do you want to close
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:43:17
your bill, um, yeah, I think, I think everybody's Um, on the committee's where they need to be, so I
Chair
Unverified
1:43:25
just would ask for a good vote. All right, motion by Senator Penzo passes amended second by Senator Murdoch any discussion, none all in favor say aye. I opposed like sign. Thank you, Senator, for
working through that situation and that way we don't slow your bill down. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 12
1:43:47
Thank you. Thank you. Uh. Uh, so we have one more that might possibly present we're going to work through some house bills at this time, uh,
Speaker 275
1:43:56
Representative Perry. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Representative Perry.
Speaker 12
1:44:13
It is House Bill, uh, 1771. Is that correct? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, it is. All right. Let the members, let the members have a second, is there an amendment. Just a minute. Let them hand it out. A friendly amendment.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:44:44
So They didn't. a very You don't have. It was, uh, actually she, she missed the typing because I had to have Senator Murdoch as my Senate sponsor and she didn't, she didn't put it on there, but he was at it. You that
Speaker 284
1:45:14
Hang on, hang on. I was advised I needed one. Sometimes. Always. Don't y'all just write it in or You know And
Unknown speaker
1:45:48
I do a second. I would say I haven't had I mean. OK. here I. I will come, will come back.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:46:19
You with Michelle and we put it all in one place, uh. Let me call the drafter and have have her send me
Speaker 275
1:46:45
another one. I can make that happen. Representative Acer, uh, what meal do you have.
Unknown speaker
1:46:50
1531. it. Good noise. I can't go on. Only good noise. see.
Speaker 46
1:47:22
I got a recess until somebody comes. We'll adopt this. Yes, sir.
Chair
Unverified
1:47:52
All right. motion to adopt the amendment to 1531, 2nd by Senator Murdoch, all in favor say aye. I'll oppose like sign, uh, representative Aker,
Speaker 12
1:48:06
please introduce yourself and you're welcome to present. Thank you, Chairman. Senators, Representative
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:48:15
Brandon Anchor, District 71, presenting House Bill 1531, uh, this is a pretty
simple bill. It has strong support from the hospital association, UAMS, Kartai, Children's Highlands Oncology, and for good reason this bill seeks to allow greater access to what is being called limited distribution program drugs. So if you think very expensive high dollar drugs, those are currently siloed to specific pharmacies, oftentimes out of state. What we have here in the state is we have equally high qualified experienced and credentialed
pharmacies. These are not your typical everyday pharmacies. These are again like UAMS, Karzai, Highlands Oncology, specialty pharmacies that my bill would say that if they are able to meet the same criteria that these mail order pharmacies have met that you will allow them to have access to purchase these drugs. This has nothing to do with. payment. This has nothing to do with coverage. This is simply stating that For example, we had terrible weather last night that tore through northeast Arkansas. If mail was interrupted in that scenario,
the patience of St. Bernard's Hospital should be able to receive these very expensive necessary medications, and I believe that this would allow them to go through a due process. I've worked with several Pharma members to give them some assurances that any of their additional requirements outside of what the FDA approves. They'll have their ability to present that to the state board of pharmacy. Again, this is about allowing access for equally if not more qualified providers in our state for these
medications for our patients, and with that I
Speaker 87
1:50:04
welcome any questions. All right, uh. Is there any questions? Seeing none, we have 2 to testify, one to testify for one to testify against uh First on the list is Kip Snyder. I
Speaker 18
1:50:29
Yeah, that'll be fine. Just introduce yourself and who you're with and you're welcome to get this, this is against. Yep, thanks, Mr. Chairman, members
Kip Snyder
Unverified
1:50:43
of the committee, my name is Kip Snyder. I'm national vice president of state policy for Pharma, which is the pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of America were the principal trade association for the research-based industry, so we represent over 30 large
companies. Those are our members. They researched, discover, produce life saving medications, so we certainly support the intent that is behind this bill as we understand it, which we understand that to be helping to support. the local Arkansas pharmacy and provider community and to ensure patient access, and we have great respect for the bill sponsor Representative Akor, but we have to express concerns with the bill in its current form, and the overall reason is we believe that the language just
doesn't match up with the overall intent of the bill. Our companies are very concerned about ambiguity here, getting questions about whether this bill would even apply to them in the first place, and if it were, The case that they were in scope. There's a lot of confusion about how they would comply with the requirements of the bill. So if I could just elaborate quickly on that, there's been a lot of confusion and uncertainty with respect to this bill. I saw some of that at the House hearing that I witnessed. So the subject of
this bill is so called limited distribution networks and the idea, as we understand it, would be to require companies that have these so-called limited distribution networks to modify. them in order to be more inclusive of Arkansas-based pharmacies and institutions, and we are generally very open to that. We are huge supporters of local and independent pharmacies, and I've got to say I completely understand and respect one state legislatures take steps to help the home
team, so to speak, but that said, there's a lack of detail in this bill, and it appears the way we read the bill to put the burden on the manufacturer to essentially request permission from the board to operate a so-called limited distribution network again not defined, so we're not sure exactly what's in scope and what is not, like, you know, a threshold question is limited how and by whom. So for example, if there's an oncology product
and that has been exclusively distributed through oncology pharmacies based on marketplace forces, but the manufacturer doesn't have an express policy. Is that in the scope of the bill? Another exemplary question, is there any sort of a minimum volume requirement. I've heard from companies that have highly specialized drugs. They may have a product for which there's maybe only 4 or 5 patients in the state, so we're saying, does this mean they're asking, does this mean we have to establish a different Arkansas-based
distribution network in such a case. Um, so what is limited mean? There could be manufacturers that have products that do use national distribution networks. s but also have maybe a smattering of Arkansas distribution as well, so it's it's just not clear sort of where the lines are and then if you are within the scope of the bill, the bill speaks in terms of providing similar access and geographic diversity diverse diverse access again, we don't know what that means, so we have one concern is that this actually could end up being a
boon for some of the the corporate PBM owned pharmacies, depending on how some of the terms are interpreted. So these distribution networks very often are required. The Food and Drug Administration has a well established program called the REMS program, REM stands for risk evaluation and mitigation strategies. There are lots of these different programs. I myself have moved along the learning curve since reading this bill, and if I've learned one thing, it's when
you've seen one of these programs, you've seen one of these programs because there's a lot of variability across the board, so Very often these are, these are not voluntary, and I'll tell you in the discussions over on the House, there was this sort of discernible sentiment that I think was misplaced that manufacturers for some reason are scheming or desire to have this limited distribution, and that's not the case. I mean, manufacturers are companies, we
broadly speaking want easy broad access to products, so more distribution and not less. The problem is that there's specific reasons that these specialty networks are in place typically driven by special handling and patient safety requirements in many cases again as directed by
Speaker 311
1:55:22
FDA. So how many pages are you going to go through there? I'm wrapping up, I'll get to it. We have a lot to say. Um. Yeah.
Kip Snyder
Unverified
1:55:38
No other state has done anything like this. We're concerned that this could lead to a patchwork of requirements going forward. If the bill were to pass, we don't know exactly. How our member companies would react. We appreciate the amendments which I think are directionally helpful, including extending the extending the effective date, but without any further direction our companies would sort of be scratching their heads wondering if they're in or out of scope, and I expect
that this might result in a lot of confusion, perhaps a deluge of calls to the Board of Pharmacy or other state regulators so they can try to figure out where they stand. We asked for this to be pulled back and studied and slowed down. would love to be able to work with the proponents again. We support, I think, the same goal, which is broad access support of local Arkansas institutions and continued patient access. So I'll wrap up
Speaker 311
1:56:34
there. So you're the manufacturer. Or the trade association that
Speaker 34
1:56:41
represents manufacturers, yes, right, and this limited distribution network you like. Well, the
Kip Snyder
Unverified
1:56:49
limited distribution network or a fundamental reality of our business in many cases, as I mentioned, they are required by FDA. They certainly do exist, but there are so many forms and colors and varieties again, we're not sure because this bill doesn't define the very entity that it seeks to
Speaker 311
1:57:11
regulate, we're not sure where a lot of the lines will be, so you don't know what a Limited distribution network is, is that what I heard? Well, I think there are some, we have an idea
Kip Snyder
Unverified
1:57:24
of what the intent is, but there's no, there's no definition. So again, there's some that are somewhat limited, partially limited. Limited by other entities versus limited by manufacturers. There's a lot of complexity. I know.
Speaker 18
1:57:42
We've had PSAOs, LDNs, uh Pharmacy benefit managers, I mean, there's a lot of leeches. Welcome
Speaker 12
1:57:53
to our world between the between the manufacturer and the consumers. And uh, I appreciate your efforts. Is there any other question? Seeing no, thank you for your testimony, uh. They're dismissed uh
No We have Daniel. I'm sorry, I can't. I can't read the writing. This is for Arkansas Health Care Association or Arkansas HHS Daniel NCSM. For
We have somebody here to speak for this bill 1531. Going once, going twice,
Speaker 18
1:58:51
you're done. All right. Uh. Seeing none you want to close your bill What's your name? Right What's your
Speaker 319
1:59:01
name? Oh, I'm sorry, against Russell.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:59:18
Sorry, man. I'm sorry. All right, go ahead. Just introduce yourself as chairman, members of the committee. My
Speaker 322
1:59:31
name is Russell Polk representing uh biophharmaceutical innovation Organization, also known as BIO. Um I respectfully ask for your opposition to 1531, which seeks to restrict drug manufacturers from establishing LDNs as we talked about already.
pharmaceutical manufacturers established limited distribution networks for a variety of important reasons, and I'll highlight three of them just to be short. Uh, number one, special handling and storage requirements, many medications require strict temperature control, specialized packaging and other handling protocols to maintain their s stability and effectiveness, distributing these drugs through a select network of pharmacies and distributors help ensure these storage conditions meet necessary.
safety standards preventing potential loss of efficacy and potential harm to patients. Number 2, patient safety and risk mitigation. Certain drugs carry risk and require additional safeguards to prevent misuse and improper administration. The FDA's risk evaluation and mitigation strategy REMs is we've mentioned previously program mandates that high risk medications only be disposed through a restricted pharmacy network. And number 3, maintain drug integrity in the Supply chain limiting
distribution to a controlled network sometimes helps to prevent counterfeit or substandard products from entering the supply chain, expanding distribution and indiscriminately increases the chance of supply chain disruption, contamination, or improper handling that could compromise patient health and safety. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll
Speaker 323
2:01:08
in my comments and all right, thank you, Senator Boyd.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:01:19
so I appreciate your testimony. Uh, I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but regardless, have you
seen the amendment? I, I have not seen an amendment. OK, so in the amendment, just so you, you
know, and then I'll ask a question. The pharmacy meeting medication specific United States FDA guidance or requirements for proper and safe storage handling, monitoring and drug delivery. I, I mean, when you agree maybe that some of the things you said were problematic were addressed in this amendment. I still think there's concerns
Speaker 322
2:01:51
from this my my members, just so you know, my members are biologics where we have, we have 1300 members across 30 different countries. I will say that all of our members have different specialty drugs that are distributed through the LDNs and not not one LDN is the same as the other, nor is there any drug treated the same way, and so any broad any broad bill that just tries to fit everybody in one box. is something that's complicated for our members, so you're
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:02:21
you're convinced that the state Board of
Pharmacy and highly trained pharmacists with doctoral level education, can't figure out how to follow the instructions on storage. No,
Speaker 322
2:02:32
I don't, I don't, I think we have some very, very smart people that run our pharmacies and we, we are here for access purposes in the rural areas, especially but right now my membership have
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:02:46
exactly is the concern with allowing our saw pharmacies to distribute your medications when they can
read and interpret the labeling when they can store them appropriately. Uh,
Speaker 322
2:03:02
can you give me a, a real concern again, Senator, I have members that have various concerns based on what at least what we have seen so far, and I, I
Speaker 325
2:03:11
mean I can't tell. So is the concern that the state
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:03:15
is directing you to do something, or is the concern you really think that the state board of pharmacy and Arkansas licensed pharmacists are unable to follow the product labeling and
Speaker 322
2:03:26
directions from the manufacturer. You know, again, we have many LDNs and how we would operate under this law. It's just it's, it's very new concept, obviously and in Arkansas would be the first state to have something like this, and we would have to concerned
Speaker 328
2:03:39
that Arkansas is going to be the leader. Yes, sir. Thank you. So, um, I, I understand it's most
Speaker 34
2:03:45
taken care of in the amendment, but all those things are,
Speaker 12
2:03:57
are have a required by the FDA, correct, that handling and distribution, whether it's done by the LDNs or by the pharmacist. Am I, am I right in what I'm saying? Are you
Chair
Unverified
2:04:12
talking about the REM program, the FDA don't get me on rims because there ain't no telling what will come out of my mouth, but All the handling and distribution and all the things that you're worried about, the requirements, whoever the
Speaker 12
2:04:30
placement of that product is the FDA requires that whether it be the LDNs or the pharmacies to handle those things in the same manner, correct?
Speaker 322
2:04:41
I'm not sure that they're required to handle them in the same manner between each LDN that, you know, our companies have, but I do know that our companies have various LDNs in place to handle those drugs and get them distributed to the appropriate population and how that you know, everybody's different. Everybody's got different drugs
that require LDNs and distribution of those drugs and so my members are just concerned about how we would implement this
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:05:08
bill into what we currently have. So if the manufacturers have the drug. FDA Since
Speaker 4
2:05:14
their protocol for how they're going to handle that drug. Correct? I'm, I don't know
Speaker 322
2:05:21
that I know the answer to fully answer that question, Senator. Are you a pharmacist? No, sir, I'm not a pharmacist. OK?
Speaker 34
2:05:32
So you don't know how to handle the drug. I'm sorry, you don't know how to handle the drugs, right? I do not handle drugs. All right, thank you.
Chair
Unverified
2:05:45
Thank you. Is there any other questions? Seeing none, uh, I think that's all the for or against, you want to close your bill? Thank you committee. I
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:05:54
did want to address a few things, so this, this doesn't require any of those manufacturers to prospectively go out and recruit pharmacies. It simply states that if a
pharmacy has a patient population, meets all of these thresholds for safety and efficacy. They will apply to the manufacturer. The manufacturer can review that. If the manufacturer wants to apply additional burdens, there's a waiver possibility by the state Board of Pharmacy. This is operationally sound, and I don't see how it can do. anything except improve the access for life saving medication to our constituents, and with that, I'm closed for my bill, and I appreciate emotion and a good vote.
Chair
Unverified
2:06:29
All right, motion by Senator Boyd to pass as amended second
by Senator Penzo, any discussion, all in favor, say ah. I'll oppose like sign.
Speaker 18
2:06:39
Thank you, Senator. Oh thank you, Representative Baker. It's been a long week.
Speaker 4
2:06:51
Do what? We've got uh Representative Perry's amendment.
Speaker 12
2:07:10
I OK. I need a motion to adopt the motion by Senator Boyd, seconded by Senator Murdoch to adopt
Chair
Unverified
2:07:43
amendment for 1771. All in favor say aye. I'll oppose like
Speaker 12
2:07:48
saying, All right, Representative Perry, if you want to Introduce yourself and
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
2:07:55
and you're red. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark Perry, Representative District 66. Senators, House Bill 1771 is a business friendly bill. It actually will require insurance companies to provide claims data on healthy group health insurance policies for
employees of 50 or more and that would help provide detailed information on high value, high claims data. We amended it. It was 25, but we did a, we were requested by an insurance company to go to 50, and that's what the amendment is going to 50 employees. And with that, Is there any questions? OK. Hang on just a minute. Let me make sure that any testimony.
Chair
Unverified
2:08:50
See no, uh, any questions? Seeing none, you want to close
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
2:08:57
your bill. I'm closed, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 34
2:09:00
Appreciate a motion. All right. Motion by Senator Johnson, as amended by
Chair
Unverified
2:09:06
Senator Murdoch. Any discussion, all in
Speaker 18
2:09:09
favor say aye. I'll oppose like sign thank you representative for being patient. Thank you. Um
Speaker 12
2:09:22
People on their seats. We have another Senate bill. It is Senate Bill 437. Hey.
Speaker 30
2:09:29
I recognized? Hang on a minute. OK. Let me, let me get
Speaker 68
2:09:49
to it. All right. Introduce yourself and you're recognized State
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:09:53
Senator Bart Hester District 33. This is a bill that We debated at length in the past and we've added an amendment that I I'm, I'm certain it doesn't make everyone good, but I think it makes most of the people that were here last time, but I want to direct you, it's already been a minute, I'm in on our floor to page 20. Starting with lines 26 to 31. But this bill, I think any of us
can agree that when we have an industry, certainly one that will have such dramatic effects on the state that it needs some sort of regulations. It is always my intention that these regulations are as least restrictive as possible. Um, but even there is a compelling governmental interest with all property owners involved and that we do something. So on page 2, Um lines 26 to 31, what it does is it exempts any projects that are currently under construction or
or operating. We're not, we're not messing with anyone that's, that's working, um, and number 2, it, it exempts only Uh or it exempts everything that's um facility there is less than 300 ft above sea level. And really that, that was what I would consider the Ron Caldwell amendment. He's got a bunch of projects going down in his district. He doesn't want it to affect those. I really want to protect the Ozarks with as much, you know, you know, with the
Arkansas Natural Initiative going on we want people to become high bike, paddle, rock climb, uh, so that's kind of what this really does. It Protects the current projects happening. It protects our Ozarks, uh, but also allows those projects, um, you know, and what I would consider Caldwell's district to move forward. Happy to answer any questions. Senator Murdoch and I know you don't
Chair
Unverified
2:11:52
care anything about below sea level where we live, but uh
we're going to question. Well, at times you just wait until they wait until
Speaker 52
2:12:04
Saturday, uh, Senator McKee. Yeah Thank you Mr. Chair, uh,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:12:11
and I appreciate that you're willing to work with folks, Senator Hester. So
the projects that are exempted, does that mean we're not placing any of the requirements on those projects at this time. I mean,
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:12:23
I believe there should be, but we all come down here and do, do the best we
can and it's possible that there will be some other bills that come with uh with with some basic restrictions, but look, I, I believe that every project going on right now should have to have a bond because if these huge Windmills are built and they walk away in 2 years. There ought to be something there to remove those from those communities if they're not providing benefit, but I tried. I wasn't able to get that done.
This is what I think I can get done for now, at least the project's moving. For, yeah. Senator Johnson question.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:13:00
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Hester, I appreciate you calling it the Ron Caldwell Amendment did, did, does this make Senator Caldwell OK? to your understanding with the bill. I mean, I've said for a good while that, you know, I'm I'm a supporter of wind energy, and I, but I'm also a supporter of tourism and the things that you indicate you're concerned about it is is he OK? And where can you kind of tell us
Where the line is between the 300 ft and you know below and above in our state. I should be
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:13:36
prepared to answer. I will say this is Ron Caldwell's amendment. He wrote it. I gave him permission with BLR to write his amendment that got him happy. This was, and it was his idea using a 300 ft above above sea level. I wish I had that's a very reasonable question that I will answer you. I just don't have it. I
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:13:55
know this, it protects the Ozarks, uh, but allows I, I, I'm kind of know about this because
I know about where Goose Ferry Lake is in this thing, and I have my boat up here, so I keep up with the sea level in the lake, and it's based on that, but I think it is that imaginary line from from Senator Blake Johnson's district down to Texas. and below our east and south of that is the 300. I mean, are you in agreement that's at least close to that. That's very close to it. That's right. OK, well, this, this is a, this changes
things and I believe now I can support the
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:14:38
bill. Thank you, Senator. Any additional
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:14:41
question, Senator Ervin, I know that I just came in, but again, this is
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:14:46
the sea level, is that correct? That's right. I said basically the 33 important things different than last time are every project that's currently under construction is grandfathered. Um, and, uh, every project that is below 300 ft in sea level, which it kind of was a great example somewhere from Senator
Blake Johnson's district down to Texarkana and south of that. is exempted from this, but what it does is it protects the Ozarks. It protects our, you know, that that's, that's
Speaker 354
2:15:15
the goal here. That's what we've Got to. Perfect. Thank you. So
Speaker 12
2:15:20
what it amounts to is we're going to be in the wild wild
Chair
Unverified
2:15:29
west. When you're below 300 ft sea level. Any other questions?
Speaker 12
2:15:38
Seeing none, we have one to testify. Uh Against
Chair
Unverified
2:15:45
the bill. I can't read it. Somebody come on up. Yeah, wherever you want to land, just introduce yourself when you get sit down who you're with and I do
Speaker 356
2:16:04
have some handouts, uh, a map of a topographic map.
Chair
Unverified
2:16:10
We will let you do the handouts if you will keep it short. Absolutely. Now, hang on just a minute, Senator. Let, let staff do that. I appreciate it.
Unknown speaker
2:17:03
like. apologize. Please introduce
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
2:17:33
yourself and you're recognized. I appreciate that, Chairman. Thank you and thank you, committee, for allowing me to
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:17:39
come and speak on Senate Bill 437, the Wind Energy Development Act today. My name is Simon Mahan. I'm the executive director of the Southern Renewable Energy Association. We are a trade association of large scale renewable developers, that's wind energy, solar, batteries, transmission. We are based here in Little Rock. My family and I live here in Little Rock, but we work. throughout the Southeast all the way over to Georgia and up to
Kentucky and everywhere in between. I'm here today to strongly oppose this bill in parts that are above the 300 ft sea level area. It is effectively a ban on wind energy resources. I did pass you out a copy of my testimony on the very back page you will see a map that we have created of all the red dots of all the churches, schools, airports, a one or restriction around all of
those facilities in the state effectively makes it impossible to develop wind projects in the state. This legislation is largely copied from a 2018 Tennessee bill that was designed to ban wind energy. I was involved in that legislative fight, and since 2018, when these restrictions were put in place, no wind farms have been built in Tennessee. This is extreme regulation that effectively as a ban outside of the 300 ft
area. Many of our wind farms could bring $200 million to $300 million worth of private investment for local landowners signing voluntary leases for their own property. There are are some additional values of wind energy, for instance, the first wind project that went live in Mississippi. That project is selling its power to the Amazon data centers there in Missis. Mississippi and so when we have large new customers, new
industries coming to the state, and they see that they're not capable of getting the renewable energy resources that they want, they may pass us over for other states like Mississippi or Louisiana. Uh, as you can read in the testimony, there are really excessive setback requirements, unprecedented environmental impact statement reviews, unreasonable noise restrictions that are not applied to other generation tech ch no log ies and for those reasons and everything else written in my testimony, I'd encourage you to reject the bill. So
Chair
Unverified
2:20:09
In this map is the red, the one you could develop in. The red is where
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:20:19
you can't develop, can't develop. Uh, there are, and that's just one portion of the bill that is only the one mile setback from schools, churches, hospitals, cities, parks, and airports, There are obviously areas in here, up in the Ozarks in the Washitas that in a national forest. I don't know of any of our developers that are interested in doing any develop
up in there because it's really difficult to get machines up in there. The transmission topology is also not very good in these large mountainous areas. And so even if you see kind of a blank spot here on the map that does not mean it's a green go zone area, even with the rest of the regulations from the bill. Is there any other questions, Senator Murdoch? Thank you, Chair.
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
2:21:10
a little bit, and there have been some discussions. Senator Hester, I think, pulled it down and they've been through several meetings or
were you a part of the conversation? I personally was not. Was your organization. Is that by choice? No. Thank you. Senator Johnson. Thank you. Thank you.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:21:40
You got too many mic, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My light didn't come on, you turn your mic off? We had too many mics, yeah, uh, Simon,
thank you for your testimony. You've been really helpful on a lot of issues this one as well. I might. Add that when we, we Don't allow something. We are not, that's not a permanent
decision. If we allow something if you build 400 ft towers all in East Arkansas. That's, that's something that we're kind of, I hate to say stuck with, but at least in the medium term, yes, so I would, I would remind you that in this we can change that. This is a very simple solution to a complex problem. I appreciate Senator Hester bringing that up, but, but Rick, please help me understand that, you know, that we can have some
changes that the colors on the map that you have where it's red and green and white and all that there could be some adjustments in the future, you know, to allow it in place, especially in places where the wind justifies it, be the people would want it as they do, say, in Cross County. So I just, would you agree that that's at least a possibility in the future and with kind of leaving that open, yeah, yes
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
2:23:07
sir, I will say though, many of
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:23:12
our members are wind farm developers, are they, they are, they are watching us right now trying to make a decision on do they maintain the leases that they already have with local landowners if they feel like that those leases we won't be able to get them fixed in the near term, a year or two. They will abandon those leases and abandon those projects, and so it, you know, I'm, I'm sympathetic to protecting the Ozarks. I grew up in southwest
Missouri, but I will mention in other parts of the country where some of these turbines have gone up. They have actually created a small tourism industry. Some folks actually want to go and see them. That being said, I realize that's not the case for everyone, but even with that, I still think that this 300 ft sea level restriction. is still too much. At the time, OK, well, thank you for your
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:24:06
testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. the questions Senator Ervin, thank you. I appreciate your
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:24:14
concern. I live in the Ozarks. You live here in Little Rock. Yes, ma'am. OK, so I live in the Ozarks and I, I mean we How much of the wind industry right now is subsidized by federal dollars. They
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:24:33
all get or are capable of getting the production tax credit, which is available to all generation resources that emit zero emissions. So for instance, the nuclear industries of available to receive the production tax credit as well.
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
2:24:47
OK, any, any other funding in addition to that? Not that I'm aware of.
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:24:55
We're not here to ask for additional funding or any assistance. We are here simply to allow
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:25:01
us to work with our local landowners. Got you, OK, and then I just Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Walmart utilized solar energy, um, when they are building their new world headquarters.
And so, you know, which I appreciate because I, from a construction point of view, I would much prefer if a big company is going to come into the state of Arkansas like Amazon or whatever that they decide to put the solar panels on their own buildings, and that they can look at it every day versus a wind turbine. Energy generation source to me that makes a lot more sense and it's just a lot more honestly environmentally friendly because
I, I, I do care about the environment and I think that's what's so odd here is that I care about the environment and then when you take away habitat for animals, that creates an incredible disruption in our ecology and, and so, you know, I think there's real purpose behind what Senator Hester is trying to do, and I think it's a compromise situation that he's worked through. I appreciate your comments. I really do appreciate
the work that you're doing, you know, I, I would guess, you know, do you, do you see any kind of understanding as to why those of us that live in this very mountainous region would not
Speaker 376
2:26:38
want wind turbines. I can understand the desire not to not to see them
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:26:43
and not look at them that part of the state is growing very rapidly and we will need more power generation in northwest Arkansas, so you know I have solar panels
on my roof here in Little Rock. They do not generate enough power to serve my whole house when we're talking about data centers the data centers that are going in in Mississippi, for instance, are 1000 megawatts of demand. You cannot put enough solar panels on a roof to power that, and so if we're eliminating a technology, particularly for Northwest Arkansas. You are effectively tying yourselves because we're not
going to build any more coal plants in the state. You're going to we don't know that. Uh Based on, based on the work that we've done with the Southwestern Electric Power Company and their integrated resource plan process. They are not going to build any more coal-fired power plants, and I, I would argue For me again growing up in the Ozarks, I'm a trout fisherman. coal-fired power plants are less advantageous to me as what a win
project would be wind farms don't use any water. There's there's environmental benefit to them, and so my, my recommendation is allow us to work with our private landowners so that we can and the local counties so that we can pick and choose where we need to go. I'm going to save the
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:28:12
rest of my comments for discussion. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any
Speaker 8
2:28:17
other questions? Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it. Thank you. Uh There's no one
Speaker 18
2:28:23
else to speak for against the bill. Is there
anybody that wants to from the audience, seeing none,
Speaker 333
2:28:31
you want to close the bill? I do members I'll, I'll just go back to this. I understand their concerns. I appreciate the map.
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:28:39
They brought everything in blue is exempt from this bill. Everything currently under construction is exempt from this bill and the Ozarks there are currently 4 companies with projects under construction right now. Um, all, all exempt and it doesn't mean you can't build in the Ozarks. It is not a ban. There will just be
significant regulations and priorities on where you can and can't build and how and how you do it if you want to continue to build up in the Ozarks. So with that, I really appreciate all the members and the work we've put on this. I think we've got a bill that we can support.
Speaker 119
2:29:16
Thank you. Motion by Senator Ervin second by Senator McKees discussion, uh, go ahead. OK. I just
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:29:30
I want to say this because I appreciate all
that we're trying to do. However, there are alternative energies that we can utilize in gas, coal, nuclear, it's we're pretending like this is the only path forward for the future, that it's only going to be solar or wind. I mean, I live in an area where we generate hydroelectricity at great amounts because of dams that we have, which is
fabulous, and we need to utilize it and harness that energy, that's that's available. So there are real concerns, not just because they don't look nice. Real concern is when you're putting these things on top of a ridge of a mountain top of runoff. I live in an area where we had an incredible storm, and I think it's just, I want to say this for testimony publicly because I'm not somebody who I don't appreciate being talked down to. Like, I just don't understand this.
I do understand it. It's not just because they, they look ugly. I understand there's a tremendous amount of water that's used in the concrete pad that goes way down into the earth in order to support the magnitude and the weight of this incredible structure that's standing up in the air. I understand the construction of that. I understand the runoff implications when you're eliminating and clear cutting so many trees off of a ridge top and the runoff and you have
concrete and how that's going to affect everybody downstream of that mountain ridge and all the gravel roads and all the dirt roads and all these counties have to to to deal with. I understand that more than I think anybody else is is understanding that from the people that are, you know, against this bill. And so I, I just caution as to really understand everything about the impact Of this type of an energy
source, as we are moving forward. I think it's an appropriate measure for us as policymakers to consider all these things and do not talk to us as if we're naive. So I'm very, very grateful for you bringing the bill. I'm very supportive of this bill. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 358
2:31:51
you, Senator. I just wish to Senator would have
Speaker 18
2:31:58
Been able to, you know, since we're putting it, uh,
Below 300 ft above sea level, if if you had to put a duck head on top of the windmill and put mojo on the side, and we could at least use it for uh to draw the
Chair
Unverified
2:32:22
ducks down from Illinois Is there any other, any other discussion. Seeing, seeing none all in favor, say ah. All pose like sign. Thank you, Senator. Like
Speaker 12
2:32:42
I think we have Uh, Senator Dees and Representative Brown. I. Thank
Speaker 336
2:33:02
you, Mr. Chair and committee, introduce yourselves and you're recognized. What, what, what are we on first? 46,
174646 members and there's 3 bills that we'll be discussing and 1736. I'll accept a motion to batch. they think you're, I ain't playing. we
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:33:29
can present them together and they are similar. Do we have an amendment? We're going
Speaker 4
2:33:37
to consider all those bills at the same time. We will not be talking about 1820
Speaker 385
2:33:44
with this group. Hang on, hang on just a minute. So for
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:33:51
clarity, 1736, 1746 and 1737.
Speaker 147
2:33:53
No one has signed up against those bills. Is there, there's not
Speaker 385
2:33:58
an amendment on any of those bills? No, sir. Members were 1736, 1746
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:34:05
and 1737. It's state Senator Tyler Dees,
Speaker 182
2:34:09
District 35. Hang on just a minute, right.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:34:18
Let's, uh, if, if they're all in the same realm. We can present them, Mr. Chair, and if you feel comfortable batching at
Chair
Unverified
2:34:27
at the end of that time, that's up to you all members. I will not make
Speaker 18
2:34:31
this decision alone. Do you want to do both of them? That is not a book and then go to the book. All right, all right, let's, let's do them all, uh,
Speaker 68
2:34:41
present, you know, give a synopsis of each and then and then let us move from there. Senator District 35.
Speaker 393
2:34:48
Matt Brown, District 55. Aaron Squires representing the Arkansas Bar Association.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:34:56
All right, you're, you're welcome to, you're recognized. Thank you, members. Appreciate the ability to bring these. This, this is a 3 bills from the
bar association recognizing some changes to uniform commercial code. Some are technical in nature and some will have some more details. We we'd like to allow Mr. Squires to help us present the bill, but before that I'd love
Representative Brown for any comments. the intro. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senators, so the 1746
Speaker 394
2:35:25
and 1736, these are amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code that the uniform Law Commission has put out to all the states to adopt. I apologize on the exact number, but if we were to adopt these, I think we're somewhere in the 22nd, 23rd, 24 states to adopt this round, and they're like I said being pushed out to all the state legislatures right now on 1746, which is very thick, I will admit it's about 90%
technical correction. The real substantive change in 46 is it's creating a new Article 12 under the UCC. Those are the articles that govern everything from check cashing to deposits to how you take a lien on a, you know, inventory in a business and things of that nature. Article 12 would enable banks to be able to take a lien if they said choose on like digital assets which we know are kind of the new thing that's starting to occur. This just provides a framework on if you choose to take that as collateral for a loan, how would you actually legally do it? And
so that's an Article 12 that's being pushed out. On the 1736, which is much shorter, that's making some technical changes to clarify under the law, when you have like an LLC and you have a membership interest and they all see and let's say you get in trouble and you get a judgment against you and your creditors are starting to execute. It clarifies that if a creditor executes on your LLC interest, they do not be, they are not able to become a member of your LLC. So while they may be able to get some money from it, what it's being paid, I'm sorry, Senator. I'm sorry, uh, whenever if
Whenever distributions being made, they can intercept those distributions, but they can't come in and become a partner with you and start making decisions, and that would be as opposed to if you had shares in a corporation where they actually could, they would own the shares and have those rights. Uh, and then finally on 1737. This is, I think, more of a technical correction bill. This governs the law on, for example, if you had a telephone project that crossed county lines. This just clarified if a bank were providing financing for that project, where would they file their lien paperwork to be able to have a lien on the product, you know, to secure the
financing. This law was done in the 60s and it still references telegraphs, and so we're simply updating it to make the same thing but available for like a fiber optic project or internet. Project or things of that nature. We're just updating it to
Speaker 18
2:37:39
1962. We're going to take them one at a time. All right, we're going to
Chair
Unverified
2:37:45
do questions on House Bill 17361 1736. Senator Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Brown, thank you
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:37:55
for bringing this bill. Uh, I just want
to be crystal clear before we vote. Representative Maddox and I had what we referred to as the LLC bill. Is there anything in here that is going to undo what we did in our LLC bill. I can get you, I can pull that number up and have you look at it, but before we vote on this, I need to be very Good that we're augmenting or not interfering or what have you with the LLC bill that we passed that he and I consider extremely
Speaker 398
2:38:26
important. Thank you, Senator, and I remember the exact bill you talked about because I really liked that bill and no, this does not in any way impair y'all's bill. If anything, it's just kind of
Speaker 399
2:38:37
a redundant, I think, for lack of a better word, but
Chair
Unverified
2:38:42
y'all's bill would still, it's still in full force and effect. Thank you. I question on 1736. See none. All right, 1737. Any question on 1737. Uh All right.
You got a question Hang on, hang on, we're we're gonna handle that here in just a minute. 1746, the book. Anybody got a question on the book? Go ahead, Senator
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:39:16
Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Brown, Representative Beatty and I had a bill that affected central bank digital currency early in the
session that was overwhelmingly passed in both chambers. I want before we vote on this book of a bill, I want
to, to ascertain that there's nothing in here that undoes what we did because that was where it came from as the UCC and I want to make sure we don't have something hidden in here that undoes what we already did. Thank you, Senator Boyd, um, and I also
Speaker 394
2:39:46
defer to my witness, but my understanding is no, it does not. In fact, on page 4 of the bill, it specifically has provision to clarify that in no way, shape, or form would like a digital currency be considered money, which I think was one of the big issues in the last session as well, and my
understanding is that was actually necessary because one of the Central American countries, I think, or South America actually adopted cryptos like their official legal tender and so there was a afraid like would we now be required to recognize that
Speaker 404
2:40:12
there's money here and so that's why this provision on page was was to keep that out. Yes, sir. Thank you. Senator Johnson, I'm
Speaker 34
2:40:21
going to defer to you because there's two lawyers at the table and your father was one. Is there any question on the book. Mr. Chairman, let me just say
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:40:34
that none of these bills had a dissenting vote in the House, and while I generally don't defer to our friends on the north end of the capital. I think it says a lot that with everyone looking for something to complain about this week. No one did, so I think that's a telling moment and I'll my friend representative Brown is Is my legal expert in
Speaker 57
2:40:53
my districts. I'll defer to you. All right, Senator Murdock, let me say this, I think that Senator Johnson
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
2:41:00
just got a text that kind of took him out of the
question mode, OK? He'll share that with you
Chair
Unverified
2:41:08
later. All right. No, you may have it. There is, there is no, uh no one signed up for against the bill. You want to close
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:41:18
on your bills? Thank you, members. I just looked at the exact same information Senator Johnson brought up in Perth Senator Boyd's questions, the members that had different bills of concern did not vote against these, you know, that's not always a um uh the only thing we look at, but it has helped me to
have comfort as well, and for that we'd appreciate a vote on however you see fit,
Chair
Unverified
2:41:41
either batched or individually. I'll accept a motion for Senate Bill 1736, 1737, and 17 46 as a batch motion by Senator Boyd, seconded by Senator Irvin, any discussion? That gum it boy. Well, I don't, I don't know
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:41:59
discussing if I'm discussing your motion to batch or I'm just
making a discussion, but the point is, is for decades, we went with the UCC and it was a tool that
helped us function efficiently across state lines, and unfortunately there are some people who have tried to use that tool to implement differing political agendas, and I think we have to be more careful. So I appreciate the due diligence, due diligence. Of the people who've brought this to make sure that we are actually doing what it was intended to do and not moving forward someone's political agenda. Thank you. All right, we have a motion of
Chair
Unverified
2:42:38
the 2nd. All in favor. Say aye. All opposed like sign thank you everybody motion to
Speaker 12
2:42:46
pass those bills as a match. All right, second by Senator Boyd, any discussion, all in favor say aye. All opposed like sign thank you for your,
Chair
Unverified
2:42:53
uh, you have one more bill? I do, Mr. Chair, if you're willing to take it or I can come back. I'm willing to take it if everybody else is. Thank you,
Speaker 398
2:43:10
Mr. Chair. All right, what, what, what is it? All right. Mr. Sher, it's 1820 House Bill 1820, 1820. 1820 has an amendment.
Chair
Unverified
2:43:41
You have a motion to adopt the amendment by Senator McKee, second by Senator Johnson, all in favor say aye. All pose like sign. All right. Please present 1820 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown District
Speaker 404
2:43:56
55. Senators, this is a little piece of consumer protection legislation.
Speaker 394
2:44:01
You may have heard this as the click to cancel. Essentially what this bill provides is that if a consumer signs up for a service that builds their credit card on
some sort of recurring billing, you know, a subscription type service if the company allows you to sign up for it in one way, they have to let you be able to cancel in that way. And so the two examples I would give is, for example, when I had a satellite Radio, I called them up to can. You can sign up online all day long. You create your account, put in the number, they bill you, that's fine. Well, if you want to cancel, you have to call 1-800 number and you get the runaround for 45 minutes before they let you cancel. This law simply says you've got to be able to cancel online as well. Gym membership's another example. Sign up at the front desk of the gym. Well, usually in the fine print, it said, well, you have to send a
certified letter to some PO box in Alaska in order to, it has to be sent on a Tuesday and a month ending in R or something like that. And so they just make it very hard to cancel under this law. They'd have to be able to cancel at the front desk. Um, it also provides some more disclosure to the consumer before you actually enter your credit card information. Hey, this is a recurring charge and this is how you cancel. This law has been a, a very similar law was passed in Tennessee and other states. The FTC also has a similar rule which is set to implement this year. This essentially just codify that in state law in case something were to happen in the FTC rule, because we all know that
sometimes court decisions say they exceed their authority and things of that nature. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Any
Speaker 87
2:45:21
questions? Let me check. There's no one signed up for against this bill. You want to close the bill. I'm closed,
Speaker 398
2:45:31
Mr. Chair, and if I may ask, would it be possible for y'all to come give us lessons out of committees because this is a whole lot faster, a lot
Speaker 399
2:45:38
more efficient than what we do on my end of the building.
Chair
Unverified
2:45:46
You have a motion by Senator McKee second by Senator Johnson, any discussion all in favor say aye. Thank
Speaker 12
2:45:54
you, Representative, uh, all right. Uh, representative Rose, are you leaving? OK. Do
Chair
Unverified
2:46:02
you want to, you want to come down? We have, uh, we have another representative on his way to help present my bill, uh.
Speaker 12
2:46:16
Representative Rose, it's uh It's bill 1859,
Speaker 259
2:46:22
the movie built. Representative Ro. We have handled
Speaker 52
2:46:27
energy and uniform consumer code. We have handled a lot today. Representative Rose, just introduce yourself and you could you
Chair
Unverified
2:46:39
shut that mic off out of you, so all right, just introduce yourself and you
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:46:48
recognize on 1859. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Representative Ryan Rose, District 48, Van Buren Fort Smith, House Bill 1859 to amend the law concerning mastectomies. So I know that this committee has heard a couple of bills I'm sure having to be in relation to breast cancer or surgeries or reconstructions, today, this bill amends a law concerning mastectomies by ensuring that women who undergo
these life altering surgeries have access to a full range of both modern but also complete reconstruction options. Simply put, this bill is about helping women be made whole as much as possible. Uh, physically, emotionally, and spiritually after the devastating fight that they go through when they face breast cancer. So, uh, some of you may know, uh, my wife's a 2 time breast cancer survivor, and she has had 8 surgeries in the last few
years, 6 of those related specifically to her breast cancer battle. So having navigated that and seeing all the emotions and experiencing it sitting by her side going through the surgeries and then becoming more connected to other people who have navigated the exact same things. Um, we've seen first. And how breast cancer attacks the body and something I was completely ignorant of until we went through it, but it doesn't just attack the body. It wounds
a woman's identity. It hurts her dignity and does everything that it can to rob her of her femininity. What this bill does in plain terms is expands existing law that already requires basic reconstruction, uh, which is important, but it is not complete. And What happens When you go through breast cancer and you decide what type of surgery that you're going to
go through. There are different types of mastectomies. They're more significant, and they're all significant. Some are just lesser significant. I could get into all the details, but the reconstruction is different in each case, and then on top of that, there are uh different body types. There are different requirements. Bodies respond differently to different kinds of surgeries, and for all kinds of reasons. Different women may need different reconstructive options. There are 2 that are
medically standard that we need to make sure our covered for women. The first of those is what is called a mesh reconstruction. This uses a soft, flexible surgical mesh, and it's either artificially or biologically derived, and it provides structure and support during breast reconstruction. Without this support, what can happen is that reconstructed tissue or implants can. shift, they can collapse, leads to pain, disfigurement, and additional surgeries. My wife,
her most recent surgery, I was fortunate enough to receive mesh in hers, and this has proven to be successful. Now we were fortunate because our insurance company covered that. There are others who don't have that type of coverage. Secondly, is nerve grafting. This is a technique where surgeons reconnect severed nerves during reconstruction, and this helps restore all of the lost feeling, or at least as much as possible of the lost feeling in the
breast area. Today, most women who undergo a mastectomy, lose all or a significant portion of sensation in their breasts. Something that most women are not aware of, or at least many, when they go into these surgeries. This can affect everything from intimacy to safety and emotional well-being. Nerve grafting gives women a chance to reclaim not just their appearance, but their feeling, which is a vital component of being fully restored. Uh, I believe that this bill ensures that insurance companies
don't deny women access to these tools that will help them be made whole. Also, this bill does not direct a doctor. in the treatment that they can give, and it doesn't force a patient to choose. What happens is that when a doctor and a patient agree this is the best option available for them, and this is what they want to do, what this does is allows that coverage to be there. You have surgeons and patients more tools in their tool kit. Something else that um I think that this committee would appreciate as
well as the Senate is that there is a provision for a sunset clause. So unless the legislature extends this, the provision will end in 2031 gives us the ability to monitor the impact. My belief is that as it's evaluated and a cost savings and all these things that are seen. We will extend that when we get to that point. But if for whatever reason it is not a great idea or it does not prove to be beneficial. It will end and it's set the legislature's discretion whether to extend it or not, and this does not
include EBD at this time. This bill didn't come together before that, so there's no fiscal impact. It's something we would look at in future sessions, but at this time it's not a part of this that
Speaker 18
2:52:08
I'll take Rose is there any questions? There's no one signed up for or against the bill. You want to close the
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:52:16
bill. This is a compassionate and medically sound option that we're putting on the table for people who are going through some of the most difficult things a human can go through in their life, and I think that we can all take away from this is
that we're helping people who need it, and you can be proud of
Speaker 18
2:52:34
doing that, and I'm closed. Appreciate it. Will a committee do passed by Senator Johnson's 2nd
Chair
Unverified
2:52:39
by Senator Boyd, uh, any discussion, saying none, all in favor say aye. I'll pose like side thank you Representative Rose for for what you're doing for what your wife went through and others in this process with your abilities. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. All right.
Jamie, if it's OK, I'm going to go to Representative Johnson.
Speaker 176
2:53:13
So, uh, Representative Johnson, uh, thank you. What
Speaker 421
2:53:18
do you want to start with? I, I'm at the discretion of the chair. I can run any of these bills
Speaker 52
2:53:26
except for I think you've had some some
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:53:28
folks here for 1420 4, I believe is the one I'd like
to start with. House Bill 1424. 1424, and I do have Dr. Bledsoe here with me if you don't mind having him bring
Speaker 421
2:53:43
to the table to help me answer any questions. So, uh, So I'm the Senate sponsor of this and and I appreciate you coming and helping with this and uh Absolutely.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:53:56
Dr. Bledsoe, I want to, on behalf of my colleagues and probably the entire General Assembly want to offer our
condolences for the loss of your dad. He was a great gentleman, as is your mom, and so we just want to say that to
Speaker 424
2:54:12
you. Thank you, Senator. I greatly appreciate that.
Chair
Unverified
2:54:14
Thank you very much for that, Senator Johnson, and I'll disclose that I've had none of these procedures, as you can tell, uh, go ahead, Representative Johnson. Thank you. Sherman and with the with the permission of the committee, I think
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:54:28
I'll just let Dr. Bledsoe say a few words about
why we have this bill before you and it's and why it's important and
Speaker 18
2:54:37
we'll answer any questions, if you'll just introduce yourself and
Sam Bledsoe
Unverified
2:54:41
who you're with and you're recognized. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dr. Sam Bledsoe. I'm a general and bariatric surgeon at the Arkansas Heart Hospital where I serve as the medical director of one of Arkansas's few certified bariatric programs with over 20 years of bariatric surgery experience, including 16 in private practice. I've seen firsthand the toll that obesity takes on Arkansans, and I'm here today to urge your support for House Bill 1424. This is a practical, it's a pro-patient step forward for our state's health, as you are well aware,
the House has already passed this bill, and it's now in your hands to move it forward. There were concerns from our friends at Blue Cross that were incorporated into the current bill that you have in front of you. We all know that Arkansas has one of the highest obesity rates in the country with over 70% of our adults that are overweight or obese, and that's just not a number. It's a health crisis that hits our families, our friends, our neighbors. Obesity has a negative impact on over 40 different diseases that we could talk about, but I'll just for
the sake of time, I'll I'll just talk about some of the facts of our state and health consequences of it, but what I don't think that when people talk about the health consequences of this is that even in a war with the GOP won injections that we see a lot in the news and we hear from our friends, bariatric surgery is still the best and most effective treatment for obesity. It results in far greater weight loss over any other modality, including the injections, depending on the procedure and the patient, you can expect to lose around 30% of your total body weight with surgery versus around 15% total
body weight with the injections again, it depends on the patient and the injection. In addition, bariatric surgery is not just about weight loss, and that's one of the things that we really try to accentuate for those of us who's who specialize in this, for instance, it has a great impact on metabolic problems such as diabetes. Diabetes is cured about 80% of the time. more with one of these procedures. This diabetes remission is weight loss independence and can be immediate and so just a pause on that for a second. This means that a patient can go into the
operating room, a diabetic, and leave the operating room, not a diabetic, and this effect can be permanent, and there's nothing else like this in medicine that confers that kind of a response to diabetes. Heart disease is also positively impacted by bariatric surgery. It's been shown to decrease major cardiovascular events like heart attacks and strokes by 49%. And every 16 surgeries prevents a heart attack in a diabetic. There's a little known fact that obesity contributes to at least 13 different types of cancers and bariatric surgery lowers the risk of developing developing
any kind of cancer by 33%. Orthopedic issues are also a common complaint with the obese population. Research shows that long term damage to joints, decreasing levels of pain, and greater success with joint replacements all occur as a result of bariatric surgery. I chose to highlight those four specific. because it's a perfect segue into the last thing I want to touch briefly on, and that's the cost concerns, and I get it as stewards of our state's resources, we need to be wise financially. Many of you remember that in March of 2022,
Act 109 became law. This mandated bariatric surgery coverage for Arkansas employees through the Employee Benefits division. In fact, some of you were co-sponsors of that very legislation and during the passage of Act 109, the Segel Group, acting as outside consultants identified 4 major cost drivers for Arkansas EBD health plans that have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and orthopedic issues, and all four of those which I just noted are all positively impacted by bariatric surgery. The sea also went on to document real and
substantial savings associated with bariatric surgery here in Arkansas. After digging through the EBD data and cross referencing them with the Blue Cross filings, the SEAL Group was able to document a reduction of 45% in medical costs per member per month. Act 10. goes on to say that quote payers can rely on bariatric surgery paying for itself through decreased comorbidities within 2 to 4 years. So just to reiterate that 45% reduction in monthly cost per member and overall savings within 2 to 4 years. Those aren't global numbers.
Those aren't national numbers. These are Arkansas numbers showing real monetary savings for Arkansans, and we aren't alone in recognizing these benefits, our neighbors to the south of us, Louisiana, recently passed a similar law with House Bill 1424, we can do the same. This bill isn't now spending more. It's about spending smarter. It's about tackling obesity now to avoid paying for the consequences later. House Bill 1424 gives Arkansans a fighting chance against diabetes, against heart disease, and against a cycle of perpetual sickness that can be broken. This bill will just ask
that that that all Arkansans that have commercial insurance be covered for this procedure and it builds on Act 109's success. It respects physical realities, It prioritizes our people. I respectfully ask for your support to pass House Bill 14. For and make Arkansas healthier for all of us.
Speaker 176
2:59:33
Thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank you, Dr. Bledsoe. If
Chair
Unverified
2:59:38
you would give me about Two paragraphs of that summarized in cliff notes for the floor.
Speaker 429
2:59:47
You have until Monday. I'm sure Senator we can get you
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:59:52
something, Mr. Chairman. That'll work. Yes sir. Is there any
Chair
Unverified
2:59:55
questions? seeing none, is there anybody signed up for or against. There's nobody signed up for there's anybody in the audience seeing none, uh. You want to close the meal. I'm close
Speaker 18
3:00:08
to my bill, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:00:11
good motion. I'll make that motion and second by
Chair
Unverified
3:00:18
Senator Boyd any discussion all in favor say aye aye. Thank you very much. Thank you, Doctor Bledsoe, whenever, whenever you feel an urge to to have a hobby, uh.
Speaker 12
3:00:30
You're welcome to come to this body just like your some of your former family members and we greatly need folks like you and Dr. Johnson. I
Chair
Unverified
3:00:44
appreciate it. Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate your time. Uh,
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:00:51
next, Lee, uh, you have like a ton on here. I defer to the chair.
I'll do, uh, you know, these are house bills that I don't think are controversial. I can run them now. I can run them next week, whatever you want
Speaker 434
3:01:01
me to do. Let's do, let's do 3 or so that are really, really short, 3 or 4 because we need, we're
Speaker 421
3:01:05
gonna have to go to the floor, House Bill 1602 is the next one
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:01:09
up, and I think that one at this point is fairly straightforward. I'd be happy to start presenting that one whenever you'd like. Hang on just a minute. There's an amendment I need to get out.
Speaker 259
3:01:23
Lee You and the amendments and trying to be nice. It's all
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:01:32
about compromise, Mr. Chairman. This is an amendment trying to clarify some language around who can and cannot have access to some of the information that we're asking for in this bill on PBMs. Um, and I'd be happy to answer any questions
on the amendment and or bring someone to the table that can answer questions and more. Motion
Chair
Unverified
3:01:48
to adopt the amendment by Senator McKee, seconded by Senator Johnson, all
in favor say aye. All opposed like sign, uh, thank you, Representative Johnson, if you would present Bill 1602. Members, when we passed the PBM licensure Act
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:02:02
back in 2017. We were forward thinking group. One of the things we did in that is we created a lozener fee at the time, the fee was set at $1000. With no renewal fee, you know, and I think at the time we were trying to be reasonable, I'm sure about how much we charge PBMs for their license and looking at that and thinking about what PBMs do in our state.
I felt like that licensure fee was probably low compared to what it could be. And so what we're doing in this bill is first of all, we're creating an account within AID to house this fee so that they can have some money around enforcement and then we're raising the fee from $1000 to $20,000 with the $20,000 renewal. This is a negotiated fee among the PBMs. The other thing we're doing is we're creating some transparency language. PBMs can be divided up a bunch of different ways. Right now there are 47 PBMs operating in the state of Arkansas, but they're
operating under there's a lot of layers beneath the PBMs, and so this is trying to get them to do some reporting around how they're structured and I'd be happy to answer any questions
Speaker 8
3:03:05
if I can about the bill. All right. Is
Chair
Unverified
3:03:10
there any questions? There's no one signed up for or against the bill if you would close your bill close from my bill, Mr. Chairman. All right, what's the motion by Senator Johnson to do pass this amendments 2 by Senator Boyd.
Any discussion, all in favor say aye. All pose like sign. Thank you, Representative Johnson. You have passed. 1602. I
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:03:37
need to I need to pass over 1290 if I can. It needs an amendment, but I'm happy
to present 1296296. All right. House Bill 1296 that we have a mobile units that provide health
care around the state. This is just requiring health insurance companies to allow us to collect a fee for the mobile units just like we do for facility fees. It's a
negotiated bill agreed to language. Happy to answer
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
3:04:03
any questions. All right, Senator Boyden. Thank you, Representative Dr. Johnson on this. I appreciate it's important we bring care to the people, but at the same token, I just want to address one concern I've heard in the past is when we start Paying for mobile units, sometimes we're taking resources away from hospitals who have a brick and mortar presence and just want to make sure we've, we've thought through that before we vote yes on this. I've heard no opposition from any of
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:04:28
the hospital providers or brick and mortar providers. I will say that the facility fee is markedly different than what you collect for a mobile unit, you know, the idea behind the facility fee is to sort of justify, hey, there's a cost to doing business here around the brick and mortar process, you know, utilities and upkeep. There's also a cost to a mobile van, but it's markedly different right than a facility, so I think the reimbursement is much greater if
you've got a brick and mortar business then there will be for a mobile unit. Thank you.
Speaker 18
3:04:58
I think this would be advantageous for Senator Murdoch in my area is with those mobile units because we don't have those a lot of those special specialty, uh, you know, We, we gotta, we gotta get what we can get and that's, and that's one of the ways to do it. Is there any other question? Uh, seeing none, uh, there's, hang on just a minute. No one has signed up for or against the bill. Anybody in the audience for or against the
bill, saying none, you want to close the bill. I'm close to my bill, Mr. Chairman. All right, closed motion by
Chair
Unverified
3:05:39
Senator Boyd, seconded by Senator Johnson. Any discussion all in favor say aye. I'll opposed like sign. Thank you Representative Johnson. You got any other quick ones at the discretion of the
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:05:51
chair, I'll go until you tell me not to. We got to get them cleaned House
Bill 1314 again this is a negotiated bill. This creates
the medical audit Bill of Rights, there exists in statute already hang
Chair
Unverified
3:06:05
on just a minute. Let us get caught up 1314. I can't believe I don't know how much you've worked, been able to work at the hospital, but
Speaker 18
3:06:19
I guess residency has prepared you. Fortunately they let me
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:06:22
work weekends and nights at the hospital, so it gives me time to is
Speaker 97
3:06:26
everybody got it? All right, uh, go ahead, Johnson. Members,
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:06:32
this bill creates the Medical audit Bill of Rights. There exist in statute already. The pharmacy audit bill of rights, but there's not been a medical audit bill of rights. It creates the ground rules for auditing health care providers. This is a bill that's been worked on with commercial payers and providers together and we think it sets fair boundaries on how to in an audit process. I'd be happy to walk through the bill with you if you have questions, but I don't know of any opposition to this bill at this point.
Chair
Unverified
3:07:03
Any questions from members. There's no one signed up for or against the bill.
Speaker 18
3:07:08
Is there anybody for or against the bill that wants to testify. I see none, you want to close your deal? I'm close to my bill, Mr. Chairman. All right, what's the will of the committee? Motion by Senator Johnson, seconded by Senator McKee. Any
Speaker 34
3:07:23
discussion all in favor, say aye. All pose like sign. Thank you, Representative Johnson. You have have another quick one.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:07:33
Yeah, members of House Bill 1703, and again, thank you for your patience today. I know it's a lot of bills to list. I'm sure you're
tired of hearing my voice. Hospital 1703.
Speaker 283
3:07:52
think we're ready. So again, currently in
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:07:55
statute, what we're trying to do is mirror some things that are already in statute. There's a process if you're if your drug is reimbursed at a different
rate than cost for you to appeal that reimbursement if it's a pharmacy benefit, so in your insurance policy you have a pharmacy benefit and a medical benefit, but certain drugs are covered under your medical benefit, not the pharmacy benefit, and there is no process currently in statute to negotiate reimbursement discrepancies if the drug is covered under the medical benefits. we've done with this language is we've copied it from the drug reimbursement for pharmacy benefit and created now the same process so that if you're in the hospital and you're getting chemotherapy, for instance, that would be covered under a medical
benefit if a if a hospital, if an entity that's charging for the chemotherapy drug, felt like they weren't reimbursed in a fair way. This gives them a process to appeal that reimbursement and creates the framework for post adjudication who's responsible for the payment, depending on how the The case is ultimately decided whether for the provider or for the PBM slash insurance
Speaker 8
3:09:02
company. any question by Senator Boyd.
Speaker 18
3:09:10
All right. uh, there's no one signed up for against the bill, uh, you want to close I'm close to my bill, Mr.
Chair
Unverified
3:09:20
Chairman. Thank you. And what will the committee of motion by Senator Johnson, seconded by Senator Boyd, all in favor. Say aye. All opposed like sign.
Speaker 259
3:09:30
Or is she gone? All right, we're gonna keep going. I'll keep sitting here. 17888.
Staff, are you able to keep up? All right. It's
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:09:45
a short one, yes, sir. This one
really is simple. You don't have an amendment on this? No, I don't think so. All right. 1788, so there was a bill
that came through committee some weeks ago. House Bill 1288 that was designed to shorten the credentialing process for physicians. It was very specific to how physicians were credentialed. It didn't start out that way, but when it was in its infancy, that bill generated a lot of interest in a bunch of other health care providers who were interested in shortening
their credentialing time because of the way that bill ultimately. was drafted and passed, we needed to create a second bill for other healthcare providers, so this bill is intended to shorten the credentialing time with insurance companies for any other health care provider that's not a physician, you'll see that it's reducing it from 180 days to 90 days, and again this was agreed to by the payers, and I have no known opposition to this bill.
Chair
Unverified
3:10:34
All right, there's no one signed up for against the bill. Is there any questions? Uh, seeing none, uh, what's the will
of the committee motion by Senator Boyd, seconded by Senator Johnson in a discussion saying not all in favor, say aye. I'll oppose like sign. Thank you, uh, can I,
Speaker 421
3:10:53
can I, I mean, we, you, you got one more. I've got one more and I'm done with your committee, let's go ahead and get you if that's all right with Senator Scott. Is that all right with you, Senator Scott? All
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:11:05
right, thank you, Senator Scott. members is House Bill 1426.
So last session we created some rules around when a health insurance company can and cannot lease its network of providers, so health insurance company has a network of providers under certain circumstances. They might lease that network to another insurance company to use them. There were some issues with that process where rules necessarily weren't being followed when you agreed to one thing and then got leased out to another, so we created this law last session and creating the law we inadvertently left out a group and We also needed to clean up the definition of health care
insurer, so we're just cleaning up the definition and then in in closing that loophole that existed that exempted a certain payer in the state, and we haven't answered any questions on it. I don't know of any opposition. All
Chair
Unverified
3:12:04
right. Is there any questions on 1426. See none, no one signed up for or against the bill. You want close I'm close from building chair. I motion by Senator Boyd, seconded by
Senator McGee. Any discussion all in favor say aye. All opposed like sign. Thank you. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Senator Scott, what bill I've lost my 1333 House Bill 1333
Speaker 52
3:12:50
All right. You know, let us get it, get it out. I want to be sport. Stop. Oh my goodness.
Speaker 87
3:13:23
We have went around the world today committee we
Speaker 52
3:13:31
oh my goodness I'll keep it. I think we're going to
Chair
Unverified
3:13:37
end on this one, guys. uh Senator Scott, just recognize yourself and you are
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:13:42
recognized. Senator Scott district 12. Uh, today we have before you House Bill 1333. This bill requires that Medicaid and private health insurance plans to provide coverage for breastfeeding and lactation
consultant services to an enrollee. This includes both inpatient and outpatient settings and include services provided by the International Board of Certified Lactation Consultants, certified lactation counselors and it also includes the ability to build through either moms or their infants in Arkansas. I know you know the statistics we rank 45th nationally for breastfeeding, um, that means only 75% of our infants born in our state were breastfed at the time where they were discharged from the hospital. The American
Academy of Pediatrics recommends exclusive breastfeeding until 6 months of age in Arkansas only about 20% of our infants are exclusively breastfed until 6 months, um, I'm running this bill as an advocate hopefully one day I'll be a future mother. Don't ask me questions about experience because I don't. have those answers for you, but I feel like this is a good bill. It is very complimentary to the healthy moms and the healthy babies
initiatives that we are doing here in the state and I'll
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
3:14:57
take all serious questions that you might have any questions? I hope I can answer, Senator McKee.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
3:15:05
So thank you Chairman. What does a breastfeeding and lactation consultant do? Um football I'm
Speaker 408
3:15:14
sorry, I thought that would be I mean I've got probably answer that question because my daughter my
Speaker 459
3:15:21
daughter-in-law you educated what I think somebody gonna
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:15:24
help me with in the future is help
you better get the baby to attach to you when you're trying to provide when when the baby is having issues attaching they teach you techniques and better ways to get the baby to do the attachment so that you can breastfeed or anybody in here can help me. I
Chair
Unverified
3:15:46
mean, oh, she said it's right. I mean, it's a lot more prevalent, you know, this, you know, I'm trying to use the breast breastfeeding and, and the hospitals
Speaker 449
3:15:55
are doing this anyway, and will this help them
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:16:00
get reimbursed, this will, this will help us provide a pipeline for people to actually get reimbursed and paid and for there to be a revenue for us to pay for it through um I put
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:16:15
it on here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that in my lifetime I've seen There was a point in time where medical Profession sort of discouraged breastfeeding and I think it might have been driven by the
formula industry, and now they've come back and realized that that what God gave mothers to feed their babies is actually the best thing of all, and I'm grateful for that. So if these consultants help encourage women to do that, then I think it's a wonderful thing, so I would you agree, Senator? I would agree. And sometimes, you know, I can only imagine
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:16:52
as a mother you might not have um somebody to help you and walk you through the process. We have
a lot of young mothers, a lot of mothers who are, you know, mothers have went
on to be and so you need that assistance and if we can provide this kind of coverage to where Medicaid and a private insurance can, you know, help educate
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:17:16
and provide these services. I think it'll be a win-win for Arkansas and breast milk also has many in addition to nutrition, uh, some health benefits for uh uh Get people more resistant to others and so there could be even a savings in insurance and Medicaid on this.
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:17:35
I agree. I think it's a step forward in reducing these national numbers that we have at 45th ranked nationally, I think anything we can do to help the mothers and the babies be healthy and bring those costs down, it's gonna help benefit the state. So thank you, Senator. Thank
Speaker 8
3:17:47
you, Mr. Chair. Is there any other questions? Seeing none. There's
Speaker 18
3:17:52
no one to testify for against the bill. You want to close the bill. Um, I appreciate your
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:17:56
time and your patience and allow me to run this bill today, and I would ask for. I do pass the motion by Senator
Chair
Unverified
3:18:07
McKee, second by Senator Boyd and Johnson. Any discussion. All in favor say aye. All opposed like signing thank you Senator Scott, for being patient. Thank you for your time, committee. I think we've came to a point where we need to adjourn. Uh, we, I I appreciate the committee. I know everybody had to go in and out, but we got a lot of work done. No, we're not coming in this afternoon, uh, we are adjourned.
Agenda
Call To Order
SB104 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT; TO PROTECT PATIENTS' RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO MEDICATIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB257 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE MEDICAID FAIRNESS ACT; TO EXTEND THE APPEAL PERIOD FOR PROVIDERS IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM; AND TO REQUIRE COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION IN NOTICES OF ADVERSE DECISIONS.
SB323 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE HORIZONTAL PROPERTY ACT.
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1602 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT; TO ESTABLISH FEES UNDER THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT; AND TO REQUIRE REPORTING OF CERTAIN INFORMATION BY A PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER.
SB437 Hester TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT.
HB1320 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CRISIS STABILIZATION UNITS AND HEALTHCARE INSURERS.
HB1746 M. Brown TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.
HB1737 M. Brown TO AMEND THE TRANSMITTING UTILITY ACT; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "TRANSMITTING UTILITY" TO INCLUDE FIBER OPTIC AND BROADBAND LINES.
HB1736 M. Brown TO AMEND ARTICLE 9 OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.
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.
HB1290 L. Johnson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR MENTAL HEALTH WELLNESS EXAMINATIONS; AND TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS SUPPORT OF MENTAL HEALTH WELLNESS EXAMINATIONS ACT.
HB1296 L. Johnson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES PROVIDED IN MOBILE units
HB1314 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN AUDITS OF HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS; AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAL AUDIT BILL OF RIGHTS ACT.
HB1333 Hudson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR BREASTFEEDING AND LACTATION CONSULTANT SERVICES.
HB1703 L. Johnson TO PROVIDE A DRUG REIMBURSEMENT PROCESS FOR CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS.
HB1771 Perry TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURES TO POLICYHOLDERS; AND TO REQUIRE MONTHLY REPORTING BY INSURERS.
HB1788 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH CARE CONSUMER ACT; AND TO REDUCE THE TIME ALLOWED FOR PROCESSING AN APPLICATION OF A PROVIDER.
HB1424 L. Johnson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR SEVERE OBESITY TREATMENTS.
SB602 Crowell TO PROHIBIT INSURANCE COMPANIES AND APPRAISERS FROM REQUIRING AN INSURED TO USE CERTAIN FACILITIES TO REPAIR OR REPLACE DAMAGED MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY GLASS; AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.
SB475 J. Dismang TO ESTABLISH THE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION ACT; AND TO REGULATE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS.
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.
HB1531 Achor TO PROHIBIT PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS FROM RESTRICTING OR LIMITING PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS TO A LIMITED DISTRIBUTION NETWORK OF OUT-OF-STATE PHARMACIES.
HB1735 Eaves TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES DAMAGE PREVENTION ACT; AND TO REVISE MEMBERSHIP IN THE ONE CALL CENTER UNDER THE ARKANSAS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES DAMAGE PREVENTION ACT.
HB1821 Wardlaw TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AND STATE-OWNED PROPERTY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1859 Rose TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MASTECTOMIES.
SB610 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE GENERATING ARKANSAS JOBS ACT OF 2025; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB611 Dees TO AMEND THE SOCIAL MEDIA SAFETY ACT.
SB615 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ENERGY; TO REGULATE NONEXPORT FACILITIES; AND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NONEXPORT FACILITIES.
HB1426 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE HEALTHCARE CONTRACTING SIMPLIFICATION ACT.
HB1820 M. Brown TO REGULATE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL AND CONTINUOUS SERVICE OFFERS.
HB1826 Bentley TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR DELIVERY OF A NEWBORN IN A LICENSED
BIRTHING CENTER.
DEFERRED BILLS
SB592 D. Wallace TO REQUIRE A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TO RENEW CERTAIN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT AT THE HIGHEST INTEREST RATE CLOSEST TO THE TERM OF THE PREVIOUS CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT AND FOR THE SAME TERM.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE - SENATE, Apr 3, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 3
Speaker 5
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 12
Speaker 16
Speaker 18
Speaker 20
Speaker 22
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 60
Speaker 58
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Speaker 75
Speaker 66
Speaker 80
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 87
Speaker 97
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 99
Speaker 34
Speaker 4
Speaker 101
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 106
Speaker 108
Justin Allen
Unverified
Speaker 105
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 142
Speaker 52
Speaker 159
Speaker 162
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
Jordan Tinsley
Unverified
Speaker 190
Speaker 195
Speaker 156
Speaker 203
Speaker 130
Speaker 206
Speaker 210
Speaker 209
Speaker 212
Speaker 128
Speaker 215
Speaker 208
Speaker 189
Speaker 226
Speaker 131
Speaker 218
Speaker 231
Speaker 235
Speaker 147
Speaker 245
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Speaker 230
Speaker 259
Speaker 192
Speaker 152
Speaker 275
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 284
Speaker 46
Speaker 304
Speaker 6
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
Kip Snyder
Unverified
Speaker 311
Speaker 319
Speaker 322
Speaker 323
Speaker 327
Speaker 325
Speaker 328
Speaker 30
Speaker 68
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Speaker 354
Speaker 356
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
Simon Mahan
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 376
Speaker 333
Speaker 119
Speaker 358
Speaker 336
Speaker 385
Speaker 182
Speaker 393
Speaker 394
Speaker 380
Speaker 398
Speaker 399
Speaker 404
Speaker 57
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 176
Speaker 421
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 424
Sam Bledsoe
Unverified
Speaker 429
Speaker 434
Speaker 67
Speaker 283
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
Speaker 408
Speaker 459
Speaker 449