Two years into his term, has Gov. Shapiro kept his promises to regulate Pennsylvania’s fracking industry?
A new report assesses the administration’s progress and makes new recommendations
PITTSBURGH — Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro ran on a promise to regulate Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry more stringently. Two years into his term, the Environmental Health Project, a public health advocacy nonprofit focused on fracking, has published a report that assesses the Shapiro administration’s progress.
“Despite some steps in the right direction, we are still missing the boat on actions that can improve our economic, environmental, and health outcomes,” Alison L. Steele, executive director of the Environmental Health Project, said during a press conference.
As attorney general, Shapiro spearheaded a 2020 grand jury report that concluded, in his words, that “when it comes to fracking, Pennsylvania failed” in its “duty to set, and enforce, ground rules that protect public health and safety.”
During his campaign for governor in 2022, Shapiro said that if elected, he would implement the eight recommendations made by that grand jury, which included expanding no-drill zones from 500 to 2,500 feet from homes, requiring fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in wells before they’re drilled, and providing a “comprehensive health response” to the effects of living near fracking sites, among other measures.
Some progress has been made on enacting those recommendations, Steele said, but “there are more opportunities available to Gov. Shapiro over the next two years of his term.”
The report applauds the Shapiro administration’s progress on some environmental health measures “despite increasing challenges at the federal level,” including identifying and plugging 300 abandoned oil and gas wells, promoting renewable energy projects, and proposing alternatives to the state’s stalled participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
But the report also says the Shapiro administration has fallen short on regulating the oil and gas industry to reduce health risks, prioritizing clean energy that doesn’t include fossil fuels, and fully supporting a just transition to renewable energy.
The Shapiro administration has yet to expand no-drill zones in Pennsylvania from the required 500 feet to 2,500 feet, still doesn’t require fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in fracking, and has failed to acknowledge the science on health risks of exposure to shale gas pollution, according to the report. The report also says that, despite positive efforts to advance environmental justice, agencies like the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Department of Environmental Protection are not engaging enough with frontline communities and health care providers in fracking communities, and that the Department of Environmental Protection needs additional funding to enforce existing environmental regulations.
While the Shapiro administration was able to obtain a 14% increase in funding for the Department of Environmental Protection in the 2024-2025 budget, “the bulk of the 2024-2025 funding was earmarked for staff in the permitting division, not the enforcement division, where a real regulatory need exists,” according to the report. Shapiro called for an additional 12% increase in funding for the agency in the 2025-2026 budget, but details about how those funds would be allocated have not yet been released.
The report makes the following recommendations for the Shapiro administration:
- Urge the General Assembly to amend Act 13 and mandate greater distances between homes, schools, hospitals, and fracking sites.
- Press the legislature to require full disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking wells, even if they are considered proprietary or a trade secret.
- Develop a comprehensive health plan for preventing fossil fuel pollution exposure
- Address cumulative emissions when permitting fracking sites.
- Further increase funding for the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health.
- Call on the state’s departments of health and environmental protection to work more closely and transparently with communities.
- Take a precautionary approach to petrochemicals, blue hydrogen, and liquified natural gas.
- Transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable forms of energy.
Steele acknowledged that some of the recommendations, including increasing the distance between wells and homes, would require new legislation. The Republican-controlled state senate vocally opposes any new regulations for the oil and gas industry, limiting what the Shapiro administration can achieve. “In those cases,” Steele said, “he could at least use his authority to vocally encourage legislative action.”
Pennsylvania state Rep. Dr. Arvind Venkat, an emergency physician who represents parts of western Pennsylvania, said these recommendations are timely as federal environmental protections are being rolled back under the Trump administration.
“What we're seeing out of DC is as extreme an attack on environmental regulation and the scientific understanding of the relationship between the environment and health as I've seen in my lifetime,”Venkat said during the press conference. “Both parties are pushing more things down to the state and local level, so as bad as this is…it creates an opportunity for us to be far more responsible than we have been at the state level.”
Editor’s note: The Environmental Health Project and Environmental Health News both receive funding from the Heinz Endowments.
Senator Whitehouse puts climate change on budget committee’s agenda
Trump’s government cuts disrupt NOAA forecasts and data collection
President Trump’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce have triggered firings, operational cuts, and email security problems at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
In short:
- NOAA, which houses the National Weather Service, has seen over 1,000 staff fired or resign, with another 1,000 job cuts expected.
- Weather balloon launches have been reduced in six U.S. locations, limiting critical data used to predict storms and extreme weather.
- A new, unsecured email server created a flood of spam and lewd messages to staff, reflecting growing disorder within the agency.
Key quote:
“These people at Doge think they are the best at what they do but they can’t even protect an email list.”
— NOAA staff member (unnamed), currently on administrative leave
Why this matters:
NOAA operates behind the scenes but forms the backbone of public weather services, offering real-time data to farmers, fishers, pilots, emergency managers, and everyday citizens. Its satellites and ocean buoys, radar systems and climate models all contribute to what amounts to the nation’s early warning system. But as the Trump administration reorients federal priorities and eyes potential budget cuts across science agencies, NOAA’s stability is again in question. Any disruption — whether through funding reductions, staffing shortfalls, or political interference — could have real consequences, not only in terms of storm preparedness but also in the quality of long-term environmental data. Climate researchers warn that even small gaps in recordkeeping today could leave us less prepared for tomorrow’s extremes.
Related: Trump blocks funding for science agencies, risking AI and weather research
Trump EPA’s fraud claims stall in court as green bank funding freeze drags on
Federal court documents reveal the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump has yet to produce evidence of fraud in a $20 billion climate grant program it moved to freeze earlier this year.
Lisa Friedman and Claire Brown report for The New York Times.
In short:
- EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin accused the Biden-era climate grant program of “insane” mismanagement, citing allegations ranging from misallocated funds to political favoritism.
- Despite the rhetoric, court records show no evidence of fraud, and legal filings instead argue that the grants should be canceled because they don’t match Trump administration priorities.
- The funding freeze has left nonprofits scrambling to cover costs and halted or delayed clean energy projects in low-income and rural communities.
Key quote:
“They come in with huge press releases claiming all kinds of things, criminal misconduct, corruption, and then the documents that are filed in court don’t match that rhetoric. It’s completely and utterly irresponsible.”
— Richard Lazarus, environmental law professor at Harvard University
Why this matters:
At the heart of a growing political and legal standoff is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $27 billion initiative created under the Inflation Reduction Act to funnel clean energy financing into historically marginalized communities. The fund is part of a broader strategy to spark grassroots climate resilience — backing projects like rooftop solar for low-income housing or neighborhood-scale geothermal systems. But that momentum has hit a wall. Allegations of fraud, unsubstantiated in court, have been used by some Republican leaders to justify freezing disbursements, a move critics say sidesteps due process and sets a dangerous precedent. For communities long overlooked by both investors and regulators, the pause doesn’t just slow clean energy adoption—it stalls job creation, delays pollution relief, and deepens disparities in public health.
Texas lawmakers move to restrict growth of wind and solar power
Texas and other Republican-led states are advancing legislation that could slow or block new renewable energy projects, as political momentum shifts back toward fossil fuels.
In short:
- Despite Texas leading the nation in wind and solar electricity generation, lawmakers have filed dozens of bills this session to curb new renewable projects and require stricter permitting than for fossil fuels.
- Similar efforts are advancing in Oklahoma, Arizona, Ohio, and Missouri, with proposed restrictions ranging from setbacks to zoning bans and new taxes on landowners who lease to renewables.
- Rural communities remain divided, with some residents opposing wind and solar over aesthetics and land use, while others benefit from tax revenue and lease payments supporting schools and local infrastructure.
Key quote:
"When we look out across the road, we see rolling green pastures and trees. Now we’re facing the possibility of that view and so much more being replaced by a sprawling solar farm."
— Laurie Dihle, who lives on 154 acres in Franklin County with her husband
Why this matters:
Once defined by oil derricks and gas flares, Texas now produces more electricity from wind and solar than any other in the country — an economic pivot that’s redrawing rural skylines and intensifying political divides. In communities long reliant on fossil fuels, some residents see wind turbines and solar farms as threats to local identity and land use traditions, prompting state lawmakers to consider restrictions on clean energy development. The clash has revealed deeper tensions over who benefits from, and who bears the burdens of, the energy transition. At the same time, extreme weather events — exacerbated by climate change — are testing the reliability of Texas’ aging grid. Federal incentives have accelerated renewable investment, but local resistance could complicate how, and where, the clean energy future unfolds.
Read more: Texas leads U.S. in solar and battery storage growth
Greenpeace verdict over pipeline protest defamation could spell problems for environmental activism and speech
A North Dakota jury found Greenpeace defamed pipeline builder Energy Transfer during protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, awarding $250 million in defamation damages. What does it mean for environmental activism and free speech?
In short:
- The jury found Greenpeace made nine defamatory statements about Energy Transfer during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, including claims about desecration of sacred sites and violence against demonstrators.
- Legal experts warn the verdict could set a precedent that chills protest speech by nonprofits across the political spectrum, depending on how appeals courts handle First Amendment questions.
- Greenpeace plans to appeal in North Dakota’s Supreme Court, while also pursuing a separate countersuit in the Netherlands under European anti-SLAPP laws.
Key quote:
“This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations. We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment.”
— Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace USA
Why this matters:
The court ruling against Greenpeace has sent a chill through advocacy communities nationwide, raising new questions about the limits of protest and public criticism in the United States. At the heart of the case is a judgment against the environmental group for its role in opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline, a verdict many see as a potent example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suit. These lawsuits, often brought by corporations, are less about winning on the merits and more about exhausting critics through prolonged legal battles. While 32 states have passed anti-SLAPP laws to protect individuals and organizations from such tactics, North Dakota has not — an omission now under scrutiny.
For groups focused on environmental justice, Indigenous sovereignty, and climate action, the ruling could mark a turning point — where the legal right to speak out faces growing pressure from financial and political power.
Read more: Court ruling against Greenpeace sends warning to protest groups nationwide
Petrochemical industry struggles with overcapacity, rising costs, and shaky green investments
Executives at a Houston conference warned that global overbuilding, slow economic growth, and policy uncertainty are shaking the foundation of the petrochemical industry as it faces pressure to go greener.
In short:
- Petrochemical makers are reeling from a supply glut triggered by over-investment and weak post-COVID demand, especially in Europe, where plant closures loom.
- Wall Street has pulled back from green plastic startups after early enthusiasm faded, leaving companies scrambling to prove profitability without subsidies.
- U.S. producers fear a future of tighter ethane supplies and mounting trade tensions under the Trump administration, which could raise raw material and export costs.
Key quote:
“If you can’t see a path to a clear, self-sustaining economic model over — let’s say over 5–10 years, maybe not 0–5 — then likely it is not something you should be doing.”
— Bob Patel, director of Air Products & Chemicals
Why this matters:
For years, cheap U.S. shale gas fed a rapid buildout of facilities producing plastics, fertilizers, and synthetic materials. But that growth strategy is now under strain. Demand is wobbling under pressure from global economic uncertainty, while production costs are climbing. At the same time, ambitious climate targets are forcing policymakers and corporations to take a harder look at the emissions-intensive nature of petrochemical production. As political rhetoric around sustainability heats up, the industry's ability to evolve without sacrificing profitability is becoming a test case for how legacy sectors adapt — or fail to adapt — to a decarbonizing world.
Related EHN coverage:
Plastic ban in Bangladesh struggles as eco-friendly bags face high costs
Government raids in Dhaka reveal the ongoing failure of Bangladesh’s plastic bag ban, as consumers and businesses continue to rely on cheap, single-use polythene bags.
In short:
- Bangladesh banned plastic bags in 2002 but weak enforcement has allowed widespread use to persist, especially in Dhaka, where each resident discards about 24 kg of plastic waste per year.
- Biodegradable alternatives made from cassava, jute, and potatoes exist, but their higher prices and limited availability hinder consumer adoption and market penetration.
- Government investment in jute-based “Sonali” bags and new retail partnerships for cassava-based bags aim to revive alternatives, but producers face unfair competition from untaxed illegal plastic manufacturers.
Key quote:
“Our main challenge is the price competition against polybag, where we are paying 51% of taxes including import, sales and value added tax [VAT]. Meanwhile, the banned polybag producers — as they are mostly illegal — pay nothing, absolute 0%.”
— Mohammad Raihan, founder and CEO of Ecospear Ltd
Why this matters:
Plastic pollution in Bangladesh has quietly become a full-scale crisis, choking waterways, overwhelming waste systems, and seeping into everyday life. Although Bangladesh was once hailed for its pioneering 2002 ban on plastic bags — a global first — implementation has faltered. Cheap, single-use plastics are back with a vengeance, their popularity driven by convenience, affordability, and limited access to alternatives. Public health experts warn of increasing risks linked to toxic runoff, especially in urban slums where exposure is hardest to avoid. As the environmental load grows heavier with each passing year, so too does the toll on human health, ecosystems, and the country’s ability to adapt to the escalating impacts of climate change.
Related: Bangladesh begins enforcing ban on single-use plastics
An open letter from EPA staff to the American public
“We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to hold this administration accountable.”
New evidence links heavy metal pollution with wildfire retardants
“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.
Op-ed: Why funding for the environmental justice movement must be anti-racist
We must prioritize minority-serving institutions, BIPOC-led organizations and researchers to lead environmental justice efforts.
Biden finalizes long-awaited hydrogen tax credits ahead of Trump presidency
Responses to the new rules have been mixed, and environmental advocates worry that Trump could undermine them.
Op-ed: Toxic prisons teach us that environmental justice needs abolition
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
LISTEN: Reflections on the first five years of the Agents of Change program
The leadership team talks about what they’ve learned — and what lies ahead.