Any article listed below does not necessarily reflect the opinion or endorsement of The PA Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc. (PFSC)

NOTICE: In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Be sure to check out our Legislative Alerts pages to follow legislation & committee reports PFSC is tracking.

September 2007

9/24/07

GROUP OPPOSES REAL ID ACT PRESS CONFERENCE

By Rick Morrison, PLS

9-24-07

A coalition of state legislators, veterans and concerned citizens presented their opposition to the Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, at a press conference held on the Capitol steps this morning in Harrisburg. Leading the opposition in the Legislature to the federal law is Rep. Sam Rohrer (R-Berks), who has introduced HB 1351, which would reject the implementation of the Real ID Act in Pennsylvania.

In 2005, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Real ID Act to link a variety of personal information into a single, national identification card. The Act allows for finger printing, retina scanning and other personal data to be entered into a national database. It is the coalition’s belief that the Real ID Act threatens individual rights and is an “urgent storm warning,” according to Rep. Rohrer, moving across the country. Rep. Rohrer commented that implementation of the Real ID Act “…unconstitutionally seeks to incorporate the Pennsylvania Drivers License into a national identification card. The law tramples on the rights of various religious groups. You will not be able to travel without this card,” he said.

Rep. Rohrer introduced the legislation along with Rep. Babette Josephs (D-Philadelphia) and was joined today at the press conference by Rep. Jim Cox (R-Berks) and Rep. Brad Roae (R-Crawford). Rep. Rohrer noted that he and the supporters of HB 1351 are committed to “…preserving our rights and liberties.”

Jim Compton, affiliated with the National Veterans Committee on Constitutional Affairs, in offering his assessment of the Real ID Act stated, “I see this as a potential assault on our rights.” In explaining his opposition to the law, Compton cited the 4^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution and provisions in them protecting property and confidential information. “This Act punishes law abiding citizens,” he continued, adding “Criminals will have a field day with it.” In proclaiming his support for Rep. Rohrer’s legislation, Compton said the General Assembly must pass HB 1351 and “…reject the Real ID Act in the strongest language this Legislature can muster.”

Joining Compton and Rep. Rohrer was Aaron Bolinger, also representing the National Veterans Committee on Constitutional Affairs. Bolinger referred to a booklet on the Real ID Act that has been distributed to members of the Legislature. Inside the booklet, in addition to information on the Act, are the groups who oppose it. “We’ve got Jewish people, Christian people, Mennonite people,” Bolinger said. “When was the last time you saw Mennonite people involved in politics in Pennsylvania?”

When asked why the bill has not moved out of committee, Bolinger replied, “The bill isn’t being moved because of politics. Let’s get over politics and get back to being Americans.” HB 1351 is currently in the House Intergovernmental Affairs Committee.

Bolinger implored those in attendance to meet with their legislators to gain support for HB 1351. “We’re not leaving here until this thing is buried,” he stressed, in reference to the passage of HB 1351 and the repeal of the Real ID Act.

Two citizens not affiliated with any group also spoke, William Taylor Reil and John Burd. Reil quoted from a letter to a newspaper editor by a Chester County judge in which 25 daily activities were cited, from driving a car to walking his dog, that require a license, permit or other authorization from a unit of government. Reil said, “We are on the verge of losing our freedom and liberty.”

John Burd, of Northumberland County, cited “mission creep” as a problem endemic to both federal and state government. Burd questioned why the federally-issued Social Security card is being used for more than just identification for Social Security and why drivers’ licenses, issued by the state, are often required for more than just granting driving privileges.

Bolinger noted that Pennsylvania would be the fifth state to outlaw the implementation of the Real ID Act, while 16 others have passed some form of resolution against the federal law.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

9/18/07

PA WIND TRUTH COALITION OPPOSES INDUSTRIAL WIND DEVELOPMENT

By Darren Sellers, PLS intern

9-17-07

The PA Wind Truth Coalition, a group comprised of numerous grass roots organizations statewide, held a press conference to ask the legislature to adopt stricter regulations for the siting of wind turbines. The coalition is part of a widespread resistance to the development of wind projects on forested mountains throughout Pennsylvania on both public and private lands. They do not oppose wind facilities when they are properly sited, the group’s spokesperson Laura Jackson said.

It is the coalition’s belief that Pennsylvania does not have adequate regulations in place to limit the placement and consequent construction of wind turbine facilities. The coalition urged state legislators to establish siting regulations to properly oversee the appropriate development of potential facilities. Jackson commented that currently local county and township officials with inadequate training are responsible for enforcing regulations and cannot effectively manage this task.

Greg Burgdorf of Dauphin County, representing the Susquehanna Water Gap Coalition, spoke about the possible development of Peters Mountain, stating that the harm to the area’s wilderness will far outweigh the benefits. He urged that it is an unacceptable location and the site must be reconsidered.

Doug Boyer, representing Citizens for Preservation of the Mahantango Mountain, voiced his fear of the potential environmental aftermath and concerns about local property values being affected if a wind farm is built on the mountain.

Judi Piccolella of The Lycoming Preservation Group said developers of prospective sites do not conduct adequate or extensive research to properly factor in potential negative aspects that may arise. Piccolella opined that construction of wind turbines ultimately ”will not reduce the burden of our need for foreign oil and will serve to destroy our most precious land.” Piccolella, along with her husband Frank, helped spearhead a community effort to prevent Vermont-based Laurel Hill Wind LLC from building dozens of wind turbines in northern Lycoming County.

Frank Piccolella, speaking on behalf of the Potter County organization Save God’s Country, mentioned that the group is opposed to the placement of wind turbines on the county’s ridge tops due to the adverse affects they will have on the picturesque landscape and wildlife population. The county’s economy relies heavily on income generate from hunting and fishing, and the group is worried that wind turbines will disturb what Potter County is known for.

Ron Kamzelski of the Tioga Preservation Group spoke about the three types of people in his county. He explained that the first person is the landowner who stands to profit from wind farms and has little concern about the impact of their actions on their neighbors or the environment. The second person is like himself, a concerned citizen that fears the negative aspects that wind turbines bring, he stated. Lastly, Kamzelski said the third person is simply uninformed or does not care because it does not affect them personally. He concluded that windmills are not a significant enough method of generating power to offset their negative impact on their surroundings.

Dr. Terry Doran of Save The Mountains spoke about his personal concern over many of the foreign-owned companies that have no personal stake in the projects other than money. Doran said, “These companies are permitted to spend tax subsidized dollars to construct an ‘inefficient and unreliable energy source’ that is destructive to communities.”

Joe Cominsky of Save The Mountain, talked about how he was approached as a landowner by a developer to construct wind turbines on his property at Shaffer Mountain. He said the developer attempted to overwhelm him with lucrative offers while mentioning little of the affects on the surroundings. After educating himself on the harmful aspects of windmills he responded negatively to the offers and promised to form a grassroots organization to oppose and defeat their project.

Mike Jackson of the group Save Our Allegheny Ridges (SOAR), talked about the importance of Evitt’s Mountain to Bedford’s landscape and how it may fall victim to two separate windmill construction projects. The projects “will destroy the natural and scenic assets that define our communities”, said Jackson. He opined that wind energy is a façade for industry to receive more of the taxpayer’s money and that “the only thing green about wind in PA is the taxpayer’s money that subsidizes it.”

Laura Jackson spoke on behalf of Fayette County resident Dr. David Cale from Laurel Conservancy, Inc. Jackson read Cale’s speech, which stated that wind power usage is simply to avoid using nuclear energy and is considered by many as the “new green.” The speech mentioned six environmental concerns for land use planners: “deforestation, avian and bat depletion, disruption to local eco-system, ice throw, scenic deterioration, and a psychology of loss stemming from the public’s traditional attachment to PA’s open areas.”

###

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS ANNOUNCES ENERGY PLAN

By Nate Collins, PLS

9-17-07

Members of the House Republican caucus held a press conference to announce their “Energy for PA” proposal.

House Republican Policy Chairman Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) explained that the caucus created a task force to develop a tangible energy policy that the state can afford. He noted that public hearings and roundtables were held across the state and stakeholders were involved in creating the policy.

He explained that the task force had several objectives, including:

The strategy must work with the free market to meet the state’s energy needs

The strategy must allow the government to live within its means, with no new taxes or fees

The strategy must include an emphasis on working with consumers to assist them, especially with the electricity rate caps coming off

The strategy must give employers options to pay for their increasing energy costs

The strategy must emphasize energy conservation while developing our resources in an environmentally sound manner.

Chairman of the House Republican Energy Task Force Stan Saylor (R-York) commented that electricity rate caps are coming off in the next few years and gas prices have almost doubled since 2001. People are being pinched by energy prices, he stated.

He offered that House Republicans applaud the governor for dealing with the issue of energy independence but they oppose his call for new taxes and an expanded government. “We want a common sense proposal,” he remarked.

Rep. Saylor said Governor Rendell believes that government is the answer to the energy crisis, but House Republicans believe the governor’s proposal would punish people who are already conserving energy. They will have a higher energy bills because of the governor’s proposed systems benefit charge, he stated.

We believe that the government should not punish people for doing things the right way, he said. He explained that the House Republican proposal rewards people who conserve energy with tax credits. This plan does not include corporate welfare funded by the systems benefit charge, he remarked.

The problem with Governor Rendell’s proposal is that, Gamesa, a foreign wind energy company, would get state-funded financial aid. “This is not the energy independence that people deserve,” he stated. We should not hand out taxpayer money to foreign companies, he opined.

Rep. Saylor also commented that the governor’s proposal does not include incentives for state government to be energy efficient.

Rep. Scott Hutchinson (R-Venango), Minority Chairman of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, stated that the governor wants to mandate smart meters but they will cost up to $250 per household. Our plan will not waste money on smart meters for people who will not benefit from them, he stated.

This proposal includes a plan called “Leading by Example” to reduce state government’s energy consumption, he explained. He said it would require the state government to reduce energy use by 10% by 2010. He added that it also would increase the number of hybrid vehicles in the state fleet, and would ensure that all new government buildings be built to energy efficient, “green” standards.

Another aspect of the proposal is entitled “Self-Reliant PA”, which would increase Pennsylvania’s home-grown energy supply, Rep Hutchinson said. He offered that it would provide tax credits for Pennsylvania businesses that produce alternative fuels, alternative fuel vehicles or alternative energy power systems. The plan also includes tax credits to promote the use of clean coal technology, he added.

Rep. Hutchinson stated the plan would encourage energy exploration and harvesting on state lands using environmentally friendly technology. Lastly, he explained that the proposal would triple funding for the Small Business Advantage Grant Program from $1 million to $3 million.

This plan includes no new debt or taxes, and allows the free market to come up with energy efficient proposals, he concluded.

The members then answered questions from the press.

If there will be no new taxes, how will you pay for this proposal?

Rep. Turzai said it is a difference of opinion because he does not believe that tax credits come with a cost. He added that the governor recently increased the state budget by 5.3% so there is plenty of discretionary money, specifically in the DCED budget, that can be used. The governor will have to give up some of his WAM funding, he remarked.

When you discuss new taxes in the governor’s plan are you referring to the systems benefit charge?

The governor says that the systems benefit charge will cost citizens $0.45 a month, but we believe it is more than that, Rep. Saylor replied. He commented that small businesses will see a huge cost increase with this charge. He expressed his belief that the systems benefit charge will cost about $20 to $100 a year for the average family. Rep. Hutchinson interjected that they don’t believe there will be a $74 return for the $6 investment, like the governor suggests. The state shouldn’t increase energy bills because prices are already rising, he stated.

At least ten states have similar surcharges to fund programs to attract alternative energy companies. If Pennsylvania does not implement this surcharge will it put us at a disadvantage?

Rep. Turzai responded that the governor has not said how he will spend the $850 million from the bond issue. It appears to be a super WAM program, he remarked. The governor has only discussed smart meters but nothing else, he stated. Rep. Saylor commented that Pennsylvania will be more competitive if it does not raise taxes on businesses and families. If the governor believes his program is so crucial he should be able to find funding for it, he suggested.

Are you saying no one will benefit from smart meters?

Rep. Hutchinson replied that some people will benefit but some won’t so it shouldn’t be mandated across-the-board. Rep. Saylor commented that some people already have smart meters but their personal schedules and energy use does not allow them to benefit from them.

The governor’s proposal includes plans for ethanol and biodiesel. Does your plan address those issues?

Rep. Turzai replied that he has heard that DEP Secretary Kathleen McGinty has stated Pennsylvania will have seven new ethanol plants. He suggested that with the costs associated with ethanol it does not make sense. Rep. Saylor stated Pennsylvania does not grow enough corn to build corn ethanol plants. Corn-based ethanol simply does not make sense for Pennsylvania, he remarked, adding that the state should look at switchgrass and wood chips instead of corn.

PENNFUTURE DISCUSSES WIND ENERGY BENEFITS FOR PENNSYLVANIA

By Amy Richards, PLS

9-17-07

As the General Assembly begins a Special Session on energy, John Hanger, President and CEO of PennFuture, held a press conference to dispute the myths and present the facts related to wind energy and to bring attention to its advantages for the economy, environment, and public health in Pennsylvania.

“There is no perfect way to make energy,” said Hanger, stating that critics of wind energy and other alternative energy sources are quick to point out that wind farms cause environmental damage and threaten wildlife and called this analysis “unbalanced.”

Unlike coal, which provides 50 percent of the energy in Pennsylvania, wind farms avoid pollution that impacts wildlife, plants, streams, and humans, causing diseases, such as asthma. Coal plants produce “enormous damage” to stream beds, water flow, and the fish population in addition to increasing soot, carbon dioxide, smog, and mercury levels, explained Hanger.

Hanger also discussed how alternative energy can slow global warming. Pennsylvania forests and cold water fisheries are on “death row,” he remarked, and are in danger of serious damage within 50 to 100 years. “With global warming already destroying the arctic, 1 million Pennsylvanians with respiratory problems at risk of illness and even death, our forest destroyed by acid rain, and our fish and other wildlife poisoned with mercury, we must act now to replace our outdated and dangerous coal-fired power plants,” Hanger opined.

Not only does wind energy emit no soot, mercury, or carbon dioxide, it creates new jobs and enhances the economy. For example, Hanger said Gamesa, a wind turbine manufacturer, has created 1,000 positions in Pennsylvania, and the industry will help to establish an additional 2,500 new jobs by the end of 2007.

To further clean energy in the state, PennFuture released a letter to legislators demonstrating the advantages of wind energy development. A copy of the letter is available at http://www.pennfuture.org/UserFiles/LegislativeWindLetter9-17-07.pdf.

Hanger then answered questions from the press.

Why not deal with the coal industry rather than place wind turbines on mountains?

Hanger replied that they are trying to work with coal companies and address concerns related to coal plants. He reiterated that there is no clean way to burn coal. We’re trying to make electricity with the least environmental impact possible, he remarked. Hanger also said wind energy development would benefit the area and produce fewer environmental consequences than coal.

Why push for wind energy when it can only provide so much energy?

To say the electricity produced by wind energy is a “drop in the bucket” is incorrect, responded Hanger. Wind will provide 20 percent of Pennsylvania residential power and continues to be developed, he said adding that the state needs to play its role with developing it as a viable energy source. According to Hanger, wind makes a contribution to a clean energy package, although it likely won’t provide 50 percent of electricity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PENNFUTURE RELEASES REPORT ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY

By Nate Collins, PLS

9-13-07

PennFuture held a press conference Thursday to announce the release of a report showing the savings and benefits that Pennsylvania could realize from energy efficiency.

PennFuture President and CEO John Hanger said the reason for the report, entitled “Building Pennsylvania’s Energy Future,” is that the state is at a crucial point in making decisions regarding energy.

He noted that Pennsylvania took some action before 2007 to work on the supply side of the energy market, including the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS) law in 2004.

He suggested that by diversifying the fuels that are used to make electricity, more supply should equal lower prices. He quickly added that now is the time to address the demand side of the equation.

Electric energy sales in Pennsylvania are expected to grow 1.5% annually over the next decade, Hanger stated. He said this increased demand begs the questions: how will Pennsylvania meet its increasing demand, and how much will it cost.

He suggested that the state can either keep building more power plants or it can stop the increase in energy demand. He then explained that the questions that were asked in the report are: Can Pennsylvania cut demand to stabilize its energy usage and how much would it cost.

Hanger then introduced John Plunkett, a partner with the Green Energy Economics Group, who wrote the report.

Plunkett explained that to meet the increasing demand, Pennsylvania would need to add 12 new 300 MW power plants and new electric poles and wires. He said this construction would cost about $20 billion.

He then addressed the question of whether it is feasible for Pennsylvania to achieve enough efficiency to offset the continuing growth. He suggested that other states have been investing in energy efficiency for a long time, and they have proved that it is feasible.

In Vermont, they have a program called Efficiency Vermont, which has effectively stabilized the load growth, and it has done so at one-third of the cost of building additional energy supply. He added that in California the utilities are spending a lot of money on efficiency and achieving massive savings.

Plunkett argued that these techniques can be applied to Pennsylvania. He said it would be worth about $9-$12 billion in net benefits to the state if it adopted the efficiency portfolios. He said the savings would create a strong economic stimulus, lower the cost to do business in the state, and provide more disposable income for the citizens.

Pennsylvania could use two different models to make this efficiency a reality, he stated. He explained that the first model is the utility administration model, in which the utilities design and run the program. He stated that for this to be feasible in Pennsylvania the issue of utilities both saving and selling energy must be addressed.

The second model, he explained, is independent administration, where a nonprofit energy service organization runs the program. Plunkett opined that Pennsylvania has a benefit because the other states have done the work of figuring out how to achieve energy efficiency.

He concluded his presentation by offering three recommendations:

Pennsylvania should move with deliberate speed to catch up with its neighbor states to achieve the economic and environmental benefits from stabilizing electricity load with energy efficiency investment.

Pennsylvania should embrace the goal of eliminating load growth by requiring utilities to procure as much economically achievable energy efficiency as possible.

Pennsylvania should take steps to create an administrative infrastructure for designing and managing efficiency portfolios.

Hanger and Plunkett then answered questions from the press.

What are the practical applications of this type of plan for ordinary citizens?

Hanger replied that it would be programs that would help people reduce their energy consumption. Plunkett added that the programs offer funding and assistance. He also noted that new construction and rehabilitation projects would include high-efficiency designs, including air conditioning and lighting systems.

Do the estimated savings take into consideration the money that utilities want for running these programs?

Hanger replied that all of these costs are included in the estimates. Plunkett stated that utilities usually want a reward for operating conservation and efficiency programs. He added that many of the programs across the country include a performance award for those companies operating effective programs.

Is this similar to Governor Rendell’s proposal to implement a fee on people’s electric bills for a bond issue to help people pay for energy efficient appliances?

Hanger responded that the governor’s energy proposal contained many different facets, including a user fee on electricity to fund an $850 million bond issue to help people replace air conditioners and refrigerators with more energy efficient models. He noted that the governor also proposed that utilities be required to use conservation to eliminate their load growth. PennFuture wholeheartedly supports this proposal, he remarked, adding that this new report has the numbers to back up why PennFuture so strongly supports conservation and energy efficiency.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

9/14/07

Water Resources Water Availability Water Quality Water Resources in North America

Possible Water Resource Impacts in North America

Possible Water Resource Impacts in North America

Related Links