On August 29, 2012, SBI received a 2011 Impact Fee Statement from the Commission stating that SBI owed impact fees in the amount of $170,000 for the period January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011, based upon production from seventeen vertical gas wells. Additionally, on August 29, 2012, SBI received a 2011 Spud Fee Statement from the Commission stating that it owed administrative fees in the amount of $850 for seventeen wells. On August 30, 2012, SBI paid the Commission the amounts stated on the 2011 Impact Fee and Spud Fee Statements. Joint Stipulation at 3. On March 27, 2013, SBI submitted to the Commission an annual report for the year 2012. The 2012 annual report listed each well operated by SBI that was potentially subject to the spud and impact fees imposed by Act 13 for the 2012 reporting period. In its 2012 annual report, which accurately set forth the production for each well for the 2012 reporting period, SBI stated that it operated twenty-eight vertical gas wells for which spud and impact fees were due. Id. at 3-4. In an e-mail dated April 12, 2013, an employee of the Commission’s Bureau of Administration, stated that a vertical well is not a stripper well, as defined in Section 2301 of Act 13, if it has reported production in excess of 90,000 cf in any one month of a reporting period. In response, SBI advised the Commission that it disagreed with the Commission’s interpretation and stated that each well listed as a stripper well in the 2011 and 2012 annual reports qualified as stripper wells by virtue of the reported monthly production histories for each year. Id. at 4. On April 8, 2013, SBI received the 2012 Impact Fee Statement from the Commission stating that SBI owed impact fees in the amount of $236,000 for 2012. In addition, SBI received a Spud Fee Statement for 2012 in the amount of $1,400. SBI paid the impact and spud fees identified in the 2012 statements. Id.
Finally, I&E stated that the Commission’s interpretation of stripper well supports I&E’s position. For example, I&E cited to the Reconsideration Order and Act 13 of 2012-Implementation of Unconventional Gas Well Impact Fee Act, Proposed Rulemaking Order, Docket No. L-2013-2375551 (Order entered October 17, 2013) (Rulemaking Order), in which the Commission stated that if production exceeds 90,000 cf per day in any calendar month during a calendar year, that well is subject to fees under Act 13. I&E S.J. Brief at 11-12. I&E disagreed with SBI’s contention that the impact fee is a tax and argued that the term stripper well should not be construed in favor of SBI. In support, I&E cited to Section 2318 of Act 13, 58 Pa. C.S. § 2318, which requires the Secretary of the Commonwealth, upon imposition of a severance tax on unconventional gas wells in Pennsylvania, to publish notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. I&E argued that this demonstrates that the General Assembly intended to differentiate between the impact fee imposed by Act 13 and a tax. In addition, I&E asserted that the purpose of imposing impact fees under Act 13 is to offset the impact on municipalities in which drilling is taking place and not to generate revenue. I&E S.J. Brief at 12-13. In his S.J. Order, ALJ Salapa agreed with SBI that there is no factual dispute as to the amount of gas produced by SBI’s wells and therefore no dispute as to the material facts of the case. The ALJ concluded, however, that SBI was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. S.J. Order at 16. The ALJ agreed with I&E’s arguments that the definition of stripper well was ambiguous and noted that that ambiguity was the reason why the Commission issued not only the Implementation Order and Reconsideration Order, but also a third order, Act 13 of 2012-Implementation of Unconventional Gas Well Impact Fee Act, Docket No. (Clarification Order entered December 20, 2012) (Clarification Order), in