Thursday, May 2, 2019

Senate Committees: Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Worked, But PA Is Behind; More Opposition To Bills Aiding Nuclear Plants

In a marathon session on May 1, the Senate Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure and Environmental Resources and Energy Committees heard from 16 witnesses providing an update on implementation of the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards and mostly opposition to the bills drafted to aid nuclear power plants.
This is the second hearing held by the Committees in connection with the nuclear power  bills-- Senate Bill 510 (Aument-R-Lancaster) and House Bill 11 (Mehaffie-R-Dauphin).
If there were general points of agreements among the presenters, they seemed to be--
-- AEPS Has Worked: The Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards have worked to encourage development of new renewable energy generation in the state and has diversified the state energy portfolio. But, Pennsylvania is now behind other states in renewable energy standards.
-- Preserved Competitive Markets: AEPS, at the same time, also preserved Pennsylvania’s competitive electricity markets because it was implemented over 17 years.
-- Nuclear Plant Bills: The bills to aid nuclear power plants threaten the state’s competitive electricity markets, will not expand traditional Tier I renewable energy generation, will impose increased costs on ratepayers and be a burden to low-income households across the state.
-- Alternatives: 1) Pennsylvania could adopt a market-based solution like a cap-and-trade program or join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to put a price on carbon in a way that does not upset the competitive electricity markets and returns benefits to ratepayers and the state; 2) Replace AEPS with another market-based solution-- a Clean Energy Standard --that also puts a price on carbon, is technology agnostic and returns ratepayer benefits; 3) consider Senate Bill 600 (Haywood-D-Philadelphia, Killion-R-Delaware) to expand the existing Tier I traditional renewable energy goal to 30 percent by 2030.
Here are some key takeaways from the hearing from each of the speakers.  Their testimony provides some good detail if you want to really dive in.
Overview Of AEPS
Gladys Brown Dutrieuille, Chairman, Public Utility Commission.
-- On The Way To Meeting 18% Goal: 15.20 percent of electricity retail sales now comes from Tier I or II renewable energy sources under AEPS -- 7 percent Tier I, including 0.39 percent solar, and 8.20 percent Tier II-- toward meeting the 18 percent goal by 2021.
-- Closing Solar Borders: Passing Act 40 in 2017 and limiting the eligibility of solar credits to inside Pennsylvania has resulted in the expected increase in solar credit prices and an increase in in-state solar energy development.
-- Net Metering: Currently there are approximately 400 MW of alternative energy being net metered in Pennsylvania by approximately 21,000 customers, a vast majority of these are rooftop solar.
-- Half Of AEC From PA: For the 2018 reporting year, 50 percent of the total Alternative Energy Credits used by electric distribution companies were generated in Pennsylvania.  For solar credits approximately 30 percent were from Pennsylvania, 56 percent from North Carolina, 10 percent from Virginia, 2 percent from Ohio and the balance from 8 other states.  AECs (other than solar) in Tier I came from-- Pennsylvania 29 percent, 29 percent from Illinois, 26 percent from Virginia, 6 percent from Indiana, 4 percent from Ohio, 3 percent from West Virginia and the other 3 percent from 6 other states.
-- Cost of AEPS $110 Million: The cost for AEPS compliance in 2018 was approximately $110 million. The approximate weighted average price per credit for 2018 reporting year was $10.15 for Tier I, $31.53 for Tier I solar, and $0.22 for Tier II.
-- Diversified Generation: “Last, the legislation, as enacted in 2004 and modified in 2007, while modest, incentivized an increased diversity of generation resources in the Commonwealth and the PJM region while having a negligible effect on competitive wholesale prices.
In turn, AEPS works to offer benefits to the reliability and resiliency of the wholesale energy market. Nonetheless, policy makers should consider the ramifications that any increase or modification to the existing AEPS mandates could have on competitive wholesale markets.”
-- AEPS Expanded Renewable Energy: As of 2017, more than 1,300 megawatts of wind power and 285 megawatts of solar have been installed in Pennsylvania bringing in billions of dollars in capital investment.
-- Updated Climate Action Plan: The Updated Climate Action Plan, just released this week, includes over 100 actions that government, businesses, and citizens can take to both mitigate and adapt to climate change. The Plan set targets in line with Gov. Wolf’s recent Executive Order aimed at reducing GHG emissions 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025 and 80 percent by 2050. Specific recommendations--
    -- Increasing Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard Tier I targets to 30 percent by 2030, with a 6 percent solar carve out, and then increasing to a 50 percent Tier I target by 2050.
    -- Implement a policy to maintain nuclear generation at current levels, whether through zero emissions credits, inclusion in the AEPS, or some other mechanism.
    -- Limit carbon emissions through an electricity sector cap and trade program.
-- PA Solar Futures Plan: Recommendations in Pennsylvania’s Solar Future Plan presented 15 strategies to increase solar generation to 10 percent of in-state electricity consumption by 2030. Some of those strategies include increasing the AEPS solar carve out, explore grid modernization, and enable community solar.
-- Conclusion: The AEPS Act states that DEP shall make recommendations for AEPS
program improvements. We look forward to continuing to work with the legislature to provide input on how the ALPS act can help Pennsylvania not only reduce emissions, but also maintain our status as an energy leader by increasing competitiveness with neighboring states in development and deployment of alternative energy resources.
Consumer Panel
Tanya McCloskey, Acting Consumer Advocate, PA Office of Consumer Advocate.
-- AEPS Worked Over 17 Years: The subsidies provided by the AEPS were limited in scope and gradually increasing over 17 years. Direct subsidies such as received from renewable portfolio standards, if not carefully tailored, can distort our wholesale markets, increase consumers’ bills without commensurate benefit….  By putting the proverbial thumb on the scale for certain resources, dollars can be diverted from other efficient and innovative solutions that the market may incentivize.
-- Cost Of Nuclear Aid Bills $422 to $506 Million A Year: Senate Bill 510 (Aument-R- Lancaster) and House Bill 11 (Mehaffie-R-Dauphin) would cost consumers between $422 and $506 million a year without any showing of financial distress or the need for financial support to compete in the marketplace.
-- Nuclear Plants Profitable Through 2021: These ratepayer funds would be mostly paid to nuclear units that are already showing a profit in today’s wholesale markets and will be profitable through 2021.
-- Nuclear Plants Already Paid Stranded Costs: It is important to remember ratepayers have already paid about $6.8 to $9 billion in stranded costs to nuclear power plant owners.  Ratepayers paide the original owners of TMI-1 paid $420 million in stranded costs and an additional $231 million in stranded decommissioning costs for TMI-1 and TMI-2.
-- Identify Long-Term Energy Goals: It is critical we identify our specific long-term energy and environmental goals, like reducing carbon emissions.
-- PA Uniquely Positioned For Market-Based Program To Reduce Carbon: As a fully restructured state Pennsylvania is well-situated to implement a market-based approach to carbon emission reduction in an economically and environmentally sound manner.  Establishing a cap-and-trade program such as joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative are two possible approaches.
-- RGGI Returns Money To Ratepayers: Joining RGGI would increase energy prices and subsequently bills for ratepayers in Pennsylvania, the proceeds from the auction of emission allowances are returned to the state and can be used for a number of purposes, including reducing ratepayer bill impacts, supporting energy efficiency or renewable resources and supporting affected communities.  “This type of win-win solution should be the type of approach we should consider in meeting our environmental goals related to electricity production.”
Patrick Cicero, Executive Director, PA Utility Law Project which represents low-income residential utility customers.
-- Untenable Increases In Utility Bills: Senate Bill 510 (and House Bill 11) would result in potentially untenable utility bill increases for our low-income clients that they cannot afford.  300,000 households live at or below 50 percent of the federal poverty guidelines-- $12,050 for a family of 4. 1.25 million people have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty level-- $37,600 for a family of 4.
-- No Financial Need Test “Trust Me”: If my clients seek a $500 grant to pay energy bills they cannot simply say “trust me,” they have to prove they need the funds.  Senate Bill 510 (House Bill 11) have no means test, Exelon, Talen and FirstEnergy sare simply saying “trust me.”
-- Nuclear Plant Economic Projections Not Made Public: Economic projections of power producers have not been made public that is the basis for the justification for Senate Bill 510 (House Bill 11).
-- Join RGGI To Reduce Carbon, Returns Benefits To Ratepayers: To reduce carbon without a large ratepayer impact, Pennsylvania could join the interstate Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative as a market-based cap and invest program which is technology neutral.  The proceeds from these allowances would flow back to Pennsylvania which could be invested in beneficial purposes, including bill rebates for all consumers or for targeted investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy or other social purposes.
Environmental Panel
Rob Altenburg, Energy Center Director, PennFuture.
-- Nuclear Power Is Not A Path To Growth: The bills to aid nuclear power plants-- Senate Bill 510 and House Bill 11 are simply delaying actions. They do nothing to improve the chances that when those plants eventually do retire that they will be replaced with clean renewable generation.  
-- Nuclear Bills Won’t Expand Renewables: While proponents of these nuclear bills claim they will help expand wind and solar generation our calculations are not nearly so optimistic. We don’t expect any solar facilities to opt into Tier 3 when solar credits are much more valuable, and while it is conceivable that a wind facility could opt into tier 3, it’s possible nuclear facilities will generate all of the allowable credits.  In the best-case scenario, it appears that the bills on the table would be the equivalent of expanding the existing Tier 1 standed by one percent, or less.
-- Expensive Solution: While there is value in preserving carbon-free generation like Pennsylvania’s nuclear fleet, the bills currently under consideration are a very expensive solution to the problem.
-- Senate Bill 600 Expands AEPS: The recently introduced Senate Bill 600 addresses a number of these issues by expanding our AEPS target to 30 percent by 2030 with specific provisions for distributed solar, grid-scale solar, and including long-term contracting provisions along with tighter alternative compliance payments to help lower costs. Paired with other bills like House Bill 531 to enable community solar in the state, Pennsylvania could once again be a clean energy leader.
John Walliser, Senior Vice President, PA Environmental Council.
-- Join RGGI: Join the Regional Greenhouse Gas initiative to begin providing a price signal on carbon and generate revenues that can reduce emissions in the electric power sector.
-- Replace AEPS with Clean Energy Standard: Adopt a Clean Energy Standard to replace AEPS which sets emission reduction goals which is technology neutral and accommodates many forms of energy-- renewables, nuclear, natural gas and even coal with quantifiable carbon capture.
-- Recommendations for Other Sectors: PEC’s January 2019 Energy and Climate Pathways Report identifies additional opportunities with respect to the transportation sector, carbon capture, distributed renewables and energy storage, community solar, grid modernization and other options that further drive emission reductions and energy savings.
-- Methane Emission Reductions: PEC also advocates for strong action on reducing methane emissions from natural gas development and delivery as these emissions potentially offset any climate benefits of fuel switching from coal to natural gas generation.
Click Here for PEC’s testimony before the Bicameral Nuclear Energy Caucus.
Proposed Tier III - Aiding Nuclear Power
-- If Nuclear Closes, Prices, Emissions Go Up: Every time nuclear plants are closed, whether in California, Vermont, Germany or Japan, emissions and electricity prices rise. It may be tempting to think that Pennsylvania will be different but that is unlikely, for physical and technological reasons.
-- Solar/Wind Cannot Replace Nuclear: Solar and wind cannot make up for lost nuclear. Pennsylvania nuclear plants generated 20 times more electricity than the state’s solar and wind combined in 2018.1 Because they are intermittent, solar and wind require 100 percent back-up in the form of natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries, or something else.
-- Comparing Subsidies: People are rightly concerned about subsidies, but the greatest recipients in subsidies are renewables, not nuclear. A 2017 analysis by the federal Congressional Budget Office finds that renewables received $10.7 billion more or 55 times what was given to nuclear in 2016. On a unit of energy basis, renewables received over 100 times what was given to nuclear. And the CBO data show no subsidies for nuclear between 1985 and 2000, and comparatively small subsidies between 2000 and 2005.
-- Natural Gas Subsidies: What about natural gas? It turns out that fracking received federal subsidies, too. In 2011, I was lead author of a history of the hidden government involvement in the fracking revolution. Between 1978 and 2007, the Energy Department spent $24 billion on fossil energy research that led to the fracking revolution — including $10 billion in tax credit (US Code Section 29) for unconventional oil and gas drilling.
-- No One Has Died From Spent Nuclear Fuel: In response to a question from Sen. Gene Yaw (R-Lycoming), Majority Chair of the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee expressing a concern about having spent nuclear waste sites at Pennsylvania’s 5 power plant sites, Shellenberger said spent nuclear waste is being managed safely on-site at nuclear power plants, adding it shouldn’t be moved to a permanent storage site like Yucca Mountain.  He recommended the over $39 billion in the federal Nuclear Waste Fund now to support Yucca Mountain should probably be returned to ratepayers or the public somehow.
He said spent nuclear waste will probably also be recycled 50 or 100 years from now when advanced nuclear reactors come online.
Shellenberger said spent nuclear waste hasn’t caused a single death.  In contrast, he said, 7 million people a year are dying from air pollution and we have plastic floating in the oceans.
He added that cadmium and other toxic elements in solar panels will always be with us, while spent nuclear waste decays.
Sen. Yaw noted some elements in nuclear waste last 1,000 years or more and commented someone has to monitor these sites to make sure they are secure.
Click Here for more background on the spent nuclear fuel issue from a House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee hearing on April 29.
Tier I Panel
Brent Alderfer, President, Community Energy. [Attachment Slides]
-- Cost Of Solar Down 70%: The most significant fact about solar electric generation is that the cost of solar generation has come down more than 70 percent since 2010.
-- Solar Produces More Jobs: Most important from an economic development point of view even after achieving those efficiencies solar still produces more jobs per unit of electricity than any other source of generation—by a wide margin.
-- Getting To 10% Solar: Ramping up to 10 percent percent solar in Pennsylvania produces 75,000 new jobs and brings $10 billion in new investment to the state.
-- Preserves Farmland: Probably the biggest misunderstanding on solar is that it will use up farmland.  To get to 10 percent PA solar, 1/4 of the solar will come from customer sites – homes and businesses – and 3/4 will come from larger-scale grid-connected solar projects delivering power into the transmission grid. Those projects will lease about 50 to 60,000 acres of land by 2030 to produce electricity. That is less than 1 percent of the 7 million of acres of farmland in the state.
Sen. Scott Martin (R-Lancaster) expressed a concern about the loss of farmland in actual production of food crops with the expansion of large scale solar energy farms.
Burcat said the example in his presentation of a farm in Lancaster County where a large scale solar energy facility was developed is a good one. The farm owner tells visitors the income from the solar facility saved his farm.
-- Status Of Wind Power: Pennsylvania has over 1,000 direct industry jobs as a result of the AEPS. There has been $2.9 billion dollars of investment through 2018 and more to come. Tax payments as a result of these projects are approximately $2.5 million dollars annually and lease payments to farmers and other landowners are estimated to be between $1 - $5 million dollars per year. There are 29 active wind-related manufacturing facilities in the state. There is nearly 1400 MW of wind energy installed capacity making Pennsylvania the 18th ranked state for wind capacity in the nation1 and first in the Mid-Atlantic region.
-- Strongly Consider Senate Bill 600: Strongly recommended consideration of Senate Bill 600 which would set a 30 percent target for Tier II renewables by 2030.
-- PA Ranks 3rd In Landfill Gas: Pennsylvania currently ranks third in the nation for the number of operating Landfill Gas to Energy projects operating, with 39 projects currently operating.
[Note: In November, Exelon said it was going to retire 3 landfill gas generation facilities in Pennsylvania “due to economic challenges.”]
Tier II Panel
Frazier Blaylock, Senior Director, Government Relations, Covanta Energy Systems, Inc.
-- Overview: 1,623 MWHs of electricity are generated by these plants-- less than 1 percent of the 215 million MWHs of electricity generated in Pennsylvania. But while their energy output is small, these facilities manage 36 percent of the waste generated in the Commonwealth, making them critical municipal infrastructure.
-- Tier II Credits Have Minimal Value: When the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard was originally enacted, WTE was placed into Tier 2 which has had minimal, if any, value due to the oversupply of eligible technologies.
-- Mitigate Climate Change: Waste-to-energy has long been recognized by the EPA and international scientific community as a technology that can help mitigate climate change. According to the EPA, for every ton of municipal solid waste processed at a WTE facility, the release of approximately one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions into the atmosphere is prevented due to the avoidance of methane generation at landfills, the offset of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel electrical production, and the recovery of metals.
-- Landfill Gas More Potent Than Carbon Dioxide: Landfills are the largest source of man-made methane and methane has been found to be over 30 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, according to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Yet, landfill gas was put in Tier I of the AEPS.
-- WTE Plant Viability Threatened: The economic strains on the PA facilities have become significant enough to threaten the future economic viability of the Commonwealth’s WTE infrastructure. The industry is committed to utilizing state-of-the art technology and making investments to ensure the protection of our environment and surrounding communities. The plants require maintenance and continuous improvement which is not affordable absent the energy revenue they earned in their original PPAs. The dramatic falloff of energy pricing at the plants and the unlevel playing field with landfills has led to doubts about the future of the industry in Pennsylvania.
[Note: Legislation is pending-- Senate Bill 488 (Killion-R-Delaware) and House Bill 695 (Gillespie-R-York)-- to require electric distribution companies to purchase surplus electricity from waste-to-energy facilities at the price to compare, rather than the wholesale price.]
-- Overview: There are currently 13 coal refuse to energy plants operating in Pennsylvania with a combined electricity generation capacity of just under 1,400 MW.
-- Plants At Risk: Piney Creek discontinued operations in 2013 and abandoned its permits in 2015. During 2018, Northeastern Power Company also discontinued operations and another facility announced that it is converting to natural gas later this year. Additionally, four of these facilities are currently operating on a seasonal basis, meaning they only operate during periods of high energy demand in the peak of the winter and the summer, leading to reduced jobs and less reclamation work being performed. Another facility has a power purchase agreement (PPA) set to expire next year, and the future of this plant and several others are currently at risk.
-- Environmental Accomplishments: Since its inception, the coal refuse to energy industry in Pennsylvania has removed and consumed as fuel more than 230 million tons of coal refuse, improved more than 1,200 miles of streams and reclaimed more than 7,000 acres of previously polluted mining affected land. At full capacity this industry can remove over 10 million tons of coal refuse from the environment and reclaim approximately 200 acres of mining- affected land in Pennsylvania each year. Unfortunately, since 2016 the industry has removed only about 8 million tons of coal refuse per year and that amount continues to decline as more facilities close.
-- Tier II No Incentive: While coal refuse energy is a Tier II source under the Pennsylvania AEPS program, the program fails to produce a significant incentive for these facilities to increase their beneficial use of coal refuse for energy production and environmental remediation. There is a total of more 9,500 MW of installed capacity registered in Pennsylvania’s Tier II AEPS program. Of this total, more than 5,500 MW, or over half, are derived from out of state sources.  In 2017, coal refuse accounted for 61.4 percent of the retired Tier II AEPS credits, which was the highest year to date.
-- Conclusion: By partnering with private industry, the Commonwealth receives environmental remediation of these polluted sites at a fraction of the cost were it to be performed by a state agency or subcontractor. If the state does not continue to partner in the environmentally beneficial efforts of these facilities and ensure that they remain open, not only will family sustaining jobs be lost, but the massive environmental problem of abandoned coal refuse piles and pits will continue to scar our land and pollute our air and waterways for generations to come.
[Note: Coal refuse fueled power plants receive a state Coal Refuse Energy and Reclamation Tax Credit of $10 million which has recently proposed to be increased to $45 million annually.]
Gene Alessandrini, Regional Vice President, Brookfield Renewable
-- Overview: Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P. has a substantial presence in the Commonwealth, including over 750 MW of installed hydroelectric capacity across the state – enough to power 236,000 Pennsylvania homes annually.
-- Legislative Proposals Forget Hydro: Both Senate Bill 510 (bill to aid nuclear power plants) and Senate Bill 600 (to increase Tier I goal to 30 percent by 2030) do not include hydropower facilities and further exaggerate the inequity in the AEPS program.  If enacted, Senate Bill 510 and Senate Bill 600 should prioritize and preserve the state’s existing baseline of local, clean, and carbon-free resources in a non-discriminatory manner by including in-state hydropower in the Tier I and Tier III categories.
Generation/Fuel Supply Panel
Rachel Gleason, Executive Director, PA Coal Alliance
-- 17 Coal-Fired Power Plants Deactivated: Since Pennsylvania deregulated its electric generation market in 1996, 17 coal-fired electric generating units have deactivated or converted, and two more are scheduled to deactivate or end their coal use by 2029. As a result, 11.4 GW4 of coal nameplate capacity has or is scheduled to go offline since deregulation.
-- Free and Fair Markets: In Pennsylvania, coal as a fuel source for electricity accounts for 58 percent of our total production, and coal’s end use and a strong coal economy is vital to PCA’s 200 members companies.  I have been charged by our Board of Directors with advocating for a state energy policy that promotes free and fair markets and provides for a level playing field for all generation sources.
-- No Ratepayer Subsidy: The economic hardships these plant and subsequent mine closures have had on local economies throughout Pennsylvania have been devastating. Nevertheless, not once during this period, nor today, has the coal industry come to the Pennsylvania General Assembly to request a ratepayer subsidy, like AEPS. PCA member companies fully realize the electric power generation market has significantly transformed this past decade and have been committed to working within this market to ensure that coal remains an affordable, reliable and resilient resource to the grid. That said, PCA has serious concerns about the continued growth of state alternative and renewable portfolio mandates, such as the AEPS, that provide preferential treatment to certain resources at the expense of the integrity of the wholesale market.
-- FERC Decisions Pending: Given the significant uncertainty that exists with the future construct of the PJM capacity market, PCA believes it would be highly prudent to table any legislative conversation on AEPS until FERC issues a decision on this open docket.
-- AEPS Upends Wholesale Market: From a competitive, wholesale market perspective, arguably there should be no state subsidies for any resource competing in that market. That isn’t the case with AEPS, which picks winners and losers, upends the wholesale electricity market, and jeopardizes Pennsylvania’s coal industry, the 18,000 jobs it supports, and the over $4 billion it adds to the Pennsylvania’s economy.
Leah Gibbons, Director, Regulatory Affairs, NRG
-- Keep Competitive Markets: We encourage the legislature to continue its commitment to competitive markets as it explores policies to support carbon free resources so that customers may continue to choose the type of energy that aligns with their interests and values – and that increasingly means buying green power.
-- Nuclear Power Aid Bills Not An Improvement: Whatever the label supporters have slapped on the current proposal, it is not an improvement to the AEPS program that has served Pennsylvania customers so well for more than a decade. Instead, it replaces the competitive AEPS program with a government handout program that increases costs and replaces competitive green energy markets with forced purchases from specific “most favored nation” suppliers. Suppliers would be prevented from innovating and exploring lowest cost ways of meeting their green energy obligations.
-- Recommendations:
    -- Don’t redistribute precious tax revenue or ratepayers’ hard-earned dollars via subsidies for commercially mature generating technologies;
    -- Don’t lock consumers into excessively-priced contracts for specific clean energy technologies when lower cost clean energy is available;
    -- Don’t provide corporate welfare to existing power plants that are profitable under the guise of promoting carbon free energy; and
    -- Certainly don’t make customers buy overpriced energy from specific, uncompetitive, 40+ year old technology.
Craig Gordon, Vice President, Government and Regulatory Affairs, Invenergy
-- Overview: Our $1.2 billion investment in the 1,500 MW Lackawanna Energy Center  natural gas-fueled power plant became fully operational last year.
-- Nuclear Aid Bills: the proposed Tier III reflects the opposite type of market opportunity that brought Invenergy to Pennsylvania. The proposed Tier III would reward existing plants that have been paid for by Pennsylvania ratepayers for decades without any requirement that they provide incremental benefits. There is no incremental economic development or jobs.
-- Conclusion: If Pennsylvania wishes to incentivize a low or no carbon generation portfolio, we encourage policymakers to think boldly and to engage in the market design conversation. Subsidizing an existing sector because it’s easier than re-thinking the paradigm is shortsighted and perpetuates perverse incentives and behaviors by those who stand to benefit the most. All at the expense of Pennsylvania’s citizens.
Sen. Tommy Tomlinson (R-Bucks), Majority Chair of the Senate Consumer Protection Committee, said at the end of the hearing he believes nuclear power plants are needed to supply baseload power generation for the state and need to be preserved.
Click Here to watch a video of the hearing and links to written testimony.
Sen. Tommy Tomlinson (R-Bucks) serves as Majority Chair of the Consumer Protection Committee and can be contacted by calling 717-787-5072 or sending email to:  Sen. Lisa Boscola (D-Lehigh) serves as Minority Chair and can be contacted by calling 717-787-4236 or sending email to:
Sen. Gene Yaw (R-Lycoming) serves as Majority Chair of the Senate Environmental Committee and can be contacted by calling 717-787-3280 or sending email to:   Sen. John Yudichak (D-Luzerne) serves as Minority Chair and can be contacted by calling 717-787-7105 or sending email to:
Related Stories This Week:
Related Stories:

No comments :

Post a Comment

Subscribe To Receive Updates:

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner