A list of actions needed to make HB 540 worth passing Posted: March 1, 2002
Two important issues are under consideration by the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, and will be voted on within the next week or two. This alert profiles Power Plant Siting.
House Bill 540, as it passed the House, is significantly flawed. Below is a list of actions needed to make HB 540 worth passing. Please take a moment and contact each member of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, by a single phone message at 1-800-372-7181 or a single fax addressed to each member, and tell them you support KRC's sixteen issues as being needed for a comprehensive siting bill. The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee Members are Senator Ernie Harris, Sen. Bob Leeper, Sen. Ernesto Scorsone, Sen. Paul Herron, Sen. Ed Worley, Sen. Tim Shaughnessey, Sen. Dan Kelly, Sen. Joey Pendleton, Sen. Vernie McGaha, Sen. Virgil Moore, and Sen. Elizabeth Tori
KRC'S SIXTEEN STEPS TO A COMPREHENSIVE POWER PLANT SITING BILL
A "To Do" List for Making HB 540 A Bill Worth Passing:
1. Make the bill apply evenly to all merchants plants and all non-regulated transmission lines that are not fully permitted and under bona fide construction as of the effective date of the Act; continue moratorium until effective date of Act in order to assure coverage of all pending plants. 2. Don't apply siting board process to new regulated units constructed by regulated utilities, but revise "environmental compatibility" step in existing process to give it meaning and apply that compatibility finding and criteria evenly to regulated and merchant plants. 3. Assure that all merchant plants comply with zoning and planning, and that regulated units receive a review and recommendation from zoning and planning as to compatibility (but not approval or disapproval) 4. Require proposed plants to develop equivalent of Environmental Impact Statement (as plants are currently required when seeking DOE or RUS money) and that finding of environmental compatibility depend on finding that all identified impacts have been adequately mitigated at the plant's property boundary. Don't rely on arbitrary setbacks and use of other people's property to create buffer for plants. 5. Provide meaningful and permanent involvement by public in siting board. 6. Apply law even-handedly without gaming it in favor of certain types of plants or certain companies. 7. Require applicant to include alternatives analysis demonstrating co-location at or near existing sites is infeasible. 8. Require that applicant demonstrate that it possesses necessary allowances for NOx and SOx. 9. Require that the applicant possesses the financial, technical and managerial capacity to construct and operate the facility; 10. Require that no other feasible alternatives exist, including other locations, technologies and investments (including demand-side controls) that would satisfy the project purposes with less impact; 11. Provide that if a continuous program of facility construction has not begun in earnest within two years after siting approval, the certificate will lapse. 12. Require that for any emissions of criteria or toxic air pollutants, the facility has fully offset new emissions of ozone-precursor compounds and air toxics by enforceable credits obtained from existing sources. 13. Require that noise modeling has been conducted to demonstrate that the noise levels, at the property boundary, do not exceed appropriate peak and average levels. 14. Require dispersion modeling be conducted by all proposed electrical generation units, including so-called "minor" sources, using conservative modeling assumptions and metrological conditions, and including emissions from other proposed and existing major sources and peaking units 15. Require that BACT requirements (Best Available Control Technology) for NOx (Nitrogen oxides) be met by all minor and major electricity generation sources. 16. Public notice and hearings on the permits should be provided in all cases