I hope this guy goes down!

Missy wrote:
I checked, he cut DEP from 147 to 140 million or 5%. DCNR was increased.

According to Penn Future, "Governor Corbett’s proposed FY 2011-2012 budget, unveiled this week, cuts DCNR’s General Fund appropriation by another whopping 30 percent."

and

"The state’s General Fund will now provide for less than one fifth of DCNR’s budget. And more than a third of DCNR’s entire operating budget - $95 million - now comes from resource extraction - drilling for gas and cutting timber."

According to Northcentralpa.com "The overall budget for DCNR was increased to $284 million from $282 million."

It depends how/if you include the Growing Greener fund and the Oil and Gas Fund. From my perspective the overall budget is what matters. Not just the General Fund portion. Penn Future tends to be selective with facts they use to argue their position.
 
Missy's point bears repeating. DCNR will have to increasingly rely on oil and gas for its funding. In other words, the percentage of DCNR funding coming from that increases while the other sources dry up and go to deficit reduction (supposedly).

Basically, in order to get funding in coming years, they have to permit more gas extraction on state lands to pay for it. Sounds an awful lot like blackmail, doesn't it?.

It is precisely the "overall" conception of the budget that disguises this tactic.
 
DGC wrote:
Missy's point bears repeating. DCNR will have to increasingly rely on oil and gas for its funding. In other words, the percentage of DCNR funding coming from that increases while the other sources dry up and go to deficit reduction (supposedly).

Basically, in order to get funding in coming years, they have to permit more gas extraction on state lands to pay for it. Sounds an awful lot like blackmail, doesn't it?.

It is precisely the "overall" conception of the budget that disguises this tactic.

Since the inception of the Oil and Gas Fund the DCNR has always had a portion of funding for projects coming from the General Fund and a portion of it's spending from the Oil and Gas Fund. In the past a much smaller percentage came from the fund because revenues were substantially lower. In the past two years the fund was tapped to supplement the General Fund as the recent state fiscal problem evolved. We will see substantial increases in Oil and Gas Fund revenue as more gas wells come on line.
 
franklin wrote:
DGC wrote:
Missy's point bears repeating. DCNR will have to increasingly rely on oil and gas for its funding. In other words, the percentage of DCNR funding coming from that increases while the other sources dry up and go to deficit reduction (supposedly).

Basically, in order to get funding in coming years, they have to permit more gas extraction on state lands to pay for it. Sounds an awful lot like blackmail, doesn't it?.

It is precisely the "overall" conception of the budget that disguises this tactic.

Since the inception of the Oil and Gas Fund the DCNR has always had a portion of funding for projects coming from the General Fund and a portion of it's spending from the Oil and Gas Fund. In the past a much smaller percentage came from the fund because revenues were substantially lower. In the past two years the fund was tapped to supplement the General Fund as the recent state fiscal problem evolved. We will see substantial increases in Oil and Gas Fund revenue as more gas wells come on line.

You find nothing wrong with the DCNR having to rely on Gas Drilling in our State Forests to fund their Dept???? Are you kidding me!? So the only way we can maintain our state forests is to destroy them in the process. I am sorry Franklin but your thinking is really stinkin.
 
jeff wrote:
franklin wrote:
DGC wrote:
Missy's point bears repeating. DCNR will have to increasingly rely on oil and gas for its funding. In other words, the percentage of DCNR funding coming from that increases while the other sources dry up and go to deficit reduction (supposedly).

Basically, in order to get funding in coming years, they have to permit more gas extraction on state lands to pay for it. Sounds an awful lot like blackmail, doesn't it?.

It is precisely the "overall" conception of the budget that disguises this tactic.

Since the inception of the Oil and Gas Fund the DCNR has always had a portion of funding for projects coming from the General Fund and a portion of it's spending from the Oil and Gas Fund. In the past a much smaller percentage came from the fund because revenues were substantially lower. In the past two years the fund was tapped to supplement the General Fund as the recent state fiscal problem evolved. We will see substantial increases in Oil and Gas Fund revenue as more gas wells come on line.

You find nothing wrong with the DCNR having to rely on Gas Drilling in our State Forests to fund their Dept???? Are you kidding me!? So the only way we can maintain our state forests is to destroy them in the process. I am sorry Franklin but your thinking is really stinkin.

I certainly find it more appealing than a cut in finding or a tax increase.
 
jeff wrote:
Are you kidding me!? So the only way we can maintain our state forests is to destroy them in the process. I am sorry Franklin but your thinking is really stinkin.

Jeff,
I'd respectfully disagree. Regardless of how one feels about the MS issue....Franklin's posts have been based on research and study of the situation. He bases his posts on information and logic and puts forth informative writings that are well crafted and make sense allowing for interested readers to make educated decisions and think about the MS issue from an informed point of view.

You sir, post knee jerk responses based largely on emotion and personal opinion. While you're entitled to do that, I put more faith in the sort of posts I see from Franklin.
 
Fishidiot, while I agree that jeffs comments are knee jerk, franklins are full of half truths and unwillingness to adress comments which point this out. This is a favorite technique of gas companies and politicians alike.

The DEP received a 5 percent decrease at a time when its workload has increased ten fold, this is the agency primariy responsible for overseeing gas development.

The DCNR budget, as he pointed out, has always received money from the oil and gas fund, but that money was used primrily for land acquisition, not as part of its operating budget. Additionally, the DCNR is under more pressure than ever due to the gas industry ruining their infrastructure and they are having to do much more work with no increase in funding to do it.

Lastly, the governor has not asked for additional leases, but did ask for 66 million dollars from gas this year, the most ambitious numbers I have heard fro DCNR in royalties for this year are around 30 million, where will the additional 35 million come from?
 
Fishidiot wrote:
jeff wrote:
Are you kidding me!? So the only way we can maintain our state forests is to destroy them in the process. I am sorry Franklin but your thinking is really stinkin.

Jeff,
I'd respectfully disagree. Regardless of how one feels about the MS issue....Franklin's posts have been based on research and study of the situation. He bases his posts on information and logic and puts forth informative writings that are well crafted and make sense allowing for interested readers to make educated decisions and think about the MS issue from an informed point of view.

You sir, post knee jerk responses based largely on emotion and personal opinion. While you're entitled to do that, I put more faith in the sort of posts I see from Franklin.

Emotion, knee jerk, personal opinion..... I will take ownership of that all day. You see sir when I see logic based on half truths and flawed research I am gonna call you on it. You may not like it or agree with it but then again I don't care. If everyone based their opinions on logic without the passion and personal opinion you wouldn't have much to moderate ;-)
 
The only thing that will get their attention in Harrisburg is a march on the capitol. A public, EMOTIONAL forum stating the facts the politicians are veiling with their spin and doublespeak.

There will be a march. The folks who are following these shenanigans are mounting the evidence and getting it together as we speak.

There needs to be a public forum where the pols have to respond to these allegations. If they can respond with answers that address the public concerns adequately then we'll shut up. But behind any revolution is a building emotional base.

We put on a M Shale presentation and less than half of the 71 attendees knew about the industry. Not a surprise because it was in York. Most that knew said they had camps in the Northern Tier and said their experience had not been good.

IN a follow up article in the paper, there were two comments placing our concerns over the industry in print, countering were responses from the DEP stating all these processes have to pass permitting protocols. And from the MS coalition (Tom Ridge) stating that the industry is acting responsibly and by the book.

So I suppose there isn't a problem. Someone is either lying or we are over reacting. We have questions, they have canned responses, not answers. You do the math.
 
Here's your man from today Pittsburgh Post:


HARRISBURG -- When Michael Krancer found himself the deciding vote on a mine-safety case in 2001, he went to the bottom of a Washington County mine to make sure he understood the issues at hand.

The United Mine Workers were appealing an exemption approved by the Department of Environmental Protection regarding methane testing at 84 Mining Co.'s mine in South Strabane. The union said the exemption was unsafe, despite DEP's consent.

Mr. Krancer was two years into his initial term as a judge on the state's Environmental Hearing Board, which considers appeals on certain DEP decisions. And he had never been in a coal mine, recounted Don Carmelite, his first law clerk at the board.

"The guy suited up in all the gear and got the training, and he walked around in a mine a mile below the surface, in thigh-high water," Mr Carmelite said in a recent interview. "It was consistent with what he did to get it right."

The judge later sided with the miners' position, on a 3-2 decision.

But now instead of adjudicating whether the state Department of Environmental Protection made the right decisions, it's Mr. Krancer who is managing the agency's closely watched choices. He is Gov. Tom Corbett's pick to lead the oversight agency.

The 53-year-old Bryn Mawr lawyer comes to the agency at a pivotal time: Natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale has grown so quickly that the topic overshadows much of the department's other responsibilities. Discussions on how government should regulate the industry and manage its risks often can become heated and hyperbolic.

He also is working for a governor who has drawn skepticism from environmental advocates regarding his commitment to protection, in light of significant campaign contributions from gas drillers and his opposition to a severance tax. Mr. Krancer himself was at times harshly critical of the agency in his hearing board opinions.

Colleagues and friends say he's the right man for the job: intellectually curious, hard-working, and someone constantly in search of facts and science to back up his decisions.

They and others also note that he is not afraid to voice disagreement, and some of his hearing board dissents show fiery language when he believed that a decision was made in error.

Mr. Krancer has said he will approach his role as secretary much as he did his nine years as an administrative judge .

"We apply the law -- that's our job," he said during his Senate confirmation hearing, adding that it is "also my job to listen to all sides of an issue and consider all of the facts and have an open mind."

Chief Judge Tom Renwand, who has served on the board since 1995, echoed that sentiment in describing his colleague: "He's fair and likes to hear all sides in an argument. I think he will really be guided by science."

Mr. Renwand said the Environmental Hearing Board functions with a lot of "back and forth" on cases that are under consideration. He talked to Mr. Krancer almost daily from the time Mr. Krancer joined the board in 1999, often to bounce around ideas about a case.

"His opinions contained great detail and always delved into the nuts and bolts of testimony and were greatly supported by facts, which is the key to not getting reversed," Mr. Renwand said.

Attorneys who try cases before him see that attention to detail in his questions.

"The kind of things you think are questionable in your case, he'll go right for them," said Joe Manko, an environmental lawyer with the Philadelphia firm Manko Gold Katcher & Fox.

The Environmental Hearing Board is the first stop for appeals on DEP decisions, explained former DEP secretary John Hanger. He said it functions as a check on the agency, which "can make mistakes, misread the facts."

Those cases give the judges insights on the agency's legal decision-making, Hanger said, though "hardly a full view of what the department does."

Some of Mr. Krancer's opinions also show insights into his own decision-making. A review of those decisions shows a mix that both supports strong regulations and criticizes agency actions.

In a 2001 case involving penalties imposed against a construction company, his concurring opinion voiced concern that the company may still have profited from its illegal action, despite a $258,500 fine.

He wrote that the approach in cases that "involve such a flagrant and volitional course of chronic violative conduct should be at a minimum, to make sure that any and all profit that the violator may have made on the job on which it engaged in its pattern of illegal conduct is totally disgorged."

Mr. Carmelite said the opinion is an example of his "strong position on enforcement on people who are bad actors."

That same year, in a dispute over air regulations between DEP and the North American Refractories Co., Mr. Krancer broke from the other judges to write a dissent that the Commonwealth Court later validated.

That decision states that when the department and the defendant both have reasonable positions, the department's position should be given deference.

Under state law, he wrote, "the Department is the 'king of the hill' going into the proceeding because NARCO has the burden of proving that its position is correct and the Department's is incorrect. Under the circumstances here, I do not think that NARCO has knocked the Department off the top of the hill."

However, Mr. Manko said he is "not somebody who would always toe the line of the department. I'm sure there are cases where they were disappointed."

One such case involved how DEP was overseeing mine safety, and whether it or the Board of Coal Mine Safety was empowered to expand mine regulations.

In that 2009 case, the majority, including Mr. Krancer, ruled that the agency had overstepped its bounds. But in a concurring opinion, he went beyond his fellow judges' tone to call DEP's attempt to expand regulations "a naked power grab" that was "inappropriate and offensive to the rule of law and the democratic process."

That language upset some in the department as improper and unprofessional.

He never shied away from making the decision he felt was right, even under pressure for unified 5-0 decisions, Mr. Carmelite said

"The fact that he wrote a couple of dissents early on challenged his compatriots and bred an atmosphere of discussion and dialogue," Mr. Carmelite said. He added that the other judges initially viewed Mr. Krancer's approach as "grandstanding," though later became more accepting.

His legal background goes beyond the Environmental Hearing Board: He started his career at the Philadelphia firms Dilworth Paxson and Blank Rome. In 2007, he left the hearing board to run for the state Supreme Court on the Republican ticket.

He lost that bid, which was largely financed by his father, GOP philanthropist Ronald Krancer. His father also has been a major donor to both Mr. Corbett and Gov. Ed Rendell, and is the nephew of the late Walter Annenberg.

After his Supreme Court bid, Mr. Krancer spent a year as assistant general counsel for the energy company Exelon. Mr. Rendell reappointed him to the Environmental Hearing Board in 2009.

He has a strong interest in history, particularly U.S. naval history and spends off-work hours as a civil war re-enactor.

As acting secretary, Mr. Krancer already has made and defended several regulatory changes from the previous administration. He revoked a coordination policy with the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources that he said was redundant, and erased guidance on air pollution policy that he said "did not instruct anybody to do anything."

He also has echoed his boss on viewing Marcellus gas drilling as an opportunity for jobs that will last decades, and something that government needs to manage in a way that does not scare away investment.

"We're at the beginning of what I hope will be a very, very successful industry that has geopolitical impacts," he told House lawmakers during a recent hearing.

Much of his message on how he will manage the department has been a promise for openness between DEP staff, other arms of state government and the public. He's greeted DEP employees on their way into work at the Harrisburg headquarters, visited regional offices and is soliciting ideas from lawmakers.

Mr. Renwand said he thinks Mr. Krancer will be a "strong leader" at DEP.

"Will he take a different tack [than Hanger]? I don't know," Mr. Renwand said. A lot of people try to politicize things but I'm not sure, if you look back over the last 15 years, that people in charge handle things much differently except maybe around the edges. I think he'll uphold the law. He always did on the board."


Laura Olson: 717-787-4254 or lolson@post-gazette.com. Don Hopey contributed to this report.


First published on March 20, 2011 at 12:00 am


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11079/1133016-454.stm#ixzz1H9Fr7hSe
 

Attachments

  • michael_krancer_330.jpg
    michael_krancer_330.jpg
    9.4 KB · Views: 6
reds wrote:
Fishidiot, while I agree that jeffs comments are knee jerk, franklins are full of half truths and unwillingness to adress comments which point this out. This is a favorite technique of gas companies and politicians alike.

The DEP received a 5 percent decrease at a time when its workload has increased ten fold, this is the agency primariy responsible for overseeing gas development.

The DCNR budget, as he pointed out, has always received money from the oil and gas fund, but that money was used primrily for land acquisition, not as part of its operating budget. Additionally, the DCNR is under more pressure than ever due to the gas industry ruining their infrastructure and they are having to do much more work with no increase in funding to do it.

Lastly, the governor has not asked for additional leases, but did ask for 66 million dollars from gas this year, the most ambitious numbers I have heard fro DCNR in royalties for this year are around 30 million, where will the additional 35 million come from?

You are correct that technically the Oil and Gas Fund was intended for use in special land purchases and projects for recreational, environmental and dam maintenance. The fund was/is spent at the discretion of the Secretary of the DCNR. (Excepting the last two years when it was used for supplementing the General Fund) I have found no long term plan has or does exist and no oversight exists. The fact that it had not been used for operating expenses until two years ago is still a technicality for the most part. Don't you think the same secretary that helps put together the department budget factored the Oil and Gas Fund projects in when making the annual budget?

When the fund was created the legislature had no idea that the day would come when large revenues would come from the current gas boom or that the day would come when the state and federal finances would be in such dire straights. It would be nice to use the funds to create a kind of environmental rainy day fund but with the coming financial crisis escrowing the revenue now would be like skipping the rent payment to make an IRA deposit.
 
Franklin the thing about technicalities is that they exist for reasons, like not pimping the peoples land with no regard for environmental and ecological concerns to balance a budget or cover operating costs.

As for the secretary and the role they play, currently there is no real secretary of DCNR, simply an acting one because no one has been willing to take the job.

Am I right about the governor cutting the DEP budget at the worst time possible, as well? Or were you going to ignore that since there is no easy rationalization for why that is ok?
 
reds wrote:
Franklin the thing about technicalities is that they exist for reasons, like not pimping the peoples land with no regard for environmental and ecological concerns to balance a budget or cover operating costs.

As for the secretary and the role they play, currently there is no real secretary of DCNR, simply an acting one because no one has been willing to take the job.

Am I right about the governor cutting the DEP budget at the worst time possible, as well? Or were you going to ignore that since there is no easy rationalization for why that is ok?

I think the governor must value DEP or the cuts would have been larger. It's simple to rationalize. There isn't enough revenue to pay for everything and federal funding is likely to decrease. Which other area would you like to cut to increase the DEP budget? Corbett won primarily on his promise to hold the line on taxes. That's the likely reason he won.
 
I don't want to see any other budgets cut, I want a severevce tax on gas production to pay for the increased need for DEP.

More likely Corbett won as part of the antidemocrat wave across the country as opposed to his no tax policy. History shows PA almost always flip flops from Dem to Rep governor for a long time now, it is a backlash against those in power. Also, recent poll by F and M showed over 60 percent of Pa residents favor a gas severence tax.
 
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11077/1132871-178.stm?cmpid=news.xml

here is a link to an article identifying the poll i spoke of above. 62 percent favor a tax on gas production.
 
reds wrote:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11077/1132871-178.stm?cmpid=news.xml

here is a link to an article identifying the poll i spoke of above. 62 percent favor a tax on gas production.

I have not seen a gas tax proposal that I would support. I would support some form of gas tax funding the enforcement costs associated with gas drilling. In the interest of keeping this thread from straying further afield I suggest we move any additional discussion to a gas tax thread.
 
Back
Top