Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Radioactive Waste Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate rejects modest fee increase for commercial radioactive-waste disposal
Summary
After floor debate about restricted funds and fiscal impacts, the Utah Senate voted 17-10 to defeat Senate Bill 229, which would have modestly raised fees for commercial radioactive-waste disposal to $3.25 per ton (altered from a higher proposal); critics warned the money would be constrained in a restricted account and urged broader review of fee policy.
Senate Bill 229, proposing changes to fees for commercial radioactive-waste disposal, failed on the Senate floor after extended debate on Feb. 21.
Senator Nelson introduced the measure, describing committee amendments that reduced an initial committee proposal to a staged fee that would set the current year figure at $3.25 per ton (a change described in debate as replacing an earlier higher figure). The sponsor and the clerk cited a revised fiscal note under the $3.25 figure of approximately $163,000 in additional restricted-fund revenue; earlier figures discussed in committee had suggested much larger sums.
Senator Holmgren spoke in opposition, urging caution about sharp fee increases because the revenue would flow into a restricted account that funds hazardous-waste monitoring, the state solid-waste program, radiation control and related efforts. He noted that the restricted account already held a surplus—described in debate as roughly $1 million to $1.5 million—and that the Legislature must specifically appropriate restricted-fund dollars before agencies can expend them. Holmgren said that raising fees substantially would increase the restricted fund but would not create new general-fund resources and recommended broader legislative review of fee structures rather than a floor-level increase.
Other senators argued the facility had been favored with low startup rates in prior years to encourage operation and that some modest increase was reasonable; representatives of Tooele County’s economic interest and employment impacts were cited in the floor remarks.
The roll call produced 10 aye votes, 17 nay votes, and 2 absent; the clerk announced SB229 failed and was filed with the secretaries.
Sponsor and critics differed on policy aims: proponents framed the change as an update after a grace period; opponents warned the change would not relieve general-fund pressures and stressed that restricted-fund mechanics limit legislative flexibility on spending.
Because the bill failed on the floor, no changes to fee schedules occurred as a result of this session’s action.
