Wyoming Area’s national product

St. Joseph’s Center Auxiliary 53rd Annual Summer Festival set for July 25-27, at Marywood University

First Posted: 1/3/2014 On Dec. 19, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found provisions of the mammoth Act 13 of 2012, a revision to the state&#8217;s Oil and Gas Law, violate the commonwealth&#8217;s duties as a trustee of the state&#8217;s natural resources.
In its decision, the court returned zoning power to municipal governments and lifted the statewide zoning ordinance requirements that several township leaders argued overstepped the original design of municipal zoning codes, codes that empower the state&#8217;s smallest governments to assign uniform land designations that best suit their communities.
Act 13 was signed by Gov. Tom Corbett in February 2012 and updated the state&#8217;s resource-development laws taking into consideration the untapped decades-worth of natural gas stored deep underground and the new methods, namely horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, to get it out.
Part of the new law applied blanket zoning for all municipalities to allow for this new technology and development.
The court&#8217;s decision came as a dizzying blow to the natural-gas industry in Pennsylvania, and it&#8217;s largely undetermined at this time how it will effect new natural-gas development in the state.
Corbett immediately responded to the court&#8217;s decision that hacked away at legislation he supported.
&#8220;The act was crafted with strong input and support from Pennsylvania&#8217;s local government organizations,&#8221; Corbett said. &#8220;I will continue to work with members of the House and Senate to ensure that Pennsylvania&#8217;s thriving energy industry grows and provides jobs while balancing the interests of local communities.&#8221;
David Spigelmyer &#8212; CEO for Marcellus Shale Coalition, an organization made of industry-leading corporations &#8212; that same day published a statement expressing his dissatisfaction with the ruling.
&#8220;Although we will continue to collaborate with communities across the Commonwealth, today&#8217;s decision is a disappointment and represents a missed opportunity to establish a standard set of rules governing the responsible development and operation of shale gas wells in Pennsylvania,&#8221; Spigelmyer said.
Spigelmyer said the coalition is reviewing at what level the decision will affect its members&#8217; operations. He said if economic prosperity is the goal, &#8220;we must commit to working together toward common-sense proposals that encourage &#8212; rather than discourage &#8212; investment into the commonwealth.&#8221;
Conversely, environmental-advocacy groups cheered at the decision. Erika Staaf, clean-water advocate for the Philadelphia-based PennEnvironment called it an &#8220;early holiday gift.&#8221;
&#8220;The local zoning preemption provisions that were struck down today were shocking and appalling &#8212; tying the hands of local communities,&#8221; Staaf said. &#8220;We are heartened to see that the court recognized this massive overreach by the Pennsylvania legislature is indeed unconstitutional.&#8221;
Municipalities appeal
The matter came before the courts when leaders from municipalities in several counties where gas drilling is happening appealed Act 13&#8217;s sweeping zoning rules one month after it became law.
In its final opinion published Dec. 19, the justices said they found the appellants&#8217; claim had merit that gas drilling had wrecked the expected aesthetic qualities of their communities and ruled in favor of the townships.
The decision was accelerated through the judicial system, the opinion said, because the judges found the law itself was moved quickly to reach the governor&#8217;s pen and the citizenry stood to suffer economically if the mandated statewide zoning codes persisted.
Decision appealed
On Jan. 2, DEP and PUC lawyers jointly applied to the court for reconsideration urging the court to vacate its judgment, claiming facts and understanding were absent when it decided to side with the appellants.
&#8220;It appears that the court based its sweeping factual conclusions, at least in part, on affidavits submitted &#8230; by municipalities and their proxies in support of their request for summary relief,&#8221; the application says.
The application calls for the case to be moved back to a trial court where facts can be gathered, and argues that the Supreme Court was out of line for issuing statements of fact, statements fitting for the lower Commonwealth Court to determine, but out of the Supreme Court&#8217;s jurisdiction.

Supreme Court knocks down Act 13 zoning provisions