State Rep. Jesse White voted "no" Wednesday on a Marcellus Shale bill that will enact an impact fee and various regulations—and said that anyone who did otherwise “will one day regret it.”

“For those who think this is a good deal—for what we got, the price was just too high,” he said minutes after the 101-90 vote in the House.

He continued:

"For those who say this was a compromise bill, the question becomes a compromise between who? The lobbyists from the natural gas industry and the senators and representatives who agreed with them to begin with?" he asked. "This bill has no compromise. It was negotiated behind closed doors, without input from anyone who had a realistic view of challenges facing local communities—and topped off with half-hearted endorsements from local government and environmental groups who were pressured into supporting the bill against the wishes of their members to provide political cover."

And he said there was a perception that those who opposed the bill, a version of which was approved in the Senate on Tuesday, opposed drilling.

And that just wasn’t the case, White said.

“That’s like saying that just because you don’t like Corona, you don’t like beer,” he said.

But it’s the property owners who signed leases with natural gas drilling companies years ago that White said he feels sorry for.

He said those residents signed leases under the assumption that “certain protections were in place only then to realize a lot of those protections were traded away.”

State Rep. Brandon Neuman, D-North Strabane, also voted no, and said he also didn’t like the way the bill came about.

“H.B. 1950 was not right for Pennsylvania and it isn’t right for Washington County,” he said. “It was a bill designed behind closed doors with no input from our side of the aisle.”

And that wasn’t all he said he was concerned about.

The shift of regulatory responsibility away from local municipalities was also a sticking point, he said.

“Drilling activity in Washington County is different from other areas of Pennsylvania,” Neuman said. “Our residents and our local leaders need to be able to give input on what they are experiencing directly.”

State Rep. Nick Kotik, D-Robinson, voted no and called it “a bad bill.” He said the House Democrats weren’t consulted on the legislation and only saw the final draft right before Wednesday’s vote.

“The governor was literally beating the Republicans with a rubber hose,” Kotik said. “They were pushing as hard as they could.”

Only two Democrats crossed the aisle to vote in favor of the bill. Several others, including Pete Daley, a Democrat who largely represents the Mon Valley, did not cast a vote.

“Were we just supposed to roll over and do whatever they want to do?” Kotik said. “We just decided not to go along and make our arguments against it.”

State Rep. John Maher and State Rep. Rick Saccone could not immediately be reached for comment.

State Sen. Tim Solobay on Tuesday called the bill and associated impact fee "a rational compromise" that will help communities and boost protections.

The impact fee must now be approved by either the county commissioners or a vote of the majority of municipalities in the county.

If that happens the impact fee would include the following:

Local Impact Fee

The local impact fee will fluctuate with the price of natural gas and on the rate of inflation. Counties will decide whether to impose a fee. If the county won’t levy a fee, a majority of municipalities would be able to impose it countywide.

Fee Disbursement

Sixty percent of the fee revenue will go to local communities impacted by drilling. The local share will be divided this way:

• 37 percent for host municipalities

• 36 percent to host counties

• 27 percent to other municipalities in host counties.

The money would be used for local services—from emergency preparedness to transportation infrastructure projects.

Forty percent of the fee revenue will go toward statewide environmental projects, ranging from acid mine drainage remediation to recreation trails and highways.

Local Control

The legislation included what Solobay called standardized—but flexible—zoning standards which allow municipalities to retain some control over zoning, "but at the same time encourages consistency in regulating the gas industry."

Setbacks

The bill requires shale wells to be 500 feet from occupied structures and water wells, and at least 1,000 feet from public drinking water sources. It also increases the setback distance from a shale gas well to a spring or body of water to 300 feet.

Range Resources spokesman Matt Pitzarella said the bill is “imperfect and adds costs in an environment where gas prices are near historic lows,” but said he doubted anyone would be completely happy with any legislation. He said the key for the industry is having standardized zoning practices so the drillers don’t have different rules for every community.

“We don’t think it’s a perfect bill, but we think it’s three years in the making and has had ample input from environmental groups, local government officials and industry,” Pitzarella said. “It addressed concerns for the very vast majority of stakeholders for the vast majority of their issues.”

He pointed to the zoning setback that pushes drilling 500 feet away from structures, which is double the length that the current rules require. Still, many local communities have much farther setback rules from schools and hospitals that will be superseded by this legislation.

“We think these are things that can be accommodated,” Pitzarella said. “People will take issue, but it’s legislation that helps the vast majority of people.”

Peters Patch Editor Andrea Bosco contributed to this report.