Texas House votes to abolish Texas Lottery Commission; save Texas lottery

AUSTIN (Nexstar) — Sunset review couldn't have come at a worse time for the Texas Lottery Commission (TLC). While TLC was listed by USA Today as one of the best places to work in 2025, in September it's likely no one will be working there.
Sunset review is a process most state departments go through every 12 years. During a review, the legislature has to actively renew the department or they cease to exist. However in this case, the legislature is proactively killing the TLC.
Saturday night, the Texas House passed an amended version of Senate Bill 3070, which abolishes the TLC and hands over control of the Texas Lottery and Charitable Bingo to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR). The decision comes amidst a host of scandals for the commission, resulting in investigations from both the Texas Rangers and the Attorney General's Office.
While the Senate passed SB 3070 unanimously, House sponsor Charlie Geren, R-Lake Worth, re-wrote the bill based on conversations with TDLR.
Each bill calls for the incoming Texas Lottery division of TDLR to undergo a sunset review to see how they're functioning under the new department. However, the Senate's version called for a full review in 2027, while the House calls for a review in 2029. Additionally, the scope of the House's proposed review is more narrowly-tailored to determine if TDLR is the best home for the lottery, and to determine if the lottery is following the guidelines set out by the legislature.
Both versions call for lottery mobile applications to end, however the Texas House removed a provision from the Senate's version which required TDLR to post the minutes and guest list for all formal or informal meetings regarding contracting, procurement or policymaking of the lottery. The Senate added this language after a lawsuit alleged former TLC officials worked with courier services to brainstorm the best ways to implement lottery mobile applications.
Geren's version also stripped a provision banning automatic renewals of contracts the TLC entered in before the transfer becomes official on Sept. 1.
Most interestingly, the Texas House removed a provision allowing the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House or the Attorney General from acting as lottery investigators. The language was added to the Senate version after the retailer Winners Corner — affiliated with the mobile app Jackpocket — refused to let Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick inspect how many lottery terminals they had in their backroom.
On Monday, the House will likely hear SB 3070 for a third reading. Should it pass there, it will be sent back to the Texas Senate where they can either agree to the changes or determine which disputed provisions should remain in the final bill. Either way, the elements both sides agree on will likely be sent to Gov. Greg Abbott to sign.
If he signs, the lottery will have this summer to transition to TDLR before the TLC is abolished on Sept. 1. Because the TLC is up for sunset anyway, a Abbott veto would still mean the TLC is abolished on Sept. 1, but the Texas Lottery would go with it.
'Ensuring the integrity, security, honesty and fairness of the agency and its games is the top priority for the Texas Lottery Commission (TLC). The TLC respects the legislative process, serves as a resource to the Legislature, and will follow the direction of the Legislature,' a representative for the TLC said in a statement. 'The TLC is prepared to fully support the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation with ensuring that a smooth, seamless and successful transition occurs for both the administration of the lottery and the regulation of charitable bingo.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

25 minutes ago

• Newsweek

'Mass Layoff' Provision in Trump Bill Sparks Alarm: 'Deeply Concerning'

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A provision in the Senate budget bill would allow for millions of dollars to go directly toward President Donald Trump and the administration's ability to lay off federal workers without the consent of Congress. It is a move that Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress, called "deeply, deeply concerning." The provision, written by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, would give $100 million to the Office of Budget Management (OMB), according to Government Executive. The office is run by Project 2025 author Russ Vought, a proponent of mass government layoffs, which are a central tenet of Project 2025. President Donald Trump talks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump talks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP Photo Olinsky referenced the lawsuits by federal employees fired by Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts, telling Newsweek: "[This bill is] exactly the kind of thing that the president has been trying to do, I would say, illegally, as he seeks to shut down departments or agencies, or limit [agencies] to a handful of staff down from 1000s and do large mass layoffs and other kinds of cuts to entire functions or programs." Those in favor of the bill have said: "Any president should have the ability to clear the waste he or she has identified without obstruction." Newsweek contacted Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, via email for comment. Why It Matters Many of the people affected by mass federal layoffs initiated by DOGE at the start of Trump's second term are now in court as they were made without congressional approval. The provision would allow for federal employees to be fired with little to no legal recourse. Olinsky told Newsweek that it would lead to current and future distrust in the government by federal workers. Federal work used to be a lesser paid but significantly more stable line of work. If the provision passes, federal work will be seen as a much less realistic plan for long-term employment and will result in bright and capable Americans choosing to work in the private sector. What To Know The provision of the bill, which is the Senate's version of Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" passed by the House, appears in a section about government spending and reorganization by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It would revitalize a provision last used in 1984 that allows the president to reorganize the federal government. However, Olinsky explained to Newsweek that it differs from the 1984 provision in one significant way. "Those previous reorganization authorities that were granted to the president still had a role for Congress," he said. Congress then had a certain amount of time to either approve or disapprove of the plan, and that determined whether the president's plan could go into effect. "In the current reorganization language, it says that most of the statute that's currently on the books, or that was on the books through 1984, will not apply," Olinsky said. "And it basically says the president can put together a reorganization plan, and as long as it's making government smaller, it is deemed approved. "So, there would be no further review by Congress, no further action. It would simply be automatic. It is approved by this language without [Congress] having seen it first. That is dramatically concerning to me." Senator Rand Paul, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, talks with reporters in the Russell building on June 17, 2025, in Washington. Senator Rand Paul, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, talks with reporters in the Russell building on June 17, 2025, in Washington. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images Olinsky added: "The executive actions that the Trump administration has been taking are absolutely taking Project 2025, the most extreme parts of it, and putting them into effect. And, actually going much further in many cases." Project 2025 says that the president should be able to " employees." It speaks in broad terms about federal employees, whom its authors see as part of the "federal bureaucracy." "Federal employees are often ideologically aligned—not with the majority of the American people, but with one another, posing a profound problem for republican government, a government "of, by, and for" the people," Project 2025 says. Olinsky said that people fired as a result of DOGE cuts could continue their suits in court, but anyone fired under the new provision would not have a case against the government. He said the only means of legal recourse for fired employees would be if mass firings reduced the government's ability to monitor enforcement functions. For example, if the White House fired every member of an agency that oversaw labor standards, someone could potentially sue and say their firing undermined government enforcement work. Other critics of this move say it directly undermines Congress' ability to govern, as government spending is one of Congress' primary responsibilities. Olinsky said there is a chance the Senate parliamentarian rules that the provision defies the Byrd Rule, which says that all reconciliation packages have to focus on budget issues and cannot stray into other parts of government. Olinsky believes the provision violates the Byrd Rule, but whether enough members of the Senate and/or the parliamentarian believe the same is "an open question," he said. What People Are Saying Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress, told Newsweek: "This [bill] would basically give [Trump] carte blanche to refashion the entire federal government in ways that he likes. "Now, even under this language, it basically means you have to make the government smaller, not larger. But there's a lot of playing you could do to assist with [Trump's] priorities and stifle functions of government that he just doesn't like. "This should be deeply, deeply concerning to anyone." The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: "This provision would reestablish the authority for a president to reorganize government as long as these plans do not result in an increase in federal agencies and the plan does not result in an increase in federal spending." What Happens Next The House does not have a similar rule, so if the provision remains in the Senate version of the bill, it cannot be removed through a parliamentarian complaint to the Bird Rule by the House.

The Hill

36 minutes ago

• The Hill

Senate parliamentarian allows GOP to keep ban on state AI rules

The Senate parliamentarian concluded the controversial push to ban state regulation of artificial intelligence for the next 10 years can remain in President Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill. The decision, announced by lawmakers over the weekend, followed weeks of speculation from both parties over whether the provision would overcome the procedural hurdle known as the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian's decision will allow the provision to be voted on in the budget reconciliation process with a simple-majority vote. It comes after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, altered the language of the House's version in hopes of complying with the Byrd Rule, which prohibits 'extraneous matters' from being included in reconciliation packages. Under their proposal, states would be prohibited from regulating AI if they want access to federal funding from the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. The House's version called for a blanket 10-year moratorium on state laws regulating AI models and systems, regardless of funding. Still, some GOP members remained skeptical it would pass the Byrd Rule. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said last week it was 'doubtful' the provision survives. The provision has further divided Republicans, while Democrats are largely against it. While many Republicans are concerned with overbearing regulation of the emerging tech, a few GOP members argue it goes against the party's traditional support of states' rights. Republican Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.) told The Hill they are against the provision, while Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said he is willing to introduce an amendment to eliminate the provision during the Senate's marathon vota-a-rama if it is not taken out earlier. The provision received pushback from some Republicans in the House as well. A group of hard-line conservatives argued in a letter earlier this month to Senate Republicans that Congress is still 'actively investigating' AI and 'does not fully understand the implications' of the technology. This was shortly after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) confirmed she would be a 'no' on the bill if it comes back to the House with the provision included. 'I am 100 percent opposed, and I will not vote for any bill that destroys federalism and takes away states' rights, ability to regulate and make laws when it regards humans and AI,' the Georgia Republican told reporters. Several Republican state leaders and lawmakers are also pushing back.

Politico

40 minutes ago

• Politico

All eyes on the Assembly

Good morning and welcome to the weekly Monday edition of the New York & New Jersey Energy newsletter. We'll take a look at the week ahead and look back on what you may have missed last week. ALL EYES ON THE ASSEMBLY — POLITICO's Marie J. French: Any chance that New York lawmakers will make significant progress on tackling climate change this legislative session rests with Assembly Democrats — a concerning prospect for frustrated environmental advocates. The Senate has left Albany for the session, but the Assembly plans to linger for a few days this week. Several environmental proposals remain pending, including a sweeping measure aimed at reducing plastic and packaging waste and two options to limit gas infrastructure. These are the same issues that remained in the final days of last year's session. Then, the Assembly pivoted to pass the Climate Superfund measure to charge fossil fuel companies for past pollution. This year, environmental groups are pressuring the Assembly to step up on implementing more policies to support the state's climate law. 'The Senate did their job last night — again — to do something about our high energy bills. We are paying too much for pipelines we don't need,' said Jessica Azulay, executive director of the Alliance for a Green Economy. 'They have three days to act, and we are watching,' Azulay said of the Assembly. 'If they don't act, we're all in for a long, hot summer.' The Senate passed two different gas transition measures — leaving the choice of whether to allow phasing out gas service for existing homes to the Assembly. The more modest measure is an elimination of the '100-foot rule' for gas. That rule requires other ratepayers to subsidize a portion of the cost of new hookups, reducing upfront costs for those getting new gas service. — The incremental step — the 100-foot rule elimination for gas — is poised to pass in the Assembly, according to two lawmakers. It was moved to the Ways and Means committee on Sunday afternoon, teeing it up for an eventual floor vote. — The packaging reduction measure appears to be falling short, and newly announced opposition from the statewide AFL-CIO may doom the bill this year. 'Unions are not opposed to improving New York's recycling system. But are concerned that this bill goes too far, too fast, and targets the wrong materials,' a press release from industry-backed New Yorkers for Better Recycling states. PENNEAST DECISION DRAMA — The New York Times' weekend dive into Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett leads with this example: 'Soon after Justice Barrett arrived at the court she began surprising her colleagues. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. assigned her to write a majority opinion — among her first — allowing the seizure of state property in a pipeline case, according to several people aware of the process. But she then changed her mind and took the opposite stance, a bold move that risked irritating the chief justice.' The story doesn't name-check the 2021 PennEast decision, but our POLITICO colleague Alex Guillén reported at the time that, 'Legal experts have been gossiping that someone in the majority switched sides late in the game in the PennEast ruling.' — Ry Rivard HAPPY MONDAY MORNING: Let us know if you have tips, story ideas or life advice. We're always here at mfrench@ and rrivard@ And if you like this letter, please tell a friend and/or loved one to sign up. Here's what we're watching: WEDNESDAY— The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities meets and is expected to discuss electric utilities' plans to cushion rate increases, 10 a.m. Editor's Note: Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories. Around New Jersey — Former BPU Commissioner Mary-Anna Holden in an op-ed: 'Instead of chasing artificial deadlines and politically popular incentives, our leaders should be focused on real-world physics and economics. This means revisiting the Energy Master Plan, rethinking electrification mandates and supporting a balanced generation mix that includes reliable, low-emission sources like natural gas and nuclear while continuing to develop meaningful renewables at a pace our infrastructure can handle.' — Tesla, for one reason or another, is storing lots of cars at the Quaker Bridge Mall. — Weekend blaze in Wharton State Forest is mostly contained. What you may have missed AIMING AT THE BOTTOM LINE — New Jersey lawmakers advanced a trio of bills Thursday aimed at cutting into utility company profits. The bills — S4260, S4304 and S4519 — all cleared the Senate Economic Growth committee. They each aim to reduce power companies' return on equity, which hovers around 10 percent in the state. Two of the bills basically urge the state Board of Public Utilities to rein in profits, but do not set any caps on companies' returns. A third bill, Sen. Andrew Zwicker's S4519, could quantitatively dent profits by removing a special .5 percent return companies are currently eligible for thanks to convoluted federal regulations. Some utilities get this special 'RTO adder' for building transmission projects if they have not formally joined a regional transmission organization, like PJM. Zwicker's bill would require utilities to join PJM, thus disqualifying their projects for the adder. For PSEG, the adder means that the company's return on equity for transmission projects is 10.4 percent, rather than 9.9 percent. The state's ratepayer watchdog, Brian Lipman, testified in support of the bill. He cited previous comments by outgoing FERC Chair Mark Christie who called the adder 'FERC candy' taken from ratepayers and given to transmission companies. The companies argue that without the incentive, there would be fewer transmission projects, which would hurt grid reliability. Joseph Checkley, the head of IBEW Local 94, which represents 3,300 PSEG workers, testified that the union will have less work and fewer apprenticeships if the bill passes. The union, utilities and some Republican lawmakers also said the bill doesn't address the root problem facing the state right now, which is lack of generation causing price spikes. Utilities are also concerned that the bill would force them to join PJM at a time when Democrats have been trying to get leverage over PJM. PSEG senior vice president Rick Thigpen said in a statement that 'we've heard many public officials criticize the shortcomings of PJM and this bill would force us to remain in that very RTO.' 'While not RTO specific, this bill would mandate that we either remain in PJM or pursue an option of joining a different RTO or creating one from scratch — two options that would be unnecessarily expensive for customers,' Thigpen said. 'This comes at a time when affordability is a top concern and we should be focusing on supporting our customers in the near-term and expanding electric supply in the long-term to enhance resource adequacy.' Zwicker, a Somerset County Democrat, modeled the bill on a recent move by Ohio to get rid of the adder. Also, realistically, he said New Jersey cannot leave PJM anytime soon. 'I would argue that we need leverage, true, but that leverage doesn't exist because we have no other option,' Zwicker said in an interview. While industry groups generally oppose all the bills aimed at curbing return on equity, PSEG said it supported Burlington County Democratic Sen. Troy Singleton's bill (S4260) that would prevent utilities from making 'excess profits.' 'Excess profits is not something we're in support of,' Thigpen told lawmakers during a lengthy hearing. Thigpen said the company would be willing to submit to new annual reviews of its rates. Right now, reviews typically accompany rate cases. Sen. Joseph Pennacchio, a Morris County Republican, wondered if the bill was even needed, since the BPU already examines utilities' finances. 'From my understanding, if the BPU is doing a good job, we're going to be saving nothing,' he said. Another bill without a hard cap, S4304, requires the BPU to allow utilities only the 'lowest reasonable return.' None of the bills increase the energy supply available to the state, which lawmakers from both parties agree is the only long-term solution to price spikes. Separately, a bill to explore the role that nuclear power should play in the state cleared the Senate Energy and Environment Committee. The bill (S220) was sponsored by Pennacchio and Sen. Bob Smith, the Middlesex County Democrat who chairs that committee. — Ry Rivard ASSEMBLY GETS OPTIONS ON GAS: The New York Senate is moving two options on efforts to limit the expansion of the state's gas system. One is a repeal of what's known as the '100-foot rule,' which requires other customers to subsidize portions of new gas hookups. If enacted, this would require developers to pay the full cost of building out infrastructure to connect to the gas system. Opponents argue this would raise new home costs and provide minimal savings to existing customers since selling more gas spreads out costs and the investments are paid off over decades. Supporters of slashing the subsidy say it runs counter to the state's climate goals and eliminates added costs from new hookups that contribute to rate increases. The other option is a scaled back but still ambitious planning proposal to begin dismantling sections of the gas system. This renamed NY HEAT bill, dubbed the 'Customer Savings and Reliability Act,' also includes changes to the 100-foot rule. But it goes much further, allowing the Public Service Commission and utilities to involuntarily remove customers from the gas system after 2030 with several guardrails including extensive public engagement, some support in the affected area, and alternatives being provided at 'no cost.' It's not clear whether Assembly Democrats will move this broader measure, although it has won over some lawmakers. Repeal of the 100-foot rule has even more support. Opponents of NY HEAT have pushed back on the updated measure. 'They simply want fewer people on the gas system, so they want to make it more expensive,' said Republican Assemblymember Phil Palmesano at a Thursday press conference. He promised a four-hour debate if Assembly Democrats bring the updated NY HEAT bill to the floor. Business groups are also opposed, despite specific protections for their gas service in the bill. 'As you remove users from the system, you increase the cost to users who have no choice,' said Ken Pokalsky, with the Business Council of New York State. Proponents of a planned gas transition say customers will switch to electric alternatives anyway. The proposed planning process offers a more managed shift than the status quo, with opportunities for savings from avoided gas infrastructure savings, they say. 'As my staff and I engage more closely with the Con Ed rate cases impacting our district, I can see more clearly than ever the urgency of ending the 100-foot rule,' said Democratic Assemblymember Dana Levenberg. 'We cannot hope to bring down utility costs while still requiring utilities to maintain vast networks of gas pipelines.' — Marie J. French BIOSOLIDS MORATORIUM ADVANCES: The Senate also passed a five-year moratorium on using biosolids — from wastewater and industrial sources — as fertilizer, topsoil or mulch. The bill also looks to be moving in the Assembly. Supporters are concerned about PFAS contamination from the waste, pointing to Maine, where farmland was contaminated by the practice. The state's operators of wastewater treatment plants are concerned. A five-year ban on spreading biosolids on land would remove a key option to dispose of the waste product, according to the New York Water Environment Association. 'There is inadequate capacity in New York State landfills for this volume of additional biosolids, as many have limited space and biosolids often must be mixed with other debris to provide structural integrity within the landfill operational cells,' the group wrote in a letter on the bill. — Marie J. French PSC GREENLIGHTS TRANSMISSION UPGRADES: The Public Service Commission approved more transmission upgrades linked to increased load, including from electric vehicle charging fleets and other plans. These 'urgent upgrades' need to get started more quickly than would happen if they waited for approval through a rate case, the commission decided at Thursday's meeting. The approved projects total $636 million in costs and will enable 642 megawatts of electrification upgrades — which Department of Public Service staff said was under the 'industry standard' cost of $1 million per megawatt. The 29 projects approved include $439.9 million for five Con Ed projects including to allow for electric vehicle charging at Zerega Avenue and Hunt's Point. Utilities had proposed 65 projects totaling $1.9 billion in costs. The projects that weren't approved are expected to be considered through rate case proceedings. 'We are not taking steps to subject ourselves to near-term risks in the future, we're looking to address long-term opportunities and by doing that we limit the costs, we make our investments more efficient and we make them most importantly more effective,' said Public Service Commission Chair Rory Christian at the meeting. 'This process increases transparency as well because frankly it's hard for many people to engage in rate cases. And this gives a one-stop opportunity for people to examine the various electrification efforts underway throughout the state.' — Marie J. French WAIVER GOODBYE — POLITICO's Alex Nieves: President Donald Trump moved Thursday to eliminate California's nation-leading vehicle emissions standards, upending strict rules that had become a template for other states, including New York and New Jersey, to realize their greenhouse gas ambitions. COLUMN ON WAIVER — POLITICO's Debra Kahn: It's a far cry from the bipartisan consensus that reigned when President Richard Nixon famously signed the Clean Air Act, which set federal air pollution levels for the first time but gave California permission to continue going further, owing to its decade-plus of vehicle emissions rules aimed at the smoggy Los Angeles basin. EMISSIONS DISCLOSURE CONCERNS — POLITICO's Marie J. French: Business groups are preemptively ramping up opposition to a climate emissions disclosure bill in the frantic last days of session. Led by the Business Council of New York State, industry groups are warning lawmakers against New York's version of a greenhouse gas reporting bill that's mired in legal and regulatory delays in California. There's some concern from opponents that the measure could become the last-minute 'environmental thing' lawmakers move before leaving Albany. ACE'S RATE RELIEF — Atlantic City Electric has a plan to help customers deal with rising power prices. The plan resembles one already submitted by PSE&G and is likely to mirror what other utilities in the state will do, though some of the actions may require Board of Public Utilities approval. ACE said it will stop disconnecting eligible customers' service from July through September. Gov. Phil Murphy previously suggested utilities take this step and PSE&G has already announced it would. ACE also plans to allow for longer repayment terms for residential customers, up to 24 months, and will submit a plan to the BPU that would give customers a deferred credit on their July and August bills that would be recovered without interest over a six-month period. 'While utility companies in New Jersey do not generate their own energy, do not set the price of electricity, and do not profit from the supply cost increases that took effect June 1, we fully understand that rising energy costs stemming from PJM's 2024 Capacity Auction are a challenge for our customers,' the company said in a statement. — Ry Rivard FALL SHOWDOWN SET — Republican Jack Ciattarelli and Democrat Mikie Sherrill are set to square off this fall in the New Jersey general election, setting up a showdown over Gov. Phil Murphy's clean energy legacy. The Associated Press called the races for both candidates Tuesday night, not long after polls closed. Sherrill's campaign has promised to push for 100 percent clean energy, the same goal Murphy ran on and won, and picked up endorsements from the Sierra Club and New Jersey League of Conservation Voters. Ciattarelli has blasted the governor's 'obsession with windmills' for driving up electric prices. Ciattarelli began his speech with criticism of Murphy's offshore wind goals. 'We will adopt a rational energy policy that lowers people's monthly electric bills and stops the Democrats from putting those damn wind farms off our Jersey Shore,' he said. He also criticized overdevelopment, something he's previously blamed the Sierra Club for ignoring. Whether wind will be a potent issue for voters, of course, remains to be seen. In her victory speech on Tuesday night, Sherrill framed her campaign as a test of President Donald Trump's policies, though she mentioned Ciattarelli's position on Hurricane Sandy relief and, in a statement after the speech, pledged to 'slash the cost of utilities' by taking 'control of our energy future.' In 2023, Republican legislative campaigns tried to make the environment a wedge issue, but largely failed when Democrats picked up seats in Trenton. Arguably some of those Democrats ran away from Murphy's clean energy plans and, in the years since, lawmakers have not had the stomach to turn the governor's clean energy goals into binding law. There are some reasons why energy issues may be more potent this year, though. The biggest is that energy policy choices have demonstrably and significantly driven up people's power bills. A $25 per month rate increase took effect on June 1. Democrats blame the regional grid operator, PJM; Republicans blame Murphy's focus on offshore wind projects that are dead or delayed. — Ry Rivard NEW GAS TRANSITION MEASURE: Democratic lawmakers introduced a new bill aimed at limiting the expansion and transitioning parts of the gas system. The re-branded new bill is the 'Customer Savings and Reliability Act.' The slimmed down, not-HEAT Act removes provisions around a 6 percent affordability target for energy bills and still eliminates the 100-foot rule to subsidize new gas hookups. For a neighborhood transition project to move forward after 2030, 50 percent of impacted customers would have to agree to get off the gas system. Installation of alternative equipment — electric heat pumps, hot water and cooking systems — would have to be at no cost to customers. Importantly, a utility can opt out of the process. 'It addresses people's concerns,' said Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon, the sponsor of the old NY HEAT and the new bill. 'A transition plan would have to be cheaper … we increase the number of hearings.' Simon said she's 'very hopeful' about the bill's prospects given the revisions. 'It will accomplish the goals of transitioning,' she said. Environmental groups including the New York League of Conservation Voters, Earthjustice, Alliance for a Green Economy and WE ACT for Environmental Justice endorsed the new version. The measure 'would reduce costs for ratepayers, advance region-specific utility planning to decarbonize buildings at a neighborhood-scale, and provide responsible, cost-effective alternatives for heating, cooling and hot water,' the memo states. NY HEAT's staunchest opponents are still opposed, particularly New Yorkers for Affordable Energy, which is backed by labor, pipeline companies and National Fuel. 'It's a blueprint for higher costs and unreliable service,' the group's opposition memo states. One of its members predicts layoffs if the 100-foot rule is eliminated, raising costs for developers seeking new gas hookups since they'll have to pay the full costs rather than being subsidized by other customers. — Marie J. French CORRECTION: Assemblymember John McDonald said local governments would be involved in a new process under a revised gas transition measure. 'It's common sense, moves in the right direction, including local governments and residents in the process,' McDonald said. BLET'S MAKE A DEAL — The union of engineers whose strike idled NJ Transit trains in May voted to ratify a deal that will raise wages to 'over $50 per hour,' the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen said Tuesday. The union said its members had overwhelmingly voted to approve the seven-year deal, which replaces one that expired before the pandemic. 'This agreement gives us the pay raises we needed, but also was done without a major hit to NJT's budget and should not require a fare hike for passengers,' union leader Tom Haas said in a statement. The head of NJ Transit, CEO Kris Kolluri, said in a statement he was pleased by the vote. The union's rank and file had previously voted down another deal, teeing up the strike that resulted in this agreement. — Ry Rivard