EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Re: [EC] Gov's bill
by James Kotcon 20 Jan '14

20 Jan '14

I counted no less that 20 exemptions, loopholes, and caveats, including plenty of blanket exemptions for many coal and gas facilities. And plenty of language to let DEP cover up "Confidential Business Information" (AKA "Dirty Secrets"). There may be some useful policy approaches in here, but it starts out on bad turf and the legislative findings are all about how important industry is for the economy. Let's insist that it is DOA. JBK ________________________________ From: Angie Rosser <arosser(a)wvrivers.org> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:35 PM To: Angie Rosser; Brent Walls; Cindy Rank; Dianne Bady; Don Garvin; Emily Russell; Evan Hansen; Helen Gibbins; James Kotcon; James Van Gundy; Kathleen Tyner; Margaret Janes Subject: Gov's bill Attached FYI Angie Rosser Executive Director West Virginia Rivers Coalition 304-637-7201 www.wvrivers.org<http://www.wvrivers.org>

1 0

US to begin exporting 'fracked' gas
by Beth Little 20 Jan '14

20 Jan '14

So much for cheap gas and energy independence http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23317370

1 0

WVU Law National Energy Conference 2014
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

This may be an interesting conference to attend at WVU on February 24. Free registration: http://energy.law.wvu.edu/energy-conference-2014 -Jonathan

2 1

Water Vigil in Charleston, Jan. 21
by James Kotcon 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

In case you have not seen it, here are the details as of late last night. More planning is happening by the minute, but just do it. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: Bill Price <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:46 PM https://www.facebook.com/events/1441712489379104/ Bill Price, Organizing Representative Sierra Club Environmental Justice Program Beyond Coal to Clean Energy Campaign Phone: 304-389-8822 (Cell) Email: bill.price(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:bill.price@sierraclub.org>

1 0

Jon Stewart on the Elk River spill
by James Kotcon 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

Another black eye for West Virginia, but for those on the ground who appreciate gallows humor, here's the latest. Jim Kotcon http://www.thewrap.com/jon-stewart-west-virginia-spill-building-chemical-ta…

1 0

FW: Solar arrives! MN Judge finds solar PV electricity cheaper than natural gas (without subsidies)!!
by James Kotcon 09 Jan '14

09 Jan '14

Woo Hoo! Jim Kotcon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bradley Stark <bradley.stark(a)gmail.com<mailto:bradley.stark@gmail.com>> Date: Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:17 PM Subject: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Solar arrives! MN Judge finds solar PV electricity cheaper than natural gas (without subsidies)!! To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)lists.sierraclub.org<mailto:CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS@lists.sierraclub.org> Solar opinion with highlights attached. This opinion stands for the proposition that peaker plants are cheaper when solar than natural gas which are more for intermediate needs. Opinion makes a very good point. As demand may fluctuate with demographic changes, solar is the quickest and most scalable energy resource. The opinion also notes that a consideration is that for peaker plants during summer generate less power and with uncertain demand projections (back up) needs, solar makes more sense than building a natural gas plant that remains idle for periods when no peak demand and recognizes the advantages of distributed power. * Article by: DAVID SHAFFER<http://www.startribune.com/bios/10645931.html> , Star Tribune * Updated: January 2, 2014 - 11:51 AM A judge’s ruling notably said the renewable energy proposal would be a better deal for ratepayers. Minnesota soon could see at least a sevenfold expansion of solar power. In an unprecedented ruling, a judge reviewing whether Xcel Energy<http://www.startribune.com/topics/entities/xcel-energy.html>should invest in new natural gas generators vs. large solar power arrays concluded Tuesday that solar is a better deal. If the finding by Administrative Law Judge Eric Lipman is upheld by the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Edina<http://www.startribune.com/topics/places/edina.html>-based Geronimo Energy plans to build about 20 large solar power arrays on sites across Xcel’s service area at a cost of $250 million. “It says solar is coming in a big way to the country and to Minnesota,” Geronimo Vice President Betsy Engelking said of the ruling. Geronimo’s Aurora Solar Project would receive no state or utility subsidies, but would qualify for a federal investment tax credit. Engleking said it is the first time in the United States that solar energy without a state subsidy has beaten natural gas in an official, head-to-head price comparison. “The cost of solar has come down much faster than anyone had anticipated,” she said in an interview. “This is one of the reasons solar is going to explode.” The largest of the Geronimo projects would be five times bigger than the state’s largest solar array in Slayton, Minn. Some would cover up to 70 acres of land. The proposed sites are in 17 counties, mostly in central, eastern and southeastern Minnesota. It is the first time the state has used a competitive bidding process for a major power generation project. The commission ordered the trial-like proceeding to force energy companies to compete on price. Xcel, based in Minneapolis<http://www.startribune.com/topics/places/minneapolis.html>, and three other energy companies offered various proposals, mostly generators powered by natural gas. Xcel’s plan included a new gas generator at its Black Dog plant in Burnsville<http://www.startribune.com/topics/places/burnsville.html>, where the utility intends to retire the remaining coal-burning units. In a 50-page ruling, Lipman said “the greatest value to Minnesota and Xcel’s ratepayers is drawn from selecting Geronimo’s solar energy proposal …” If the Aurora project is built, Xcel likely would purchase the power under a long-term agreement. That could help Xcel toward its requirement to get 1.5 percent of its power from the sun by 2020 under a new state energy law. Xcel also is counting on rooftop solar systems, community-owned arrays and its own large projects to meet that goal. Lipman said that if solar alone can’t supply all of Xcel’s extra power needs in the next few years, the utility could take up an offer to purchase surplus energy from Great River Energy, the state’s second-largest power company. The judge also said Xcel will have time to consider other generation projects if electrical demand picks up. Xcel said in a statement that it appreciated Lipman’s work, but that it disagreed with some of the findings and would file a written response. Under the PUC’s rules, the competitors and other interests can take exception to the judge’s ruling before the five-member commission takes a vote. Geronimo already does business with Xcel, selling the output of its Prairie Rose Wind Farm in Rock County, in far southwestern Minnesota. Two of four planned wind farms that Xcel will add in the next two years — near Windom, Minn., and near Jamestown, N.D. — are being built by Geronimo. The company has built two smaller wind farms in southeastern Minnesota and is about to construct two more wind farms in Michigan and Nebraska for other utilities. Other competitors The other competitors considered by the judge were Houston-based Calpine, which proposed a gas turbine in Mankato at its existing power plant there and Chicago-based Invenergy, which proposed gas turbines at Cannon Falls and Hampton. Xcel also proposed two gas units near Hankinson, N.D. “We are reviewing the [judge’s] recommendations, and will evaluate our next steps in the docketed proceeding,” Craig Gordon, Invenergy vice president of sales and marketing, said in an e-mail Tuesday. If the Aurora Project is approved, Geronimo said the solar arrays would be built in 2015 and 2016. Engelking said that Geronimo already has signed deals for land and that it has identified more sites than needed in case some don’t work out. Each of the ground-mounted arrays would be next to an existing substation, avoiding transmission-line costs. She said the company still needs state or local permits. But the company has visited with local governments and has pledged to make payments in lieu of taxes ranging from $50,000 to $110,000 a year. Geronimo, a renewable energy developer, doesn’t intend to own the projects, she said. Its financing partner, Enel Green Power, has the first option to acquire them, she said. But it’s possible Geronimo could make a deal to sell the arrays to Xcel or other energy companies, she said. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG<mailto:CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG> Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

FW: You Can Shape The Future of Sierra Club's Climate Movement Process!! Survey and Dialog Process- Action Required
by James Kotcon 24 Dec '13

24 Dec '13

I completed the questionnaire at the link below, but I urge you to check it out, as it gives a pretty good synopsis of what a strong conservation campaign might look like. A lot of the suggestions of things to do, such as to help build allies, are pretty obvious, yet we do relatively few of them. The dialogue process described for Jan. 6-8 for a climate campaign is also important. I am out of town those days (Stink Bug meetings in New Jersey)and it would be a good idea to identify a new volunteer to coordinate that campaign. If climate change is an issue you are ready to tackle, let's plan a Chapter call for Jan. 2-4 to begin some Chapter-level campaign planning. Anybody interested? Jim Kotcon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sarah Hodgdon <sarah.hodgdon(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:sarah.hodgdon@sierraclub.org>> Date: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:07 PM Subject: You Can Shape The Future of Sierra Club's Climate Movement Process!! Survey and Dialog Process- Action Required To: Sarah Hodgdon <sarah.hodgdon(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:sarah.hodgdon@sierraclub.org>> Cc: Spencer Black <sblackmsn(a)yahoo.com<mailto:sblackmsn@yahoo.com>>, Robin Mann <robinlmann(a)gmail.com<mailto:robinlmann@gmail.com>>, Josh Aufhauser <josh.aufhauser(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:josh.aufhauser@sierraclub.org>> To: Group and Chapter Leaders, Campaign Leadership Teams and Grassroots Network Teams From: The Climate Movement Task Force Scientists have issued increasingly urgent warnings about the pace and extent of climate disruption. As the nation's largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, the Sierra Club needs to respond to these warnings by leading a stronger and bolder climate movement. Input from all parts of Sierra Club is essential to build a climate movement strong enough to achieve a clean energy future. That's why the Sierra Club Board of Directors just voted to establish the Climate Movement Task Force to make sure that every part of our organization is involved in developing an effective and inclusive movement to fight climate disruption. To that end, we have two major upcoming steps where your participation is critical: #1- A leadership questionnaire to solicit input from Sierra Club chapter and national team leaders. #2- A dialogue process to solicit recommendations from chapter and team leaders on key questions. The Climate Movement Task Force’s previous engagements have included: Distributing a survey to the entire organization's staff and volunteers; issuing an online sign-up for project updates; conducting dialogues with the senior management group and Council of Club Leaders at the annual meeting; and organizing a meeting with a well-balanced group of 40 staff and volunteers in September. Building on what has been learned in our process to date, we now seek more specific information from leaders and members of Sierra Club chapters and groups, national leadership teams, and staff teams. The Sierra Club's chapters, groups, and teams are on the front-lines of the fight against climate disruption, and your input on how to build a stronger climate movement within and beyond the Sierra Club is critical. STEP ONE- We are inviting participation in a questionnaire<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BZCVC7P> aimed specifically at the leadership of chapters, groups, and teams. The questionnaire focuses on learning how your Club chapters/groups and/or teams are engaged, what works when building a climate movement, what can be changed, and more. The deadline for survey answers is January 10, 2014. Please forward to active and engaged members of your Chapter/Group ExCom or other campaign team members with whom you work regularly. Take the survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BZCVC7P STEP TWO- We want to solicit feedback from chapter and team leadership on some key questions through an intentional dialogue process. We are asking each of these entities to convene discussions on building a stronger climate movement. We are asking each Chapter/Group or Team to determine your “dialogue leader.” The dialogue leader role can be designated as the Chair or Team lead or someone else designated by that leader(s). The person in this role should be able to both participate in a prep call in advance of their dialogue process and convene that Chapter/Group or Team’s dialogue conversation. The process will take 90 minutes and involve discussion of three questions which result in answers that are collated and will be used to inform the task force’s recommendations. Your dialogue leader or someone else should be prepared to record the results of your conversation using an online survey tool. We will send a more detailed email to everyone who RSVP's below. To prepare to do this, we are offering three orientation calls for the dialogue leaders from each entity to walk through the questions in real time and answer any questions about the process. Then those leaders will convene dialogue sessions in person or by phone to gather input and put forward recommendations from their own specific chapters, groups and teams between January 15 and February 15, 2014 and due by February 21. Please RSVP for one of the three orientation calls<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1utuTqR73TDuyB1HCM4yPjn9IMPwvLd9bRNZQguEEOT…> which will be held on the following dates: January 6 4 pm pst, 5 pm mst, 6 pm cst, 7 pm est January 7 6 pm pst, 7 pm mst, 8 pm cst, 9 pm est January 8 4 pm pst, 5 pm mst, 6 pm cst, 7 pm est By late February, we will compile the results and begin shaping recommendations. We will meet with the Conservation Department Leadership Group, the Sierra Club Board Advisory Committees and the Executive Staff. We will make our final recommendations to the full board in March and expect final decisions on climate movement building from the Board of Directors in April of 2014. Ultimately, the Climate Movement process is designed to chart the course for a bigger, stronger and more effective Sierra Club that will play a leadership role in solving the 21st Century’s most important crisis. Sincerely, Spencer Black, Vice-President, Sierra Club Board of Directors Robin Mann, Member, Sierra Club Board of Directors Sarah Hodgdon, National Program Director p.s. Email josh.aufhauser(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:josh.aufhauser@sierraclub.org> if you would like to receive future updates about this task force.

1 0

Fwd: E&E: EPA hits gas driller with historic civil penalty for filling W.Va. wetlands
by Paul Wilson 23 Dec '13

23 Dec '13

FYI, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Fred Heutte" <phred(a)sunlightdata.com> Date: Dec 19, 2013 6:20 PM Subject: E&E: EPA hits gas driller with historic civil penalty for filling W.Va. wetlands To: <CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org> Cc: EPA hits gas driller with historic civil penalty for filling W.Va. wetlands Jeremy P. Jacobs, E&E reporter Published: Thursday, December 19, 2013 A subsidiary of Chesapeake Energy will pay a $3.2 million penalty and spend $6.5 million to restore 27 West Virginia sites where it allegedly discharged fill material into streams and wetlands as part of its natural gas drilling operations, U.S. EPA said today. The civil penalty is one of the largest ever levied by EPA for filling wetlands, rivers or streams without a Clean Water Act permit. The agreement requires Chesapeake, the country's second-largest natural gas producer, to implement a plan to ensure compliance with federal and state water laws at its natural gas drilling sites in West Virginia -- including many that involve hydraulic fracturing. "With this agreement, Chesapeake is taking important steps to comply with state and federal laws that are essential to protecting the integrity of the nation's waters, wetlands and streams," said Robert Dreher, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. EPA and West Virginia alleged that Chesapeake Appalachia LLC funneled discharged sand, dirt, rocks and other fill material into streams and wetlands to construct well pads and other platforms for natural gas operations. The agency said the 27 sites affected 2.2 miles of streams and more than 3 acres of wetlands. Sixteen of the sites involved the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Chesapeake will be required to fully restore the wetlands and streams where feasible under the settlement. It will also undertake other mitigation projects for areas that cannot be restored. Gordon Pennoyer, a spokesman for Chesapeake, called the settlement a "key milestone" in resolving claims relating to surface construction that occurred before November 2010. "The company is fully committed to regulatory compliance and is working with the Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to restore the impacted sites," Pennoyer said. EPA discovered the discharges through public tips as well as routine inspections. Chesapeake also disclosed 19 potential violations after an internal audit. EPA issued compliance orders for violations at 11 of the sites in 2010 and 2011, and since then Chesapeake has taken steps to restore those areas. EPA's settlement comes a year after Chesapeake also pleaded guilty to three Clean Water Act violations at a natural gas site in Wetzel County that is also at issue in today's action. Last year, Chesapeake was sentenced to pay a $600,000 penalty to the government for allegedly discharging crushed stone into a local stream. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS list, send any message to: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Fwd: InsideClimate News: Gas Pipeline Boom Fragmenting Pennsylvania's Forests
by Paul Wilson 10 Dec '13

10 Dec '13

fyi, paul w. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Fred Heutte <phred(a)sunlightdata.com> Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM Subject: InsideClimate News: Gas Pipeline Boom Fragmenting Pennsylvania's Forests To: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20131210/gas-pipeline-boom-fragmenting-pe… forests Gas Pipeline Boom Fragmenting Pennsylvania's Forests Many of the pipelines to serve fracking are being built deep in the state's 16 million acres of forest. 'The scale of this thing is off the charts.' By Naveena Sadasivam, InsideClimate News Dec 10, 2013 Jerry Skinner stands in his garden, looking into the distance at the edge of a forested mountain. Amid the lush shades of green, a muddy brown strip of earth stands out. It's the telltale sign of a buried pipeline. "The pipelines are all around this property," Skinner said. "When I came here, the county had an allure that it doesn't have anymore. I'm not sure I want to live here anymore." Skinner is the resident naturalist at the Woodbourne Forest and Wildlife Preserve, a 650-acre forestland that runs through parts of northeastern Pennsylvania that are experiencing intensive gas drilling because of a hotly contested method called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Around his house, in the town of Dimock, gas wells have sprung up and a vast network of interconnected pipelines transports the gas underground. Skinner worries that as drilling activity heads deeper into forests and pipelines chop up large blocks of land, rare species native to Pennsylvania will be driven out. In recent years, Pennsylvania has become ground zero for fracking, along with neighboring states that sit atop a large shale reserve known as the Marcellus Formation. Pennsylvania has more than 6,000 active gas wells, and Marcellus-related production has soared to 12 billion cubic feet per day, six times the production rate in 2009. Gas drilling has long raised concerns about water contamination and air pollution. But until recently, little public attention has been paid to the pipelines that must be built to carry the gas. In Pennsylvania, concerns about these pipelines are growing because many of them are being built in the state's 16 million acres of forest, which include some of the largest contiguous blocks of forestland east of the Mississippi River. Nearly 700,000 acres of forestland already have been leased for drilling, allowing companies to cut paths through pristine stretches of trees, fragment forests, decrease biodiversity and introduce invasive species. "In Pennsylvania, the gas companies are working in essentially the most ecologically sensitive area of the commonwealth," said John Quigley, who served as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for two years under former Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell. "The scale of this thing is off the charts. It's unprecedented." Of particular concern are gathering lines, the pipes that carry gas from wells to long-distance transmission lines. Although they are often the same size as transmission lines and operate at the same pressure levels, about 90 percent of the nation's gathering lines aren't regulated by state or federal authorities. In fact, regulators don't even know where many gathering lines are located, even though they sometimes run close to homes and businesses. Gathering lines are likely to generate even more controversy in the years ahead. The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, an industry group, estimated two years ago that more than 400,000 new miles of gathering lines will be installed by 2035. Concerns about forest fragmentation due to industrial activity are not unique to Pennsylvania. In Alberta, Canada, for instance, recent oil and gas projects have reduced core forest area, including habitats for Woodland Caribou. As pipelines, roads and well pads slash across forests in Alberta, the Woodland Caribou, which tends to avoid forest edges, has been driven close to extinction. Biologists and other forestry experts said curtailing or reversing the trend in Pennsylvania would be difficult because Pennsylvania's land management system is so fragmented. Although the state oversees 16 million acres of forest, it does not own mineral rights for about 2.2 million of them, leaving those areas open to drilling. The Nature Conservancy released a report three years ago projecting that under a medium-growth scenario, a minimum of 6,000 well pads with 60,000 wells will be drilled in Pennsylvania by 2030—and that two- thirds of them will be in forest areas. In 2011, in testimony before the Maryland House Environmental Committee as an independent environmental consultant, Quigley warned that the cumulative effect of gas drilling "will dwarf all of Pennsylvania's previous waves of resource extraction combined," and that Maryland must avoid the mistakes that Pennsylvania has made. Industry Dismisses Fears On average, each well pad requires 8.8 acres to be cleared, according to The Nature Conservancy. About three of these acres are for the well pad itself, while the rest are needed for infrastructure such as roads, pipelines and water impoundments. In total, the conservancy estimated that 61,000 forest acres in Pennsylvania will be cleared by 2030. The group believes this deforestation will affect an additional 91,000 to 220,000 acres of interior forestland near the developed areas. The gas industry disagrees with conservationists about the impact of pipeline corridors on wildlife habitats. Right-of-ways with "widths typical of single natural gas pipeline facilities are not likely to present major problems," said Catherine Landry, communications director for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. John Stoody, director of governmental and public relations for the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, said: "Wildlife is invited to cross our rights-of-way happily and safely anytime they like." He also pointed out the tradeoff in using pipelines: When compared to trains and trucks, Stoody said, pipelines are a safer means of transportation with lower greenhouse-gas emissions. The American Gas Association similarly denied that pipeline corridors cause forest fragmentation. In fact, they "can actually enhance habitat by serving to connect fragmented forest, allowing pathways for wildlife and creating forest edge meadowlands," said Christina Nyquist, a spokeswoman for the organization. She cited alternate detrimental factors, contending that roadways, urbanization, agriculture and other human activities are the more likely culprits. For decades now, ecologists and conservationists have been studying how human activities have disrupted forest ecosystems, including how far the impact extends from the actual site of a pipeline right-of-way. They have confirmed that the reverberations go deep into woodlands. Recently, for example, researchers in Wyoming concluded that energy development in the state was leading to excessive habitat alteration and accelerating the decline of songbirds. Scientists abroad have also examined the relationship between forest fragmentation and habitat loss. Researchers in Australia analyzed several forest areas in India, South America and Indonesia and found that linear clearings like those linked to road and pipeline construction block the movement of some native animals and serve as pathways for invasive species. "Pipelines are going in and dissecting forest habitats and creating corridors within (them)," said Margaret Brittingham, an ecologist at Penn State University who has been studying the impact of gas drilling on forest habitats, concentrating on songbirds in Pennsylvania. She and others have discovered that right-of-ways enable larger animals to move into parts of the interior forest they had not explored. As a result, interior species become exposed to new predators. Brittingham and her colleagues predict that as more forest territory is chopped up into smaller pieces, habitat for specialists—species that require a specific set of conditions for survival—will decrease, which may in turn lead to their extinction. Those include the scarlet tanager, the blue-headed vireo and the hooded warbler. In contrast, animals that tend to do well around people will likely increase in number. Raccoons, deer, crows and blue jays are among them. "It's a shift in the competitive advantages that you give species," Brittingham said. "It's biotic homogenization." Fighting for Rights In their fight to preserve forests and biodiversity, conservationists and other wildlife advocates in Pennsylvania have confronted another adversary – the state's property-rights system. In Pennsylvania, surface and mineral rights are sold separately. That means while the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources oversees 16 million acres of forest, it owns only 85 percent of the mineral rights in that area. The remaining 15 percent is still controlled by people who once owned parcels of the land—even though they have sold their parcels to the state. Those people can negotiate individual contracts for mineral-exploration leases, including fracking. In a study of land-usage patterns in Pennsylvania's interior forests, Brittingham and her colleagues found that development is greater on properties with private ownership of mineral rights. They said the split in private and public management of land will complicate the preservation efforts by agencies and nonprofit groups. A major test case involves the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. In 1923, the federal government purchased that forest, piece by piece, but landowners were given the option to sell surface rights or both surface and mineral rights. As a result, 93 percent of the mineral rights in the 510,000-acre forest are now held by a vast number of private owners. Citing this surface-mineral rights bifurcation, the gas industry argues that the U.S. Forest Service cannot regulate drilling in the Allegheny because it does not own most of the mineral rights there. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Allegheny Defense Project insist the Forest Service has such authority as part of its overall mission to protect the forest. In October, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the gas industry. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania's Department of Conservation and Natural Resources has logged a mixed record in its forestry-management efforts. In 2010, the agency released a 48-page presentation on the state's forestland, mapping ecologically sensitive regions, areas with gas leases and forest patches that had been severely fragmented. The department concluded that it could not lease out any more land for gas drilling without causing significant damage to forest habitats. A few months before the study was released, the state issued two gas- drilling leases totaling more than 64,000 forest acres. The sale brought in $250 million and has led to approval for construction of 438 shale gas well pads. After those leases were issued, the administration of Gov. Ed Rendell imposed a moratorium on the leasing of forestland. That measure remains in effect. However, the current version of the 2010 presentation, which has been revised under the administration of Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican who strongly supports the drilling industry, is only 12 pages long and no longer contains the strongly worded conclusion that any further leasing would be severely detrimental to forest ecosystems. "Since the 2010 analysis, many things have changed—including our understanding of the development patterns and impacts, and technology related to horizontal drilling," said Christina Novak, press secretary for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Novak also said the agency continues to maintain that the regions referenced in the 2010 presentation "are important areas to protect and consider if additional drilling is contemplated." Corbett once declared that he wanted to "make Pennsylvania the Texas of the natural gas boom." A month after taking office in 2011, he repealed a policy meant to minimize environmental damage to state parks. The architect of that repeal, Corbett's former environmental protection commissioner, Michael Krancer, now works at a law firm with clients in the gas industry. Last year, Corbett signed Act 13, which requires oil and gas companies to pay an impact fee for their projects. In 2012, the state distributed 60 percent of the more than $200 million it collected through that law to counties and municipalities. The money was spent on reducing taxes and repairing roads and stormwater drains. The remaining 40 percent of the impact fee was divided among various state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, Public Utility Commission and Marcellus Legacy Fund, which distributed funds for environmental and infrastructure projects. Act 13 also requires the state to study the placement of natural gas gathering lines and investigate their environmental impact. The study, conducted last year, recommended that pipeline operators consult with experts to restore vegetation in right-of-ways and identify better ways to assess the environmental footprint of their activities. The Business Case Since activists and state regulators have little legal leverage over where gas wells are dug and pipelines laid in Pennsylvania, some environmental groups are looking for other strategies. Working with the University of Tennessee, the Nature Conservancy has produced Development by Design, a software tool that allows pipeline companies to find routes that minimize ecological damage while also being cost-effective. "Making the business case for these kinds of sustainability issues is absolutely key," said Quigley, the former Pennsylvania environmental commissioner. The conservancy is testing a beta version with four companies. Currently the software can analyze habitat fragmentation, provide information to minimize sediment loss and help evaluate the effect of pipeline crossings on rivers. "Some companies seem to be very interested, others less so," said Nels Johnson, the conservancy's deputy state director for Pennsylvania. "The real question is whether [the companies will] use it in a way that fundamentally changes the way they do planning." For residents of Pennsylvania, the software will likely come too late. One of those residents, Emily Krafjack, is president of the grassroots group Connection for Oil, Gas & Environment in the Northern Tier. Since 2010, she has been providing property owners with information about pipelines in an effort to balance gas-industry exploration with safeguarding landowners' rights, the environment and the region's traditional way of life. She said the rampant development—the rumbling of construction trucks, the ever-greater intrusion into forests—has caused Pennsylvania to lose its charm. On a recent drive around some of the forestlands, Krafjack pointed to the pipeline right-of-ways that periodically sliced through the forest. She said she sometimes struggles to recognize her hometown. "I'm over 50 now," Krafjack said, "and I just can’t catch my breath." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS list, send any message to: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

FW: McKinley-WVU Energy Forum Agenda
by James Kotcon 05 Dec '13

05 Dec '13

Attached is the schedule and speakers list for the McKinley Energy Forum Monday. Any suggestions for homework on the 5 topics outlined would be appreciated. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:59 PM To: James Kotcon Subject: Fwd: McKinley-WVU Energy Forum Agenda ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seibert, Devon <Devon.Seibert(a)mail.house.gov<mailto:Devon.Seibert@mail.house.gov>> Date: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:35 AM Subject: McKinley-WVU Energy Forum Agenda To: "Seibert, Devon" <Devon.Seibert(a)mail.house.gov<mailto:Devon.Seibert@mail.house.gov>> Ladies and Gentlemen, Attached is the approved agenda. You will see on the second page the list of participants. Many of you have forwarded to us your short bio and photo but we are still waiting for a few. Please get those to me as soon as possible. Please let me know if you have any questions for Monday. Thanks, Devon Devon Elizabeth Seibert Legislative Director Congressman David McKinley, P.E. (WV-1) 412 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202-225-4172<tel:202-225-4172> http://mckinley.house.gov/ [facebook-logo]<https://www.facebook.com/RepMcKinley> [Twitter_Logo_65] <https://twitter.com/RepMcKinley> [HOR_Symbol] <http://mckinley.house.gov/>

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC