On June 10, PEC and Environmental Defense Fund sent a joint letter to members of the Pennsylvania Senate regarding three proposals to change the regulatory rule making process:
June 10, 2025
To: Members of the Pennsylvania Senate
RE: Opposition to Senate Bills 245, 333, and 444
Dear Senators,
The Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) respectfully ask you to vote against Senate Bill 245, Senate Bill 333, and Senate Bill 444 if they come up for final consideration by the Senate. All three bills alter the rulemaking development and enforcement process in Pennsylvania in ways that could lead to inconsistent or potentially arbitrary application. They may also violate existing state and federal law, leading to lawsuits and even further delays.
We recognize there is need and opportunity to improve the regulatory process, and would urge members to support the formation of a working group that includes the Administration and select stakeholders to craft a set of corresponding recommendations. Agency capacity, flexibility for the regulated community, and full consideration of benefits and costs are important to all interested parties. These issues are best addressed in a coordinated approach.
Briefly, our primary concerns with the bills are as follows:
Senate Bill 245 establishes a new Office that may waive or suspend any state law, regulation, rule, or guidance per the request of a business or industry. The range of activities or products eligible for this review is vaguely defined and potentially exceedingly broad. The legislation also establishes an Advisory Committee, which can include out of state participants, that is authorized to override any decision of the Office to reject a waiver request, regardless of cause. The bill also prohibits judicial review of the Advisory Committee decision. While we recognize the value of alternative compliance or implementation measures, this legislation creates a potentially unbounded program that lacks due process.
Senate Bill 333 requires that, before any proposed rulemaking deemed “economically significant” (as defined in the legislation) can be finalized and implemented, the General Assembly must pass a concurrent resolution to approve it. In practice, this means that mere inaction of the General Assembly could negate a proposed rulemaking – even if it is expressly required by existing state or federal law. This could expose the Commonwealth to penalties, lead to litigation, and ultimately hamper compliance and competitiveness for the regulated community.
Senate Bill 444 requires agencies, every three years, to review existing “economically significant regulations,” develop a public report, and open a public comment period on that report. While we understand the goal of this legislation, we believe it will create a significant burden on agencies unless support is provided to perform the additional work. The analysis required by the legislation also fails to account for the full range of public benefits resulting from implementation of any reviewed regulation. Further, there already is an existing process in place that allows the public or members of the regulated community to petition the Environmental Quality Board for changes to existing rulemakings.
For these reasons, and with a commitment to work with stakeholders to help identify solutions to existing challenges, we ask you to oppose this legislation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Walliser
Senior Vice President, Legal & Government Affairs
Pennsylvania Environmental Council
John Rutecki
Regulatory and Legislative Manager
Environmental Defense Fund