Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aviation Fuel Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates refund for auto-grade fuel used in small aircraft; bill circled for further study
Summary
Senators debated Senate Bill 72, which would let owners of certain small aircraft seek refunds of the 19¢ motor fuel tax in favor of a 4¢ aviation tax credit. Supporters framed it as an equity fix for pilots; critics warned of lost highway revenue, administrative costs and safety risks. Lawmakers moved the measure to committee for further review.
Senators spent nearly the morning on Senate Bill 72, a proposal to allow refunds or credits of the 19¢-per-gallon motor fuel tax for owners of certain small aircraft that use regular auto-grade gasoline rather than traditional aviation fuel. Sponsor Lane Beatty said the change would direct taxes to aviation purposes and correct an “equity” problem for pilots who buy gas at retail pumps rather than at airports that currently collect the 4¢ aviation tax.
The bill’s author, Senator Lane Beatty, said the measure targets engines up to roughly 230 horsepower that the Federal Aviation Administration has approved to use auto fuel. He described a refund system akin to agricultural exemptions, where applicants could claim about a 15¢-per-gallon credit and the remaining 4¢ would be allocated to the state aviation fund. “This gasoline is not being used on the highways,” Beatty said, arguing that the existing highway tax was not designed for this use.
Opponents pressed fiscal and safety concerns. Senator Black and others pointed to the revenue hit the highway fund could face and the precedent the change might set for other users of motor fuel (off‑road vehicles, marinas, etc.). Senator Oakey raised a potential conflict and asked whether the bill would touch commercial carriers; sponsors said it was aimed at small, noncommercial aircraft. Senator Bunnell and others questioned a fiscal analysis that projected administrative costs as high as $10,000 and asked whether the expected refund volume estimates were reliable.
Safety liabilities also surfaced. Senator Bunnell and Senator Richards warned that encouraging pilots to buy and transport pump gasoline could raise contamination risks; Eugene Bridges, president of the Experimental Aircraft Association in Utah, was asked to appear to answer technical questions. Senators also discussed how much of airport improvements are financed by federal aviation funds versus state sources and whether shifting state taxation would merely reallocate existing matches.
After extended debate over the fiscal note, safety, and precedent, senators voted to move the measure into a committee setting (committee of the whole / circled) to allow technical experts and fiscal staff to answer outstanding questions. No final vote on the bill’s merits was taken.
The committee referral is intended to produce a clearer fiscal estimate and technical advice on safety and administrative feasibility before the chamber returns the bill for further consideration.
