|
3 of 4 utility bills still afloat
BY ANNE ADAMS • STAFF WRITER
RICHMOND - The legislation introduced in the General Assembly related to wind energy continue to move through the Senate and House this week. Of the two original Senate bills, one was withdrawn, and another has survived the Senate and been communicated to the House. Two related House bills remain in committee.
Sen. Frank Wagner (R-Va. Beach) introduced the two pieces of legislation that affect renewable energy facilities.
SB 321
Wagner's Senate Bill 321 proposal would amend the section of the Code of Virginia related to the environmental impact of renewable energy electric utilities. The bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources, where it was unanimously passed from committee, but with substitute language. It reads, "When considering the environmental impact of any renewable energy electrical utility facility, the Department shall consult with interested agencies of the Commonwealth that have expertise in natural resource management. The Department shall submit recommendations to the State Corporation Commission that take into account the information and comments submitted by such natural resource agencies concerning the potential environmental impacts of the proposed electric generating facility. The Department's recommendations shall include: (i) specific mitigation measures considered necessary to minimize adverse environmental impacts; (ii) any additional site-specific studies considered to be necessary; and (iii) the scope and duration of any such studies. Nothing in this subsection shall alter or affect the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the State Corporation Commission."
The bill was reviewed by the Department of Planning and Budget, which found it had no fiscal impact, and was "consistent with the intentions of the DEQ to comprehensively evaluate the environmental impact of renewable energy generating facilities."
The substitute bill passed the Senate unanimously and was communicated to the House.
The related house bill (HB 1466) requires the DEQ to evaluate all the information from other state agencies and pull together a consensus recommendation for the SCC. This bill was referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural Resources, then to the committee on commerce and labor, and then to a subcommittee on energy, where it remains this week.
The Department of Planning and Budget found it had no fiscal impact or implications.
SB 324
Wagner's second bill was intended to exempt smaller renewable electric facilities from SCC authority by amending language under the Utility Facilities Act that redefines what a renewable energy, public utility is, such that any plant generating less than 50 megawatts does not fall under such SCC review. It was taken up by the Committee on Commerce and Labor last week, but Wagner, who had introduced it primarily in response to the length of time HNWD's project was under review by the SCC, removed it from consideration and it was continued to 2009.
The house version of this bill (HB 1443), however, remains in play. It calls for a streamlined permitting process on utilities generating power with solar, wind or biomass. It keeps permitting fees at $50 or less, and requires the SCC to act on permit applications in 60 days. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor, then to an energy subcommittee, where it was returned to commerce and labor. Commerce and Labor approved it with a substitute Feb. 5.
The bill states that a "qualified energy generator" means a "commercial facility É with the capacity annually to generate no more than five megawatts of electricity, or produce the equivalent amount of energy in the form of fuel, steam, or other energy product, that is generated or produced from biomass and that is sold to an unrelated person or used in a manufacturing process." It paves the way for an expedited review process for a state permit unless the energy generator is subject to a major new source review program required by the federal Clean Air Act, in which case the new language would not apply.
| 
