Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts resolution pushing back on EPA draft rule targeting coal-fired plants
Summary
The Utah House passed HCR 9 on Feb. 27, urging federal reconsideration of a draft EPA rule that sponsors said would force coal-plant closures within three years and risk electricity reliability; the measure passed 57-13.
The Utah House adopted House Concurrent Resolution 9 on Feb. 27 urging the federal government to reconsider a draft U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule that sponsors said would effectively force closure of coal-fired power plants in the state within three years.
Representative Schultz, who sponsored the resolution, told colleagues the draft rule is "targeted at Utah" and said imposing a three-year closure timeline would be "flat out irresponsible," arguing the state could face blackouts and reliability problems similar to those experienced elsewhere. He framed the resolution as asking the federal government to avoid a forced, rapid shutdown and to work with Utah to find a more responsible path toward cleaner energy while maintaining grid reliability.
"To shut that down in 3 years is flat out irresponsible... we will have Utahns without power if this rule passes as is," Representative Schultz said on the floor. He also acknowledged the state should continue work on renewables but described the draft timeline as unworkable for Utah's electricity system.
The resolution passed the House by a vote of 57 yeas to 13 nays and will be transmitted to the Senate. The text instructs the Legislature’s leadership to register the House’s opposition and to ask federal agencies to consult more closely with state officials on timelines and reliability planning.
Floor debate did not include a recorded response from federal officials; the resolution is a legislative statement of position rather than binding state law. Supporters emphasized maintaining grid reliability and urging federal consultation; opponents did not appear on the record to offer technical rebuttals during this floor debate.
The House’s action is limited to a formal expression of the chamber’s position and does not in itself change federal requirements. It may, however, prompt state executive officials to engage with federal agencies on implementation timelines and grid planning.
