June 17, 2026 · ENERGY · 7,061 words · 8 speakers · 191 segments
Thank you. Thank you.
I'd like to call this voting meeting of the House Energy Committee to order at
10-03 Nick will you please call the roll chair Fiedler here representative Boyd designation representative Brown designation representative Serato Representative Davidson, designation. Representative Donohue, designation. Representative Friel, designation. Representative Doral, representative Ingalls, representative McAndrew, designation. Representative P. Ellie, designation. Representative Rusnok, designation. Representative Steele, designation. Representative Venkat, designation chair causer here representative armanini here representative barton here representative cook president representative ham here representative kale designation representative Kephart representative Mahalik designation representative Nelson Representative Rapp. Designation. Representative Stamball. Here. Representative Williams. Here. The attendance is recorded and a quorum has been established. You may proceed, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Nick. We will now proceed to the first item of business on today's agenda, House Bill 2380, printers number 3424, sponsored by Representative Nikki Rivera, which the Chair now calls up. Steve, please read a summary of the bill.
House Bill 2380 requires electric distribution companies to procure battery storage systems.
With us today is Representative Rivera, the prime sponsor of the legislation. Rep, would you like to offer remarks before we begin?
Yes, thank you, Chairwoman Fiedler. Thank you, Chair Causer. As electricity demands continue to rise, Pennsylvania needs to implement practical solutions that help to keep the lights on and the electric bills affordable. Battery storage is one of those solutions. This bill sets clear energy storage targets that will help to save electricity when it's plentiful and use it when its demand is the highest. That means a more reliable grid, fewer power shortages during peak periods, and greater resilience when the system is under stress. Battery storage can also help lower costs by reducing congestion on the grid, limiting the need for expensive infrastructure upgrades, especially when we're not using 100% of what we currently have, and cutting reliance on the costly peak power purchases. This bill includes competitive procurement requirements and strong oversight to ensure projects deliver value for ratepayers. It's a smart investment in a stronger, more reliable, and more affordable energy future for Pennsylvania. and for our families and businesses. So thank you for consideration.
Thank you, Representative. The chair is in receipt of one amendment to the bill, A03553, which the chair will offer. Steve, please read a summary of the amendment.
A03553 adds 500 megawatts of multi-day storage, extends the timeline for procurement from 2033 to 2035, clarifies the allowed uses for the storage systems, requires utilities to do a six-month system reliability study, gives the Public Utility Commission discretion to adjust targets if there are delays due to supply chain or PJM interconnection issues, mandates that bids be accepted on the standard of best value, and reduces the allowed utility ownership from 50 percent to zero percent. Thank you, Steve. This amendment incorporates
feedback received at last month's public hearing before this committee and will maximize the grid strengthening benefits storage systems. Is there any discussion on the amendment? Chairman Causer?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm going to offer my comments for both the amendment and the bill. This would be a very large new mandate for the electric distribution companies procuring 3,000 megawatts of storage capacity, the requirement that's in the bill is equal to roughly four times the capacity of Three Mile Island, the Crane Clean Energy Center. I think this is a huge mandate, a very costly mandate, and I will ask for a negative vote on the amendment and the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Chairman. Representative Williams.
Thank you, Madam Chair. just to put a little more color on the chairman's remarks. The Crane Clean Energy Center is roughly 850 megawatts. With this amendment, we would be requiring our electric distribution companies, our utilities, who are already sending us outrageous bills, to purchase 3,500 megawatts of battery storage, which doesn't yet exist, the equivalent of four nuclear power plants. now we as i just said are already getting unbelievable bills from our utilities not because our utilities are charging us necessarily more but because there's not enough electricity on the grid as it is and all of these costs would be socialized on our repairs every nickel of it that's number one problem in addition to the physical impossibility that that four nuclear power plants worth of batteries does not exist yet. The worst part is that this puts the utilities back into an era that we left long ago, which is competing in the marketplace with existing generation. We are a deregulated state, which means that our electric generation comes from merchant generators who compete in the open market, which is supposed to keep our prices low when supply is high. And instead, we're going to put utilities back in the competitive marketplace per generation competing with those who should be building actual good generation for our ratepayers. We're in a crisis right now. The only thing we can do is encourage the development of new actual generation of electricity that exists in the marketplace right now. And we keep offering bills like this to nibble at the perimeter of, I guess, what, green ideas and socialize those costs back on the shoulders of our ratepayers, this is not what we need to be doing. We need to be encouraging gigawatts, gigawatts worth of new generation, predominantly in western Pennsylvania, taking advantage of Marcella Shale, and we are the number one electricity exporter in the country, and we could double down on that right now and overnight immediately reduce our ratepayer bills, and instead we're doing this.
Thank you. Does anyone have any comments that they would like to offer or questions? Joining us in person I'd like to add is Representative Cahill, Rep. McAndrew, and Rep. Boyd. Rep. Cahill, you may go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And forgive me for being a few minutes late today. I'd just like to piggyback on Representative Williams was saying and just be a little more clear and basic. We are not going to solve this affordability crisis that we have in the Commonwealth. We're not going to solve the reliability crisis that we have in the Commonwealth until we start hearing that there are new developments of generation. And let me be very specific, baseload generation. Even further, until we hear that there is a new cool fire plant being built in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, these issues aren't going to go away. Until we start hearing that there's going to be new gas fire plants in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, these issues aren't going to go away. Until we hear about more nuclear development in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, these issues aren't going to go away. I appreciate that we are talking about these issues every week within this committee. We should be talking about these issues. But what we need to be doing to actually solve the issues is to facilitate an environment within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that will keep the lights on and the costs down. And what that means is facilitate an environment for base load generation using our coal and using our natural gas. Thank you Madam Chair Thank you so much Representative Before we go to the vote I do want to emphasize that this legislation is an important step to increasing reliability for people across Pennsylvania
And for anybody who has lost power, experienced a blackout, a brownout, or been afraid that that might happen, a real reality for a lot of people in Pennsylvania, this bill is directly related, directly targeted to eliminating those situations. And so we talk a lot about generating new energy. I do disagree with the idea that the only thing we can do is try to get more generation online. That is one of the things, a very, very important thing. And I think we have some other bills coming up today that I hope will help to accomplish that. But I think in addition to getting more generation online in Pennsylvania, an absolutely important and critical issue, we need to do everything we can to increase reliability. And I think that really resonates with people back home. I'm grateful to the representative for bringing this piece of legislation to us. And I think we could probably have a future valuable hearing examining people's energy bills and talking about costs, because there's a lot of hidden costs in there that I think folks would like to know more about. That said, we will move on to the vote. Nick, would you please call the roll?
Chair Fiedler.
Yes.
Representative Boyd. Representative Brown.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Serrato.
Yes.
Representative Davidson.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Donohue.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Friel.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Dural. Representative Ingles.
Yes.
Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Representative McAndrew.
Aye.
Representative Pielli.
Yes, designation.
Representative Rusknock.
Yes, designation.
Representative Steele.
Yes, designation.
Representative Venkat.
Yes, designation.
Chair Couser? No. Representative Armenini no. Representative Barton no. Representative Cook representing Ham no Representative Cale Representative Kephart Representative Mihalik no representive Nelson Representative Rapp no. Representative Stambaugh no. Representative Williams
On the question, the yeses are 14 and the noes are 12. The amendment is adopted. The amendment is adopted and the bill is amended. The question is, will the committee report the bill as amended? Is there any discussion on the bill? I'd like to thank, I'll offer some brief comments. I'd like to thank the representative again for bringing this legislation to us and for our conversations about battery storage, which can feel a bit in the weeds, but certainly I believe is at the core of increasing reliability for small businesses, for consumers, for families, seniors, children, for everyone. Making sure that when you flip the light switch on, the power is there. Making sure the food in your refrigerator stays cold. Really important things. Making sure that hospitals have reliable service to be able to provide life-saving medical care. We also know that every week constituents walk into all of our district offices, whether you're in a city or a more rural place, and folks are looking for relief from rising electric bills. Contrary to what you've heard, I believe that this legislation is an important step to help folks who are struggling with higher costs. They are looking to us to come up with solutions. And really the reality is that there's no single solution. There's no one bill we could pass here to fix the problem. But this piece of legislation to increase battery storage in the Commonwealth is a very important part of the broader strategy. The truth is battery storage can reduce costly peak demand, super hot days when we all are counting on our air conditioners. It can ease congestion on the grid and help avoid expensive infrastructure investments that ultimately show up on those same customer bills. If we're serious about addressing affordability, I believe we must be willing to pursue practical, bold solutions like this one. Seeing no further questions or comments on the bill, we will now proceed to a vote. Will the committee vote House Bill 2380, printers number 3424, sponsored by Representative Nikki Rivera, as amended? Those in favor will vote yes. Those opposed, no.
Nick, please call the roll. Chair Fiedler.
Yes.
Representative Boyd. Representative Brown.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Serrato. Representative Davidson.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Donahue.
Yes, by designation. yes, designation yes, designation yes, representation yes, designation yes, designation no no
Representative Cook. Representative Hamm.
No.
Representative Kale. Representative Kephart. Representative Mihalik.
No.
Representative Nelson. Representative Rapp.
No.
Representative Stambaugh.
No.
Representative Williams.
On the question, the yeses are 14 and the noes are 12. The motion passes. House Bill 2380, printers number 3424, sponsored by Representative Nikki Rivera, will be reported from the Energy Committee as amended. Thank you for being here. We will now proceed to the next item of business on today's agenda, House Bill 2595, printers number 3507, sponsored by committee member Representative John Ingalls, which the chair now calls up.
Steve, please read a summary of the bill. HB 2595 establishes deadline requirements for the interconnection studies of small-scale energy projects.
Thank you, Steve. Committee member Representative Ingalls is the prime sponsor. Rep, would you like to offer remarks on your legislation?
Thank you, Madam Chair. We all know Pennsylvania needs more electricity on the grid, and we need it sooner rather than later. Too many energy projects are getting stuck waiting for interconnection studies, sometimes for months or even years. This bill sets reasonable deadlines so projects can get answers and move forward. It doesn't cut corners or weaken oversight. It simply makes sure the process keeps moving. When projects are delayed, we lose out on new energy supply, local investment, and good-paying jobs. If we're serious about meeting growing demand and creating opportunities for workers across the Commonwealth, we need a process that works better. This bill is a common-sense step in that direction. An IRGS vote. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative Ingalls. The chair is in receipt of two amendments to the bill. The chair will offer the first one, A03474.
Steve, please read a summary of the amendment. A03474 provides enforcement for EDCs failing to complete grid upgrades according to the agreed upon terms.
As the sponsor of the amendment, I will offer very brief remarks. This amendment improves the bill, we believe, by ensuring any necessary upgrades identified in the interconnection study are also completed in a timely manner. The change incorporates feedback from several industry stakeholders who engaged with our office on this bill, and we are grateful for the discussion. Is there any discussion on this amendment?
Yes.
Representative Williams, you may go ahead.
Chair, I want you to know that in advance of this amendment, I was going to be a yes on the bill because I think it's important that we remove all barriers to interconnection that we can until we got to this amendment where we basically invest with the PUC by way of prosecutors with the Bureau of Investigations and Enforcement the opportunity to bring fines against the utilities for not connecting fast enough in accord with whatever contract they have with the solar developer. We need to remove barriers to interconnection. What we don't need to be doing is creating a cottage industry for law firms to come back and sue the utilities for millions of dollars worth of fines if they're not moving fast enough. And I'll be a no on the amendment, and if it passes, a no on the bill.
Thank you, Representative. Any further discussion on the amendment? Chairman Causer.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the bill in general, we want to get as much energy on the grid as we can. And I have heard that there is certainly a need for these studies to be conducted faster to be able to get projects on the grid. There are significant concerns about a number of provisions. And this committee has heard significant concerns about merchant generators taking advantage of net metering under the AAPS Act at the expense of ratepayers. But I will tell you that I think these studies need to be conducted quicker. Our members have significant concerns about provisions of the bill. I want to thank you for working with me on the amendment that I'm going to offer to try to offer a little more reasonable timeline for the studies to be completed. So I am planning to support your amendment because I know you're going to support my amendment and hope that we can continue working on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the collaboration. and Representative Williams, as always, I'm glad to continue the discussion when we leave this room. Thank you. That said, we will proceed to a vote.
Nick, would you call the roll?
Those in favor will vote yes. Those opposed, no.
Chair Fiedler.
Yes.
Representative Boyd. Representative Brown.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Serrato. Representative Davidson.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Donahue.
yes designation representative real yes designation represent of Dural representative Ingles representative McAndrew aye representative p.l.e. yes designation representative Russ knock representative steel yes designation represent event cat yes designation chair causer yes representative Armanini
Representative Barton? Yes. Representative Cook?
Yes.
Representative Hamm?
No.
Representative Kale? Representative Kephart?
No.
Representative Mihalik?
Yes.
Representative Nelson? Representative Rapp?
Yes.
Representative Stambaugh?
No.
Representative Williams?
On the question, the yeses are 21 and the noes are 5. The amendment is adopted. Thank you. The amendment is adopted and the bill is amended. Now let's move to the second amendment. This amendment will be offered, as you heard, by Chairman Causer.
Steve, please read a summary of the amendment. A03722 changes the deadlines for interconnection feasibility, impact, and facility studies to 90 days.
Thank you. So Chairman Couser, would you like to speak on the amendment?
Thank you, Madam Chair. As I stated, it increases the timeline by which the studies can be completed up to 90 days. I think it's a more reasonable timeline. It would give the EDCs the ability and time to properly review the projects while also ensuring that we can get more energy on the grid quicker. So I will ask for an affirmative vote.
Thank you, Chairman. I believe that we both have the shared interest in getting more energy online and ensuring that energy developers and consumers can connect to the grid in a timely manner. This amendment is agreed to, and I will encourage members to vote yes on the amendment. The question is, will the committee report the bill as amendment? Any further dis... Oh, right. The question before us is the amendment. Is there any discussion on the amendment? yeah I don't know no problem we will now move to the vote will the committee report House Bill 2595 printers number 3507 sponsored by representative John Ingalls hold on one sec I apologize yeah we'll now move to a vote on a
zero three seven two two Nick will you please call the vote Chair Fiedler Yes Representative Boyd Representative Brown
Yes, by designation.
Representative Serrato.
Representative Davidson. Yes, by designation.
Representative Donahue.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Friel.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Durrell. Yes.
Representative Ingalls. Representative McAndrew.
Aye.
Representative Pieli.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Rusnak. Representative Steele.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Venkat.
Yes, designation.
Chair Causer.
Yes.
Representative Armanini.
Yes.
Representative Barton.
Yes.
Representative Cook.
Yes.
Representative Hamm Representative Kale Representative Kephart Representative Mihalik Representative Nelson Representative Rapp Representative Stambaugh Representative Williams
On the question, the yeses are 26 and the noes are 0. The amendment is adopted. The amendment is adopted and the bill is amended. Is there any – we'll now move to vote on the bill as amended. Is there any discussion before we move to that? Representative Kephart.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank our chairman for offering his amendment. I do think that makes the bill a little better. Is my mic going on? There you go. I do want to thank our chairman for offering his amendment to make this bill a little bit more palatable. and so forth, give a little bit more of a time. I know discussing the bill, I know sometimes there can be a snag. A lot of times they get these projects going and so forth, but sometimes there can be a snag, and I'm a little concerned on that. But the other thing I'm concerned about, this only applies to AAPS. If you want to hook up a gas well to lines or generators or something, you still can't do it. So this only applies to the renewable small-scale projects. This does not affect anybody that wants to use, like I said, the generator with a natural gas well or if you could do a small coal fire plant, any of that. You still have to wait a couple years now just to work with PJM and so forth. Those are the energy types or sources, like Representative Kel mentioned earlier, that actually are going to work to power baseload energy to the grid. I agree with Representative Williams' comments earlier about we need to still get more energy on the grid. So in that fashion, I'm okay. But I'm just saying there could be a snag and so forth. But also, and that goes to, you know, you're going to install a timeline. We have timelines in this place, like a budget that's due on June 30th that I doubt we'll meet. Do we get punishment for not meeting the deadline? No, everybody still gets paid and goes home and so forth. So, I mean, that's the irony of this bill is, you know, this place goes five months after the deadline. Nothing happens. but now we're going to really hammer it to these guys. And I'm not saying there shouldn't be any oversight on it and so forth, but if it results in electricity bills going up because they're getting whacked with fines and so forth, I don't know if that benefits the people either because when they get these small-scale AAPS things hanged up, guess who has to have a higher price? The tax or the rate payer again because they have to pay the retail energy rate on AAPS. So anyhow, that's my concerns about the bill. But again, I mean, I understand the need to get electricity on the grid, and maybe we could do things to help these guys do that and so forth or establish timelines. I'm just saying those are some concerns I have with the bill aside from the amendment that was adopted earlier. But anyhow, thank you, Madam Chair. Those are just my thoughts.
Thank you, Representative. We also have a comment from Representative Nelson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to express appreciation for your acceptance of that 90-day window, making the process a little bit more achievable for our EDCs. You know, when I listen to our conventional natural gas producers, they're interested in being able to have a faster turnaround. And I think we are trying to be an all-of-the-above state. This is just a small step in a much more complex problem, but I appreciate your willingness to work with both sides of the aisle. And even if it's just a single, we're getting a step in the right direction. Hopefully we'll continue that bipartisan momentum moving forward, and I appreciate your willingness to do that. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. Chairman Coulter, do you have any comments before we proceed to a vote?
only, Madam Chair, that I think this is a work in progress. So I'll support the bill to move it along. Thank you.
Thank you. And I look forward to working together. I appreciate that. And related to the previous members' concerns, I think anything that we can do related to PJM to speed up the process of getting projects online, I look forward to doing that as well. That said, let's move to a vote. Will the committee report House Bill
2595 printers number 3507 sponsored by representative john ingles as amended nick will you please call
the roll chair fiedler yes representative boyd representative brown yes by designation representative serrato representative davidson yes by designation representative donahue
Yes, designation.
Representative Friel.
Yes, designation.
Representative Jeralt. Representative Ingalls. Representative McAndrew.
Aye.
Representative Pielley.
Yes, designation.
Representative Rusnak. Representative Steele.
Yes, designation.
Representative Venkat.
Yes, designation.
Charc하user.
Yes.
Representative Armanini.
Yes.
Representative Barton.
Yes. Yes.
Representative Cook.
Yes.
Representative Ham. Representative Kale. Representative Kephart. Representative Mihalik.
Yes.
Representative Nelson. Representative Rapp.
Yes.
Representative Stambaugh.
Yes.
Representative Williams.
On the question, the yeses are 26 and the noes are zero. The motion passes. House Bill 2595, printers number 3507, sponsored by Representative John Ingalls, will be reported from the Energy Committee as amended. We will now proceed to the final item of business on today's agenda, House Bill 2359, printers number 3136, sponsored by Representative Joseph Cerisi, which the chair now calls up.
Steve, please read a summary of the bill. House Bill 2359 would prohibit government agencies from entering into non-disclosure agreements
related to data centers. Joining us is Chairman Cerisi, the prime sponsor of the bill. Chairman,
would you like to offer remarks on the legislation? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee for allowing me to speak today. You know, I think we're all in the same boat across the Commonwealth. We're seeing data centers come to every one of our communities, to every corner of the Commonwealth, and really across the United States. And isn't it right for our community to have a say to understand what these buildings are, what natural resources are going to use both? And And we've heard all the conversation in the last 20 minutes on energy and how much energy we need and how much energy is being used. Not only that, isn't it the right of the community to know who's building next to them or in their community, if they're good citizens, and have a right to come to a meeting and speak about who's building and give their comments? And this bill gives our community back the power to make sure that they can't sign a nondisclosure agreement where they can say we can't speak about that because we're under an NDA. And we've seen NDAs around the Commonwealth on some of these properties. It's not fair to our communities. It benefits them not to have these, and it benefits all of us throughout the Commonwealth to know what's going in, how it's going in, the energy use that's going to be used. So I would ask all your support on this bill.
Thank you, Chairman. The chair is in receipt of one amendment to the bill, which the chair will now offer. That amendment is A03729.
Steve, please read a summary of the amendment. A-037-29 is a gut and replace amendment that adjusts the computer data center sales and use tax exemption program, adding community protection eligibility requirements.
As the sponsor of the amendment, I will say that Pennsylvania currently does offer the sales and use tax exemption for data centers. And while many proponents talk about the fact that these facilities can bring investment and jobs to our commonwealth, We know that, as the chairman has described, there are also many concerns, and this is very fast-moving development in many cases. When a company receives a significant public tax benefit such as this, we believe that transparency and community engagement are even more critical than usual. And so I thank the chairman for bringing this legislation to us. This also ensures that government agencies cannot be bound by secrecy agreements that keep the public in the dark. I think that piece is important so that, as you heard, folks can know what is being built in their backyard. Is there any discussion on the amendment? Representative Nelson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I respectfully oppose this amendment and think it is an extremely dangerous practice. In a sense, we are creating a bait and switch. You know, this legislature passed a sales tax exemption for data centers, and we know these data centers are coming. Whether they come in Pennsylvania or they come in Maryland and Virginia, they are coming. And the more that we sable rattle against them, our workers are going to lose the opportunity to build these facilities. In the West, we are repurposing thousands of blighted acres of abandoned facilities, restoring taxes for our schools, building and extending water lines, repurposing acid mine drainage to be able to use for cooling systems. These data centers are doing in our communities things that we were never able to achieve at all. And now we want to tug at the rug underneath them and tell them, if you don't comply with these additional requirements that aren't placed upon them from other states, we are going to cost you millions of dollars. I mean, it's a pot and kettle situation. This chamber has continuous meetings behind closed doors. We do not disclose to the public the business of the state, and we are targeting a given industry and trying to create a situation where they have a standard not to be able to operate. Who are we in Harrisburg to say that they are not allowed to have a nondisclosure agreement when we operate that way every day? This bill is wrong on multiple fronts. And yet again, Pennsylvania is going to push out investment that is just going to land in other states. We've seen it with natural gas. And we're going to see it now if we continue to try to abuse an industry that is wanting to invest in our state. So I advise all members to oppose this amendment. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. Representative Williams.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will provide some reassurances to Representative Nelson. This bill and the amendment are being written into the tax code as requirements as a prerequisite to get some sort of sales tax exclusion in our tax code. In contracts and the law, one of the first things we do when you have conflict between parties is you discuss with your client the idea of economic breach. In other words, is it more economic for you as a business to just breach the contract and pay the damages and move on? These hyperscale data companies, the Metas, the Googles, the Microsofts, and on and on, are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to build these facilities. In western Texas, they're building upwards of seven and eight gigawatt plants. I gave you the scope of things earlier in the other bill. A nuclear power plant's less than one gigawatt. So they're building facilities that require seven to eight or more nuclear power plants. That's how big they are. That's how much money they're spending. So we're putting a bunch of requirements on data centers in a tax bill as a prerequisite for them getting a tax break, which I believe they'll say, take your tax break. We're good. We're just not going to comply with any of your requirements. And we going to do the same thing later today at the call of the chair and the finance committee putting together some pieces of the governor grid plan from his budget address in the tax bill As prerequisites to getting a small tax break, small data centers, this will be appreciable. Hyperscale data centers will pay no attention to this, which is why we have some in that industry not even commenting on the bill. Because they know they're just not going to pay attention to it because they're going to move on with their plans and not take advantage of the tax break. We need actual legislation that are solving these problems from the word go. We heard earlier on another bill that there is no one solution to the electricity crisis that we have right now. and it is actually already out there. The governor committed to it in his budget address. G of grid is bring your own generation. And we keep passing and discussing bills that keep nibbling at the perimeter of these issues, whether it's batteries or solar or tax breaks. We have to pass a bill that says these hyperscale data centers have to build or bring their own generation and stop competing with our ratepayers for the base load that we have right now. It becomes an economic boom for Pennsylvania. And second, and related to that, is requiring hyperscale data centers to pay their own way to get on the grid. All these interconnection issues go away when they start paying their own way rather than visiting those costs on us. I'm happy to give them a tax break. I'm happy to put incentives around those tax breaks. but they will ignore it. That's the truth of it. We need independent legislation that does two things. Bring your own generation, pay your own way. The governor committed to that. He signed an agreement with PJM and the other 12 governors of PJM to say that we were going to pass that legislation, and it's nowhere. It's nowhere. So I plan on putting bring your own generation as an amendment in every future data center bill that comes forward. I'm agreeable to this representative, but again, we're just little minnows taking food offered on the surface of the water and not tackling the real problem. Thank you.
I do want to emphasize that this amendment does not prevent a data center from being built. It simply requires developers to notify local governments, meet with community members, consult with local officials, and provides basic information about a project's footprint, energy use, and water consumption. All pieces, important pieces, fundamental pieces, I think, that folks, individuals, local elected officials, and small businesses might want to know and certainly should know. So thank you, Chairman, for bringing this to our committee. In response, I do want to emphasize that our committee did work on and pass House Bill 1834 from Chairman Rob Matsey, a fundamental piece of it being bring your own energy. I do recognize that that is important, and I hope that that is something that can move forward. Are there any other comments on the amendment? Chairman Causer.
Madam Chair, I know that there's a difference of opinion amongst the members, and I appreciate the gentleman bringing the bill forward. I have concerns with it myself. I do want to say that the chair entertained some technical changes to the amendment at our suggestion, and I appreciate that. As I see this as a work in progress, I'm going to support the amendment and the bill to move it forward. but I'm hopeful that we can address some of the concerns that have been voiced. Thank you, Chairman.
Nick, would you please call the roll.
Those in favor of reporting the amendment will vote yes. Those opposed, no. Chair Fiedler.
Yes.
Representative Boyd. Representative Brown. Yes, by designation. Representative Serrato. Representative Davidson. Yes, by designation. Representative Donahue. Yes, by designation. Representative Briel. Yes, by designation. Representative Gerrard. Representative Ingles. Representative McAndrew. Aye. Representative Peele. Yes, by designation. Representative Rusnak. Representative Steele. Yes, designation. Representative Venkat. Yes, designation. Chair Causer.
Yes.
Representative Armenini. Yes. Representative Barton. Yes. Representative Cooke. representative ham representative kale representative keppart representative mihalik yes representative nelson representative rap yes representative stanbaugh yes representative williams on the question the yeas are 25 and the noes are one the amendment is adopted the amendment is adopted and the bill is
amended. The question is, will the committee report the bill as amended? Is there any discussion on the bill? Representative Kale. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Chairman Cerisi, for
bringing this piece of legislation. I, too, have multiple data center projects that are being proposed in my region, one in particular in my district. And I think it can be heralded as a success story and and representative williams mentioned before about bringing your own energy but we got one that's coming uh it's an old coal fire plant that unfortunately doesn't operate anymore hasn't for the last six years it's being converted to a natural gas plant to bring in their own energy it's right on the river it's in a brownfield location i think that type of situation ought to be studied as the ideal for these large-scale data centers. But I do have some questions for you, Chairman Cerisi, as it relates to the NDA provision within this legislation, if you'd be willing to answer questions. I'm curious, as it relates to not allowing local municipalities to enter into NDAs, Is this generally enter into NDAs or just in particular as it relates to data centers? And if it is as it just relates to data centers, why just data centers?
Thank you for the question and for the statement about Homer City that you're talking about for the energy stuff. That's Bruce Mansfield. Homer City is the same situation. We're going to see Homer City. As a matter of fact, the committee is going out there. Homer City is similar. Which I think is great. So this situation came up because it was brought to our attention that within our district, where I am, they were under an NDA. They could not give all the information out to the local board of supervisors. And one of my board of supervisors came to us and said, well, we can't hear everything that we need to hear. How do we really do the right thing by our community? How do we come out and tell our community what's happening if the five of us sitting here can't hear all the information? So it was the first time I had ever heard that an NDA was used on a piece of property and on information that they couldn't share who the developer of the land was because the people that were presenting it were under an NDA, so they couldn't share who it was. So I haven't heard of it happening anywhere else, but I will say this. I don't think it should be allowed anywhere on any development in any community. Every one of us who live in a community should have a right to know who's building next to us. Now, I'm going to also say to your comment that it doesn't mean we stop what's happening, but you have a right to know what is happening. That's what local government is supposed to give us, the right to know what's happening, who's developing, so we have a say. Where the local board goes with this is up to the local board that we all elect. It's not up to us here in Harrisburg. We elect those people to represent us locally. But we need to give them the ability and the power to represent their communities properly. And when you put this in place, you're stopping the local community from having a say. What happens at the end of the day happens in these communities. But this is why I came up with this going, as any one of us sit here and we go home to our communities and go, what the heck are they building there? Who's building it? Oh, we're not allowed to tell you that. Really? Because it's right next to my house and I want to know what and who and how. I think it's a common sense thing to say that we want to know. And again, I'm not sitting here saying, don't let them do it. I'm saying that they can't put something in that stops us from knowing what's being built. And that's where this came out of. So I hope that answered your question. I appreciate it. So it just does apply to data centers on other large-scale projects.
They do have NDAs and other large-scale projects. The Shell Petrochemical Facility was built in my district, and there was a lot of early-on NDAs and things. And it's not so much about keeping information away from the public. It's not that at all, actually. It's about keeping information away from competitors. It's about concern about stocks and insider trading and things of that nature. They want to evaluate entities, want to evaluate a situation and get all of the pieces and data points on the table first before they make a final decision. And this not having those types of NDAs in place could potentially really scuttle it. I understand the concern from a community concern. I just, you know, we represent our local township supervisors to make decisions on our behalf. Those local township supervisors are getting this information, and they hopefully have the discretion to make wise decisions on our behalf. And that's kind of how this system works. And if we don't like what they're doing, we throw them out, and we put other township supervisors in, just like my constituents would do with me if they don't like the way I'm making a decision. So I appreciate this as an issue. I hear about it as well within my district. I just have concerns that this offered as a solution is simply knee-jerk and isn't really looking at the totality of what's happening. But I appreciate further discussion on it as well. I also have constitutional issues with this. We're interfering with a contract that was made between two parties If we say that those NDAs don't actually apply, I'm assuming that this provision is going forward. It doesn't have to do with NDAs that were already in place, but that's another technical issue that we could discuss as we go forward. It's moving forward. We can't go backwards. It's only from this point forward or whatever the bill would go into effect. You're welcome.
Any further comments before we proceed to a vote? Chairman? Do you have any? Okay. Seeing no further questions or comments on the bill, we will now proceed to a vote. Will the committee report House Bill 2359, printers number 3136, sponsored by Chairman Joe Cerisi, 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. Representative Brown. Yes, by designation. Representative Serrato. Yes. Representative Davidson. Yes, designation. Representative Donahue. Yes, designation. Representative Friel. Yes. Representative Jerrold. Representative Ingalls. Yes. Representative McAndrew. Aye. Representative Piehli. Yes, designation. Representative Rusnak. Representative Steele. Yes, designation. Representative Venkat. Yes, designation. Characaser.
Yes.
Representative Armenini. Representative Barton. no representative cook representative ham representative kale representative kephart representative mihalik yes representative nelson representative rap yes representative stanbaugh yes representative williams on the question the yeses are 23 and the noes are three the motion passes
House Bill 2359, printers number 3136, sponsored by Chairman Joe Cerisi, will be reported from the Energy Committee as amended. With no further business before the committee, the meeting is adjourned at 1052.
Thank you. Thank you.