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 |
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.]