|
|
|
House
Environmental Resources & Energy Committee Reports Reports
provided by PA Legislative Services The
House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee met to consider
three bills and one resolution.
A06895, by Rep. Carole Rubley (R-Chester), makes several
language and technical changes to clear up confusion and adds a requirement
that a "brief narrative and description of the contamination and the remedy " be attached to the legal description of the
property. The amendment was unanimously adopted.
Representatives
Mike McGeehan (D-Philadelphia), Mike Gerber (D-Montgomery), and Curtis Thomas
(D-Philadelphia) applauded the legislation, but asked that the Committee look
further into the matter of flood mapping next session by holding public
hearings; especially in light of the new geo spatial mapping technologies
being used by institutions such as Temple University.
Rep.
Stevenson said he is concerned that the Resolution holds a basic assumption
about global warming being a legitimate concern, while in his view that has
not be demonstrably shown. He asked if that was Rep. Ross' intent, as opposed
to having the Committee look more closely at whether the issue rises to the
level of needed action. Rep. Ross clarified that it was his intent to have
the Committee look at specific, practical recommendations on how to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and not to examine whether they should, as it his
belief that there is already a scientific consensus. He acknowledged that
there is some dispute over how rapid climate changes may take place, but on
that score he feels it is better to go "too far," and have the more
dire predictions turn out to be wrong than to do nothing and have those same
predictions come true. Rep.
Daylin Leach (D-Montgomery) commented that he
supports the bill, noting that 98% of the world's scientific community is in
agreement that humans are affecting climate change and no peer reviewed study
has ever been able to show otherwise. Rep.
Thomas asked what the time table for action is. Rep. Ross said it his hope
that the Committee could start at the beginning of next session.
Peter
G. Trufahnestock, PLS House Environmental Resources and Energy The
House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee met to consider
House Bill 2743. HB 2743 Hershey - (PN 4181) Amends the Conservation District Law creating
the Conservation District Fund, from which all money placed in the fund and
the interest it accrues would be appropriated to the State Conservation
Commission on a continuing basis for allocation to the conservation districts
for activities necessary to meet the requirements of this act. - The bill was
unanimously reported as committed with the request to re-refer to
Appropriations. Nate Collins, PLS House Environmental Resources and Energy The
House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee met to consider two
bills. HB
2619 Bastian
- (PN 3934) The Mine Families First Act establishes the Mine Families First Program
to provide assistance to persons whose family members are trapped, injured,
or waiting rescue during an underground mine emergency. The Department of
Environmental Protection would establish the program as part of the Mine
Emergency Response Program to facilitate communication between persons in
command of a mine emergency response operation and the families of miners
trapped, injured or waiting rescue. The Department would be required to
develop a mine families first response and
communications plan within 90 days and submit it for public review and
comment. The department would also have to designate a person to serve as
liaison for each mine emergency and to develop a training program for these
liaisons. Furthermore, a Mine Families First Response and Communications
Advisory Council would be established and comprised of various members of
interested parties and would assist the department in developing the initial
mine families first response and communications plan and provide assistance
through periodic review and updating of the plan. The bill further requires
the Department of Environmental Protection to coordinate the development of
this program with the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency. - The bill
was unanimously reported as committed SB
594 White,
Mary Jo - (PN 668) The Dormant Oil and Gas Act states that any person who
owns an interest in oil and gas underlying a tract of land may petition the
court of common pleas of the county in which the tract or any portion of the
tract is located to declare a trust in favor of all unknown owners of an
interest in the oil and gas underlying the tract whose identity, present
residence or present address is unknown and cannot be determined by diligent
efforts. The petitioner's interest may be in fee, by lease, a royalty or by
ownership of correlative rights in an oil and gas reservoir. The bill states
that before the court would declare a trust in favor of an unknown owner or
owners, the petitioner must meet certain requirements. Also, any person who
fails to pay any bonuses, rental payments, royalties or other income due
owners of interests in oil and gas within six months of the date of which
those funds become due would be liable for all attorney fees and court costs
of collection, with interest to the date of payment. - The bill was
unanimously reported as committed Rep.
Martin Causer (R-McKean) explained that this bill is attempting to address
the problem of not being able to locate the owner of mineral rights in an
area scheduled to be drilled for oil or gas. He said the bill protects both
the interest of the mining company and the absentee owner and called it a
"win-win" scenario. Rep.
Greg Vitali (D-Delaware) asked if any group opposes
the bill. Rep. Causer said he is not aware of any opposition. There
was then a short discussion where Rep. Vitali, Rep.
Ron Miller (R-York), and Minority Chairman Camille "Bud" George
(D-Clearfield) all said they are concerned about how this bill affects the
rights of property owners. Rep. Causer clarified that the bill deals solely
with mineral rights, which are completely separate from surface rights. Rep. Vitali asked if coal rights are part of the bill. Rep.
Causer said no, only oil and gas. Rep.
Curtis Thomas (D-Philadelphia) said he doesn't understand why current law on
property rights and unclaimed property doesn't address the issue. Chairman
Bill Adolph (R-Delaware) recognized Steve Rhoades, the President of the Oil
and Gas Association, to speak on the bill and answer some of the concerns. Rhoades,
in answer to Rep. Thomas' question, explained that current law does not apply
to mineral rights, only to surface rights. He then explained the bill further
by walking the Committee through the following example: · An oil and gas producer wishes to
drill in a certain area. · They take the time to lease the
mineral rights from all of the owners in the affected land area. · Occasionally, the mineral rights owner of
piece of the drilling area cannot be located. · Under the bill, the producer could go
before the court of common pleas to show that they exercised due diligence in
trying to locate the mineral rights owner but was unable to do so. · The court could then establish a
trust, under protection of the court, into which the producer would deposit
all the appropriate leasing fees and/ or royalties due to the absent owner. · The money would be held in the trust
for five years, per current law dealing with unclaimed property, and then
turned over to the state. Rep.
Bob Freeman (D-Northampton) asked what happens now under current law. Rhoades
said that the producer is liable for any money owed to an unknown owner, but
the problem is that the owner can currently sue for all the money
earned from the area in question as opposed to just simply the leasing fees
and royalties technically due to them. Peter
G. Trufahnestock, PLS HOUSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY
COMMITTEE Info hearing on water resources By Peter G. Trufahnestock, PLS The Committee held an informational
meeting on water resources. Members in attendance included: Chairman William
Adolph (R-Delaware), Minority Chairman Camille "Bud" George
(D-Clearfield) and Representatives Jackie Crahalla
(R-Montgomery), Mike Gerber (D-Montgomery), Kate Harper (R-Montgomery), Mike
McGeehan (D-Philadelphia), Ron Miller (R-York), Carole Rubley
(R-Chester), Dan Surra (D-Elk), Jim Wansacz (D-Lackawanna) and John Yudichak
(D-Luzerne). Chairman Adolph said this hearing was
being held in part because it has been nearly four years since the passage of
the Water Resources Planning Act (Act 220 of 2002) and the time is right for
an update on the state's progress. Minority Chairman George concurred and
noted that water quality is also a significant issue he hopes is addressed by
the end of the legislative session. John Hines, Executive Director of the Office
of Water Management at the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) testified that while ·
Update the State Water Plan within 5 years. ·
Register and Report Certain Water Withdrawals. ·
Identify Critical Water Planning Areas. ·
Create Critical Area Resource Plans in watersheds identified as
Critical Water Planning Areas. ·
Establish a Voluntary Water Conservation Program. Hines then described in detail the four
tier planning process currently underway: ·
Tier One - Data and Analysis. This includes the use of the USGS screening tool, the
water use analysis tool, yield analysis tool, registration and reporting,
population projections, discharge monitoring reports, the co-location (COLOC)
project, and designation of critical water planning areas. ·
Tier Two - Regional Components and the Regional Atlas Concept. The six regional committees (from
the ·
Tier Three - Marketing and Engaging the Public. The Statewide Water Resource
Committee through the Policy Working Group and DEP's
Learning to LEAD program, is working on a portion of the water plan that will
help market a "Why Should We Care?" message to capture the
attention of all the sectors. ·
Tier Four - Statewide Action Agenda. The 2008 State Water Plan will be the benchmark
that will include a gap analysis for the state and a series of action steps
that will set the direction of future versions of the plan through 2030 and
beyond. Chairman Adolph said he understands that
several of the regional meetings have been canceled recently and asked why.
Hines said the decision was made to postpone several of the regional meetings
until more substantive data is available. Carol Collier, Executive Director of the ·
Data And Access To It - It is critical that the Water
Plan is built upon good data. In the past 10+ years, there has been little
analysis of water data. In addition, a data management system needs to be put
in place that allows PADEP and the river basin commissions to effectively
share data. PADEP and the river basin commissions need to have the resources
to develop watershed management tools that can provide needed information to
municipalities. ·
Plan Format - The Water Plan should be
formatted for three audience levels: 1) the general public; 2) decision makers
(legislators, municipal officials, etc.); and 3) public and private water
managers. PADEP's latest plan design will address
this. ·
Connection Of Land Use Decisions
With Water Management - Currently there is a very weak link between municipal actions,
which decide our land use patterns, and water management. We need to provide
useful information and assessment tools to the municipal governments so they
can make better decisions. ·
Need for Holistic, Watershed
Planning -
Decision makers need to have the information and management tools to evaluate
impacts on a watershed basis. Cost-effective solutions are currently being
missed because of the fragmented nature of current water management. ·
Water Conservation - Water conservation is a
required part of Act 220, but as of yet has not received any attention. ·
Water Is An Economic Driver - There are areas of the
Commonwealth that have abundant water and/or have underutilized water
infrastructure. We should use this information in combination with the
existing economic incentive programs. Rep. McGeehan asked if DRBC has taken a
stand on the dredging issue. Collier said DRBC has not taken a regulatory
position, adding that the organization's general position is that there needs
to be good scientific basis for how the dredging is done if it is going to
happen. For instance, she said, studies show that when the channel is made
deeper it can create a salt wedge where more saltwater from the bay will push
upriver. Chairman Adolph asked what actions the
General Assembly can take. Collier answered education is key, noting that
water conservation should not be an issue just during times of drought, but
should be a way of living during all times. She said the issues of
underground pipe leakage and above ground plumbing codes need to be further
looked at as well as water pricing, because as it stands now the more water
you purchase the cheaper the cost which doesn't exactly lend itself to
conservation. Rep. Harper noted that last year some
extra money was given to the Commission in the budget and asked if the
Commission will be requesting that additional money again. Collier explained
that for the last two years an extra $250,000 was given to the Commission
each year so that they could provide technical support to DEP. This year, she
said, they are requesting $500,000 because much of the nuts and bolts work
needs to be done this year in order for the State Water Plan to be ready by
2008. Tom Beauduy,
Deputy Director and Counsel of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, echoed
many of the comments presented by the first two speakers. He then made
special notice of the money allotted to the Commission for technical support
in DEP's planning process. These funds are
critical, he said, as the commission is uniquely situated to provide
assistance with user registration, discharge monitoring reports, data
management, the yield analysis tool, and the COLOC project. He then discussed
the Commission's efforts to tackle "potentially stressed areas" in
the basin before they reach critical status. He gave as an example the
Northern Lancaster County Groundwater Study, which the Commission undertook
with funds provided by DEP. He concluded by saying "we need to stay
focused on the need for good information, and good analysis, so that we can
avoid the development of critical areas in the first instance. If given the
tools and good scientific data, people and officials at all levels will be
able to make better decisions about our water resources." Mark Gutshall
from LandStudies, Inc. presented more specific
testimony related to the Northern Lancaster County Groundwater Study. His
testimony focused on Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, or CARA's,
and the private-public partnership that is attempting to rehabilitate one
such CARA called Butterfly Acres. The groundwater study showed that Butterfly
Acres is a dry stream valley CARA, he explained, which is
essentially a valley without an active stream channel. Local company
Pfizer, which needs to withdraw large amounts of water for its commercial
operation, has joined with Lititz Borough and LandStudies
in an attempt to unlock the groundwater recharge potential of the Butterfly
Acres swale, he said. They hope to remove the impermeable clay layer and
replace it with a more suitable soil mixture as well install native plantings
that will form a dense root zone to help filter pollutants from surface
runoff, he explained. This could help put water back in the ground to offset
Pfizer's future water withdrawals and improve the quality of the groundwater
at the same time, he said. Gutshall said that because this is a pilot project
everyone can all learn from, they are doing extra monitoring throughout the
project area to measure changes in infiltration patterns, as well as periodic
testing that will measure changes in water quality. The hope, he said, is to
shine a brighter light on several issues: ·
How to identify and restore infiltration areas critical to sustaining
supplies of high-quality water ·
How to apply information and guidelines from the state level to
community-level improvements ·
How the private sector can assume an important, proactive role in
water resource planning ·
How communities can incorporate water resource planning into their
comprehensive plans Chairman Adolph asked if other states are
doing anything similar with regards to public-private partnerships. Hines
said that many states, such as HOUSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY COMMITTEE Consideration of 3 bills By Nate Collins, PLS HB 2042 Reichley - (PN 2819) Amends The Clean Streams Law further providing for penalties for violations of the law by adding that any person or municipality who intentionally or knowingly violates the act, any rule or regulation of the department, any order of the department, or any condition of any permit issued pursuant to the act is guilty of a third degree felony and would be subject to a fine of at least $5,000 and up to $50,000 for each separate offense or to imprisonment for up to seven years, or both. Also, the actions for criminal penalties under this act may be commenced at any time within a period of five years from the date the offense is discovered. - The bill was unanimously reported as amended by A06276 (Harper), which aligns corporate liability with the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. SB 868 Scarnati
- (PN 1332) Amends the Forest Reserves Municipal Financial Relief Law
increasing the annual charge to which acquired lands and property are subject
to $1.20 per acre from $0.40 per acre. (Prior Printer Number: 1137, 1304) -
The bill was reported as committed with Representatives
David Levdansky (D-Allegheny) and Jim Wansacz (D-Lackawanna) voting in the negative. (Note: This bill will triple the in lieu of taxes
paid on our state game lands and cost the PGC and additional $3.5M per year.)
Rep. Greg Vitali (D-Delaware) asked how much the bill will increase the payment in lieu of taxes. Rep. Martin Causer (R-McKean) said it would increase from $1.20 to $3.60 per acre. Rep. Vitali asked how much this will cost the state. Rep. Causer replied that currently at $1.20 per acre, the cost is $4.1 million, so he estimated the cost to be $12.5 million. Rep. Carole Rubley (R-Chester) commented that she does not believe this is the best way to solve a funding problem. She added that this is a huge increase. Rep. Causer argued that the revenue can be recovered by correctly managing forest land. He added that this is a tax fairness issue, as he represents a county in which 60% of the land is state-owned and off tax rolls. Rep. Daylin Leach (D-Montgomery) asked when the rate was last increased, to which Rep. Causer answered 1995. Rep. Leach commented his concern is that the cost is not gradually increased so the state must implement large increases all at once. He inquired if there is a way to increase the payment on an annual basis. Rep. Causer said an amendment to do that can be introduced on the House floor. Rep. Dan Surra (D-Elk) urged members of the committee to support the legislation. He suggested that $8 million for the increase isn't a large amount of the state budget. This is a necessary increase because tax revenues are currently locked in a low level ($1.20 per acre), he stated. Rep. Art Hershey (R-Chester) noted that the Game Commission buys land when it has extra money, and he suggested this legislation will slow down their efforts to purchase more land. Rep. Causer agreed, adding that many rural counties don't want the state to buy more land. Rep. Levdansky was going to offer A07419, which would have required the Commonwealth to pay the Game Commission's and Fish and Boat Commission's share of the per acre cost, but it was withdrawn. Rep. Levdansky said it is unfair for hunters and anglers to pay for this increase, which he believes is a budget breaker for the Game Commission. He offered that it will cost about $9 million for the state to pay for all payments for state land. He said he will likely offer this amendment on the House floor. Rep. Wansacz said this bill will hurt the Game Commission, so he will support them and vote no. HB 1195 Yudichak - (PN 1401) Amends the Storage Tank & Spill Prevention Act by removing the provision that states that only fill pipes of underground storage tanks "which have not been upgraded" are eligible for sealing under the Underground Storage Tank Pollution Prevention Program. - The bill was unanimously reported as committed. 2/23/06 The House
Environmental Resources and Energy Committee held an informational
meeting on mercury emissions management. Members
in attendance included: Chairmen Bill Adolph (R-Delaware) and Bud George
(D-Clearfield) and Representatives Jacqueline Crahalla
(R-Montgomery), Dave Levdansky (D-Allegheny), Chuck
McIlhinney (R-Bucks), Ron Miller (R-York), Dave
Reed (R-Indiana), Chris Ross (R-Chester), Carole Rubley
(R-Chester), Dick Stevenson (R-Mercer), Greg Vitali
(D-Delaware) and Jim Wansacz (D-Lackawanna). Chairman
Adolph opened by stating that mercury is a global pollutant. He offered that
efforts are underway to attempt to control mercury emissions but there is no
simple answer. This is an important environmental topic that requires the
utmost care, he said. Democratic
Chairman George offered that the cost of pollution will be incredible on Kathleen
McGinty, Secretary of the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), said the EPA has recognized that mercury is a dangerous
pollutant. After studying the EPA's mercury emission reduction rule, DEP has
determined it to be negative for Douglas
Biden, President of the Electric Power Generation Association, questioned
whether Robert
Wayland from the EPA Office of Air and Radiation said the EPA believes
mercury is highly toxic and needs to be regulated. He added that they are
concerned because of the number of people who eat fish, especially women of
childbearing age. He explained that Rep.
Rubley said the different testimony has numerous discrepancies
and she asked for clarification. She specifically asked if technology will be
available if the state goes forward with EQB's 90%
reduction plan. Secretary McGinty answered yes,
adding that the reduction is based on co-benefits for interstate rules
regarding SO2 and NOx. Wayland offered that
bituminous coal is the easiest coal from which to remove mercury but he
expressed concern about EQB's timeframe. Biden
acknowledged that technology used to reduce SO2 and NOx
emissions can be used for mercury reduction but it has seen mixed results at
different power plants. He said he hopes the state will see 90% reduction but
he believes they may need mercury-specific technology. Rep.
Wansacz expressed concern about the cost for
mercury reduction. He inquired about the cost of the state specific plan
versus the federal plan. Secretary McGinty stated
the federal rule would not reach an 86% reduction in mercury emissions,
adding that credit trading may mean the state may not see a reduction at all.
She continued, stating that CAIR will cost coal states billions of dollars
while the state rule would not because it does not require mercury-specific
emissions reduction technology. Biden offered that the costs for mercury
control are site-specific and power plant size specific. He added that is why
his organization supports the federal rule allowing a trading program.
Disallowing mercury credit trading will have a significant impact on smaller
power plants, he concluded. Wayland offered that CAIR will provide significant
mercury reductions. He suggested that the Rep.
McIlhinney asked what guarantee the energy industry
could provide that it will meet the 86% reduction under CAIR. He specifically
asked whether the industry is willing to limit the purchase of credits. Biden
answered some smaller power plants may need to buy credits from other states
to survive. He argued that credits are designed to help plants facing higher
costs. He told the committee that he could not guarantee there would be an
86% mercury emission reduction. Secretary McGinty
interjected that if Biden would agree an 86% reduction could be met "we
would have a deal", but she added that it can't be guaranteed. Rep.
Levdansky said he was taken aback by an EPA chart
showing that southwestern Rep.
Stevenson questioned the process used to bring the state regulations forward.
He commented that the Legislature is last in line to see the regulations and
he asked why there was no legislation introduced. Secretary McGinty replied the rule is proceeding in the same manner
that all similar regulations do. She stated it is incumbent upon DEP to come
up with a state compliance plan. She explained that the department gets all
of the Clean Air Act regulations from the federal government and then it can
adopt the regulations or tailor them through the EQB. She added that the
department feels the federal regulation is not in the state's interest
economically or for public health. Biden said he never remembers policy
subject to a petition under the EQB. He added that energy producers are
continually asked by legislators to produce low-cost power, which will have
to come from coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants. Rep.
Vitali said Pennsylvanians are suffering health
problems because of mercury emissions and the state appears to be one of the
worst for mercury deposition. He commented it seems power plants can buy
credits under the federal rule and not have to produce any reductions in all.
He inquired if anyone has analyzed the cost of mercury emissions on society.
Wayland replied the EPA cannot quantify the amount. Rep.
Reed said that under the DEP rule if power plants produce overallowances
the department can contribute the credits to power plants not meeting
requirements. He suggested that this seems to be an improper seizure of a
marketable quantity by the department. Secretary McGinty
countered that the argument is based on the assumption that there is a
property right to emit mercury, adding that no such right exists so there is
no seizure. She added that the state will receive its mercury budget under
the federal regulation. Rep.
Miller commented that the federal proposal does not address the fact that
most deposition occurs around power plants. He expressed his belief that
credit trading should be allowed in those areas. Secretary McGinty said that while it is a commendable approach, it
is unlawful under the Clean Air Act. Wayland offered that Rep.
Ross said he is confused by the differences in the federal program and the
state specific plan. He asked Secretary McGinty to
explain why Dr.
Terry Sullivan from the Brookhaven Natural Laboratory said coal-fired power
plants in the Eugene
Trisko, an environmental attorney representing the
United Mine Workers of America and the Pennsylvania Coal Association, said
this is a complex issue of vital importance to coal producers. Anything that
makes Jan
Jarrett, Vice President of Citizens for Nathan
Wilcox, a Clean Air Advocate with PennEnvironment,
said many Pennsylvanians support a 90% reduction in mercury emissions. He
cited EPA studies showing that 83% of predator fish composite samples in Click here to view an EPA
PowerPoint of the preliminary findings of the Rep.
Ross said the question is whether 90% reduction will make that much
difference over the reduction from the federal proposal, and at what cost. He
then stated that much of today's testimony is in conflict and asked if
problems exist with Dr. Sullivan's testimony. Wilcox said Dr. Sullivan's
study may not be most appropriate for Rep.
Levdansky said he lives downwind from two power
plants and consequently he soaks the fruits and vegetables in his garden to
move the fly ash. He asked if he is wasting his time soaking his food. Dr.
Sullivan replied fly ash causes health problems, including respiratory
ailments. He said the representative should wash off the fly ash, but he
added that it is a different issue than mercury emission. Rep.
Wansacz said he is concerned with both the economic
impact of the regulation and the health of Rep.
McIlhinney asked if the CAIR production estimates
include trading of credits. Trisko said yes, adding
that EPA already knows who will buy the credits. Rep. McIlhinney
said the reduction amount depends on how many credits power plants will buy. Trisko argued there is "no way Chairman
Adolph thanked everyone for their testimony and noted there is a lot of
interest on this issue. He said the state will have to go through this slowly
during the regulatory process. He urged interested stakeholders to continue
to talk to DEP during the process because everyone wants the best plan for
the state. Nate Collins, PLS |
HB
936 Hanna - (PN 1057) Amends Title 35 (Health and Safety) requiring review
and update of State, county and local flood maps by the agency at least once
every ten years. - The bill was unanimously reported as committed.