►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
D
F
E
A
C
E
I
G
G
A
A
C
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
and
now
I
had
real
briefly
the
Kentucky
Association
of
economic
development
in
the
cabinet
of
Economic
Development.
They
are
meeting
in
front
of
chairman
fugit's
committee
on
March,
the
8th
in
which
they
will
go
over
the
program
and
the
recommendations,
then.
So,
thank
you
all.
A
Very
good,
thank
you.
Next
up
for
consideration,
we'll
take
up
House
Bill
4,
an
act
relating
to
Merchant
electric
generating
facilities
and
making
an
appropriation.
Therefore,
sponsor
is
representative
Josh
branscome,
if
you
and
anyone
else
that
will
be
assisting
in
the
presentation,
will
first
introduce
yourselves
for
the
record.
J
C
A
A
H
And
if
you
will
please
proceed,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
and
fellow
members
of
the
committee,
House
Bill
4
will
look
familiar
to
each
person
on
this
committee.
It
was
House
Bill
392
last
year,
and
each
of
you
on
this
community
did
support
that
bill
was
a
bipartisan
legislation.
House
Bill
4
is
nearly
the
same
as
last
year's
bill,
but
we've
added
a
few
Common
Sense
changes
that
I
believe
just
strengthen
the
bill
protects
our
land
and
our
landowners
to
an
even
greater
degree.
H
H
A
couple
of
the
provisions
from
last
year's
Bill,
two
local
pointies
stay
on
the
siding
board
through
construction.
Instead
of
going
off
the
board,
we
think
it's
important
to
have
that
local
representation
on
the
board
through
the
construction
of
these
facilities,
allowing
local
planning
zoning
to
have
privacy
over
the
decommissioning
requirements
and
the
bonds.
H
Currently
they
already
have
that
on
setbacks,
establishing
a
detailed
decommissioning
plan
and
bond
requirements
to
be
included
with
each
landowner's
lease
agreement
and
a
bond
shall
not
lapse
and
establishes
that
the
bond
amount
is
updated
every
five
years
by
an
independent
licensed
engineer
or
upon
that
transfer
of
ownership.
Some
of
the
new
Provisions.
The
bond
is
to
be
provided
by
surety
that
shall,
at
all
times
maintain
an
excellent
rating
as
measured
by
ambass
rating
agency.
H
The
energy
and
environment
cabinet
shall
have
oversight
over
con
after
the
construction
is
complete
and
generation
begins,
and
to
ensure
that
there's
compliance
with
Bond
reviews
decommissioning
and
the
monitoring
we've
we've
created
a
restricted
fund
and
created
that
so
that
the
facility
owner
pays
in
to
that
fund
to
offset
the
cost
of
the
energy
and
environment
cabinets
oversight,
and
this
keeps
our
taxpayers
from
having
to
pay
that
for
that
oversight.
And
finally,
there
is
a
penalty
provision
in
case
of
any
violations.
Mr
chairman,
that's
a
brief
overview
of
the
bill
bill.
H
A
K
A
K
Some
of
you
will
know
I
used
to
be
director
of
the
Kentucky
Resources
Council
for
37
years,
the
council
I'm
now
their
lobbyist.
For
this
session,
the
council
provides
free
legal
assistance
to
folks
on
environmental
and
energy.
K
Related
issues
we
represent
have
represented
folks,
who
are
downhill
and
downwind
and
downstream
for
all
these
years
and
and
part
A
lot
of
that
work
has
been
protecting
or
trying
to
work
with
landowners
to
protect
their
lands
from
pipelines
that
wanted
to
come
through
Kentucky
to
the
broad
form
deed,
which
I
had
the
privilege
of
writing
the
brief
that
helped
overturn
that
decision
that
had
plagued
landowners
in
Eastern
Kentucky
for
for
decades
and
I'm
here
today,
because
I
am
Gravely
concerned
about
this
bill.
K
This
bill
does
not
Advance
protections
for
landowners
and
I
need
you
to
understand,
as
as
I
appreciate,
representative
Branson's
goal
and
I
appreciate
my
colleagues
over
the
farm
bureau's
goal.
But
this
bill
does
not
achieve
those
ends.
The
siding
board
was
something
that
we
created
and
I
had
a
role
in
in
helping
to
draft
it.
I
had
the
privilege
of
doing
that.
Back
in
2002,
the
siding
board
was
created
because
we
then
had
a
number
of
utility
scale
power
plants
coming
to
Kentucky
Back
Then
There
Were
gas
plans
that
were
wanted
to
site.
Here.
K
We
realized
we
had
no
process
to
govern
this
sighting.
The
way
that
the
Public
Service
Commission
governs
utility
plants.
So
we
created
a
process
that
required
an
application
for
construction
certificate
required
that
they
do
a
site
assessment
to
make
sure
that
neighbors
interests
were
being
protected,
that
they
were
compatible
with
the
natural
environment
and
the
built
environment
and
and
those
requirements
were
put
in
place.
K
The
board,
of
course,
has
permanent
members,
the
Public
Service
Commission
energy
and
environment
cabinet,
Economic,
Development
cabinet,
and
then
it
has
ad
hoc
members,
as
representative
branskin
mentioned,
which
is
either
the
chair
of
the
local
planning
commissioner,
or
it's
the
County
judge
and
then
a
resident
from
that
County.
And
they
look
at
these
applications
to
make
sure
and
they
impose
certain
conditions
to
make
sure
that
they
are
compatible
with
the
natural
and
built
environment.
They're
not
going
to
adversely
affect
landowners,
and
also,
in
the
case
of
these
solar
plants,
that
there
is
a
decommissioning.
I
H
K
At
the
end
of
the
useful
life,
you
don't
end
up
with
a
bunch
of
junk
that
is
no
longer
of
any
use
to
the
landowner.
That's
on
the
property
that
it's
all
torn
down,
that
all
the
foundations
are
dug
up
and
removed
all
the
conduit
and
wires
and
that
there's
a
bond
to
make
sure
if
that
developer
or
whoever
they
sell
the
project
to
defaults
on
their
obligation
that
there's
enough
money
there
for
a
third
party
to
take
care
of
the
problem.
That's
existing
law!
K
That's
what
the
citing
board
is
doing
right
now,
without
any
additional
legislation,
they're
doing
their
job
and
they're
protecting
landowners
they're
requiring
that
all
the
material
be
removed.
What
this
bill
does,
first
of
all
and
and
one
of
the
things
that
always
concerns
me,
because
the
legislature
for
the
45
years
that
I've
been
in
front
of
this
August
body
has
never
tried
to
interfere
with
pending
litigation.
This
bill
attempts
in
a
couple
of
different
places
to
moot
out
litigation
where
citing
board
decisions
are
being
challenged
by
a
solar
developer,
because.
A
K
K
Appreciate
that
very
much,
let
me
go
through
the
provisions
that
are
of
concern
to
me
and
then
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Mr
chairman
or
any
members
of
the
committee
that
you
have
the
bill
takes
away
the
decision
from
the
landowner
from
the
lessor
as
to
what
remains
behind
right
now.
If
I
have
a
lease,
the
lease
can
say
everything
goes
I,
don't
want
the
concrete
foundations.
I
don't
want
the
conduit.
I,
don't
want
everything
else.
K
That's
there
at
the
end
of
the
life
of
this
facility,
unless
a
County
under
this
bill
with
Planning
and
Zoning,
requires
more
the
applicant
and
not
the
landowner
gets
to
decide
what
gets
left
behind,
and
so
you
may
end
up
with
a
bunch
of
junk
under
the
ground
below
three
feet.
That
is
of
no
use
to
you
and
no
value
to
you
that
you
can't
control,
because,
under
this
statute,
your
lease
has
to
have
that
language,
the
statutory
language
in
the
lease
and
it
restricts
the
landowners
rights.
K
It
delegates
to
a
non-governmental
engineer,
the
setting
of
the
bond
and
then
almost
assures
that
the
bond
will
be
inadequate
because
it
says
that
the
bond
value
will
be
reduced
to
Net
Present
Value.
Now
those
of
you
familiar
and
I've
spent
a
lot
of
years.
You
know
with
mining,
industry
and
bonds.
There
you
don't
reduce
bonds
to
Net
Present
Value,
they
have
a
face
value
and
that
face
value
is
the
value
of
the
bond.
K
Now
you
may
get
a
discount
on
the
what
you
pay
for
the
bond,
but
unlike
a
deposit
which
has
interest
bearing
and
a
cruise
over
time,
a
face
of
a
bond
does
not
get
reduced
to
Net
Present
Value.
So
in
this
situation,
where
you
have
a
non-governmental
actor
who's
going
to
be
setting
the
bond,
the
bond
will
and
almost
in
invariably
be
inadequate
to
do
the
job
of
decommissioning
in
the
event
that
the
developer,
at
the
end
of
the
life
of
this
facility,
when
the
material
was
of
no
use
to
them
defaults
on
that
obligation.
K
Finally,
the
current
law
says
that
if
you
want
to
transfer
the
the
rights
and
obligations
that
are
given
to
you
by
the
siding
board,
which
looks
at
your
background,
your
ability
to
do
what
you're
saying
you're
going
to
do,
you
have
to
get
approval
for
that
transfer.
This
eliminates
that
process
once
the
facility
is
constructed.
Why
we
would
want
to
allow
to
to
require
that
you
demonstrate,
as
part
of
getting
approval,
to
build
one
of
these
plants
in
Kentucky.
You
have
to
show
that
you've
got
a
good
record.
K
K
That's
in
there,
the
internal
conflicts
that
are
created
by
the
bill,
but
the
ver,
the
specifics
matter
and
I
don't
mean
to
get
down
to
minutia,
I
litigated,
the
placement
of
a
comma
and
a
definition
of
surface
mining
for
about
10
years
in
federal
court
and
what
hung
in
the
balance
was
whether
about
700
coal
tipples
were
going
to
be
subject
to
some
regulation
or
not,
and
whether
some
landowners
are
going
to
be
protected
or
not.
K
The
language
and
the
bill
here
is
problematic
in
many
respects,
and
it
does
not
do
the
job
that
I
think
the
sponsor
intends
it
to
do
or
which
the
Farm
Bureau
hopes
it's
going
to
do
it
in
fact
weakens
existing
protections
and
for
that
reason,
I
would
encourage
you
to
oppose
the
bill.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have.
Thank.
K
A
L
For
nearly
the
last
three
years,
our
organization
has
been
at
the
Forefront
of
efforts
in
this
state
to
examine
the
impacts
of
industrial
scale,
solar
I'd
like
to
state
that
I
support
this
bill,
I.
Think
it's
a
good
bill.
I've
read
it
half
a
dozen
times.
It
was
only
last
night
that
I
discovered
what
I
think
is.
Maybe
an
unintentional
discrepancy.
L
Last
year,
this
bill
and
I'd
refer
to
the
bottom
of
page
18,
which
is
section
278
718,
which
modifies
sections
two
three
and
four
it.
What
this
section
does
is
affirms
local
control
of
those
sections.
What
happened
in
this
year's
Bill
House
Bill
4,
an
additional
section
before
those
was
amended,
278,
708
and
so
in
doing
so,
I
believe
the
intention
was
to
include
section
five
in
this
section
which
affirms
local
premises.
A
H
As
far
as
Mr
mayor's
comments,
there
we'll
take
a
look
at
that.
He
brought
that
to
my
attention
right
before
the
meeting.
So
that's
if
that's
something
that
was
a
possible
oversight
or
something
we
need
to
address,
I'll,
be
sure
to
take
a
look
at
that
for
him.
With
regards
to
Mr
Fitzgerald
I've
always
appreciate
his
feedback.
Him
and
I
had
a
great
conversation
yesterday
and
I
think
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we
both
have.
We
both
have
the
same
intent
of
protecting
our
landowners.
We
filled
the
build
covers
that.
H
However,
he
did
send
some
some
points
across
yesterday
afternoon,
I'm
going
to
I
told
him
I
would
review
those
and
if
there's
something
we
need
to
take
a
look
I'd
be
happy
to
do
that.
A
I
appreciate
that
and
just
to
preempt
the
question
this
bill
came
through
last
session
and
was
fully
vetted.
We
were
trying
to
avoid
a
two-step
dance
and
have
it
go
through
one
committee
and
then
come
to
Appropriations.
Is
why
we're
here
to
begin
with,
so
take
those
questions,
comments
inputs
into
consideration
and
act.
Accordingly,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
on
the
bill.
G
C
H
E
F
J
F
J
J
J
A
You
Mr
chairman,
are
we
looking
at
259?
First,
yes,.
J
A
Just
making
sure
no
committee
sub
or
anything
this
bill
actually
came
through
the
committee
last
session
and
no
substantive
changes
may
not
have
any
changes
at
all
from
last
year
would
simply
in
order
to
facilitate
our
budget
process
that
we
utilized
last
year.
It
moves
some
requirements
on
the
executive
branch
to
submit
information
to
the
legislative
branch
about
30
days
earlier
than
normal,
so
we
have
time
to
receive
that
information
act
on
it.
Accordingly,.
J
H
D
D
D
E
F
H
A
J
A
Well,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
and
I
have
representative
McPherson
with
me
this
morning.
He
has
agreed
to
carry
this
bill
and
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
he
was
in
it
on
at
the
very
front
end
of
the
process.
Representative
Hart
assisted
us
with
this
and
did
so
very
well
last
session.
The
bill
remains
largely
unchanged,
if
not
entirely
unchanged,
and
what
it
seeks
to
accomplish
is
this
after
staff
has
gone
through
and
vetted
how
many
reports
we
received
that
are
simply
not
necessary.
A
No
one
asked
for
them,
or
some
other
report
has
taken
precedence
regarding
the
subject
matter.
This
simply
reduces
those
requirements
of
the
executive
branch
having
to
reduce
the
reports
which
would
reduce
their
workload,
and
hopefully
things
make
things
a
little
more
efficient
for
everyone,
including.
J
A
J
E
B
D
D
D
D
I
A
J
A
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
and
ultimately
I'm,
going
to
ask
that
we
pass
on
this
today,
just
to
report
to
the
committee
that
257
we
do
have
a
committee
sub
and
rather
than
introducing
that
today,
members
probably
have
a
copy
of
that
I'm
going
to
make
sure
that
gets
out
to
everyone
and
then
I
would
anticipate
calling
this
bill
back
on
for
next
Tuesday,
if
not
sooner
so
with
that.
I
would
just
ask
Mr
chairman
if
we
could
pass
this
until
the
next
meeting.