►
Description
This meeting's live stream cut out prematurely. This recording was loaded from backup.
Roll Call 00:00
Intro 00:49
HB 236 Discussion 01:23
HB 236 Roll Call Vote 14:30
HJR 37 Discussion 15:25
HJR 37 Roll Call Vote 35:26
Meeting End 36:30
A
Here
we
do
have
a
quorum.
I
would
like
to
start
by
saying
that
the
energy
and
environment
cabinet
have
a
group
here
today
they
are
their
leadership
academy
and
those
are
people
that
are
Future
Leaders
that
are
going
to
be
learning
about.
You
know
the
cabinet
and
the
type
of
things
that
they
do
and
so
they're
here
to
observe
today,
and
we
are
so
glad
to
have
them
and
like
to
welcome
them
this
morning.
Any
members
have
anyone
else.
They
would
like
to
recognize.
A
C
D
C
A
C
You,
sir,
this
bill
has
two
elements:
ESG
and
proxy
voting.
Esg
stands
for
environmental,
social
and
governance.
Investing
in
a
lot
of
these
big
investing,
investing
companies
that
manage
large
amounts
of
money
are
using
this
to
invest
in
and
when
you
think
about
ESG.
Think
socialism,
because
that's
what
it
basically
comes
down
to
this
started
out
over
the
interim,
where
I
read
an
article
on
ESG
in
the
investing,
and
it
was
not
based
on
fiduciary
returns
for
Pension
funds,
and
that
was
a
lot.
A
lot
of
people
are
having
issues
with
that.
C
So
the
Pension
funds
that
the
state
manages
and
responsible
for
we've
got
to
make
sure
they
get
a
fiduciary
return
like
the
teachers
pension,
for
example.
We
need
to
make
sure
we
maximize
the
Returns
on
that
as
much
as
possible.
Esg
does
not
base
their
investing
on.
What's
going
to
give
us
a
fiduciary
return,
they
base
it
on
these
environmental,
social
and
governments
status
of
whatever
company
they
want
to
invest
in
that's
kind
of
how
it
got
started.
I
started
looking
at
it
and
it
led
me
to
the
AG's
office.
D
You've
already
heard
a
good
summary
of
what
ESG
is,
but
I'll
just
give
you
a
little
more
in
depth,
because
it's
been
an
issue
that
I've
been
dealing
with
for
the
whole
time
that
I've
been
in
office.
But
it's
been
a
heated
issue
for
the
last
year
and
a
half
to
two
years
and
you've
heard
ESG
stands
for
environmental,
social
and
governance
and
that's
correct
a
best
way.
I
think
to
understand
this
is
Once.
Upon,
a
Time
pensions
and
Investments
were
about
returns,
just
making
sure
that
when
you
retired
you
could
retire.
D
You
had
funds
when
you
retired
you're,
getting
good
returns
out
of
your
Investments,
and
in
the
last
few
years,
there's
been
a
move
afoot
to
really
change
the
strategy
to
push
certain
outcomes,
usually
social
outcomes,
ideological
outcomes.
It's
been
very
heavy
on
the
east
side,
so
the
environmental
side,
which
has
been
targeting
the
fossil
fuel
industry.
That's
why
Kentucky
I
know
many
of
you
remember
the
bill
that
was
passed
last
year
that
dealt
with
this
issue,
so
so
this
is
a
serious
issue.
D
We've
been
dealing
with
this
in
a
nuts
and
bolts
way
for
for
a
few
years
or
for
a
year
and
a
half,
and
it's
come
to
our
attention
that
that
we
think
that
it
needs
to
be
addressed
in
statute
just
to
just
to
make
sure
once
and
for
all
we're
looking
at
returns.
This
is
all
about
getting
good
returns.
It's
not
about
pushing
social,
certain
ideological
ideologies
or
social
outcomes.
It's
just
about
fiduciary,
Financial
returns,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
on
this,
but
I
think
this
is
a.
D
The
fossil
fuel
industry
is
a
great
example
where
it's
been
bad.
There
have
been
many
of
these
companies.
Blackrock
is
one
of
the
most
prominent
ones.
That's
been
making
very
strong
statements
that
their
their
goal
is
to
push
out
the
coal
industry
actually
eliminate
the
coal
industry.
So
that's
why
the
bill
was
passed
last
year
to
give
Kentucky
some
some
Authority
and
power
to
be
able
to
push
back
against
companies
that
have
said
they
want
to
eliminate
the
fossil
fuel
industry.
But
it's
not
limited
to
just
that.
D
We
are
getting
wind
that
it
probably
it
could
be
anything-
and
that's
part
of
the
problem
with
this-
is
that
it's
it's
people
who
have
positions
of
power
who
have
certain
outcomes
that
they
want
to
see
in
society.
So
that's
the
first
step
that
we
know
very
clearly
and
then
we're
getting
wind
that
it
could.
It
could
go
anywhere
anybody
wants
to,
which
is
a
little
scary.
Well,.
D
G
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
may
I,
ask
a
question
sure
so
treasure
ball
in
your
response
to
the
previous
question.
Your
your
response
was
about
a
social
position.
It
had
absolutely
nothing
to
do
with
pecuniary
outcomes,
so
the
company
BlackRock
that
you
named
do
they
have
good
Returns
on
investment
aside
from
their
social
position.
So.
D
To
clarify
what
I
was
addressing
was
we
don't
want
social
outcomes?
We
want
good
returns,
so
so
what
you've
just
asked
me
indicates
that
we
want
good
returns,
which
is
exactly
what
I'm
here
for
I
want
good
returns.
Blackrock
has
a
mix,
their
ESG
funds
do
not
perform
as
well
as
their
non-esg
funds
right
now,
and
the
energy
Investments
do
outperform
a
lot
of
the
other
ones
right
now,
particularly
the
tech
ones.
D
Tech
ones
are
very
high
rated
on
ESG
ratings
and
part
of
the
problem
with
this
is
that
there's
no
Clarity
of
what
ESG
even
really
means
at
this
point
in
time
it
could
be
anything
anybody
wants.
My
and
I
think
actually,
the
way
you
phrase
the
question
you
would
agree
with
this.
What
we
want
are
strong
returns.
That
should
be
our
primary
goal,
our
only
goal
and
that's
what
this
would
clarify-
we're
not
trying
to
do
anything
else,
but
get
good
returns.
So.
A
D
E
So
if
you're,
looking
for
a
specific
example,
we
have
here
BlackRock
declared
in
2000
in
the
mid
2020
that
it
would
divest
from
coal
for
ESG
reasons.
Since
July
2020,
the
price
of
coal
has
increased
from
under
fifty
dollars
per
ton
to
close
to
four
hundred
dollars
per
ton
at
an
almost
800
percent
return,
so
any
investment
company
that
said
we
are
going
to
divest
from
coal
has
missed
out
on
that
800
percent
return.
E
D
G
H
A
H
D
I,
don't
know
I'm,
not
the
one
who
assigns
it
so
I
can't
answer
that
question
I
would
assume
part
of
it
has
to
do
with
the
E
aspect
of
this.
That
would
just
be
my
guess,
because
we
know
that
that's
probably
the
most
prominent
use
of
ESG
investing
at
this
point
in
time.
It
probably
will
and
we're
seeing
signs
that
it
will
go
to
other
areas,
but
the
most
prominent
use
of
ESG
investing
has
been
targeting
the
fossil
fuel
industry.
I.
A
Can
answer
that,
probably
before
this
committee,
because
I
requested
it
and
the
reason
that
I
requested
this
bill
is
when
I
came
to
the
legislature
in
1995
93
electricity
from
Kentucky
came
from
coal,
now,
it's
probably
70
percent
or
less
since
that
time
we
at
the
time
that
I
came
in,
we
Kentucky
was
probably
the
second
lowest
electricity
rates
in
the
nation.
Now
we're
lucky
to
stay
in
the
top
10..
A
I
E
A
D
I
think
an
excellent
example
is
last
year,
Senate
Bill
205,
which
passed
and
was
signed
into
law
by
the
governor,
and
it
said
that
if
you
were
a
a
company
that
boycotted
the
fossil
fuel
industry-
and
you
were
not
going
to
be
included
in
our
pensions-
you're
not
going
to
be
included
in
our
investment
portfolios
so
fairly.
Recently,
it
passed
Senate
house
and
signed
by
the
governor
into
law.
G
C
J
K
L
A
A
A
J
J
Today
we
have
before
us
house
joint
resolution
37..
The
this
resolution
is
asking
the
energy
and
environment
cabinet
to
remove
the
reformulated
gasoline
requirements
that
are
currently
imposed
on
residents
that
choose
to
live
in
Jefferson
parts
of
Oldham
and
parts
of
Bullitt
County
motion
on
The
View.
A
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second.
Let
me
let
him
because
I
think
we
have
one
person
that
asked
to
speak:
Tom,
Fitzgerald,
I,
think
you.
So
if
you'll
come
to
the
table,
take
the
other
seat.
Are
you
by
yourself
or
you
have
my
boss?
Is
here,
but
she's
not
going
to
be
joining
me?
Okay,
you're
welcome,
be
here.
Thank
you.
I
A
I
Ahead,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
Tom
Fitzgerald,
formerly
director
of
the
Kentucky
Resources
Council
with
me,
is
Ashley
Wilms,
who
is
the
director
of
the
council
I,
as
I
mentioned
during
the
last
meeting.
I
didn't
expect
to
be
back,
but
it
is
a
privilege
always
to
be
here
in
front
of
the
committee
representative,
Bowman
and
I
had
a
very
brief
chance
to
talk
yesterday
and
I
appreciate
him
getting
back
to
me.
I
I,
don't
know
that
anybody
at
this
point
is
going
to
say
that
using
reformulated
gas
is
any
longer
a
strategy
for
ozone
control
in
Jefferson
County.
That
is,
cost
effective
and
we've
gotten
that
way
because
of
a
number
of
things
that
have
happened
over
the
years.
Jefferson
County,
as
many
of
you
know,
is
the
one
County
in
the
Commonwealth
that
manages
its
own
Air
Pollution
Control
District
every
other
County
could
do
that
if
they
chose
to
do
so,
but
no
one
else
has
elected
to
do
so.
I
I
I
The
the
hold
up
and
representative
Bland
will
appreciate
this
because
of
our
conversation
earlier
is
that
EPA
has
not
yet
approved
the
change
to
the
state
implementation
plan,
and
so
until
they
do
so-
and
it's
expected
this
year,
the
state
you
know
the
cabinet
and
air
pollution
District
have
done
everything
they
need
to
do.
We
believe
the
numbers
show
that
Louisville
for
a
number
of
reasons,
including
industrial
reductions,
that
they
have
have
taken
over
the
years,
have
now
achieved
that
minimum
standard
of
air
quality
that
was
set
by
EPA
some
years
ago.
I
It's
not
been
an
easy
process.
It's
taken
a
lot
of
sacrifice
on
everybody's
Parts,
but
we
have
gotten
to
that
point.
If
this
bill
goes
forward
as
written
now,
it
could
put
that
in
Jeopardy
and
that's
certainly
not
the
sponsor's
intent
I've
sent
some
language.
That
would
would
address
the
issue
and,
and
hopefully
we'll
have
that
conversation
going
forward.
So
I'm
not
here
to
oppose
the
resolution,
but
I
am
here
to
mention
that
there
are
some
technical
issues
that
need
to
be
addressed.
I
I'm
happy
to
talk
about
those
issues,
but
because
of
what
you
all
did
two
years
ago,
the
the
bowl
is
already
rolling.
The
the
process
is
already
in
motion
to
eliminate
reformulated
gas
as
a
pollution
control
strategy,
because
it
is
probably
not
anywhere
near
the
most
cost
effective
strategy
any
longer
because
of
changes
in
gasoline
that
have
been
ordered
generally
because
of
other
changes
that
have
occurred
in
terms
of
emissions
of
the
ozone
precursors,
volatile
organic
chemicals,
nitrogen
oxides
that
were
causing
pollution
problems
in
Louisville.
A
Thank
you
Tom.
One
question
that
I
have
is
you
you
mentioned
that
this
is
really
widely
recognized,
that
that
the
reformulated
gas
is
not
a
good,
affordable
strategy
for
reducing
some
of
the
issues
related
to
the
to
the
atmosphere
and
and
specifically
certain
areas
that
may
have
been
in
non-non-containment
or
whatever.
Do
you
believe,
though,
that,
because
Jefferson
County
has
their
own
board
that
oversees
this?
I
I
They
have
already
studied
and
have
said
rfg
at
one
point
in
time
was
a
cost-effective
strategy,
but
it
no
longer
is
relative
to
some
of
the
other
strategies
that
are
out
there
and
the,
and
because
of
changes
that
have
occurred,
it
may
no
longer
be
necessary
to
find
another
mobile
Source
strategy.
You
know
when
you
have
you're
looking
at
a
at
a
a
pie
of
reductions.
Some
of
them
come
from
major
sources,
major
industries,
some
come
from
minor
area
sources,
stationary
sources
and
some
come
from
Motor
Vehicles.
I
Your
concern
is
precisely
why,
years
ago,
I
took
a
very
unpopular
stand
of
trying
to
keep
the
vehicle
testing
program
in
place,
because
when
that
program
was
shut
down,
it
was
a
stationary
Source,
a
major
employer
for
Jefferson
County,
who
ended
up
taking
an
additional
reduction
in
order
to
offset
the
loss
of
those
emission
controls.
So
you're
absolutely
right.
I
You
have
a
budget
and
that
budget
is
actually
federally
approved
and
you
can't
just
pull
a
piece
of
those
Pollution
Control
strategies
out
of
that
budget
without
running
into
trouble,
because
if,
unless
you
have
improved
the
air
quality
sufficiently,
somebody
else
picks
up
the
tab
and
somebody
else
usually
is
Major
in
industrial
employers
and
they
are,
they
have
done
and
are
doing
their
part,
and
so
that's
concern
so
it.
But
you
know,
none
of
these
reductions
come
for
free.
A
A
K
K
We
in
Louisville
are
well
aware
of
How
High.
Our
gas
is
compared
to
everybody
else
around
the
state.
Most
some
of
us
are
very
aware
of
our
air
pollution
control
challenges.
Over
the
past
several
decades
and
my
question
to
you,
you
very
clearly
stated
that
this
is.
This
is
no
longer
a
very
cost,
effective
pollution
control
method.
So
my
question
is
just
from
a
curiosity
standpoint:
when
we,
when
we
go
back,
is
there
data
that
suggests
that,
even
though
it
was
costly,
was
it
effective
in
meeting
what
are
what
what
our
objectives
were?
I
Yes,
in
fact,
I
think
that
data
was
presented
to
the
committee
last
year.
There
is
there
is
a
study
that
was
actually
commissioned
by
this
general
assembly
in
2020,
that
required
the
cabinet
to
go
back
with
the
district
and
look
at
those
numbers
and
what
you
saw
is
the
diminishing
returns.
There
was
at
a
point
of
time
it
was
a
very
cost,
effective
strategy
and
it
also
allowed
us
additional
time
to
meet
our
targets,
because
when
you're
not
attainment,
everybody
pays.
I
I
So
it's
it's
an
important
Health
goal,
but
you
want
to
pick
the
best
strategy,
the
one
that
is
the
most
cost
effective.
That
gets
you
the
biggest
bang
for
the
buck,
because
somebody
does
whether
it
consumers
at
the
pump
and
and
your
points
well
taken.
There
was
somebody
I
believe
his
chairman
who
came
to
the
committee
and
said
you
can't
really
look
at
the
prices
of
gas
in
Jefferson
County
and
say
it's
one
thing
that
causes
it
because
within
Jefferson
County
the
price
is
vary
wildly
right.
I
One
chain
that
does
Costco
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
say,
and
some
other
folks
there
and
so
a
lot
of
factors
play
into
it,
but
rfg
does
add
an
additional
cost
and
the
district
and
the
cabinet
looked
at
the
fact
that
it
was
an
effective
strategy
and
they've
got
that
data.
They've
got
the
study
because
you
you,
all
man
mandated
that
they
update
that
a
couple
of
years
ago,
they've
done
it
they're
poised
and
ready
to
make
the
changes.
I
A
Think
that
when
you
disrupt
the
the
refineries
abilities
to
run
whatever
is
needed
in
the
country.
At
the
same
time,
others
people's
prices
may
go
up,
and
the
study
that
you
mentioned
probably
just
specifically
looked
at
obviously
Jefferson
County
and
what
was
done
there
and
I
think
we
did
get
some
of
the
results
that
that
probably
was
intended.
But
I
I'm
not
sure
that
we're
not
overlooking
what
others
may
have
paid
because
of
the
refining
capacity.
When
you
shut
down
to
make
those
particular
types
of
Boutique
fuel,
so
Mr.
I
Chairman
I,
don't
know
that
we
disagree
at
all.
Even
within
Jefferson
County,
there
were
two
strategies
for
trying
to
reformulate
the
gas
to
make
it
less
volatile.
One
of
them
had
ethanol
added
the
other
had
mtbe,
which
turned
out
to
be
a
groundwater
pollution
issue.
So
we
in
order
to
clean
the
air,
we've
kind
of
shifted
the
burden
a
little
bit
but
you're
absolutely
right.
There
was
in
it
crossed
the
river
from
Louisville
in
the
same
air,
District
or
air
air
shed,
you
had
lower,
read
vapor
pressure
gas
being
used
rather
than
reformulated
gas.
I
L
I
Representative
White's,
a
good
question
for
the
most
part,
Jefferson
County's
regulations
follow
the
state
regulations
because
both
are
mandated
to
follow
the
Clean
Air
Act.
There
may
be
some
local
circumstances
in
which
those
regulations
do
depart
that
do
differ.
They
go
through
a
notice
and
comment
process.
They
are
subject
to
judicial
review,
they're
subject
to
the
the
air
pollution
District,
which
is
a
multi-member
district
that
looks
specifically
at
improving
air
quality.
I.
Think
the
reason.
I
I
The
they
don't
do
so
very
often,
and
in
my
experience
over
the
past
43
years,
they
do
so
only
when
they
believe.
For
example,
we
Jefferson
County
has
adopted
an
air
toxics
Reduction
Program,
which
is
a
national
model
that
has
brought
down
the
air
toxics
in
Louisville
to
the
point
where
it
is
no
longer
life-threatening
to
live
on
the
other
side
of
a
fence
from
some
of
the
industrial
facilities,
because
used
to
be
the
the
level
of
of
cancer
risk
was
substantially
greater
than
what
we
considered
de
minimis.
I
Of
what
neighborhoods
people
lived
in
so
Jefferson
County
has
gone
beyond
where
it
is
it.
You
know
where
it's
deemed
necessary
and
there
are
you
know
there
are
there
are
guide?
You
know
there
are
lanes
that
they
have
to
stay
in
when
they
do
that
they
have
to
justify
it.
They
have
to
they're
subject
to
judicial
review
if
they
go
beyond
what
the
law
or
what
the
science
would
allow.
L
I
Do
that's
a
very
good
question
when
you
look
at
the
air
quality
regions
that
are
identified
by
EPA
the
region
for
Louisville
includes
that's?
Why
it's
in
the
bill
here
a
little
bit
of
Bullitt
County
a
little
bit
of
Oldham
County,
and
it
includes
a
couple
of
counties
in
Southern,
Indiana
and
so
those
Southern
Indiana
counties
are
managed
by
idem,
the
Indiana
Department
of
Environmental
Management,
and
they
do
work
together
with
Louisville
to
try
to
achieve
those
reductions
that
are
necessary.
I
You
know
we
have
the
same
thing
in
Northern
Kentucky,
a
lot
of
our
air
quality
regions
that
have
had
air
quality
problems
are
multi-state
regions.
You
know,
Northern
Kentucky,
you've
got
boom,
Ken
Campbell
and
then
you've
got
Cincinnati
and
Hamilton
County.
So
that's
a
good
question,
but
they
do
as
as
I
understand.
They
do
work
together
to
try
to
to
achieve
air
quality
because
they
do
they
share
the
same
air
shed.
A
H
So
this
is
an
issue
that
matters
to
me
personally,
but
as
an
asthmatic
and
an
environmentalist,
I
also
believe
in
good
policy,
because
bad
policy
undermines
good
policy
and
I
think
that
these
changes
are
long
overdue.
I
wish
that
we
could
bring
back
the
vehicle
emissions
testing,
but
that's
not
on
the
table
today.
What
is
on
the
table
to
me
is
a
no-brainer,
because
any
time
that
we're
spending
dollars
to
save
pennies-
and
in
this
case
environmentally
metaphorically
speaking,
spending
dollars
to
save
pennies
we're
not
putting
our
resources
elsewhere.
B
A
K
F
F
A
Yes,
yes,
okay,
the
bill
passes,
so
you
may
thank
you
so
much
for
being
here.
We,
as
you
know
our
time,
slot
is
normally
eight
to
ten,
but
I
will
always
try
to
schedule
meetings
where
we
can
start
at
nine
and
still
get
our
business
done
and
leave
the
next
group.
That's
going
to
take
this
meeting
time
to
get
set
up
and
we've.