[vc_row animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]The following piece is from Lauren Parker, Principal at Civil & Environmental Consultants Inc. Lauren was a member of Governor Tom Wolf’s Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force and was appointed by Speaker of the House Mike Turzai. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]You can learn more about the Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force, including viewing the final report, by clicking here. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]—— [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row animation=””][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]In June of 2015, Pennsylvania Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) announced my appointment to Governor Tom Wolf’s newly created Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force (PITF). Governor Wolf followed with his announcement of the full membership for the PITF in early July. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”8584″ img_size=”” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://wellsaidcabot.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Lauren-Parker-CEC-headshot.jpg”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]Pennsylvania is slated to undergo a substantial pipeline infrastructure build-out within the next decade, and so an opportunity emerged for the Commonwealth to engage stakeholders in a collaborative process and ensure that positive economic benefits from Pennsylvania’s rich natural resources would more quickly be realized in a responsible way.  I was honored to be Speaker Turzai’s appointee and certainly looked forward to the opportunity to work with various stakeholders on the advancement of pipeline infrastructure in the Commonwealth in a sustainable and responsible manner. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]The PITF’s purpose was to define a series of best practices and recommend ways to plan, site and construct pipelines that minimize environmental and community impacts, improve public participation, make permitting more efficient and ensure the long-term safety of the pipelines. The task force was to provide a report of recommendations to Governor Wolf by February 2016, and we were successful in meeting that goal. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]As Speaker Turzai’s Legislative Appointee, I served among representatives from state agencies, the legislature, federal and local governments, the pipeline and natural gas industries, environmental groups, agriculture, and natural gas users, with Secretary Quigley of the Department of Environmental Protection serving as Chairman. There were 48 members in total, and each person was assigned to one of 12 workgroups.  Each of these workgroups welcomed additional participation from individuals not on the task force, and was assigned both a chairperson, selected in advance, as well as a DEP liaison. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]To give you a sense of how the PITF’s efforts were carried out on a macro level, I will share my micro-level experience while serving on the Environmental Protection workgroup, which had 19 members and was chaired originally by Secretary Quigley, though the role was re-assigned to Haley Jeffords, an Executive Policy Specialist at the DEP.  Our DEP Liaison was Joseph Buczynski, and the group consisted of a nice mix of people from varying companies and backgrounds, including my company, Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc., PennFuture, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Williams, Post & Shell, P.C., and Wilkes University. Conference calls were often held two or three times per week, and there were multiple in-person meetings in Harrisburg, Pa., as well as a site visit to several sites near Towanda, Pa. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row animation=””][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Those of us in the Environmental Protection workgroup generally felt that ours was a very broad topic (when compared to Agriculture or Local Government), and so we split it into four sub-topics:  Air, Water, Land and Permitting.  The group focused on Air saw Mike Hebling from PennFuture taking on the majority of the writing of recommendations; for the Water group, this responsibility fell with Steve Tambini from the Delaware River Basin Commission; for Land, Ken Klemow of Wilkes University; and finally, for Permitting, I was pleased to assume the role. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”6066″ img_size=”” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://wellsaidcabot.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Pipeline.jpg”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]If I may be perfectly honest, we all, quite literally, began writing down ideas and tracking them in spreadsheets. There was much back-and-forth discussion for each of the 69 recommendations that our group submitted, which I’m certain was comparable to the other workgroups as all were instructed to submit everything. And though the prospect of taking a vote came up a few times, our group ultimately opted not to do so and proceeded to provide as much content as we could generate – given that our instructions were to include every idea. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]As an example of the above-mentioned back-and-forth discussion, let’s look at what transpired specifically regarding water quality monitoring at each stream crossing before and after construction. Some thought it was absolutely necessary, while others argued that we didn’t even know for sure if there was an issue. Proponents of the latter suggested that the State take on a study at randomly selected projects to see whether there were issues prior to making it a statewide mandate. Ultimately, that was the recommendation put forth by our group on the subject. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]Another example was our discussion about whether expedited review should consist of an administrative review only. This was a rather hot topic for a few of the participants, who went on to hold separate discussions on the topic even after conference calls had ended. Ultimately, the recommendation was changed because strong support was limited to only three of the participants. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]All recommendations were submitted to the Secretary by each workgroup chair on November 2, 2015, after which time the DEP compiled the information to create a final draft.  Every single submitted recommendation made it into the final draft.  The report was a holistic, comprehensive and, dare I say, near-encyclopedic accumulation of ideas that, ultimately, will require extensive follow-up work to determine what is already a regulation or law, where recommendations conflict with existing laws or regulations and what recommendations are unrealistic or unfeasible for the state to take on, etc. The Secretary stated during a February 11 webinar that the consideration of each recommendation would take as long as needed and set no timeline for the effort. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row animation=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]This process provided a great learning experience for me as I had the opportunity to meet new people I wouldn’t normally interact with during my job. I enjoyed working with stakeholders from various backgrounds with differing opinions and feel like I added value to the effort because of my experiences preparing permits for these projects every single day. I am anxious to see what new policies affecting pipeline projects emerge in the coming weeks and months.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]