HB 965: The latest attack on environmental protection.

It's typically easy to tell if a piece of legislation is aimed at helping polluters, no matter how hard policymakers try to hide it. Take the General Assembly's recent effort to eliminate new environmental regulations on conventional oil and gas. While the language was buried in a little read bill, it's intent was plain as day.

For the General Assembly's next attack on the environment, they're trying a new tactic - bury their intent in regulatory legalese. In April, the Senate took up a non-controversial bill (Senate Bill 562) that its legislative sponsor, Senator Gordner (R-Bloomsburg), argued would provide the General Assembly more time to study and assess new regulations making their way through the independent review process. The bill quickly passed unanimously, with little debate, and no media fanfare.

The House then took up a similar bill (House Bill 965) and its sponsor, Rep. Godshall (R-Montgomery), made the same legislative oversight argument Sen. Gordner made about his bill. But with many fundamentally important environmental regulations working through the review process such as the Clean Power Plan, new oil and gas rules, and methane leakage regulations, PennFuture and other organizations took a closer look at the bill language and found something troubling.

The legislation is essentially a Trojan horse. It does include language that would give the General Assembly a defined amount of time to review new regulations before it makes it to the final independent review steps, which already include review by legislators. But it also grants new power to the standing committees of the legislature to delay - potentially indefinitely - any regulation they don't like. It also blocks state agencies from publicly posting their regulatory intent and goals in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. In other words, House Bill 965 and Senate Bill 562, in a convoluted way, aim to provide the legislature constitutionally debatable veto power over new regulations while greatly limiting public transparency.

To put it bluntly, this legislation puts not just environmental rules in jeopardy, but any regulatory matter in limbo.

Once the true intent of the legislation was made apparent, a real debate on the bill ensued in the House. Last week, after contentious debate, House Bill 965 passed 113-84, with all but one Democratic member and five Republican members voting against it. Because there were differences between the House and Senate versions, the Senate has now taken up House Bill 965 in an attempt to quickly pass it before it adjourns for the remainder of the year.

It's critical that this bill fail to make it into law as it imperils many major environmental efforts to clean the Commonwealth's air, land, and waters for present and future generations.

Matt Stepp is policy director for PennFuture and is based in Philadelphia. He tweets @MatthewStepp.

Pennsylvania elected officials show leadership on climate issues

In the past month, Pennsylvania’s federal elected officials have stepped up and made major announcements in support of climate action to compliment Pope Francis’ “courageous” call to action on environmental degradation.

Senator Casey Supports the CPP: 

On September 18, Sen. Bob Casey publicly pledged his support for the Clean Power Plan (CPP) at an interfaith climate event in suburban Philadelphia. Sen. Casey joined the majority of Pennsylvania’s voters that support the CPP as a much-needed action to address a major contributor to climate change – carbon pollution from existing power plants. The CPP is an essential first step toward mitigating climate change and improving air quality.        

As the third largest carbon emitting state, Pennsylvania has an important role to play. The rule is designed to give states the opportunity to craft customized Implementation Plans, which will spark investment in clean, renewable energy along with energy efficiency measures - creating good-paying jobs and saving people money on their electric bills.

Below is an excerpt from Sen. Casey’s updated constituent letter on the CPP, which summarizes his reasons for supporting this critical climate action: 

Climate Change is already affecting much of the Nation, including Pennsylvania, and it is imperative for us to develop sensible policies to stave off more dramatic consequences over the next century. I strongly believe that we have a duty to preserve the environment not just so we can have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, but because this world is in our care for our children and our children's children. Although addressing climate change represents a significant challenge for the Nation and the world, Pennsylvania has the necessary natural and intellectual resources to minimize and mitigate these impacts while moving us towards energy independence and creating jobs across the Commonwealth. I am confident that Pennsylvania can rise to the challenge and for that reason I support the Clean Power Plan. 

If you haven’t already, don’t forget to extend your thanks to Senator Casey for standing up for Pennsylvanians now and in the future with his support of the Clean Power Plan.

----------------------------

http://1.usa.gov/1NGePCG

Three PA Congressmen Support Republican Climate Change Resolution in U.S. House: 

Led by U.S. Rep. Chris Gibson of New York, eleven Republican members of the House pledged their support to a resolution affirming that climate change is real, that human activity contributes to climate change, and that action is needed. Pennsylvania is well-represented among the group with U.S. Reps.Patrick Meehan, Michael Fitzpatrick, and Ryan Costello all signing on as co-sponsors. 

While the resolution stops short of endorsing any specific action, this is an important statement from a coalition of Republicans that climate action is needed. In particular, the resolution highlights a few key bipartisan areas of agreement on climate action including the need to be good environmental and economic stewards, while also recognizing the pressing threats posed by climate change including risks to wildlife, natural places, human health and safety, national security, and vulnerable populations. Full text of the resolution may be found here. 

Katie Bartolotta is southeastern Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Philadelphia. She tweets @KatieBartolotta.  

The real story behind regulating natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania

Talk about being rude. I wrote an entire blog post without actually introducing myself to PennFuture’s dedicated readers! Hi, I’m Matthew Stepp – PennFuture’s new director of policy. I’ll be sharing my thoughts, rants, and reactions in Session Daze on all things state and federal policy. I’d dive deeper into who I am, but I actually think this post—and my participation in the PCN Call-In Show earlier this week—is a good introduction. I look forward to connecting with PennFuture’s readers across Pennsylvania in the weeks and months ahead.

On April 20, I participated in the PCN Call-In show, along with Marcellus Shale Coalition President David Spigelmyer, to discuss the issues surrounding natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania. My message was straightforward: Thoughtful oil and gas policies are necessary so that all Pennsylvanians benefit from affordable, environmentally sustainable energy. Mr. Spigelmyer’s message was the opposite: If Pennsylvania wants cheap energy, trust us and let the oil and gas industry do what it wants to Pennsylvania’s air, water, and land.

A stark difference, no doubt! 

In fact, the show teased out a number of critical points central to the statewide debate on issues surrounding shale gas drilling. 

It’s not a choice: Pennsylvania can have cheap and clean energy 

If you listen closely to Mr. Spigelmyer’s comments—as well as the comments of his colleagues throughout the oil and gas industry—he’s offering Pennsylvanians a black and white choice. We can either grow the state economy through shale gas or incur economic catastrophe through environmental sustainability. 

This could not be farther from the truth. Through common sense regulations and a state energy policy that looks to the future and not just the present, Pennsylvanians can have cheap energy as well as clean air, water, and land. It’s not a give and take. And one only needs to look to other leading states, such as Colorado, that are benefiting from regulated shale development while investing in zero-carbon renewable energy and energy efficiency. The catch is Colorado is benefiting from low energy costs similar to Pennsylvania but without the pollution. Pennsylvania can do the same. 

Strong regulations needed to cut methane emissions 

A big issue with shale development is the release and leakage of methane—a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent in its first 20 years than CO2. In fact, it is possible methane leakage eliminates the climate change benefits from electricity producers switching from burning coal to burning less carbon-intense natural gas. 

Mr. Spigelmyer argues that his industry is taking the problem seriously for no other reason than to capture leaked methane and sell it. In other words, it is profits leaking out of their pipes. And industry has a point. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) released data this week that found methane emissions from oil and gas drilling declining. This comes after similar findings from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

But you need to crunch the numbers. The reality is methane emissions are decreasing in areas of natural gas production that are regulated. In particular, the EPA promulgated new rules in 2012 that required drillers to control methane leaks from fractured wells, otherwise known as green completions. Both the EPA and DEP found that the reductions were narrowly focused on these leaks. Other areas of production, such as pneumatic devices, dehydrators, and fugitive emissions, actually increased. 

The lesson here is that regulations work. The oil and gas industry is responding to thoughtful methane regulations in a serious way, but not responding to other unregulated leaks. Broader and stronger methane emission regulations are needed to kick start industry into action. 

The public must have a voice on regulating shale gas 

For a decade, the oil and gas industry has had free rein in Pennsylvania and that time is coming to an end. In the interest of our environment, the sanctity of our public and private lands, as well as our climate, the state is proposing regulations to limit negative impacts stemming from drilling activity. Unfortunately, the oil and gas industry is doing everything it can to limit public engagement during the creation of these regulations. For his part, Mr. Spigelmyer did everything he could to not answer questions on this topic during the show. 

As I said during the PCN Call-In Show, PennFuture is astonished and deeply concerned at industry's efforts to block the public’s voice. While the oil and gas industry believes the public is not knowledgeable enough to engage in technical conversations surrounding these regulations, I believe the public understands the issues surrounding drilling better than anyone. The drilling is occurring in their backyards, near their schools, and on their farms. The public interest should have every opportunity to engage the regulatory process. 

A severance tax will build the bridge between shale gas and zero-carbon energy 

Mr. Spigelmyer’s most vociferous criticism of Pennsylvania shale gas policy centered on Gov. Tom Wolf’s proposed severance tax. Under his predecessor, Gov. Corbett, a modest “Impact Fee” was levied on oil and gas drillers that charged a flat amount per well and shared the revenue with all counties of the Commonwealth. Gov. Wolf has proposed replacing the Impact Fee with a direct tax on the value of the gas being extracted from the well and using the revenue to not only invest in the counties, but also invest in stronger oversight of the drilling industry as well as clean energy programs. 

The nut of the criticism is that the severance tax will cost oil and gas drillers more than the Impact Fee. In response, Mr. Spigelmyer and his industry colleagues argue that “capital will leave the state” if the severance tax is implemented—a threat that I believe is hollow. Pennsylvania is the only shale-producing state without a severance tax. In fact, Gov. Wolf’s proposal is similar to other state severance tax policies such as West Virginia. As industry’s argument goes, drillers would pick up and leave Pennsylvania to go to another state that has the very tax from which they purport to be running. Doesn’t make sense, right? 

The truth is, Pennsylvania is one of the largest sources of natural gas in the world—many of the top producing wells are located in Susquehanna County. The oil and gas industry is not going to turn away from such production because of a modest tax proposal similar to neighboring states. 

And we cannot talk about the efficacy of a severance tax in a vacuum. To fully understand how good of a deal the oil and gas industry is getting in Pennsylvania—and will continue to get even with a severance tax and thoughtful regulations—look no further than the $3.2 billion in annual subsidies that fossil fuels receive from Pennsylvania.

Matthew Stepp is director of policy for PennFuture and works out of our Philadelphia and Harrisburg offices. He tweets @MatthewStepp.

26 Steps that Gov. Tom Wolf can take to improve Pennsylvania's environment and economy

PennFuture recently unveiled a report highlighting 26 policies or actions that Gov. Tom Wolf and his administration can reasonably take on their own to protect Pennsylvania's environment, conserve Penn's Woods, advance cleaner and more efficient energy policies, and much more. The report was a collaborative project involving most of PennFuture's policy, legal, Energy Center and outreach staff, and also benefited from valuable input from several allied organizations.

There are significant steps that the General Assembly can take to strengthen Pennsylvania's environmental policies, and PennFuture will work with Republican and Democratic members from both the House and the Senate on their behalf.

However, the report illustrates the important steps that the Wolf administration can take on its own to move environmental, conservation and energy policy forward. The 26 steps that we recommend include a wide range of administrative actions, policy changes and proposed regulations. Some steps, such as the recently signed moratorium on further leasing of our state forests and state parks for gas development, can be fully achieved within 100 days. Others, such as a regulation to limit methane emissions from the natural gas industry, can be initiated with significant momentum.

Over the coming weeks, we will showcase many of the 26 recommendations throughout our blogs. We look forward to your input and help in spreading the word.

Here is a full link to the report: http://pennfuture.org/UserFiles/PDFs/GovWolfPolicyRecommendations_201501.pdf