IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v154y2021ics0301421521001671.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of Pennsylvania's 500 ft surface setback regulation on siting unconventional natural gas wells near buildings: An interrupted time-series analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Michanowicz, Drew R.
  • Buonocore, Jonathan J.
  • Konschnik, Katherine E.
  • Goho, Shaun A.
  • Bernstein, Aaron S.

Abstract

In 2012 Pennsylvania's legislature increased the unconventional natural gas (UNG) well-to-building setback requirement from 200 ft to 500 ft through Act 13. To evaluate this policy, we identified all setback incident locations where a UNG well was within 500 ft of a building both before and after the implementation of Act 13. Using an interrupted time series design, we found that Act 13 did not significantly alter how wells were sited in relation to nearby buildings. Of the 1042 wells that contained a building within 500 ft – equating to ~10.1% of UNG wells (n = 11,148) and ~14.7% well pads (n = 479) – a total of 371 well setback incidents occurred after Act 13, likely due from the existing well pad exemption (35%) and a combination of landowner consent and regulatory variances rather than encroaching building construction. Overall, our study suggests that exemptions are an important and underappreciated aspect of oil and gas well setback rulemaking and highlights the relevance of other health-protective regulatory tools often promulgated alongside setbacks. New or amended setback regulations should revisit exemption procedures and where warranted, impose additional mitigation measures to ensure setback regulations provide adequate protections for health and safety as intended.

Suggested Citation

  • Michanowicz, Drew R. & Buonocore, Jonathan J. & Konschnik, Katherine E. & Goho, Shaun A. & Bernstein, Aaron S., 2021. "The effect of Pennsylvania's 500 ft surface setback regulation on siting unconventional natural gas wells near buildings: An interrupted time-series analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:154:y:2021:i:c:s0301421521001671
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521001671
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112298?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kroepsch, Adrianne C., 2018. "Horizontal drilling, changing patterns of extraction, and piecemeal participation: Urban hydrocarbon governance in Colorado," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 469-480.
    2. Konschnik, Katherine & Dayalu, Archana, 2016. "Hydraulic fracturing chemicals reporting: Analysis of available data and recommendations for policymakers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 504-514.
    3. Fry, Matthew, 2013. "Urban gas drilling and distance ordinances in the Texas Barnett Shale," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 79-89.
    4. Fry, Matthew & Brannstrom, Christian, 2017. "Emergent patterns and processes in urban hydrocarbon governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 383-393.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ericson, Sean J. & Kaffine, Daniel T. & Maniloff, Peter, 2020. "Costs of increasing oil and gas setbacks are initially modest but rise sharply," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    2. Jeffrey Rous & Vicki Oppenheim & Myungsup Kim & Matthew Fry & Chetan Tiwari & Murray Rice, 2020. "Evaluating determinants of shale gas well locations in an urban setting," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 65(3), pages 645-671, December.
    3. Kroepsch, Adrianne C., 2018. "Horizontal drilling, changing patterns of extraction, and piecemeal participation: Urban hydrocarbon governance in Colorado," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 469-480.
    4. Shakil, Mohammad Hassan, 2021. "Environmental, social and governance performance and financial risk: Moderating role of ESG controversies and board gender diversity," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    5. Yasminah Beebeejaun, 2017. "Exploring the intersections between local knowledge and environmental regulation: A study of shale gas extraction in Texas and Lancashire," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(3), pages 417-433, May.
    6. Esterhuyse, Surina & Avenant, Marinda & Redelinghuys, Nola & Kijko, Andrzej & Glazewski, Jan & Plit, Lisa & Kemp, Marthie & Smit, Ansie & Vos, A. Tascha, 2018. "Monitoring of unconventional oil and gas extraction and its policy implications: A case study from South Africa," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 109-120.
    7. Fry, Matthew & Brannstrom, Christian, 2017. "Emergent patterns and processes in urban hydrocarbon governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 383-393.
    8. Matthew Fry & Christian Brannstrom & Trey Murphy, 2015. "How Dallas became frack free: hydrocarbon governance under neoliberalism," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(12), pages 2591-2608, December.
    9. Banan, Zoya & Gernand, Jeremy M., 2021. "Emissions of particulate matter due to Marcellus Shale gas development in Pennsylvania: Mapping the implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PB).
    10. Centner, Terence J., 2016. "Reducing pollution at five critical points of shale gas production: Strategies and institutional responses," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 40-46.
    11. Mazen Hafez & Mahyar Ghazvini & Myeongsub Kim, 2022. "On the Stability of Particle–Particle Interaction during Gravitational Settling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-14, November.
    12. Andrew Watterson & William Dinan, 2020. "Lagging and Flagging: Air Pollution, Shale Gas Exploration and the Interaction of Policy, Science, Ethics and Environmental Justice in England," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-30, June.
    13. T. Robert Fetter & Andrew L. Steck & Christopher Timmins & Douglas Wrenn, 2018. "Learning by Viewing? Social Learning, Regulatory Disclosure, and Firm Productivity in Shale Gas," NBER Working Papers 25401, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Bhavna Shamasunder & Ashley Collier-Oxandale & Jessica Blickley & James Sadd & Marissa Chan & Sandy Navarro & Michael Hannigan & Nicole J. Wong, 2018. "Community-Based Health and Exposure Study around Urban Oil Developments in South Los Angeles," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, January.
    15. Gang Wang & Cheng Fan & Hao Xu & Xuelin Liu & Rui Wang, 2018. "Determination of Long Horizontal Borehole Height in Roofs and Its Application to Gas Drainage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    16. Rong Wu & Jian Zhang & Yubing Yu & Sajjad M. Jasimuddin & Justin Zuopeng Zhang, 2023. "The Impact of Value Cocreation on CSR Innovation and Economic Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, February.
    17. Miron Avidan & Dror Etzion & Joel Gehman, 2019. "Opaque transparency: How material affordances shape intermediary work," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 197-219, June.
    18. Trey Murphy, 2019. "Sarmistha R. Majumdar. The politics of fracking: regulatory policy and local community responses to environmental concerns," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 451-452, December.
    19. Heqian Zhao & Huaizhong Shi & Zhongwei Huang & Zhenliang Chen & Ziang Gu & Fei Gao, 2022. "Mechanism of Cuttings Removing at the Bottom Hole by Pulsed Jet," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-21, May.
    20. Fisk, Jonathan M. & Good, A.J., 2019. "Information booms and busts: Examining oil and gas disclosure policies across the states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 374-381.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:154:y:2021:i:c:s0301421521001671. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.