Well over a decade ago, dairy farmers operating near the IPP began to complain that inordinate numbers of cows in their herds were getting sick and dying of ailments that should have been treatable. They came to believe electrical currents surging through the ground from the nearby coal-fired power plant were compromising their cows' immune systems.
After years of legal maneuvers including two requests for a change of venue by IPP operators and one by the dairy operators attorneys for the dairy farmers said they are only a few weeks away from setting a date for a trial that could begin before the end of the year.
The IPP, though, was hoping to avoid a trial with SB 217 .
The measure would have protected IPP from having to pay damages to livestock owners and render it liable only if the stray voltage from their plant and transmission lines far exceeded the level that dairy farmers contend is harming their animals.
Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, who sponsored SB 217, described it as "serving the greater public good" by protecting electricity producers from frivolous lawsuits. The farmers are suing over "less electricity than is in this Triple A battery," Weiler said, holding one between his fingers for other committee members to see.
Countered Mike Kohler of the Dairy Producers of Utah, who spoke against the bill, "I guarantee you I could put that battery against certain parts of your body and get your attention."
Several representatives from the Intermountain Power Agency, which oversees the operations of the IPP, repeated the contention that the bill would prevent frivolous lawsuits. Referring to the dairy farmers' legal action, they said "if it is frivolous now, it was frivolous five years ago and frivolous 10 years ago."
Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, who chairs the committee, didn't buy that argument, pointing out that courts can issue sanctions against such suits. He asked an IPP lawyer whether in the 10 years since the dairy farmer's lawsuit was filed the power company had ever filed a complaint.
IPP attorney Brandon Mark answered simply, "No."
Committee member Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, said he had reservations about the bill because it would require the Legislature to rule on a scientific standard the amount of electricity that could harm farm animals for which it was ill prepared.
Although Weiler argued that his bill relied upon established scientific standards, the dairy farmers' attorney, Richard Burbidge, noted that experts they relied on weren't so sure. "There is simply no scientific consensus on those standards," he said.
Senators declined to pass SB 217 out of the committee by a 4-2, with only Sen. Karen Mayne, D-West Valley, and Weiler voting to send it on for further consideration.