Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

Pittsburgh, PA

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

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

On March 31, 2025, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) entered a settlement agreement with the Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association (PIOGA), PA Independent Petroleum Producers (PIPP), and PA Grade Crude Oil Coalition (PGCC) (collectively, Petitioners) pertaining to the Control of VOC Emissions from Conventional Oil and Natural Gas Sources pursuant to 25 Pa. Code ch. 129.

The settlement arises out of a December 5, 2022, petition for review of the emergency-certified final-omitted Control of VOC Emissions from Conventional Oil and Natural Gas Sources by the Petitioners in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. PIOGA, PIPP and PGCC Petition (Dec. 5, 2022) (Petition). Petitioners challenged the rule on the grounds that (1) the regulation did not meet the requirements to be issued as a final omitted rulemaking; and (2) PADEP did not develop the regulation for conventional oil and gas wells separately and independently from those regulations developed for unconventional oil and gas wells, as required by Act 52 of 2016. The rule was adopted by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) through an emergency certified final-omitted rulemaking approved by the Governor, without notice and comment, which adopted reasonable available control technology standards (RACT) to control volatile organic compound (VOC) and methane emissions from existing and future conventional oil and gas operations and unconventional oil and gas operations, respectively. PADEP contended that the emergency certified final-omitted rulemaking process was appropriate pursuant to the PA Commonwealth Documents Law because notice and comment from the public was unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest. …

Pittsburgh, PA

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

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

On January 14, 2025, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) launched a new webpage to track the progress of permit applications. See Commw. of Pa., “Track Your Permit Application” here (Permit Tracker). The Permit Tracker allows interested parties to search permits by program area (e.g., oil and gas, by county, permit type, and other details). Applicants can also check the status of a permit application, including which step of the review process the permit is in, the target date for completing that step, and contact information for the permit reviewer.

According to an accompanying press release, PADEP co-developed the Permit Tracker with the Commonwealth Office of Digital Experience (CODE PA) to modernize the permitting process, and in response to requests from the business community. Press Release, PADEP, “Shapiro Administration Launches New Permit Tracker; Businesses Applying for DEP Permits Can Now See Progress in Real-Time” (Jan. 16, 2025). PADEP said that it continues the agency’s “commitment to transparency and improving the user experience for applicants working with us to build a better Pennsylvania.” Id. In addition to PADEP’s efforts to reduce its permit application backlogs, the agency said the Shapiro administration has been hiring staff to improve operational efficiency. Id.

Implementation of the Permit Tracker follows CODE PA’s October 2024 launch of another website to educate stakeholders about state grant opportunities and assist applicants through the application process. That tool, available here, covers multiple grant categories, including energy and oil and gas. …

Pittsburgh, PA

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

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

On April 5, 2025, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) issued the General Plan Approval and/or General Operating Permit for Gaseous Fuel-Fired Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (BAQ-GPA/GP-16). 55 Pa. Bull. 2680 (Apr. 5, 2025).

A General Permit is a plan approval and operating permit for a specific category of sources that PADEP has determined can be adequately regulated under standardized conditions. Section 6.1(f) of the Air Pollution Control Act (35 Pa. Stat § 4006.1(f)) and 25 Pa. Code ch. 127, subch. H (relating to general plan approvals and operating permits) authorize PADEP to develop General Permits.

PADEP is also authorized to require new sources to control air pollution through the use of best available technology (BAT) under section 6.6 of the Air Pollution Control Act. In developing General Permits, PADEP establishes BAT for new sources, which can include equipment, devices, methods, or techniques to control air emissions to the maximum degree possible utilizing technologies that are available or may be made available. 25 Pa. Code § 121.1.

GP-16 sets BAT emission limits for certain new gaseous fuel-fired spark ignition internal combustion engines that are more stringent than the applicable New Source Performance Standards for these engines in 40 C.F.R. pt. 60, subpt. JJJJ, and 40 C.F.R. pt. 63, subpt. ZZZZ. GP-16 includes standardized requirements related to BAT and additional terms including recordkeeping and reporting requirements, a compliance certification, source testing requirements, and compliance with applicable New Source Performance Standards. The use of the GP-16 is restricted to facilities that are minor sources. …

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. …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Erin Hamilton and Cella Iovino)

On February 19, 2025, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Acting Chair Andrea Lucas announced that the agency will direct its focus on protecting American workers from unlawful national origin discrimination (the “February 2025 EEOC Guidance”). In a shift from previous priorities usually relating to the prevention of discrimination against foreign nationals and historically marginalized groups, the EEOC’s new enforcement priority will likely lead to an increase in investigations, compliance checks, and litigation relative to the protection of American workers from alleged discrimination.

Applying to employers with 15 or more employees, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), and national origin. National origin discrimination occurs when an applicant or employee is treated unfairly due to their country of origin, ethnicity, accent, or because they are perceived to belong to a particular ethnic group, regardless of whether they actually do. In conjunction with its enforcement of Title VII and other federal laws against workplace discrimination and harassment, the EEOC periodically releases guidance to assist employers with compliance.

Traditionally, and under previous administrations, the EEOC focused its national origin enforcement efforts on protecting foreign nationals from employment bias. However, the Trump administration has made its intention to focus on protecting American citizens from what it characterizes as anti-American bias clear. In the press release, Acting Chair Lucas highlighted that this policy shift “will help deter illegal migration and reduce the abuse of legal immigration programs by increasing enforcement of employment antidiscrimination laws against employers that illegally prefer non-American workers, as well as against staffing agencies and other agents that unlawfully comply with client companies’ illegal preferences against American workers.” Further, Acting Chair Lucas opined that the agency will be paying particular attention to employer’s policies and practices which appear to show preference to undocumented individuals, migrant workers, and visa holders over American workers. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

GO-WV

(by Gary Steinbauer, Jessica Deyoe and Ethan Johnson)

On March 12, 2025, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a sweeping plan to “undertake 31 historic actions in the most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history.” The announcement states that the deregulatory plan is intended to “advance President Trump’s Day One executive orders and Power the Great American Comeback.” EPA states that these actions “will roll back trillions in regulatory costs and hidden ‘taxes’ on U.S. families,” making it “more affordable to purchase a car, heat homes, and operate a business.”

The ambitious plan identifies numerous past EPA regulations or actions that will be reconsidered or reviewed. The regulations identified in the deregulatory plan, which were promulgated under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, apply to a wide range of industrial sectors and regulated parties. Although described as “31 actions,” the EPA’s primary announcement lists 22 different items, with some mentioning more than one regulation or past action set to be reconsidered or otherwise addressed as part of the plan. EPA’s list is also separated by headings that appear to correspond to separate Day One executive actions by President Trump. For each of the planned deregulatory actions, EPA issued an accompanying press release providing additional information, including, in a few cases, anticipated timelines for completing the deregulatory actions and planned interim actions.

The Babst Calland team has summarized the identified deregulatory actions and information provided by EPA in the table below:

With  limited exceptions, EPA provides few details on the timing and steps it will take for each of the identified actions. …

Pittsburgh, PA

PIOGA Press

(by Chris Farmakis, Susanna Bagdasarova, Kate Cooper, and Dane Fennell)

In yet another twist in the ongoing roller coaster ride of Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) compliance, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury Department) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has paused enforcement of the CTA’s beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements. On February 27, 2025, FinCEN issued a press release stating that it “will not issue any fines or penalties or take any other enforcement actions against any companies based on any failure to file or update beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports…by the current deadlines.” Instead, FinCEN plans to issue an interim final rule by March 21, 2025 (the previously extended deadline for most reporting companies), which will set new deadlines and prioritize BOI reporting for entities that “pose the most significant law enforcement and national security risks.”

This announcement was rapidly followed by a Treasury Department press release on March 2, 2025 taking things a step further in announcing that U.S. citizens and domestic reporting companies will not be subject to any penalties or fines for failing to file or update BOI reports, even after the new reporting deadlines are established. The Treasury Department further indicated that it plans to issue a proposed rulemaking to narrow the scope of the BOI reporting requirements to foreign reporting companies only. Treasury Department Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized that the latest announcement is part of the Trump administration’s efforts to support American small businesses by removing burdensome regulations, describing the move as a “victory for common sense.”

What does this mean for reporting companies? …