Batten down the hatches–the General Assembly cranks up its 2013 session on Wednesday. This week in CIB:
- Legislative Watch: Heavy Seas Ahead
- Executive Watch: Good Winds, but Risky Waters
- Administrative Watch: Unclear on the Concept of ‘Public Agency’
- Washington Watch: Climate Change a Priority
- North of the Border: Virginia County Says ‘No’ to Uranium Mining
Legislative Watch: Heavy Seas Ahead
The N.C. General Assembly kicks off its 2013 full session this Wednesday, Jan. 30, when the newly installed committees get down to work for the 2013-14 biennium. Conservationists worry that if past scores of the freshly appointed committee leadership is any guide, we are in for heavy weather for the environment.
A newly released analysis by NCLCV shows that the leaders of House committees affecting the environment earned an average 28% score on the 2011-12 Conservation Legislative Scorecard. (The Scorecard rates each legislator on a scale of 0 to 100 based on his or her votes on key environmental items during that legislative session.) Those scores compare unfavorably to the overall House members’ average for 2011-12 of 42%.
Even more worrisome, the average score of the new leaders of Senate committees affecting the environment was 8% during the 2011-12 session. That compares to the overall Senate average of 31% for that biennium. Neither of the chambers’ leadership averages encourages confidence that the 2013 General Assembly’s key committees will be inclined to legislate with public health and a clean environment as priorities.
Key committees affecting environment in the House are the Environment Committee, Transportation Committee, Public Utilities Committee, Regulatory Reform Committee, Appropriations Subcommittee on Natural and Economic Resources, and Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. Key committees affecting environment in the Senate are the Agriculture/Environment/Natural Resources Committee, Transportation Committee, Appropriations Subcommittee on Natural and Economic Resources, and Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation.
Dan Crawford, NCLCV’s Director of Governmental Relations, said that NCLCV will work to keep voters informed this year on actions by their legislators affecting public health and the environment. “Citizens need to know how their elected officials are voting on bills that will ultimately impact their air, water, and communities,” said Crawford. “We will continue to hold all legislators accountable for making sound environmental decisions while improving the economy.”
Executive Watch: Good Winds, but Risky Waters
CIB is pleased to note that Gov. Pat McCrory last week expressed support for development of offshore wind power along the North Carolina coast. McCrory made his support known in a letter to the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which is reviewing possible interest in wind energy development in areas off both the northern Outer Banks and the Cape Fear region.
As McCrory noted in his letter, “Development of commercial wind farms off the North Carolina coast could stimulate factory development in the state to provide the necessary equipment and bring jobs in that sector.” He cited estimates that wind farms off the NC coast could stimulate $22 billion in new economic activity and create as many as 10,000 jobs. He further noted that up to 3,000 NC jobs are already tied to the wind industry. (Associated Press, 1/24/13.)
The downside of McCrory’s energy policy was also on display last week, as he campaigned for offshore oil and gas drilling during an appearance at a meeting of the N.C. League of Municipalities. During his remarks, McCrory touted his plans to coordinate with the governors of Virginia and South Carolina in advocating at the federal level for opening the mid-Atlantic coast to drilling. (Thus far, fortunately, the Obama Administration has continued to resist those calls.)
Administrative Watch: Unclear on the Concept of ‘Public Agency’
I don’t understand why we can’t just go talk about this ourselves.
That’s reported as a theme of the comments made Thursday by George Howard, vice chair of the N.C. Mining and Energy Commission (MEC), while presiding over a meeting of the MEC’s Environmental Standards Committee. According to observers, Howard was frustrated at being told that deliberations of his public agency committee were required to be, well, public. As in–discussions and decisions on the rules affecting how fracking can be done in North Carolina are expected to made at open meetings, at which reporters and interested citizens can attend and listen in (and sometimes, even speak).
The MEC is the new state commission established to oversee the creation of a regulatory program for fracking–the practice of producing natural gas through horizontal drilling and underground injection of large volumes of water into targeted shale rock beds (hydraulic fracturing). It’s in the relatively early stages of an accelerated process of rules development on the compressed schedule ordered by the legislature.
To be fair to Mr. Howard, his background is that of a corporate CEO: co-founder and president, in fact, of Restoration Systems, an environmental mitigation company (one which specializes in addressing environmental damage problems). Alert readers will be interested to note that this is the same Restoration Systems from which our new state Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, John Skvarla, was recently recruited for his new government post.
As such, Howard’s background is that of someone who has confidence in his technical knowledge and judgment, but perhaps little familiarity with the practices of conducting business in the light of public scrutiny. That’s a pattern being repeatedly noted by public observers and participants in the process of developing standards for regulating fracking for natural gas in our state. These public observers are expressing their own frustration–and increasing alarm–over the disdain with which the MEC leadership is treating both state environmental staff and public stakeholders not associated with the oil and gas industry.
That pattern was on display last week when the MEC’s Environmental Standards Committee heard recommendations on dealing with what the gas exploration companies will be required to reveal concerning which chemicals they use in their drilling operations. The Committee was presented with a draft disclosure rule which seemed to favor industry over public safety. To their credit, committee members–including Amy Pickle of Duke’s Nicholas Institute–balked at being pressed to fast-track the draft rule without public discussion and careful review. The draft rule was held in committee, at least until its next scheduled meeting (at this point, early March).
This pattern of seeking rushed decision-making behind closed doors continued the next day at the meeting of the full MEC. On the MEC’s agenda was receipt of a report from a DENR-organized stakeholders group, composed of representatives from industry and agricultural organizations, local government associations, conservationists, and state agencies. That stakeholders committee had met earlier in the week and reported out a set of 17 recommendations for the MEC on fracking regulation.
However, new DENR Assistant Secretary Mitch Gillespie recommended only ten of those items to the MEC. Former Rep. Gillespie explained that some of the other consensus recommendations from the stakeholders group “are too burdensome for industry so we’re going to drop them.” What? Without even a discussion among the members of the MEC? We would have hoped that Gillespie’s experience with the legislative process would have installed a firmer appreciation of public scrutiny.
One of the dropped recommendations also dealt with requirements for disclosure of the chemical compounds to be used in the water to be forced underground in the fracking process. Among the suggested requirements, drillers would have to provide full information on chemicals used to DENR prior to drilling, even if the chemicals’ identity was claimed as a “trade secret”–although that information would be required to be held secret from public disclosure. The stakeholders agreed that it was important for DENR to be able to provide that information to emergency responders in case of a major spill of chemicals in transport, for example. However, they ignored the intent of the recommendation, and stipulated that this disclosure need only occur after an emergency situation or spill, putting people at risk with this delay. This change was made with no public or Committee discussion.
The current tone from MEC leadership has indicated that they see little value in recommendations coming out of the stakeholder group, in spite of broad expert representation on that group. This was evidenced by Howard’s comment that, ‘the vast majority of the recommendations from the stakeholder group will have to be disposed of.’
Concerns about public transparency and accountability will continue as the process of preparing a regulatory program for fracking in North Carolina goes forward. As promised in December, CIB has begun tracking this process with reports from NCLCV staff and other conservation advocates. Expect more coverage of these matters as the next round of MEC meetings approaches.
A related story appeared in yesterday’s Winston-Salem Journal.
Washington Watch: Climate Change a Priority
While it’s already been widely reported in the national media, CIB cannot let the occasion pass without noting with approval President Obama’s precedent-setting emphasis in his second inaugural address on the problem of climate change.
Obama declared: “We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.
“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition. We must lead it.
“We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries. We must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure, our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.”
Those are words that we find inspirational.
North of the Border: Virginia County Says ‘No’ to Uranium Mining
Finally this week, we note a positive development in the battle in Virginia over proposals to lift that state’s moratorium on uranium mining. In one key county, Pittsylvania, county leaders have overwhelmingly approved a resolution in support of maintaining the moratorium. The resolution, passed 5-1 by the county Board of Supervisors, clearly expressed a position in opposition to the mining, after earlier discussions had left a question in the minds of some about their position.
(Thanks to State Sen. Mike Woodard (D-Durham) for alerting us to this news.)
That’s our report for this week.
