®
The
PIOGA press
The monthly newsletter of the Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association
September 2014 • Issue 53
PUC, municipalities appeal Commonwealth Court Act 13 remand rulings
T
he Commonwealth Court was to tidy up the remaining legal questions related to Act 13 of 2012 in the Robinson Township V. Commonwealth case, but now attention is back to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and the municipality plaintiffs have appealed various parts of the Commonwealth Court’s July 17 rulings. When the Supreme Court last December struck down the portions of Act 13 establishing uniform local zoning standards for oil and gas activities, the high court also directed the Commonwealth Court to decide which provisions of the law were still valid in light of the parts that were declared unconstitutional (January PIOGA Press, page 1). In its July decisions on the Act 13 remand, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the PUC can no longer review local ordinances or withhold impact fee monies from municipalities whose ordinances are not in compliance (August PIOGA Press, page 1). The court also nullified portions of Act 13 allowing challenges of local ordinances to go before the PUC and then on to the Commonwealth Court, or directly to Commonwealth Court bypassing the PUC. The court also addressed the continuing validity of the traditional Oil and Gas Act preemption of local ordinances that was continued unchanged in Act 13, even though the court had previously ruled that Section 3302 was not at issue. In an August 14 notice to the Supreme Court, the PUC appealed the Commonwealth Court’s decisions on Sections 3305-3309, related to the commission’s ability to review municipal ordinances. The Commonwealth Court’s July 17 rulings also rejected a physician’s assertion that confidentiality language regarding the nature of chemicals used in drilling and stimulation amounted to a medical gag order; affirmed that the Department of Environmental Protection is required to notify public water sup-
Search engine optimization webinar. . . . . . . . 6 Briefs filed in equitable-extension case . . . . . 8 PIOGA partners for membership mailings . . 10 Divot Diggers Golf Outing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 PIOGA joins in state leasing lawsuit . . . . . . . 14 Events added in October and November . . . 15 Statement on anti-energy proposals. . . . . . . 16 Exemption No. 38 compliance alert . . . . . . . 19 Post-production costs and royalties . . . . . . . 20 Items wanted for career center . . . . . . . . . . . 23 July Spud Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
pliers, but not private water well owners, in the event of a drilling-related spill; and upheld the ability of certified public utilities to use eminent domain to take land for gas storage or transportation. On August 22, the municipality plaintiffs filed notice with the Supreme Court that they were challenging the Commonwealth Court’s decisions on DEP spill notices, eminent domain and the so-called physician gag order. On August 29, the municipalities challenged the PUC’s standing to appeal the Commonwealth Court’s finding that Sections 3306 (civil actions), 3307 (attorney fees and costs) and 3309 (applicability) were nonseverable and therefore unenforceable because these provisions do not impact the PUC. The municipalities claim that only the state attorney general, who is charged with defending the constitutionality of Act 13—and who also “adequately” represents Industry’s interests according to the Commonwealth Court’s and Supreme Court’s denials of industry’s requests to intervene—has standing to appeal the Commonwealth Court’s remand decision with respect to these (Continues on page 5)
FEMA’s anti-hydraulic-fracturing policy criticized
P
IOGA participated in a roundtable in Towanda last month organized by Pennsylvania Congressman Lou Barletta to shed light on a little-known Federal Energy Management Administration policy that essentially disqualifies property owners with oil and gas leases from receiving hazard mitigation money. Under its hazard mitigation assistance program, FEMA pays to acquire properties in flood zones or reduce flood risks by razing or relocatChanges to powers of attorney. . . . . . . . . . . 29 ing structures. The property title usually Worker exposure during flowback. . . . . . . . . 30 goes to local governments, which can Potential litigation over flaring . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 use it as open space, allowing floodReport from EIA conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 plains or wetlands to act as natural High Horsepower Summit special offer . . . . 38 flood buffers. Oil & Gas Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Without seeking public comment or Member profile: IMG Midstream . . . . . . . . . . 42 stakeholder input, FEMA issued a poliNew PIOGA members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 cy on May 5 that bans the use of hazard Calendar of Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 mitigation assistance (HMA) money for Contact information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 properties that could eventually host (Continues on page 2)