H.B. 263 Heavy Duty Vehicle Amendments: transcript

No, we would not like to adopt the substitute. Okay.

That's okay. Thank you, Senator. Um, thank you, chair and committee. This is the end result of about a three year discussion on a trend that's been happening over the past several years. So, as our Blue State neighbors increase regulations on heavy duty vehicles, what's happening is that, particularly with fleets, so if you think UPS Amazon, some of these fleets that have thousands and thousands of heavy duty trucks, they will then start sending these trucks to Utah. So why does that matter? The difference between a 2009 and a 2010 heavy duty truck, and just for reference, a heavy duty truck, you can think like an 18 wheeler, this is not like your, uh, you know, pickup truck or something like that. The difference is a 20 times more pollution, um, particularly the particulates that impact inversion for a 2009 truck versus a 2010 truck. And so the question came to say, well, how do we, how do we, uh, ameliorate this circumstance when, when really American innovation is leading out just the sheer fact of improvements in technology with a 2010 and beyond truck, uh, significantly 20 less pollution per truck. So over the past couple years, you've seen different iterations of this legislation to try to, uh, mitigate those impacts of our Blue State neighbors sending their dirty fleets to Utah. And, uh, HB 2 63 is, is kind of the, uh, the compromise that we've reached. So this adds a $175 registration fee from these heavy duty, uh, vehicles that are pre 2009 that are coming into our state. Um, there are a couple of exemptions. Once again, you can kind of see the heart of the bill as we're not trying to impact, uh, agriculture, uh, government vehicles are already exempt from fees. Um, and then we're making sure, so we're really trying to hit these fleet vehicles. So, um, a simple bill, but certainly important as we're looking to mitigate the impacts of, of these policies. So that concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair, and, and happy to answer any questions.

So originally the, the original bill was to the environmental mitigation and response funds. So essentially environmental hazards cleanup. Uh, Representative Thurston in the house felt that it would be better to go to the transportation fund where the legislature can decide what those, uh, uh, fee registrations will go to. Um, I also think that the fee will decline because the goal is to not have these vehicles come in from other states. So that was, that's a little background on the, the funding portion.

Yes, yes, Mr. Chair, um, Representative Cutler, Senator Colmore and others have tried to work on this issue, though this, what's reflected in this legislation is really just the compromise that we try to reach with, um, industry agriculture. The response that we got from the, uh, Utah, uh, trucking association is that most, uh, fleets that are based in Utah are well far beyond 2009, mostly because of insurance purposes. So that's really, we're trying to be precise here. I agree. I agree with you that we probably could have been more aggressive, but, um, this is trying to, just trying to strike a, a, a balance here. Okay.

My name is Carter Norris and I'm speaking in support of House Bill 2 6 3 as an everyday citizen along the Wasatch Front. I'm a student at the University of Utah, and I've lived in Salt Lake City my entire life. Air quality isn't just a policy issue to me, it's something I've grown up with. I remember school day school, recess days being moved indoors because of inversion, checking the air quality index before stepping a single foot outside and watching the mountains disappear behind a layer of haze. It's something that's become such a normal part of life here that sometimes we forget, forget it doesn't have to be. As a lifelong resident and as a student studying environmental issues, I've learned more about how transportation emissions contribute to the air we breathe. Heavy duty vehicles play a crucial role in our economy, but older higher emitting vehicles also contribute disproportionately to the pollution that accumulates in our valley. Living in a place surrounded by mounds means that what we emit stays with us. What I appreciate about this bill is that it represents a practical step forward and acknowledges the role of older, higher emitting vehicles while still respecting the needs of working utahans and essential services. To me, this is about shared responsibility and making grad gradual meaningful improvements. I want to continue building my life here. I want my future family to be able to step outside without worrying about the impacts of the poor air quality we've all grown to accustomed to. I want them to be able to take in the beautiful scenery that makes the Wasatch Front one of my favorite places in the entire country, to see the mountains clearly, to breathe deeply and to enjoy this place the way it's meant to be experienced. Supporting thoughtful policies like this one is one way we move in that direction. And I thank you for your time and consideration.

Good morning, committee. My name is Katie Walton. I'm from Bountiful, Utah, and I operate a fleet of heavy duty trucks that are pre 2009. Uh, I was late getting here today because the DEF pump went out on my diesel SUV. Um, I think that measuring tailpipe emissions as a form of efficiency on a vehicle is shortsighted. I understand that pre 2009 may emit, um, more NOX pollution, but if you look at the supply chain waste of the post 2009, um, implements, it's super wasteful. These trucks are broken all the time. They're not reliable. Your fire trucks don't have them. Your, your Utah Highway Patrol vehicles don't have them because they're so inefficient and unreliable, and I would urge you to oppose the bill.

Good morning. I'm Douglas Smith and I represent the Owner Operator Independent Driver Association. And we have 150,000 members. We have 2,500 members in Utah. 52% of all motor carriers are one truck. When he talks about mega fleets bringing their fleets here, that's a misnomer. They don't run trucks that old and stay competitive. All of these trucks were compliant when they were built. 50 to 80% of heavy dewy towing business is emission system failures. Our military vehicles are exempt from them because of reliability issues. Our fire department, they carry death, which is the diesel exhaust fluid, but they don't have the filters because of reliability. If you've seen a vehicle in regeneration mode where it's burning out the carbon in the death filter or in the catalyst reduction filter, it looks like it's on fire and nobody counts those emissions. They're worried about the NOx, but the particulates have to go somewhere. Engine life has been cut from a million miles on average for engines to 600,000, and that's because of the exhaust gas recirculation and the engines choking themselves off to reduce combustion chamber temperatures and reduce knocks. Now an overhaul is $70,000. So you can see why it's incentive to have to do away or not to go down the path of these, uh, emission troubled vehicles. Older trucks are utilized when capital outlay for new trucks doesn't pencil out for the task. Agriculture, for instance, is exempt from this bill because of the small usage. Comparatively speaking, most of our, uh, fleets of older trucks, 60,000 miles is a big year, and the newer trucks are running 250,000 miles. So even then, it's a small part of the problem. The vast majority of pollution in our valley is caused by automobiles. Truck fleet replacement is ongoing, and the laws that target this will eventually become even less than they are now. The blue states that he mentioned is one is California and, uh, the federal EPA is rolling back on their requirements. Please wrap up. No one has addressed the IRP fees. That's the International Registration Plan promoted by Ronald Reagan, where a percentage of your fleet, of your fleet miles is, say 5% in Utah for international or interstate carrier only pays 5% of the base fee. No one's mentioned if this fee will be apportioned or if it'll be a hundred percent fee. So it has a, a, uh, interference with the 14th Amendment. How will agricultural exemption be determined? Uh, Let me ask you to wrap up. Please, please conclude This fee is heavy handed with very little juice for the squeeze, and I thank you for the opportunity to be Here. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Make a motion that we favorably recommend HB 2 63 to the Senate.

I, I've been working for years of this issue and I'm glad we're moving in some direction. There is an impact when everyone else sends their dirtiest stuff to Utah and we seem to be the dumb place for that. So at one point, we need to really be serious when we have, just because of geological situation where we stand, um, just disproportionately impacted by pollution and we need to do something. So this is moving us in the right direction. Thank you.

Um, thank you Chair. All I would say is I think you've heard, as you've mentioned, uh, both sides. Some people say this too heavy handed. Some people, uh, said that this doesn't go far enough. I think that's just the nature of what we're trying to accomplish here. Uh, to, to move, move the ball down the field and making sure that, um, when there's disproportionate impact, that our system can, uh, address that. Thank you for the consideration.

Yes, sir. Mr. Chair. And if it's okay, my staff per, uh, member Simon, is here to pass out a one pager. Yes. Um, so, uh, amendment two is, uh, just a clarification. So it removed some, uh, it was a draft, uh, drafting error about non-attainment counties. And then, um, it also clarifies that this does not impact, uh, garbage trucks, which was our intent of the bill. But Representative Defay has, uh, made, uh, made that clear in amendment two. Um, would I be, would it be possible to share my screen? I have my, my thing plugged in here, if not, oh, perfect. There we go. Well, uh, thank you Mr. Chair and thank you committee for hearing us out. This is a, a pretty simple bill. Um, this is about, uh, building on our progress that we've done for the Make America Healthy Again agenda here in Utah, um, for trucks, the, the paper that's in front of you for trucks that, uh, heavy duty trucks, and so this is not like a dually, this is like a, an 18 wheeler. These are the really, really big trucks that drive on our roads every single day. If that truck is, uh, upgraded from 2009 to 2010. So just simple American ingenuity, it's the equivalent of reducing 20 x trucks off of the road. So it's a really significant change that's not from regulation, it's solely from innovation. And so what we're trying to do here is strike a balance and make sure that we have a tiered system that pushes us towards innovation rather than, um, the status quo. So this slide, just talking about what our tailpipe emissions, what is, what are we breathing in when we talk about reducing that type of pollution? Um, I don't have to rehash this. This committee is, is very well aware of it as the transportation committee. The biggest one is, is NOx, uh, nitrogen oxides. Um, this is what, when people talk about struggling on the, the really tough air days, that's what they're, uh, hitting on there. Utah has a really great opportunity here. The simple upgrade from a pre 2010 heavy duty trucks, uh, to a modern engine, uh, delivers a mission benefits equivalent of taking 20 older trucks off the road. So I can't emphasize that enough that this is a significant, uh, difference. This aligns with our efforts that we've done. Um, uh, secretary Kennedy talked about air quality in the Maha Children Report, talking about the need to look at air quality as part of a broader strategy to make our, to, to make our country and, and in Utah, make our state healthier. Uh, I just highlighted a quote. The most patriotic thing you can do is take care of the environment and try to live sustainably. And that's what HB 2 63 is, is, uh, attempting to do. So, it's a, a simple tool. We're adding an emissions fee, um, on, uh, when the, these trucks, the pre 2009 heavy duty trucks are registered. One thing that we're seeing that we've, uh, talked to many of you about is that the blue states that surround us, they have banned a lot of these trucks off of the, out of their state. So what's the impact on Utah is that when you have a UPS or other companies that totally take all of those dirty trucks out of their fleets, they're shipping 'em just to keep going east. And we want to prevent that here in Utah. Um, we've worked on this issue for the past couple of years, Representative Cutler, uh, last year, myself, the year before in 20 20, 24. We think we've landed on a simple and effective solution that essentially what we're doing is just making sure that our, our vehicle registration code reflects common sense tiered approach. If there's a truck that's being registered in, in our, in our state that causes 20 times the pollution of a 2010, let's just make sure that we have some parody in, in, in our system looking at that. So, um, with fee fees, uh, cannot go to the general fund. What we're looking at is it has to be, uh, germane to what the fee is assessed for. Um, in, uh, amendment two, uh, it goes to the Environmental Mitigation and Response Fund. I think someone from, uh, DAQI believe Bryce Bird is here, that can answer any of your questions about what that response fund is. And this is about, uh, mitigating environmental disasters and also helping with other, um, healthier choices for our environment. So it's not a regulatory fund, it's not anything about prohibitive. There's not lawsuits. This is only just about upgrading technology and responding to environmental disasters. So with that, uh, Mr. Chair, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you for bringing this bill. My question is, um, do you happen to know how many vehicles pre 2009 that the government currently owns that this would affect or I guess not affect? So, um, when we talked to the Utah Trucking Association over the past, uh, summer and the past years, most, uh, most of these trucks, most of these fleets have been upgraded. What I'm particularly worried about is, as, as I mentioned, as the blue states around us, as they start to push their trucks in here, this, I'm, I'm, I'm hoping to prevent that. Um, I'm gonna pull up the fiscal note here because the fiscal analyst did estimate that. Um, I don't, I don't have that exact number in the fiscal, in the fiscal impact, but I can pull, I can talk to the fiscal analyst and get you a hard number there. Okay. I appreciate that. Yes, sir. I, I like what we're trying to do. The, the essence of it. Um, I guess where I have a hard time is when we say that the government doesn't have to abide by the rules. Right. But citizens do. Um, and, and that's where I, I probably have a hard time with this bill, uh, but I appreciate you bringing it forward. So thank you. Yes, sir.

Yeah, thank you. Uh, so in the bill, it, it shows some of the vehicles that are not included, uh, in this farm. Tractors, farm trucks, implement of husbandry, ambulance, law enforcement, fire engine, some of these are city and state vehicles. You haven't included construction vehicles. Why is that?

Um, that was, uh, that's definitely our, our intent, uh, if we, if we miss that, we're hoping to, hoping to get, uh, get that in there. The, the hope of this bill is not to disrupt the, the work on critical infrastructure that's going on. That's, I think when you see those exemptions, is making sure if there is a truck that exists that a, a city is using to pick up trash, or as you mentioned, Representative Christofferson about, uh, building our state. That's, that's not what we're trying to get at, is we're really trying to prohibit some of these fleets. So it wouldn't be like one truck, it would be 25 that's coming over from California that are significantly orders of magnitude more, uh, dirty, if you will. That's what we're trying to get at. But, uh, would be happy to, to work with you on that.

Yeah. Also, uh, thank you. And then on, on the fee, you said that it goes towards the environmental fund or something?

Yes, sir. Uh, environmental Mitigation and Response Fund.

What, how is that used?

So this fund is to respond to environmental disasters. So if there was an oil spill, um, you know, you could, you could think of other, other, uh, pieces there. And then it also has, uh, an opportunity for, uh, DEQ and DAQ to spend proactively on technology that could mitigate, uh, everything from, uh, air quality challenges to just, uh, common sense environmental mitigation. So it's not a regulatory fund, it's more a response fund. I believe. Uh, uh, Bryce is here too. That can answer that question. Uh, I, I, I, I, I think he was gonna speak to that in public comment, but I'm happy to bring him up if that's, If you'd like that, sir.

Um, I, gives me an idea. You can, you can, uh, explain that in public, uh, comments, but I get the gist of what it is. Thanks. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Bryce Bird. I'm the director of the Division of Air Quality. And, uh, as I start my comments, I would also welcome any questions that, that I don't address in my comments that maybe came up earlier and I, I, I missed. I'd be happy to take any questions as well. Uh, in particular, so, so this, uh, fund that, that is referenced in the bill is an existing fund, uh, that we have the ability to, uh, really mitigate the impact of, uh, air pollution and, and other pollutants, uh, by, uh, using it to incentivize or actually reduce emissions, uh, from those same categories. So in this case, we've used it in the past for things like, uh, assisting companies that apply for federal grants, uh, for Diesel Emissions Reduction Act programs to replace their older vehicles. With newer vehicles. We can augment those federal funds with these and, and make a, a lower impact on the, the businesses that are taking advantage of that. Uh, we've also used it for things like helping, uh, electric, electric infrastructure that would be combined with school bus programs, uh, for electric school buses here in the state. So it really is a flexible program, but our tie is to make sure that, uh, it's an actual reduction in emissions that is a benefit from the use of these funds. And in this case, kind of think of as offsetting the emissions from these higher polluting vehicles by incentive programs that would actually reduce those same emissions in those same areas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so the tax itself is designed to discourage bad behavior. Do you have an estimate of the number of trucks that would not be registered in Utah because of the $175 fee?

I, I do not. Uh, just a wild guess.

Is it, is it zero or positive Judging from other programs and perhaps another bill on another?

We can talk about other bills, but, uh, we, we know that, uh, sometimes, uh, extra fees, uh, drive people to register in other areas and then use 'em in this area. And that has been a challenge for us in the past. So we have seen that with the missions testing programs, where maybe a, a vehicle will be registered in another area. So, uh, it, it does it, I guess, capture the, the people who want to be part of the solution would do this, but it, uh, may incentivize, uh, other people saving a few dollars and, and, uh, registering somewhere else. Yes. But as far as actually removing these trucks from the road, the fee itself isn't going to really tell if somebody wants to buy a truck and bring it to Utah, pay the $175 fee. They're not gonna say, oh, 175, oh, I'll, I'm just gonna not buy that truck and run it in Utah. I'm just gonna go ahead and take it to the scrap yard.

Right. That's just not gonna happen. Okay. Great. Thank you.

Hi there. I'm Shelly Hill Worthen. I'm speaking for myself today. Thank you, uh, to Chairman Christofferson and members of the committee for hearing me. I am happy for what you do for the Citizens of Utah. I'm gonna urge you to vote in favor of House Bill 2 63. I really like that it will invest in clean air programs. We live in Morgan, but I lived in Salt Lake City for a number of years as well. I have severe asthma that, uh, those pollutants prevent me from exercising and being outside and being active a lot of the time in the winter. Um, in addition to that, a couple of years ago, I was diagnosed with a rare form of blood cancer called Multiple myeloma, which is related to benzene, which is elevated in, in our, um, valley. We have, uh, severe air quality problems. And I really like that this bill would help, um, mitigate some of that. Um, I believe also the Olympics are coming and we should be ready to greet the world here with clean air, and this bill will help do that. And, uh, I thank you and urge you to vote yes for House Bill 2 63. Thanks.

Sorry. Thank you. I move that we adopt first sub HB 2 63 or Amendment, first Amendment, the, Uh, second Amendment. Second Amendment. Okay. The motion is to adopt the second amendment of HB 2 63. Uh, would you like to speak to that motion? Uh, I'll waive. Okay.

I'll say it's, it's not often that you find a issue like this where I, I think you can see from the, from the public comment, we've worked this pretty, pretty hard. Um, a lot of times these issues can be contentious, and we're just trying, trying to find a common sense solution that can benefit the health of, of all Utahans.

Uh, I'll waive. Okay.

I'd like to move the adoption of Amendment three.

I would. So what Amendment three does is instead of directing these funds into a restricted account, in other words, making this tax into an earmarked tax, it puts 'em in the transportation fund. They could still be used for these purposes. They could be used for other priorities, but it's not an earmark anymore. Um, and so part of my concern is that this is the, the, the catch 22 of being a government. When you tax the bad actors to raise money to solve a problem, your incentive is now for the bad actors to not go away. We're raising $175 off, off every bad truck that's on the road. Every bad truck that leaves the road costs us 175 bucks. So what's our incentive to get rid of them? It's diminished, right? So that's part of the problem. And so if we can at least take that money and guide that into a more flexible area where the legislature has the ability to use it for various things, probably air quality is top of the list, but it could be other things, then we have the ability to, it diminishes that incentive for us to keep those trucks around, because this entire program would be dependent on those trucks being on the road. Trucks get off the road, money goes away, program goes away, and then people are up here saying, Hey, we need money for this program. So this would be a much better way, in my view of thinking about dealing with that without the earmark.

Um, that what you saw on the original bill is, is more of a reflection of, um, when we had discussions with our drafting attorney when they talked about how fees had to be germane. But if this is a, if I, I, I think you can see the intent, uh, uh, of bringing this legislation forward is I would, I would like to see, you know, a, a germane, um, investment into air quality mitigation. But if you, if you feel that, uh, that could be accomplished, then I'm, I'm all, uh, you, you know, me, Representative Thurston and, and committee, I'll, I'll work with anyone to, to move the needle on this. And, um, thanks for your consideration.

I actually, uh, Mr. Chair loved the, uh, the yin and yang of having, uh, polluters pay a fee that goes into a, into a fund that, that helps mitigate this. I, I understand your point that, um, I, I understand the point that you were making, but, um, uh, much like the, the bill sponsor, I feel like what, what we need more of is, uh, is if anything we, this, this fee could be higher to try to, to drive, um, action. But, um, as it is, it's a, it's a pretty healthy investment into a fund that could make a difference so that my asthmatic 13-year-old can play soccer on a, on a Saturday morning without, without coughing. And, and, uh, anyway, I, I would, I would rather reject this. Thank you.

Yeah. So the, the important thing to recognize here is this is the challenge of earmarks and government budgets. Once you create an earmark, it's really, really hard for that program to ever go away. Even efforts outlived as usefulness. We're all in the middle of budget committees right now. We all see those earmarks, and we wonder, how do we get rid of this? And the answer is, you can't. So putting it into transportation fund gives, um, the committee full discretion and authority to use that for clean air, for whatever they wanna do. But every year they can come back and modify and move that around. If we're putting it into a specific program, that's a lot harder to do. So I, I prefer flexibility over earmarks. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we favorably recommend house Bill 2 63 as amended.

I would. Um, you know, this is, it is not fair that people are doing this test. I actually agree with my colleague that fee's probably too low. It probably, uh, if you did some sort of economic analysis and came back on the floor with a number that makes more sense, I'd probably be even more excited. But there is that problem of collecting money and, you know, the whole other issue. But I do think that if you did an economic analysis, this probably doesn't really solve the problem, but I love the, where it is right now. It creates a base framework that I can subscribe to and we can make this work for going forward.

To the amendment, Or to the past, excuse me, to the, to the motion to favorably recommend, I, I support that even as amended. Uh, it's one of my favorite bills of the session, and, uh, I encourage everyone else to support it

Yeah, thank you. I, I do like the amendments. I appreciate that. I still have trouble with the bill because, um, you know, it's, it's not gonna keep those vehicles from coming into our state, and it's going to make an extra charge for a lot of the vehicles that are already in our state, uh, such as I mentioned, the construction vehicles or other, other vehicles that aren't listed here. And I think it's a little bit unfair to pick and choose who gets the benefit there without considering some of the other, um, some of the other categories. So, I, I think there's still some work on this, so I'm gonna vote no.

I'll waive. Thank you for the consideration, Mr. Chair. Okay. Back

to the motion maker. I'll waive. Okay.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Colleagues last year on his visit to Utah, secretary Kennedy said that the most patriotic thing you can do is care for your land, air, and water. Uh, house Bill 2 63 falls squarely into this, uh, puzzle piece that we're trying to, to figure out here. Uh, house Bill 2 63 is the end result of a multi-year effort on how to address a phenomenon that's been occurring for the past couple of years as progressive, uh, blue states neighbors, particularly in the West, um, regulate their, the trucks that drive on the roads. And so what we're seeing is that these companies, like, well, I won't, I won't name them on the floor, Mr. Speaker, but companies that have an inordinate amount of heavy duty trucks, when those regulations change in blue states, they send them on down to here in Utah where we are paying the consequences. Uh, to give an example of a a 2009 versus a 2010 heavy duty truck is the equivalent of 20 trucks when it comes to emissions just solely that can be, uh, mitigated through American innovation. So, um, this bill adds a, a registration fee to these pre 2009, uh, trucks, um, that are driving on our roads and that we're paying the price for. This is an opportunity that we have to make our, make our air cleaner, make a little bit of more common sense and lean into American innovation rather than punitive regulation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, one of the things about the current version of the bill is the destination of the funds. The funds are placed in the transportation fund, and the reason for that is because of our state constitution. So our state constitution, and if you haven't read it lately, I highly recommend it's a good thing. Um, talks about when we collect taxes or fees on motor vehicles, there are very specific uses in our state constitution for that money to be used. And the Transportation Fund is typically the place where we place those funds to be used for general purposes. So, um, just want to make sure that my colleagues are aware, just in case in the future, uh, this issue comes up again. But the Transportation fund is the correct location for these funds, uh, so that they can be used for constitutionally approved purposes. And I want to thank the sponsor for allowing that change to be made for the, to the bill so that that can be consistent with our state constitution. So thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you to the sponsor.

Thank you Mr. Speaker with the sponsor, yield Representative Clancy, will you yield? Yes, Mr. Speaker?

Speaker, I'm wondering if this applies to, uh, older farm trucks that are worked around the farm or older construction vehicles that might be used within a construction yard only.

Thank, thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. Um, agriculture working with, uh, the good sponsor from Cash County, who I would love to, uh, make him laugh, but he's not here today. We were able to make sure that we've, we do, do not impact that. And so agriculture is, is exempted, um, from this regulation. Really the heart of the issue that we're trying to get to where we're seeing the critical mass of the impacts, um, is from these fleets that are moving from out of state into Utah and impacting our quality of life and our, uh, our roads.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the, uh, sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative, Uh, Clancy, will you yield to a series of questions?

So I didn't see that you had changed this, so it included construction equipment, is that right?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, that was the, that was the intent of, of what we were hoping to get at. Um, if that change was not made, uh, that was a, an error on my end.

Mr. Speaker, Is that something you'd be willing to change be as it goes out of this body?

Yes, sir. Mr. Yes, sir. Mr. Speaker.

Thanks. And the other question I had was, so this amount probably won't keep those vehicle, those trucks from coming in that fee. It will add some funds to our, um, our transportation fund, but you don't expect that it will really keep those vehicles from coming into our state. Is that right?

That, that's my hope, Mr. Speaker, is that we can show that Utah does not want to take these trucks. And that's where I think the biggest change when we're talking about what's really gonna move the needle with air quality is American innovation. Um, rather, uh, just, just that example, I think from a 2009 to a 2010 truck, it's the equivalent of 20 trucks being removed from the road. Um, and so my my hope is that it, it cools off that process, Mr. Speaker of these, these, uh, trucks moving into Utah from our Blue State neighbors. Um, and how that I I we've tried to do it in the least restrictive way possible.

Okay. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill any time We have to exempt as many people as we have in this bill, including federal, state, and local government. From the requirements, I, I feel like it may not be a good policy and so just wanted to express my concern about that and, uh, I support what the good sponsor's trying to do in improving our air quality. But, uh, if, if we've gotta make all these exemptions, I feel like there's some work that still needs to be done. Thank you representative Tom Peterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, uh, to my good colleague from Box Elder County. What I would, what I would say on the government piece is that under Utah law, existing Utah law, all government vehicles are exempt from any registration fees. So that's, that's essentially the big piece there. The other piece too is we're not trying to disrupt critical infrastructure. The work being done that the good representative from Utah County, um, and severe county as well mentioned, really what we're trying to do is impact these, these fleets, you know, hundreds and hundreds of trucks that are coming in from our blue state neighbors that are, uh, polluting. So, um, I appreciate the, the conversation and I think this is a, this is a consensus issue that's we've been working on for, for many years to try and take a common sense solution to a very complex problem. Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Thank, thank you Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the body's reconsideration on this piece. As we talked to individuals, I think there was some information that, that we, we were crossing wires on, recognizing that this is a compromise. Some individuals who vote voted in the negative said it didn't go too far. Um, and that was the nature of the compromise. So having talked with many of my colleagues about the importance of this bill and the, the importance of moving the ball forward and making that compromise, I I appreciate the body's reconsideration of their actions. Mr. Speaker Proton.

I'll waive. Thank you. The motion is waived.