Further providing for Environmental Hearing Board.
Summary
SB172 amends the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board Act to change the reappointment process for members of the Environmental Hearing Board. Under current law, board members serve six-year terms, and this bill would require that after a term expires, a member must be reappointed by the Governor with the consent of a majority of the members elected to the Senate. The bill also preserves the existing rule that vacancies are filled in the same manner as the original appointment and keeps the initial four-year term for one of the additional members appointed under the act.
The measure is a narrow governance change focused on board membership and confirmation procedure rather than environmental policy itself. It would affect the structure and continuity of the Environmental Hearing Board, the quasi-judicial agency that hears appeals and disputes involving environmental permitting and enforcement decisions in Pennsylvania. The bill would take effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
SB172 would amend the Environmental Hearing Board Act by tightening and clarifying the appointment framework for board members, specifically requiring Senate consent for reappointment after a term expires. This would affect the Governor, the Senate, and current and future Environmental Hearing Board members by reinforcing legislative oversight of board continuity and potentially influencing how long-serving members remain in office. The bill does not change the board’s jurisdiction or substantive environmental law, but it would alter the statute governing the board’s administration and membership.
Sentiment
Based on the available record, the bill appears to be a routine administrative measure with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. The absence of transcripts, amendments, or vote history suggests there is no documented controversy in the available context. The bill’s narrow scope and procedural focus indicate it is likely intended as a governance adjustment rather than a partisan policy change.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If any disagreement exists, it would likely center on the balance of appointment power between the Governor and the Senate, and whether requiring Senate consent for reappointment could promote accountability or instead create barriers to continuity on the board. However, the supplied context does not show any named opponents or supporters raising those issues.
In administrative organization, further providing for departmental administrative boards, commiss ions, and offices; in organization of departmental administrative boards and commissions and of advisory boards and commissions, further providing for advisory boards and commissions and repealing provisions relating to Environmental Quality Board; in powers and duties of the Department of Agriculture and its departmental administrative commission, further providing for seasonal farm labor; in powers and duties of the Department of Environmental Resources, its officers and departmental and advisory boards and commissions, further providing for Environmental Quality Board and for powers of Environmental Quality Board.
In general provisions, further providing for definitions; and, in zoning hearing bo ard and other administrative proceedings, further providing for hearings.
In preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions; in practitioners, further providing for pr actitioner registration; in medical marijuana controls, further providing for electronic tracking and for laboratory; and, in Medical Marijuana Advisory Board, further providing for advisory board.