Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

Pittsburgh, PA

Contractor’s Compass

(by Marc Felezzola and Angela Harrod)

Although supply chain issues and material costs gained considerable attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, these are hardly new to the construction industry. Contractors and subcontractors have long grappled with ways to protect themselves from rising material costs and delays in material orders, particularly for long-term projects. There are several effective ways of handling the highly common occurrence of material costs rising during a project and delays or long lead times in material orders.

1. Early material purchase and owner payment for material storage

To properly price a project, a subcontractor must know the scope of work and the necessary materials. Because material prices can increase—particularly in multi‑year projects—some subcontractors may purchase all necessary materials at contract execution to lock in the quoted price. However, this method comes with its own challenges, as project materials may be voluminous, and therefore expensive to store.

Subcontractors can overcome this expense by including a provision in their contracts that requires the contractor to pay for storage of the materials. This saves subcontractor warehouse space and storage expense while ensuring that the specified materials can be purchased at their quoted prices.

Early procurement of materials can also introduce additional hurdles for design and/or scope changes. Subcontractors should make sure that their contracts are clear regarding who is responsible for costs related to design changes, such as restocking fees when returning materials, disposal of materials that are no longer applicable to the project and cannot be returned, and replacement materials.

Whether and to what extent the contractor will agree on this approach will likely depend upon the contractor’s negotiations with the owner. …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Max Junker and Anna Hosack)

Many of the blighted properties across Pennsylvania’s various municipalities are owned by anonymous LLCs, deceased individuals with unopened estates, or those unwilling to consent to inspection by a municipal code enforcement officer, making it especially difficult to address safety concerns that go beyond the front yard.  Municipal code enforcement officers can cite violations for anything they can observe from the public street, adjacent property with the consent of that owner, municipal/park property, or within their plain view from lawful access points (i.e. observations made while approaching the front door) without obtaining an administrative search warrant.  However, numerous violations of the building code, fire code, and property maintenance code, particularly important to the safety of surrounding properties, can only be truly assessed from the interior of the structure on the private property, so when the property owner is nowhere to be found or refuses consent, municipal code enforcement officers must turn to their solicitors and the court for help.

Because municipal officials are government actors, entering private property without permission (consent or a warrant), may violate the property owner’s state and federal constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.  Where consent is refused or cannot be obtained from the property owner, municipal officials cannot force entry on the property but instead can apply for an administrative search warrant.  Such warrants do not need to be served upon the property owner, so they are particularly useful in gaining access to vacant property owned by an LLC or a deceased individual.  Administrative search warrants differ from general search warrants which are used in criminal investigations to seek evidence of a crime and require the police to meet the traditional probable cause standard.  …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Steve Antonelli)

As an employment and labor attorney, I interact with Human Resources professionals almost every day.  While their specific roles vary from employer to employer, there is always some degree of familiarity because Human Resources departments are involved in the entire employment lifecycle.  From talent acquisition and benefits administration to performance reviews and personnel management, Human Resources departments are usually involved at every step.  Stated differently, Human Resources professionals are busy.

One of their most critical tasks is onboarding because it is the very first interaction between an employer and its new employee.  The onboarding process involves training, orientation, and plenty of forms related to payroll, benefits, technology/IT, and a Form I-9 which demonstrates an employee’s identity and authorization to work in in the United States.

On March 16, 2026, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) revised nearly 30-year-old guidance related to Forms I-9 when it issued an updated guidance fact sheet that exposes employers to monetary penalties over what, until recently, were mere paperwork errors.

Since the 1990s, ICE has categorized Form I-9 violations into technical and substantive violations.  When the former occurs, employers receive time (typically at least 10 business days) to make corrections.  When the latter occurs, an employer may receive a monetary fine.  While those classifications remain, the standard for what constitutes a substantive error has changed meaningfully.  What used to be a technical violation such an administrative or procedural error or omission could now be deemed an automatic substantive violation that could result in a fine of $288 to $2,861.

For instance, if a Form I-9 is missing the employee’s date of birth or their date of hire, ICE may deem such an omission as a substantive violation.  …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Jordan Brown)

On February 3, 2026, Governor Shapiro announced a 2026–27 budget proposal that includes the Governor’s Responsible Infrastructure Development (GRID) standards for data center development in Pennsylvania. Press Release, Commw. of Pa., “Governor Shapiro Unveils 2026–27 Budget Proposal to Keep Doing What’s Working in Pennsylvania: Cutting Costs, Growing the Economy, Strengthening Public Safety, Funding Education, and Getting Stuff Done for Pennsylvanians” (Feb. 3, 2026). According to the press release, the GRID standards are intended to balance Pennsylvania’s unique position to be a leader in the data center development and AI-related infrastructure space, with the concerns many stakeholders share about potential impacts on communities, utility bills, and the environment. Id. The Shapiro administration says that for these reasons, the GRID standards are built on the following four core principles applicable to developers seeking permitting advantages and state incentives:

• Protecting Energy and Water Resources: Developers must either provide their own power generation or fully fund any new generation required for their projects. This is designed to mitigate cost increases to existing ratepayers, including residential and commercial customers. In addition, developers must comply with environmental requirements, specifically water conservation and sustainable resource use.
• Transparency and Community Engagement: Developers must meet heightened disclosure obligations and engage directly and transparently with stakeholder communities. This principle responds to Pennsylvanians’ concerns over limited visibility into prior projects and aims to ensure early and ongoing public involvement.
• Delivering Local Jobs and Community Benefits: Developers must prioritize hiring and training local labor and enter into community benefit agreements.

…

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Jordan Brown)

At the March 10, 2026, Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) meeting, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) offered updates on several pending oil and gas rulemaking petitions. The petitions cover a range of issues, including unconventional well setbacks, financial assurance, on-site fluid processing, well plugging procedures, and electronic plan management.

Unconventional Oil and Gas Well Setback Petition
As reported in Vol. 43, No. 1 (2026) of this Newsletter, the EQB accepted this Clean Air Council and Environmental Integrity Project rulemaking petition to increase setbacks from unconventional oil and gas operations for further study in December 2025. At the EQB meeting, PADEP reported that the rulemaking petition is currently being analyzed, that several agency programs and toxicologists are evaluating the studies included with the petition, and the Bureau of Regulatory Counsel is conducting a legal review. PADEP said it intends to deliver a recommendation on the proposed rulemaking to the EQB by the end of 2026.

Shale Well Bonding Petitions
The EQB accepted rulemaking these petitions in November 2021 to increase bonding for conventional and shale wells. Act 96, which became law in 2022, bars EQB changes to conventional well bonding for 10 years, but the shale bonding rulemaking petition remains pending. PADEP indicated funding is allocated this fiscal year for an actuarial study to determine adequate financial assurance for plugging unconventional wells, but PADEP’s timeline for completing review of the rulemaking petition is uncertain. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Jordan Brown)

On March 28, 2026, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) published a notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin rescinding its technical guidance document (TGD) on civil penalty assessments in the agency’s Office of Oil and Gas Management. 56 Pa. Bull. 1778 (Mar. 28, 2026). In the notice, PADEP also stated that it would replace its prior civil penalty assessment guide with two new standard operating procedure (SOP) documents relating to civil penalties for oil and gas violations, one for unconventional operations and one for conventional operations. See Office of Oil & Gas Mgmt., PADEP, “Standard Operating Procedure for Calculating Civil Penalty Assessments for Unconventional Oil and Gas Operations” (Feb. 2026); Office of Oil & Gas Mgmt., PADEP, “Standard Operating Procedure for Calculating Civil Penalty Assessments for Conventional Oil and Gas Operations” (Feb. 2026).

PADEP also issued a new SOP for identifying, tracking, and resolving oil and gas violations, which supersedes the now-rescinded TGD “Standards and Guidelines for Identifying, Tracking, and Resolving Oil and Gas Violations” (Doc ID. No. 820-4000-001, issued Jan. 17, 2015). See Office of Oil & Gas Mgmt., PADEP, “Standard Operating Procedure for Identifying, Tracking, and Resolving Oil and Gas Violations” (Feb. 2026). Unlike TGDs, which undergo formal public comment periods, SOPs are internal agency documents that PADEP can revise at its discretion without public input.

Unconventional Civil Penalty SOP
This SOP guides PADEP staff in calculating civil penalties for violations related to unconventional oil and gas operations and includes statutory maximum penalties under the various environmental laws covered by the SOP: the Oil and Gas Act ($75,000 plus $5,000 per day that the violation continues), the Clean Streams Law ($10,000 per day), the Solid Waste Management Act ($25,000 per day), and the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act ($10,000, plus $500 for each day the violation continues). …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Buchman, and Jordan Brown)

On January 27, 2026, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) announced its Major Projects Permitting Division (MPPD) (formerly the Regional Permit Coordination Office), following the agency’s reorganization of permitting functions within the new Bureau of Permitting Coordination. See News Release, PADEP, “Getting Permitting Done: DEP Achieved Historic Success in Permitting in 2025, Eliminates Longstanding Backlog” (Jan. 27, 2026); see also Commw. of Pa., “Major Projects Permitting Division,” here. The Bureau of Permitting Coordination is now comprised of the MPPD and the Streamlining Permits for Economic Expansion and Development (SPEED) program.

The MPPD is staffed like the state’s regional programs responsible for Chapter 102 (Erosion and Sediment Control) and Chapter 105 (General Permits) permitting, and consists of a team of engineering and environmental reviewers. Covered projects include Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-regulated natural gas transmission pipelines, large-scale linear infrastructure, transportation projects, and projects with complex engineering or geologic considerations. The Division supports and coordinates statewide permitting for major economic development projects, ensuring efficiency and consistency in Chapter 102 and Chapter 105 approvals.

MPPD’s core functions include:

• Project review and decision making on Chapter 102 and 105 permits;
• Statewide engineering support on trenchless technology, geologic hazards, contaminated sites, complex bedrock, landslides, coal ash, and acid-producing rock; cross-program alignment with regional offices, oil and gas, dam safety and flood protection, mining programs, and county conservation districts;
• Technical collaboration with the Bureau of Waterways, Engineering, and Wetlands and the Bureau of Clean Water;

…

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Buchman, and Jordan Brown)

 On February 5, 2026, environmental and public interest groups submitted a 495-page demand urging the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to act on a rulemaking petition originally filed in November 2018 by 192 petitioners. The petition requested the adoption of regulations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 14 Pennsylvania industries producing at least 25,000 tons of emissions annually, including cement, iron, lead, petroleum products, coal mining, electricity generation, oil and gas production, natural gas and carbon dioxide suppliers, and fuel distributors. The proposed regulation, entitled the Stability and Affordability Via Emissions Reduction (SAVER) Regulation, aims to achieve net-zero emissions in Pennsylvania by 2052.

The EQB accepted the petition for study in April 2019 but took no further action. Instead, in October 2019, Governor Tom Wolf issued an executive order directing the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to draft regulations targeting carbon pollution from power plants, consistent with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The resulting regulation was proposed for public comment in November 2020 and finalized in April 2022 after a two-and-a-half-year process. The RGGI regulation, and subsequent legal challenges to it, have been covered extensively in previous editions of this Newsletter, including Vol. 39, No. 2 (2022) and Vol. 40, No. 4 (2023).

After taking office, Governor Josh Shapiro established a RGGI Working Group in April 2023 to evaluate the merits of the state’s membership in RGGI. In September 2023, the group issued a memorandum supporting a cap-and-invest program for energy generation. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Buchman, and Jordan Brown)

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) has issued a final rule approving an amendment to Pennsylvania’s Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) program, effective February 17, 2026. See 91 Fed. Reg. 1696 (Jan. 15, 2026). This action confirms that Pennsylvania’s updated program remains consistent with federal SMCRA standards and gives the commonwealth continued primacy to administer and enforce surface coal mining and reclamation within its borders.

Act 32 of 2017 requires permit applicants to ensure the restoration of pre-mining flows and biological communities in waters affected by subsidence. 52 Pa. Stat. § 1406.5(j). This aligns with Pennsylvania’s administrative code, specifically 25 Pa. Code § 86.37(a)(3), which mandates that applicants demonstrate no presumptive evidence of potential pollution.

The amendment maintains Pennsylvania’s regulatory program as more stringent than federal standards, particularly 30 C.F.R. §§ 784.14, 784.21, and 817.41, and section 516 of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. § 1266. Pennsylvania’s approach imposes a duty on applicants to demonstrate the absence of presumptive pollution evidence, while federal standards focus on minimizing disturbances. Section 5(j) of Act 32 specifies that the exemption from presumptive pollution evidence applies only if the permit application includes plans for restoring pre-mining conditions. This ensures consistency with the pre-mining uses of Pennsylvania’s waters.

The amendment also introduces a more structured approach to compliance monitoring and enforcement, ensuring that permit applicants provide more comprehensive documentation and evidence to support their restoration plans. For communities and landowners, the amendment is expected to enhance environmental protection by reinforcing reclamation obligations, clarifying water quality and land restoration expectations, and ensuring that financial assurances are sufficient for long-term site stability. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

Pittsburgh Business Times

(featuring Justine Kasznica, Gina Buchman, Anna Jewart, and Dave White)

Data center development is accelerating across Pennsylvania, creating both opportunities and complex challenges for businesses and communities.

“We’re involved with almost 20 active data center projects at various stages of development, and there’s at least another handful that are on the drawing board that we hope are going to become active,” Babst Calland Managing Shareholder Donald C. Bluedorn II said at the opening of the law firm’s recent event at the Duquesne Club. “There is a tremendous amount of energy and activity in this space.”

At “What’s Next for Data Centers in Pennsylvania,” four Babst Calland attorneys discussed what it takes to get these and other projects across the finish line. Moderated by Pittsburgh Business Times Market President and Publisher Evan Rosenberg, the panel included Justine Kasznica, who leads the firm’s data center development and emerging technologies practices, Anna Skipper Jewart, whose practice focuses on real estate, land use and zoning and public sector law, Gina Falaschi Buchman, an environmental shareholder in the firm’s in the Washington, D.C., office, and David White, who leads the firm’s construction practice.

The following is a condensed version of their conversation, highlighting how Pennsylvania’s energy resources, industrial legacy, and strategic location are positioning the Commonwealth as a growing player in the national data center economy.

Pennsylvania’s Competitive Advantage

Rosenberg: With AI-driven demand accelerating the surge in data centers across the country at an unprecedented pace, what is your perspective on the projects currently under development in Pennsylvania?

Kasznica: What we’re seeing in Pennsylvania is interesting. …