Why I Voted NO on the Marcellus Shale Bill

, the long-awaited law designed to deal with Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania. It has also been signed into law by Gov. Tom Corbett. I voted “NO” on this legislation and strongly argued against its passage in the House of Representatives. To put it bluntly, House Bill 1950 is a terrible law for the people of Pennsylvania.

Here are just a few of the reasons why:

1. It’s a tax

I have always maintained that the proper approach was to pass a true impact fee to address real local impacts of natural gas drilling. An impact fee would stay primarily in the areas where the industry was operating. House Bill 1950, despite whatever fancy name you want to give it, is actually a straight tax. The revenue is variable based on production, and the money is being sent all over the state, and to some other places it probably shouldn’t be going, which leads us to…

2. Industry Giveaways

This bill is loaded with blatant giveaways for the natural gas industry. There’s money for a “Housing Affordability Programs,” which means we will be paying for temporary housing for workers from out of state who will no longer be staying in our hotels. There are subsidies for natural gas vehicle programs the industry apparently couldn’t afford to do without a government handout. And there is a massive direct cash giveaway intended to go to the Shell Oil Corp., which had a profit of more than $20 billion in 2010.

If you were upset about the potential funding of the Arlen Specter Library (which Corbett approved last week), you have to be losing your mind over a deal to subsidize a major foreign oil company with your tax dollars.

3. No Local Control

The language in House Bill 1950 is plain and simple. It says that all local ordinances are superseded and replaced by statewide standards for important issues such as setbacks, noise and lighting control, fencing around impoundments and location of compressor stations.

These statewide standards are horrifically weak, and the law says that local governments cannot pass any law that would make them stronger or in any other way impedes the development of oil and gas operations, which could mean almost anything.

If anyone out there tries to tell you that municipalities can still have flexibility to pass reasonable ordinances to deal with issues specific to individual towns, ask them for specific examples. And if you get any, let me know, because I haven’t been able to come up with any yet. House Bill 1950 takes control from your elected officials and gives it to the Public Utility Commission, a group of people appointed by Corbett and not elected by anyone. What ever happened to democracy?

4. It Wasn’t a Compromise

. The only compromise could have been between the lobbyists for the natural gas industry and the people who agreed with them already, because they were the only ones in the room negotiating this 174-page bill, which was drafted in secret and almost immediately put up for a vote. House Bill 1950 wasn’t a compromise; it was a back room deal made by a small group of people whose primary concern was the profit margin for the energy industry.

5. Inadequate Protection for Leaseholders

House Bill 1950 is not a good bill for natural gas leaseholders. Despite claims that the tax cannot be passed onto leaseholders, I’m not convinced that some companies won’t try to do just that—after all, they’re the ones who basically wrote the bill.

Additionally, most people who signed leases did so under the assumption that they had certain protections under the law, but now the law has been changed from underneath them. When a company wants to put an impoundment or compressor station where it’s best for their profit margin, there will be virtually no way to stop them.

6. Doesn’t Help PA Jobs

House Bill 1950 does nothing to promote job creation for Pennsylvania workers; infact, it seems to be designed to allow the continued practice of an out-of-state workforce. There are no funds set aside for worker training, no tax credits for hiring Pennsylvania workers, and no requirements for ensuring workers on the drill sites are drug tested or even United States citizens. To ignore these issues and then call House Bill 1950 a ‘jobs bill’ would be laughable if the consequences weren’t so dire.

For all the reasons stated above and many more, I voted NO on House Bill 1950. I believe it to be a bad bill that fails to address crucial needs for our region at the expense of the energy industry. Pennsylvania had a chance to prove that we can have the economic benefits of natural gas drilling while demonstrating a commitment to protecting our communities and encouraging local job creation, but House Bill 1950 is clear and unfortunate proof that we failed spectacularly.