Marcellus Shale sites included in EPA fracking study

The Environmental Protection Agency announced today that drilling sites in Pennsylvania’s Washington, Bradford and Susquehanna counties are among the locations selected for a nationwide study of hydraulic fracturing (fracking).
EPA says the sites identified were selected following extensive input from stakeholders, including the public, local and state officials, industry, and environmental organizations.

The agency said it will begin field work in some of the selected regions this summer. 

Prospective and Retrospective Studies

The Marcellus Shae in Washington County, PA was one of two sites selected for prospective case studies where EPA will monitor key aspects of the hydraulic fracturing process throughout the life cycle of a well.  The second case study will focus on the Haynesville Shale in DeSoto Parish, La.

Five retrospective case studies were selected and will examine areas where hydraulic fracturing has occurred for any impact on drinking water resources. The Pennsylvania locations chosen for this portion of the study are in Bradford, Susquehanna and Washington counties.  The other locations are in North Dakota, Texas and Colorado. 

EPA says the information gathered will be part of an approach which includes literature review, collection of data and information from states, industry and communities, laboratory work and computer modeling.

“The combination of these materials will allow us to do a more comprehensive assessment of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, ” the agency said in a news release. “The study will continue to use the best available science, independent sources of information, and will be conducted using a transparent, peer-reviewed process, to better understand any impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing.”  


————————————————————————————————————-
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics

Try it free for 30 days!  No obligation. Cancel anytime with one click.
 






 

 

Marcellus Shale sites included in EPA fracking study Read More »

PA bill requires disclosure of chemicals in fracking fluid

A Philadelphia Democrat has introduced legislation in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives that would require natural gas drilling companies to disclose to state environmental regulators all chemicals used in the hydrofracturing (fracking) process.

The bill, HB 1680 , introduced on June 19 by Rep. Kenyatta Johnson, requires the disclosure to the state Department of Environmental Protection the names of chemicals (but not the proprietary chemical formulas) used in the fracking process. 

The legislation requires the DEP to make the information available to the public on its website.

Disclosure of chemical formulas in cases of health emergencies

The bill also would require the disclosure of “proprietary chemical formula or the specific chemical identity of a trade secret chemical used in hydraulic fracturing: “in the event that the DEP or an appropriate health care provider determines that a medical emergency exists and such disclosure is necessary for emergency or first aid treatment.” 

In a news release, Johnson said that hundreds of chemicals are used during this fracking process, “many of which can be harmful to people if they are absorbed into the ground and eventually into our water supply.”

Our most recent blog posts:
Amended Marcellus gas tax in place for PA Senate vote
NJ bill restricting wind turbines set for June 20 hearing
New group will lobby for more rental units in New Jersey
NJ’s withdrawal from RGGI contested in Assembly

NJ Assembly committee meeting today on RGGI pullout
PADEP chief laments “radicalization” of drilling debate


————————————————————————————————————-
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics

Try it free for 30 days!  No obligation. Cancel anytime with one click.

PA bill requires disclosure of chemicals in fracking fluid Read More »

Amended Marcellus gas tax in place for PA Senate vote

Pennsylvania moved a step closer to assessing a fee on shale gas drillers yesterday, but Senate lawmakers supporting the levy say still have changes to make to the legislation before a final floor vote is taken.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports  that the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee yesterday amended and voted unanimously to release S-1100. The bill would charge drillers an initial $40,000 fee per gas well. Changes approved by the committee raised the fee’s initial cost, and also tweaked how that revenue is doled out. 
[Copy of the amended legislation] 

It’s the first tax or fee on natural gas drilling that has cleared a Senate committee, since former Gov. Ed Rendell first urged creation of a severance tax two years ago.

Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati, who introduced the impact fee bill, said after the committee vote that he supported the changes that have been made thus far and pointed to public pressure on lawmakers as an impetus to approve it with the state budget this month.

A new Quinnipiac University poll shows 69 percent of Pennsylvanians supporting a tax on drillers to help balance the state budget. The support was highest in the drilling-free southeast, where 77 percent of respondents backed the levy. But it was still strong in the southwest, with 72 percent in favor, and in Allegheny County, with 68 percent.

Quinnipiac Poll excerpt:

To help balance the state budget do you support or oppose – a new tax on companies drilling for natural gas in the state’s Marcellus Shale? 

Union
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    HsHlds



Support              69%    59%    75%    75%    73%    66%    76%
Oppose               24     33     17     21     24     23     20
DK/NA                 7      8      8      4      3     11      3


                     Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl



Support              68%    61%    67%    77%    62%    72%    70%
Oppose               28     23     26     19     29     24     23
DK/NA                 4     16      8      5      9      5      6



 


NJ Assembly committee meeting today on RGGI pullout


PADEP chief laments “radicalization” of drilling debate




 


————————————————————————————————————-






Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics






Try it free for 30 days!  No obligation. Cancel anytime with one click.







			

		
  Amended Marcellus gas tax in place for PA Senate vote Read More »
		

					

	


 
	



		

	

		
NJ bill restricting wind turbines set for June 20 hearing
		

					

					

				











Environmental legislation that would prohibit the siting of industrial wind turbines within 2,000 feet of any residence or residential-zone property is scheduled for a hearing on June 20 in Trenton before the state’s Senate Environment Committee.







 According to co-sponsors, Senators Sean Kean and Andrew Ciesla, both Monmouth County Republicans,  S-2374, is necessary to ensure that the increased use of wind energy in the State “will not cause a significant obstruction of scenic views or reduction in home values for New Jersey residents, and, more importantly, will not cause New Jersey residents to suffer from the ill health effects associated with “wind turbine syndrome.” 






The legislation states that “wind turbine syndrome” has been connected with “the close placement of industrial-scale wind turbines to residential areas.” 


Symptoms, it says, include “sleep disturbance, headaches, ringing of the ears, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, racing heartbeat, irritability, problems with memory and concentration, and panic episodes accompanied by internal pulsation or quivering.” 






These maladies, the sponsors contend, “often force people to move away from their homes.”






The bill applies to onshore or off-shore “industrial-strength wind structures” which, it says, “can be over 400 feet tall and have blades that sweep up to 1.5 acres in area.”  






The legislation’s restrictions would not apply to  the siting of small wind energy systems that are used primarily for on-site consumption purposes.  






The committee (see full agenda) will take up the bill  “for discussion only” (no vote) at 10 a.m., Monday, June 20, in Committee Room 10 on the third floor of the State House Annex

in Trenton.







 


NJ Assembly committee meeting today on RGGI pullout


PADEP chief laments “radicalization” of drilling debate


LSRP president responds to NJ site cleanup controversy







————————————————————————————————————-






Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics






Try it free for 30 days!  No obligation. Cancel anytime with one click.
 








 

			

		
  NJ bill restricting wind turbines set for June 20 hearing Read More »
		

					

	


 
	



		

	

		
New group will lobby for more rental units in New Jersey
		

					

					

				
NJBIZ reports that the New Jersey Builders Association and a group of multifamily developers are forming a new affiliate–the Mixed-Use Developers Association.


The association will initially consist of executives from nine New Jersey multifamily developers, including:


    

  • AvalonBay Communities Inc.,  
    • 

  • Hoboken Brownstone Co.,
    • 

  •  Ironstate Development Co., 
    • 

  • D.L. Paragano Homes,  
    • 

  • Roseland Property Co. and 
    • 

  • Woodmont Properties
    • 


















Members of the Mixed-Use Developers Association, clockwise from top left,  Carol Ann Short, COO officer of NJBA; Timothy Touhey, NJBA  CEO and executive vice president; Steve Santola, executive vice  president and general counsel of Woodmont Properties; Applied Cos.  President Michael Barry; George Vallone, founder of the Hoboken  Brownstone Co.; and Ronald Ladell, vice president of AvalonBay  Communities.



According to NJBIZ, George Vallone, president of Hoboken Brownstone, will chair the association, while Timothy Touhey, CEO of the NJBA, also will serve as CEO of the new offshoot group.


The new association will lobby with state legislators and regulatory agencies on issues that promote  the production of more  rental units, particularly in New Jersey’s suburban areas. Priorities in the coming year include: code  issues, the need for another permit extension bill, water quality  management issues, Council on Affordable Housing regulations and the  state plan.  



Our most recent blog posts:

NJ’s withdrawal from RGGI contested in Assembly


 


NJ Assembly committee meeting today on RGGI pullout


PADEP chief laments “radicalization” of drilling debate


LSRP president responds to NJ site cleanup controversy


Environmental bills set for vote Thursday in NJ Senate 






————————————————————————————————————-






Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics






Try it free for 30 days!  No obligation. Cancel anytime with one click.







			

		
  New group will lobby for more rental units in New Jersey Read More »
		

					

	


 
	



		

	

		
NJ’s withdrawal from RGGI contested in Assembly
		

					

					

				




New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s decision to remove the state from a regional effort to combat global warming prompted committee testimony, pro and con, in Trenton yesterday plus the announcement of legislation designed to thwart the withdrawal.


In the Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee, business and environmental organizations, respectively, testified for and against dropping participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI–pronounced “reggie”). The program charges industry for carbon emissions and uses the funds to support alternative energy projects and energy conservation measures.  


Business said RGGI was one of several government initiatives that have made New Jersey’s electricity costs the highest in the nations. That, they say, has forced companies to leave the state and has kept new business  away.    


Environmentalists said that RGGI and funds created by Societal Benefits surcharges on consumers’ electricity bills has helped propel New Jersey into the #2 spot in the nation for solar energy installations, has created new ‘green energy’ jobs, and has helped businesses reduce their energy costs through the installation of solar systems.


The state Chamber of Commerce argued that Ocean Spray’s recent decision to relocate its manufacturing plant from Bordentown to Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley was at least partially driven by the Garden State’s high energy costs. The Sierra Club countered with a claim that Budweiser would have closed its Newark brewery for the same reason except for a RGGI-funded solar installation that helped the company trim its energy bill.


The claims and counter claims went back and forth. 


Two former RGGI champions–the state’s Department of Environmental  Protection and New Jersey’s largest energy company, PSE&G are now disavowing it. 


Strong political undercurrents–local and national–are amping up the debate.


Sierra Club spokesman Jeff Tittel said that the governor’s decision was influenced by the right-wing, GOP fundraising Koch brothers whom he described as “the largest mountain top miners in the United States.”  


An unbiased observer of yesterday’s debate might have had difficulty deciding who and what to believe. But one thing is clear:  We’ll be hearing a lot reggie-talk in the months ahead.


Below, you’ll find news stories about the meeting and about legislation that two Democratic committee chairmen are introducing to block the state’s RGGI departure. That legislation also seeks to prevent the governor from transferring funds raised for alternative energy and conservation programs to other uses, like balancing the budget.    


You can listen to hear the entire committee debate here.


Related:  

Top DEP aide tells Assembly RGGI was ineffective 

Your clean energy funds at work 

N.J. Democrats try to lock in emissions deal  



  


For  more on the RGGI debate and to stay current with all environmental  issues in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York and Delaware, try a  complimentary, no-obligation, 30-day trial subscription to our daily  newsletter, EnviroPolitics. 


Have an opinion on the governor’s RGGI decision, on the new legislation, or the climate change issue in general? Please share it with your fellow EP Blog readers via the comment box below.  If one isn’t visible, activate it by click on the tiny ‘comments’ line. If you encounter a problem, tell us at: editor@enviropolitics.com


Our most recent blog posts:


NJ Assembly committee meeting today on RGGI pullout


PADEP chief laments “radicalization” of drilling debate


LSRP president responds to NJ site cleanup controversy


Environmental bills set for vote Thursday in NJ Senate

Care to add your two-cents’ worth?







			

		
  NJ’s withdrawal from RGGI contested in Assembly Read More »