HARRISBURG, April 9 – State Rep. Jesse White today accepted the Humane Society of the United States’ award for “Humane Representative of the Year” for 2012. The award is given out annually to select state legislators across the United States who pursue meaningful legislation and awareness efforts related to animal issues.

Sarah Speed, state director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Humane Society, presented the award to White at a ceremony at the state Capitol. Speed said White was given the award because of his local and legislative work on issues related to animal shelters.

“We are thrilled to present Representative Jesse White with our Humane Representative of the Year award for 2012 in recognition of his efforts to increase shelter adoptions,” Speed said.

White, D-Washington/Allegheny/Beaver, has been working on legislation that would provide a tax credit to state residents who adopt a dog or cat from a Pennsylvania animal shelter. White said with the economic downturn, Pennsylvania’s animal shelters, associations and rescue agencies have seen a dramatic increase in the number of abandoned and homeless dogs and cats statewide.

“I have taken a strong interest in animal-rights advocacy during my time in the legislature by supporting important reforms to the Dog Law and continually working to pass America’s first Animal Adoption Tax Credit,” White said. “One of the reasons I enjoy working on these issues is the nonpartisan aspect, which helps bring people together; pet ownership transcends political parties, which is a rarity in the highly charged political atmosphere of Harrisburg.”

White also said he is gearing up for his annual Pet Expo, a free event held in partnership with local rescue group Pet Search to allow area residents to speak with professionals about pet health, obedience training and adoption opportunities, as well as participate in a pet parade and costume contest.

“As someone who has a menagerie of furry friends running amok in my own house, I know pets are a huge part of peoples’ lives, and in some cases, the only family some people have,” White said. “If we can help people be more responsible pet owners, help reduce overcrowding in shelters by encouraging adoptions, or just bring a smile to the face of someone who wants some attention from a furry friend, why not?”

When asked for a comment, White’s dog Abigail said “woof-woof.”

As a Civil War re-enactor, Michael Krancer should know a true general puts the people first, and his failure to do so has forced him to retreat from the battlefield in disgrace.

The legacy of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection under his leadership will be one of controversy, political games and personal attacks, which have absolutely no place in such a critically important state agency.

The announcement of Mr. Krancer’s resignation clearly validates my concerns with the way DEP conducts business and strengthens my conviction to demand real accountability and transparency from the Corbett administration. The approach taken under his tenure has been especially frustrating for legislators such as me, who favor the responsible development of Marcellus Shale, but who also demand true accountability from all stakeholders.

I urge my colleagues and the public to turn up the pressure and demand DEP make its intentions clear by finally addressing our unanswered questions about water quality testing, specifically the use of “Suite Codes,” which prevent Pennsylvanians from seeing the full and complete data they absolutely deserve.

My own questions regarding DEP’s approach to water quality testing have been met with glib and condescending political sound bites, not real answers. It’s time to get those answers, as well as the full raw testing data from air-quality tests conducted at the Cornerstone Care health clinic in Washington County, which DEP has refused to release for nearly a year.

The time for games, secrets and deflection is over. Actions speak louder than words, and it is time for real action from DEP.

Pennsylvania deserves a DEP that is committed to having an open and honest conversation about Marcellus Shale policy and act as an independent regulator instead of being a blatant cheerleader for the gas industry, as Mr. Krancer has consistently done.

This resignation presents an opportunity for Gov. Corbett to show he’s actually looking out for the people of Pennsylvania, not the people who are lining his campaign war chest. Does it signal a real change for policy, or is this just more politics as usual?

State Rep. Jesse White
D-Allegheny/Beaver/Washington
www.pahouse.com/White 

Thanks to everyone who made this weekend’s Black and Gold Bash a success. Someone was kind enough to record my speech during the event, so I thought I’d share it with everyone. It’s just a few minutes long, but covers a lot of ground about what’s happening in our corner of the world.

White bill would provide congenital heart defects test for newborns

CECIL, March. 5 – State Rep. Jesse White, D- Washington/Allegheny/Beaver, said today he has reintroduced legislation that would require hospitals to test newborns for congenital heart defects within 24 hours of birth.

Under House Bill 809, hospitals would be required to perform a pulse oximetry screening on newborn babies, which is a simple and painless test that places sensors on the baby’s skin to determine the amount of oxygen in the blood and measure the pulse rate. Although some hospitals already perform pulse oximetry newborn screenings, it is not required under current law. Meanwhile, an estimated 300 infants with an undiagnosed CHD are discharged each year from hospitals in the United States.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, congenital heart defects account for nearly 24 percent of infant deaths. In addition, about 12 percent of babies born each year have one of seven critical congenital heart defects. Newborns who are not screened for CHDs are at greater risk of death or lifelong disabilities.

“Pulse oximetry testing can help prevent either possibility by making sure newborns have the appropriate amount of oxygen in their bloodstream to detect CHDs as well as other heart defects before babies begin to show signs of a heart condition,” White said. “It’s a simple and low-cost procedure estimated at under $10, which is a bargain when you consider the lower cost of catching a heart defect early as compared to the cost and related problems of having to fix it later.

“This issue was brought to my attention by a constituent who had his newborn daughter rushed to the hospital because of a heart defect, which would have likely been detected had this test been done at birth,” White said. “We should take this opportunity to provide an easy and commonsense solution to a scary problem regarding the heart health of our precious little ones.”

The Pennsylvania Newborn Screening and Follow-Up Technical Advisory Committee last year recommended that screening for critical congenital cyanotic heart disease using the best available technology be added to Pennsylvania’s state-mandated newborn screening and follow-up panels. On March 1, the state began collecting monthly aggregate CHD data from birthing hospitals, centers and midwives.

The legislation was previously introduced in the 2011-2012 legislative session as H.B. 2263.

###

State Rep. Jesse White
D-Allegheny/Beaver/Washington
www.pahouse.com/White

On Tuesday, February 19, I hosted a meeting of the House Democratic Policy Committee on the subject of the PA Department of Environmental Protection and their approach to environmental testing in Marcellus Shale drilling areas. Unfortunately, the DEP failed to participate in the hearing, dismissing it as ‘political theater’. Instead of trying to argue, I decided to just show you video of the entire hearing and let you decide for yourself.

As I mentioned at the conclusion of the hearing, what you heard throughout the hearing was not an attack on natural gas drilling but on the DEP’s clear lack of due diligence to enforce its own regulations. Public confidence in the DEP is essential for both residents and the gas industry if we want the Marcellus Shale to be a long-term economic generator for our region. Unfortunately, the DEP’s unwillingness to demonstrate some basic transparency and accountability by showing up raises many more questions than answers.

Here are three excellent articles covering the proceedings:

“Pa. DEP chided at hearing on drilling” by Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

“Residents testify to lack of DEP oversight at policy hearing” by Christie Campbell, Washington Observer-Reporter

“Residents take DEP to task in hearing about fracking” by Rachel Morgan, Beaver County Times/ShaleReporter.com

Here is the unedited video of the entire hearing:

Thank you to all of the citizens who came to testify, come of whom traveled from across the state to be there. I particularly want to thank Judy Armstrong Stiles, whose story brought the entire room to a standstill. As my colleague, Rep. Kevin Boyle from Philadelphia said, “I apologize for DEP. As Pennsylvania citizens, you deserve better.”

Unfortunately, some in the natural gas industry like the site Marcellus Drilling News were quick to dismiss the hearing as a “2.5 Hour Gripe Session”, even though they weren’t there and didn’t ask to testify themselves. Disappointing reaction that only perpetuates many of the concerns people have about the DEP and their role in Marcellus Shale development.

A publication recently surfaced from Control Risks, a renowned British company hired by the natural gas industry to analyze the opposition to drilling by hydraulic fracturing around the world. Upon review, their analysis seems pretty objective and accurate. The report distinguishes between those who ideologically oppose drilling and those who do not oppose the idea of drilling but simply want it to be done the safest way possible, which is the category I would put myself into.

What’s amazing is that the only two photos of active drilling operations in the entire report  are right in our backyards, in Cecil and Chartiers Townships. Seeing my hometown in a worldwide publication really reinforced how much at the epicenter of the whole natural gas boom we really are.

The section entitled “How Can Industry Respond?”, which is ironically on the same page as the photo of drilling operations in Cecil Township, is of particular interest. The report says the industry should target four key areas to improve its relations with stakeholders, and they deserve to be printed. Remember, this is an analysis prepared for the gas industry at their request by objective experts.

The report says:

“First and foremost, the industry needs to acknowledge the legitimacy of local grievances. Denying the agency of local communities by blaming ‘fear’ and ‘hysteria’ is winning the industry – often an ‘outsider’ – few friends. Acknowledging grievances would begin to repair its crippling trust deficit with local communities.”

In addition, the report recommends:

“Meaningful consultations with local stakeholders, instead of didactic ‘information sessions’ to market the presumed benefits of drilling, would help to identify potential points of tension to be addressed through both outreach and grievance mechanisms.”

Sound familiar to anyone around here?

Next, the report recommends:

“a broad-spectrum political engagement strategy that is not overly dependent on cozy relationships with regulators, power-brokers and other narrow points of influence, which are easily tarred by general mistrust of central governments and are a source of political risk. In part, this means laying groundwork at the local level with municipal and provincial officials. Such local lobbying is expensive, but many companies have dedicated teams in the wake of legislative and regulatory changes giving more clout to local authorities.”

Working with local governments in a positive way, you say? Hmmm… Go on.

Next, the report states:

“the industry needs to continue to make good faith efforts to reduce adverse impacts across the board. This means not only strengthening compliance, ensuring subcontractor performance and embracing new technologies, but also making conscientious project decisions regarding the siting of well pads, screening of light and noise, and routing of truckloads. This would entail absorbing increased mitigation costs, …but it would also reduce non-ideological objections to the industry.”

Or in simple English, be a good neighbor instead of just claiming to be one.

Anything else?

“Finally, in addition to reducing the negative impacts of gas development, companies need to ensure the benefits are both tangible and as widely and fairly distributed as possible. For most communities, this means procuring as much as possible locally, providing jobs and training to local workers, paying required taxes, and – crucially – making long-term investments that deliver a sustained economic boost. The encompassing but diffuse benefits of lower gas prices are one thing; an industrial base that provides well-paid jobs for more than two or three years of drilling is a more concrete way to distribute the benefits of unconventional gas development.”

When it comes to maximizing local jobs, I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, when people like me ask questions about local hiring, we don’t get facts or statistics; we get snarky attacks, misdirection and ridicule. It would make sense if you were hiring all the local workers possible, you’d want people to know it, right? But it seems as though there are way too many out of state license plates in the region to be able to prove we’re actually getting all the local jobs we can out of this industry, and our unemployment numbers comparable to the state average would suggest likewise.

But instead of following the professional advice they paid for, the tail wagging the dog of the gas industry has decided to double down on what hasn’t worked yet. Last week the movie “Promised Land”, starring Matt Damon, opened nationwide. The film is set a small rural town in Southwest Pennsylvania and deals with the issue of how the community should approach the issue of drilling for Marcellus Shale. I’m not going to give much commentary on the movie itself, because I believe people are smart enough to make their own decisions, especially since it’s a fictional movie and doesn’t pretend to be anything else.

Truthfully, I thought the film took a much more civil approach than some of the things I’ve seen, and the absence of groups like lawyers or reporters in the film painted a somewhat incomplete picture of what’s been happening around here over the past eight years. In any event, the movie is hardly the anti-drilling paranoia machine industry lobbyists would have you believe. In fact, the Marcellus Shale Coalition spent a whopping $30,000 on ads to run in local theatres showing “Promised Land”, which is not only an incredible waste of money but also insulting to local movie goers. Can we seriously not go to the movies any more without getting their propaganda shoved down our throats?

I’ll go ahead and summarize what the intelligent people at Control Risks were trying to say in their twenty-three-page report. It’s simple. Stop trying to tell us what to think every second of every day. If you’re doing the right things, you don’t need to go to such incredible lengths to convince people of anything; the results will be self-evident. At this point, the approach is turning off way more people than it is winning over. Every day, more and more constituents come to me and say that as much as they favor the natural gas boom, they can’t stand the condescending way we’re being treated by much of the industry.

But if the report by Control Risks is too long or complicated, the gas industry can go back to the Chinese proverb which says instead of giving a man a fish to eat, it is better to teach a man how to be a fisherman. Show us your commitment to local communities, local jobs and best practices, or in other words, teach us to be fishermen- instead of forcing us to eat the fish you are constantly throwing fish at our heads.

As with any issue involving the balancing of individual property rights, environmental concerns, job creation and high economic stakes, the road to developing a fair and reasonable policy on Marcellus Shale gas drilling has been a very bumpy one, filled with potential political landmines. As the elected representative of the communities most impacted by this industry, my approach has been to keep the focus on the important issues instead of political gamesmanship. Throughout this process, I have sought to bring the energy industry, government and the community together as partners in building a brighter future.  This has been my position, and it will continue to be my position as we all move forward together.

In order to understand the nature of my somewhat contentious relationship with Range Resources, it is important to understand the history and evolution of the issues involving the development of Marcellus Shale and my need as an elected official to quickly respond to the changing and contradictory philosophy of Range over the years. As you will see, Marcellus Shale isn’t just one issue; it is actually many different issues, with new ones emerging every day, all of which have to be examined and addressed separately. This is why my position cannot possibly be properly summarized by a handful of old email messages carefully arranged to reach a false conclusion without any context whatsoever.

I was sworn into office in January 2007, just as the Marcellus Shale play was beginning to fully develop in Southwestern Pennsylvania. The first Marcellus well in Pennsylvania is located in my legislative district, and in the blink of an eye, I was representing an area being branded as ‘The Energy Capital of the East’. In April 2007, I met with an executive from Great Lakes Energy Partners, which would soon-thereafter be known as Range Resources. I was promised the company would be a responsible corporate citizen as it developed this new method of gas drilling, and I made a commitment to educate myself and the public on ‘that Marcellus’, as it quickly became known throughout my district.

In 2009, I attended a large meeting of very angry residents who had serious unanswered questions about drilling operations in their neighborhood. Staying with my theme of education, I held a public forum at Fort Cherry High School a short time later with several hundred residents in attendance. I welcomed industry participation, including Range Resources, because I wanted people to get the most complete information possible.

I quickly realized the biggest problem with educating people about the Marcellus Shale boom was the simple fact that the issues were evolving so fast, it was difficult to keep up. We were writing the history of this issue every single day, and the evolution of the issues forced me to constantly adapt my approach in dealing with both the industry and my constituents. The days of dealing with complaints about noisy trucks and mud on local roads quickly evolved into more complex issues about environmental concerns such as air and water quality and a demand from the public for more local jobs in this developing industry. As the issues became more complex, I had no choice but to rely on companies like Range for information, and I started to become more skeptical at the consistent claims that everyone who questioned Range was a ‘nut job’ or ‘just jealous because they aren’t getting paid’. I also found it odd that Range almost never admitted to making any mistakes, even when confronted by a constituency becoming more educated, organized and concerned every day.

By 2009, the term “Marcellus Shale” was working its way into the statewide vocabulary, and because of an aggressive public relations push by companies like Range Resources, and the industry groups they formed like the Marcellus Shale Coalition, most Pennsylvanians had their perceptions of the industry defined by the industry themselves. Lobbyists began swarming around the halls of the State Capitol in Harrisburg, and everyone everywhere wanted a piece of the action. But back home, where the drilling was taking place, the issues continued to evolve in a very unfortunate way. I was personally lobbied by Range executives to vote for a very high severance tax; Range wanted it because the tax would have been paid by my leaseholder constituents and they wanted financial stability so they could value the company with an eye towards selling it. Despite their lobbying, I voted against the severance tax because it was a bad deal for the people I represent.

Due to a 2009 State Supreme Court decision, municipalities were given limited authority to regulate certain aspects of oil and gas operations. Industry lawyers and lobbyists with pre-written ordinances in hand that were obviously extremely friendly to the drillers were suddenly approaching local township officials. Public trust had diminished to the point where the public relations spin was no longer believable to many people actually living in the drilling areas. Communities were dividing rapidly in a very ugly way.

In an attempt to bring some uniformity and consistency to neighboring communities, I drew upon my experience as a former township supervisor and formed a co-op comprised of local officials from most of the twenty-two municipalities I represent. Expressly designed to have no bias for or against drilling, the co-op sought to bring industry and local governments together to develop solutions to the rapidly escalating problems in the communities I represented. Through discussions with Range Resources, the company undeniably driving policy on behalf of the industry, it became clear that ‘uniformity and consistency’ would only be an acceptable outcome if they got to dictate the terms. Range would operate with no problems under an ordinance in one township, but deem virtually the same ordinance in the adjoining township to be totally unacceptable.

In 2010, Range adopted much more aggressive tactics with the public, and the reality of their actions deviated further and further from the rhetoric we saw on billboards and commercials everywhere. The most common tactic was to tell leaseholders the only reason Range could not drill is because local governments were trying to stop them, but the facts simply did not support these bizarre claims. None of my municipalities attempted to ban drilling, and it became obvious that Range’s government relations staff were playing a game by telling local elected officials one thing and telling the public and the media the other. The end result of Range’s self-victimization was a perception of being persecuted that simply was not true, but managed to increase the level of distrust and friction in the community.

For me, the breaking point came when Range Resources and their midstream company, Markwest, instituted a boycott of local businesses in Mt. Pleasant Township in order to force local officials to accept the ordinance written by Range without question. It’s worth noting at this point that Mt. Pleasant didn’t have any drilling ordinance in place, so there was literally nothing stopping Range from operating there. When I confronted them, officials from Range and MarkWest confirmed the boycott to me personally and promised to end it. Although I was in the middle of a rough election, I chose not to make political hay out of the incident because I didn’t want to escalate an already tense situation. Finally, after Range Resources packed a public meeting with hundreds of non-residents sent in to stack the crowd in their favor, I negotiated a solution with Range and Mt. Pleasant Township by bringing in a retired Federal Judge as a mediator. It is worth noting that as part of the arrangement, Range Resources point of contact with the Township was shifted from Matt Pitzarella to Range’s attorney in Texas. This was specifically requested by the municipality because Mr. Pitzarella’s actions had directly contributed to the atmosphere of distrust.

Those events fundamentally changed the way I viewed Range Resources, because I saw first-hand how they manipulated and bullied the public, the media and government officials to get what they wanted. Although many of my colleagues had no problem having an increasingly cozy relationship with Range, I knew I had to be a more vocal advocate for fairness and accountability before my communities were divided forever.

In 2011, an intense lobbying effort led by Range Resources and aided by the new industry-friendly administration of Governor Tom Corbett led the Legislature to pass Act 13, which would have stripped local communities of virtually all say in drilling activities. I directly asked Range to consider additional setback requirements for drilling near schools, hospitals, day care centers and senior centers but was totally ignored as they went to extraordinary lengths to secure the votes they needed in the halls of the State Capitol. By this point I realized the industry-prepared talking points were simply not true, so I became even more vocal in my opposition, not to drilling, but to the misguided policies so aggressively advocated by Range Resources.

I realized my advocacy would make me a lightning rod for controversy, but I honestly believed I had no choice but to speak up. By now, Range Resources was openly hostile to me, which was unfortunate but ultimately beyond my control. When I requested a positive meeting in early 2012 with Range and my local officials to discuss how Act 13 would be implemented, I received an email from a Range executive saying in no uncertain terms “Range is not interested in your outreach efforts”.

When a group of municipalities in my district joined together to challenge the local zoning provisions of Act 13, I supported their efforts while Range Resources hired lawyers to oppose them. Despite Range’s consistent and deliberate mischaracterization of these communities (one of which I call home), a Republican-led Commonwealth Court ruled portions of Act 13 unconstitutional in July 2012. An appeal of the case is pending before the PA Supreme Court, but what had originally begun as a minor and manageable distraction to Range’s strategy was now a major statewide problem, and Range made a conscious decision to turn their attention to discrediting me in a clear attempt to attack the messenger because they couldn’t defeat my message, which was a consistent commitment to responsible development of Marcellus Shale with true industry accountability. As you can see, the issues surround Marcellus Shale changed dramatically in a very short period of time. We are a long, long way from where we started back in 2007.

Range Resources, through spokesman Matt Pitzarella, finally got the media to bite on a story he has been unsuccessfully shopping for nearly a year now, falsely implying my position on Marcellus Shale was somehow related to campaign contributions. He has painted a very distorted and inaccurate picture clearly designed to discredit me, distract you and deflect everyone from the real issues impacting our future when it comes to defining responsible Marcellus Shale drilling. All I will say is this: unlike some others, neither my vote, my integrity nor my conscience has been or ever will be for sale. Period. The reason Range is coming after me is because they know that unlike others, I’m a legislator who cannot be bought, and they know I’m one of the only ones asking legitimate questions they don’t want to answer.

Range’s strategy is to portray me as someone opposed to drilling, but that is absolutely false. I have never once advocated for a ban or moratorium on drilling activity. I have always endorsed a responsible, reasonable and honest approach to the benefits and challenges of developing Marcellus Shale, and any claim to the contrary is simply not true.

I have been approached by constituents, supporters and the media to respond in the same manner in which I was attacked. It did not take me long to find unreleased emails that would clearly show a history of my efforts to reach out to Range in a positive and professional way over the years (up to just a few days ago), emails with unsolicited praise from high-ranking Range Resources officials about my efforts in years past and emails which would severely embarrass Range, its employees and other elected officials. To be honest, it is tempting to simply release those emails to defend and contradict the absurdity of the attacks as well as discredit my attackers and others who would no doubt prefer to lurk in the shadows. But after careful consideration, I have decided against taking this sort of easy retaliation against Matt Pitzarella and Range Resources. Why? Because someone has to be the grown-up here.

I have heard my constituents loud and clear; they’re tired of the petty attacks, and so am I. They want to see mature leadership, but if I respond by feeding the media frenzy and counterattacking, we will all be stuck in the mud indefinitely. I know I will continue to take a beating from some, and I’m willing to pay that price if the outcome is an end to these childish antics. We have important issues we need to address, and sinking into the mud will prevent us from being able to focus on those important issues.  It would be irresponsible for me to allow petty bickering to distract from the task before us.  I choose the high road, and will continue to focus my time, effort and energy on looking out for our communities. I am ready to do the hard work necessary to address the important issues we face, and I will not be distracted. Nothing will be accomplished by engaging in meaningless bickering, especially with so many important issues at a critical point.

• I will continue to be a vocal advocate for the responsible development of natural gas drilling.
• I will demand accountability from the natural gas industry by praising truly responsible operators and calling out those who are failing in their commitment to ensuring our safety through true best practices.
• I will continue to protect our local communities by leading the fight against laws like Act 13.
• I will ask the tough but fair questions that few elected officials are willing to ask.
• I will keep the public informed and engaged in a responsible way and will not be intimidated by attempts to limit my efforts to do so.
• I will continue to push for more jobs for Pennsylvania residents and ask those tough questions until the parking lots of job sites are filled with Pennsylvania license plates.
• I will keep the pressure on the disturbing problems at DEP and push for an independent investigation to find out what’s really going on.
• I will welcome all viewpoints to the discussion, but will not tolerate hypocrisy.
• All the while, I will remain focused and fact-based in my work but I will not let my passion be diminished or the fire in my belly extinguished.

I know who attacked me, I know why they attacked me, and I know how they want me to respond, which is why I realize I must take the high road by not retaliating in kind. Range Resources is a private company with a primary goal of making a profit; my duty as a public official is to uphold my Constitutional oath by doing what I honestly believe is right for the people I represent. All I ask is that you consider the identity of my attackers and the true motivation about the timing and lack of substance of their attack.

You have trusted me on this issue before and I am asking you to continue to trust me now; it’s the only way to move beyond this nonproductive and childish behavior. All I can promise is to do my very best to continue to balance the need for strong and vocal advocacy with the desire for a mature and responsible public discourse. I’ll continue to tell you what I’m doing, and I will not be afraid to let you know if or how Range Resources responds, because their practice of simply ignoring me (and by default all of you) as your duly elected representative is not an option.

Abraham Lincoln said, “He has a right to criticize, who has a heart to help.” While I certainly reserve the right to offer justifiable criticism, I have always been and will continue to be committed to putting aside any of my personal feelings about the past if it means making a positive impact for the future; that’s what grown-ups do in the real world. I understand the immense economic opportunity the Marcellus Shale provides for our region, but I also understand the potential pitfalls.  This is why I am often sensitive to short-sighted tactics which could jeopardize those opportunities. The only way forward is an intelligent, informed public discourse on these issues that will insure that we approach the development of the gas industry responsibly.  That has been my focus, and it will remain my goal.

If Range Resources is willing to move beyond their history of divide and conquer tactics, threats and bullying to truly engage in an honest and fact-based dialogue with me and the public about issues that really matter, we will all be better off as a result. This isn’t an apology on my part, nor is it an attack; it’s an invitation to the honest, fact-based, policy-centered debate the public deserves. I hope to welcome Range’s participation in this public debate with a renewed sense of maturity, responsibility and commitment to honest cooperation and accountability for us all.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” – John Adams

Over the past few days, people from all over the country have been asking about the depositions of two high-ranking DEP officials which touched off the firestorm of criticism over DEP’s practices when it comes to water quality testing near natural gas drilling sites. Many have been quick to attack the facts contained within these depositions without actually reading them, which doesn’t do anyone any good. So I decided to put the links up to each deposition, as well as the letter I received which connected the dots and made me realize I could not in good conscience keep quiet.

There are lots of very concerning details in these depositions which never made it into the letter and have not yet been discussed in the press, so if you have any real interest in the subject you should definitely read up. First up is the deposition of Taru Upahaday, the Technical Director of the DEP Laboratory:

[scribd id=111821978 key=key-1gb9ob2akhcuuq7k3gu2 mode=scroll]

Next is the deposition of John Carson, DEP Water Quality Specialist. This document hasn’t been discussed much, but there is a ton of info in here and it’s a relatively easy read.

[scribd id=111937838 key=key-1my751hcfpggelfomgw9 mode=scroll]

Finally, here’s the letter I received which really connects the dots. You may actually want to start here first.

[scribd id=111821139 key=key-1umxg2ajqozuuhxuz6qg mode=scroll]

Remember, these are the words taken under oath from DEP’s own employees. So the next time you read the comments from some spokesperson spinning away or some industry-funded attack site trying to distract you, remember where the actual facts came from- within the DEP itself.

So, despite the typical over-hyping of weather events by the media, this pending storm is apparently the real deal, and it will impact our area. Since I am House of Representatives rules prohibit mass emails 60 days before an election, I thought I would use this page for some real resources and then update and promote it through social media. I will leave the actual weather stuff to the weather experts, but we have gotten lots of good information from local utility companies worth sharing in preparation for the storm.

With anticipated widespread power outages, mobile devices will be the best way to communicate problems. If there is a problem that needs attention (trees and power lines down, etc.) and you are unable to get in touch with the right person, send me an email at jwhite@pahouse.net; be sure to include your name, phone number, address and a full description of the problem.

ELECTRICAL SERVICE

First, here is information from West Penn Power:

West Penn Power Storm Tips:

• Encourage residents to prepare for the possibility of power outages lasting as long as seven to ten days by taking action before the storm occurs.  Keep a flashlight with extra batteries handy.  Keep an emergency supply of bottled water and/or fill bathtubs with fresh water.  Stock an emergency supply of convenience foods.  Other tips can be found at www.firstenergycorp.com under “Outages” (located on the bottom right of the home page).
• Encourage residents to register their cell phones with their West Penn Power accounts.  The easiest way to do this is to go to www.firstenergycorp.com under Manage My Account.  Register or log in and click on Update Electric Account.  Customers can also call our Customer Service at 1-800-686-0021.
• If the power is out, call 1-888-LIGHTSS (1-888-544-4877).  This is an automated system for reporting outages, downed power lines, and streetlight outages.  If the phone number that the customer is calling from is registered with their account, the phone system will associate the call with that address.  Customers can request “call backs.”  These are automated calls from our phone system to customers to let them know when we believe their power is back on.  This will allow the customer to let us know if they are still without power.  Why not add 1-888-LIGHTSS to your cell phone contacts now so the number is easily accessible!
• Encourage customers to notify us when they are without power…even if their neighbors have already called us.  The more information we receive, the better our computer systems can predict where the problem is.
• Outage maps can be accessed at www.firstenergycorp.com under “Current Outages”.  The maps work really well on smart phones.  Bookmark the page now so you will have the information readily available should outages occur.  In addition to the maps, you can get a tabular/summary report by County which allows you to drill down into municipalities.
• West Penn Power will also provide storm updates via Twitter @W_Penn_Power.
• ETRs (Estimated Time of Restoration) may not be available in the initial stages of a storm.  If the damage is significant and widespread, it could take a day or longer to assess the damage.
• Downed wire and other safety related incidents are a top priority.  To address these types of incidents, we often make temporary repairs and restore power to as many nearby customers as possible.  However, some customers may not be restored at that time, because our crews must move on to address other safety-related incidents.  Rest assured that we will return to complete the work and restore service as quickly and safely as possible.
• And most important…. Encourage all residents to stay away from downed power lines and anything touching them!

WATER SERVICE

This is from PA American Water:

• With Hurricane Sandy bearing down for a possible strike on the Mid-Atlantic region, Pennsylvania American Water is closely monitoring the storm and making preparations in the event of significant impact on water service to our customers. The company’s preparations include reviewing emergency response plans, mobilizing generators, fueling service vehicles and preparing water tankers.
• Further updates will be provided on our website as conditions warrant, plus you can find information on our Facebook page at
  www.facebook.com/pennsylvaniaamwater and Twitter at www.twitter.com/paamwater.

PETS

Also, with wind gusts of 50-60 MPH anticipated, pets need to be given special consideration. One of my dogs is only 16 pounds and would be carried off in a heartbeat if I let him out. You can find information on how to make sure your pets are safe at http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/disaster-preparedness/.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS INFORMATION

Here are some very useful emergency preparedness guides from http://www.readypa.org/, and there are more available there.

[scribd id=111366776 key=key-2mpgk0nqjgf5k3qy3u4c mode=scroll]

[scribd id=111366782 key=key-at6x06esiu7n2ar7k0i mode=scroll]

Be safe, everyone!