By Gordon Tomb
Newly proposed regulations on Pennsylvania natural gas purport to protect the environment. However, the restrictions, if passed, would shut down an industry that has moderated electricity rates and reduced the cost of gas, saving consumers billions.
Under consideration in the state House of Representatives and at the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) are new setback requirements that would increase minimum distances between gas wells and both structures and water supplies—some by as much as a mile—without conclusive scientific data to support it.
“Aside from states that have effectively banned drilling, Pennsylvania has the most stringent setback distances of the five top hydrocarbon-producing states,” says Patrick Henderson, vice president of government affairs and communications for the Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC).
House Bill (HB) 1946, which would expand setbacks if enacted, is “nothing but a backdoor ban on new … natural gas development,” said Henderson, testifying at a legislative hearing. “This fact is indisputable.”
Frankly, to argue otherwise defies common sense and displays the unreasonableness of ideological fervor, not the clear-headedness of rational regulation.
An MSC analysis of Pennsylvania’s 17 most productive counties showed that the bill in the Democrat-led House would ban gas wells in 87 to 100 percent of the individual counties. The region stretches from the counties of Washington, Greene, and Allegheny in the southwest to Sullivan, Wyoming, and Susquehanna in the northeast, following the state’s Appalachian Mountains.
A 2020 grand jury report inspired HB 1946. However, a previous Democrat-led administration found the report “so egregious in its recommendations,” says Henderson, “that it did a ‘disservice to the citizens of the Commonwealth’ and that many aspects of the report ‘were factually and legally inaccurate.’”
Not to be outdone, the state Environmental Quality Board of the current Democrat administration—encouraged by environmental activists—has recommended even more-stringent restrictions. Under the proposal, setbacks would increase for schools and hospitals (from 500 feet to 1 mile), other buildings and private wells (from 500 feet to 3,281 feet), public water supplies (from 1,000 feet to 3,281 feet), and wetlands and bodies of water (from 300 feet to 750 feet).
Restrictive as those distances are, some activists remain unsatisfied. “Ten miles might be too close,” says Dr. Ned Ketyer, the president of Physicians for Social Responsibility–Pennsylvania, during a state House hearing.
Ketyer references several studies that purportedly connect a wide range of health issues and “climate change” to Pennsylvania’s well operations. However, under questioning, he acknowledges that none of the research has proven that the wells have directly harmed anyone.
“None of the studies are saying that fracking is causing this,” he says. “These studies are not designed to prove causation. They are to make associations between living near fracking and health impacts that are being seen in the community.”
Gas well development already endures strict regulations. Since 2012, Pennsylvania has heavily regulated setbacks, especially the kind targeted by new legislative proposals. Since then, the industry has generated nearly $3 billion in tax revenue for all 67 Pennsylvania counties, billions in royalty payments to landowners, billions in energy savings, and hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs.
Over the past two years alone, more-efficiently produced natural gas has saved consumers almost $20 billion in energy costs compared to 2008, according to industry analysis of data from the state Public Utility Commission. In addition, lower gas prices have reduced the cost of electricity generation by 16 percent since 2011, although other factors, such as transmission expenses and “green” energy subsidies, have increased overall power prices.
Pennsylvanians have benefited enormously from the rise of the modern gas industry, and suggestions to the contrary are absurd and harmful.
“The mere contemplation (of setback increases) sends a chilling message to Pennsylvania’s business and investment community,” says MSC President Jim Welty. “It further lends credence to those who claim, inaccurately, that Pennsylvania elected officials and regulators have not capably regulated and overseen the industry.”
Legislators and regulators supporting setback increases should reconsider their positions and seek ways to encourage further development of the state’s energy resources.
Originally published in Times Leader on January 24, 2026.
Gordon Tomb is Senior Advisor at the CO2 Coalition and senior fellow with the Commonwealth Foundation, a Pennsylvania free-market think tank.
