Act 13 petitioners respond to oil and gas parties
Municipalities and environmental groups said a request made by oil and gas industry parties to intervene in the ongoing Act 13 case is “improper and should be denied.”
Attorneys for the original petitioners in the case – including Robinson, Peters, Cecil and Mt. Pleasant townships – filed the objection in state Commonwealth Court Wednesday.
Marcellus Shale Coalition, Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association and American Petroleum Institute asked Commonwealth Court last week to consider adding them as respondents to the Act 13 case.
The court will ultimately determine the severability of remaining provisions of Act 13, the state law governing oil and gas drilling. Last December, the state Supreme Court struck down key zoning provisions of Act 13 and remanded several other provisions to the lower court for consideration.
Industry parties argued they have a “legally enforceable interest” in the case outcome and said their views are not necessarily aligned with those of commonwealth parties currently represented in the case. Aiming to reposition the upcoming case as a “new issue,” industry parties argued the specific provisions to be considered will directly affect the oil and natural gas industry.
The petitioners disagreed, arguing that industry parties are adequately represented by commonwealth parties within Gov. Tom Corbett’s administration.
“Despite the influence that industry petitioners may have had in drafting the legislation, it is the duty of the Commonwealth, and its instrumentalities, to defend its laws, including the application and enforcement of Act 13,” read the petitioners’ objection.
The petitioners pointed out that PIOGA and Marcellus Shale Coalition tried twice previously to intervene in the case and were denied both times by the court. While the Petroleum Institute made its first intervention request last week, the petitioners argued that the organization’s interests are almost identical to those of PIOGA and the Shale Coalition.
The petitioners said no new issues have been raised before the court, and therefore “industry petitioners seek to re-litigate issues which have already been argued by the parties, decided by the Commonwealth Court and were not subsequently appealed.”
The issue of impact fees also was addressed by the original petitioners, who argued that industry parties are attempting to “re-package their intervention argument” by positing the question of severability as a new issue “based simply on the fact that they do not want impact fees to be assessed against and paid for by the oil and gas industry.”
Industry parties said they paid more than $400 million in impact fees to the state in 2011 and 2012, and a large portion of that money went back to local governments. The viability of those impact fees under a revised Act 13 has yet to be determined.
Petitioners also said allowing the industry parties to join the case would “cause undue delay to proceedings” that have been moving forward on an expedited schedule.