Letters to the editor
We need strong methane rules
A couple months ago the Observer-Reporter reported on new regulations being developed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas industries (“New state methane rules being developed for oil and gas operations” by Brad Hundt on July 28). I applaud the DEP’s efforts but worry that the recent weakening of federal rules by the Environmental Protection Agency and petitioning from industry lobbyists will delay or water down these new regulations.
The methane emitted from oil and gas plants come with an array of volatile pollutants that can damage our lungs, heart, liver, kidneys, and central nervous system, which can lead to cancer and other serious health conditions (see https://www.environmentalhealthproject.org/post/how-methane-affects-your-health). In Pennsylvania, more than 1.2 million people live within half a mile of an oil or gas well (see https://fractracker.org/2014/10/1-2-million-pennsylvanians/). As the fracking industry grows (especially with hyperscale data centers coming in), this number is likely to increase. If we cannot stop this industry from taking over, we should at least curb the potential for its most harmful effects.
At the bare minimum, the new regulations must require oil and gas companies to quickly address methane leaks when they occur and close loopholes that could exempt oil and gas wells from following these and other safeguards. The timeline for implementing the new protections must be quick. I encourage everyone to contact Gov. Josh Shapiro to urge him for the strongest protections.
Kara Kukovich
California
Check out Bradstock
Washington County has an opportunity to elect a representative who will be an active and effective voice for Southwestern Pennsylvania in Congress.
Alan Bradstock is seeking election to Congress, and his record of achievement is truly remarkable. A graduate of Ringgold High School, he went on to earn a bachelor’s degree from Washington & Jefferson College, where he was inducted into a prestigious academic honor society while also serving as a four-year starter on the basketball team.
Following college, Bradstock served our nation as an aviation officer in the U.S. military. He was deployed to the Middle East during Operation Desert Storm and earned a master’s degree in international relations during his military career.
After his military service, he built an outstanding career in federal law enforcement. As a special agent with the FBI, he rose to a supervisory position in the Counterterrorism Division. He coordinated terrorism-financing operations at CIA headquarters and later oversaw joint terrorism and drug investigations in cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Bradstock has also enjoyed success in the private sector. He worked as an auditor for KPMG and later supported the U.S. intelligence community as a contractor, drawing on his expertise in accounting, security, and public service.
If you have an opportunity to hear Alan Bradstock speak, I encourage you to do so. He is thoughtful, patriotic, intelligent, and hard-working. Most importantly, he is accessible and committed to listening to the people he seeks to represent. I believe he would provide the strong presence in Congress that southwestern Pennsylvania has been missing.
Michael Crabtree
Washington
Absurd claim
I just had to respond to the absurd claim made in Sunday’s letters to the editor that the governor of Massachusetts permits “abortion after birth.” This is another one of the extreme far right ridiculous talking points: “climate change is a hoax,” “no more forever wars.” “voter fraud,” etc.
Massachusetts does not allow arbitrary elective late-term terminations (a simple Google search will confirm). Reducing rare, heartbreaking medical emergencies to the grotesque fiction of “abortion at birth” degrades and insults families who have had to endure the most painful decisions of their lives.
This is gross disinformation and anyone who repeats or believes this lie should be ashamed.
Michele Guernsey
Houston
More supply better than export shortcut
The idea of making energy in America and keeping it all here can sound appealing. Families want lower costs, and policymakers should take that concern seriously. But an export restriction would not automatically put more fuel where Americans need it.
The United States is part of a global energy and goods market. Restricting trade would not create new pipelines, ships or other infrastructure. It could instead reduce flexibility, tighten the broader market and add pressure to the transportation costs built into everyday products.
That matters because families like mine often experience fuel costs indirectly. We see them in food, packages, building materials and services. Even if one domestic fuel price eased temporarily, higher global costs could keep pressure on the rest of the household budget.
A more durable answer is to produce more American energy, improve the infrastructure that moves it and keep supply flowing. As a small business owner, I’d hope policymakers understand that more supply and more flexibility will do more for consumers than policies that risk tightening markets and reducing fuel production.
William E. Groomes Jr.
Venetia
Who is paying for NextEra?
In an op-ed published last Sunday in the Herald-Standard, Park Burroughs suggested that taxpayers are paying to construct the newly announced power generation plant in Luzerne Township. That characterization overlooks an important fact about how the NextEra project is being financed.
The project was selected under the U.S.-Japan Strategic Trade and Investment Agreement, through which Japan committed $550 billion toward major American infrastructure and industrial investments.
The U.S. Department of Commerce identified up to $17 billion for the South Mon natural gas generation project in southwestern Pennsylvania, with NextEra serving as developer and operator.
This is not a project being constructed through a direct appropriation from Fayette County taxpayers or ratepayers. It is part of an international investment arrangement involving Japanese financing, government-backed investment structures and commercial development agreements.
In August, NextEra announced that definitive agreements had been executed with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Government of Japan.
It is fair to examine the financing terms, public guarantees and any potential exposure associated with government-backed investments. It is equally important, however, to distinguish those arrangements from the suggestion that local taxpayers and/or ratepayers are simply being handed the construction bill. That is not the case.
There are legitimate questions. But public debate should begin with an accurate understanding of who is providing the capital, who assumes the financial risks and who ultimately pays for the electricity. The U.S.-Japan financing agreement is an essential part of that discussion, and leaving it out creates a misleading picture of the project.
Scott Dunn
Chairman, Fayette County Board of Commissioners