H.B. 330 Liability Limitations Amendments: transcript

Thank you, Madam Chair. Looks good to have you with us. Um, this is House Bill three 31st substitute. What I am showing is that you've got a second sub online. Yes, please. I'd like to move the second sub.

Yeah. So the, the, the first sub incorporated some feedback that we got from, uh, from some attorneys and the, the second sub, uh, caught up with the Attorney general's office. And so, um, so, uh, the Attorney General's out of town, but he sent his right hand man to be here with me so that you get more than the engineer's version. You'll get, you'll get the ags version as well.

Oh, we'll start there. Thank you.

I am, um, I would move that we delete title and Body House Bill three 31st substitute and, um, replace it with House Bill three 33rd is it? Second, second substitute.

Thank you. So, I'll, I'll give you the engineer's version first. And then, uh, so this, this is called liability limitations amendments. Uh, if, if I approach you in the hall or in the elevator, I would've called it retroactive liability limitations because, uh, and, and there are a number of applications, and I could tell a number of stories. Uh, Senator Millner is aware of that. Um, but, um, but I would, I would apply this bill maybe to the, to the power system. So if you, if you can imagine, uh, in, in my day job where my job is to keep the lights on and make it affordable, uh, we start, uh, by mining coal and we have a permit from the BLM to mine coal. And, and we have permits from the DEQ and all of that to, to make sure we're doing that in, in an environmentally sound way. And then we ship our coal from the mine to the power plant, where we have permits from the EPA and from the DAQ, and we have licenses to then, uh, burn that coal, make electricity, make steam, make electricity, and, uh, and that's, that's how we sell electricity. And, and we're very proud that not only are we very reliability, very reliable and very affordable, but also, uh, our emissions are a fraction of that specified by the EPA. The Environmental Protection Agency sets, uh, emissions requirements that we have to comply with. And whatever their number is, let's say it's a hundred percent of their number, we're emitting like 10% of their number. I'm very proud of that. So now imagine 30 years on, uh, this retroactive liability of which I was speaking. Uh, somebody could bring a lawsuit against our company because, uh, not because we've broken any laws, not because we violated any licenses or permits, but because of some other thing. Imagine some, uh, unspecified quantity of global warming, which dam damaged some unknown persons to some unknown amount. And so, uh, that, that's a big disaster. But, but everybody would feel better if we sent some piles of cash from the power company to those claimants. And, and you would think, well, that's crazy that that would never happen. But these kind of lawsuits are actually happening, uh, in over three dozen states. And local governments have filed exactly this kind of lawsuit. Uh, the Attorney General may be able to tell us that there might be some in the works here in Utah, but as you can imagine as a power company, then how do we, how do we get financing to build generation and transmission and, and the things we need to, to provide electricity if there is some unknown, some unknown liability that could happen for something that we didn't cause, something we couldn't foresee, and something that we have no way to affect. We've affected all of the things that we could do. But now some other thing comes out of left field, which is any, any reasonable person would, would dismiss that. However, we do find that these claimants are attempting to, uh, supplant legislators, legislatures, and make energy policy through the courts using, using this mechanism. So we're saying that here in Utah, we should not be doing that. So that's the engineer's point of view. And I could, I could imagine several other kind of, uh, similar industries that would be similarly affected. But, but maybe you also would like to hear the, the attorney's version from the Attorney General's office.

Sure thing. Uh, good afternoon. My name is Daniel Burton. I'm with Utah Attorney General's office chair and committee members. I, I have to be honest, the engineer's version is correct and I can't find any complaint with it. It's, um, probably more interesting than anything I had to say. And so I, I hesitate to go on. But just to run through just a few things and, and how we see this, Utah has a simple principle. If you follow the rules, you should be dragged into court, um, as if you didn't. Right now, businesses, farmers, energy producers, manufacturers fully comply with every permit, every regulation, every government requirement, and still face ruinous civil litigation, uh, for doing exactly what the law requires. So HB three 30 should fix that. Uh, the bill creates an affirmative defense for individuals and businesses that whose conduct emissions and conditions were specifically authorized or required by government statute rule, permit order. Um, and it applies across legal theories, negligence, strict liability, public nuisance, whatever, wherever someone is being sued for following the law. So here's how it works. A defendant is sued. They can then raise this defense by showing that their conduct was authorized by the law. The plaintiff can defeat the defense by proving that the defendant materially failed to comply with the authorization, exceeded the scope, or obtained it through fraud. The court then decides whether the defense applies. This is not, and I think this is important, it's not blanket immunity. The defense is not available if the defendant didn't actually follow the rules. Products liability, product liability claims are not, are, are fully excluded, and the duty to exercise reasonable care remains intact. What the bill does do is ensure that Utah's regular regulatory system means something when the government sets a standard and a business complies with that standard, that compliance should mean something in court. Um, HB three 30 re restores the rule of law. Predictability, protects utah's economic environment and stops the courthouse from becoming a second legislature. I think that's everything that Representative Jack just said. So I just am here to say, I, I support this bill, and so does the office and the attorney general sense his support as well.

Yeah, I guess I would just conclude with one quote. Uh, we were at an energy conference, energy counsel in Mississippi in December, and some attorneys were speaking on this issue from across the country. And, uh, they had a quote that they had captured on video in an interview with some of these plaintiffs, and where they said the quiet part out loud. Once the first plaintiff gets a final non appealable judgment, every defendant in all of these cases, immediately DECA declares bankruptcy. So imagine all of the energy companies, electricity, gas, heating, fuels, transportation fuels, uh, being out of business. I, I don't know what that future looks like. Um, but I don't think we want to get there. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you.

Okay, good afternoon. Afternoon committee. Robert Axon here on behalf of the US Chamber, and wanted to speak in favor of this for businesses big and small, across the state of Utah, who take a lot of effort to create jobs, to create economic opportunity. And they do so understanding the risks ahead as it's been laid out by the sponsor, uh, as well as the Attorney General's office. It's important for these individuals as they're engaged in, in assessing risk, to also have the, the determination that if they have done things the right way for the right reasons, complying with all the obligations that agencies in the state, and most importantly all of you as elected representatives, have established that they can move forward with confidence to deploy those benefits for the people of Utah. And to employ the people solving complex issues. It's an important thing that we wanna make sure that Utah to be does not become a target where people can come and, and legislate just through the courts, has been ar articulated. And I'll close with this. Just, uh, uh, commending the sponsor, uh, and the work that he's done on the house side. He's worked vigorously with folks that had different perspectives and really came to a nice Blanding spot in these substitutes. So appreciate the work that he's doing for Utah businesses and the people that they employ here in our state.

Thank you. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Brian Summers, president of the Utah Mining Association. We would urge your support of this bill and wanna thank Representative Jack for all of his work on it. Um, as, as you most of you on the committee, well know, uh, the energy and extractive industries in the state are a major driver of our economy. Uh, so according to a recent USU study, almost 23, over $23 billion in, uh, in GDP contribution, almost 20% of the state's tax base. And again, very heavily regulated industries. And so, as the representative said, if we're following all the rules and we're doing things the way we're supposed to be doing them, then that should, uh, cover our liability and make sure that we don't have the opportunity for, uh, activist groups to come in and, and make trouble after the fact. Uh, just wanted to throw out a, a quick statistic out there, um, based on a recent, uh, wall Street Journal article during the cold snap that we had in most of the country, not here in Utah, fortunately, but most of the rest of the country, uh, coalfire generation actually went up by 31% during that week. Um, and, uh, natural gas generation up by 19%. And so you can see that, you know, these are industries that are literally keeping people alive and, and coming in after the fact. And, uh, forcing these types of, of novel environmental, uh, litigation, uh, threatens all of these industries. And, and not just on the energy side, but on, uh, the extraction side of mining critical minerals and all the other things that we're trying to do to provide the raw materials and the power that people need to, to maintain the quality of life and our economic national security. So, again, would urge your support of this bill and, uh, thanks again to the sponsor for bringing it forward. Thank

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I appreciate your time and the opportunity to appear before you today. Um, again, my name is Corinne North, and I'm an attorney appearing on behalf of the Utah Association for Justice. Our organization, organization initially had some significant concerns with HB three 30, particularly with respect to its impact on access to justice for injured individuals within the state of Utah. We appreciated the opportunity to meet with the bill sponsor, Representative Jack, who was receptive to our concerns and engaged in a very thoughtful discussion with us. After reviewing this second substitute bill, we acknowledge and appreciate representative Jack's efforts to address the issues that we raised, and we're grateful for his willingness to work with us collaboratively on this matter, and we support these amendments.

Yep. I'm Seth Stewart and I'm representing myself. I'm from American Fork. Um, I, I oppose these, this bill. I've been reviewing the second substitute here, and it is definitely still not a narrowly tailored exemption bill. It is, it grants broad immunity for all kinds of government actions, edicts. And, um, from my reading of it, my understanding is that an individual could simply assert, well, what I was doing was lawful at the time, right? So that could shield malpractice. It could shield, uh, basically any behavior that is complicit with any governmentally approved activity, even if the laws in question are subsequently repealed and found to be unconstitutional. I, I see that still as a, as a very serious, uh, challenge to be addressed here. Um, but just the, the, the feel of the bill, the essence, the substance of it still has that, uh, while I was just following orders, kind of a defense, in addition to, um, and, and I don't know, this was mentioned last time we discussed the bill, it does also cover a very broad swath of activities that aren't necessarily orders, but, you know, it was lawful at the time. Right? And so that, that, again, is Juab that extends way beyond even just government employees because that affirmative defense could be deployed in all of those scenarios. And the fact that it abrogates the common law to the extent that it conflicts, I would submit that this law abolishes the common law by binding it to statute in favor of the government in any suit to which any government entity or actor acting on behalf of the government or in concert with the government in any way, is granted this blanket immunity. And so, for all those reasons, um, you, you, you really can't have common law if it's bound by statutory law. And so this, this bill abolishes the common law, and for those reasons, I humbly urge

Yes, Madam Chair. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'll be very brief. I'm also appearing on behalf of the United States, uh, chamber of Commerce, and I'm here to answer any questions. Uh, we see nationwide of this problem of retroactive what we call regulation through litigation. Businesses need predictable rules to grow. And this bill would do that, and that's why we encourage the support of the committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we favorably recommend House Bill three 32nd substitute.

Well, I, I would love to tell more stories, but I, I, I see hour Less is more sometimes. Yeah. I, I see the hours getting late, so I'll, I'll wave. Thank you Madam Chair.

I'd just add, um, I don't know of anything that's more repulsive to me than someone who is obeying the law and doing everything within every regulation possible and, and to be, uh, targeted. Um, it, it just, it's beyond my upbringing, I guess. I can't comprehend it. It's, it's pathetic. And so, uh, I'm so glad to support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I'm representative Colin Jack, and on the stand with me is Attorney General Derek Brown. Uh, we're presenting, uh, HB three 30. And this, this bill is a rule of law bill. And, uh, you probably are aware that I'm involved in the energy industry and, uh, and in the energy industry, we have to have many, many government permits and authorizations to do everything we do from mining coal, to generating electricity with it, to building power lines, to building substations. We have to have, uh, certificates from the public service commission to serve electricity, all of that, all of that is regulated and licensed by the government, some state, some federal. Anyway, uh, in, in that sort of case and others that you might imagine, uh, as if the company is complying with all of the terms of their permits and authorities, they shouldn't be retroactively punished by some opportun opportunistic, uh, litigants. So, uh, here in Utah and in most states in the west, when we're talking about, for example, if you'll indulge me talking about electricity again, uh, we don't deal with systems like cap and trade where you have caps on CO2 emissions, and then if you want to make electricity, you have to trade with that for somebody else. But in other states, they have those. And so they have put a cap on their ability to be productive. They've put a cap on their ability to, uh, keep themselves warm in the winter, to move water, to move sewer, all of those things. And they would like the rest of us to also have a cap on our productivity and our ability to do business. So since they haven't been able to talk the legislature into doing that, they're hoping to talk the judiciary into doing that. And the way they're doing that are with some retroactive liability lawsuits, like saying that, well, Utah doesn't have a carbon tax, therefore, Utah should pay New York's carbon tax and we should pay it for say, the last 30 years. So this bill, this bill would deal with that in advance here in Utah and say, here in Utah, we're not going to, we're not going to work in that space. And that if we're going to do something to limit things like generating electricity and move water and sewer and all of that, we're gonna do that through the legislative process as a representative republic and not through a judicial process like other, uh, non-representative governments. So that's, uh, that's the, that's the bill through the point of view of just an electrical engineer. So I thought some of you are attorneys you might appreciate hearing instead from an attorney who can give you the legal terms of what we're doing here. So Attorney General Brown has graciously offered to come bail me out. And I started, uh, by, uh, I was an engineering major who dropped out. So full, uh, full disclosure there, so later majored in English. But, uh, I appreciate, uh, Representative Jack. Uh, the reality is we are seeing these trends, and this is one of the things that, that I'm seeing in experiencing is that we, we see whether you like it or not, the reality is most of the most, the, the most serious policy decisions that you make with the most impact are going to wind their way up. They're going to be in the courts, they're going to be litigated. That's just the reality. We're seeing this all across the country. And so I think really, really what this is identifying is, are we going to be ruled essentially by lawmakers or by lawsuits? And I think the answer is the laws should be written by lawmakers, and that's what he's trying to do here. And so the idea is when the lawmakers yourself, the legislative bodies, uh, create a standard, it should be meaningful. It should mean something. And what we are seeing around the country are lawsuits that are effectively, it feels to me, and I don't know if this is the best way to put it, but sort of like a bait and switch. It's like with these highly regulated industries, like the one that Representative Jack is in, we set out this long line of the long list of things that they need to do to comply with, you know, you know, hundreds or thousands of regulations. They get to the end of that. And then once they've complied with all those, we still hang 'em out to dry because we say, well, you're still subject to liability in a lawsuit. And so the real question is, are the standards going to be set through this process, the legislative process, the regulatory process process where there's public debate and input and accountability, or are they going to be invented on a case by case basis through the judicial system where you don't have the predictability? So that's essentially what this is. This is not immunity in any sense. Um, simply creates an affirmative defense. So it eliminates really the policy based lawsuits, but it doesn't, it doesn't eliminate misconduct lawsuits. And so ultimately, I think the goal is to create, um, what, what in my office we really want most of all. And that is certainty. And I think that those in these industries also want certainty. So otherwise you pass bills as a legislature, and then we have others operating effectively as a shadow legislature on the backend. So I think ultimately this is certainty, predictability, and whether we are governed by lawmakers or lawsuits, and I think it should be the former or not the latter. So I think this, this bill does a really good job of, of, of identifying how we address that and solving, solving this problem. Thank you. Um, let me just, let me guild the lily for just a moment. Uh, I said that we're doing this in Utah preemptively, and, and I believe that's true, although there are this sort of suits actively going on in Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, Puerto Rico, and New York and Vermont. And so they have the folks leading these lawsuits hoping to litigate from the OR to legislate from the bench. They have said publicly that once the first plaintiff gets a final non appealable judgment, every defendant and all of these cases immediately declares bankruptcy. We don't want that to happen to our energy companies or other, other bi I'm talking about energy. But it could be in your imagination, you might be able to think of other businesses that are similarly regulated and attacked in the public. So with that Madam Chair, I would, uh, return the time to you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, my question is for the attorney general. Um, so in the language of this bill, by the way, I, I I really love this bill. It, it seems like common sense, um, in, in a lot of ways. Um, is there any concern with, um, the courts being left to define what authorization is or, uh, for them, for example, to define what exe exceeding scope is, things like that. Is is, is that something that could be added to the bill to give the courts maybe a little less discretion on, on what those definitions are? Oh, it, it's possible. I think the, the objective here is to create what's just called an affirmative defense. So ultimately what we want is for those who have followed the rules and effectively done what the lawmakers have told them to do, that when they get to the other end, if they've done that, then they can raise that as what's called an affirmative defense. Now, that's not immunity. It basically says, look, we've done everything you asked us to do. Now there's other things going on. If there's misconduct, if there is, you know, a design defect, if there's fraud, those kind of things, well, that, that wouldn't be covered by this. But I think for right now, what we're trying to do is create a backstop so that these companies can rely on the fact that, that the legislation passed here is, is meaningful. Okay, thank you. No, no further questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I just have some que questions based off of, uh, the sponsor's, um, scenario. So you were giving a scenario of an entity, uh, here in Utah, potentially like energy that is getting, uh, litigation brought against it because of regulations in New York. Could you gimme a little bit more, maybe I misunderstood, I'm, I'm trying to understand what kind of cases we're, we're looking at.

Okay. Am I correct? Yeah. In that. Okay. And what, what specifically, do you have any examples of like what kind of lawsuits are being brought in these jurisdictions?

Yeah, thank you. So there they, yeah. And, and just to, to, to give you a little background, uh, in December, uh, I was at a meeting of the, of the National Energy Council in Mississippi, and I'm one of the representatives for Utah on that energy council. And we had a long presentation from some attorneys to, uh, those of us on the Energy Council who deal with, uh, well energy, so hydrocarbons and things. And so some of the lawsuits are, for example, if you can imagine a subdivision of the state, maybe a city, a county or someone like that, suing then the power company for, for consuming or creating, uh, hydrocarbons for use, think of gasoline, think of about electricity, and therefore, uh, would have say, contributed to global warming in some unspecified quantity with some unknown amount of damage and some unknown, uh, party who may or may not have been damaged. So, uh, they're going for multiple years of damages in those cases. And so far, none of those have stuck, although they have been tried in the states I listed earlier. But, uh, at the Energy Council, they were looking for some state to solve this problem as a model for the rest of the states to deal with, to help propagate how to do that. And Senator Harper, who was here earlier, too bad, he didn't stay. He, he, he was sitting on one side and Senator Winterton was on the other side, and Senator Harper looked at Senator Winterton and said, you guys need to solve this. And Senator Winterton said, Representative Jack is going to do that. So, uh, you, you have this here, and I'm pretty proud the bill's only like a page and a quarter. So, uh, it's, it's pretty, it's pretty clean in the, it's the shortest bill I've ever run, But as the lawyer present, we can double the length if you want, if you're uncomfortable with something that short. I, I think I'm good with that and I, I do appreciate that, uh, it was helpful to have some context of where this will come up, um, and how this would apply. So thank you. And I, if I may, madam chair, uh, I, I can tell you lots of examples from the energy world, and that's, that's my world. And you all who live in other worlds may think of other similar things, but I can talk about how the energy world, and we all are consumers of energy, especially those folks back east where it's cold. Um, you can imagine how this would affect them if suddenly the only way you got warm was to burn the furniture. Thank you, Madam Chair. Alright, thank you.

Yes. Thank you. So I do have some questions. I appreciate, you know, where you're coming from on this, and I have heard, uh, news stories in other states of these lawsuits against utilities and whatnot, which seem frivolous to me. Um, I've heard for the most part they've been thrown out. For example, I think there was one by some, uh, younger people who were suing a utility for burning fossil fuels and basically destroying their future or something. But that was thrown out. So, but I, I agree with you. It may be important to take some preemptive action on that to make sure that we don't have those frivolous lawsuits brought in Utah. When I read this bill, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to make it longer and, and let me explain where I'm coming from. When I look at this. When I first looked at this, I had no idea it had anything to do with utilities or that kind of thing. Um, and then I saw that you were the sponsor. So I thought, okay, that's probably where it's coming from because you run a lot of those bills. But I've just been thinking of some situations where this law might apply, where, I don't know if you necessarily intend that it apply. For example, when a road construction company, uh, does work, they're not a governmental entity. They're hired by maybe a government or it could be a private entity to do road work. They apply for a permit and they submit a plan for signage so that vehicles that are traveling on that road can get out of the road, the lanes that are being worked on, or, you know, whatever it is, with adequate time so that there's not wrecks. The city actually looks at those, or the county looks at those and approves that. But there's quite a few rules by Udo and others saying, here's what you need to do in that scenario to make this safe. I don't think the county entities review those permits from the standpoint of, we are going to ensure that you're complying with the standards. Maybe they do, but I think in some instances they don't. And so this bill to me would seem to imply the fact that they got the permit means that there's no liability for not following those standards. And so we're kind of putting that onus on the cities to really do a more thorough job and make sure they do it rather than just leaving it up to the entities to do it because they're afraid of somebody getting harmed and getting sued for causing an automobile crash. Another example, um, might be an aircraft manufacturer might get a permit from the FAA to design an aircraft in a certain way, and it may be a passenger aircraft and somebody may die because of a software glitch or whatever it is. I do see that you eliminate product liability, but I don't think, and maybe I'm wrong on this, somebody that does product liability law would, might know better than me. I don't think those lawsuits are brought under product liability. So it would appear to me that any aircraft that's approved by the FAA would now be immune from lawsuit if there was a design defect that caused a crash and passengers were to die in Utah. And so I'm wondering if you'd be willing to look at this and say, let's narrow this down to really get to what we're aiming at and not be so broad.

Well, I, I'll I'll give you the engineer's point of view and then we'll get the attorney's point of view, but, um, I, I heard Attorney General Brown, uh, clarify that this, this doesn't give immunity. This provides an affirmative defense. And so as a, as a utility who does close lanes so we can work safely in the right of way, we, we do have UDOT standards and those are enforced and we, we comply with those. In fact, the days, uh, when I stood out with the stop sign flagging for the crews were 40 years ago, and now we just contract that to professional flagging crews. Uh, Utah Barricade does that for us. But, um, so that, that's the engineer's response. Let's turn the time to the attorney general. Well,

And I would just add that, and I, first of all, I appreciate your, your initial comment was the frivolous litigation. I think that the goal here is by including an affirmative defense, what you do is you eliminate that because instead of having a, a traditional rebuttable presumption and an affirmative defense, if you are able to effectively raise that and be successful in that defense, then you're eliminating a, a ton of discovery. And that's where the real costs are in these, in these, in these cases, right? I mean, as, as soon as that's you not successful, then the judge will order discovery and then these companies are out tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. And so, um, so that's the whole point of having the affirmative defense limiting it to one particular industry. I, I think it's, it's a little bit problematic because there are, we're starting to see these kinda lawsuits, not just in the energy sector, but I mean, you, you name it, whether it's, you know, firearms or automobiles or whatever. I mean, there's a lot of those kinds of things. Now you mentioned design defect or manufacturing defect. I think those are specifically things that, um, would not fall under an affirmative defect, uh, affirmative defense because, uh, and the whole point of what, what, what, what he's trying to do, and, and don't let me put words in your mouth there, but what, what I think the goal is, is to make sure that we are not from a regulatory standpoint kind of schizophrenic, you know, on the one hand saying, follow all these laws and rules, and the minute you do that, if you do it perfectly, we're now gonna sock you with liability on the other side. It's gotta be one or the other. But the minute, the point is, if you do that, we're not gonna hold you liable for just those. But if there's something beyond that, then there's no immunity. Right? And, and you brought up, uh, like an, uh, an airplane design defect or manufacturing defect. And that's a, that's a great question because I think that wouldn't fall within this. So if there's a way to make it fall with, you know, to, to, to assure that that is not what's taking place, then, then maybe that's worth looking at. But I mean, as I read the language, I think those are the kinds of things that, that would not necessarily be problematic. Now the question is, by narrowing it, do we cause more problems? You know what I'm saying? Because you wanna basically address these kinds of things and not just in one particular sector, but we are seeing this around the country. I mean, I've seen, you know, small counties in both Kansas and Oregon to name two states where they'll get a massive judgment for climate change against, uh, you know, uh, an energy player. And my understanding as of right now is those are not final judgments. But as Representative Jack said, the minute there is one of those final non appealable judgments for $30 billion for, you know, contribution to climate change, then these companies pr pretty much just declare bankruptcy. And so anyway, un under the traditional tort analysis of duty breach causation damages, it's the causation and damages piece here that I think, I mean, I think we're trying to make sure that we, we limit that, uh, in scope. So we don't have those problems. I'll wait. You good? Yeah. And no one's ever asked if we could double the length of a bill. This is gotta be a first. And I was, I was joking. I feel bad. Sorry. This committee really likes big bills.

My name is Rachel Sykes, I'm a plaintiff's personal injury attorney. Um, and I'm the vice president of the Utah Association for Justice. I represent victims of nursing home abuse and negligence and troubled teen wilderness facility abuse, uh, primarily sexual abuse. And, you know, I think you can have five different attorneys look at something and we all disagree on, on how this is gonna be applied. And I think that that's why, what is problematic about this bill? Um, I oppose this bill because I do think that this, the way that this is going to be applied and the way that it reads is that, um, it's going to abate a bad actor's duty to behave safely and reasonably because they're going to come in and say, well, we followed this regulatory checklist. We, you know, we, we we did the bare minimum to secure our permit. And the problem there is, is that I don't think that these entities that are approving or licensing a nursing home necessarily is doing that based on, uh, you know, based on a safe, a safety concern, rather, that they've filled these statutory requirements. And so I think that this bill, you're going to see, uh, increased litigation because I think that we'll see defenses from, you know, a tort visa or a, a wrongdoer who rear end somebody and they'll say, well, I had a driver's license, or, um, you know, we had a license, we had a permit to do this certain action. And so I, I'm concerned by how broad this is, because I don't think this is addressing what I heard as the sponsor's concerns. I think this is going to address every single civil lawsuit in the state of Utah, uh, because it is so broad. And, and that's where I'm concerned is, and so we oppose it. I think that this needs to be significantly more tailored to the actual concern of, uh, the state and the sponsor. Thank you.

Robert Axon. I'm here on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce, and, and we want to rise in support of this bill, uh, that has been introduced by Representative Jack and commend him on the ability of creating both predictability and accountability. And those are the two, uh, key themes that, uh, we want to stress here. It's important as we're developing and encouraging economic drivers here in this state and seizing the opportunities that this state has for the people that are engaged in, in trying and growing businesses and solving complex issues for our state, that they have the ability to predict what their liability, what their obligations and, and what their commitment to this state needs to look like. Uh, we, we feel that it would be unreasonable to, after the fact go back and have this reinterpretation and application of liability. And so these guardrails, uh, we feel to be, uh, very important, especially as we meet those challenges and things that you, the legislature have called for, uh, as is expressed in operation gigawatt, for example, where you have a, a goal, an aspirational goal for our state. We wanna make sure that the policy makers are setting the standards whereby which companies and businesses need to, uh, fulfill and, and meet rather than, uh, policy making that is done through the courts after the fact. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I had a question where you were mentioning that, uh, this could have brought applications to different areas of civil law. I was curious, do you have any hypothetical situations in which this would cause conflict or cause an issue?

Um, yeah. I can speak specifically to the nursing home industry. Um, there is a set of federal regulations and state regulations that essentially mirror the federal regulations. Um, and there's a, the term in there about staffing that says it needs to have safe, uh, sufficiently, sufficiently competent staff and enough staff. Um, and so I think that we see in all of these cases that they defend them by, by staffing. And so they're gonna come in and assert where we, we followed this regulation because we have competent staff. Um, or they're gonna come in and say, you know, we had, you know, we followed the, the exact licensing process where the fact is is that many of these facilities and, and it's all on Medicare's website, have a known history of safety deficient staffing. And so it's gonna create even more work for us to basically shift the burden onto me as representing the victim or the victim's family to have to try to overcome that. And so I'm very concerned about this application in the nursing home context.

Okay. So it looks like in the bill that there is, I mean, 'cause you're, you're mentioning that they're not complying with the statute, right?

Like that, at least that's the argument of the plaintiff. Yeah, I mean, That's always our argument is that this doesn't even meet the very, very bare minimum. Um, but the concern is, is the way that this is listed or the, the way that this is written where it says conduct omission or condition, um, at what period of time does, does that standard apply? And that's what's a little bit confusing to me in the way that it's written. And so that's, you know, one of my concerns. Um, you know, but the broader concern is that complying with some ki some checklist or some statute doesn't equate to safety. It doesn't equate to reasonableness. But the way that this affirmative defense will be used is that we behaved reasonably or we behaved safely because we complied with the statute.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank You.

All right. So, uh, my name is Scott Lithgo. I'm with the Utah Association, and, uh, represent citizens injured in, uh, as a result of negligence, uh, of another person or business. Um, I think, uh, there's, there's a lot of good intent with this bill. And, um, ho however, as, as it's been pointed out, there's, uh, a lot of unintended consequences, uh, that are gonna hurt Utah citizens. And one of those, uh, one of those have been brought up regarding, um, drivers who are licensed by the state of Utah to drive. And if they, um, commit some kind of negligent act and hurt other individuals, even somebody who's driving, uh, under, under the influence, uh, they can use an affirmative defense that the fact they're licensed, they're authorized to be out there driving. Uh, so they can use that as an affirmative defense. The same with childcare safety, uh, people who are licensed, uh, to, to, um, pro to provide, um, daycare services for children if they, um, create or permit or allow a dangerous situation to, to, uh, happen. And, um, a child is injured, they can use the affirmative defense that, um, they're licensed by the state of Utah. Uh, that goes to also property owners, uh, excuse me, uh, businesses who, um, create or permit or allow a dangerous, dangerous situation to exist if they, if somebody, uh, citizen is injured because of that dangerous situation or circumstance, um, they can say, well, we're licensed by these, or by the state, whoever, whoever the, the entity is. And, um, they can use that as they're not responsible. Um, contractors. Contractors who, who, um, um, allow or permit or create a dangerous circumstance, again, they're licensed by the state of Utah and they can say, Hey, We, Mr. Mr. Liko, I'm sorry, your time is up, but could you hold on a sec?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, a quick question. Uh, 'cause I'm not a litigation, uh, well, I'm not a, I'm not a civil litigator. Uh, I gotta think back to law school to remember my torts. Um, I'm reading through the proposed language here, and in, in my understanding, you know, it says the plaintiff harm was authorized or required ultimately by a license. Um, and, and a of course, there's no statute that says that a, you know, a a person with a statute working or license with working for the state of Utah is, is allowed to, to get into a car accident. But I I, is your understanding that, that perhaps that's a workaround, uh, that someone just saying they have a license that the harm caused that isn't specified just 'cause they have a license, there can, uh, um, can, can be used as an affirmative defense?

Okay. That answered my question. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Seth Stewart, representing myself. So House Bill three 30 is not a narrow liability cl clarification to prevent judicial overeats reach, or overregulation. It's a complete inversion of the entire instrument of civil justice in lines 36 through 45. The bill grants an affirmative defense whenever harm results from conduct on omission or condition that was authorized or required by statute, permit, rule license, or similar instrument, meaning the government permission in all of its many heads becomes, puts a heavy thumb on the scale in civil suits, liability is also frozen the moment the conduct occurs or condition initially arises permanently. Hampering remedy for long-term or later discovered harms even if a measure is subsequently repealed or found to be unconstitutional. This applies regardless of theory of guilt and it explicitly abrogates the common law wherever it conflicts by tying the ability to pursue civil remedy to statutes and orders. This is an effective repeal of common law. These provisions close the courthouse door by statute violating open access to the courts in the article one section 10 guarantee of trial by jury in civil cases, a further poison pill. As long as a safeguard isn't enumerated in the law, you've gotta get outta jail free card. This effectively collapses civil liability to absolute nothing unless you're the defendant and a government entity is a plaintiff. Equity exists so that courts and juries can, and let me skip ahead. It's been said that this does not provide an actual practice. Affirmative defense for a defendant acting on behalf of a government entity is extremely effective. Ordering on dispositive so that anyone acting on behalf of the government can claim. I was just following orders.

Uh, thank you Madam Chair. Uh, my name is David Head. I am a personal injury attorney. I help, uh, per people who've been hurt in accidents, and I've also had some concerns. I, I appreciate the concerns from Representative Jack. I've also heard of some of these lawsuits. Uh, Representative Abbott brought a good example. I've heard of lawsuits regarding climate change generally, and, uh, people bringing it up. 'cause supposedly they'll be hurt in the future. And I, I'm all for, uh, uh, pre preemption of these type of, frankly, absurd types of lawsuits, but has been said by others. This is way too broad. Uh, the bill doesn't even mention climate change, and frankly, there's a lot of situations where this will make it much harder and even impossible in some situations for injured victims to bring claims against businesses. Uh, one example that came to mind for me is slip and fall or construction related accidents. I've had cases where, uh, companies have a permit to do work, and with this type of language, they could say, well, we had the permit, we were fine. But the reality is, uh, it's gonna prevent a lot of situations, people getting that relief they need. And I think there needs to be narrow, narrow tailoring for the, the, the harm that's been trying to prevent, like these big global type of cases, like with climate change. And it's gonna have a lot of unintended consequences. So I think there needs to be some amendments here. If not, it's gonna have a lot of unintended consequences, which will hurt Utah overall. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I am Mark Barons. I'm appearing today on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington, DC Uh, I just want to answer some of the important points that have been made about the bill. First of all, it is not a license to injure people or protect wrongdoers in any way. Yes, nursing homes have to receive licenses. They don't have a license to mistreat patients. We all have licenses to drive on the roads. We don't have a license to drunk drive on the roads or to drive in a careless or reckless manner. Anybody that would do those type of things is not going to be protected by the bill because if you look at the language of the bill, it doesn't just protect somebody that has a license. But the conduct that is alleged to have caused the harm has to be what was authorized. There's nobody authorizing nursing homes to mistreat patients or authorizing drivers to drive junk down the roads. That's just a red herring. What the bill does is provide an important carrot and stick approach. It says that if the government mandates the law, if the experts who are in charge of public health and safety in the environment set standards, and you follow them, that you can rely on those standards and not be second guessed later in a lawsuit. But if you don't follow those standards, you don't follow the law, you don't follow the licensure that you were given, not only do you face civil liability, but you would also face enforcement by those agencies. Thank you.

All right, Representative Thompson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so there's no substitutes or amendments, is that correct? Correct. Okay. Um, uh, I move, um, that we favorably recommend HB three 30 to the full house.

Yeah, thanks. Um, I'm just wondering, with all of the concerns that were raised, if the sponsor would be okay to hold and work out some of these concerns. Um, it seems like there's a lot back and forth and I know that leadership has asked us to do a lot of this work in committee before we pass it through. Um, so just wondering if he would be open to a substitute motion.

Okay. Thank, thank you Madam Chair and thank you representative. Um, I believe that a lot of the back and forth that you've heard, uh, we've, we've addressed in that, uh, bad behavior is not licensed nor condone, nor immune from prosecution in this bill. However, since this bill is a guardrails bill, if there are guardrails that need to be put on it, we will absolutely work between here and the floor to get those put on. And, and I've committed to work with the members of the committee. And when I say me, I mean the attorneys will and me, I will be involved. But, uh, to work, to put the guardrails on the guardrails so that we are getting what the state needs, uh, to protect us from frivolous lawsuits. But yet, uh, we're in no way condoning, authorizing or licensing criminal or bad behavior.

Yes, thank you. Okay, thank you.

Alright, thank you. Yes, I'd like to speak to that. So I think it, from my questions and statements, I do have concerns. I do think it is too broad, but I appreciate what you're trying to do. I think with your assurance that you're willing to work with us and with me, I guess, and get this to the right place, uh, I'm willing to pass it out of committee. Um, but I do think the way it's written now, it is too broad. It covers too many situations. Uh, for example, I had a loved one who was, in my opinion, no longer able to drive safely, went down to the DLD and got their license renewed. Does that mean that that loved one, I would've been horrified that loved one of mine caused a crash and killed somebody or, or hurt somebody. And, um, but I don't think the DLD was necessarily, I mean, I think all of us think the DLD assures that we're capable good drivers, but I'm not sure that's what that permit really means at the end of the day. And we all need to take personal responsibility and to me, this bill kind of abrogates that. And so I do have concerns about it and so I, but I think it's workable. I think we can get to the right place on this.

Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. Committee. Yes, I think this is very important. I focused on the energy related issues. Uh, attorney General Brown pointed out some of the other applications of this law, but, uh, we'll want to make sure that whereas this will protect legal and lawful behavior, it does not grant any sort of immunity or licensure for criminal or illegal behavior. So we will absolutely make sure that there are adequate guardrails around any of that. Thank you. Anything more you'd like to say?

Thank you Madam Chair. I, I just, I appreciate the, the, this, the good sponsors work, um, on the bill and, um, the, the willingness to work, um, uh, um, with my colleagues here on the committee to address a, a, a, a few concerns there, but I'm confident enough in the bill and, um, in, in my recommendations. So, um, yeah, I'm, I'm, uh, excited to push this onto the full house.

matter. Meeting clerk House bill three 30, liability limitations amendments by Representative Jack. This bill was served in judiciary with the vote of 7 0 4

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would make a motion to circle Mr. To circle. Would like to speak to it?

Thank you. I would move, uh, I would like to make a motion to move sub one in my name to HB three 30.

Yes. Thank you. So, uh, in negotiating with, uh, interested, uh, parties in the body and from, uh, prior meetings, we've added a couple of sentences that we considered to be guardrails on the guardrails that this bill provides.

Thank you. So, to the whole Bill, HB three 30 is to deal with a growing, a growing issue here in the, in the country. Since 2017, we've seen three dozen states and local governments file lawsuits against energy companies. Now you'll notice as you've read this bill, I'm sure everybody has. It's exciting, but everybody laughs. I know, but, but, uh, as, as you look at this, we haven't specifically called out energy producing companies, but we've kept it in, uh, broad terms to provide guide guardrails around our, our businesses in general. But let me give you some examples from the energy world, because that's the business I'm in, and everyone would be disappointed if I didn't talk about energy. So anyway, in this particular case, my job is number one, to keep the lights on. And number two, to make it affordable to do that. Here in Utah, we mine coal, which we have plentiful and very inexpensive. And we do that with permits from the Bureau of Land Management and, and licenses and permits from the Environmental Protection Agency. And then we burn that coal in our generating plant that has all of the emissions controls. And we have permits from the Environmental Protection Agency, and we have all the latest controls on them to the point that we're even at a fraction, a decimal of what the EPA would normally consider safe. So we're so safe, we're 10 times more safe. But as a business, even though we have complied with all the rules and regulations and the terms of our permits and our licenses, we have no protection from nuisance liability lawsuits at some point now or some point in the future for saying that we have caused some unspecified harm to some unspecified persons in some specified quantity, but everyone would feel better if we gave them a pile of cash. And so as we do that, that provides a very insecure way for businesses to do business and to provide services in the state of Utah. And you can imagine if we had a winter like they're having out east and they couldn't afford to keep the lights on, then your only alternative is to start burning the furniture. And as these climate related lawsuits make their way across the country, they're trying to legislate through the courts. And they're trying to do that, trying to find activists and judges who will give them a non appealable ruling. And they have already said out loud in interviews, and I quote, and I only read the quote once, the first plaintiff gets a final non appealable judgment. Every defendant in all of these cases immediately declares bankruptcy. That's the goal, is to prevent us from having reliable, affordable energy in either electricity or any hydrocarbon space. But also you can imagine other businesses, I can think of examples. For example, when I last hiked rim to rim of the Grand Canyon, and I got to the other side and we were waiting for our ride, I stopped and listened to the rangers, the Park rangers talk about condors flying around the Grand Canyon, California condors. And they said the biggest threat to the California Condors that now live in the Grand Canyon was them finding, carrying on the ground that might have been shot with a lead bullet. And so now this condor's eaten this dead deer who has a lead bullet in it, and they're dying of lead poisoning. This is what they told the whole group of us. And and you'll be proud, I didn't speak up and object, but one can imagine, one can imagine that now the lead bullet manufacturer would be liable or could be held liable in a lawsuit for manufacturing lead bullets that could conceivably have been party to harming a protected condor. Anyway, what this bill is saying is that if you have complied with all of your rules, then you should not be retroactively liable for some unspecified harm. And with the guardrails that we put in with the first sub, what we've said is that, of course, this does not apply if you have any case of negligence or criminal neglect and all the other terms that you can see there in sub one. And so with that Mr. Speaker, I guess I would conclude my presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. I agree with representative, uh, the sponsor of this bill. Um, we've seen an unfortunate trend around the country of people filing lawsuits and trying to use tort law in order to change policy. And that's not the purpose of tort law. And so I agree with him, uh, and I think he's walked a fine line here because I think this bill's been carefully crafted to try and prevent people from using the courts to change policy while preserving the traditional personal injury loss. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would waive

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to encircle HB 2 93.

Thank you. I would move, uh, I would like to make a motion to move sub one in my name to HB three 30.

Yes. Thank you. So, uh, in negotiating with, uh, interested, uh, parties in the body and from, uh, prior meetings, we've added a couple of sentences that we considered to be guardrails on the guardrails that this bill provides.

Thank you. So, to the whole Bill, HB three 30 is to deal with a growing, a growing issue here in the, in the country. Since 2017, we've seen three dozen states and local governments file lawsuits against energy companies. Now you'll notice as you've read this bill, I'm sure everybody has. It's exciting, but everybody laughs. I know, but, but, uh, as, as you look at this, we haven't specifically called out energy producing companies, but we've kept it in, uh, broad terms to provide guide guardrails around our, our businesses in general. But let me give you some examples from the energy world, because that's the business I'm in, and everyone would be disappointed if I didn't talk about energy. So anyway, in this particular case, my job is number one, to keep the lights on. And number two, to make it affordable to do that. Here in Utah, we mine coal, which we have plentiful and very inexpensive. And we do that with permits from the Bureau of Land Management and, and licenses and permits from the Environmental Protection Agency. And then we burn that coal in our generating plant that has all of the emissions controls. And we have permits from the Environmental Protection Agency, and we have all the latest controls on them to the point that we're even at a fraction, a decimal of what the EPA would normally consider safe. So we're so safe, we're 10 times more safe. But as a business, even though we have complied with all the rules and regulations and the terms of our permits and our licenses, we have no protection from nuisance liability lawsuits at some point now or some point in the future for saying that we have caused some unspecified harm to some unspecified persons in some specified quantity, but everyone would feel better if we gave them a pile of cash. And so as we do that, that provides a very insecure way for businesses to do business and to provide services in the state of Utah. And you can imagine if we had a winter like they're having out east and they couldn't afford to keep the lights on, then your only alternative is to start burning the furniture. And as these climate related lawsuits make their way across the country, they're trying to legislate through the courts. And they're trying to do that, trying to find activists and judges who will give them a non appealable ruling. And they have already said out loud in interviews, and I quote, and I only read the quote once, the first plaintiff gets a final non appealable judgment. Every defendant in all of these cases immediately declares bankruptcy. That's the goal, is to prevent us from having reliable, affordable energy in either electricity or any hydrocarbon space. But also you can imagine other businesses, I can think of examples. For example, when I last hiked rim to rim of the Grand Canyon, and I got to the other side and we were waiting for our ride, I stopped and listened to the rangers, the Park rangers talk about condors flying around the Grand Canyon, California condors. And they said the biggest threat to the California Condors that now live in the Grand Canyon was them finding, carrying on the ground that might have been shot with a lead bullet. And so now this condor's eaten this dead deer who has a lead bullet in it, and they're dying of lead poisoning. This is what they told the whole group of us. And and you'll be proud, I didn't speak up and object, but one can imagine, one can imagine that now the lead bullet manufacturer would be liable or could be held liable in a lawsuit for manufacturing lead bullets that could conceivably have been party to harming a protected condor. Anyway, what this bill is saying is that if you have complied with all of your rules, then you should not be retroactively liable for some unspecified harm. And with the guardrails that we put in with the first sub, what we've said is that, of course, this does not apply if you have any case of negligence or criminal neglect and all the other terms that you can see there in sub one. And so with that Mr. Speaker, I guess I would conclude my presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. I agree with representative, uh, the sponsor of this bill. Um, we've seen an unfortunate trend around the country of people filing lawsuits and trying to use tort law in order to change policy. And that's not the purpose of tort law. And so I agree with him, uh, and I think he's walked a fine line here because I think this bill's been carefully crafted to try and prevent people from using the courts to change policy while preserving the traditional personal injury loss. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would waive

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to encircle HB 2 93.

Senator Winterton. Thank you Mr. President. Back in December, uh, I was in attendance to the energy conference. Uh, Senator Harper and and Milner were there along with Representative Jack and we hear, heard a presentation and we go, whoa, is this really happening? So this is model legislation that we're looking at and it is a, a rule of law bill. If a government off authorizes an activity and you comply with the terms and conditions of the government that the government imposes, you shouldn't be retroactively punished by optimistic litigants to circumvent this, uh, the political process. Deep blue states and municipalities and other activists are attempting to use the state courts to impose draconian energy policies that they failed to enact in Congress on or in the state houses. These lawsuits are climate litigation disguises tort law. About 30 of these lawsuits are pending in the United States against the nation's largest energy companies. Their common theme is to relabel law, lawful energy production, and even lawful speech as a tort or public nuisance or deception. So courts can dictate energy policy by verdict. So what this this bill does is that if it's, if you're, uh, going through and getting all the permits that you need to do these projects and, and you conform to the EPA regulations, all the boxes are checked in that you should be able to be in click, uh, good conscience going forward. And, and the industry, if they have to look over their shoulders that we've, they've done everything. And then down the road somebody comes with a lawsuit trying to claim that had they damaged the air shed or, or whatever it is, we can't have energy policies that we gotta look over our shoulders for. So this is, this is a bill that would counter that it's a affirmative defense in a civil action for conduct omission or condition authorized or required by a government entity. It also specifies the circumstances in which affirmative defense does not apply, including the action for products liability. So with that, I'll just open it up, uh, for questions.

Senator Vickers. Baldy Lewin Rammer Aye. Bus Comore Aye. Ms. Camilla Aye. Fillmore Grover. Aye. Harper Hankins Ipson Johnson. Kwan McKay Mikel Milner McKay Musselman Owens Owens pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton Aye. Picture Mikel President Adams Aye. Second substitute house Bill three 30. Having received 20 yay votes, five nay votes.

Senator Vickers, Thank Mr. President Pro

for conduct a mission or condition authorized or required by a governmental entity. And, uh, give an example of this. Uh, when a, when a, let's just say a power company, when they go to the extent of purchasing and getting a, a permit for a coal mine, they, they work with the BLM and the EPA and get those permit, and then they get in mining and then they bring it over to the power plant to generate, burn it and generate electricity. And when they do that, then they're also under other regulations under the EPA, the state, you know, state and the Fed both have their hands in it, uh, and under good faith, they, they operate this. And then say an entity or individuals come and say, well, you've now caused harm on our health, and so we're gonna sue you for, for burning fossil fuels. And, and that's not, you know, nobody will go into business. And if that was the case, uh, the first time that they find a judge that's sympathetic to that and allows that to go on in the courts, then we're gonna see bankruptcies galore in the energy industry. And so this is to prevent that from happening, is that if they've acted in good faith and jump through all the hoops that the regulatory agencies have, uh, uh, required then that they should be good to go. And, and so this is not having to operate your business, looking over your shoulder, saying if or when this happens, they've acted in that. And so this bill addresses that concern. Thank

So I'm, I I appreciate that this affects power plants. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm wondering if it affects nursing homes and youth treatment centers, and if so, how families can independently verify whether regulatory violations, uh, were, were, were sufficient. I if they've, uh, had a, a family member who was neglected or even died in a nursing home or youth treatment center.

Senator Winterton. Yes. And I think that the second sub addressed those issues. Um, uh, down on line 52, it says it does not apply if the plaintiff proves to the government entity that issued the authorization or requirement has determined that the person materially failed to comply with the terms of the conditions or authorization. And then it goes on and it talks about, uh, product failure or admission of an employee or something. If they're a founder, this does not protect them on that at all. Uh, Senator Weiler? Yeah.

So as I read the bill, the affirmative defense would only fail if the governmental entity that issued the authorization determined that there was non-compliance or scope overreach or fraud. So what is a family to do if a, if a loved member is harmed in a nursing home or a youth, uh, treatment center, if the government entity doesn't find that there was, you know, overreach or fraud or, uh, non-compliance Senator Winterton?

Well, I'd, I'd have to ask, uh, to find out did the attorney do his homework as far as who was at neglect here? Was it the agency that permitted it or was it the actual business themselves? Because it sounds like to me that that would be something that would be excluded from this

Well, I, I have some concerns that, um, that this bill may go too far and, um, and, and actually insulate, um, authorize, you know, in insulate conduct that that could be harmful way beyond, um, a power plant. Um, this is an affirmative defense that applies, uh, for all bureaucratic action. Um, and, uh, I'm concerned that this kind of shifts too much on the state regulators and may, may deprive, uh, families and others who are harmed in other non-power plant businesses, uh, from being able to properly obtain relief through litigation. So those are my concerns.

President, just, just wanted to voice similar concerns. I think if you look at, uh, lines 37 to 46 where it identifies where somebody could rely on an affirmative defense, it goes quite broad. It goes just be, it goes beyond law and goes even down to administrative rule permits, licenses, orders. I mean, this gives, this gives a lot of authority to rulemaking at a state agency level or at a local level without a lot of public input. And, and so I appreciate the scenario that was described as the basis of the bill, and I think that this could be crafted in a way to, to address those types of claims. But as is this, this is really broad. And then further, the next session also says that you can rely on that particular license or an administrative rule at the time it happened, even if circumstances change in the future. And so I, I just have some concerns, but think, think there is a way to address the circumstance that was described, um, without, without going this broad.

Well, I appreciate the concerns there and, and I'm sure that looking at this, that those scenarios were not contemplated because we were at a, an energy conference when this was rolled out saying here's some real problems. And so, um, I think the sponsor worked with everybody and the second sub came out because he was listening. And so for that reason, I, I'd much rather make a motion to circle this and, and see if there is, uh, some language that you want to, that you would feel more comfortable putting in here. But we want to be able to protect the other industries that are, are now looking thinking, you know, we may turn off the lights because of those same concerns. So for that president, I would make a motion that we circle this bill.

civil action for conduct omission or condition authorized or required by a government entity. And, uh, it specifies the circumstances in which that affirmative defense can be done, um, filed and then it, and then it also talks about what does not qualify. So it's forward thinking, trying to prevent some of the happenings that's going on throughout the US and, and we want to get ahead of it here in the state of Utah.

Senator Vickers. Baldry Lewin. Bramer. Bus Colmore. Pardon? Ask Camilla. Yeah, I see Fillmore. Great. Aye. Grover. Aye. Harper. Aye. Hello, Hankins. Hankins. Dave. Great. Ipsen. Okay. Sounds great. Thanks. Ipsen. Aye. Johnson a Quan McKay. Mikel Milner. Musman Owens Pitcher Lum Re Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers. Aye. Weiler. Senator Weiler.

Um, thank you Mr. President. I, I appreciate the sponsors circling this earlier and, and, and listening and making some changes. I'm gonna vote. Aye.

Senator Vickers Wilson. Aye. Winterton bus

Mr. President and President Prote. Uh, I'd like to move motion to encircle for substitute house bill 58

Thank you. I would, we've been working on a couple of issues so we have a substitute. I'd like to make a motion to substitute, explain what the difference is and then recircle it so we can allow the fiscal note to catch up motion in

Yeah. The motion is to delete entitled body first, substitute House bill 58 and replace it with second substitute.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'll make a motion to concur with the substitute done in the Senate. Thank you. Representative motion before House concur with Senate amendments on second substitute HB three 30. Would you like to speak to that? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, what what we did was a couple of small changes that the Attorney General, uh, helped me craft or rather he crafted. Uh, and this simply adds a couple of small lines that says, uh, that this protection from, uh, retroactive liability doesn't apply if the person has procured their authorization by fraud or it doesn't apply to product liability actions. Uh, with that Mr. Speaker, I would, uh, conclude my presentation.