House environmental committee hears competing cases over subsidies for waste-coal cleanup

At a public hearing of the Pennsylvania House Environmental Resources & Energy Committee, lawmakers heard competing testimony on how the Commonwealth should subsidize remediation of waste‑coal (coal refuse) piles and on how House Bill 501 (the "PRESS" bill) would change those subsidies.

The hearing centered on whether state supports that compensate facilities that burn coal refuse for power — through the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS) program, a per‑ton coal‑refuse tax credit and other mechanisms — remain the most cost‑effective and environmentally appropriate way to reclaim thousands of legacy piles across Pennsylvania. Nathan Houts, Deputy Secretary for Active and Abandoned Mine Operations at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), told the committee that reclamation is complex and that multiple options exist, including removal and combustion at fluidized bed combustion (FBC) plants, blending and using material for mine backfill, transporting to permitted disposal facilities, or capping and revegetating on site.

"There are approximately 1,036 pre‑act unreclaimed refuse piles in Pennsylvania, covering approximately 9,400 acres," Houts said, describing the Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation's (BAMR) inventory and the four typical reclamation strategies the department uses. He added that federal priority scoring and available funding constrain what BAMR can do with those piles.

Speakers from environmental groups and think tanks argued that current subsidy structures are driving steep costs onto electric ratepayers while providing limited public benefit. Rob Altenberg, Senior Director for Energy and Climate at PennFuture, said the subsidies are large and rising: "Seventy percent of their generation costs were being paid through our taxes and electric bills," and he cited AEPS tier‑2 credit spikes after the 2020 border closure and the recent increase in the coal‑refuse tax credit to $8 per ton with a larger statewide cap.

Representatives of national and state environmental organizations — including Robert Ruth of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Tom Shuster of the Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter, and Charlie McFederin of Earthjustice — urged lawmakers to refocus subsidies toward remediation outcomes and to reduce ratepayer exposure. McFederin cited EPA reporting showing substantial CO2 from some waste‑coal plants and called burning refuse "not remediation" because it produces additional air pollution while using taxpayer support. Shuster said a per‑ton subsidy total for combustion programs recently equated to roughly $255 million annually and argued that alternative reclamation approaches can be cheaper per ton or per acre in some cases.

Industry witnesses and regional power producers countered that combustion has been the most practical, scalable way to remove or stabilize many piles and that the plants provide local jobs and deliver materials (like alkaline ash) useful for mine reclamation. Jared Givens, Executive Director of the Appalachian Region Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPA), said the industry has reclaimed large volumes of material over decades and supports thousands of jobs in rural counties. Givens and other industry witnesses provided estimates that the facilities have reclaimed hundreds of millions of tons over many years and cautioned that rapid changes to subsidy rules could interrupt ongoing reclamation work.

Witnesses and lawmakers repeatedly returned to a few contested facts: (1) how many tons remain in refuse piles and how fast they can be cleaned, (2) the full cost per ton of different remediation methods when the public subsidies and avoided harms are included, and (3) the public‑health and climate tradeoffs of burning low‑BTU refuse that can emit higher levels of CO2 and hazardous air pollutants than higher‑quality coal.

No formal votes or committee actions were taken at the hearing. Members asked for further information on enforcement, monitoring of post‑reclamation leachate and air emissions, and options for restructuring subsidies. Committee leaders scheduled a site visit to the Seward waste‑coal facility and nearby piles for Aug. 19 to view operations and reclamation work firsthand.

The hearing illustrated deep divisions among stakeholders: DEP framed the issue as an operational and funding‑prioritization problem; industry emphasized reclamation outcomes and local economic benefits; and environmental groups and advocacy organizations argued that subsidies are no longer targeted to highest‑risk piles and that combustion creates air‑quality and climate harms. Lawmakers indicated they are exploring changes to AEPS and other incentives, including proposals in HB 501 to move waste coal into a separate tier intended to lower credit prices for other AEPS categories while retaining some compensation for refuse remediation.