A judge on Wednesday ordered a temporary halt to a portion of
Pennsylvania’s new Marcellus shale law that limits the power of
municipalities to regulate the booming natural gas industry, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports today.
Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Keith Quigley issued the 120-day
injunction after hearing arguments in Harrisburg. The eight-week-old
law’s local zoning provisions were scheduled to take effect on Saturday.
A group that includes South Fayette in Allegheny County and Peters,
Cecil, Mt. Pleasant and Robinson in Washington County sought the
injunction to give the municipalities time to argue their claims that
the law, known as Act 13, unconstitutionally takes away local powers and
should be overturned.
************************************************************************************************************
Stay on top of fracking-related news stories. Try a free, 30-day subscription to EnviroPolitics
***********************************************************************************************************
“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,” Quigley wrote.
His order halts only any part of the law that might “pre-empt
pre-existing local ordinances” but denies the rest of the
municipalities’ injunction request to stop the entire law from going
into effect.
“What we were seeking was 100 percent what the court granted,” said John Smith, the solicitor for Robinson and Cecil.
The Marcellus Shale Coalition issued a statement saying the natural
gas industry group is “confident that the legal merits of this law —
aimed at ensuring the safe and responsible development of clean-burning
American natural gas in the commonwealth — will be recognized and
upheld accordingly.”
To issue an injunction, a judge must find that the request meets six
standards, including that “there is likely success on the merits.”
Quigley wrote in a footnote to the order that he “is not convinced that
petitioners’ likelihood of success on the merits is high,” but he
ordered the injunction because five other factors were compelling. Read full story here
