Pennsylvania lawmakers go after local drilling restrictions
Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering a bill that would withhold some funding from local governments that restrict where the oil industry can build fracking pads.
The bill, S.B. 102, would prohibit counties and municipalities from receiving impact fees from fracking operations if they pass local rules that 'unreasonably' restrict oil and gas activity. It was written in reaction to a growing number of local 'setback' ordinances in western Pennsylvania that increase the distance between oil development and nearby homes and bodies of water.
Industry groups and the bill's supporters say it would ensure impact fees go to municipalities that are most affected by drilling and continue to host more oil and gas production. But local government leaders — along with environmental groups — say the bill would hurt local budgets and could have a chilling affect on their ability to pass zoning ordinances.
Advertisement
'The state set the standards for us in the municipal planning code, and they set us up to be the ones to have to administer zoning,' said Thomas Casciola, chair of the Board of Supervisors for the Cecil Township in western Pennsylvania. 'And yet now they're upset because we're doing it.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Looking Back at Gavin Newsom's Career—and National Ambitions
California Gov. Gavin Newsom attends a press conference about President Donald Trump's tariffs, at an almond farm in Ceres, Calif., on April 16, 2025. Credit - Noah Berger—AP President Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom's clash over the deployment of federal troops in Los Angeles has escalated a longstanding feud between the two to new heights—and may be setting the stage for a bigger political battle come 2028. The recent standoff has brightened the spotlight on Newsom, who was already considered a leading contender for the Democratic nomination in the next presidential election after building up his national profile with major policy moves and confrontations with Republicans. Since becoming Governor in 2019, Newsom has embraced his role as the top official of the most populous U.S. state, which often leads the country in implementing progressive policies. The 57-year-old has been assertive in his opposition to the Trump Administration, most recently challenging federal 'border czar' Tom Homan to arrest him after Homan indicated he would detain anybody who interferes with federal immigration actions. 'Democracy is under assault before our eyes,' Newsom said in an emphatic public address Tuesday evening. 'This moment we have feared has arrived.' Here's what to know about the Governor's political career so far and what it could signal about a potential future campaign for the White House. Newsom garnered national attention shortly after becoming San Francisco's mayor—the city's youngest in more than a century—when he gave the green light to issue municipal marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Feb. 12, 2004, more than a decade before same-sex marriage was legalized across the country. Newsom had been mayor for just one month at the time, after previously serving on the city's Parking and Traffic Commission and Board of Supervisors. He first entered government in 1996 after beginning his career as a well-connected businessman. His order at City Hall defied both the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act—a federal law that defined marriage as between a woman and a man—and a state law approved by voters in 2000 that did the same thing. Newsom's attempt to bring marriage equality to San Francisco came after Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage after its Supreme Judicial Court's November 2003 decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. The move drew controversy, however, including from Democratic Party leadership, as well as legal challenges, as public support at the time was still divided. After more than 4,000 same-sex couples were married, the California Supreme Court ruled the licenses void. The legal battle over marriage equality in the state was not resolved until the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Near the end of his second term as mayor, in April 2009, Newsom announced on Twitter that he planned to run for Governor. But he pulled out of the race just six months later as it became clear former Gov. Jerry Brown was the clear frontrunner. In March 2010, Newsom announced that he would instead seek the office of lieutenant governor, and he beat his Republican challenger by more than 10% of the vote in the November election. The California politician continued to prove his boundary-pushing progressive bona fides in his support of Proposition 64, a state ballot measure to legalize recreational marijuana that passed in 2016. When the first-term Trump Administration later threatened to potentially crack down on such laws, Newsom issued a letter urging the federal government to work with states like his. 'We can't continue to keep doing what we've done and expect a different result,' he wrote to the President. 'The government must not strip the legal and publicly supported industry of its business, and hand it back to drug cartels and criminals.' In addition to marijuana legalization, Newsom staked out progressive positions on issues including capital punishment, supporting an unsuccessful proposition to ban it, and gun control, supporting a successful proposition to require background checks for purchasers of ammunition and to prohibit possession of high-capacity magazines. But throughout and even before Newsom's first tenure in Sacramento, he made clear his frustration with the limits of the lieutenant governorship. And as early as 2015, just after his reelection in the role, he announced his intention to run for the state's top job in 2018, to succeed Brown who was in his final term. 'I've never been a fan of pretense or procrastination. After all, our state is defined by its independent, outspoken spirit. When Californians see something we truly believe in, we say so and act accordingly—without evasiveness or equivocation,' he posted on Facebook. 'I make this promise—this won't be an ordinary campaign—but, then again, California has always been an extraordinary place.' Newsom was elected in a landslide and took office in January 2019. In his first year as Governor, he signed a flurry of laws, from requiring public colleges to offer abortion medication to banning smoking on state parks and beaches. He also increasingly put the Golden State on a collision course with Trump, who was well into his first term as President. Newsom called Trump's plans to build a border wall as part of a national emergency a 'national disgrace,' accusing the President of 'manufacturing a crisis' at the border. And he lashed out at the Administration for trying to reverse the state's strict auto emissions standards. Tensions escalated in 2019 following the Administration's attempt to alter existing pumping regulations to increase the supply and delivery of water to Central Valley farmers, which Newsom criticized on environmental grounds. In 2020, Newsom tackled a record-setting wildfire season that saw nearly 9,000 fires burn that year, according to Cal Fire. A state of emergency request for disaster relief aid was initially rejected by the Trump Administration because it 'was not supported by the relevant data that States must provide for approval,' White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere wrote in an October 2020 statement, but it was approved hours after the rejection following a phone call between Trump and Newsom. Despite their historic hostility, Trump and Newsom praised each other at times in relation to cooperation on the fires and the Covid-19 pandemic—during the latter, in March 2020, Trump called Newsom 'terrific' and said 'We're getting along really well.' But the friendship wouldn't last long. A special recall election put Newsom's position at risk in 2021 as voters expressed ire over his policies on immigration, homelessness, and the death penalty. Newsom eventually survived that election with 62% of the vote, though Republicans, including Trump, called the results 'rigged.' Newsom was reelected by a 59% margin in November 2022. But despite his popularity in the heavily Democratic state, Newsom's governorship has continued to hit snags. The state's crime rate rose in 2023 compared to nationwide figures, though it went down last year; homelessness in the state reached a record-high in 2024; and in 2025, by one measure, California was ranked the most expensive state to live in. Further recall efforts have been initiated, including a campaign launched earlier this year by the organization Saving California, whose leader Randy Economy was the spokesperson and organizer of the failed 'People's Recall' campaign in 2021. The new effort has until Sept. 4 to collect more than 1.3 million signatures to trigger a special election. Newsom silenced talk of a presidential run in 2024 and instead threw his support behind President Joe Biden's reelection and later the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris. Still, Newsom didn't shy from the national spotlight. In November 2023, he debated Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Fox News, an event that felt to many like a preview of 2028. 'I'm not there running for reelection as Governor. I'm not running for President, either,' said Newsom shortly before the debate. 'I'm going to defend Biden, for better or worse, rich or poor, 'til death do me part.' In February 2024, the California Governor ran a television ad in Tennessee in a fight against abortion travel bans. 'Don't let them hold Tennessee women hostage,' the voiceover in the advertisement says, referring to 'Trump Republicans.' The campaign highlighted Democrats' key promise that they would defend abortion rights. Following Biden's troubling debate performance against Trump in June 2024, as calls for the then-President to drop out of the race mounted, Newsom was floated as a potential replacement candidate, but he again shot down any entertainment of the idea and publicly stood by Biden before ultimately endorsing fellow Californian Harris after Biden withdrew himself. Despite his decision not to run for president in 2024, Newsom is widely believed to be setting the stage for a potential 2028 campaign. The Governor, who is term-limited and set to leave office in January 2027, has taken steps, observers have noticed, to try to appeal to a broader base while also seeking to raise his profile as a foil to the current President. In February, he launched a podcast, 'This is Gavin Newsom,' on which he has hosted high-profile figures in the MAGA world, including former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and right-wing activist and media personality Charlie Kirk. On policy, he has diverged from other Democrats by pushing for the clearing of homeless encampments and proposing limits on healthcare benefits for undocumented immigrants. He also broke with his history of progressive stances on LGBTQ+ issues when he announced that he thought the presence of transgender athletes in women's sports was 'deeply unfair.' At the same time, building on his past battles with the Trump Administration, Newsom has positioned himself as a leading opponent of the Republican President. Following Trump's reelection, Newsom convened a special session of the California legislature with the stated goal of safeguarding the state against potential 'federal overreach' from the incoming Administration. He and Trump locked horns again not long after the President returned to office when Trump blamed California's water management practices for deadly wildfires in Los Angeles. And their contentious relationship has broken out into even more open conflict in the past week as Trump has deployed National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests over immigration raids despite Newsom's opposition to the federal intervention. Newsom has condemned the President as 'dictatorial' and filed a lawsuit against the Administration over the military mobilization. In his address Tuesday, Newsom warned the nation that the situation in Southern California is 'about all of us.' 'This isn't just about protests here in Los Angeles. When Donald Trump sought blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard, he made that order apply to every state,' he said. 'California may be first, but it clearly will not end here,' Newsom added. 'Other states are next. Democracy is next.' Contact us at letters@
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
London Breed's former chief of staff to lead urban think tank SPUR
Sean Elsbernd, a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who most recently served as chief of staff to former Mayor London Breed, has been tapped to become chief executive officer of the urban think tank SPUR. Elsbernd will replace Alicia John-Baptiste, who left the position in February to become chief of infrastructure, climate and mobility for Mayor Daniel Lurie. A city hall insider who has served as both an elected politician and low-key, behind-the-scenes power broker, Elsbernd led city and county operations for Breed and oversaw the city's regional partnerships and state legislative work. He previously served as state director for the late U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. 'Sean is a thoughtful and values-driven leader with deep knowledge of how Bay Area government works and how to build strong public partnerships that move policy forward,' said Lydia Tan, Chair of SPUR's Board of Directors. 'He understands SPUR's mission and brings the experience and vision we need to lead the organization into its next chapter.' SPUR, which has offices in San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco, bills itself as a 'good government' think tank that publishes policy reports laying out the case for how to improve public transit, preserve the environment, build more housing and make government more efficient and effective. Recent policy reports include: '10 ideas for equitable transportation in Oakland'; how the Bay Area could grow its population without increasing water demand; and how to reform the region's sales taxes. While SPUR doesn't endorse individual candidates its ideas are often in sync with the moderate faction of the city's political spectrum while its board of directors and membership is dominated by real estate developers, architects, nonprofit leaders and affordable housing leaders. Recently, Mayor Daniel Lurie implemented SPUR's recommendation to reorganize the Mayor's Office and create new roles to improve collaboration and accountability. SPUR also played a central role in advocating for $5.1 billion in state funding that included $400 million for Bay Area transit operations. Elsbernd has held several transit leadership roles, including serving as Chair of the Caltrain Board of Directors and as a Director of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. He led San Francisco's COVID response, providing oversight of the Department of Public Health and Department of Emergency Management. 'Having worked with Sean for years in various roles, I know he is the right person to help SPUR boost our local economies, advance new ideas and reforms and improve the lives of our residents,' said Caltrain Executive Director Michelle Bouchard. Elsbernd officially assumes the role later this month and has already begun working closely with staff, the board of directors and regional leaders to carry the organization's mission forward, according to SPUR. The organization, which holds regular talks and panels at its Urban Center at 654 Mission St., had $5.9 million in expenses in the last fiscal year. It generated $4.6 million in revenues – a combination of membership fees, grants and special events. The nonprofit took in another in another $1.3 million in donations, according to the group's annual report. 'I'm honored to be joining SPUR,' Elsbernd said. 'Throughout my public service career, I've admired SPUR's work from both inside local government and as a resident of this region. The chance to lead an organization that's driving practical, forward-looking solutions is a privilege.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Senate panel takes testimony on renewed policies seeking accountability from Michigan polluters
Sen Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor) testifies on a slate of bills aimed at improving polluter accountability during a June 11, 2025 meeting of the Senate Energy and Environment Committee. | Kyle Davidson Lawmakers from the state House and Senate called for an update to Michigan's laws on environmental contamination on Wednesday, arguing the current system does not offer enough protections for individuals impacted by pollution. Testifying before the Senate Energy and Environment Committee, Sens. Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor), Sue Shink (D-Northfield Township), and Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit), as well as Rep. Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor), underscored how the state's current regulations have impacted Michigan residents, arguing that they focus too heavily on limiting exposure rather than cleaning up pollution, leaving Michiganders to bear the costs. Last week, members of the House and Senate announced they would be reintroducing 'polluter pay' legislation in each chamber, with House Democrats introducing H.B. 4636–4640 and Senate Democrats introducing S.B. 385–387 and S.B. 391–393. 'Some people are calling for a restoration of a model that requires strict liability and full residential cleanups on every site. In fact, I proposed legislation like that in the past. But that's not what is being proposed today,' Irwin said. 'What is being proposed today is a modest change that preserves the current risk-based system, but that makes modest changes to improve protections for our water, improve protections for our land and improve protections for our health.' As a whole, the package aims to implement stricter pollution reporting and cleanup requirements, extend the statute of limitations for citizens bringing claims against polluters and allow residents impacted by pollution to sue companies for the cost of medical monitoring, Irwin explained. With more than 25,000 polluted sites across the state and 4,603 sites with land or resource controls, Irwin questioned how many aquifers the state is willing to give up to pollution. He also warned the panel that industry lobbyists would testify against these additional measures, arguing they would harm investment in Michigan business. 'Not only do I think that's not true, but we developed these bills in consultation with industry stakeholders,' Irwin said, noting that the sponsors had held workgroup meetings on the policies introduced during the previous Legislative session. The end result was more modest, but would still provide real benefits to the public, Irwin said. Andrea Pierce, policy director for the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition and founder of the Anishinaabek Caucus said these laws are the beginning step in addressing environmental contamination in Michigan, not the end. Should these bills become law, Michigan would return to the pollution accountability standard it had before the state's polluter pay law was restructured in 1995, Pierce said. 'We need to go back to stronger laws that protect the people and communities of Michigan. Michigan needs a comprehensive legal framework for strengthening accountability and real recourse from those who pollute in our communities,' Pierce said, emphasizing that Michigan's most marginalized communities were also the ones most affected by pollution. Mike Witkowksi, director of environmental and regulatory policy for the Michigan Manufacturers Association argued shifting the system to require more from businesses would hinder the state's brownfield redevelopment efforts. 'These are not technical fixes or minor clarifications. These are fundamental changes that would undermine one of Michigan's most effective tools for addressing environmental contamination and supporting economic growth,' Witkowksi said, criticizing the additional requirements and arguing the package would increase clean up costs and liabilities for businesses. During his testimony earlier in the hearing, Irwin predicted industry stakeholders would argue that the legislation would hamper redevelopment by requiring polluted sites to be restored to pristine condition. 'That's not what this bill does,' Irwin said, arguing that pollution already hampers redevelopment efforts. With the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy lacking both the funding and the personnel to address the thousands of contaminated sites throughout the state, Witkowski said private-sector investors and developers are essential to cleaning up contamination throughout the state. Should these bills take effect, those sites would sit idle and remain polluted, he argued. Shink countered, noting that she'd served on Washtenaw County's brownfield redevelopment board during her time as a county commissioner. 'I can assure you that it isn't just private funds that's cleaning up these brownfield sites. There's a lot of public funds. That means the taxpayers, after the company has made its profit and maybe taken that profit out of state, the community is paying to clean that up,' Shink said, noting that the state is paying to clean up the former Federal Screw Works site in Washtenaw County. Alongside testimony from several environmental advocacy groups, the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy also offered its support for the package with Aaron Keatley, the department's chief deputy director, noting that the bills aligned with their priorities for environmental legislation. Those priorities include transparency, ensuring predictable processes, securing assurances that companies will manage any releases of contaminants until the contamination is cleaned up, ensuring sites are redeveloped and streamlining the department's cleanup criteria so that the standards match the science, Keatley said. 'It is unfortunate that I look at you and I say I cannot tell you how many sites right now are managed by responsible parties, because they're not obligated to inform me of their day to day activities to keep that property safe,' Keatley said. The committee did not take votes on the legislation. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
