H.B. 575 Fuel Tax and Supply Amendments: transcript

Uh, well thank you Mr. Chair. Um, this bill's gotten a lot of press. I have expected the Idaho Calvary to be here, the battalion, but no, it's become, uh, I think a lot less controversial. If you look at all the polling throughout the state, you'll see that one of the main issues on the top of many Utah voters' minds is cost of living. And what this bill is trying to do is address some of those concerns. Um, Utah gas prices are generally higher than the national average, especially during the winter, or excuse me, during the summer. And part of the reason why that is, is it's just a, a pure supply story. If you look at the West Coast, for example, California has regulated many of their refineries out of existence. And so you've got two large California refineries that are actually scheduled to be closed down. It's taking supply out of the market. Now, Utah, we're a part of this broader regional market that is west of the Rockies. And so what our partners on the West coast do really impacts our fuel prices here in the state of Utah. Um, what's interesting is that we have actually increased production at our refineries over the last 10 years by 20%. But because the West coast has decreased their production 10% and they're just a much bigger portion of the overall production, uh, Piute, you've seen a general just uplift in Utah gas prices at the pump. Uh, and so the question for us is what, what can we do as government? Is there anything that we can do? Well, I think there's two things we can address that are in our control. Number one, we can control the gas tax, what people pay at the pump. And number two, we can control whether or not we want to be a pro midstream infrastructure state or whether or not we want to incentivize or, um, clear the way for more midstream pipe development. So what this bill does is it tries to do both. It does a, a one time gas tax cut, a 15% cut at the pump to accelerate an already built in drop in the gas tax. That's gonna start next year. And then the second thing it does is it tries to accelerate, uh, clear red tape, um, around permitting. It does some permitting reform for midstream pipe development. Uh, so let me start just briefly with the gas tax. It's going to be a a a 6 cent drop. It's a $41 million overall impact, and it will have an impact on the transportation fund. And what'll likely happen to the transportation fund is some of those projects, uh, will, will be delayed until next year. But that 15% cut will start in July. Now, if you know how the transportation fund works, you'll know that the locals get about 30% of that fund to maintain their roads and what's called the Road B and C money. This bill holds them harmless. So you'll, you won't see that in the statute, but you'll see it in the fiscal note that, um, all the local road maintenance dollars are held harmless. Um, on the pipeline piece, it, it coordinates actually with the bill that Representative Kyle is, is running, which is the this Ombudsman bill. Uh, but it also shortens the shot clock around, um, getting, getting, um, approvals for midstream pipe development. We've got a, a bunch of pipes in this state. We've got the UNIV pipeline, which goes from Salt Lake City, and it goes down to Nevada, um, stops off in Cedar City. We have the Northwest Pipeline, which goes from Salt Lake City up into Idaho and then ultimately into Washington. And recently we've had this new pipeline called the Enterprise Pipeline, which comes up from the Gulf and it, it terminals in the Moab area. What the bill is trying to do is to, um, incentivize or, uh, clear the way for more pipeline development because at the end of the day, if we can get more supply into the market, you'll ultimately see a, a drop in prices at the pump. So, um, the last thing I'd say is it, it does have an expansion of the high cost infrastructure tax credit around fuel storage. I don't know if that's gonna be used. Um, the, the fiscal impact is probably fairly negligible if it's used at all. Um, and then lastly, what I'd say is there's been a lot of discussion with industry partners around how can we get them to commit to increase supply. If we wanna lower gas prices for people at the pump, uh, we need more supply in the market. And so you'll see in this bill, there's some oversight on production at the refinery level and the growth of production. And I, I suspect over the next week or so, you'll see more news, uh, from our industry partners about commitments to increasing supply in the state of Utah. And, and so you'll note in the bill that there's a, a mechanism that allows us to, to, uh, oversee that and to monitor it. But ultimately I'd say two things. Number one, the bill drops the gas tax 15%, and number two, it removes red tape to further streamline midstream pipeline production. And with that, Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just wanna make sure I understand this correctly. So you're, you're removing about $40 million from, uh, the sales taxes, but you're making that up by, is it it charging for some of the midstream? Uh, how, how do you make that up? I guess?

So there is no offset. It's, think of it as a one time hit to the transportation fund. As you know, as you know, Mr. Chair Wells, the chair of the transportation committee, the, the, the gas tax fluctuates based on what's called the rack price. And the rack price is like the wholesale price of fuel. So crude comes out of the ground, it gets put on a truck, it goes to the refineries, they do their magic chemistry on it, they turn it into manufactured fuel. It then usually gets on either a pipeline or a truck. If it's domestic, it gets on a truck. They drive it to what's called the rack, that's like the Costco of fuel. And then the retailers or the distributors come and pick up the fuel and then take it to the, the gas station. That rack price fluctuates up and down, you know, oftentimes driven by inflationary impacts. And right now, if you look at the gas tax next year, it's set to actually drop about 10 to 12%, about 4.4 pennies per gallon. And what the bill is just doing is it's, it's a short term solution today that says, we're gonna pull that forward, we're gonna make it 6 cents. It's a one time hit to the transportation fund next year. Of course, you know, UDOT will have been programmed out on their road maintenance projects and, uh, you know, they'll be able to absorb those impacts. But for the next six months, there will be an impact on that transportation fund. Does that answer your question?

So yeah, partly, uh, so let me keep, uh, going, if I may. So you're not, you're not, uh, changing any, um, uh, of the, uh, extraction, uh, taxes. The, the

Correct, there's no new tax change to upstream, which are the guys in the you in a basin who pull the fuel out of the ground. No changes there. There's no refinery tax, no production tax, there's no export tax, none of that. You, you are increasing the high infrastructure, uh, tax credit it looks like for, to encourage some pipelines. We're expanding it to include storage for manufactured fuel. So there's actually this interesting site down, I think by Delta, the salt caverns and you can store, it's a private solution. They're, they've built this massive cavern where you can store millions of gallons of manufactured fuel. In fact, you can store up to 13 days worth. What happens, the way our refineries work is in the wintertime, they're not running at full capacity because demand is down in the winter. We don't drive as much. We're not going on trips to St. George and things like that. So, so they, they don't run as hot. They're not running at a hundred percent capacity during the summertime when demand is really high. And our prices usually spike much higher than the national average. They're running at a hundred percent. So one of the ideas is, is if the state in some way could facilitate a private, uh, public partnership or something like that, where you could store excess fuel from the winter and then have it be released during the summer, you could potentially take that volatility down in the gas price and lower it a bit. I, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, honestly, because there's private market hurdles that would need to be, um, overcome. But you'll see in the bill on the high cost infrastructure tax credit, which has normally been used for things like refinery expansions or upstream, uh, expansion, you'll see that it expands the use to be used for the storage piece. That's all it's doing. Does it get used? I don't think so.

So after the first year of, uh, cuts to the transportation fund, what, uh, does that fund build up after the sec to the second year back to where it was or it is just, or does the, uh, transportation department just, uh, live without lower amount of funding?

Yeah, the way it works and, and I think Lisa's here from you dot I wouldn't, I would, I would invite her to come up if she feels comfortable talking to that as well. But she's here the way the, the way it works right, is it fluctuates. And so post COVID, because of the inflationary boom, you've, you had a basically a real, a large jump up in the gas tax. It floated up to 39 cents. And because inflation's come down and the rack prices have come down, that gas tax is set to drop. And they, I, you know, I have tremendous trust and respect for Carlos and team, and I think they've budgeted out and have been anticipating that drop for probably over a year now. But I'll let Lisa talk what this is doing is it's basically saying, let's pull that forward. We're gonna accelerate that. It's a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Let's cut the gas tax today. That's gonna have some impacts on the transportation fund today, but I think post January 1st, 2027. My guess is what you'll hear from Lisa is that they, they're, they've planned for that and are ready to adjust their programming, uh, based on that revenue change. Would that be okay to hear from Lisa?

I'm Lisa Wilson with udot. I'm the Deputy Director for Engineering and Operations. Um, as the sponsor was saying in 2025, the gas tax was, um, 38.50 cents on January 1st, it dropped down to 37.9, um, and the next January 1st, 2027, we expect it to be somewhere in the range of 34 and a half cents. And that's just the natural drop as he described through the, the rack prices and the way that the system's set up, it averages the last three years, and that's how the new rate is set. We do have our projections going forward for the revenues, and that's how we do build our, our programs when we go to the Transportation Commission to fund our projects.

Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair. Appreciate that.

Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. Just a quick question and tell me if I'm reading this wrong on the bill. It looks like we are, are increasing the tax on natural gas, liquified natural gas and hydrogen. Is that gonna help make up any difference? Or tell me if I'm reading that wrong.

No, you're, you. It looks like that actually, I had a member of media ask me that same question. It's, it's not changing it, it's just correlating with another piece of in the code. Um, so there's no change to the natural gas tax and, and if you look at the crosswalk of the bill, you'll be able to see in code. It's just a cleanup item. The only change, the only tax impact in this bill is this gas tax reduction of 15%. The sixth cents starting July.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. I am just going to add a prerogative of the chair here. If you look at our budget in totality, we haven't made a big enough deal of this, but, uh, we, Utah just became a debt, effectively a debt free state because our rainy day funds now exceed all of our bond indebtedness. And because our bond indebtedness, a lot of that is at 2%, we're now arbitraging that. So I think from a big picture perspective, if you look at our budget, we're in very sound financial shape. And while this isn't ongoing, I think it is a very nice way to give some money, put some money back into the pockets of taxpayers, uh, and then maybe give us time to figure out how we can do it ongoing.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Tim Davis, executive Director of the Department of Environmental Quality. Um, I wanna thank Representative Roberts for working with us on, uh, on streamlining the permitting process. We are undertaking, uh, whether it's e permitting, developing dashboards to be more transparent with permitting, uh, revising our uh, rules and doing a hard look at everything we do to ensure it, it carries out our mission. Uh, we are looking for all opportunities to streamline and make our permitting process more efficient without undermining protection. So this bill's in line with that, and I think the substitute, uh, helps just clarify that this doesn't add additional authority, uh, to the department when we're doing permitting. So, happy to answer any questions.

Um, I move that we adopt first substitute house bill 5 75.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we favorably recommend House Bill 5 75 as substituted First sub. First

Yes, I would actually. Um, I know that the good sponsor has been working really long on this, and anytime we can provide a tax cut to the people of Utah, Utah, I think that's a good policy. So I support this wholeheartedly.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, yeah, I support the motion as well. Um, I I think it's good to, uh, cut taxes and, and the burden, uh, the people are feeling right, right now. Uh, I I do hesitate a little bit about cutting the transportation funds for the roads, you know, as we grow as the state. But I think the policy is, is when the state is doing well and healthy, we're able to generate business and grow our economy and cover those needs. So I think it's a, uh, I think it's good policy move. So I support the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I appreciate the good sponsor. Sounds like you've had a lot of work on it and the work will continue with a week left. Good luck on getting everything done. But, uh, with that, a motion, uh, Mr. Chair that we, uh, favor, we recommend first substitute house bill five 14 to the full body of the Senate, knowing that we'll probably be seeing an amendment or substitute. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. I'll just comment that, uh, the issues that we're trying to work through were discovered after the bill passed off the house floor. Um, we made it, we did pass an amendment that we thought would address the concerns. Um, that was, uh, in collaboration with Munis, the co-ops in Rocky Mountain. It just turned out that we, um, after reviewing it, that they felt like there's some additional language that we need to get in there, and we're working, uh, diligently to get that done. Okay. Thank you very much.

Chairman and members of the committee. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It's great to be before you. I know you have a full agenda, and I think this is a pretty simple bill. Um, what this bill does is it, uh, in cities that have storm drain infrastructure, it just requires them to do detention basins and not use retention basins in the great Salt Lake drainage area. So that water that we collect does make it to the Great Salt Lake. Uh, and that's the presentation.

Uh, um, I think that works in the longer term. I, the concern that I have is, does removing retention basins from neighborhoods increase the risk of flood in those neighborhoods in high water events? Uh, so they can still detain it and it just has to eventually meter out like they normally do. So it should not, and if there is an event that it would cause if the city engineer, and I appreciate the city engineers working through this, this with me, um, if there is an incident that would cause create flood, um, this is exempt from that, this should not, city engineers should be able to design their systems that that will not cause flooding, But won't this benefit the engineers by giving them an extra lot for every development? This doesn't go near as far as I, I'd hope when I started the bill, but one step at a time, and Shouldn't we fight anything that benefits anyone trying to build homes? I'm just messing with you. I know. Yeah. Thanks.

Met with a few, uh, city engineers. The league, uh, got us in touch with city engineers that had some concerns, and we changed a few words to make sure that everybody was on board.

Thank you, Senator. Uh, good morning. My name is Soren Simonson. I'm the executive director of the Jordan River and staff to the Jordan River or Jordan River Commission and staff to the Jordan River Watershed Council. Uh, I am here speaking today in my official capacity, representing about 40 agencies and businesses and, and other organizations that comprise the Jordan River Commission. Uh, there are concerns. Jordan River is a unique river in the Great Salt Lake Watershed in that it's the most urbanized part of our state, and there are concerns about removal of retention, uh, and what that will do to water quality. Uh, we know Senator McKay, you and, uh, and others, uh, are champions for the Jordan River, and we've appreciated all of your efforts in the past to help make it a wonderful parkway and navig waterway. Um, just last week I stood shoulder to shoulder with our h Millard company and city and county leaders and others as we announced a major restoration effort on the Jordan River near the Fair Park area. Um, the biggest risk that we face in particularly in the lower Jordan River is water quality. And there are many lingering concerns about the loss of retention as an ability to manage storm water quality. Uh, the alternative is that all of the water goes to the Jordan River without any way of, of filtering out. At least it's not referenced in this bill how water quality would be addressed. Um, I've spent much time over the last several weeks since this bill was introduced, meeting with and talking extensively with the stormwater coalitions of all the MS four permit holders across, uh, Davis County, Salt Lake County, and Utah County. And there remain many, many concerns about what this will do to water quality. Uh, perhaps the Jordan River could be exempted from this bill, um, because we don't want to impede water going to the Great Salt Lake, but how it gets there is, is equally as important. Groundwater does reach the Great Salt Lake. We know that it also recharges our aquifers, which are critical to drinking water, but most importantly, it addresses flooding and water quality, which are two key ingredients to having a healthy and a vibrant Jordan River. So we encourage you to pause this bill was not taken in front of the Utah Water Task Force or the Water Commission, to my knowledge, uh, and, and had an opportunity for that robust discussion that takes place in those arenas. And we would encourage that kind of discussion before moving forward. As you say, Senator McKay with a major policy shift that hasn't really been vetted, uh, in the way that most water bills are. Uh, and, uh, so I just want to express concern. We're not opposed to the bill. We're very, very concerned that it hasn't been fully vetted and, and doesn't address the water quality impacts, which the current retention standards, uh, help facilitate. So thank you for your consideration. Yep.

Uh, good to see you. Um, uh, we've had a lot of good, good interactions over the years. Yeah, thank you. More on the Utah Lake side. Uh, with regards to, so currently all of the water quality concerns, uh, are well that this bill would impact are typically handled through retention basins Primarily. Yes. And I mean, but they're not doing anything to clean the water or anything, it's just kind of holding any pollutants in the retention basins.

That's right. Retention basins don't allow water to leave the basin other than through percolation into the ground.

That's actually a really good way to do it.

There has been concern about the visual impacts of retention basins that have a lot of sediment and debris and things like that. That's actually what we want to keep out of the Jordan River, which is already the most impaired water body in the state.

Okay. And then what would be the typical solutions if we weren't using retention basins for water flowing through to the Jordan River and then the Great Salt Lake?

Well, what's happened prior to the decisions years ago to put in retention basins and is still the case, which with, with much of the stormwater system is that the water flows into our receiving waters, rivers, creeks, Utah Lake, and others without any filtration. There's a mis common misperception that what goes in the storm drains gets treated like the water we flush and wash in our homes and businesses, and it doesn't, it's untreated water. So retention basin is the most substantial and the most successful way of keeping those pollutants out of our receiving waters, the places we love, like the lakes and rivers and streams.

Yeah. And, and so from a policy standpoint, what we're, what we're having to measure is water quantity versus water quality. Is that a fair assessment of this?

So in this, we're trying to increase the water quantity flowing through.

Right. But you're saying it comes at the expense of water quality or potential?

It, it has potential to diminish water quality, and I don't know for certain that it increases water quantity. Either groundwater does get to the Great Salt Lake. It gets there through a fabulous filtration system that was created in nature. And, um, as we pave things, we have to do something with water that runs off rapidly that doesn't go into the ground, but it doesn't necessarily create great benefit for the Great Salt Lake.

I mean, it, it certainly in a retention basin, you're having a lot more evaporation. It's not all going to groundwater.

Uh, you know, you're, there is a substantial amount of evaporation of the water quantity in any retention basin. Most retention basins, unless they're lined, which most of them are not, most of that water does go into the ground.

Okay. It doesn't evaporate.

Uh, we, we know it evaporates in Great Salt Lake, and I understand the interest in getting water to Great Salt Lake, but groundwater does reach great Salt Lake. It reaches it much slower, but we see clear evidence of, in the Jordan River, of a huge amount of groundwater that gets into the river and makes it to Great Salt Lake. Then my my

last question is, do we have any, uh, any guidance as to the impact of water qua water quality of, of what would likely be the resulting, uh, flows down? So we already have storm water that flows directly into the Great Salt Lake through the various tributaries, and it has not impacted the water quality to such a degree that we're in a crisis on water quality. Is that fair to say?

In, in the Great Salt Lake? No. Okay. The, the water is mostly filtered before it gets to the Great Salt Lake by wildlife habitat, duck clubs and public lands, federal and state lands. Um, so, but, but those areas are greatly impacted by water quality. The sponge around the Great Salt Lake, which is the wetlands, the ponds, the, the, uh, Baez and other areas, those areas are significantly impacted by water quality.

I, I guess the concern that I have is you're saying, why don't we exempt Jordan River, but let's let everyone else have that water quality problem in their sponges, but not ours. I I'm not suggesting we we do that.

I, I'm saying that we know that Jordan River is the most impacted water body, and if the goal, and it's not the highest tributary to Great Salt Lake, but if the goal is to get more water to Great Salt Lake, and this is the only vehicle to do it, I'm not convinced this is the right vehicle to get more water to Great Salt Lake, but if it's the only way to do it, um, we know that the Jordan River will suffer the most from the loss of these kinds of retention standards. What do we know

That based on, Uh, just evidence the state just, yeah. I mean, is there like a study that I can look at?

The state just released it, their most recent, uh, water quality study that was presented in the Water Quality Board meeting last week, and the Jordan River is becoming more impaired, not less impaired. Okay.

Thanks. I'll go look that Up. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Um, I will say, I know that there are methods for dealing with that and making those improvements. And so maybe the best way to do it is to try and find methods for improving, you know, water runoff water. I mean, people don't realize when water flows across impervious surfaces like asphalt, it picks up all the stuff that comes off of impervious asphalt oil, whatever it may be, then hits the canals, uh, and hits, you know, uh, the, the drainage, uh, like Rose Creek, um, just trying to Midas Creek go through, go across the majors drainages of the Valley, at least the ones that I'm familiar with coming through the ochre, not to mention the ones coming out the east side as well. Um, you know, it's interesting though, uh, that, that trying to, the filtration may be the bigger problem. It'd be also be interesting to know what the capacity is, you know, as, as some talked about, just, you know, what does the end of the funnel look like as, as we're trying to get into, you know, some of these drainage, uh, situations. Um, because we're developing right now farther and farther away from the river, and so that means the travel distance for those resource for that water resource is coming from farther away and thus more likely natural perk or na natural, uh, you know, um, filtration as opposed to, you know, as opposed to the other. So be, anyways, I'm just, it's piqued my interest at least as to, for, from a solution standpoint, but there's one thing I think we all agree on, which is no water in the Jordan River is much worse than dirty water in the Jordan River. Would you agree with that?

Mostly? I don't think these are mutually exclusive ideas. I agree. Yeah. I, I think we can continue to provide and improve robust storm water treatment for pollution prevention and increase flows in the Jordan River and more getting more water to Great Salt Lake. I'm not sure this bill does that. Mm-hmm. Um, but I think there's a lot we don't know. And that's why I'm not speaking necessarily in opposition to the bill, but I am very, very concerned, as are many people across the Jordan River watershed, that this bill without a lot of robust discussion and investigation may have impacts that we're not prepared to address, because we don't know for sure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Taz Bessinger with the Utah Home Builders Association. Uh, Mr. Chair, before I get started, I would just like to comment how handsome that Utah State flag is behind you. You're gonna get us in trouble Just commenting. Just commenting. The Home Builders Association supports this bill. We think it's a great bill. Uh, it's a long time coming as maybe alluded to by the chair. Um, I, I will comment just in response to the previous, uh, uh, witness, uh, DEQ about five or six years ago, did do a study of, of, you know, how the, how, uh, uh, EVA or, um, groundwater gets to the Great Salt Lake and their expert after a study estimated as they, in my opinion, to guess, but they couldn't confirm, but they believed that water eventually got to the Great Salt Lake, but it would take at least 50 years. Uh, so I, I think any representation for that affirmatively gets there and it gets there rapidly, is, is, is at best to get, uh, a stretch. So we hope you'll pass this bill. We think we'll do great things for, for, uh,

I will give you a very brief presentation. Well, first thank you Mr. Chair, uh, for allowing me to come back to hear this. So the major issue with gas prices in our state and the region, it's a supply issue. And what this bill is trying to do is to cut red tape around private infrastructure investment into our state that will bring more supply. That's the primary thing it's doing. The second thing about the bill is that we've got an agreement with private industry, our five refineries here in North Salt Lake area to increase production by 12.5%. And over the next five years, that's about 23,000 barrels per day into our market that will help bring prices down. Um, this bill provides some oversight over that private investment, and I think that will ultimately make a, a big difference. The third thing the bill does is it provides some short term gas tax relief. It cuts the current gas tax by 15%, drops at 6 cents starting in July 1st. And really, we view that as a bridge to the longer term solution. Ultimately, it's, it's going to be a supply issue. We have to get more supply into our market and the larger regional market. Um, and then the gas tax cut is, is a bridge, uh, to provide some of that relief today for Utah citizens. And with that Mr. Chair, I'm open to any questions?

I move that we pass out favorably. First substitute house bill 5 75. Thank you.

I'll waive. Okay. I'll waive.

Motion to adjourn. All in favor, please.

Per substitute house Bill 5 75 Fuel tax and supply amendments by Representative Roberts. This bill was earned in revenue taxation with the vote of 10 0 1

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro tem colleagues, Utah is the number nine oil and gas economy in the United States. The UN a basin is booming. We have five refineries in our state when other states have zero. We also have an expansive, extensive pipeline infrastructure network throughout our state, and yet our gas prices are consistently higher than the median. Why is that? Well, partly it's because we are a part of a regional market and our neighbors on the west coast are regulating their refineries out of existence. California has announced two closings of major refineries. When you pull supply down, what happens to price? It goes up and you're feeling that at the pump here in Utah. What this bill tries to do is address that concern. It does three things. Number one, it cuts the gas tax by 15%. That's $45 million back in the pockets of everyday utahns. Number two, it cuts red tape and it streamlines the permitting process to bring more manufactured fuel in our market has the opportunity to bring an additional 45,000 barrels per day into our market. And lastly, number three, we have a commitment from our industry partners here in the state of Utah to expand production by 12%. That's an additional 23,000 barrels a day in our market over the next five years. This bill provides some oversight. So we're providing a short term cut tax relief for everyday utahns and we're trying to solve the long-term, um, supply problem. And with that, I urge your support and am open to any questions.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Proto. Will the sponsor yield to at least one question?

Go ahead. Thank you Mr. Speakers. So if we're cutting the gas tax at the pump, how is the funding for that? What, how, what's the replacement mechanism for funding that in the general fund in the transportation fund?

Great question. There is no replacement mechanism. So this will be about a $45 million cut the local road B and C money, which is the money that, um, is used to pay for local roads, cities, and county roads is going to be held harmless. Um, but in terms of the impact of the transportation fund, you will see an impact. We've worked closely with UDOT to understand those impacts. What will likely happen is you'll see some delay in some maintenance projects. Now, I will point out to my colleagues, the way the gas tax currently works is it fluctuates. It floats with where the rack prices are at. That's basically the wholesale cost of gas. We're set to see a around a 10% cut next year anyways. So think of this as pulling forward that cut as a one-time, uh, impact to the taxpayer and admittedly you will see some impact to the transportation fund.

Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm. I appreciate the thoughtful answer.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Irisin supported this bill for a couple of reasons. One is, uh, is it absolutely implements the free market principles. It, uh, it removes regulation so that uh, so that the product can get to market and more product in the market automatically will drive prices down. So this isn't a temporary tax cut, this is, this is a market solution. And anytime that we remove the government out of the solution and put the market into the solution, the market succeeds. So I I applaud the sponsor for an enormous amount of work that he's put in on this and, uh, and very well thought out. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, this has been a bill a long ways coming. Uh, there's been a lot of negotiations that have happened leading up to this bill, including agreements from various suppliers and refineries that they would be able to increase production. The intent is that this will lower the gas price for our average Utahans. Now, in the meantime, until we can get that production up and they have agreed to produce it and to, uh, to report their production levels, uh, to the state. In the meantime, there is a gas tax cut. And then, uh, the other things that it does is it provides some regulatory, uh, permitting, um, provisions related to, uh, increasing oil and gas infrastructure. And so, um, for example, there are various pipelines that need to be finished. There are, uh, storage facilities that we can utilize that will help us increase our gas production so that we can, uh, store and then, and then bring that out when demand is higher so that, uh, we don't have as much, uh, price fluctuation. So with that, I'm open to any questions on this.

Either way. I didn't know if you were or not. So, Uh, yeah, since my my light turned green president, it must be a sign. I would just, uh, I really appreciate the process that leads, you know, to, uh, a bill like this. It started out in a different way, but I appreciate the negotiators working with so many stakeholders to arrive at this position. And, uh, even if it is not, uh, the, you know, the, the final project that I would've drafted, even though I would've drafted something different, I would've had to go through the same sorts of negotiations and might have landed in exactly the same place. And it's a better place than where we are today. So I appreciate all that work.

Uh, thank you. Uh, I'll move the question.

Thank you President. Uh, this, this bill is, uh, we don't have very many of these in the state. Uh, we have a lot of, uh, road crossing crosswalks for people and especially our cool school children. But what this does is creates a wildlife crossing account in the transportation, uh, investment fund, and put some funds, uh, in that yearly creates, uh, uh, makes it more use, uh, out of the sales and tax revenue to be deposited into the account. Uh, and defines how the uses of the money are, are used and directs the Department of Transportation and Consultation with the division of, uh,