DN Editorial: A pain in the gas

WE HAVE a booming gas industry in Pennsylvania all right, but based on a good portion of the new Marcellus Shale Commission report released last week, it's worth wondering if the major output of all this drilling is helium administered to our elected officials. They've been acting positively dizzy over the prospects for gas drilling. And we're not just talking about the Corbett administration, but also the Rendell administration, which helped usher in the Marcellus Shale gas rush in 2008.

Despite the heavy representation of the gas industry on the commission, Corbett should get some credit for commissioning a report on an industry that has exploded in the past three years. And while the report reflects the industry's bias, and is notable more for what it lacks than what it provides, the report is at least a starting point for coming to grips with the huge impacts that drillers have had on the state. As some in Harrisburg have debated a severance tax (favored by Rendell, but not by Corbett) vs. a local impact fee, no one but those living in the 32 counties where drilling permits have been issued have had a sense of what, besides gas, the industry is taking from us. The report attempts to start inventorying these impacts largely through anecdotes, which are nonetheless eye-opening.

For example, workers staying in motels long-term means the Endless Mountains region lost $142,000 in tax revenue because the law waives the hotel tax for those staying in a motel more than 30 days. Wyalusing Township had to increase road workers' wages by 20 percent to stay competitive, and homeless rates are rising due to housing shortages.

It's in the 17-page list of 96 recommendations where a fuller picture of the industry's impact emerges: Recommendations for further work to ensure the safety and regulation of the industry, like assessments, monitoring, reporting and regulatory changes would fall primarily on the shoulders not only of local municipalities, but on the state departments of Transportation, Environmental Protection, Conservation of Natural Resources, Health and others . . . many of which have just seen their budgets cut. So where does the money come from to follow through on the commission's recommendations?

That question underscores the limits of an impact fee that's limited to localities and provides the strongest argument yet for the value of a severance tax. That could help fund the state agencies that will be doing most of the additional work.

And with no clear figures on the number of jobs the industry has generated - the claims range from 19,000, to a high of 72,000 (from a "new hires" account by the Department of Labor) - we can't help wondering: Why are we turning ourselves inside out to make sure the industry grows before we've had a clear-eyed, unbiased study that better measures rewards against impact?

.