Federal court says FERC overstepped bounds in NYRI case

link to complete article is here:

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2009/February09/19/NYRI_FERC_ct-19Feb09.html

WASHINGTON – New York Regional Interconnection, the company that wants to build an electric transmission line from Utica to New Windsor, appears to have suffered a setback as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission overstepped its mandate in transmission siting, leaving the decision with the state.        

That is good news to Orange County Executive Edward Diana. “This decision certainly puts this decision back in the hands in the hands of the public power authority in New York State to make that decision within a 12 month period of time and that we would hope would be in denial of this NYRI application to enhance and build this line in the seven counties,” he said. “We think it’s unnecessary.”

US Senator Charles Schumer said the decision is a victory. “This decision puts the kibosh on NYRI’s effort to do an end-around local law and correctly determines that New York State should have the preeminent role in siting projects like NYRI,” he said. “NYRI’s proposed path remains unduly intrusive and would have damaging impacts on parks, vista and communities from Utica to Chenango to the Catskills to Orange County.”

Len Singer, General Counsel for New York Regional Interconnection responded with a statement:

"The 4th Circuit decision holds that the FERC cannot exercise siting jurisdiction if a state siting authority denies an application within a year after the application is filed. If a state denial comes more than a year after an application is filed, then the FERC would have jurisdiction. NYRI's application was filed February 20, 2008 so if a denial were to occur by the NY PSC after February 20, 2009 it would be subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Court's decision. NYRI believes that if the project is judged on its merits by an independent, objective siting authority, it will find that the project is in the public interest."

Spotlight - PA Trout Unlimited Issues White Paper On Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Drilling

PA Council of Trout Unlimited, which represents 13,000 members in 53 local Chapters across the state, issued a white paper this week outlining its concerns about drilling for natural gas in theMarcellus Shale formation outlining several concerns about the need to make sure drilling is done in a way that does not damage natural resources.

The following is a summary of the white paper which is available online.

"We understand that natural gas drilling and other energy developments are important to the economy of the Commonwealth and the nation. However, we are adamant that this drilling be done in a manner that does not damage our natural resources. Deep gas well drilling is relatively new to Pennsylvania , and the environmental concerns have not been fully evaluated prior to numerous permits being issued. Adequate permit restrictions and oversight are necessary. We encourage our regulatory agencies to actively ensure that all protections be enforced to protect our water resources as afforded under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Streams Law."
 

PA Trout outlined several concerns:

-- The removal of millions of gallons of water from streams and aquifers to frack the Marcellus gas producing zones;

-- The potential environmental damage the fracking water will do; both on site and during its disposal;

-- Drilling activity in Special Protection Watersheds (High Quality and Exceptional Value streams) and Wilderness Trout Designated areas may permanently affect these areas;

-- Bonding is inadequate to deal with plugging/closing of wells and to deal with any long-term environmental implications of orphan/abandoned well sites;

-- Potential increase in sediment and stormwater from the well pad sites; and

-- Resource agencies may be inadequately staffed to deal with the increase in permit requests and on site enforcement.

In response to these concerns, the Council makes 13 recommendations:

1. Marcellus Shale drilling and production presents a new series of problems. Namely, the need for millions of gallons of water for fracking, and the need to properly treat and dispose of this water when it returns to the wellhead. Simply put, Pennsylvania must enact criteria and disposal methods not yet employed in the Commonwealth. As an organization concerned with coldwater fisheries and the water quality and quantity needed to support these fisheries, Pennsylvania Trout Unlimited (PATU) insists that PA DEP must meet this new challenge. For example, PA DEP should encourage the use of reverse osmosis units to remove salts and any associated heavy metals from production waters and reuse the resulting water for future fracking.

2. PATU strongly believes that Marcellus Shale development cannot be permitted within Exceptional Value (EV) watersheds. We do not see how the existing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sediment and erosion control, given the significant earth disturbances associated with road and pad construction, can comply with the anti-degradation standards required under the Clean Streams Law.

3. PATU sees an urgent need for PA DEP to change its present bonding requirements for existing vertical wells, and to cover the likely higher plugging costs for Marcellus wells. PA DEP needs to take immediate steps to determine the anticipated costs of closing Marcellus wells. PA DEP needs to consult with surrounding states regarding their existing or proposed bonding rates for this class of wells. PA DEP also needs to work closely with the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) to assure that bonding rates meet the necessary closing costs for Marcellus wells. Without adequate bonding, Pennsylvania will inherit more abandoned wells that cannot be properly closed, and that risk the spewing of contaminants into our waterways, much as we presently see from pre-Act drilling, and where bonding was inadequate to close the wells.

4. PATU sees an urgent need for PA DEP to require a severance fee adequate to meet the Department’s costs for permitting, inspections and enforcement, including the logistical needs of the program.

5. In High Quality-Coldwater Fishery (HQ-CWF) watersheds, PA DEP should, at minimum, require individual permits for gas development. Individual permits assure that the public has an opportunity to review, object to, or request a public meeting on, the proposed drilling operation and its associated discharges prior to the issuance of the permit. These options are not available with the present practice of issuing general permits pursuant to Chapter 102. Appeal rights, under the general permit, are limited to a short window after issuance of the permit. We find this practice unacceptable.

6. Drilling projects have the potential to cause multiple impacts on our environment. Permit approvals should consider all of the impacts before issuing a permit, including water needs for drilling, treatment and discharge of backflows and brine, habitat destruction from drill site pads, and erosion from road construction and pipeline construction.

7. PATU urges state agencies to prohibit any oil and gas development in Exceptional Value (EV) watersheds, Wilderness Trout Stream watersheds, EV wetlands or areas containing threatened or endangered species. Increased oversight should be applied in High Quality-Coldwater Fishery (HQ-CWF) watersheds.

8. We insist that water withdrawal permitting by SRBC, DRBC and PA DEP be closely monitored. Namely, flows from the permitted watershed need to be documented at the time of withdrawal to assure that the stream uses are protected. This will require that flow monitoring devices are part of the permit, thus assuring that the Q-7/10* is not violated.

9. PA DEP is obligated to consider the cumulative impacts these drilling sites will pose in a watershed. In addition, resource agencies should evaluate the overall impacts to groundwater and surface flows and place a cap on permits to prevent Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) from being reached. While any one project may do minimal damage, the cumulative impacts from multiple projects could cause significant damage.

10. Surface landowners must consider the cumulative impacts of site development as it pertains to forest fragmentation and its potential impacts on our coldwater resources.

11. Roads built to and around well pad sites should be required to incorporate Environmentally Sensitive Maintenance principles as outlined by the Center for Dirt and Gravel Roads Program.

12. Fracking water must be treated at facilities built to meet NPDES permit requirements. Municipal sewage treatment plants are not capable of treating chlorides and toxins present in fracking water.

13. The public has the right to know what materials the industry is injecting for Marcellus Shale development. It also has the right to know the chemical analysis of the flowback water.

PA Trout recommends those sharing these concerns contact the Department of Environmental Protection, county conservation districts, the Game Commission and the Fish and Boat Commission in their local areas.

The full white paper is available online.

*Q-7/10 is defined as a consecutive 7- day low streamflow during a ten year drought. Water qualitymodeling is based on this low flow condition to assure that stream uses are maintained.

Central NY ‘Racino’ Project Faces Delay

NYRI threatens pullout?

Asks FERC to guarantee profits

link to complete article is here:

http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/09-02-12/head3-nyri.html

By FRITZ MAYER

NEW YORK STATE — The company that wants to build the $2.1 billion power line through New York also wants to be sure it can recoup its entire investment, but that might not be possible under current rules. In New York, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), the not-for-profit that manages the state’s electricity grid, determines whether a utility, such as a power line, can pass the entire cost of a project onto ratepayers.

Under current NYISO rules, the cost of the power line proposed by New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI) can be passed along only if 80 percent of the entities who receive electricity from the line agree. In this case, the entities receiving the electricity would be downstate power companies like Con Edison, which serves New York City. The problem for NYRI is that Con Edison, which in a weighted system accounts for 21 percent of the vote for the NYRI project, has already said that it is unnecessary.

NYRI, therefore, asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to conduct a rehearing on the NYISO policy in November 2008. In another filing with FERC on February 2, NYRI wrote, “Unless the commission grants the requested rehearing or clarification, it is unlikely that large-scope, technologically innovative, congestion-reducing projects like the NYRI project will be built because there will be no way to recover a return of and on the investment. NYRI respectfully requests that the commission issue a decision by March 2009 so that NYRI’s investors can decide whether to continue investing in this project.”

Opponents of NYRI saw this as a threat to withdraw if FERC does not act according to NYRI’s wishes. Eve Ann Shwartz, a spokesperson for Communities Against Regional Interconnect (CARI), in a press release said, “NYRI’s latest threat to withdraw this project indicates that NYRI investors and backers see the handwriting on the wall.”

Troy Bystrom, another CARI member, said, “NYRI is looking for a guaranteed federal ‘bailout plan’ to build this unneeded project in New York State. They are seeking to make a profit at the expense of ratepayers for a green washed project using 20-year-old technology.”

But Len Singer, the lawyer for NYRI, said a decision against the company and in favor of NYISO would not necessarily mean the death of the project. He told a reporter the situation would be re-evaluated, and that investors don’t intend to walk away from the power line.

Some amount of profit for NRYI has already been guaranteed by FERC. In September 2008, the agency ruled that NRYI was eligible for an “incentive rate” if it builds the powerline, which would amount to 2.75 percent more that it would otherwise earn as a regulated utility under NYSIO.

At the time, Congressman Maurice Hinchey lashed out against the FERC action, saying, “It is outrageous that FERC has required ratepayers to subsidize a project that is neither warranted nor wanted by the residents of New York.”

Local guest column: Too many questions, dangers in drilling

By Maureen Dill

February 08, 2009 04:00 am

—

Where is the voice of the majority concerning gas drilling?

According to reports, leasing firms control 67 square miles of land owned by 300 Otsego County residents.

Will we who represent the majority "" having ownership or oversight of the other 935 square miles "" stand by while our water sources, health and well-being are compromised solely for the short-lived profits of a few?

Or will we take action to protect our aquifers and watersheds "" for ourselves, our livestock and crops? There are important questions that we should be asking.

If a one-mile buffer zone between the New York City watersheds and gas-drilling sites is deemed critical to the protection of those watersheds, why wouldn't the same protection be appropriate to protect our watersheds and ecosystems? The city has warned state officials and the DEC that drilling could have "crippling implications," degrading water quality of Catskill reservoirs that provide 9 million people with drinking water.

Do all property owners know about the "compulsory integration" law? Under this 2005 state law, leasing company "spacing units" may encompass privately owned lands whose owners haven't agreed to sign leases.

Despite the risks hydraulic fracturing poses to human health and safe drinking water, why doesn't the federal Environmental Protection Agency regulate fracturing fluids? Why did Congress exempt hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005?

The oil and gas industry is the sole industry allowed by the EPA to inject known hazardous materials, unchecked, into the earth. Halliburton helped pioneer hydraulic fracturing. The chemical mix used in this process is considered proprietary by the industry and kept secret, even from the EPA.

We know the effects on living organisms of chemicals such as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. Should we accept the degradation of our environment and related health risks of these extremely dangerous substances?

To date, hydrofracking is suspected of endangering drinking water in more than nine states. Here in Central New York, aquifer infiltration by drilling materials and a gas well explosion have been reported in Brookfield and Smyrna, respectively.

Hydrogen sulfide and nitrogen oxide are also among other toxic byproducts of the drilling process. Many of these chemicals are known to cause respiratory distress, heart conditions and lung damage, and other potential threats.

Should we be prepared for increased levels of radon in our homes, since the Marcellus shale formation is radioactive and identified as a radon source?

Can we be assured that the DEC and leaders of towns and municipalities will carefully monitor every drilling operation? Can they afford to? Will they diligently monitor changes in radioactivity levels resulting from gas drilling? How will local government address erosion and sedimentation at well sites and enforce stormwater management? Since the 2006 floods, have flood plain data for our county been updated?

What will be the effects of withdrawing more than 5 million gallons of water from our rivers, streams and aquatic habitats for each hydrofracking operation? As much as 40 percent of that contaminated water may remain in the ground "" water that could eventually migrate through cracks and fissures into private water wells. How and where will the recovered drilling byproducts be disposed? We should be gravely concerned with the notion that toxic fluids might be stored inside injection wells.

Evidence is mounting of the contamination and depletion of water sources by the gas industry's use of billions of gallons of water. If wellbore integrity at abandoned gas wells is not monitored, the infrastructure can fail over time and become another source of contamination. According to a DEC report, "Once gas escapes from the wellbore, under certain geologic conditions it can travel considerable distances either laterally or vertically and through natural fractures reach the surface or infiltrate a water zone."

The report further states that gas in an aquifer can enter water wells "and can accidentally be ignited at the water tap or it can build up inside the house in explosive quantities."

Where is the voice of the majority concerning the effects natural-gas drilling will have on our community character and our pastoral landscape _ the reason many people relocate or vacation here, and among the reasons folks born here choose to live and be laid to rest in this bucolic countryside?

Every member of the majority should contact their local and state representatives to demand support in protecting our water and the quality of our lives. Elected officials who have leased their land to drilling enterprises should so declare and recuse themselves from any decisions in this matter.

We, the majority, voted these representatives into office, and they have a duty to acknowledge our concerns and respond appropriately. We can live without natural gas, but we, our crops and animals cannot survive without clean water.

___

Dill, a Morris resident, is a social justice advocate and staff member at the State University College at Oneonta's Center for Social Responsibility & Community.

Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.

Marcellus scope complete

Comments prompt DEC to widen study

link to complete article is here:

http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/09-02-12/news-scope.html

By FRITZ MAYER

ALBANY, NY — Comments from officials, organizations and citizens alike about natural gas drilling have made a difference. At least that’s the claim of the NY Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

In preparing a scope document, which essentially serves as a roadmap that the DEC will use in its study of extracting gas from the Marcellus Shale, the agency conducted six hearings in the Catskills and the Southern Tier. It received a total of 188 verbal statements and over 3,770 written statements that came by fax, letter and email. Those who offered comment included representatives of federal, state and local government agencies, environmental groups, industry, other organizations and individuals.

Before reviewing the comments, according to the DEC, the agency had intended to focus on water and wastewater management as the most important areas for study in terms of environmental impacts. The people who commented were concerned about these areas, but they also expressed concerns about a wide array of issues. Therefore, the DEC expanded the scope of the study to include examination of the following:

• Effectiveness of regulations in other oil and gas producing states where high-volume hydraulic fracturing of shale is used.

• Setbacks for multi-well sites and high-volume hydraulic fracturing operations from private dwellings or buildings, surface water bodies and private water wells.

• Potential requirements for private water well sampling, testing and monitoring by gas well operators.

• Feasibility of requiring the use of green or non-chemical fracturing technology.

• Mechanisms to require notification, review and department approval of re-fracturing operations.

• Specific air quality topics.

Still, some advocates believe the final scope does not go far enough. Tom Wilinsky, a lawyer and a member of Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy, said the DEC was “selective” in deciding what topics to study. He said, “From what I can see, they’re not really looking at the broad cumulative effects” of so many wells in one area as is envisioned for the Marcellus Shale.

“I don’t think they’re doing a real full economic analysis, either, in terms of job creation and whether the jobs that are created will be filled by people who actually live in the area versus shipping people in to work the wells and the drilling apparatus, and our understanding is that’s what happens.”

Now that the scope is completed, the DEC will begin the environmental study to create a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS). A draft of the SGEIS is expected to be completed sometime this spring, after which the public will again be invited to comment.

Gov. Paterson "not interested" in talking Catskills casino until Seneca tax issue resolved

ALBANY - Gov. David Paterson said today he is "not interested" in moving ahead in talks with Seneca Nation leaders over a new downstate casino until a dispute over collection of cigarette and gasoline taxes is resolved.

The governor's comments to reporters came a day after members of his administration met with several Seneca representatives over the tribe's plans to build a casino in the Catskills resort region. The $160 million project faces a series of hurdles, not the least of which has been the reluctance of the federal government to approve any more off-reservation casino deals.

"I think right now, before we resolve that, is the resolution of the lack of taxes that we're receiving for a number of different items," Paterson said when asked about the casino talks.

Paterson said that while he recognizes the Seneca Nation is a sovereign territory, there exists "unfair competition for New York's commercial entities that are in those places" near the reservations. Non-Indian retailers say they are at a sizeable competitive disadvantage when it comes to going head-to-head with cigarette sales against Indian retailers who do not charge state and local excise and sales taxes.

"I am certainly willing to entertain discussions," Paterson said of casino talks with the Senecas. "But, I'm really not interested in taking motion in a direction until I feel there is equity that we have with a number of the (Indian) nations."

The Senecas are engaged in a deal with Rotate Black Gaming Inc., Mich., to develop a Catskills casino. The facility would be located in Monticello, just 90 minutes from mid-town Manhattan. The Senecas recently took ownership of a 63-acre parcel of land from Black Rock.

Seneca officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

[email protected]

Seneca officials initiate casino talks with governor’s office

link to complete article is here:

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2009/February09/11/Seneca_casino-11Feb09.html

ALBANY - Officials of the Seneca Nation of Indians and its Seneca Catskills Gaming Corporation met Tuesday in Albany with officials in the governor’s office to initiate discussions about building a Seneca-owned resort in the Catskill Mountains.

The Seneca Nation and Rotate Black Gaming, Inc. of Michigan announced last month that they have an exclusive agreement to develop and manage a Class III gaming resort in the Catskills that is projected to produce $160 million in direct payments to state and local governments when it’s complete.

The Seneca Nation, based on six territories in Western New York, has had the exclusive agreement with Rotate Black for the last 18 months to develop and manage what would be the first full scale casino in Sullivan County.

The estimated payments to New York governments would exceed the annual total of what is paid to governments by the Nation’s three existing casinos in Niagara Falls, Buffalo and Salamanca in Western New York.

“As we embark on this great opportunity for the state and the Nation, we seek cooperation so everyone gains, as is the case with the state, and local governments in Niagara Falls, Buffalo and Salamanca,” said Kevin Seneca, the Nation’s treasurer from 2006-08. “We had a good meeting to review the challenges ahead and understand what each side’s priorities are.” 

In 2002, the state Legislature authorized development of three Indian casinos in the Catskills region. The Seneca Nation has long had an interest in the Catskills as an opportunity to establish a Class III gaming facility.

Rotate Black acquired a 63-acre parcel of land in the Town of Thompson near exit 107 on Route 17 and recently transferred the land to the Nation. The Nation holds the land in “fee status” and pays taxes on it until the United States puts the land in restricted fee or trust status. The previous administration in Washington was opposed to trust status for Native American casinos in the Catskills. It is hoped the new administration will change that position.

Rotate Black projects that a fully developed Catskills casino will generate approximately $160 million in exclusivity fees to state and local governments, which is greater than what is currently being paid annually to state and local governments under the Nation’s existing Class III compact for its three Western New York casinos.

The envisioned casino project is slated to include an all-suites hotel, enclosed pool environment, multiple restaurants, banquet facilities, food court, and spa. 

By WILLIAM J. KEMBLE
Correspondent

link to complete article is here:

http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2009/02/08/news/doc498e698f69dc9308739558.prt