ShareThis Page
Business Headlines

Pa. oil and gas industry association takes DEP to court

| Saturday, June 20, 2015, 12:01 a.m.

An oil and gas industry group on Friday accused Pennsylvania regulators of improperly including certain environmental requirements on applications for state well permits.

In two court filings, the Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association says the state Supreme Court threw out a section of the Act 13 oil and gas law of 2012 that allowed the Department of Environmental Protection to seek extra steps on the applications. The provisions require drillers in some cases to complete a form related to potential impacts on public resources, and consider potential effects of drilling on protected animals and plants.

“DEP cannot continue to require our industry to comply with these invalidated and enjoined provisions without obtaining authorization from the General Assembly,” Kevin Moody, attorney for Marshall-based PIOGA, said in a release.

A DEP spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.

Act 13 rewrote much of the state's oil and gas law, in response to the boom in shale drilling. Several communities and groups challenged the law, and the Supreme Court in 2013 deemed parts of the law unconstitutional. The court disallowed enforcement of certain provisions related to the unconstitutional language.

DEP cites one of those disallowed provisions in the permit application requirements.

PIOGA's filings say the department can reject a permit application based on failure to follow the contested section. The group declined to say whether that has happened.

The group asked the Supreme Court for permission to intervene in the Act 13 appeal to challenge the DEP action, and filed a separate challenge in Commonwealth Court.

David Conti is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-388-5802 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me