PA House Environmental and Natural Resource Protection — 2026-03-23

Thank you. Thank you.

Rivera, will you lead us in the pledge?

Evan, can you take the roll?

We have designations for those two. Okay, so we have designations for Kazim and Otten.

Okay, we have a quorum. Can somebody get that door? Andrew, could you get that door? Before we begin, does the Republican Chair Rader have any opening comments? Okay. So we have four items on our agenda today. And the first item, the chair calls up House Bill 2229 by Rep. Mako. The question is, will the committee report this bill? Evan, could you read a description and a summary of this?

Okay. Discussion.

Anyway, but – go ahead.

Okay. On this, are there any negative votes? Hearing none, the committee will report this bill. The next item, the chair calls up House Bill 2246 by Representative Webster. Will Evan read a brief summary or description of this bill?

Okay. Discussion. Rep Webster.

Thank you. Further discussion? Chair Rader?

Thank you, Chairman. I would like to speak in support of this bill. as a representative who has two data centers going into my district. One of the major concerns with my constituency was how much water will be used to cool the machinery. And what we've learned is that in Lancaster, we're going to have closed-loop systems installed in our data centers, which a report that would show exactly how much water is using would actually favor the data centers and make it really transparent for our residents as to how much water is being used. Apparently, it's going to be using a lot less water than the previous warehouse occupant was, and so having that information available to the public is a good thing, and through this bill that Rep. Webster is putting forth, I fully support it. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman. I would just highlight the one section of this bill, Section H. And Section I, I've seen this play out in other areas. I am very hesitant and against giving the Environmental Quality Board any power to set a fee or bond requirement and so forth. That is not good legislating. We can have – we can set those fees here if they determine they need to be a fee. We can bring in experts and do so. So this is a delegation to unelected people on that board. There about 20 of them and most of them are unelected officials the chairmen on the board but they all pointed individuals and there about only a couple of them on there that have any industry experience at all It's a bunch of secretaries and so forth on this board. I just am opposed to giving unelected bureaucrats the power to legislate, essentially, and for them to – at their discretion to set a fee is bad legislative practice. That has not been good in various forms. It doesn't matter if it will be coming with data centers or coal mining or oil and gas wells. It doesn't matter. They are unelected, unaccountable. You cannot get them to – we should be doing that. We got elected. The Constitution says we are the legislative branch. We should act like it and be legislators if we're going to create these laws. So I'm opposed just on that provision alone. Do not give the EQB any more power than they have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So DEP has the authority to measure water quality, and SRBC is more along the lines of dealing with quantity. It appears like maybe this gives DEP some authority to also get into quantity and not just quality like their duty really is.

Vitale?

Brown?

Fleming? Owen Stein?

Isaacson?

Aye.

Kazim.

Otten.

Pielli.

Rivera.

Salisbury. Schlossberg.

Steele.

Taycac.

Webster.

Rader.

House Bill 2161 requires public utilities to replace trees on public rights of way if requested by a municipality.

Thank you, Chairman. Yes, before I was privileged to be a state representative, I served five years on borough council, and I took it for granted that when utilities did work in the borough, they were required to restore a surface to either same or better conditions prior to doing the work. So, for example, if they dig up the street for the water company, gas company to do work, they can't just leave a large pit. They have to repair the pavement. So I perhaps foolishly took it for granted that if a tree was removed, they would have to do a similar type of process. The district that I represent, Allegheny County, had a very severe weather incident last year. And in the wake of that, we experienced a large amount of vegetation management. Now, I don't begrudge the utilities that they on occasion do have to remove mature trees because they interfere with the power lines or other reasons. But it does change the nature of a community if you deforest it and do not return it to a similar or better condition in the same analogous ways with the paving example. So really I brought this bill forward just to kind of harmonize that requirement that utilities have to restore a tree in the same way that they might have to do paving or fix a sidewalk. Same type of idea. Thank you.

I know in my district and I think throughout the state there's no greater cost right now that constituents are worried about than their electric bills. and I have a concern that this would raise the cost to consumers. I like trees. I'm for trees. But I think if we try and replace every tree that an electric company impacts, I think that would get quite costly. So for that reason, I think I had another reason. Oh, yeah, I was concerned about maintenance also because if the utility is concerned about costs and they may need some maintenance someplace, they may forego that because if they go in and maintain a line, and then maybe they're going to have to replace some trees that they've taken down also. So I also have a concern about possible maintenance issues down the line. So for those reasons, I'm against the bill. Thank you.

If I could just briefly respond. I'm sorry. Hi. If I could just briefly respond.

In terms of replacing a tree, there are certain species of trees that the utilities do prefer. So I think it might actually be a cost savings in a way, if you think about it long term, because if a utility is allowed to work with the municipality to replace a tree in a way that is sensible. So planting a shorter tree, a red bud is often recommended, for example, rather than the homeowner maybe going out and just planting whatever tree occurs to them or shade tree committee planning whatever tree occurs to them. It might actually make things easier and cheaper in the long term for a utility. So I just wanted to put that in there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is absolutely outstanding legislation or idea behind the legislation. I'm concerned for how it would be implemented because most of the time a utility comes in and actually trims a tree, leaves it in place, and then makes it not look like a tree anymore. They cut it apart and leave the base in there to where it's not even able to perform what we like about the tree, the aesthetics, the healthiness of our communities and everything like that. And I'm concerned that by whenever they remove it, they'd have to restore it, that they may even increase that practice. So I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to talk to you ahead of time, and I apologize, but I'll probably be a no because of the unintended consequences. But I certainly understand, and I think it's very important for municipalities to have the authority and the right to have, you know, we have, like you said, you saw cut the road. I always call the municipalities of these roads that they don't maintain when a utility or even their own utility, a water or sewer company owned by the municipality, tears up the road and leaves and doesn't charge degradation fees or appropriate degradation fees. So I don't know how to say, I hate to be against this, but I just think the unintended consequences might serve the opposite purpose. So thank you for doing this, but I'll be a note.

Vitale.

Brown.

Fleming.

Isaacson Kazim

Otten

Yelly

Rivera

Schlossberg

Steele

Paycock

Webster

Bashline

Flick

Hephart

A02653 is a gut and replace omnibus amendment to provide funding, remove non-public schools, and update reporting requirements.

So, yeah, this is a gut and replace omnibus amendment to provide funding, remove non-public schools, and update reporting requirements. HB 289 establishes requirements for radon testing and mitigation in schools.

Sure. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Raider, for considering 289. This is a bill that I've been introducing over the last number of sessions. Last session, Rep. Ortitai and I joined forces and kind of worked up a new version, and this amendment is a reflection of some of that. I know there's some additional thoughts. I know Rep. Mahaffey and I are going to have a conversation after the meeting about some ideas he had. But our kids spend so much time in school, and radon is the number two causing effect of lung cancer other than smoking. So it was something that we had talked about with a number of advocates out in the Allegheny County area, healthy schools, folks. And it was a common sense idea to try to uncover if the schools do have radon and what would be the responsible mitigation efforts. The funding source is being added in this amendment to try to deal with the unfunded mandate side of things. But every five years there would be a test. But if it triggered the EPA level of microliter for microliter or something, then there would be a mitigation effort and put in estimates or in the tens of millions of dollars. It's a pretty reasonable cost to incur to make sure our children are safe in schools. Thank you.

I do respect what you're all trying to do here. I understand it. I think local control is the most important thing. I like it when, even if they make a mistake, my school districts have the control to do what they think is right for the people in my area. I'd rather Harrisburg stay out of that. But also for me, property tax is the biggest issue that we have in my district. And the one thing that school boards always tell me, we hate mandates no matter what kind they are. So, and I kind of agree with that. I think they're mandated on almost everything, and they don't like it. And this could increase costs, which for me would increase property taxes. I mean, they're allowed to do this already. it's not like we're stopping them from testing for radon. And if the people in the community think it's important to do, they can go to the school boards and request that So I think it can be done now I concerned about what the cost might be and if a school board has done this already but didn do it according to how the bill is they would have to redo it, which would add to their cost. Another issue I think I have with the bill is now with the money aspect, I think appropriations is really where if we're spending money, that's where they decide on how and when we should spend it. So I don't even know if that would be all right in this bill as it's stated right now. So for those reasons, even though I like the idea, I think local school boards can do that right now and it can be done. And that's so I'll be in the bill. But thank you for trying.

Thank you, Representative.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the maker of the bill, Representative Briggs, Representative Ortiz, this is a good bill, and I'm going to tell you why. This is a serious problem in certain areas of the state. There's no doubt about it. I mean, if you test and you don't have it, you move on and you're done. But if you test and you do have it, it is, like Tim said, it is the second largest cause of lung cancer. It mostly is in basements. My wife is a real estate agent, so they go through this all the time. The mitigated, it's not that big of a deal. For larger buildings, it's going to be a little bit more intense than just a household, but it's still something we should do. The concern I have here is, and I'm going to ask this question to the maker of the amendment, it says in here that the removal of non-public schools. So I'm assuming you're removing any other school that's not publicly funded, correct?

Tim's probably the expert, but the $27 million that's being used to fund this is coming out of something called the School Environmental Repair Program, a restricted account.

I think that's – is that – did I get it?

Okay.

Because my concern is, you know, non-public schools and public school children should all have this opportunity as far as the schools to make sure that they're not exposed to radon. And that is, you know, that's where we're going with this, and I think we should stick with this. I understand the funding purposes. I understand why you did it now. And thank you for the explanation. But I really believe that this, if we're going to do this, this should be for all children, not just some children. The other part of this, and I'm going to explain this, is I had a good friend of mine who worked at Three Mile Island. And he built a new home and he was remodeling his basement. and he couldn't get into work because he was covered in radiation because of the radon in his basement, which immediately made him put in a mitigation system. This is serious. This is something that should be addressed, and I commend the makers of the bill for that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, thank you, and I'm glad I allowed Representative Mahaffey to speak before me because I was going to commend this amendment, which was worked on to address some of the issues that I had with the underlying bill and that specifically the public funding mechanism of this came from the public funds that we created for facilities and for remediation in the past few years, and that is designated for public schools. So, if we want to mandate that private schools do it, that's one thing, but the public funds that are going to that account is for remediation of public schools. And so, I appreciate very much the amendment and to the maker for bringing this bill forward so that we can protect our children from something that potentially causes cancer. and it's in their schools. Or they should know whether it's in their schools is really the goal of this so that we can know and make sure that children are safe going into their facilities. And since we have provided public funding for remediation of facilities in the past few years, that's why I think we all worked hard to make this amendment, to make this a really good bill. And I very much look forward to supporting this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I think it's very important to make sure every student is safe, and that's, I guess, a little disappointing that we don't do this already in schools. But the unintended consequence always rears its ugly head, so if I send my student to a cyber school, a public cyber school, will they have to come and test my basement to make sure that my child who's attending a public school in the cyber is safe from radon. It could be very costly. I tend to doubt that.

Is it, you know, I want to raise just a quick question of constitutionality. has that been looked at as far as separating the schools and requiring that? Has this passed constitutional muster as far as the maker or the executive directors are aware?

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That wasn't me. That was somebody else. I don't know who.

Thank you. Rep Pugh.

Tim?

Yes.

Oh, yeah, I think it's under K2. So to the extent possible, the department shall prioritize reimbursements for economically disadvantaged school entities.

Rep. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yeah, again, my knowledge is limited, and Mary might know better, but there's the School Environmental Repairs Program Restricted Account, which has money, and for certain designated purposes of which this would qualify. And that is where – so it's existing money, as I understand it. Mary, help me out here. Is this a an annual commitment we making here representative Briggs So right right now we fought hard for lead and asbestos abatement in a number of schools Radon wasn included in what we funded So that money was allocated. I don't think it's a recurring allocation. I'm looking at Rep. Isaacson.

Rep. Isaacson can answer it, and then I can answer your second question.

The gist of it, because we had a lengthy discussion, that's why we're all going round and robbing on this bill for this amendment last week. When we came up with the new funding formulas for schools, we also carved out and created a facilities fund for the remediation and, you know, basically not school construction, but dealing with the issues many of the schools face with regard to their facilities. So there's a separate funding pot that is separate from our funding formula that school districts are able to tap into. In this bill, as drafted, we're attempting to tap into a portion of that. Whether this goes through and how that gets divvied up, that's for us to allocate every year in a budget. So saying that it's reoccurring revenue relies on us funding our budget each year and how much we're going to do it. So this is a proposal towards what we're doing as we're drafting this budget, and we'll see how that plays out. But as part of funding, we all heard a lot in the last few years and actually decades from our school districts and everything else about lead, asbestos, and crumbling facilities and infrastructure, which is why as a member of the Basic Ed Funding Commission, it didn't matter whether it was in a rural area or an urban area or suburban area. everybody had facility issues, which is why we did this when we came out of the commission and started funding this. So certainly as we go forward in this budget process, should Radon be specified, it's something that we're going to have to address and fund. But for the purposes of this legislation and understanding where we would try and negotiate money to fund these remediations and assist the school districts with this, That is where Chairman Briggs has identified it. Certainly, as I said, as we go through this process in the budget, knowing that this is going forward, that's where we're talking about. I hope I explained that.

And I think, I mean, the intent isn't to raid other, you know, they all should be addressed. And if we tap into this, we raise awareness that raid on is something we should also be addressing. And it's the first round of tests that school districts do is way bigger of an issue. I mean, I think that's something we should know and we should advocate for increased funding. I mean, the hope is we did some math with experts what the remediation could cost and what sort of positive results could come up with. The testing is pretty minimal. And then the mitigation would be more increased. I mean, it's every five years, so if you mitigate it one year, if you deal with it, hopefully those schools are in good shape in the future. And, you know, year five, year six, they're not as shocking. But if it's something that is showing that we have a real problem and we're putting kids at risk every day we send to school, and let alone teachers who can spend a career in the same building that is exposed to that much radiation, I think that's something as public policymakers we should know and be able to advocate for increasing that mitigation funding. If it's using that funding or something unique, I mean, I wouldn't be comfortable just letting a school district. I mean, they're not doing it now, most of them, because they don't want to know what they do. It's, you know, deniability is easier to defend than knowing they have a problem and don't want to deal with it. So I think the testing is important, and then providing some sort of relief on the mitigation is just as important. Thank you.

Representative Briggs, I don't know if maybe you know the answer. How much money is in the fund that you're talking about taking $25 million out of? I'm sorry. I don't have that budget number in front of me. Do you know Representative Briggs?

Rep Zimmerman.

Rep. Pugh.

Evan, did you want to take a shot at that?

Okay. I just wanted to know, are the money already there or if we have to put it as a line item in the budget, like an additional?

Okay. And then my second question, I'm just curious, does anybody know why we have to retest every five years? Because these mitigation systems typically have monitors right on them that tell you if they're working, not working, and what the levels are. So I know I've been talking to a lot of really smart people on this, and they say five years probably is the stretch of what they feel comfortable doing retests. Things change. It's all underground. That changes. But we can have a group conversation with them to see that. I mean, it's – yeah.

Just a quick question. We're talking about transferring money into account. Who decides whether that money is transferred into the special account?

Well, they could decide not to do that. Okay. Thank you.

Here by Talley, aye. Brown. Designation, aye. Fleming. Owenstein. Designation, aye. Isaacson. Kazim. Designation, aye. Otten. Designation, aye. P.L.E. Designation, aye. Rivera. Designation, aye. Salisbury. Designation, aye. Schlossberg. Designation, aye. Steele. Designation, aye. Taycac. Designation, aye. Webster. Rader. Bashline. Day. Yes. Flick. James. Hebhart. Mahaffey. Pugh. Stender. Twardzik. Wentling. Zimmerman.

Vitaly. Aye. Brown. Designation aye. Fleming. Hohenstein. Designation aye. Isaacson. Ghazim. Designation aye. Otten. Designation aye. Pielli. Designation aye. Rivera. Designation aye. Salisbury. Schlossberg. Designation aye. Steele. Designation aye. Takak. Designation aye. Webster, Rader, Bashline, Day, Flick, James, Kephart, Mahaffey, Pugh, Stender, Kordzik, Wentling, Zimmerman.

Very good. I appreciate that. Well, this meeting is adjourned, and thank you very much.