►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Energy
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
And
lisa
wilner,
I
think
just
added
like
yesterday,
so
we've
got
a
lot
of
new
members,
so
welcome
everybody
to
the
committee
hope
that
you'll
find
the
committee
enjoyable
or
their
actions
beneficial
to
you
and
your
district
and
your
constituents,
and
so
with
that
we
would
like
to
start
the
meeting
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
go
along
the
lines
of
we
only
have
about
an
hour.
So
we're
going
to
do
house
bill
47.
First
representative
bentley,
we
got
to
do
the
roll
call.
B
Representative
blanton
representative
bowling
representative
bridges,
representative
burch
representative
cantrell,
representative
dossett,
representative
dodson,
representative
du
plessy,
representative
flannery,
representative
fugate,
representative
johnson,
here
representative
kirk
representative
miles
here,
representative
gibbons,
brunty
here,
representative
scott
president,
are
you
in
your
annex
office?
Yes,
representative,
stevenson,
representative
wesley
representative
wilner.
A
Here
so
we
do
have
a
quorum,
so
we
will
start,
as
I
said,
with
house
bill,
47
representative
bentley.
If
you
will
have
your
guest
introduce
yourself
and
the
his
himself.
I'm
sorry
and
the
floor
is
yours.
D
My
name
is
representative
danny
r
bentley
district
98,
which
is
part
all
green
up
county
and
four
precincts
in
boyd
county.
E
D
D
All
last
year
I
go
to
church
and
I'd
be
leaving
church
and
a
gentleman
come
up
to
me
said
dan
says
I'm
having
a
problem.
I
don't
have
enough
area
for
my
demolition
and
hard
construction
and
he
says
I
got
an
acre
and
sometimes
when
you're,
between
two
hills
up
in
greenham
county,
they
got
to
go
several
feet
and
buy
another
permit
and
he
was
having
problems
and
literally
that's
what
he
said.
D
D
Most
of
you
know
me
well
that
no,
this
is
a
little
bit
on
my
wheelhouse,
because
I
am
a
pharmacist,
but
this
was
out
of
that
concern
for
my
constituents
and
grassroots
and
so
that's
the
reason
I'm
presenting
it
for
them
terry's,
going
to
explain
first
and
then
I'll
follow
up.
E
Okay,
this
is
how
I
got
involved.
I
had
a
80
year
old
client
that
on
social
security
and
she
and
her
husband
had
passed
away
and
she
had
inherited
this
one
acre.
E
And
I
told
her
that
I
would
try
to
see
welcome
to
a
t's
teleconference.
E
So
I
told
her
that
I
would
try
to
see
what
I
could
do
with
the
it's,
a
one
acre
permit
or
less
than
one
and
it's
a
construction
landfill
and
in
essence,
when
I
went
down
and
met
with
the
environmental
people
in
moorhead.
E
There's
lyle,
walter
is
with
the
environmental
cabinet,
and
I
I
wanted
to
know
what
the
rules
were
and
how
it
worked
and
so
forth,
and
what
he
told
me
was.
The
original
intent
of
the
statute
was
to
divert
construction
material
from
the
contained
landfills
that
was
also
potentially
causing
damage
to
the
liner
and
so
forth.
E
Because
concrete,
you
know,
construction
type,
material
and
but
as
far
as
the
environment
was
concerned,
I
wanted
to
make
sure
there's
no
environmental
issues
before
I
took
on
this
project
and
they
told
me
that
that's
the
the
whole
gist
of
the
statute
originally
was
that
those
materials
did
not
constitute
an
environmental
issue,
so
they
had
no
issues
with.
You
know
those
type
of
landfills.
E
Then
he
asked
me
he
said:
well,
you
know
euros
not
operated
in
a
while,
and
I
said
well,
I
said
you
know
since
0-9
and
he
asked
me
well.
Why
aren't
you
all
operating-
and
I
said
well,
here's
your
problem,
it's
for
one
acre
and
in
order
to
get
a
second
acre,
you
got
to
go
a
half
mile
down
away
from
that
original
permit
and,
I
said
think
of
the
cost
and
of
investment
and
trying
to
set
up
to
accept
that
type
of
waste.
E
And
then
you
know
when
you
feel
it,
you
can't
do
anything
with
it.
You
you
can't
put
a
building
on
it.
You
can
put
a
parking
lot,
but
then
you're
talking
about
going
a
half
mile
down
the
road
in
order
to
get
the
second
permit
and
yet
you're
set
up
and
operating.
You
know
already
where
you're
at
so
I
said
it's
just
not
economically
feasible
is
is
the
problem
and
you
know
originally,
the
original
krs
was
to
try
to
keep
from
filling
up
the
other
landfills,
their
spacious.
E
So
that's
why
I'm
here
today
is
trying
to
explain
why
there's
no
operating
construction,
landfills
in
our
entire
area,
and
I
think
they
said
they
only
had
one
that
was
operating
in
their
entire
region,
so
the
original
intent
of
the
krs
isn't
taking
place
because
of
that
rule
that
you
have
to
go
a
half
mile
in
order
to
do
the
second
you
know
permit.
So
that's
what
I'm
saying
is
if
this
bill
allows
you
to
do
a
contiguous
permit,
it's
still
under
the
same
rules
and
same
you
know
thing.
E
It
just
allows
the
more
economic
operation
to
where
you
can.
D
Operate
okay,
so
you
can
see
it's
more
of
a
keeping
jobs
and
economic
thing
and
especially
when
you
get
to
the
topography
of
eastern
kentucky
and
we
don't
have
all
the
flat
ground
that
everybody
else
is
gifted
with,
but
the
bill
is
written
that
the
cabinet
may
increase
the
size.
It's
not
shall.
I
hope
you
all
see
that
at
the
bottom
of
the
page
and
then
it's
everything
is
in
compliance
with
all
the
permit
requirements
and
the
additional
bonding.
So
we've
tried
to
cover
everything
and
so
we're
open
for
questions.
Now.
Mr
chairman,
okay,.
A
So,
in
other
words,
if
someone
does,
they
can
apply
to
to
expand
to
two
acres,
but
if
the
cabinet
doesn't
want
to
do
that,
they
don't
they're.
This
law
does
not
mandate
that
they
have
to
that's
correct
and
we
do
leave
all
the
there's
extra
bonding
requirements
or
whatever
they.
Those
things
have
to
be
met.
Is
that
correct.
A
I
think
that
I
don't
know
not
if
all
the
committee
knows
or
not,
but
I
think
that
probably
to
develop
a
landfill
kentucky
has
probably
cost
about
a
million
dollars,
an
acre
that
I've
heard
that,
and
you
know
we
really
do-
have
limited
land
landfill
space
and
okay.
We
have
a
motion
on
the
bill,
any
other
questions
from
the
committee
members.
For
these
gentlemen.
Yes,
dj
representative.
G
A
A
Exactly
exactly
okay:
now
we
do
have
motion
in
the
second
on
the
bill,
but
tom
fitzgerald
asked
to
speak
on
this
and
tom.
Can
you
hear
us
you're
open
to
speak
on
the
bill?
Thank.
H
There
you
go
okay
for
the
benefit
of
the
the
new
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
tom
fitzgerald,
I'm
director
of
the
kentucky
resources
council.
This
is
our
37th
year
of
providing
legal
and
technical
assistance
to
low-income
individuals,
to
communities
to
local
governments
on
a
range
of
issues
from
air
waste,
water
mining,
utility
policy.
H
Solid
waste
has
been
a
big
issue
for
local
governments
over
the
past
couple
years
and
we're
working
in
graves
and
grant,
and
scott
and
other
counties
to
assist
local
government
in
dealing
with
their
relationship
with
landfills.
Actually
I
was
chairman.
I
calculated
it.
This
is
my
40
year
of
being
in
front
of
this
committee
and
it's
every
much
a
privilege
now,
as
it
was
the
first
time
I
was
there
in
1978..
H
I
appreciate
representative
bentley
and
the
intent
of
the
bill.
I
am
concerned
about
expanding
the
size
of
unlined
construction,
demolition,
debris,
landfills.
I
was
there
in
1991.
I
was
the
head
of
the
negotiating
team
that
that
rewrote
the
solid
waste
reforms
for
kentucky,
because
we
were
at
that
point
being
dumped
on
by
new
york
and
new
jersey,
and
we
basically
had
unlined
holes
in
the
ground
or
possibly
12
inches
of
clay
under
our
landfills,
and
we
set
out
to
significantly
improve
the
way
we
manage
waste
in
kentucky.
H
One
of
the
things
that
was
created
was
an
off-ramp
and
the
off-ramp
was
not
to
encourage
the
dumping
of
construction
and
demolition
debris
in
unlined
pits.
It
was
actually
intended
to
allow
for
demolition
and
land
clearing
projects
of
a
limited
size.
It
really
wasn't
the
intent
of
the
parties
at
the
time
that
these
would
be
commercial
ventures
that
would
compete
with
larger
construction,
demolition,
landfills
that
had
proper
liners
and
other
controls.
H
The
waste
that
we're
talking
about
are
waste
from
construction
and
waste
from
demolition,
including
road
demolition,
and
they
are
not
innocuous
waste
as
the
rainfall
percolates
through.
We
call
it
leachate.
It
leaches
certain
chemical
constituents
and
there
is
evidence
from
those
sites
that
do
have
groundwater
monitoring,
that
there
are
levels
of
exceedances
of
lead,
boron,
arsenic
and
manganese
above
drinking
water
standards
into
both
standards
that
are
appropriate
to
the
environment.
So
if
you
are
one
acre
or
larger
construction
demolition
landfill
in
kentucky,
you
get
a
full
permit
review.
You
have
a
liner.
H
You
have
leachate
collection
system
to
keep
the
leaching
from
putting
too
much
hydraulic
head
on
the
landfill
liner
and
you
have
run
on
and
runoff
controls
to
protect
surface
water
and
you
have
groundwater
monitoring.
So
we
know,
if
there's
a
problem,
we
can
go
fix.
The
problem
before
the
groundwater
pollution
becomes
the
neighbor's
problem.
If
you're
one
acre,
if
you're
less
than
one
acre
0.99
percent
middle
acres,
you
don't
have
a
liner,
you
don't
have
a
real
advanced
permit
review.
H
H
So
this
I'm
concerned
with
sending
a
message
that
we
are
encouraging:
the
expansion
of
online
construction
demolition,
debris,
landfills.
H
The
other
concern,
frankly,
is
that
100
of
the
time
you
don't
control
effectively,
what's
going
into
a
cd
and
d
landfill,
all
right
stuff
comes
in
by
the
truckload,
and
we
had
a
situation
in
scott
county
where
a
cd
d
landfill
is
now
required
to
be
closed
because
it
had
inadvertently
accepted
a
cathode
ray
tubes
that
turned
out
to
be
hazardous.
Fortunately,
it
had
a
liner,
and
so
whatever
the
problem
is.
H
There
is
a
contained
problem
because,
because
of
the
the
existence
of
a
liner
but
they're
having
to
close
it
now
because
of
that
non-compliance,
so,
in
short,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
have
the
less
than
one
acre.
Landfills,
don't
have
the
protections
that
the
cabinet
has
determined
are
necessary
to
prevent
groundwater
pollution
in
a
state
that
still
has
a
lot
of
individuals
and
a
lot
of
public
and
semi-public
water
systems
that
use
groundwater
for
drinking
water
sources,
and
so
I
would
encourage
you.
H
I
appreciate
the
intent
I
know
the
inter
intent
is
that
it
is
well
intended,
but
I
think
it
sends
entirely
the
wrong
message
that
we
are
going
to
encourage
the
proliferation
of
unlined
unmonitored
cd
and
d
landfills.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
It
is
again
a
privilege
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
any
of
the
members
of
the
committee
might
have.
A
Okay,
tom
emily,
it
was
stated
that
the
cabinet
does
not
have
to
issue
the
permit
to
expand
the
land
field,
so
it
is
you're
reading
the
bill
that
that's
correct,
that
they
don't
have
to
do
that
if
they,
if
they
wanted
to
cite
the
reasons
that
you
gave
as
that
they
should
be
against
it.
H
Mr
chairman,
I
appreciate
that
the
the
use
of
shall-
and
the
use
of
may
is,
is
always
an
interesting
thing.
It
is
couched
in
terms
of
they
may
do
this,
but
they
may
do
this
if
it
is
compliant
with
the
permit
requirements
for
the
current
site,
which
means
it
doesn't
have
a
line
or
doesn't
have
groundwater
monitor.
H
It
doesn't
have
leachate
collection
and
it
complies
with
with
posting
an
additional
bond,
and
so
my
reading
of
this
after
practicing
law
for
41
years
is,
if
they
refused
to
grant
it,
they
would
be
sued
for
an
abusive
discretion,
because,
while
it
is
discretionary,
it's
discretionary
based
on
two
things.
One
is
that
you
comply
with
the
registered
permit
by
rule,
and
the
second
is
that
you
post
a
bond.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
We
do
two
questions.
Representative
stevenson
has
a
question
and-
and
you
representative
you
can
ask
at
whoever
tom
or
the
sponsor
of
the
bill,
but
you're
recognized
to
ask
a
question.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
representative
blanton.
Our
final
question.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
My
question
is
for
tom
good
morning
tom.
J
Good
to
see
you,
sir,
and
thank
you
for
your
dedication
to
being
our
watchdog
on
on
these
type
of
issues.
I
do
have
a
quick
question
and
I
do
know
that
from
rain
and
so
forth
that
there's
leaching
from
materials
of
any
type
for
that
matter.
J
But
I
guess
my
question
would
be:
if
currently
they
can
go
a
half
mile
down
the
road
from
a
current
location
and
put
in
another
one.
Acre
you've
got
two
acres,
so
I
don't
see
the
issue
that
you
put
them
at
the
same
location
as
you're
moving
them
a
half
mile
down
the
road.
You
still
got
two
acres
of
landfill
and
regardless,
in
the
end,
you've
got
two
acres.
J
So
I
guess
why
is
there
a
big
issue
with
allowing
them
to
put
the
two
acres
collectively
and
and
in
eastern
kentucky
as
you're
well
aware
of
you
may
have
to
go
a
few
miles
to
find
another
acre
that
you
can
actually
put
stuff
in?
So
I
don't.
I
guess
I'm
a
little
bit
confused
as
to
why
it's
an
issue
to
put
two
acres
at
one
location,
rather
than
spread
them
out
between
a
half
a
mile.
H
It's
a
very
good
question.
You
know
the
the
the
problem
with
these.
These
types
of
landfills,
as
a
category
is
that
we
have
learned
over
the
years
that
these
wastes
are
not
inert
and
they
are,
as
you
mentioned,
there's
leachate
that
occurs.
You
know
if
I,
if
I
were
the
person,
writing
a
policy,
I
wouldn't
allow
two
of
them.
I
would
say
you
know
the
intent
was
an
off-ramp
for
for
construction
and
demolition
debris.
H
It
was
not
intended
to
be
a
commercial
enterprise
that
was
going
to
be
in
competition
with
folks
who
put
in
liners
put
in
leachate
collection
and
all
that
so
your
point's
well
taken.
I
just
think
it
sends
the
wrong
message
that
we're
going
to
encourage
you
to
double
the
size
of
unlined
landfills,
whether
they
be
next
door
to
each
other,
or
would
they
be
half
a
mile
away?
H
That's
the
cabinet's
policy
to
allow
more
than
one
with
a
certain
distance,
I'm
not
sure
what
the
basis
for
that
is,
but
it
certainly
wasn't
the
as
I
recall
and
I'm
getting
up
for
years
now,
but
as
I
recall
the
intent
it
was
in
91,
it
was
not
to
to
encourage
the
proliferation
of
landfills
that
don't
have
a
line
or
don't
have
legit
collection,
because,
as
you
know,
representative
clinton
you've
got
old,
cca
wood
that
was
treated
with
chromium,
copper
and
arsenate.
H
You've
got
lead
paint
on
this
on
some
of
the
demolition
debris.
You've
got
coal
combustion
residuals,
which
have
a
lot
of
metals
that
are
in
the
concrete,
and
these
things
do
leach
and
when
they
leach
they
can
contaminate
drinking
water
supplies.
So
I
your
points
your
point's
well
taken,
and
I
just
you
know
I
don't
know
the
the
intent
really
wasn't
to
pockmark
the
landscape
with
less
than
one
acre
online
landfills
and-
and
I
just
think
you
know
encouraging.
H
J
Follow-Up
question
tom.
So
if,
if
you
go
a
half
a
mile
and
you
put
in
another
acre,
you
are
potentially
going
to
be
impacting
a
second
watershed,
whereas
if
you
had
the
two
acres
at
one,
you
know
your
chances
are
better
that
you're
not
spreading
it
to
as
many
water
sheds.
So
it
would
be
better
to
have
those
two
acres
at
the
same
location
rather
than
spread
half
a
mile
apart.
H
It
could
be
depending
on
the
circumstances.
You
could
have
one
watershed
that
has
a
lot
of
fire
clay,
so
you're
not
going
to
get
a
lot
of
offside
contamination.
You
can
have
another
watershed
that
that
has
a
fracture
flow
and
it's
going
to
really
quickly
stair
step
into
you
know
into
the
surface
water.
It's
it's
very
specific
and
that's
one
of
the
concerns
with
these
landfills.
Is
they
don't
have
advanced
review
you?
You
file
a
piece
of
paper.
H
Five
days
later,
you
are
up
in
business
potentially
and
nobody's
looking
at
your
siding
nobody's
looking
at
whether
this
is
a
good
idea,
and
then
you
have
no
ground
water
monitoring,
so
you
don't
know
if
it
turns
out
to
be
a
bad
idea,
but
your
points
will
take
it
and
that's
the
sort
of
site-specific
review
that
every
other
type
of
landfill
gets.
But
these
don't.
H
A
One
one
question
tom
sure
say
that
you
have
an
abandoned
homestead.
You
know
an
old
house,
an
old
barn,
a
building.
That's
just
maybe
abandon
it's
sitting
there
it's
deteriorating.
You
know.
We
know
that.
Okay,
if
you
do
tear
that
down
you
put
in
the
construction
landfill,
there
may
be
some
leaching
and
and
and
as
things
break
down.
But
what
about
that
facility?
That's
that's
really
subject
to
the
weather
conditions.
A
As
it
stands.
Do
you
actually
have
the
same
type
of
leaching
and
and
release
of
with
that,
as
you
might,
if
something
were
in
a
landfill
buried.
H
H
For
example,
we
have
a
situation
where
a
public
housing
project
was
certified
to
be
lead
free
inside,
but
there
was
lead
paint
around
the
eaves
of
the
of
the
structure
and
ended
up
tracking
lead
into
the
house
because
of
it,
because
the
lead
had,
you
know,
had
leached
from
the
building
over
the
course
of
time.
So,
yes,
you
have
those
those
concerns
with
that
material,
which
is
why
the
off-ramp
was
initially
created.
Mr
chairman
was
because
you
had
folks
in
the
construction
industry.
H
You
say
you
know
when
we
demo,
we
typically
demo
into
the
basement,
and
we
we
cover
it
up
rather
than
hauling
the
material
off.
So
this
was
a
this
was
intended
to
provide
or
if
somebody's
clearing
a
site
for
a
project,
they
have
a
lot
of
trees
and
they
have
a
lot
of
stumps
and
things.
This
was
intended
for
a
limited
application
as
an
off-ramp
not
really
intended
to
be
a
commercial
business.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
as
I
said,
represent
blanton
had
the
last
question
tom
just
want
to
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
be
here.
We
were
joking
earlier
about
the
mute
comment.
I
think
you
know
that
you
and
I
have
been
friends
a
long
time
and
it's
always
a
pleasure
to
work
with
you.
H
Chairman,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
very
much
you're
accommodating
me
and
for
the
new
members
of
the
committee.
You
got
one
of
the
best
committees
here
in
the
general
assembly.
There's
never
a
dull
moment.
F
K
B
L
G
G
K
B
I
K
C
If
I
could
comment
briefly,
mr
chairman,
yes
go
ahead.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
So
this
is
my
first.
I
was
just
appointed
to
this
committee
yesterday
afternoon
and
I
have
a
lot
of
respect
for
dr
bentley
and
like
him,
this
is
a
little
bit
outside
my
wheelhouse.
C
As
a
psychologist,
I've
known
you
know
tom
fitzgerald
and
the
kentucky
resources
council
for
decades
and
the
good
work
that
they
do,
and
I
was
I'm
very
compelled
by
fitz's
testimony,
and
I
am
a
no
vote
today
and
I
also
want
to
thank
the
many
many
people
I
mean
it
was
astonishing.
I
was
appointed
to
the
committee
at
something
like
4
30
yesterday
and
I
had
so
many
emails
from
people
who
have
expertise
at
this
topic
asking
for
my
no
vote.
So
I'm
going
to
defer
to.
A
Yes,
go
ahead,
the
the
bill
does
pass
with
favorable
expression
that
same
should
pass.
So.
Thank
you
very
much.
Congratulations
thank.
A
Next,
we're
going
to
hear
house
bill
207,
we
have
some
people
coming
to
the
table
for
for
that.
As
chairman,
I'm
going
to
use
the
chairman's
prerogative
to
make
some
comments
from
from
the
from
the
chair,
and
this
is,
as
you
know,
it's
it's
my
bill.
It's
one
that
we
did
last
year,
it
passed
out
of
the
committee
last
year
a
little
bit
different
one
of
the
things
that
one
of
my
reasons
for
bringing
the
bill
is
that
you
know.
For
many
many
years
kentucky
was
pretty
much.
A
When
I
came
to
the
legislature
in
1995,
we
probably
93
to
95
of
our
electricity
was
generated
from
coal
and
that's
changed
a
lot
since
since
then,
and
and
as
we
gave
up
those
coal
jobs,
we
we
realized
that,
maybe
you
know
we
probably
should
diversify,
and
we
also
came
to
realize
that
as
a
nation,
we
it's
going
to
take
all
sources
of
energy
for
us
to
meet
our
needs,
and
so
we
we
realized
that
we
probably
need
to
be
in
all
of
the
above,
which
means
we
shouldn't
prohibit
anything
from
being
used
in
kentucky
as
long
as
it
was
clean
and
reliable
and
and
affordable,
and
so
that's
kind
of
what
we've
been
trying
to
do.
A
Well,
there
are
sources
out
there
who
have
started
to
forces
out
there.
Who've
started
to
try
to
say,
okay.
Well,
we
don't
want
certain
types
of
energy
and
often
it's
an
emotional
argument.
Does
it's
not
really
valid
science
or
valid
facts,
or
whatever
around
that?
And
we?
We
realized
that
for
us
to
maintain
the
most
reliable,
the
most
affordable
electricity
that
that
those
kind
of
policies
need
to
be
set
at
a
state
level,
and
it's
something
that
shouldn't
happen.
A
A
I
think
all
of
you
know
that
years
ago
the
the
federal
congress
decided
that
we,
it
would
be
much
better-
and
I
think
rightly
so-
that
automobiles,
if
they
got
you,
know
more
gas
mileage,
better
gas
mileage,
there
would
be
less
emissions
into
the
environment
and-
and
certainly
we
can
all
agree
that
that's
true,
and
so
they
set
some.
A
Well,
what
happened
then
was
california,
as
a
state
decided
that
they
were
going
to
have
stricter
more
strict
standards
than
the
federal
government,
which
we
would
all
think?
Well,
that's,
okay,
but
what
we
didn't
realize
that
their
market
was
so
large
and
you
had
four
or
five
states,
then
that
would
whatever
california
did
they
would
do,
and
so
what
happens?
The
auto
manufacturers
then
started
actually
not
using
the
federal
standards
they
started
using
the
california
standards
as
far
as
the
mission.
So
what
happened
was
in
order
to
meet
those
standards?
A
A
And
so
what
happened
then
was
you
know
they
couldn't
just
make
those
autos
and
let
them
sit
there
and
lose
money
on
them.
They
had
to
sell
them,
and
so
they
had
to
either
lower
the
price
of
those
they
had
to
offer
special
discounts
or
incentives
or
whatever
for
people
to
buy
the
cars,
and
this
may
be
a
little
bit
of
oversimplification.
A
But
it's
really
what
what
happened,
and
what
you
may
not
realize
is
that
your
constituents
pay
more
for
the
automobiles
that
they
want,
because
california
sets
the
standards
and-
and
so
that's
what
we
want
to
avoid
with
energy,
where
certain
smaller
groups
can
set
standards
and
possibly
in
fact
raise
everybody's
rates.
And
so
you
know
that's
just-
and
I
didn't
know
until
a
couple
of
years
ago
that
we
were
actually
paying
more
for
our
automobiles
that
we
buy
because
of
california
standards
because
they
set
a
stricter
standard
and
that
sort
of
thing.
A
So
that's
kind
of
what
this
bill
attempts
to
do
on
the
utility
level.
We
believe
that
that
we're
in
all
the
above
energy
state,
we
believe
that
we're
a
state
where,
where
federal
for
the
state
policies
need
to
be
set
in
a
way
that
guarantees
reliable
and
affordable
electricity
to
especially
our
most
vulnerable
citizens.
So
with
that,
we
have
a
couple
people
here
to
testify.
I'm
going
to
allow
them
to
testify
on
on
my
bill.
F
Sorry
about
that
sorry,
apologies
there
good
morning,
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today,
my
name
is
bryden
ross.
I'm
the
vice
president
of
state
affairs
for
consumer
energy
alliance.
F
We've
got
over
5
500
grassroots
members
here
in
kentucky,
but
we're
a
nationwide
organization
that
advocates
for
affordable,
reliable
energy
or
an
all
the
above
association.
We
have
members
who
who
support
all
facets
of
energy
development
from
solar
to
offshore
wind
nuclear
coal,
gas
upstream
downstream
midstream,
you
name
it.
We've
got
them
farm
bureaus
chambers
of
commerce,
home
builders,
folks
use
care
about
the
the
price
of
energy,
the
affordability
and
folks
along
the
energy
consumption
chain.
New
core
steel
is
one
of
our
board.
Members
got
a
large
facility
here
in
the
state.
F
F
One,
because
they're
targeted
a
lot
around
things
like
natural
gas,
which
are
really
helping
drive
the
emissions
reductions,
we're
seeing
in
this
country
we're
actually
on
pace
to
meet
our
paris
climate
agreement
of
emission
reductions.
Even
though
we
didn't
sign
that
treaty
largely
due
to
natural
gas.
F
But
what
we're
seeing
around
the
country,
though,
are
folks
who
don't
care
for
that,
and
the
problem
is
what
that
does
to
regular
people,
so
an
electrification
mandate
or
forcing
you
to
switch
out
of
gas
appliances
in
your
home
that
you
may
want
is
incredibly
expensive
and
what
people
think
about
is
a
sticker
shock
that
could
have
for
families
down
the
line
or
businesses
as
well.
So,
depending
on
you
know
the
type
of
dependency
you
have
on
gas
service
in
your
home.
F
You
know
for
a
family
in
kentucky
that
could
be
an
over
ten
thousand
dollar
sticker
shock.
If
one
of
these
mandates
came
to
you
again,
that
depends
on
the
type
of
wiring.
You
have
the
appliances
you
have
and
the
like,
but
that's
that's
a
real
cost
and
I
think
a
lot
of
times
people
gloss
over
those
facts
and
what
that?
What
do
to
regular
people?
I
don't
have
to
explain
this
committee.
You
know
we
we're
a
challenged
state
when
it
comes
to
poverty
issues
and
the
like.
F
Almost
one
out
of
five
kentuckians
live
at
or
below
the
poverty
level.
So
a
sticker
shock
like
this
would
be
really
ruinous
for
them.
I
think
also
too
thinking
that
regular
homeowners
and
businesses
around
the
state
you
know
depend
on
natural
gas
and
propane,
and
the
like,
over
40
percent
of
our
state,
relies
on
propane
and
natural
gas
to
heat
their
homes.
These
these
bands,
these
energy
bands,
would
definitely
impact
folks
there
you
know
from
a
manufacturing
base
as
well.
F
You
know
almost
40
percent
of
the
state's
energy
consumption
on
the
natural
gas
side
is
from
our
manufacturing
base
over
250
000
jobs.
So
I
think
that's
why
you've
seen
such
a
diverse
coalition
of
people
who've
supported
this
bill
from
home
builders.
General
contractors
realtors,
it's
not
just
folks
in
the
industry,
so
it's
from
the
utility
side
down
to
the
consumer
side
and
the
chamber
and
others.
So
we
think
this
is
a
common
sense
bill.
It's
unfortunate!
F
Sometimes
we
have
to
come
here
and
we
want
to
thank
the
chairman
that
he's
doing
this
and
looking
after
consumers
in
this
state
we're
seeing
this,
you
know
in
other
states
as
well.
Our
neighboring
states
are
trying
to
put
protections
in
in
their
law.
This
doesn't
again,
it
just
doesn't
create
any
sort
of
new.
I
think
unforeseen
consequences.
I
know
folks
may
be
maybe
concerned
about
this-
only
protects
what's
allowed
by
the
psc.
What's
regulated
by
the
psc.
F
That
service
is,
is
guaranteed
and
allowed
in
a
consumer's
home,
and
we
think
that's
a
simple,
straightforward
way
to
where
folks
can
still
can
still
get
the
cleaner,
greener
future
you
want.
We
want
to
see
that
feature
as
well,
but
we
want
to
protect
energy
consumers
along
the
way.
So
with
that
I'll
I'll
turn
over
to
david,
and
let
you
let
you
go
as
well
yeah,
yes,
sir.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
understand
what
you're
talking
about
in
homes,
if
they're
mandated
to
use
certain
energies
of
having
to
change
things
out
and
so
forth,
but
we've
had
an
issue
over
the
past
year
or
so
going
on
in
the
central
part
of
the
state
about
a,
I
would
say,
a
very
large
solar
farm
going
in
and
are
would
this
take
away
the
control
of
the
local
government
to
not
allow
something
like
that
to
go
in
in
their
area?
M
Previously
I
spent
about
five
years
as
general
counsel
for
the
kentucky
public
service
commission,
the
deputy
director
and
then
over
the
last
decade.
I've
been
in
private
practice,
primarily
representing
utilities,
energy
developers,
things
of
that
nature.
So
the
answer
to
your
question
is
no.
This
bill
is
very,
very
narrowly
tailored
to
prohibit
local
governments
from
creating
any
sort
of
ban
on
the
types
of
lawful
utility
services
that
are
provided
and
regulated
by
the
state.
M
There's
there
are
several
things
that
it
does
not
do,
which
are
equally
important
and
the
first
one
like
you
mentioned,
is
it
doesn't
in
any
way
impact
the
jurisdiction
of
the
kentucky
state,
siding
board
on
electric
generation
transmission,
so
any
non-regulated
merchant
generation
facility,
like
a
solar
facility,
a
windmill
anything
like
that,
is
still
going
to
be
fully
subject
to
the
jurisdiction
of
the
siding
board.
And
the
nice
thing
about
the
citing
board
statute
is
when
it
was
enacted
by
the
general
assembly.
M
It
has
flexibility
so
that
there's
significant
local
input
into
the
citing
board's
decisions.
Two
of
the
members,
seven
members
of
the
siding
board-
are
actually
from
the
county
or
the
city
where
the
proposed
project
is
located
and
then,
when
you're
talking
about
citing
requirements
or
any
sort
of
planning
and
zoning
requirements
that
a
local
government
may
have
from
urgent
generation.
M
This,
the
citing
board
by
statute,
has
to
take
those
into
account.
So
this
will
have
absolutely
zero
impact,
no
negative
impact
whatsoever
to
local
government's
role
in
what
they
already
do
with
regard
to
citing
merchant
electric
generation.
M
If
I
could
just
a
little
bit
more
to
that
point,
it
also
doesn't
change
anything
about
the
public
service
commission's
jurisdiction.
They
still
have
the
exact
same
jurisdiction
today
that
they'll
have,
after
this
bill
is
passed.
So
all
of
the
things
that
regulated
utilities
would
like
to
do
still
have
to
have
the
same
level
of
scrutiny
that
they
would
currently
already
be
required
to
have.
M
There's
also
been
some
concern,
I
think,
maybe
about
whether
or
not
this
bill
impacts,
local
governments,
franchising
authority
and
again
the
answer
to
that's
a
resounding
no
franchise
authority
arises
under
section
163
and
164
of
the
kentucky
constitution
and
by
definition
the
statute
cannot
take
away
what
a
local
government
enjoys
as
a
constitutional
privilege
or
a
constitutional
prerogative.
So
there
is
zero
detrimental
impact
to
local
franchise
authority.
M
M
L
I
have
a
couple
questions,
I'm
from
clark
county,
and
we
had
a
huge
issue
this
past
summer
with
solar
farms.
With
that
being
said,
I
went
to
a
lot
of
the
meetings.
L
The
people
were
very
upset
over
property
being
purchased
without
even
getting
regulation
authority
and
talking
about
those
things
I
stood
with
them,
because
there
was,
there
were
some
things
that
we
come
to
find
out
at
a
later
date
that
these
people
had
came
in
and
and
purchased
property
and
already
started
making
deals
without
going
through
even
the
fiscal
court
talking
to
planning
and
zoning,
just
assuming,
just
because
they've
been
in
other
communities
that
they
would
just
be
able
to
come
into
our
community.
L
Well
with
that
being
said
again,
I
support
the
spirit
of
this
bill.
I
understand
that
we
do
need
renewable
energies,
but
at
the
same
time
it
is
my
feeling
that
these
decisions
need
to
go
to
local
authorities,
because
some
communities
are
more
conducive
and
more
accepting
of
certain
things
than
other
communities
are.
L
L
You
know
it's
unsightly
come
to
find
out
some
of
the
information
we
got
about
solar
farms,
they're,
sometimes
not
as
clean
as
they
pretend
to
be.
So
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
runoff
there.
Once
agriculture
land
has
been
used,
there
is
gravel
placed
down
it
takes.
There
should
be
some
reclamation
things
in
place,
so
I
just
want
a
little
more
information.
I
want
to
be
able
to
talk
to
my
constituents.
M
Law,
I
don't
know
that
the
fiscal
court
has
the
authority
to
shoot
down
something
right
now.
So
I
I
hesitate
to
say
yes,
but
the
county
judge
executive
is
generally
a
member
of
the
citing
board
process,
so
one
of
seven
votes
on
there,
if
there's
local
planning
and
zoning
commission
rules
for
for
non-merchant
generation,
which
again
isn't
even
what
we're
talking
about
in
this
bill.
But
if
they
have
local
planning
and
zoning
commissions
that
rules
that
has
to
be
abided
by.
L
That's
what
we
were
looking
at
back
during
the
summer,
so
it
would
have
to
go
through
that
process.
So
that's
you're,
saying
that's
not
necessarily
the
case.
L
M
F
K
A
A
H
I
All
right,
wonderful,
thank
you,
so
house
bill
207,
you
know,
prohibits
local
governments
from
taking
any
legislative
action
that
limits
control
of
private
utilities.
Are
there
localities
in
kentucky
who
have
taken
that
action
to
try
to
restrict
or
limit
utility
operations
that
benefit
their
communities.
M
The
answer
to
that
is
yes,
let
me
find
it
real,
quick.
M
Great
I
apologize
for
for
being
a
little
soft-spoken,
mr
chairman,
in
2018
there
was
a
resolution.
I
don't
know
that
it
passed,
but
it
was
certainly,
I
believe,
introduced
that
quote.
The
metro
council
opposes
all
new
fossil
fuel
infrastructures,
including
those
primary
purposes
transporting
or
storing
fossil
fuels
in
or
throughout
louisville
metro
or
adjacent
waterways.
M
M
F
F
I
know
I
believe
the
city
of
louisville
passed
a
100
percent
renewable
policy
last
year,
so,
if
you're
going
to
meet
these
mandates
to
to
get
to
100
renewables,
and
if
your
goal
is
to
to
actually
hit
that
you
you're
going
to
have
to
start
denying
service
to
folks.
So
that's
what
I
think
the
concern
is
is
that
you
know
we
see
natural
gas
as
a
complement
to
bringing
on
renewables
and
other
things
that
people
want
to
see.
We
want
to
see
that
as
well.
F
We
just
don't
want
to
take
away
people's
energy
choices
along
the
way
to
do
that,
and
I
think
you
can
get
to
those
are
comp.
The
two
are
not
mutually
exclusive,
and
so
that's
I
think
the
blind
instrument
of
a
fossil
fuel
ban
is
not
helpful
in
the
near
term
to
actually
doing
the
transition.
I
think
people
want
to
see.
So
that's
our
our
concern
as
well
too.
F
A
L
Sorry,
one
of
the
issues
that
we
came
came
across
and
you
guys
could
maybe
clear
this
up-
is
that
a
lot
of
the
energy
that
would
projected
to
be
produced
in
clark
county
was
actually
going
to
be
transmission
to
north
carolina
and
some
northeastern
states.
A
lot
of
the
energy
was
not
even
going
to
be
used
in
kentucky
or
locally.
M
That's
a
good
question
and
I'll
answer
it
this
way.
As
the
father
of
two
kids,
two
teenage
kids
electrons
are
sort
of
like
teenagers
with
car
keys
and
gasoline.
M
They
go
where
they
want
to
go
so
when,
when
electricity
gets
generated
and
put
on
the
grid,
the
physics
of
the
grid
determine
where,
as
it
goes,
so
that
that's
kind
of
the
physical
operation,
the
the
financial
piece
is
that
most
utilities
in
the
united
states
and
and
most
of
them
in
kentucky
when
they
generate
electricity,
they
actually
sell
it
into
the
wholesale
bulk
power
market,
and
then
they
purchase
it
back
out
to
be
able
to
to
supply
their
actual
customer
load.
M
M
Well,
there
is
a
demonstrated
problem
nationally
in
in
washington.
I
think
governor
inslees
has
legislation
pending
that
would
phase
out
natural
gas
from
buildings
by
2050
in
massachusetts.
A
dozen
towns
have
have
started
that
same
sort
of
thing.
The
city
of
san
jose
in
california
has
a
natural
gas
ban.
M
K
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
on
these
other
areas
that
are
putting
these
regulations
into
place.
Do
we
have
any
idea
what
that
additional
cost
is
that
it
would
create
to
the
customer,
the
citizen
at
home
themself,
that's
already
struggling
to
meet
their
bills?
What
would
we
be
looking
at
if
there
was
mandated?
If,
if
we
took
away
these
type
of
forms
of
energy.
F
Yeah,
we've
actually
done
quite
a
bit
on
that.
I
would
say
if
you
just
look
at
you
know,
when
the
green
new
deal
came
out,
we
did
an
analysis
just
on
replacing
natural
gas
appliances
nationwide
it's
over
250
billion
dollars
for
for
the
consumer,
that's
just
on
the
appliance,
that's
not
on
the
labor!
That's
on
the
wiring!
That's
on
the
parts
new
jersey
they've
had
it
what's
called
an
energy
master
plan
process.
We've
been
involved
in
for
some
folks.
F
There
you're
looking
at
almost
a
30
dollar
hit,
depending
on
kind
of
the
density
of
your
home.
How
reliant
you
are
on
gas?
I
put
some
facts
in
with
some
testimony.
I
share
it
for
an
average
consumer
is
probably
looking
at
around
ten
thousand
dollars
depending
again
with
the
model
you
buy,
how
dependent
you
are
on
gas
in
your
home
and
the
like.
So
you
know
national
average
to
buy
a
heat
pump
is
over
five
thousand
dollars
for
sure.
A
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
on
the
bill.
Do
we
have
a
second
okay?
Now
I
do
have
two
people
that
have
asked
to
speak,
and
so
I'm
gonna,
let
braden
and
and
david
maybe
stay
close
and
jd
cheney
is
here.
I
think
he
wants
to
league
of
cities
wants
to
talk
about
the
bill.
C
N
N
Microphones
are
a
little
different
than
they
were.
It's
an
unenviable
position
to
come
to
a
committee,
and
this.
N
Now
it
is
okay,
all
right,
it's
unenviable
position
to
come
to
the
committee
and
testify
against
the
chairman's
bill,
especially
your
chairman
gooch,
former
mayor
of
providence,
who
is,
I
would
say,
one
of
the
most
consistent
members
of
the
general
assembly
with
regard
to
protecting
home
rule
and,
unfortunately,
when
you
represent
cities,
sometimes
you
you
end
up
having
policy
differences.
This
is
one
of
those
instances,
as
we've
met
many
of
you
new
legislators
and
others.
N
You
know
the
league
may
be
a
whole
lot
of
things,
but
but
one
thing
we
achieved
to
be
is
consistent
and
this
bill
definitely
goes
right
at
the
the
heart
of
home
rule
and
and
the
ability
for
for
local
decision
making
to
be
made
at
the
at
the
local
level.
For
that
reason,
our
board
has
has
voted
to
oppose
it
now
we've.
N
We
would
encourage
you,
I'm
here
to
encourage
you
to
either
vote
no
on
on
this
bill
or
or
to
pass
and
allow
the
opportunity
to
work
for
some
additional
clarifications
in
this
legislation.
So
we
can
be
absolutely
certain.
I
wish
I
had
the
certainty
by
the
previous
speakers
that
it
that
that
the
breadth
of
the
language,
the
way
this
is
drafted
would
not
impact
other
types
of
local
decisions
that
that
could
be
made
related
to
franchising
authority.
N
Unfortunately,
we've
had
experience
with
the
general
assembly
passing
legislation
and
spent
years
not
being
able
to
collect
franchise
fees
until
we
went
to
the
supreme
court
with
regard
to
that
legislation
to
have
that
clarified.
So
what
we're
asking
for
is
because
this
strikes
it
a
home
rule,
allow
allow
your
community
these
local
elected
officials
are.
Are
there
to
represent
you?
This
is
not
california,
kentucky
is
not
california,
kentucky
is
not
massachusetts
or
or
new
york.
I
think
I
think
you've
heard
heard
me
say
it.
N
I
think
it
it
may
be
irritating
to
some
some
extent,
but
this
is
a.
This
is
a
bill
with
a
solution
in
search
of
a
problem
here
by
and
large,
so
we,
I
think
we
need
to
take
the
league
and
our
elected
officials
across
the
state
are
asking
you
to
take.
Take
some
time
clarify
this
language.
N
N
In
order
for
them
to
be
able
to
operate,
be
precise
in
the
language
clarify
what
it
what
it
doesn't
doesn't
do,
and
then
perhaps
it
would
would
be
be
something
that
would
be
more
acceptable
to
the
elected
officials,
but
but
right
now,
the
way
this
is
drafted
it's
extremely
over
broad
and
we
we
asked
the
committee
to
take
a
pass
on
it
until
it
could
be
clarified.
A
Any
questions,
and
also,
I
think,
by
by
virtually
we
have
a
net
dupont
ewing
that
wants
to
speak
from
the
representing
the
I
think,
municipal
utilities.
So
you're
you
are
recognized
annette.
Can
you
hear.
K
O
Good
morning
my
name's
annette
dupont,
ewing,
I'm
executive
director
of
the
kentucky
municipal
utilities
association.
Thank
you,
chairman,
gooch
and
committee
members
for
allowing
you
to
speak
today.
Let
me
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
the
association
very
quickly.
We
represent
42
city-owned
utilities
that
provide
the
essential
services
of
electricity,
natural
gas,
water,
waste,
water
and
telecommunications
and
kmua's
members
are
proud
to
provide
low-cost,
efficient,
reliable
service
to
750
000
kentuckians
in
cities
across
the
commonwealth.
O
We
represent
locally
owned
and
operated
utilities
that
are
governed
by
city
officials
or
independent
boards
that
are
appointed
by
city
officials.
Our
member
managers
live
and
work
in
their
communities,
providing
service
and
employment
to
the
citizens
of
kentucky,
and
we
understand
chairman
gooch's
concern.
He
filed
this
field
for
event,
states
like
california,
from
passing
laws
that
only
allow
carbon-free
or
carbon
neutral
fuels
to
be
used.
O
You
heard
from
the
previous
speakers
that
this
is
a
resolution
that
resolutions
and
policies
have
been
passed,
and
I
remind
you
that
resolutions
and
policies
are
not
law
without,
especially
in
kentucky,
without
knowing
more
about
the
need
for
the
legislation
and
it's
beneficiary.
It's
difficult
for
tmua
to
support
it.
Remember
the
language
is
only
three
sentences,
long
with
little
detail,
so
there's
a
lot
of
ways
to
interpret
it,
and
that
means
that
does
mean
uncertainty
and
potentially
unintended
consequences.
O
A
Annette,
let
me
ask
you
a
question.
Of
course
you
know
you
know
my
background.
I
was
mayor
of
the
city
of
providence,
a
city
that
you
know
we're
not
electric
generator,
but
we
purchased
our
electricity
wholesale
and
then
and
sold
at
retail
to
our
consumers.
A
You
know
I
certainly
would
never
be
for
anything
that
would
limit
a
city
like
providence
from
being
able
to
buy
electricity
and
then
reselling
it
and
that's
what
we
do
that's
and
we
do
the
same
thing
with
natural
gas.
I
I
can
assure
you
that
I
would
not
be
for
anything
that
would
in
some
way
put
investor-owned
utilities,
give
them
unfair
advantage
against
our
local
cities.
N
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
david.
Could
you
or
braden
come
to
the
table,
and
you
know
I
you
know
that
that
last
point,
I
don't
think
that
our
bill
does.
Does
that
that
we
are
in
any
way
limiting
a
utility,
a
municipal
utility
from
providing
a
service
that
some
other.
Can
you
respond
to
that.
M
M
A
Okay,
okay,
thank
you
see
no
further
questions
ask
the
secretary
to
call
the
roll
please.
K
K
B
L
A
K
Mr
chairman,
right
now
I'd
like
to
I'd
like
to
pass
and
just
because
late
last
night
I
got
a
call
from
a
couple
of
my
my
city,
mayors
and
I'd
like
to
talk
to
them
about
about
what
their
concerns
are
and
then
maybe
see
some
clarifying
language
that
would
ease
the
minds
of
the
of
the
city
officials
and
but
I
look
forward
to
supporting
it
on
the
floor.
If
we
can
get
those
worked
out.
Thank
you.
G
Explain
my
yes
vote.
Yes,
go
ahead!
First
off,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
bringing
this
proactive
bill.
Typically,
we
wait
until
there's
a
problem
and
there's
been
some
harm
caused,
and
then
we
try
to
fix
it.
This
bill
does
the
opposite.
It
actually
anticipates
the
situation
and
deals
with
it.
So
thank
you
for
that
and
also
I'd
say,
I'm
a
pretty
strong
advocate
for
home
rule,
but
the
one
thing
that
will
trump
home
rule
in
my
mind
is
individual
rights
and
you
guys
have
used
the
term
consumer
protection.
G
K
I
K
I'd
like
to
explain
my
vote,
yes
go
ahead
at
this
moment,
I
feel
like
representing
the
fugit
where
I'm
from
we
have
a
lot
of
natural
gas
and
coal
mines,
and
I
would
like
to
talk
talk
to
them
a
little
bit
more,
so
I
would
like
to
pass
at
this
moment.
Thank
you.