CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- With memories of the 2014 Elk River chemical spill still fresh, West Virginia environmental groups are pushing state lawmakers to oppose bills they say would roll back water protections.
House Bill 2598 would relax regulations in the Aboveground Storage Tank Act, passed in 2014 to beef up protections after the Elk River spill.
Gary Zuckett, executive director for the West Virginia Citizens Action Group, in a virtual public hearing about the bills, said the spill contaminated water for more than 300,000 West Virginians.
Zuckett contended the bill would reduce much-needed inspections that prevent toxic fracking fluids from leaking into tap-water intakes.
"This bill is taking us backwards," Zuckett argued. "It seeks to ease the burden on the oil and gas industry, an industry that has extracted millions and billions of dollars of wealth from West Virginia."
The bill's sponsor, Del. John Kelly, R-Wood County, said oil and gas tanks need to be inspected, but not as strictly as the current Storage Tank Act calls for.
He claimed the tanks also contain the easiest chemicals to clean up if there's a future spill. The bill is in a House committee this week.
Environmental groups say the health impacts of chemical spills should be a priority.
Angie Rosser, executive director for the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, said only small amounts of storage-tank pollutants are safe for human consumption.
She added many chemicals, such as benzene and xylenes, can lead to anemia, nervous-system damage and liver and kidney problems.
If House Bill 2598 passes, Rosser estimated about 1,000 oil and gas waste tanks across 27 counties would become unregulated.
"So why is this bill so dangerous?" Rosser asked. "One, because these tanks are sitting closest to our drinking-water intakes. Number two, they contain, we know, a mixture of very toxic chemicals that are harmful to human health. And three, if these tanks are exempt, there is essentially no oversight and leaves our drinking water at risk."
The second water-related bill, House Bill 2389, would allow the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to ease groundwater quality standards.
The House Judiciary Committee holds a public hearing on it today at 3:00 p.m.
get more stories like this via email
West Virginia communities will see increased air pollution with little oversight under a new Trump administration proposal offering presidential exemptions from the Clean Air Act's requirements for hazardous air pollutants.
Sarah Vogel, senior vice president of healthy communities for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the move could affect more than 200 facilities, including 10 in the Mountain State, emitting toxic chemicals such as ethylene oxide and benzene.
"These are well-defined, highly hazardous chemicals, many cancer-causing compounds coming from a number of different industries, including the chemical and petrochemical industry," Vogel outlined.
A new analysis from the Environmental Defense Fund found more than 500 facilities across the U.S. eligible for pollution exemptions. Most are petrochemical manufacturing plants and coal-fired power plants. The Environmental Protection Agency has not made the requests for exemptions publicly available.
Vogel emphasized children and families who have no choice but to breathe the toxic air where they live will suffer the most.
"We're seeing this administration signal to companies that they can just continue to pollute in the name of either a so-called energy emergency or a national security issue," Vogel added.
Nearly 10,000 West Virginia children per year will suffer asthma attacks because of ozone from the oil and gas industry, and in 28 counties residents face higher cancer risks, according to the Clean Air Task Force.
Disclosure: The Environmental Defense Fund contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, and Public Lands/Wilderness. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
The decades-long decline of Pennsylvania's coal industry could shift in another direction after a series of executive orders by President Donald Trump - although current market trends indicate it's unlikely.
Coal-fired power plants made up just over 16% of U.S. electricity in 2023. That's half what it was a decade ago.
Tom Schuster, director of the Sierra Club of Pennsylvania, said the coal industry is in irreversible decline that executive orders most likely can't change.
He said it's been outpaced by renewable energy, which has now surpassed coal in electricity generation over a 12 month period.
"Unfortunately," said Schuster, "what this order could do is expose people to higher electricity costs by keeping unprofitable plants online longer, and also jeopardize people's health by exempting them from environmental regulations."
The orders direct agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency to ease restrictions on coal, which the president suggests could help meet rising energy demands of manufacturing and AI data centers.
Schuster said these actions are part of broader deregulation, and that Pennsylvanians know the risks of unchecked coal use.
He said in today's market, relying on coal to meet power demands is no longer viable.
One executive order claims mining and burning coal will bring back good-paying jobs, but Schuster said that's unlikely.
He pointed out that coal generated about half of Pennsylvania's electricity 15 years ago, but now makes up only 10% - and he said reopening retired plants isn't economical.
"There's only two conventional coal-fired power plants left in Pennsylvania," said Schuster. "There's a handful of smaller specialty plants that burn coal refuse, but it's a relatively small part of our energy generation today, so I don't think the economic impact in terms of coal-fired generation is going to be that much."
An executive order also aims to boost coal exports. Pennsylvania exports a fair amount of its coal, mainly to China - but the trade war and retaliatory tariffs could stymie that effort.
Disclosure: Sierra Club contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Environmental groups across Michigan are pushing back after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmed it will fast-track Enbridge's Line 5 tunnel project without conducting a full environmental review.
Line 5 is a 645-mile pipeline transporting crude oil and natural gas liquids beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Speeding up the project is a response to President Donald Trump's declaration of a "national energy emergency."
Ashley Rudzinksy with the nonprofit Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities said with the federal process fast-tracked, the burden falls more heavily on the state's environmental agency to exercise due diligence. She added state laws require thorough permit reviews and meaningful opportunity for public input.
These laws include the Michigan Public Trust Law and the Submerged Land Act.
Rudzinski says there also are concerns about potential oil spills and threats to treaty rights.
"We have also seen many of our partners in this work, and allies - the six Tribal nations here in Michigan - pull out of continued negotiations with the Army Corps," Rudzinski pointed out. "In my estimation, that is because this process has become a sham."
Enbridge responded in a statement saying in part, "Line 5 is critical energy infrastructure" and it is safe. It went on to say Michigan approved environmental permits and tunnel placement but after nearly five years, the project still awaits a U.S. Army Corps decision on its environmental impact.
Critics of the Line 5 tunnel are urging Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy to deny the necessary permits.
Rudzinski warned the project may also become a burden on taxpayers.
"Enbridge has petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to be able to pass the tunnel construction cost onto their shippers, who ultimately can pass that on to consumers," Rudzinski noted. "That means everyday folks will have to pay more for these products."
Enbridge has consistently stated it will bear the full financial responsibility for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Line 5 tunnel, and taxpayers will not be required to fund any part of the project.
get more stories like this via email