Cafe owner launches effort against offshore oil drilling

By John Kennedy
The News Service of Florida
A Panhandle restaurateur said today he wants thousands of Floridians to hit the beaches to fight offshore oil-drilling along the state’s Gulf coast.

Dave Rauschkolb, owner of Bud and Alley’s and two other beachside restaurants in the town of Seaside, has launched an effort dubbed Hands Across the Sand, which is emerging as the first grassroots opposition to the oil-drilling effort led by Florida Energy Associates, a group of independent oil producers.

Rauschkolb’s goal is to get Floridians to hold hands and literally form a line in the sand to oppose drilling.

The demonstration is planned for Feb. 13 – the Saturday of Presidents’ Day weekend. Rauschkolb said the event will be accelerated if a special legislative session includes drilling before lawmakers are scheduled to convene in March.

Among the early supporters is former Sen. Jack Latvala, a Republican looking to return to the chamber he left through term limits in 2002. Latvala has promised to organize the Pinellas County protest in February.

“We’ve got 26 miles of beaches in Pinellas County,” Latvala said. “We don’t have a lot of money to hire PR firms or spread it around Florida. But we’re going to have a lot of bodies on the beaches, and I think that’ll say something.”

“I think it will send a very strong visual message,” said Rauschkolb. “I don’t believe that a majority of Floridians want to have oil rigs off our coast. If we get people out, it will show that.”

Rauschkolb developed a website - www.handsacrossthesand.com - to get word out about the event.

Florida Energy Associates has drawn support in the House for drilling, where a measure was approved 70-43 last spring that could allow drilling as close as three miles offshore.

But the Senate refused to take up the proposal, which would have given the governor and Cabinet authority to lift the current ban on offshore drilling in exchange for Florida getting a share of future royalties from below the Gulf floor.

The Senate remains a tough sell. Senate President Jeff Atwater, R-North Palm Beach, has said he is uncertain about taking up the issue at all next spring – although the House is expected to push hard for action.

Future House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, is leading the drilling drive, helping galvanize House Republicans behind the idea. But a rising number of Gulf Coast cities, counties and local chambers of commerce recently have approved resolutions opposing drilling.

Florida Energy Associates currently has enlisted 31 lobbyists and spent $234,000 on its push last spring, according to lobbyist disclosure reports. Since then, the Daytona Beach-based organization has steered $40,000 to the Florida Republican Party and $30,000 to Florida Democrats, campaign finance reports show.

The pro-drilling side says the money drawn from leases is desperately needed to replace the billions of dollars in federal stimulus money that has sustained Florida’s recession-ravaged budget, but which is on track to disappear next year.

Supporters also point out that drilling has been going on off neighboring Gulf states since the 1940s, mostly without serious accidents.

“There is a vocal minority out there opposed to oil exploration in the Gulf,” said Barney Bishop, president of Associated Industries of Florida, the influential business organization helping spearhead support for drilling. “The opposition is certainly entitled to be heard. But they’re not entitled to overrule the majority,” he added.

Rauschkolb’s organizing effort, though, shows that many along the usually politically conservative Panhandle are wary of steps that could threaten the region’s economy, which is anchored by tourism and military interests. Elements of both sectors have voiced concerns about the threat drilling poses to area beaches.

Dave Pleat, a Democrat challenging Republican Rep. Marti Coley of Marianna, who supported drilling legislation last spring, helped prompt Rauschkolb’s activism after the pair spoke earlier this month at a campaign event.

“It’s bad for our economy and bad for our environment,” Pleat said. “There’s no upside to oil-drilling – and I’m a pretty conservative businessman.”

It's not the risk from oil drilling, it's the pipelines, DEP says

In what the House council chairman said will be the first of several meetings on oil drilling, Florida's environmental chief today said drilling accidents pose a low risk to the state but he said other competing uses for state waters must be considered.

The House Select Council on Strategic and Economic Planning heard more than 4-1/2 hours of testimony on oil drilling as the Legislature is expected to take up the issue again next year. The House in May adopted a bill to lift Florida's ban on drilling in state waters but the Senate refused to take up the measure late in the session.

Some business groups today lined up in support of drilling, which they said would boost the economy and state revenues. Environmental groups and some coastal communities warned that drilling could ruin the state's tourism economy.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Sole, weighing in for the first time publicly on the issue, said the risk of a spill from drilling "is admittedly very low."

"I will tell you the data does show the higher risk issue is transportation," he said. "It's not the drilling so much but it's the pipelines, it's the barges -- these things present the higher risk for potential spills."

He said the state also needs to contemplate the physical damage that can occur if drilling and production are not conducted properly. And while showing a map of a network of oil and gas production lines offshore from Louisiana, he said competing use of state waters will be a concern in the future.

"When I say competing uses, I mean competing uses for beach restoration sand, competing uses for transportation corridors for our shipping lanes, competing uses for our aquaculture industry, which is now further and further looking at our offshore aquaculture potential."

Military training in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, Sole said, is "essential for maintaining protection of our great nation." And he added there are significant considerations for using offshore waters for alternative energy, such as windmills and wave action."

"Finally we also have important fisheries," Sole said. "Florida is the number one fishing destination in the world as far as I'm concerned. We need to be acknowledging that."

Sole also said that Texas earns $46.5 million a year in oil royalties in state waters while Alabama's annual collection for royalties and severance has ranged from $50 million to $300 million from state waters.

Outside the Capitol hearing room, Sole told reporters, "We're keeping an open mind. But the same time we want to share the concerns" with representatives.

While an Associated Industries of Florida spokesman said the state can grow from a new "energy economy" from drilling that is compatible with beach tourism, an Audubon of Florida representative said that revenue estimates by supporters were speculative while the state was years away from adopting rules to allow drilling.

Republican House members who supported the drilling bill last spring grilled opponents during the hearing.

Rep. Jennifer Carroll, R-Fleming Island, chided Audubon's Eric Draper about discussing the state's revenue estimates from oil production -- even though Draper was responding to supporters who have estimated the state already is missing out on billions annually.

"All these dollar figures are just speculation right now," Carroll said, "until we do the exploration, until we do the drilling, until the product comes out of the ground and we know what the quality of the product is going to be."

Rep. Doug Holder, R-Sarasota, asked Council Chairman Dean Cannon how representatives could know which presentations are factual and which are not.

"You touch on an issue that has been with us since they created representative democracy 200 years ago," said Cannon, R-Winter Park, noting that House staff was gathering background information and sorting through the presentations.

"This is not the last but the first in a series of meetings we will have," Cannon said.

(Story copyrighted by Bruce Ritchie and FloridaEnvironments.com. Do not copy or redistribute without permission.)

DEP's Sole says "lift the hood" on biomass projects

The governor says they could provide renewable energy for Florida, but Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Sole says biomass electric plants also are being viewed by DEP the same as any other environmental permit applications.

Some Tallahassee residents who fought a proposed biomass gas electric plant in Tallahassee earlier this year now are asking DEP to take a closer look at such projects around the state.

In advance of meetings last week to discuss biomass plants, Sole said DEP's regulatory responsibility is to ensure that the projects comply with federal and state air pollution laws.


"They are treated just like any other permit application that comes in the door. Some are new technologies that require additional (information)," Sole said. "Because they are new technologies, we have to lift the hood and make sure we fully understand the process."

DEP says it has two pending applications for permits while companies proposing four others have held preliminary discussions with DEP. Two other possible projects also have been discussed publicly. (Download a list by clicking here).

The agency last year proposed issuing a permit to Biomass Gas & Electric of Norcross, Ga. for a proposed plant in Tallahassee. But the company withdrew the permit application after facing opposition from some neighboring residents about pollution and noise.

BG&E now proposes building the plant in Port St. Joe where it has been welcomed by some city and county officials. DEP held an informational meeting in Port St. Joe last week to discuss the project.

Members of the group Floridians Against Incinerators in Disguise met with Sole on Friday in Tallahassee to discuss their concerns about such projects. Gov. Charlie Crist has praised BG&E's technology as providing needed renewable energy for Florida's future.

Dr. Ronald Saff, an allergy and asthmas specialist in Tallahassee, said Monday that Sole seemed in favor of biomass plants during his meeting with opponents. Saff is a member of Floridians Against Incinerators in Disguise and the Florida Medical Association.

"We told Mr. Sole, 'If you look on the web site of the mission statement of DEP, it is to improve or protect our air quality,' " Saff said. "What he is doing by allowing these biomass plants to proliferate is worsening air quality."

DEP provided a comparison chart showing the pollutants from biomass electricity plants were generally more than natural gas plants and generally less than coal plants.

Interviewed earlier in the week, Sole said the permit proposed last year for the plant in Tallahassee was protective of public health. DEP has requested additional information from BG&E about its proposed plant in Port St. Joe.

And Sole said it's important for the public to be able to talk about the details of such proposed projects.

"In whole, when we look at Florida's energy needs and future diversity, the concept of biomass is something I think Florida should continue to look to and invest in," he said. "But as a regulator it gets no special treatment."


(Story copyrighted by Bruce Ritchie and FloridaEnvironments.com. Do not copy or redistribute without permission.)

PSC approves nuke charges as members cite legal conflict

Florida law contains contradictions to guide the Public Service Commission on how much to allow companies to bill their customers for nuclear power plants that have not been completed, some PSC members said today.

The PSC voted 3-1 to allow Florida's two largest utilities to bill customers for two proposed nuclear plants in advance of their construction. The requests faced opposition from some environmental groups who say the plants aren't needed and could become too expensive to build.

Florida Power & Light proposes building two additional nuclear power units at its Turkey Point plant in Dade County to open in 2016 and 2018 at a cost of $12 billion to $18 billion. Progress Energy proposes building two nuclear units at on 5,200 acres in Levy County for $17 billion, but the possible 2016 completion has been delayed at least 20 months.

The PSC approved charging FP&L $62.6 million so that the company can charge its customers 67 cents per month in 2010 to recover costs for the new nuclear plants and upgrading other plants. Progress Energy can charge $5.86 per month for its customers to recover $206.9 million in costs so far for its Levy County plant and upgrades at its Crystal River plant, according to the state agency.

This is the first full examination of costs associated with a state law adopted by the Legislature in 2006 that was designed to encourage nuclear plant construction by allowing utilities to recover their costs even if plants are never built. Supporters say the nuclear energy will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the state's heavy reliance on natural gas.

Commissioner Nancy Argenziano voted against allowing the utilities to charge their customers for the new nuclear plants because she said state law, in addition to allowing the advanced cost-recovery, also requires that charges to customers be "fair, just and reasonable."

She pointed out that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission action had put the Crystal River plant in doubt. The NRC said the Green Party and its allies had successfully raised "certain major issues" about the plant's environmental impact on wetlands that deserve a hearing, according to a St. Petersburg Times article on July 9.

"If you can't build on the site, (then) the site preparation and everything else is going to be money well spent -- if you can't build on it?" Argenziano said. "What do we do then, just saddle the rate-payer with it?"

But Commissioner Nathan Skop pointed out that the Florida law that allows for the advanced cost-recovery is more specific than the provision that requires charges to be "fair, just and reasonable." He and Argenziano agreed that the utilities had followed requirements in the law for requesting the cost-recovery.

"You can't change the rules in midstream," Skop said.

Argenziano voiced agreement but also said, "I really wish the Legislature would figure out what they want us to do." She was a state sentator in 2006 when the advanced-cost recovery bill was adopted and she said there was little discussion about it.

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, which challenged the utilities requests, said the decision was made in spite of an NRC action Thursday which the group says could further delay new nuclear reactors. (See New York Times story)

"We feel strongly that Progress Energy and FP&L did not meet the requirements necessary to charge their multi-million dollar expenses to Florida bill-payers," Stephen Smith, executive director of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said in a statement released by the group. "This reinforces the fact that the (Florida) PSC oversight process is broken and needs to be fixed."

The NRC told Westingthouse that its nuclear plant design needs further testing. A Progress Energy spokeswoman said she didn't know what, if any, delay could result from the NRC action.

(Top photo of Turkey Point power station courtesy of FP&L. Story copyrighted by Bruce Ritchie and FloridaEnvironments.com. Do not copy or redistribute without permission.)

Florida oil drilling supporters, opponents post letters on issue

Florida oil drilling opponents today called on Gov. Charlie Crist to include more coastal protections to his criteria for allowing offshore drilling.

Drilling supporters, meanwhile, touted support today for drilling from road and bridge builders -- although an endorsement letter from the group was issued more than a month ago.

Supporters say drilling can reduce dependence on foreign oil and produce at least $2.3 billion per year in state revenue. Opponents say drilling threatens the state's coastal tourism economy and that any estimates of revenues are speculative.

Gov. Charlie Crist reopened the debate a year ago when he suggested that drilling should be allowed if it could be clean enough, far enough and safe enough to protect Florida's coastline and environment. The House last year approved a bill to allow drilling within three miles of the coast but it failed to win Senate approval

Nine environmental groups today sent a letter to Crist asking him to also consider adding "financial accountability" and the "effects on existing coastal activities" to his principles on whether to allow drilling. That could align the governor with legislation to study the issue proposed last week by two Democratic senators.

"The risks posted by nearshore oil drilling, exploration, transportation and storage need to be carefully considered," the environmental groups wrote in their letter to Crist. "We are calling on you to help make sure this discussion is deliberative."

Crist spokesman Sterling Ivey said the letter is being reviewed by the Governor's Office.

Ron Sachs Communications, which represents drilling supporter Florida Energy Associates, today publicized the Florida Transportation Builders' Association letter to Rep. Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, endorsing the drilling idea. "Finding new revenue streams without raising taxes is an idea everyone can support," Association President Robert G. Burleson stated in the Sept. 13 letter.

Ryan Banfill, vice president of Ron Sachs Communications, in an e-mail explained the timing only by saying that the endorsement was announced today. "Why today? Because today is a good day," Banfill wrote.

Bronson says water lawsuit threatens jobs, prescribed burning

Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson Tuesday warned other Cabinet members that setting specific pollution standards for nutrients in Florida waters could jeopardize prescribed burning efforts and the state's forest industry.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to set numeric standards for nitrogen, phosphorus and other nutrients in Florida waterways, replacing the state's descriptive standard that environmental groups said failed to protect springs, lakes and rivers from algae blooms.

But agriculture and industry groups have challenged the proposed consent order between environmental groups and the EPA, and Bronson's agriculture department has sought to intervene on their behalf. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle is scheduled to hold a hearing on the proposal in November.

Bronson said setting a numeric standard could threaten the practice of deliberately burning forest underbrush to improve wildlife habitat and reduce the risk of wildfire. He said the EPA promised a few years ago that forest fires would not be used in determining air quality standards but then the federal agency included the fires anyway.

"I'm afraid the same thing is going to happen" with prescribed burning and water quality, Bronson said. "I want to make sure this Cabinet understands that we have taken this thing so seriously we have entered into the challenge on the settlement."

Bronson's statement was dismissed as more "hysteria" by an attorney for the Earthjustice law firm's Florida office, which represents groups including the Florida Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and the St. Johns Riverkeeper in a lawsuit against the EPA.

An EPA spokeswoman in Washington told FloridaEnvironments.com that the federal agency is working with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to establish scientifically-defensible standards.

"Because EPA has not finalized the numeric criteria values at this time, it is unknown what water quality management decisions the state of Florida will need to make to implement the (water quality standards) in order to achieve environmental protection goals," spokeswoman Enesta Jones said in an e-mail response.

Meanwhile Tuesday, the Suwannee River Water Management District followed Bronson's call to join the South Florida Water Management District in challenging the proposed settlement.

Bronson criticized the proposed statement today during a presentation of a Cabinet resolution recognizing Oct. 19-24 as Florida Forestry Week. Forestry provides nearly $16 billion to Florida's economy each year and 130,000 jobs, he said.

The EPA, Bronson said, is moving too fast to set a numeric standard and he said it should be given time to receive third-party review for being scientifically sound. He said he thought the Florida DEP had been doing a good job in working toward a standard before EPA stepped in.

"Hopefully we will come to the right decision based on science," he said.

Earthjustice attorney David Guest said in response that he has never heard of prescribed burning being affected by water quality regulations. He also said the consent order, if adopted by the court, gives EPA nine months to set a limit after first proposing a rule by Jan. 14 and that's three times longer than he said is provided for in federal law for review.

"I think if we don't do something about nutrient pollution and we turn every river into the state in to a stinking, green-slime river, all kinds of businesses will be leaving the state," Guest said.

(Top photo courtesy of the Florida Division of Forestry. Bottom photo and story copyrighted by Bruce Ritchie and FloridaEnvironments.com. Do not copy or redistribute without permission).

A short Q&A with Florida DEP on water quality

FloridaEnvironments.com asked the Florida Department of Environmental Protection about its role in the U.S. EPA setting numeric criteria for nutrients in Florida waterways. Here are questions and the answers provided by DEP Communications Director Nancy Blum:

Does DEP have a view on the timetable for developing the criteria -- is Jan. 15 too soon?

It is hard to predict the outcome of science. DEP was prepared to present draft criteria to the ERC (state Environmental Regulation Commission) for adoption this year. Recognizing that ERC adoption may be one step in a longer process that could involve rule challenges, the department could not offer any firm predictions on when the criteria could be finalized and effective. In addition, our process would include public and stakeholder involvement.

There remains a need to improve the science supporting the criteria for fresh water streams which DEP continues to explore. For fresh water streams the extensive database generated by Florida suggest the relationship between nutrient enrichment and biological response is very site specific. Deriving a criterion that is applicable to all streams is challenging and certainly needs to be coupled with regulatory processes that consider site specific variables. Additionally, the relationship between in-stream nutrient concentrations and downstream water protection remains unclear. These are very complex issues and addressing the uncertainty by January 14th, 2010, will be difficult. However, we cannot predict the viability to promulgation in October, 2010, given that the Federal public process has not begun.

What is DEP's role at this point?

DEP is providing data and technical analysis to EPA for their consideration in developing a proposed rule. However, DEP is not engaged in EPA's deliberative process regarding rule language and specific criteria as that is internal to their agency.


Does DEP believe that prescribed burning could be prohibited under some criteria?

Prescribed burns can mobilize nutrients for a very short duration. To the extent that prescribed burning causes water quality standards violations, including numeric nutrient criteria, those practices would have to be addressed during the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) and BMAP (Basin Management Action Plan) process. The mobilization of nutrients as a result of controlled burning and the associated risk of excessive loading to adjacent streams is very site dependent.