Contradictions in the Marcellus Commission Report on Pipelines

Susan Phillips

Recent Stories

Susan Phillips tells stories about the consequences of political decisions on people's every day lives. She has worked as a reporter for WHYY since 2004. Susan's coverage of the 2008 Presidential election resulted in a story on the front page of the New York Times. In 2010 she traveled to Haiti to cover the earthquake. That same year she produced an award-winning series on Pennsylvania's natural gas rush called "The Shale Game." She received a 2013 Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Journalism Award for her work covering natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania. She has also won several Edward R. Murrow awards for her work with StateImpact. In 2013/14 she spent a year at MIT as a Knight Science Journalism Fellow. She has also been a Metcalf Fellow, an MBL Logan Science Journalism Fellow and reported from Marrakech on the 2016 climate talks as an International Reporting Project Fellow. A graduate of Columbia School of Journalism, she earned her Bachelor's degree in International Relations from George Washington University.

July 26, 2011 | 4:00 PM

Drilling down into the Marcellus Shale Commission report, we found several contradictory pieces of advice for Governor Tom Corbett. Take pipelines as an example. In the infrastructure section on page 103, section 9.1.2 encourages the Governor to create a “One-Stop” permitting process for pipelines. Currently, the Department of Environmental Protection has oversight when it comes to such things as erosion and settlement controls, and if the pipeline crosses a stream. When it comes to safety, the federal government rules. It’s not clear here, which agency would be the one-stop-permitter. And if they have the staff and resources to do the job. Then move on to 9.1.13, which reads like an excerpt from an industry play book.

“A lead state agency should be designated to alleviate delays in linear pipeline project development and approval; to identify redundant (state and federal) natural and cultural resource reviews which should be eliminated…”

Environmental attorney Deborah Goldberg from Earth Justice calls this a power grab by industry, and a “recipe for environmental disaster.”
But wait, sections 9.1.17 and 9.1.18 look like they must have been written by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a member of the advisory commission.

“…under DEP guidance and consistent with applicable permit conditions, allow for County Conservation Districts to engage in inspections of erosion and sedimentation controls at unconventional well sites,…”

And…

“DEP should ensure that natural gas construction activities are required to meet the same standards as general construction activities.”

So, on the one hand, the Commission advises fast-tracking pipeline construction by eliminating certain regulations and consolidating the permitting process. But on the other hand, they want to impose the same standards in place for other construction projects, and give local municipalities some say in what goes through their town.