Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
04/05/2011 03:00 PM House ENERGY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR10 | |
| Presentation: Cold Climate Housing Research Center | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
April 5, 2011
3:06 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
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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.
- HEARD & HELD
OVERVIEW: COLD CLIMATE HOUSING RESEARCH CENTER
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
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
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff
Representative Pete Peterson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the hearing on
HCR 10.
TED MICHAELS, President
Energy Recovery Council
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HCR 10.
JOHN DAVIES, PhD, Senior Researcher
Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation titled,
"Alaska Energy Efficiency Policy, Update of 2008 Report by
CCHRC," and dated 4/5/11.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:06:09 PM
CO-CHAIR NEAL FOSTER called the House Special Committee on
Energy meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. Representatives Foster,
Pruitt, Petersen, Saddler, Olson, Lynn, and Tuck were present at
the call to order.
HCR 10-ENCOURAGING WASTE-TO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
3:07:00 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER announced that the first 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.
3:07:15 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HCR 10, Version 27-LS0685\B, Bullock\Kane, 3/21/11, as
the working document.
[Although not formally announced, there was no objection stated
and Version B was treated as adopted and before the committee.]
3:08:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN informed the committee that HCR 10
encourages the state, municipalities, and private organizations
to consider the benefits and costs of waste-to-energy
technology. This technology allows garbage to be turned into
electricity, while reducing the amount of landfill space needed.
Waste-to-energy is a renewable energy source which generates
between 500-600 kilowatt hours for every ton of garbage burned,
and is being used throughout the world and in 24 states. There
are at least 86 waste-to-energy plants in the U.S.; in fact,
this technology is being utilized at Eielson Air Force Base and
will soon be in use in Anchorage to harness methane gas
generated by the Anchorage Regional Landfill. Energy can be
generated from garbage by burning the waste directly or with
other substances, and smaller facilities continue to be
developed and tested under various conditions. Alaska's
statewide energy policy established a goal of creating 50
percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources by
2025, incorporating a diversified approach to meeting the
state's energy needs. Representative Petersen listed several
benefits of waste-to-energy technology, such as reducing the
amount of emissions created by dumping garbage in a landfill,
less environmental impact than almost any other source of
electricity, and - with the use of magnetic sorting - the
recovery of over 770,000 tons of recyclable scrap metal annually
in the U.S. He closed by noting that the change to HCR 10 in
Version B was simply a correction.
3:12:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked for the effect of waste-to-energy
technology on air pollution.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN advised that there is less pollution
than dumping garbage in a landfill because incinerators are used
to clean the emissions.
3:13:09 PM
DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff, Representative Pete Petersen, Alaska
State Legislature, called the committee's attention to
information in the committee packet detailing the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) comparison of air emissions for coal,
oil, natural gas, and waste-to-energy facilities.
3:13:37 PM
TED MICHAELS, President, Energy Recovery Council, pointed out
the value of every state looking at as many ways to generate
electricity as possible. Municipal solid waste and household
trash are an abundant source of energy from materials that
communities across the U.S. have difficulty managing. In fact,
after communities reduce, reuse, and recycle, there are two
options: send the waste to a waste-to-energy facility, or to a
landfill. The Energy Recovery Council agrees with EPA that
waste energy is preferable to adding to landfills, and supports
HCR 10. He affirmed that the waste-to-energy technology is
compliant with the most stringent EPA regulations on air
pollution, and is also compatible with recycling; as a matter of
fact, communities with waste-to-energy facilities also have
higher rates of recycling. Mr. Michaels stated that metals
represent 2-3 percent of the volume of the waste stream and can
be recycled with this system. He expressed his support of the
resolution.
3:17:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the origins of the Energy
Recovery Council.
MR. MICHAELS explained that the Energy Recovery Council is the
national trade organization representing companies and
communities that own and operate waste-to-energy facilities. It
also provides educational, technical, research, and advocacy
services for its members.
3:19:01 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT asked for an estimate of the typical cost and
return on investment of an individual unit.
MR. MICHAELS observed that costs vary with location and size;
for example, a large plant under development in Florida is
expected to cost $650 million. Much smaller plants are
available, and capital costs for construction are bid out in a
competitive manner. He was unable to provide an estimate of
cost except to say that these are sophisticated power plants -
installed with the best in emission control equipment - and
expensive when compared to a landfill which has much lower
capital costs. However, renewable energy policies that will
allow waste-to-energy plants to recoup more from their
electricity revenue stream enable them to be more competitive
with landfills.
3:22:38 PM
MR. DUNSMORE provided statistics on the price of electricity
produced by a waste-to-energy plant in Fairfax County, Virginia.
Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates for
the average, levelized costs of power for a power plant coming
on-line in 2016 - in 2009 dollars - are: biomass, $112.50 per
megawatt hour (mWh); hydroelectric, $86.40 per mWh; combustion
turbine natural gas, $124.50 per mWh; conventional coal, $94.80
per mWh; carbon-capture coal, $136.20 per mWh; advanced combined
cycle natural gas, $63.10.
3:25:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN concluded that depending on size, waste-
to-energy plants are competitive with other sources of
electricity.
MR. DUNSMORE, in response to Representative Saddler, said mWhs
are divided by 1,000 to determine kilowatt hours.
3:26:45 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT asked for the source of energy that incinerates
the waste.
3:27:07 PM
MR. MICHAELS explained that at start-up, the plant uses diesel,
fuel oil, or natural gas to burn the first ton of waste; after
the first ton ignites, the waste continues to burn and is self-
perpetuating. If the plant goes into a shut-down mode, fuel is
added to ensure the complete combustion of the last ton of
trash.
CO-CHAIR PRUITT asked whether special considerations are needed
for colder climates.
3:29:11 PM
MR. MICHAELS acknowledged there is a potential issue if the
waste has significantly higher moisture content; for example,
wet grass clippings.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER asked whether the sponsor has support from the
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), municipalities, and private
organizations.
3:30:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said these facilities are considered a
form of renewable or alternative energy and would help reach the
state's goal of generating 50 percent of the state's electrical
power by a renewable energy source by 2025. Also, waste-to-
energy plants keep landfills smaller and in more convenient
locations.
3:32:25 PM
MR. DUNSMORE recalled the sponsor's effort during the drafting
of the legislation to avoid unintended consequences. He opined
the state's energy policy allows for a variety of new ideas,
rather than a "one size fit[s] all" approach. House Concurrent
Resolution 10 raises awareness of the potential of waste-to-
energy technology, but allows each community to decide on its
uses.
3:34:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the minimum and maximum sizes
of the units that would be effective in Alaska.
MR. MICHAELS said the smallest units are scaled to process about
75 tons per day. There are companies that can create modular
units to meet the particular needs of a community; however, at
some point the economy of scale is lost. There is precedent for
the successful operation of 75-80 tons per day.
3:35:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the downside of this
technology, other than cost.
3:36:03 PM
MR. MICHAELS acknowledged this technology is more expensive than
a landfill at this time, although on the East Coast waste is
being shipped by rail for processing. Additionally, the waste-
to-energy plant does produce ash that has little beneficial
reuse and must be disposed of in a landfill.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER observed that Eagle River has plenty of
land.
3:38:15 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT asked whether all waste can be incinerated.
MR. MICHAELS explained that certain items are restricted, such
as medical, radioactive, mercury, or electronic waste.
Consumers are encouraged to sort these items out for proper
disposal, but some of these items can be incinerated and
processed by the emission control system.
3:41:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN noted that emissions from waste-to-
energy facilities meet EPA standards.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER agreed with Representative Saddler that the
committee should heard testimony from the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) on the permitting of a plant
and whether the state has the capability to screen out hazardous
waste.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN surmised that a full, curbside recycling
service serves to prevent problems caused by putting hazardous
materials in an incinerator.
3:43:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked when the practice of incinerating
municipal waste was stopped.
MR. DUNSMORE assumed that the EPA national regulation of air
quality stopped the burning of municipal waste. Regarding water
quality, he said the ash created in the waste-to-energy process
must be disposed of in a permitted landfill to prevent the ash
from seeping into the water table.
MR. MICHAELS observed the oldest operating waste-to-energy
facility was opened in 1975, and at that time emission controls
and air quality standards were in effect. In 1990, Congress
amended the Clean Air Act to make municipal waste combustors
subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards, which enhanced the level of control applicable to
waste-to-energy facilities. Thus most waste-to-energy
facilities were built from 1975 to 1995; however, in the mid
'90s waste-to-energy plants were not built because landfills
became more economical and the price of energy was low.
Currently, landfills are becoming more expensive and the sales
of electricity and recovered metals have increased the revenues
of waste-to-energy facilities. As a result, there is a
resurgence of interest, especially with the national desire to
reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
3:47:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether this technology will be
useful in villages.
MR. MICHAELS advised that the smallest commercially operating
waste-to-energy facility in the U.S. processes 70 tons per day;
however, new technology has scaled to smaller operations in
rural communities in Oklahoma. In further response to
Representative Saddler, he explained that the primary purpose of
waste-to-energy technology is waste disposal, and the generation
of energy is "a big bonus." He estimated that a decision by
local government to change to a waste-to-energy plant accounts
for about one-half of the facilities operating in the U.S.;
otherwise, a private company builds the plant and bids to
process waste for the community.
3:51:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN pointed out the first facility was in
Ames, Iowa, and he was living there at the time it opened.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER stated his inclination to hear opinions on the
resolution from DEC, the Denali Commission, AEA, and the Alaska
Municipal League.
3:53:13 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT noted his desire to hear from Waste Management
and Solid Waste Services in Anchorage.
3:53:58 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER said he supports the concept.
3:54:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK reminded the committee the resolution is not
a mandate, and any new plant will have to meet DEC standards and
emission controls. He pointed out that many units were built in
the '80s, and are still in use. He called attention to the
supporting documents found in the committee packet.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN pointed out that the cost of the
facility is reduced and the original debt is retired by the sale
of electricity.
3:57:22 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER saw the merits, and restated the need for more
information.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether this technology qualifies for
federal tax credits for construction.
3:58:22 PM
MR. MICHAELS advised if the owner is a taxpayer, the facility is
eligible for a Section 45 Renewable Energy Production Tax
Credit.
[HCR 10 was held over.]
^Presentation: Cold Climate Housing Research Center
Presentation: Cold Climate Housing Research Center
3:59:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER announced that the final order of business would
be a presentation by Dr. John Davies of the Cold Climate Housing
Research Center.
4:00:20 PM
JOHN DAVIES, PhD, Senior Researcher, Cold Climate Housing
Research Center (CCHRC), informed the committee his presentation
is a progress report on work that was funded through the Alaska
Energy Authority (AEA), by a grant from the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE). Cold Climate Housing Research Center's task is to
review, update, and expand its 2008 report into the areas of
electrical, transportation, and industrial use. The scope of
the task also includes looking ahead to the significance of
energy efficiency as a resource. Dr. Davies advised that energy
efficiency can be done now and provides the same output for
less. To do this, energy efficiency relies on advancing
technologies, rather than fossil fuels; in fact, saving energy
costs less than buying it and also reduces pollution.
4:04:03 PM
DR. DAVIES reviewed the first of CCHRC's 2008 recommendations:
state leadership. In 2008, SB 287 and SB 330 expanded the
weatherization program and created the energy efficiency rebate
program. In 2010, HB 306 achieved the following: established
legislative intent; established a state energy policy with
concerns about the effect of climate change on the supply and
demand of fossil fuels; supported energy efficiency and
conservation; encouraged economic development; supported energy
research, education, and workforce development; supported the
coordination of governmental functions. Also in 2010, SB 220
created the Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan fund; the
Southeast Energy Fund; the Emerging Energy Technology Fund; the
Alternative Energy Conservation Revolving Loan Fund; the Alaska
Affordable Heating Program; the public facilities and building
energy use database; awareness of public vehicles' efficiency;
the consideration of nuclear power; public education; tools for
municipalities and agencies. The CCHRC's final report will be
released in December 2011, and will be a comprehensive review of
energy efficiency throughout the state.
4:07:32 PM
DR. DAVIES displayed slide 8, which was a score sheet for the
2008 report. The first category was state leadership and he
indicated that the governor's vision - through HB 306 - was 90
percent done and the governor's subcabinet - or focus - was 10
percent done with an overall rating for state leadership of 60
percent done. In the category of funding energy efficiency, the
overall rating was 60 percent done. In the category of public
education and outreach, the overall rating was 30 percent done.
In the category of baseline data the overall rating was 80
percent done, through the efforts of AEA. In the category of
existing residential buildings, the weatherization and rebate
program garnered 100 percent done, and the overall rating was 80
percent done. In the category of new residential buildings, the
need for a statewide energy efficiency code remains, and the
overall rating was 30 percent done.
4:11:30 PM
DR. DAVIES continued to review the score sheet and in the
category of existing commercial buildings, the overall rating
was 20 percent done. In the category of new commercial
buildings, because of the efforts by Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC), the overall rating was 80 percent done. In
the category of public buildings, the low-interest loan programs
for public buildings garnered 100 percent, and the overall
rating was 90 percent done. Altogether, the average rating of
the nine categories was about 60 percent done, and Dr. Davies
pointed out that the state has put in place programs that deal
with about 60 percent of the policy recommendations. The top
five recommendations of remaining work to be done are: 1.
Statewide Energy Efficiency Code; 2. Sustainably fund
Weatherization and Rebate Programs; 3. Education - outreach,
training, Kindergarten-University courses; 4. Utilities-based
End-Use Electrical Efficiency Programs and consider decoupling
mechanisms; 5. Legislate efficiency as a priority by requiring a
process of integrated design.
4:19:19 PM
DR. DAVIES continued to Policy Recommendations. In the category
of state leadership recommendations are: implement a statewide
energy code; empower the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)
to develop end-use energy efficiency; require an integrated
approach to the development of energy systems. Slide 11 was
titled, "Policy Recommendations - Education, Training &
Outreach," and suggested the legislature establish a Green
Schools Caucus. In the category of residential buildings, one
of the recommendations was to continue to fund the home energy
rebate and weatherization programs in order to affect a higher
percentage of homes in the state. Slides 12 and 13 listed
policy recommendations in the categories of commercial
buildings, public buildings, and community and regional
planning. Slide 14, titled, "Energy Efficiency as a Resource,"
was a chart which indicated that if $125 million per year
continued to be invested in the home energy rebate program,
after seven years the energy saved would be about 12 trillion
British thermal units (Btus), which equals Anchorage's peak
electrical load. After twelve years, the savings would equal
Alaska's residential consumption of natural gas. He suggested
that one way to sustain the funding of the home energy rebate
program would be to establish an endowment, and he stressed that
energy efficiency should be thought of as a very significant
resource worthy of an investment, as in any other major project.
4:24:59 PM
DR. DAVIES concluded that it is imperative to use Alaska's
present wealth to develop an economy that is much less reliant
on fossil fuels to assure a healthy and sustainable future. In
fact, this is one way to preserve the smaller communities that
are not sustainable at the present high cost of energy, because
the most cost-effective resource is energy efficiency and
conservation. The sustained energy and cost savings to
businesses and homeowners will result in reinvestment in
Alaska's economy and the stimulation of substantial economic
growth. Finally, the sustained investment in energy efficiency
will foster a more sustainable and vibrant economy in the
future.
4:26:29 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER relayed his experience at a Green Schools
training program and asked Dr. Davies to elaborate on his
suggestion of a Green Schools Caucus.
DR. DAVIES explained a Green Schools Caucus is to learn to
design schools that are more sustainable, use less energy, have
less ecological impact, and use cleaner energy such as wind and
solar-thermal. Moreover, a Green Schools design considers
construction techniques and materials to avoid the use of
formaldehyde and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and with
good ventilation systems that filter the air. Other issues such
as the location of the school, and saving water, are factors
that make a school a healthier and more economically sustainable
place.
4:30:05 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT asked whether CCHRC uses AHFC's AkWarm system
for home energy rating.
DR. DAVIES said yes. In further response to Co-Chair Pruitt, he
explained that AkWarm software is easy to use. The analysis is
straightforward and accurate; in fact, when compared to the
"gold standard" software developed by the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), AkWarm rated within five percent. Unfortunately,
AkWarm is limited to residential use; however, CCHRC is in the
process of upgrading AkWarm to handle medium-complex commercial
buildings. More sophisticated systems use hourly simulations,
but AkWarm uses an algorithm. In further response to Co-Chair
Pruitt, Dr. Davies clarified that CCHRC is working as a
contractor for AHFC in developing and advancing AkWarm.
4:33:19 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT asked whether AkWarm could be part of a
universal efficiency code for the state.
DR. DAVIES acknowledged AkWarm is a tool - but not the whole
picture - for an energy efficiency standard. An energy
efficiency standard can be provided prescriptively, for example,
by requiring certain resistance (R) values for walls and
windows, or by a performance basis, using a model such as
AkWarm.
4:34:30 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 4:33 p.m.