Advertisement

May 23, 2013

Major Provisions of Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas Act Deemed Unconstitutional

Commonwealth Court rules on amendments limiting municipal zoning authority.

On July 26, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that 2012 amendments to Pennsylvania's Oil and Gas Act (Act 13) that preempt local zoning ordinances conflicting with the act are unconstitutional. The amendments were part of a comprehensive legislative package that revised requirements relating to oil and gas drilling and associated operations and that imposed impact fees on wells drilled in the Marcellus Shale and other unconventional formations.

Background

In Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, No. 284 M.D. 2012 (Pa. Commw. Ct. July 26, 2012), available online here, seven municipalities (collectively, Petitioners) filed a petition for review challenging the constitutionality of amendments to the Oil and Gas Act. Act 13 added section 3304, which required municipalities to adopt uniform local zoning ordinances that allow for the development of oil and gas resources in all zoning districts.

The Petitioners claimed that section 3304 prevents them from fulfilling their constitutional obligations to protect the health and safety of their citizens, as well as public natural resources, from the impacts of oil and gas drilling. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission countered that the Petitioners lack standing to bring the suit and have no constitutional right to enact zoning ordinances, and that Pennsylvania property owners have a right to allow oil and gas drilling.

Commonwealth Court's Decision

In a 4-3 majority opinion, the Commonwealth Court held that "58 Pa. C.S. § 3304 violates substantive due process because it does not protect the interests of neighboring property owners from harm, alters the character of neighborhoods and makes irrational classifications . . . ." Robinson Twp., slip op. at 33.

The majority found section 3304 "irrational" because it requires municipalities to allow "drilling operations and impoundments, gas compressor stations, storage and use of explosives in all zoning districts, and applies industrial criteria to restrictions on height of structures, screening and fencing, lighting and noise." Id.

The majority concluded that because section 3304 mandates "all oil and gas operations in all zoning districts, including residential districts, as a matter of law," it is unconstitutional. The majority declared section 3304 and related provisions to be null and void and permanently enjoined their enforcement by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Id. at 35. Section 3302 of the Oil and Gas Act, which prohibits municipalities from enacting ordinances regulating those aspects of oil and gas operations subject to statewide environmental laws, is not affected by the decision.

Implications

The Commonwealth Court's majority opinion will not be the last word on whether the amendments to Pennsylvania's Oil and Gas Act limiting municipal zoning authority are unconstitutional, as the decision already has been appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and the Pennsylvania Attorney General. Robinson Township nonetheless stands as a stark reminder that regulation of natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale region is a rapidly evolving and unsettled area of law that will unquestionably have significant ramifications on the oil and gas industry going forward.

Copyright © 2013 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Steven A. Luxton is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Litigation Practice. Mr. Luxton focuses his practice on the areas of product liability, complex mass tort and toxic tort litigation, and commercial litigation. He has represented a wide array of clients ranging from large corporations to small businesses in state and federal courts throughout the country and has tried cases in Maryland and the District of Columbia.

202.739.5452

About the Author

of counsel

Maxine M. Woelfling is of counsel in Morgan Lewis's Litigation Practice. Ms. Woelfling focuses her practice in the area of environmental law. Her practice involves regulatory counseling, litigation of permitting and enforcement issues before state and federal administrative and judicial tribunals, and environmental issues in business and financial transactions. It encompasses a broad range of environmental subjects, including air quality, environmental planning, water allocations, solid and hazardous waste, water quality, underground storage tanks, surface and deep...

717.237.5065

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.