Act 13 was passed on February 8, 2012 in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania’s municipalities had adopted Act 13, which attempted to remove municipality authority over zoning and planning, preventing them from controlling the drilling activities in their community. This allowed oil companies to drill using hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Community concerns include the Act disregarding the rights of the Pennsylvanian people in governing their communities without the inference from the state or corporations, as well as complaints involving potential health risks involving the controversial hydraulic fracking process. In 2012, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court struck down portions of Act 13 on the basis of violating constitutional property rights, as well as those of Act I Section 27, regarding the right to clean air and water.

Details

Act 13 included an in “impact fee” which was kept intact. The profits from the unconventional gas well impact fee are collected by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Of the revenue, 60% stay within the local level.

Parties Involved

• Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  • Removed parts of the oil and gas law, known as Act 13, but left the decision about the impact fee 8.7 up to the lower court, who kept it in place

• Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
  • President of the Commonwealth Court: Judge Dan Pellegrini. He found sections of Act 13 in violation of constitutional rights.

• Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC)
  • Administers the collection of the Impact Fee

• Local Municipalities
  • Affected residential areas in Pennsylvania.

Societal Impacts

Medical

Act 13 allows physicians to see a secret trade list of chemicals being used in the drilling, to treat patients who may have been exposed to the hazards. However, the “doctor gag rule” prevents them from discussing this information with their patients and other doctors.

Water

Act 13 allows drilling near homes in residential areas, leading to concerns about water contamination. In May 2012, members of Marcellus Outreach Butler demanded justice for the families in the Ellis district whose water was contaminated because of the fracking process.

Constitutional Violations

- Concerns were raised involving the provisions violate the Environmental Rights Amendment of the state constitution which guarantees,”clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.” in 2013. - The Act is thought to be a “constitutional violation of the property rights of landowners who would be affected by the act’s elimination of municipal zoning authority.” “The court found Act 13’s setback waiver instructions did not protect Pennsylvanians’ right to clean air and pure water. The law set minimum setback distances from bodies of water and buildings. But the law also stipulated drillers were entitled to setback waivers, so long as they presented a plan to ensure environmental protection.”

Response

The company is petitioning to be allowed to join the case, however, even if they are successful in joining, it should not have an impact on Act 13. While the companies say they agree with the concept of the impact fee, environmentalists and municipalities are suspicious of their intentions in wanting to get involved.

Current

Residents find that Supreme Court ruling to declare Act 13 unconstitutional is an empowerment for community control and an attempt to regulate the oil and gas industry.