Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb22 Garbage Haulers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill extending hearing deadline for Class D garbage‑hauler cases from 60 to 90 days
Summary
Senate Bill 22, carried in the House by Senator Daniel Zolnikov, would extend the statutory deadline to set a hearing in Class D garbage hauler licensing cases from 60 to 90 days; proponents said the change reduces frequent waivers and allows time for representation and discovery.
Senate Bill 22, introduced in the House Energy, Technology and Governmental Affairs Committee by Senator Daniel Zolnikov (Senate District 22), would lengthen the deadline for scheduling hearings in Class D garbage hauler licensing cases from 60 days to 90 days.
"The 60‑day hearing limits the opportunity for meaningful discovery between the parties," Senator Daniel Zolnikov said, explaining the bill would reduce the number of waivers the Public Service Commission grants to applicants who need more time to secure counsel or to prepare discovery. "Oftentimes, those folks don't realize they're getting into what is essentially a full‑fledged legal proceeding... and they need a little bit more time."
Committee members asked whether 90 days was sufficient. Representative Bridget Millett asked whether the number came from the Public Service Commission or the interim committee; Zolnikov said the change originated with the PSC and the Energy and Telecommunications Interim Committee and that the sponsor relied on the agency’s recommendation. Representative Carter asked procedural questions about House carriage.
No opponents spoke at the hearing and no informational witnesses opposed the change. The committee later took executive action and the committee moved to concur in SB 22; the motion carried by voice count with 14 ayes and 0 nos recorded.
Supporters said the amendment is a narrow procedural change aimed at giving applicants and intervenors time for representation and discovery rather than creating a broad regulatory change; opponents were not recorded in committee testimony.
Formal action: The committee voted to concur in SB 22 by a 14–0 recorded count during executive action.
