Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
02/03/2014 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB163 | |
| HB268 | |
| HB244 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 244 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 163-REGULATION OF SOLID FUEL BURNING DEVICES
1:06:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 163, "An Act prohibiting a person from burning
certain materials in a solid fuel burning device; relating to
solid fuel burning device emission standards; and relating to
prohibitions on the burning of solid fuels." [Before the
committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 163,
Version 28-LS0248\R, Nauman, 4/4/13, adopted as the working
document on 4/6/13.]
1:06:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 163, Version 28-LS0248\G, Nauman,
1/27/14, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version G was before the committee.
1:07:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 163, outlined the provisions of Version G. She noted the
bill's length is shortened due to the proposed [air quality]
regulations being put forth by the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC). She explained that the Fairbanks North Star
Borough has been designated a particulate matter (PM) 2.5
nonattainment area by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Space heating devices, predominantly wood and pellet
stoves and hydronic heaters, are being used by a growing number
of Fairbanks residents to heat homes and businesses. The amount
of wood burning has nearly doubled since 2006, a direct response
to increases in the price of heating oil and the lack of low
cost, clean burning, alternative fuels. A governmental agency
should not be allowed to shut down a resident's right to utilize
a certified appliance burning approved materials, unless an
emergency arises, she asserted. Version G would require an
emergency [prohibition] by the governor for an area to have its
wood burning completely banned and would set the emergency level
at 351 micrograms per cubic meter [of air], the same level
included in DEC's proposed regulations. Version G would also
put into statute the list of things that, under regulation,
cannot legally be burned in a wood stove or coal burner. This
includes such things as painted material, railroad ties, and
tires, to help people understand what should not be burned.
Unfortunately, when people do burn those items, it is because
they cannot afford the heating oil. This is all about a high
cost of energy, she stressed. As heating oil has become more
expensive, those in the Bush have had much higher expenses than
other communities and have turned to alternative sources, which
includes wood, pellets, and coal. Many of the borough's
businesses have turned to coal burners, which are cleaner than
some of the hand-loaded wood stoves. Hand-loaded wood stoves
smolder when they cool down, she explained, which goes on
throughout the day [as they burn the wood supply] and then have
to be manually re-filled. However, pellet and coal stoves have
an automatic feed that keeps the temperature constant.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said the bill has some issues, so she
is requesting the committee to hold the bill today. She
reported DEC is concerned the bill will cause the department to
be unable to enforce what cannot be burned, which is not her
intent and which she will discuss further with DEC. Also of
concern to DEC is the five-year sunset, a date she chose in the
hope that there would be affordable energy by then. The DEC
commissioner would feel better with a two-year sunset, she said.
The state is required to make an implementation plan that shows
the EPA how the state is going to get from one point to the
next. However, the numbers are ever moving because the EPA is
always lowering the number. When EPA lowered [the maximum
level] from 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35, it put the
borough into its current problem. Had the level stayed at 65,
the borough would have been okay for a few more years; although,
she conceded, the borough would probably be in nonattainment at
this point because more wood is being burned.
1:11:34 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired about the significance of the microgram
number of 351, as per page 1, line 10, Version G.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded this number is the emergency
level proposed in the DEC regulations brought to her community,
so she put this number in the bill.
1:12:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether the 351 micrograms is an
acceptable level and whether [DEC] has set an acceptable level
for pollution.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied that 351 is the number set as
the point for emergency [by DEC]. However, as she has told the
DEC commissioner, she is not married to this number if DEC wants
to recommend a different number.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI stated that if EPA is constantly trying
to ratchet down the microgram level, then putting 351 micrograms
into statute would result in having to change the statute if EPA
changes the acceptable limits. He asked why the proposal is to
do the level by statute rather than by regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that right now the state must
get down to 35 micrograms, not 351. An emergency is when
[particulates] rise to a certain level and the question is how
far over that level it should get to call an emergency. In this
bill, she is trying to look through the eyes of her constituents
regarding an emergency. People leave for work with their wood
stoves burning, she stated. The proposed regulations say that
immediate action can be taken if it gets to an episode.
However, since this plan has not been seen, it is unknown what
an immediate action is. She expressed concern about people who
have to leave work to go home to shut down their wood stoves and
hope they have enough oil to last for the number of days it
takes for the air quality to reach a certain level. She
questioned if people can be asked to go through that kind of
stress on a day-to-day basis. She said she is in favor of the
borough's current volunteer shutdowns to improve the change-out
programs, she said, or possibly subsidizing oil in certain areas
that are worse. When people are forced to shut down qualified
stoves while using the dry wood they are supposed to use, it is
like grouping everyone together on the highway and picking out
five or six cars because there are too many cars on the road.
She asked what can be done until technology improves so people
feel that they can stay in the community. She said the number
of micrograms can be discussed by DEC staff or the commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked what the sponsor envisions will
happen if the level is exceeded, given that the level would be
in statute rather than regulations, and the proposed bill does
not address what happens in the case of an emergency.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON concurred the bill would supersede
regulations should [DEC] want the number to be lower and the
immediate action to be a forcible shutdown. That is what she is
trying to prevent by taking it to the level of an emergency, she
said, "and to an elected official, one who's a head of our
state, that that should be his decision and not a commissioner
or someone else down the line, when you're talking about this
degree of impact on a community."
1:16:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted a number of businesses burn waste
petroleum products, one of the prohibited items within Section
2, but they are not burning the waste petroleum products in a
wood or coal designed furnace. He surmised there is nothing in
the bill that would impact someone burning waste petroleum
products in a burner designed for liquid waste products.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON agreed, saying such a burner would not
be a solid fuel burning heating device as defined.
1:18:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what the consequences are for
violating the fuel prohibitions in Section 2.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied that DEC's process is to first
write a letter to the person and ultimately take the person to
court. In further response, she said she did not know what the
amount of a fine could be.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER, regarding page 1, line 9, that the prohibition
be authorized by the governor, inquired whether the sponsor's
intention is that it must be the governor personally or if it
could be the governor's designee.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that this could have a major
impact to an area of the state, so she would like it to be the
governor since the governor is the elected official heading the
state. [Subsection (k), page 1, lines 6-7,] is included in
Version G, she added, because Juneau already has a State
Implementation Plan and is therefore exempted from this bill.
She further noted that she is working with the Municipality of
Anchorage to answer its questions and ensure the bill does not
negatively impact that community. Responding to Representative
Seaton, she explained that subsection (k) is referring to the
City and Borough of Juneau because it is the only one that has a
wood smoke control area designated by name in state regulation.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER understood the repealer in Section 4 is because
the sponsor is assuming that good things will be coming "down a
pipeline" in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said Section 4 would bring it back to
the legislature again, at which point it can be assessed for
whether this needs to be continued. For example, there could be
improved technology with the solid fuel burning devices or a gas
supply of some sort could have reached the borough by then.
1:21:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, regarding the governor authorizing this
type of prohibition, noted that Fairbanks has ceded this type of
control over to the state. He asked, however, whether the state
and governor making a decision on air quality, rather than the
local community, is really the kind of policy that is wanted.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered the governor already has this
power during an emergency and she would take it up a notch
because she thinks it is absolutely for the governor to do. In
the past the state has been a big player in how her community
has done energy, such as electricity and major projects, and
with that comes some responsibility. When it came to whether
her community was going to try meeting the air quality
[standards], it was the state that made an agreement with EPA to
get the community to meet any new numbers, no matter what that
may take from the community. The point of HB 163, she said, is
to refocus that Fairbanks is trying to bring in the best
technology and replace older equipment to improve air quality.
Not understood is why the air quality cannot just get better;
instead, EPA's bottom line is that this number must be met even
though the community cannot do it with the best technology out
there. She said it is going to take some other type of energy
besides even heating oil because heating oil is also at PM 2.5.
Five years from now, if Fairbanks still does not have gas or the
governor has had to frequently call an emergency, this will put
pressure on the state that it must be a player. The borough
does not have the finances, nor should it have to put its money
there, when the state itself has not done it, she opined.
1:23:52 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired about local ordinances and voter
initiatives that the borough has adopted throughout the past.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON reiterated that the EPA keeps changing
the numbers. Another episode was in 2008, she said, when then-
governor Sarah Palin gave $1,200 to each state resident for
energy needs. The month people received that money, along with
their permanent fund dividend, the price of oil jumped over
night to almost $5 per gallon. People went into a panic mode
and bought outdoor boilers, which are meant for big buildings
rather than homes, and this increased the air quality issues
even more. The borough then came up with an ordinance, mostly
because of pressure from the EPA. The EPA only gives so much
credit for voluntary measures even when those measures are
working, she stated. Pressure is being put on the DEC
commissioner to do enforcement on Fairbanks to bring the
community into compliance because that is what the EPA requires,
but weather inversion is the number one reason the borough is
having issues. She said it is the big power plants which fill
up the top of the airshed, wood stoves fill the next level of
the airshed, and car emissions fill the lowest level. Using
state funding, the borough did a wood stove change-out program,
but unlike Libby, MT, which did a one-on-one swap, the borough
required that a borough employee come in to take a picture, the
homeowner had to have the money up front, put in the paperwork,
and then bring in the [new] appliance. Taking a picture was an
issue because the people in her community are not very friendly
when government wants to come into their homes, she noted. When
the borough decides to fine people during these times, citizens'
initiatives are put out that say the borough cannot fine people
for trying to heat their homes. This puts it on the state level
and the city level of Fairbanks and North Pole, but not the
borough itself, because it is still the peoples' intent that as
technology improves and as gas gets to homes, [air quality will
improve]. For example, it was not the local testing of car
emissions at a cost of $70 per car every two years that improved
air quality; rather, it was because technology got better and
old cars died. Unfortunately, wood stoves do not die as easily
as cars do and people become very attached to them. Once people
see how much better the new technology is, they will do it, but
it must be made to work in that direction, she stated.
1:28:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON, in response to two questions from Co-
Chair Saddler, defined airshed as the ambient air measurement
done by monitors. A hydronic heater, she explained, is a big,
rectangular, outdoor wood stove hooked up to a water heater that
only needs to be filled once a day. Hydronic heaters do not
work quite as well because the whole wood used in them is not as
dry as split wood, plus the heaters are not turned up as high as
they need to be because the area being heated in homes is small.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE noted natural gas is being burned in Eagle River.
1:29:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that some of the prohibited items
listed in proposed AS 46.14.570 produce fine particulate matter
when combusted and therefore have some influence in overall air
quality measurements. She asked why this proposed statute would
be repealed on January 1, 2019, as per Section 4 of Version G,
given those items should never be burned in a wood stove.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied she does not understand the
question because those items are listed in regulation and are
only relisted in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR suggested that repeal of these prohibited
items may not be wanted because the burning of plastics and
rubber products is something that should never be done.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON conceded that is a good point. She
said the repeal is more related to the first part rather than
the second, so she will consider the suggestion.
1:31:22 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE posited that a technological advance could occur
in the next five years that would allow those prohibited items
to be burned because they would not contribute to air pollution.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON agreed, saying things have come a long
way; for example, some stoves now take wood or oil. Section 4
would require a review of all prohibited items in five years.
1:32:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired whether the list of prohibited
items would be applied to all municipalities or only to
Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered it would be applied to
Anchorage as well as Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that Anchorage does its own
monitoring and can now do its own emergency orders. He asked
whether this would prevent Anchorage from having that ability.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that she does not believe so,
but she is having discussions with Anchorage and will make sure
that Anchorage's questions are addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related there are people in Anchorage who
burn for aesthetics rather than heat and for this they use
treated plastic logs purchased at Fred Meyer's. He asked
whether HB 163 would ban the sale or use of that product in any
place in Alaska during an emergency order.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied that is not her intent, so she
will make sure that the bill does not. She pointed out that
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau have air quality programs, but
the Wasilla area is the next community that will probably have a
problem with the PM 2.5; therefore, she will ensure this point
applies to any community.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his agreement with Representative
Kawasaki about keeping this with the city rather than putting it
in the state's hand, especially in Anchorage where that control
has not been given up and Anchorage still does the monitoring.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that is why it is just on an
emergency level and the prohibited item list is already there
for the state. It is not her intent to step on any of the
municipalities. Her intent is to ensure that when there is the
possibility of a huge negative impact, it is known who will be
making those calls.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON thanked the sponsor for working with
Anchorage in regard to the bill.
1:35:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that the issue of air quality has
long been worked on in Fairbanks, and [state] regulations are
currently being promulgated. Given that a quicker solution is
wanted rather than a slower one, he inquired what impact HB 163
will have on the regulations currently being drafted.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that DEC has said it wants
sold only those stoves that put out 2.5 [micrograms] per hour,
and "the borough would still be able to be allowed in this."
The intent is that DEC could still go after people who are
burning prohibited items, but Legislative Legal and Research
Services has said that that portion of the bill could be much
clearer. All volunteer activities and programs could still take
place. "It just takes it to a notch to where you are literally
doing a complete banning of an energy source would make it
clearer on who could absolutely do that portion of it," she
said.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI expressed his concern that if a bill is
passed by the legislature it will take a long time to promulgate
the regulations. Delay has caused a lot of people in Fairbanks
to move, he said, so he does not want to see any delay in
implementing some sort of a policy to get to the root of the air
pollution issue in the Fairbanks area.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed and said that is why the bill
version that comes back to the committee will not impact the
majority of what is in the proposed regulations. She clarified
that they are proposed regulations and DEC is currently going
through the hundreds of comments it has received. The final
regulations will be part of the State Implementation Plan, she
explained, and passing a bill now is less likely to slow things
down than waiting until after finalization of the regulations
and plan.
1:37:51 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether the list of prohibited items is
enforced at all times or only when the governor declares an
emergency.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied those items cannot be burned in
a solid fuel burning heating device at any time. In further
response, she confirmed that these prohibited items are included
in current regulations.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired whether there is an exemption for
burning the prohibited items in a rural area, for example, a
remote mining camp, where there would be no significant
detriment to the overall air quality.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered there is no exemption.
However, she clarified, it is a solid fuel burning heating
device being talked about here, so it might be different for an
open bonfire.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said these remote camps use incinerators for
getting rid of all kinds of things, including some of the things
on the prohibited list.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that incinerators would not
be included in HB 163 because the bill defines solid fuel
burning heating device, and those prohibited items cannot be
burned in that type of device. If not in an urban area, the
odds of DEC imposing a fine are probably little to none, she
said, but these items still should not be burned in a solid fuel
burning heating device as defined in the bill.
1:40:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, regarding page 1, line 10, asked whether
"region" is a defined term.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied the bill's terminology is taken
from the regulations as proposed by DEC, so she assumes DEC has
that definition. Her community is a nonattainment area, so most
of the rules being talked about pertain to that actual region.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said it seems vague to him because if it
is not defined then it is unclear what constitutes the region.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON agreed and said she will make sure it
is defined.
1:42:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the intent of page 1,
lines 9-10, is that the governor cannot authorize the
prohibition under any other circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered neither the governor nor
anyone else could mandatorily shut down a region's wood-fired
devices unless the level [is at 351 micrograms per cubic meter].
She said she will talk further with the DEC commissioner about
whether that number is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether there is, or will be, a
definition of treated wood.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded she will find out.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained he is bringing this up because
of Representative Johnson's question about pressed logs. He
posited it could get into a situation where someone sues the
state claiming that pellets are treated wood.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER understood only the governor could call the ban
and the ban could only be called if the standard is exceeded.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said he is correct.
1:45:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired how HB 163 would impact the
regulations currently being promulgated by DEC.
ALICE EDWARDS, Director, Division of Air Quality, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), said the division is still
looking through Version G and has had initial discussions with
the bill sponsor. The division still needs to clarify some of
that so it understands what the implications would be to the
regulatory proposals that have gone out for public comment.
Therefore, she said, she cannot speak to that until DEC has had
more time to review the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI reported the borough and the state have
been going round and round on this and people are leaving
Fairbanks due to the energy costs and the air quality. A delay
would be difficult for him if the division thinks it is moving
quickly on the proposed regulations. He asked whether the bill
would impact the State Implementation Plan.
MS. EDWARDS said the division is looking at the bill to
determine how it will impact the State Implementation Plan, both
the parts that are already in place as well as the future plan
for the Fairbanks North Star Borough. Clearly, the division is
trying to find solutions and make emission reductions in the
borough's nonattainment area as expeditiously as possible. It
is important the division take that into context when reviewing
this bill.
1:47:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI queried whether 351 micrograms per cubic
meter of air is exactly what is in current regulation.
MS. EDWARDS replied that number was in the proposal. A section
in the existing air quality regulations deals with emergency
types of episodes, and for most pollutants the division has set
three different levels of standards: an episode, a warning, and
an emergency. The 351 micrograms per cubic meter at a 24-hour
average is DEC's new proposal for the highest level for fine
particulate matter; those have not yet been adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI paraphrased from the Air Quality Index
regarding 351 micrograms per cubic meter in a 24-hour period:
"everyone should avoid physical activity outdoors; people with
heart and lung disease, older adults, children should remain
indoors; keep activity levels very low." He asked whether the
state has given thought to making the standard higher than is
currently proposed.
MS. EDWARDS answered DEC is looking at the comments it has
received on that proposal. She confirmed it does tie back to
the Air Quality Index and for the episode level DEC has proposed
56, which is when it is unhealthy for all individuals. An
intermediate step and an emergency level were also proposed.
1:49:05 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER queried about the timeline for delivery of the
proposed regulations.
MS. EDWARDS responded the comment period closed at the end of
January [2014] and many hundreds of comments were received. The
division is working to move through those relatively quickly,
but there is a lot of information to look at. It will take a
couple of months to work through the comments and with the
commissioner and administration to get a final package.
1:49:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that the proposed regulations
make a difference for the town of Fairbanks, while DEC is
concerned about the actual health of the people living in
Fairbanks. While there are two different angles to look at
this, as a parent she would want to be warned when certain
levels are reached so she could ensure her children are watching
TV instead of running around. She inquired whether the town of
Fairbanks wants to change what DEC has put into place so that it
does not have to close down as soon.
MS. EDWARDS, qualifying she is unsure of the question, replied
that DEC does currently call air quality advisories in Fairbanks
and will continue to do so. The setting of the episode levels
formalizes concentrations for fine particulate matter, which, to
this point, DEC has not had in regulation. So, it is new, but
is a statewide proposal that would then also factor into the
situation in Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the majority of people
commenting on the proposed regulations were for or against
putting these levels in place.
MS. EDWARDS answered that federal requirements calling for the
establishment of episode levels is one reason why the proposed
regulations were brought forward. The department received many
comments from people in the community about what those levels
should be, and those are still being evaluated.
1:52:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether the majority of people
commenting wanted the regulations to be stricter or more lenient
than proposed.
MS. EDWARDS responded DEC is still looking at the comments, but
comments are being seen in both directions.
1:52:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER held over HB 163, saying public testimony would
be held the next time the bill is brought up.