A new report says two economic-impact studies gave misleading information to Pennsylvania policymakers and residents about the economic advantages of the petrochemical complex operated by Shell in Beaver County.

According to the findings from the Ohio River Valley Institute, the plastics plant hasn't brought the economic boom, and promised jobs haven't materialized.

Report co-author Nick Messenger explained that the studies published by Robert Morris University were used to justify billions of dollars' worth of tax incentives for the Shell project.

"This analysis had really been done honestly using a lot of Shell's own assumptions, and this study really did that," he said. "It made some assumptions that were pretty questionable, and that's why they got a large over-estimate in the economic impact."

He added that as the plant approaches one year of operations, some of the long-term employment opportunities have not been sustainable. The report found that since the project was first announced in 2012, Beaver County has lost nearly 10% of its jobs and more than 3% of its business firms.

Shell has not yet replied to a request for comment.

Messenger contended that the Shell plant negatively affects home values in Beaver County, and creates environmental health risks such as asthma. Residents also have reported concern over the environmental impacts of Shell flaring excess gas into the atmosphere.

"The plant has struggled to operate," he said. "They came to a $10 million environmental settlement with Pennsylvania last year. They've exceeded their pollution limits, they've had to shut down production several times because of faulty construction, and just malfunctions in the facility."

The report encouraged policy leaders in Pennsylvania and across the country to ask more difficult questions when economic analyses such as these are presented.

Shell aims to speed up the shift to a net-zero emissions energy business by cutting emissions from its operations and the energy products it sells.

Rural communities in the U.S. remain at the center of debate about the growing presence of large livestock operations.

South Dakota lawmakers are considering boosting fees that help regulate these sites.

A bill making its way through the Legislature would update the fee structure for concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. These fees have stayed the same since the late 1990s.

State agricultural leaders say as CAFOs expand, increasing permit revenue would help address gaps in paying for the oversight program.

Angela Ehlers, executive director of the South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts, said funds are greatly needed for technical assistance.

"Are the soils capable of handling the amount of fertilizer being applied?" asked Ehlers. "Is it being applied in the proper manner? So, it's that type of technical assistance. And if we're gonna provide a program, we need to provide the staff to carry it out properly."

The measure comes amid proposed budget cuts for the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Ehlers said without this program, regulatory work might have to shift back to a regional federal office. Some farm lobbyists say they don't like fee hikes but recognize the need.

CAFOs have become a sore subject in smaller communities, as residents push back over air and water pollution issues.

The tension surrounding CAFOs mostly involves operations with big animal herds. But Ehlers said they also need to regulate smaller sites, which can sometimes avoid regulation.

"One could have 50 head of cattle. Those cattle are standing in the creek all summer long, doing what cows do naturally," said Ehlers. "And smaller CAFOs need the permit fee so that they can guarantee they're not polluting a very special stream that may be the water source for the town just down the road."

South Dakota's secretary of agriculture says there are now nearly 430 CAFOs permitted within the state.

The bill, which has cleared the House and now awaits Senate action, saw a compromise added to ease concerns from farming interests.




get more stories like this via email

Ohio residents gathered in Youngstown late last week to protest the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's decision to grant an operational permit to the SOBE pyrolysis plant, despite ongoing opposition from local communities.

Pyrolysis is a way to break down plastics using very high heat and limited oxygen. The demonstration marked the second anniversary of the SOBE plant's air permit, which some residents argued threatens public health.

Vicky Abou-Ghalioum, pyrolysis and gasification organizer for the Buckeye Environmental Network, said the technology is still emerging and not yet standardized.

"These facilities pose a huge risk to the communities that will have to live with them," Abou-Ghalioum contended. "Because their product and the byproducts are extremely toxic and cancerous."

The Youngstown City Council previously passed a one-year moratorium on pyrolysis in 2023, renewing it in 2024. Supporters of the technology said it provides an alternative to burning plastic waste, although opponents question its environmental impact and economic viability.

Abou-Ghalioum pointed out at the Valentine's Day themed protest, Youngstown residents expressed frustration over what they see as the Ohio EPA disregarding public input.

"They broke the Youngstown residents' hearts by issuing this air pollution permit, not listening at all to what the residents want," Abou-Ghalioum emphasized. "Even though the Ohio EPA is supposed to work for the public and safety of the public with clean air, water and land."

The Environmental Review Appeals Commission is now reviewing a request to rescind the plant's permit. Advocacy groups and local residents are continuing to push for stricter regulations and more public participation in the approval process.

This weekend, Virginians will participate with other birders around the world in the Great Backyard Bird Count.

Thousands of birding enthusiasts count birds seen in their local areas, even within walking distance of their home or in sight of their bird feeders. People need to watch birds for 15 minutes in one location and submit their identified birds to e-bird, a database developed by the Cornell Ornithology Lab and the National Audubon Society.

Max Goldman, statewide access coordinator for the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, said it is important to count birds during the winter months. Traditionally, he said, conservation efforts have only focused on breeding times in the spring.

"Wintering kind of fell by the wayside for a long time, even though, from a conservation perspective, you have to have areas for these birds to spend each part of their life cycle over a year," Goldman explained. "If one of those areas is threatened for whatever reason -- the resources are threatened or the area itself disappears -- then you've got a real problem with the survivability of those species."

In 2024, more than 200 countries participated in the count, identifying nearly 8,000 species of birds worldwide.

Nearly 650,000 people participated in last year's bird count, which is three times the number of people who took part a decade ago.

Goldman noted the count works well for those who are just getting started in their interest in birds.

"It's a really interesting way for people who are new birders to report the birds that are in their backyard or that are in the areas that they already go," Goldman pointed out. "Focus on birds during a time of year when they otherwise wouldn't and to contribute to a really robust, large and important data set."

From the 2023 to 2024 counts, 45% of countries saw a 100% increase in submissions.


get more stories like this via email