Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aviation Fuel Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate advances aviation fuel tax refund aimed at boosting Salt Lake hub operations
Summary
The Utah Senate moved first substitute Senate Bill 49 to third reading after debate over a refund of a 3¢-per-gallon aviation fuel tax above a 90 million‑gallon threshold. Sponsors say the change is intended to encourage airline growth in Salt Lake City; senators raised concerns about impacts on rural airport funds and fairness to other carriers.
The Utah Senate voted on Feb. 16 to advance first substitute Senate Bill 49, a measure that would refund the 3¢ portion of the state aviation fuel tax on gallons above a 90,000,000‑gallon threshold to encourage growth of airline operations at the Salt Lake City hub.
Senator Valentine, the bill sponsor, told colleagues the measure is intended to make operating in Salt Lake City more economically viable for carriers and said the committee’s research — including Department of Transportation Form 41 data and unpublished Legislative Research material — showed Delta’s profitability at Salt Lake City lagged its domestic average. “In the Salt Lake City market, it's at 3.3%,” Valentine said, contrasting that with a 9.5% domestic system average in past data cited on the floor.
Valentine described the bill’s core mechanic: once a carrier exceeds 90,000,000 gallons, the 3¢ portion of the state aviation fuel tax on volumes above that level would not have to be paid, effectively creating a refund designed to incentivize expansion. He also said he had reached a tentative, “tacit agreement” with Southwest Airlines addressing their concerns.
Several senators pressed the sponsor on the bill’s broader fiscal and competitive effects. Senator Hilliard warned that the 1¢ current general aviation collection historically has been used for rural airports and expressed concern that Salt Lake City or its other airports could legally claim the statewide general aviation fund in the future, reducing support for smaller airports. “It could jeopardize the other fund,” she said, urging clarity about protections for rural airports.
Senator Maine and Senator Hickman urged caution about favoring one carrier over another. Hickman raised technical capacity concerns, noting Utah’s refining capacity and past times when fuel had to be trucked in; he also asked for the source of the sponsor’s profitability figures. Valentine pointed to the DOT data and a committee fiscal note estimating local impact in the roughly one‑million‑dollar range but declined to simulate the bill’s precise effect on corporate bottom lines.
Opponents and skeptics suggested alternative approaches such as lowering the 3¢ rate for all carriers rather than creating a volume‑based refund that might advantage a single airline. Several senators asked that written communications from carriers (including Southwest) be submitted to the record; the sponsor pledged not to pursue House action beyond the Senate’s third reading until those materials were produced.
On a roll call the Senate recorded 25 ayes, no nays and 4 absences, moving the first substitute of SB49 to the third‑reading calendar.
The next steps are third reading in the Senate and, if passed, transmission to the House where final action would occur. The sponsor and several colleagues signaled intent to secure written agreements and clarified that any final implementation would need to preserve rural aeronautics funding.
