PA Government Waste: The Real Story

Pennsylvania Lawmaker’s Dismissal of Citizen Environmental Petitions Sparks Outrage

State Representative Josh kail faces criticism for calling DEP’s public input process a “waste,” raising concerns about environmental protection and democratic values in Pennsylvania.

published: April 4, 2025

A recent Pennsylvania House budget hearing has ignited a firestorm of controversy after state Rep. Josh Kail, a Republican representing the 15th district, which includes Brighton Township, voiced strong opposition to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) process that allows citizens to petition for changes in environmental regulations. During the Feb.27 hearing,Kail described the process as “outrageous,” a statement that has been met with sharp criticism from environmental advocates and constituents alike.

Lettice Brown discusses a recent spill in york, PA. (Source: Gannett)

According to Acting Secretary Jessica Shirley, the DEP’s “rulemaking” procedure is designed to allow citizens to propose new rules or the repeal of existing ones. If a petition is supported by scientific evidence, the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) assesses whether it merits review.The EQB’s review process involves legislative touchpoints and consent, including legislators serving as members.

Kail, however, seemed to dismiss this process as unnecessary and inefficient, claiming that DEP rulemaking includes “absolutely no legislative input,” therefore the agency’s time spent in rulemaking is “wasted.”

The DEP rulemaking procedure mirrors similar practices at the federal level, like the EPA’s public comment periods for proposed regulations. These mechanisms are crucial for ensuring clarity and incorporating diverse perspectives into environmental policy, reflecting a foundational principle of American democracy.

This statement has drawn criticism for misrepresenting the facts and demonstrating a perhaps authoritarian stance.Critics argue that listening to constituents is a core responsibility of a legislator and is an integral part of representing their needs.

The outcry raises basic questions about the role of elected officials in representing their constituents and upholding democratic principles. It also highlights the ongoing tension between economic progress and environmental protection in Pennsylvania, a state with a long history of industrial activity and abundant natural resources. The representative’s remarks also cast doubt on his understanding of his constitutional duties. How can a legislator dismiss the importance of listening to the voices of their constituents when their primary role is to represent their needs and concerns?

The Specific Petitions at the Center of the Debate

Kail specifically targeted three citizen petitions as examples of what he considers a “waste” of DEP resources:

• Joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
• Increasing security bonds for oil and gas wells
• Establishing mandatory setbacks for oil and gas wells

Each of these petitions addresses critical environmental and economic issues facing Pennsylvania. Critics point out that these petitions have the potential to bring significant financial benefits to the state.

These proposals are not isolated incidents; they are part of a broader movement pushing for greater environmental accountability in states across the U.S. From California’s stringent emissions standards to New York’s ban on fracking, states are increasingly taking the lead in addressing climate change and protecting natural resources.

These issues resonate deeply with many Americans.A recent Pew Research Center study found that 67% of Americans believe the federal government is not doing enough to reduce the effects of climate change.

RGGI: A Potential Economic and Environmental boon

The petition to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cooperative effort among several Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce carbon emissions, was sidelined when Governor Tom Wolf signed an executive order directing the DEP to join the initiative.

This cap-and-trade program could generate an estimated $443 million for Pennsylvania, earmarked for clean air initiatives, which would help monitor and control pollution from industrial facilities. This income could have been used to improve air quality for communities impacted by carcinogenic emissions from oil wells.

Despite the potential benefits, RGGI has faced opposition from some lawmakers and industry groups who argue that it will increase energy costs and harm the state’s economy. This debate mirrors similar conflicts playing out in othre states considering carbon pricing mechanisms,such as Washington and Oregon.

Well Bonding: Addressing the Legacy of Abandoned Wells

The petition concerning well bonding seeks to increase the financial responsibility of oil and gas companies for plugging their wells. The current bond amount of $2,500 is far below the actual cost of plugging a well,which can be tens of thousands of dollars per well.

This discrepancy creates a financial incentive for companies to default on their bonds, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for plugging abandoned wells and cleaning up environmental damage. The petition proposes raising the bonds to approximately $38,000, which is a more accurately reflects the true cost of plugging.

Pennsylvania is currently seeking $300 million in federal funding to address the issue of abandoned wells. Without adequate bonding requirements, the state risks continuing to face this costly problem in the future.

States like Texas and Oklahoma, which also have a long history of oil and gas production, are grappling with similar issues related to well plugging and abandonment. These states are exploring various strategies to address the problem, including increasing bonding requirements, levying fees on oil and gas production, and establishing dedicated funds for well plugging.

Setbacks: Protecting Vulnerable Populations

The setbacks petition calls for establishing mandatory distances between oil and gas wells and buildings, particularly schools, hospitals, and waterways. Current regulations allow wells to be built as close as 500 feet from such structures,which raises concerns about potential health risks associated with air and water contamination.

The petition proposes requiring setbacks of:

• 5,280 feet from any building “serving the vulnerable” (schools, hospitals).
• 3,281 feet from any building or drinking water well.
• 750 feet from any waterway.

These proposed setbacks are based on scientific research and are intended to protect vulnerable populations from the potential health impacts of oil and gas development. Setback regulations are a contentious issue in many states with significant oil and gas activity. Colorado, for example, recently increased it’s setback requirements to 2,000 feet for new oil and gas development near homes and schools.

“absolutely no legislative input,” the agency’s time spent in rulemaking is “wasted.”

Rep. Josh Kail, R-15, Brighton Township

Accountability and the Future of Environmental Protection in Pennsylvania

The controversy surrounding Representative Kail’s comments underscores the importance of holding elected officials accountable for their positions on environmental issues, particularly in districts heavily impacted by industrial activity.

The 15th district, which includes Shell’s large petrochemical plant and half of Washington County, the most fracked county in Pennsylvania, faces significant environmental challenges. Residents of these areas have a vested interest in ensuring that their elected officials prioritize environmental protection and public health.

the real “waste,” some argue, is not the DEP’s rulemaking process but rather the time spent by legislators who are influenced by lobbyists and prioritize the interests of the petrochemical industry over the well-being of their constituents.

This situation serves as a reminder of the importance of civic engagement and the need for citizens to actively participate in the political process to ensure that their voices are heard. it also highlights the critical role of state and local governments in addressing environmental challenges and protecting the health and well-being of their communities.

Disclaimer: This article provides an analysis of recent events and should not be considered legal or financial advice.

What role do you believe local communities should play in shaping environmental policies concerning thier own communities? Share your thoughts in the comments below

Pennsylvania’s Environmental Policy at a Crossroads: An Interview with Dr. Eleanor Vance

Archyde News interviews Environmental Policy Expert Dr. Eleanor Vance to discuss the recent controversy surrounding State Representative Josh Kail’s stance on citizen environmental petitions.

Published: April 5, 2025

understanding the Controversy

Archyde: Dr. Vance, thank you for joining us. State Representative Josh Kail’s recent comments dismissing the DEP’s citizen petition process have sparked considerable outrage.From your viewpoint, can you unpack the core of the issue?

Dr. Vance: Certainly. Representative Kail’s remarks undermine a fundamental tenet of democratic governance: the public’s right to participate in shaping policy. The DEP’s rulemaking process,at its core,allows citizens to propose changes to environmental regulations,ensuring that the agency considers diverse perspectives before implementing new rules. His dismissal of this process as a “waste” directly contradicts the principles of clarity and accountability.

The specific Petitions and Their Importance

Archyde: Representative Kail specifically targeted petitions concerning RGGI, well bonding, and setbacks. Could you elaborate on the potential impact of these issues, focusing on their potential impacts in Pennsylvania?

Dr. Vance: absolutely. Each of these petitions addresses critical environmental and economic issues. RGGI, if implemented, could generate substantial revenue for Pennsylvania through carbon emission trading, directly benefiting the state. Meanwhile, increasing well-bonding requirements is critical for protecting Pennsylvania taxpayers from the financial liabilities left behind by abandoned wells. the setbacks petition, aiming to create buffer zones around oil and gas operations, protects vulnerable populations from the health risks associated with exposure to risky chemicals.

Archyde: these petitions seem to have the potential to bring meaningful financial benefits to the state and could have been used to improve air quality for communities impacted by carcinogenic emissions from oil wells. Would you say the representative’s concerns were warranted?

Dr. Vance: Considering the potential benefits, I don’t. These proposals are not isolated incidents; they are part of a broader movement pushing for greater environmental accountability in states across the U.S. They are not just environmental issues; they are a matter of public health, economic stability, and good governance.

The Broader Implications for Pennsylvania

Archyde: The article highlights concerns about a lack of legislative input in the existing DEP rulemaking process. How should we balance the public’s right to petition with the need for legislative oversight?

Dr. Vance: The DEP’s process already involves legislative touchpoints and consent as members of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) serving as members.The existing framework is designed so that citizens can bring forth ideas and policy changes and create an environment that incorporates diverse perspectives. though, this could be better.The role of elected officials should involve active engagement with citizens. While legislators can and should voice their opinions,it is indeed not a legislator’s role to limit the voices of their constituents. A well-functioning democracy should ensure that all stakeholders, including the government, have a seat at the table.

Looking Ahead

Archyde: The 15th district, which the article notes includes areas facing significant environmental challenges, the Shell petrochemical plant and the most fracked county in Pennsylvania. What are the key takeaways from this situation for citizens and policymakers?

Dr. Vance: The primary takeaway is the critical importance of civic engagement. The events surrounding representative Kail’s comments demonstrate the need for citizens to stay informed, express their views to their elected officials, and actively participate in the political process. For our policymakers, this should encourage them to listen more, understand their constituents’ needs, and promote transparency in policy formulation. The residents of the 15th district should be proud of their ability to rally against a perceived injustice.

Archyde: Do you think this incident marks a turning point in the discussion around environmental accountability and duty in pennsylvania?

Dr.Vance: Such dialogues will always be an vital part of the law-making and democracy and can’t be truly stopped. I believe, however, the concerns raised indicate the potential for meaningful change in Pennsylvania’s environmental policies. Greater transparency, public involvement, and accountability are essential for protecting our state’s environment and the health and well-being of its citizens. The situation shows the potential for a paradigm shift, which includes more critical questions about policy concerns at all levels. The more citizens and politicians who know about the issues, the closer we’ll get to the right answers.

Archyde: Dr. Vance, thank you for your insights.

Dr.Vance: Thank you for having me.

Discussion Question: What role do you believe local communities should play in shaping environmental policies concerning their own communities? Share your thoughts in the comments below.