We get letters: Reaction to DEC/drillers exchange













NYPIRG Letter to the Governor June 28















  1. Ebenezer says:

    Here are the money quotes from the West letter:

    “DEC has a statutory obligation to look at the cost of its proposals upon the regulated community.”

    “After all, how could industry comment on the cost of proposed regulations without reviewing them?”

    “Unfortunately, our [lobbying] efforts had no impact on the regulatory proposals, which were released to the public without any material changes concerning the issues of concern to industry.”

    How does NYPIRG expect DEC to develop cost estimates for complex procedures that had never been done in NYS before? Maybe they should have asked the Division of Lottery for some random numbers.

  2. Inside Out says:

    I truly enjoy when both sides are absolutely right. Government should work with industry to develop regulations. But, it needs to be done in the light of day. And, public interest groups should be involved on an equal level in the development process, in the light of day. DEC erred in going back and forth in secret. Everyone should be in the room at the same time and have the same access to work products. I have seen agencies make this mistake over and over, in an attempt to manage or control the process. Honesty and transparency are not situational ethics. You either have it or you don’t have it (and that includes you, Governor.)

  3. floydianslip says:

    The public and the industry to be regulated DO have a right to offer information about the costs of a proposed rule, but I don’t believe they have the right to change a rule before it has even been proposed. The industry is just suppose to give an estimate of the cost of the proposed regulation and they must be listed as a source. I do believe IOGA and some other contractors were listed in the dSGEIS. BUT!!! That doesn’t mean the regulated industry should have the ability to change the language prior to the rule(s) being released!!!

    See APA Sec. 202-a below:

    § 202-a. Regulatory impact. 1. In developing a rule, an agency shall,
    to the extent consistent with the objectives of applicable statutes, consider utilizing approaches which are designed to avoid undue deleterious economic effects or overly burdensome impacts of the rule upon persons, including persons residing in New York state’s rural areas, directly or indirectly affected by it or upon the economy or administration of state or local governmental agencies. Such approaches shall include, but not be limited to, the specification of performancestandards rather than design standards.
    2. Each agency shall, except as provided in subdivision five of this section, issue a regulatory impact statement for a rule proposed for adoption or a rule adopted on an emergency basis.
    3. Each regulatory impact statement shall contain:
    (a) Statutory authority. A statement analyzing the statutory authority for the rule, including but not limited to the agency’s interpretation of the legislative objectives of such authority;
    (b) Needs and benefits. A statement setting forth the purpose of,
    necessity for, and benefits derived from the rule, a citation for and summary, not to exceed five hundred words, of each scientific or statistical study, report or analysis that served as the basis for the rule, an explanation of how it was used to determine the necessity for and benefits derived from the rule, and the name of the person that produced each study, report or analysis;
    (c) Costs. A statement detailing the projected costs of the rule, which shall indicate:
    (i) the costs for the implementation of, and continuing compliance with, the rule to regulated persons;
    (ii) the costs for the implementation of, and continued administration of, the rule to the agency and to the state and its local governments; and
    (iii) the information, including the source or sources of such information, and methodology upon which the cost analysis is based; or
    (iv) where an agency finds that it cannot fully provide a statement of such costs, a statement setting forth its best estimate, which shall indicate the information and methodology upon which such best estimate is based and the reason or reasons why a complete cost statement cannot be provided;

  4. jill wiener says:

    It has been clear since the idea of fracking rural NY came to light that the industry and their legal team have had a hand in crafting both regulations and legislation.
    The DEC does not seem to have the staff nor the expertise to write these regulations and the industry, in a most self serving gesture, has stepped in to “help” (themselves).
    The health and welfare of all New Yorkers depend on the DEC and the administrations reliance on real and available peer reviewed scientific studies. They exist, but are basically ignored or marginalized in the revised Draft SGEIS. There is no health impact assessment, the draft relies on outdated shale gas estimates, the socioeconomic portion was so inadequate that it was sent back for a, as yet unseen by the public, re-write.
    If the process is bad, the result is bad- in this case it appears undue industry influence has strong-armed rules that are supposed to be written to protect the public.
    Mr. West, If regulations are burdensome to the industry, so be it, they are there for a reason, I assume you too are a drinker of water and breather of air. (by the way I have read the regs and in my opinion the best chance we have of preventing environmental degradation is to shove the regs into a well bore and hope for the best.)

  5. Stan Scobie says:

    Attorney West tells us that industry desired to comment on the cost of regulation but didnt have time to do so.

    They did have plenty of time to send to the DEC Panel on High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in September a list of their gripes. They had plenty of time to comment formally on the proposed Regulations (Jan, 2012).

    So, what a surprise when when I read their Jan 2012 comments: there was nothing solid about the costs of the regulations except the typical lament, “oh, poor us, it will cost something to do this….”

    What was most compelling to me in their formal comments about the regulations was their desire to roll back the proposed setbacks of gas wells from houses and private water wells to the current regulation of 100-150 feet.

    Wow, that would allow a house and water well to be within one of the modern horizontal gas well pads – you know where they store all the chemicals, and park the big noisy compressor trucks, and, the horror, the porta-potties.

    Yup, that sure would help the small drillers survive and be profitable. Such consultation and heads up advantage is sure working well (irony).

    The FOILs from Attorney West and Chesapeake Energy’s involvement with the 2008 horizontal drilling legislation are even more interesting – they were able to weigh in heavily on the specifications of that legislation.

    Stanley R Scobie, Ph.D., Binghamton, NY

  6. Joanne Corey says:

    Regulations should not have been drafted at all until the environmental review process had concluded that drilling could be done safely in our geography with our unique geologic and hydrologic circumstances, with our flora and fauna, with our population density, with our existing tourist and agricultural industries, etc. Prematurely drafting regulations prejudices the results of the environmental review. Serious consideration is not given to the possibility that drilling is too dangerous to our environment, our health, our climate, our land, and our water to undertake. GIven that the draft SGEIS does not use the most updated seismic fault maps of the state, one can’t even use it to access whether or not the concept of a generic environmental impact statement is even possible, because it assumes that one site is basically like the next and the next. Perhaps we need to look at individual impact statements for each unique site.

    Independent, peer-reviewed science is continuing to emerge. Industry funded research tends to cover over data that shows dangers and to question that environmental and health damage is occurring, not helped by the industry penchant for non-disclosure agreements. How many years did we hear the tobacco industry spin that smoking didn’t cause cancer or other illnesses? How well did self-policing work in the financial sector? The fossil fuel industry acts similarly and should not have a hand in writing the regulations under which they are expected to operate.

  7. Sally says:

    @floydianslip, I think I saw the same problem you saw. The lawyer for the industry says: “Unfortunately, our efforts had no impact on the regulatory proposals, which were released to the public without any material changes concerning the issues of concern to industry.”

    The lawyer for the industry has the right to provide input under state law. Industry and its lawyers do not have a legal right to change the proposal.

  8. OCULUS says:

    Tom West has been a highly regarded a-political lawyer/lobbyist around Albany for about 30 years. That he would have to compete with political hacks with nothing more than opinion–who reference Dick Cheney’s name–ought to tell you a lot about this process; it’s all drama and politics. The industry and technical experts are at an automatic disadvantage, especially at the hands of an advocate-reporter like Nearing. He should have 1/10 the credibility of Tom West.

RSS feed for comments on this post.