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.