Ohio River Valley Institute

The central claim of the Heritage Foundation’s special report that, because of New York’s ban on fracking, counties in the Marcellus region “lost out on around $11,000 per resident or $27,000 per household” is simply wrong. Why? Because . . . 

The report claims that growth in gross domestic product (GDP) is the most accurate indicator of economic prosperity. But the report doesn’t explain that little of the GDP growth that results from fracking lands in local economies. In fact, the bulk of the income generated by fracking goes instead to investors, bankers, service providers, and shareholders from outside the region. That’s why, as fracking increased from 1% of GDP in the Pennsylvania counties featured in the report to over 30%, the share of GDP that landed as income for residents plummeted from just over 100% of GDP to less than 70%, effectively wiping out any net increase.

This result is illustrated in the following chart in which you can see how, in 2002, before the fracking boom, the Mining sector (the blue line), which consists primarily of natural gas, contributed just over 1% of GDP in the relevant Pennsylvania counties [1]. At the same time, incomes in the region were actually greater than total GDP at nearly 103% [2]. But, as fracking grew, the share of GDP that landed as income for local residents plummeted to less than 68%.

Economists call this phenomenon “the resource curse” and the curse’s result is that nearly all of the incremental income generated by fracking gets exported to people in other places. That’s why residents in New York would have received almost none of the $27,000 per household the report says they “lost out on”.

The report dismisses jobs as a measure of prosperity. That should be jarring to policymakers and the public, which has become accustomed to hearing job creation cited as the principal benefit of all economic development efforts. But the report’s dismissal of jobs as a measure of prosperity makes sense when it is revealed that communities on both sides of the state line were suffering from job loss before the fracking boom and the trend has only worsened since. With declines in jobs of 10% and 13% respectively, both the Pennsylvania and New York Counties are on long-term downward trajectories, which was only briefly interrupted between 2008 and 2012.

To put these losses in context, it’s helpful to consider that, during the period 2002 – 2023, the number of jobs in the US economy grew from 128 million to more than 153 million, an increase of nearly 20%. Jobs in Pennsylvania grew by 8%, which means that Pennsylvania’s natural gas counties, far from being contributors to job growth, actually dragged it down.

It’s also not clear that natural gas will help going forward. The number of natural gas jobs has fallen by 40% in the last five years. And statewide, Pennsylvania’s fracking industry provides fewer than 20,000 jobs out of more than 5 million in Pennsylvania’s economy.

Any differences found in the Heritage Foundation report between New York’s Marcellus counties and Pennsylvania’s northeast Marcellus counties are as likely to be explained by pre-existing differences in their economies as they are by the natural gas industry.

While the regions on either side of the state line are of similar size geographically, the New York counties are more than two and a half times as heavily populated as the Pennsylvania counties. They include cities, such as Binghamton and Elmira. Also the supposedly more prosperous Pennsylvania counties are depopulating faster than the New York Counties.

As a consequence, even if New York were to allow fracking, the industry’s already negligible economic impact would be diluted further in the much larger economies of the New York counties.  

As pointed out above, the small differences in economic outcomes between the two regions are far less important than the fact that both regions are suffering mightily. And, although natural gas has grown from 1% of the Pennsylvania counties’ economy to 30%, it has done little or nothing to change their economic trajectory. There is no reason to imagine that the results of embracing fracking in New York would be different.

The Ohio River Valley Institute’s upcoming “Frackalachia Update” will explore in greater detail the economic impacts of natural gas development for all 30 major gas-producing counties in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The update will show that the job and population losses described in this report for Pennsylvania’s northeastern gas-producing counties are typical of the impact natural gas production has in the northeast United States. And, looking ahead, it will discuss the possible implications for the industry, the region, and the region’s economic development strategies of growing demand for energy.

[1] As defined by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Mining sector includes “Mining, Quarrying, and Oil & Gas Extraction.”

[2] The total income of an area can exceed total GDP as a result of government transfer payments, such as Social Security and AFDC benefits which add to the income generated by economic output.

The post Misleading and Just Plain Wrong appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

U.S. Dist. Judge Mary McElroy, Federal Dist. Court of RI’s Order – applies nationwide to EPA, DOE, Interior, USDA, HHS & HUD (and OMB). The same theory could apply to Green Bank Funds (see third bullet below). A Green Bank litigation summary starts on page three.

Federal judge orders immediate thaw of climate, infrastructure funds – by Alex Guillén; April 15, 2025 – Politico – President Donald Trump does not have “unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity” duly passed funding laws, the judge ruled. A federal judge ruled Tuesday that EPA, the Interior and Energy Departments and other agencies unlawfully froze funds under Democrats’ climate and infrastructure spending laws, ordering the agencies to immediately resume disbursing the money.

• The ruling from Judge Mary McElroy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, who was named to the bench by President Donald Trump in 2019, comes on the eve of an expected decision from another judge in Washington on whether EPA lawfully terminated $20 billion in climate grants. That case and other litigation are part of a complex web of lawsuits over frozen funds and terminated grants playing out in multiple courts.
• Notably, McElroy also dismissed the Trump administration’s arguments that she lacks jurisdiction to issue this order because these are contract disputes that by law would have to be heard by another court. Similar arguments have been raised by EPA in litigation over its canceled climate grants.
• But McElroy wrote that the nonprofits’ rights don’t stem from any contract with the government – they come from the laws passed by Congress. The groups are seeking to halt the government’s funding freeze, not get “money damages” for past harm done, she said.

US judge blocks Trump’s freeze on climate, infrastructure grants – By Nate Raymond – April 15, 2025 8:40 PM EDT – Reuters – A U.S. judge blocked President Donald Trump‘s administration on Tuesday from freezing billions of dollars in grants Congress authorized under climate investment and infrastructure laws of his Democratic predecessor, former President Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy in Providence, Rhode Island, issued an injunction at the behest of environmental groups who argued the Trump administration was unlawfully freezing already-awarded funding for projects to combat climate change, reduce pollution and modernize U.S. infrastructure.

Judge orders federal agencies to release billions of dollars from two Biden-era initiatives by MICHAEL CASEY – April 15, 2025 at 5:36 PM EDT – Associated Press – BOSTON –  A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to release billions of dollars meant to finance climate and infrastructure projects across the country.

• S. District Judge Mary McElroy, who was appointed by Donald Trump during his first term, sided with conservation and nonprofit groups and issued a preliminary injunction until she rules on the merits of the lawsuit. The injunction is nationwide.
• McElroy concluded that the seven nonprofits demonstrated that the freeze was “arbitrary and capricious” and that the powers asserted by the federal agencies, including the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, in halting the payouts were not found in federal law.

‘The government failed’: Trump-appointed judge rips his spending cuts in late-night ruling – On Tuesday night, President Donald Trump’s administration suffered a loss in court — this time, at the hands of one of his own appointed judges. Politico legal correspondent Kyle Cheney tweeted Tuesday that U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy, who Trump appointed to the District of Rhode Island in 2019, authored a ruling that overruled his funding freeze for multiple federal agencies. In her 63-page ruling, McElroy granted a preliminary injunction in favor of a coalition of nonprofit organizations suing the Trump administration allowing them to have their funding turned back on while litigation plays out.

Federal judge orders immediate thaw of climate, infrastructure funds By Alex Guillén – 04/15/2025 06:34 PM EDT – Politico – President Donald Trump does not have “unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity” duly passed funding laws, the judge ruled. A federal judge ruled Tuesday that EPA, the Interior and Energy Departments and other agencies unlawfully froze funds under Democrats’ climate and infrastructure spending laws, ordering the agencies to immediately resume disbursing the money.

 U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy’s Opinion and Order is HERE.

Agencies do not have unlimited authority to further the President’s agenda, nor do they have unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity two statutes passed by Congress during the previous administration. Chief Justice Roberts put it best:

Justice Holmes famously wrote that “men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government.” But it is also true, particularly when so much is at stake, that the Government should turn square corners in dealing with the people. Id. at 24.

Here, the Government failed to do so.

U.S. Dist. Judge Tanya Chutkan (Federal Dist. Court of DC) ordered EPA & Citibank to unfreeze funds – “Citibank must disburse any funds properly incurred before the mid-February suspension of Plaintiffs’ funds.” However, this Order has already been “stayed.”  Judge Chutkan’s Order follows (Opinion not yet released). The “stay” is described below.

CLIMATE UNITED FUND, Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK, N.A., et al., Order – April 15, 2025 — “EPA Defendants, and others in active concert or participation therewith, including officials at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, are ENJOINED from directly or indirectly impeding Defendant Citibank or from causing Defendant Citibank to deny, obstruct, delay, or otherwise limit access to funds in accounts established in connection with Plaintiffs’ grants, including funds in accounts established by Plaintiffs’ subgrantees.” 

Release of E.P.A. Climate Grants Is Paused by New Court Ruling – By Claire Brown; April 17, 2025 – New York Times – Hours after a federal judge ordered Citibank to pay out as much as $625 million in federal climate grant money that had been frozen at the Trump administration’s request, an appeals court stayed the decision. The grant money was frozen again before any was sent to recipients.

• It amounted to at least a temporary setback for nonprofit recipients of $20 billion in funds that were appropriated by Congress through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
• The grants, which were part of the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and are sometimes called “Green Bank” funds, were finalized before the November election, then frozen in mid-February at the request of the Trump administration.
• Brooke Durham, a spokeswoman for Climate United, a nonprofit that had been awarded almost $7 billion and has sued the administration for access to the funds, said the organization plans to oppose the stay, in hopes of avoiding laying off employees because they can’t pay them.

Judge blocks Trump EPA from clawing back billions in Biden-era climate grants – by Ella Lee and Rachel Frazin – The Hill – April 16, 2025 – A federal judge on Wednesday indefinitely blocked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from clawing back billions of dollars in Biden-era climate grants. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said the EPA may not suspend or terminate the green grant awards nor limit access to those funds while a lawsuit challenging the effort to recoup the money moves forward.

• Judge Chutkan also ordered Citibank, which received the funds but refused to disburse them at the government’s request, to unfreeze the climate groups’ funds. However, Chutkan directed Citibank to refrain from releasing any funds until Thursday afternoon. After that, the groups will be able to use that money to finance climate-friendly projects. The administration has already appealed her decision, which she said would be explained in a forthcoming memorandum.  

The EPA can’t end grants from $20 billion Biden-era fund for climate-friendly projects, a judge says – by  MICHAEL PHILLIS – Associated Press – April 16, 2025 – A federal judge says some nonprofits awarded billions for a so-called green bank to finance clean energy and climate-friendly projects cannot have their contracts scrapped and must have access to some of the frozen money. The ruling is a defeat for President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, which argues the program is rife with financial mismanagement.

Judge blocks Trump EPA from clawing back $14 billion in climate grants – by Maxine Joselow – Washington Post – April 16, 2025 – The judge’s decision is the latest twist in a high-stakes battle over Joe Biden’s signature climate law. A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency from terminating at least $14 billion in climate grants approved under President Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of D.C. issued a preliminary injunction late Tuesday that prohibits the EPA from “unlawfully suspending or terminating” the grant awards. She also ordered Citibank, which was tasked with disbursing the funds, to release the money to the grant recipients.

2 Judges Order Federal Agencies to Unfreeze Climate Money – by Claire Brown and Karen Zraick – New York Times – April 16, 2025 – Two court rulings on Tuesday unfroze hundreds of millions of dollars in federal climate funds, a win for nonprofit groups that have been denied access to money they were promised under the Biden administration. Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the federal court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday ordered the immediate release of up to $625 million in climate grants that have been frozen since mid-February under the $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The fund is also known as the “green bank” program and has been a major target of Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

PA DEP is renewing its Spotlight Series – with need-to-know information funding and technical assistance programs designed to help PA’s homes, municipalities, and non-profits thrive in a diversified, affordable clean energy future. Upcoming Spotlights:

• April 24, 2025 @ 2:00PM — Greening Your Community with the Local Climate Action Plan (LCAP) and Shared Energy Manager (SEM) Programs – Register Here

• May 2025: TBD – Energy Audits and Upgrades with the Municipal Opportunities for Retrofits and Energy Efficiency (MORE) Program and Partners
• June 2025: TBD – Getting the Most Out of Your Home with a Residential Energy Assessment

Tackling the PJM Electricity Cost Crisis An Analysis of the Benefits of PJM Interconnection Reform – Press Event with Evergreen Collaborative & Keystone Energy Efficiency Alliance – April 15, 2025. Highlights:

• Electricity customers in the PJM region (which spans all or parts of 13 Mid-Atlantic states and Washington, D.C.) are facing a looming cost crisis stemming from two major issues: (a) worsening barriers to building and connecting new generation resources needed to supply the electric grid, and (b) unprecedented increases in projected electricity demand.
• Accelerating new resource deployment will be necessary to reliably serve new and existing load without greatly increasing energy costs to electricity customers. Bringing online more clean energy resources will also be critical to reducing carbon dioxide emissions and meeting state climate goals.
• Power companies in the region are grappling with several barriers that impede their ability to connect new resources to the grid, including PJM’s interconnection queue delays, local permitting and siting processes, and global supply chain challenges.
• Synapse conducted power sector analysis, bill impact analysis, and job impact analysis to understand the benefits of resolving these queue constraints to customers and residents in the PJM states.
• The analysis shows that if PJM continues down its current path, residential electricity bills in the region are expected to increase by nearly 60 percent by the 2036–2040 period compared to historical levels.
• However, if PJM adequately implements interconnection reforms to enable the deployment of more cost-effective energy generation, largely comprised of clean energy sources, electricity bills are projected to decrease 7 percent by the same time period.

E2: $8 Billion and 16 New Clean Energy Projects Abandoned in First 3 Months of 2025, Triple 2022-2024 Cancelled Investments Combined– April 17, 2025 — Investors cancelled, closed, or downsized nearly $8 billion in investments and 16 new large-scale factories in the first three months of 2025 amid escalating market uncertainty, and as Congress begins debate on repealing the tax credits. The $8 billion in cancelled investments since January are more than three times the total investments cancelled over the previous 30 months, according to E2’s latest Clean Economy Works monthly update. A full map and list of announcements is available at e2.org/announcements/. 

Solar advocates lobby on strong fundamentals amid political uncertainty – By Diana DiGangi – Utility Dive – April 16, 2025 – As Congress weighs tax incentive cuts, and tariffs drive up materials prices, the solar industry is emphasizing the technology’s low cost and fast deployment speed.

• One of the things that’s resonating with lawmakers now is that you don’t want to strand investments that have been made by American businesses in local economies,” said Sean Gallagher, senior vice president of policy at the Solar Energy Industries Association. “You don’t want these factories that have opened up in the last couple years to go dark.”
• “Around 80% of the projects that are most advanced in interconnection queues across the country are solar and storage,” Gallagher said. He pointed to recent comments from NextEra Energy president and CEO John Ketchum, who said that “renewables are ready to go right now” while gas generation is facing deployment delays due to factors like high demand and labor shortages.

Trump exempts nearly 70 coal plants from Biden-era rule on mercury and other toxic air pollution – By  MATTHEW DALY – Associated Press – April 15, 2025

• The Trump administration has granted nearly 70 coal-fired power plants a two-year exemption from federal requirements to reduce emissions of toxic chemicals such as mercury, arsenic and benzene.
• A list quietly posted as of Tuesday on the Environmental Protection Agency’s website lists 47 power providers which operate at least 66 coal-fired plants that are receiving exemptions from the Biden-era rules under the Clean Air Act, including a regulation limiting air pollution from mercury and other toxins.
• The actions follow an executive order last week by President Donald Trump aimed at boosting the struggling coal industry, a reliable but polluting energy source that’s long been in decline.
• The exempted plants are owned by some of the nation’s largest power companies, including Talen Energy, Dominion Energy, NRG Energy and Southern Co.

The post BIL/IRA Implementation Digest — April 18, 2025 appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

Legislators in Ohio seek to establish a regulatory framework for the long-term, geologic storage of carbon dioxide in order to provide the clarity needed to attract developers to the state.  But, HB170 and SB136 go far beyond this simple goal. If passed, these two bills would significantly erode landowner rights in Ohio and expose Ohio taxpayers and the communities that would be host to these storage projects to significant risk.

CO2 storage involves injecting and storing CO2 deep underground for hundreds or thousands of years. This CO2 is stored below impermeable caprock in empty pockets known as pore space. Proponents claim that this process will help reduce emissions in a variety of industrial processes, including power generation and the production of hydrogen from natural gas. Regional proposals like the Appalachian hydrogen hub and the Tri-State CCS Hub both require massive amounts of CO2 storage capacity.

Many states have established regulatory frameworks to help court carbon storage developers. These frameworks typically address:

• the relationship between rights to pore space, surface rights, and mineral interests, i.e. oil, gas, and coal
• ownership of pore space (the underground voids and cavities targeted for CO2 injection) and whether the rights to pore space can be leased, or sold
• the state permitting process for injection wells
• and the creation of storage funds to support regulatory activities, including permitting  and long-term maintenance.

However, the legislative proposals in Ohio go much further than establishing these basic frameworks.

HB170 and SB136 would allow companies to dump CO2 underneath homes and private property without the owner’s approval. This practice, referred to in the bills as “statutory consolidation,” is intended to help companies aggregate different areas of pore space into a single project to streamline development. Concerningly, the Ohio proposal allows these storage projects to proceed without support from all pore space owners impacted by the proposal, meaning that some people will be forced into these projects and will have CO2 dumped under their property and homes without their permission.

To put this in practical terms, let’s say that a developer is developing a storage project involving 1,000 acres and they secure leases from two owners (A and B, depicted in yellow) whose pore space amounts to 700 acres. The developer can then petition the state to grant them access to the pore space owned by the remaining 300 acres (owners C through L, depicted in red) without their approval, even though they represent a numerical majority — in other words, the rights of ten owners that collectively own 300 acres are trumped by two owners who collectively own 700 acres of pore space.

The bill does require developers to attempt to notify all pore space owners included in a proposal but the fact that these storage projects can proceed under people’s homes and property without their consent or awareness is very worrying. This provision is a serious threat to the rights of surface owners and it would be made worse if Ohio allows CO2 storage under large tracts of state-owned land, as has been happening in West Virginia. Because the threshold for project development is determined by acreage, not the actual number of consenting owners, small landowners would be especially at risk if these measures are approved.

In 2020, the rupture of a CO2 pipeline hospitalized 45 residents in Satartia, MS and forced 200 others to evacuate from their homes. Ohio communities forced to live near CO2 storage projects could be at risk of similar incidents, including pipeline ruptures and well-head blowouts. Allowing companies to trample on local rights in this way eliminates the most important protection for communities concerned about these projects: the ability to opt out.

This legislation would also allow operators of CO2 storage projects to push almost all of their post-site closure liability onto the state, leaving the public on the hook for the ongoing maintenance and monitoring of these projects. Ohio is already facing nearly a billion dollars in abandoned mine land reclamation costs and tens of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells. Assuming responsibility for large CO2 storage projects only adds to these immense legacy issues from the state’s industrial past. The long-term responsibility for projects as complex and dynamic as CO2 storage projects should stay with the companies that built and operated them.

Letting companies off the hook for these obligations invites them to cut corners in construction, record-keeping, and operations. If someone else is responsible for any problems that arise in the future, companies have less of an incentive to ensure the integrity of their projects.

Not all states with carbon storage regulations allow for the transfer of liability or forced unitization. By including these two provisions, state legislators are going out of their way to reward private companies at the expense of everyday Ohioans. The priorities of the legislators advancing these bills are made even clearer when considering the protections the bills provide to the oil and gas industry.

While HB170 and SB136 are similar in many respects to legislation passed in neighboring West Virginia and Pennsylvania, these bills differ in one very important way: the degree to which the Ohio proposals protect fossil fuel development from CO2 storage projects, protections not provided to any other stakeholder group.

One example of this is a provision allowing subsurface owners concerned about impacts to mineral rights to object to the statutory consolidation of pore space. In contrast, pore space owners are unable to opt out of these storage projects if enough owners grant their approval, even if those consenting landowners represent a numerical minority. Additionally, a surface landowner that no longer owns or controls the rights to the pore space underneath their property would have no say in whether CO2 stored beneath their home or land.

The bill also requires pore space projects to be isolated from any existing or future oil and gas production and calls for setbacks establishing buffer areas to protect oil and gas interests from CO2 storage projects. No such protection is afforded to environmental justice communities, schools, churches, parks, or other sensitive areas.

Worse, the bills also grant the state “sole and exclusive authority” over CO2 storage projects, preempting any protective steps local communities may choose to take to ensure their safety as these projects move forward in the state.

In other words, this legislation disenfranchises other stakeholders, including people who object to CO2 storage under their properties and homes, and exposes the public to novel safety risks — all while protecting and empowering the oil and gas industry. 

The backers of these two legislative proposals may present these bills as mere clarifications of the regulatory environment but, if passed, these bills could place local communities in harm’s way and impact property owners, especially small ones.

The post Ohio House Bill 170 and Senate Bill 136: What You Should Know appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

Let’s talk about coal. Yes—coal, the black rock that powered much of America’s past. Lately, some leaders have been trying to bring it back in a big way. But here’s the truth: no matter what policies are put in place, the coal industry is on its way out—and trying to prop it up is only making things harder for regular folks like you and me.

Even though the Trump administration recently rolled out a handful of orders to boost coal—including loosening environmental rules, offering loans for new coal plants, and opening up public lands for mining—the market is saying loud and clear: coal just doesn’t make sense anymore.

Why? It’s simple. Coal is expensive to use compared to other energy sources. Clean energy like wind and solar has gotten way cheaper, and natural gas is still pretty cheap too. Most coal plants can’t keep up. A recent report found that 99% of coal plants in the U.S. are more expensive to run than replacing them with local renewable energy like solar, wind, and battery storage.

So even if the government wants to save coal, the math just doesn’t work out. Energy companies are choosing cheaper, cleaner options—and for good reason.

Unfortunately, regular people are getting stuck with the bill. Because coal is becoming more expensive, utility companies are passing those higher costs on to customers.

Take West Virginia, for example. It still gets most of its electricity from coal. Between 2008 and 2019, the average electric bill there went up by more than $40 a month—almost four times more than the national average. That’s a lot of money for families who are already stretching every dollar.

Figure 1: West Virginia, which gets most of its electricity from coal, has the highest-rising electric bills in the nation. 

Share of coal in fuel mix vs. change in average monthly electricity bill, 2008-2019

Source: Ohio River Valley Institute, 2021

Some people think new tech—like carbon capture, which is supposed to trap carbon pollution before it goes into the air—could make coal cleaner. But here’s the catch: these technologies are super expensive and don’t work all that well in practice.

Adding carbon capture would make coal-fired electricity cost three times more than it already does. So instead of making coal cheaper or cleaner, it could actually make your electric bill even higher. And that’s just not a smart investment when we have better, cheaper options on the table.

It’s not just about the cost—it’s about the people, too. Coal miners have always done hard, dangerous work. And now, even their safety is being put at risk. Cuts to federal safety agencies under the Trump administration mean fewer inspections and less support for worker health.

Black lung disease, caused by breathing in coal dust, is back on the rise—especially in Central Appalachia. Nearly 1 in 5 miners there now has it. These workers deserve protection and a future beyond the mines.

But here’s the good news: there is a way forward—one that doesn’t involve clinging to a dying industry.

Some communities are already leading the way. Centralia, Washington was once a coal town, but when its coal plant was set to close, leaders got smart. They invested in clean energy, energy efficiency programs, and education. The result? More jobs, higher incomes, and a growing population—faster than the national average.

We could see something similar in places like West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Ohio. Cleaning up polluted land and water left behind by coal could create over 13,000 good jobs in those states alone. And investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency could lower electricity costs and help coal communities thrive again.

Trying to save coal isn’t just a losing battle—it’s costing us big time. Higher electric bills, unsafe working conditions, and missed opportunities for job growth are just a few of the consequences.

But if we stop looking backward and start investing in the future—clean energy, safer jobs, and healthy communities—we all stand to win.

The post Why Trying to Save Coal Is Costing Us More Than We Think appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

CHARLESTON, W. Va. — In response to the final passage of West Virginia Senate Bill 627, Ohio River Valley Institute Hydrogen Program Director Tom Torres issued the following statement:

The West Virginia legislature made a bad bet in 2023 when it opened up state forests, natural and scenic areas, wildlife management areas, and other state-owned lands for speculative CO2 storage development. Now, legislators are doubling down by allowing developers to lease pore space underneath state parks, further committing more of West Virginia’s magnificent natural resources to private profit.

These storage projects are unlikely to bring the economic benefits promised by their supporters but what they will do is expose even more people to the invisible but very real threat posed by catastrophic releases of CO2. Legislative efforts to remove this development from the view of park users only hides the threat of potential leaks or blowouts caused by unintended communication between storage projects and the likely hundreds of thousands of orphaned and abandoned gas wells in the state. Rather than protecting the interests of park users, this bill would make them ignorant to these dangers and less equipped to deal with them.

###

The post Statement on West Virginia Senate Bill 627 appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

Massive Cuts to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program

‘It’s a bloodbath’: Massive wave of job cuts underway at US health agencies – By Nick Valencia, Brenda Goodman, Meg Tirrell, Tami Luhby and Sean Lyngaas, CNN – Wed April 2, 2025  – Also terminated was the entire staff of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, according to Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association. The program provides about $4 billion to help millions of Americans with their heating and cooling bills. “It will definitely hamper program operations,” Wolfe said, noting that he doesn’t see how the agency can “allocate the remaining $387 million in funds for this year without federal staff.”

Home energy assistance program gutted in HHS mass firings – By Lisa Martine Jenkins – April 1, 2025 – Latitude Media – LIHEAP is among the latest victims of the Trump administration’s dismantling of the federal government. The Trump administration has gutted the federal home energy assistance program as a part of the mass firing of 10,000 Department of Health and Human Services workers. The staff in charge of administering the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, were let go earlier today, according to a statement shared via email by the National Energy and Utility Affordability Coalition. Going forward, the status of the program, which provides roughly $4 billion per year to help low-income families with heating and cooling costs, is unclear. Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, told CNN that the firings could cause the program to “grind to a halt” with $387 million left to distribute.

PA Public Utility Commission’s Phase V Tentative Implementation Order  

PA CPC Comment document is linked here. Comments on all aspects of the Public Utility Commission’s Phase V Tentative Implementation Order and potential impacts on Act 129 Phase V Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs. Sign on letter deadline is: Monday, April 7, by 4 PM, so please fill out the below form by Monday April 7, 2025 at noon!

SIGN ON HERE: https://forms.office.com/r/PJ5PdJPuD0

Please contact John Kolesnik (jkolesnik@keealliance.org)  or Madi Keaton (mkeaton@pautilitylawproject.org) with any questions!

Hearing on PA HB 109 – Environmental Justice/Cumulative Impacts 

April 7, 2025  [Agenda]  House Environmental & Natural Resource Protection Committee will meet to consider House Bill 109 (Vitali-D-Delaware) establishing an environmental justice permit review program in DEP to consider cumulative impacts of pollutants on communities – Environmental & Natural Resource Protection will Meet at 11:00 AM on April 7, 2025 in Room 205, Ryan Office Building.

Rep. Vitali Introduces Bill To Establish DEP Environmental Justice Permit Review Program In Law, Analyze Cumulative Impacts Of Pollution From Facilities, Supported By DEP – On January 14, Rep. Greg Vitali (D-Delaware) introduced House Bill 109 that would establish DEP’s Environmental Justice Permit Review Program in law and require an analysis of the cumulative impacts of pollution from certain facilities before a permit could be issued. The legislation is supported by PA DEP.  Read more here.

See Supporting Report from Assessing Strengths, Stressors and Environmental Justice in SoutheaStern (ASSESS) Pennsylvania Community and Environmental Health Study

The ASSESS study is a collaboration of Marcus Hook Area Neighbors for Public Health, Clean Air Council, Johns Hopkins University, and community co-investigators. The study utilized a Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) model in which residents were full partners in the design, implementation, evaluation, and publication of the study results. View presentation slides. View handouts/fliers here and here.

Thursday, March 27, 2025 – by David Hess – DEP: US Interior Dept. Withdraws Orphan Oil & Gas Well Regulatory Improvement Grant Program To Help Prevent Future Well Abandonments. – On March 20, PA DEP told the Oil and Gas Technical Advisory Board the US Department of the Interior has “withdrawn” the Orphan Oil and Gas Well Regulatory Improvement Act Grant Program designed to help states strengthen their programs, in particular to prevent future oil and gas well abandonments.https://paenvironmentdaily.blogspot.com/2025/03/dep-interior-dept-withdraws-orphan-oil.html

Trump halts historic orphaned well-plugging program –  By Nick Bowlin – March 27, 2025 – High Country News – The billions of dollars approved by Congress to clean up abandoned oil and gas wells have been frozen as part of Pres. Trump’s sweeping cuts to government. ORPHANED WELLS represent the final stage in what ProPublica recently described as the oil industry’s “playbook”: When oil wells are no longer productive, large companies sell them off to smaller companies and thereby shed their obligation to plug those wells. The increasingly marginal wells change hands, eventually landing with operators who lack the financial means to plug them. And when these companies go bankrupt, the wells become orphaned, meaning that the plugging costs then fall on American taxpayers.

Copy of March 19, 2025 – Letter to Honorable Doug Burgum, U.S. Secretary of the Interior is Here. – On March 20, more than 30 House Democrats sent a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, asking him to clear up the lingering confusion surrounding orphaned well funding and restart the grant program.

Federal money to plug Pa.’s dangerous wells is unfrozen, but Trump admin uncertainty plagues contractors – by Kate Huangpu and Katie Meyer of Spotlight PA | March 20, 2025 — HARRISBURG — As Pennsylvania celebrates plugging 300 abandoned oil and gas wells since 2023, ongoing lawsuits against the Trump administration over hundreds of millions of federal dollars are creating uncertainty for those doing the work on the ground.

Federal judge questions whether EPA move to rapidly cancel ‘green bank’ grants was legal – by  MICHAEL PHILLIS, Associated Press – April 2, 2025 – A federal judge pressed an attorney for the EPA about whether the agency broke the law when it swiftly terminated $20 billion worth of grants awarded to nonprofits for a green bank by allegedly bulldozing past proper rules and raising flimsy accusations of waste and fraud. In a nearly three-hour hearing, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said the government had provided no substantial new evidence of wrongdoing by the nonprofits and considered technical arguments that could decide whether she is even the right person to hear the case.

E.P.A. Hunt for Shady Deals and ‘Gold Bars’ Comes Up Empty by Lisa Friedman and Claire Brown – New York Times – April 2, 2025 – The agency head said a $20 billion Biden climate program was marred by fraud and abuse. Documents filed for a court hearing this week don’t support that. Over the last few months, Lee Zeldin, EPA administrator has made explosive accusations against the Biden administration, accusing it of “insane” malfeasance in its handling of $20 billion in climate grants. Now, as a legal battle ensues, many of Mr. Zeldin’s claims remain unsupported, and some are flat-out false.

How We Got a Green Bank, How Trump Is Trying to Kill It and Who Gets Hurt By Marianne Lavelle, Dan Gearino – Inside Climate News – April 1, 2025: A faith-based Indiana group and heating contractors in Maine are among hundreds of businesses and organizations stymied by EPA’s attempt to claw back $20 billion of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

EPA asked us 35 questions. We want everyone to have our responses. Statement by Climate United – March 28, 2025 – Earlier this month, the EPA posed 35 questions to Climate United and other awardees as part of an oversight request. In alignment with our deep commitment to transparency, Climate United is pleased to share our formal responses to their questions. Our responses are built on nearly 12 months of working with the EPA to shape our goals, policies, & investment strategy while ensuring strong oversight and controls. EPA has had access to hundreds of documents, transaction-level visibility into our bank accounts, and robust budget and compliance requirements.

Republicans seek documents from climate grant recipients – March 27, 2025 Press Release – The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is requesting documents from environmental groups that received EPA grants — including some that are now suing the Trump administration. All eight groups received grants from the $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) established through the 2022 IRA.

Republicans seek documents from climate grant recipients – By Andres Picon | 03/27/2025 E&E News  – The House Oversight probe comes as some of the environmental groups are suing to maintain their grant contracts.

EPA insists it has the right to cancel climate grants – GreenWire – 3/27/25 EPA continued to argue that it is under no legal obligation to honor $20 billion in climate grants because the awards conflict with Trump administration policy. EPA’s legal brief states it has the right to terminate contracts “for consideration of its priorities.”

The Trump admin accuses EPA of squirreling away $20 billion in ‘gold bars.’ Here’s what’s really going on. – By Ella Nilsen, CNN Mar 27, 2025

E.P.A. Offers a Way to Avoid Clean-Air Rules: Send an Email – By Hiroko Tabuchi – March 27, 2025 – New York Times – Referring to a little-known provision, it said power plants and others could write to seek exemptions to mercury and other restrictions and that “the president will make a decision.” The Biden administration required coal- and oil-burning power plants to greatly reduce emissions of toxic chemicals including mercury, which can harm babies’ brains and cause heart disease in adults. Now, the Trump administration is offering companies an extraordinary out: Send an email, and they might be given permission by President Trump to bypass the new restrictions, as well as other major clean-air rules. The Environmental Protection Agency this week said an obscure section of the Clean Air Act enables the president to temporarily exempt industrial facilities from new rules if the technology required to meet those rules isn’t available, and if it’s in the interest of national security.

How Lee Zeldin Went From Environmental Moderate to Dismantling the E.P.A. By Lisa Friedman – New York Times – March 29, 2025 – He once talked about the need to fight climate change. Now, he embraces Elon Musk, lavishes praise on the president and strives to stand out in a MAGA world. Over the past nine weeks, Mr. Zeldin has withheld billions of dollars in climate funds approved by Congress, tried to fire hundreds of employees, recommended the elimination of thousands more E.P.A. scientists, and started trying to repeal dozens of environmental regulations that limit toxic pollution. He has filled the leadership ranks at the agency with lobbyists and lawyers from industries that have fought environmental regulations.

EPA knew it wrongfully canceled dozens of environmental grants, documents show –  By Amudalat Ajasa – Washington Post – March 25, 2025 – According to an internal email, EPA officials knew they had no contractual right to cancel dozens of grants. They did it anyway. Trump officials knew their legal justification for terminating dozens of Environmental Protection Agency grants was flawed, according to documents and internal emails reviewed by The Washington Post.

Whitehouse, Blunt Rochester Lead EPW Democrats in Demanding EPA Reverse Unlawful Termination of Grants for Clean Air and Water – March 25, 2025 — New documents reveal 400 grantees are being illegally targeted for termination and expose EPA’s willful violation of congressional appropriations law, contractual agreements, and multiple court orders. The EPW press release from yesterday also included the list of 400 grants EPA plans to terminate (far right column indicates if IRA funding, and there’s a column by state) and internal emails that show how EPA violated its own contracts and court orders. PA cuts are listed here; See Full Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bfq08WBcX1i8W2vCBUw46UiIpDwZSZXqR4PA2aUT4ts/edit?pli=1&gid=0#gid=0

Trump moves goalposts for farmers counting on clean energy grants – By Mario Alejandro Ariza, Ames Alexander, Joe Engleman – Canary Media – March 31, 2025: The USDA is demanding grant rewrites favoring fossil fuels over renewables, leaving some rural recipients doubtful they’ll ever see the money they were promised. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced on March 25th that it would release previously authorized grant funds to farmers and small rural business owners to build renewable energy projects — but only if they rewrite applications to comply with President Donald Trump’s energy priorities. A lawsuit filed earlier this month challenges the legality of the freeze on IRA funding for REAP projects. Earthjustice lawyer Hana Vizcarra, one of the attorneys who filed the suit, called the latest USDA announcement a ​“disingenuous stunt.”

Secret Energy Department “hit list” targets renewable energy industry – by Emily Atkin – Heated – Mar 27, 2025 – Among many other proposed cuts, the “hit list” includes six long-duration energy storage projects that have already had $156 million in federal funding obligated under the bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The grants for those projects were awarded in 2023, and “seen as vital for turning variable wind and solar production into a reliable, round-the-clock power source,” Canary Media reported at the time.

The post BIL/IRA Implementation Digest — April 3, 2025 appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

On March 3, 2025, 25% tariffs were set to be enacted on US imports from Mexico and non-energy imports from Canada. These tariffs were subsequently delayed by President Trump and are expected to be implemented on April 2, 2025. A 10% tariff was enacted on imports from China and planned for Canadian energy imports. Additionally, the administration has planned “reciprocal tariffs” on other US trading partners, meaning that all industries would be subject to new tariffs equivalent to the tariff rate those countries impose on US exports. If fully implemented across all sectors, this bundle of tariffs has the potential to disrupt long-integrated global supply chains for key industries in the Ohio River Valley region and, in the short run, will likely lead to higher consumer prices and reduced US employment.

This report analyzes US Trade import data, maintained by the US Census Bureau, to study how imports subject to the new Canada, Mexico, and China tariffs could affect the economies of Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Notably, this report attempts to minimize assumptions and therefore does not attempt to estimate the impacts of any retaliatory tariffs imposed by Canada, Mexico, or China nor does it attempt to assess reciprocal tariffs which have been much more in flux and may have sectoral carve-outs (Gavin, Dawsey, & McGraw, 2025). There is virtually no precedent or existing research that studies what a sudden and universal implementation of tariffs will do to economies in the context of modern globalization.

▶ China, Canada, and Mexico are the three largest trading partners of the Ohio River Valley states. Collectively, these three countries represented over $100 billion in imports in 2024 which is just under one-third (33%) of total imports to the region.

▶ Total imports from Canada, Mexico, and China represent a sizable share of each state’s overall economy, ranging from approximately 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) in West Virginia and over 8% of Kentucky’s GDP. Tariffs, therefore, have the potential to be highly disruptive for businesses in our region’s states.

▶ If the proposed 2025 Trump Administration Tariffs had been in effect for 2024, they
would have represented a new import tax of over $21 billion on businesses across the four Ohio River Valley states. This dollar amount would be the equivalent of the federal government suddenly raising taxes by $2,307 on every Kentucky household, by $1,753 on every Ohio household, by $1,609 on every Pennsylvania household, and by $797 on every West Virginia household.

▶ Tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China will likely be passed by the importing US businesses onto consumers by US companies, resulting in higher prices. Nationally focused studies have estimated that these price hikes would cost the typical US household over $1,200 annually (Clausing & Lovely, 2025).

▶ Tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China will likely reduce state GDP growth, domestic employment, and consumption in the short term. Businesses effectively have three responses to choose from when responding to new, sudden tariffs: use fewer of the imported inputs, find new, more expensive alternative suppliers for the inputs where possible, or pay the tariff outright. The first option would come with a scale-back in US production and potentially idling capacity would mean laying off workers and cutting costs. This would reduce GDP growth. The latter two options would both mean more expensive inputs, raising producer costs. Most peer-reviewed, empirical evidence from recent tariff data suggests that these higher costs will be passed through consumers (Fajgelbaum et. al., 2019). This would raise consumer prices and accelerate inflation as well as reduce consumption, further lowering GDP growth in the short- and medium-run.

▶ There may be opportunities in the long run for positive economic impacts if tariffs are strategically implemented and in place long enough, with enough certainty, to spur significant domestic capital investment. If producers believe the tariffs are not temporary, they may choose to “re-shore,” or relocate, parts of their supply chain to the region. This could create new jobs and raise wages, so long as new trade agreements do not result in the subsequent elimination of the tariffs. Otherwise, producers may choose to “wait out” the tariffs rather than invest billions in manufacturing facilities. At this stage, haphazard and uncertain implementation signals indicate that tariffs may be intended to create leverage in renegotiating free trade agreements. In such a use-case, they would be unlikely to generate significant re-shoring of American production.

▶ Positive economic impacts in the Ohio River Valley could be either partially or totally negated by either retaliatory tariffs or sustained price increases for consumers in industries that cannot easily re-shore their supply chains. These effects could mean that even with new job creation and the reshoring of some industries, the net economic impact of the tariffs on the economy could be negative.

The post Tariffs and Appalachia appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.