S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments: transcript

I do not have any amendments or other subs, uh, what this bill does, and I do have Mark Barons from the US Chamber of Commerce here to present with me. Uh, I'll, I'll give a brief, uh, overview of it. It essentially, if there's a federal regulation in place, then our, uh, in these, uh, environmental health and waste management spaces, then the, uh, agency cannot go above the federal regulation. It needs to be the legislature that goes above the federal regulation. If there's not a federal regulation in place, then the agency needs to justify their metric with sound science, with basic scientific principles. It can't just be something arbitrary. It needs to be, uh, well-founded. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Barons to describe a little more on it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Um, I'm with the US Chamber of Commerce. I'm Mark Barons, and we strongly support this legislation. Business needs predictability, and this bill will help provide that in a common sense way of saying that the regulators can do their job when they find it's necessary and supported by the best available science, uh, shouldn't be controversial, uh, in that it's also good policy because it'll bolster public confidence and regulatory decisions when the public understands that when the regulators act, they're doing it based on the best available science, uh, that, that will help promote public confidence in those decisions. And then lastly, uh, this shows from the employer perspective and, you know, the chambers, the national employment perspective from the perspective of employers. Uh, this, like other things that you all are doing this year, shows that, that Utah is a place with sound and fair legal rules, regulatory rules, and is a good place to do business. Two other states have done this. Tennessee did it last year, uh, working with their regulator. And about two weeks ago, Alabama passed essentially the identical bill, and it was supported there as well by their regulator. The last thing I would say is we've had a really good conversation and work through, uh, with Tim at DEQ. And, um, and they've asked for some changes. We've made those accommodations. I think everybody's in a good place with it. And so with that, we're open. Any questions?

or He is part of the public comment after, Um, he is there to answer any questions, and he is free to comment and we welcome any comments that he would have, so.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm just wondering, I mean, if you could just explain a little bit about how this bill ensures that we keep those state environmental rules and how they're grounded in that transparency and that reliable science, but also how we are still protecting the public health.

Yeah. Um, well, I mean, the, the basic idea is they still have the ability to protect the public health, but it can't be something along the lines of, you know, I don't like that. Uh, I think there might be a problem here, and we're gonna set a rule before we know what the impact of that rule will be. We're gonna set a rule before we know that that rule actually addresses the problem. Uh, you know, so they can still set the rules and they can go to the federal limit, but they do need to have a good, a more solid justification. And, and let me give you a, a little bit of a, for a long time we were ruled, you know, we were, and I wanna say ruled over, and I mean that by a doctrine called the Chevron, the Chevron Doctrine, where federal agencies would set rules and they were given deference because they set the rule, not because the rule stood on its own, it's because they made a rule and therefore they were given deference. And when Chevron was taken away, what it said was, it wasn't saying you cannot make the rule, it just meant, meant in the federal system. You, you don't get to claim supremacy because you are the agency. You still have to defend it as, as a reasonable rule based on sound science. What we're doing is that we're bringing a lot of the concepts of the removal of the Chevron doctrine into state code through this to say, you still get to set the rule, but you need to have a good foundation for that rule that can be justified. So they still have all the, they still have the powers that they did before, with the exception of going above the federal rule. That's the one that, that we are taking away on this. It's just saying that it's not as arbitrary as it could have been. Now, I don't know that there are too many rules that were just purely arbitrary, but we wanna make sure that they're not just purely arbitrary and, and provide a basis by which we can, we can look at the rules and evaluate them. And this provides that, you know, that idea of, of, you know, what is the scientific evidence behind it? And, and so that's kind of the idea. And I don't know if Mark has anything to

Add. Yeah, I, I was just gonna add, um, is a terrific response also. Uh, this, this notion of, of requiring best available science is embedded throughout federal environmental laws. So this is, you know, not new. These concepts, uh, for example, the Toxic Substances Control Act, where EPA regulates toxic substances, it has to be based on the best available science and the weight of scientific evidence. That's the standard in this bill. The, uh, safe Drinking Water Act. When the EPA is considering drinking water, it's gotta be based on the best available peer reviewed science conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific practices. Same thing, clean Water Act. The, the water criteria must reflect the latest scientific knowledge and Clean Air Act, EPA missed issue, air quality standards that reflect the latest scientific knowledge. So these concepts are, are very, uh, you know, well understood and time tested, and they're simply being imported as part of the state regulatory structure as well.

I really appreciate that. You could, you kind of went even beyond where I needed to go. Sorry. But I loved it and it was good. Sorry. Um, I, I like what you're doing here, and I was hoping you would share a little bit more of how this is comparing to what we've been experiencing around us. I think that we have been subject to a lot of theorized things that have come in to rule, and I love the idea of going back to the concrete. And so that's what I was hoping you would explain. So thank you. Yeah.

Uh, thank, excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And you, um, excuse me, I haven't talked yet. We all have a frog this morning. It's just early Late nights. Um, well, you've, you've answered this somewhat, but this is what constituents are asking me. Why do you want to seed authority to the federal government instead of Utah? You know, is that the Utah way?

Yeah. So it's not so much, and I, I love that your mind is going towards federalism. You and I are on the same page, Representative Moss on Federalism. Um, but what I would say is this doesn't, what this is saying is if the state is going to go above the federal standard, it's not so much that we're saying the state can't do that. It can, but it needs to be the legislature that makes that decision. It shouldn't be the state agency to impose harsher, uh, regulation on our citizens, um, than the Feds do. We want the state legislature to retain that power? And so that is a policy call, and I don't wanna shy away from that. That's the policy call that the, that in many ways, there's kind of two things going on here, but that's one of the two that this committee is deciding on, on the policy. It's do we want to delegate the ability to exceed the federal regulation to administrative agencies or not? And, and this bill says, we do not want to delegate that authority.

You may I just follow up, please. So why do you think the legislature has more understanding and knowledge than an agency, a state agency that specializes in it? I don't understand that. 'cause we're, we're lay people typically.

Yeah. Yeah. So this goes kind of to the same thing that we've been dealing with ever since. It especially became heightened during COVID with the, with the refrain trust the science. You know, um, I would say this, I'm not certain that science always gets it right. There may be times where the sound science is still wrong, just as there are times when the legislature gets it wrong. However, what we do have up here is the ability to have the people choose for themselves through their representatives, how they're going to be regulated. And so we are looking for the ability for, because oftentimes the interests that are coming into the agency are very limited to what is the state's interest in those resources. And, and so if you're looking at, for example, let's say it was phosphorus content in water, okay? That's one that, that our sewer districts have been dealing with for a while. And I don't know that, that this bill is not geared towards that side. I don't want that to, and I, and I, Tim, I'm not going after the phosphorus stuff. I just want to, uh, director Davis, I'm not going after the phosphorus stuff, but I want to give that as an example. The state's interest in that, and the agency's interest is we need to have clean water in this way. Okay? But on top of that, if the state were to go to a much more stringent phosphorus standard that could place, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars of improvement requirements on our special service districts, which then get passed to our local communities. And so there's a fiscal impact to businesses and to local governments oftentimes that are, that's caused by state regulatory environment. So when they go above the federal standard, what it's saying is this could have a re that that federal standard is usually already there for a reason, based on its own scientific evidence, whether we agree with it or not. But when it goes above that, what it's saying is that's probably having a bigger impact than just the state's interest. Uh, just that state's narrow interest in having clean water, and it needs to be considered within the context of the business, the local taxation, you know, and, and how the public is going to perceive that. So it's not just a, so you're trying to bring in more variables to decide something that's a bigger thing there. There's a, there's a principle in courts called a Major Questions doctrine. Okay. And what that means is if a state regulatory agency does something that really changes things a lot, then they can't do it because it creates a major question. This is, in many ways, codifying that and saying, when you go above the Federal standard, you we're not delegating that authority to you to do that. We, it's a major issue when you do that. And we need to have as many voices in the room as possible so that we can make those decisions for our, so that we can, we can authorize them to do that before they do it.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I got here a little bit late, uh, Senator. And so I was wondering if you could do your presentation over, I can do it real quick. No, I'm, I'm just kidding, actually, Mr.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the good senator from Utah County bringing this forward. This is a good bill. I know you've been heard that before. I've been whole session for you to say that, And, uh, I've been practicing saying it in your voice. Oh, when you're not around. It's a good Bill. Well, there's another guy that tried that the other day, and I voted his bill down. Oh, no, I, I have not been doing that. Nevermind, Uh, you stole my thunder when you mentioned the Chevron doctrine. So, uh, I, I won't add much to it, other than for years now, we have operated the other way. The tail's been wagging the dog. And I think what this does, and I, and I appreciate Mr. Davis at DEQ, he has, has brought a really fresh look to meeting all the environmental standards, the environmental health standards and so forth, but yet being efficient, and, excuse me, we all have a frog today, uh, in, in being, uh, forward looking as far as regulation goes, and making businesses have some sense of guidance, uh, as we move forward with various projects in the state of Utah, Utah. Yeah, we've got some problems, and we're trying to address those, you know, the great Salt Lake dust and, and, and the air quality and so forth. But we have made great improvements in air quality in this state. And, uh, it's because industry took the bull by the horns and reduced their emissions. Um, I think, uh, what you're doing here sets a really nice standard for the state of Utah, and it also helps business, and it also keeps people healthy. So, thank you.

Uh, thank you for being here. Uh, there's been only a few bills that I've been really excited to vote for twice, and I'm glad you're in our committee so that I have the opportunity to do that with this one. So thank you for Being, you're gonna end up a senator if you wanna vote twice on things. He's young enough to do it. Alright, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Uh, my name's Ellie Brownstein. I am a, uh, pediatrician and the vice president of the Utah Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics in Utah, representing 600 pediatricians. And my practice is in Salt Lake. We urge you to vote no on SB 2 34. This bill threatens Utah's ability to protect the health of children in the face of our unique environmental challenges. Utah has a long history of promoting family values and protecting children. This bill would severely limit our ability to use Utah methods to create our own Utah solutions by restricting our regulation to what is imposed by the federal government. Children are not little adults. They breathe more air per minute and consume more water per pound than adults, making them more, far more at risk for environmental danger or toxins. Uranium mining activity is concentrated in Utah, in the Intermountain West, Utah has a, is a home to a nuclear storage facility. Radiation exposure increases risk of cancer and autoimmune disorders. In children, Utah. Children and families deserve recourse to maintain health protective status as things have changed at the federal level. And our own needs may be different than theirs. Also, the manifest bodily harm restriction in this bill means our agencies cannot make rules until people develop illnesses like asthma or cancer. This means that we as a state cannot work on solutions until illnesses are causally linked, which takes a long time and a lot of expense, meaning we're not nimble to find Utah solutions.

Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair. I just trying to make sure that I understand what you're talking about. I appreciate you being here today and your comments and your work in protecting children. I'm just wondering if you're insinuating or saying in your comments that if we pass this bill, that you have some sort of data or proof that children will get cancer and die.

No, I don't have proof. What I'm worried about is that we, we have unique issues here. We have more nuclear storage than most of the country. We also have a big lake bed that has less water in it than it did before, producing dust storms, which also cause asthma. So those things could make different risks for our children here than a city, a city somewhere else. And there is information out there that dust is bad for kids' lungs, that, and if there are issues with our uranium storage, it's close to our population centers.

Okay, so you're saying that, um, that the children, well, that you have environmental fears and you're kind of like assuming something could happen. Okay, I got it. Thank you.

Thank you. Right here, up Here. Oh, thank you. I'm like trying to find the names. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just wondering if you could give me a specific line in the bill that, uh, leads you to believe that the state of Utah can exceed based on data and science, that we can exceed the federal requirements. It was my understanding that the bill tight us to federal guidelines.

It ties us, well, it ties us to federal guidelines, assuming we don't decide we need to go higher. So that's what the bill says, and that's what we would do based on science and fact facts. So thank you.

Um, my name is Katie Raddick. I am also a pediatrician. I'm speaking on behalf of myself. And I'd like to just briefly address the comment from Representative Peterson before making my comment. I think our chief concern is that this bill would impair the speed, dexterity, and knowledge with which we respond to environmental needs in this state. If this all has to go through the legislation, as Representative Moss keenly noted, that is much slower and much less informed than if we are using data informed by the state agencies who are experts. What I hear in this conversation is that Utah's children are not worth the fiscal cost of the best environmental science protection. This bill would prevent Utah agencies from setting environmental protection stronger than federal standards. Even as federal regulations on air pollution, radiation safety, and toxic substances are being rolled back. It would tie Utah's hands at a time when our state faces unique environmental challenges that as Dr. Brownstein said, Washington DC does not. The dying great Salt Lake is exposing residents to toxic dust containing particulate matter, arsenic and lead pollutants linked to asthma, impaired brain development and infant death. Federal rules do not fully address these risks, especially airborne pathways that are specific to Utah. SB 2 34 would limit our ability to respond quickly and adequately to these threats. As, as Dr. Brownstein mentioned, children are not little adults. They breathe more air and drink more water relative to their size, making them more vulnerable to environmental toxins. Utahns know Utah's challenges best. That is the Utah way. We should preserve our ability to protect our own children's health, not surrender it. I respectfully urge you to vote no on this bill.

Thank you. I'm Dr. Brian Minch, president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy environment in the Trump administration's deregulatory frenzy. They have arbitrarily abandoned science and regulations and stopped protecting us from air and water pollution or toxic chemicals. This bill ensures that Utah state agencies won't be able to protect us either. That will be a death sentence for thousands of Utahans. Eight of my 14 immediate family members have had cancer, including two of my children and several of us twice. 80 to 90% of cancer is triggered by a gene mutation in a single cell by an environmental toxin. My daughter-in-law, the mother of my 3-year-old granddaughter, just finished eight months of chemotherapy, a double mastectomy and daily radiation therapy in a desperate attempt to save her life from an aggressive and aggressive breast cancer, low level air pollution meeting the federal standards is not only one of the causes of breast cancer, it decreases her chance for survival. This bill states that the agency rulemaking cannot be quote, based solely on the risk of disease. I believe it's against the law to sell cigarettes to 12 year olds. Cigarettes don't immediately kill teenagers, but they obviously increase the lifetime risk of multiple kinds of cancers. This bill would prohibit making a regulation whose purpose was to decrease the rate of teen smoking. I urge you to vote against this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, chair and members of the committee. My name is Abby ler. I am speaking to you as a constituent. I am a resident of Salt Lake City, and I'm also a scientist with a degree in chemistry. I, my day job as a scientist, I work as a chemist. I oppose SB 2 34 due to its changes on the state's ability to regulate environmental toxins and who regulates them first. I agree. The most responsible and effective policy to protect are public health and environment should always be based in the best available science. However, in this case, the bill of contradicts its own directive to follow the best available science in lines 87 through 90. In the bill's definition of man manifest, best manifest bodily harm. The bill defines this as a physical disease or injury that is presently existing and diagnosable, not based solely on the presence or detection of a substance in the human body and not based solely on an increased risk of disease. This definition does not allow for the bigger picture of environmental toxins to be considered. A good example of this is those who work in or live near in the nuclear industry due to radiation exposure, they have increased risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. This risk is not assessed in the new definition of male invest manifested bodily harm and would ex be excluded from consideration in Utah. I also oppose the fact that this bill removes the ability for state agencies to regulate our environmental toxins. While science is not a perfect process, the scientists of the state understand the unique environmental factors of the state better than the legislator does. The state agencies are more aware of the environmental landscape of Utah and are more educated about environmental toxins than legislators.

Thank you so much, chair and committee members. Thank you for the options to give our comments virtually. I am in my home in Utah County today, um, getting an axle fix, which is never a fun thing to deal with. Um, but let's get started. My name is Carmen Valdez and I'm a senior policy associate at Heal Utah. Heal regularly hears from parents, grandparents, doctors, and other experts, your constituents who want strong protections for their families, help. Because of that, we are opposed to SB 2 34 that would limit Utah's ability to protect its own families. This bill ties utah's rulemaking to federal standards at a time when those standards are being rolled back, including on hazardous materials and air quality, which lowers public confidence. Utah should be able to rely on its own experts and respond to local conditions, not be limited to federal standards that may not reflect our state's unique risks. Additionally, when no federal standard exists, this bill would require proof of direct, present, and bodily harms before new limits can be adopted. Because, as mentioned, many environmental illnesses take years to develop, excluding the increased risk of disease. On line 86, put CU UANs and future generations at risk. We know this thanks to research from experts all around the nation, including our own universities, and the gener generational radiation impact project. Public health protections are not arbitrary. They're there to prevent harm and not wait for it to show up in medical records. We appreciate the Bill's intent to rely on scientific standards and appreciate the amendments made for our Department of Environmental quality. But we feel that this bill ties our hands. Letting federal standards dictate Utah's environmental protections instead of local science and community needs. We urge you to table this bill to be worked out or vote against, to take away our state's rights to protect our citizens. Thank you for your time and consideration

Good Morning committee. Maryanne Christensen. I'm Executive Director of Utah Legislative Watch, and I am speaking in favor of the bill as I've listened to other people comment on it. When I read the bill, I kind of took a completely different point of view on it. Um, as I've been talking to people all around the state, they know I'm coming up to the legislature and I'm gonna be watching the bills that go by. And, and what I've heard from people of the state of Utah, again and again and again, is you need to protect our rights. And you need to make sure, do whatever you can to make sure that we can't have COVID shutdowns. We can't have the things that they did to us during the, the COVID Pandemic. We can't go through that ever again. It was devastating to our economy. It was devastating to our learning. It was devastating to our relationships. And I agree, we can't let that happen anymore. When I read the bill, I read it as government's not gonna be able to do that again, because we're gonna have really high standards of science before we make all these decisions. And, um, if, if I remember right, it uses the word stringent, that whatever Utah adopts cannot be the least stringent thing available between federal and state laws. Whatever we adopt has to be the more stringent standard. And so this bill is very prudent, very needed, and the people of Utah are just, um, wanting this kind of protection. So much. So I appreciate you voting for the bill.

Mr. Chair, uh, members of the committee, good to see you this morning. Uh, Tim Davis, executive Director of the Department of Environmental Quality, I think one of the key pieces of this legislation that makes us comfortable, and, and it was part of the, uh, amendments that, uh, or the sub that, um, Senator Brammer, uh, graciously worked with us on. It's, if you give us an, the authority, if you direct us to adopt a standard, something different than the federal, then we can do it. It's really comes down to what we are directed to do by law. Um, and that's the same, that is same. Uh, and, and, and that is the same as it comes with federal primacy, the Clean Water Act, clean Air Act. We, we implement 90 with the, uh, divisional oil, gas and mining. We divi we implement 90% of federal environmental laws in Utah. And we do it in a way that works for Utah. And we're constantly trying to do that better, more transparently, and be protective. So it really comes down to, if you've directed us to do it, then in law, then, then we have the ability. And, uh, we feel like we can implement that under this, under the statute.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Davis, is cancer hereditary, yes or no, Mr. Chair? I'm,

I'm not an epidemiologist. So it's, uh, it, With what you've studied in DEQ, yes or no There, I would say there's probably combinations of where there are hereditary traits that can lead to cancer, but there's also, uh, non hereditary factors.

I agree. Thank you. And next question, has geography in the Salt Lake Valley affected air quality?

Yes or no? Yes.

And next question, has tailpipes the increase in tailpipes in the Salt Lake Valley increased pollution, 60,000 people a year moving into the Fort Counties? On the Wasatch front, yes or no?

Yes and no Answer that The, uh, we've been, as we've been able to grow over the last 25 years, we've been able to decrease because of tier three fuels, uh, because of improvements in, uh, the efficiency of vehicles, catalytic converters. We've actually decreased, uh, uh, pm 2.5. So particulate matter, we're still, we still need to make progress on ozone, but yeah, so it's, it's both. Okay.

Thank you. And one, uh, couple more. Um, has industry cut back their emissions in the Salt Lake Valley?

Yes. Thank you.

And one other, just a comment, Mr. Chair. Uh, it's been alluded to in public comment that, um, uranium has caused cancer because of our disposal site out by Clive and other things in the state of ut. Yes, it has. But I will just tell you personally, I had two brothers and one dad who both worked in the uranium boom a lot of years and never contracted cancer at all. So there's two sides to this. I mean, we heard one side in public comment, but there's also another side. I just wanted to make that distinction, Mr. Chair.

No, I did not. No. Okay. Alright. Thank you, director.

so much. And thank you for everybody's comments and, and, um, the discussion on this. I, um, I always worry when we roll back our state statutes to match Alabama or Tennessee, um, where they have restricted a lot of, um, just a lot of regulation to support more industry than people. And so I'm really concerned about our environmental hazards already as a state and, and I myself, have been impacted by our air quality. Um, so I understand and empathize and, you know, every year we have to have humidifiers for our kids because of air quality. So, um, thank you for that. And I, I just, those are the comments I wanted to relay. Thank you, chair.

Thank. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I'd like to make a motion

I'd like to, um, motion that we move second sub senate bill 2 34, um, out with a favorable recommendation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to, I appreciate that emotion. Um, I, that emotion, that motion, I'm feeling emotional about that emotion anyway. Um, I appreciate it and, um, only wish I had been faster on the button to do it myself anyway. Um, but I just wanted to add a little bit to the conversation in support of the motion today, which is that we heard a lot of comment about things related to health and stuff. And so I was just kinda looking some things up on here, especially because I've been engaged in a lot of women's health issues. The comments about breast cancer were interesting to me. And so I started looking up, um, the reasons why people get breast cancer. Um, and the number one reason is genetic mutation. Then we get age, then we get family histories, which has already been alluded to, those types of things. Obesity, alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, reproductive patterns. Finally, way, way down the list, there's one that says environmental and chemical exposure. And then, so then I went in deeper on that and it said that, um, that there is developing conversations about that, but nothing is settled on that. And I think that really hits the point of the bill. So the point of the bill is, let's get to what is settled. Like what do we actually know? People can still go and look into things and research all kinds of stuff, but I don't think that we should be making rules and governing our state with things that are not settled and that that is one of those that is not settled. And maybe that's why people are really passionate about trying to defend it because they like exploring that. But I would say just keep exploring it and if it gets settled, I don't think we're gonna have a problem. So anyway, I, uh, really like the motion and I'll be voting in favor.

I, I appreciate the conversation. I appreciate the motion. I really do. Uh, the thing that I would say is what you're seeing more than, uh, most of the concerns are that they, they do not trust the legislature to make policy. And that's basic civics. That's why we have legislatures is to be the policymaking body on major issues. And if you don't agree with the politics of the legislature, then your objective is to move the policymaking into agencies or somewhere, or into the courts or somewhere else. What this does is it follows basic civics that the legislature makes the policy in the state on major issues. And that's what we're trying to do. And on the things that we've delegated, it's setting forth the standard by which that delegation may be used. So thank you.

I was worried they were here for mine. Yeah, Thank kidding. Uh, I do have Mark, uh, barons online to help me with the presentation.

Do you have any substitutes or Amendments? I don't. This one is a clean bill. It was perfectly drafted that so, so we're, we're good to go. Um, I appreciate the committee's time. Uh, I'll be quick. What this does is on administrative rules related to certain regulations, it needs to be founded in sound science and it also provides the ability to, uh, to delay the implementation date, uh, by the, uh, rules review and general oversight committee on, on certain rules involving Environmental health and Waste Management. The idea for that is, uh, I don't know if you guys have ever seen this, but in April, a lot of things happen as soon as we're done with session, and sometimes it takes us a little while to react. That's a committee that's meant to be able to react a little bit. And so, um, if there is something that is a major change, we're gonna hear about it from industry and we're gonna say, Hey, can you take a look at this? That doesn't mean that they will automatically do it, but it does mean, Hey, can you come justify this before a committee? Make sure that this is done appropriately. You know, can you tell us why you did it? And if it's not very well justified, then we can say, let's put a pause on this, you know, and, and let's take a good look at it. Okay. Um, this is a, this is something that's been, uh, pushed by the US Chamber of Commerce. And so, uh, with that, uh, I'll introduce Mark Barons and have him help with the presentation from here.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Senator, thank you for carrying this bill for us. I apologize I can't be there in person to testify. I'm in Montgomery, Alabama, where the Senate last night passed a bill that's virtually identical to the Utah legislation by a vote of 21 to seven. With the support of the state's EPA, uh, the, uh, Alabama Department of, uh, environmental Management, the legislation would essentially require sound science to be used in environmental regulations. This is a very common sense concept. It's one that's found, uh, at the federal level. For example, in May of last year, uh, president Trump issued an executive order on restoring gold standard science, where he directed federal agencies to inform their decisions by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available. And said that relying on sound science is critical to strengthening scientific inquiry and ensure that the United States continues to be a global leader in rigorous evidence-based science. And the key components in the bill that regulation shall be based on the best available science and the weight of scientific evidence are components that are found throughout federal environmental laws. They're in the Toxic Substances Control Act. For example, when EPA is looking to regulate toxic substances, they have to study the best available science and the weight of the evidence. It's, it's the federal standard in the Safe Water Drinking Act. It's in the Clean Water Act, it's the Clean Air Act, and this standard is, would be imported into Utah. Um, importantly, there's flexibility here for the state regulators to adopt emergency regulations. If there is a need for, uh, some sort of spill or something that dictates an emergency, a crisis in the state, the bill would give flexibility to the regulators to do that. And if the bill is, uh, if the state regulators are enforcing federal law, um, or adopting rules that are in furtherance of federal policy, the bill wouldn't apply to that. So it's a very limited bill that applies common sense concepts that are found throughout federal environmental law and simply importing those into Utah law to provide predictability to business and help ensure uniformity.

It does, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that the committee members may have.

Yeah, I think one of the things that I do like about this is before you get to the point where you have an industry that is then taking legal action, this provides a means whereby it can be challenged or at least reviewed before it gets to that point. And, and I think that's good for everyone down the line. Uh, you know, it, it's not putting the weight on, you know, which, which side wins, which side has the better science. That will still be an argument out there, but you do need to justify your actions as an administrative agency. Uh, I have been in contact with the DEQ, um, and they, they've said we may have some changes, but they, they weren't, uh, you know, I don't wanna mischaracterize, but they're not, you know, I don't think they intend to oppose today, but I have, I have told them that I'm willing to work with them on any language that they have and, and consider, you know, if there's concerns that they have on this. But I, I do think that it's one that, that we're gonna, uh, work hard to get, uh, make sure they're comfortable with this as well. I think they, they don't view this as overly, you know, uh, too, too much of a problem in terms of they wanna be able to justify it too. I think their concern is what is, you know, is there any, uh, concern with the language as far as what we can and can't do and that kind of thing, which I think is justified, and I'll work with them as we move forward. Um, we don't have suggested language yet, but I think it's, uh, fair to say that, um, uh, you know, the director of the DEQ and I have had conversations and we're, we're gonna keep those open and keep that moving. So with that, I'll, uh, answer any questions.

Thank you. Uh, I mean, we already live in one of the most polluted counties in the country at this point. We see toxic releases coming from our, uh, industry in this area and, and across all sorts of industries, we already designated as one of the friendliest, uh, jurisdictions for mining in the, in the country or maybe even the world. I, I guess I wonder, uh, so to the question, you know, how, why are we, uh, getting in the way of our regulators' ability to actually set standards that work for, for our communities here? Why are we just relying on the federal government to, uh, to provide a floor when we could definitely do better and we have a need to do better in so many different spaces and across so many different types of pollutants? Um, but I guess that's question one is like, why are we, uh, letting the federal government be the, the dictator of this, uh, area of policy? So number one, I don't think that it's letting the federal government be the dictator. I think what it is, is let's have a scientific basis for the policies. That's the only thing that this is doing. Let's have a scientific basis. So, you know, a few years ago, one of the refrains that was oftentimes used against conservatives was trust the science and we're saying trust the science. And so if there's a scientific basis for the regulation within whatever economy, within whatever environmental, and, you know, uh, uh, scheme that we're working in, it needs to have a scientific basis. I don't think anybody's opposed to having a scientific basis. Now, if we're just, if we're just saying we want to have this standard, which is the highest standard, and there's not a scientific basis for that. What we're trying to do is filter out, occasionally you get an arbitrary or capricious standard, or you get something that isn't based on, on real science, and it's just, here's a regulation because we don't like this industry or that industry. It plays winners, picks winners and losers as opposed to being founded in sound science. And, and that's what we want, is it needs to be justifiable. If you're going to regulate, you need to have a good justification for it.

Follow up. Senator? Yes. Thank you. Uh, I, I think that that sounds great. The, you know, uh, best available science. I guess it, uh, it doesn't, you you would Trust the science. I Knew you would. I I would, I trust the science, but I, I think this doesn't allow our regulators to do their jobs. You know, this, we are, um, to, to put this maybe in more of a, a contemporary, uh, setting. We, you know, we're talking about taking primacy over nuclear regulations and all sorts of other, um, pieces here. And, and we're asking to do more in those spaces. We're asking to, to take on more, uh, abilities to regulate industries that have a history of, of polluting and of being dangerous to our communities. And then we are telling new regulators, essentially, that we're installing in these positions that they, they can actually do anything. Is my reading of this bill. It's saying you, you just, just sit there and, and, uh, do whatever the federal government tells you to do. I don't know. That doesn't seem like a very Utah, uh, sort of, uh, mindset for me.

Uh, our DEQ is actually just in am, uh, overseeing regulations that's already been set by the EPA. So I mean, the federal reg, they're already the regulating authority and our DEQ are the only ones that are doing the inspection rather than flying people in here from Washington DC to do the inspections. We have primacy over some things. But when you said we have primacy over the nuclear, that's not at all the case that we're even asking for or even pursuing. All we're trying to do is do the paperwork for them so that they're already overburdened with all the applicants that are wanting to nuclear to do nuclear, uh, things. And so I think that's a little misleading on your part, saying that they're asking for primacy over nuclear, uh, regulatory agencies. That's not the case at all. And I think this is something that we are all trying, all the states are trying to regulate.

Wonderful. Thank you all so much. And good afternoon. My name is Carmen Valdez and I'm a senior policy associate for Heal Utah. We represent Utahns from around the state and constantly hear from parents, grandparents, donors, experts, and your constituents about protecting their families from potential health threats. And we've been supporting that work for over 25 years because we do hear from concerned constituents. We are concerned about limiting Utah's ability to protect its own people and environment through this bill. This bill ties Utah's rulemaking to federal standards at a time when federal agencies are rolling back on environmental protections, specifically around hazardous waste streams. Utah's experts and regulators use sound research, and we base our stances on those research as well. We should be able to respond to Utah's conditions, specifically not be locked into minimum federal standards that may not reflect local risks. Utah knows what's best for Utah and has been doing that work by preventing state agencies from adopting stronger protections. Even when our air, water, soil, or communities and families require them, it limits Utah state rights. This bill creates an extremely high legal and scientific bar for action when no federal standard exists requiring proof of direct present bodily harm before new limits can be adopted and rejecting lived experiences from your constituents before harm has manifested. Many environmental related illnesses can take years or decades to appear, and public health protections are meant to prevent harm, not wait for them to show up in medical records. At minimum, this bill should be amended to remove the definition of harm that excludes increased disease risk, to remove the provision that limits Utah agencies to adopt stronger protection than federal minimums when local conditions demand it. And to allow for lived experience to be classified as evidence. We have reached out to the bill sponsor and would like to continue supporting this work and amendments so we can all continue protecting Utahns for our future. This current bill ties our hands, letting federal standards dictate Utah's environmental protections instead of local science and community needs. Utah should have the flexibility to act early, act locally, and to act to prevent harm, not just to respond after it's too late. Utah knows what's best for Utah. We're urge to table this bill to be worked out by Utah's experts and regulators and our residents for our future. Um, and we thank you for the time and consideration today.

Yeah, I think my camera's on. Yes. And can you hear me okay? We can. Okay, great. All right. I'm Joan Entwistle and I am, um, currently a resident of Summit County and I'm representing myself, right. Um, Senator Vickers. We should not be tying the hands of our agencies that protect Utahns. While Utah goes full steam ahead with nuclear reactors and nuclear waste reprocessing trying to meet the demand of power hungry data centers at the same time as the EPA and the NRC are dismantling health and environmental protections. We need a bill that requires our agencies to continue to use the existing standards or stronger. After the very expensive three mile aisle in meltdown, the industry had to go back and retrofit and redesign reactors. With the safety lessons learned, this resulted in delays in much higher costs. I paid for this in my electric bills for many years. Do we really wanna rush in new technology with new risks and end up with reactors that need to be sent back to the manufacturer? Will Utahans end up paying for the cleanup? For many years, the US denied that tobacco caused cancer. Proof of causality takes time while Utahans remain exposed, permitting reform and fast tracking cut short the time needed to get the input from scientists and public health experts. And we're go. And that's, that's the agenda right now. Don't send the health of Utahans down our dry of Eds. Vote now on this bill. Thank you.

All right, cool. Thank you Chair and members of the committee. My name is Abby Nestler. I am speaking on behalf of the Utah Sierra Club as a member of the Utah Sierra Club Legislative Committee, the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club of Utah is a grassroots advocacy organization that represents nearly 13,000 members and supporters statewide committed to explore, enjoy, and protect our shared environment. I'm a resident of Salt Lake City. I oppose SB 234. Due to the changes it would have to state's ability to regulate environmental toxins. First, we can agree that the most responsible and effective policy to protect our public health and environment should always be based in the best available science. However, in this case, the bill contradicts its own directive to follow the best available science in lines 70, sorry, 87 through 90. In the definition of a manifest bodily harm, the bill defines us as a physical disease or injury that is presently existing and diagnosable, not based solely on the presence or detective of a substance in the human body, and not based solely on an increased risk of disease. This definition does not allow for the bigger picture of environmental toxins to be considered. A good example of this is those who work in or live near the nuclear industry due to radiation exposure, they have an increased risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. The this risk is not assessed in the new definition of manifest boly harm. It would be excluded from consideration in Utah when regulating radiation exposure in Utah, despite the deadly impact of radiation exposure that thousands of Utahans have lived through, which is very well documented in scientific journals and history books alike. Another example of how this definition would be harmful to man, harmful is in the management of ozone. Salt Lake City is ranked as a ninth worst city in the United States for ozone solution. Ground level ozone is created by a chemical reaction between volatile organic compounds, VOCs and nitrogen oxide. And OX regulating VOCs is necessary to keep ozone levels under control. Along the Wasatch front, VOCs are known to have long-term health impacts, including liver damage, kidney damage, and increased cancer risk. The new definition does not acknowledge these health risks and does not to take into account the role of VOCs have in creating ozone. We also pose lines 146 through 159, which seeds the state regulatory authority to the federal government and prohibits Utah from being able to design public health. Reals based on our own unique geographic and industrial context, the state should retain its power to regulate toxins that may affect our state population in unique ways like radiation exposure and ozone, because the federal government regulations are not designed with our specific communities in mind. Additionally, the federal government regulated regulatory practices that do not strictly align with the best available science as posed by this bill. For example, the EPA regulates PFAS to four parts per trillion and 10 parts per trillion, depending on the type of fee. PFAS scientists argue that PFAS would be regulated to one part per trillion. We need to wrap up this, which is, well, as you can ma'am. Okay. Which was well documented in the recent public comment period. EPA choose not to regulate PFAS at one parker per trillion. And there are now discrepancies between the best available silence and our ULA federal regulatory standards. Simply put, Utah should retain the authority to create public health policy that meets the needs of the people of Utah. We applaud the attempt in the first part of this bill that seeks to line with public health policy with the best available signs in order to comply with this intent. The bill, the definition of manifest bodily harm in lines 87 through 90 should be removed. In addition, the restriction on state authority to make public health rules that are responsive to the unique needs of Utah's population in lines of 160, 146 through 159 without these critical amendments. I urge you to vote no on HB 234. Thank you for your time.

Thank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a motion that we pass out Senate Bill 2 34 favorable recommendation.

The, the one thing that I would, uh, remind the committee is this is related to administrative agencies and their abilities to, to set the standards. Now, that does not preclude the legislature from setting stand any standard that they choose to set. So, for example, when it came to vaping, uh, you know, they're still developing science, but we pulled back a lot on the regulatory environment regarding vaping. So what this does is it, it basically pushes a little bit more of those large industry distributed, uh, disturbing areas. It says, Hey, let's have that be legislatively done, as opposed to administratively done. And so, um, this does not change. I'm, I'm, I love the idea that, you know, a lot of our, our our friends in the environmental community are all of a sudden seeing a lot of value in federalism. Big fan of that. Mm-hmm. I'm glad they're seeing that. Um, you know, but there's also, uh, and, and so I appreciate that, uh, what this is doing is essentially saying the administrative state has, has this, uh, has a burden of proof in when they regulate. And if it goes outside of that burden of proof, then it does need to be legislatively done. So, thank you.

I would just like some that, you know, I, I understand there's issues in Salt Lake Valley. I mean, they get inversions and things, but that, that, that's not the whole state. This is a policy for the whole state. And, you know, rural Utah needs to spread some people out, therefore, they need jobs out there and for things to be killed because of the people, residents of Salt Lake City. When we, when we live out in Emery County or Carbon County, it's not fair to us. And so if you wanna get people off the Wasatch front so there isn't so much pollution, you need to create some jobs outside. And a lot of these in groups are just trying to keep anything from growing outside. And I think it's wrong. And I think I admire you for doing this bill, and I, I appreciate it. And so thank you. With that, I highly recommend that we pass this out with favor recommendation.

Okay. Thank You, commissioner. Thank you, Senator. Motion To Adjourn. That

Yeah. This incorporates, uh, some suggestions by the Department of Environmental Quality. We've been working, uh, with them and, uh, so this includes those suggestions.

Thank you. Uh, so what this bill does is it, uh, it basically requires that if you're going. If there is no regulation on an issue, then there needs to be some scientific reason for a regulation, uh, related to environmental health and waste management. Uh, it needs to be supported by scientific, scientific evidence. If there is a federal regulation on the issue, then it does not allow an agency to go with a more stringent than the federal standard. It would require that the legislature provide that fed that standard if it's if we decide to go above the federal standard. And with that, I'm open to any questions.

Uh, what this does is it relates to regulatory authority. Um, when in environmental contexts, when the regulatory authority, uh, uh, is setting forth a new regulation, they need to be based in sound science. If they're attempting to go above the federal regulation, then they may not do so. It would require legislative approval to do that. And so with that, I'm open to any questions.

I'll the question motion. Thank you.

Representative Jack, Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. So SB 2 34, and I'm speaking to the second sub, which was already adopted. Um, it establishes a framework for Environmental Health and Waste Management here in Utah. And it does, it does three things. And, and let me start off by explaining that I have all the confidence in the world with the executive director of the Division of Environmental or Department of Environmental Quality, and with the director of the Division of Waste Management. We've been working with them very closely and carefully through the last, since they both came to their positions. And if we all knew that those particular persons and that we were all going to be here forever, we wouldn't need to pass as many laws. But since we've got to set up a framework for the day when none of us are here and none of them are there, and we're, we're setting up for the day in some generic future, we've got to set some guidelines and some guardrails Anyway. What this does with the Division of Waste Management is it is it requires that we be in alignment with federal standards, and that we know that federal standards don't exist in every, every realm that can come up. And that's fine. We all believe in federalism here, but where, where federal standards don't, don't exist, that the State Department should use the best environmental science and that we also protect against speculative regulation where we think that there could be some harm, but we're not sure and we can't prove it, and we don't know who would've been harmed. So what we have d done in the bill is defined manifest bodily harm so that we know in some future date when somebody could bring some sort of action that that already exists in code. And the benefits of this would be, oh, and look how good I'm doing with the time management. You can mark that off your sheet. So, um, this provides economic pre predictability, scientific accountability, and then a balanced public health strategy so that we know that we're basing on real standards and real science. And so with that, uh, I guess I would conclude my presentation and yield, uh, the rest of my time. Mr. Speaker ProAm.

Point of order. Mr. Speaker ProAm,

We have rules of decorum in our body and my understanding is that, uh, the gentlemen are required to wear both a jacket and a tie. There is a, uh, conspicuous member of our body who is not wearing a tie that I can tell. That is a tie, Tie. Talk to anyone from rural Utah. I rescind my point of order.

Thank you. Uh, oh boy. Let's go against type and waive. Unless, unless we just want me to talk. I waived.