S.B. 176 Landscaping Procurement Amendments: transcript

Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee. It's very nice to be here today. Um, so SB 1 76 addresses, um, the type of equipment that's used on state facilities, and specifically it would require that state facilities along the Wasatch front with less than 50,000 square feet, um, replace their two stroke lawn equipment with electric powered lawn equipment whenever that old equipment is ready to be retired. Um, doing so shows, uh, has great measurable impacts for air quality. But I'll also note for the community's benefit that, um, the Department of Gov outs did a pilot program a number of years ago where they acquired a number of electric landscaping, uh, equipment and found that, uh, they had long-term cost savings, there was measurable benefit in noise reduction, and overall it went very well. And so, uh, we believe this is the natural next step. Um, there are certain, uh, safeguards in place in the event that it is not cost effective or the slope or the train just doesn't really accommodate, uh, for that type of equipment. But otherwise, um, I think this is good policy and I'd urge your support. Alright, thank you. Do you, do you have anybody with you or does that, uh, complete your presentation? That completes my presentation, although may be some folks that might speak to it. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so my question I guess is, um, as I'm looking this over, why, uh, if, if, uh, the agencies are finding the benefit of moving to electric equipment, why, why are we having to make it mandatory? Uh, sorry, I'm not, say that one more time. Why are we making it mandatory? Yeah. So if, if the agencies have been finding benefit from moving in these circumstances to the electric, uh, systems, um, then, then why are we making it mandatory across the board, essentially?

Yeah, it's a good question. Let me know. It's not across the board, it is just along the Wasatch front with specific, uh, guidelines as to where it would apply. But I mean, I think the best answer is they just haven't done it, even though they have found some benefits. I think, I think somebody is here who could maybe address your question further, but I think sometimes, um, a little nudge from the state is, is necessary and in this case, probably helpful.

Thank you. And the reason I bring it up, so I, uh, uh, in another life, growing up in Las Vegas, my father owned a landscaping company and we, I spent many a hot, uh, Vegas summer, uh, uh, using this type of equipment. Typically, obviously it was always two stroke, um, type gas powered stuff. And, uh, and I know the techno at home, I use electric. I think they work great in that scenario. Um, my concern is mostly about, um, when it comes to the more commercial, uh, application, um, reliability of the, um, uh, the power of the equipment, reliability of having access to it over long periods of time and different types of weather, heat and cold. And, um, would just be curious. Um, you know, maybe in some circumstances it makes sense and maybe in some it doesn't. That's why I'm just trying to figure out the, the move here. Yeah.

Uh, well, I I think you've summoned a friend, so if I may, I'll I'll hand it over to him To Thanks. Representative

members of the committee. My name's Andy Mar. I'm the director of DFCM. Uh, we've been working with the senator on this a couple years now. The answer to that question is, it's, it's, it's limited to state facilities, 50,000 square feet or less because not all electric equipment, especially in today's current state of technology, is gonna meet the needs that we need everywhere. Capitol Hill is a great example of that. 30 acres of grass, probably not the best choice for electric equipment. So we really wanted to refine this to places where it was applicable and it worked and it did not cause any excess time to complete the jobs. Um, and with the technology where it is now, and then through the pilot project, we found that that 50,000 square feet is right about the sweet spot where we can load a battery, take care of the, the grounds, and then be on our way without much hardship.

Mr. Chair, can I ask some follow up questions? Yeah, you may. Um, so have we looked at, so, um, are, are these facilities themselves then, do they ma manage and maintain their equipments individually? There's not, um, there's not a, uh, a separate, uh, department or anything that's, uh, that's servicing multiple facilities. I guess my question is, is, um, are these self-regulated sort of locations or are we talking about, uh, groups that may be traveling or moving, uh, to, to service many locations where we may be cre creating a scenario where they have to have a mixture of both electric and gas powered to meet all their needs?

Now, um, under the, the different requirements for the different facility spaces, The answer is yes. And there's both, uh, around, especially the Wasatch front, we have varying sizes of complexes and, and within those complexes, we have varying sizes of properties within those complexes. So our grounds teams are very mobile and they would carry a mixture of both, uh, gas or, or electric. Um, and then they would strategically place that equipment where it makes sense to have it. If it's not mobile, it stays stationary at the facility where it's used.

And then, so what would be the benefit, I guess practically speaking to if you're running a, a, a, um, an operation where you, where you're maintaining and using both sets of equipment. So what are the benefits and drawbacks? Is there some concern about, um, you know, having now two different sets of equipment in these cases? Or is the intention to eventually move, uh, to one set, um, as the technology improves? Or I guess, can you walk me through that?

So when we were working through this and using the pilot as kind of the indicator of what really works, that's why that 50,000 square feet is there. I think there's gonna have to be quite a jump in technology to go above that. Um, of course the, the advantages of the two in four stroke equipment is, is power. It's it's lifecycle. Um, but the advantages to the electric equipment, uh, especially in the tight urban areas, uh, not only with the air quality benefits, but noise is one of the factors. And then, um, not having to refuel and carry fuel, uh, in the trucks wa was noted as a, a benefit to, to electric. Uh, but DFCM fully realizes that there's, there's a niche for both, both gas and and electric. And, and we tried to work really closely to figure out what that was.

Okay, thank you. Alright.

Um, I have a question actually for, uh, for you sir. Um, from a, from a durability perspective, uh, you kind of touched on this, but, uh, uh, I'm, I'm kind of a freak. Uh, I love, uh, landscaping and I've done it for many, many years on large, uh, pieces of property. And, uh, so from a durability perspective, did this study that you had, uh, look at electric and how it holds up over the long haul versus the gasoline powered, I'm just curious what you found. We did, um, the majority of the electric equipment we used in the pilot is, is still in rotation now and we're still using it out in the field. The biggest piece of failure for us was, was the battery life and then having to come back to the shop or having to come back to the truck to get a new battery. Um, we know that the technology has increased, uh, to a, to a level where the 50,000 square feet makes sense. Um, but to the overall durability, I mean, I think we were, we were pleasantly surprised at that. And um, like I said, most of that's still in, still in action today. Okay. Thank you for that. Um, I think I've got one more question for you, Representative Peterson.

Thank you. Um, on section three we say that, uh, we can eliminate if, if, if, if, what does cost prohibitive mean? I mean, I know what that means, but does that mean 10%? Is that cost prohibitive is 50%? How do you decide what is cost prohibitive?

Yeah, this came in as a substitute from, uh, one of my colleagues in the Senate and we sort of intentionally tried not to put too many guardrails over what that sounds like and, and leave it to the entity to, to use their discretion.

Do you worry that that might make it, that, that the ambiguity is gonna make it, uh, so, so, so this is not gonna be a level, you know, we're, we're not gonna apply this to this, the same to every, every facility or every piece of machinery or every instance.

I haven't had that concern just based on the conversations I've had regarding the way in which this technology has been used and understanding, um, that cost has not really been a factor, been a factor. Um, but I'm certainly open to modifications if this committee feels it's appropriate.

Thank you. So just, so I think my question is similar to Representative Peterson. Um, so are we mandating this or is there a choice given?

So it would be mandated amongst state facilities along the Wasatch front with that 50,000 square feet or less, but, uh, there are guardrails around that, or exceptions specifically for cost as noted, as well as, uh, the type of landscape that, uh, it would be used on. And so if the landscape is prohibited in some way, the stoniness or the slope or other things that make it just not a realistic option, um, then they would opt out.

And, and what's the, what's, how did we come up with 50,000

That was based o on the, the, the pilot program that we conducted a few years ago and just really the applicability, we didn't want to keep running for batteries and things, and we felt that that 50,000 square feet, a good example, was probably one of the DABS stores that we have here across the valley. That kind of a footprint was it, it it proved to, to us to be the most effective to use electrical only equipment there.

Yeah. Great. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this doesn't require the elimination of current equipment, it's when the equipment runs out or, or is end of life, then you replace it with the newer, uh, better electrical equipment. How long, how long do you think it will take to replace, uh, the, the equipment that you have? What's, what's your typical lifespan of, of your gas powered equipment?

That's a great question. And that was our primary concern with this, uh, in the first place. And we wanted to be really clear that this was not going to have a fiscal impact of the division. Whether it was just going to continue our capital renewal of the equipment that we currently have. Um, you know, I can boast a little bit and say that we take good care of our equipment, so the timeline is gonna be quite some time. Um, we have mechanics on staff and that's, that's their sole purpose is to make sure our fleet of, of small equipment is, is running good. Um, so this is really designed to say once that two or once that, uh, fuel powered equipment is at end of life and we've already worked into our ISF rates, the replacement of that equipment, that's when we would say, okay, this is a, this equipment's primarily used to 50,000 square feet. We're gonna go ahead, do a cost comparison on the gas equipment versus the electric. And if it makes sense at that 50,000 square foot, um, campus, then we would go ahead and purchase the electric.

Makes sense. All right.

Thank you. And that, I guess that question brought another one up then. So from, uh, at least from my experience, and maybe it's, it's different, uh, obviously the tech is constantly changing, but the electric units typically cost more upfront, but the maintenance costs and the, the, the lack of fuel costs and charging batteries tends to be lower maintenance over time. So are, are you saying that even though there's not a fiscal impact, that you're, you're, you're trying to evaluate the total cost of the equipment over the lifespan, even knowing that perhaps the upfront cost may be higher, but the maintenance cost might be lower over time? Uh,

What I mean, no upfront big cost. If this, if this were written in a way that would make it just go into effect on an effective date and we'd have to comply immediately, then we would have to go out, retire our old gas equipment and then procure new electric equipment to comply. That for us was a roadblock. So what I'm saying is that it, we've designed this to be kind of a long-term transition, um, and watching the cost difference is going to be a part of our assessment, um, to comply with the, the cost effective piece of this bill. But essentially, if you're retiring a, a, a gas powered equipment and replacing that with an electric, there's an understanding that the cost for the electric one might be higher in the initial purchase phase, but the maintenance cost of over time would be lower. Would be lower.

Correct. Okay, thanks.

and then take it away. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Bryce Bird. I'm the director of the Division of Air Quality. And, uh, just wanted to, to talk to this bill, uh, a little bit. As we've heard with the, the, the modifications to the bill, uh, it's cost neutral, but it's not air quality neutral. Uh, this is a, a big benefit to have the state show leadership, uh, with respect to these small two stroke engines. And it's in combination with other activities that the legislature has undertaken for incentive programs, for instance. Uh, currently, uh, we have an incentive program that was started by the legislature. Uh, those are are available at, uh, in, uh, air incentives dot Utah dot gov and all the way down to personal lawn equipment. So we think this is an important, uh, leadership step for the state so we can capture the data about how effective the equipment is, uh, as we see it move into the, the, the market. And also we've also seen that there are commercial landscapers that are already moving all the way to full electric all the way up to golf courses. There's actually a Utah company that produces, uh, autonomous lawnmowers for golf courses that are fully electric as well. So it's really, uh, focusing on the adoption of technology. Uh, it's cost neutral for the state, but it's not air quality neutral for the state. It does improve air quality and, uh, appreciate your support.

Thank you. Um, that's an interesting, that's an interesting, uh, idea that what we'll lose in, in dollars might be made up over here. So what, what will this do to the air quality?

So If I, do, we know the numbers, So, uh, as, as it moves forward, we haven't calculated numbers from this, but I'll just give you an idea of kind of the, the difference. Uh, of course these small two stroke engines are, are highly pollutant polluting. Uh, it's because they don't have the controls. Like, uh, uh, we use a good example that you could drive your family car from, uh, Salt Lake to Disneyland and have, uh, less emission than operating a a two stroke, uh, weed eater for one hour. That's because there's no, uh, Cadillac converter. There's no, uh, of course all the controls are on, on a vehicle. And so the operation of, of these, uh, engines in our airshed, if, if they were all eliminated, it would be like equal to all of the refineries being removed from the area. All the, the combined emissions from those, again, that's not what we're asking for, but it is, uh, helping us to capture data points, understand that the equipment is reliable all the way up to the commercial scale. And then as we, uh, encourage adoption for the purpose of improving air quality, that's what our ultimate goal is.

Lot of question. Go ahead. So, um, Just to, uh, understand too, 'cause we're, we're, even if we do this and replace the, the two stroke engines, we're, we're still replacing 'em with another, um, a system that's still gonna require power generation and manufacturing. Has that been taken into account as well as far as shifting some of that air quality basically to other areas and perhaps some of the other aspects of, uh, batteries manufacturing and and disposal that is included into that process?

So, so the answer is yes and I can, uh, discuss more offline, but of, of course our public utilities are moving forward, cleaner and cleaner generating technology. And so as we've done the calculations all the way up to electric vehicles, it's a, it's a much, uh, cleaner again, when we're talking about the, the air polluting emissions that impact public health locally, certainly the fact that those, uh, large generating operations are outside the Wasatch front, whereas the, the use of two stroke engines is in the Wasatch front, uh, is certainly a, a big air quality benefit for us. But even when you look at, uh, again, the very inefficient two stroke engines versus a well controlled even coal-fire power plant, the emissions are much, much reduced, uh, when we look statewide.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move amendment to house amendment one.

Ahead. I'd be happy to go ahead and make a positive recommendation on a second substitute to HB 1 76 as amended.

I, I think this is a thoughtful, we, we've heard this bill in the past. I think this is a thoughtful approach to make sure that we're not spending more money than we need to, but that we set the standard. If we're asking, uh, citizens to improve air quality as a, as a state government, we should also follow those, those same guidelines. And I think it makes sense, makes a better environment, uh, for workers as well.

Me again?

Mr. Chair. Can I reserve the right to make a motion?

Um, I'm gonna ask instead the sponsor, uh, a question if I could, you may do that. Um, does the, does this, do we currently, let me rephrase this. Can we currently purchase this equipment today? Can the, can the local agencies under 50,000 square feet of property needing maintenance in the Wasatch front, can they currently under our procurement purchase electric equipment?

They can. So this is, this isn't

providing them anything other than a requirement?

Correct. Okay, thank you.

I'll just, uh, say thank you for the consideration and the conversation today. Um, I'll waive any further summation.

Yes. I don't know if I can move it, but I can speak to it and Well tell us what it is and then we'll see what we can do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'll speak or I'll present to the whole bill and include the sub, if that's okay. Um, this is a bill that this committee considered last year. Um, I think it was SB 1 24, if I'm not mistaken. Last year. This ad addresses landscaping equipment used on state facilities, and, uh, the bulk of the work on this bill was done in this committee. Um, what you're seeing today is, is the same bill with those modifications that we made last year, and the sub includes some of those modifications. So on the initial bill, um, somehow we left off a, uh, a, a provision that, um, allows the state to continue using equipment, um, if there's like an undue burden on the property. And so this sub would include that backend. But what you're seeing is the results of the work that this committee did on this bill last year. It died a little bit of a tragic death. My house sponsor was mid-sentence when the clock struck 12 on the house floor. And so we didn't get to see it all the way through. Um, but this is something that I think the state can do. Um, it's sort of in my mind, low hanging fruit. I know that the division has done a pilot program. I, I've, I've asked Michelle Brown to come give this committee a very quick overview about how that pilot program went as they transitioned to electric equipment. Um, but just some interesting data for the committee. Um, one of the reasons I think this is important is just the, the considerable impact it has. One hour of operating a gas powered chainsaw is equivalent to driving from Salt Lake City to Kansas City. And so where we can, um, make small modifications to use electric powered equipment, provided it's, uh, costs, it costs, it saves costs for the state and is still workable. I think we should explore those, those options. And so, um, I'll give Michelle A. Little time to talk about the pilot program.

Wonderful. Thank you, Senator. Um, hello, Mr. Chair and, um, committee members. Thank you so much for allowing me to present today. I can get to pull up for you here. Is there anyone that can help me pull this up onto the screen? Maybe? There we go. Hey, Nick. Okay. Are you okay if I just verbally go over it? I think so. Able to help. Okay. While, while we're getting this pulled up, um, I'll go ahead and dive in. I'm Michelle Brown. I'm the coordinator resource stewardship for the Utah Department of Government Operations. And, um, I managed a pilot program that we did with our electric lawn equipment at a multitude of our state facilities, thanks to a generous care grant from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Um, fortunately we were able to, um, acquire over just over $46,000 for the grant program. It was broken up into two phases, um, across, like I said, some of our largest campuses. We, um, procured a, a variety of equipment including, um, electric blowers, trimmers, battery backpacks, chargers, and additional batteries for the equipment. I would also like to note that these were all commercial grade, um, lawn equipment pieces, but, um, obviously we had high expectations and our equipment selections had to be feasible so that our wonderful lawn care staff could do the job that they need to complete. Um, our biggest goals were to reduce emissions. As Senator Petra mentioned, um, it's a significant source of VOCs and other emissions. We also wanted to reduce noise pollution as well, and odor pollution for the users. Um, in terms of feasibility, obviously we, um, wanted our staff members to accomplish full eight hour days. So we did purchase additional battery packs so they could quickly, um, switch out batteries once they, um, ran their use. And we deemed that the pilot was overall successful. Our blowers were used over a well over a thousand hours, received, um, approximately $1,200 in fuel cost savings. And, um, very importantly to us, four metric tons of CO2 emissions were reduced annually by using the electric lawn equipment versus the traditional, um, fuel-based equipment. And our tremors ran for about 453 hours with almost 300 in fuel cost savings. And we, um, receive a metric ton of CO2 emissions reduced annually with the tremors. So, um, again, this was a successful pilot. It met all of our expectations and feasibility. We received positive sentiments from our maintenance staff that used the equipment when in fact we got zero, um, negative feedback on the tremors. And we did experience overall less maintenance with the equipment. The only hiccup we had was at the beginning of the pilot, we had to replace, um, a couple of our battery packs, but it was covered under warranty, so there was no additional cost. And one thing I would love to note is that the newer models are substantial, even more powerful than the ones that we procured in 2020. But, um, I think what really speaks to the success of the program is that a hundred percent of the equipment we procured during this pilot program back in 2020 is still in use at some of our largest, um, and, um, highly, um, enjoyed capital facility spaces. And with that, I'd be happy to take any questions the committee might have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, I, uh, I have nothing against electric, uh, lawn equipment. I own some of them myself. Um, but I do kind of think that there's a different narrative out there that at least we need to talk about. One is when you say you've reduced, uh, X amount of CO2, somewhere, the energy was produced to charge my battery. Um, I, I think we just realize that we're taking a lot of energy from somewhere and producing it, and we're trying to account for all the savings without accounting for any of what happens on the other end. We also have a huge battery component that, uh, a lot of minerals had to be mined to create that battery, and there was environmental impact there. I just don't think we can tell this whole story without, with just one sided telling the story. Um, I, I'll, I'll say this now. I I also take a little bit of, of grain of salt with your example always of how far I would drive to equivalent, equivalent of a one hour with my chainsaw. My chainsaw I use as a pint of gas, uh, 50 to one oil ratio. Um, driving to Kansas City's gonna take me 50 gallons. Um, I just, I guess I'm just not buying that in reality. Uh, but I have nothing against electric, uh, uh, electric, uh, where I do run into problems is where we start to mandate it, um, regardless of cost, regardless of, of how, and I know you've tried to make some of those improvements in the bill, uh, as far as cost and, and where they're most efficient to, to use. But, uh, but I, I've, I've always had those concerns about mandating, um, electric. Thanks.

If it could, I briefly respond as to chair. Sure. Um, I share your concerns about mandating. Also, I think there's a big difference between mandating the private sector to do things versus, um, asking the state to do things that are cost effective and hopefully have a better impact for the environment. And so I'm mindful of that and I appreciate the comment, but I'll just emphasize that it would only be for state properties.

in the bill file, and, and maybe I've missed it, but is it talk about cost effect in, in not requiring the state government to do to, to procure electric if that's not cost effective or less cost effective?

It doesn't mess, uh, it doesn't mention cost-effectiveness specifically, but there is a provision, I think it's included in the substitute actually, that's sort of like an undue burden provision. So if it's just not o overall feasible, and I apologize, I should pull the sub up. I'm looking at the first draft myself. Um, The, the, excuse me, Mr. Chair. Um, I see on line 48 in the sub in the comparison. The only thing I see is using electric powered landscape maintenance equipment is not practical due to existing slope erosion, stoniness, or other features of the landscape. Um, I don't see anything about, uh, a cost comparison for, for cost comparison's sake as far as being that being something that would be an exemption. And I'm, I'm open to that, uh, change Mr. Chair, if the, uh, the good senator wanted to make that amendment, if that's practical in committee. Um, I think one of the reasons it's not there is because the data shows that it has been cost effective. Um, but I appreciate the comment and the concern.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Okay. And I was looking in the first draft, I imagine this in the second, I'm just trying to, but we limit this to the first and second class counties, government only. And, um, it's a very generic, I think it's grandfathered in that we use 'em until we, it's cost effective replacement. We, we go with electricity. Is that the intent?

Yeah. So the intent is whenever a gas powered, uh, equipment is ready to be retired, that we would then replace it with the electric model. So we wouldn't, uh, incur any cost to proactively make that switch. But at the time the natural lifecycle has passed on, the gas powered equipment would be the, the appropriate time to then procure an electric.

Afternoon, Mr. Chair. I'm Bryce Bird with the Division of Air Quality. And, uh, just wanna take an opportunity to, uh, thank the sponsor and the committee for considering this, uh, important to me legislation, uh, when it addresses, uh, air pollution, especially in these large Wasatch front front counties and the state showing leadership. Um, I just want to mention, uh, a couple things quickly and I'll, I'll pull Senator Sandall off to the side, uh, here later to, to go into more depth. Um, we're really focused, uh, in my agency, of course, on the criteria pollutants, those that, uh, cause public harm and health, uh, to help. And so that's, uh, volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen. And so the, the, uh, statistics on using that two stroke lawn and garden equipment that is particular to NOx and VOC and particular emissions. And that's where that, the, the metric of, uh, we use the driving to Disneyland one for string trimmers, uh, Kansas City for, for chainsaws. And that is because, uh, new vehicles are so clean with catalyte converters, all the emissions controls on those vehicles. And these older technology, especially two stroke engines are, are very dirty in comparison for the criteria or, or help impacting pollutants. And so these are not CO2 emissions that would be tied a hundred percent to, uh, consumption of the fuel. These are the, the, again, the, the public health impacting pollutants of, uh, oxides of nitrogen volatile organic compounds and particulate from, from, from these, uh, engines. So just wanted to make that clarification. Uh, also, I just want to take an opportunity to mention this also. Um, we have an incentive program. Uh, and so as was mentioned, the pilot project that the state did was, was, uh, funded by an incentive program that we operate. Uh, we have, uh, additional funding for, for those incentive programs. And they're very popular with, uh, commercial landscapers. Um, basically they had the opportunity to, to try this equipment with a little bit of a, a nudge through some incentives. And the feedback is, uh, we have a, a, an open, uh, solicitation process right now for those grants. And, uh, they are usually completely occupied within the first few hours that we release those out. And so if anyone's interested, if I could, uh, those are available. If you look at incentive finder dot Utah dot gov, that's where you can kind of track and see when those are available. So, uh, thank you for the opportunity to, to talk a little bit today and would support this action by the committee.

Thank you chair. Um, I wasn't planning on commenting on this one either, but I'm grateful that I'm here. Um, for this one. My name is Christy Henshaw and I am speaking on behalf of the Utah County Republican Party because we do have a resolution that we have passed. And our resolution is called, uh, resolution in defense of carbon dioxide and carbon based energy. Um, and here we define and we look at the science, uh, behind the CO2 emissions. And I really appreciate the speaker before that clarified that he's talking about, uh, particulates. Because often our youth particularly are very confused that carbon itself is not a pollution. They think carbon and pollution are the same thing. Um, we recently purchased an electric weed eater for our backyard a couple of years ago, and we quickly swapped it back out for a gas one 'cause it just wasn't doing the job. I also appreciated Senator Sandall, um, pointing out that these, these batteries come from somewhere. Um, as I head to Richfield and I head to the border in Idaho, the state has allowed a lot of solar panels. And I think that people with good intentions, um, are trying to do the right thing. But man, where do we put all of that when it expires and we need to put it in a landfill? Um, I don't, I think this is too prescriptive and incentives and grants can often drive narratives, and I think that access to this money and this pilot program may have put us into that category. Uh, Utah has been dealing with inversions since the pioneers time, and I, and I'm sympathetic to that. However, I do not think replacing all of our equipment with inferior equipment that is electric, it is the thing that the state should do right now. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thanks.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. My name is Andy Mar. I'm the division Director of DFCM. Um, we've been working closely with Senator Pitcher on this bill, and I just wanted to clarify some of the cost structure of how our current equipment, um, is funded. And talk a little bit about the cost effectiveness between electric and and gas powered equipment. Um, we really wanted to have it included in this bill that it was end of life replacement of existing, um, equipment that uses gasoline only for properties that are 50,000 square feet or less. I mean, you can imagine trying to cut the grass here at the capitol with an electric lawnmower. It's just not very practical. Um, so in, in terms of costs, we didn't want to include, uh, any increased funding to buy this equipment. Um, we take really good care of our stuff and we want to be sure it has as long a life as possible. Um, however, we don't have any incurred costs because this is taken care of in the ISF rate structure. So we're not gonna have to adjust rates if we had to go out and buy new equipment to comply. Therefore, we'd have to adjust those rates and increase. Now, however we've worked that in, because it's, it's essentially a capital replacement cost. Um, and in terms of cost comparisons, there's some pretty good variability between models of, you know, blowers and mowers and trimmers and things based on, you know, the, the power and different features and things like that. Um, but overall, we did see in the pilot project that we were able to eliminate some of our fuel costs as a, as a part of implementing this electric equipment on smaller properties. So just hope, hoping that provides a little clarification and happy to answer any questions.

Good afternoon. My name is Anna Graf and I'm a resident of Roy Utah up in Weber County. Thank you chair and committee members for your thoughtful consideration of this bill. Last year I ran a municipal race in my city, and this was actually something that came up multiple times. I was not expecting this to be such a big issue, but what I heard across the board was requests for us to go from a two stroke engine model into something that was more friendly for our environment long term. And I definitely appreciate the consideration in this bill of that 50,000. Um, as far as the reality of an electric vehicle on, uh, a large, large property, I'm sorry, an electric lawn tool on a large property, uh, may not be the best way to go, but I appreciate the provisions in this bill and I appreciate that. Uh, something that is already, um, something that I'm mulling over and a lot of my neighbors are mulling over is something that we would like to do to at least make a small, uh, just whatever steps that we can take to help with, uh, pollution, we would like to have that as an option, um, in our city. Um, and I do have to clarify, I am speaking for myself. I'm not representing my city here, but thank you for your consideration and I urge you to, uh, move this bill forward. Thank You. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I just, um, wanted to note that although I wasn't here for a lot of the testimony, I had the earbuds in right there. So lest it seems, I just came in and threw a quick, uh, vote at, I, I wanted to applaud the, my colleague senator for, uh, her tenacious in this, because when you believe in something, that's what you do. And she has really stuck with this. Um, I would like to move that we favorably recommend, um, Before we do that, uhhuh, we, we do have a substitute, so we need to take care of that. We need move first. Okay. How about if I instead first recommend, is it one, is it substitute one mm-hmm. That we delete in title and body? Uh, and replace with substitute number one for Senate Bill 1 76.

Next motion would be, I would like to move that we favorably recommend to the full body of the Senate, Senate bill 1 76. First Sub, first substitute. Yes.

I'll just express my gratitude for the committee's work on this last year and continue. I'm committed to continuing to make this a better bill, and I appreciate the time today. Thank you. Back to you, Senator. I'll waive.

This was a bill that was heard last year and didn't make its way, uh, through the house in time. The bill would require that state facilities along the Wasatch front with less than 50,000 square feet replace their two stroke lawn equipment with electric powered lawn equipment when the old equipment is ready to be retired, um, certain to circumstance cer subject to certain circumstances, ensuring that it's practical to do so. Happy to answer any questions.

Your president? I have a substitute that's online.

The substitute would expressly exclude private contractors from these requirements, and then it would also, it also states that cost can be a factor that the state can consider when when the equipment needs to be replaced. Um, they, they can make a determination that if it's cost prohibitive, that they, they can avoid the requirement.

Thank you Mr. President. I've spoken with the sponsor of that sub. I think, uh, those are reasonable changes. Um, it's a friendly sub.

Uh, I'll, I'll, I'll speak to the bill a little bit here too. Okay. But go ahead. But with these, with the substitute and the exceptions here, I think this is a very modest approach to, to working on air quality issues that are, uh, usually a number one, two, or three issue in my constituency. And I think that this is the general direction that a lot of, uh, companies and landscaping businesses are going anyways. And so, again, this is a modest slow, cautioned, cautioned approach for the state to move in that same direction.

Um, does this allow for exceptions related to concerns on battery life? Senator Pitcher,

Ex, I'm sorry, exceptions for concerns on what,

Uh, battery Life Senator Pitcher?

Uh, it's not specifically written into the bill. Um, however, I will note that the, uh, our state agencies did a pilot program with these types of equipment, electric powered equipment, and found that in many ways they were both more efficient, um, did a better job at reducing noise. And, uh, were not costly to the state and working with them, they're prepared, uh, and willing to, um, make this change. They did not mention that as an issue.

Senator, And then I have a few other questions. Does this, uh, does this allow exceptions for concerns related to durability? Senator Pitcher,

Again, it's not specifically written into the bill. That is not an issue that's been raised by our state entities who've been working with this equipment as a result of their pilot program.

Okay. Uh, does this allow exceptions with regards to the amount of power or torque or performance of the, uh, of the pro of whatever product they're using?

Send a picture. Again, not an issue that was identified by our state facility. So, no.

Ahead. Yeah, so the concern that I have on this is this is already a choice that our procurement offices could already make. They've done their own pilot programs. They can choose to adopt electric, uh, you know, electric equipment as needed. I mean, I have some electric equipment, I have some non-electric, depending on the product, depending on the use, depending on the price, depending on the power, depending on the durability, depending on how long the battery needs to last. Those are all things that, that are common choices that you know. But if you're, but what this does is it says it puts everything into a default of electric and then says you've gotta fight to justify a non-electric as opposed to the electric is the best product for your use and choose it based on the superiority of the technology. And in some cases, the, the technology is superior. You know, not in this context, but I drive an electric vehicle. I find the technology to be, you know, wonderful, but it's not, you know, I, I don't want to be forced into that. And I don't think that we should force our procurement into purchasing a certain type when they could already purchase it voluntarily if it is a better type. And, and they've already shown that they can do that and have done that when it's appropriate. And so that, that's my, that's my concern and why I will be a no on this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, I appreciate the, appreciate what the sponsor's trying to do, uh, for Clean Air, but I share those concerns that were just mentioned, uh, in testimony, uh, I think the choice needs to be left to our individual agencies as as just as much, much as in a personal setting. Um, I may choose to use an electric string trimmer simply because, uh, I have someone that can't start a gas trimmer and I'm going to make that decision based on that individual choice. But to re but completely set the default to say electric is best, uh, I think takes a lot of good options away from our procurement people. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, you know, I rise in support of this bill. We had a presentation from the Department of Air Quality, and this was one of the three things that they said would be something we could move in the right direction of people moving, started moving to electric, um, maintenance equipment. And I understand, um, the, the amendment that was put in actually brings some, um, latitude in whether we adopt these electric devices, but as a state with, um, the efforts we've made to improve our air quality and the, and the steps forward we've made, I think this is another great step in the right direction. And it's not, uh, it's not forcing people to choose that if it's not really, uh, adaptable to the job that they're doing, but it's actually encouraging us to be the model of, for our citizens to show this is what would make us better. So I think this has enough latitude in it that provides people with the ne the necessities to pick the right tool if they need it, but also gives them a little push to actually pick the tool that moves us forward in, uh, making the right choices for our air quality and for the future. Thank you.

It's the second time for Comore Senator, Mr. President. Uh, I've kind of watched this bill for a couple years. It's actually had quite the journey in, uh, business and labor and I've watched, uh, the good, good sponsor, uh, try a number of different iterations and I, I, I tend to, I've, after watching it for this and seeing kind of the path that's taken, I would agree with both the sponsor of the bill and the sponsor of the sub that I think this is a reasonable approach going forward. So I plan to support the bill.

Thank you. Thank you President. I just want to note that there, there are exemptions. It does create the default, but there are exemptions based on use and stuff like that. But, but I want to highlight also that this is limited to first and second class counties, which are generally our non-attainment areas. And so it is a meaningful, uh, way to address that while not affecting the rest of the state.

Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I appreciate the conversation. I'll just start by saying that, uh, we only have one state agency that deals with landscaping. That's D-D-F-C-M. Um, and I think the state, uh, can and should, uh, prescribe certain solutions on state property apart from potential pollution impacts. There are other benefits to electrical equipment including noise reduction, um, long-term cost savings. And really the tech has caught up these days. They're very durable. And so with that, um, I'll, uh, waive any further summation and make a motion to that second substitute SB 1 76. Be read for a third time.

Thank you Mr. President. I committed. I wouldn't speak against this bill, but I'd like to explain my vote. I do have a conflict of interest and actually maintain some of these properties we're talking about to the maker of the substitute, I do take issue with the air quality that we have good equipment. Now that's equal. If you take into account the fact that electricity is that we're putting in the, these machines is often not renewable, come from renewable sources coming from other things. But I do appreciate the efforts of the sponsor and I will yield to the body and we'll do our very best to comply with whatever it is. But I am Annu. Thank you.

Uh, may. Oh, I thought your mic was on. It's off. Okay. Thank you. Motion to encircle first substitute Senate bill 2 0 5.

Thank you Mr. President. This bill requires transparency over what AI safeguards are used to generate police reports and protect against inaccuracies. Go. Go ahead Senator. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you. I move that first substitute Senate Bill 2 0 5. Be read for a third time.

lawn equipment with electric powered lawn equipment when that old equipment is ready to be retired. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you Mr. President. Question for the sponsor. I wonder Will the sponsor yield?

Do, does the sponsor not trust government agencies to be able to look at the cost benefit analysis between, uh, you know, replacing this with, with, uh, a gas engine versus an electric engine?

I do. Senator Pitcher. I Do.

Okay. If, if that's the case, then why are we replacing their judgment about what kind of equipment would be the most efficient use, uh, of tax dollars with our judgment about what would be the best use Senator Pitcher?

I think, uh, sometimes a little direction is helpful, although I will also share that I have worked on this bill with them and they are in support of, or I shouldn't say in support. They don't take positions on bills, but they're prepared to implement these, these proposals.

Thank you. Yeah, Mr. President, I have no doubt that they could implement this proposal, but this bill really is a sign that says, if we leave this up to you, you guys might make the wrong choice with the tax dollars that you levy and that your taxpayers pay. Um, and I, I, I just think that's, uh, an inappropriate position for us to take with something. Particularly it's, I mean, we're talking about an equipment that might cost in the hundreds or maybe even at the high end, uh, several thousand dollars. Um, at I, I just think we ought to trust our local governments to be able to, to can easily make decisions like this that they think that are in the best interest of their organization as they maintain the, the properties that they maintain.

Thank you. I, I rise in support of the bill. I, I think the good senator from South Jordan has a point. I I also think that we get into our ruts and that change is hard. Um, in my family, uh, when the lawnmower breaks or the Leafblower Blake breaks, I always have this great idea that we're gonna go get it fixed. And then I get home from work the next day and my wife has bought a new one. Um, and that's how it usually works. And I think she would've continued to buy the gas powered lawnmowers, except that our oldest son, uh, bought electric everything and he was always raving about how wonderful it was. And so we, when we bought the new ones, we, we switched to electric. I have electric lawnmower, I have electric, um, leaf blower and we love them. But again, I think had our son not given us that nudge, we may not, we may have just stayed in the rut. So that's why I like this bill, uh, because I do think it's good for the state agencies to be setting a good example. And let's be clear, one single lawnmower is putting off a little bit of pollution, but collectively a million lawnmowers is, it would make a difference if people switch. And I think this is the catalyst that it takes to get people sometimes to think about, well, maybe I should do something different with my next purchase. So I'll be voting. Aye,

So I, I'm speaking to the bill as well. I appreciate that government. If, if these were better options and it was more cost effective than government, it's, it's already within their power to do so. But there's a lot of policies that we pass and expect that the state to take the lead on these things to do quote unquote the right thing. And I think this is, this is a modest approach to that. This allows the state to, or assess the baseline for the state to be proactive in air quality issues. Uh, we could get into the data about how much emissions some of these landscaping tools emit and it's, it's significant even compared to cars. And so I think this is a step in the right direction. Again, the substitute yesterday exempted private contractors. It, it allows for the state to consider costs. And if it's cost prohibitive to make this transition, then it, then they can, they can decide that as well. So I think this is more about just moving in the right direction and having the state lead out on that.

I appreciate the sponsor and her working on this. And as I think about it, I'm not against the bill, but I think some of this is low hanging fruit that we're wanting to, to kind of help with air quality right now. But my concern is, is if if we do this now and they come down harder, what is the low hanging fruit at that time? If we've already given up some of the leverage we had on, on these, uh, things, then we're gonna have to go to the next step, which may be a harder step for us. So that's just what I've been thinking on the bill is that, uh, sometimes maybe we're jumping too soon on these.

I really love that we're trying to protect the air. I think that's an important thing, our air quality. But, you know, I, I invested in these electric, uh, for instance, the electric blower I just bought, uh, I have to change the battery three times to finish blowing off my decks and my driveway. I can't imagine what it's like if you're in a public park and trying to do that. I, I don't know how many batteries you have to, to do to, to be able to do that. So I I I can't vote for this. Thank you.

You. I'd make a motion that uh, we pass out, uh, second substitute Senate bill 1 76.

Mr. President. I wanna, as I explain my vote, just thank the Senator from Woods Cross for making my point for me that his family made this decision without the government telling him what he had to do. Instead, he saw there was another option. They looked into that option and then they made the decision that was best for their family. And we ought to give local governments the same courtesy that we extend to the, to Woods Cross families.

Madam Marine Clerk Second substitutes, Senate Bill 1 76 Landscaping Procurement Amendments by Senator Pitcher. This bill was heard in government operations with the vote. 7 3 2. The house sponsors representative Tom Peterson, Wife Tom Peterson.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I had an engineered style story that I was prepared to tell on this, but due to time I think I will refrain from that story. Uh, my first job as a, as a young man was weed eating, uh, the cemetery in Brigham City. And my shoulder still hurts, um, from those days trying to start the weed eater and get it run. So when I heard about this bill, uh, I was happy to, to take that bill and run with it. What, uh, s second substitute SB 1 76 does is it, it says for state agencies in the Utah, Davis, Salt Lake and Weber counties, which are counties of the first and second class, that as equipment that is owned by the state to take care of, of 50,000 square feet or less of landscaping. That as those, that equipment, uh, cycles out, that we will replace that equipment with, uh, more air quality friendly equipment. Um, and in this case it's electric equipment, battery operated equipment. Uh, and that's what this bill does. I will conclude my testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Tom Peterson, will you yield to a series of questions?

Yes. Speaker, Yes. Representative Thurston.

So I am very passionate about certain animals, and in our backyard in the spring, the snakes come out to do what snakes do in the spring in our grass. And you can't see them in the grass until you're mowing the lawn. And we have tried electric mowers, we've tried battery mowers, we've tried gas powered motors, mowers. But when you find one of those snakes, or when your mower finds one of those snakes, it's not a pretty site. And I'm very passionate about the life and friendliness of those snakes. And so I would like to ask the sponsor if he thinks that electric powered lawnmowers would give those snakes more warning or less warning that we're about to interrupt and ruin their day.

Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the passion that comes with that animal story. Um, but, uh, I, I think, I think it will, uh, will harm the snakes in, in your situation.

Great. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Thank, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I obviously care less about animals, but I care, uh, more about, uh, the, um, uh, the, the applic the practicality of this. I, I I use electric, uh, tools at my home because it's nice. They, they're, you know, you get a charge, they're good enough for, for what, what I need to do. But I I, what I see in state, uh, state employees, they might have to do a larger, uh, larger projects. And, and, and, and I think that when it comes to elec using electric, uh, products, it might not hold up to what they need to do. They'll have to recharge multiple times. You're changing things out and it's, it's, uh, I I think that on, on this type of thing, this the, I I don't think we need this bill. I think they can procure what they need for their job, uh, the best way possible, or then they can do what's best for them. If they think that electric, uh, will work best for their job, that that'll be good. But I think gas is a lot easier, uh, to, to just keep, you know, fill it back up and, and get going when you have a large, a large project that you're doing. So, uh, while I understand that we want to limit our emissions, I, I, I'm, I don't, I don't think this is actually practical, so I, I, I I don't support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker of the sponsor. Yield to a Question. Tom

Thank you. Um, is there anything right now that prevents them from buying electrical? Maybe weed eaters and mowers and stuff, if they wanted to, when their ones run out?

I don't know about electrical, but they can buy electric or battery powered.

Okay. So they already could then buy those things, is that what you're saying?

Yes, yes. Representative Peck.

Okay. Yes. So are you saying that they already could buy those if they wanted to, then?

That is correct. Okay. Thank you.

I actually love electrical weed eaters and leaf blowers and stuff like that, but if they can already do it, I don't know if I see a need, I'm probably opposed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill, um, for a couple reasons. I, I do want to address two issues that have come up recently. One is, could they do it if they wanted to? Well, certainly I think half the bills we have here, agencies might be able to do it if they wanted to. The problem is they need direction. Government needs a push sometimes, and that's what this bill does. It pushes them in the right direction to the question of, well, what if it's just not practical? You know, they, they've got a big field, they, it just doesn't make sense to use electrical. I think the bill al already contemplates that. If you look on lines, uh, 47, it says that if using electric powered, uh, landscape maintenance equipment is not practical, do the slope erosion slopes or other features of the landscape where the, then the equipment doesn't have to be used. So I, I think, again, this just gives a nudge to our agencies to be able to move to this area. I had the great opportunity of working for the Salt Lake, um, at the Salt Lake Airport. And when they went from the old airport to the new airport, they made a decision that they were gonna move to all electric. So all of the tugs and, and such that you saw out on the runways moved to all electric, it made a huge difference. Um, it is not something that they would've done without a little bit of push from the leadership, uh, of the city. But we had less pollution in the air, we had less noise. Um, it, it made it better for the employees generally. It was a good thing. I think this is a good bill and I urge it support.

uh, call to question, previous question has been called, which has the effect of any debate?

You, Mr. Speaker. I just wanna thank the good, a good colleague from Salt Lake County. He covered most of my sum, but, but it, it does provide, uh, a good guidance and good nudge for, for being responsible. Uh, it also, I have got, I had 'em do an amendment that only covers two stroke motors. So lawnmowers, those kind of things that maybe don't make sense, uh, aren't necessarily categorized in this bill. So thank you so much for your support.