2002 03 15

Report on Senate Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources

2002 03 14 10:00 - 12:10

Capitol Annex Room 131

Listed in approximate order of participation activity

Senator Ernie Harris, Chair

Senator Ernesto Scorsone

Senator Ed Worley

Senator Joey Pendleton

Senator Robert Leeper

Senator Vernie McGaha, Vice-Chair

Senator Tim Shaughnessy

Senator Daniel Kelly

Senator Elizabeth Tori

Senator Paul Herron Jr

Senator Virgil Moore, absent

History and Context

Responding to emergency conditions in Northern Kentucky, aware of a statewide problem based on the absence of law regulating "merchant power plants", Representative Jon Draud pre-filed House Bill 24 prior to the 2002 Legislative Session which runs from 2002 Jan 2 to Apr 15. Governor Paul Patton declared a moratorium on the construction of new merchant power plants in Kentucky, now scheduled to expire Apr 16.

Participation in the development of House Bill 24 widened to include the Public Services Commission headed by Tom Dorman. At some point the Bill was renamed House Bill 540. It was modified slightly in House Committee on Local Government and was approved by the full House 84 -14 on Feb 25.

In the Senate, HB-540 was allocated to the Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

A decision was made to not review HB-540; instead, Senate Bill 257, was offered by Committee Chair Senator Ernie Harris. The first reading occurred on 2002 03 07. Schmidt provides comparison of HB-540 and SB-257, eMailed on Mar 11, on the web NCAD.net. Essentially, the Senate Bill copied the House Bill, then hacked out important mandates for public notification and involvement and site assessment including environmental study.

March 15

Senator Harris introduced and read a highly-revised SB-257, appearing more like HB-540. Most of the ensuing discussion by Committee Members established the consensus that site assessment be equal for power plants, both merchant and regulated. This was formalized in Scorsone's amendment and by explicit deletion of Section 14 (which exempted regulated utility from environmental review).

Laudably, the result is basically HB-540, with the current name SB-257. Because of the limited time available, the Committee passed the amended SB-257, acknowledging that additional amendment is required. Suggestions for improvements are expected from Committee Members, Schmidt, and Tom Fitzgerald, Director of the non-profit organization Kentucky Resource Council, who also testified.

It is note-worthy that the newspaper article appearing in the Enquirer Mar 15 is from a confused mind with little to offer toward understanding the evolution of this legislation. The article in the Post appears fixated on a struggle between the Senate and House. Listening closely, i would like to report that the process is moving swiftly towards perfect legislation. Senator Scorsone, like Representative Draud, is a true Kentucky Hero.

What improvements are needed?

Better local representation. HB-540 had proposed 2 local appointees; the current SB-257 maintains only 1 local appointee [2.1.e]. In a less tyrannical state, the Board would encourage local participation to 50%. To limit to one local appointee is pathetic. Our suggestion is for the stability of a triangle; three local appointees, each by a different selection process: one by the Governor, one by the top local official, and one non-governmental, affected person selected from the Citizen group all seeking the appointment, arbitrated by the top local official. This is especially important in view of busy schedules by Appointees. The legislation allows the Board to act decisively in the absence of Board members unable to attend, for whatever reason. We suggest It requires 3 local Board members to assure that at least one is present at every Board meeting.

Spot Edits

[3.1] ...construct {or expand input BTU rating} ...

[3.2] ...from any residential neighborhood, school, {assisted care facility, or place of similar social value}.

[4.2.c.1] {Landowners, some part of whose property is within 3000' of the proposed stack center}

[4.4] delete "expansion"

[5.1] ...construct {or expand}

[6.3] ...{and is satisfactory to local officials by Committee action}.

[7.1 L19] {or in adjacent county or municipality}

[7.1 L23] {or is adjacent thereto}

[7.1 L23-4] If...located in {or near}

[10.1.4.A] For Air {components}

[10.1.4.A.4] {Quantification of existing levels of oxygen, oxygen consumed by proposed combustion, and minimum levels of oxygen to be maintained at the property boundary of the proposed electric generating facility.}

[10.5 L16] ...withdrawal of {oxygen and} water...

[13] "Residential Neighborhood" is not defined.

Elaborating on one concept requiring more attention, we must realize that the primary impact of combustion activity is on the local atmosphere. Subject to wind conditions, this impact is not well contained within civil boundaries. Therefore, in considering site vicinity, all those civil units who might bear combustion exhaust / oxygen depletion should be included in defining local participation and representation. For example, initially the City of Erlanger was not opposed to the power plant within its borders, partly because the prevailing winds blow the stack exhaust away from Erlanger. It was the adjoining city of Crestview Hills that began to oppose the imposition by Cinergy. The legislation should assure that those citizens who are impacted be represented in discussions assessing the impact.

Thank you for your continued diligence serving Kentucky.