Tennessee Senate Bill SB0075

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/9/25
• Engrossed: 2/20/25
• Enrolled: 2/20/25
• Passed: 3/10/25
• Chaptered: 3/21/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 58, Chapter 2, relative to the Interstate Earthquake Compact of 1988.

Summary

SB 75 is a sunset-extension bill for the Interstate Earthquake Compact of 1988. The measure amends Tennessee’s governmental-entity sunset law to remove the compact from an existing termination list and then adds it to a new provision that extends its termination date to June 30, 2033. In practical terms, the bill keeps Tennessee’s participation in the interstate compact in place for several more years rather than allowing it to expire under the state’s periodic review system. The bill also makes a conforming change to Title 58, Chapter 2, which is where the compact is created in Tennessee law. It does not appear to change the compact’s substantive duties, membership structure, or emergency-management powers; instead, it preserves the legal existence of the compact and maintains the state framework supporting interstate coordination on earthquake preparedness and response.

Impact

SB 75 affects Tennessee Code Annotated Title 4, Chapter 29, which governs the periodic termination and review of certain state entities, and Title 58, Chapter 2, which contains the Interstate Earthquake Compact of 1988. By extending the compact’s termination date to June 30, 2033, the bill prevents automatic sunset and keeps the compact operative unless later reauthorized, restructured, or terminated under state law. The primary affected parties are the state agencies and interstate partners involved in earthquake preparedness, mitigation, and emergency coordination.

Sentiment

The available legislative history suggests broad support and little opposition. The Senate Government Operations Committee recommended passage on a 9-0 vote, indicating unanimous committee approval. No committee transcript or recorded floor debate was provided, but the vote pattern and the bill’s narrow, technical nature suggest the measure was viewed as routine maintenance of existing law rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

There is no documented substantive contention in the materials provided. Because the bill is a sunset-extension and conforming amendment, any discussion would likely center on whether the compact remains useful and whether it should continue under Tennessee’s periodic review process. The absence of dissenting votes or recorded debate suggests no major disagreement among lawmakers, agencies, or stakeholders in the available record.