Three amendments have been offered to House Bill 80, which significantly address the concerns that Sierra Club has had with this bill. THESE AMENDMENTS, IF ADOPTED WITHOUT OTHER WEAKENING AMENDMENTS,WOULD LEAD SIERRA CLUB TO SUPPORT House Bill 80.
As you know, this bill has two distinct components: 1) a laudable
increase in renewable energy requirements as part of our state's
Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS) law, and 2) a carbon
dioxide capture / sequestration section. We have opposed HB 80 in the
past because of the serious problems in the way the bill addressed the
carbon dioxide (CO2) issues. Now, however, three amendments
significantly address those flaws. We appreciate these efforts by the
sponsors of the bill and these amendments that would improve HB 80.
We urge you to SUPPORT the following amendments to House Bill 80:
AO 3061 (Rep. DePasquale). This amendment would require a sequestration facility to be capable of storing CO2, before a new coal plant with carbon capture technology is given credits for sequestering CO2. It requires new coal plants to actually capture and store CO2 pollution, in order to be eligible to receive AEPS credits for sequestration. The amendment also encourages the retrofitting of existing coal plants with carbon capture technology.
AO 2632 (Rep. Houghton) This amendment provides that an environmental review must be completed before offering to lease a site on State Forest land to an operator of a CO2 sequestration facility. It also creates a condition that such a facility must be consistent with and not interfere with the uses and purposes of the Commonwealth-owned lands.
AO 3001 (Rep. Ross) This amendment strengthens the liability language by clarifying that financial assurance for a sequestration facility must provide for damage resulting from the injection, storage or escape of CO2 from a CO2 sequestration facility.
The above three amendments are critical to Sierra Club’s support of House Bill 80.
In addition, we have recommendations on the following amendments. We recommend SUPPORT for:
AO 2590 (Rep. Harkins) This amendment encourages solar and wind
production by providing tax credits for production on Brownfield sites
in Pennsylvania.
We also urge you to OPPOSE the following amendments which would work against the Bill’s ability to promote clean energy:
AO 2874 (Rep. Killion) Adds incremental nuclear energy to Tier II of the AEPS. Nuclear power already supplies over one third of the
electricity generated in PA, and thus does not need the additional support of being included in the AEPS. Additionally, nuclear waste presents serious disposal problems and environmental impacts far into
the future.
AO 3060 (Rep. Hutchinson) Adds incremental nuclear energy as a Tier I alternative energy source. As stated above, nuclear energy is well established and does not need state support. Its waste presents serious long term disposal problems and harmful environmental impacts.
This amendment also eliminates HB 80’s expansion of the solar
definition to include solar thermal energy and eliminates the increases in the percentages of energy to be sold from Tier I.
AO 2958, AO 2959 (Rep. Mensch) Weakens the solar provisions of the AEPS by removing language to assure that good faith efforts are made to secure alternative energy credits and by allowing the use of solar power produced outside PA. We should encourage solar industry within our own Commonwealth.
AO3028 (Rep. Mensch) Weakens the requirement that energy from solar technologies sold to retail customers shall be generated from solar technologies in PA, to meet the AEPS requirements.
AO 2907, AO 2943 ( Rep. Reed) Eliminates the increase in Tier 1 alternative energy requirements; 2943 requires under the AEPS that a portion of the electricity come from nuclear power plants.
AO 2584 ( Rep. Maher) This would add energy from new and expanded municipal solid waste facilities to Tier II under the AEPS. Existing MSW is already eligible under Tier II, and new facilities, with their associated environmental impacts, should not be given new incentives.
AO 2601 ( Rep. Hutchinson) This eliminates HB 80’s expansion of the solar definition to include solar thermal energy , eliminates the increase in the Tier I requirement, and the increase in the solar share requirement of the AEPS.
The amendments by Representatives DePasquale, Houghton, and Ross are especially critical to the improvement of HB 80. On behalf of the 25,000 members of the PA Sierra Club, we ask that you support the strengthening amendments, and oppose nuclear and other weakening amendments as you vote on the amendments to House Bill 80.
By Justina Wasicek
Some PA legislators have been discussing a proposal that 3 % of our electricity should come from power plants equipped with “carbon capture and sequestration” technology, called CCS. This CCS technology for coal plants does not exist commercially in the U.S. yet; the idea is that power plants would separate carbon dioxide out from their emissions and store it underground, instead of releasing it into the air. This is an admirable goal, and research into this technology could help us eventually to reduce global warming-- particularly if CCS is applied to replace existing coal-fired power plants.
However, there are scientific uncertainties over whether the separated carbon -- in the form of carbon dioxide,CO2 -- can be contained safely underground in Pennsylvania’s geology. There are concerns that leaks of CO2 may pose hazards to people, animals, and water supplies. The proposal would require the Commonwealth government to develop, own and operate an underground reservoir on State-owned lands, and to assume liability for any leaks. It would give immunity to the facilities that produce the CO2 and dispose of it in the State reservoir. If a safe storage area cannot be created within six years, the proposal would give alternative energy credits to the CO2 producers anyway – even if they are not actually capturing and sequestering the carbon dioxide.
PA Sierra Club, PennEnvironment, Clean Water Action, Clean Air Council, and the NRDC have expressed several concerns and recommendations.
1. The legislation should include a public process, with siting criteria and operational regulations, to assure CO2 storage is safe and does not interfere with the uses of State lands.
2. No new coal plants should be sited unless they capture and sequester all or nearly all of their CO2 pollution.
3. CCS plants should not be given credits under the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act, until they actually capture and store their carbon dioxide emissions.
4. A pilot project should be constructed first in order to determine whether the technology is safe and environmentally sound.
5. Liability should not be shifted from the CO2 producers, to the public.
6. CCS should be considered eligible as a Tier II resource, but it should not be mandated ahead of already proven options to reduce global warming -- like energy efficiency, solar, and geothermal.
We hope the legislature will address these concerns as the legislative proposal evolves.
Justina Wasicek is an Energy co-chaor of the Pennsylvania Chapter.