Committee declines to support budget amendment that would repeal clean heat standard in 4-3 straw poll

A committee considering budget language voted 4-3 in a straw poll not to support an amendment offered by Sen. Beck that would have repealed the state’s clean heat standard and added fuel-tax reporting and related changes.

Members spent much of the discussion debating whether repeal is germane to the budget and whether the change should proceed through the normal legislative committee process rather than as a budget amendment. Supporters urged a clear statutory repeal; opponents said the clean heat standard was not being implemented now and that repeal — and other changes — belong in standalone legislation. The committee chair reported the result as a 4-3 vote to not support the amendment; members described the poll as nonbinding.

Why it matters: the amendment touched on a policy that the Public Utility Commission (PUC) had studied and advised against implementing at this time, and it would affect related administrative positions and reporting duties that currently appear in statute or session law. Some members said the PUC recommended a simpler alternative — a small per‑gallon fee increase — and emphasized that S.65 previously attempted a more nuanced approach that removed certain language while keeping an updated fuel dealer registry.

Discussion details: Sen. Beck presented the amendment as containing several parts: repeal of the clean heat standard, a proposal tied to tax/fee language affecting fuel sellers, a requirement to publish a fuel‑tax report, and other technical changes. Committee members questioned whether the tax data requested already exist with the tax department and whether a dealer registry is necessary to identify sellers. Members noted the tax department would not disclose business‑level tax filings on demand and that the registry in chapter 94 (as discussed in S.65) had been intended to provide that identification.

Several committee members recalled that the PUC’s report found the clean heat standard costly and administratively difficult for this state and that, after the PUC study and a “check‑back” process, the legislature did not move the program forward. One member summarized that the check‑back had worked because “we checked back and nobody raised their hand to keep moving forward,” and others said repeal would still require its own legislative vehicle and committee review.

Outcome and next steps: the committee’s straw poll result (4 opposed, 3 in favor) will be reported out; committee members emphasized that any formal repeal or the related policy changes would need to proceed through the usual bill process. Members also noted it remains possible for a legislator to introduce a separate bill to pursue repeal or the alternatives discussed, including a per‑gallon fee to raise revenue, but that would require separate committee consideration and floor votes.

Ending: The committee did not take a binding vote on the budget language; it will report that it did not support the amendment in its committee report. Any future action on the clean heat standard or the fuel dealer registry would require introduction of a bill or a different amendment that follows regular committee referral and review.