TAMPA, Fla. - State senators are poised to vote on a bill that would roll out the welcome mat for fracking operations statewide, despite grave concerns from the scientific community. The bill, which already passed the state House, would not require fracking companies to disclose the chemicals or potential carcinogens used in the process.

Dr. Lynn Ringenberg of Tampa is the national president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, and she says the speed with which the legislation is moving is alarming.

"They're asking the citizens of Florida to be guinea pigs, and I'm a pediatrician and I say you're asking us to trade the health of our children and grandchildren to make you wealthy," says Ringenberg.

Supporters of the bill say it could lead to greater energy independence, and argue oil and gas drilling has been done in Florida for decades. Fracking, however, involves the controversial practice of blasting large amounts of water, chemicals and sand into the ground for oil and gas recovery, which critics say comes with a high risk of water and air contamination.

Dozens of municipalities across Florida already have passed measures prohibiting fracking or calling for a resolution for a statewide ban on the practice. But, as Ringenberg notes, the current legislation would bar local governments from making those decisions.

"These bills would pre-empt that," she says. "And so communities wouldn't have a right to say 'No, I don't want oil and gas fracking in my community.' That really is a dangerous precedent, I think."

The legislation would require the state Department of Environmental Protection to undertake a study that would include looking at potential risks and economic benefits of the process. The fracking bill was passed along party lines in the Republican-dominated House last week. Its next stop in the Senate is the Appropriations Committee.







get more stories like this via email

The Keystone 10 Million Trees Partnership is making significant strides in Pennsylvania's environmental efforts.

A $4,000 grant from The GIANT Company and Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful will bring new trees to the City of Lancaster. The trees will be planted by volunteers.

Carla Eissing, Pennsylvania grassroots manager for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the grant is helping to support their Mira Lloyd Dock partnership diversity award. She added the grant will support a tree planting in November at McCaskey High School.

"We will be planting 56 native trees and shrubs of varying species, depending on what's available," Eissing explained. "We are always working with our growers to ensure that we've got a good selection to choose from."

Eissing added the project leverages community partnerships and leadership. It focuses on urban beautification, stormwater reduction and increasing green spaces. The project builds upon the efforts of previous award winners who engaged with the local school district and community.

Brenda Sieglitz, Pennsylvania director of major giving for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, applied for the grant through Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful to specifically be used for providing and purchasing the trees. She said since several other organizations are also funding this project, it has grown to involve more partners.

"Multiple of the other Mira Lloyd Dock awardees have joined together for this," Sieglitz noted. "We're really excited that we can use this funding from Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful and the GIANT company to work together to leverage such an ambitious project with McCaskey."

Each winner of the Dock Award will get $5,000 to plant trees and $1,000 to take care of them. The trees will be provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tree Pennsylvania program and the partnership.

A proposed rate hike by American Electric Power that would have affected customers in two dozen West Virginia counties is off the table for now.

West Virginia regulators dismissed AEP's case, citing incomplete documents and failure to disclosure financial information.

Courtney MacDonald, coalition coordinator with West Virginians for Energy Freedom, said while advocates would like to cheer the case dismissal, it will likely resurface.

She said residents should stay tuned.

"There were so many eyes on this case," said MacDonald. "There was a lot of outrage and frustration from West Virginians that already can't afford their electricity bills."

The proposal would have raised rates by nearly 18% - or around $29 a month for residential customers, and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for AEP.

The utility argues the rate hike is needed to cover increased costs involved in procuring and supplying energy.

MacDonald contended energy companies should be working to lower costs through efficiency programs and renewable power sources, instead of placing the burden on communities.

"Fifteen to 22% for schools, 25% for churches, and 25% to 30% for small businesses," said MacDonald, "which we all know in this post-COVID world are already struggling."

MacDonald added that residents who want to be involved in the regulatory process and share their views with the Public Service Commission can sign up for alerts online, at energyfreedomwv.org.

"You will get an alert to let you know that it is time to start writing letters again, and we provide a form that makes that easy to do," said MacDonald. "Within two minutes, you can have your own personalized message sent to the PSC."

Mountain State residents saw their average electricity costs jump by 90% between 2005 and 2020, an increase higher than almost all other states, according to the group Conservation West Virginia.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont is pausing the state's involvement in a multistate offshore wind development deal.

Lamont cites the projects' potential costs, leaving Rhode Island and Massachusetts to collect proposals.

A Sierra Club report finds offshore wind can save New Englanders $630 million annually.

Lori Brown, executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, said offshore wind is essential to the state achieving its climate goals.

"It's a real dangerous game to play, for the rest of us out here trying to get our climate action going, trying to get offshore wind off and running," said Brown. "And it's a huge market, and we're backing away from it for absolutely no good reason whatsoever except political gain."

Postponing offshore wind could prevent Connecticut from reaching its 2030 carbon emission reduction goal. At the same time, the state is building momentum with fossil fuels.

Enbridge is proposing a fracked gas pipeline extension from New Jersey to Rhode Island, much of which would run across Connecticut.

Project Maple is still in its earliest phases, but environmentalists worry about the hazards it can create.

Some environmental organizations feel the state's over-reliance on methane gas has led to increasing price spikes. The state's gas utilities got rate increases earlier this year that many Connecticut residents opposed.

Samantha Dynowski - state director of the Sierra Club Connecticut chapter - said along with offshore wind, the state should pursue all other cost-saving renewable energy options.

"Connecticut really should be moving forward with more solar - particularly on homes, and businesses, and parking lots," said Dynowski. "We also need to be doing more with energy efficiency. We know we can really reduce demand with energy efficiency."

She added the state can also invest in battery storage, which distributes saved-up energy for times when the sun isn't out or the wind has died down.

However, offshore wind is the most abundant renewable resource New England has.

The Union of Concerned Scientists finds offshore wind provides more power for the region in winter than current gas lines do.