H.B. 222 Limitation of Actions Amendments

What this bill does

The bill strengthens a 2011 Utah law that shields companies from lawsuits over carbon emissions, limiting such liability to parties not in full compliance with their permits. People bringing these suits would have to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence, name the specific gas emitted, and show that a permit violation directly caused identifiable harm.

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, 0 no, 2 absentHouse Public Utilities and Energy Committee: vote to change the bill · Jan 29, 2026Who voted how
• 9 yes, 1 no, 2 absentHouse Public Utilities and Energy Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 29, 2026Who voted how
• 63 yes, 8 no, 4 absentFinal House vote · Feb 10, 2026Who voted how
• 4 yes, 1 no, 4 absentSenate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 17, 2026Who voted how
• 20 yes, 6 no, 3 absentFirst of two Senate votes · Feb 19, 2026Who voted how
• 20 yes, 6 no, 3 absentFinal Senate vote · Feb 20, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 29, 2026 House Public Utilities and Energy Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (35 turns)

  1. Committee chair36:14

     with HB 2 22? Limitation of actions amendments.

  2. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht36:30

     Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, pleasure to be with this committee. And, uh, I've got, uh, Mr. John Cox, uh, with me here today to help me present. But first of all, I want the committee to know that this is not a new bill. It's strengthens, uh, strengthens a bill that's, that's already, uh, in code that was passed in 2011. Uh, by then, uh, representative Noelle and Senator Jenkins. So it's been on the books for 15 years. Um, so at that time they established liability protection or for carbon emissions. And, uh, this bill just simply strengthens that STA statute. So basically what I'd like to say about the bill, and there is a substitute online, Mr. Chair. Alright, so we'll move sub one when we get to that. That's fine. So, I, I would like to, uh, just make two or three points, uh, for the committee to consider. Uh, first of all, Utah families do deserve, uh, affordable, reliable energy without the, the hidden tax of climate warfare. Number two, energy security is essential for a growing state, and we are certainly a growing state. Uh, number three, uh, this bill would establish, uh, uh, that environmental standards should be set by expert agencies and the legislature, uh, not by unpredictable courts. Number four, uh, this bill will uphold a high bar for proof, uh, mandates clear and convincing. Evidentiary standard requires the plaintiffs to specify the exact gas that might have been emitted, and proves that an actual violation of a permit directly caused identifiable harm. And number five, by removing residential, uh, requirements for these protections, Utah is signaling, uh, to the global market that we're the most stable place to invest and grow a business. So the bottom line that this legislation does is it, it puts utahns in charge of our own energy future, uh, by creating an environment where we have reliable, affordable energy, uh, abundant growth and job creation and clear, uh, rules established by the legislature in instead of courtroom policy making. So without HB 22, um, our energy prices could become volatile based on legal surcharges. Uh, the policymaker becomes the state courts and state court judges. And with HB 22, uh, our energy prices remain reliable and stable, and the policy makers is the Utah legislature. Um, I think I'd, uh, like to have Mr. Cox say a few words about the bill, if I could, Mr. Chair at this point?

  3. Committee chair40:11

     Yes, go ahead. Thank you.

  4. Jon Cox, Utah Mining Association40:14

     Uh, chair Jack and Representative Albrecht, uh, John Cox, uh, representing or, or working with the Coalition of of Industries, and specifically here today with, uh, the Utah Mining Association. Um, if you look at the bill and Representative Albrecht did a good job presenting. I just wanted to highlight one additional item, and that is, if you note beginning on lines 35 of the bill and its existing statute, and it has not changed, um, there, there could still be liability for a business if they did violate, uh, uh, an air permit, uh, or they did violate statute. So if the state of Utah, uh, or the federal government set some criteria, and, uh, a company or an indi individual violated that or exceeded that limit, um, there still is liability. I think what this bill's trying to do is to say, um, you, you can't just artificially say that because someone, uh, emits, uh, a, a certain type of emission that now, uh, there's unlimited liability, uh, to be determined by a future court. Uh, we're keeping that in the, the domain of the legislature, uh, and, and policy makers. Uh, but again, the, the, if you do go after these types of companies, uh, ultimately what happens is you have a less stable energy supply. Um, you also have risks for increased energy prices for customers. Um, this creates a predictable, uh, energy climate, uh, for all of these businesses and for Utah citizens. And if I could add Mr. Chair a couple things. I think he referred to line 35, that's on the, that's not on the sub. It's line 45 on the sub. That's correct. 45 through 49. And then, uh, on lines, uh, 29 through 36 of the sub it, it out, it, it defines greenhouse gas, what that means. Um, so those are, those are the points of, um, the bill. Uh, and those, those, uh, items 29 through 36 are consistent with the current EPA guidelines. So I think with that, uh, Mr. Chair would be open for questions by the committee.

  5. Committee chair42:18

     We don't have to move this up before we hear the committee. Alright, thank you. Then we will open it up to members of the committee. Okay. Yeah.

  6. Committee chair42:31

     Members of the committee who want to ask clarifying questions about the presentation we heard, is that Representative Dominguez or Representative Moss de Moss. Okay. Go ahead.

  7. Rep. Rosalba Dominguez42:43

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, well, as I read this bill, I, I was just curious about do people sue have people sued in the past for Yes. What kind indeed, what, What injury? You say individual, A person, and then it talks about businesses. I mean, like an individual would file a lawsuit saying what that their health was. They, they definitely have made suits in the past and, uh, filed expensive lawsuits. Uh, and maybe I could have Mr. Cox identify some of those for you.

  8. Jon Cox, Utah Mining Association43:19

     Yeah, I'll give you one specific example. So in the Pacific Northwest, uh, an individual, uh, an unfortunate incident, but the did not have air conditioning in their vehicle. Uh, a heat wave came through, and again, this is not within the state of Utah, but, but a neighboring state. And, uh, anyhow, that that individual experienced heat stroke and eventually lost their life. Um, as a result of that, um, family members and others, uh, sued thereafter, uh, major oil producers, major emitters of carbon emissions, essentially saying they were responsible for the death of this individual. Um, and the challenge in that situation is how, how do you prove causation? Um, if you were that, that energy company, how do you know the rules of the game in that type of situation? And so it's that type of, uh, outcome that we're trying to avoid here.

  9. Rep. Rosalba Dominguez44:09

     And a follow up, if I may. Okay. So can you gimme a quick, that's a good example. What a quick example of a, a company, um, uh, filing a lawsuit. Um, Rocky's had some, I mean, an organization or a company, do they?

  10. Jon Cox, Utah Mining Association44:31

      Yeah, it could, it could certainly be a similar type of example. Uh, certainly litigation in this space is not, uh, uncommon. Um, and I think what we're trying to do here is to say, uh, if the state of Utah has limitations or air permit permit requirements, that those are direct, they're specific, and that then the business can know what those rules are and not find out after the fact from a court that that sort of has to come up with it on the fly.

  11. Committee chair44:57

      I see. Thank you. Alright, thank you. I have a question from Representative Shelley.

  12. Rep. Troy Shelley45:06

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. A a question. So, has there been any indications of other states maybe possibly suing the state of Utah because of our emissions? And would this protect against that?

  13. Jon Cox, Utah Mining Association45:20

      Oh, yes. There certainly has Colorado tried to do that, uh, because they thought we were sending, uh, bad stuff to their airshed in Colorado. Yeah. I I think you're, uh, referring to the ozone transport rule. Uh, so that was a, a federal, uh, intervention in that particular case. Uh, the Biden administration under the EPA, um, this one obviously we're focused on greenhouse gases. Um, but this type of conversation does occur between states as well, for sure.

  14. Rep. Troy Shelley45:50

      Thank you.

  15. Committee chair45:55

      Okay. I see no other questions from the committee. So, um, I guess we'll go to public comment. How many people here are here to talk about HB 2 22? Anyone? Let's see. I count three, four. Yeah. Four. Okay. Do how many do we have online? None. None. Okay. So four. All right.

  16. Committee chair46:25

      Well, let's, uh, let's give everybody, um, do you want to program us here? Let's give everybody what do we think? Yep. Two minutes. Two minutes each. Is that All right.

  17. Daniel Burton, Utah Attorney General's Office46:39

      Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. Four minutes is far more than I hoped for, so thank you. Two, Two, Sorry, two minutes is far more than I hope. See, see how I did that? Yeah. That that was tricky. Yeah, you almost, you almost got away with that. Well, you know, we are lawyers. We try to say in three minutes what should be said in one, but my name is Daniel Burton. I'm here on behalf of the Utah Attorney General's Office. We support HB 2 22 because it clarifies the law and ensures that litigation is grounded in clear measurable standards by requiring strong evidence of a specific violation. The bill helps shut the door on baseless lawsuits while still holding people fully accountable when they do break the law. HB 2 22 safeguards the fairness of our legal system and provides Utah businesses and consumers with more stable, predictable legal environment. So for these reasons, we respectfully ask we to support far less than four minutes. There you Go. Yes, you did. Good.

  18. Committee chair47:37

      Thank you. All right. We'll go to our next one.

  19. Brian Somers, Utah Mining Association47:41

      Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brian Summers, president of the Utah Mining Association. Uh, we'd also ask for your support for this bill. Uh, as you know, mining is a very heavily regulated industry. Uh, we have, uh, a number of different types of environmental permits that we have to comply with and are very happy to be held to those reasonable regulatory standards. And this bill helps to clarify that we will only be held to those reg reasonable regulatory standards and provides the clarity we need to, uh, to run the businesses that provide the, the essential energy and minerals that everybody needs for their quality of life, um, and for, uh, the progression of our economy without having the uncertainty that comes from, uh, baseless lawsuits and, and public interest lawsuits and things of that nature. So, again, would respectfully ask for your support of this bill and thank the sponsor for his work on it.

  20. Committee chair48:26

      All right. Thank you. Um, we had a couple more hands. Come on up, identify yourself and we'll give you two minutes.

  21. Nathan Hole, resident48:38

      Thank you, chairman. My name is Nathan Hole, um, and I just wanna talk to you about this bill. I want to, um, express my disagreement with this bill and opposition to this bill. I am an environmental coordinator. Um, I have spent most of my life now working on, um, climate change, working on environmental issues, and I work here for a major company in Salt Lake City. Um, I'm here to strongly pose this bill. I'm Sorry. Are, are you representing that company? No, I'm representing myself. Yourself. Okay. Alright. Thank you for that clarification. Um, I'm not sure if anyone else has, um, glimpsed outside recently. Um, we are obviously lacking a lot of moisture in our mountains and a lot of that snow pack that we traditionally have. Um, the truth is, is that these harms are already happening in our state. The reality is here, this is not theory, this is reality. Our wildfire seasons are longer endangering homes and, and our firefighters inversions will worsen, um, as these conditions continue to happen. Um, there has been talk of the utilities that would increase on the Utah public from, um, from these lawsuits, but the truth is, is that the utilities do not increase from these lawsuits. The utilities are already increasing from the impacts of climate change that we are already seeing. This bill shuts the doors on Utahans, um, who are harmed by these impacts, and it does not simply prevent frivolous lawsuits. It makes it nearly impossible for any climate related claim to be heard, even when the harm is real and the evidence is strong by requiring proof of narrow statutory or permit violations that often do not exist for greenhouse gas emissions. The bill effectively grants immunity from accountability. We need a world in which we progress into the future becoming an ecological civilization, not one in which Utah clings to the horse as the, as those cars taking over our, um, over our, our lifestyle. Alright. Does that conclude your, thank you. That is it.

  22. Committee chair50:49

      Thank you. Alright. Thank you for coming. Alright. Uh, oh, don't forget to sign in for us, please. Alright, next presentation. Our next, uh, comment.

  23. Thom Carter, Rocky Mountain Power51:02

      Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Tom Carter. I'm with Rocky Mountain Power. Um, I'll be brief, I think a number of the things that I want to say were said by the presenter, um, of the sponsor of the bill and some of the other presenters. You know, we strive at the utility to have affordable, reliable, safe, but also stable electricity for our million customers here in Utah. This piece of legislation, which as the sponsor mentioned, is clarification of existing code. Does does, as I said, provide additional clarification, ensures that any litigation is gonna be evidence-based and holds us accountable when we're not. You know, if we follow the law, if we operate our facilities the way in which we are meant to through statute and through policy and through permit, then we appreciate what this legislation and, and these protections could provide. If we don't, if we don't follow the law, we should be held accountable. And we appreciate, uh, we appreciate you supporting this legislation. Thank you.

  24. Committee chair52:09

      Alright, thank you. Seeing, uh, no one online. Then that concludes the public comment portion of the hearing. So we'll bring it back to the Committee for action just to remind you that we have a sub one that we'll need to move first. So I have, uh, Representative Peck wants to make a motion.

  25. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck52:32

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we adopt the first sub to HB 2 22.

  26. Committee chair52:38

      All right. That motion is in order. Uh, the motion is to adopt first sub HB 2 22 limitation of actions amendments. Um, any debate from the committee on that? Seeing none. So, uh, the bill sponsor waive you waive. Okay. So then the maker of the motion, anything you wanna say?

  27. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck53:05

      I'll waive. All right, so the,

  28. Committee chair53:07

      we'll hold a vote on the motion to adopt first sub HB 2 22. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair rules? That passes unanimously. Okay, then we need another motion. Representative Watkins.

  29. Rep. Christine F. Watkins53:26

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I make a motion that we move about, um, house bill 2 22 for sub, uh, with a favorable motion or, um, recommendation. Thank you.

  30. Committee chair53:39

      Okay. Thank you. All right. So the motion is the pass out HB 2 22 as subbed limitation of action amendments with a favorable recommendations, uh, any committee debate on that. All right. So then Bill sponsor any comment to that?

  31. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht54:02

      Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I appreciate the comments that have been made both in the affirmative and, and the negative. Um, I, I, for some of you who walked in late, I, I just want you to know again, and I'll state it again for the record. Th this, uh, bill, this code is already existing in Utah. Statute has been for 15 years. All 2 22 does is strengthen that, that existing code. And for those, uh, who are concerned, lines 45 through 49 of the sub specifically state that if, if these folks are, uh, violate any enforceable statutory limitation or restriction against admissions, they'll be held accountable. Uh, item two there says if they violate the express terms of a valid enforceable operating error or other permit issued by a state or fed federal regulatory agency that has jurisdiction, they'll be held accountable and, and liable for those violations. So I think it's a fair, uh, bill and, uh, I'll leave it at that Mr. Chair.

  32. Committee chair55:23

      Alright, thank you. Uh, Representative Watkins is the maker of the motion. Any final word?

  33. Rep. Christine F. Watkins55:30

      I'll waive. Okay. Thank you.

  34. Committee chair55:32

      Then we'll bring it back to the committee for a vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. Okay. So I heard one nay representative Rosalva Dominguez, this is nay. Okay, then chair rules that. Motion passes.

  35. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht55:51

      Thank you Representative Albrecht. Thank you Mr. Chair.

• Feb 10, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker41:08speaker not certain

     Per substitute house bill 2 22. Limitation of actions amendments by Representative Albrecht. This bill was served in public utilities and energy with the vote of 9 1 2

  2. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht41:18

     Representative re Thank you Mr. Speaker. It's, uh, nice to present 2 22 on the 22nd day of the legislature. Deuces are running wild folks. A lot of deuces. This bill is actually a supplement to a bill passed in 2011 by representative Mike Noel and Senator Jenkins. Uh, what I would like to say about this Mr. Speaker, is that Utah families deserve affordable, reliable energy without a hidden tax of climate warfare. Energy security is essential for a growing state. Environmental standards should be set by expert agencies. And this group right here, the legislature, not by unpredictable courts. HB 22 mandates a clear and convincing evidentiary standard requiring plaintiffs to specify the exact gas emitted and prove that an actual violation of a permit caused identifiable harm. And by removing residency requirements for these protections, Utah's signaling to the global market that Utah's the most stable place to invest and grow a business. So folks, if they, if someone violates our air standards on line 45 or substitute, if, if they find that a person or a business is found to be in violation of statutory limits, in violation of a valid air permit or other permit, they're liable. They're still liable. Uh, this bill's limitation of liability only applies to those who are, uh, not in full compliance. And uh, I would say that energy prices under 2 22 will remain, remain liable, reliable and stable. And under, uh, a volatile, they, they would have a volatile, volatile price under legal costs that are brought before the state. So this makes the state, the Utah legislature, the uh, maker of the laws, the enforcer of the policy maker and not state courts and state court judges. Happy to answer any questions Mr. Speaker.

  3. Speaker (presiding)44:03

     Thank you Representative Albrecht discussion to the bill. See none. Back to Representative Albrecht for summation.

  4. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht44:12

     This is good deal Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

  5. Speaker (presiding)44:14

     Thank you. Representatives, uh, voting will now be open on first substitute HB 2 22. Representative Maloy, would you like to vote? Seeing all present and voting? Voting is now closed. First substitute P 2 22 passed this by was 63 yes votes eight no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration.

• Feb 17, 2026 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (24 turns)

  1. Committee chair (presiding)32:24

     house Bill 2, 2 2, um, which is I think item 11 on the agenda. Uh, Representative Albrecht, thank you for being here. And we are passing out your handout. Oh, let me turn on your microphone. Okay. There we go.

  2. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht32:47

     Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Good to be with you. This is only the second time I've been in this committee in 10 years, so it's an honor for me to be here. Thanks for coming back. Yes. Uh, 2 22. First sub, uh, I just want you to know that this bill was actually passed in 2011 by then Representative Mike Noel and then Senator Jenkins, which has been 15 years ago. This bill actually, uh, supplements a bill, that bill and, uh, and what it does is, uh, you know, across the United States, some states, cities and counties are increasingly weaponizing, uh, climate warfare to bypass legislators and force energy policy through the state courts. So what we're trying to do here, uh, is fix that. Uh, our Utah families deserve affordable, reliable, and, uh, energy. Without a hidden tax of predatory climate, law, fire, uh, energy security is, is essential for a growing state. And HP 22 will ensure that, uh, environmental standards should be set by expert agencies and the legislature, not by, uh, unpredictable courts. Courts, uh, 2 22 mandates a clear and convincing evidentiary standard, standard requiring plaintiffs to specify the exact gas emitted and prove that an actual violation of permit directly caused them identifiable harm. Uh, it removes the residency requirements for these protections as Utah is signaling to the global market that is the most stable place to invest and grow a business. So, bottom line, what this bill does, Mr. Chair and Committee is provides reliable, affordable energy, abundant growth, and job creation, and clears the rules instead of courtroom, uh, policy making. Uh, one thing that I will point out is that, uh, onlines, uh, 45 through 49, uh, it doesn't let people completely off the hook. If there's a violation that's enforceable by statutory limitations, uh, against emissions of a specific greenhouse gas originating within the state, uh, they, that that law can be enforced and those people can be held accountable for that. So they are liable. Uh, and so we're, we're just trying to, uh, make the playing field a little more level as far as, uh, the liability of person people, uh, causing, uh, saying that we've caused injury by greenhouse gas emissions. And, uh, I'd like to have, uh, Mr. Cox say a few words, if that's okay, Mr. Chair.

  3. John Cox, Utah Mining Association35:54

     I guess it is. Thank, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, John Cox, uh, working with a coalition of industries here today, representing the, the Utah Mining Association, uh, we are supportive of, of this legislation. Uh, Representative Albrecht has, has presented it well. Um, I, I, I, I just would add again, uh, this is only focused on, uh, GHG emissions, uh, liability focused on that. We've seen in other states, uh, incidents where lawsuits have been, uh, brought forward. Um, uh, I'll give you one example. In the state of Washington, uh, uh, just this last year, an individual, unfortunately passed away during a, a heat wave. Um, they were in their vehicle, their vehicle lacked, uh, air conditioning. Um, and, uh, subsequent to, to that fatality, uh, their estate then brought lawsuits against many, many multi, uh, juris estate jurisdictional entities, uh, oil refineries, others saying that they cause this death because they caused, uh, climate change. Uh, what this is trying to say is for a company to be liable, they have to be in violation of a clear standard. That it's not a court that sets that, it's rather you, the legislature or the federal government, that they have to be in clear violation of a permit. Uh, again, so the rules are clearly known, and it's not just tossed to the judiciary to decide those rules after the fact. Uh, so for those reasons and many others, uh, we support this legislation. That would conclude our presentation, Mr. King.

  4. Unknown speaker37:21speaker not certain

     All right. Thank you. I'm just wondering about the, um, um, clear and convincing evidence, standard lines 43 and 44. Can either of you address why that that is necessary?

  5. John Cox, Utah Mining Association37:33

     Yeah. Um, and we also have a representative here from the Attorney General's office that will speak as well to, to this legislation and perhaps could speak, uh, better to that, that line. Um, it's, it's trying to set forth what that standard ought to be, that, um, it ought to be a high standard. And, uh, again, they've, they've established here clear and convincing as that standard. Do any other states do this? So, so Utah is one of the only states that actually has anything on the books today, um, as it relates to, to greenhouse gas emissions. Uh, so this is not something that other states have in large part because they didn't think they'd have to have it. Um, and again, because of recent actions, um, they, they've seen that, that in fact, you, uh, do now, uh, need that.

  6. Committee chair (presiding)38:11

     All right. Thank you. One quick question.

  7. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman38:13

     Oh, go ahead, Senator Musselman. Um, thank You. Maybe too, I think you made it fair to clear, but I just want to ha be asked the question anyway and make sure that I understand it. So, this is pertains to only greenhouse gases. So if, if a company is in, within the following regulation, they've out all the permits, they're doing everything right, you, you couldn't bring civil action based on greenhouse gas emissions, but if there were other chemical exposures, let's say that that occurred, that that wouldn't, that wouldn't exclude civil action as it pertained to maybe some other chemical exposure, even if they were within following regulations and and so forth. Is that fair?

  8. Unknown speaker38:54speaker not certain

     That's correct. Okay.

  9. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman38:56

     Absolutely. Alright. Thank you.

  10. Committee chair (presiding)38:59

      Thank you. All right. Let's, um, see if there's members of the public that would like to be heard on this, would you show by raise of hands? Raise 'em higher? Uh, up straight up. Okay. Uh, we've got two in the room. None. Okay. We'll take two public comments for two minutes each from anyone except the ags office. Oh, Mr. Burton, why does it feel like a Monday?

  11. Daniel Burton, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General39:33

      It's definitely not a Monday. Okay, Mr. Chair, Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Daniel Burton, and I'm here on behalf of the Utah Attorney General's office. We support HB 2 22 because it clarifies the law and ensures that litigation is grounded, clear, measurable standards. I don't have a ton to add in addition to what has already been said, but we do feel like this bill will shut the door on baseless lawsuits while still holding people fully accountable. Um, when they break the law. It safeguards the fairness of our legal system and provides Utah businesses and consumers with a more stable and predictable environment. Now, to your earlier question about clear and convincing, that's a heightened standard of proof, requires evidence, make a claim, that is to quote highly probable or substantially more likely to be true than untrue. Um, for these reasons we support the bill.

  12. Tom Carter, Rocky Mountain Power40:18

      Alright, thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Tom Carter. I'm with Rocky Mountain Power. Uh, Mr. Burton actually stole my testimony. I was just going to, uh, and so I'll keep it quick. Uh, quick. We are in support of this legislation for, uh, the similar reasons. One, we're in the business of affordable, reliable, safe, and stable power. Um, but we also operate, uh, within the bounds of policy and permit. And so if we are operating within the bounds of the policy and permit, we appreciate the, the protections that this heightened sense, this heightened standard provides. But this provides, this legislation provides clarification and, uh, also keeps us accountable, uh, ensures we avoid some baseless, uh, litigation. So the accountability piece in here is very important to us, um, because we do operate within the policy and permit standard. And, uh, I'll appreciate your time. Thank

  13. Committee chair (presiding)41:16

      You. All right. Thanks. We have a question from Senator Brammer. I'm not sure who that's for. Senator Brammer your question. All right. We don't, yeah.

  14. Sen. Brady Brammer41:25

      Oh, sorry. Oh, go ahead. Just trying To get unmuted. So the, I think the question I had is more tied to the clear convincing standard. Uh, it's for either of the current, uh, people up there or the, or the people who came and testified. But I, I would assume that the clear and convincing is not just that they're outta their permit, but also as to causation, which I think is a big part of this. Would it also apply to Causational fact,

  15. Committee chair (presiding)41:53

      Mr. Burton's coming back to answer your question.

  16. Daniel Burton, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General41:57

      Hello, Daniel Burton with the Utah Attorney General's Office. That is my understanding is that would go to causation for the, uh, okay.

  17. Sen. Brady Brammer42:05

      Yeah, that, that's great. And I, I appreciate that. I, you know, that's the, uh, that's kind of where I was hoping you'd go. I, I think that it makes sense. I wanted to make sure that the legislative record was clear that we were intending that this also applied to causation. Thanks.

  18. Unknown speaker42:23speaker not certain

      Thank you. Um, I will say that, um, starting with line 40, it says, A person is not civilly or criminally liable and may not be subject to any judicial remedy under any principle of law or equity for damage or injury from any, or ac from any actual or potential effect on climate caused, wholly in part by greenhouse gas emissions, unless a court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a person has a violated, enforceable statutory limitation or restriction, or violated the express terms of a valid enforce rating, um, uh, state or federal regulatory agency. So, I, I, I see I, I only read the clear and convincing, uh, to be modifying the evidence that the person's violated a statute or a regulation, but that's just how I read the bill. Um, neither here nor there. Um, okay.

  19. Committee chair (presiding)43:13

      We will conclude the public hearing and bring it back to the committee for action. One moment, Todd. It's 2, 2, 2.

  20. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman43:27

      Mr. Chair, I move to, uh, that we recommend HB 2 22. First substitute. First substitute HB 2 22.

  21. Committee chair (presiding)43:39

      Alright, we have a motion to favorably recommend the bill discussion to that motion. Seeing none. Um, representative Alrich, would you like to sum?

  22. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht43:52

      I think we've explained it well and the attorney general's office has, um, hopefully we've answered your questions. I think it's pretty straightforward. If, if someone's in violation, they can still be, uh, held accountable. If not, this provides some pretty straightforward direction as far as frivolous lawsuits. Thank you, Senator Musselman. Um, I'll just state that the, the bill doesn't allow companies to violate emission li limits, and so I think it's a fair balance to, uh, strike and, and, and, um, potential litigation going forward. And so I'd support the bill. Thank you.

  23. Committee chair (presiding)44:35

      Thank you. All in favor of the motion, favorably recommend first substitute house bill 2, 2 2 to the floor of the Senate. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any, any opposed? Say nay. Nay. All right. The chair rules that, that bill, that, uh, motion passes four to one with Senator Pitcher voting, uh, in the negative, and Musselman, Weiler, Brammer and Baldry voting in the affirmative.

  24. Committee chair (presiding)45:03

      Thank you, Representative Albrecht. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• Feb 19, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (6 turns)

  1. Sen. Heidi Balderree12:40

     Alright. So, um, across the United States, um, cities and counties are increasingly weaponizing climate lawfare to bypass legislators and force energy policy through state courts. These lawsuits seek billions of dollars in damages and retroactive liability for emissions, creating legal uncertainty that could raise, uh, electricity, fuel, housing, and consumer costs while threatening the reliability of domestic energy. This legislation draws a firm line and creates stability by shutting down speculative claims, tying liability to actual violations of emissions laws and real provable harm by keeping energy policy with legislators rather than state courts and state court judges. The bill protects affordable power, supports investment and job growth, and maintains a reliable energy system. As electricity demand continues to rise, um, this is what changes. It expands the statutory definition of greenhouse gas to include additional compounds such as sulfur, hexa fluoride, hydro fluoro, chloro, uh, carbons, uh, perfluorocarbons and nitrogen tri fluoride. It removes the requirement that a person must reside or do business in Utah to qualify for limited liability protections. Establishes that no civil or criminal liability or equitable remedy may be imposed unless clear and convincing evidence shows a violation of statutory limits or permit terms. Um, there's a lot more, but, um, I, I think I'll just end with one thing and, and say that, um, this mandates a clear and convincing evidentiary standard requires, uh, requires plaintiffs to specify the exact gas emitted and prove that an actual violation of a permit directly cause identifiable harms. This prevents junk science from being used to punish lawful Utah businesses. And with that I conclude my presentation. Thank you. Looking for questions. Discussion on this bill. Say no discussion. I'm gonna go to you for a motion. I move that this be read for a third time.

  2. Senate President (presiding)14:49

     Thank you. And the question is, shall first substitute house bill 2 22? Be read a third time roll call

  3. Senate clerk14:53

     Vote. Senator Vickers Spery Aye. Lewin Brammer Bus cullimore Escamilla Fillmore Grover Fillmore Aye. Harper Kinins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson. Aye. Quan McKay Mikel Milner Aye. Mussman Owens pitcher McKay Ilum Reebie Bie Sandal Aye. Stevenson Aye. Stratton Vic Vickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Stratton. Aye. Winterton,

  4. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)16:00

     president Adams I first substitute House Bill 2 22, having received 20 a votes six nay votes, three being absent shall be read a third time. First substitute house bill 2 48. First substitute house bill 2 48, family law modifications. Senator Mikel.

  5. Sen. Chris H. Wilson16:24speaker not certain

     Senator Wilson. Motion

  6. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)16:26

     To circle sponsors off the floor. Motion to circle. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Roll That motion passes. The bill is circled House bill 2 99, House Bill 2 99.

• Feb 20, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht1:08:45speaker not certain

     and prove that an actual violation of a permit directly caused identifiable harm. And with that it conclude my presentation.

  2. Sen. Heidi Balderree1:08:53

     Thank you. Senator. Uh, heard this bill yesterday Seeing no comments. I'm gonna go to you for action. I move that house. Bill 2 2 2 shall pass.

  3. Senate President (presiding)1:09:03

     Thank you. And the question is, shall first substitute House Bill two twenty two pass. Roll call vote. Senator Vickers Baldy Aye. Lein Bremmer Bus Colmore Escamilla Fillmore Gropper Harper Kinins Ipson Ipson Johnson Quan Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Thumb Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Weiler Wilson Winterton. President Bus, bus President Adams I first substitute House Bill 2 22, having received 20 yay votes, six nay votes, three being absent passes his body will be signed by the President. And returned to the house for the singing to the speaker. Senator Stratton.

  4. Senate President (presiding)1:10:37

     Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes. The bill is encircled Senator to the bill.

  5. Sen. Keven J. Stratton1:10:43

     Thank you Mr. President. We had a good discussion on this, uh, a couple of days ago, but what we're doing here is we are letting the experts decide the decisions in the field of expertise that they have. Uh, what this is, uh, one of the priorities for our state water engineer.