Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Air Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate splits on wood-burning amendments; HB 396 returns to House after tied vote
Summary
Second Substitute House Bill 396, which would limit a statewide season-long ban on wood burning and provide funding for emissions modeling and outreach, passed amendment votes but produced a divided roll call; senators debating air-quality trade-offs split the vote and the bill is sent back to the House for further consideration.
Senators took up Second Substitute House Bill 396, a response to community hearings about seasonal bans on wood burning. Senator Okerlund presented the measure, saying it would prevent an across-the-board seasonal ban on wood burning and instead fund modeling and education to reduce particulate emissions while preserving days for EPA-certified and low-emission devices (presentation at SEG 221–241).
Okerlund moved Amendment 1 to provide a one-time appropriation for modeling and to make language clarifications; the amendment was adopted. He then moved procedural steps — waiving committee hearing and suspending three readings — to expedite action in the session.
Opponents emphasized air-quality concerns. Senator Dabakis recorded a public objection on the record: wood burning is a significant contributor to fine particulate pollution along the Wasatch Front and “the last low hanging fruit we need to go after,” and he voted no (remarks and vote at SEG 333–342). Senator Hankins likewise said she opposed the bill, noting fossil-fuel implications for international markets, and voted no (SEG 357–363). After roll-call, the clerk reported a 'second rendition' result of 7 yeas, 7 nays and 5 absent; because of the amendment the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration (tally and disposition at SEG 407–413).
What happened: While sponsors emphasized modeling and staged programs to reduce emissions from wood stoves, some senators argued the bill missed an opportunity to reduce particulate pollution more aggressively. The evenly split vote and the requirement to send the amended bill back to the House mean the issue will return to interchamber negotiations.
Representative procedural notes: The floor record shows sponsors repeatedly invoking suspension rules to move legislative business quickly; senators asked for and received votes by roll call where required. The transcript documents who spoke for and against the bill and contains the roll-call tallies recorded by the clerk.
