Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Economics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House backs bill to cut carrier fuel tax at Salt Lake City International to spur in‑state fueling
Summary
Lawmakers approved a measure to remove the state portion of the fuel tax for commercial carriers at Salt Lake City International, with sponsors saying the change will make in‑state fueling more attractive and supporters noting that local airport allocations remain intact. The bill was returned to the Senate for signature.
The Utah House on Feb. 23 approved a second substitute to Senate Bill 49 that reduces the state fuel‑tax charge for commercial airline carriers fueling at Salt Lake City International Airport, a change sponsors said will encourage airlines to buy more fuel inside the state.
Representative Harper, sponsor, said the measure "takes the fuel tax and lowered it off of all airline carriers at Salt Lake City" and described it as an effort to "level the playing field so that the end result is more fuel is bought within the state." He told colleagues that Salt Lake City Corporation agreed to reimburse carriers for the reduction and that the bill leaves in place the penny allocation for other local airports.
Members asked whether the substitute would apply to one large carrier or all commercial airlines; Harper said the second substitute was drafted to affect "all commercial airlines." Representative Barris and others raised questions about how much additional revenue would flow to smaller airports if carriers changed fueling policies; the sponsor said there were no firm calculations yet but reiterated that local penny allocations remain unaffected.
Representative Hatch noted a potential conflict of interest, saying he purchased aviation fuel at Salt Lake Airport; the conflict was recorded. The House read the second substitute by title and returned the measure to the Senate for signature after it passed on the floor.
The bill's sponsors framed it as economic development for in‑state fueling and refineries; opponents asked for clearer fiscal estimates but did not block passage on the floor.
