Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Waste Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts amendment to commercial waste fee bill after debate over whether taxpayers will shoulder Energy Solutions inspection fees
Summary
Lawmakers adopted an amendment in House Bill 169 to clarify reporting and narrowly debated whether appropriations could be used to cover inspection fees for Energy Solutions; sponsors said the bill enables appropriators to fund fees, while critics warned it could shift up to roughly $1.7 million a year to taxpayers; supporters pointed to roughly $300 million paid by the company over 16 years.
Representative Notwell introduced House Bill 169, a commercial-waste fee amendment, and moved Amendment 1, described on the House floor as a technical clarification from the Division of Finance stating that the Tax Commission is to provide a report rather than a specified amount.
Notwell said the bill "allows the legislature through our appropriations process to fund some or all of the program fee that the owner operator pays to cover their inspections," and that if the Legislature does not appropriate fees, "the owner operator is responsible to cover the remainder of their fees." (Representative Notwell)
Opponents and questioners pressed on whether the change effectively shifts costs from the owner-operator to taxpayers. Representative Arendt argued the second provision "reduces the fees that Energy Solution[s] pays to fund the permitting and inspection program" and instead could require taxpayers to pay about $1,700,000 per year. Representative Nelson pushed back, saying Energy Solutions has "paid $300,000,000 into the state" over 16 years and continues to pay roughly $3,000,000 annually, arguing the company is paying more than the cost of regulation and that the bill aims to align fees with market rates.
Sponsor Notwell repeatedly said the bill does not reduce inspections or regulatory standards; rather, it creates an appropriations mechanism so the Legislature may choose to cover part of the fee if it wishes. He described market changes since the tax was imposed in 2001 and said neighboring states have reduced comparable fees.
The House adopted Amendment 1 and amended HB 169 on the floor. The floor debate centered on whether appropriators should consider using general-fund dollars to cover inspection program fees for a private owner-operator, balanced against industry competitiveness and historical tax contributions.
Why it matters: The measure touches on state spending policy and whether certain program fees for a private commercial-waste operator may be covered, in whole or in part, by the state budget. The exchange featured competing claims about fiscal burden and past payments by the company.
What happens next: HB 169, as amended, passed the House and was transmitted for further consideration; appropriations committees will consider the fiscal implications if the Legislature contemplates covering inspection fees via general-fund dollars.
Direct quotes on the floor: "This bill... allows the legislature through our appropriations process to fund some or all of the program fee that the owner operator pays to cover their inspections." (Representative Notwell) "Energy Solutions has paid $300,000,000 into the state." (Representative Nelson)
