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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 3
4:00
Senate State Agencies come to order, Chair sees a
Speaker 5
4:14
quorum, Insurance and Commerce, I'm sorry, it's been a long week. Senator Bryant, come forward,
Chair
Unverified
4:24
we need to concur on the House Amendment on, hey, we have a
motion to concur on the House Amendment on Senate Bill 323, motion by Senator Irvin, second by Senator Boyd, any discussion, all in favor say aye,
Speaker 12
4:52
all opposed, like sign, Thank you, Senator. Next, we will do Senator Irvin, Senate Bill 527. You have amendments not here, Senator Dismaine.
Chair
Unverified
5:18
Senator Dismaine, we have Senate Bill 475. We need to expunge the voice amendment motion by Senator Irvin, second by Senator Boyd. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. He has engrossed the amendment to place a House sponsor on pharmacy. This is the one that has already been vetted. There's no one to testify for or against.
Speaker 12
5:52
Do you want to make a motion by Senator Boyd,
Chair
Unverified
5:57
second by Senator McKee on the approval of that bill? All in favor say aye. Aye. All
Chair
Unverified
6:17
want to concur? Senator Penzo, you have concurrences for Senate Bill 104 and 257.
Speaker 12
6:25
Do you want to tell us about those or just do it? Okay,
Chair
Unverified
6:32
motion by Senator Boyd, second by Senator McKee. We have two on 104, two amendments. You got them
Speaker 18
6:40
in your packet. I'm going to pause. You can look at them. on
Speaker 20
6:48
104 or two or go ahead we've got questions
Chair
Unverified
6:55
let's NEW SPEAKER: THOSE ARE ENGROWSED, WE'RE JUST CONCURRING ON THE HOUSE AMENDMENTS.
MOTION BY SENATOR BOYD OR EDDIE, SECOND BY SENATOR IRVING. CONCUR ON SENATE BILL 104'S AMENDMENTS. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED LIKE SIGNED. TO CONCUR ON SENATE BILL 257
Speaker 12
7:42
HOUSE AMENDMENTS, LET'S LOOK AT THOSE FOR A SECOND.
Chair
Unverified
8:00
I'll second. Motion to concur on Senate Bill 257 House Amendments, motion by Senator Irvin, second by Senator Boyd. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Thank you, Senator.
Unknown speaker
9:30
Wow. Oh, sorry. Oh, my God. We have a house with the house workers. Yes, it seems good.
Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
10:30
So, the amendment for 527 is here. We need to expunge the vote on the amendment that we did. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. All right. We expunged the vote on that amendment.
Speaker 12
11:02
Do I need to sign these or do you already sign them? All right. This is going to be
Chair
Unverified
11:18
the amendment for Senate Bill 527. This amendment includes the amendment we just expunged, right, Senator? All right. Just introduce yourself, and you're recognized to explain the amendment from 527.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
11:33
Thank you. Senate Bill 527, this is Senator Missy Irvin, District
24. So, yes, members, we had done a verbal amendment, which we just expunged, but that verbal amendment is now in the new 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
Speaker 18
12:08
the amendment. Let's do the amendment, and then we can go on with the entire thing, if that's
Chair
Unverified
12:14
all right. Yep, so I'll make a motion to adopt the amendment. Motion to adopt the amendment for 527, second. For Senator Penzo, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign, thank you. go ahead and present your bill if
Speaker 12
12:26
we would have your guests introduce their selves at this time. Thank you. Good morning Janet Mann DHS. Good morning
Chair
Unverified
12:42
Christy Putnam secretary DHS. Thank you for being here and you're recognized senator and however you want to do
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
12:50
the presentation. Thank you I think 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 gonna let secretary Putnam and Janet Mann discuss that
portion of the bill and then I'm happy to take any questions. Good morning so we know there
Speaker 60
13:15
have been questions about the work requirement the amendment includes language that requires a requires that a participant 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 per Senator Irvin'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
13:52
the work requirement. Just a question. Will that, is that okay with our application with CMS? Is that provision okay? Yes, sir.
Speaker 58
14:00
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 further
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
14:10
add 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 think that's the trick in the 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 is there any other questions seeing none you want
Speaker 18
14:53
there there's no one here to speak for against the bill is there anybody in audience won't speak for against the bill seeing none you
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
15:03
want to close your bill thank you I'm close for the bill
I appreciate the hard work with the everybody collaborating on this legislation it's been a lot of long collaboration but it's good policy and I appreciate a good vote so
Speaker 12
15:19
I'll make a motion do 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 line on these work requirements and what we can get done in all times, and if in the future we can go further, let's do that. Senator Penzo, you got? I just wanted to say thank you for making the
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
15:48
amendment, and I think it's a better bill now based on what I've been told, and I'll look forward to researching a little more. You want to push the line also? Yes. I agree. Thank you very much.
Chair
Unverified
16:02
We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Thank
Speaker 73
16:17
you, Senator. Senator McKee. Absolutely. Is
Speaker 66
16:37
SENATOR MCKEY IS GOING TO DO TWO BILLS AND THEN SENATOR PENZO AND THEN
Chair
Unverified
16:51
SENATOR CROLL. DON'T LET ME FORGET YOU, OKAY, SHINE
Chair
Unverified
17:07
CAN. SENATOR MCKEE, WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT, THE MEMBERS HAVE THAT AMENDMENT, 610.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
17:45
WITH THAT. MEMBERS FIND A COPY OF IT MATT MCKEY, STATE SENATOR DISTRICT
6. THE AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 610 JUST TAKES CARE OF SOME ADDITIONAL ENGROSSING ERRORS
Speaker 12
17:56
THAT WERE DISCOVERED IN THE PROCESS, ALL RIGHT. MOTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT BY SENATOR MCKEY, SECOND BY SENATOR IRVIN. in favor say aye aye you want to present senate bill
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
18:14
610 yes as a minute yes thank you mr chairman matt mckee state senate district six uh senate bill 610 really just takes care of some technical corrections uh in the generating arkansas jobs act that were discovered after engrossing and so
they're pretty um innocuous but they line they align the sections correctly There's any questions on
Chair
Unverified
18:35
Senate Bill 610 as amended? Seeing none, there's no one signed up for or against Senate Bill 610. You want
Speaker 12
18:44
to close for it? I'm closed. Appreciate a good vote, and I'll make
Chair
Unverified
18:50
a motion for due pass as amended. Motion by Senator McKee to pass as amended. I'll second that.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like signed. Thank you, Senator. Next, you
Speaker 87
19:07
have, is it? 596. 596. Senate Bill 596. We've got an amendment on this. I've got a copy. I'm sorry.
Unknown speaker
19:35
Does everybody have the amendment?
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
20:05
Senate Bill 596. All right. Go ahead and explain your amendment. Matt McKee State Senate District 10. Members, this amendment basically just cleans up some language that I
Chair
Unverified
20:20
thought was important and move for adoption. Move for adoption on amendment 596,
Speaker 12
20:25
second by Senator Boyd. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Thanks, Senator. Present 596 as amended. Thank Mr.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
20:38
Chairman. 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. 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 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 to speak
Chair
Unverified
22:01
about this senator there is we have adopted amendment for this is Senate bill 596 if you want to pull it up in your packet and the amendment should be there the senator Murdoch
Speaker 97
22:16
have the amendment he can have yeah is that
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
22:33
five nine six 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
Speaker 99
22:52
the state over another part of the state police? Thank you for that question,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
22:57
Senator Boyd. I'm not aware of anything in this bill that deals in the slightest with the
Speaker 34
23:04
storage or disposal of nuclear material.
Speaker 4
23:09
Thank you. Is there any other questions? Seeing none, there are two here TO
Speaker 87
23:19
SPEAK AGAINST 596. FIRST TO JUSTIN ALLEN. JUST COME
Speaker 101
23:27
YOU'ALL CAN INTRODUCE YOURSELF. SORRY, THERE'S THREE. JUST. I will start this off, Mr. Chairman, I'm John Vethel, and I'm the Director of Public Affairs
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
23:50
for Intergy Arkansas. All right, go ahead. I'm Kirk Castleberry.
Speaker 106
23:58
I work for Intergy Arkansas in resource planning. Justin Allen with Wright, Lindsay, and
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
24:08
Jennings here on behalf of Intergy Arkansas. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good
Speaker 108
24:14
morning, members of the committee. start off and say that we at Intergy share Senator McKee's interest and concern and desire to make sure that Arkansas has sufficient supplies of dispatchable, reliable, and affordable electric energy.
We've been we've been doing that for over a hundred years and look forward to continuing to do that. 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
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. Castleberry will address the resource planning issues addressed by the bill.
Justin Allen
Unverified
25:56
Thank you. So, 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, 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 and 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 a handful of years ago, three or four, five years ago, I believe. 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 settlement 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 Entergy and the ratepayers and 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 and Department of Justice approved the settlement. Those facilities are scheduled to be, again, closed, converted in the next few years. This bill is designed and if it becomes law, will require Intergy to make application to the Public Service Commission and get its approval to go forward with those closures. There are, in my mind, three options for intergy if this bill were to become law.
One would be to ignore it. And intergy, 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 foreclosure of this.
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 PSC 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 act that is. 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 in costs and fees and throw the state of electrical power generation in Arkansas into a state of uncertainty. So, option two would be to make the application, okay? 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 Intergy is in violation of the
consent decree. More litigation, more money, more uncertainty. And likely Intergy 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 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 Eighth Circuit or beyond,
would agree to that modification. But again, that would result in protracted litigation money and the 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 Entergy's Title V clean air permits for these two facilities. So any deviation from the closure plans is a legal violation of those permits and subjects Entergy up to $117,000 in penalties per day.
And the White Bluff closure deadline is in Arkansas's Regional Hays 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 Intergy if this bill becomes law. And for the reasons I've stated, none of them are good ones. My comments will
Speaker 105
31:44
come from the perspective of a resource planner, because that's what I do.
And just so everybody understands, resource planning is the process of putting in place plans to make investments in the right kind and generating resources to meet the needs of our 728,000 customers. And importantly, in these days, we got a lot of opportunities in the 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 Independence, as well as 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, we have to cease to burn coal at Independence. 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 and 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, all the options on the table, including burning natural gas at those units.
It's important for everybody to understand that those units, the consent decree itself just required that they cease to burn coal, but you can re-power 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 kinds of capabilities that exist. And these are enormous sites, 3,600 megawatts, 3,600 acres at White Bluff, 1,900 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 uh there in burning coal and if they are i don't know do i have to invest in environmental controls to to keep them going if all that's interjected then 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 or 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 interconnection capacity there with transmission. That I've said many times it's 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 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 will see our plans, we will file them with them, and 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 plans are appropriate or not. And we will do that on these plans at White Bluff and Independence, as well as any other resources that we add. So that's our thought process on certainty. Then if I could just briefly pivot to economic development. I can 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 a 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 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 an economic development front.
But 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 APSES 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 to provide affordable low-cost electricity
to our customers and so we can grow our state happy to take
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
37:55
questions if there any. Go ahead, Senator Murdoch. Thank
you, and thank you for your dissertations individually and collectively on how you see this. As I read the bill and understand it, what Senator McKee
is simply doing and 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 the discussion is the closing of something, is retiring and how that's done. What I'm hearing you say, I want to be clear on this because I want Senator McKee to address this when he can, is 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 piece
of legislation 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. Am I hearing that correctly? 100%. Okay. And so, let me quickly get to this. Give me the solution. I know we're talking about a discussion, and you're saying you may not have the solution, but you want to have a discussion because you see the conversation need here. Is there a solution that you feel could make this better?
Speaker 108
39:20
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. Those two, I think it's two. There are actually three. There's Lake Catherine, the gas-fired 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 couple of years and really come out with a better developed process that addresses the things that we need to do based on discussions in the interim. Okay. I'm okay
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
40:12
for that, Chair. Senator Johnson. Thank 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 any of you, please respond. The Loper-Bright decision more or less said that Chevron was wrong and agencies don't make law, Congress makes law. 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 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 interpretation that was under Chevron. We have a new administration that is a little more amenable maybe to this. And I'd ask if you could comment on how this environmental change and legal change,
or all two or three more maybe, could affect this process. And I recognize some of the logistical things, deferred maintenance, that maybe pushes this into a realm of economic uncertainty, that if we hadn't had this, y'all would have been doing the regular routine maintenance and things. But could you just comment on how those things kind of come together and how this bill could be either detrimental or advantageous to all of us
in keeping our baseload generation in place. Senator, I'll certainly
Justin Allen
Unverified
42:21
try. 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 Intergy, but it's very possible Intergy'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 regulator was incorrect in their rule promulgation and
their interpretation and application of the laws passed by Congress, but that wasn't the case at the time. Going back, could Intergy now argue to the federal district court in light of Loper Bright and the abolition of Chevron deference that Intergy 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 talking about.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
43:19
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 to bridge over to that and I feel like this is what
Senator McKee and Representative MacLennan are trying to do so I'll accept that if others other two would like to comment that's fine but but that was a great explanation. Yeah, just
Speaker 105
44:04
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 provide the resources that we need on the time frame that we needed. And that's my comments a minute ago. Just from a planning perspective, a practical perspective, you've got
to move ahead. And then I would also add that everybody needs to keep in mind that these coal plants are not spring chickens. I mean, they're over 50 years old. It's 50-year-old technology. It's kind of like if you're driving an old, worn-out car and it's 20 years old, it's still an old, worn-out car with not the greatest technology. Same for these coal plants. And that's not an anti-coal comment at all. I'm not anti-coal. I'm not anti-anything. 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 as they're not as competitive as they were i mean there are in 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 replaced
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
45:47
okay John do you want anything I just point out and I think mr. Gasperry can confirm we do have plans to have adequate dispatchable reliable generation on
Speaker 108
45:54
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 okay
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
46:04
well I'm sure that senator McKee and I'll be in joint energy over the next two years bring y'all in to to tell us about progress on that so we look forward to that thank thank you very much for
Speaker 142
46:15
your answers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tell me, what's
Speaker 18
46:21
cheaper than coal? That statement was made. Well, it
Speaker 105
46:28
depends 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 $6,500, so it costs like $25
dollars to produce a megawatt hour of natural gas fired energy and coal price is about a little more than somewhere in the high 20s so right now natural gas is cheaper per megawatt hour mm-hmm and that's why you see the coal plants not operating very much how many
Speaker 12
47:01
natural gas do you I mean besides the Lake Catherine are you owning in?
Speaker 34
47:07
I mean do we have or are planning? Yep. Entergy Arkansas. Entergy
Speaker 105
47:16
Arkansas has a lot. I mean we have the hot spring unit which is a highly efficient unit. We have the union power unit around elder rate hot springs obviously around hot springs. We have the Ouachita plant right across the Louisiana line which is another highly efficient unit. Much more efficient than either White Bluff or Independence, and then, you know, the new unit at Lake Catherine 5 that is currently being considered at the APSC is another load-following gas-fired unit 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 have plans for the next, I think, until 2034, you know, roughly nine years from now to add another 1,200 megawatts of load-following natural gas-fired resources and then the plans of White Bluff and Isis that's what we look forward to talking to you guys about I think you're gonna see some really exciting stuff there not only for the replacement of those
Chair
Unverified
48:15
resources but for economic development purposes too so has there ever been a consideration for a hybrid hydrogen no hybrid coal gas hybrid where you you lower your emissions
of coal by having a gas
Speaker 12
48:30
combination. Is that in place anywhere? Yeah, I mean, that's something
Speaker 105
48:38
that certainly is considered, but there are a lot of complexities with that. Just like there would be complexities in hydrogen as well as costs, burning hydrogen at the coal plants or at some of our other natural gas-fired plants or our new ones. But we look at it all.
Chair
Unverified
48:59
All right. Is there any other questions? Seeing none, thank you
Speaker 12
49:24
for your testimony. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other for or against, do you want to close your bill?
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
49:39
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've 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. You know, 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 electrical plants slated to be built in the United States.
And I think closing baseload generation for environmental concerns is insanity. Doing away with 3,200 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 bill does not guarantee the coal plants remain open. This bill just says they have to demonstrate it that it's the best thing for the Arkansas rate payers 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 we're out there are appropriate and that we're operating the best way for our
Voters, so I'd appreciate a good vote. I'm closed for the bill NEW SPEAKER: I'D LIKE TO MOVE FOR ADOPTION AS AMENDED. NEW
Speaker 52
51:26
SPEAKER: MOTION. NEW SPEAKER: SECOND. NEW SPEAKER: ANY DISCUSSION? NEW SPEAKER: THAT'S
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
51:33
AS AMENDED DISCUSSION. NEW SPEAKER: IF IT'S PERMISSIBLE, CHAIR, EXCUSE ME. SO REALLY CLARITY POINT, SO PSC WILL SIMPLY BE PROVIDING THE GUARD RAILS AND THEY WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, HOPEFULLY,
this is past, all of the things that they testified to as being cautions for us that we need to be mindful of from, you know, a quagmire of legal situations that could hold up the things that we need to meet the needs of our projects, prospective projects, and just our needs and so and this and PSC may agree with
them on what they choose to do with some of these 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.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
52:49
Absolutely. Can I address that? Go ahead. You're a member. You're in discussion. I appreciate that. 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 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 for the ratepayers. So I
Speaker 12
53:40
appreciate that question. Is there any more discussion? All in
Chair
Unverified
53:45
favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. All
Speaker 159
53:49
right. Thank you, Senator. You passed Senate Bill 596.
Speaker 162
53:53
Senator Kroll. I don't think. THIS IS SENATE BILL 602. THERE IS AN AMENDMENT ON THIS.
Chair
Unverified
54:27
MOTION BY SENATOR BOYD, SECOND BY ME ON ADOPTING THE AMENDMENT. All it is
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
54:31
is I had a co-sponsor on the House end, and we had a misspelling of a word. All in favor,
Chair
Unverified
54:38
say aye. All opposed, like, say, and all right. Your bill is amended. Just introduce yourself. Do you have anybody
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
54:47
Nope. Senator Steve Kroll, District 3. This is a pretty simple bill. It's a consumer protection bill to ensure that vehicle owners can choose their own auto glass companies to repair or replace their windshield.
When consumers or 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 an auto glass 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 you go get your car picked from. Simply clarifying this, the insurance companies are doing it right. It's the third party administrators.
Speaker 34
55:29
Is there any questions? You got a question? All
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
55:42
right. Go ahead, Senator Boyd. So thank you, Senator Kroll, for bringing this. So 23-66-206 already prohibits requiring that repairs be made by a particular repair shop as a condition of claims payment. So with knowing that, are we really just restricting consumer choice?
So there's already statute that does that.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
56:07
And like I said, the insurance companies, like Shelter, State Farm, whomever, if I'm dealing with them and say, hey, I'm going to go here, and I talk to my local agent and say, can you do this? It's fine. What happens most of the time is these online ones, when you do that claim, They say, okay, call this number and it's 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 blank 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 okay thank you for your
Speaker 87
57:01
answer you bet there's any other questions seeing none i have no one signed up to speak for against this bill is there
Speaker 18
57:08
anybody that wants to do so saying none uh you want to close your
Chair
Unverified
57:14
bills close your bill what's the will of the committee motion by senator mckee second by senator pinzo all in favor say aye
Speaker 4
57:23
all opposed like sign thank you senator thank you for being patient senator penzo you have
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
57:34
sb615 615 yeah and i've got somebody here that's going to come up testify with me
Speaker 34
57:51
yes sir just introduce yourself both of you just go ahead and introduce yourselves senator penzo you can begin clint penzo
Jordan Tinsley
Unverified
57:58
senate 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. Go ahead, Senator Penzo. Thank
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
58:22
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 bill doesn't change any of these.
It simply prohibits discriminatory pricing against customers who use their own energy for private, on-site 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 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. 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 unnecessary fees despite these systems pushing zero power back to the grid, seeking no compensation, and meeting on-site needs only.
Backup generators already go through utility-reviewed interconnection processes, see Energy's DR071 application, which includes non-export options and safety compliance checklists. This bill ensures fair treatment, supports reliability, honors federal law, and protects customer choice, all while keeping utilities whole and strengthening the grid for everyone. And I'll let him add anything if he would like to at this point. Thank you, Senator.
Speaker 189
1:01:17
Available for questions, if not. Absolutely. What
Speaker 190
1:01:22
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 rate payers? 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, placed 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, D.C.
Despite that, there's 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 qualifying facility application approved at FERC, you got to hire a D.C. lawyer that's going to bill you about $800 or $900 an hour, okay? So we're talking about real money. But what this bill does specifically is kind of clarify something that was said in this very room two 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 facilities 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 customer's 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 cost 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 auto glass 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 electric 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.
Chair
Unverified
1:07:52
Thank you for all that explanation, forever explanation. We'll get back to it with questions. Yes,
Speaker 12
1:08:00
sir. Is there any questions? Seeing none, I think we have two people, one to speak for and one to speak against. You're the four, so you've done your thing, okay, unless you want to do more. I'd love to do more, sir.
I could tell. Senate Bill 615, John Bethel, Yenst. John, if you will introduce yourself. Good morning, Mr. Chairman
Speaker 108
1:08:33
of the Committee. I'm John Bethel, Director of Public Affairs
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:08:37
for Intergy Arkansas. And I would point out that this bill is not necessary to accomplish the objective that is stated. For one,
Speaker 195
1:08:46
to comply with federal law and customers that have facilities behind their meter.
and want to have facilities that are in compliance with the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act, they take service under our large and small co-gen tariffs and have for years. Customers can do that and have been able to do that for a long time. And secondly, this essentially undoes, 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, having a non-exporting facility as is outlined in this can occur under the existing net metering law or under the existing co-gen 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 power back because they would not be able to do so if you made them operate not in parallel.
And then number two, it also prevents combining renewable non-exporting facilities with interruptible service. And what that prevents is that customer getting a discount for interruptible service but not providing the level of interruption that the discount they're being compensated for. And then 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 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 kilowatt hour charge, not for our largest customers, but for the small general service and the residential class. And also, under the Act, 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 will 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,
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:11:43
and I'll be happy to take questions. All right, Senator Murdoch. Thank you, Chair. John, as we look at matters such as these when they come before us, obviously this is what you do, so you micro on these two or three bills a session. We see a myriad of bills and these come at us in this manner. When I look at page two, beginning at line four, 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 guardrail. 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 in post of this. So do you agree or do you have the confidence that PSC will help us to regulate even those concerns that
Speaker 108
1:12:51
you're now articulating? I think they will certainly do their best and we'll try, but the bill, as written,
Speaker 195
1:12:59
allows the export of power under its terms. It allows facilities that are sized such that they will, in
Speaker 108
1:13:07
all months but one, produce more power than the customer consumes. And there are already commission-approved rate mechanisms that allow customers to do what the bill is purported
Speaker 195
1:13:17
to do. A customer can already have a non-exporting system under either the net metering regulations
or under the large and small co-gen tariffs. And there was also mention of backup generators. Backup generators do not operate in parallel with the electric utility system. This
Speaker 108
1:13:33
bill would enable a 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 another system, it is physically impossible for that system to put power to the utility, And if you were to
Speaker 195
1:13:50
improve this bill by making that not possible and also make it to where you don't combine interruptible service with this facility.
Speaker 108
1:13:58
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
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:14:12
shift cost to other customers. So the long 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 arrangement? You think we still are left vulnerable?
Or do you not have confidence that they will referee
Speaker 156
1:14:33
or officiate as you are? I think the bill doesn't give sufficient customer
Speaker 108
1:14:39
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 cost to other customers. And so that would leave it obviously at the discretion of the commission and I would assume they would try to avoid that.
Speaker 195
1:15:05
But before the net metering law was revised last session, the commission did authorize the combination of net metering and interruptible service to the
Speaker 108
1:15:14
detriment of other customers. And the General Assembly made that a prohibition when you approved the changes to the net metering law. And so that's one aspect that the bill has that would put customers at risk. Yes, so
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:15:29
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
Speaker 203
1:15:50
conversation? I'll accept that if Danny won't do that.
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:15:57
And as you come, my question is quite simple. I'm just trying
Speaker 130
1:16:01
to, because from the bill presentation. Hang on a second, Senator. I'll let her introduce herself, and then you can.
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:16:13
the PSC. Go ahead, Senator. Thank you. Sorry, Chair. So real simply, just trying to make sure as a committee, 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, add, subtract, and divide, 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 the concerns that he mentioned will be properly dealt with through this process or are we vulnerable? So I'll start by and with a I guess
Speaker 210
1:16:54
a preface to my answer. Sorry I feel like I want to adjust my mic here. 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
Speaker 209
1:17:19
of support or lack of support for the bill. Well, support us. We need
Speaker 212
1:17:28
good information. No, no, no. That is always our goal. No, so part of PSC precedent and what we're charged with is any order issued by the PSC must prevent unreasonable cost shifts.
So that already exists in everything that we do. That an order that comes out of the PSC is going to evaluate the docket, the information before us, whatever the
Speaker 210
1:18:02
application is, and it's looking to prevent any unreasonable cost
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:18:15
the concerns that Mr. Bethel articulated,
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. can we feel comfortable if we rely upon
you? Do you feel confident in your protecting us inside
Speaker 210
1:18:44
of 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.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:18:55
Thank you. Senator McKee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I want
to make sure that I understand the framework, right? So, currently, if you are an interruptible customer, you cannot be
Speaker 215
1:19:17
a code generator. And maybe, I'm sorry,
Speaker 208
1:19:23
maybe I should ask John. Go ahead, Dani. So,
Speaker 209
1:19:26
specifically, if you are taking service under an interruptible tariff, you cannot
Speaker 210
1:19:33
also simultaneously take service, sorry, I should not use the word tariff, it has nothing to do with taxes,
Speaker 209
1:19:40
it's just what we call, like, a rate schedule. If you take service under an interruptible rate schedule, it is not compatible, you're you're
Speaker 210
1:19:49
not eligible with also taking service under a net metering rate schedule? Not necessarily net
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:19:56
metering because 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 interruptible customer or have an interruptible tariff. I'm going to use the word because I know what it means.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:20:38
I can answer the question, Senator McKee. The customers can have self-generation and can
Speaker 108
1:20:44
be interruptible, those systems that are operating in that way do not operate in parallel with the utilities system. Okay, please explain. Meaning that they have the ability to put power to the utility, that 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 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 separate from the utilities network and have interruptible service.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:21:42
We have customers that do that
today. You just can't provide power back to the system and have a thing. Can I
Speaker 189
1:21:51
have him address that also? Your question. Thank you for that opportunity. Senator McKee, I appreciate the question. It's a good question. My answer is different from Mr. Bethel's. There are
Speaker 190
1:22:02
facilities in Arkansas right now as we speak that generate their own power in parallel with the utilities grid that the utility is required to provide interruptible service to under federal.
law under PURPA. One of the requirements of PURPA is that the utility sell interruptible power to that customer in a non-discriminatory fashion. And there are a number of PURPA 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 would correct that. Hold on a second.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:22:46
they don't receive the level of interruption,
compenser it 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
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:23:05
the interruptible phase, right? And it hinges upon for the interruption. And I agree, but Mr. Tinsley's response was correct. I wanted to
Speaker 108
1:23:12
correct my response. Some of the customers that take service under the co-gen tariffs are able to do that. But this is different. But 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 discount's based on that level. And unless you sync that up, and this bill doesn't require that to happen, you could have a situation, and that's the reason why it was prohibited in the net metering statute of the customer getting a
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:23:56
larger discount than they are being compensated for.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:23:58
Okay, so they're generating 50 megawatts of solar, say, and they're putting that back on utilities lines. And so they're receiving compensation
for that in the form of an interruptible tariff? If they are on an interruptible
Speaker 131
1:24:13
tariff. If they are, okay. And we call for an interruption and they're putting power to
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:24:18
us, they're not providing the interruption or the level of interruption that we've contracted for. Is it,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:24:27
when 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
Speaker 108
1:24:39
be had you not cut off their power? We don't cut off their power. They scale back their operation. But 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 not
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:25:01
cutting back their level of power because they're transferring it to the power that they would be putting it back on the load, on the grid.
Speaker 218
1:25:11
I'm sorry. They're putting power to us when they would
Speaker 108
1:25:16
otherwise not be putting power to us. They're not providing. If we're expecting them to reduce their load to us by 50 megabytes 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
1:25:44
Addressing, and then I'm done. Thanks again for the opportunity to address that. So 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.
Speaker 190
1:26:00
I first met him when I was a teenager interning 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 crews 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 utility tells us 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, okay, 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 did 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 Dismang sat here two years ago and told this very committee that we're 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 Dismang made in this room. The other utilities in this state, the co-ops, as far as I know, are not taking the position that Mr. Bethel is taking here today,
which is effectively that systems that do not export kilowatt hours to the grid are somehow net metering facilities. I don't know what
Speaker 231
1:29:44
you're doing. I'm responding to Senator McKee's question. Okay, do it quickly. Yes,
Speaker 190
1:29:49
sir. So literally what they're talking about, Senator McKee, is lost revenues. It's not cost shifting. These customers that 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
Chair
Unverified
1:30:16
know if I agree with everything that came out of your mouth. Yes, sir. But I appreciate all
Speaker 12
1:30:24
of it. I mean, they have to plan their base load and have to be able to serve
Chair
Unverified
1:30:32
everybody. And if you're sticking, you know,
Speaker 12
1:30:38
load onto the system that they can't account for,
then it's going to, 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 account for yourself. And I get where they're coming from on this thing, but it's the PSC's job to make this happen. And no.
Speaker 235
1:31:13
So can you make this functional? Can the PSC make this functional? That's my one question. When you say
Speaker 210
1:31:25
can we make this functional, do you mean can we make the
Speaker 236
1:31:29
bill functional? or can we accomplish
Speaker 97
1:31:32
or address the concerns without? The bill is supposed to be a non-export facility. Correct. It sounds
Speaker 12
1:31:39
to me like there is a possible of export, which makes a difference in the system.
Speaker 210
1:31:46
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
Speaker 108
1:32:12
correct. Do you agree with that? Not necessarily, but the quantities, it does say inadvertent or unintentional,
but it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be significant because the facility is sized at the
Speaker 241
1:32:31
highest monthly usage. So, can I address that? No. I'll be
Speaker 18
1:32:35
brief. No. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Penzo,
Speaker 12
1:32:40
can, I mean, I think a percentage, not the total of the highest monthly use, I think would be more acceptable.
Do you understand what I'm saying? I think that's what the electric providers are
Speaker 147
1:32:56
worried about. If you've got it at the highest month load average, then
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:33:02
would the PSC be able to establish what he's saying?
Speaker 210
1:33:10
I think if it was explicitly stated in the legislation that the PSC should, by rule, establish that. Without that, I always feel more concerned if the legislation is especially prescriptive
of what the PSC should establish or not? Okay, because
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:33:28
it says acceptable methods of export limitation in the bill. In terms of the rules that
Speaker 210
1:33:37
the PSC should promulgate? Yeah. On page 2, line 13.
Speaker 245
1:33:42
So, I think, I mean, it definitely says acceptable methods.
Speaker 210
1:33:58
It doesn't necessarily state amount. It just says methods. So, that would be my only, if you were looking for me to be especially cautious on that. We can, if you
Speaker 18
1:34:13
guys want to, you know, get to the side and do that, I
Speaker 4
1:34:18
would feel more comfortable because I think the energy and the providers would feel more comfortable. So are you saying slip away from the table
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:34:26
a little bit, come up with some language, come back, do a verbal?
Speaker 4
1:34:31
I don't want to slow you down. It's too late. Yeah, no, that's why I was kind of curious how we would do
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:34:41
this. But if you guys could huddle up, I think that we'll do that. We'll let the next person line in the queue, and then I'll come back
Speaker 12
1:34:49
and see you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Thank you for everybody's testimony. We will return back to this bill in a few minutes. Can you all want to step out in
Speaker 147
1:34:58
the hall or back here in this back room?
Speaker 87
1:35:02
Yeah. All right, Senator Dees. This is Senate Bill 611. 611. Thank
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:35:27
you, Mr. Chair. Tyler Dees, State Senate, District 35.
Speaker 214
1:35:35
Just a minute, Senator. Yes, sir. 611. Oh,
Speaker 5
1:35:50
we went from energy to social media. Yes, sir. The natural transition. All
Chair
Unverified
1:35:58
right. Senator Dees, introduce yourself. Do you have anybody to come to the
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:36:02
table? Just myself today. Senator Tyler Dees, District 35.
You're recognized. Thank you, members. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 611 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 were, if you remember, we were one of the first in the country, I believe first in the country in 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, in this space, our state moved forward with that act
that passed in 2023. Well, when leaders go first, we don't always get everything exactly right. 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 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 a great fix and a direction that the state needs.
it's going to protect children and the examples are on page seven. So I'm going to take you to page seven where after we get through some definitions page seven really talks about what the aim is here. So at the top of page seven line two 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 6, 10 p.m. and 6 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 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 this is not being addressed and creates a crimes against children fund for any awards there. And then finally, 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 that there's time to implement this. So
Speaker 230
1:39:12
that's what the social media amendment to the Social Media Safety
Speaker 87
1:39:18
Act does with Senate Bill 611. Is there any
Speaker 12
1:39:24
questions? Senator Murdoch? Any questions? Seeing none. There's no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there anybody in
Speaker 259
1:39:32
the audience to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none. You want to close your bill?
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:39:38
Thank you, members. 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
1:39:48
kids online. All right. Motion by Senator Murdoch, second by Senator Boyd. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was a lot shorter. Thank you, members. WE WENT THROUGH SOCIAL
Speaker 192
1:40:02
MEDIA REALLY QUICK. SENATOR BENZO, DO YOU HAVE
Speaker 152
1:40:15
SOMETHING WORKED OUT? I BELIEVE SO. WOULD YOU
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:40:17
LIKE TO READ WHAT WE'VE GOT BEFORE WE GET STARTED? YOU
Speaker 34
1:40:22
WANT TO GO AHEAD AND TELL YOU WHAT WE CAME UP with? I got
Chair
Unverified
1:40:34
to remember what bill it was, Senator. 615. All right. Yes. Senator Penzo, please, everyone get 615 out. So let's have a reading of... Okay, so on page two... All right.
Speaker 18
1:40:47
That feller can leave the table and back.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:40:55
Go ahead, Senator Penzo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Page two, line four. We're going to strike December of, 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, down under line 17 where it says the A, B, and C, we're going to add a D and put any necessary limit on capacity size. And then, of course, semicolon and.
Speaker 18
1:41:47
all right can the staff work that you just just a minute go ahead yeah all right you think
Speaker 12
1:42:07
she can read that okay all right all right uh i mean this is fairly substantial i want to suspend the rules Motion by Senator Penzo, second by Senator Boyd, all in favor say aye.
Aye. All right, Senator Penzo, she has your amendments, and all the members heard the amendment. Motion by Senator Penzo on the amendment, second by Senator McKee, all in favor of that verbal amendment, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Like sign? Thank you, Senator. That is amended. Sorry. I'm running on fumes, and I guess I'm having glitches. I'm getting older.
You want to close for your bill? I think everybody in opposition and everybody is good now. Do you want to close for
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:43:12
your bill? Yeah, I think everybody's on the committees where they need to be, so I just
Chair
Unverified
1:43:20
would ask for a good vote. All right. Motion by Senator Penzo. Pass as amended. Second by Senator Murdoch. Any discussion? None. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All 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
1:43:42
Thank you, committee. Thank you. So, we have one more that might possibly present. We're going to work through some house bills at this
Speaker 275
1:43:51
time. Representative Perry. Yep. Yep. All right.
Speaker 259
1:44:02
Representative Perry. It is House Bill 1771. Is that correct? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, it is. All right. Let
Speaker 12
1:44:13
the members have a second. Is there an amendment? I've got an amendment. All right. Got an amendment. Just a minute. Let them hand it out. A friendly amendment.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:44:41
they didn't it was actually she she missed the typing because I had to have senator Murdoch as my Senate sponsor and she didn't type she didn't put it on there, but he was added. I
Speaker 284
1:45:15
was advised I needed one. Sometimes, always. Don't y'all
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:46:00
We'll come back and get with Michelle and we'll put it all in one of them. Can we call the drafter and have her send me another one?
Speaker 275
1:46:30
I CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN. REPRESENTATIVE ACRE, WHAT BILL DO YOU HAVE? 1531.
Speaker 46
1:47:07
Good noise. I can't go on. Only good noise. We've got to recess until somebody
Speaker 304
1:47:28
comes. We'll adopt this. Yes, sir. Does he got
Chair
Unverified
1:47:44
NEW SPEAKER: MOTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT TO 1531, SECOND BY SENATOR MURDOCK. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED LIKE SIGN,
Speaker 12
1:48:01
REPRESENTATIVE ACERY, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO PRESENT. NEW
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:48:10
SPEAKER: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, SENATORS. Brandon Aker District 71 presenting House Bill
1531 this is a pretty simple
bill it has strong support from the Hospital Association UAMS CARTI Children's Highlands Oncology and for good reason and 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 being 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 CARTSI Highlands Oncology specialty pharmacies that my bill would say that if they are able to meet this 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 is 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
patients 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
Speaker 87
1:49:55
that I welcome any questions. All right. Is there any questions? Seeing none we have two to testify one to testify for one to testify against first on the list is Kip Snyder yep
Speaker 18
1:50:24
that'll be fine just introduce yourself and and who you're
with and you're welcome to to again this this is against yep thanks mr.
Kip Snyder
Unverified
1:50:38
chairman members 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 where the principal trade association for the research-based industry so we represent over 30 large companies those are our members they research, 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 Acor. 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 got to say I completely understand and respect when 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 four or five 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? So what does limited mean? There could be manufacturers that have products that do use national distribution networks, but also have maybe a smattering of Arkansas distribution as well. So, 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 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 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.
REMS 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 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, our 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, and in many cases, again,
Speaker 311
1:55:17
as directed by FDA. How many pages are you going to go through there? I'm wrapping up, but I'll get to it.
Kip Snyder
Unverified
1:55:28
We have a lot to say. 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 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 ask for this to be pulled back and studied and slowed down. We 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
Speaker 311
1:56:29
access. So I'll wrap up there. SO YOU'RE THE MANUFACTURE. WE'RE THE TRADE ASSOCIATION THAT REPRESENTS
Speaker 34
1:56:35
MANUFACTURERS, YES. ALL RIGHT. AND THIS LIMITED DISTRIBUTION NETWORK YOU LIKE? WELL, THE
Kip Snyder
Unverified
1:56:44
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS ARE 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
Speaker 311
1:57:05
seeks to 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
Kip Snyder
Unverified
1:57:19
think there's some, we have an idea of what the intent is, but there's no definition. So again, there's some that are somewhat limited, partially limited, limited by other entities
Speaker 18
1:57:31
versus limited by manufacturers. There's a lot of complexity. I don't know, we've had PSAOs, LDNs, pharmacy benefit managers, I mean, there's a lot of
Speaker 12
1:57:47
LEACHES. WELCOME TO OUR WORLD. BETWEEN THE MANUFACTURER AND THE CONSUMERS AND I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTION? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. number we have Daniel I'm sorry I can't I can't read the writing this is for Arkansas
HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OR ARKANSAS AHS DANIEL NCSM FOR WE HAVE SOMEBODY HERE TO SPEAK FOR THIS BILL 1531 GOING ONCE GOING TWICE YOU'RE DONE ALL RIGHT
Speaker 18
1:58:46
none you want to close for your bill what's your name
Speaker 30
1:59:07
what's your name oh i'm sorry against
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:59:19
uh russell all right go ahead just introduce yourself mr chairman members of the committee
Speaker 322
1:59:26
my name is is Russell Polk, representing Biopharmaceutical Innovation Organization, also known as BIO. BIO respectfully asks for your opposition to 1531, which seeks to restrict drug manufacturers
from establishing LDNs, as we've talked about already. Pharmaceutical manufacturers establish limited distribution networks for a variety of important reasons, and I'll highlight three of them, just to be short. one, special handling and storage requirements. Many medications require strict temperature control, specialized packaging, and other handling protocols to maintain their 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 two, 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, as we mentioned previously, program mandates that high-risk medications only be disposed through a restricted pharmacy network. And number three, 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 discriminately increases the chance of supply chain disruption, contamination, or improper handling that could compromise patient health and safety. And with that, Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 323
2:01:03
I'll end my comments. All right. Thank you. Senator Boyd,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:01:12
appreciate your testimony. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but regardless,
have you seen the amendment? I have not seen an amendment. Okay, so in the
amendment, just so 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 mean, wouldn't you agree maybe that some of the things you
Speaker 322
2:01:44
said were problematic were addressed in this amendment? I still think there's concerns from my members, just so you know, my members our biologics world we have we have 1,300 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 it 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 members so you're you're
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:02:16
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 I don't I don't I
Speaker 322
2:02:27
think we have some very very
smart people that run our pharmacies and I we we are here for access purposes in the rural areas especially but right now my membership have some
Speaker 327
2:02:38
issues with this bill so what exactly
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:02:41
is the concern with allowing Arkansas pharmacies to distribute your medications when they can read and interpret the labeling, when they can store them appropriately. Can you give me a real
Speaker 322
2:02:57
concern? Again, Senator, I have members that have various concerns based on what at least
what we have seen so far. And I mean, I
Speaker 325
2:03:06
can't tell. So is the concern that the state
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:03:10
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 directions from the
Speaker 322
2:03:23
manufacturer? Yeah you know again we have many LDNs and how we would operate under this law is just it's it's very new concept obviously and
Speaker 328
2:03:33
then Arkansas would be the first state to have something like this and we would have to so
Speaker 34
2:03:40
you're concerned that Arkansas is going to be the leader?
Speaker 12
2:03:50
Yes sir. Thank you. So, I understand it's most taken care of in the amendment, but all those things are required by the FDA, correct? That handling and distribution, whether it's done by the LDNs or by the pharmacist. Am I right in what I'm saying?
Chair
Unverified
2:04:05
Are you talking about the REM program? Yeah. 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
Speaker 12
2:04:21
things that you're worried about, the requirements, whoever the placement of that product is, the FDA requires, whether it be the LDNs or the pharmacies, to handle those things in the same manner, correct?
Speaker 322
2:04:36
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 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
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:05:03
implement this bill into what we currently have so if the manufacturers
Speaker 4
2:05:08
have the drug. FDA sets their protocol for how they're going to handle that drug, correct? I
Speaker 322
2:05:16
don't know that I know the answer to the fully answer to that question, Senator. Are you a pharmacist? No, sir. I'm not a pharmacist. Okay. So you
Speaker 34
2:05:26
don't know how to handle the drug? I'm sorry? You don't know how to handle the drug, correct? I do not handle drugs, no. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
2:05:38
Is there any other questions? Seeing none, I think that's all the for or against. Do you want to close the bill? Thank you,
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:05:49
committee. I did want to address a few things. So 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
Chair
Unverified
2:06:24
appreciate a motion and a good vote. All right. Motion by Senator Boyd. Do pass as amended. Second by Senator Penzo. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like
Speaker 18
2:06:34
sign. Thank you, Senator, or thank you, Representative Baker.
Speaker 4
2:06:39
It's been a long week. We've got Representative Perry's amendment.
Speaker 12
2:07:28
Okay, I need a motion to adopt the motion by Senator Boyd,
Chair
Unverified
2:07:34
second by Senator Murdoch to adopt amendment for 1771. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed like signed.
Speaker 12
2:07:43
All right Representative Perry if you want to introduce yourself and and
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
2:07:50
you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mark Perry representative district 66. Senators House Bill 1771 is a business friendly bill it actually require insurance companies to provide claims
data on a healthy group health insurance policies for employees of 50 or more and that would help provide detailed information on high value high 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?
Speaker 88
2:08:37
HANG ON JUST A MINUTE, LET ME MAKE SURE
Chair
Unverified
2:08:46
THERE'S ANY TESTIMONY. SEEING NONE, ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, YOU WANT TO
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
2:08:52
CLOSE YOUR BILL. I'm closed, Mr.
Speaker 34
2:08:55
Chairman. I appreciate a motion. All right. Motion by Senator Johnson, as amended.
Chair
Unverified
2:09:01
As amended. Second by Senator Murdoch.
Speaker 18
2:09:04
Any discussion? All in favor, say aye.
Aye. All opposed, like side. Thank you, Representative, for being patient. Thank
Speaker 12
2:09:18
you all. We have another Senate bill. It is... Senate
Speaker 30
2:09:24
Bill 437 Am I recognized? Hang on a minute.
Speaker 68
2:09:37
Okay. Let me get to it. All right. Introduce
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:09:49
yourself and you're recognized. Member State 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'm certain it doesn't make everyone good, but I think it made most of the people that were here last time. But I want to direct you, it's already been amended, I'm in it on our floor, to page 20, starting with lines 26 through 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. But even there is a compelling governmental interest with all property owners involved that we do something. So on page 20, lines 26 through 31, what it does is it exempts any projects that are currently under construction or operating.
We're not messing with anyone that's working. And number two, it exempts only or it exempts everything that's facility probably that is less than 300 feet above sea level. And really, 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, with the Arkansas Natural Initiative going on.
We want people to become hike, bike, paddle, rock climb. So that's kind of what this really does. It protects the current projects happening. It protects our Ozarks, but also allows those projects, you know, in what I would consider Caldwell's district to move forward. Happy to answer any questions. Senator Murdoch, and
Chair
Unverified
2:11:47
I know you don't care anything about below sea level where we live, but we'll go on to question.
Well, at times, you just wait until Saturday. Senator McKee. Thank
Speaker 52
2:11:59
you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate that you're
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:12:06
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
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:12:18
mean, I believe there should be, but we all come down here and do the best we can, and it's possible that
there will be some other bills that come with some basic restrictions,
but look, 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 two 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
Speaker 338
2:12:49
can get done for now at least the project's moving forward
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:12:55
yep senator johnson question thank you mr chairman Senator Hester, I appreciate you calling it the Ron Caldwell Amendment.
Does this make Senator Caldwell okay to your understanding with the bill? I've said for a good while that I'm a supporter of wind energy, but I'm also a supporter of tourism and the things that you indicate you're concerned about. Is he okay? And can you kind of tell us where the line is between the 300 feet and below and above in our state? I should be prepared
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:13:31
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. And it was his idea using the 300 feet above sea level. I wish I had a – that's a very reasonable question
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:13:50
that I will answer you. I just don't have it. I know this. It protects the Ozarks, but allows... I kind of know about this
because I know about where Greer's Ferry Lake is in this thing, and I have my boat up there, so I keep up with the sea level in the lake, but it's based on that. But I think it is that imaginary line from Senator Blake Johnson's district down to Texarkana,
and below, or 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. Okay. Well, this changes things, and I believe now I can support the bill.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:14:33
Thank you, Senator. Any additional questions?
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:14:36
Senator Irvin. I know that I just came in, but, again, this is the sea
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:14:41
level issue. Is that correct? That's right. I said basically the three important things different than last time are every project that's currently under construction,
is grandfathered and every project that is below 300 feet 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 from this but what it does it it protects the Ozarks it protects our you know that that's that's the goal here
Speaker 354
2:15:10
that's what we've got to perfect thank you so what it
Speaker 12
2:15:15
amounts to is we're going to be in the wild wild west
Chair
Unverified
2:15:21
when you're below 300 foot sea level any other questions
Chair
Unverified
2:15:40
against the bill, but I can't read it. Somebody come on up. Where?
Yeah, wherever you want to land. Just introduce yourself when you get set down, who you're with.
Speaker 356
2:15:59
I do have some handouts, a map, a topographic map. We will let you do
Chair
Unverified
2:16:04
the handouts if you will keep it short. Absolutely. Okay. Hang on just a minute. Senator,
Speaker 235
2:16:10
let staff do that. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 68
2:17:14
I apologize please introduce yourself and you're recognized. I appreciate
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
2:17:29
that chairman thank you and thank you committee for allowing me to come and
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:17:34
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-foot 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-mile
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 acts as a ban outside of the 300-foot 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 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 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. 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 generation technologies and for those reasons and everything else written in my testimony I'd encourage you to reject the bill. So in this map is that is the
Chair
Unverified
2:20:05
red the one you could develop in? The red is where you can't
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:20:14
develop. Can't develop in. 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 and the Ouachita's 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 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
Speaker 8
2:20:58
questions? Senator Murdoch? Thank you, Chair. So
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
2:21:01
this bill has been out there for a little bit, and there have been some discussions. Senator Hester, I think, pulled it down, and they've been through several meetings.
Were you a part of the conversation? I personally was not. Was your organization part of the conversation? No. Was that by choice? No. Thank you. Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:21:37
Got too many mics. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My light didn't come on. Senator Hester, would you turn your mic off? We had too many mics.
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 foot towers all in the East Arkansas that's that's something that we're kind of hate say stuck with but at least in
the medium term yes so 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 it's red and green and and white and and all that there there could be some adjustments in the future, you know, to allow it in place, especially in places where, A,
the wind justifies it, B, 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 kind of leaving that
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
2:23:02
open? Yes, sir. I will say, though, many of our members, our wind farm
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:23:07
developers 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, you know, 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-foot sea level restriction is still too much at this time.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:24:01
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions?
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:24:07
Senator Irvin. Thank you. I appreciate your concern. I live in the Ozarks. You live here in Little Rock. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So I live in the Ozarks and I, I mean, how much of the wind industry right now is subsidized by federal
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:24:28
dollars? They 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 industry is available to receive the production
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:24:41
tax credit as well. Okay. Any other
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
2:24:45
funding in addition to that? Not that I'm aware of. We're
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:24:50
not here to ask for additional funding or any assistance. We are here simply to
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:24:56
allow us to work with our local landowners. Gotcha. Okay, and then just correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Walmart utilized solar energy 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 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 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 would guess, you know, do you see any kind of understanding as to why those of us that live in this very mountainous region would not want wind turbines? I
Speaker 376
2:26:33
can understand the desire not to see them and not look at
Simon Mahan
Unverified
2:26:38
them. That part of the state is growing very rapidly, and we will need more power generation in northwest Arkansas. 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 a thousand 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 tie... We don't know that. 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 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 wind project would be. Wind farms don't use any water. There's environmental benefit to them. And so my recommendation is allow us to work with our private landowners and the local
counties so that we can pick and choose where we
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:28:07
need to go. I'm going to save the rest of my comments for
Speaker 8
2:28:12
discussion thank you all right thank you any other questions thank you for your testimony
Speaker 18
2:28:18
I appreciate it thank you there's no one else to speak for against the bill is there anybody that wants to from the audience
Speaker 333
2:28:26
seeing none do you want to close the bill I do members I'll just go back to this I understand their concerns appreciate the map
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:28:34
they brought everything in blue is exempt from this bill everything currently under construction is exempt from
this bill. In the Ozarks there are currently four companies with projects under construction right now, 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 a bill
Speaker 119
2:29:11
that we can support. Thank you. Motion by Senator Irvin. Second by Senator McKee.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:29:18
Discussion? Go ahead. Okay. I just, 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. 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 our dams that we have which is fabulous and we need to utilize it and harness that energy uh that's that's available so i there are real concerns not just because they don't look nice real concerns when you're putting these things on top of a ridge of a mountaintop 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 ridgetop 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 understanding that from the people that are, you know, against this bill. And so I just caution us 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
Speaker 358
2:31:46
this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. I
Speaker 18
2:31:53
just wish the senator would have been able to, you know, since we're putting it below 300 foot, above sea level, if you
to put a duck head on top of the windmill and put mojo on the side and we could at least use it for to draw the ducks down
Chair
Unverified
2:32:17
from illinois is there any other any other discussion seeing seeing none all in favor say aye all opposed like sign thank you senator
Speaker 12
2:32:35
I think we have Senator Dees and Representative Brown. Thank
Speaker 336
2:32:57
you, Mr. Chair and committee. Introduce yourselves and you're recognized. What bill are we on first? HB 1736. 1746. 1746. 1746, members.
And there's three bills that we'll be discussing. 1736. I'll accept a motion to batch. I ain't playing. We can present them
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:33:24
together, and they are similar. Do we have an amendment? We're going to consider all those bills
Speaker 4
2:33:32
at the same time. We will not be talking about 1820 with this group. Hang on just a minute.
Speaker 385
2:33:42
So for clarity, 1736, 1746, and 1737.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:33:46
No one has signed up
Speaker 147
2:33:48
against those bills. There's not an amendment on any of
Speaker 385
2:33:53
those bills? No, sir. Members were? 1736, 1746, and 1737. STATE SENATOR
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:34:00
TYLER DEES, DISTRICT 35. DO WHAT? HANG
Speaker 182
2:34:04
ON JUST A MINUTE. I WAS JUST MAKING A
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:34:13
IF THEY'RE ALL IN THE SAME REALM. WE CAN PRESENT THEM, MR. CHAIR. AND IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE BATCHING AT THE END
Chair
Unverified
2:34:22
OF THAT TIME, THAT'S UP TO YOU ALL. MEMBERS, I WILL NOT MAKE THIS
Speaker 18
2:34:26
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. All right, let's do them
Speaker 68
2:34:36
all, present, you know, give a synopsis of each, and then let us move from there. Yes, sir. State Senator, District 35.
Speaker 393
2:34:44
Matt Brown, District 55. Aaron Squires, representing the Arkansas
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:34:51
Bar Association. All right. You're welcome to, you're recognized. Thank you, members. Appreciate the ability to bring these. This is three 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'd like to allow Mr. Squires to help us present the bill. But before that, I'd love Representative Brown for any comments on the intro.
Thank you, Senator Deese. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 394
2:35:20
Chair. Senators, so the 1746 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, I don't have the exact number, but if we were to adopt these, I think we're somewhere in the 22nd, 23rd, 24th 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 1746 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 so 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 in the llc 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 may be able to get some money from it, whatever it's being paid, I'm sorry Senator? Whenever distributions are 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. 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 a internet
project or things of that nature we're just updating it
Speaker 18
2:37:34
not 1962 we're going to take them one at a time all right
Chair
Unverified
2:37:40
we're going to do questions on house bill 1736 first 1736 senator boyd thank you
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:37:46
mr chair representative brown thank you for bringing this bill uh i just want to be crystal clear
before we vote um 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 important. Thank you Senator and I remember the
Speaker 398
2:38:22
exact bill you talked about because I really liked that bill and no this does not in any way impair y'all bill. If anything, it's just kind of a redundant, I think for lack of a better word, but y'all's
Speaker 399
2:38:33
bill would still, it's still in full force
Chair
Unverified
2:38:37
in effect. Thank you. Any other question on 1736? Seeing none. All right. 1737. Any question on 1737? All right. You got a question? Hang on, hang on. We're going to handle that here just a minute. 1746, the book. Anybody got a question on the book? Go ahead, Senator Boyden.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:39:08
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 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.
Speaker 394
2:39:41
Thank you, Senator Boyd. And I'll also defer to my witness, but my understanding is no, it does not. In fact, on page four of the bill, it specifically has provision to clarify that no way, shape, or form would, like a digital currency, be considered money, which I think was one of the big issues of 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 fray, like, would we now be required to recognize that
Speaker 404
2:40:07
as money here? And so that's why this provision on page four was, was to keep that out.
Speaker 34
2:40:13
But yes, sir. Thank you. Senator Johnson I'm going to defer to you because there's two lawyers at the table and your father was one is there any question on the
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:40:27
book? Mr. Chairman let me just say that 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 Capitol 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 and
And my friend, Representative Brown, is my legal expert in my
Speaker 57
2:40:48
district. So I'll defer to you. All right. Senator Murdoch? Let me say this. I think that
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
2:40:55
Senator Johnson just got a text that kind of took him out of the question mode. Okay. He'll share that with you later. All
Chair
Unverified
2:41:03
right. No, you may have it too, actually. There is no one signed up for against the bill. You want to close
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:41:13
on your bills? Thank you, members. I just looked at the exact same information Senator Johnson brought up.
And per Senator Boyd's questions, the members that had different bills of concern did not vote against these. I know that's not always the only thing
we look at, but it has helped me to have comfort as well. And for that, we'd appreciate a vote
Chair
Unverified
2:41:36
on however you seem fit, either batched or individually. I'll accept a motion for Senate Bill 1736, 1737, and 1746 as a batch. Motion by Senator Boyd. Second by Senator Irvin.
Speaker 18
2:41:49
Any discussion? Dadgummit, Boyd. Sorry. Well, I
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
2:41:54
don't know what I'm discussing. If I'm discussing your motion
to batch or I'm making a discussion. But the point 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 of the people who have brought this
to make sure that we are actually doing what it was intended to do and not moving
Chair
Unverified
2:42:31
forward someone's political agenda. Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All
Speaker 12
2:42:41
opposed, like sign. Thank you, everybody. Motion to pass those bills as a match. All right. Second by Senator Boyd.
Chair
Unverified
2:42:48
Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign.
Thank you for your... Do 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
Speaker 398
2:43:06
everybody else is. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, what is it? Mr. Chair, it's
Speaker 319
2:43:12
1820, House Bill 1820. 1820. 1820 has an amendment.
Chair
Unverified
2:43:33
We have a motion to adopt the amendment by Senator McKee, second by Senator Johnson. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. All right, please present 1820 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown, District 55. Senators, this
Speaker 404
2:43:51
is a little piece of consumer protection legislation. You may have heard of
Speaker 394
2:43:56
this as the click to cancel. Essentially what this bill provides is that if a consumer signs up for a service that bills 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 camp. 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 a 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 is 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 P.O. box in Alaska in order to, and 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. 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, hey, cancel. This law has been, 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 questions? Let me check.
Speaker 87
2:45:19
There's no one signed up for against this bill. You want to close
Speaker 398
2:45:26
the bill? I'm closed, Mr. Chair, and if I may ask, would it be possible for y'all to come give us lessons on how
Speaker 399
2:45:33
to do committees? Because this is a whole lot faster,
Speaker 52
2:45:37
a whole lot more efficient than what we do on
Chair
Unverified
2:45:42
my end of the building. We have a motion by Senator McKee, second by Senator Johnson. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Thank you, Representative.
Chair
Unverified
2:45:57
Representative Rose. Yes, sir. Are you leaving? Okay. Do you want to you want to come down? We have we have a another
Speaker 12
2:46:08
representative on his way to help present my bill. Representative
Speaker 259
2:46:17
Rose, it's it's Bill 1859, the boobie bill.
Speaker 52
2:46:23
Representative Rose. And we have handled energy and uniform consumer code. We have handled a lot today. Representative
Chair
Unverified
2:46:34
Rose, just introduce yourself. Yes, sir. Could you shut that mic off the side of
Speaker 415
2:46:39
yourself? All right. Just introduce yourself. And you're recognized on 1859. Yes,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:46:45
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 the 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. put, this bill is about helping women be made whole as much as possible, physically, emotionally,
and spiritually, after the devastating fight that they go through when they face breast cancer. So some of you may know my wife is a two-time breast cancer survivor, and she has had eight surgeries in the last few years, six 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, we've seen firsthand 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, 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 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 two that are medically standard that we need to make sure are 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, 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. This is 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.
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, gives surgeons and patients more tools in their toolkit. Something else that 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. It gives us the ability to monitor the impact. My belief is that as it's evaluated and the 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 at 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. With that, I'll
Speaker 18
2:52:03
take any questions. Thank you, Representative Rose. Is there any questions? There's no one signed up for or against the bill. You want
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:52:11
to close the 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 doing that.
Speaker 18
2:52:29
And I'm closed. Appreciate a good moment. Will a committee do pass by Senator Johnson. Second
Chair
Unverified
2:52:34
by Senator Boyd. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed like sign. Thank you, Representative Rose, for what you're doing, for what your wife went through and others in this process with your abilities. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU, COMMITTEE.
NEW SPEAKER: JAMIE, IF IT'S OKAY, I WANT TO GO TO REPRESENTATIVE
Speaker 176
2:53:08
JOHNSON. SO REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, WHAT DO YOU WANT
Speaker 421
2:53:13
TO START WITH? NEW SPEAKER: I'M AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR, I CAN RUN ANY OF THESE BILLS,
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:53:23
some folks here for a while. I do. 1424 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 to the
Speaker 421
2:53:38
table to help me answer any questions. So I'm the Senate sponsor of this AND I APPRECIATE YOU COMING AND HELPING WITH THIS AND YES, ABSOLUTELY.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:53:51
DR. BLEDSO, 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
Speaker 424
2:54:07
SAY THAT TO YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
Chair
Unverified
2:54:09
GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT. Thank you very much for that, Senator Johnson. And I'll disclose that I've had none of these procedures, as you can tell. Go ahead, Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And with the permission
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:54:23
of the committee, I think I'll just let
Dr. Bledsoe say a few words about why we have this bill before you and why it's important, and we'll answer any
Speaker 18
2:54:32
questions. If you'll just introduce yourself and who you're with,
Sam Bledsoe
Unverified
2:54:36
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 just for the sake of time, 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 world with the GLP-1 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 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 independent 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 any kind of cancer by 33 percent. 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 areas 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 Siegel Group, acting as outside consultants, identified four 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 Siegel Group 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 Segal Group was able to document a reduction of 45% in medical costs per member per month. Act 109 goes on to say that, quote, payers can rely on bariatric surgery paying for itself through decreased comorbidities within two to four years. So just to reiterate, that 45% reduction in monthly costs per member and overall savings within two to four 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 about 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 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. And I respectfully ask for your support to pass House Bill 1424 and make Arkansas healthier for all
Speaker 176
2:59:28
of us. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank
Chair
Unverified
2:59:33
you, Dr. Bledsoe. If you would, give me about two paragraphs of that. summarized in
Speaker 429
2:59:40
cliff notes for the floor you have until Monday I'm sure
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:59:47
senator wouldn't get you something mr. chairman
Chair
Unverified
2:59:50
that'll work yes sir is there any
questions seeing none is there anybody signed up for against there's nobody signed up for yes there's anybody in
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:00:06
to close I'm close from the bill,
Chair
Unverified
3:00:09
Mr. Chairman. Appreciate a good motion. I'll make that motion and second by Senator Boyd. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Bledsoe. Whenever you feel an urge to have a hobby,
Speaker 12
3:00:26
you're welcome to come to this body just like some of your former family members. and we greatly need folks like you and Dr. Johnson. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate your time.
Chair
Unverified
3:00:39
Next, Lee, you have like a ton on here. I defer to the chair. I'll do, you
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:00:46
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 me to do.
Speaker 434
3:00:56
Let's do three or so that are really, really short, three or four, because we need we're going
Speaker 421
3:01:00
to have to go to the floor okay um house bill 1602 is
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:01:04
the next one 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 uh
Speaker 147
3:01:14
there's an amendment i need to get it is lee you and amendments and
Speaker 259
3:01:20
trying to be nice it's all about compromise mr chairman this is an
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:01:27
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. AND I'D BE HAPPY
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT AND OR BRING SOMEONE TO THE
Chair
Unverified
3:01:43
TABLE THAT CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ANYMORE. MOTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT BY SENATOR MCKEY, SECOND BY SENATOR JOHNSON, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED, LIKE SIGN, THANK YOU, REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, IF YOU WOULD PRESENT BILL 1602. members
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:01:57
when we passed the pbm licensure act back in 2017 we were a forward thinking group
one of the things we did in that is we created a licensure fee at the time the fee was set at a thousand dollars with no renewal fee um 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 uh in looking at that and thinking about uh 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 $1,000 to $20,000 with a $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 be happy to answer any questions if I can about the bill all right
Speaker 8
3:03:00
is there any questions there's no one signed up
Chair
Unverified
3:03:07
for against the bill if you would close your bill close from a bill mr. chairman all right what's the will motion by senator Johnson to do pass as an amendment second by Senator Boyd any discussion all in favor say aye aye all opposed like sign thank you representative Johnson you have passed 1602. I need to
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:03:32
I need to pass over 1290 if I can it needs an amendment but I'm happy
to present 1296. 1296 all right. House bill 1296 there we have mobile units that
provide health care around the state this is just requiring health insurance companies to 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 any
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
3:03:58
questions. All right, Senator Boyden. Thank you, Representative Dr. Johnson, on this. I appreciate it. 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 thought through that before we vote yes on this. I've heard no
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:04:22
opposition from any of the hospital providers or brick and mortar providers, I will say the facility fee is markedly different than what you collect for a mobile unit. You know, the idea behind a 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
Speaker 358
3:04:51
and mortar BUSINESS THAN THERE WILL BE FOR
Speaker 18
3:04:55
A MOBILE UNIT. THANK YOU. I THINK THIS WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR SENATOR MURDOCK AND MY AREAS WITH THOSE MOBILE UNITS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THOSE SPECIALTY, YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO GET WHAT WE CAN GET AND THAT'S ONE OF THE WAYS TO DO IT. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, 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? Seeing none, you want to close the bill? I'm closed for our bill, Mr. Chairman.
Chair
Unverified
3:05:34
All right. Closed. Motion by Senator Boyd. Second by Senator Johnson. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Thank you, Representative Johnson. You got any other quick ones?
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:05:46
At the discretion of the chair, I'll go until you tell me not to.
No, we got to get them clean. House Bill 1314. Again, this is a negotiated bill. This creates the Medical Audit Bill of Rights. There exists in statute already.
Chair
Unverified
3:06:00
Hang on just a minute. Let us get caught up. Yeah, House Bill 1314. I can't believe, I don't know how much you've been able to work at the hospital, but
Speaker 18
3:06:14
I guess residency has prepared you. Unfortunately, they let me
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:06:17
work on weekends and nights at the hospital, so it gives me
Speaker 97
3:06:20
time to -- Oh, my goodness. All right. Has everybody got it? All right.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:06:26
Go ahead. Representative Johnson. Members, this bill creates the Medical Audit Bill of Rights. There exists 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 healthcare 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 engage in an audit process. Be happy to walk through the bill with you if you have questions, but I don't know of
Chair
Unverified
3:06:53
any opposition to this bill at this point. Any questions from members? There's no one signed up
Speaker 18
3:07:03
for or against the bill. Is there anybody for or against the bill that wants to testify? Seeing none, you want to close your bill? I'm closing my bill, Mr. Chairman. All right. What's the will of the committee? by senator johnson second by senator mckee
Speaker 34
3:07:18
any discussion all in favor say aye aye all opposed like signs thank you representative johnson you have have another quick one yep members house
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:07:29
bill 1703 and again thank you for your patience today i know it's a lot of bills to listen i'm sure you're
tired of hearing my voice house
Speaker 283
3:07:47
there All right, I think we're ready.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:07:50
So again, currently in statute what we're trying to do is mirror some things that are already in statute. There's a process 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. What 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 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 case is ultimately decided whether for the provider or for the PBM/insurance company. Any questions
Speaker 18
3:09:04
right there's no one signed up for against the bill
you want to close I'm close for my bill Mr.
Chair
Unverified
3:09:15
Chairman thank you what's the will of committee motion by Senator Johnson second by Senator Boyd all in favor say aye aye all opposed like
Speaker 259
3:09:25
sign all right she's gone all right we're gonna keep going I'll keep sitting here House bill 1788. 1788. Staff, are you able to keep up? All right.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:09:40
This is a short one. Yes, sir.
This one really is simple. You don't have an amendment on this one? No, I don't think so. All right. House bill
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 healthcare 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 healthcare 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
Chair
Unverified
3:10:29
NO KNOWN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S NO ONE SIGNED UP FOR AGAINST THE BILL. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, WHAT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEE? MOTION BY SENATOR BOYD, SECOND BY SENATOR JOHNSON. ANY DISCUSSION?
SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL
Speaker 421
3:10:48
OPPOSED LIKE SIGN. THANK YOU. CAN I, CAN I, I MEAN, YOU GOT ONE MORE? I've got one more and I'm done with your committee. Well, let's go ahead and get you, if that's all right, with
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:11:00
Senator Scott. Is that all right with you, Senator Scott? All right. Thank you, Senator Scott. Members, this 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 a health insurance company has a network of providers. 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. In creating the law, we inadvertently left out a group and we also needed to clean up the definition of healthcare insurer. So we're just cleaning up the definition and then in closing that loophole that existed
that exempted a certain payer in the state. And if you haven't answered any questions on it, I don't know of any opposition.
Chair
Unverified
3:11:59
All right. Is there any questions on 1426? Seeing none, no one signed up for or against the bill. You want to close your bill? I'm close from a bill, Mr. Chairman. I have a motion by Senator Boyd, second by Senator McKee. Any discussion? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED, LIKE SIGN, THANK YOU. COMMITTEE, THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. SENATOR SCOTT, WHAT BILL -- I'VE LOST MY -- HOUSE
Speaker 87
3:13:11
Oh, my goodness. We have went around the world today, committee. Oh, my goodness. I'll keep it
Speaker 52
3:13:26
fast. I think we're going to end on this
Chair
Unverified
3:13:32
one, guys. Senator Scott, just recognize yourself, and you are recognized.
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:13:37
Senator Scott, District 12. 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 out-of-patient settings and includes services provided by the International Board of Certified Lactation Consultants, Certified Lactation Counselors, and it also includes the ability to bill through either moms or their infants. In Arkansas, I know you know the statistics we rank 45th nationally for breastfeeding 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 six months of age. In Arkansas only about 20% of our infants are exclusively breastfed until six months. 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 take all
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
3:14:53
serious questions that you might have any questions senator McKee so thank you chairman what
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
3:15:00
does a breast feeding and lactation consultant do? I'm sorry, I thought that would
Speaker 408
3:15:09
be. I mean, I've got assumption. I can probably answer that question because my daughter-in-law has
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:15:19
educated, what I think somebody gonna help me with in the future, is help you better get the baby to attach to you when you're trying to provide, 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
Chair
Unverified
3:15:41
can help me they I 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 breastfeeding and
Speaker 449
3:15:50
and the hospitals are doing this anyway and will this help them get reimbursed yes this
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:15:55
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 I put it on
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:16:06
here Thank You mr. chairman mr. chairman I just want to say that in my lifetime I've seen it was a point in time where medical profession sort of discouraged breastfeeding and I think it might have been driven by the the formula industry. And now they've come back and realized 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 would you agree, Senator? I would agree. And sometimes, you know, I can only
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:16:47
imagine as a mother, you might not have 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 and provide these services I think it'll be a win-win for Arkansas.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:17:11
And breast milk also has many in addition to nutrition some health benefits for making people more resistant to other resources. Absolutely. And so there could be even a savings in insurance and Medicaid on this. Would you agree? I agree. I think it's a step forward in
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:17:29
us 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 is going to help benefit the
Speaker 8
3:17:41
state. So thank you Senator. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Speaker 18
3:17:47
Is there any other questions? Seeing none there's want to testify for against the
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:17:51
bill you want to close the bill um i appreciate your time and your patience and allow me to run
Speaker 18
3:17:58
this bill today and i would ask for um a due pass what's the will of the
Chair
Unverified
3:18:03
committee motion by senator mckee second by senator boyd and johnson any discussion all in favor say aye aye all opposed like sign thank you senator scott for being patient
thank you for your time committee I think we've came to to a point where we need to adjourn we 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 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 40
Speaker 22
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 60
Speaker 58
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Speaker 73
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 189
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 226
Speaker 131
Speaker 218
Speaker 231
Speaker 235
Speaker 236
Speaker 241
Speaker 147
Speaker 245
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Speaker 214
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 30
Speaker 322
Speaker 323
Speaker 327
Speaker 325
Speaker 328
Speaker 88
Speaker 68
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Speaker 338
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
Speaker 319
Speaker 415
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
Speaker 449
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
Speaker 408
Speaker 459