H.B. 16 Solar Power Plant Amendments

What this bill does

H.B. 16 would stop the state from giving solar-power incentives to large solar plants built on productive farmland or grazing land. It would also require developers of large solar plants to file a decommissioning plan, and it would not apply to projects already in progress.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 10 yes, 1 no, 1 absentHouse Public Utilities and Energy Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 21, 2026Who voted how
• 61 yes, 8 no, 6 absentFinal House vote · Jan 23, 2026Who voted how
• 5 yes, 0 no, 3 absentSenate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee: Amendment Recommendation · Jan 30, 2026Who voted how
• 4 yes, 0 no, 4 absentSenate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 30, 2026Who voted how
• 21 yes, 7 no, 1 absentFirst of two Senate votes · Feb 5, 2026Who voted how
• 20 yes, 6 no, 3 absentFinal Senate vote · Feb 18, 2026Who voted how
• 61 yes, 6 no, 8 absentHouse vote to accept the other chamber's changes · Feb 20, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 21, 2026 House Public Utilities and Energy Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (25 turns)

  1. Chair Peterson (presiding)46:50

     I'm gonna go to Representative Watkins.

  2. Rep. Christine F. Watkins46:52

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I want to, um, I wanna say something about something that was said earlier, because I live in an area where we've had lots and lots and we are still having lots of solar, um, being built and put into place. And I want everyone to know, because I live in these communities. I live in one, but they're a bunch around us when they come in and build these. So solar power plants we have, or, uh, units, um, we have a lot of people come in, a lot of men, and they build them and they're gone. There's nobody left. We have the solar units, but there's nobody left. So there is a myth out there that it creates a lot of jobs, and it does while they're being built, but then they're gone and they're not local people. And so I, I mean, and I have no objections to them coming in. And, and they don't even hire a lot of our local people. They bring in, we've got some big ones that we've had going in, in Emery County, and they bring people from Texas to build them. So I I, it just really irks me when I hear that they provide lots of jobs. Well, they may, but they don't provide jobs for local people, and they come and then they're gone. So, I just wanted to say that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

  3. Chair Peterson (presiding)48:10

     Thank you, representative. We will now go to Representative Jack to present HB 16 solar plant amendments.

  4. Rep. Colin W. Jack48:18

     All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, I apologize to the committee. This will now be the third time that you've heard the bill. However, I, I didn't ask, uh, folks who I brought with me the first two times because this same committee has heard me and my, uh, and my witnesses at least twice. And you've heard me on the floor. So this bill, HB 16, was a bill last session. And it had the distinction of being the very next bill that was on the Senate third reading calendar when midnight struck. So the first loser of the last session was me. I was in first place as, as a bill died on the calendar. And that was this bill. We passed it out of this committee this summer. Uh, and so it's come back to this committee. And so I'll, I'll tell, I'll remind you what it is. 'cause I realize we've all slept since I presented it this summer. We'll, we'll present it here and, uh, so that you'll remember, we pass it out as a committee bill, uh, this summer. But what it does is it removes, or it limits incentives on large solar fields to areas that do not, that are not adequate for grazing or farming. So, uh, here in the state, well, uh, I don't know about all of you, but in the state, but me in particular, I like to eat food. And so, uh, food land is of limited supply. And if you look at the counties that raise food, uh, we're finding that a lot of farms are being covered up with large solar fields. And, uh, but there is other property sometimes adjacent that can't grow. Food isn't irrigated, doesn't have fodder on it for grazing. So, uh, one thing about this is that this does not deal with, does not affect anyone's private property rights. You can own the best farm land in the state, and you can still develop a solar project if you wish. We're just as a state, not going to incentivize that. So this does not disrupt any projects that are already in the process. So if you've already got a project going, this doesn't affect that. And, uh, and what this does add in addition to, uh, taking state incentives off of projects that are on productive farmland, grazing land, and those are defined by the Department of Agriculture in Utah, department of Agriculture and Food. Um, but it does require that, uh, they have a decommissioning plan like every other power plant in the state. So, Mr. Chair, that is the shortest presentation I can conceive of presenting. Last time I presented it, I probably took a whole hour, but I don't think you all needed another hour on this particular bill, but I'm happy to talk more. We thank you for your brevity. I will bring it back to the committee for any clarifying questions.

  5. Chair Peterson (presiding)51:58

     Representative Dominguez.

  6. Rep. Rosalba Dominguez52:02

     Thank you. It's the other, there We go. It's the other Thank you vice chair. Um, can I know I was a no vote in interim and was pre prior to that. Can you remind me if the incentives already have a Sunset date?

  7. Rep. Colin W. Jack52:18

     The incentives already do have a Sunset date. That was a separate bill that passed last year, Uhhuh. And so yeah, the incentives, all of the incentives are going away anyway, but this would just, while those incentives exist, it would just say that the state is not incentivizing replacing productive crop land and grazing land. Okay. But the other thing that will survive incentives will be the decommissioning requirements that, uh, that every other power plant already has.

  8. Rep. Rosalba Dominguez52:57

     Okay. Um, and, and my biggest concern along with that was the, I know we had farmers who came last year and spoke against this bill and they replaced solar, their farmland with solar. How does that play out in the future?

  9. Rep. Colin W. Jack53:17

     If somebody or somebody's family no longer is grazing, does it have to be sold to another farmer who wants to graze on that land or to sell their property instead of selling or replacing it with solar? What would be the action that happens if they no longer Wanted? So, I, I'm glad you asked that question. My recollection is that the farmers that came were in favor of the bill. But, but the underlying question is, is what if a farmer has no kids that wants to farm mm-hmm. And he just wants to sell the land and they put it in the solar. This does not prohibit any of that. This just, and let's say it's in some future date when the incentives are already gone anyway. Mm-hmm. The only thing that this would add was that you have to have a decommissioning plan for that new solar power plant, the same as if he sold it to a company to build a nuclear power plant.

  10. Rep. Rosalba Dominguez54:12

      Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Yeah. I appreciate it. Yeah. So it's important, I'm sorry. It's important to reiterate, to underline that this doesn't affect anybody's ability to do whatever they want with their private property. Thank you for that clarification.

  11. Chair Peterson (presiding)54:29speaker not certain

      Uh, seeing is that you?

  12. Unknown speaker54:35speaker not certain

      Hello? I was sitting here this morning, another committee, and the same thing happened. I don't know, Something, something's open. The lights up there. Mike doesn't work It to work, but, okay. Well, I hope what I have to say is important enough to waste time. It's all important. Uh, first I wanna state, I'm not on this committee during the interim, so I'm not familiar with this Bill. I'm, this is, I have a different assignment during the interim, But we did present it last year. Same Bill. Oh, well that's a long time ago. Uh, but what I, most of the things that I thinking about have been pointed out, and as Representative Watkins says, um, I know what she's talking about, because a few years ago, the legislature took a field trip down in that area and we saw them. One of the most striking photos I have are sheep grazing in between the rows of the solar panels. It was quite, you know, quite a thing to see, see that. But, um, and what you said about not ha it only takes a few people to to run it after that. Correct. You know, they have to move those. So my question is, how large are these subsidies and, um, incentives and will this make a big difference? You're saying they're Sunset eventually anyway. I mean, I hate to see people that have counted on them and have invested that, you know, it's going to, um, harm their investments. But I'd just like, if you have some background on that, you could explain it.

  13. Rep. Colin W. Jack56:14

      Yeah. Thank you for the question. So, uh, let me clarify 'cause I didn't do it well enough. This will not affect any programs that are in the pipeline. Any programs that are in the pipeline prior to this becoming law are grandfathered in under the existing program. And the state incentives, uh, probably won't affect many projects either. Uh, the big incentives are the federal incentives, which have been Sunset by the federal government, and if in fact those go away. Now we all know there's nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. But, um, if they in fact go away, uh, we had testimony this summer that you missed, but we had testimony this summer from some industry members that, that would in fact affect projects in the future. The federal subsidies, the state subsidies might be inconsequential. What I think besides trying to preserve farmland like we're doing here for however short term, uh, I think probably the important thing that will survive is having decommissioning plans so that, uh, when this power plant eventually wears down and needs to be removed, that there is a mechanism for that and people don't walk away and leave some blighted property. Thank you very much.

  14. Chair Peterson (presiding)57:55

      Thank you. Uh, seeing no other questions, is there anyone from the public that would like to speak to this? We have two individuals come forward. Uh, be sure to sign in and we'll give you thank you some time.

  15. Emy Lesofski, Director, Office of Energy Development (OED)58:12

      Hi. Hi. I just wanted to take a moment to say, um, thank you to Representative Jack for working hard to strike a balance between two very important activities, um, energy development and agriculture. And we look forward to working with them on this and energy development as we go forward. Thank you.

  16. Chair Peterson (presiding)58:28

      Thank you.

  17. Brandon Yardley, Beaver County Commissioner58:34

      Brandon Yardley, Beaver County Commissioner. Uh, I just wanna say thank you through the sponsor for working on this bill. We worked with him a lot last year to clean up some of the language and, uh, make sure we all understood the bill. Uh, Beaver County, as you know, we have lots of solar panels in the area. Um, and going forward, I think we, as we talked as a commission, we need to be more thoughtful and use that ground that is the alkali ground that doesn't grow five pounds of feed per acre. So there are places these solar panels do work and they're still beneficial, but we need to be more thoughtful and, and save that agricultural land. So, uh, and then also the decommissioning, um, part of this bill is very important. Um, when those people walk away, we've gotta make sure they, they put the land back the way that it was. And we try to do that through the conditional use process, but it's better if there's some, um, other ways to protect that as well. So thank you.

  18. Chair Peterson (presiding)59:34

      Thank you. Is there any comments online? All right. We'll bring it back to the committee for any committee Action. Let's see. Your Representative Brooks. Yeah.

  19. Rep. Walt Brooks59:51

      I'd make the motion that we pass HP 16 Solar Power Plan amendments out with a favorable recommendation.

  20. Chair Peterson (presiding)59:56

      That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  21. Rep. Walt Brooks59:58

      No, I waive. Alright.

  22. Chair Peterson (presiding)59:59

      We have a motion to pass out HB 16 with a favorable recommendation. Is there any committee discussion to the motion? Not seeing any will go to the sponsor.

  23. Rep. Colin W. Jack1:00:11

      Thank you. Uh, I would just summarize that I think, uh, I think this committee's taking the right action to pass this out for a third time. And, uh, and I'm a big believer the third time's the charm. Thank you.

  24. Chair Peterson (presiding)1:00:27

      Thank you for your diligence. We'll go back to the maker of the motion to sum. Thank you. All right. All those in favor of the motion to pass HB 16 solar plant solar power plant amendments out with a favorable recommendation. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Yes. No. Do we need to do roll call then? Or is that Representative Chew was a nay on that vote. Alright. I think that takes care of our business for the committee today.

  25. Chair Peterson (presiding)1:00:53

      With that, I'd entertain a final motion. Motion to adjourn. I have a motion to adjourn. Non debatable. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule That motion passes and we are adjourned.

• Jan 23, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (31 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker41:44speaker not certain

     Third reading calendar, House bill 16 Solar Power Plant Amendments by Representative Jack. This bill was served in public utilities with a vote of 10. One one Representative discussion to the bill.

  2. Rep. Colin W. Jack42:08

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro Tem, I'd like to present.

  3. Speaker (presiding)42:11

     Oh, go ahead. Thank you, Representative Jack, would you like to present?

  4. Rep. Colin W. Jack42:15

     If I would, if I could thank you. So, uh, I would, I think first, like to move amendment number one in my name, Mr. Speaker ProAm, if this is the right time to do that.

  5. Speaker (presiding)42:32

     I'm sorry, Representative Jack, go ahead.

  6. Rep. Colin W. Jack42:34

     Say again. Uh, I would like to start by a moving amendment number one in my name to would you like to HB 16? And I would speak to that. Thank you. This is, uh, this is, if you, if you looked at the amendment online, it's uh, three numbers that got changed. So the original three numbers came from, uh, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which is a, a national group. And, and that's what we had, uh, managed in the bill. The new numbers come to us from Utah's Public Lands Council and Utah State University, Dr. E Eric Thacker, uh, who, uh, have the Utah perspective on grazing and, uh, how much, uh, we can feed horses and cattle and things. Here in Utah. We get more beef on less grazing than other states. Anyway, that is the amendment. Thank

  7. Speaker (presiding)43:33

     You, Representative Jack. Representative Jack moves to adopt amendment number one. Is there discussion to the motion? Seeing none, Representative Jack for summation.

  8. Rep. Colin W. Jack43:41

     Thank you. I'll wa I place a motion to adopt amendment number one.

  9. Speaker (presiding)43:44

     All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries the bill's. Amended Representative Jack.

  10. Rep. Colin W. Jack43:50

      Thank you. So the amended bill, uh, I apologize you've all heard this one. Uh, but we, we passed it in this body last year, the Senate, we passed it out a committee. And, uh, when we talked about bills that died on the third reading calendar at midnight, I'm the number one loser from last session. And that the next bill would've been this one and then you wouldn't have all had to hear it again. However, uh, what this bill does to refresh your memory, 'cause you may have slept since then, is this bill comes to us from the good folks who raise our food. And I love food as much or more than anybody. And so what we are seeing though in the state of Utah is we have places that are adequate and good to grow crops and to graze, uh, feed animals. And we have a fair amount of land that is not good to grow crops or feed animals. However, we're seeing very large square mile solar generators come in and cover up crop land and grazing land. And that's their right to do with, uh, private property or they pay the TLA fees. That's their right to take our food crops away. However, the state offers incentives on these solar fields, these generators. And what this bill does is it simply says the state will offer incentives. So our money, our constituents money to help pay for those solar generators. If they're not located and displacing crops and grazing, then they get the state incentives. We can't control where the federal government incentivizes, but for state incentives, we will remove incentives for crop land, grazing land. Uh, and then one other little provision, you, you might point out, well, those incentives are going away anyway, and they are, we passed that last session. They're phasing out. But even after the incent, the state incentives go away. The part that will still be relevant after this year or whenever the the phase out finishes will be the reclamation part or returning the land back to normal. A reclamation plan in any other power plant, whether it's one of our coal plants or some new someday nuclear plant, we will expect those power plants to have a reclamation program in place before they build it. This will require the same thing for large solar generating plants. And with that, Mr. Speaker pro tem, I am open to any questions you may have.

  11. Speaker (presiding)46:58

      Thank you Representative Jack Discussion to the bill Representative Cutler.

  12. Rep. Paul A. Cutler47:03

      Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm, will the sponsor yield to questions

  13. Rep. Colin W. Jack47:06

      Sponsor Yield? Yes, I will. Go Ahead. Uh,

  14. Rep. Paul A. Cutler47:09

      recently the water commission heard, my understanding is they heard some interesting information about floating solar, uh, installations that are often used in other places. Is there anything in this bill that would discourage experimentation with floating solar installations?

  15. Rep. Colin W. Jack47:27

      Uh, thank you for the question. Mr. Speaker Pro tem? No, this bill would not affect that because, uh, big lakes, uh, are not adequate crop land or grazing land.

  16. Rep. Paul A. Cutler47:41

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I stand in support. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

  17. Speaker (presiding)47:45

      Good discussion to the bill representative. Dominic, go ahead.

  18. Rep. Rosalba Dominguez47:57

      Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker pro tem. Um, I rise, um, indifferent about this bill. One of my main concerns and I, um, I've gone back and forth in regards to this bill, but the main concern I have is the rights to property owners and what they do with their land. Um, yes, we are wanting to keep grazing land and farmland available, but at the end of the day, my concern still sticks of what happens to the land after a family or an owner doesn't want to use the land and finds incentives or opportunities to, um, to make income on solar. So again, I I raise an indifference of this bill. Thank you.

  19. Speaker (presiding)48:42

      Thank you, Representative Dominguez. Further discussion to the bill Representative Romero.

  20. Rep. Angela Romero48:46

      Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, a question for the sponsor. Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Go Ahead. I just have a question 'cause I know like our incentives are phasing out in 2028, so why does the sponsor think we need this bill?

  21. Rep. Colin W. Jack49:03

      Thank you for that question, Mr. Speaker. Pro tem. Excellent question, because this bill does protect projects that are in the queue. So you can say, well, the project's in the queue, it'll get the incentives before they phase out. What, what need is this? What need is this is that, uh, after the incentives are gone and, and as my friend pointed out, that's a few years away, but after the incentives are gone, what will survive and what will still be current are the, are the reclamation requirements in this bill. So just like a coal fired plant or a nuclear plant or a natural gas plant has to have a plan when it's built and a fund to reclaim the land. Uh, that will bring that requirement to also solar generators, which have a, an actually a much larger footprint than any other kind of generation. And so this, uh, this brings back that land to where it was before it started. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro temp.

  22. Speaker (presiding)50:10

      Thank you Representative Romero. Further discussion to the bill Representative Shelley?

  23. Rep. Jack Shelley50:16

      Yes, I want to rise in support of this. I, I know early on there was concern that it would, uh, step on private property rights. I think the, uh, sponsor has done a great job of saying, look, uh, people are still free to use private property. They just can't implement, uh, um, tax incentives on farmable land, but there's plenty of land that is not farmable. And, uh, and so I think he's threaded the needle very well in making sure that private property rights are still intact, but the, uh, the state accomplishes its goal to make sure that we preserve our, our food security. Thank you.

  24. Speaker (presiding)50:54

      Thank you, Representative Shelley. See no further lights Representative Jack for summation.

  25. Rep. Colin W. Jack50:59

      Yes, thank you. And I have very much appreciated your questions and, and I'm sorry. As an engineer, I try to explain things, but I may not be able to get into the weeds. But what we've done here as stated is we're protecting private property rights while protecting food and grazing production. Yes, you have private property, right? Do whatever you want on your property, uh, but if it's grazing and farmland, the state doesn't necessarily have to incentivize taking that out of production. You can take it outta production. We're just not incentivizing that so that hopefully we don't come to the day where we're buying all of our food from China. So, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll

  26. Speaker (presiding)51:49

      Thank you. Representative Jack voting is open on house bill 16 solar power plant amendments all present, seeing all president having voted voting will be closed house bill 16, having received 61 yay votes and eight nay votes passes, the house will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration. Representative Walter,

  27. Rep. R. Neil Walter53:14

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move that we lift House Bill 55, privacy comp, privacy compliance for education technology vendors from the consent calendar and place it at the bottom of the third reading calendar.

  28. Speaker (presiding)53:25

      Thank you, Representative Walter Moves that house Bill 55 be lifted from the house, consent calendar and be placed at the bottom of the house. Third reading calendar. Would like to speak to it?

  29. Rep. R. Neil Walter53:34

      Yes. Uh, thank you. When we adopted this bill and committee, we uh, there was an amendment to the bill. The bill had no fiscal note. Um, we found out later that, that we do actually have a fiscal note because of the amendment, which is the reason for moving it to the house. Third, reading

  30. Speaker (presiding)53:49

      Calendar. Thank you Representative Walter. The motion is to lift house bill 55 from consent place at the bottom of the house. Third reading calendar. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Say no. Motion carries. The bill will be moved. Representative Teuscher.

  31. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher54:04

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move

• Jan 30, 2026 Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (46 turns)

  1. Rep. Colin W. Jack1:31:10

     Uh, and I apologize that you're hearing this bill for the second year in a row. Uh, we, this, this bill was the number one loser on the Senate third reading calendar last year. It was the very next, when midnight struck. So just because some of you have slept since we last heard this bill. I don't, I don't think I have. But, um, what we're doing here is just we're trying to preserve adequate grazing land and farm food production land. And in this particular instance is dealing with when we have very large solar generators come in and they cover maybe a square mile of land or whatever, and we're not dealing with any property rights, personal property rights. They can do whatever they want with their personal property. What we're dealing with is state funds. What should the state incentivize? We can't even deal with what will the federal government incentivize. But state funds we're saying state funds should go to these projects. If they build in an area, like we have a ton of area in the, in the state that is mineral soil that is not grazing nor farmland. But if it is grazing in farmland, then state funds would not go to that project. Nothing to do with private property. They do whatever they want, nothing to do with federal funds. And that, that is the short presentation of the bill. Just by way of remembering. And I have an amendment two, Mr. Chair, that I will need to, I will need to move. Yep. So amendment two, simply what it did is, uh, if you look at the bill file, it has, um, you'll see it was a committee bill. Uh, this year, this interim it passed, uh, through the committee, but on the house of the floor, the house floor, we amended it to incorporate some recommendations from Utah State. We had, in the original bill, we had recommendations from the federal government for grazing land definition. Utah State said, huh, well, Utah wishes we had that. So in Utah State, they said, uh, the grazing land is actually a little more sparse. So we updated that. So having updated it since it was a committee, bill that removes lines for through six, otherwise the bill is unchanged. So that's amendment two. Okay. Thank you. Um,

  2. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)1:33:58

     Senator Winterton, motion to move the amendment. So moved. Okay. Discussion to the motion to adopt amendment two, saying none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you. Kate, does that conclude your presentation?

  3. Rep. Colin W. Jack1:34:15

     Yeah, so that's the amendment and I've already spoken to the underlying bill and that was simply a refresher. Happy to answer any questions the committee has, if they want more details than they want me to talk more about it. Thank you To the committee.

  4. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)1:34:30

     Senator IP or, uh, Winterton?

  5. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:34:32

     Yeah, I just had a question as you're talking, what if, uh, I know you're trying to protect the ag land. What if, uh, the solar Farm is above the ground where they can still use it for grazing? Does that still eliminate state incentives on that if they haven't changed the purpose of the land there?

  6. Rep. Colin W. Jack1:34:58

     Um, this, this doesn't address that particular case because, um, what we've addressed here is, is taking Farm Blanding grazing land out of production. Okay. So multi-use in that case is not addressed here. Okay. But, but, And since The land didn't change in purpose in that if you did a, a project like this, it would still qualify because we have to change the grazing on it. Yes. Thank you for that question. So this, that this is being administered through the Office of Energy Development, so they would make that determination in conjunction with the folks at UDAF.

  7. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:35:46

     Okay. Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

  8. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)1:35:50

     Senator Kwan?

  9. Sen. Karen Kwan1:35:51

     Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, on lines 1 33 through 1 38. Um, so these are some, um, uh, permits that a, a person, uh, i, I would assume an owner, uh, landowner would need to receive before constructing a solar power plant. And I'm just wondering if this is consistent language with any other types of construction.

  10. Rep. Colin W. Jack1:36:25

      Yes. Thank you, Senator. So the, the, uh, the intention here was to put the permits in the hands of the local governing authority. And so the intention is to, uh, as the drafting attorney made this, was to put the same things here that would be in any other project. And so if we've discovered that there were some order of operation error, then we would fix that with the drafting attorney.

  11. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)1:36:59

      Thank you. Thank you. Senator Riebe.

  12. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe1:37:03

      Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm looking on line 55, as said, a solar plant that is permitted after May 6th, 2026 is not eligible to receive state incentives. If the soil where the project is located is prime farmland, farmland, statewide importance. So if I own prime farmland and I am struggling as a farm to make ends meet, and I'd like to supplement my income by putting a solar plant there, I can't receive any state incentives because we've decided in the state that I can't get that. Is that what this bill does?

  13. Rep. Colin W. Jack1:37:43

      So if, if you own prime farmland and you want to develop it into a solar generation plant, you absolutely can do that. You can get all the federal subsidies. We just would not subsidize it through the state.

  14. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe1:38:02

      Okay. But If I, and probably on a relative scale, it would be insignificant to you. Yeah. But, um, if I wanted to take that land and sell it and build condos and take away that farmland, there's nothing prevent me from doing that. This, this bill does not address any of that. No, it doesn't. But like, I still want the farmland, so wouldn't I wanna incentivize people to keep their farmland instead of just being like, I can't make ends meet here. I mean, I struggle with telling somebody what they can and can't do with their land. So,

  15. Rep. Colin W. Jack1:38:29

      Well, this is not telling 'em what they can and can't do. Oh. It's just not giving them the incentive. It's just telling the state what we should and shouldn't do with our money.

  16. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe1:38:38speaker not certain

      Hmm. Okay. Thank you.

  17. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)1:38:43

      Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay, lemme go to the public. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to address this? If Okay. We have three representative, if you'll jump out of the chair, and if you'll come to, we'll come up and one of you take the seat and, and identify yourself. And if you're within the organization, go ahead.

  18. Conner Peterson, Director, Legislative and Government Affairs, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food1:39:04

      My name, my name is Connor Peterson with the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. And we just wanted to thank the sponsor. We worked with him on some of the definitions on what constitutes, uh, prime farmland and are grateful for his, uh, willingness to work with us. And, and thank him for this.

  19. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)1:39:18

      Thank you. Okay, go ahead.

  20. Cindy Butler, resident1:39:21

      My name is Cindy Butler, my husband and I Spence, my husband Spence and I farm and ranch in Millard and Juab counties. We've had pre privately owned and leased acreages as well as state and federal grazing permits. My solar farm experience was with Creekstone Energy, who leased 9,000 acres of sit lift parcels, which are commingled with federal and private acres in our Millard County Oak City Grazing allotment. This allotment is one of the better allotments. The cows come home fat from this allotment. In fact, within the last four years, a couple of permits in the allotment sold for more money than any of the long-term grazers thought possible, thereby increasing the value of everyone's permits. In order to perfect their solar lease, Creekstone had to receive a zone change from Millard County to remove the acreage from agricultural. Fortunately, fortunately, our commissioners headed heated the concerns of grazers and the community and denied the zone change only to be resubmitted. In a year's time, I'm sure had this solar zone change been allowed, the same grazing permits would've been worthless. I suppose it could have been said. These permits would have been, would've borne the cost in any solar incentives that might have been awarded today. These same permits remain in jeopardy due to a possible change in county commissioners with the next election. However, house Bill 16 could cause creek stone's current investors to lose interest in this lease between 2002 and 2022, Utah lost 1.2 million acres of farmland. I'm sure a sizable amount was to residential use. Every acre of production, grazing and farmland swallows is swallowed by Solar Farms, reduces our state's ability to provide for its residents. As I see it, solar farms are investors looking for the next investors on a single use land. Farmers and ranchers are also investors and stewards of our agricultural lands. Looking out for generations to come on multi-use lands. I would ask that you move this bill forward and thanks Senator Jack.

  21. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)1:41:34

      Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Butler, did you wanna speak to come on up?

  22. Spence Butler, resident1:41:46

      Uh, my name's Spence Butler. We're lived down in Lumberton. I'm president of, uh, Oak City Desert Grazers, and I do want to answer a couple of questions that you had. Go ahead. One in particular about the private land. I don't think we should be dictating too much to private land people other than that. Hopefully they will do what's best for the communities around them and not, uh, take away too much from their neighbors. So that, that's something that needs to be talked about. Um, I was a beet digger for two weeks in 1968 before I moved to Fillmore. And I've been in the cattle business. I bought my first cow in 1971. Uh, I, we, my wife and I, we own about 4,000 acres of private land and we run on a lot of state land, which is intermingled with us, and also BLM land Forest service too. I don't post our land. I've never hung up with no trespassing sign in my life. The public is as welcome on my land as they are on state lands For the rest. We defeated a 9,000 acre solar farm outside of Delta, between Delta and Oak City Prime grazing land for the winter. Uh, there's 12 different Cs on it sub and we run approximately three to 400 cows on it. We compromised and they moved it to a lesser area. State lands that did not have the opportunity that these state lands have or equestrian hunting, uh, you name it, people just use it all the time. And we're most of the ranches and farmers order for multiple use. That's what we want. Uh, Millard County's growing good deal. This bill, it's gonna make it easier for the commissioners. And they had a hard time, they got, went our direction because it was prime ground and didn't zone that for the solar and moved to this other area. I think it was great. And I think this would help the commissioners go that same route. Well, this is too good of a piece to do that. Let's put it over here. Well, that works fine. So let's move it to non-productive areas if we're gonna have to do it. I, I'm totally against, uh, altogether, but we, we got a compromise on things. We got nuclear coming, we're ready for it down there. Why take, uh, there's creek stones. She's talking about, they're advertising 30,000 acres right next to the allotment that we denied 'em on. Well, let's put in five acres of nuke and save that 30,000 for the public. Uh, I think this bill goes a long ways to, it's not good enough yet, but we gotta move. We baby steps. We gotta keep things going. Uh, I usually don't like doing things that take over five minutes. If it takes over five minutes, I don't wanna mess with it. I'm a I'm a sledgehammer guy, so I appreciate your time. Um, I don't see very many people in here that's older than I am. I'm 71 or 73. Excuse me. Yeah, I know it. And, and I think, uh, Senator Rebe, I think you've done your homework. I feel pretty good about your decisions and I, I haven't talked to the others too much, but I, I think you're going to, hopefully you do the right thing and thank you very much. And I also want to thank Jack, Jack. Okay. Thank you very much. Don't leave.

  23. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)1:45:34

      I think we've got a question. Senator Vibi. Oh, excuse me.

  24. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe1:45:36

      Well, it's not really a question. I mean, I, I, as I look at this bill, I'm very concerned about open spaces. I, I, I look at what's happening in the state of Utah and I'm, I wanna keep all of our grazing land in our farmland available, but it makes me nervous that if someone is struggling on their land, that they can't make ends of meet, that they're like, forget it. We'll just sell it if I can't do what I want on it. And that's why I'm a little concerned about saying

  25. Spence Butler, resident1:45:58speaker not certain

      what we can and cannot do on your land. Well, I I don't think the farmer's going broke. He don't have much choice. Yeah. Um, like if it's just a, uh, I would probably agree with it on that, but I don't think this will affect them.

  26. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe1:46:13speaker not certain

      Okay. Uh, because there are private angels do individuals doing that, but like you said, we're talking about public spaces.

  27. Spence Butler, resident1:46:21speaker not certain

      Yeah. I know the state, it's private ground, but it's still multiple use. Yep. Yes. And it's just not the grazers. Yeah.

  28. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe1:46:27

      Well, I, I would, I would prefer that we did our solar farms on places that weren't so arable and so, uh, lush for cows and grazing. Um, but I, I I, I, I nervous that like, somebody that can't make ends meet would just be like, well, we're justly. Absolutely. So that Was my concern. That is a concern. Yeah. I wanna keep our, I wanna keep our farm first. I wanna keep our land for farming and grazing. Well, Thank you for that. Yeah. So that was my concern when I asked that question.

  29. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe1:46:52speaker not certain

      And I, I think you asked a question about grazing under solars.

  30. Spence Butler, resident1:46:55

      I've never seen it. Uh, they talk about magging, the roads to keep the dust down because in our area it's quite dusty. If you've been to Millard County, the wind blows and, uh, well, once they mag them roads, it's over. That ground is not gonna grow No grass ever. Yeah. And that sterilizes everything, that wipes it out. So I, I'm very skeptical about being able to graze in the shade cows. They need the open space. So,

  31. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)1:47:22

      Okay. Thank you. Thank You. And, and all I can say Mr. Butler is, as it sounded like you lasted as long in harvesting beets as I did one season. Well, that was long enough. I love the game in Buffalo. Thank you. Thank you very, thank you very much. We have, oh, we've got two online. We'll go to Aaron Sorenson first and then Peter Greathouse. If you'll turn your camera and microphone on, please proceed.

  32. Erin Sorenson, Chair, Millard County Planning and Zoning, President, Millard County Farm Bureau1:47:53

      Okay. Can you see me? Yes, go ahead. Thank you. So my name's Aaron Sorenson, and I serve as the Millard County Planning and Zoning Chairman. I'm also the Millard County Farm Bureau President. I'm here to speak in support of HV 16 as a necessary correction to how state incentives are currently influencing our land use decisions in the county. Both agriculture and energy are essential industries. They're critical to our economy. Even our food, uh, supply is dependent on upon energy. And so I understand that and I value it and, and the role it plays in our quality of life. So this isn't a debate about solar over ag. It's about how state incentives are structured and how the unintended, the unintended consequences that they can create. When the state provides financial incentives for solar development on productive ag lands, it materially alters those markets. So those incentives change lease rates and the expected returns on that land giving one industry a state backed financial advantage over another. And so ag is then forced to compete not only with market forces, but also with subsidized alternatives. This issue is particularly important in counties like Millard. Most of our ground here is public agriculture operates on that land with a multiple use framework. And I really appreciate Cindy and Spence that in fact, I was in a public hearing a month ago and someone came to talk about that exact solar project that they were referencing. And they said, I've driven out to this project site and nobody's doing anything there. And the reality is, is actually there's a lot of activity going on out there. It's just being managed so well that no one knows that they're there. And farmers use a multiple use framework that maintains grazing, stewardship, water management, and wildlife habitat for time. Producers compete for public land leases in an open market while preserving the long-term productivity of the resource. So I like to think of ag as a savings account for those assets. It's not something that depletes the ground. It's actually something that, um, maintains it add a financial benefit to the state for managing that resource. In the long term, um, utility skill, uh, solar fundamentally alters that asset. It removes, uh, while removal of those panels may be technically possible in practice, these projects remove land from agricultural production for decades. They also limit the multiple use benefit the public lands provide distinction matters when we're talking about public. HB 16 does not prohibit solar development and it doesn't pick winners. Instead, it realigns incentive with land capability directing state support towards lower productivity land and away from unintended displacement of working agriculture. I do not want to, uh, you today to take away options from farmers. Um, my own parents from Mars and ranchers have had to sell when health things have come up or do, um, you know, different development of their property. So I understand that concern personally. However, I would also say that we're not talking about removing that potential from them. We're just talking about removing the state incentive element from that. And, um, I, in regards to solar, while it should be allowed to operate, if it can, I don't know that the state should be incentivizing it. And so I almost agree with Mr. Butler that I'm not sure this bill even goes far enough for me, but I think it's a good start. And I also want to speak in support of the amendment. I think you've already approved it, but I think at that more correctly reflects the actual nature of our grazing land here. So thank you so much for your time, and IE urge you to support the bill.

  33. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)1:51:25

      Thank you. Mr. Greathouse.

  34. Peter Greathouse, resident1:51:29

      Yes. Uh, thank you. My name's Peter Greathouse. Um, and I contacted, sent, or Representative Jack about doing something like this several years ago. And he was kind enough to talk with me, reach out to other people and draft this bill. And I think it's actually quite a good bill. Um, like others have said, I don't think it goes far enough for me, but it is a step in the right direction. And so I appreciate that. Um, he mentioned large cell scale solar farms. What we, Spence and uh, Aaron have talked about here was 30,000 acres. Put that in perspective. That's roughly 47 square miles that they're talking about putting into solar farms in Millard County. For this one project, I think Salt Lake City is roughly 54 square miles. So you can kind of see how large this is and the, the detrimental effects it will have to the local environment. Um, this bill, I think removing those incentives makes people look a little closer when they're developing them and saying, is this really worthwhile? Um, and then it also gives the locals a little fallback to push back against projects and say, wait just a minute. Let's slow down. Let's not rush into this. Um, and I think that's one important thing about this bill as well, is it establishes some protocols and some things that need to be done, um, when these solar farms are coming up and being discussed. And that's, that's important especially to small communities that don't have attorneys and a planning and zoning commission or whatever to fall back on. And so this provides more protections for them as well, and protects those small communities, um, communities. I know a lot of you are from the Wasatch front and it's now wall to wall people, but it didn't used to be that way. You used to have a lot of agricultural ground. Um, Utah County, Salt Lake County, Davis, Weber County used to have huge swaths of land. But most of that's disappeared now. And if we remove those incentives for solar, it allows that agriculture to continue and to flourish longer. It doesn't stop the development. Um, but it removes, uh, it allows farmers to continue a little bit longer in the current situation. Um, trying to remember some of the questions or things that you brought up. But, um, I would like to see, I know throughout the country, agriculture's facing just a crisis. We're losing huge amounts of land across the country, and it's been brought up that Utah's no different in that regard. Uh, but two of the biggest culprits are, uh, solar farms and the data centers that are coming, and they're taking up huge amounts of land. During COVID crisis, we, we policymakers spoke a lot about the need to protect agriculture and the need to have the local food, but in a few short years, we've forgotten that and we don't talk about that anymore. And instead, we're rushing off. We want to develop these data centers. We want to develop more energy, but we're ignoring agriculture. And I think this bill helps correct some of that, and we need to keep protecting the agriculture. Um, so, so I'll, I'll leave my comments there, but thank you very much for allowing me to speak.

  35. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)1:55:47

      Okay. Thank you. Our last one will be go. Oh, Deborah Vannoy. Go ahead. Turn your microphone on.

  36. Deborah Van Noy, Board Treasurer/Secretary, Utah Agricultural and Land Trust1:56:04

      Hello. Can everyone hear me okay? There you Go. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, uh, to members of the Senate Transportation and Public Utilities Committee, and thank you to Senator Hinkins and Representative Jack for sponsoring HB 16. My name is Deborah Vannoy and I'm a board member of Utah Agricultural Land Trust. We help, uh, Utah farmers and ranchers protect their land for, uh, continued agricultural operations. The rapid introduction, uh, into Utah's solar projects on ag lands has been alarming. Uh, farmers and ranchers who would like to expand their farming operation cannot compete with entities buying the land for development or other developers seeking lease agreements on solar projects, uh, on neighboring ag land. Uh, we support the removal of the subsidies in Utah for solar, as it clearly has led to these companies coming into our state and entering into agreements for solar farms from southern Utah. Clear to the northern counties of cash and Box Elder agriculture is important, uh, here in Utah. It's an important economic driver as well as a cultural hallmark of our state. Uh, agriculture even supports the natural environment through groundwater replenishment and wildlife habitat. We don't yet know solar's impact on soil and wildlife, although many fear that it is very damaging. Solar becomes one more challenge to agriculture in Utah, taking its place alongside residential subdivisions and commercial data centers. The irony, uh, is that leaders at the federal level, uh, ag Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr, are now advocating for local, fresh produce, dairy, and even protein. And the public is responding. Young people are drawn to the land and want to participate even in the urban areas. All Americans are eager now to get access to the local fair. Let's not incentivize loss of farm and ranch land, but encourage agriculture and help our ag producers feed Utahans and all of America within in-state produce dairy and protein for their families to enjoy. Let's save our agricultural sector and in the process help improve the health of all Americans. Let Utah's ag producers be part of that solution every decade. Utah's losing 500,000 acres of productive farmland. Protecting what remains is so important. Thank you so much for the opportunity to share my comments.

  37. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)1:58:53

      Thank you. We'll take it back to the committee and in public comment. Senator Riebe.

  38. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe1:58:59

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, as a Farm Bureau member, are you guys farm Bureau members? $72. You can be a lifelong farm member. Salt Lake. Salt Lake County. No, I'm, I'm wearing Farm Farm Bureau socks today. I have Farm Bureau socks too. And I think you should all join the Farm Bureau because I met some really great Salt Lake County farmers, which, like I said this morning seems like an oxymoron statement, but we do have farmers here too, and we really appreciate what they're doing.

  39. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe1:59:22

      So, uh, I would like to send HB 16 solar panel plant amendments out with a recommendation to the full Senate Discussion. That motion saying none represented for summation.

  40. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe1:59:34

      Thank you. I'll just close with 39 years ago, I got out of college.

  41. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)1:59:39

      Oh, wait a second. We're not gonna have a 39 year timeline. Are we? 'cause Just kidding. Yeah, we only got One minute. It, it's only 30. It's only 39 years.

  42. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe1:59:48

      No, but I Uintah work right outta college at the rural electric co-ops. And I've been serving the farm in ag areas for the last 39 years. And food may be more important to me than most anybody else, but we all depend on it. And, and I, and I appreciate your support on this bill.

  43. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)2:00:07

      Thank you. Senator Riebe for summation. Waive All in favor. Passing out, uh, house bill 16 to the as amended to the floor of the Senate. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? I'll rule that passes unanimously.

  44. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe2:00:21

      Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee.

  45. Sen. Wayne A. Harper (presiding)2:00:23

      Senator Riebe. Thank you. All in favor of chairman, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We are adjourned.

  46. Unknown speaker2:00:33speaker not certain

      Thank You so much.

• Feb 5, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (19 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker46:00speaker not certain

     And replace it with first or first substitute house bill. 16.

  2. Senate President (presiding)46:05

     Thank you. That motion's in order. Do you want to explain any of the changes, Senator?

  3. Sen. David P. Hinkins46:11

     Uh, it was just requested by the house sponsor that there was some issues and so, uh, some of it was just like verbiage that was needed to be changed.

  4. Senate President (presiding)46:23

     Thank you. We have a motion to substitute Seeing Nick Looking for discussion. Seeing none. Gonna place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rollup motion passes. The bill is substituted to the bill. Senator.

  5. Sen. David P. Hinkins46:37

     Uh, thank you. Uh, as we know, there's been a lot of solar projects coming into the state and it, it happened all at once and so there wasn't a lot of, uh, stipulations and a lot of our agricultural land that were spending money to try to keep agricultural land in, uh, place here in Utah for food and fiber. And so this allows us to be able to, uh, and there's a lot of, uh, areas in our state that this, that is a good place for solar projects that's somewhat wasteland, that's not agricultural based. And so this is, uh, a bill that kind of, uh, takes the incentives away to do their, uh, on, on uh, agricultural land. And so with that, uh, I'm open to questions.

  6. Senate President (presiding)47:36

     Thank you for the presentation. We discussion of the bill. Senator Blue.

  7. Sen. Nate Blouin47:41

     Thank you President. Um, the sponsor Yield to a question. Of course.

  8. Sen. David P. Hinkins47:44

     Senator Hinkins, will you yield? Of Course. Thank you.

  9. Sen. Nate Blouin47:47

     Um, I'm wondering if similar restrictions on private property rights exist for folks that are looking to develop natural gas, other fossil fuels, coal mining projects, anything of that nature.

  10. Senate President (presiding)47:57

      Senator Hinkins, go

  11. Sen. David P. Hinkins47:59

      Ahead. Thanks for the question. We don't do incentives for natural gas exploration like we do for solar plants.

  12. Senate President (presiding)48:06

      Thank you. Okay. Further discussion. Say no discussion. Senator Vickers, I'll return to you call the question. Thank you. And the question is, shall first substitute House bill 16? Be read a third time. Roll call vote. Senator Vickers. Baldy Lewin. Senator Blouin, Thank you.

  13. Sen. Nate Blouin48:26

      I'm, I'm concerned as we talk about being in all of the above energy state. You know, we just heard that this sort of restriction does not exist for other forms of energy. Uh, this is discriminatory against a single form here and I think it's, uh, a violation of private property rights for folks who are trying to make money off of property that they own, uh, regardless of the other conditions. So I'm a no.

  14. Unknown speaker48:48

      Senator Vickers, Brammer Bus Cullimore Escamia Gilmore. Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson. K Juab McKay. Mikel Aye. Milner Musman Owens Pitcher. Plum Rebi. Sandal Stevenson. Stratton Vickers. Byler Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye.

  15. Senate President (presiding)49:54

      Senator Bus? Aye. President Adams Aye. On two First substitute house bill 16. Having received 21 yay votes seven nay votes, one being absent. Pass what shall be read a third time now. Senator Sandall for a motion. Thank

  16. Sen. Scott D. Sandall50:13

      You. Um, motion to table, uh, first substitute house bill 16. Uh, the fiscal note has not cut up with the first substitute yet. Table on third.

  17. Senate President (presiding)50:25

      Thank you. Motion to table on third. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Roll. That motion passes first. Substitute to house bill 16 will be tabled on third. I think that concludes our work for the day. So, Senator Fillmore, any announcements that you'd like to make?

  18. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore50:44

      Senator Fillmore, Mr. President, there will be a rules committee Meeting in the rules room Immediately after we recess the rules committee meeting immediately after we recess. Uh, other announcements.

  19. Senate President (presiding)50:56

      Senator Cullimore announcements and emotion.

• Feb 18, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (34 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker4:52speaker not certain

     It was just, uh, some verbiage, uh, some language changes. Uh, it's not very, very much. It's just a few, uh, changes in the wording of it.

  2. President Adams (presiding)5:04

     Okay. Thank you for that explanation. I'm also noting the fiscal note on the substitute is zero, so we have discussion on the motion to substitute, uh, saying none. I will go, I'll place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Roll The motion passes as the bill is substitute. Any explanation on the bill? Senator?

  3. Sen. David P. Hinkins5:24

     Uh, yeah. This bill is, uh, established critical, uh, for the state incentives that has, if it's on, uh, farmland, it's, uh, raises a certain amount of produce or vegetation, and then also it requires the wildlife impact consultation to make sure that we're not impacting wildlife in the areas that they're putting these as well as, uh, uh, what we do with the reclamation of them. And so with that, I'm open to questions, Looking for discussion on the bill.

  4. President Adams (presiding)6:00

     Senator Blue and you up? Yes. Go ahead, Senator.

  5. Sen. Nate Blouin6:04

     Thank you. I'm, uh, reading this bill more closely than I did earlier. I think we were looking, we were talking about incentives, uh, and how they were tied to this bill, uh, when it comes to crops and farmlands. But my, my reading of it right now, I'm looking at this line 1, 1 35 on 54 dash 17 dash 1205. Um, does that in, does that apply to any solar plant that is being constructed anywhere in the state? Regardless of, uh, the, the level of incentives that are giving

  6. Sen. David P. Hinkins6:39

     Gives more, uh, go ahead. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. It gives more, uh, of the, what they can do at, at a local level, uh, with the counties. And so basically it would be up to them on how they, uh, determine it.

  7. Sen. Nate Blouin6:57

     Thank you. But just to be specific, that would apply to any plant that is being constructed, not just something that is being given state incentives. Correct?

  8. Sen. David P. Hinkins7:05

     Well, the incentives are, uh, out there if they're on, uh, land, that's not, uh, of much value other than for solar pe, uh, where if they're agricultural and, uh, or, uh, wildlife habitat, it has, it falls under different scrutinies.

  9. President Adams (presiding)7:26

     Yeah. Senator, Senator Blouin, go

  10. Sen. Nate Blouin7:29

      Ahead. Sure. I, I don't, I don't think I'm hearing the answer to the question. What I'm, I'm, I guess that to be very specific. I mean, my concern is that this bill is now touching every single solar plant that is being constructed in the state. Is that correct?

  11. President Adams (presiding)7:40

      Senator Hinkins?

  12. Sen. David P. Hinkins7:42

      Uh, no, it's not, not really correct. Every solar plant, it's just the ones that are being put on, uh, useful ground. So the mine 1 35 on does not apply to just anything. It's just only the ones that are applying for incentives, uh, on farmlands. Is that,

  13. Sen. Nate Blouin8:03

      Are you looking at, uh, Mr. President, but he says 1 35, all that says is section five, section 54 17 12 0 5. Is that correct?

  14. President Adams (presiding)8:14

      So I Ahead Senator Cullimore balloon. Yeah. On

  15. Sen. Chris Cullimore8:16

      the second substitute. So everything in the, in the second substitute from line 1 35 on, to me that looks like, or I guess from 1 35 to 1 56, uh, that to me, maybe I'm not going back into the statute and and interpreting everything, but, uh, it, it seems like that would apply to every new constructed solar plant, uh, regardless of, of incentives or where it's being built. It seems like that would apply to everything that is, uh, out there for, for new construction. Was that on Mr. President? Uh, go ahead. On line 1 56. Now the documentation required, Um, so I'm just reading through, a person may not construct a solar power plant without first applying and receiving from the governing body of the appropriate Loa local jurisdiction. I mean, just all of that. It doesn't seem like that is attached to, uh, the question about whether we should be subsidizing or incentivizing these developments on farmlands. It seems like that's applying to anyone who wants to build a solar plant anywhere in the state.

  16. President Adams (presiding)9:17

      Senator Hankins?

  17. Sen. David P. Hinkins9:18

      Uh, I I, I'm not catching the line that, what line is it that you're talking about? 1 5, 1 55. 1 35 0 1 35 1 1 35 5 first may not construct a solar plant without first applying for and receiving from a government body. And that's mostly local jurisdiction that gives it to the counties to make their discretion of what's viable and not viable.

  18. Sen. Nate Blouin9:43

      Senator Blouin, But on so on every single solar plant, though, not just to work? I

  19. Sen. David P. Hinkins9:48

      Would assume so, yes.

  20. Sen. Nate Blouin9:49

      Okay. Thank you. That answered my question. I think that is extremely concerning. I don't know if you've had industry input or not, but I think having to go to every single local jurisdiction where they want to construct a plant would be highly burdensome. I don't think other industries have to deal with that in the same ways, uh, in many cases. So I'm, I'm very, uh, even more opposed to this bill now than I was earlier.

  21. President Adams (presiding)10:11

      Further discussion to the bill. Seeing no further discussion. Senator Hinkins summation.

  22. Sen. David P. Hinkins10:18

      Well, thank you. And, uh, just to kind of elaborate on that, you know, in my county there's over 10,000 acres of solar farms and it's, it's raised a lot of uproar of the locals there that when they're driving through ars Cenic County, that's been set aside for beautification of the desert and whatnot. And, uh, all these solar panels are lying in the, uh, mullen reef. And so they're, we've set, put all these wilderness areas out there, and so their county wants to have a little more discretion of where these things go. And so with that, I would call the question

  23. President Adams (presiding)10:56

      Thank you. And the question is, shall second substitute house bill 16 be, uh, passed? Pass, roll call vote.

  24. Unknown speaker11:06speaker not certain

      Senator Vickers, Baldy Lewin, Brammer bus Cullimore, Escamilla Fillmore Grover Harper Kins.

  25. Sen. David P. Hinkins11:25

      Mr. President, I would like to explain my vote.

  26. President Adams (presiding)11:28

      Go ahead, Senator Hinkins, you know, I,

  27. Sen. David P. Hinkins11:30

      I ran a bill a while back about, uh, billboards and I know Salt Lake City had a big to-do about it. Not wanting it here, not wanting it there. Well, we can't just put things everywhere if we want 'em. And so this is basically, it's the same thing. We don't wanna have our solar panels anymore. And you want billboards in Salt Lake City, uh, where you don't want 'em. They should have some discretion. And so with that,

  28. Unknown speaker11:52speaker not certain

      I'm, uh, yes, Senator Ipson A Johnson aye Wan McKay. Aye. Mikel Aye. Milner. Musselman Owens pitch. Owens pitch. Plum Rebe.

  29. President Adams (presiding)12:27

      Senator Riebe. There

  30. Sen. Lincoln Riebe12:31

      You go. Mr. President. I'd like to explain my vote. Um, I'm gonna be a yes. Vote on this vote. Vote I was at that committee hearing. I voted to get it outta committee. Um, it, it is a struggle that where we're gonna put these solar panels and, um, I, I've actually thought about this bill a lot. You know, um, I would prefer that they weren't in farms and I would prefer that they weren't in the middle of the desert. I would like them to be over parking lots by schools where the, the power can go right from the parking lot right to the school. And I think that's something that we should start thinking about as a body, trying to create spaces where we're gonna have solar panels that can use the energy wisely at that right time. So there was a farmer at that meeting and he spoke about how this was impacting him negatively. And so I want to support my farmers. I believe that our, our cattle and our our farms are important and trying to thread that needle for solar and, um, agriculture is important. So I vote yes.

  31. President Adams (presiding)13:25

      Thank you. Senator Sandall

  32. Unknown speaker13:28speaker not certain

      Stevenson Stratton. Yes. Pickers Weiler Sandal Aye. Wilson All changes to Yes. Winterton

  33. President Adams (presiding)13:54

      President Adams? Aye.

  34. President Adams (presiding)13:57

      Second substitute house bill 16, having received 20 a votes, six na votes, three being absent, passes his body and will be returned to the house for further consideration. Does anybody want to encircle while we're on the third reading calendar? There's a few Senate bill still there. I I actually allow those to be encircled if somebody wants to. Okay. Uh, let's, we've got communication. So let's start with the rules. Committee report. Do we have a rules committee report? Go ahead.

• Feb 20, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (6 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker18:10speaker not certain

     Second substitute house bill 16 Solar Power Plant Amendments by Representative Jack.

  2. Speaker (presiding)18:19

     Representative Jack.

  3. Rep. Colin W. Jack18:21

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would make, I would make a motion to concur with the second sub of HP 16 Senate Amendments, Senate Amendments. Thank you.

  4. Speaker (presiding)18:33

     Thank you. Uh, Representative Jack, uh, that motion is in order. Would like to speak to it?

  5. Rep. Colin W. Jack18:38

     Yes. Uh, the only, the only real change that we had to make in this sub was that there was some ambiguity about which permit started the timeline. And so, uh, we clarified that it would be at the issuance of the conditional use permit.

  6. Speaker (presiding)18:59

     Thank you, Representative Jack. We'll go ahead and place the motion, the motion before us now is that the House concur with the Senate amendments on second substitute HB two 16. Discussion to that motion. Sorry. My bad. We'll go to the discussion of that motion on second substitute HB 16. Any discussion? None. We'll go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is the House concur with the Senate amendments on se second substitute HB 16. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes voting will now be open on, uh, for final passage on second substitute HB 16. Representative Teuscher, would you like to vote? See now present, having voted voting is now closed. Second substitute HB six HB 16 passes. This body will be returned to the Senate, or, sorry, passes this body with 61 yes votes. Six no votes will be returned to the Senate for the signature of the President. Okay. Speaker announces a rules committee, uh, meeting to be held in the House Rules Committee room. So all members of the House Rules Committee are now excused for that meeting. Let's go to Madam Reading Clerk for items on the house concurrence calendar.