A bill laying the foundation for Utah’s nuclear energy future was almost uncontroversial among lawmakers as it made its way through the Legislature — until it hit a rough spot with an update introduced in the Senate.
HB249, sponsored by Rep. Carl Albrecht, R-Richfield, establishes the Nuclear Energy Consortium and the Utah Energy Council, subdivisions of the Utah Office of Energy Development, which would study the ways Utah could produce nuclear energy, alongside Idaho National Laboratory, some industry players and other academics. It also facilitates the construction of power plants, transmission lines and energy storage facilities.
Senators who opposed the bill didn’t do it because they are against nuclear energy. They did it because signing on would mean a loss of some local control for municipalities if the new groups have an option rather than a requirement to collaborate with them on energy projects.
“Those of you who are getting your phones blown up by your county commissioners, by your clerks, and I am, too,” Albrecht told the House on Wednesday. “Relax, take a pill, cool your jets, we’re going to fix this in committee.”
But that resolution didn’t come true as of Wednesday night.
After the House refused to accept those changes, the bill sponsors and other lawmakers met in a conference to find middle ground on the bill. But, the main issue remained in the choice of a single word that, for local governments, would either make or break how much involvement municipalities will have in future energy projects — may or shall.
Will the bill specify the new state-appointed energy council “may,” or the council “shall,” collaborate with cities and counties to determine the fate of the new energy development zones? Currently, with the Senate’s version, the bill uses “may.”
According to Brandy Grace, chief executive officer of the Utah Association of Counties, it should be “shall.” Not including a mandatory provision “takes away our ability to be at the table to talk about land use authority and property tax,” she told lawmakers at the table. That, Grace said, is a hard line for counties.
“We want to be collaborative, but the message you’re sending is that you don’t,” Grace said. “By saying you ‘may’ coordinate, you’re sending a message that you’re really not interested in working with local government.”
Sen. Ann Millner, R-Ogden, the floor sponsor in the Senate and author of the updated version of the bill, disputed that argument and said the reason why the state cannot immediately commit to collaborate with cities and counties is because “we don’t know what those projects are going to look like” when they are ready for prime time decades from now.
Cameron Diehl, executive director of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, also advocated for an update to “shall.” He said it was important after spending the last week discussing the potential of SB337, which would have established the Beehive Development Agency, an office with ultimate planning power.
According to Diehl, that “may” means “essentially, this state action could occur and preempt local land use, and preempt and take away that local revenue.”
Lawmakers couldn’t agree on definite language and may meet again sometime in the final two days of the session.
Earlier, on the floor, Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, said he shared some of the concerns expressed by the counties, but more especially about their ability to welcome other clean energy sources, like wind and solar.
“What I’m hearing, though, is that this would preclude counties who are looking to do new developments for any type of energy (…) it would preclude community reinvestment areas in rural parts of the county that are looking to get new development,” Cullimore said, referring to wind and solar projects. “They would only be able to do that for nuclear power and not other and a lot of other types of power.”
Read the full report at UtahNewsDispatch.com.
