Review of the Telephonic Technical Evidentiary Hearing
Tuesday, November 28, from 10AM until about 4PM was the last day of the Telephonic Technical Evidentiary Hearing in the case of Marple vs. PECO, and it was all about air quality. At one point, there were 31 callers on the line, which seems to me like a significant show of support, as residents let the court know of their concern about this case. The two air quality experts, with guidance from their respective lawyers, heatedly discussed the inputs and outputs of their air modelling programs.
The Almost Last Day of the TTEH was on Friday, November 17, and focused very much on safety and the environment. Air, water, sound, and light pollution were the major topics. As you may know, Marple Township and the intervenors have sponsored several witnesses and their accompanying testimony and exhibits, and different witnesses have focused on the details of different aspects of the proposed facility.
At one end of the spectrum, there has been considerable testimony that focused on the environmental problems related to the proposed location. Marple Township has continued to testify this this type of facility would need to be placed in an appropriately zoned industrial area. This would limit the safety and environmental impacts to the residential community .
At the other end of the spectrum, other witnesses testified about the environmental problems related to a natural gas expansion project , the actual need, and its impact on the local and global environment, including climate change.
In between these two positions, there was also considerable testimony related to the definition of a "constitutionally adequate environmental impact review", and the standards of procedure that the Public Utility Commission may need to develop, stemming from the March, 2923 decision of the Commonwealth Court. It was suggested that the Commission does not currently have a methodology to review the environmental impacts of a public utility infrastructure project in a "619 Procedure", and that perhaps guidance could be gleaned from the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
Another essential point made by various witnesses was that climate change is a scientific fact, not a political question, and the Environmental Amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution (Article One, Section 27) requires that the state, as stewards of the environment, uphold this clause of the constitution. The Pennsylvania Constitution states the people have the right to clean air, pure water, and the preservation of its resources. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of the people, including generations to come.
For more background information, please see This Brief Review, and/or This TimeLine of Events
The Almost Last Day of the TTEH was on Friday, November 17, and focused very much on safety and the environment. Air, water, sound, and light pollution were the major topics. As you may know, Marple Township and the intervenors have sponsored several witnesses and their accompanying testimony and exhibits, and different witnesses have focused on the details of different aspects of the proposed facility.
At one end of the spectrum, there has been considerable testimony that focused on the environmental problems related to the proposed location. Marple Township has continued to testify this this type of facility would need to be placed in an appropriately zoned industrial area. This would limit the safety and environmental impacts to the residential community .
At the other end of the spectrum, other witnesses testified about the environmental problems related to a natural gas expansion project , the actual need, and its impact on the local and global environment, including climate change.
In between these two positions, there was also considerable testimony related to the definition of a "constitutionally adequate environmental impact review", and the standards of procedure that the Public Utility Commission may need to develop, stemming from the March, 2923 decision of the Commonwealth Court. It was suggested that the Commission does not currently have a methodology to review the environmental impacts of a public utility infrastructure project in a "619 Procedure", and that perhaps guidance could be gleaned from the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
Another essential point made by various witnesses was that climate change is a scientific fact, not a political question, and the Environmental Amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution (Article One, Section 27) requires that the state, as stewards of the environment, uphold this clause of the constitution. The Pennsylvania Constitution states the people have the right to clean air, pure water, and the preservation of its resources. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of the people, including generations to come.
For more background information, please see This Brief Review, and/or This TimeLine of Events
PLEASE DONATE!
Since June 15, over $900 has been collected. It's a good start, but the goal is to pay for expert witnesses to support the defense of the Cedar Grove Corner.
Since June 15, over $900 has been collected. It's a good start, but the goal is to pay for expert witnesses to support the defense of the Cedar Grove Corner.
THE CLIMATE CONNECTION
At a time when we should be transitioning AWAY FROM Fossil Fuels, the proposed Gas Expansion Plant at the Corner of Sproul and Cedar Grove Roads is an investment in transitioning DEEPER INTO Residential Natural Gas Consumption.
At a time when we should be transitioning AWAY FROM Fossil Fuels, the proposed Gas Expansion Plant at the Corner of Sproul and Cedar Grove Roads is an investment in transitioning DEEPER INTO Residential Natural Gas Consumption.
The Pre-Hearing Conference was held
on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, at 9AM
With more than 60 calls in attendance, there was a good show of support at the Pre-Hearing Conference, but the decisions made indicate that we have a difficult job in this court.
Review of the Second Case at the PUC
A review of some of the arguments made during the Evidentiary Hearings that were held on November 15, 15, 17, and 28.
A review of some of the arguments made during the Evidentiary Hearings that were held on November 15, 15, 17, and 28.
Precedent
On March 19, a seven member panel of PA Commonwealth Court judges unanimously decided that the PUC had erred in its decision, and remanded the case back to the PUC, with the following instructions:
"...that it issue an Amended Decision regarding Intervenor PECO Energy Company’s “Petition... . . . For a Finding Pursuant to 53 P.S. § 10619,”
which must incorporate the results of a constitutionally sound environmental impact review... "
On March 19, a seven member panel of PA Commonwealth Court judges unanimously decided that the PUC had erred in its decision, and remanded the case back to the PUC, with the following instructions:
"...that it issue an Amended Decision regarding Intervenor PECO Energy Company’s “Petition... . . . For a Finding Pursuant to 53 P.S. § 10619,”
which must incorporate the results of a constitutionally sound environmental impact review... "