Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth
| Citation | 147 A.3d 536 |
| Decision Date | 28 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 105 MAP 2014,No. 104 MAP 2014,104 MAP 2014,105 MAP 2014 |
| Parties | Robinson Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania, Brian Coppola, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Supervisor of Robinson Township, Township of Nockamixon, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Township of South Fayette, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Peters Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania, David M. Ball, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Councilman of Peters Township, Township of Cecil, Washington County, Pennsylvania, Mount Pleasant Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania, Borough of Yardley, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Maya Van Rossum, The Delaware Riverkeeper, Mehernosh Khan, M.D. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Gladys M. Brown, in Her Official Capacity as Chairman of the Public Utility Commission, Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Kane, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and John H. Quigley, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection Appeal of: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Robert F. Powelson, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Public Utility Commission Robinson Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania, Brian Coppola, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Supervisor of Robinson Township, Township of Nockamixon, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Township of South Fayette, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Peters Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania, David M. Ball, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Councilman of Peters Township, Township of Cecil, Washington County, Pennsylvania, Mount Pleasant Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania, Borough of Yardley, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Maya Van Rossum, The Delaware Riverkeeper, Mehernosh Khan, M.D. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Gladys M. Brown, in Her Official Capacity as Chairman of the Public Utility Commission, Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Kane, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and John H. Quigley, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection Cross Appeal of: Washington County, Pennsylvania, Brian Coppola, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Supervisor of Robinson Township, Township of Nockamixon, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Township of South Fayette, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Peters Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania, David M. Ball, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Councilman of Peters Township, Township of Cecil, Washington County, Pennsylvania, Mount Pleasant Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania, Borough of Yardley, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Maya Van Rossum, The Delaware Riverkeeper, Mehernosh Khan, M.D. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Walter A. Bunt Jr., Esq., Craig Prescott Wilson, Esq., K&L Gates LLP, for Gas Assco, the Marcellus Shale Coalition, American Petroleum Institute, Amicus Curiae.
Robert L. Byer, Esq., Meredith Ellen Carpenter, Esq., Andrew Ronald Sperl, Esq., Duane Morris LLP, Robert McCarthy Palumbos, Esq., for Chambers of Commerce of US, PA Chamber of Business and Ind., Susq. Industrial Dev. Corp. Warren Co., Amicus Curiae.
Scott E. Coburn, Esq., for Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors, Amicus Curiae.
Emily Ann Collins, Esq., for Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action, Natural Resources Defense Council, & Sierra Club, Amicus Curiae.
John J. Zimmerman, Esq., for Damascus Citizens for Sustainability Inc., Amicus Curiae.
Matthew Hermann Haverstick, Esq., Mark Edward Seiberling, Esq., Joshua John Voss, Esq., for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Appellant.
John J. Arminas, Esq., Jonathan Mark Kamin, Esq., Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, Jennifer Lynn Fahnestock, Esq., William A. Johnson, Esq., Susan Jill Kraham, Esq., Thomas P. McDermott, Esq., Gaitens, Tucceri & Nicholas, P.C., John Michael Smith, Esq., Smith Butz, L.L.C., Lauren M. Williams, Esq., Jordan Berson Yeager, Esq., Curtin & Heefner, L.L.P., for Twp. of Nockamixon; Twp. of S. Fayette; Peters Twp; Twp of Cecil; Mt. Pleasant Twp.; et al, Appellees.
Alexandra C. Chiaruttini, Esq., Sean Martin Concannon, Esq., Office of General Counsel, Elizabeth A. Davis, Esq., Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Gregory R. Neuhauser, Esq., PA Office of Attorney General, for Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Appellee.
Howard Greeley Hopkirk, Esq., Gregory R. Neuhauser, Esq., Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, for Commonwealth of PA, Attorney General's Office, Appellee.
OPINION
This is a consolidated appeal from the decision of the Commonwealth Court following our remand to that tribunal to resolve open issues pursuant to our Court's mandate in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 623 Pa. 564, 83 A.3d 901 (2013) (“Robinson II”). In that case, our Court struck the entirety of Sections 3215(b), 3215(d), 3303, and 3304 of Act 13 of Feb. 14, 2012, P.L. 87 (“Act 13”),1 as violative of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and we enjoined the application and enforcement of Section 3215(c) and (e) and Sections 3305 through 3309, to the extent that they implemented or enforced the provisions of Act 13 which our Court invalidated. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the portion of the order the Commonwealth Court issued on remand, Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 96 A.3d 1104 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014)(“Robinson III”), holding that Sections 3305 through 3309 were not severable from Sections 3303 and 3304, and we also uphold its conclusion that the passage of Act 13 did not violate Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution —the “single subject rule.” However, because we conclude that Sections 3218.1, 3222.1(b)(10) and 3222.1(b)(11) contravene Article III, Section 32 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, due to our determination that they constitute special legislation which is forbidden by that constitutional provision, we reverse the Commonwealth Court's order upholding these sections, and enjoin their further application and enforcement. In that regard, we stay our mandate with respect to Section 3218.1 for 180 days in order to give the General Assembly sufficient time to enact remedial legislation. Further, because we determine that Section 3241 is unconstitutional on its face, as it grants a corporation the power of eminent domain to take private property for a private purpose, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1 and 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we reverse the Commonwealth Court's order and direct this provision be stricken as well, and enjoined from further application and enforcement.
In February 2012, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed Act 13—a sweeping law regulating the oil and gas industry—which, inter alia , repealed parts of the existing Oil and Gas Act of 19842 codified in Title 58 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes and created six new chapters therein, the specific provisions of two of which—Chapters 32 and 33—are at issue in this appeal. The questions raised in the instant appeal involve Sections 3218.1, 3222.1, and 3241 of Chapter 32, and Sections 3305 through 3309 of Chapter 33, the operation of which we describe briefly at the outset of this opinion so that the reader may understand the extensive prior jurisprudence from our Court and the Commonwealth Court concerning the function and interplay of these statutory provisions.3
Chapter 32 of Title 58, entitled “Development,” delineates various permitting, operational, notification, and disclosure requirements for companies, individuals, and governmental entities concerning the drilling and operation of wells for gas, petroleum, and related liquids. It also provides for the implementation of certain subsurface storage methods for natural gas within our Commonwealth. As explained more fully herein, Section 3218.1 establishes a requirement that the DEP, upon being informed of a “spill,” and, after investigation, “notify any public drinking water facility that could be affected by the event that the event occurred.” 58 Pa.C.S. § 3218.1.
Section 3222.1 applies to hydraulic fracturing activities, i.e., “fracking,” carried out in the drilling and operation of “unconventional wells” to extract natural gas.4 It requires a service provider, vendor, or operator of such a well to disclose chemicals used in the operation of the well within 60 days of the conclusion of fracking activities to a “chemical disclosure registry,” which is an internet website jointly operated by a group of state water quality officials and representatives of oil and gas producing states.5 58 Pa.C.S. §§ 3203, 3222.1(b)(2). However, Section 3222.1 specifically exempts from such disclosure the “identity of a chemical or the concentration of a chemical, or both” which a “service provider who performs any part of a hydraulic fracturing treatment,” “a vendor who provides hydraulic fracturing additives directly to [a well] operator for a hydraulic fracturing treatment,” or a well “operator,” has claimed to be “a trade secret or confidential proprietary information.” 58 Pa.C.S. § 3222.1(b), (1), (3). In such circumstances, the service provider, vendor, or well operator is only required to submit a signed written statement to the registry that the record contains a trade secret or confidential proprietary information, and must include in the disclosure form “the chemical family or similar description associated with the chemical.” Id.§...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Loughnane
...exception to the warrant requirement, albeit without any majority rationale for doing so.3 See generally, e.g., Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 147 A.3d 536, 547–49 (Pa. 2016) (explaining the precedential aspects of our prior decision in Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 623 Pa. 564, 83 A.3d 90......
-
Commonwealth v. Batts
...statute "are incomplete and are incapable of being executed in accordance with legislative intent." Id. ; Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth , ––– Pa. ––––, 147 A.3d 536, 558–59 (2016).The relevant provisions of section 6137 state:The [parole] board may parole subject to consideration of guideli......
-
Wolf v. Scarnati
...constitutional avoidance to resolve this matter, that path is, unfortunately, unavailable to us. See, e.g. , Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth , 637 Pa. 239, 147 A.3d 536, 574 (2016) ("Although courts should interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional questions when possible, they cannot i......
-
Frederick v. Allegheny Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd.
...that certain provisions of Act 13 were unconstitutional, these setbacks remain in effect. Robinson Township v. Commonwealth , 637 Pa. 239, 147 A.3d 536, 542 n.3 (2016) ( Robinson Township IV ).4 Operators must also obtain permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT).......
-
From Trade Secrecy to Seclusion
...and the Patchwork of Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Laws, 38 VT. L. REV. 849, 853 (2014). But see Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 147 A.3d 536, 575–76 (Pa. 2016) (overturning act preventing medical professionals from disclosing the chemical composition of fracturing fluids and noting that ......