Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

Washington, DC

PIOGA Press

(by Lee Banse)

Introduction

Since entering office, President Trump has issued multiple executive orders seeking to promote the deregulation of American business, improve government efficiency, and unleash American energy.[1] In response, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and its agency responsible for pipeline safety, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), have initiated multiple rulemakings to achieve these objectives. This article will provide a brief overview of the initiatives that will impact operators subject to PHMSA’s pipeline safety regulations. Operators can engage with DOT and PHMSA by providing comments to assist in the deregulatory efforts.

DOT Initiatives

Ensuring Lawful Regulation; Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs Request for Information

On April 3, 2025, citing President Trump’s executive orders related to deregulation and government efficiency,[2] DOT published a request for information (RFI) seeking the public’s input to identify which DOT regulations, guidance, paperwork requirements, or other regulatory obligations can be modified or repealed.[3] The RFI is broad in scope and applies to all DOT programs, including the pipeline safety regulations, and seeks information to help drive future deregulatory rulemakings and initiatives.  DOT requested comments on the RFI to be submitted by May 5, 2025, but has also established an email inbox, Transportation.RegulatoryInfo@dot.gov, which remains open on a continuous basis for the public to submit additional ideas on programs suitable for modification or repeal.

Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On May 16, 2025, DOT published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to recodify certain DOT administrative procedures and practices in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). …

Harrisburg, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Casey Alan Coyle)

The music genre hip-hop recently celebrated its 50th anniversary.  According to PBS, “no song announced hip-hop’s entrance into the mainstream louder” than the 1997 single “Mo Money Mo Problems” by Brooklyn-born Rapper Christopher Wallace, better known by his stage names “Notorious B.I.G.” and “Biggie.”  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/songs-of-the-summer-1997/.  Built on a sample of Diana Ross’s “I’m Coming Out,” the track featured the chorus: “I don’t know what, they want from me/ It’s like the more money we come across/ The more problems we see.”  Now, nearly three decades later, that hook captures an emerging trend in the law.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause “prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments on a tortfeasor.”  State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 416 (2003).  While this concern precipitated the creation of a framework to assess the constitutionality of punitive damages awards over 30 years ago, no such rubric exists to determine whether compensatory damages awards comport with due process.  Pennsylvania litigants are therefore left to challenge excessive compensatory damages awards under the common law.  But as noneconomic damages awards continue to grow, so do concerns over their constitutionality, especially where they dwarf the economic damages, if any, awarded.  This begs the question: when it comes to noneconomic damages, is it a case of mo money, mo problems?

Compensatory v. Punitive Damages

Compensatory and punitive damages, though typically awarded at the same trial, serve distinct purposes.  Compensatory damages compensate for proven injury or loss.  They aim to redress the concrete loss that the plaintiff suffered because of the defendant’s conduct and include both economic harm (such as lost wages or out-of-pocket expenses) and noneconomic harm (like mental anguish, pain and suffering, and embarrassment and humiliation).  …

Pittsburgh, PA and Harrisburg, PA

Legal Intelligencer

(by Morgan Madden and Steve Antonelli)

In the ever complex and evolving landscape of employment law, some of the most effective compliance tools are not found in case law or federal regulations but in routine and consistent documentation. Job descriptions, performance evaluations, and disciplinary writings are three foundational tools that can play a crucial yet often underestimated role in shaping and defending employers’ decisions. These documents are not standalone checkboxes, rather their effectiveness lies in their interconnectedness. Job descriptions lay the groundwork for expectations, performance evaluations track whether and how those expectations are met, and disciplinary writings memorialize any shortcomings or failures to meet them.

The proper use and maintenance of these documents can bolster compliance with key employment statutes. In the event of litigation, these records almost always become central to the body of evidence considered by a factfinder. Employers that use them regularly and consistently are often in a far stronger position to defend against claims and to demonstrate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for adverse employment actions.

Job Descriptions: The Foundation of Employment Expectations

Job descriptions are more than administrative formalities—they define the who, what, and why of a role. A well-crafted job description outlines an employee’s essential functions, required qualifications, and reporting relationships.  As an employer’s expectations change, so too should corresponding job descriptions.  For example, how many employers allowed remote/hybrid work before March 2020?

Accurate and up to date job descriptions benefit both employers and employees because they help guide hiring decisions, compensation structures, and employee development.  They can also play a pivotal role in litigation. They help delineate essential job functions and impact whether an employee’s accommodation request is reasonable in an ADA case, and they have a significant bearing on whether a position is exempt from overtime laws in a wage and hour case, to name a few examples. …

Charleston, WV, Pittsburgh, PA

Pittsburgh Business Times

(by Moore Capito featuring Matt Smith)

With the surge of artificial intelligence, the demand for data centers to support that computing power is growing fast. “One of the challenges is that we as human beings and as businesses require so much more computing power than we ever have,” said A.A. Moore Capito, a shareholder specializing in energy and emerging technologies with the law firm Babst Calland. “That growth has continued consistently over the past 50 years, but at this current moment, we are seeing an exponential increase in demand.”

Yet, with this rapid growth comes significant challenges as businesses compete for power and land. With a wealth of energy resources, affordable land, and proximity to densely populated areas, this region is right in the thick of the trend.

Capito recently joined Allegheny Conference on Community Development Chief Growth Officer Matt Smith in the Pittsburgh Business Times offices for a conversation about the opportunities and challenges for the region, when it comes to data center growth.

Surging demand for power

Data centers are energy giants. They require a massive amount of power to process information, particularly as artificial intelligence capabilities expand. In February, Goldman Sachs Research predicted global power demand from data centers will increase 50 percent by 2027 and up to 165 percent by the end of 2029.

This spike in demand is forcing businesses and industry to rethink how to power their operations. Traditional reliance on the energy grid alone may no longer suffice.

“What I would consider the biggest challenge today is providing the power to sustain the growth that we need,” Capito said.

“A lot of these folks in the tech sector are saying we can’t rely on the grid anymore. …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matt Wood and Alex Graf)

On April 8, 2025, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) tabled consideration of the Clean Air Council (CAC) and Environmental Integrity Project’s (EIP) petition for a rulemaking seeking to amend 25 Pa. Code ch. 78a to increase required minimum setbacks from unconventional oil and gas wells from 500 feet to 3,281 feet. During the meeting, Public Utility Commission (PUC) Commissioner Kathryn Zerfuss moved to table the petition, stating that the members of the EQB need more time to consider materials submitted by industry members and others prior to the meeting, which the EQB approved. Tabling the petition followed a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) presentation recommending that the EQB accept the petition for further study, with the caveat that the recommendation was not an indication of PADEP’s substantive position on the petition. See PowerPoint Presentation, PADEP, “Petition for Rulemaking: Unconventional Gas Well Setbacks” (Apr. 8, 2025). CAC and EIP also presented their argument for why the EQB should accept the petition for further study at the meeting, which largely focused on the positions taken in their petition regarding potential adverse health and environmental consequences to people and resources located near unconventional oil and gas wells.

Procedurally, an EQB member would have to motion to un-table the petition to advance the petition for consideration, which could occur at the earliest at EQB’s next regularly scheduled meeting, currently set for June 10, 2025. The April meeting featured much debate by the EQB as to the exact timeline of events if the petition is un-tabled and considered during the June meeting. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Christina Puhnaty and Ethan Johnson)

In a February 25, 2025, Mining and Reclamation Advisory Board and Aggregate Advisory Board Joint Regulation, Legislation, and Technical Committee Meeting, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) presented its plans to rescind two technical guidance documents (TGDs) and revise two others due to the TGDs being inaccurate and out of date after changes to Pennsylvania’s coal regulations and noncoal regulations. See PowerPoint Presentation, PADEP, “Water Supply Replacement TGDs” (Feb. 25, 2025).

PADEP plans to rescind its Water Supply Replacement and Permitting TGD (TGD 562-4000-101) but to convert some of its sections into standard operating procedures. PADEP also plans to rescind the Insurance Requirements and Water Supply Replacement Assurance TGD (TGD 562-2500-702) due to its inaccuracy following PADEP’s 2023 revisions to 25 Pa. Code ch. 77 regarding liability insurance rates. Any information still needed from the WSR and Permitting TGD and the Insurance Requirements and Water Supply Replacement Assurance TGD will be incorporated into a revised Water Supply Replacement and Compliance TGD (TGD 563-2112-605).

PADEP plans to make minor revisions to its Increased Operation and Maintenance Costs of Replacement Water Supplies (on All Coal and Surface Noncoal Sites) TGD (TGD 562-4000-102). PADEP will also revise its Water Supply Replacement and Compliance TGD (TGD 563-2112-605), which PADEP will rename as Water Supply Replacement, Permitting, and Compliance. In the revised TGD, PADEP will incorporate background information from the rescinded Water Supply Replacement and Permitting TGD (TGD 562-4000-101), remove requirements that are now in regulations, remove attached forms, and include relevant information from the rescinded Insurance Requirements and Water Supply Replacement Assurance TGD (TGD 562-2500-702). …

Charleston, WV

West Virginia Executive

(by Moore Capito)

As the “backbone” of digital infrastructure, data centers are becoming more and more critical in meeting the demands of the modern digital world. With advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and the increased reliance on computing by people all over the world, demand for data centers is outpacing supply.

We are in a global modern-day gold rush to build data centers. And just as the 49ers faced infrastructure challenges of the day, data center developers are facing a critical infrastructure obstacle: energy.

A data center is a physical facility that houses servers that manage, store, and process data. There are several types of data centers, and while all do not require the same prerequisites to develop, they all require vast amounts of electricity. According to the United States Department of Energy, data centers account for two percent of the electricity usage in the country consuming 10 to 50 times more electricity per floor space than a typical commercial structure.

The electricity required to power data centers is adding stress on grids that are already pushing the limits. Utilities are having difficulty guaranteeing the level of power required to sustain current demand and meet projected future demand. As a result, developers are evaluating alternative ways to power their projects.

Recently, Amazon Web Services (AWS) purchased Talen Energy’s 1,200 acre data center campus which provides direct power from the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. Tech companies and developers are no longer waiting on the utilities and are trending toward establishing dedicated power sources. This trend provides energy rich states an incredible opportunity.

Energy companies are actively exploring how to provide direct power ranging from laying additional pipelines to evaluating construction of new power plants dedicated to powering data centers. …

Pittsburgh, PA

TEQ Hub

(by Kristen Petrina)

On May 19, 2025, President Trump signed into the law the “TAKE IT DOWN Act (the “Act”). The Act includes data privacy, digital protections, and AI governance requirements of companies to remove deepfakes from “covered platforms”, particularly with a focus on nonconsensual intimate imagery (“NCII”).

The Act, whose acronym stands for “Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act” includes both criminal and civil elements; however, it does not create a new private right of action, rather provides the Federal Trade Commission with the enforcement authority over failures to comply with the notice and removal obligations, which would constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Criminal and Civil Liability

The Act criminalizes the publication of an authentic or computer-generated NCII and outlines penalties for when the images of “intimate visual depiction” as defined in 15 USC 6851(5)(A), of an adult or minor and imposes new obligations on social media and online platforms to respond to requests to promptly remove unlawful NCII. Synthetic or computer-generated NCII, includes the term “digital forgery” meaning “any intimate visual depictions of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, that, when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual.” An identifiable individual includes someone “(i) who appears in whole or in part in an intimate visual depiction; and (ii) whose face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic (including a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature) is displayed in connection with such intimate visual depiction.”

Criminal Liability for “Knowingly” Publishing NCII

1. Involving Adults.

…

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Michael Korns and Anna Jewart)

Pennsylvania municipalities are empowered not only to adopt ordinances and enforce them but to establish fines and penalties for violations of the same. However, municipalities are creatures of statute and authorized only to act within the bounds of the powers granted to them by the General Assembly.  The various municipal enabling statutes, such as the First Class Township Code, as well as other statutes such as the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, all include express authorizations for municipalities to prescribe fines and penalties for violations of municipal ordinances and also establish restrictions on the upper limits of those fines or civil penalties per violation.  Typically, these statutes also expressly establish that a municipality may, by ordinance, provide that a separate violation shall arise for each day of violation and for each applicable section of the ordinance. Consequently, municipalities, generally, are permitted to seek cumulative fines which grow each day a violation persists.  Both the Pennsylvania State Constitution, article I, section 13, PA. CONST. art. I §13, and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, U.S. CONST. amend. VIII, (as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. CONST. amend. XIV) prohibit excessive fines, providing in relevant part that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed…” On April 2, 2025, the Commonwealth Court explored whether a cumulative municipal fine imposed under the Philadelphia Code, as authorized by the First Class City Home Rule Act, 53 P.S. §13101 et seq., was unconstitutionally excessive.

In City of Philadelphia v. Epstein, No. 515 C.D. 2024, 2025 WL 981892 (Pa. Cmwlth. April 2, 2025)[1] the Court reviewed the outcome of a longstanding enforcement action by the City of Philadelphia originating from a 2018 enforcement notice and 2019 complaint seeking a permanent injunction and fines regarding violations of the City Code.   …

Pittsburgh, PA

TEQ Hub

(by Jenn Malik and Anna Hosack)

Regardless of party affiliation, the one issue that most Americans seem to be able to agree about in 2025 is that we all are sick of our healthcare system.  Healthcare reform is no stranger to the American political discourse, but recent public sentiment at the expense, difficulty, and confusion inherent in navigating the American healthcare is at an all-time low.  Americans’ dissatisfaction with the current state of the healthcare industry is unsurprising when between 2008 and 2022, the per enrollee cost of private health insurance has grown by 61.6% according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.¹ Despite rising costs, rates for denials of coverage have increased nationally with a current average of around 19%.²  Add to these statistics the change of administration and corresponding anticipated changes in healthcare benefits policy, along with increased litigation against Plan Sponsors reminiscent of the retirement plan litigation in the late 2000s, and we are all left scratching our heads with how to provide healthcare coverage to employees at an affordable cost – especially when, according to a recent study by Forbes, two-thirds (2/3) of American employees name employer-covered healthcare as the most important benefit in considering whether to take a job.³  Below are key issues for employers to watch in the healthcare benefits space this year to guide in planning your organization’s healthcare benefits and to budget accordingly:

Challenge to Affordable Care Act’s Preventive Care Coverage

Currently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, mandates that most health insurance plans must cover certain preventive services at no cost share to patients. …