H.B. 222 Limitation of Actions Amendments: transcript

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Thank you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I'll waive. All right, so the,

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.

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.

I'll waive. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you Representative Albrecht. Thank you Mr. Chair.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Absolutely. Alright. Thank you.

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.

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

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,

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

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.

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

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.

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.

This is good deal Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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.

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,

Senator Wilson. Motion

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

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.

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.