Like health care in the United States, natural gas legislation in Pennsylvania is unfinished business. Laws were passed, amid controversy and heated debate, but the issues are not settled.

Shale gas was in the news twice this week. First, a major economic study released by IHS Global Insights credits the expansion of gas and oil production by hydrofracturing — fracking — with saving the average American family $1,200 a year, mostly through heating and electricity costs that are lower than they would be without the greater gas supplies keeping prices lower.

The IHS report projects that 3.3 million jobs will be created, directly or indirectly, through the ongoing expansion of unconventional energy, meaning fracked natural gas and oil.

Although the IHS report looks at the economic benefits across the United States, the impact in Pennsylvania, when it comes to direct and indirect jobs, is greater because Marcellus Shale is located under much of the western part of the state. Other high-impact areas are Texas and North Dakota.

The IHS report is a reminder of the potential of the natural gas boom, labeled a “game changer” by many economists thanks to job creation, lower energy costs and even a resurgence in manufacturing. And while the potential economic benefits are huge, the potential risks to the environment and human health cannot be ignored. The industry needs to continue to develop safer technologies and practices for extraction and transport that minimize the risk of accidents. And government, too, must step up with rigorous regulations, inspections and penalties for violations.

While some intense and vocal opposition to fracking remains, it’s unlikely the fracking of natural gas and oil will be stopped. Activists would be wise to divert some of their energy and press the industry and government for safer technologies and best practices standards to minimize accidents and environmental harm.

Beyond the job creation potential and science surrounding fracking of natural gas, it’s also worth revisiting the impact of gas extraction on the state budget. One of the Democrats planning to run against Gov. Tom Corbett in 2014, U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Montgomery County, is calling for a 5 percent extraction tax on the value of gas produced in the state. She argues that such a tax would initially bring in about $600 million, rising to $2 billion a year tax revenue in ten years.

State Republicans, including Corbett, opposed an extraction tax when it was proposed in the past, supporting an impact fee instead.

But the extraction tax idea deserves further debate. Without an extraction tax, Pennsylvania taxpayers appear to be subsidizing gas extraction for the benefit of the national gas producers, most of them billion-dollar companies. Voters and taxpayers should ask why Pennsylvania is getting less tax revenue from shale gas than other gas-producing states.

Schwartz picked a 5 percent tax rate, noting it was the same as West Virginia’s and lower than the 7 percent rate in Texas and Oklahoma. But gas extraction tax rates cannot be viewed in isolation; the entire tax environment of a state must be considered. Still, Pennsylvania should not be benefiting less than other states when it comes to natural gas extraction.

With pressure on the state budget still severe, taxpayers deserve another debate about how the gas extraction industry could contribute more, without putting Pennsylvania at a competitive disadvantage to other gas-producing states sitting on shale gas.