After nearly two years of debate over an extraction tax or impact fee on natural gas drillers and updating drilling regulations, Republicans in the state Legislature were in a big rush this week to pass the natural gas bill they have written, mostly behind closed doors.

Many observers of the debate said “It’s about time,” given that the state and municipalities have been missing out on revenue from Marcellus Shale gas drilling while Pennsylvania is the only major gas-producing state not imposing a fee or extraction tax on natural gas.

On the other hand, many people might ask, “Why the rush?”

That’s a good question.

The bill was passed by the state Senate Tuesday morning and debated by the state House until the 11 p.m. adjournment time Tuesday. The House passed it Wednesday afternoon.

The League of Women Voters issued a statement Monday asking state lawmakers to slow down the passage of the gas bill and to allow for three days of consideration in both the House and Senate, as mandated by the state constitution.

The League argued that the shale gas drilling legislation will have a large and long-lasting impact on the state and its residents, and should therefore be handled with transparency and adequate time for public understanding.

Lawmakers in Harrisburg worked over the weekend on the gas bill and for most of the day Tuesday and Wednesday.

Their late-night work might remind Pennsylvanians of the notorious 2 a.m. pay-raise vote of 2005. And that might cause many people to wonder what lawmakers were up to this time.

Reacting to criticism that Republicans were rushing the gas bill now, Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, said he had “tromped through this subject with two governors.” That’s true, but then why push the bill through in a day or two before the public knows all the details?

Although it’s now been passed, Gov. Tom Corbett should make the case for the legislation before signing it into law.

Democrats claim the Republicans’ gas legislation is a giveaway to the natural gas industry. Republicans say it’s not.

Critics suggest the proposed impact fee is far less than the tax revenue earned by other states from shale-gas extraction. Republicans say that’s not true, because Pennsylvania has other taxes that other states do not have.

Corbett and Republican authors of the bill should make their case by comparing their fee plan to what the gas industry pays in other states.

The just-passed gas legislation would let counties decide whether or not to impose the impact fee. If a county elected to not charge the fee, but a majority of municipalities supported the fee, the county could be overruled. Why wasn’t there more public discussion of this provision? Will this lead to a race to the bottom, with counties trying to attract drillers by not charging the fee, thus denying county and state residents the revenue from the fee? Why not a standard fee charged in all counties across the state?

Another aspect of the legislation that warrants explanation is the plan to charge a flat fee per well, rather than a fee based on production. Why not two fees — one lower per-well fee and then a separate fee that is tied to the volume of the gas extracted?

A controversial part of the shale-gas legislation would allow the state to overrule local municipalities’ regulations or restrictions on drilling. Consistent regulations across the state are more reasonable for the industry because, without them, some localities might try to shut out drilling altogether with overly restrictive rules. Backers of the bill should explain why their approach is best.

Republican authors of the gas legislation say it is fair and does a good job of balancing the economic benefits of drilling with strong protections for the environment and human health. Critics say it’s a gift to gas interests and big business, at the expense of the state budget and taxpayers. They also say it doesn’t go far enough to protect people or the environment.

The public hasn’t known who to believe.

Although it becomes law in 10 days even without the governor’s signature, the governor should take the extraordinary step of making the case for this legislation to the public in a way that eases most doubts, accepting that his efforts will never satisfy all the critics.

Shale-gas legislation was in the works for two years. It was passed in two days. The public would have been better served by transparency and explanation, rather than secrecy and rapid passage.