Why Rolling Back the Endangerment Finding Matters to Pennsylvanians

For conventional oil and gas producers in Pennsylvania, the EPA’s February 12 rollback of the greenhouse gas “endangerment finding” represents more than a regulatory change—it is a long‑overdue course correction. For years, the 2009 endangerment finding served as the legal foundation for sweeping federal climate regulations under the Clean Air Act, including the OOOO framework that required expensive electronic leak detection and extensive record-keeping. Those rules were imposed on oil and gas operators not because of demonstrated, site‑specific environmental harm, but because greenhouse gases were broadly declared a danger.

In Pennsylvania’s conventional sector—made up largely of small, family‑owned producers—the OOOO rules translated into brutal compliance costs. Unnecessarily expensive leak detection, expensive equipment retrofits, and extensive recordkeeping requirements were applied uniformly, regardless of a well’s age, size, or actual emissions profile. That one‑size‑fits‑all regulatory burden can cost more than the entire amount produced by a Pennsylvania conventional well! Even EPA analyses acknowledged that projected methane reductions from small conventional wells were marginal when compared to global emissions, raising a serious question: are these expenses justified, or is the real goal to shut down domestic fossil fuel production?

What is striking in the current debate is not just the criticism of the rollback, but who is doing the criticizing. Many of the loudest opponents are the same voices that routinely dismiss the real‑world benefits of fossil fuels. Our conventional gas wells have kept Pennsylvanians warm for more than a century.  And on a larger scale, affordable, reliable oil and natural gas have powered Pennsylvania’s economy, kept energy costs manageable for households, and supported manufacturing, healthcare, and agriculture. These benefits are ignored in favor of abstract climate targets that place disproportionate costs on domestic producers.

At the same time, those critics overlook the substantial environmental footprint of so‑called “green” energy. Wind turbines and solar panels do not appear by magic. They rely on vast amounts of steel, concrete, and rare earth minerals, much of which are produced overseas using coal‑fired power—particularly in China. Battery storage and electric vehicles require intensive mining of lithium, cobalt, and nickel, often in regions where weaker environmental and labor protections result in serious harm to the environment and workers (including children). Ignoring these realities, while condemning American oil and gas producers, is not environmental stewardship; it is irrational prejudice.

It remains to be seen how the rollback will play out in Pennsylvania.  Governor Shapiro favors “green” energy—his Lightning Plan seeks to generate 35% of Pennsylvania’s electricity from “clean” sources (meaning not oil, gas and coal), by 2040.  And his DEP has pushed hard for implementation of OOOO rules. The rollback of the endangerment finding offers a chance to rebalance policy. It does not eliminate environmental protections for traditional pollutants, nor does it prevent innovation or voluntary emissions reductions. Instead, it reins in a regulatory framework that stretched the Clean Air Act far beyond its original intent and imposed high costs for minimal impact. Pennsylvania’s conventional producers know that responsible energy development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive.  Now we look to the Shapiro administration—can the Governor use this opportunity to create sound and unprejudiced policy?