“Big Fish” are much preferred over “small potatoes”

From an Article by Mike Nolting, WAJR Radio, January 16, 2022

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. – When West Virginians think about pandemic response one of the top names that comes to mind is Jim Hoyer. But, the retired general is also very involved in state level economic development efforts through the Joint Interagency Task Force. Hoyer describes his current work in economic development as “running interference” between business, state leaders and Vantage Ventures.

Vantage Ventures is part of the WVU John Chambers School of Business and Economics with the goal of transforming West Virginia into a start-up state. Since 2019, Vantage Ventures has nurtured the ideas and talent of potential entrepreneurs to implement concepts into economic impact. ”Sarah Biller and the folks at Vantage Ventures that are not just working on 24 high-tech companies right now,” Hoyer said. “We’ve modified their mission a little bit to working at what I call catching the big fish.”

The influx of pandemic relief money has opened more opportunity. Hoyer said his challenge is to work as a team to identify the most impactful use of that one-time relief money. “We’re starting right now to focus on assiting the state economic development team — Mitch Carmichael, Mike Graney, the governor’s office and local economic development folks on the bandwidth of assests,” Hoyer said.

West Virginia has to compete with other states on tax structure, available workforce and geographic location to potential customers or users. But here, there are fewer suitable plots of land for development. State government and the federal relief money can help enhance infrastructure. “We’ve got to not only be a good place to do business, but we have to have ready places to do business,” Hoyer said.

Following the announcement of a $2.7 billion Nucor Steel mill in Mason County and a medical warehouse in the Morgantown area, Hoyer believes the state is on the rise. Hoyer based that observation on many years working with state lawmakers and serving in the West Virginia National Guard. “I would tell you that I have never seen a greater interest in operating in the state of West Virginia than I’ve seen in the last 12 to 18 months,” Hoyer said.

Another job announcement is expected in the spring that involves a company possibly locating in a 300,000-square foot facility at the Morgantown Industrial Park. The Morgantown Utility Board is upgrading water and sewer facilities there with a $2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce.

#######++++++++#######++++++++########

I-79 Harmony Grove interchange moves up priority list

From an Article by Mike Nolting, WV MetroNews, April 3, 2022

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. – The planning and design stages of the proposed I-79 Harmony Grove interchange for the Morgantown Industrial Park (MIP) is moving forward.

Morgantown Metropolitan Planning Organization Bill Austin said the project has been moved up on the project priority list. Most recently, the project has been moved to the Tier 1 priority list which means it will be completed within the next 8 to 10 years. But, Austin said an enormous amount of work is required to expand or add exits to the interstate highway system.

“The interstate is the biggest federal investment in our country that we have and protecting it’s capacity and making sure it is serving the needs of the community is very important,” Austin said on WAJR’s “Talk of the Town.”

The interchange will be a vital part of Mountaintop Beverage. Mountaintop Beverage is expected to operate up to 100 semi-trucks daily from the Morgantown Industrial Park. Additionally, reports indicate when the project is officially announced other expansion announcements are expected when project bids are awarded to a contractor.

“There are several potential expansions or additions to the industrial park that would require direct access to the interstate,” Austin said.

The most recent step is the Interchange Justification Report. That report is completed by the developer, Enroute Properties and consultant to show the scope of work to the DOH. “We’re at the point where the DOH and the consultant are reviewing what the study says and preparing a presentation for the Department of Highways,” Austin said.

According to Austin, when the project is complete it will be a very unique set of opportunities to the region. “The thing to remember about the industrial park is it’s actually a truly multimodal facility,” Austin said. “It has rail access, it has barge access and with this it will have interstate access, which is really a confluence that very few areas within the state have.”

The 15 state ORSANCO / ORBA region

From the Ohio River Basin Alliance, Cincinnati, October 21, 2020

The Ohio River Basin Alliance released a sweeping strategy today to help the 15-state region and its more than 25 million residents tackle urgent environmental threats and economic needs, including inadequate river infrastructure, pollution to the river and its tributaries, and increased flooding that is only expected to get worse due to climate change.

“The regional plan provides a roadmap for needed investments that will benefit millions of people in the region by boosting our economy, protecting our drinking water, restoring our environment, protecting our public health, supporting our outdoor recreation, and improving our quality of life,” said Harry Stone, chairperson of the Ohio River Basin Alliance. “We have a historic opportunity to stand up for communities large and small in the region—and we are going to do it. We look forward to working with stakeholders in the region, as well as local officials, governors, and members of Congress to implement these common-sense solutions, before these challenges get more difficult and costly. We have solutions, and it’s time to use them.”

The plan, which covers portions of the states of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia, highlights six regional priorities:

>> Restoring the river, its tributaries and ecosystems to protect the health of people, fish, and wildlife;
>> Addressing flooding to protect vulnerable communities and infrastructure;
>> Ensuring abundant clean water for people, fish and wildlife, and businesses;
>> Increasing nature-based recreation and tourism;
>> Growing water-borne commerce and ensuring efficient waterborne commerce through adequate lock and dam infrastructure; and,
>> Supporting robust research and education to inform the needs and opportunities of the region.

The goal is for the regional strategy to be implemented by collaborating with local communities, states, and federal government and other diverse partners that leads to robust new federal investment in the region, akin to what other regional initiatives have received in the Chesapeake Bay, Florida Everglades, Great Lakes, Gulf Coast, and Puget Sound. The next phase is to craft implementation plans for the six goals.

“We look forward to working with local partners to put forward solutions that benefit our environment, economy, and communities—especially those communities that have historically borne the brunt of pollution and environmental harm, such as people of color, low-income and rural communities, and Tribal Nations,” said Stone. “We have an obligation and responsibility to help all of the people who call the region home, and we believe that the regional plan can lift all boats.”

The “Plan for the Ohio River Basin 2020 – 2025 Planning Assistance to States Study” was funded and performed under an agreement between Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, with financial support from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The plan received input from a diverse set of stakeholders, including state and federal agencies, colleges and universities, businesses, industry associations, cities, and non-governmental organizations.

The Ohio River basin covers 204,000 square miles encompassing parts of 15 states. It is home to over 25 million people. The Ohio River supplies drinking water to more than 5 million people.

Ohio River Basin Alliance, a collaboration of Ohio River Basin stakeholders and stakeholder organizations, was formed in 2009 to fill the need for an organization to speak for the Basin holistically by capturing the highest priorities of the numerous organizations of the Basin and advocating for the ecological health and economic well-being of this world class basin through sound laws, policies, and projects, and the funds to support them. ORBA is a collaboration that includes more than 250 representatives from over 130 states, local and federal agencies, industry, academia, and nonprofit organizations in the Ohio River Basin. ORBA’s purpose is to foster broad collaboration to advance education and science; promote the conservation of natural resources in the Ohio River Basin; and achieve sustainable economic growth, ecological integrity and public safety across and within political jurisdictions within the Ohio River Basin.

Read the plan at: http://bit.ly/ORBAplan

ORBA Address:
Ohio River Basin Alliance, 5735 Kellogg Ave, Cincinnati OH 45230

##############################

See the list of sample sites and parameters

Secretary Thrasher removed from Commerce

From an Article by Brad McElhinny, WV MetroNews, June 19, 2018

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Executives from China Energy who had been set to attend a petrochemical conference canceled their visit because of ongoing strain over trade, said Brian Anderson, director of the WVU Energy Institute.

Weeks ago, those involved with the potential $83 billion Chinese investment in West Virginia natural gas projects had hoped the executives would be able to make a specific project announcement during their visit, Anderson said.

“Backing up a couple months we really were hoping we could have a project to be announced on this visit. It wasn’t a cancellation of an announcement, but it’s not at the point a project can be announced with the leadership canceling their visit,” Anderson said today on MetroNews’ “Talkline.”

Anderson first described the cancellation of the visit by China Energy executives during his own presentation at the Northeast U.S. Petrochemical Construction Conference in Pittsburgh. His comments were picked up by trade journalists who were covering the conference.

The comments also set off a buzz among those in attendance, said Curtis Wilkerson, president of Orion Strategies, which performs communications and marketing services for West Virginia’s natural gas industry. Wilkerson is attending the conference.

“That’s probably the buzz that’s going on the most here,” Wilkerson said this morning. “People then questioning the total investment and how that’s going and what are the possibilities. They’re not exactly saying it’s not happening. They’re just raising questions.”

State officials made a splash last November by announcing the possibility of an $83 million investment in West Virginia over 20 years.

Then-Commerce Secretary Woody Thrasher traveled to China to sign a memorandum of understanding with China Energy while President Donald Trump looked on.

Gov. Jim Justice spoke with excitement about the sheer amount of the potential investment. “For crying out loud, it absolutely takes your breath,” Justice said.

But the investment has also been shrouded in mystery. State officials have been unwilling to release the memorandum of understanding, and they also said they could not elaborate on specifics of the projects, saying they would evolve over the 20-year span of the agreement.

The current tit-for-tat over tariffs lays more uncertainty onto the agreement. President Trump on Monday threatened to impose additional tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. That followed last week’s announcement of a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion in Chinese imports.

Chinese officials accused the United States of “extreme pressure and blackmailing” and vowed to retaliate.

West Virginia’s deal with China Energy was hatched during President Trump’s trade mission to China, when the president was advocating for greater investment.

Last week, while being questioned about state Commerce Secretary Thrasher’s forced resignation, Justice said the deal would be safe because of the governor’s own good relationship with Trump.

“I can tell you just as simple as mud how it happened,” Justice said. “It happened through a friendship with myself and Donald Trump. Donald Trump realizes wholeheartedly that we have a terrible trade imbalance with China and he is on those people and on those people like stink on you-know what.

“And absolutely he is pushing them to invest and do things to bring that trade imbalance in line. So how does West Virginia come into being. I mean, do we really think it came into being with our Commerce department? Of course it didn’t. It came into being because of the relationship between the two of us and the president really trying to help his friend and help what he loves and he loves West Virginia. That’s how it came in line. Well, we haven’t lost one thread of that. We’ve still got a president, we’ve still got your trade imbalance and you’ve still got your governor.”

But the current situation has made moving forward with decisions a challenge, Anderson said. “It’s certainly not a road block. Right now it’s a bit of a speed bump. If it lasts too long it could certainly be a hurdle,” Andersons said on “Talkline.”

He said China Energy is continuing on due diligence such as project identification and site selection. But, because the company is partially state-run, its executives would find it difficult right now to give a project official approval or to appear at an American petrochemical conference.

“These issues surrounding the pending trade war are causing some concern among the leaders of China Energy,” he said.

“It has not slowed the development. The development teams are still pursuing the project. However, the timing of the leadership of China Energy and that coinciding with the trade war was going on was just not something the leadership of China Energy was going to do.”

Anderson believes the project still has great potential in the long-term. “I’m still optimistic. In the end, I think economics win out,” Anderson said. “West Virginia is still the right place on the globe for them to invest.”

Anne Blankenship, executive director of the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association, hopes that’s true. “We’re obviously disappointed to hear that it’s been put on hold, I think is the most positive light to put on it,” Blankenship said this morning in a telephone interview.

She hopes that once international relations straighten out, the deal with China Energy will continue moving forward. “Clearly that’s what we would want,” she said. “Things will continue to progress but that large amount of investment money is the best case scenario to move forward. That is encouragement to private investors to come to the table as well, which all needs to happen as well.”

Amity & Prosperity: One Family and the Fracturing of America

Essay by Eliza Griswold, New York Times, June 9, 2018

(Ms. Griswold spent the past seven years reporting in southwestern Pennsylvania.)

Jason Clark has lived near Amity, Pa., in the southwestern part of the state, since he was born. He likes to call urban Americans “hypocrites.” At 38, he’s the president of the Pork Association in Washington County, which sits at the edge of Appalachia. City dwellers are consumers, as he sees it; they gobble up resources like meat and coal and natural gas without knowing where they come from or thinking much about the toll that rural Americans pay to supply them.

There’s a term for that toll. Economists call it the resource curse, or the paradox of plenty. Since the 1990s, political scientists and development experts have used the resource curse to explain why countries richest in fossil fuels tend to remain poor. The problem, they contend, lies in the toxic impact of large influxes of cash: Easy money displaces more productive economic activity and fosters weak governments.

Typically, scholars apply the term to poorer continents, yet it affects America also, and nowhere more so than Appalachia. Oil was discovered in western Pennsylvania in the 1850s. And for more than a century, coal companies have clear-cut hollows to burrow into the earth below.

Corporations influenced local politicians and owned local businesses. They set the price of bread and the number of hours in a workday. For a time, these companies also supplied jobs and, by extension, built communities as churches and schools grew up around mines. Yet education wasn’t really a focus. For laborers, the best-paid positions were underground. They required high levels of specialized skill best learned on the job.

Over the past several decades, as market forces and dwindling supplies have pushed coal companies into bankruptcy, they’ve abandoned towns, leaving behind the ravages of slag heaps and thousands of miles of streams and rivers polluted by acid mine drainage. Drive along the border between Pennsylvania and West Virginia and you’ll see waterways that are the bright orange of hunters’ vests. Neither the state nor towns can afford to pay the cleanup costs.

Fracking, however, promised to be different. When the natural gas boom arrived in the region more than a decade ago, it came with assurances that natural gas would burn cleaner than coal, releasing only half the amount of carbon into the atmosphere. Its proponents also argued that after a time, its environmental footprint would be so small that it would disappear into the rural landscape. For Appalachia’s residents, who’d experienced generations of mining and drilling on their farms and were well versed in the language of mineral rights, fracking brought with it the possibility of finally profiting off their land by signing lucrative leases to the oil and gas beneath their feet.

In the seven years I’ve spent reporting in southwestern Pennsylvania, I’ve watched the oil and gas industry build influence in Washington County by buying up farm livestock at the 4-H competition at the county fair and placing favorable articles in local papers — paid content that featured “shaleionaires,” a handful of farmers who’ve profited mightily off drilling.

Such corporate tactics can sow discord among neighbors who find themselves winners and losers in a lottery driven by energy markets. With an influx of cash from signing mineral leases, some larger landowners have gotten rich, while neighbors with less land pay the price for oil and gas extraction. These hidden costs range from the expense of car repairs that result from roads ruined by truck traffic, to the more troubling health consequences of living next door to leaking pools of industrial waste — including dying animals and sick children.

Struck by these and other forms of environmental injustice, many rural Americans have found they have nowhere to turn for protection. In Pennsylvania, government agencies and legal protections can do little to help. State environmental investigators, who are underpaid and inadequately trained, often abandon the public sector for more lucrative jobs in oil and gas. Federal agents, hamstrung by budget cuts and now under siege in the Trump administration’s campaign against environmental regulation, don’t have the mandate to hold drillers accountable for shoddy practices.

In Pennsylvania, a band of citizen activists has fought back. Among them are retired coal miners and steelworkers whose activism is rooted in the long history of labor unions in the state. Historically Democrats, most are also socially conservative hunters and fishers. Many were Trump voters who adhere to neither party and resist easy political classification. They view themselves not as environmentalists — a word that many see as carrying a dubious “liberal” agenda — but as conservationists, who believe in the wise use of resources for the benefit of humankind.

Since 2011, I’ve attended community meetings with these activists. At one such gathering, I met Stacey Haney, a single mother and nurse, and an avid hunter whose father, like many of the men in attendance, was a Vietnam combat veteran and an out-of-work steelworker. Ms. Haney, like others, was skeptical of corporate interests but far more suspicious of the federal government and of outsiders coming to Appalachia to wag fingers at poor people for signing mineral leases that helped them hold on to their farms.

Ms. Haney was proud to sign a lease on her small plot of land. She hoped it would earn her enough money to build her dream barn, but the act also had patriotic implications. She believed that as a daughter of a veteran, she had a duty to help keep American soldiers at home, instead of in the Middle East fighting foreign entanglements linked to oil. The promise of American energy independence would keep Americans safe and support an industrial resurgence in the rust belt. For all of these reasons, Ms. Haney was a staunch supporter of fracking.

Then an oil-and-gas operation began atop a hill about a quarter of a mile from her home. The industrial site included a vast open waste pond that leaked and sent noxious gases into the air. After her farm animals and her children developed mysterious illnesses, Ms. Haney grew fearful about potential exposure and abandoned the farm, which had once belonged to her great-grandfather. Ms. Haney became an outspoken activist. She sued the corporation that she believed had sickened her children; then she took on the state.

In 2012, along with a team of lawyers who represented small towns, Ms. Haney challenged a revision to Pennsylvania’s oil and gas law. This law would remove the rights of small towns to determine where drillers could operate. The towns battled it, arguing they had a duty to protect their citizens. To bolster their claim, they relied on an obscure amendment to the Bill of Rights in the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Environmental Rights Amendment, which guaranteed all citizens the right “to clean air and pure water.” The argument for the amendment was based directly on Pennsylvania’s history with coal companies leaving citizens with poisoned air and toxic water. This, the amendment underscored, involved a basic violation of individual rights.

Although on its surface the Environmental Rights Amendment sounded like a “liberal” cause, its basis was essentially conservative: the belief that citizens and communities had the right to govern themselves and could not be steamrollered by large corporations or federal agencies. In a 4-2 decision, the conservative bench of the state Supreme Court found in favor of Ms. Haney’s side. The small towns won.

“It’s not a historical accident that the Pennsylvania Constitution now places citizens’ environmental rights on par with their political rights,” Chief Justice Ronald Castille, a conservative Republican and Vietnam combat veteran, wrote in his landmark decision. Pennsylvania’s long history of resource extraction has given its citizens a sophisticated understanding of what energy really costs.

An abundance of coal, oil and natural gas has been, at best, a mixed blessing for rural Americans. This has helped to turn them against not only the federal government for failing to protect them but also their fellow Americans, whose appetite for consuming energy never seems to slacken.

>>> Eliza Griswold is the author, most recently, of “Amity and Prosperity: One Family and the Fracturing of America,” from which this essay is adapted.

POLICY FORUM — The irreversible momentum of clean energy

From: Barack Obama, President of the United States, Washington, DC 20500, USA.

Science, Policy Forum, January 9, 2017; DOI: 10.1126/science.

ABSTRACT –

The release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) due to human activity is increasing global average surface air temperatures, disrupting weather patterns, and acidifying the ocean (1). Left unchecked, the continued growth of GHG emissions could cause global average temperatures to increase by another 4°C or more by 2100 and by 1.5 to 2 times as much in many midcontinent and far northern locations (1). Although our understanding of the impacts of climate change is increasingly and disturbingly clear, there is still debate about the proper course for U.S. policy—a debate that is very much on display during the current presidential transition. But putting near-term politics aside, the mounting economic and scientific evidence leave me confident that trends toward a clean-energy economy that have emerged during my presidency will continue and that the economic opportunity for our country to harness that trend will only grow. This Policy Forum will focus on the four reasons I believe the trend toward clean energy is irreversible.

ECONOMIES GROW, EMISSIONS FALL —

The United States is showing that GHG mitigation need not conflict with economic growth. Rather, it can boost efficiency, productivity, and innovation.

Since 2008, the United States has experienced the first sustained period of rapid GHG emissions reductions and simultaneous economic growth on record. Specifically, CO2 emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5% from 2008 to 2015, while the economy grew by more than 10%. In this same period, the amount of energy consumed per dollar of real gross domestic product (GDP) fell by almost 11%, the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy consumed declined by 8%, and CO2 emitted per dollar of GDP declined by 18% (2).

The importance of this trend cannot be understated. This “decoupling” of energy sector emissions and economic growth should put to rest the argument that combatting climate change requires accepting lower growth or a lower standard of living. In fact, although this decoupling is most pronounced in the United States, evidence that economies can grow while emissions do not is emerging around the world. The International Energy Agency’s (IEA’s) preliminary estimate of energy-related CO2 emissions in 2015 reveals that emissions stayed flat compared with the year before, whereas the global economy grew (3). The IEA noted that “There have been only four periods in the past 40 years in which CO2 emission levels were flat or fell compared with the previous year, with three of those—the early 1980s, 1992, and 2009—being associated with global economic weakness. By contrast, the recent halt in emissions growth comes in a period of economic growth.”

At the same time, evidence is mounting that any economic strategy that ignores carbon pollution will impose tremendous costs to the global economy and will result in fewer jobs and less economic growth over the long term. Estimates of the economic damages from warming of 4°C over preindustrial levels range from 1% to 5% of global GDP each year by 2100 (4). One of the most frequently cited economic models pins the estimate of annual damages from warming of 4°C at ~4% of global GDP (4–6), which could lead to lost U.S. federal revenue of roughly $340 billion to $690 billion annually (7).

Moreover, these estimates do not include the possibility of GHG increases triggering catastrophic events, such as the accelerated shrinkage of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, drastic changes in ocean currents, or sizable releases of GHGs from previously frozen soils and sediments that rapidly accelerate warming. In addition, these estimates factor in economic damages but do not address the critical question of whether the underlying rate of economic growth (rather than just the level of GDP) is affected by climate change, so these studies could substantially understate the potential damage of climate change on the global macroeconomy (8, 9).

As a result, it is becoming increasingly clear that, regardless of the inherent uncertainties in predicting future climate and weather patterns, the investments needed to reduce emissions—and to increase resilience and preparedness for the changes in climate that can no longer be avoided—will be modest in comparison with the benefits from avoided climate-change damages. This means, in the coming years, states, localities, and businesses will need to continue making these critical investments, in addition to taking common-sense steps to disclose climate risk to taxpayers, homeowners, shareholders, and customers. Global insurance and reinsurance businesses are already taking such steps as their analytical models reveal growing climate risk.

PRIVATE-SECTOR EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS —

Beyond the macroeconomic case, businesses are coming to the conclusion that reducing emissions is not just good for the environment—it can also boost bottom lines, cut costs for consumers, and deliver returns for shareholders.

Perhaps the most compelling example is energy efficiency. Government has played a role in encouraging this kind of investment and innovation: My Administration has put in place (i) fuel economy standards that are net beneficial and are projected to cut more than 8 billion tons of carbon pollution over the lifetime of new vehicles sold between 2012 and 2029 (10) and (ii) 44 appliance standards and new building codes that are projected to cut 2.4 billion tons of carbon pollution and save $550 billion for consumers by 2030 (11).

But ultimately, these investments are being made by firms that decide to cut their energy waste in order to save money and invest in other areas of their businesses. For example, Alcoa has set a goal of reducing its GHG intensity 30% by 2020 from its 2005 baseline, and General Motors is working to reduce its energy intensity from facilities by 20% from its 2011 baseline over the same timeframe (12). Investments like these are contributing to what we are seeing take place across the economy: Total energy consumption in 2015 was 2.5% lower than it was in 2008, whereas the economy was 10% larger (2).

This kind of corporate decision-making can save money, but it also has the potential to create jobs that pay well. A U.S. Department of Energy report released this week found that ~2.2 million Americans are currently employed in the design, installation, and manufacture of energy-efficiency products and services. This compares with the roughly 1.1 million Americans who are employed in the production of fossil fuels and their use for electric power generation (13). Policies that continue to encourage businesses to save money by cutting energy waste could pay a major employment dividend and are based on stronger economic logic than continuing the nearly $5 billion per year in federal fossil-fuel subsidies, a market distortion that should be corrected on its own or in the context of corporate tax reform (14).

MARKET FORCES IN THE POWER SECTOR –

The American electric-power sector—the largest source of GHG emissions in our economy—is being transformed, in large part, because of market dynamics. In 2008, natural gas made up ~21% of U.S. electricity generation. Today, it makes up ~33%, an increase due almost entirely to the shift from higher-emitting coal to lower-emitting natural gas, brought about primarily by the increased availability of low-cost gas due to new production techniques (2, 15). Because the cost of new electricity generation using natural gas is projected to remain low relative to coal, it is unlikely that utilities will change course and choose to build coal-fired power plants, which would be more expensive than natural gas plants, regardless of any near-term changes in federal policy. Although methane emissions from natural gas production are a serious concern, firms have an economic incentive over the long term to put in place waste-reducing measures consistent with standards my Administration has put in place, and states will continue making important progress toward addressing this issue, irrespective of near-term federal policy.

Renewable electricity costs also fell dramatically between 2008 and 2015: the cost of electricity fell 41% for wind, 54% for rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) installations, and 64% for utility-scale PV (16). According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2015 was a record year for clean-energy investment, with those energy sources attracting twice as much global capital as fossil fuels (17).

Public policy—ranging from Recovery Act investments to recent tax credit extensions—has played a crucial role, but technology advances and market forces will continue to drive renewable deployment. The levelized cost of electricity from new renewables like wind and solar in some parts of the United States is already lower than that for new coal generation, without counting subsidies for renewables (2).

That is why American businesses are making the move toward renewable energy sources. Google, for example, announced last month that, in 2017, it plans to power 100% of its operations using renewable energy—in large part through large-scale, long-term contracts to buy renewable energy directly (18). Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, has set a goal of getting 100% of its energy from renewables in the coming years (19). And economy-wide, solar and wind firms now employ more than 360,000 Americans, compared with around 160,000 Americans who work in coal electric generation and support (13).

Beyond market forces, state-level policy will continue to drive clean-energy momentum. States representing 40% of the U.S. population are continuing to move ahead with clean-energy plans, and even outside of those states, clean energy is expanding. For example, wind power alone made up 12% of Texas’s electricity production in 2015 and, at certain points in 2015, that number was >40%, and wind provided 32% of Iowa’s total electricity generation in 2015, up from 8% in 2008 (a higher fraction than in any other state) (15, 20).

GLOBAL MOMENTUM –

Outside the United States, countries and their businesses are moving forward, seeking to reap benefits for their countries by being at the front of the clean-energy race. This has not always been the case. A short time ago, many believed that only a small number of advanced economies should be responsible for reducing GHG emissions and contributing to the fight against climate change. But nations agreed in Paris that all countries should put forward increasingly ambitious climate policies and be subject to consistent transparency and accountability requirements. This was a fundamental shift in the diplomatic landscape, which has already yielded substantial dividends. The Paris Agreement entered into force in less than a year, and, at the follow-up meeting this fall in Marrakesh, countries agreed that, with more than 110 countries representing more than 75% of global emissions having already joined the Paris Agreement, climate action “momentum is irreversible” (21).

Although substantive action over decades will be required to realize the vision of Paris, analysis of countries’ individual contributions suggests that meeting medium-term respective targets and increasing their ambition in the years ahead—coupled with scaled-up investment in clean-energy technologies—could increase the international community’s probability of limiting warming to 2°C by as much as 50% (22).

Were the United States to step away from Paris, it would lose its seat at the table to hold other countries to their commitments, demand transparency, and encourage ambition. This does not mean the next Administration needs to follow identical domestic policies to my Administration’s. There are multiple paths and mechanisms by which this country can achieve—efficiently and economically—the targets we embraced in the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement itself is based on a nationally determined structure whereby each country sets and updates its own commitments. Regardless of U.S. domestic policies, it would undermine our economic interests to walk away from the opportunity to hold countries representing two-thirds of global emissions—including China, India, Mexico, European Union members, and others—accountable.

This should not be a partisan issue. It is good business and good economics to lead a technological revolution and define market trends. And it is smart planning to set long-term emission-reduction targets and give American companies, entrepreneurs, and investors certainty so they can invest and manufacture the emission-reducing technologies that we can use domestically and export to the rest of the world. That is why hundreds of major companies—including energy-related companies from ExxonMobil and Shell, to DuPont and Rio Tinto, to Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Calpine, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company—have supported the Paris process, and leading investors have committed $1 billion in patient, private capital to support clean-energy breakthroughs that could make even greater climate ambition possible.

CONCLUSION –

We have long known, on the basis of a massive scientific record, that the urgency of acting to mitigate climate change is real and cannot be ignored. In recent years, we have also seen that the economic case for action—and against inaction—is just as clear, the business case for clean energy is growing, and the trend toward a cleaner power sector can be sustained regardless of near-term federal policies.

Despite the policy uncertainty that we face, I remain convinced that no country is better suited to confront the climate challenge and reap the economic benefits of a low-carbon future than the United States and that continued participation in the Paris process will yield great benefit for the American people, as well as the international community. Prudent U.S. policy over the next several decades would prioritize, among other actions, decarbonizing the U.S. energy system, storing carbon and reducing emissions within U.S. lands, and reducing non-CO2 emissions (23).

Of course, one of the great advantages of our system of government is that each president is able to chart his or her own policy course. And President-elect Donald Trump will have the opportunity to do so. The latest science and economics provide a helpful guide for what the future may bring, in many cases independent of near-term policy choices, when it comes to combatting climate change and transitioning to a clean-energy economy.

"To Make Dream Homes Come True" Rockwell Kent (1945) Bituminous Coal Institute

Business Leaders Urge West Virginia to Look Beyond Coal

From an Article by Andrew Brown, Charleston Gazette Mail, April 7, 2016

Brad Smith, a Marshall University graduate and the CEO of Intuit, spoke at the Techconnect West Virginia event Wednesday. The Kenova native expressed the need for the state to invest in education, infrastructure and local entrepreneurs if the state is going to diversify its economy.

State leaders and some big names from outside West Virginia had a frank conversation Wednesday as they discussed what the state needs in order to diversify its economy, attract growing industries and foster small businesses in the Mountain State.

The speakers at the event, which was sponsored by Techconnect West Virginia and held at the Bridge Valley Community & Technical College in South Charleston, included gubernatorial candidate Bill Cole, Commerce Secretary Keith Burdette, leaders from West Virginia University and Marshall University and the CEOs of major information technology companies.

There was one basic message throughout the entire event: West Virginia needs to make public and private investments in order to be successful in moving forward.

“I know we have challenges. I know there are struggles. I know there is a transition underway,” said Brad Smith, the CEO of Intuit. “But for us to get there, we are going to have to embrace change. We are going to have to lean into the unknown.”

Smith, a native of Kenova, is a Marshall University graduate and CEO of a major company that manages financial software like Turbo Tax. On Wednesday, the successful business executive told the crowd that there were three things West Virginia needs: investment in education, modern infrastructure and local entrepreneurs.

Even Cole, whose party has led the campaign against President Barack Obama’s regulations on carbon emissions, suggested that it was time for West Virginia to seriously look for other business opportunities.

The legislative and political debate in the state has continued to center around somehow resurrecting coal markets that most economists believe will never return to full strength, especially in southern West Virginia where seams of coal have been mined for more than 100 years.

In contrast, all of the panel discussions Wednesday remained focused on finding a path forward by building the workforce and infrastructure needed to attract and grow businesses that are expected to expand in the coming decades, namely technology companies.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

What Is the Multi-State Shale Research Collaborative?

The Multi-State Shale Research Collaborative brings together independent, nonpartisan research and policy organizations in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia to monitor employment trends, tax policy, economic development, and the community impacts of energy extraction in the Marcellus and Utica Shale. As part of this effort, the Collaborative conducts in-depth research and interviews in order to produce trend analyses, policy recommendations, and other resources that will help local officials and community leaders respond to the local impacts of drilling. Member organizations include the Fiscal Policy Institute (New York), Policy Matters Ohio, Keystone Research Center/Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis (Virginia), and West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy.

Project Overview

The rapid industrial development of deep shale gas has placed additional and overlapping demands on paramedic, fire, first responder, police, court, jail, and other municipal services. It has also impacted county planning, hospitals, homeless shelters, emergency housing, social clinics, schools, and other community services and institutions. While there has been some collection of trend data at the township and county level, there has been no systematic attempt to aggregate these valuable sources of information across shale drilling regions and across issue areas. 

That is where the Multi-State Shale Research Collaborative comes in. Researchers at the five organizations have analyzed existing data and conducted interviews with township and county officials in four heavy shale drilling counties (Tioga and Greene counties in Pennsylvania, Carroll County in Ohio, and Wetzel County in West Virginia) in order to measure impacts.

The following questions guide our research:

>> What are the impacts of increased gas drilling on housing, emergency services, crime, human services, roads, health care services, education, and community life?
>> What steps have local governments taken to mitigate these impacts?
>> What are the costs of these impacts and to what extent have local governments been able to offset those costs?

Member Organizations

Fiscal Policy Institute is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and education organization committed to improving public policies and private practices to better the economic and social conditions of all New Yorkers. Founded in 1991, FPI works to create a strong economy in which prosperity is broadly shared.

Policy Matters Ohio is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research organization founded in January 2000 to broaden the debate about economic policy in Ohio. Its mission is to create a more prosperous, equitable, sustainable and inclusive Ohio, through research, media work and policy advocacy.

The Keystone Research Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization founded in 1996 to promote a more prosperous and equitable Pennsylvania economy. The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center is a nonpartisan policy research project of the Keystone Research Center that provides independent, credible analysis on state tax, budget and related policy matters, with attention to their impact on working families.

The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis provides credible, independent and accessible information and analyses of fiscal and economic issues with particular attention to the impacts on low- and moderate-income persons.

The West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy (WVCBP) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit policy research organization that produces research and analysis designed to support informed public dialog and policy in West Virginia.

See also: http://www.multistateshale.org

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A Softer Landing – Fighting the Resource Curse

On March 19, 2015, WVCBP Executive Director Ted Boettner was part of the Shale Symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland at Wheeling Jesuit University. 

The symposium covered early shale development, shale’s growth-to-boom phase, and its declining development-to-bust phase. Ted’s presentation was titled “A Softer Landing – Fighting the Resource Curse” and described how creating a permanent mineral trust fund can help a state plan for a future after its energy reserves are depleted. View it here. 

Beyond capitalism and socialism: could a new economic approach save the planet?

A holistic approach to the economy is necessary to avoid social, environmental and economic collapse, according to a new report by the Capital Institute.

From an Article by Jo Confino, The Guardian, April 22, 2015

To avoid social, environmental and economic collapse, the world needs to move beyond the standard choices of capitalism or socialism. That’s the conclusion of a new report released Wednesday by US think tank Capital Institute.

The non-partisan think tank argues that both systems are unsustainable, even if flawlessly executed, and that economists need to look to the “hard science of holism” to debunk outdated views held by both the left and the right.

Jan Smuts, who coined the term “holism” in his 1926 book, Holism and Evolution, defined it as the “tendency in nature to form wholes that are greater than the sum of the parts”. For example, in the case of a plant, the whole organism is more than a collection of leaves, stems and roots. Focusing too closely on each of these parts, the theory argues, could get in the way of understanding the organism as a whole.

Viewed through this perspective, the capitalist tendency to isolate an economic process from its antecedents and effects is fundamentally flawed. The Capital Institute, created by former JP Morgan managing director John Fullerton, says that society’s economic worldview has relied on breaking complex systems down into simpler parts in order to understand and manage them.

For example, this traditional economic view might view automobile manufacturing separately from the mineral mining, petroleum production and workers on which it relies. Moreover, this view might also not acknowledge the impact that automobile manufacturing has on the environment, politics and economics of an area. Holism, on the other hand, would view the entire chain of cause and effect that leads to – and away from – automobile manufacturing.

The Capital Institute report, titled Regenerative Capitalism, emphasizes that the world economic system is closely related to, and dependent upon, the environment. “The failure of modern economic theory to acknowledge this reality has had profound consequences, not the least of which is global climate change,” it says.

A long chain of cause and effects

According to the Capital Institute, the consequences of this economic worldview are vast and far reaching, encompassing a host of challenges that range from climate change to political instability.

For example, the current capitalist system has created extreme levels of inequality, the report says. This, in turn, has led to a host of ills, including worker abuse, sexism, economic stagnation and more. It could even be considered partly responsible for the rise of terrorism around the world, the report claims. In other words, this inequality has become a threat to the very system that is creating it. Without radical change, the report warns, “the current mainstream capitalist system is under existential threat”.

What is needed now, the Capital Institute argues, is a new systems-based mindset built around the idea of a regenerative economy, “which recognizes that the proper functioning of complex wholes, like an economy, cannot be understood without the ongoing, dynamic relationships among parts that give rise to greater wholes”.

In practice, this might lead to close analysis of supply chains, investigations of the effects of water use, circular economy initiatives, community economic development work or a host of other sustainability efforts.

While some people associate holistic thinking with mystics or hippies, the worldview is borne out in ways that are measurable, precise and empirical. “Universal principles and patterns of systemic health and development actually do exist, and are known to guide behavior in living systems from bacteria to human beings,” the report says.

Holism also can be used to study “nonliving systems from hurricanes to transportation systems and the internet; and societal systems including monetary systems”. Not surprisingly, the theory underlies other scientific and social tools, such as system theory and chaos theory.

A radical shift

This holistic approach flies in the face of a great deal of long-held beliefs. For example, while decision makers usually focus on finding a single ‘right’ answer, holism focuses on finding balanced answers that address seemingly contradictory goals like efficiency and resilience, collaboration and competition, and diversity and coherence. Taken from this perspective, holism wouldn’t approach global economics from a capitalism-or-socialism perspective, but rather from a capitalism-and-socialism perspective.

The report emphasizes the importance of innovation and adaptability over rigid structures and belief systems. It also embraces diversity, suggesting that, instead of trying to find a globalized one-size-fits-all approach to change, it is vital to recognize that each community consists of a “mosaic of peoples, traditions, beliefs, and institutions uniquely shaped by long term pressures of geology, human history, culture, local environment, and changing human needs”.

Ultimately, the report argues, a holistic perspective emphasizes that we are all connected to one another and to the planet, and therefore need to recognize that damaging any part of that web could end up harming every other part.

In business terms, what would this sort of revolutionary shift in business look like? The Capital Institute, which presented a white paper at Yale University’s Center for Business and the Environment on Tuesday, says innovators and entrepreneurs around the world are already responsible for thousands of sustainability initiatives and movements that are helping to re-imagine capitalism, such as social enterprises, B Corps, impact investing, slow food and localism.

The report says that, while some critics view these as “disconnected feel-good activities outside the mainstream capitalist system”, they are, in fact, “in alignment with the regenerative economy framework”. Collectively, it claims, “these forces provide living proof that a new regenerative economy is emergent”.

Beyond movements of change, the institute points to a number of individual initiatives that show how the world could change for the better. For example, Mexico’s Grupo Ecologico has worked to fund impoverished small farmers and ranchers, giving them the economic freedom to preserve and regenerate their own land.

Similarly, Australia’s Bendigo Community Bank splits its net income with local community enterprises. It directs a portion of community branch earnings toward grant making, giving local leaders the opportunity to become active players in their communities.

Community development is also a primary concern for Chicago’s Manufacturing Renaissance, which is forging unusual partnerships among government, labour unions, educators, the private sector, and civil society to create programs that support the region’s advanced manufacturing sectors.

Fullerton says there is great potential ahead if society can change its collective mindset: “This is a monumental challenge that holds the promise of uniting our generation in a shared purpose. We now have a more rigorous understanding of what makes human networks healthy – this alone constitutes an amazing opportunity. It is time to act. Our actions, now, will most certainly define the nobility of our lives and our legacy. This is the great work of our time.”

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Marcellus shale drilling & fracking: boom & bust

The boom is becoming a bust; so how to handle this fracking bust?

From an Article by Lydia DePillis, Washington Post, January 15, 2015

PHOTO: Workers tap into Marcellus natural gas at an active hydraulic fracking operation outside of Wellsboro, Pa., operated by Shell. This rig is the only Shell crew operating in the area.

This is the introduction to a five part series about how communities can deal with a natural gas boom. Find the rest of the installments here: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five.

WELLSBORO, Pa. — The sand trucks barely rumble along the quaint main street in Wellsboro anymore. Three years ago, it was difficult to have a conversation with someone walking next to you, the roar of traffic was so constant. Driving, it could take an hour to get from one end of town to another. But the trucks also came with business: Mining companies had started drilling wells all over the rolling hills surrounding this town in northern Pennsylvania, extracting the precious natural gas that lay beneath.

Hydraulic fracturing (“fracking” for short) brought a bonanza to this town the likes of which it hadn’t seen even in the heydays of lumber and coal. With 800 wells drilled over five years, royalties paid to landowners for their mineral rights flowed through the community, helping people buy new farm equipment and donate to local charities. New tax revenues poured into local government coffers that never had much to begin with.

But like all booms, it only lasted while the money was good. Natural gas prices hit a high of $13.42 per million BTU in October 2005, stayed high for three years, then started falling, fast, bottoming out at $1.95 in April 2012, and stood at $3.48 last month. Without enough profit to justify further investment, most of the activity vaporized. Shell Oil, which had bought up most of the leases in Tioga County, went from a dozen drilling rigs to one. Businesses that had been gearing up for years of sustained growth were left hanging.

PHOTO: Workers tap into Marcellus natural gas at an active hydraulic fracking operation outside of Wellsboro, Pa., operated by Shell.

“With really no warning at all, the bottom fell out of that,” says Jim Weaver, the Tioga County planner, who advises the county’s commissioners on land use decisions. “In hindsight, looking at boom and bust cycles that have gone on forever, we should’ve known that. But when the dollar’s dangling in front of you and you’re chasing the carrot, before you know it you’re out on a limb, and the limb gets sawed off.”

Already, some states have decided to avoid the chase: In November, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that he would not lift the state’s ban on fracking, out of concerns about the potential environmental and health impact. The 185-page report referenced studies conducted in Pennsylvania on outcomes like the birth weight of babies and the accident rate of truck traffic. While the evidence rarely showed conclusive adverse health impacts from fracking, it was enough to convince Cuomo that the benefits didn’t outweigh the risk.

For much of the rest of America with gas beneath it, however, there’s no going back. The discovery of “unconventional” oil and gas reserves in a handful of major subterranean shale formations known as “plays” — the Marcellus underneath Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Eagle Ford in Texas, the Bakken in North Dakota — have completely transformed American energy production, increasing income and tax revenues and driving unemployment down. The shale boom has been credited with reviving domestic manufacturing and bringing natural gas prices to levels many thought America would never see again, and even environmentally-minded politicians are reluctant to give up the economic stimulus the industry provides.

PHOTO: County planner Jim Weaver works in his office in the Tioga County Courthouse building. The natural gas boom has come and gone in Tioga County, Pa., and Weaver is in charge of making sure the community is developed in the way citizens would like.

“I want to have my cake and eat it too,” said Pennsylvania’s new Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, in response to New York’s decision. But with gas prices so low — and other forms of energy, especially oil, becoming much less expensive — the future of communities who bet their future on fracking is uncertain. They are at risk of falling into what researchers have called the “resource curse,” where local economies over invest in a cash cow, only to sacrifice industries that might provide more sustainable growth over the long term, like tourism or manufacturing.

“Ultimately, Tioga County is a cautionary tale,” the authors wrote. “The economic benefits associated with shale development are limited, come at a price, and may disappear as swiftly as they arrived.”

America, after all, is a nation of booms and busts, from the gold rush of the 1850s to the housing bubble of the 1990s. In this latest boom, worst-case scenarios make headlines all the time: A crime wave and crippling fires and explosions struck North Dakota, for example, where cozy relationships between lawmakers and gas companies led to lax enforcement. Towns in Wyoming suffer when mining booms just pass through, over and over, while profits leave the state and then the country. And then, further down the line, the oil industry blows huge holes in the budgets of drilling-dependent states when prices sink too low to keep the rigs around.

Pennsylvania is trying to avoid that cycle, with mixed success. When gas drilling started in the mid-2000s, Pennsylvania was almost entirely new to the industry. And it has yielded undeniable benefits: According to investment advisors Raymond James, 90 percent of Pennsylvania’s job gains between 2005 and 2012 came from oil and gas. When you’re in the middle of that kind of fossil-fueled expansion, it’s tempting to think it might never come to an end.

But it always does. Whether because some newer, cheaper source of gas gets discovered, or because some key distribution point gets cut off, or because some ballot measure stops drillers in their tracks.

So the question is: If you’re in the path of the oil (and gas) industry, how can you gain from its presence, without becoming so dependent that everything falls apart once it leaves? In other words, can the resource curse be broken?

Tioga County has some of the answers. But they learned them the hard way. In the spring, researchers from the Pennsylvania Budget and Police Center did a case study on the county, and found that the positives and negatives of drilling activity basically came out in the wash.

“Ultimately, Tioga County is a cautionary tale,” the authors wrote. “The economic benefits associated with shale development are limited, come at a price, and may disappear as swiftly as they arrived.”

This is the introduction to a five part series about how communities can deal with a natural gas boom. Find the rest of the installments here: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five.

Kurt Dettinger, General Counsel to WV Governor

Don Rigby and Kurt Dettinger are working to bring an ethane cracker to West Virginia; and, the County Commissioners in the Northern Panhandle are doing so as well. Caiman Energy with natural gas processing plants in Marshall County plans to send its ethane to Canada.

During the Marcellus Natural Gas Liquids & Shale Gas Infrastructure Summit in Canonsburg, Pa., Dettinger, general counsel for West Virginia acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, and Rigby, executive director of the Wheeling-based Regional Economic Development Partnership, spoke of efforts to attract a $1 billion ethane cracker that would bring hundreds of jobs to the Mountain State.

“It would be up to the individual investor and their needs,” Dettinger said, when asked which site he believed would be more likely to attract a cracker, though declining to name the companies considering the project. “We will just be glad when they choose West Virginia.”  However,  Texas-based El Paso Midstream Group is seeking ethane supplies to send 90,000 barrels of ethane daily to Louisiana via an 1,100-mile pipeline.

During a presentation at the conference, Caiman Vice President Art Cantrell stated, “If built, new ethane crackers are projected at four to five years out,” as a reason to send the ethane north of the border,” to Canada for cracking. Caiman has completed a purchase of 150 acres adjacent to the Ohio River south of Moundsville – the former Olin Chemical site – where Caiman will build a processing plant for its propane, butane and pentane.

State officials and business leaders are getting more optimistic by the day about West Virginia’s chances of landing a multibillion-dollar ethane cracker plant that could create more than 500 full-time jobs. Last week, Bayer CEO Greg Babe told a chemical industry trade publication that his company has received several inquires about the use of its sites in Institute and New Martinsville for a cracker, which would process ethane from Marcellus Shale natural gas in the Appalachian Region. After hearing about Babe’s comments, state Commerce Secretary Keith Burdette predicted that a company’s decision to build a cracker plant would come “sooner rather than later” and possibly by the end of the year.