Energy bill passes without solar tax credits - Mobile Press-Register 2/21/08
Thursday, May 01, 2008

By BRIAN LYMAN
Capital Bureau

MONTGOMERY -- A House committee Wednesday said yes to clean coal plants and nuclear power and no to solar power.

The House Education Appropriations committee approved an energy bill that would extend tax breaks for the construction of nuclear and coal gasification and liquefaction power plants started between 2012 and 2018.

But the committee struck a provision extending an income tax break to those using solar power for residences or businesses. The Alabama Education Association said the credit was too generous and would drain the state's Education Trust Fund.

"I believe in solar energy," said Paul Hubbert, executive secretary of the AEA. "I believe it's the energy of the future, but I do not believe it's up to the children of the state to fund that industry."

The bill as written would have extended a 25-cent tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of solar energy generated by a residence or a business. The credit would have been good for 10 years. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a solar energy advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., the average California home with solar panels generates 6,000 kilowatt-hours a year, with 20 percent lost due to conversions from direct current, DC, to alternating current, AC.

Under those conditions, the tax credit would have been worth about $1,200 a year to an individual homeowner. However, Alabama generally receives less sunlight than California per year, according to the Center for Renewable Energy Resources.

AEA based its opposition on numbers it said suggested that a homeowner would be able to recoup the costs of a $42,500 solar energy installation on a 2,000-square-foot house in two years.

"You could basically start funding college tuition off the credit in the bill," said Susan Kennedy, an attorney doing consulting for the AEA.

There are a variety of prices for solar panels, ranging from $5,000 for those used to heat water to upward of $50,000 to handle significant power needs. Kennedy said later she based her price on research of 10,000-watt systems on various Web sites.

"There's a range of pricing, and we think we picked a cost that's not a Cadillac system, but something that would generate kilowatt hours," Kennedy said.

Under that credit, she said, individuals could get a maximum of $7,200 a year.

But members of the solar industry questioned those numbers, saying a 10,000-watt system had double the capacity of a typical setup for a house that size.

Larry Bradford, president of Southern Solar Systems, an alternative energy company based in Huntsville, said the numbers used suggested the solar panels would be used to power a whole house. The SEIA says panels are usually employed to offset 20 percent to 50 percent of electricity costs.

"To do away with an entire power bill, you'd have to put $100,000 (of panels) on your house and $20,000 worth of batteries," Bradford said.

Kennedy said she had not differentiated between offsetting energy flow and using solar panels to power a whole house, which would significantly affect the kilowatt-hours generated. But she said the credit was still generous in light of what the federal government offers.

"The federal government gives you $2,000," she said, adding that even a $1,500 per year tax credit good for 10 years would be "very generous" on the state's part.

Some states, like California, offer larger tax breaks that can pay up to half the cost of a typical system.

The AEA did give its blessing to the nuclear and coal power tax breaks. Coal gasification and liquefaction, hydropower and nuclear energy are favored approaches by Alabama Power Co. AEA cited statistics suggesting the loss in sales tax revenues from the breaks extended to those plants would be offset by tax income gained from new jobs, both at the plants and in construction. AEA estimated a $6 billion nuclear power plant would cost the state $243 million in lost revenues over 30 years, but create $1.1 billion in new revenue after it began operations. The union estimated a $2.8 billion coal gasification or liquefaction plant would cost $119 million over 30 years and bring revenues of $623 million when it began operations.

By Kate Brumback
The Associated Press

State environmental officials voted Friday to approve stricter requirements for levels of certain pollutants in Alabama waterways, which should make the cancer risk level for dozens of cancer-causing pollutants in state waters far lower than it is now.

The Alabama Environmental Management Commission voted 3-1 to lower the acceptable level of 71 pollutants in Alabama waterways. The rule change tightens restrictions for 14 non-carcinogenic pollutants and 57 carcinogenic pollutants, but excludes arsenic, a known carcinogen.

Lynn Sisk, chief of water quality management for Alabama Department of Environmental Management, said the change reduces the cancer risk level for the carcinogenic pollutants in Alabama's waters from one in 100,000 to one in a million.

Former ADEM general counsel David Ludder had petitioned the commission on the cancer risk issue on behalf of state environmental groups a year ago. The commission, which oversees the state agency, turned down that request but decided in December to begin the rulemaking process on the similar proposal approved Friday.

Sisk said the new requirements will mostly affect industries -- such as chemical manufacturers, iron and steel plants and wood treatment plants, among others -- that have permits to discharge those pollutants.

"Those industries that are permitted to discharge those compounds may see more stringent permit requirements," he said.

Michael Sznajderman, a spokesman for Alabama Power Co., one of the companies potentially affected by the more stringent restrictions, said the utility has no problem with the new requirements since arsenic was excluded.

He said Alabama Power opposed the original proposal, which included arsenic, because of the state's already stringent regulation of the element. He said arsenic, which occurs naturally, is found in small amounts in coal, so it would have been very difficult and costly for the utility's coal-powered plants to lower arsenic levels.

Commissioner Sam Wainwright cast the lone dissenting vote. Explaining his opposition, Wainwright cited prior comments by Ludder, who had questioned whether the exclusion of arsenic was based on scientific research.

Wainwright said he was concerned that the exclusion of arsenic from the more stringent requirements may seem arbitrary and could lead to lawsuits.

Commissioner Kathleen Felker said the decision to exempt arsenic was not arbitrary, that the federal Environmental Protection Agency was consulted on the new requirements. Alabama already regulates arsenic significantly more stringently than other states in the region, she said, so they didn't feel it needed to be further restricted.

State environmental groups expressed satisfaction at the commission's vote.

"I think it's a great step forward for public health in Alabama, and I commend the commission for passing it," Adam Snyder, executive director of Conservation Alabama, a nonprofit lobbying group, said Friday after the vote.

Snyder said environmental groups had questioned arsenic's exemption because they wanted to make sure that it was based on scientific research and not because it would benefit any particular industry.

He said he was satisfied with the new requirements as they stand and would have been disappointed if the proposal hadn't passed simply because of the arsenic exemption.

"This is something that our group has worked on for 18 months now, and I'm very happy that it has passed," he said.

The approved changes won't take effect until they are reviewed by the legislative review committee. That committee has 35 days to look them over once it receives them.

THE ISSUE: A state environmental board passed new rules that should lower Alabamians' exposure to
cancer-causing pollution. Good.

Alabamians who don't want to get cancer - and isn't that all of us? - can thank a state environmental board for doing its part to lower our exposure to substances known to cause the disease.

The board that oversees the Alabama Department of Environmental Management voted 3-1 on Friday to
tighten water-pollution rules, with the specific goal of lowering Alabamians' risks of getting cancer.Good for the Environmental Management Commission, and even better for Alabamians.

Under the current rules, businesses and other polluters are able to put 57 known carcinogens into waterways at levels that would each be expected to cause one case of cancer per 100,000 people. Under the rules just passed by the commission, the same pollution will be allowed at levels that would cause one case of cancer per 1 million people.

In a state of 4 million people, that's a difference between four people, or 40 people, getting cancer from each of the 57 carcinogens affected.

As the commission rightly concluded, less cancer is better.

"I think it's a great step forward for public health in Alabama," said Adam Snyder, the executive director of Conservation Alabama.

Some members of the environmental board have resisted tightening these pollution limits in the past, and some business interests actively opposed the change. Environmental officials said the new requirements will affect chemical manufacturers, iron and steel plants, wood treatment plants and others that discharge pollution into waterways.

Alabama Power Co. originally opposed the plan, but gave its blessing after one substance, arsenic, was removed from the list.

Commission members said Alabama already regulates arsenic more stringently than most states in our
region. But that was not generally the case as it relates to cancer-causing substances in water pollution.

The 1-in-100,000 standard was the most lenient allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but the stricter standard is its preference. Most states - including Florida, Georgia and Mississippi - already had the tougher rules in place. That point was made well by environmental groups that asked the Environmental Management Commission to afford Alabamians the same protections as other states. To its credit, the commission tightened the rules on the carcinogens (as well as 14 noncancer-causing substances).

For Alabamians, the decision means a lower risk for cancer, and that's a very, very good thing.

© 2008 The Birmingham News
© 2008 al.com All Rights Reserved.

By BOB LOWRY
Times Staff Writer bob.lowry@htimes.com

Only arsenic was omitted from stronger proposal

MONTGOMERY - Environmentalists won a victory Friday with the state Environmental Management Commission's vote to cut the amount of cancer-causing substances that can be dumped into rivers and streams by Alabama industries.

The commission voted 3-1 to establish stronger standards for a class of 57 carcinogens. Arsenic from coal-burning power plants was excluded from the proposal.

The only dissenting vote was cast by Wayne Wainwright, a Dothan engineer who criticized the omission of arsenic from the list.

"I felt like that issue should be settled with the rules that are being changed," said Wainwright. "All other carcinogens would be more restricted."

Since 1991, Alabama has employed the weakest standards allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine the level of cancer-causing agents that factories and plants can dump into waterways.

The new rule will change what Alabama considers an acceptable risk from carcinogens from one cancer case per 100,000 residents to one case per 1 million residents. Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina already use that threshold.

Among Southeastern states, only Tennessee will still use Alabama's old standard.

Dr. Kathleen Felker, a Huntsville physician and a member of the commission, said the new standards mean Alabama now "is in line with 60 percent of the rest of the country."

"It means lower concentrations will be going into our waterways, the waters that we swim and recreate in," she said. "It will also affect our fish and wildlife."

Felker said arsenic was left off the new list because Alabama already has one of the strictest prohibitions against arsenic discharges of any state in the nation.

"We did not feel we needed to ask them to go any further in limiting arsenic," she added.

The commission, which oversees the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, also adopted a rule that will outlaw the dumping of two specific toxic chemicals.

They are acrolein, used in poison gas during World War I, and phenol, used in a variety of consumer products.

"I believe we have had a lot of turning points for the state of Alabama and for the country," Felker said, referring to Friday's vote.

She also cited pending legislation by Reps. Frank McDaniel, D-Albertville, and Howard Sanderford, R-Huntsville, that would create a statewide program for solid waste management to be coordinated by ADEM.

The bill would create a statewide recycling program and clean up illegal dumps. The House passed the bill March 27.

The commission also voted to schedule, on a trial basis, two meetings each year outside Montgomery.

Felker said ADEM had previously resisted those meetings because of cost and because of the fear that they might be dominated by local issues. She said Gov. Bob Riley supports the idea, however.

"It's something environmentalists have wanted for a long time," she said. "We'll see how much it cost and how well they are attended."

Friday's action won the praise of Alabama environmental groups.

"This is a huge step ... that will be a great benefit to the health of Alabama's citizens, " Adam Snyder, executive director of Conservation Alabama, said in a statement. "It brings us on par with the rest of the Southeast and the country."

Cindy Lowry, executive director of the Alabama Rivers Alliance, added, "This is an important step toward cleaner water in Alabama, which will reduce the risk of harmful health effects to aquatic species and citizens around the state."

ADEM said about 1,900 businesses and municipal sewage treatment plants are permitted to release carcinogens into state waterways. The substances most commonly covered by discharge permits are benzene, hexachlorobenzene and arsenic.

Alabama Power Co., the Business Council of Alabama and several other business and industry groups had opposed the changes, saying ADEM's current carcinogen standards adequately protect human health and the environment.



© 2008 The Huntsville Times
© 2008 al.com All Rights Reserved.

By Jean Cole

— Editor’s Note: This is the first in a two-part series about the impact of a rock quarry to be located in Tanner.

An effort to stop a rock quarry from locating in the Tanner community failed this week but the battle isn’t over, said one local official.

Limestone County Commission Chairman David Seibert said Friday he is working with the local legislative delegation “on some similar legislation” to the bills that failed to make it out of a Senate committee Tuesday for a vote on the Senate floor.

“There is more legislation that hasn’t come around yet,” Seibert said. “Although I wouldn’t want to comment on exactly what it is, it would be something similar.”

Rogers Group hopes to get a permit from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management in Montgomery to open a rock quarry off Laughmiller Road in the Tanner area. The company wants to close its existing quarry in the Cross Key community in eastern Limestone County to be closer to its customers.

Opponents have said it would cause noise pollution and property damage due to blasting, and water and air pollution from dust. They have also said blasting could drive away wildlife at nearby Swan Creek Wildlife Management Area and trigger a shutdown of nearby Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Tracy McLin, who lives off Laughmiller Road, garnered more the 1,000 signatures of people opposing the quarry.

The first attempt to stop the quarry through legislation failed. The Legislation 1 Committee voted Tuesday against the bills sponsored by Sen. Tom Butler, D-Madison, and co-sponsored by Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur.

One bill would have allowed the Limestone County Commission to regulate rock quarries within the county and outside Athens city limits. The other would have prevented blasting within 10 miles of a nuclear plant. (Rogers Group has said it has two sites closer to nuclear plants than this site would be.)

Voting for the measures Tuesday were Orr and Sen. Harri Anne Smith, R-Slocomb.

Voting against the measures were committee chairman Sen. Zeb Little, D-Cullman, Sen. Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe, and Sen. Hank Sanders, D-Selma.
Speaking in favor of the bills were Seibert; Reps. Mac McCutcheon, R-Capshaw, and Henry White, D-Athens; and Athens Mayor Dan Williams.

In a move that irked Limestone County officials, Morgan County Commissioner Stacy George attended the committee meeting and spoke favorably of Rogers Group and the quarry it created in Lacey’s Spring, which is in George’s district. Some Limestone residents and several local officials thought George should have stayed out of Limestone County’s business.

“I have gotten a lot of calls about it,” George told The News Courier Friday. “If I offended people up here or the commission, I didn’t want to do that,” he said. “I wasn’t for or against the legislation. It doesn’t matter to me whether they build a quarry or not. I was just sharing information about the company – that they have been good to us. They are the best thing that’s ever happened to Lacey’s Spring. I would not be in support of them if I hadn’t dealt with them.”

George supplied a press release, with Rogers Group letterhead, listing the company’s various donations within his district. Some of them include giving $3,000 cash to a fire victim; donating five loads of limestone material to be auctioned during a benefit; donating more than 200 tons of limestone material for newly constructed Little Gethsemane Church; giving gift cards to Lacey’s Spring School Parent-Teacher Organization/Talented and Gifted Program to increase participation; paving Parks Chapel Road at a cost of $200,000; holding a community luncheon at B&J Family Restaurant for more than 400 people; spending $7,200 a year to maintain Lacey’s Spring Community Ball Field.

He said Rogers Group did not ask him to come to the meeting. He said he was in Montgomery already to speak with legislators about his displeasure over the passage of electronic bingo.

George said he has accepted a total of $1,000 in campaign contributions from Rogers Group – $500 in 2000 and $500 in 2004.

“That is not why I spoke about them,” he said. “I want Limestone County to know that they should demand these things if they put a quarry here.”

Butler could not be reached for comment Friday on the new legislation the delegation is creating.

Currently, Limestone County leaders cannot control whether a company builds a rock quarry, a high school or any other facility in the county, as long as it meets environmental regulations, because the county does not have home rule. Home rule would give the county zoning control. Limestone voters rejected the idea of home rule in 2004.

Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.