Case Name: SNYDER BROTHERS, INC., Respondent v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Petitioner; Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association, Respondent v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2017-10-18
Citations: 172 A.3d 1119
Docket Number: No. 166 WAL 2017; No. 167 WAL 2017
Parties: SNYDER BROTHERS, INC., Respondent v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Petitioner Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association, Respondent v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Petitioner
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 172
Pages: 1119–1119

Head Matter:
SNYDER BROTHERS, INC., Respondent v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Petitioner Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association, Respondent v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Petitioner
No. 166 WAL 2017
No. 167 WAL 2017
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
October 18, 2017

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
(1) On a question of first impression involving substantial public interest, did the Commonwealth Court err in finding that the definition of "stripper well" in the Unconventional Gas Well Impact Pee Act of 2012 (Act 13), was clear and unambiguous?
(2) Is the Commonwealth Court's Opinion based on factual and legal errors and is it a significant departure from accepted judicial practices?
a. Did the Commonwealth Court err in its statutory construction analysis, misreading the definition of "stripper well" in Act 13, ignoring relevant legislative history, and ultimately reaching a conclusion that is an absurd result?
b. Where the Commission is charged with the administration and enforcement of the impact fee provisions of Act 13, did the Commonwealth Court err in failing to give deference to the Commission's interpretation of Act 13?