Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/88874699/Commonwealth-Response-Act-13
Timestamp: 2017-09-19 23:42:15
Document Index: 664194529

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2301', '§ 601', '§ 10101', '§ 3202', '§ 3257', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§732', '§ 3305', '§ 3202', '§ 3222']

Uploaded by lauraeolson
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 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; TOWNSBIP 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; and MEHERNOSH KHAN, M.D. Petitioners NO. 284 MD 2012
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL VANIA; PENNSYL VANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, ROBERT F. POWELSON, in his Official Capacity as Chairman of the Public Utility Commission; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; LINDA L. KELLY, in her Official Capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; and MICHAEL L. KRANCER, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection, Respondents COMMONWEALTH RESPONDENTS'ANSWER TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. INTRODUCTION ARGUMENT A. Justiciability and Standing B. Petitioners Cannot Establish Irreparable Harm 1 5 6 9
C. The Public Interest In Establishing a State-Wide System For The The Development Of The Commonwealth's Oil And Natural Gas Resources While Also Establishing Uniform Regulations Of This Industry To Protect The Environment And The Rights Of Landowners Outweighs Petitioners' Interests In Retaining Local Control over These Types Of Policy Decisions : 13 D. Petitioners Cannot Establish That They Are Likely To Prevail On The Merits ....................................................•............................................. 1. Act 13 does not violate principles of due process under Article I, Section 1 and the Fourteenth Amendment as it has a rational basis and constitutes a proper exercise of the Commonwealth's police powers 2. The Legislature has the inherent authority to enact laws like Act 13 which preempt local zoning ordinances and by doing so does not violate Article I, Section 1 of the Pa. Constitution 3. Act 13 is not a "special law" which violates Article III, Section 32 of the Pa. Constitution because it is uniform in its regulation of the oil and gas industry and does not benefit, or apply solely to, a single group or entity 4. Section 3241, which entitles certain corporations to acquire an interest in real property under Act 13, is a proper exercise of the Commonwealth's power of eminent domain for public purposes and does not violate Article I, Sections 1 and 10 of the Pa. Constitution
5. Act 13 is a proper exercise of the Legislature's power to regulate and control natural resources and therefore does not violate Article I, Section 27 of the Pa. Constitution 6. The authority given by Act 13 to the PUC to issue non-binding, advisory opinions regarding zoning ordinances does not confer Legislative authority nor judicial authority on the executive branch in violation of the principle of separation ofpowers 7. Act 13 establishes basic policy choices and enacts sufficient standards for the DEP to promulgate regulations without violating the Non-Delegation Doctrine of Article II, Section 1 of the Pa. Constitution 8. The setback, timing and permitting requirements set forth in Act 13 are clearly defmed and provide sufficient notice to municipalities so as to not be unconstitutionally vague 9. Act 13' s provisions restricting the disclosure of medical diagnostic information by health care professionals is applicable to all health care professionals and does not constitute a "special law" which violates Article III, Section 32 of the Pa. Constitution 10. Act 13 does not violate the single subject rule of Article III, Section 3 of the Pa. Constitution by including provisions which restrict the disclosure of medical diagnostic information by health care professionals III. CONCLUSION
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission ("PUC"); Robert F. Powelson, in his official capacity as Chairman of the PUC; Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General; Attorney General Linda L. Kelly, in her official capacity; the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"); and Michael L. Krancer, in his official capacity as Secretary ofDEP (collectively, "Commonwealth Respondents"), through their 'counsel, hereby answer Petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction as follows:
Act 13 of2012, 58 Pa. C.S. §§ 2301-3504, is a comprehensive and broad
reform of the laws governing the development of oil and gas resources in Pennsylvania. Among other things, it revises and updates the Commonwealth's environmental regulation of the oil and natural gas industries, promotes economic development and energy self-sufficiency in Pennsylvania, provides for-drilling impact fees which are targeted to benefit municipalities where oil and gas operations occur, and creates uniformity with respect to the development and operation of oil and gas operations in different municipalities throughout Pennsylvania while preventing individual municipalities from unreasonably excluding or hampering development of an important and growing industry. The Petitioners in this case are Robinson Township and five other municipalities from Pennsylvania; various officials from these municipalities; the
Delaware Riverkeeper Network, a non-profit organization which has as its primary mission the maintenance and restoration of the Delaware River; Maya Van Rossum, a privately funded ombudsman who advocates for the protection and restoration of the Delaware River Basin; and Dr. Mehemosh Khan, M.D., a medical doctor practicing in Monroeville, Allegheny County. Petitioners have filed a voluminous petition for review consisting of 108 pages and 292 paragraphs in which they seek a permanent injunction which would enjoin the implementation of Act 13. In the petition for review, Petitioners allege that Act 13 is unconstitutional because: a. Act 13 violates Article I, Section 1 of the Pa. Constitution and the 14th
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it is an improper exercise of the Commonwealth's police power since it is not designed to protect the health, safety, morals and public welfare of the citizens of Pennsylvania; b. Act 13 violates Article I, Section 1 of the Pa. Constitution because it
allows "incompatible uses" in like zoning districts so as to conflict with the comprehensive zoning plans of municipalities; c. Act 13 violates Article I, Section 1 of the Pa. Constitution because it
restricts the ability of municipalities to follow existing zoning ordinances or comprehensive plans and limits the ability create new zoning ordinances or
comprehensive plans as required under the Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC"); d. Act 13 violates Article III, Section 32 of the Pa. Constitution because
it is a "special law" which was enacted solely for the benefit of the oil and gas industry; e. Act 13 violates Article I, Sections 1 and 10 of the Pa. Constitution
because it constitutes an improper use of the Commonwealth's eminent domain power; f. Act 13 violates Article I, Section 27 of the Pa. Constitution by
denying municipalities the ability to carry out their duty to protect the environment; g. Act 13 violates the Separation of Powers doctrine because it allows
the PUC to draft legislation; h. Act 13 violates the Separation of Powers doctrine because it allows
the PUC to render judicial decisions;
Act 13 improperly delegates power to DEP to establish standards for
the regulation of the oil and gas industry;
Act 13' s setback requirements are unconstitutionally vague because
they do not provide necessary or sufficient information regarding what actions by a municipality are prohibited;
Act 13's timing and permitting requirements are unconstitutionally
vague because they fail to provide municipalities with necessary or sufficient information regarding what actions by a municipality are prohibited;
Act 13' s provisions restricting the disclosure of medical diagnostic
information by health care professionals is a "special law" which violates Article III, Section 32 of the Pa. Constitution; m. Act 13 violates the single subject rule of Article III, Section 32 of the
Pa. Constitution by including provisions which restrict the disclosure of medical diagnostic information by health care professionals. (Petition for Review at ~ 20) Petitioners have also filed a separate motion requesting a preliminary injunction in which they ask the Court to preliminarily enjoin Act 13 from going into effect on April 14, 2012. However, for the reasons set forth more fully in the argument section below, the Commonwealth Respondents do not believe that Petitioners can establish that they have met the prerequisites for being granted a preliminary injunction. In particular, Petitioners cannot demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm if Act 13 is allowed to go into effect or that they are likely to prevail on the merits. Moreover, Act 13 represents a significant attempt by the Legislature to create a uniform system for the production of oil and gas while at the same time
protecting the environment and the rights of landowners. While Petitioners apparently disagree with some of the policy choices made by the Legislature, validly enacted statutes such as Act 13 are the result of our democratic process and as such represent the public policy of Pennsylvania. Absent an actual constitutional impediment, Act 13 must be upheld by the Courts regardless of how much any individuals or subordinate government bodies believe they are personally "harmed" or "disadvantaged" by it. Many of the objections raised by Petitioners are on closer examination nothing more than a broad criticism of the scope and effectiveness of Act 13' s substantive provisions rather than real or substantiated claims that Act 13 actually infringes on any of the rights protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution. Where Petitioners actually move beyond their personal assessment of the wisdom of the Legislature in enacting Act 13, they cannot establish that Act 13 actually infringes upon the rights of municipalities, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, or any of the individuals named as petitioners.
In order to be entitled to a preliminary injunction, a petitioner must
demonstrate the following essential prerequisites: (1) it is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm which could not be compensated by damages; (2) greater injury would result by refusing it than granting the injunction; (3) it will properly restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately before the
alleged wrongful misconduct; (4) the right to relief is clear and that the wrong is manifest; (5) the injunction is reasonably suited to abate the offending activity; and (6) it will not adversely affect the public interest. Free Speech, LLC v. City of
Philadelphia, 884 A.2d 966,970 (pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (citing Warehim v. Warehime, 580 Pa. 201,860 A.2d 41 (2004); Paupack Township, Wayne County v. Lake Mac-a-tek, Inc., 863 A.2d 615, 617 (pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (citing Summit Towne Centre, Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., 573 Pa. 637, 828 A.2d 995 (2003). Notably, these elements are cumulative and, therefore, failure on any of them requires denial of the preliminary injunction. See County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 518 Pa. 556,560, 544 A.2d 1305; 1307 (1988) ("For a preliminary injunction to issue, every one of these prerequisites must be established; if the petitioner fails to establish anyone of them, there is no need to address the others."). See also Reed v. Harrisburg City Council, 927 A.2d 698,
703 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Petitioners cannot establish that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction for the reasons explained below. A. Justiciability and Standing To the extent Petitioners are attempting to second-guess and ultimately overturn the determinations made by the Legislature on how to best regulate the oil and gas industry in Pennsylvania, this is improper and their claims are nonjusticiable. Under the Constitution, and integral to our concept of an ordered
democratic society, is the principle that the Legislative branch enacts the laws and their judgment on how best to exercise its powers cannot ordinarily be infringed upon by the judiciary. The Legislature has broad latitude in how to exercise its police powers. If a law has a conceivable rational basis and it is not otherwise prohibited by the United States or Pennsylvania Constitutions, the proper means for its rescission is through the ballot box and not the Courts. In addition, in order to be entitled to relief before the courts in any case, it is necessary that the parties seeking relief have standing. For a party to have standing, it must be aggrieved by the government action. Moreover, the interest it seeks to protect must be within the zone of interests which are protected by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question. William Penn Parking Garage v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168,346 A.2d 269 (1975). The standing of the municipalities in this case is questionable as to many, ifnot all, of the claims raised because municipalities are themselves created by the grace of the Legislature and are not "persons" with the same constitutionally protected rights as citizens. Article I, Section 1, for instance, sets forth basic protections for individuals. It would seem that municipalities are not proper parties to raise claims under Article I, Section 1 and that they could not properly raise these claims on behalf of their inhabitants under Article I, Section 1.
Similarly, Article I, Section 27, recognizes the right of the Commonwealth to "conserve and maintain" the natural resources of Pennsylvania for the benefit of the people. It is the Legislature which has the power and the discretion to exercise these powers. Municipalities have the authority to exercise such powers to the extent they are granted to them by the state. However, it is simply illogical for a municipality to complain that the Commonwealth, in exercising its powers to oversee oil and gas resources under Article I, Section 27, has somehow improperly limited the power of municipalities to oversee Pennsylvania's oil and gas resources. Municipalities lack standing to bring a claim pursuant to Article I, Section 27 for at least two reasons: they are not "persons" for whom the provision is intended to benefit and the determinations of the Legislature as to how best protect the Commonwealth's resources are generally not subject to challenge in the Courts. Rather than providing Petitioners with an avenue to challenge the Legislature's determination regarding how to properly manage Pennsylvania'S environment and the development of its precious resources, Article I, Section 27 is better viewed as expressly guaranteeing the Legislature's power to do so. The issues of justiciability and standing must be considered by the court at any time in the proceedings as they are necessary prerequisites for the Court to have jurisdiction over petitioners' claims. However, for purposes of this answer, these issues will be more generally discussed within the overall framework of
petitioners' entitlement to a preliminary injunction. We believe the deficiencies of petitioners' claims can more easily be seen using this approach. B. Petitioners Cannot Establish Irreparable Harm Municipalities are not persons and do not have the same rights as individuals. While Act 13 undoubtedly places much of the responsibility for regulating oil and gas development under the authority of the DEP and PUC instead of local municipal authorities, municipalities do not have any legal entitlement versus the state to make these types of determinations. There is simply no cognizable legal harm to a municipality in the Legislature changing the scope and authority of local authorities in zoning matters. The Commonwealth exercising its inherent right of preemption does not constitute a cognizable legal harm in this case. Although couching their petition in terms of specific violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Petitioners repeatedly fall back on the claim that Act 13 "constrains municipalities' authority over 'where' gas drilling operations may be located within the municipal borders. (Motion for Preliminary Injunction at , 5) In Huntley & Huntley v. Borough Council of the Borough of Oakmont, 600 Pa. 207,964 A.2d 855 (2009), the Supreme Court held that the Legislature in enacting the Oil and Gas Act,' Act 13's predecessor, did not intend to negate the power of
58 P.S. §§ 601.101 - 601.606.
municipalities to use their zoning powers to regulate oil and gas development within their territory. However, the Supreme Court did not hold that the Legislature lacked the authority to preempt local zoning laws and in fact recognized the Legislature's right to do so. In passing Act 13, the Legislature made clear its intent to preempt local zoning powers. Furthermore, Petitioners simply do not have any basis to argue that Act 13 is invalid because it conflicts with or preempts the Municipalities Planning Code2 ("MPC") or any other statute. Likewise, municipalities cannot claim that they are harmed because the Legislature chooses to use its powers to preempt local ordinances with statewide standards and regulations for the oil and gas industry. Municipalities do allege that they are required to amend their zoning ordinances within 120 days of the effective date (April 14, 2012). We would initially point out that municipalities have in fact been given 180 days, and not just 120 days, to accomplish this since Act 13 was actually approved by the Governor on February 14,2012. It also does not seem that amending a zoning ordinance as required by Act 13 would require the complete overhaul of a municipalities' comprehensive plan and zoning codes. The Legislature, in passing Act 13, certainly did not envision a process which would take more than 6 months to comply with. To the extent that the MPC would require more extensive review, it
53 P.S. §§ 10101 -11107.
is in direct conflict with the requirement of Act 13 and municipalities would not be bound by the ordinary review process. More importantly, even if municipalities - acting in good faith - are unable to successfully amend their ordinances by August 12, 2012 (180 days after February 14th), it is difficult to see how they are irreparably harmed. First, while municipal petitioners could lose access to impact fee funds under Act 13, these funds will only exist if Act 13 is allowed to go into effect. If Act 13 is enjoined, there will be no impact fees for municipalities whether their zoning ordinances are amended to comply with the Act or not. Second, despite the allegations in the motion for a preliminary injunction, Act 13 guarantees that municipalities will have 120 days in which to amend their ordinances after the effective date of the statute. Even if it true that some industry officials have declared that they will ignore this grace period and seek immediate relief against municipalities, the statute expressly provides a 120 day grace period. A statute should not be enjoined to prevent something which it simply does not provide for. Third, Section 3307 provides for attorney fees and costs as follows: (1) If the court determines that the local government enacted or enforced a local ordinance with willful or reckless disregard of the MPC, this chapter or Chapter 32 (relating to development), it may order the local government to pay the plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and other reasonable attorney fees and other reasonable costs incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the action.
58 Pa. C.S. Sec. 3307. Ifa municipality has been unable to amend its local zoning ordinance to comply with Act 13 because of concerns with following due process, court challenges to the amendments, and similar delays which are outside the control of local officials, it would seem highly unlikely that they could be found to have acted willfully or recklessly so as to incur attorney fees. Moreover, given the preemptive effect of Act 13, local officials would have a proper legal basis to not enforce any zoning ordinance which conflicted with Act 13. Therefore, even if municipalities could not amend their zoning ordinance within the 120 grace period, they are not prevented from complying with Act 13 despite what their current zoning ordinance might provide.' Fourth, municipalities are not without a remedy if they are unfairly sued under Act 13. Section 3307(2) provides that "If the court determines that the action brought by the plaintiff was frivolous or was brought without substantial justification ... it may order the plaintiff to pay the local government reasonable attorney fees and other reasonable costs incurred by the local government in defending the action." Petitioners' claims that they need an injunction because
Ifa statute is declared unconstitutional, state and local officials are not required to follow the statute (and are in fact obligated not to) even though it still appears on the books. Similarly, while the zoning ordinances of municipalities may not have changed due to Act 13' s passage, local officials have an obligation to not enforce those provisions which have been preempted by state .law .
they have no remedy against unfair or unsubstantiated claims against them are simply unfounded as Act 13 itself provides a remedy.
The Public Interest In Establishing A State-Wide System For The Development Of The Commonwealth's Oil And Natural Gas Resources While Also Establishing Uniform Regulations Of This Industry To Protect The Environment And The Rights Of Landowners Outweighs Petitioners' Interests In Retaining Local Control Over These Types Of Policy Decisions.
The Commonwealth is the home for an abundant supply of fuel which is a critical component of Pennsylvania's economic future. At the same time, the exploration, development and production of these resources poses potential risks to the environment and may infringe on the rights of other landowners. Given these problems, the Legislature has determined that it is important to have a uniform regulatory scheme to protect both the environment and foster economic growth instead of allowing individual municipalities to engage in piecemeal regulation which in some cases may not adequately protect the Commonwealth's natural resources and at other times may prevent the reasonable development of these resources.4
Some communities may wish to exclude any oil and gas development within their borders. Conversely, other communities may be too eager to allow such development for their own economic benefit while failing to adequately protect the interests of neighboring communities and the overriding interest of the Commonwealth and its citizens in protecting its natural resources for present and future generations. Through the enactment of Act 13, the Legislature is preventing
In enacting Chapter 32 of Act 13, the Legislature intended to: (1) Permit optimal development of oil and gas resources of this Commonwealth consistent with protection of the health, safety, environment and property of Pennsylvania citizens. (2) Protect the safety of personnel and facilities employed in coal mining or exploration, development, storage and production of natural gas or oil. (3) Protect the safety and property rights of persons residing in areas where mining, exploration, development, storage or production occurs. (4) Protect the natural resources, environmental rights and values secured by the Constitution of Pennsylvania. 58 Pa. C.S. § 3202. These objectives further the public policy of this Commonwealth. Act 13 requires DEP to issue permits, provide governmental oversight, promulgate appropriate regulations under the Act, and enforce compliance. Individual municipalities would be unable to establish the type of uniformity which the Legislature has deemed necessary. Similarly, individual municipalities would lack the same level of expertise and resources as DEP to adequately oversee the oil and gas industry. Moreover, Act 13 does not limit the Commonwealth or a private individual from exercising rights which existed prior to its passage.
It is hereby declared to be the purpose of [Chapter 32] to provide
additional and cumulative remedies to control activities related to individual municipalities from adopting policies which are contrary to the underlying economic and environmental policies of the Commonwealth.
drilling for, or production of, oil and gas in this Commonwealth, and nothing contained in this chapter abridges or alters rights of action or remedies existing, or which existed previously, in equity or under common or statutory law, criminal or civil. Neither this chapter, the grant of a permit under this chapter nor an act done by virtue of this chapter stops the Commonwealth, in exercising rights under common or decisional law or in equity, from suppressing a nuisance, abating pollution or enforcing common law or statutory rights. No court of this Commonwealth with jurisdiction to abate public or private nuisances shall be deprived of jurisdiction in an action to abate a private or public nuisance instituted by any person on grounds that the nuisance constitutes air or water pollution. 58Pa. C.S. § 3257 (existing rights and remedies preserved and cumulative remedies authorized). Delaying the additional protections offered to the citizens of Pennsylvania by enjoining Act 13 from going into effect would be contrary to the public interest. Enjoining Act 13 would disrupt the efforts ofDEP and the PUC who have begun the process of implementing the Act's requirements. Furthermore, despite the claims of Petitioners to the contrary, Act 13 does not dismantle the environmental protections enjoyed by Pennsylvania's citizens, but in fact enhances the protection of previously existing laws. In addition, Act 13 was enacted, at least in part, to create a uniform and stable economic climate for oil and gas developers considering doing business in Pennsylvania. Enjoining Act 13 would create uncertainty and discourage investment in an important and growing industry. As a result, fewer jobs will be created and less tax revenue generated.
Finally, enjoining Act 13 will prevent counties and municipalities from collecting the impact fees provided for under the law. These fees are necessary to help offset the external costs to local communities which are inevitably created by the expansion arid growth of the oil and natural gas industry. As it is unlikely that
these fees could be fully recouped if Act 13 is enjoined, it is contrary to the public interest to do so. D. Petitioners Cannot Establish That They Are Likely To Prevail On The Merits
Petitioners raise thirteen issues in their petition for review. Even accepting their factual allegations as true, they cannot establish that there is a likelihood that they will prevail on the merits on any of their claims. In fact, as explained below, it is highly unlikely that Petitioners will prevail on any of their, claims as they cannot demonstrate that Act 13 is unconstitutional under any of the various legal theories offered to the Court. Rather, Act 13 is a proper exercise of the power of the Legislature and fully withstands Petitioners' constitutional scrutiny. While Petitioners apparently disagree with the policy determinations made by the Legislature, they cannot overcome the presumption that laws duly enacted by the Legislature are valid or that the Legislature had a rational basis in enacting a detailed and comprehensive piece of legislation. Accordingly, they are not entitled to a preliminary injunction. We address each claim separately below.
Act 13 does not violate principles of due process under Article I, Section 1 and the Fourteenth Amendment as it has a rational basis and constitutes a proper exercise of the Commonwealth's police powers.
Initially, we would note that municipalities do not have an inherent right to the powers conferred upon them by the state. The Legislature has established municipalities and their power is ultimately derived from it. While the MPC and other legislation may give certain powers to municipalities, the Legislature reserves the power to modify or rescind these powers as it sees fit. As discussed, supra, it seems doubtful that the municipalities are proper parties to assert claims under Article I, Section 1 of the Pa. Constitution. However, even if petitioners have standing to bring these claims, they cannot establish that Act 13 violates due process. There is a strong presumption that acts
of the General Assembly are constitutional. Accordingly, petitioners have a heavy burden in attempting to have Act 13 declared unconstitutional. Pennsylvania Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc, v, Commonwealth [PAGE], 583 Pa. 275, 292, 877 A.2d 383,393 (2005). Furthermore, to withstand a due process challenge, a law which does not implicate any fundamental rights (such as Act 13) must only be rationally related to a valid state objective. See Parker v. Com., Dept. of Labor andlndustry, 540 A.2d 313 (Pa. Cmwlth.), aff'd, 521 Pa. 531m 557 A.2d
1061 (1988). In the present case, the provisions contained in Act 13 are rationally related to the Commonwealth's objectives of protecting the enviromnent,
protecting the rights of landowners, and encouraging the economic development of the oil and gas industry. As such, Act 13 is a proper exercise of the Commonwealth's police powers and does in fact further the health, safety and welfare of Pennsylvania's citizens. While Petitioners may question the wisdom of the Legislature's choices, Act 13 meets the minimum requirements of due process. 2. The Legislature has the inherent authority to enact laws like Act 13 which preempt local zoning ordinances and by doing so does not violate Article I, Section 1 of the Pa. Constitution.
As discussed immediately above, municipalities are creatures of the state and their powers are ultimately derived through the grace of the Legislature. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd. V. City Council of Phila., 593 Pa. 241, 266, 928 A.2d 1255, 1270 (2007). While the MPC places limits on the power of municipalities in enacting zoning laws, the Legislature may repeal, limit, or preempt such provisions so long as it does not violate the Federal or Commonwealth Constitutions in the process. See Olon v. Com., Dept. of Corrections, 534 Pa. 90, 94, 626 A.2d 533, 535 (1993). The fact that Act 13 may conflict with the MPC does not render Act 13 unconstitutional. While in local
communities the MPC may at times seem to have "constitutional" dimensions, it is not a part of the Constitution and the Legislature is not bound to follow it in enacting legislation.
Petitioners rely heavily on Village ofEuclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) and later cases to support their position that municipalities may exercise certain rights when it comes to zoning. However, Petitioners turn Village of Euclid on its head when they claim they have a right to such powers which cannot be overridden by the state. Village of Euclid and its progeny helped determine that the government could use zoning to regulate land use without violating the due process rights of individuals. While the necessity of having some type of zoning is widely accepted and no longer controversial, neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have ever held that zoning is a birthright of municipalities. or that the state government cannot determine the scope and authority of zoning by them. Neither the Pennsylvania Constitution nor the MPC establishes vested rights which prevent the Legislature from limiting the power of municipalities to regulate the oil and gas industry. 3. Act 13 is not a "special law" which violates Article In, Section 32 of the Pa. Constitution because it is uniform in its regulation of the oil and gas industry and does not benefit, or apply solely to, a single group or entity.
Article III, Section 32 of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits the Legislature from enacting "special laws." However, Act 13 is not a special law and thus, this particular constitutional provision does not apply.: Special laws are only those laws which grant special privileges to an individual person, company or municipality. See Wings Field Preservation Associates v. Dept. ofTransp., 776
A.2d 311 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). The Legislature has made a valid classification in providing for the regulation of the oil and gas industry. Moreover, its provisions are uniform and establish strict environmental requirements for participants in the oil and gas industry. Act 13 also establishes protections for landowners who may live or own land in proximity to oil and gas operations. In sum, Act 13 furthers the economic and environmental interests of the Commonwealth rather than benefitting a single group or entity. For these reasons, among others, Act 13 does not qualify as a "special law" which is prohibited under Article III, Section 32 of the Constitution.
Section 3241, which entitles certain corporations to acquire an interest in real property under Act 13, is a proper exercise of the Commonwealth's power of eminent domain for public purposes and does not violate Article I, Sections 1 and 10 of the Pa. Constitution.
Petitioners fail to state a claim that Act 13 is an improper exercise of the Commonwealth's power of eminent domain. First, there is no allegation that any of petitioners' property has been, or is threatened to be, taken without just compensation. Without such action, Petitioners' claim is speculative and not ripe for adjudication. Second, while Petitioners maintain that Section 3241 provides for the taking of property for a non-public purpose, this is blatantly untrue. The only corporate entities within the Commonwealth which have the authority to transport, sell, or 20
store natural gas or manufactured natural gas are public utilities. As these are the only corporations which are authorized to use the power of eminent domain under Section 3241, the suggestion that this provision does not serve a public purpose or is intended to allow oil and gas production companies to appropriate land for the benefit of private interests is not just misleading, but an incorrect interpretation of Act 13' s provisions . .5. Act 13 is a proper exercise of the Legislature's power to regulate and control natural resources and therefore does not violate Article I, Section 27 of the Pa, Constitution.
"It is fundamental that municipal corporations are creatures of the State and that the authority of the Legislature over their powers is supreme." Knauer v. Commonwealth, 332 A.2d 589,590 (1975). A municipality "possesses only such powers of government as are expressly granted to it and as are necessary to carry the same into effect." Appeal of Gagliardi, 163 A.2d 418,419 (Pa. 1960). Where the existence of municipal power is questioned, courts apply a presumption against the existence of the municipal power. Knauer, 332 A.2d at 590 (1975)(citing Kline v.Harrisburg, 68 A.2d 182, 184-185 (Pa; 1949)). Petitioners improperly assert that Art. I, Section 27 grants municipalities the power to protect public natural resources as against the Legislature. Art. I, Section 27 imposes a duty on the Commonwealth to conserve and maintain Pennsylvania's public riatural resources. Pa. Const. art. I, § 27. Art. I, Section 27 states:
The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people. Pa. Const. Art. I, § 27 (emphasis added). Article I, Section 27, on its face, names the Commonwealth as trustee of Pennsylvania's public natural resources. "Constitutional provisions are not to be read in a strained or technical manner. Rather, they must be given the ordinary, natural interpretation the ratifying voter would give them." Com. ex reI. Paulinski v. Isaac, 397 A.2d 760, 765 (pa. 1979). Here, Article I, Section 27 plainly places that obligation on the Commonwealth. Petitioners have cited no basis for their premise that Article I, Section 27 grants municipalities power as against the Legislature. Because Article I, Section 27 grants only the Commonwealth the power to conserve and maintain Pennsylvania'S public natural resources, and because municipalities' power is limited to that granted by the Legislature, no power of municipalities as against the Legislature may be inferred. Therefore, Petitioners claim must fail. 6. The authority given by Act 13 to the PUC to issue non-binding, advisory opinions regarding zoning ordinances does not confer legislative authority nor judicial authority on the executive branch in violation of the principle of separation of powers.
Act 13 confers on the PUC the authority to issue non-binding advisory opinions regarding the compliance of a local zoning ordinance With the
requirements of Act 13. Executive agencies are often called upon to provide advice or give an opinion regarding the validity of statutes and other legislative pronouncements. For example, the Office of Attorney General provides advisory
opinions to the Governor and other executive agencies under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act without intruding into the authority of the legislature or the judiciary. Commonwealth Attorneys Act, 71 P.S. §732-204. According to the position adopted by the Petitioners, however, opinions of this kind by the Attorney General would themselves be unconstitutional. The judiciary itself is prohibited from rendering advisory opinions. Apparently, under Petitioners' view, the rendering of advisory opinions by any branch of government is unconstitutional. Of course, this is not true. The key is
that the PUC is only rendering an opinion and not making a binding, judicial determination which can only be made by the judicial branch. Petitioners' contention that legislative bodies cannot use or otherwise rely on the expertise of executive agencies in enacting legislation is absurd. So long as the executive branch does not tie the hands of a municipality in enacting local zoning ordinances, it does not infringe on the independence of the legislative process. Act 13 establishes a resource to assist municipalities in complying with its requirements. However, municipalities are not required to ask the PUC for its
advice and the judiciary remains the final arbiter of whether a particular ordinance
is lawful. Moreover, an order by the PUC resulting from a request by an owner or operator of an oil or gas operation, or a person aggrieved by the enactment or enforcement of an ordinance, allows an aggrieved party the right to a de novo appeal to Commonwealth Court. See 58 Pa. C.S. § 3305(b). Regardless of who brings a matter before the PUC, all interested parties retain the right to have any matter decided by the courts. Accordingly, the PUC is not usurping the authority of the courts. 7. Act 13 establishes basic policy choices and enacts sufficient standards for the DEP to promulgate regulations without violating the Non-Delegation Doctrine of Article ll, Section 1 of the Pa. Constitution. Petitioners' claim that Act 13 unconstitutionally delegates
legislative authority to DEP appears premature and speculative as they do not point to any specific waivers which have been granted or any regulations which have been enacted which would violate the requirements of Article II, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Nonetheless, their challenge under Article II, Section 1 cannot be maintained in any case as Act 13 provides sufficient guidance to DEP to allow them to implement necessary regulations and otherwise follow the Act's requirements as established by the Legislature. The Non-Delegation Doctrine is a natural corollary of Article II, Section 1. "[I]t requires that the basic policy choices involved in 'legislative power' actually be made by the Legislature as constitutionally mandated." Chartiers Valley Joint
Schools v. County Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 418 Pa. 520, 529, 211 A.2d 487, 492 (1965). Nonetheless, while prohibited from delegating the power to make laws, the
Legislature can delegate policy-making authority to the executive branch so long as it makes the basic policy choices and enacts adequate standards to guide and restrain the exercise of the delegated administrative functions. Id., 418 Pa. at 529, 211 A.2d at 492. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court- recently recognized in
Casino Free Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, 594 Pa. 202, 207, 934 A.2d 1249, 1253 (2007), "there is nothing in the [Non-Delegation Doctrine] that would require an exhaustive definition of [each purpose and objective of a law]. The Legislature is not constitutionally required to
micromanage the administrative agencies it creates." Act 13 includes specific guidance as to the purpose of its provisions. In Section 3202 it states that the Legislature intended, inter alia, to "permit optimal development of oil and gas resources of this Commonwealth consistent with protection of the health safety, environment and property of Pennsylvania citizens." 58 Pa. C.S. § 3202. These and other clearly stated objectives provide the necessary signposts for DEP to make appropriate regulations without usurping the Legislature's function. If this were not sufficient in itself,Act 13 provides a substantial amount of guidance through its lengthy and rather detailed provisions governing the oil and gas industry. Further guidance can be found through the
Clean Water Act and other existing environmental laws which the Legislature made clear are to work concurrently with Act 13 so as to further the environmental goals of the Commonwealth. See Section 3257 of Act 13. Accordingly, Act 13 does not violate the Non-Delegation doctrine of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. 8. The setback, timing and permitting requirements set forth in Act 13 are clearly defined and provide sufficient notice to municipalities so as to not be unconstitutionally vague.
A statute is rendered vague not because it is sometimes difficult to ascertain how it applies, but because its application is indeterminable. See United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 306 (2008). A vague statute lacks defmite standards and is susceptible to arbitrary interpretation by government officials. While petitioners may not agree with the determinations of the Legislature, Act 13 is neither vague nor arbitrary. It provides defmitive rules and standards which can be applied with mathematical and scientific precision. Act 13 is a highly detailed piece of legislation which contains carefully defined terms. The setback and other requirements established under Act 13 use standard measurements which can be understood as having the same meaning in every county and municipality across Pennsylvania. While it seems clear that specific provisions in Act 13 would override provisions of the MPC with which they conflict, the fact that questions regarding statutory construction and
preemption of local ordinances may occasionally arise does not render Act 13 vague or otherwise unconstitutional. Act 13 is not vague because it "give [s] the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly." See Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498. The Legislature in drafting the statute has used words which have commonly accepted definitions, are widely used, and/or are specifically defined by the Act itself. Determining what municipalities have the authority to do or whether Act 13 has been violated does not depend on subjective judgments. Such determinations can be made through a careful reading of the statute and the established rules governing statutory construction. Moreover, the terminology used is not vague and does not allow for arbitrary enforcement. 9. Act 13's provisions restricting the disclosure of medical diagnostic information by health care professionals is applicable to all health care professionals and does not constitute a "special law" which violates Article m, Section 32 of the Pa. Constitution.
As explained previously, Article III, Section 32 prohibits the Legislature from enacting "special laws." However, Act 13 is not a special law and thus,this particular constitutional provision does not apply. Special laws are only those laws which grant special privileges to an individual person, company or municipality. See Wings Field Preservation Associates v. Dept. of Transp., 776 A.2d 311 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). The Legislature has made a valid classification in providing for
the regulation of the oil and gas industry. Regardless of Petitioners' claims to the contrary, there is a rational basis for putting some limitations on the dissemination of trade secrets in the oil and gas industry. Furthermore, while Petitioners believe that these restrictions are unnecessary or impede public health, they are uniform across the entire industry and simply do not constitute a "special law" so as to violate Article III, Section 32 of the Pa. Constitution. 10. Act 13 does not violate the single subject rule of Article III, Section 3 of the Pa. Constitution by including provisions which restrict the disclosure of medical diagnostic information by health care professionals.
Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that "[n]o bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or a part thereof." Pa. Const. art. III, Sec.3. A strong presumption exists that legislative enactments do not violate our Constitution, and a heavy burden of persuasion is placed on the challenger of a bill's constitutionality. PAGE, 877 A.2d at 393. Therefore, courts should exercise
deference to the Legislature in construing reasonably broad topics covered by a bill. City of Philadelphia v. Com., 575 Pa. 542, 577-78, 838 A.2d 566, 588 (2003). Petitioners incorrectly characterize Section 3222.1(b)(11) as a restriction on health professionals and as falling outside the subject of the regulation of the oil and gas industry. However, Section 3222.1(b)(11) is not a restriction on health
professionals, but a restriction on the oil and gas industry. This section provides that the oil and gas industry must report trade secrets and confidential proprietary information to health professionals in emergencies. While health professionals must use such information for the purpose of medical treatment and are not permitted to disseminate the information for other purposes under the Act, it properly falls within the subject matter of Act 13 and Title 58 of Pennsylvania Statutes. Oil and gas well reporting requirements are germane to the regulation of the oil and gas industry. Petitioners assertion that oil and gas well reporting requirements such as § 3222.1(b)(11) should be placed in Title 35 which regulates health professionals is incorrect. No reasonable person would expect to fmd oil and gas well reporting requirements in statutory provisions governing medical professionals. A reasonable person would look for these requirements within Title
58. For these reasons, Petitioners cannot prevail on their claim that Act 13 violates the single subject requirement under Article III, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction should be
denied. Respectfully submitted, .LINDA L. KELLY Attorney General
By:H~~~ Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorney I.D. #74264 GREGORY R. NEUHAUSER Chief Deputy Attorney General Chief, Litigation Section Office of Attorney General Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct: 717-783-1478 Fax: 717-772-4526 Date: April 10, 2012 Counsel for Commonwealth Respondents
I, Howard G. Hopkirk, Senior Deputy Attorney General, hereby certify that on April 10, 2012, I caused to be served the foregoing Commonwealth Respondents' Answer To Petitioners' Motion For A Preliminary Injunction,
by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania upon the following: John M. Smith, Esquire
125 Technology Drive, Suite 202 Bailey Center I, Southpointe Canonsburg, PA 15317 (Counsel for Petitioners) Jonathan M. Kamin, Esquire GOLDBERG, KAMIN & GARVIN,
Jordan B. Yeager, Esquire CURTIN & HEEFNER, LLP Heritage Gateway C3enter 1980 South Easton Road, Suite 220 Doylestown, PA 18901 (Counsel for Petitioners) William A. Johnson, Esquire 23 East Beau Street Washington,PA 15301 (Counsel for Petitioners) Susan J. Kraham, Esquire
1806 Frick Building Pittsburgh,PA 15219 (Counselfor Petitioners)
435 West 116th Street New York, NY 10027 (Counsel for Petitioners)
/:1'/.
HOWARD G. HOP~ Senior Deputy Attorney General
More From lauraeolson
Petitioners_ Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Signed)
Candidate List, Feb. 17
Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition for Leave to Intervene and for Expedited Consideration Thereof
Rep. Mustio mailer - state Senate race
Petition for Leave to Intervene and for Expedited Consideration Thereof
Franklin&Marshall March Poll