Big questions about funds meant for oil/gas well cleanup

There's also the possibility that right-wing "judges" will block any rules that are established.

After the Biden administration’s bipartisan infrastructure law was passed, the administration hailed the bill’s $4.7 billion package to cap orphaned oil and gas wells as a move to tackle “super-polluting methane emissions,” saying it will combat the climate crisis and create jobs. But it is possible that, without tight rules, these public funds could be spent in ways that contradict those goals — and go to the very entities that enabled these environmental messes in the first place.

Though the administration claims it will establish safeguards, currently there are no rules to compel state oil and gas regulators to use the federal funds in a way that prioritizes plugging the inactive and supposedly ownerless wells that are emitting the most methane, or even any methane at all. The law’s current implementation also offers no assurances that the new jobs promised for oil and gas industry workers will materialize, although it is a stated goal of the law. - DeSmog

The infrastructure bill isn't all great

They had to do this, to get "bipartisan" support. That is, the votes of many legislators that were provided only at the behest of their corporate masters. I'm not just referring to Party of Trumpers, either.

The recently passed $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill will provide desperately needed federal dollars to fix our roads, water systems and other public infrastructure. But the bill is not all sunshine and rainbows.

A provision in the bill incentivizes state and local governments to hand control over some of the new projects to corporations and private investors. And that will create opportunities for bad things to happen.

Much of the new federal spending will go to fill potholes, repair bridges, lower the cost of high-speed internet, and build other things our communities need. But for large, federally supported transportation projects, state and local governments will be required to consider additional funding from private investors.

The danger is that this additional funding comes with strings attached. The private investors negotiate contracts — called “public-private partnerships” — that allow them to profit from raising water rates or hiking tolls on highways, or from charging the government expensive lease payments.

These contracts are not only more expensive than if the state or locality used traditional public financing, but they also often empower private investors to shape public policy. - The Progressive