02/07/2012 03:00 PM House ENERGY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB39 | |
| HCR10 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
February 7, 2012
3:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt, Co-Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Chris Tuck
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 39
"An Act requiring a utility applying to the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska for a new or revised rate to have a refund
procedure in place."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Encouraging the state, municipalities of the state, and private
organizations in the state to weigh the benefits and costs of
waste-to-energy technology and to consider waste-to- energy
technology to help meet the energy and waste management needs of
the state, municipalities of the state, and private
organizations in the state.
- MOVED CSHCR 10(ENE) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 39
SHORT TITLE: RCA UTILITY RATES; REFUND PROCEDURES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) PETERSEN
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) ENE, L&C
02/10/11 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
02/10/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/11 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
03/17/11 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
03/17/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/17/11 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
02/07/12 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HCR 10
SHORT TITLE: ENCOURAGING WASTE-TO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) PETERSEN
03/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/11 (H) ENE, CRA
04/05/11 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
04/05/11 (H) Heard & Held
04/05/11 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
02/07/12 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff
Representative Pete Petersen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HCR 10.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:12:24 PM
CO-CHAIR NEAL FOSTER called the House Special Committee on
Energy meeting to order at 3:12 p.m. Representatives Foster,
Pruitt, Lynn, Petersen, Saddler, and Olson were present at the
call to order. Representative Tuck was excused.
HB 39-RCA UTILITY RATES; REFUND PROCEDURES
3:13:00 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 39, "An Act requiring a utility applying to
the Regulatory Commission of Alaska for a new or revised rate to
have a refund procedure in place."
3:13:16 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER said that HB 39 would be held over.
HCR 10-ENCOURAGING WASTE-TO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
3:13:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Encouraging the state,
municipalities of the state, and private organizations in the
state to weigh the benefits and costs of waste-to-energy
technology and to consider waste-to-energy technology to help
meet the energy and waste management needs of the state,
municipalities of the state, and private organizations in the
state.
3:14:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HCR 10, Version 27-LS0685\B, Bullock/Kane,
3/21/11, as the working document.
[Version B was previously adopted by the House Special Committee
on Energy at its meeting on 4/5/11.]
3:14:23 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT objected for the purpose of discussion. There
being no discussion, he withdrew his objection.
3:14:31 PM
There being no further objection, the proposed CS for HCR 10,
Version B, was before the committee.
3:14:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETE PETERSEN, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced the proposed CS for HCR 10. He informed the
committee waste-to-energy technology is exciting because it
turns garbage into energy while reducing the amount of landfill
space needed. Waste-to-energy is a renewable energy source
which generates between 500 to 600 kilowatt hours (kWhs) of
electricity for every ton of garbage burned. In addition, two
megawatt hours (MWhs) of heat can be captured. This technology
is being used around the world and in at least 24 states; in
fact, there are at least 86 waste-to-energy plants in the U.S.,
such as the one at Eielson Air Force Base, where garbage is
being burned along with coal. In Anchorage, a generator is
being built that will harness the methane gas created from the
landfill. To harvest energy from garbage, waste can be burned
directly, or it can be processed into other substances such as
ethanol or biodiesel. Waste-to-energy plants are successful in
major urban areas and in smaller areas, and in Arctic and sub-
Arctic communities. For example, there is a generator which is
being developed that is the size of a large dumpster and that
produces 120 kilowatts (kW) of electricity. Representative
Petersen opined recent advances in this technology can be
employed in Alaska in a cost-effective manner for large and
small communities that are trying to lessen their dependence on
diesel fuel. Another option for the use of waste-to-energy
technology is for the generation of heat and electricity in
remote and off-grid facilities, in fact, this type of facility
could save money at the Goose Creek Correctional Center.
Representative Petersen observed that the statewide energy
policy encourages a diversified approach to meeting the state's
energy needs, and pointed out that waste-to-energy technology
produces fewer emissions then dumping waste in the landfill and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cites less
environmental impacts than for other sources of electricity.
Other benefits are the ability to recover scrap metal by
magnetic sorting, financial savings to communities, and bird
control. He encouraged the committee to support the resolution.
3:21:02 PM
DAVID DUNSMORE, staff to Representative Pete Petersen, Alaska
State Legislature, observed there is a lot of good information
on this technology with which to answer the committee's
questions from the first hearing. One of the biggest concerns
was whether this technology will work in an Arctic environment
and in smaller, rural communities. He referred to fact sheets
included in the supplemental committee packet that gave
information on a facility operating in Iceland very near the
Arctic Circle which serves a population of 2,867 and compares to
the populations of Nome, Dillingham, and Kotzebue; a facility in
Norway operating north of the Arctic Circle which serves 8,000
people; and a facility in Finland, with a population of 100,000,
which is near the population of the Fairbanks metro area. Also
included in the packet is a report prepared by Legislative
Research, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, on the permitting requirements for a waste-to-
energy plant in Alaska. Many permits are required, including
those from EPA that are required for a project on federal land,
or built with federal funds. Typically, the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) assigns someone to direct applicants to
the correct divisions within DNR. Also, there are factors that
affect the type of permit required, and he named several
departments and divisions that could be involved. Mr. Dunsmore
pointed out that air quality and solid waste permitting would be
handled by divisions within the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), and the Division of Fire and Life Safety,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), is responsible for approving
buildings and fuel tanks. Permits regarding endangered and
threatened species would be issued by the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
U.S. Department of the Interior. Other agencies that might
become involved are the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOTPF), the U.S. Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and
Firearms, U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
In response to the committee's question regarding whether there
is support for this technology from the solid waste industry, he
said there are supporting documents in the committee packet from
the Solid Waste Association of North America and the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers.
3:28:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recalled the City of Ames, Iowa, has had
a waste-to-energy plant since 1975, and is upgrading its plant
to integrate natural gas. He cautioned that finding space for
landfills is becoming a problem, but this facility would only
bury ash.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked whether the sponsor has encountered
resistance to the technology.
3:30:53 PM
MR. DUNSMORE stated there has been some criticism in large urban
areas of the U.S., warning that these facilities may discourage
recycling and composting. However, EPA is supportive because
waste-to-energy emissions are very restrictive - actually
greater than those allowed by waste decomposing in a landfill.
On the other hand, recycling of metals may be increased because
they are more accessible after burning.
3:32:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN pointed out that in many parts of
Alaska, it is cost-prohibitive to ship recycled materials out-
of-state and it makes more sense to burn them.
3:33:20 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT noted that supporting documentation in the
committee packet indicates leaving garbage in the ground
produces 32 percent more carbon dioxide (CO2) than the
combustion of garbage. He asked how EPA will deal with other
concerns such as fine particulates, trace dioxin, and acid gas
emissions.
3:35:07 PM
MR. DUNSMORE assured the committee EPA has specific standards
for the acceptable levels of pollutants. He called attention to
a 2007 EPA memo included in the original committee packet that
documented emissions reductions from combustion waste facilities
- during 1990 to 2005 - of 96 percent for mercury levels, 96
percent for cadmium, 97 percent for lead, and 96 percent for
particulate matter.
3:36:19 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT surmised toxic particulates are contained using
new technology.
MR. DUNSMORE confirmed that the new technology uses "super-heat"
and regulates the chemicals that escape. Because more plants
have come into operation, agencies "know what issues to consider
when permitting for these plants." In further response to Co-
Chair Pruitt, he expressed his belief that after direct
combustion the ash is buried subject to the normal restrictions
of the landfill. He opined "landfills are designed to be able
to contain ... elements of ... those sort of chemicals."
3:37:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN added that as of 2005, waste-to-energy
facilities have complied with the Clean Air Act, reducing some
pollutants as much as 99 percent. Regarding permitting, he
observed the permitting requirements would be similar to those
of a facility generating electricity from natural gas.
3:40:30 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT asked whether the operators of existing plants
work to control the content of the trash, or if everything
burns, including toxic materials.
MR. DUNSMORE explained that the facilities use several
techniques to sort the garbage for the distillation necessary to
create ethanol or biodiesel. For direct combustion plants,
there are special containment areas so everything is burned.
However, biomedical waste needs special permitting to burn. The
containment chamber must be very secure because of the high heat
generated during the process. The plants in Iceland and Norway
are very automated.
3:44:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for confirmation that waste heat is
considered renewable.
MR. DUNSMORE said waste heat is considered a biomass technology.
However, at Eielson Air Force Base, where waste energy is
supplemented by burning coal, it is not considered renewable.
In further response to Representative Saddler, he said the most
efficient method to turn waste into energy is by a landfill
large enough to burn with only the methane created by the
garbage, as will be the case at the Municipality of Anchorage
Regional Landfill. Again, on a large scale, gasification and
distillation can be more efficient, but on a smaller scale, fuel
must be added to keep the combustion going.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether there had been any
reactions to the resolution at this point.
3:47:25 PM
MR. DUNSMORE said no adverse reactions have been received.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN noted that in rural areas during the
winter the hot air or water created by one of these facilities
could be used to heat buildings nearby.
3:48:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER surmised that Norway and Iceland have
other sources of cheap fuel such as thermal and hydroelectric.
He questioned whether there are challenges to implementing this
technology in rural Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN responded that one of the advantages to
this system is that it will displace the use of diesel fuel. In
addition, wind energy can be integrated into the system, which
is an advantage for rural areas.
3:50:34 PM
MR. DUNSMORE acknowledged that there are the challenges of
construction in rural areas such as shipping expense, the
training and hiring of a workforce, and the availability of land
- challenges that are present with any project in rural areas.
Returning to the question of permitting, he added that the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) would require a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for any
electrical generation project.
3:52:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN mentioned that scaled-down versions of
these plants that will fit in a Continental Express (CONEX)
container for shipping by barge or truck are being developed.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked for cost estimates on any of the
facilities.
3:53:06 PM
MR. DUNSMORE said a large facility being built in Florida is
expected to cost $650 million. He said he will advise the
committee about costs on smaller projects; however, the "CONEX
size" is still in the development phase.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN advised that an interested community may
qualify for a renewable energy grant to defray some of the cost.
He then informed Co-Chair Foster that public testimony was taken
at the last hearing.
3:56:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the change in the proposed
CS was due to a typographical error.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said yes.
MR. DUNSMORE, in answer to a previous question, said a plant
built in 1988 in Portland, Maine, which processes 175,000 tons
of waste per year and produces 100,000 MWhs annually, cost $93
million to build. He stated that would be of a scale similar to
an urban Alaska community.
3:58:11 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT said a supporting document indicated that the
Eielson Air Force Base plant produces .2 MW of power. He asked
for an estimate of how much energy a plant would produce in a
community such as Nome.
MR. DUNSMORE estimated that generally each ton of garbage
produces between 500 and 600 kWhs and up to 2 MWhs of heat.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN pointed out that for Nome, which burns
"tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel generating
electricity" every gallon that is displaced would save money.
Furthermore, construction of the facilities can be bonded and
paid for over time, as in the case of the Anchorage plant which
is costing $90 million to $100 million.
4:01:08 PM
MR. DUNSMORE provided U.S. Department of Energy general average
cost estimates for levelized cost-of-power for a plant coming
on-line in 2016: $112.50 per MWh for power generated by
biomass; $86.40 per MWh for power generated by hydroelectric;
$124.50 per MWh for combustion turbine natural gas; and $136.20
per MWh for carbon capture coal.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to report CS for HCR 10, Version
27-LS0685\B, Bullock/Kane, 3/21/11, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
notes.
4:02:47 PM
There being no objection, CSHCR 10(ENE) was reported out of the
House Special Committee on Energy.
4:03:32 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 4:03 p.m.