PUC Asks Court for Clarification on Marcellus Shale Injunction

The Public Utilities Commission on Wednesday asked the Commonwealth Court to modify as part of a challenge to the state’s new Marcellus Shale law—saying that clarification was needed so the department could meet its obligations under Act 13.

The preliminary injunction means that implementation of portions of the new law will be delayed for 120 days from April 14 because “municipalities must have an adequate opportunity to pass zoning laws that comply with Act 13 without the fear or risk that development of oil and gas operations under Act 13 will be inconsistent with later, validly passed, local zoning ordinances."

But in court documents, attorneys for the PUC argued that “conflicting mandates” in the injunction have “already yielded adverse outcomes.”

“(The) PUC intended to issue on April 26 an Implementation Order to address its responsibilities under the act, that includes among other things, a review of the validity of existing ordinances and enacted ordinances, and also the receipt and distribution of impact fees,” the order indicates. “But because of the ambiguity of the preliminary injunction order, the commission does not yet know what it can and cannot do under Act 13, and thus has delayed the issuance of the Implementation Order.”

But in its response, attorneys for the opposed the PUC’s request.

“It is readily apparent that the PUC and its chairman fully understand the preliminary injunction and its desired protections for petitioners and all local governments and to seek to reverse it so as to enlarge their power and accommodate the interests of the oil and gas industry and to strike down municipal ordinances,” the response indicated.

The document continued: “The suggested relief sought by the PUC and its chairman would only serve to invite challenges to existing zoning ordinances which is exactly what this Honorable Court sought to prevent though its issuance of its preliminary injunction.”

Cecil attorney John Smith, who is spearheading the challenge, said, “The very act the PUC wants to undertake to adjudicate local ordinances is one of the constitutional issues raised in the challenge—that the executive branch does not have the power to make judicial decisions.”