Pa. Supreme Court Hears Drilling Law Case
When Pennsylvania legislators passed a new gas and
oil law, known as Act 13, last February, the intent was to establish consistent
regulations for drilling firms and landowners who want to sell their mineral
rights. However, its mandate allowing
drilling in any part of a municipality has sparked controversy across the state
in regards to the law’s constitutionality.
When the Commonwealth Court voted 4-3 that Act 13
could violate the rights of municipalities and citizens in July, the decision
was appealed by Governor Corbett’s administration, which disputed the ruling’s
claim. Consequently, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court heard arguments over the law on Wednesday.
Opponents of Act 13, including representatives from
seven municipalities, environmental groups, and the League of Women Voters of
Pennsylvania, argued that the new law effectively denies municipalities and individuals
the right to control resource drilling through local zoning. As a result, many fear the unrestricted
spread of drilling sites. This sentiment
was also examined by Justice Thomas Saylor, who questioned whether Act 13
"could in effect turn private residential communities into industrial
zones."
However, proponents of the law, including the state
government and gas drilling industry, countered that Act 13 does not violate
the commonwealth’s constitution, arguing that since municipalities are created
in the state’s general assembly, the same entity can override local
zoning. Some companies in the natural
gas industry, which sought the statewide regulations, also claim that
municipalities, particularly those in southwestern Pennsylvania, are
challenging the law’s constitutionality to limit drilling.
One aspect of Act 13 imposed an “impact fee” on
drilling firms, of which $204 million will be distributed locally. However, the governor’s office plans to
withhold payments to four of the municipalities opposing Act 13.
Currently, the Supreme Court is comprised of three
Democrats and three Republicans; a vote of at least 4-2 is needed to overturn
the Commonwealth Court’s ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment