September 30, 2026 · ENERGY · 7,579 words · 20 speakers · 253 segments
Thank you. Thank you.
Good morning everyone. Welcome to this voting meeting of the House Energy Committee. It is 10-01. This meeting is now called to order. Nick, please call the roll.
Chair Fiedler. Here.
Representative Boyd. Here.
Representative Brown. Designation.
Representative Serrato. Here.
Representative Davidson. Designation.
Representative Donahue. Here.
Representative Friel. Here.
Representative Deral. Here.
Representative Ingles. Designation.
Representative McAndrew. Designation.
Representative Pieli. Here.
Representative Rusnok. Here.
Representative Steele. Here.
Representative Venkat. Designation.
designation chair causer here representative armanini represent barton designation represent cook represent of ham designation represent kill designation represent Kephart represent Halek designation
Representative Nelson. Here.
Representative Rapp. Here.
Representative Stambaugh. Here.
Representative Williams. Here.
The attendance has been recorded. You may proceed, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Nick. The first item of business on today's very busy agenda is House Bill 2755, printers number 3856,
sponsored by committee member Representative Chris Pielli which the Chair now calls up Steve please read a summary of the bill This bill requires transmission owners to participate in a regional transmission organization
The Chair has not received any amendments to the bill before we proceed to discussion of the bill. I would like to invite the prime sponsor, Committee Member Representative Pieli, to offer remarks.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I think we've all heard from residents and businesses struggling with high electricity prices, And as lawmakers, it's important for us to investigate the problem and look for any potential solutions. I recently learned that FERC, which oversees utilities at the federal level, gives transmission owners an extra profit bonus of 0.5% for joining our regional grid or, as some people know it, RTOs. Now, this is something that utilities and other transmission owners are going to do regardless. and this bonus is paid for inevitably by the ratepayers. Several states, Ohio, California, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, and Connecticut have passed laws like this one that I'm proposing today. The logic is if that RTO participation is mandated by state law, then FERC's incentive is no longer applicable. If this bill is signed into law, the next steps that need to be taken is that the Public Utility Commission would then have to file a complaint with FERC, which has been done before in another state. That RTO adder is no longer applicable. That's what the complaint would mandate. There could also be some litigation, but we've seen the litigation when utilities sued in Ohio. The federal courts ruled that the states can mandate participation, and FERC removed the incentive as a result. I'll also add that the FERC chairman has been very critical of this incentive. The economists at Synapse Energy are still working on an analysis to discover how much exactly Pennsylvania residents and businesses could save by removing this unnecessary profit bonus. However, they have completed a study of our neighboring state, New Jersey. And Synops determined removing the profit bonus will save the people of New Jersey approximately $20 million a year. Members, I believe we need to do everything we can to keep bills down. I'm sure you'll agree. This bill won't alone fix the issue. But I do think removing this unnecessary bonus is a relatively easy way to make a difference. So I encourage a yes vote on this bill. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Representative Pieli. We'll now go to members, Representative Kephart.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess I just have a couple questions here. One would be just some observations as well. One, we passed a study bill, I think unanimously, at this committee. I think it was a MATSE bill. And have we got the reports back of that yet? It was studying whether we should exit PJM.
Thank you, Representative Kephart, for the question. As far as we know, we have not seen results from that study.
Okay. I mean, I would just, not that anybody can heed my advice or anything on this, but I would just say, like, maybe we should probably pause to see what that actually says. I know that the governor has also hammered PJM quite frequently. and if we mandate them to join this I understand about the half a point thing but there no leverage left Additionally, the cost savings will be spread out over PGM, not necessarily just to the state. I mean, I agree that we need to get the electricity bills down. There's a lot of factors that go into that. I think the representative just spoke to that. I mean, I would say that, you know, permitting, get more generation online, that would definitely help as well. It's not just the utility costs. Do you have a comment? I don't know. It looks like you have something to say. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Oh, no, that's okay. I thought maybe you had more on the PGM study bill. I was trying to think back on that yesterday, and I was just like, well, we still have – I don't know if we ever got that back or so forth. Additionally, do we know what – like I saw Ohio was one that passed this bill. I was trying to find it everybody has limited time here while we're in session but do we know the economic effect or what has happened in Ohio since this has went into effect there like did anything happen or there's no studies on it I'm just trying to get more information when we talked about this bill beforehand I was sort of undecided on the bill when we talked internally that's why thank you for the questions as far as I know the
The Ohio situation is relatively new, and we don't have all of the facts on that yet. But I did, I went back and reviewed Representative Piele's remarks, and it is the $20 million a year is for the state of New Jersey. And so Pennsylvania, the savings to taxpayers in New Jersey, rate payers. So, you know, we could extrapolate and assume what Pennsylvania would be if New Jersey is $20 million. I don't want to guess. I know there are economists and analysts on the case, so we can wait to hear from them what our exact savings would be. But if New Jersey's savings for their ratepayers is $20 million, I think we could imagine what Pennsylvania's would be. I just want to emphasize that that is for the state of New Jersey.
Yeah. All right. Well, I'm just going to – I mean myself. I'm just going to be a soft no on this today. But it doesn't mean I won't vote yes on the floor. I just think that – I don't know what the effects of this would be yet. I think we also, like I said, I think we should personally, I think before we voted out of the House, at least we should wait on the MATSE study to see what it says. I voted for that. Everybody in here voted for it. So I would just be curious because like that would be another question. So the little memo sheet we have here, it says requires owners to participate in PGM. But if you look at the bill, it says regional transmission organization. I'm assuming if we did pull out a PGM, we're going to have to create our own or something to do that. I think that's a big thing to do. But anyhow, that would be my only comments this morning, and I appreciate your indulgence of time.
Thank you, Representative. Chairman Cosser?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to say that Representative Kephart brings up some interesting points, And certainly I concur with what he's saying about getting the results of the study that we commissioned prior. It's interesting to me that the governor and others have been blaming our energy issues on PJM for quite some time, including threatening to remove us from PJM. And it's ironic now that we're considering a bill that mandates participation in PJM. So I have some concerns about the bill. But I going to vote today to move the bill forward I think that it may need some additional amendment But at this time I going to ask for an affirmative vote to move the bill forward with reservations
Noted. Thank you, Chairman. Representative Nelson.
Thank you, Chair. And I tried to signal her in advance. Sorry for speaking after you, Chairman Causer. Part of my concern about the bill, I think we all share a desire to lower energy prices. But if my math is correct, and we're looking at the impact on Jersey, and Jersey is an energy taker. So they need PJM. We are an energy maker. We don't need PJM. PJM needs us. But if we mandate participation in an organization, which is a change for 100 years, we've been in and that's it's right about 100 years we've been in a voluntary status with PJM and so the 20 million jersey saves works out to about two dollars a person they have about 10 million people so that two dollar savings for us to lose our leverage at the table with PJM if we have 13 million people maybe our citizens are going to save three dollars a person So, you know, this committee should be mindful of the consequences of premature closure of energy generation, which has really had a devastating effect. And we've seen a double and a tripling of consumers' energy costs. You know, I agree with my colleague on I don't know that it's our best strategic advantage to mandate participation in an organization that someday we may choose to step away from. And, you know, respectfully, I share your desire to try to reduce prices on people. I just don't know that this is our most effective way to do it. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. Seeing no further questions or comments on the bill, I would like to urge members to support this bill. I am open to discussions about different ways that we could legislate this. If it's not this, then what would it be? But it feels really important to me that we focus on the folks back home who are already having trouble with their bills. we did double check on that study and it looks like the results of hr 361 are not expected until march of 2027 so that means all of our constituents would live through this next winter with bills expected to be through the roof and then in march of 2027 we would start to address this i'm really worried about what people are going to see on their bills this winter and the choices that they're going to have to make as a result. So I believe that we cannot wait. We should not wait. People back home are counting on us to act now to lower their bills, and they don't want us to wait until the results of a study come out. So I would like to emphasize to members, I think this is a good bill. If you have feedback about ways you'd like to see us change, nuances or pieces of it, we are all ears, and I would like to thank Rep Pieli for bringing this to us. When we look at our neighbors in New Jersey saving $20 million, that means all the people in New Jersey. That's possible for Pennsylvania. I would like to see that for our neighbors. This bill is part of our effort to expose hidden fees in people's energy bills across Pennsylvania, and we will now proceed to a vote. Will the committee report House Bill 2755, printers number 3856, sponsored by Representative P.L.A., as committed? Those in favor of reporting the bill as amended will vote yes. Those opposed, no. Nick, please call the roll.
Chair Feidler.
Yes.
Representative Boyd.
Yes.
Representative Brown.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Serrato.
Yes.
Representative Davidson.
Yes, designation.
Representative Donahue.
Yes.
Representative Friel.
Yes.
Representative Girard.
Yes.
Representative Ingalls.
Yes, designation.
Representative McAndrew.
Yes, designation.
representative pieli
representative rusnak
represent steel
chair causer
representative armin
representative barton
representative cook
representative ham
designation yes
representative kail
designation yes
Representative Kephart.
No.
Representative Mahalik.
Designation, yes.
Representative Nelson.
No.
Representative Rapp.
No.
Representative Stamball.
Yes.
Representative Williams.
Yes.
On the question, the yeses are 22 and the noes are 3. The motion passes. Thank you, Nick. We will now proceed to the second item of business on today's agenda, House Bill 2775. printers number 3883 sponsored by representative donahue which the chair now calls up please
steve please read a summary of the bill house bill 2775 requires proof of interconnection
application and paid fees for data center zoning applications there are two proposed amendments to the bill first the chair calls up a03466 sponsored by representative williams steve please read a
summary of the amendment this amendment requires data center applicants to bring their own base
load energy generation or retrofit a retired generation facility. Thank you. Representative Williams, would you like to speak on your amendment?
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. This is basically the essence of my Pennsylvania Electricity Ratepayer Protection Act. I was struck by a comment you made on the bill we just considered, Madam Chair, that we are going to be stuck with living with these high bills through the winter. That is absolutely unrequired. we could change the calculation in the capacity market with a vote on the house floor with a vote let me explain that in 2024 utilities in estimating the load that we were going to need which is the starting point for the capacity auction started to factor in unbuilt data centers that was the beginning of what we call the hockey stick, the capacity prices that absolutely exploded, which is the number one cause for high electricity bills right now. The number one cause, and it's not even close. We're paying now upwards of 10 times what we paid three years ago in Pennsylvania, getting no economic benefit whatsoever to the fact that we are the number one electricity exporter in the country, in the country. In the next year, 2025, the possibility, not the reality, the possibility of data centers coming online throughout PJM caused utilities to build that into their load forecast, their estimates, which made it into the capacity auction, which again exploded price As a result of settlement of lawsuits against PJM Pennsylvania now pays the exact same capacity price as Virginia Maryland and New Jersey who cannot meet their own energy needs whether it's by policy decision or by gigawatts worth of hyperscale data centers in Virginia and I want to be clear we could build zero data centers in Pennsylvania zero and we still pay the costs for data centers being built in the other 12 states and the District of Columbia. That's what the capacity market is today because we get no economic benefit from being an electricity exporter. I will say there's some good news. The United States Congress, before it went on recess, passed the Ratepayer Protection Act, which is almost identical to my Pennsylvania Electricity Ratepayer Protection Act, 417 to 3. Nearly unanimous. If we need to revisit some federal civics, there are 435 members of the U.S. Congress. It's sitting in the United States Senate right now, unable to get past cloture, which means we need to act. You can change the calculus of the capacity market overnight in Pennsylvania by requiring data centers to bring their own electricity and requiring them to pay for all of their infrastructure needs. I hear time and again that there's a supply problem with turbines. Let that be a data center problem, not a consumer problem. I hear time and again that we can't build generation fast enough. Let that be a data center problem and not a consumer problem. Put these costs on the cost causers, which are the data centers right now. Ohio is building data centers faster than they can keep up with, and as a consequence, they're buying Pennsylvania energy. Loudoun County, Virginia, is building hyperscale data centers faster than they can keep up with, energy and now they're buying Pennsylvania energy. Maryland decided to drive all fossil fuel generation offline and now they're buying Pennsylvania energy. And guess who's not benefiting from that? I'll say for the third time, us. And you can change it with one vote. Make data centers, pay for their costs, including producing their own electricity. So I've offered that as an amendment today, Madam Chair. It is consistent with the governor's grid bill. We have passed legislation that requires cost causers, namely data centers, to pay for their own costs, except we hung it onto a revenue bill. Meaning, if you do not want to claim the sales tax exemption for data center equipment, you can avoid all of those requirements. So guess what? Utilities still have to factor data center load into their load forecast. Nothing changed with that vote. I voted yes, but we didn't do anything. We need to pass this simple, simple solution the way the United States Congress has, 417 to 3, and I would ask for an affirmative vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Representative. Is there any discussion on the amendment? Representative Donahue.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the maker of the amendments offering this amendment today, and I'd be happy to discuss it further. But this bill is a narrow one that simply requires interconnection applications for local zoning consideration. So the amendment is not agreed to, and I urge a no vote. Thank you.
I do have a response to that. The bill is about requiring data centers at the local level to prove that they have interconnection agreements and arrangements already made. I also want them in the first application at the local level to prove that they bringing their own generation There should be no argument about this at this point We have to get this done Thank you Thank you
Chairman Couser.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I strongly support the amendment. I think this amendment gets to the heart of the issue. When we're talking about data centers, the question, the main issue that always comes up as the power that the data center is going to use for their data center and this this truly gets to the heart of the issue bring your own power that's that's the answer we need data centers to bring your own power that's what's going to power the data center that's what's going to strengthen the grid that's what's going to bring down the cost of energy for all of us that's why i strongly support this amendment and ask the members to support it
Thank you, Chairman. I am glad to have a discussion both with the Chair and the maker of the amendment about ways in which we can enact policy to encourage or require bring your own energy. I respect the desire for this bill to remain a focused and narrow one, and I am also concerned that this amendment would not allow facilities to make use of all energy technologies, including renewable energy options like solar and batteries, that really do have a vital role to play in our energy future. So with that, and thanks to the maker of the amendment for his thoughts, I ask for a no vote on this amendment.
Nick, please call the roll.
Chair Feedler. No. Representative Boyd. No. Representative Brown. No by designation. Representative Serrato. Representative Davidson. No by designation. Representative Donahue. No. Representative Friel. No. Representative Girall. No. representative Ingalls no designation representative McAndrew no designation representative Pelli representative Rusnak representative Steele representative Venkat no designation chair Causer yes representative Armanini representative Barton representative cook representative ham yes representative kale yes representative Kephart representative Mahalik yes representative Nelson representative Rapp representative Stambaugh yes represent Williams yes
on the question the ayes are 12 and the nose are 14 the amendment fails Thank you, Nick. Next, the Chair calls up Amendment A04270 to House Bill 2775. My amendment tightens the bill's language so the definition of a data center matches the definition in other bills. Steve? Is there any discussion on the amendment?
Chairman Causer. I believe the amendment is technical, and I support the amendment. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman. Are there any no's on the amendment, the technical amendment? All right seeing no no the amendment is agreed to and we will move on to the next order of business The amendment is adopted, and the bill is amended. Before we proceed to discussion on the bill as amended, the chair invites the prime sponsor and committee member, Representative Donahue, to speak a second time, this time on the bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. In Lackawanna County and across the Commonwealth, municipalities are being overwhelmed with data center applications, some of which are serious and some that are just purely speculative. This is a simple bill designed to separate the real from the fake. With this bill, if you're a data center developer, you need to apply for electric service and pay for any fees associated with that application before you seek zoning approval. by weeding out the purely speculative projects. This bill helps reduce the burden that many municipal officials are feeling, and I urge a yes vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Representative. Is there any discussion on the bill?
Chairman Causer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we were notified by the Township Supervisors Association a short time ago that they had some concerns with the bill, and certainly our members are always concerned when local officials are concerned about specific language. Initially, we were told that they were opposed to the bill, and now my understanding is that they're neutral on the bill. And so I wanted to point that out. I'm going to support moving the bill forward, but I do think that it probably needs further amendment and wanted that noted for the record.
thank you so much chairman causer and uh what you said about the psats organization is correct in my understanding they are neutral uh but would like to work together on the bill to address some concerns uh once we get it out of committee and i am glad to do that work with you and your staff and with the prime sponsor um i agree with representative donahue and ask for a yes vote and also thank Chair Causer for helping us to move this bill forward so that we can do the important work before it gets, hopefully, to a House floor vote. Seeing no further questions or comments on the bill, we will now proceed to that vote. Will the committee report House Bill 2775, printers number 3883, sponsored by Representative Donahue as amended? Those in favor of reporting the bill as amended will vote yes. Nick, please call the roll.
Chair Fiedler.
Yes.
Representative Boyd.
Yes.
Representative Brown.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Serrauto.
Yes.
Representative Davidson.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Donahue.
Yes.
Representative Friel.
Yes.
Representative Girall.
Yes.
Representative Ingles.
Yes, designation.
Representative McAndrew.
Yes, designation.
Representative Rorschach.
Yes.
Representative Steele.
Yes.
Representative Veneman.
Kemp yes designation Charcauser yes representative Armentini represented
Barton representative cook representative Ham
designation yes representative kail yes representative Kephart
represent Imalek designation the s representative Nelsen yes representative Rapp representative standby yes represent Williams on the
question the yeses are 26 and the nos are zero the motion passes house bill 273 7-5, printers number 3883, sponsored by Representative Donahue, will be reported from the Energy Committee as amended. We will now move on to House Bill 2828, printers number 3926, which I am sponsoring, and now call up. Steve, please read a summary of the bill.
House Bill 2828 establishes cost-protective tariffs and emergency curtailment requirements for data centers, ensuring they bear all incremental and reliability-related costs and are prioritized for curtailment during PJM resource adequacy shortfalls.
Thank you, Steve. The chair now calls up A04337, which I will sponsor. Steve, please read a summary of the amendment.
Amendment A04337 will require data centers to report backup generation technologies to the Public Utility Commission and meet emission standards for backup generation.
Are there any comments on the amendment? Representative Nelson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your work on the larger bill. I was concerned with some of the language in the amendment, specifically the section that adds shall be equipped with selective catalytic reduction systems or other emission control systems that more stringently reduces nitrogen dioxides. because those backup generators would already be meeting federal standards, how do we define more stringent reduction?
Representative, on that particular one, there's kind of an or, right? So they could meet the federal standards or they could have this second sort of category. And I think that the drafter of the amendment, the chairwoman, would like to kind of give kind of a little bit of wiggle room there so that, you know, as we improve the technology, that we, you know, sort of aren't sort of stuck with the same standards.
Okay, so this wouldn't place additional requirements, so it's not like an MS4 type of thing where you just have to have less sediment.
It would just provide an option. Correct. And these are widely available, mostly diesel generators. So we don't feel that this would be a burden for the data centers to procure something that is just a bit more efficient than some other generators that are available on the market.
Great. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Chairman Couser.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I share some of the concerns that have been expressed about this. I don't think that the amendment is necessary. I mean, we're talking about backup power that will probably be used infrequently, and creating additional regulations on this backup power I don't think are necessary. So I'm opposed to the amendment.
Thank you, Chairman. I will, on this one, I will ask members to vote yes. And as Steve mentioned, these systems are widely available, and I think that's important to note. Seeing no further comments, I'll ask Nick to please call the roll. Those in favor of reporting the amendment will vote yes. Those opposed, no.
Chair Fiedler.
Yes.
Representative Boyd.
Yes.
Representative Brown.
Yes.
Designation. Representative Serrato.
Representative Davidson.
Yes.
Designation.
Representative Donahue.
Yes.
Representative Friel.
Yes.
Yes.
Representative Doral.
Yes Representative Ingalls Yes designation Representative McAndrew yes designation representative PL representative Russ knock up their steel chair Couser no representative Armenini represent in Barton representative cook representative ham designation now representative Kale designation now
Representative Kephart.
Representative Mihalik.
Designation, no.
Representative Nelson.
Representative Rapp.
No.
Representative Sambaugh.
No.
Representative Williams.
Yes.
On the question, the ayes are 14 and the nos are 11. The amendment is adopted. I believe we've inadvertently skipped over Representative Venkat. So if we could please record Representative Venkat as a yes by designation. My sincere apologies. No problem. Thank you very much. If you could give us the totals, Nick. On the question, the yeses are 15 and the noes are 11. The amendment is adopted. Thank you. The amendment is adopted and the bill is amended. We will now move on to debate on the bill itself. Is there any discussion on the bill? This bill is part of a series of bills this committee and the House have worked on to protect Pennsylvania residents, lower their utility bills, cut out extra fees and unnecessary costs. And I am hopeful that the Senate, that we will be able to get this bill up for a House floor vote and get it to the Senate, and that the Senate will take it under consideration. I'll briefly say that this bill does three things that I think are very important. It will mandate that when data centers are built and utilities respond by upgrading infrastructure, that the cost of that infrastructure is paid for by the data center, not by the residents we all represent. Second, this bill says that if we have an emergency and there are blackouts and brownouts, it is the data centers that would need to cut back first and not the constituents who we represent in our districts. And finally, with the amendment, this bill says that data centers need to use efficient generators, which are widely available for their backup generation. I believe this is common sense legislation that protects all of our neighbors, helps to lower their utility bills, and I urge a yes vote. Seeing no further questions or comments, Chairman Causer.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, there's a lot of discussion about data centers, a lot of discussion around the power for data centers. I think it needs to be pointed out that the power used by data centers is the heart of the issue. We have an opportunity in this state. Our opportunity is to get this right and make sure, as has been discussed previously, that they bring their own power. I think that's crucial, that they bring their own power. and that we also recognize Pennsylvania is an energy powerhouse. We have so much opportunity, so much potential in this state. The true answer to this is additional production of energy. We need more energy to power our grid. We need to be putting more baseload energy on the grid, and that's what's going to bring down the cost for consumers. So I'm going to move this bill forward, even though I have concerns over it and would certainly ask our members to support the bill.
Thank you, Chairman.
Seeing no further questions or comments on the bill, we will now proceed to a vote. Will the committee report House Bill 2828 printers number 3926 as amended Those in favor will vote yes Those opposed no Nick please call the roll
Chair Fiedler.
Yes.
Representative Boyd.
Yes.
Representative Brown.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Serrato.
Yes.
Representative Davidson.
Yes, designation.
Representative Donahue.
Yes.
Representative Friel.
Yes.
Representative Jarrell.
Yes.
Representative Ingalls.
Yes, designation.
Representative McAndrew. Yes. Designation. Representative Pielli. Yes. Representative Rusnak. Yes. Representative Steele. Yes. Representative Venkat. Yes. Designation.
Chair Couser. Yes. Representative Armanini. Yes. Representative Barton. Yes. Representative Cook. Yes. Representative Hamm. Yes. Designation. Representative Cale. Yes. Designation. Representative Kepart. Representative Mahalick. Yes. Designation.
Representative Nelson.
Yes.
Representative Rapp.
Yes.
Representative Stambaugh.
Yes.
Representative Williams.
Yes.
On the question, the yeses are 26 and the noes are 0. The motion passes. House Bill 2828, printers number 3926, will be reported from the Energy Committee as amended. We will now proceed to House Resolution 630, printers number 3916, sponsored by Representative Sappy, which the chair now calls up.
Steve, please read a summary of the bill. This resolution directs the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to study data center decommissioning.
The Chair has not received any amendments on the bill. Before we proceed to it, I would like to invite the Prime Sponsor, Representative Sappy, who is joining us to offer remarks. Welcome.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. As a member of the Local Government Commission and the Local Government Committee, one of my biggest takeaways over the years has been how diverse our state is, our regional differences, and those of our over 2,500 municipalities. This understanding is what prompted my concern, and I believe the concern of many others, for how to handle and how to empower and protect our communities at the end of the data center bubble. We currently lack a uniform statewide standard for how data centers should be decommissioned at the end of their life cycle. And importantly, who specifically the cost of decommissioning falls to. With these concerns in mind, House Resolution 630 directs the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to study aspects of data center decommissioning, which include but are not limited to environmental, fiscal, and local government impacts to Pennsylvania communities. This study will provide us the information necessary to develop policies tailored to Pennsylvania's needs and ensure that Pennsylvania residents are protected. And importantly, a study demonstrates to Pennsylvanians that we're taking proactive steps to understand and thoughtfully address this emerging issue and to ensure the cost of decommissioning does not fall to them. It is our responsibility as legislators to be informed when we make key decisions that affect the future of Pennsylvania and its residents. And so to that end, I ask your support of this resolution. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative Sappy, for the legislation and for joining us. Is there any discussion on the bill? Representative Williams.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this bill. You are my legislative neighbor, and we do a lot of great work together. I think this is a capital idea and I mean that pun intentionally so I would encourage you when we come to the floor with this vote to Have some language in here that is expressed about stranded cost my worry about Decommissioning data centers is less about the giant building with a bunch of IT infrastructure in it I believe in my heart eventually we as a commonwealth and a country are going to require these data centers to bring their own energy. And when they do, and they've amortized that asset over three decades, and in 10 years decide there's a better way to do data, and they leave that asset behind, ratepayers are going to pay for that stranded asset. So I'd like to see the study address that financial ratepayer impact as well. But thank you again for this bill.
Thank you for that input.
Chairman Couser?
Just like to thank the gentlelady for the resolution and ask the members to support it. Thank you very much.
Seeing no further questions or comments on the bill, we'll now proceed to a vote. Seeing no negative votes, the resolution passes and will be reported from committee. The motion having passed, House Resolution 630, printers number 3916, sponsored by Representative Sappy, will be reported from the Energy Committee as committed. Congratulations and thank you, Representative, for joining us. And we will get to our last but not least matter on the agenda, House Resolution 564, printers number 3595, sponsored by Representative Freeman, which the chair now calls up.
Steve, please read a summary of the bill. H.R. 564 directs the Joint State Government Commission to conduct a study on waste heat recovery in data centers.
Chair Freeman, thank you for joining us. Would you like to come on up to the microphone and offer some remarks on your bill? Thank you for being here.
Thank you. Chair Fiedler, Chair Kelser, members of the House Energy Committee, I want to thank all of you for the opportunity to discuss House Resolution 564 and the benefits of waste heat recovery for our communities. Communities across the Commonwealth have become increasingly concerned about the impact of data centers. We hear that every day from our constituents. Included in the concerns are the consumption of vast amounts of water and energy. This places increased pressure on our grid, infrastructure, and the cost to ratepayers, while also generating a tremendous amount of waste heat. By 2028, data centers are projected to account for nearly 12 percent of the nation's total energy consumption, with 40 percent of this going towards cooling systems alone. Ratepayers near data centers have already seen up to 267 percent increase in electricity prices from 2020 to 2025. Water usage is another concern with data centers. One 100-megawatt data center can use the same amount of water per day as 2,600 households. Again, a large portion of this is devoted to running the cooling systems. Waste heat recovery is a system that has been shown to increase energy efficiency, lower operating costs, and reduce emissions by turning waste heat into a valuable public resource. The process works by running coolant over computing equipment, absorbing the heat, and then carrying it to a heat exchanger. The thermal energy is then transported through insulated pipes to nearby buildings for heating, hot water products production, and agricultural uses such as greenhouse heating. Several studies have shown recovering waste heat can save hundreds of millions of gallons of water per day, as well as reduce the facility's carbon footprint by as high as 50%. House Resolution 564 would direct the Joint State Government Commission to conduct a study and issue a report, highlighting how waste heat can be captured and repurposed in Pennsylvania. The resulting report would highlight opportunities to redirect waste heat for community benefits, potential economic and environmental benefits, current barriers to implementation, and policy recommendations to accelerate deployment. Timely intervention is of the essence in order to prevent costs from rising uncontrollably for our rate payers. Waste heat recovery presents unique and valuable opportunity to absorb rising costs by turning waste into an asset. This resolution will lay the groundwork for an informed, data-driven policy that protects ratepayers, strengthens resilience, and positions Pennsylvania as a leader in efficient infrastructure. I thank the committee for its time, and I respectfully request support for House Resolution 564.
I believe the chair has an amendment that would extend this study to industrial facilities.
I think that's a very good addition to the study, and I highly support that. Thank you so much, Chairman.
Thank you for your kind and positive remarks on the amendment, and thank you so much for the underlying resolution. There is indeed one amendment, A04-225, which I will sponsor.
Steve, please read a summary of the amendment. This amendment expands the Joint State Government Commission's waste heat study to include other industries. As the chair mentioned, while data centers produce immense amount of waste heat, other heavy industrial and manufacturing sectors also produce significant amounts of waste heat and may be able to repurpose that waste heat. My amendment simply expands the scope of the study to include those producers so we can also have that information.
Is there any discussion on the amendment? Representative Steele.
I just wanted to say that I think this resolution is really important. This is a huge opportunity for us. I would request that if there's any way we could expedite this study somehow, this is important. It should be a conversation that we're having as fast as possible. So I appreciate this resolution, and the amendment strengthens it significantly. Thank you for your comments. I'm excited to vote yes for it. Thank you.
Thank you Chairman Causer I want to thank the gentleman for his resolution and I certainly support the amendment I think that the more comprehensive look we can take by broadening this to additional industries I think is valuable So certainly support the amendment and the resolution and I think it will be unanimous Thank you.
Thank you so much, Chairman. I yet again did not see Representative Nelson signaling, so my apologies. Thank you for your support, Chairman Cosler. Representative Nelson.
I think maybe there might be a broken hand bias or something. She's not seeing my hook when I'm raising.
I apologize, Madam Chair. That's totally my error. And I plan to be supportive of the study. I just would caution or encourage. I think this technology, the understanding of the benefit of using waste heat is like already the industry is much further advanced than potentially what our government study did.
would do and you know I'm not going to vote against it but even the Homer City example when we took that tour I mean there are you know it's millions and millions of dollars to recapture their dividing that waste the steam into three different sections there they're doing advanced things already designed by American engineers through let's say the key it Kiewit design system And that technology is really proven to be effective, you know, and it's already being implemented. So it's not that I oppose the study, but I just caution that that information, you know, really may already exist through entities that are much more capable than our Harrisburg studying organization. I just, you know, I'm a best practice person, and not that I'm going to vote against it, but just the consideration that there may already exist significant best practice technology for business.
If I may, too. Thank you for your comments.
I should note that a number of European countries are already utilizing this technology, so we're not reinventing the wheel in that respect. But I think the beauty of the report will be to project the importance of it and to get more focus from a policy standpoint on accelerating the ability to recapture this waste heat energy system. And I would offer to the committee and the chairs as well that there was a research paper done by an intern in my office Fernando DeCicco which has extensive documentation of the benefits of the concept in my office We'd be happy to share that with the members. Thank you so much, Chairman.
Thank you for the question, Representative. And I'm quite sure if there are best practices or examples we can learn from industry or others. We would be glad to. So thank you for bringing that up. Representative Kephart.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just, I was listening to the comments here, and I would agree with Representative Steele that we probably, is there a way we could expedite the study? I just, you know, on this, you know, if we're going to do these studies, I think it's important that we see them come to fruition before acting going forward. I don't know if we know enough about this. I would agree with her comments that, you know, before we do anything, I think it's important that we actually get the study back on this.
Yeah, thank you, Representative. I think that's a good point, especially in light of our previous conversation.
I will defer to the prime sponsor of the resolution, but certainly if there's a floor amendment we can work on that would expedite this information. I'm glad to help. I'd be happy to work with the chair in that regard. I think we do need to consult with the Joint State Government Committee to see how they can expedite the process as well and make sure that we're not overburdening them.
Absolutely. We can do that. Thank you very much. Representative Barton.
Thank you, Chair Fiedler. Yeah, I just wanted to share that this technology has been existent here in the United States, here in the Commonwealth, for over 30 years. In the Tier 2 waste coal generation, we've been supplying steam, and actually one of our SCIs, correctional institutes here in the Commonwealth, is heated by waste steam from a waste coal plant, saving the Commonwealth a lot of money. So I agree with all the comments said. It's a great opportunity. There's a lot of information that exists and has existed for over 30 years. So I certainly support this. Thank you.
Thank you. So we will now move to a vote on the amendment. Are there any negative votes on the amendment? Seeing no negative votes, the amendment is adopted. Thank you. Thank you. There's a lot to follow. It's good to have a robust discussion. And are there any comments on the underlying bill? Do you have anything Seeing no further comments on the bill I urge committee members to support the resolution As we have heard heat reuse technologies while not brand new are relatively new and there's a lot that we can learn about cost savings and other benefits that they can have, as with many emerging and promising technologies. And my hope is that the Joint State Government Commission will be able to report back on the the legislature can play in encouraging heat reuse. We will now proceed to a vote. Will the committee report House Resolution 564, printers number 3595, sponsored by Representative Freeman as amended? Those in favor of reporting the bill as amended will vote yes. Those opposed, no.
Nick, please call the roll.
Chair Fiedler. Yes.
Representative Boyd. Yes, by designation.
Representative Brown. Yes, by designation.
Representative Serrato.
Representative Davidson. yes by designation representative Donahue representative Friel representative jor-all representative Ingals yes by designation representative Mac Andrew yes designation representing piele representative Russnock
representative Steele representative Venkatt yes designation chair
Cahyser yes representative Armonini represent of Barton Yes. Representative Cook. Yes. Representative Hamm. Yes. Representative Kale. Yes.
Representative Kephart. Yes.
Representative Mihalik. Yes.
Representative Nelson. Yes.
Representative Rapp.
Representative Stambaugh. Yes.
Representative Williams. Yes.
On the question, the ayes are 26 and the noes are zero. The motion passes.
I can't do it right now. My thanks to the members of the committee. Thank you, Chairman.
House Resolution 564, printers number 3595, sponsored by Chairman Freeman. will be reported from the Energy Committee as amended. With no more business before the committee today, our time together is up. Thank you for being here, and this meeting is adjourned. Chair Fiedler? Chair Fiedler.
Okay, thank you. Thank you.