S.B. 231 Energy User Amendments: transcript

You, Mr. Chair. Uh, yes, indeed. Uh, the substitute is way different, like, uh, completely different than the original version. So, um, let me kind of back up and give you, and I know we're short on time. I'll be quick. Uh, last year when we passed Senate Bill 1 32, uh, allowing users of more than a hundred megawatts of power to generate power, uh, we did not envision, uh, the fact that, uh, a couple of things. One is, uh, there may be a taxing component on those large users. Uh, that's the way this bill file started, but that component was rolled over into a house bill. And then we found another issue where one of the companies that is, uh, looking to do, uh, power generation, uh, needs, uh, natural gas, and they understood or somehow contemplated that in the bill file, they would be able to use imminent domain to move that gas line to where they needed to go. Um, quite honestly, uh, I don't think eminent domain is, uh, wise or well to use, uh, by a private entity. And, uh, so this bill file, now, this substitute is dealing completely with that, and it basically, uh, disallows or at least clarifies the language that eminent domain will, will not be available for use, um, in this, in these large load, uh, generation facilities without Mr. Chair. That's what the bill thought. That's what the substitute does.

Presentation? Yes. Thank you.

That's my presentation, Mr. Chair.

Yep. Um, appreciate the sub and I think, I think it, I think under current law this would be prohibited anyways, but I appreciate the clarification. So I think this is moving in the right direction. I just have a question on the final, on some of the final new language. In a claim involving the exercise of Mno domain, a property owner may file a sworn declaration that includes objective evidence. I'm just of as pri Well, I just wanna make sure that the, the burden of proof is on the person trying to claim or, or trying to make the claim for imminent domain as opposed to the, the, the subservient property owner. And so I, maybe I'm just reading this for the first time, so just make, I'm just trying to get some clarification. Look, If I can direct to lines, uh, 2 73 through 2 75. Is that where you're looking? Yeah, well, starting at 2 69, but yes.

Okay. At, on line 2 74. So the burden of proof shifts to the person exercising MO domain to rebut the prima facie evidence by clearing convincing evidence. Does that answer your question? Yeah, well,

You're, you're The attorney. Yeah. I'm just looking at this first blush. So that's what I'm trying to see. Like, do we want, do we want to shift the person trying to exercise? Do we want to shift the burden to the person trying to exercise, uh, imminent domain, or should the burden be first be with that person in the first place? I think, I think that's, I just need to read through this and think about it a little bit more. Okay.

I'll be happy for, I'll be happy for any edits because No, I, my intent is that any person wanting to exercise eminent domain would have to prove, be under the burden of proof should be on them, not on the, not on the landowner. Yeah.

I, I think we're on the same page. I just wanna make sure this is right. Let's, let's make sure the language is right moving forward.

Yeah, I'm, I'm trying to make sense of the same thing a little bit just as I look at it, it up in, uh, lines 2 0 9, it says private person may not exercise, but then two 70, you know, two 70 and everything else seems to lay out a process for a private property owner to exercise eminent domain. Am I, what am I, what am I not understanding? Sorry. It,

It, you could be right. I mean, this sub came out. I'm okay. We, we've been working on it in the last 72 hours. Yeah.

Yeah. And if, and if we open a door some way, we wanna make sure that it's clear that we're not gonna allow this.

Okay. So we can definitely, we'll, I'll definitely take a look at that. Okay. With the, with the drafting attorney.

Yeah. That's a, um, acknowledging the intent and the lateness of the session, I'm going to go with it and say the, in as long as the intent remains that no one can exercise imminent domain for the purpose of, of this generation, I think I'm okay with the bill. So, Yeah, that's, that's where we're headed.

Okay. Um, we'll make it clear by the time we get to the floor.

That? No, I'll waive.

You know, I was going through my calendar this last year and, um, you know, I don't know about you, but I'm starting to wonder if the legislative process isn't starting to feel like a full-time job. Is anybody here feeling that way more and more? Um, unbeknownst to most, uh, we have the 45 day legislative session that's included in the Constitution. Uh, we have nine interim days between the appropriations committees and, uh, our regular appropriations committee hearings. We have nine. Uh, for, for me, it's nine confirmation hearings at minimum, assuming that it's only one confirmation committee that doesn't include usually pre-meetings that go along with those confirmation committee, uh, hearings or confirmation hearings or issues. Um, and then we have five working days, and then there's at least five days for a conference. All total, that's 73 basic days. If you do the basic service of this job, it is 73 days. So, uh, obviously I feel like that time limit is starting to get, uh, is starting to self-select. If it hasn't been self-selecting, it is already self-selecting those who can be successful legislators and serve in the, in the responsibility. I, I know what it's like to go to my employer. Uh, when I was elected in 2012, in a special election, there were seven other candidates. I put my name in the ballot. Uh, and, uh, I did not expect to win. Uh, I know this will surprise everyone, but I had actually never been inside the capitol before I got elected, uh, the chief clerk. Uh, so I gave a speech that night, uh, at the, uh, at the special election and, and somehow won. Uh, and I, I was so surprised. I, I called, I Uintah my employer early that morning, stressed, because the legislative session was going to start the following Monday and it was Friday. I literally, I didn't think I was gonna win, and I had to tell them that I needed the next two and a half months off so that I could be a, a legislator. Uh, that, that was as popular as you can imagine it would be for an employer. I, I was very fortunate at the time my employer was a mayor of a city and had some background and experience, uh, in, in, you know, the legislative service and legislative process. And he was very supportive, but not a lot of employers of that way. In fact, I see a lot of my legislative colleagues change jobs over the term of their legislative service, usually taking sometimes less pay, sometimes, uh, shifting laterally for, you know, different responsibilities, sometimes being passed over for management or whatever it may be, because the legislative session is so intense upfront. So the intent of this bill is to make it so that the requirement for the regular session to not meet during or to not meet in consecutive days, what that would do is it would give legislative leadership the opportunity to come up with the days that we feel like we should meet. We need a budget process, and so we can work together on our budget process. But if you could take those 45 days, lighten our interim day commitments down to, you know, maybe a couple of days, take our confirmation hearings and overlap them with the other, could we potentially get our legislative session back to 50 days hypothetically, as opposed to stretching out to the 73, which is the minimum that I ident identified before. So the purpose of this constitutional amendment is to try and, uh, encourage a process that may lengthen out throughout the year, but be in smaller bite-sized segments so that Right. More regular Utahans can, um, uh, can apply for the job. With that, uh, I'm happy to open for questions.

Uh, I have a question. So, would the idea be that this would open up the ability to, uh, do like the first 30 days

that what I'm doing would've been necessary to suspend the three reading requirements because the title of this bill file changed. Okay. So I just wanna make that clear, make that public. Uh, but we're, we've already cleared that up. So, um, the bill file I'm going to present to you and my motion would be to delete and title and body first substitute Senate bill 2 31 and replace it with second substitute Senate bill 2 31.

Yes. So my ex explanation is when this bill file began, it was originally in the form to deal with taxing of large en energy consumers. That bill was actually rolled into a bill, into a house bill. Uh, very comfortable with that, but there became a, a, a dilemma in a situation where an energy provider was trying to cross some ground, some private ground with a pipeline to get to an energy development facility. And, uh, they were looking to use eminent domain. Um, I have very cautiously, uh, opposed that because I'm very cautious about eminent domain. Uh, the second sub actually puts some parameters around what can be done for eminent domain in this situation. And it allows, uh, eminent domain to only be used, uh, in and around an existing, uh, uh, easement, excuse me, an existing easement. And so that is the change from the first or from the first to the second sub.

Okay. So as I explained, what the second substitute is doing is basically, um, an explanation or a clarification around eminent domain being used in trying to supply, in this instance, natural gas to a facility that's wanting to, to, uh, create power. And, uh, if you look in lines 2 0 8 through two 14, you'll see that the pipeline has to be located within an existing utility easement or immediately adjacent to and parallel with an existing line. Or the pipeline has to be located within or immediately adjacent to an existing planned roadway or a pipeline that will or has the ability to serve more than one customer upon completion. That is the parameters that we put around the use of eminent domain in servicing these new energy, uh, providing stations that may need to, uh, to get some, uh, natural gas to them and the, particularly any fuel source without Mr. President, I'm open to Any questions?

Okay. Once again, uh, as I described, I wanna be clear, the title of this bill changed. So under suspension of the rules, um, we, we are going to, we have changed the title. Um, 'cause we suspended that rule. Mr. President, correct? Go ahead. If yes, Yeah, we suspended the three reading requirement. So under suspension of the rules, I would move that second substitute Senate Bill 2 31 pass.

Senator Vickers Baldy. Lewin Aye. Brammer Bus Colmore Escamia Aye. Fillmore Grover. Harper Kinins. Ipson Aye. Johnson Juab McKay. Mikel Aye. Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Slum Rebe Rebi Aye. Sandal Aye. Stevenson Aye. Stratton Aye. Vickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton President Adams Aye.

Thank you Mr. President. Need a motion to encircle? I apologize. I I have two that I'd like to, like to encircle and if, uh, let, let me just get this. I show one that is first substitute Senate bill 3 0 4 protective Order Amendments. Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Uh, motion on circle Senate bill 3 0 4. Yeah. Actually first substitute Senate bill 3 0 4 protective order amendments.

Thank you. The, uh, i, I do have an amendment online. I would like to move in my name if that's okay. Okay.

I do. What? Uh, we've been working with the, uh, advocates for domestic violence and, uh, other advocate groups. And this was a recommendation that they made, uh, for a clarification on line 1 47. Uh, related to, uh, dealing

Yes. So my ex explanation is when this bill file began, it was originally in the form to deal with taxing of large en energy consumers. That bill was actually rolled into a bill, into a house bill. Uh, very comfortable with that, but there became a, a, a dilemma in a situation where an energy provider was trying to cross some ground, some private ground with a pipeline to get to an energy development facility. And, uh, they were looking to use eminent domain. Um, I have very cautiously, uh, opposed that because I'm very cautious about eminent domain. Uh, the second sub actually puts some parameters around what can be done for eminent domain in this situation. And it allows, uh, eminent domain to only be used, uh, in and around an existing, uh, uh, easement, excuse me, an existing easement. And so that is the change from the first or from the first to the second sub.

Okay. So as I explained, what the second substitute is doing is basically, um, an explanation or a clarification around eminent domain being used in trying to supply, in this instance, natural gas to a facility that's wanting to, to, uh, create power. And, uh, if you look in lines 2 0 8 through two 14, you'll see that the pipeline has to be located within an existing utility easement or immediately adjacent to and parallel with an existing line. Or the pipeline has to be located within or immediately adjacent to an existing planned roadway or a pipeline that will or has the ability to serve more than one customer upon completion. That is the parameters that we put around the use of eminent domain in servicing these new energy, uh, providing stations that may need to, uh, to get some, uh, natural gas to them and the, particularly any fuel source without Mr. President, I'm open to Any questions?

Seen no questions. I'm gonna go to you for a motion. Okay. Once again, uh, as I described, I wanna be clear, the title of this bill changed. So under suspension of the rules, um, we, we are going to, we have changed the title. Um, 'cause we suspended that rule. Mr. President, correct? Go ahead. If yes, Yeah, we suspended the three reading requirement. So under suspension of the rules, I would move that second substitute Senate Bill 2 31 pass.

Thank you Mr. President. Need a motion to encircle? I apologize. I I have two that I'd like to, like to encircle and if, uh, let, let me just get this. I show one that is first substitute Senate bill 3 0 4 protective Order Amendments. Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Uh, motion on circle Senate bill 3 0 4. Yeah. Actually first substitute Senate bill 3 0 4 protective order amendments.

Thank you. The, uh, i, I do have an amendment online. I would like to move in my name if that's okay. Okay.

I do. What? Uh, we've been working with the, uh, advocates for domestic violence and, uh, other advocate groups. And this was a recommendation that they made, uh, for a clarification on line 1 47. Uh, related to, uh, dealing

to circle Thank you representative.