Background

Print

What's going on with state drilling ordinance reviews?

Written by Laura Olson on . Posted in Documents

As the state Supreme Court prepares to hear a challenge next week to the July Commonwealth Court ruling that a portion of Pennsylvania's new drilling law unconstitutional, a number of towns' local shale rules remain in limbo.

While the appeal has been pending, the state Public Utility Commission has begun review of requests for either the agency's informal or binding opinions on whether local ordinances go too far in their attempts to regulate gas drilling. 

Part of the agency's new authority to determine whether local rules comply with the new state rules in Act 13 remains on hold, but the PUC says it still is charged with reviewing those ordinances to see if they meet other criteria related to drilling operations and environmental issues.

Those reviews fall into two categories: informal advisory requests, filed by municipal or county officials and which carry no penalty for non-compliance, and official reviews.

Four towns are awaiting official rulings on whether their drilling rules are acceptable. All four -- South Fayette, Robinson, Cecil, and Mount Pleasant -- are part of the Act 13 legal challenge, along with Peters and two Bucks County towns. 

If the PUC responds to the official review requests filed by local residents or drillers that a set of municipal rules do not comply with the new state law, they stand to lose their share of the new impact fee dollars that will be distributed this fall.

Here's an update -- according to data available on the PUC website as of Oct. 9 -- on the opinions issued by the agency, with links to official documents:

PENDING OFFICIAL REVIEWS:

  1. South Fayette
  2. Robinson 
  3. Cecil
  4. Mount Pleasant

ADVISORY OPINIONS ISSUED:

  1. Fayette County - 9/5/2012
  2. North Towanda, Bradford - 9/5/2012
  3. City of Pittsburgh- 9/10/2012
  4. Athens, Bradford County - 9/10/2012
  5. Graham, Clearfield County - 9/10/2012
  6. Washington Township, Erie County - 9/19/2012
  7. Connellsville, Fayette County - 9/19/2012
  8. Monaca, Beaver County - 9/19/2012
  9. Allegheny Township, Westmoreland County - 9/21/2012
  10. Roaring Brook Township, Lackawanna County - 9/21/2012
  11. Kidder Township, Carbon County - 10/2/2012
  12. Newton Township, Lackawanna County - 10/2/2012
  13. Shippingport, Beaver County - 10/2/2012
Print

Enviros react to negotiated shale bill

Written by Laura Olson on . Posted in Documents

Chesapeake Bay Foundation: 

"HB1950 represents a tremendous step forward for the Commonwealth in managing current and future drilling operations in the Marcellus Shale formation. This bill combines the best of the environmental protection provisions from both SB1100 and HB1950, and improved upon them. The result is a package that while not perfect, will help protect Pennsylvania's environment.

"This bill is the only option we have to increase protections to the environment and our communities. CBF supports much of the proposed language of HB1950, and encourages the General Assembly to work together to pass this legislation.

 

Continue Reading

Print

Letter from top House Republican leaders to caucus, 2/4/2012

Written by Laura Olson on . Posted in Documents

A copy of the letter from House Speaker Sam Smith, R-Punxsutawney, and House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Bradford Woods, to Republican lawmakers on Saturday regarding the pending shale bill:

Dear Members:

As you are aware, our staff have been meeting with the Senate and Governor's staff to develop out a final Marcellus Shale bill.   They have been updating us regularly on the status of the talks.  These meetings have occurred over the past few months.  We know many of you have been receiving updates from staff and us over the course of these discussions upon your request.

These discussions have progressed rapidly over the course of the last two weeks.  In fact, staff have been working throughout the weekend and will be working tomorrow in order to have a proposal that we can consider as early as this week.  Given the status of the talks we felt it was important to provide you with an initial summary of the key components of the current framework.  As is readily apparent, the framework is a melding of the priorities contained in both HB 1950 and SB 1100.  Our staff is working on preparing detailed documents that will help to explain the current framework.

We also feel compelled to tell you that the provisions on local zoning have been clarified in order to ensure that the local governments retain their traditional powers to provide for local zoning and regulation while striking a balance to provide for the reasonable development of natural gas.  We have been briefed by staff on the new approach and think many of you will agree the aforementioned goal was achieved. You can expect a detailed explanation of the new local zoning language in short order.

We realize that many of you have been receiving emails asking you to oppose HB 1950.  These emails are based on the current version of House Bill 1950.  Given the comments in these emails, in our opinions, the current framework stands to address most of these concerns.  Of course, those who simply want to stop all drilling will not be satisfied with any legislation.

Over the course of the legislative process many of you raised a variety of issues and concerns. You can be sure all of these issues and concerns were discussed and given full consideration throughout the meetings of the past several months. For instance, many of you advocated for the inclusion of a program to enhance the demand for natural gas.  We are pleased that the current framework contains a substantial multi-year commitment to the development of natural gas vehicles throughout the Commonwealth.

See you all Monday.

Print

Memo to House Democratic lawmakers on final shale legislation, 2/5/2012

Written by Laura Olson on . Posted in Documents

Here's a copy of the memo circulated to House Democratic lawmakers Sunday afternoon:

HB 1950 Conference Committee Report

Fee
- County has 90 days to adopt ordinance authorizing imposition of fee on every spud well
o If not going to authorize a fee, county must, within 45 days of effective date, make its intentions clear and municipalities may pursue alternative imposition
- Bill provides language for the ordinance
- County that does not impose a fee does not get any funds from distribution
o Prohibition is in effect until county passes ordinance
o May receive funds in next calendar year following passage of ordinance
- Alternative imposition by municipalities
o 90 days after effective date of section, if governing bodies of half of the municipalities representing at least 50% of the county population adopt resolutions imposing an impact fee on unconventional wells, the county-wide impact fee shall take effect
o Municipalities shall give notice to governing body of county and PUC
- Fee applies to unconventional gas wells spud, regardless of when spudding occurred
o Gas well spud prior to 2011 shall be considered to have spud in 2011
Average annual price $0-2.25 $2.26-2.99 $3.00-4.99 $5-5.99 $6.00 and higher
Year 1 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000 $55,000 $60,000
Year 2 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $55,000
Year 3 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $50,000
Years 4-10 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Years 11-15 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Total $190,000 $240,000 $315,000 $330,000 $355,000
- Fee is determined using average annual price of gas

Continue Reading

More Articles...