Insurance & Commerce- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (34)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1853
Act 835
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…FOR GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1853 J. Moore TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING AGENCY RELATIONSHIP AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING AGENCY RELATIONSHIP AND DUTIES RELATED TO REAL ESTATE LICENSES; AND … | J. Moore | Notification that HB1853 is now Act 835 |
|
SB123
Act 553
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…ND TO ALLOW FOR A PRECIOUS METALS-BACKED ELECTRONIC SYSTEM. SB123 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR MAMMOGRA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR MAMMOGRAMS AND BREAST ULTRASOUNDS. | G. Leding | Notification that SB123 is now Act 553 |
|
SB463
Act 580
· 4 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…de 463. It's a good bill and it don't do much. OK, members, Senate Bill 463. Take a moment, um.”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO APPROVE OR DENY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS CONCERNING CLOSING … | M. McKee | Notification that SB463 is now Act 580 |
|
HB1813
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1813 Gramlich TO ADOPT THE FAIR AND EFFICIENT TRANSMISSION COMPA…”
|
TO ADOPT THE FAIR AND EFFICIENT TRANSMISSION COMPACT. | Gramlich | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1009
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND ENTITLEMENT HOLDERS UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. HB1009 A. Collins TO ALLOW PREGNANCY TO BE A QUALIFYING EVENT FOR…”
|
TO ALLOW PREGNANCY TO BE A QUALIFYING EVENT FOR ENROLLMENT IN CERTAIN HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1014
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1014 A. Collins TO REQUIRE COVERAGE OF IN VITRO FERTILIZATION UN…”
|
TO REQUIRE COVERAGE OF IN VITRO FERTILIZATION UNDER THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1159
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NDATE MINIMUM REIMBURSEMENT LEVELS FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES. HB1159 J. Richardson TO CREATE THE RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE SECURI…”
|
TO CREATE THE RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE SECURITY ACT; AND TO REGULATE SECURITY MEASURES AT RETAIL … | J. Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1177
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1177 M. Brown TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT; AND TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ARKANSAS … | M. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1295
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ONCERNING THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF CAPTIVE INSURERS. HB1295 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING COLLECTION…”
|
TO CREATE THE HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING COLLECTIONS TRANSPARENCY ACT. | L. Johnson | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1354
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Tosh Rep. Jim Wooten REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1354 Lundstrum TO REGULATE PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS; TO AMEND…”
|
TO REGULATE PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL … | Lundstrum | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1409
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1409 Long TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; AND TO CREATE THE E…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; AND TO CREATE THE ELECTRIC RELIABILITY ACT. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1533
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NSURANCE DEPARTMENT. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1533 Gramlich TO CREATE THE DECENTRALIZED UNINCORPORATED NONPROF…”
|
TO CREATE THE DECENTRALIZED UNINCORPORATED NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION ACT. | Gramlich | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1625
Act 974
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG A FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT OR A HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT. HB1625 Barnett TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSED HOME INSPECTORS. | Barnett | Notification that HB1625 is now Act 974 |
|
HB1659
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AL SERVICES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. Page 2 of 3 HB1659 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE; AND TO CLARI…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE; AND TO CLARIFY THE PRIORITY AMONG SECURITY INTERESTS AND … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1863
Act 836
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE REVOLVING LOAN FUND. HB1863 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT MANAGER ACT;…”
|
TO AMEND THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT MANAGER ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1863 is now Act 836 |
|
HB1868
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PORTATION BENEFIT MANAGER ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1868 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PAY A FAIR AND REASONAB…”
|
TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PAY A FAIR AND REASONABLE SERVICE FEE DIRECTLY TO A … | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1905
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Y- BASED SERVICES WITHIN RISK-BASED PROVIDER ORGANIZATIONS. HB1905 Lundstrum TO CREATE THE BUYER BEWARE ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A…”
|
TO CREATE THE BUYER BEWARE ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A REAL ESTATE LICENSEE REPRESENTING A … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1917
Act 839
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1917 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS STUDENT-ATHLETE PUBLICITY…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS STUDENT-ATHLETE PUBLICITY RIGHTS ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1917 is now Act 839 |
|
HB1918
Act 810
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…; AND TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO ATHLETIC PROGRAM FUNDING. HB1918 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SPECIE OR LEGAL TENDE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SPECIE OR LEGAL TENDER; TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF A … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1918 is now Act 810 |
|
HB1930
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RRENT ASSESSED VALUE OF A RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE PROPERTY. HB1930 Wardlaw TO MANDATE MINIMUM REIMBURSEMENT LEVELS FOR HEALTHC…”
|
TO MANDATE MINIMUM REIMBURSEMENT LEVELS FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES. | Wardlaw | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1942
Act 1023
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RY PRACTICES; AND TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VIOLATIONS. HB1942 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE CERTAIN REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR HOME-…”
|
TO REQUIRE CERTAIN REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR HOME- AND COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES WITHIN RISK-BASED PROVIDER ORGANIZATIONS. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1942 is now Act 1023 |
|
SB229
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERNING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSED HOME INSPECTORS. SB229 J. Boyd TO CREATE THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES WITH…”
|
TO CREATE THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. | J. Boyd | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB237
Act 554
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS. SB237 J. Boyd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSING AND REGUL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF CAPTIVE INSURERS. | J. Boyd | Notification that SB237 is now Act 554 |
|
SB331
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INVESTMENT OF STATE FUNDS. SB331 G. Leding CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHER…”
|
CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHERITED CANCER MUTATIONS; AND TO CREATE THE GENETIC TESTING … | G. Leding | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB405
Act 555
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB405 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE ONLINE MARKETPLACE CONSUMER INFORM…”
|
TO AMEND THE ONLINE MARKETPLACE CONSUMER INFORM ACT. | J. Dismang | Notification that SB405 is now Act 555 |
|
SB420
Act 736
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TE LICENSES; AND TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF DUAL AGENCY. SB420 Hester TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT STATE PR…”
|
TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT STATE PROGRAMS; TO AMEND THE WATER AUTHORITY ACT; AND … | Hester | Notification that SB420 is now Act 736 |
|
SB480
Act 739
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB480 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INVESTMENT OF STA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INVESTMENT OF STATE FUNDS. | K. Hammer | Notification that SB480 is now Act 739 |
|
SB483
Act 957
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB483 Irvin TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STAT…”
|
TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE SECURITIES DEPARTMENT; … | Irvin | Notification that SB483 is now Act 957 |
|
HB1308
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1308 Steimel CONCERNING UNFAIR PRACTICES RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL…”
|
CONCERNING UNFAIR PRACTICES RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE REPAIR CONTRACTS; AND TO REGULATE SOLICITING RESIDENTIAL … | Steimel | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1408
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1408 Pilkington TO ALLOW QUALIFYING PATIENTS OR DESIGNATED CAREG…”
|
TO ALLOW QUALIFYING PATIENTS OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS TO PURCHASE MEDICAL MARIJUANA USING A FLEXIBLE SPENDING … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1443
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1443 Pilkington TO CREATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY…”
|
TO CREATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT; TO PROHIBIT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PAYMENT NETWORKS … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1811
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1811 Steimel TO AMEND PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LAW; AND TO REQUIRE…”
|
TO AMEND PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LAW; AND TO REQUIRE REASONABLE PROOF OF PAYMENT OF A … | Steimel | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1850
Act 867
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1850 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GROUND AMBULANCE SER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICES; TO CLARIFY THE MINIMUM ALLOWABLE REIMBURSEMENT FOR … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1850 is now Act 867 |
|
SB448
Act 579
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB448 J. Petty TO AUTHORIZE THE FINANCING OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IM…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE FINANCING OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS, BUILDING RESILIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, AND … | J. Petty | Notification that SB448 is now Act 579 |
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
Speaker 1
0:00
yourself and have your guests identify yourself and you may proceed. Thank you Mr. Chairman. John Maddox, State Representative of
Speaker 3
0:08
District 86. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Michael Lindsay, Director of Government
Speaker 5
0:15
Relations for Walmart. Thank you members. This
is very brief. I'm gonna give just a very quick overview and Mr. Lindsay's here to ask any or answer any specific questions. So in 2021 we passed the INFORM Act which placed requirements on internet marketplaces like Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy, Facebook, etc., to verify the identity of third-party
sellers and post contact information for those sellers on any product listing. Walmart, Home Depot, other retailers supported this legislation to help identify organized retail crime groups, and Arkansas was the very first state to pass this informed legislation. Over a dozen states have followed our lead over the next few years, which prompted the United States Congress to pass a slightly different version in 2023. So with the passage of the Federal Inform Act, we are merely updating our Arkansas statute,
which started the process to conform with the federal law.
Speaker 6
1:06
So that is all that this bill does. Be glad to take any questions.
All right, we're going to give members just a second. I think they're still trying to look for Senate Bill 405 on their agenda. So while we're waiting briefly, are there any questions from the committee? Everyone had a chance to look over the bill.
Representative Richardson, you recognize the question. Thank
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:38
you. Hey, Representative Maddox, I was just curious. It
strikes the language of going from 24 hours, online 24 hours, to 10 days. What
Speaker 3
1:48
drove that change? So what we found is that it can be very difficult to verify a seller within 24 hours. And so the federal law allows at the marketplace 10 days, which is a more realistic, doable sort of time frame to verify that seller.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:06
Okay. And is that 10 calendar days or business days? It's calendar days. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other
Speaker 15
2:13
questions from committee? Seeing none, is there anyone
here to speak for or against the bill or this bill? Seeing none, Representative Max, you're recognized close for
Speaker 18
2:26
your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Close for my bill. I'd appreciate a good vote and to make a motion
to do pass. That's a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye.
Speaker 1
2:38
All opposed say no. Congratulations, Representative Maddox. Your bill's passed. Thank you, committee.
Without objection, we're going to hear House Bill 1853. Representative Morphe, we'll go to the end of the table. Identify yourself. May present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
3:10
Jeremiah Moore, yet again, District 61. I promise this will be much briefer than
the last bill. House Bill 1853 is very simple. It does one thing. It enshrines dual agency for real estate agents in state law. This is already in rule, and this practice happens and occurs every day. And with that, I will be open for questions. Questions from the committee?
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:42
Okay. Seeing no questions, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak against this bill? Anyone else who
would like to speak for this bill? Seeing no one. You're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed for my bill, and I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Representative Moore. Representative Lundstrom, you are recognized. We have a motion. Do pass. All in favor, say aye. Aye.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
4:05
Any opposed, say no. Congratulations, you have passed your bill.
Speaker 5
4:17
Representative Brown, would you refresh my memory on what what bill you're here on. Mr. Chair,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
4:32
I'd actually have to look up the bill number because I don't remember if it was a Senate bill and the PSC commission on the settlements. I don't know, y'all.
All the numbers have run together by this point. Senator McKee on the Senate side. 463. It's a good bill,
and it don't do much. Okay, members, Senate Bill 463, take a moment. Obviously, it's a Senate bill. Representative Brown's
here. Go ahead and introduce yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
5:15
Matt Brown, District 55. Members, we have Senate Bill 463. Please don't hold it against them because it's a Senate bill.
This is a small bill. It came out of the Senate with no opposition, which I think is probably a remarkable feat this time of the session based on what's going on down there. This bill simply provides that in the event that a utility company subject to the PSC jurisdiction decides to enter into a consent decree regarding the closure of an electrical power plant, they have to let PSC know and talk to PSC beforehand. As many of y'all may know, the issue that has arisen with the power plants that are subject to consent decrees up in the north part of the state and are going to be shut down is actually going to leave us shorthand in
electricity in a few years. The PSC actually did not have any say in that process. The AG had filed some litigation trying to let the state come in and have a say in the process, and the federal court said, you have no standing, you have no ability to come into this. So this bill simply provides that you got to get the PSC involved when you decide to shut down a plant. To be quite honest, I already thought this was the law, but apparently it wasn't, and so that's what this bill does. I'm not wearing any opposition. Like I said, it came out of the Senate unopposed.
Speaker 37
6:21
I'd be glad to answer any questions. Thank you, Representative Brown. We do have a
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
6:31
couple of questions. Representative Tosh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, you said they had to notify PSC. Does PSC have to approve the request, or do they just have to make them aware of it? They have to make them aware, and
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
6:42
the PSC would be able to step in and say, no, you can't
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
6:45
shut down. So they have the final authority over that, whether they be allowed to do that or not? Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, I'm sorry.
Speaker 43
6:55
Good. Any other questions? Okay. Okay, we have no other
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
7:00
questions. Does anyone in the audience like to speak against this bill? Excuse me. Anyone else like to speak for this bill?
Representative Brown, are you recognized to close for your bill? I'm closed, and I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Brown has closed for his bill. Representative Eubanks makes a motion to do pass. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. Thank you. You've passed your
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
7:24
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee.
Speaker 5
7:51
Members, we're going to allow Representative Vought to run Senate Bill 123. She has numerous places to be this evening, so we're going
Speaker 43
8:00
to try and accommodate her. She says that it's very
Speaker 52
8:04
brief. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your lenience in letting me do this now so I can get to the Senate. I've got four committees down there I've got to be in. Senator Letting and I have passed numerous bills aimed at giving Arkansas better access to the tools needed to diagnose and treat cancer.
And that's what we're doing here with Senate Bill 123. Sometimes, depending on a person's family history or other factors that increase their risk of breast cancer, a doctor will recommend a supplemental screening defined in the bill as medical necessary and appropriate examinations. With Senate Bill 123, we're removing the cost share equipment to ensure there's no reason a woman in Arkansas who has a high risk might avoid having this examination.
I actually had to, I have to go every six months because I'm a high risk for breast cancer. I had my MRI just a few weeks ago, and it is something that is a cost to the person if they don't approve it. I think this is something they should be doing anyway. I think it's something that we shouldn't have to fight for. If somebody needs the tools to keep them from waiting for cancer to get too far gone,
I think we should be providing those tools if possible. There's no cost. The note pegs the estimate to be, or there is a cost, I'm sorry. The note pegs the estimate to be about 700,000, but when they calculated that number they didn't factor in the fact that these supplement examinations are only recommended for a very small percentage of the population who are at high risk. They based it on the general population, so we know that
number is way higher than what it should be. We also know that an investment up front is worth it. The earlier we're able to detect cancer, the more lives we're able to save and the less expensive it is to treat. So there are a downstream savings. No one spoke against this bill in the Senate, Insurance and Commerce, and it was recommended unanimously and the bill cleared the Senate for 34
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
10:35
Thank you, Representative Vaught. Questions by the committee? Okay. Seeing none, is there anyone who would like to speak against this bill? Anyone would like to speak for
this bill? Anyone would like to speak for this bill? Okay. Seeing no one, Representative Vaught, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed. I would appreciate a good vote. Representative Vaught has closed for a
bill. Representative Dalby makes a motion, do pass. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Representative Vought.
Representative Gramlich, are you ready to proceed on your bill? I think so. Okay. Go to the end of the table. I believe you are going to present HB 1813. Yes, sir. There is an amendment, so members, staff will be passing out the amendment. Representative Gramlich, just introduce yourself and
your guests, and then first start with explaining the amendment, please. Yes,
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
11:35
sir. Thank you, Zach Gramlich, State Representative, District 50, Fort Smith.
Speaker 61
11:39
Mike Adair, External Affairs for American Power
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
11:42
Play. All right, so first off, we'll talk about this amendment. This amendment was made with feedback given to us by utility companies. I'll wait until everyone. All right, so just kind of going through the bill along with the amendments. A lot of the stuff is deleting definitions that we're asked to. So the first one we deleted 28 through 31. That's going to be the definition for dynamic line rating.
We deleted the definition for what ERCOT was. We changed the definition from load growth to what load is, and as much as electricity, different things have a load that is required for them to go through a specific process. So like a factory would have a load, et cetera. We also changed some words from long-term transmission to long-range transmission on page three.
A couple of small changes arriving in cost-effective, deleted another definition, and where are we at? It's connected transmission. A lot of deleting definitions like was asked. Page 5 has a little bit more significant definition on how the members to the council would be chosen. One would be appointed by the governor and one member from each chamber that will be chosen by the presiding officer of each chamber or whatever manner the General Assembly may provide,
which allows for differentiation between different states, how they might want to do it. And then also, page 6, lines 4 through 7, essentially, we changed it. Let me get to that page in my actual. Here we go. We changed it so that the council will prepare a report for the governor, the Arkansas Public Service Commission, and the General Assembly of each party state. This report will cover the activities of the council. The report will also provide guidance to the party states by recommending changes, if any,
to the rules and laws regulating the siting, permitting, certification, and construction of new or existing high-voltage transmission infrastructure according to the principles of the compact. So a lot of deletion, a couple minor changes, and then a change to how we will choose members to the council and what kind of report will be generated. So
Representative Gramlich has explained the amendment? Yes. We have a motion to pass the amendment. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Any opposed? Say no. Rebson
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
14:17
Gramlich, you may present the bill as amended. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much,
committee. When I was going through the process of trying to understand how I would explain this bill, really what this does is if you read Article 1, that's what we're trying to do here. And just to read that first stanza, the intent of this compact is to lower the cost of the construction, new high-voltage transmission infrastructure and facilitate the expansion of transmission capacity
through cost-effective transmission planning and siting and construction. The reality is, guys, ladies and gentlemen, is that we are experiencing huge growth in this part of the country. Arkansas is no exception to the rest of this part of our region. And there's going to be a lot of times that we're going to have to work with the different states around us to move power to where we need it to meet the needs of our state. And so what this allows us to do is it allows us to form a compact that will have four states
in it, if they choose to enter it, that will allow us to have better conversations so that we can have better transmission, high voltage transmission lines throughout the state. A couple weeks ago, we worked on Senate Bill 307, which was dealing the generating of the power. Now we're working on how do we get it to where it needs to be in the most cost-effective way for the consumer. That's broadly what we're trying to accomplish here. I could get into the details of how the council and stuff would work, but one thing I would like to say with all this is that right now at this point,
if we choose to go forward with this bill, we really aren't doing anything yet because we have to have two more states decide that, hey, we want to be a part of this as well. So we are setting up the structure for a compact so that the other states listed in the bill, if they choose so, can come in and work with us, and hopefully we can provide better things for our consumers. and for, you know, just our state economy as a whole. A couple other pieces, you know, when conversations with MISO, and they have no position on this bill.
They're not for or against it. They don't see it to be, you know, detrimental, from my understanding. We're trying to get conversations with SPP, but haven't heard from them yet. Would you
Speaker 67
16:34
like to add anything? Certainly. Thank you very much to the chairman and members of the committee. There's one serious problem that we're
Speaker 68
16:40
trying to address here, and that is the United States as a whole, we are falling behind rapidly. And energy, electricity is the way that we fuel an economy. We have this incredible blessing of an administration that is helping bring home manufacturing jobs from overseas.
We have growth that's happening in new sectors and new ways that 15 years ago we never would have imagined. However, we have a massive shortfall in both the generation of energy and getting energy to where it needs to go. And we are facing a cliff already right now. The 20 most powerful and capable long-range power lines in the world, they're all in China. And they were all built in the last 12 years. There are four major categories in which we evaluate a nation's capability to transmit energy.
Three of those four categories are led by China. And we are falling behind them further every single year. And India is now nipping at our heels. In order to have meaningful conversations, and by the way, full disclosure, I'm a conservative, I'm a federalist, I support leading from the states and not from Washington, D.C., the way that we are going to be able to find regional solutions to national problems is through working with neighboring and partnering states to generate meaningful policy conversations that lead later to changes so that we can speed up the process and we can build baby build.
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
18:04
I would add one thing. When we talk about speeding up the process, it seems to me right now, from what I understand, it's at least three years if we wanted to right now to start building transmission lines. That could be too long if we're trying to get factories started up over here. So this is truly effort. We want to shrink that time. We want to be able to act effectively and act quickly to meet the demands of business and consumers as a whole. And with
Speaker 37
18:30
that, we'll take some questions. Thank you. We do have some questions. Representative Ledeman, you were first with a question.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
18:38
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think the idea is great here, and I
agree we need to do this. But can you give me a little information on how this is going to be done? I mean, how is this really going to help understand what we need to do and how we need to coordinate? But, you know, when we talk about MISO and Southwest Power Pool and the power companies, there's a lot of players in this game already. And how, I just don't understand how a group that's made up of state legislators from four states is going to help this situation.
Speaker 72
19:13
I mean, how does that help? I'll let you know. A thing
Speaker 68
19:21
to the representative, to the chairman. First of all, I want to answer one thing very quickly, and that is, this legislation is not a silver bullet. There is no piece of legislation that's a silver bullet in addressing our energy needs. So, you know, let's be clear about that from the get-go. It's very important to understand that there is nothing about this compact that duplicates or reinvents the wheel of what RTOs or ISOs do at all. This is completely separate.
There's one very important thing that the regional planners, and essentially that is what an RTO is. They are regionally planning for the projects themselves. And by the way, MISO does a phenomenal job at that. I'm a huge fan of their work. This is in no way looking to take away any of that. What MISO does not have, though, that this legislative body does, and between the combination of you and the PSC, who also receives the reports and the recommendations out of this compact, what you have that they do not is you have the electorate's approval to make
changes to laws and regulation. And so what this compact does is it creates a directional and aspirational goal of we want to reduce the cost of building transmission. We want to make it faster and easier and cut red tape so that companies can get to work building faster and better. With that aspiration and that directional goal, it calls the states together in a formal conversation of, okay, what are the best practices from each of our states that we can borrow from and we can make the recommendation
back to our home states and to the policymakers, the ones with the authority to actually make change. At the end of the day, this should absolutely complement the work of MISO and SPP. So, I
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
21:05
mean, my concern is, you know, that we're adding more government. And in most cases, when you do that, you slow down the process instead of speeding it up. So I don't know, maybe you've got some things in here that would prevent that. But I mean, we got to be careful
about going the wrong direction here and getting more people involved and slowing the process down instead of speeding it up. If you're talking about just a planning process and then recommendations, but no authority to shut down what companies, producers, and grid operators, and power companies, retail power companies, don't slow them down, then I can be for it. Are there guidelines in here that would prevent that slow down?
Speaker 68
21:54
Representative, thank you for the question. to the chairman, darn. And let me tell you why not. The committee out of this compact has no authority to create any regulation or do anything to slow down the process. The utilities don't have to go to this committee to ask for permission for anything. I would encourage the utilities to engage the members to share what are the best practices in our home state that helps us here that maybe we run into problems in Louisiana or in any other state for that matter. Being able to
bring forward those best practices, this committee doesn't have the authority to create any more red tape at all. If you were to pass just this bill and nothing else were to have no other state joins the compact, nothing has happened. We spent time on a muggy Wednesday night with storms rolling through talking about how much we'd like to see costs come down, and that's all we've done. If other states do join, and they meet, and they make recommendations, and this legislative body doesn't take any of those recommendations, we still have changed nothing.
More conversations were had about how much we would like to bring down the cost of building transmission. This is really the first step in really a statement of aspiration for the legislative body of that we have the intent of we want to make it easier
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
23:14
to build in our state. Just one other question. So when we've talked about other compacts and other committees, we've talked about the state having oversight, like council having oversight on what's come up in those committees.
Is that addressed in this bill? Yes, sir.
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
23:30
The very last line of the bill, and I made sure
when we were drafting it that we had the Arkansas Legislative Council stamp of approval. You know, it says for purpose of a member state's ability to reject a rule under Article 4 of the compact, the state may delegate its authority to the provision, to its legislature, General Assembly, or duly authorized recognized legislative council or committee thereof. So at the end of the day, when this council, we'll call it Transmission Council, were to come together to meet and provide recommendations to the state,
at the end of the day, we will still say, yeah, we're going to do that, and no, we're not. So we still, really, in my opinion, it gives the legislature a little bit more of the reins and how we do electrical policy in our region and not just utilities coming to us saying, hey, we need this. We can actually begin to be in the conversation, begin to drive the way we could do a better job working together with utilities than just being led and saying, hey, this is what we need to do. All right. Thank you. Representative Wooden, ready to ask for a question?
Mike Haderi
Unverified
24:32
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would you state again who you're with? I miss that. No, no, absolutely. No, my name is Mike Haderi. I'm
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
24:46
with American Power Play. Okay. My question follows along the line of Representative Leitman. Are you going to be in conflict with
Speaker 67
25:00
the current transmission process relative to the Southwest Power Pool? No, sir.
Speaker 68
25:06
No, sir. This is purely a vehicle for communication, formal communication between the states to reach recommendations for a desired end of reducing red tape to building.
It does not come into conflict at
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
25:22
or SPP. And Representative, just to make a comment, one of the principles of the
compact is a waiver for existing transmission infrastructure. So it's not we're going to be coming in and destroying stuff and doing anything like that. Like, you know, we're respecting what's already been put in place and we're
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
25:39
just trying to build upon it to make it better. Okay. Does your company build power lines? I'm trying to get the involvement of where we are relative to creating another compact
that, number one, if I understood what you said, it doesn't have any authority other than communicating with one state to another state relative to the transmission of electricity. Is that what? Yes, sir.
Speaker 68
26:04
Well, and just by way of further explanation of who I represent, American Power Play is a 501c4. It's an advocacy group. We are a conservative group, unabashedly. We support limited government intrusion, and we support free market forces.
Now, we also understand when we're talking about electricity, we have, as a society, we have opted for a route that makes it very difficult for utilities or power companies to operate in a true open market, and that means we have to really find ways that we can apply the principles of limited government as responsibly as possible to that marketplace. So that's a little bit about the organization itself, and if anyone would like to learn more, our website is AmericanPowerPlay.org. Feel free to check us out. But on the same token to your point, sir,
You're right, and I don't want to make light of that, in and of itself, this bill does not accomplish a lot. It is the first step, though, in being able to, truthfully, it is preparation for the states to be able to take much more meaningful steps to reduce those
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
27:21
I would add something on, because I could see your intent,
like a company coming in, they're just wanting to sell more power lines. It makes very clear in principle six of the compact that it's going to be an open bid selection process for the construction of certain transmission projects. So it's still going to be a very open process, very clear, very transparent. We're still trying to find the best rate for the taxpayer. So even if this guy was with me and he's here and he represents a specific transmission line
company, we still may not go with him because he may not provide the best product for the best price.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
27:57
Well, follow-up, I wonder if we get in conflict as a state
relative to what the other three want to do, where are we going to be then? Let's say the compact decides that they want to have a power transmission line that runs through them, bypasses Arkansas, means nothing to us, and they support that, then where are we as a state? Can we just say we won't participate? I mean, I don't understand exactly what we're trying to do here. I understand.
Speaker 68
28:29
Representative, Chairman, the committee that is created under this compact,
should other states join, is not planning transmission projects. They are evaluating what is the regulatory process in each of our states, what is the permitting time period, What do we require permits to be pulled for? What is the window of time for public comment? I mean, the list is lengthy, and anyone who's general counsel that has had to deal with the construction progress, I'm sure it could bore all of us to tears in going through the full list of all the boxes they have to check. This is for the committee to look at those, compare them across the member states,
and then to make recommendations about how they can make those guidelines, those rules and laws, more uniform, and make it easier for companies to be able to plan as they cross state lines in their projects. This committee is not planning those projects, though. They are only looking at the
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
29:27
regulatory portion. But you didn't answer my question. I'm so sorry. The question was, I wonder if we get in conflict that's not in the best interest of the ratepayers in Arkansas to pursue something and the compact decides they support that effort.
Mike Haderi
Unverified
29:44
Where do we stand then? What can we
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
29:47
do? I would say two things. Article 4, it talks about the council shall not be construed to displace any regulatory responsibilities of the existing relevant electric rate regulatory authority. So, you know, current regulatory authorities will still be in place. And then second goes to the end. It's got the, I call it the ALC stamp, but we have the ability to reject a rule under Article 4 of this compact. So if the compact were to come together and say, hey, we want this, and Arkansas is like, yeah, no, we're not going to do that.
We're not going to. We still have the ability to reject anything the compact says because of, you know, how
we do things. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
30:34
Representative Dalby, I recognize for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your comments, Representative, but I'm reading this a little bit different maybe than what you are. That last paragraph that you referenced that we could reject anything, that's in Article 4.
But if you move over to page 7, and it's Article 5, there's a mandatory clause. It says states shall allow and shall streamline regulatory review. And so there's some shalls in there that we're not, there's no opt-out on it when you look at that. And then when you look at, hang on.
She's looking at page seven. Hang on, I'll tell you. Page 7, number 5, it says the council, I think it's number 5, yeah, thank you, I couldn't find the lines on there, you know, there's some, during, all through that section, I was quickly reading it, and it talks about what the states will do, the states shall,
the states adopting the compact shall allow and streamline permitting and regulatory review. And so that's not being opted out in that last paragraph because that's Article 5. So the last paragraph is Article 4. And then my other question, just quickly looking at this, because I'm not seeing it as a panacea that you're telling us that it is, But on page 8, articles, well, page 8, which would be paragraph 7, I'm not sure, I guess it's article 5 again.
Yes, ma'am. Existing transmission infrastructure that has previously been permitted by states, shall not be required to be any new permits, but it's, let's see, States participating shall take action to remove permitting barriers or applicable state agencies and regional bodies. Shall, to me, says we have to. It's not a may. It's not an opting out. And so there's a little more to this compact in my reading of it that it appears that, you know, we're going down that path.
And then you talk at the very first, and I know I'm saying a lot more than just one question at a time, but there's some troubling language in here to me that you get up there and on the cost sharing. So I don't know. There are five states in it, and three of them vote that we're going to pay this, and we're going to pay it. And we can't opt out of it. And so, I mean, I understand what you're trying to do.
I don't think I really am against the concept, but I think the way it's written right now, it's a little too draconian for me to go with, but could you address those? I know I rambled around, but I had at least four paragraphs that I found very troubling that I cannot support at this time. Thank you. I
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
33:57
would say a couple of things. First off, Article 5 and all the things that you listed are all in Article 5 that I gathered. Article 5, it talks, to be clear, it says these are all principles of the fair and efficient transmission constructions.
Basically, yeah, if we enter this compact, we're going to agree to recognize the following principles and pursue policies that allow for a competitive, fair, and efficient transmission market to flourish in the Mid-South region. And it lists, you know, seven of them. One of the parts you talked about, and I mean, I would have to say you said it was five. I mean, it does say the council shall recognize, which I don't, I mean, recognize, I don't know if there's what we'd actually do from recognizing, but, and value that the stated benefits of using GETs for improvement of transmission facilities, enhancement of grid performance, and expansion of existing transmission line capacity.
I hear what you're saying, and, you know, when I hear shall, we always need to be of concern, but that shall, it isn't really mandating us to do anything except
recognize and value something. You know what I mean? Certainly,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
35:04
and I understand that. And can you give me some of your other examples? Yeah, I mean, you know, to me, shall
is shall. Sure. And so, you know, I'm concerned. You get a big state like Texas, and they've got, you know, something that they want to build out, and all of a sudden we're stuck with a big part of it, you know,
and there's the shall language in there. So it just seems like to me that we need to step back and look at this a little more carefully before we get ourselves into something that we might not be able to opt out on some of those things. But it's just my thoughts. Thank you. If you'd
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
35:41
like to have a comment. If I may, Representative and to the Chairman, one important thing
Speaker 68
35:47
to remember, and that is the only authority that the committee has to this compact is to make recommendations. They are not a legislative or regulatory body.
and that all they can do is make a recommendation to you as legislators what you should do about your state laws. And, again, you're represented on that. Perhaps you're one of the representatives on that compact committee. However, at the end of the day, they do not have the authority to actually change
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
36:16
anything. Oh, I understand that, and I appreciate that. But, once again, there's language in there that says we shall pay this and we shall do that. And I am worried and would like the representative to explain to me it appears that this is an end around the PSC.
But maybe I'm reading that too much. Thank you. Thank you,
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
36:39
Representative. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Okay. You know, I forget where I said it earlier, but, you know, it does say
in Article 4 that this is not going to displace regulatory responsibilities to anything else. And if the PSE is regulatory of rate, rate regulatory stuff, like, this compact does not do that. So, I mean, that's in Article 4, which is separate from Article 5. And, again, Article 5 is just the principles that we'll agree that we're going to try to follow.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
37:03
Sure. And one more quick question, and I'll get out of the queue and be quiet.
No, you can speak as much as you want. No, I don't think you want me to, because then I'll start going line by line and, you know, the old saying, slowly we turn. How much is this going to cost? We're talking about millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars. We don't know. And so you're asking us, if I'm correct, Representative, for us to enter into a compact with an unknown cost to be a member of the compact because this is a relatively new concept, correct?
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
37:42
I mean, we don't know, correct? Well, and to be clear, this is a first compact of its kind. This would be the first. There's three in work right now. If there's three in work, we would be one
Speaker 67
37:55
of the first ones that we would be controlling a lot of that. But if you'd like to add, stuff
Speaker 68
38:02
with the cost. Thank you, Representative. No, for me, as a fiscal conservative, this one matters. Again, due to the lack of any kind of regulatory authority that comes with this, this utilizes existing employees and appointees of the state and existing staff.
This does not create any new office functions. The one cost that could arise, in addition, that I would encourage against in the first place, and that is if in-person meetings were selected, I would encourage the utilization of streaming technology such as Zoom. I'm partial to that as opposed
Speaker 72
38:33
to, say, Microsoft Teams. My encouragement would be to utilize that technology, which would keep costs non-existent. Thank you, Representative Dalby.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
38:45
Representative Tosh, you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I was trying to jot this down. I believe that you referenced like a MISO and an SPP. I'm just curious, does any other state in those two groups, do they have such a compact now? And if you've
Speaker 67
39:08
covered that, I'm sorry, I missed you. No, at this time, there is not any
Speaker 68
39:13
active compact. There are currently eight states that are in varying levels and at different stages of progress in discussing
Speaker 106
39:20
joining compacts across three different regions.
One of those others is within
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
39:26
the MISO region. Okay, just to follow up, I'm just curious, have you filed a bill or legislation in any of these other states, or is this the first? Thank you for that
Speaker 68
39:38
question. This is the only active compact bill. There is a study bill in Montana right now. They're going to spend the summer working with North Dakota and South Dakota in pursuing the language because they want to get it right over time, which, given their structure for study bills, it works well there.
As of right now, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky are
Speaker 107
40:01
in the drafting process, but it has not gone through the legislative process yet. And I
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
40:08
would say something, too. I mean, like one thing that's nice about like this kind of compact is like MISO is a very large territory. You know, the needs of southern Canada aren't the needs of Arkansas or Texas. And so we can do a lot together, but the needs in our region are going to be a little bit different. And so it probably is more effective for us to
have more regional conversations than, you know, larger like MISO conversations.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
40:34
A follow up, and I may be getting obviously a little confused here. you're talking about these transmission lines coming across the state of Arkansas. I'm assuming that's what we're talking about and tying in with the other states. And maybe I'm misunderstanding. But not like everybody in this community, I've seen those lines come across Arkansas. How wide are those? How much land? How much territory do they take up? I mean, is that something that's been considered in all this?
and what you're going to have to confront as far as coming across this state. It seemed like we fought this battle with something similar to this several years ago, but I can't remember exactly. But it's on my mind that we did, and maybe we did or maybe we didn't. So can you just talk about that for a second? Absolutely,
Speaker 68
41:28
no, I'd love to. In fact, you're hitting on one of my favorite topics. And the reason is because, and I promise, I'm not going down a silico here, but the very fact that we have the grid that we do, as aged as it is, as rusting and falling apart at the corners as it is sometimes, the fact that we have it is a marvel.
Along with our interstate system, if you go back a little bit further, it's as much of a marvel as the way we were able to build railroad lines across the entire country, across a completely unsettled land. It's amazing. It's a logistical challenge that the utilities and the RTOs and the ISOs have done a wonderful job of meeting. It's getting old, and it cannot keep up with demands. Now, one of the really important things that's already happened in so many cases, though, is the right-of-way battles have already been fought. What's there is there.
Now, many of the aged lines that we have in place right now, they can be replaced. they can be upgraded and carry far more load across them than what they can with the current technology that is currently in place. Newer technology exists, more capable lines exist. One of the principles that are in this compact is talking about making it easier to do those upgrades so we don't have to build new lines, so we don't have to take up more land. That's one of the very intentional things that this compact would be directing the member states to look at
of how can we utilize what's already in place more effectively and upgrade the technology.
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
43:00
And I would make a point, too. I mean, like, if there is a company that's going to come in that requires a large load, you know, if there has to be new transmission lines to, you know, go to that company, like, that's going to happen either way. So this compact's goal is
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
43:16
just to make that a much quicker process. I probably shouldn't ask this question, but I have to, because I've heard it for years after those transmission lines went in. And I don't know, I represent an area where there's a lot of duck hunting.
And myth or fact, do those transmission lines change the flight or the pattern of those ducks, or do you know? I'm representative, I'm unaware. Okay, maybe you've heard that, correct? Representative, I don't get to say there's a whole lot in this
Speaker 67
43:41
line of work, but you're the first. Well, maybe I'll be saying about something else. I hope
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
43:45
you can agree with me. Well, I know this. I see a ton
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
43:48
of dove on top of lines when I'm driving down the highway. Okay, Representative Wooden, you're right now asking us for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
44:01
I still don't understand, and it's not hard for me to get confused and not understand, you know, but you keep talking about cost and this and the regulation and where they're located and all that. That sounds like regulatory control to me. I mean, we have that. We have sufficient work with the Public Service Commission. Is that what you're after here, to be able to tell where a company can build a line or the cost involved in that?
Who's going to give us that information? Are you going to give us that information relative to what the cost should be or
Speaker 68
44:47
what you think it should be? Thank you, Representative, for the question. To the Chairman, the intent of the committee is to each review, and this is the review portion of what Madam Representative was speaking to earlier, is to review what are the regulations that are on the books,
to compare those state by state of the member states, And to identify, as a committee, to identify what is the more desirable permitting process, timelines, regulation. What's desirable? To present a report to the governor, to the legislature, and to the PSC, making recommendations of what each authority and body can do themselves to better meet the goals of the compact.
And those are the principles portion that we discussed earlier. The intent, and not only the intent, there is no ability or power of the committee to actually make any of those changes on their own. Well, I don't waste
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
45:52
my time with anything. I don't have power. You know, you didn't answer my question. Where's the information going to come from? Who's going to provide us with it? We have the Bureau of Legislative Research. We have the Public Service Commission.
The Bureau of Legislative Research is a non-policy group. And so what are we talking about here? Well, I would
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
46:18
say in the most recent amendment, and I'll read the line, it says,
so the council will annually prepare a report for the Governor, Arkansas Public Service Commission, and the General Assembly of each party state. The report will cover the activities of the council. The report will also provide guidance to parties, states, by recommending changes, if any, to the rules and laws regulating the siting, permitting, certification, and construction
of new or existing high-voltage transmission infrastructure, according to the principles of the compact. So the council will be creating and disseminating that information
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
46:50
of party states. So we're going to have another long payroll of costs that's going to be to the state of Arkansas for our pro-rata share of having these additional people employed somewhere in some other state, perhaps, rather than Little Rock. So we're just creating another layer of bureaucracy and another layer of government.
Let me ask you one more question. Who's your membership? What's your membership role? Can you give us some names of some companies that
Speaker 68
47:26
participate in this? So that would be a 501c6 that is a chamber that has actual members. We do not have that. We represent an ideology. We are an advocacy group that represents an ideology within the energy industry. As far as our financial supporters, we have a diverse range of support that comes everything from foundations to philanthropies,
including also some industry as well across the energy sectors. We are not required under IRS law to release the names or disclose the names, and without any specific agreement with them. We don't put their names out there. What we prefer to stand on is these are the principles and the ideals that we stand by. One more
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
48:14
question. So if I understand what you just said, let's say that the four states see something that's happening by regulatory agencies in that state that they don't agree with,
then the compact can come back and disagree with them. And that has superior knowledge that we have to pay for as a state. Is that what the compact's going to do? Representative, thank you for
Speaker 68
48:48
the question. They can only make a recommendation for a change. That's all they have
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
48:54
the authority to do. But if they disagree with what a company or several companies are doing that's not in the mold of what you see as the efforts of the industry, energy industry, then they can object to that.
So that's the essence of
Speaker 82
49:17
the compact. I'm not sure that I follow the representative. I'm sorry. Who is they? They can
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
49:26
reject. Is that the state can reject? No. They, the group, the compact, if they see something that they don't agree with, this anti-industry or something like that, then they can supersede the decision made or try to supersede the decisions that's being made by those who have authority.
Or even if a company has decided to construct a line, they can take a position that relatively might influence the decision of whoever the ruling body is. I mean, yes, if they
Mike Haderi
Unverified
50:00
have, like, sorry, just to, I want
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
50:04
to make sure I understand correctly. I would say yes, but just because they have an opinion doesn't mean that, Like, if three-fourths of the compact, let's say, the other three states have an opinion that this is the best policy and, you know, we think you should be doing it.
At the end of the day, Arkansas can agree or disagree with that statement. And let's say, Wooten, you're the member of the compact, and you come home to us. You say, I think this is the best thing to do. Texas said this is good. Everyone said this is good. At the end of the day, we still have to choose to adopt the rule or not. And so we can still reject the rule even if the other states think we're crazy. You know what I mean? But we can still choose to do what we think is
Speaker 114
50:50
right for our state and our consumers. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Representative Richardson, raise your question.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
50:57
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I lost my place. So going back, I think Representative Dalby really got me to thinking about some things. And based on the conversation you're just having with Representative
Wooten, if you look at, on page 7, line 34 through 36, wait a minute, is that the right one?
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
51:29
Yeah. I mean, there is a shout portion there. well but i i
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
51:44
apologize because i i don't think that's the i've lost my place that i had marked yeah uh the states participate in the compact shall design and adopt into this compact a
process for the administration and oversight of the bid participates may choose Okay, here it is. I'm sorry. I'm at the wrong spot. So, line 8, I mean, page 8, line 27. If this compact shall be held contrary to the constitution of any state participating therein, the compact shall remain in full force and effect as to the state affected as to all servable matters. When I read that, it sounds like the compact supersedes whatever the state is doing.
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
52:35
I would, to me, it makes sense that the compact as the four states still has, you know, whatever, just because Arkansas has a constitution separate than the other three states, the compact's decision can still be applicable in the other three states and not necessarily affect Arkansas. But if this is a
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
53:01
bill, which potentially could become law in the state of Arkansas, Would that not mean that the compact would supersede Arkansas law?
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
53:11
I would say we can't do anything that
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
53:14
would supersede the Constitution. That's not what that sentence says, Dan.
Speaker 68
53:18
Is that what you're telling me? You would like to answer? For my representative, and for the disclaimer to the committee, I am not an attorney, and this does not constitute legal direction. The line is supposed to be speaking to that if a member, again, let's use the example, let's say that we have, for member states, if one of those states that is found that they did not have the authority to be in the compact or something about the compact violated their constitution, their
withdrawal and the fact that they entered into that compact without the authority or something that conflicted their constitution, that it does not make the compact as a whole null and void and the other member states are still able to participate. Yeah,
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
53:59
I would say if you go up higher in that Article 6, you know, it says the provision this compact shall be severable. And if any phrase, clause, sentence, or provision of this compact is declared to be contrary to the constitution of any state or the United States or the application
thereof to any government, agency, person, or circumstance is held and valid, the validity of the remainder of this compact and the applicability thereof to any government, agency, or person, or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. So kind of reiterating, I would say if Arkansas has found like this is unconstitutional in Arkansas, then if the other three states were already in, the whole compact doesn't dissolve. They would still be able to be in and exist even though Arkansas would no longer participate. Okay. Okay.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
54:45
And sir, I'm sorry. I forgot your name. Would
you mind? Absolutely. Micah. Micah Derry. Okay. Mr. Derry. So I'm looking at your website. So it looks like you guys are really focused on implementing wind and solar energy. No, thank you for your statement. I put it
Speaker 68
55:08
this way. We currently have in the United States 2.6 terawatts of already approved renewable energy projects. 2.6 terawatts that are waiting for that last level of permitting and construction of transmission to be able to be connected to the grid.
Our position is if it creates sparks, we ought to be building it right now. If it creates electricity or if it moves electricity, we need to be building it right now. Our position is that we are deeply concerned about the energy shortfall that we are facing as a nation. We favor anything that is going to help fill that gap. Decommissioning plants, in our opinion, is a
Speaker 107
55:50
bad idea right now. We ought to be doing anything we can to bring more energy online.
Chair
Unverified
55:58
Okay. Representative Dalby, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 83
56:03
Chair. I'm interested in this and I'm fascinated
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
56:06
by this, but I would ask the representative, would he consider putting this in interim study so that we could have a detailed look as to how something like this is going to look and what all it's going to involve and potential costs? Because I think at this point, I can't get on board until I know those things. And so I'm just wondering, Would an interim study really be the best way to handle this?
Because this is new, and you're asking us to be first in something that's not tried out. We don't know how it's really going to affect us or hold us to it. And it just seems like that we're at a good point to be able to do that. And that's my request. I would like to see it go in, not to die. I have interim studies come through my committees all the time that we had very significant legislation come out of it this time around. And it just seems like to me that it would be a great way for
us to get our heads around it.
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
57:08
Just a question or a suggestion. I'm not opposed. I'd like to answer any more questions and then, as a joke, talk
Speaker 64
57:17
with council here before I make a decision like that. Thank you, Representative. And so
we still have numerous members wanting to ask questions. Let's do try to move this along if we can, though. We're going to try to run through as many bills as we can. Representative McGrew, you're recognized. You're good. Well, you can ask, Benta. Representative Allen. Thank
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
57:36
you, Mr. Chairman. When you talk about it, let's talk about your board.
Can you tell us what is the
Speaker 68
57:43
makeup of your board? Sorry, the board of my 5-1-C-4? Yes, the makeup of my board, I consist of Larry Ward, I, who's from Michigan, consist of Mike Franklin, who's out of Minnesota, and I also consist of John Karakalakis, who is out of
Speaker 72
57:55
Colorado. Any of you utilities? None of them are utilities, no. Okay. What about transmission owners? No.
Speaker 110
58:09
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Baker? Thank
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
58:15
you. Thank you guys for all the information you're sharing. I don't want to speak for the committee, but I do think that maybe some of the confusion may just be what's the return on investment here, whether it's financially, whether it's policy, or whether it's just operationally. So can you give some real-world examples of why two states would need to coordinate under this compact and what the return on that is? Because, I mean, again, there may be costs.
There may be some discussions that we have, but I think it would be helpful just to hear
Speaker 67
58:48
some real-world examples of what the benefit of this would
Speaker 68
58:55
be. Thank you, Representative. Through the chairman, to take a step back over how much of the regulatory environment has been handled federally, historically, through both FERC and when change has been needed, it either needed to be handled through a FERC rule or it needed to be handled through legislation from Congress.
And there was an attempt last year, last Congress, there was a bipartisan bill, the Manchin-Barrasso bill. Many of the same principles that are in this compact were in that legislation, but ultimately it didn't move because I don't think it's any surprise to this legislative body that Congress has a hard time passing anything. And so with the difficulties of making meaningful permitting reform at the federal level, it begins to leave only a few options. Either states can adopt changes unilaterally by themselves and have 50 different solutions for the same national problem.
They can attempt to make a change collectively, still all 50 states, but apart from Congress. And the process for that is, I mean, that is an undertaking of decades. I mean, think of the different U.S. constitutional amendment resolutions that have come your way over the years in your time as a legislator. It doesn't lead anywhere fruitful. But we have the tool through the U.S. Constitution, we have the tool of being able to enter into these multi-state agreements, compacts for formal relations and agreements with other states. You asked a very good question about what is the return and what is that real-world application.
The immediate return is that by the time this committee returns to the next session, they have better information and side-by-side comparison of what other states are doing that have shared interest as a region for their energy needs and, again, how we can speed up and make more affordable the process to be able to get energy from A to B. That's the immediate return. Should this legislative body act on those recommendations in that report,
the return can be immense. It can allow for faster planning and construction. And, again, planning, not done by the compact, not done by this body, done by the existing entities that do so. But it allows for the regulatory side, the government side, to not have as much red tape. And really, again, I appreciated the point that the representative brought up earlier about what about these giant lines and all the room they take up. Part of it is we want to make it easier to be able to use existing right-of-ways,
existing infrastructure, and improve it, bringing it up to date without having to go through a redundant permitting and red tape process. So I wish I could give you an economic impact, but we are at the early stages of a national reawakening on the value of cutting red tape and permitting reform. This is happening at the federal level, and I am so pleased that it is happening across multiple sectors and states and multiple different forms of legislation. This is true to that theme and that trend.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Seeing no further questions, again, thank you for your testimony. We do have someone sign up to speak against the bill, John Bethel. Let's
come to the end of the table, introduce yourself, who you're
Speaker 141
1:02:29
with, and you can proceed with your testimony. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm John Bethel. I'm the Director of Public Affairs for Energy Arkansas. And we're opposed to the bill for several reasons. Substantially because it does overlap a lot with things that already happen in MISO. MISO already has a Southwest Power Pool, Mid-Continent Independent System Operator and Southwest Power Pool. So before I speak in alphabets, I'll define those.
Both of those organizations have offices in Little Rock that are accessible. Both of those organizations have regional committees. They have committees that enable coordination between the states of Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana currently and have their regulators actively involved. And so those opportunities exist. And additionally, in the Senate Bill 307, we significantly streamlined the approval process
for transmission lines as well as generation. And so that really helped make that process easier and more efficient. And the potential conflicts between this and MISO and SPP, we have concerns about that. We certainly support coordination and work between the states and want to be helpful in that regard. And I'll stop talking now and take any questions. Thank you for your testimony. Questions from the committee? President McGurk?
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:04:01
So do you think this would create more bureaucracy and make
Speaker 141
1:04:05
it harder? Potentially. The way it's drafted, there is some overlap with what MISO and SPP do, and so I think that that potential exists. Yes, sir. Before we continue with
questions, Representative Graham, would you like to be recognized? Thank you very much, committee.
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:04:23
After speaking with council, I think what we're going to do is we're going to pull this bill and we're going to submit it as an ISP and come back to this in the future.
Okay, I appreciate that. Just for some clarification, Representative Leitemann would still like to ask
Speaker 86
1:04:43
a question. Absolutely, please do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. John, I want to ask
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:04:49
you this question. Do providers or generators in these different states coordinate in any way? Do you all talk to Texas and other? I know you cross state lines. Your company does, and others do too as well. But is there coordination between providers in these states?
Speaker 141
1:05:07
Yes. MISO and SPP both provide a forum for the transmission owners as well as customers of transmission and other interested stakeholders they have a lot of committees that enable all of those uh interested individuals to and groups to participate and ask questions and learn and and uh they function uh in a in a process that includes a lot of uh collaboration and work together
Speaker 37
1:05:33
thank you represent lighterman thank you for your testimony
thank you chair thank you committee i was going to have represent mcclinden rhonda bill but i think she stepped out So, Representative Lundstrom, would you like to go next?
Speaker 146
1:06:11
Representative, if you have a couple on the agenda, which one do you want to proceed with? When do I start with? Since
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:06:17
the assessors have been so patient, I'd like to have them come to the table and let's do them first, and that way they can get out. 19.05.
Speaker 153
1:06:39
Just both of you introduce yourselves and proceed with your testimony when you're ready.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:06:44
State Representative Robin Lundstrom, District 18. Washington County
Speaker 155
1:06:47
Assessor Russell Hill, and also President of the Arkansas Assessors Association. Colleagues, I don't think it's any
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:06:54
secret that there's been a real estate uptick in Arkansas. One of the problems that has been faced by the customers is when they go to buy a property, you take a property that's 30 years old, and the poor realtor is out there trying to sell that property. At the bottom, it says what the taxes are, but that's for that 30-year-old property.
It is not what the current taxes are going to be after the sale. What needs to happen is that needs to be removed and put, call your assessor. And because a real estate agent is a real estate agent, assessors are assessors. We shouldn't be giving out tax information, and we should let realtors be realtors. I'm sure they've all gotten some pretty nasty phone calls when they found out that their taxes went from $1,200 to $5,000. So this should make everybody happy. And basically, buyer beware.
Speaker 158
1:07:45
You need to do your homework. If I could add, just in my experience that I've had over, well, I've been the assessor for 10 years, recently, over the past eight years, we've seen the markets increase dramatically, especially in northwest Arkansas. all but it has been reflected all across the state reappraisals or you know counties are seeing 23 30 percent 40 and 50 percent Washington County we've seen 120 percent in our last two reappraisal
cycles combined when a property amendment 79 is a great friend to the property owner it's very difficult for a new property buyer when that property changes hands it goes to the full value the following year. The problem is when that new buyer is sitting there at closing, they are prorating what the property taxes are for the remainder of that year. That's the seller's property tax bill. And when we've had a market increase, like we've seen across the entire state,
the following year, sometimes the year after that, the mortgage company contacts that new owner and says we're going to have to increase your monthly mortgage by three, four, five, six hundred dollars per month to simply cover the increase of the property taxes for that new homeowner. It was actually last Thursday I spoke with a gentleman. I was at a chamber event. He was 63 years old. He said, can you help me out? I just bought in 2023 and I just recently got a letter from my
mortgage company, they're raising my monthly mortgage $300 a month. And I explained to him that this is because the previous owner had a cap applied from Amendment 79, which, again, is a wonderful benefit for property owners. But he was a new buyer. The cap comes off. It goes to the full assessed amount. This guy was blindsided, and he has to make up that. That wasn't something that they... So when they're at closing, they're told that their tax bill is this much, or that's their assumption. And when they come in, and I've had, last reappraisal had over 200 Board
of Equalization appointments. Approximately 80 of those were property owners not arguing their value. They just wanted to know why they saw such a significant increase in their property tax bill. And when they came in, they were mad at two people. They were mad at their realtor for not warning them, and they were mad at me for doing it. And that's who they were mad at. What I want to do is I want to work with realtors to educate people who are in the market to purchase. It's a real simple mathematical equation. Many assessors have
websites where you can go and look at the property. It's going to tell you, here's the market value. Here's the full assessed value. You do a little multiplication, multiply that by the millage rate. this is what your tax bill is going to be, not what we have over here. So we would really like to create a solution, a simple solution, that would help educate property owners in Arkansas so they are not blindsided when they buy a property.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:11:10
I think that pretty much explains the bill. We just want
the realtors to be realtors and do a great job and the assessors to give the property tax information. And that will happen when you list a property and not listing the property tax information. With that, I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you
for your testimony. I do have at least one question. Representative McGrew, you recognized? Thank you. I think this
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:11:30
is a great bill for that. I've bought a lot of property and had, although I think we need to have something to keep them from going drastically up as soon as you buy it. But that's another. I'm working on that.
I'm working on that. But in this, I was reading it, but in it, tell me when this happens. I think it would be important that the person buying the pardon knows it before he signs a contract. That's the point of when it should happen.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:11:53
And does it require them to contact the accessor and get that,
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:11:56
or just to tell them to go? It just tells them, you can lead a horse to water, but you
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:12:02
can't make them drink. Thank you. Thank you, Representative McGrew. Any other questions?
Same now. Thank you for your testimony. We do have someone signed. Is there anyone who would like to speak against this
Speaker 19
1:12:21
bill? Okay, we do have someone sign up to speak for this bill. Ms. French, for
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:12:29
you to come to the table and introduce yourself, who you're with, and you can testify. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Lindsay French, Association of Arkansas Counties. I just wanted to come down here and support Representative Lundstrom on this bill for her efforts in addressing this issue because I think the sticker shock is an issue.
And if people know ahead of time, they can plan, they can prepare, they can do what they need to do. So I really think this is the best bill of the session in addressing the problem that exists. And I thank her for bringing it. Glad I got that on video. I was going to say, I don't know if it's the best bill
of the session. The best bill on this topic of the session. Okay. Thank you for your
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:13:10
testimony. Anyone else like to speak either for or against this bill?
Representative Lundstrom, you recognize the close. Colleagues, I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you. And I move
to pass. We have a motion to do pass by Representative Lundstrom. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. And you
have? I have Senator Petty's bill, Senate Bill 448. You may proceed with your presentation.
With your indulgence, I know Senator Petty is probably on
the way. If he comes in, I'd like him to join me. This bill actually was started in 2013. And what it is is when people buy a large facility like a hotel or an apartment complex or an older building, One of the first things you have to do is update the energy system, whether it's HVAC, the whole nine yards, insulation. So this is a financing vehicle for those big, huge projects.
I wish I could show you a huge graph, but imagine a 30-story apartment complex. The first 15 or 20 levels of that are banker finance, that type of thing. The last part of it would be CPACE, which means they would pay it out over 30 years, and they would add it to their property tax assessment. The assessors are fine with it. This is a way to, it's creative financing as far as being able to do a large project and retrofit those buildings. What this allows for is 42 other states have since done this same type of legislation
over the last 10 years, but they've updated ours. Ours is antiquated and needs to be updated, and this brings those updates into line. Oklahoma and Texas have done this and seen over $900 million in project investments. And with that, I will endeavor to answer any questions. Thank you, Representative Armstrong. Questions from the committee? Okay, seeing none. Does
anyone like to speak against this bill? Anyone else like to
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:15:23
speak for this bill? Do you want to wait for Senator Petty, or do you want to...
No, let's keep going. We've got places to go, things to do, things to... You're right now at the close. I would appreciate a good vote, and I move to do pass. We
have a motion to do pass. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, colleagues.
Representative Johnson we know we always
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:16:16
have a Lee Johnson time just this I'm getting close to the end I appreciate y'all's patience if I could that this representative Lee Johnson district 47 if I could hear
Speaker 19
1:16:31
1863 first I think that makes more sense when
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:16:35
I hear 1850 Okay. Thank you. You may proceed with 1863. Members, last session,
Representative Schultz ran a bill to put some agreed-to rates in statute around ambulance transport for out-of-network services.
They inadvertently put it in the wrong place in the code. This is just striking it from that place in the code and then referencing the right section of code, and I'd be happy to answer any questions on that bill. Questions from the committee? Okay, seeing none. There's no one signed
up. Is there anyone who'd like to speak against this bill? Anyone else who'd like to speak for this bill? You're recognized to close for your bill. I'll close for my bill. Make a motion to do pass. Motion to pass by President Johnson. All in favor say aye. Any opposed say no.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:17:21
You've passed your bill. If I could present House Bill 1850. Yes, sir. You can appreciate it. This now puts the rate in the correct sectional code, and you'll notice it's got two rates now. One is an in-network, one is an out-of-network rate. Those are negotiated rates. I don't know of any opposition. I'd be happy to answer any question. Questions from the committee?
Okay. Seeing none, does anyone like to speak against this bill? Anyone else speak for this bill? Be recognized to close. Close for the bill. Make a motion to do pass. We have a motion to
Speaker 183
1:18:13
Aye. Any opposed, say no. You've passed your bill. One more.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:18:17
House Bill 1942. HB 1942, yes. You may proceed. Members, this bill comes to us from a conversation with DD providers and DHS in the passes.
There's not been a rate review for waiver workers within the passes since the passes inception in 2021. DHS has already agreed to a rate review. This is just holding them accountable to that agreement through some statute and then requiring them to pay up to the rates after the rate review is done. Again, this is around direct service providers, which are what we think of as the folks that work with our individuals with disabilities that are on the waiver. It also has an allowance so that if the rate comes back too high,
it allows DHS to come in and phase in that rate increase as opposed to moving it up directly. Since it has been a while since the rate was changed, there's a chance that the rate would come in too high, and so we're trying to soften that. I think there was someone here. Is Melissa still here? Had someone with DHS here as well. But, again, this is something we worked on with them, and everyone's in agreement with the plan, and there's no opposition. have it answer your questions about the bill itself. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Johnson.
Questions? Representative Lundstrom, you're organized. What's the financial impact? We
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:19:32
won't know until we know what the rate is, right? And so they have to do the rate study first. There's a chance they do the rate study, and it comes back, and it's
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:19:41
low. They're committed to the rates. If any rate study ever comes back, I'll buy steak and wine for everybody in this committee, staff and all. You've got on witness here. Yes. Never seen anything
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:19:49
go down. No, correct. And I don't know for sure the rate, the impact, because we don't know what the rate's going to
come back. We don't know until the rate reviews back what it'll be.
If it's over a certain percentage, we're going to phase it in over two years. I think DHS expects the rates to come back up. I think they know that these folks need a raise. A lot of these direct service providers are working at about $13.50 an hour. And so it's hard to get good people to come sometimes and work for those rates with some of these challenging folks that are out there on the waiver. But the short answer is we don't know the fiscal impact yet. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Lundstrom. Other questions?
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:20:31
Representative Whiteyman, you're recognized. So Representative Johnson, this group was not included in the rate studies that we approved back some time for doctors, nurses, and so
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:20:39
forth. Correct. Because they're not included? Correct. That's my understanding. My understanding is there hasn't been a rate review for these direct service providers since the passes started. Okay. All right. Thanks.
Thank you, Representative Leiteman. Any other questions from the committee? Representative Blundstrom? Yeah. You
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:20:56
said something that made me think, which right now in the late day, who knows.
But you said that the passes haven't been paying these people. They haven't raised them.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:21:06
They haven't raised them. The rates haven't gone up. So the rates agreed to through the capitated agreement with the passes, those haven't changed since the inception of the passes. The passes negotiate directly with the DD providers for rates, but it's also tied into the capitated rate that's contracted with DHS. And so this is going to look at what is the rate we currently have. If it goes up, that will be rolled into a contract with the passes. And then we're saying in the bill, hey, passes, whatever rate we agreed to in this capitated model,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:21:36
you have to meet that rate. You have to meet that rate, and you actually have to
pay these people? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? No other questions from the committee? Okay, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak
against this bill? Anyone else speak for this bill? You're recognized or close? Close from our bill.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:22:02
Make a motion to do pass. We have a motion to do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no.
Speaker 1
1:22:06
Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you. Representative Stimmel, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee, I'll try to be brief here. This
is an Arkansas Insurance Department bill, and this says a captive insurer. This has no effect whatsoever on the bill we just passed out here to create a captive agency for the state of Arkansas.
There is no length. Is this? Senate Bill 237. Apologies. Thank you. Senate Bill 237, and like I said, This has no impact on the captive agency bill we just passed out the other day. And I'll start off by saying briefly that this captive bill is to update our existing laws and bring it more in line with other states so Arkansas can be more competitive for captive companies to domicile in Arkansas. This will likely create more jobs and bring a more competitive business structure to our insurance sector.
Speaker 1
1:23:11
And with that, I'll take any questions. Thank you, Representative Stimel. Questions from the committee?
Seeing no, is there anyone who would like to speak against this bill? Is there anyone out there who
Speaker 1
1:23:26
would like to speak for this bill? You are recognized to close, Representative Stimel. Thank you for your patience. I am closed for my bill. Okay. Representative,
we have a motion do pass by Representative Dalby. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. Congratulations, you have passed your bill.
Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Stimmel. Representative McElhinden has made it back, so you are, if
you would go to the end of the table, introduce yourself, and you may proceed with, is that
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:23:59
HB 1918? Yes, sir. Sorry, it's that time of session, running back and forth. Representative Mindy McElhinden, House District 10. So the bill that you
have in front of you looks a little bit daunting, but let me just kind of explain what it is. So the primary objective of House Bill 1918 is to provide Arkansan with a secure and efficient means to store and use precious metals as a form of payment.
It does two things. The first thing that it does is it authorizes the option for the state of Arkansas to create a state-run depository in the future. It does not create or mandate the creation of a depository. It just gives the option of it if for some reason we decide we'd like to do that. There are depositories around us. There's one in Texas that's been there for almost 10 years now. Tennessee is working on one. Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Florida are also contemplating those creations. The second thing that this does is gold and silver are already recognized as legal tender in Arkansas.
But there is no mechanism to allow people to use that legal tender. So the next logical step is a system that enables its practical use. By implementing a precious metals-backed electronic transaction system, we can modernize commerce and allow for seamless asset-backed exchanges for those who wish to use gold and silver. And the best way to think of it is to think of it like a credit card. And so if I have my gold down in Texas, and I live here in Arkansas, I can go to the store and I can use my credit card and buy something. That credit card, that company will then go down to, I mean, you
know, digitally, will go down to Texas. They will take out that gold out of my account. They will exchange it into dollars and send dollars to the merchant. So the merchant is not getting gold. The merchant is getting dollars just like they currently do. But instead of me paying with dollars, I'm paying with gold because that's how I wanted to hold my money. No one is forced to do anything. No one is required. But it gives people who want to participate in that system the opportunity to participate in that system. I worked really closely with the treasurer's office. They wrote this bow
with me, and I think the responsibility to promulgate any rules will lie with the CFO. I have to
take any questions. Representative McClendon, thank you for your testimony. It appears that, unfortunately, we're not going to be able to take any further action on your bill today. My understanding from staff just was notified that it was actually on members' own today. Oh, ignore all that. It was just a preview for what's to
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:26:26
come next time you meet. That's what
I was going to say. That's just a preview for Monday. You're welcome to come back. I apologize for that. No worries. It will be a
rerun, however. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your time, y'all. Members, is there anyone else who has any business with the committee today? Okay. Thank you. We are adjourned. Thank you.
Unknown speaker
1:27:31
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1354 Lundstrum TO REGULATE PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS.
SB237 J. Boyd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF CAPTIVE INSURERS.
HB1295 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING COLLECTIONS ACT.
HB1308 Steimel CONCERNING UNFAIR PRACTICES RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE REPAIR CONTRACTS; AND TO REGULATE SOLICITING RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTORS AND TREE CONTRACTORS.
HB1811 Steimel TO AMEND PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LAW; AND TO REQUIRE REASONABLE PROOF OF PAYMENT OF A DEDUCTIBLE TO RECOUP RECOVERABLE DEPRECIATION UNDER PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LAW.
HB1813 Gramlich TO ADOPT THE FAIR AND EFFICIENT TRANSMISSION COMPACT.
SB405 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE ONLINE MARKETPLACE CONSUMER INFORM ACT.
HB1850 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICES; TO CLARIFY THE MINIMUM ALLOWABLE REIMBURSEMENT FOR GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1853 J. Moore TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING AGENCY RELATIONSHIP AND DUTIES RELATED TO REAL ESTATE LICENSES; AND TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF DUAL AGENCY.
SB420 Hester TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT STATE PROGRAMS; TO AMEND THE WATER AUTHORITY ACT; AND TO AMEND THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE REVOLVING LOAN FUND.
HB1863 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT MANAGER ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1868 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PAY A FAIR AND REASONABLE SERVICE FEE
DIRECTLY TO A FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR FIREFIGHTING SERVICES BASED ON TIME ON SCENE.
HB1409 Long TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; AND TO CREATE THE ELECTRIC RELIABILITY ACT.
HB1177 M. Brown TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT; AND TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT.
HB1443 Pilkington TO CREATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT; TO PROHIBIT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PAYMENT NETWORKS FROM USING CERTAIN DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES; AND TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VIOLATIONS.
HB1942 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE CERTAIN REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR HOME- AND COMMUNITY- BASED SERVICES WITHIN RISK-BASED PROVIDER ORGANIZATIONS.
HB1905 Lundstrum TO CREATE THE BUYER BEWARE ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A REAL ESTATE LICENSEE REPRESENTING A SELLER TO DIRECT THE SELLER TO THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ASSESSOR FOR THE CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE OF A RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE PROPERTY.
HB1930 Wardlaw TO MANDATE MINIMUM REIMBURSEMENT LEVELS FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES.
HB1159 J. Richardson TO CREATE THE RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE SECURITY ACT; AND TO REGULATE SECURITY MEASURES AT RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORES.
HB1917 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS STUDENT-ATHLETE PUBLICITY RIGHTS ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO ATHLETIC PROGRAM FUNDING.
HB1918 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SPECIE OR LEGAL TENDER; TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF A BULLION DEPOSITORY; AND TO ALLOW FOR A PRECIOUS METALS-BACKED ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
SB123 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR MAMMOGRAMS AND BREAST ULTRASOUNDS.
SB463 M. McKee TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO APPROVE OR DENY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS CONCERNING CLOSING OR ELIMINATING ELECTRIC GENERATION UNITS OR TRANSMISSION ASSETS.
SB480 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INVESTMENT OF STATE FUNDS.
SB331 G. Leding CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHERITED CANCER MUTATIONS; AND TO CREATE THE GENETIC TESTING ACT.
SB448 J. Petty TO AUTHORIZE THE FINANCING OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS, BUILDING RESILIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, AND WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS.
SB483 Irvin TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE SECURITIES DEPARTMENT; AND TO REVISE CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1533 Gramlich TO CREATE THE DECENTRALIZED UNINCORPORATED NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION ACT.
HB1408 Pilkington TO ALLOW QUALIFYING PATIENTS OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS TO PURCHASE MEDICAL MARIJUANA USING A FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT OR A HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
HB1625 Barnett TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSED HOME INSPECTORS.
SB229 J. Boyd TO CREATE THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
HB1659 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE; AND TO CLARIFY THE PRIORITY AMONG SECURITY INTERESTS AND ENTITLEMENT HOLDERS UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.
HB1009 A. Collins TO ALLOW PREGNANCY TO BE A QUALIFYING EVENT FOR ENROLLMENT IN CERTAIN HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS.
HB1014 A. Collins TO REQUIRE COVERAGE OF IN VITRO FERTILIZATION UNDER THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE- HOUSE, Apr 2, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 3
Speaker 5
Representative John Maddox Chair
Unverified
Speaker 6
Representative Trey Steimel Chair
Unverified
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 18
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 37
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 43
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Speaker 52
Speaker 54
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
Speaker 61
Speaker 67
Speaker 68
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 72
Mike Haderi
Unverified
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 106
Speaker 107
Speaker 82
Speaker 114
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 64
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
Speaker 110
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
Speaker 141
Speaker 86
Speaker 146
Speaker 153
Speaker 155
Speaker 158
Speaker 19
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 182
Speaker 183
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified