With all kinds of new data out there demonstrating U.S. solar growth (here, here and here), we wanted to offer our insights into how these successes are playing out in one of our key campaign states: Pennsylvania.

Over the past couple years, Pennsylvania has become a real solar powerplayer. Having developed over 100 MW of solar PV, PA is a leader in terms of installed solar and the jobs it creates. In fact, last year’s Solar Jobs Census ranked the state second in the nation behind California for number of solar jobs. We eagerly await the 2011 results.

Pennsylvania’s remarkable solar growth can be attributed to the widely successful rebate and grant programs enabled under the Governor Rendell administration. These programs gave the state the jumpstart needed to successfully establish a nascent energy industry by attracting project development and investment. However, these programs were designed to be short term and are quickly coming to an end.

Going forward, Pennsylvania will transition its solar support to a longer-term mechanism: the state’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS). Requiring utilities and electric suppliers to procure at least 0.5% of their electricity generation from solar resources by 2021, the AEPS will result in nearly 800 MW of solar.

And here’s where Pennsylvania has a problem. The AEPS is a strong policy tool; however, existing solar installations—those that are grant funded—have already met the near term AEPS requirements. That means there is no remaining appetite for new solar projects. Without a sustained market driver, the once-thriving PA solar industry will wither, and the state’s momentum in building economies of scale, expanding its solar workforce and lowering prices will be lost.

Pennsylvania needs a strategy to ensure that its solar market can smoothly transition from the successful programs of the past to the long-term, sustainable opportunities of the future.

House Bill 1580 offers that transition. Announced this past spring by Representative Chris Ross (R-Chester), HB 1580 would support this transition by increasing the near-term solar goals under the AEPS. In addition to stimulating continued solar development, HB 1580 makes use of an industry ready to build more solar power today making the aggressive AEPS requirements of tomorrow more achievable. Its passage would drive Pennsylvania solar development at a time when global costs are dramatically declining, the U.S. industry is surging, and Pennsylvania desperately needs new economic opportunities.

Specifically, HB 1580 would:

1. Increase the solar requirements beneath the AEPS for the next three years. This will keep the market robust as Pennsylvania transitions to a market-based solar program.
2. Require that systems must be connected to the distribution grid serving PA to be eligible for AEPS incentives. This will ensure that solar projects maximize value and benefits to the local grid and the local economy.

With the legislature in session through mid-December, we have a limited window of opportunity to advance HB 1580. With over 90 co-sponsors already signed on, the bill is well-positioned for success. Nonetheless, Harrisburg politics being what they are, the path to HB 1580’s passage is hardly a clear shot. In the coming weeks, we hope you’ll join us in supporting this crucial piece of legislation and keeping PA’s solar growth on track.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• Solar Success on the Line in Pennsylvania
• Pennsylvania PUC Remains Engaged
• New Reports Identify Keys to Solar Growth
• Meet Solar Power’s New Little Helper
• Clean Tech is all wet

A lot of attention has been paid to creating a greener building stock by incorporating green building practices into building codes.  The development of the International Green Construction Code is just one example.

However, there are two primary components to every regulation–policy and process.  Both components are critical to achieving regulatory goals. Good laws that are not implemented and enforced might as well not exist, and bad laws which are well implemented create a different, but equally bad, outcome. 

The process for approving building codes is arcane at best and impenetrable at worst. To those interested in sustainability, code process may seem like the ultimate "inside baseball" information, like knowing what the Lou Brock’s 1967 out statistic was–simply not vital to understanding baseball as a whole.  HB 377, a law signed by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett this week demonstrates how how process changes can impact green building and energy efficiency policy. 

 Generally, the process for adopting building codes is as follows:

1.  The local or state government enacts enabling legislation requiring a building code, often incorporating the International Code Council’s model code.  

2.  The International Code Council updates their model building codes on a regular basis, once every three years.

3.  The state or local government has some mechanism, either automatic or through an approval process, for updating its building code to the new version. 

Depending on what level of authority is provided to local governments with respect to their building codes, local governments may adopt additional or different changes to the building code requirements.

Pennsylvania has a state wide building code which, until this week, was an "opt-out" model.  Updates to the International Construction Code were automatically incorporated into the Pennsylvania code unless provisions were specifically rejected by a Governnor-appointed council comprised of builders, architects, code officials and so on. 

The bill enacted this week switches the code adoption to an "opt-in" model.  Any changes to the construction code must be approved by a super-majority vote by the council, otherwise the prior code remains in effect.  In addition, the law adds an additional seat to the 19 member council for:

A GENERAL CONTRACTOR FROM AN ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING THE NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY WHO HAS RECOGNIZED ABILITY AND EXPERIENCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

Policy watchers, like Penn Future , the Delaware Valley Green Building Council, and the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships , anticipate that the super-majority vote of the council will make enacting updates of the ICC very difficult, and that the extra seat for the general contractor will bias the council against upgrading the stringency of the building code. This, of course, includes code changes for greater energy efficiency requirements and incorporating green building practices.

HB 377 said nothing about energy efficiency or green building.  Nonetheless, the changes to the building code adoption process creates a potentially significant barrier to a greener building stock in Pennsylvania.  On a 20 person board, It would require 13 votes to put a code change into effect, and each change must be lobbied for separately.  

Do you know what the code adoption process is in your state or municipality?  Are there any proposed changes?  Let GBLB know what you find out.  It might surprise you.    

Related posts:

• The Green Building Code is Too Confusing
• The Green Building Code is Too Confusing
• Comprehensive Senate Energy Efficiency Bill Resurrects National Model Energy Code
• Bibles Now Available For Green Building Regulation
• Green Building Code Recruited for U.S. Army

Pennsylvania has come under fire lately as pollution from drilling in the Marcellus Shale threatens water resources across the state. But instead of ratcheting up oversight, Gov. Tom Corbett wants to hand authority over some of the state’s most critical environmental decisions to C. Alan Walker, a Pennsylvania energy executive with his own track record of running up against the state’s environmental regulations.

Walker, who has contributed $184,000 to Corbett’s campaign efforts since 2004, is CEO and owner of Bradford Energy Company and Bradford Coal, which was once among Pennsylvania’s largest coal mining companies. He also owns or has an interest in 12 other companies, including a trucking business and a central Pennsylvania oil and gas company.

Walker was Corbett’s first appointee—he chose him to lead the Department of Community and Economic Development in December, before taking office. Now, as Corbett stakes much of the state’s economy on Marcellus Shale gas drilling, a paragraph tucked into the 1,184-page budget gives Walker unprecedented authority to “expedite any permit or action pending in any agency where the creation of jobs may be impacted.” That includes, presumably, coal, oil, gas and trucking.

It’s not clear how Corbett can delegate such sweeping authority to the economic development office, which would be reorganized to focus on coordinating with corporate interests and creating job growth. It also isn’t clear how the state would address the legal conflicts that could arise if, for example, Walker pushed for approval of a permit that conflicted with the Clean Water Act or other federal laws. The governor’s office did not respond to repeated requests to clarify Walker’s role, and other state agencies deferred to the governor.

Environmental groups think Corbett will need to issue an executive order or some other legal clarification to allow Walker’s office to wield so much influence over regulations.

“I have never seen anybody give an economic development director the authority to tell every other agency in the state what to do with regard to its statutory responsibilities,” said Deborah Goldberg, an attorney with Earthjustice, an environmental group active on drilling issues. “The law requires that you not pollute the waters of Pennsylvania, and if he tries to speed up an application that makes it possible that that is going to happen then I think he is clearly operating outside of his authority.”

A spokesman for the economic development office said Walker will not speak publicly until his confirmation. But Walker did post a statement on the department’s website.

“The budget introduced today represents a completely new way of doing business for DCED and its economic development partners,” the statement said. “In a tough economic climate, we need to send a powerful message to the Pennsylvania Business Community that Pennsylvania is open for business.”

Walker’s ties to the energy industry are deep. He is listed on state disclosure forms as an executive of the Pennsylvania Coal Association and he has served as chairman of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry. He also has firsthand experience with the state’s environmental regulations, because his companies would likely have applied for permits similar to those the oil and gas industry is now pursuing in the Marcellus. And like many energy companies, his, too, have run into problems with the state.

In 2002, three of Walker’s coal companies notified Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection that they had run out of money and were going to stop treating the 173 million gallons of polluted water they produced each year and released into tributaries of the Susquehanna River. The state eventually got a court injunction to force them to continue treating the wastewater as required by state and federal law.

Corbett’s budget, which was introduced Tuesday, emphasizes job creation and proposes eliminating economic development hurdles by streamlining permitting processes in the DEP and the Department of Transportation.

“To address the length of time agencies take to act on permits and eliminate permit backlogs, PennDOT and DEP have begun auditing and assessing all of their permit processes to make them more responsive to the needs of job creators,” the budget says.

In the budget Corbett says drilling will bring Pennsylvania 200,000 jobs and $18 billion in economic benefit by the end of the decade. But the drilling industry’s explosive growth has also caused environmental problems and the budget raises questions about whether the DEP—which could lose nearly 20 percent of its funding—will be able to address them.

Private water wells have been contaminated with methane gas and other pollutants across the state, and in many cases the DEP has found that hasty or insufficient gas well construction was to blame. Several drilling site accidents have led to spills where wastewater, including from hydraulic fracturing, contaminated streams.

A 2009 ProPublica investigation [1] revealed that Pennsylvania’s sewage treatment plants were accepting millions of gallons of drilling wastewater, but lacked the technology to remove or treat many of the chemicals and pollutants the water contained. In 2008 people along one stretch of the Monongahela River were advised [2] to drink bottled water because the level of dissolved minerals and salts in the river was almost twice as high as the DEP considers safe.

The state has since more than doubled its workforce of inspectors and strengthened regulations for how gas wells are drilled, permitted and constructed. The DEP has installed additional water-quality monitors along the Monongahela and required drillers to report where they will take their wastewater after a well has been hydraulically fractured. The agency has also required that wastewater treatment plants be equipped to remove the minerals and salts. And it has received proposals for 24 new waste treatment plants that are now in permitting or review processes—the type of projects Walker could conceivably influence.

In January, the Associated Press found [3] that about 150 million gallons of Marcellus Shale wastewater—the majority of the wastewater for the period examined—had been dumped into rivers and streams after only partial treatment. A subsequent story [4] from the New York Times revealed that much of that wastewater was dangerously radioactive, and that drinking water facilities have not been testing their intake for this radioactivity.

On Monday the EPA leaned on Pennsylvania’s DEP to tighten its oversight of drilling waste disposal. The next day, Gov. Corbett released his budget, reducing DEP funding and stating that job creation should trump lengthy permitting delays.

“It’s an expression of a philosophy that doesn’t value environmental regulation,” said Jan Jarrett, president of PennFuture. “It seems to be the desire of the governor to have this guy be able to pick up the phone and expedite any program that might impact jobs.”

The Governor’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment about the policy shift, the role of the economic development office, or funding for the DEP. Spokespeople for both the DEP and the state Attorney General’s office also declined to comment, saying that only the Governor’s office could speak to the issue.

Article by Abrahm Lustgarten, Nicholas Kusnetz and Joaquin Sapien, appearing courtesy Propublica.

ProPublica Director of Research Lisa Schwartz and researcher Liz Day contributed to this report.

Related posts:

• Victory for the Jersey Shore: Governor Vetoes Offshore LNG Port
• First Greenhouse Gas Permit Issued
• Going Solar Just Got Much Much Easier for New York
• Permit Process in PV Installations
• Obama Flexing Executive Muscle for Renewable Energy

(Reuters) – A top Pennsylvania Republican rejected a Democratic-sponsored plan for taxing natural gas production on Wednesday, vowing to stop a bill that he said would drive energy companies out of the state.

The opposition will force Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat, to seek a compromise between Democratic and Republic plans.

Sen. Joseph Scarnati said a bill proposing to tax gas drillers 39 cents per 1,000 cubic feet of gas produced was “totally unacceptable” and that it would not even go to the Senate floor for a vote.

“We are not going to entertain a tax rate here in the Senate that is punitive to this industry,” Scarnati told reporters the day after the bill was approved by the Democratic-controlled House. “It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

The Democratic plan would raise revenue of $307 million in its first full year and impose a much heavier tax burden on the booming industry in the Marcellus Shale. The Republican proposal would tax at 1.5 percent of the market price for the first three or four years and is favored by the industry.

Lawmakers agreed during this year’s budget talks to settle details of the so-called severance tax by October 1, following pressure from Rendell, who has been calling for the tax for two years to boost state revenue and help pay for the environmental costs of gas drilling.

There’s now no chance of an agreement by the deadline although the Senate will continue to negotiate, Scarnati said. The Senate has three remaining days — October 12, 13 and 14 — in its current legislative session, when it could consider an alternative bill.

Rendell spokesman Gary Tuma said the governor will now seek a compromise between the two houses and would be satisfied if an agreement can be reached in early October.

“This is what we assumed the process was going to be about,” Tuma said.

Scarnati said such a tax would make it harder for Pennsylvania to attract gas industry investment at a time when the outlook for gas prices is flat given rising production across the United State.

Article by by Jon Hurdle; Editing by Daniel Trotta and Sofina Mirza-Reid; appearing courtesy Reuters.

Related posts:

• Solar Success on the Line in Pennsylvania
• Hydrofracturing for Gas Also Releases Uranium from Shale, Study Says
• Shut Down Wells, EPA Orders Gas Drilling Company
• Can Water Treatment Technology Offer the Fracking Industry a New Face?
• Pennsylvania PUC Remains Engaged

While lawmakers deliberate over the fate of Pennsylvania’s solar industry, the state’s Public Utility Commission remains engaged in its own efforts to provide a stable foundation for solar energy growth.

Just last week, the Commission released a long awaited policy statement and voted 5-0 to establish long-term revenue stability for the development of both large and small-scale solar projects within the Commonwealth. Amid a dynamic and growing Mid-Atlantic solar market, Pennsylvania’s solar progress has been handicapped by issues of SREC price uncertainty, one of the primary sources of revenue for solar projects in the state. Aiming to make PA the regional solar powerhouse it should be, more than 20 parties submitted comments on the draft policy issued by the PUC in late 2009.

The full policy statement (all 47 pages) can be found here. For those who already have plenty of bedtime reading, highlights include:

With lawmakers considering amendments to PA’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards to triple the amount of solar generation developed within the state (voice your support here), any legislative action is likely to have significant ramifications for the PUC’s solar policy statement – especially in regards to the issues that the stakeholder working group will address.

Let’s just hope that the vision of Pennsylvania’s lawmakers and regulators is a shared one…

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• Solar Success on the Line in Pennsylvania
• Overfed, but Undernourished: Generation Y’s hunger for CSR
• Keeping Pennsylvania’s Solar Growth on Track
• Inside Baseball No More-Why the Building Code Adoption Process is Critical To Sustainability
• Pennsylvania GOP Rejects Natural Gas Tax Plan

Pennsylvania knows power. Having pioneered both the nation’s first nuclear power plant and the world’s first commercial oil well, the Keystone State remains a top energy producer in the country. Now there’s a new energy revolution underway based on harnessing the sun, wind and other clean energy resources. There is no reason Pennsylvania shouldn’t come out ahead in this new energy economy. No reason, that is, except politics.

For two years now Pennsylvania’s lawmakers have debated legislation to increase the state’s clean energy goals, called the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS). Unfortunately, each previous effort ultimately sank under the weight of amendment fever. Too many, too complicated, too confusing, too too messy.

Now the state has a clean shot at clean energy. House Bill (HB) 1128 would increase the amount of solar powering Pennsylvania and put the Keystone State at the forefront of the nation’s new energy industry.

The question looming is: will legislators pass the bill before the session ends or will the sun set on yet another year of lost economic growth and opportunity?

We need to overcome rumblings of opposition in the Senate. Do you vote in Pennsylvania? Your voice can help: Take Action.

Once a regional solar energy leader, Pennsylvania is quickly falling behind our Mid-Atlantic neighbors. Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, Ohio and New York have recently expanded their solar commitments. You can bet that their stronger markets will look mighty tempting to the 700+ companies currently doing solar business in Pennsylvania. We’re already losing trainees and clean energy investment across our state borders to those stronger solar markets. We can’t afford to sit idly by while others across the country and around the world move boldly forward.

HB 1128 would triple the amount of solar in the state’s solar energy requirement, from 0.5% to 1.5% by 2020, and help put Pennsylvania back on top as a regional hot spot of solar activity. Based on some quick analysis using the National Renewable Energy Labs JEDI model, we expect the solar target under HB 1128 to create at least 14,000 new solar jobs over the next ten years.

Strong solar policy action taken now will bring Pennsylvania benefits tomorrow and for generations to come. It’s time to invest in a cleaner, more prosperous energy future for Pennsylvania. It’s time for legislators to pass HB 1128.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• Pennsylvania PUC Remains Engaged
• Keeping Pennsylvania’s Solar Growth on Track
• High Speed Rail Dreams For The Keystone Corridor
• Solar’s Unlikely Hero: Rush Limbaugh
• Boeing Shatters Solar Power Record with 39.2% Cell Efficiency

Pennsylvania residents whose streams and fields have been damaged by toxic spills and whose drinking water has allegedly been contaminated by drilling for natural gas are suing the Houston-based energy company that drilled the wells. A worker at the company is among the 15 families bringing suit.

The civil case, filed Thursday in U.S District Court in Scranton, Pa., seeks to stop future drilling in the Marcellus Shale by Cabot Oil and Gas near the town of Dimock. It also seeks to set up a trust fund to cover medical treatment for residents who say they have been sickened by pollutants. Health problems listed in the complaint include neurological and gastrointestinal illnesses; the complaint also alleges that at least one person’s blood tests show toxic levels of the same metals found in the contaminated water.

The suit alleges that Cabot allowed methane and metals to seep into drinking water wells, failed to uphold terms of its contracts with landowners, and acted fraudulently when it said that the drilling process, including the chemicals used in the underground manipulation process called hydraulic fracturing, could not contaminate groundwater and posed no harm to the people who live there.

“We’ve been lied to, we’ve been pushed around, and enough is enough,” said Julie Sautner, whose drinking water began showing high levels of methane, iron and aluminum in February and who is receiving fresh water deliveries from Cabot. “We need to push back.”

A Cabot spokesman, Ken Komoroski, did not return calls for comment.

Among the 15 families bringing the case to court is Nolan Scott Ely, a Cabot employee who could lend an inside perspective to the case on how the company operates and how it has approached the myriad problems the company has had in Dimock. Nolan Ely did not return calls for comment.

Ely’s relatives, who have lived in Dimock for generations, own several properties where Cabot has wells. In January a well at the home of Michael Ely, one of Nolan Ely’s relatives who is also part of the lawsuit, caught fire after methane leaked underground into the water supply. At the top of the hill near Michael Ely’s home is Cabot’s Ely 6H well, which is among the most productive horizontal wells drilled in the Marcellus Shale. Cabot has touted Ely 6H as being one of the company’s most profitable.

Cabot’s problems in Dimock go back to January, when a drinking water well belonging to Norma Fiorentino — who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit — exploded after a methane buildup. Since then methane and metals have been found in numerous drinking water wells in the region. In the last year Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection has determined that Cabot was responsible for several spills of diesel fuel and drilling mud and for an 8,000-gallon leak of hydraulic fracturing fluids being prepared by a contractor, Halliburton, that seeped into a fresh water stream in September.

The DEP concluded early on that faulty well construction allowed contaminants to leak from Cabot’s wells into water supplies. In September, following the fracturing fluid spill, the state temporarily banned Cabot from hydraulically fracturing any more wells near Dimock, but that prohibition was lifted several weeks later.

On Nov. 4 the DEP issued a document listing more than a dozen infractions (PDF), including fracturing fluid spills, diesel spills and well-construction problems that allowed methane gas to seep underground into private drinking water wells. The document lists 13 families whose drinking water is affected by the contamination, many of whom are being supplied fresh drinking water by Cabot.

The lawsuit, filed by the New York City-based law firm Jacob D. Fuchsberg and two other firms based in Philadelphia, Pa., and Buffalo, N.Y., did not specify what monetary damages would be sought from Cabot. Dimock residents tell ProPublica that they would be entitled to two thirds of the net judgment after expenses if they win.

Lawyers handling the case did not respond to requests for comment.

In addition to the cost of health care and health monitoring, the suit seeks compensation for the loss of property values in the rural area — something that would allow affected residents there, if nothing else, to leave.

“I don’t think we’ve asked for the moon here,” said Victoria Switzer, a Dimock resident who is party to the suit. “I mean, Norma just wanted water, for goodness’ sake. The compensation, if it were enough to know that we could go away, that’s all I want.”

Article by Abrahm Lustgarten and Sabrina Shankman appearing courtesy of ProPublica

Related posts:

• Shut Down Wells, EPA Orders Gas Drilling Company
• Environmental Advocate Jerome Ringo Calls for Common Cause
• Contaminated Tap Water Calls for Urgent Improvement of Water Systems
• Colorado Towns Take Extra Measures to Protect Water From Gas Drilling
• Controversial Drilling Practice Hits Roadblock in New York City

A growing number of U.S. colleges and universities supported green initiatives during the last year despite declining endowments, according to a report released by the Sustainable Endowments Institute.

Twenty-six of 332 schools evaluated in the College Sustainability Report Card received the highest-possible grade of A-minus through sustainable management of campus operations and endowment practices.

Now in its fourth year, the College Sustainability Report Card evaluates schools in nine categories, including climate change and energy, food and recycling, and green building.

Among the schools called sustainability leaders are the University of Pennsylvania, which purchases 45 percent of its electricity from wind power; the University of New Hampshire, which buys produce from an on-campus organic garden; Oberlin College, which powers one building entirely by solar energy; Arizona State University, which owns and operates 137 electric and 170 biofuel-powered vehicles; the University of Colorado, which retrofitted more than 75 buildings for energy efficiency; and Yale University, which has installed 10 micro-wind turbines on campus.

The Sustainable Endowments Institute is a project of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. See the full report here.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360.

[photo credit: Flickr]

Related posts:

• The U.S.’s Greenest Colleges
• Growth of Geothermal Power Helping Colleges to Cut Energy Costs
• EPA Challenges College Football to Green Their Stadiums
• EcoDorm Offers ‘Green’ College Living
• EPA Works with NJ’s Kean University to Enhance Sustainability

This post is dedicated to my hometown, Hazleton Pennsylvania

This corridor hits close to home for your humble correspondent as I, Alexander John Lennartz, am a born and raised Pennsylvanian…who did not step foot on a passenger train in the state until age 25 when I moved to the greater Philadelphia area.

In my part of the country there is no passenger rail. A fact of life for the good people of Northeast Pennsylvania is that you cannot live without a car. This was, is and for the foreseeable future will be to only mean of transportation over mid to long distances. Pennsylvania’s proud locomotive heritage has fallen to the point that many in the state regard trains in the historical sense, no longer are a form of modern transportation. The Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania in Lancaster Country is a testament to when rails crisscrossed the Keystone State and help build and power America, moving goods and people quickly and efficiently.

After a long period of decline that led to the discontinuation of passenger rail in most of Pennsylvania, there are faint signs of a comeback for trains in the Commonwealth. This can be attributed in large part to the efforts of the governor, the honorable Edward G. Rendell. Former Mayor of Philadelphia, mass transit advocate and a man who does not hesitate to voice his displeasure at the sight of something he does not like (he admitted to booing Santa Claus at an Eagles game in 1968), Rendell is the first governor to take action against the death spiral rail has been on for decades. Even more encouraging is the support of both US Senators for rail projects that would link the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh together through the high speed Keystone Corridor, plus other rail projects in the state like the Scranton/New York City rail link.

James Carville is famously quoted as saying Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between. That is an exaggeration but contains within it a grain of truth. Driving through Central Pennsylvania is one of the most mind-numbingly boring exercises a person can go through. During the winter when the interstate is covered in ice and snow it can also be one of the most dangerous. The Keystone Corridor would be a boost not only for commuters between the state’s two biggest cities, but if it were to be connected to mid-sized cities in Central PA like Williamsport, Hershey and State College, the state would have an element of interconnectivity not seen in ages.

Pennsylvania has a rich history from the colonial period all the way through the contribution the state made in World War II. It was fitting Tom Hank’s character in Saving Private Ryan, Captain John H. Miller, was from a small town in Pennsylvania. Despite being the state that was a pillar of building the most powerful nation in the world, Pennsylvania standing in the Union is in decline. It desperately needs this project to inject jobs, vitality and a sense of pride in itself.

Related posts:

• US High Speed Rail: The Empire Corridor — Uplift For NYC Mass Transit
• High Speed Rail – 12 Corridors to be Stimulated
• Florida Will Build Nation’s First High-Speed Rail Corridor
• High Speed Rail Line Gets Federal Funding: Los Angeles to Las Vegas
• Hypocritical Southern Politicians Fighting High Speed Rail & ARRA Money

Summer’s comin. Sun, sand, beach and shiga toxin.

Shiga toxin?

Yep, it’s a gene that can make swimmers sick. And health departments don’t test for it in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania. They test for E. coli, an indicator bug that’s much better known, but isn’t always harmful. So the beach you visit may be “clean” for E. coli, but not shiga toxin. That can keep you up at night, literally (severe gastrointestinal illness).

A two-year study by Mercyhurst College says there’s a need for standardized tests for specific pathogens like shiga toxin to better protect the public.

Talk about a Clean Tech opportunity.

This is on top of other studies done in the past. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is pushing tests for another indicator called enterococcus, which allow health departments to get dirty water results in 24 hours instead of 48 hours.

This is just another sign that the water technology field is bubbling with entrepreneurial possibilities, with also include purification and treatment.

A March 2008 Goldman Sachs report sees a $425 billion a year (and growing) global demand for technologies that clean, conserve, recycle, desalinate and pump water, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Just outside Milwaukee (Switzerland), there’s a conference later this month on Blue, Green and Gold, The Future of Water, Finance and the Environment.

A program for the event says blue is the new green when it comes to technology, and companies are being urged to track their water footprints like they track their carbon footprints.

Related posts:

• China is World Leader In Clean-Tech Investments, Report Says
• J-REC Conference: Jewish Clean Tech & Green Energy Leaders To Meet
• Top 6 Tips for Clean Tech Events and Renewable Energy Conferences
• Green Technology Job Hunt: Succeed With Clear Goals
• Got a Legal Question on Clean Tech or Renewable Energy Law?