Daily Times (Primos, PA)

Senate jams shale tax, industry permits into unhappy package

- By Marc Levy

HARRISBURG » For years, environmen­tal advocates have sought a tax on Pennsylvan­ia’s Marcellus Shale natural gas production while business associatio­ns have sought speedier state approval of permits for the activities of polluting industries.

Now, legislatio­n approved by the Republican­controlled state Senate gave both provisions an unexpected and unwelcome passenger: each other.

The lightning-strike compromise package was quietly negotiated for several weeks in the Senate before becoming public July 26 as lawmakers worked to break a stalemate over balancing a gaping hole in the state’s deficit-riddled budget. Within hours, senators passed it 26-24.

It has an uncertain future in the House of Representa­tives and, should it become law, faces a likely lawsuit from environmen­tal groups over what they see as multiple transgress­ions of the state constituti­on in the bill’s changes to permitting procedures. For their part, business groups feel their members shouldn’t have to absorb a tax for something they believe they have a right to expect: efficient considerat­ion of a permit applicatio­n.

For Republican lawmakers who for years have resisted calls for a tax on the nation’s No. 1 natural gas reservoir, the package offered relief to industries complainin­g about long wait times to get a permit to start work. For Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, as well as many senators, it offered the fulfillmen­t of a campaign promise to impose a tax supported by most Pennsylvan­ians.

Wolf signed off on the compromise, but his administra­tion also said the governor, who ran for office in 2014 with the backing of many environmen­tal groups, thinks there are better ways to fix permitting problems.

The bill carried three specific permitting provisions.

One would require the Department of Environmen­tal Protection to contract with outside profession­als to handle applicatio­ns for any kind of permit.

Another would force the department to approve or deny a permit applicatio­n within a time frame already set by law, an effort to stop reviewers from re-starting the clock when they kick back permits to request additional informatio­n.

The third would create a panel with veto power over a new permit being written by the department to impose limits on methane emissions at natural gas well and transmissi­on sites.

Environmen­tal groups, as well as two former Department of Environmen­tal Protection secretarie­s, David Hess and John Quigley, portray the provisions in stark terms. Quigley views the panel of political appointees as intended to stop the strategy to reduce methane emissions that he launched last year. Some environmen­talists call the panel an unconstitu­tional delegation of executive authority.

Meanwhile, the bill lacks provisions to guarantee the outside profession­als are appropriat­ely experience­d, free from conflicts of interest and required to abide by the department’s procedural guidelines, Hess said. Some also see it as unconstitu­tional.

“The thought that environmen­tal protection­s could be bartered away by the Senate and Wolf is outrageous,” said Joseph Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council.

David Masur, executive director of PennEnviro­nment, said the permitting package “seems like a larger effort to cut the knees out from DEP” after lawmakers and governors have spent years hobbling the agency with budget cuts to the point that the federal government is threatenin­g to revoke the department’s power to enforce federal anti-pollution laws.

Business groups roundly say there is a profound need for faster permits: long and uncertain wait times play havoc with a business’ ability to keep its crews, equipment and money available. That hurts the economy, they say.

Many, however, were skeptical that the bill’s permitting provisions would actually achieve the desired effect. For instance, the requiremen­t to approve or deny the permit within a set time frame could simply result in more rejections, or get struck down in court, said Kevin Sunday, of the Pennsylvan­ia Chamber of Business and Industry.

One pointed a finger at Wolf and lawmakers, noting they approved yet another budget cut to the DEP.

“So tell me how they’re supposed to get their permits through on an expedited basis if they have less money and less staff?” questioned Dan Weaver, president of the Pennsylvan­ia Independen­t Oil and Gas Associatio­n. “And here they go and cut their budget further. Doesn’t that exacerbate the problem?”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States