A bill in the Pennsylvania Senate would withdraw funding from communities that try to restrict shale gas drilling within their borders. It’s one of a variety of energy and environment-related measures under consideration by state and federal lawmakers.
The Allegheny Front’s Julie Grant spoke with David Hess, former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and editor of the PA Environment Digest Blog, to catch up on a few issues.
LISTEN to their conversation
Senate bill on impact fees
Julie Grant: Republicans on the state Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee voted on legislation that you say would punish communities that try to regulate fracking.
I’m going to go back a little bit. This starts with Act 13 in Pennsylvania, which provides what’s called an impact fee, money collected from energy companies that goes to communities that host shale gas drilling. But this new bill would withdraw that funding if those communities tried to set protective standards on natural gas development.
So what’s going on here, what’s the history, and why are we seeing this legislation now?
David Hess: Well, this legislation is really part of an organized attempt by the shale gas industry in Pennsylvania to block communities from doing things like increasing the safety zones or setbacks from shale-gas facilities. Right now, there’s only a 500-foot setback from a shale gas well to a home, and that’s from the well itself to the home, not the well pad.
A lot of people right now are living literally just 500 feet away from things like shale gas drilling pad flares that they can see out their bedroom windows at any time of the day or night. The Environmental Health Project in southwest Pennsylvania came out with some recommendations to increase that by 3,200 feet. Cecil Township in Washington County has been on the forefront, and they adopted a 2,500 foot setback and safety zone.
Julie Grant: What would happen if this legislation becomes law?
David Hess: Senate Republican legislation really punishes these communities. I mean, this legislation was announced within weeks of when Cecil Township adopted their ordinance. You know, communities have gotten used to these Act 13 impact fees supporting their community projects and reimbursing them for the kinds of negative impacts that these shale gas operations have.
I mean, Cecil Township, as an example, has five well pads right now. They were issued 63 permits for individual wells by DEP. It’s not like they don’t have shale gas impacts right now, and this bill would take away the money they do get right now for those impacts. So it’s just grossly unfair.
Julie Grant: What kinds of things are we talking about? And what do you think about this?
David Hess: In terms of the negative impacts, I think Cecil Township alone had five public hearings, hours long, each one of them. And they documented the kinds of impacts, everything from the truck traffic that’s going to and from these pads, to air pollution, you have chemicals that are emitted during the various stages of these operations, from benzene and toluene, to other known cancer-causing agents.
There’s just a whole range of impacts that were documented by these hearings in not only Cecil Township, but by multiple health studies, including by the state Department of Health. I mean, these impacts are well-known, and these communities are just trying to better protect their residents.
- A new report compiles years of data about the health risks associated with fracking
- Law meant to push drilling further from houses had little impact, study finds
Julie Grant: And what do you expect next with this legislation?
David Hess: It’s been reported out of the committee. I expect the Senate will take action on it before they go home for the summer. The House may or may not take it up. The legislation is really an insult to not only local officials, but to people who have to live next to these operations.
Senator [Gene] Yaw, the second sponsor on the legislation and the majority chair of the Senate Environmental Committee said after the House held hearing on increasing these safety zones and setbacks a little more than a year ago, he called that effort “stupid” in a press release that you can still read on his website.
So this is the kind of mentality that we are dealing with. The supporters of the industry and the industry don’t even want to talk about making their operations safer, which, you know, the 14,547 residents of Cecil Township are only trying to protect themselves.
Calls for increased protections from fracking
Julie Grant: So the timing of this bill is interesting. Earlier this month, the Environmental Health Project sent a letter to Governor Josh Shapiro. It was signed by 34 organizations and over 100 individuals urging the state to adopt recommendations in the group’s recent white paper about how the state can better protect public health from shale gas development.
So, what is the Environmental Health Project recommending? Why do they say this is needed now? And have you heard any response from the governor’s office?
David Hess: They, of course, made recommendations to increase setback distances and safety zones from shale gas infrastructure, both the pads and other things. They wanted better disclosure of chemicals that are used on the site for both fracking and other things, and they want the state to look at the cumulative impact of these operations.
For example, in Cecil Township, they have five shale gas well drilling pads right now, multiple wells on each of the pads. If someone comes in with another well pad proposal, the Environmental Health Project and really many others have said, ‘look, you’ve got to look at not only the impact of that one new well pad, but you’ve got to look at the cumulative impact of having now six well pads impacting the community and take that into account.’
And that will only happen with legislation, by the way. So far, the House has been interested in at least holding hearings and taking some initial steps. The Senate, which is Republican-controlled, has no interest.
Federal budget cuts for states to administer environmental programs
Julie Grant: On the federal level, two groups, the Environmental Council of the States and the Environmental Protection Network, recently reported that President Trump’s budget request issued on May 2 would cut over $1 billion going to states to administer federal pollution control and permitting programs. The president also proposed cuts to the drinking water and wastewater revolving infrastructure funding by 89%.
Can you tell us more about the cuts that are proposed in Trump’s budget and what that would mean for environmental protections in Pennsylvania?
David Hess: It just looks horrific for environmental programs. I mean, you’re talking about bread and butter programs that the Department of Environmental Protection administers for the federal government. This is things like air quality, safe drinking water, water quality, permits. These are all things that have been administered jointly in the past with a good partnership between the state and the federal government.
The Environmental Council of the States, which is the group of state environmental agencies like DEP in all 50 states, wrote to EPA when that first came out and said, ‘look, this is going to incapacitate state environmental protection because it will take a huge chunk of funding away from these permit programs.’
They just simply couldn’t do their jobs if these cuts were to be made final. So the federal budget process is a long one, but the next couple of months are going to be absolutely critical, and people should pay attention to that.
David Hess is a former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and editor of the PA Environment Digest Blog.
