►
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
To
order
certainly
welcome
each
and
every
one
of
you
to
to
attend
this
meeting
with
us
today
at
this
time,
if
you
would
I'd
like
to
ask
you
to
rise
for
the
pledge
of
allegiance
flags
over
my
right
shoulder,
I
pledge
allegiance
to
the
flag
of
the
united
states
of
america
and
to
the
republic
for
which
it
stands
a
nation,
under
god
indivisible
with
liberty
and
justice.
For
all
this
time,
I'd
like
to
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role.
A
Here
been
a
quorum
okay,
we
do
not
have
a
quorum,
but
that's
okay.
We
have
a
few
things,
some
housekeeping
measures
that
we
can
go
over
with,
while
we're
waiting
for
some
meeting
for
some
of
the
members
to
to
get
down
here.
Senator
caslin
has
informed
me
that
he
has
a
special
guest
he'd
like
to
recognize
so
I'll
yield
to
senator
castle.
C
Sure
today
I
have
a
special
guest
that
will
be
a
familiar
face
around
here
next
year.
Gary
boswell
who's
in
the
room
today
will
be
taking
my
place.
He
is
running
unopposed
for
the
8th
senate
district
and
he's
here
joining
us
today.
A
You're
welcome
to
our
committee.
Do
I
have
any
other
members
that
have
any
guests
or
any
special
comments
before
we
start
senator
wheeler?
Did
you
have
a
comment?
Okay,
okay,
very
good.
All
right
last
week
in
our
meeting
was
not
exactly
how
we
had
planned.
So
I
wanted
to
try
to
address
that
this
morning
about
how
we
handle
some
of
the
procedure
in
this
committee.
A
So,
if
you'll
allow
me
when
you
want
to
speak
in
front
of
our
committee,
we
ask
that
you,
please
use
the
sign-in
sheet
at
the
podium
and,
if
you'd
like
to
speak
on
a
bill
and
the
signs
are
not
permitted
in
the
committee
room
hold
on
here.
This
doesn't
make
sense
to
me.
A
A
A
I've
members
have
got
guests
that
want
to
come
so
sign
in
at
the
podium,
make
sure
you're
down
there.
If
something
happens,
and
for
some
reason
you
don't
think
you're
going
to
speak
and
you
do
get
a
chance
to.
Let
me
know
text
me
because
I
do
want
you
to
participate
in
this
committee
and
what
happened
last
week
was.
We
did
not
have
anybody
down,
and
so
I
let
the
meeting
run
longer,
because
I
wanted
my
members
to
be
able
to
ask
all
the
questions
that
they
could
on
this
important
bill.
A
So
I
appreciate
everybody's
patience
on
this
and
that's
what
we're
going
to
try
to
do
today
to
finish
that
out,
so
that
my
members
have
the
best
information
and
that
the
people
in
kentucky
have
and
people
on
both
sides.
This
issue
have
a
fair
chance
to
come
here
and
express
their
concerns
or
the
things
that
they
agree
upon.
Now,
I'm
going
to
go
out
of
line
a
little
bit.
We
have
two
three
bills
on
the
agenda
and
two
of
them
are
not
going
to
take
that
long.
A
A
And
if
you
will
come
to
the
table
representative
boland
and
have
your
guests
identify
themselves
for
our
record
and
I'll
turn
the
mic
over
to
you.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
wanted
to
inform
you
that
we
do.
I
have
a
committee
sub
on
this
bill.
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
adam
bowling
state
representative,
87th
district
bell
in
harlan
counties
and
with
me
today
are.
E
Mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
house
bill
45
today.
This
piece
of
legislation
I'm
very
excited
about
because
it
will
help
spur
economic
investment
while
also
reducing
plastic
waste,
a
win-win
opportunity.
We
don't
often
see
this
bill
simply
provides
for
transparent
rules
for
a
new
type
of
technology
that
actually
breaks
plastic
waste
back
into
the
molecules
the
plastic
is
composed
of
in
a
process
we're
calling
advanced
recycling.
E
A
G
Mr
chairman,
I'm
fine,
I
think
representative
bolin
has
described
the
bill.
Well,
we
are
supportive
of
the
bill
and
would
encourage
that
you
send
it
out
with
a
favorable
expression.
A
All
right,
so
we
have
no
further
questions
on
this
particular
bill.
Senator
schickel.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
wanted
to
explain
for
people,
maybe
you
know
there's
more
and
more
people
watching
these
committee
hearings
on
their
computers
at
home.
I
know
this
from
some
of
the
questions
I
got,
and
sometimes
these
committee
subs
confuse
people
who
are
not
familiar
with
the
process
and
being
that
being
that
I
offered
the
committee
sub,
I
just
want
to
take
one
moment
to
explain
what
we
did.
D
What
we
did
was
the
bill
sponsor
had
a
few
very
much.
It's
basically
the
same
bill,
but
the
bill
sponsor
had
a
few
minor
changes
and
they
requested
this
committee
sub.
It's
basically
the
same
bill
with
just
a
a
few
few
minor
changes
and
that's
what
we
can
call
the
committee
sub.
I
just
wanted
to
share
that
with
people
that
may
not
be
familiar
with
it.
D
Explain
my
vote.
Please
go
ahead.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
appreciate
you
bringing
this
representative.
It's
important
mind
in
your
area
since
we're
representing
the
same
place,
and
I
look
forward
to
working
with
the
industry
to
help
move
this
along
because
that
garbage
beside
the
roads
every
day
we
see
it
everywhere
and
I
hope
we
can
pick
it
up
get
running
real,
quick.
Thank
you.
H
Mr
chairman
explain
my
vote.
Please
go
ahead.
Yeah,
I'd
like
to
concur
with
my
friend
the
senator
from
harlan.
You
know
I
actually
passed
some
legislation
myself
last
session,
an
attempt
to
clean
up
eastern
kentucky
and
the
fact
that
we
can
actually
utilize.
Some
of
the
things
we
get
to
to
actually
make
some
money
and
and
provide
jobs
in
the
community
is
is
a
wonderful
opportunity.
So
I
want
to
thank
the
representative
for
bringing
this
bill.
A
And
I
vote-
and
I
just
explained
my
vote-
you
know
for
several
years,
I've
talked
about
in
our
our
sailing
school
that
I
do
in
the
summer
for
for
children
for
free,
just
as
a
gift
to
our
region
to
encourage
people
to
participate
in
water
sports,
so
you'll
do
a
better
job
of
taking
care
of
it.
But
we
we
talked
to
our
kids,
about
the
1.6
million
square
meters
of
the
pacific,
garbage
patch
and
that's
mostly
plastic
and
people
do
not
think
about
all
the
medical
waste.
A
That's
coming
out
the
syringes
that
we
have
the
vaccine
and
how
it
gets
in
kentucky's
waterways
and
makes
its
way
to
the
ohio
river,
and
it
contributes
this.
This
place
used
to
be
the
size
of
delaware,
and
now
it's
growing
to
the
point
that
I'm
not
sure
that
that
we
have
the
resources
available
to
clean
it
up.
So
what
you're
doing
it
has
a
much
bigger
impact
and
positions
kentucky
to
be
more
responsible
and
how
we
handle
waste
in
our
state
and
what
the
ways
from
our
state
actually
impacts
everyone
else.
A
So
I
appreciate
you
taking
this
on
a
tremendous
piece
of
legislation.
This
motion
approves
a
bill
that
that
the
same
shall
pass
as
amended
with
the
committee
substitutes.
So
good
luck
to
you.
As
you
begin
to
head
to
the
floor,
we
have
a
motion
for
consent,
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
of
the
sign
of
iron
opposed.
Likewise,
the
motion
carries.
We
have
you
on
consent,
representative
bolden.
Thank
you.
Yeah
thank.
F
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
we're
working
on
some
a
slide
presentation,
which
is
just
a
couple
of
slides,
which
apparently
has
worked.
That's
a
good
sign,
but
very
quickly.
I'm
here
to
present
house
bill
195,
which
is
amended
by
house
floor
amendment
1
and
195
provides
guidance
for
improved
communications
between
property
developers
or
property
owners
and
interstate
natural
gas
pipeline
operators
and
liquid
gas
pipeline
operators.
F
Before
getting
into
the
specifics
of
the
language,
I
need
to
provide
just
a
little
bit
of
background
information.
The
commonwealth
of
kentucky
has
6532
miles
of
interstate
natural
gas
transmission
lines.
To
give
you
some
idea
the
extent
of
natural
gas
pipelines
in
the
country
and
in
kentucky,
let's
take
a
look
at
a
couple
of
slides.
F
And
this
is
in
the
central
part
of
the
state
to
give
you
again
just
to
bring
it
down
a
little
closer.
F
This
is
eastern
kentucky
again
as
as
you
notice,
they're,
literally
impacting
almost
every
citizen
in
kentucky
and
then
finally
an
area
near
and
dear
to
my
heart.
This
is
actually
the
owensboro
area
and
we
have
a
strong
interest
in
these
pipelines.
They
literally
cross
all
of
davis,
county.
F
Pipelines
have
historically
been
intentionally
routed
away
from
larger
cities
in
the
regions,
but
close
enough
to
serve
those
areas
with
the
tremendous
growth
and
spiral
that
we
have
seen
over
the
past
decades.
Pipelines
are
now
consistently
squeezed
by
houses
and
all
types
of
commercial
and
other
institutions
and
developments.
F
Additionally,
counties,
cities
and
smaller
towns,
often
don't
have
planning
departments
with
the
judiciary,
jurisdictional
power
to
monitor
and
manage
these
territorial
conflicts
and
then
finally,
pipeline
operators
are
required
to
meet
stringent
federal
operation
and
maintenance
standards,
which
can
change
as
developments
grow
closer
to
the
pipelines
as
kentucky's
population
and
commercial
development
increases.
These
conflicts
of
interest
also
increase
when
implemented.
This
bill
will
coordinate
private
sector
collaborations
through
the
planning
and
zoning
process.
F
It
instructs
planning
commissions
to
gather
pipeline
location
information
from
the
national
pipeline
mapping
system
within
60
days
of
the
effective
date
of
this
legislation,
and
finally,
it
obligates
pipeline
operators
in
return
to
provide
pipeline
location
information
to
developers
upon
notice
of
a
preliminary
development
plan.
All
that
to
say
this:
it
it
increases
communications
between
developers
and
pipeline
operators
and
then
encourages
that
the
communication
to
take
place
earlier
in
the
development
plans
for
for
any
kind
of
potential
development
we
have.
F
As
it
stands,
57
of
the
con
of
kentucky's
120
counties
have
planning
commissions.
This
bill
affects
only
those
57
counties:
interstate
pipelines
that
run
through
counties
without
planning
commissions
are
in
much
more
rural
areas
and
development,
near
pipelines
is
far
less
likely
and
on
top
of
that,
communications
between
developers
and
pipeline
operators
are
more
ongoing.
F
F
Pipeline
operators
understand
that
as
development
grows,
their
operational
and
maintenance
requirements
for
their
pipelines
will
change.
They
understand
that
they
accept
that
this
does
not
interfere
with
that
development.
What
it
does
do
is
simply
increase
communications
between
developers
and
pipeline
operators.
Mr
chairman,
subject:
any
questions.
A
request,
passage
of
house
bill,
195.
A
H
H
Regulations
have
been
adopted,
correct
that
is
correct
and
I
can
recall
of
you
know
it's
probably
been
15.
16
years
ago
there
was
an
explosion
on
a
pipeline
in
floyd
county
that
I
think,
was
not
in
a
zoned
area,
but
it
you
know,
took
out
several
houses.
I
think-
and
I
don't
I
think,
thankfully
nobody
lost
their
life,
but
there
was
some
folks
that
suffered
some
severe
burns,
so
I
can
definitely
see
the
need
for
this
and
I
think
it
seems
like
an
adequate
safety
measure.
F
C
Senator
caslin
representative
johnson,
this
question
you
might
have
to
answer
later
what
what
size
of
a
pipeline
or
length
of
it
would.
It
have
to
be
to
be
considered
a
transmission
pipeline.
I
So
senator,
basically
anything
that's
interstate
line,
so
anything
that
is
regulated
by
the
federal
government,
so
none
of
the
state
ones
that
would
be
regulated
by
the
psc,
for
example,
would
not
apply.
Just
would
be
those
those
federal
pipelines
that
are
oversold
by
the
federal
government,
and
so
so
that
varies
in
size
completely.
Based
upon
the
the
specifics.
You
know
it
could
be
a
very
small
line.
You
know
probably
under
12
inch
but
potentially
larger
than
larger
than
40
inches
well,
depending
on
the
specifics
of
the
line.
Okay,.
C
And
representative
johnson's
presentation
really
helped
he
he
understands
how
how
I
feel
sometimes
about
empowering
planning
and
zoning
offices,
especially
when
it
comes
to
developments
and
economic
growth.
And
so
I
appreciate
that.
J
Thank
you,
representative,
khloe
aaron.
I
was
just
wondering
about
the
definition
of
development.
Is
it
somewhere
else
or
what
exact
exactly
does
it
have
a
definitional
parameter.
F
You
know
I
have
not
heard
that
question
yet
bob.
Do
you
have
anything.
I
And
I
can
speak
to
that
a
little
bit
senator.
So
basically,
you
know
if
they're,
as
far
as
how
we're
regulated,
there's
basically
class
one
to
class
four,
which
determines
how
many
people
are
within
dwellings
within
660
feet
of
a
pipeline.
So
this
would
apply
to
anything
whether
it
be
commercial
or
residential,
because
all
of
that
would
fall
within
the
the
dwelling
requirements,
essentially
that
the
federal
government
puts
on
us.
I
Potentially
like
that,
potentially
you
know
anything
that
that
has
a
dwelling
with
people
on
there
and
so,
for
example,
if
we
have
a
pipeline
within
the
660
foot
corridor,
which
is
really
what
this
is
targeted
at
and
the
the
feet
area,
that's
that's
laid
out
in
the
bill
if
there
is
any
increased
activity
there,
as
far
as
increased
numbers
of
dwellings,
new
buildings
etc.
That's
what
actually
triggers
us
to
have
to
increase
our
class
size,
which
is
really
what
this
is
targeted
at.
C
Just
a
follow-up,
because
central
web
sparked
one
more
thing
and
I'd
say
central
hornback.
If
he
could
ask
this
question,
he
probably
would
so
currently
right
now
ag
has
an
exemption
from
planned
reviews
and
and
development
plans
whenever
they
do
anything
with
this.
Now,
if
there's
a
pipeline
ran
through
somebody's
farm,
require
them
to
go
to
the
planning
departments
to
have
a
development
plan
for
like
building
a
of
a
shop
or
grain
system
or
something.
I
I
think
that's
something
we
might
need
to.
You
know
follow
up
on
a
little
bit
for
for
sure,
but
really.
What
I
would
say
is
that
you
know
it
really
flows
into
what
the
current
process
is.
So
I
would
think
that
it
maybe
would
not
apply
from
from
my
understanding,
but
it's
based
upon
what
we
currently
have
in
place
as
far
as
the
planning
commissions
within
the
state
to
really
fit
within
there
and
not
create
any
type
of
new
bureaucracy,
or
anything
like
that.
F
A
We
have
a
motion
a
second.
We
also
have
tom
fitzgerald
joining
us.
Who's
asked
to
speak.
Tom
will
turn
it
over
to
you.
G
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
I'll,
be
uncharacteristically
brief.
I
just
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
for
the
amendment
that
was
made
in
the
house
that
extends
this
to
cover
hazardous
liquid
pipelines,
as
well
as
natural
gas
pipelines.
The
change
makes
it
consistent
with
the
with
the
federal
recommendations
that
that
were
developed
by
the
consensus
group
that
he
mentioned.
G
The
the
pipeline
group
that
included
representatives
of
industry,
landowners
and
government,
which
is
just
trying
to
create
a
consultation
zone,
is
what
they
call
it
where,
if
you're
within
660
feet
of
a
pipeline,
you
let
the
developer
know
this
is
not
intended
to
expand
anything
that
requires
local
approval.
So
if
it's
exempt
from
local
zoning
planning
now
it
stays
exempt.
This
is
simply
a
a
where
you
have
a
development,
residential
or
non-residential
development
that
requires
a
development
plan.
G
Currently,
that's
where
it
would
apply,
and
essentially
getting
back
to
senator
wheeler's
point
up
in
ivil
in
in
floyd
county.
There
was,
I
think,
six
houses
ended
up
getting
blown
up
and
a
number
of
people
went
to
the
hospital.
Thank
god,
nobody
was
killed,
but
these
these
accidents
are
rare,
but
when
they
happen
they
have
fairly
catastrophic
consequences,
and
what
this
tends
to
do
is
just
to
provide
a
heads
up,
there's
nothing
in
here
that
prevents
local
communities
with
planning
and
zoning.
G
From
going
a
step
further
and
saying,
we
don't
want
developments
that
have
a
difficulty
in
evacuation
from
being
placed
in
proximity
to
pipelines,
just
common
sense
and
a
lot
of
times.
People
do
the
development.
They
never
know
that
the
pipeline
is
in
close
proximity.
So
it's
a
it's
a
heads
up,
it's
consultation.
G
It
doesn't
have
any
mandate
other
than
that.
You
might
be
surprised
to
know
that
there's
nothing
in
federal
law
that
prevents
you
from
building
a
new
pipeline
right
next
door
to
a
house,
but
but
that's
for
another
day.
This
is
dealing
with
existing
pipelines
and
new
development,
and
we
are
supportive
and
appreciative
of
the
bill
and
appreciative
that
industry
has
stepped
up
and
said
that
this
needs
to
be
part
of
kentucky's
law.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
C
I'd
like
to
explain
my
vote
representative
johnson
is
a
near
and
dear
friend
of
mine,
and
I
think
he
has
great
intentions
here
and
I'm
gonna
vote
eye
on
this.
But
I
would
ask
that
you
all
look
to
make
sure
that
this
isn't
gonna
affect
anything
that
is
exempt
from
current
plan
reviews
and
development
plans
going
forward,
because
this
could
affect
a
lot
of
ag
land
as
you've
seen
there
in
davis
county
all
over
that
map.
C
J
A
I
cast
I
vote
senator
carpenter.
Do
you
want
to
cast
and
I
vote,
the
motion
is
approved.
The
same
shall
pass.
Thank
you,
gentlemen,
for
your
time
and
look
forward
to
seeing
further
follow
up
on
the
floor.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
At
this
time,
I'd
like
to
ask
our
guests
from
to
carry
over
from
our
previous
meeting
on
senate
bill
69
to
go
ahead
and
come
to
the
table.
A
David,
if
you
would
please
have
your
guests,
identify
themselves
for
the
record
and
again
a
sincere
apology
about
have
it
running
out
of
time
at
the
last
meeting.
But
we
reserved
the
remainder
of
our
time
here
to
let
you
all
be
able
to
finish
your
thought
and
we
appreciate
the
travel
and
all
the
juggling
that
took
place
for
you
guys
to
to
renegotiate
coming
back
in
front
of
this
committee
and
so
I'll
waste
some
more
time
and
turn
it
directly
over
to
you
sure.
K
You
thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
will
tell
you
that
my
father
who's,
a
retired
preacher,
got
a
little
bit
of
a
kick
out
of
it.
He
he
told
me
son,
your
your
sermon
ran
long
and
your
audience
ran
early
last
week,
so
so
try
to
avoid
that
today,
I'll
let
miss
jensen
introduce
herself.
K
Yeah
and
again,
thank
you,
I
think
most
of
the
members
were
here,
but
maybe
for
those
who
are
not
last
week
just
to
introduce
myself,
I'm
david
sanford
with
the
law
firm
of
goth
samford
pllc
over
the
course
of
my
career.
I've
had
the
opportunity
to
see
this
solar
issue
really
from
just
about
every
perspective.
I
represent
developers
who
bring
these
projects
to
fruition.
I
also
represent
public
utilities
who
purchase
the
power
to
be
able
to
deliver
to
customers
and
industry
and
meet
economic
development
needs.
K
I've
also
represented
landowners,
who've
entered
into
negotiations
and
leases
with
various
solar
developers
for
their
use
of
their
land,
and
then
I
also
served
previously
for
a
period
of
about
five
years
as
general
counsel
of
the
siding
board.
So
this
is
a
again,
as
I
said
last
week,
this
is
an
issue,
that's
very
complex,
it's
very
technical!
K
There
were
a
couple
of
things
that
came
up
in
last
week's
hearing
I
just
want
to
address.
One
of
the
purposes
was
stated
was
to
keep
home
rule
as
much
as
we
can,
but
there's
really
nothing
in
senate
bill
69
that
promotes
home
rule.
The
only
provision
where
there
is
home
rule
currently
for
the
siting
or
for
local
jurisdictions
is
with
regard
to
setbacks,
and
that
doesn't
change
here.
So
there's
nothing
that
that
promotes
or
encourages
home
rule.
There's
another
bill.
K
That's
before
you
that's
house
bill
392
that
passed
by
a
vote
of
91
to
3
a
few
weeks
ago
in
the
house
on
solar
legislation.
It
has
very
clear
primacy
provision
to
make
sure
that
home
rule
is
very
much
protected.
There
was
also,
I
think,
a
question
from
perhaps
senator
southworth
about
the
need
for
an
emergency
clause
and
just
to
to
give
you
kind
of
an
idea
of
where
things
stand.
K
Over
the
past
two
years,
29
notices
of
intent
have
been
filed
by
applicants
before
the
citing
board.
22
applications
have
been
heard.
One
of
those
was
withdrawn.
18
of
those
cases
have
already
been
decided,
and
so
the
citing
board's
role
is
largely
done
there.
One
application
scheduled
to
be
decided
next
month
to
are
scheduled
to
be
decided
by
august.
So
there's
really
not
an
emergent
need
for
this
legislation.
The
wave
is
already
passed.
There's
there's
only
really,
I
think
three
cases
that
are
before
the
sighting
board
now
and
even
with
an
emergency
clause.
K
I
don't
know
that
it
would
have
any
impact
upon
those
decisions.
So
last
week
there
were
five
different
deficiencies
that
were
noted
by
the
supporters
of
the
bill
in
their
in
the
in
the
course
of
the
meeting
one.
Is
there
there's
a
not
a
clean
handoff
between
jurisdiction
between
the
siding
board
and
in
the
energy
and
environment
cabinet?
K
Two
is
the
questions
concerning
the
transfer
of
control
requirements,
which
are
not
real
clear,
whether
that
applies
to
before
a
project
is
completed
or
whether
it's
after
the
the
project,
enters
its
operational
phase,
and
I
can
tell
you
that
that
is
one
of
the
most
important
pieces
of
this
to
get
right,
because
it's
going
to
affect
every
developer's
ability
to
finance
their
projects.
So
that
needs
to
be
very
clear
what
the
intent
there
is.
K
K
One
of
them
is
in
section
7,
subsection,
three
part
b
of
the
bill,
which
is
really
what
I
would
describe
as
a
false
promise.
We
go
through
the
elaborate
exercise
of
requiring
decommissioning
bonds
and
having
those
set
by
independent
parties,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
when
you
name
a
local
government
or
eec,
the
bill
says
that
they
have
no
responsibility
to
actually
follow
through
on
the
decommissioning
obligation.
K
So
what's
the
point
of
naming
a
local
government
or
state
government
as
a
beneficiary
on
a
decommissioning
bond
and
then
making
it
subject
to
their
discretion,
20
or
30
years
down
the
road
as
to
whether
or
not
they'll
actually
follow
through
on
that
that
commitment
from
a
landowner's
perspective,
that
means
this
bill's
is
effectively
worthless.
There's
not
really
a
protection.
K
That's
afforded
by
having
a
government,
be
a
government
agency,
be
the
beneficiary
of
a
decommissioning
bond
if
they
can
choose
in
the
future
that
they're
not
going
to
follow
through
on
that
obligation,
and
so
that's
a
major
problem
with
this.
K
If
I
was
talking
to
a
landowner
and
representing
them
I'd
say
you
know,
you
cannot
be
in
favor
of
this
legislation.
For
that
reason,
the
the
other
another
area
is,
it
greatly
expands,
eec
jurisdiction,
and
I
think
that
there's
a
problem
there
section
6,
subsection,
6,
section,
7,
subsection,
4,
section
9,
subsection
3-
are
all
grants
of
authority
to
the
energy
and
environment
cabinet,
but
rather
than
just
say,
you've
got
the
limited
authority
to
make
sure
that
that
a
bond
is
filed
that
it's
regularly
updated.
K
That
notifications
are
given
when
transfers
of
control
take
place.
During
the
operational
phase,
it
gives
the
agency
the
cabinet
jurisdiction
to
enforce
the
conditions
of
the
citing
board's
orders
and
I've
never
seen
a
place
in
statute
where
an
agency's
jurisdiction
is
defined
by
the
orders
of
another
agency.
I
think
that
there's
a
constitutional
delegation
of
powers
issue
there
that
one
agency
of
state
government's
authority
can
be
expanded
or
contracted
by
the
orders
of
another
one.
K
Again,
as
I
said
earlier,
there's
no
way
to
resolve
what
happens
if
you
get
inconsistent
obligations
imposed
by
a
local
government
agency
as
opposed
to
the
siting
board,
and
that
just
that
creates
a
lot
of
risk
for
developers
for
financers
who
are
just
going
to
take
their
investment
and
go
somewhere
else.
Where
you
don't
have
that
problem.
There
needs
to
be
a
very
clear
primacy
kind
of
provision
to
make
it
clear
whether
it's
state
government
or
whether
or
not
it's
the
lo,
the
local
agency,
it's
going
to
have
primacy
with
regard
to
these
decisions.
K
Again,
historically
speaking,
it's
always
been.
The
citing
board's
role
has
been
to
be
the
backstop
to
existing
or
the
absence
rather
of
local
jurisdiction,
and
so
this
bill
moves
away
from
that.
It
really
turns
it
on
its
on
its
head
by
making
it
more
of
a
state-centric
as
opposed
to
a
local
centric
issue.
K
In
section,
7
subsection
3
subpart
a
we're
talking
about
the
formula.
If
you
will
for
setting
the
decommissioning
bond,
I
think
the
attorneys
on
the
the
committee
will
appreciate
this
there's
language
in
there
that
says
the
bond
must
be
set
by
the
citing
board.
That's
an
amount
that
is
at
least
what
the
independent
engineer
would
say.
Typically
speaking,
administrative
agencies
are
required
to
act
upon
the
evidence
before
them,
and
so
what
the
evidence
demonstrates
is
not
the
floor
for
them
to
go
ahead
and
then
take
action.
K
That
is
what
their
decision
is
supposed
to
be
based
on,
but
by
saying
that
the
the
bond
has
to
be
at
least
what
the
evidence
supports,
but
it
could
be
higher
you're,
inviting
arbitrary
and
capricious
decisions
by
by
saying
that
the
evidence
is
only
somewhat
relevant.
We're
going
to
allow
you
to
go
beyond
that.
So
that's
that's
problematic.
K
K
If
you
look
at
that
statute,
what
it
does
is,
it
has
a
list
of
criteria
that
the
citing
board
is
supposed
to
take
into
account,
but
no
one
criteria
is
any
more
significant
than
the
other
they're
all
to
be
weighed
they're
to
the
siding
boards
to
look
at
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
and
then
render
its
decision
here.
However,
what
we're
doing
is
we're
saying
in
this
bill
that
a
public
interest
standard
should
apply
now.
K
You
know
as
as
opposed
to
some
other
use
under
this
bill.
It
would
be
perfectly
okay
to
put
in
a
pig
farm
right
next
to
a
residential
neighborhood,
but
I
couldn't
put
in
a
solar
facility
without
going
through
a
bunch
of
extra
hoops,
whereas
you
know
it
just
it
doesn't
quite
make
sense
in
section
four
subsection,
two
and
then
part
a
of
that
we
have
some
exceptions
to
the
setback.
Requirements
are
included
in
the
statutes
and
there's
an
element
of
unfairness
here,
because
we
have
statutory
setback.
K
Requirements
will
apply,
which
I
think
are
a
good
thing,
but
what
we
also
have
is
an
exception
for
that.
So,
if
you're,
a
kentuckian
that
happens
to
live
in
proximity
to
a
superfund
site,
a
reclaimed
mine
land,
a
brownfield,
you
don't
have
the
authority
or
the
ability
to
challenge
the
setback
requirements
that
are
being
proposed,
because
this
bill
takes
that
right
away
from
you
by
saying
that
you,
the
setback
requirements
in
the
statute,
don't
apply
and
that's
a
fundamental
issue
of
fairness.
K
The
siding
board
has
the
ability,
under
existing
law,
to
be
able
to
grant
deviations
on
a
case-by-case
basis
based
upon
the
circumstances
of
each
application,
and
that
should
be
allowed
to
prevail.
There
shouldn't
be
certain
land
uses
that
a
setback
doesn't
set
back
requirement
doesn't
apply
because
that's
very
unfair
to
the
people
who
live
next
to
them.
K
K
Let
me
explain
why
that's
an
important
part
of
the
house
legislation
is
because
everything
in
senate
bill
69
really
is
requiring
the
the
state
government
to
come
in
to
step
in
and
to
remediate
any
sort
of
default
on
the
part
of
of
a
develop
developer
at
some
point
in
the
future.
Under
the
approach
and
the
house
bill.
K
Just
a
couple
of
more
the
the
venue
in
senate
bill
69
is
a
deviation
from
the
way
that
it
currently
works.
Currently,
all
decisions
that
are
made
by
the
citing
board
or
heard
any
appeal
from
there
are
heard
in
the
circuit
court
in
which
the
project
is
located
here.
What
we'll
have
is
we'll
have
under
existing
law?
K
Any
appeals
from
eec
decisions
will
be
heard
in
franklin
circuit
court,
so
developers
local
government
interveners
are
now
going
to
be
subject
to
to
venue
in
two
different,
two
different
circuit
courts
and
then
there's
also
additional
fee
language
in
section
8
chapter
or
section
8,
subsection
1..
K
I
don't
know
if
people
realize
really
the
magnitude
of
the
citing
board's
application
fees,
but
it's
generally
at
least
a
40
000
filing
fee.
That's
the
minimum.
It
can
go
up
to
two
hundred
thousand
when
you
had
a
transmission
line.
On
top
of
that,
it's
not
unheard
of
for
a
sighting
board
application
fee
to
be
approximately
a
quarter
of
a
million
dollars
over
the
past
two
years.
I
think
the
siding
board
is
has
received
about
2.3
million
dollars
in
citing
board
fees.
K
That's
all
fine,
that's
appropriate
for
making
sure
that
those
cases
are
able
to
be
processed,
but
when
we're
adding
new
fees
that
are
to
be
paid
over
the
lifetime
of
the
project,
you
know
it's
important
to
take
into
account
really
what's
the
the
basis
for
that
and
they
should
be
based,
they
should
be
transparent,
but
they
should
also
really
be
based
on
what
are
the
costs
of
the
service?
It
should
be
a
one-time
fee
that
covers
the
the
entire
use
of
the
useful
life
of
the
project.
K
A
Okay,
do
we
have
members
that
have
any
specific
questions,
senator
south.
D
Thank
you
for
all
of
the
details
and
I've
enjoyed
your
preview
from
the
last
meeting.
This
meeting
as
well.
You
mentioned
house
bill
392
last
time,
and
you
mentioned
again
today
with
couple
of
things
that
were
not
in
our
bill
is
house
bill
392,
essentially
our
bill
plus
these
things
or
is
it
totally
different?
And
so
we
really
need
a
mix.
K
I
think
it's,
I
think
there
is
a
different
philosophy
in
the
two
bills
senate
bill.
69
is
really
premised,
in
my
opinion,
around
the
idea
that
it
will
be
up
to
the
state
to
solve
the
decommissioning
problem,
and
so
all
of
the
decommissioning
obligations
responsibilities.
Everything
related
to
that
will
be
driven
by
either
the
siding
board.
The
energy
environment
cabinet
house
bill
392,
I
think,
is
more
reflective
of
where
the
sighting
board
statute
has
been
historically
that
we're
going
to
have
we're
going
to
allow
local
governments
to
impose
their
own
decommissioning
obligations.
K
They
already
can
do
their
own
setback
requirements,
but
in
situations
where
that
local
regulation
does
not
exist,
then
house
bill
392
provides
a
state
level
uniform
framework.
So
it's
more
of
a
safety
net
the
and
that's
a
the
safety
net's
a
good
way
to
think
about
this,
because,
right
now
under
392,
you
have
kind
of
a
statewide
sighting
board
jurisdiction,
eec,
jurisdiction
approach,
whereas
under
392,
where
you
really
start
is
the
contractual
promises
that
a
landowner
is
required
to
receive
as
part
of
their
lease.
K
K
Well,
I
I
appreciate
the
question,
but
what
I
can
tell
you
from
experiences
is
that
they've
gotten
up
to
speed
on
this
relatively
quickly
in
the
counties
where
I've
seen
several
projects,
and
I
can't
speak
for
all
counties
or
all
projects.
But
there
are
a
lot
of
local
ordinances
that
have
already
been
adopted,
that
address
decommissioning
and,
to
a
fair
degree,
they're
all
fairly
uniform.
There
may
be
little
nuances
here
or
there.
K
G
Mr
chairman,
thank
you.
I
I
we're
running
short
on
time,
so
I'll
try
to
be
very
brief.
I
I
could
not
disagree
more
fundamentally
with
with
a
number
of
the
concerns
that
david
has
identified
house
bill.
G
392
is
not
in
front
of
the
committee
today,
but
I
would
just
say,
since
it's
been
talked
about
significantly,
that
house
bill
392
is
a
very
pro-developer
and
very
anti-landowner,
and
we
have
grave
concerns
regarding
the
fact
that
it
it
requires
a
bond,
be
posted
that
doesn't
allow
anybody
to
review
the
adequacy
of
the
bond.
G
It
provides
that
the
provisions
of
state
law
shall
be
incorporated
into
the
leases
and
it
prevents
a
landowner
from
requiring
that
all
of
the
components
of
a
solar
system
be
removed
at
the
end
of
the
end
of
the
facility's
life.
We
think
that
that's
something
the
land
owners
should
control
rather
than
having
it
be
dictated
by
state
law.
G
The
developer
certainly
would
like
to
leave
some
of
the
heavy
big
pieces
behind,
but
we
believe
that
the
senate
bill
is
much
preferable
in
providing
that
those
pieces
are
removed
unless
the
landowner,
unless
they're
going
to
be
continue
to
be
used.
There
are
some
minor
technical
glitches
that
that
stand
to
be
fixed
and
regarding
the
the
relationship
of
the
certificate
that
utilities
get
and
the
sighting
board.
G
It's
it's
a
very
easy
technical
glitch
that,
mr
chairman,
you
would
identify
that
the
last
meeting
is
is
very
easily
rectified,
certainly
was
unintended,
but
for
the
most
part,
the
the
the
idea
that
you
would
delegate
to
an
engineer,
who's
employed
by
the
company,
the
determination
of
what
a
bond
adequacy
is
is
not
appropriate.
We
don't
do
that
in
any
other
regulatory
scheme.
I
you
know
I
didn't
have
the
benefit
of
being
on
the
siding
board.
G
I
certainly
participated
in
the
writing
of
the
statute,
and
the
statute,
as
has
been
mentioned,
has
worked
fairly
well.
We've
had
very
you
know,
a
number
of
of
existing
developments,
new
developments
that
have
already
been
approved
that
require
decommissioning
bonds
that
have
protections
in
them.
Regarding
setbacks,
and
so
the
idea
that
we
have
a
board-
that's
dysfunctional
and
is
in
need
of
of
significant
reform
is
simply
not
the
case.
G
There
has
not
been
the
conflict
between
state
and
local
communities
and
the
idea
that
this
was
intended
to
be
a
backstop
rather
than
to
be
an
exercise
and
cooperative
regulation
is
simply
not
the
case.
This
was
intended
to
provide
a
comparable
process
to
that
that
occurs
for
utilities
in
terms
of
siding,
it
has
functioned
well,
although
there
are
things
that
need
to
be
tightened
up
and
that's
what
senate
bill
69
was
about
so
without
belaboring
the
issue.
G
There
are
endless
debates
among
attorneys
regarding
what
a
particular
phrase
might
mean
or
how
it
could
be
construed
in
the
extreme
but
senate
bill
69,
subject
to
some
technical
revisions,
is
a
good,
solid
piece
of
work
that
has
been
a
consensus
product
for
everybody,
except
the
company
that
is
testifying
before
you,
and
there
are
still
things
that
can
be
done
to
make
it
a
better
bill.
But
there
are
a
number
of
of
suggestions
here.
G
This
suggestion,
for
example,
that
that
the
board
is
incapable
of
weighing
evidence
other
than
that
provided
by
an
engineer
employed
by
the
company
and
determining
what
the
bond
about
should
be.
That
doesn't
mean
they're
arbitrary.
That
means
they're
doing
the
job.
So
any
you
know,
if
we
had
endless
time,
we
could
talk
endlessly
about
interpretations
or
extreme
interpretations
of
what
the
law
requires.
I
think
it's
a
good
bill
and
I
would
encourage
the
committee's
consideration.
G
Obviously,
as
senator
hormack
has
indicated,
there
will
be
additional
changes
that
will
be
made
to
to
make
it
a
better
bill,
and-
and
I
would
just
encourage
your
your
support-
senator
hornback
has
done
yeoman's
work,
carrying
this
bill
being
very
patient,
being
very
open
to
changes
from
all
quarters,
and
I
appreciate
him
having
done
this.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
happy
to
answer
any
questions
regarding
any
of
the
details
that
were
raised
by
the
current
witnesses
or
anything
else
for
that
matter.
On
senate
bill,
69.
very.
H
Yeah
briefly,
and
it
kind
of
follows
up
a
little
bit
on
the
question
by
senator
webb,
I
mean
I
guess,
comment
with
a
question.
At
the
end
I
mean
I
have
seen
some
small
municipalities
that
perhaps
have
not
made
the
best
decisions,
especially
in
depressed
rural
areas,
where
you
know
they're
they're,
looking
to
land
a
development
and
are
willing
to
kind
of
go
out
on
a
limb
and
possibly
play
fast
and
loose
with
with
some
requirements
in
order
to
get
them
to
come
to
a
particular
location.
H
The
county
officials
or
local
officials
are
long
dead
or
voted
out
of
office
and
there's
really
nobody
to
hold
accountable,
and
I
guess
would
that
obligation
in
such
a
circumstance
I
mean.
Would
it
be
fair
to
assume
back
on
the
state
and
the
taxpayers
if
that
happened.
K
Well,
I
mean
I
mean
I'm
not
sure
if
let
me
make
sure
I
understand
your
question
the
way
that
senate
bill
69
works.
Currently
with
the
committee
substitute,
there
is
no
state
government
or
local
government
agency
that
has
any
responsibility
to
follow
through
on
any
decommissioning
obligation,
even
though
they're
named
as
a
beneficiary
of
the
bond,
so
so
the
the
problem
that
I
think
you're
trying
to
remedy
isn't
remedied
by
this
piece
of
legislation
in
its
current
form.
K
K
So
I
think
it's
it's
reasonable
to
assume
that
a
local
ordinance
that
has
a
local
requirement
is
more
likely
to
be
enforced,
which
is
again
the
the
premise
of
house
bill
392
than
than
the
this
piece
of
legislation.
What
leads
the
leads
it
to
the
discretion
of
future
decision
makers
who,
who
are
no
longer,
may
no
longer
be
there?
So
I
don't
know
if
that
answers
your
question.
The
the
one
thing
I
would
say
is,
I
remember
distinctly
chairman
meredith
asking
mr
fitzgerald
at
the
conclusion
of
the
house
committee
where
392
was
voted
upon
unanimously.
K
G
That
is
inaccurate.
I
did
not
talk
to
the
committee
in
the
house
because
I
wasn't
able
to
get
up
with
representative
meredith
before
the
committee,
and
so,
as
a
matter
of
courtesy,
I
had
not
talked
extent
about
the
committee.
The
bill
had
the
house
bill.
392,
we
have
written
material
that
we
sent
out.
It
has
significant
problems.
I
would
about
to
embarrass
the
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
in
front
of
the
house
committee,
but
that
is
a
statement
of
our
position
and
it
has
always
been
our
positions.
A
Very
good
folks:
here's
where
we're
at
we
have
got
we've
had
a
motion
and
a
second
on
this
bill
and
that
bill
was
voted
out
of
our
committee.
The
chairman
has
very
honorably,
been
willing
to
work
on
some
floor
amendments.
I
think
he's
he's
verbally
said.
There
was
a
few
things
that
were
unintentional
and
that
he
wants
to
address.
A
A
If
you'd
like
to
do
that
through
me
directly
and
then
I
could
reach
out
and
coordinate
with
the
senator
hornback
and
all
interested
parties,
but
as
this
goes
forward,
obviously
we
went
in,
but
there's
going
to
be
time
for
input
to
be
put
in.
We've
got
some
time
to
be
thoughtful
about
what
we
want
to
do,
and
this
is
a
very,
very
big
bill.
It's
an
important
bill.
So
we
appreciate
your
time
today
for
your
testimony
and
at
this
time,
if
I.