Articles, Newsletters & Advisories
October 25, 2021Challenges and Opportunities for the Pennsylvania Gas Pipeline Industry
Pittsburgh Business Times
Even as opposition grows for energy pipelines, and government agencies toughen their regulation of the industry, pipelines remain the most safe, efficient and effective means to transport much-needed natural gas and other energy products from wells to end users to generate power, manufacture goods and heat homes.
So said Keith Coyle, a shareholder with law firm Babst Calland whose practice areas include energy law and pipeline and hazmat safety.
“We’re in a moment right now where we’re seeing some growing opposition to natural gas pipeline infrastructure,” Coyle said in making his case for the importance of supporting and protecting the nation’s energy pipeline infrastructure. “We’re seeing efforts to encourage governmental authorities to ban the construction of new pipelines or to delay the issuance of permits that are necessary for projects to move forward. We’re also seeing litigation that’s being used as a tool to try to block new pipelines or stop the operation of existing pipelines.”
Coyle and his colleague, Babst Calland shareholder Blaine Lucas, took their stand in favor of safe and efficient pipeline infrastructure as part of a recent discussion with the Pittsburgh Business Times on “The Challenges and Opportunities for the Pennsylvania Gas Pipeline Industry.”
Coyle and Lucas are quick to suggest that the current political climate, as well as the growing opposition from environmental activists and others, are problematic not just for the energy industry, but for people, the economy – and safety.
“One of the things...
October 22, 2021Court Addresses Limitations on Approval of Planned Residential Developments
The Legal Intelligencer
(by Anna Jewart)
The requirements of a municipal zoning ordinance are strictly applied, and landowners must comply with the express use and dimensional limitations applicable in the zoning districts in which their properties are located. Landowners wishing to stray from the regulations of that district are usually forced to request relief in the form of a variance, the standards for the granting of which are quite rigorous. However, Article VII of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, (MPC), 53 P.S. Sections 10701-10713, authorizes municipalities to enact, amend and repeal provisions within a zoning ordinance fixing standards and conditions for a “planned residential development” (PRD), a form of land development intended to offer an alternative to traditional, cookie-cutter zoning. The opinion of the Commonwealth Court in Gouwens v. Indiana Township Board of Supervisors (Gouwens II), offers an opportunity to revisit the foundations of PRD regulation and to explore the requirements for the tentative approval of a PRD. See Gouwens v. Indiana Township Board of Supervisors, Nos. 544, 992-994 C.D. 2020, 2021 (Pa. Cmwlth. July 8, 2021), publication ordered (Sept. 7, 2021)(Gouwens II), on appeal following remand of Gouwens v. Indiana Township Board of Supervisors, Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1377 C.D. 2018, (filed June 25, 2019), publication ordered (Sept. 7, 2021) (Gouwens I).
A PRD is a larger, integrated residential development that may not meet the use and dimensional standards normally applicable in the underlying zoning district. The idea behind PRD regulations is to create a method of approving large developments which overrides traditional zoning controls and permits the introduction of flexibility into their design. PRD...
October 21, 2021EPA’s Proposed New Oil and Gas Methane Requirements: Where We Are and Where We Are Going
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pledged to issue, within days from now, proposed new Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”) regulations for methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. EPA’s forthcoming proposal is expected to broaden the scope of its current methane requirements for new, modified, or reconstructed sources within the oil and gas sector. In addition, for the first time, EPA will propose nationwide methane emission guidelines for existing sources within the sector that individual states will be responsible for implementing. As the oil and gas sector awaits the new proposed methane requirements, this Alert summarizes the important and rare developments that have unfolded in the relatively brief history of EPA regulating methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.
Obama Administration Issues Initial Regulations of Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Sector. EPA issued its first set of oil and gas methane-specific emission regulations in 2016 during the Obama administration. The 2016 regulations amended the then-current new source performance standards (NSPS) and promulgated new standards to directly regulate emissions of methane, as well as volatile organic compounds (VOC), from new, modified, and reconstructed equipment, processes, and activities across the entire oil and gas sector. The 2016 amendments to the NSPS were codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart OOOOa (Subpart OOOOa).
Subpart OOOOa included specific limits on methane emissions for new, modified, and reconstructed sources within the production and processing segments of the oil...
October 8, 2021Groups petition for massive increases in oil & gas well bonds
The PIOGA Press
On September 14, the Sierra Club, PennFuture, Clean Air Council, Earthworks and other groups submitted two parallel rulemaking petitions to Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) asking the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to require full-cost bonding for conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells, for both new and existing wells. The petitions do not address or consider the permit surcharges and other funding mechanisms for plugging wells, including the federal infrastructure bill that is expected to provide millions of dollars to plug abandoned wells.
The Pennsylvania General Assembly addressed and increased bonding in 2012. Under Act 13, well owners/operators are required to ﬁle a bond for each well they operate or a blanket bond for multiple wells. Currently, the bond amount for conventional wells is $2,500 per well, with the option to post a $25,000 blanket bond for multiple wells. 72. P.S. §1606-E. For unconventional wells, the current bond amount required varies by the total well bore length and the number of wells and is limited under the statute to a maximum of $600,000 for more than 150 wells with a total well bore length of at least 6,000 feet. 58 Pa.C.S. §3225(a)(1)(ii). EQB has statutory authority to adjust these amounts every two years to reﬂect the projected costs to the Commonwealth of plugging the well.
Proposed changes to bond amounts
The petitioners contend that a lack of full-cost bonding has resulted in the abandonment of thousands...
October 7, 2021Now might be time to appeal your commercial real estate assessment
(by Sue Ostrowski featuring Peter Schnore)
COVID-19 has had a dramatic impact across the board, creating economic uncertainty and having an adverse effect on commercial property values that continues to this day. In Allegheny County, effects are perhaps most pronounced in the office market, and in particular in Class B downtown Pittsburgh office space, but no commercial property type with indoor space has been immune, says Peter Schnore, shareholder at Babst Calland.
“Tenants’ initial response to COVID was a wait-and-see holding pattern with respect to whether they were going to renew leases or move to new space,” says Schnore. “As a result, many landlords have had to dig deep to keep and attract tenants by offering unprecedented periods of free rent or tenant improvement allowances, creating an adverse impact on net operating income. The unknowns surrounding COVID are still affecting nearly all commercial property types, not just office properties.”
Smart Business spoke with Schnore about how COVID is impacting the value of commercial real estate and why it may be a good idea to review your recent tax assessment.
What is the current situation for owners of commercial real estate?
Future uncertainty while we remain in the throes of COVID is driving up risk of commercial property investment, driving down commercial property values. Landlord concessions — in some cases multiple years of free rent or triple-digit tenant improvement allowances — are increasing operating expenses and reducing short-term income, resulting in an immediate and substantial adverse impact on value. As a result, many properties...
October 1, 2021Pittsburgh company dedicated to promoting entrepreneurship receives $250k in federal grant money
JULIA FELTON | Thursday, Sept. 30
A Pittsburgh-based company dedicated to promoting entrepreneurship will receive $250,000 in funding from the U.S. Department of Commerce.
The grant is part of a $36.5 million grant pool that benefited 50 entrepreneurship-focused organizations, nonprofits, institutions of higher learning and state government agencies nationwide. The grants were announced Thursday by Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development Alejandra Y. Castillo.
The grants are part of the “Build to Scale” program, which aims to accelerate technology entrepreneurship by increasing access to business support and startup capital. The program is administered by the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA).
“The ‘Build to Scale’ program strengthens entrepreneurial ecosystems across the country that are essential in the Biden Administration’s efforts to build back better,” Secretary of Commerce Gina M. Raimondo said. “This work is critical in developing the innovation and entrepreneurship our country needs to build back better and increase American competitiveness on the global stage.”
Founded in 2002, Idea Foundry is a global investor with over 250 companies and projects in their portfolio.
The company says it has generated more than $1 billion in economic impact and created more than 1,000 jobs in the region.
It works to strengthen entrepreneurship in Pittsburgh through a model that emphasizes hands-on development and a variety of investment vehicles that enable entrepreneurs to develop and scale their ideas into growing enterprises.
It not only helps to match entrepreneurs with capital, but also to help keep them “alive, growing and in Pittsburgh,” said Michael Matesic, Idea Foundry’s president and CEO.
October 1, 2021New court ruling relates to retroactivity of flat rate royalty law
In Williams v. EQT Corp., No. 43-2020-C-26 (Ritchie Co. Cir. Ct. W. Va. Aug. 26, 2021), the Honorable Michael D. Lorensen, sitting by appointment in the Circuit Court of Ritchie County, West Virginia (“Court”), entered an Order finding that the 2018 amendments to W. Va. Code § 22-6-8(e) (“Flat Rate Statute”) did not apply retroactively to permits for oil or gas wells (“permits”) issued before the effective date of the amendments to the Flat Rate Statute.
The plaintiffs, successors in interest to a 1913 lease providing for a flat rate payment of four hundred dollars per year for each and every natural gas well drilled on the leasehold estate (“Lease”), challenged deductions by an operator for severance tax and certain post-production expenses from their royalties.
The West Virginia Legislature addressed the issue of flat-rate leases in 1982, when it enacted the Flat Rate Statute prohibiting the issuance of permits where the right to produce was based upon a lease providing for a flat-rate royalty, unless the permit applicant submitted an affidavit certifying that it would pay the lessor no less than one-eighth of the total amount paid or received by or allowed “at the wellhead” for the oil and gas extracted, produced, or marketed (“permit procedure for flat-rate leases”). Id. at *5-6.
In 2017, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia addressed the payment of royalties pursuant to flat-rate leases and held that royalty payments subject to the Flat-Rate Statute “may be subject to pro-rata deduction or...
September 21, 2021Unemployment Compensation Roundup: Review of Recent Legislation, Cases, and Concerns
The Legal Intelligencer
(by Alex Farone)
The COVID-19 pandemic has broadly affected nearly every state’s unemployment compensation (UC) system in one way or another, and Pennsylvania is no exception. From extended appeal deadlines to an uptick in UC fraud claims, this article sets forth four of the most recent changes or proposed changes to Pennsylvania’s UC system that have arisen due to COVID-19.
The process for employees seeking UC benefits can involve several steps and multiple appeals. The first step involves the recently separated employee filing an application for benefits. Applications are processed by one of several UC Service Centers across the Commonwealth. These Service Centers are tasked with making an initial determination on claimants’ applications. The Service Centers’ determinations may be appealed by either the claimant or their former employer to a UC Referee, who will conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the application. The decision of the UC Referee may then be appealed by either party to the UC Board of Review (Board).
Until recently, applicants and employers had just 15 days to appeal initial determinations and referees’ decisions. On June 30, 2021, Governor Tom Wolf signed Act 30, formerly H.B. 178, into law, extending the time period allowed for appeals of UC Service Center determinations and UC Referee decisions from 15 days to 21 days.
Act 30 does not impact the deadlines to file appeals with either the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. An appeal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth...
September 20, 2021Groups Petition Environmental Quality Board for Full-Cost Bonding for Oil & Gas Well Plugging
On September 14, 2021, the Sierra Club, PennFuture, Clean Air Council, Earthworks and other groups (Petitioners) submitted two parallel rulemaking petitions to Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) asking the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to require full-cost bonding for conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells, for both new and existing wells. The petitions do not address or consider the permit surcharges and other funding mechanisms for plugging wells, including the federal infrastructure bill that is expected to provide millions of dollars to plug abandoned wells.
The Pennsylvania General Assembly addressed and increased bonding in 2012. Under Act 13, well owners/operators are required to file a bond for each well they operate or a blanket bond for multiple wells. Currently, the bond amount for conventional wells is $2,500 per well, with the option to post a $25,000 blanket bond for multiple wells. 72. P.S. §1606-E. For unconventional wells, the current bond amount required varies by the total well bore length and the number of wells, and is limited under the statute to a maximum of $600,000 for more than 150 wells with a total well bore length of at least 6,000 feet. 58 Pa.C.S. §3225(a)(1)(ii). EQB has statutory authority to adjust these amounts every two years to reflect the projected costs to the Commonwealth of plugging the well.
Proposed Changes to Bond Amounts
The Petitioners contend that a lack of full-cost bonding has resulted in the abandonment of thousands...
September 15, 2021EPA and Corps revert back to pre-2015 definition of ‘waters of the United States’
The PIOGA Press
(by Lisa Bruderly)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced, on September 3 that they had halted implementation of the current definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) effective immediately and reverted back to the pre-2015 definition until further notice. The switch follows an August 30 order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, which remanded and vacated the definition of WOTUS promulgated by the Trump administration in 2020 (commonly referred to as the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR)) in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. While there was speculation that the court’s vacatur could be narrowly interpreted to apply only to states where the plaintiffs in the case were located (i.e., Arizona, Minnesota, Washington and Wisconsin), EPA and the Corps are applying the change in WOTUS definition nationwide.
Importance of the definition of WOTUS
The deﬁnition of WOTUS identiﬁes which waters are federally-regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA), and therefore determines when a federal permit is required for projects (e.g., pipelines, access roads, well pads) that involve dredging or ﬁlling of a waterbody (i.e., a Section 404 permit). The WOTUS deﬁnition also aﬀects federal spill reporting and spill prevention planning.
With regard to Section 404 permitting, the more expansive the deﬁnition of WOTUS, the more waters that are federally-regulated. The extent of WOTUS impacts resulting from a project determines whether an individual or a general Section 404 permit is required, with the process...
September 14, 2021Federal Court Certifies Questions to West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals About Deductibility of Post-Production Expenses and the Viability of Tawney
The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia has certified questions to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals asking whether the seminal decision in Estate of Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, LLC, 219 W.Va. 266, 633 S.E.2d 22 (2006) regarding the deductibility of post-production expenses remains the law of West Virginia, and if so, the proper interpretation of Tawney.
In Charles Kellam, et al. v. SWN Production Company, LLC, et al., No. 5:20-CV-85, a class action royalty case, the District Court, Judge John Preston Bailey, certified on his own motion whether Tawney remains the law of West Virginia, whether the lease in question allowed the deductions, and the proper application of Tawney. The District Court certified the questions without ruling on the defendants’ pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings which argued the Kellam’s lease complied with Tawney and the District Court was bound by the decision in Young v. Equinor USA Onshore Properties, Inc., 982 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2020), where the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Bailey and held a similar lease clearly and unambiguously allowed the deduction of post-production expenses. The Kellam’s lease states the lessee agrees to pay the lessor “as royalty for the oil, gas, and/or coalbed methane gas marketed and used off the premises and produced from each well drilled thereon, the sum of one-eighth (1/8) of the price paid to Lessee per thousand cubic feet of such oil, gas, and/or coalbed methane gas so marketed...
September 7, 2021Infrastructure Bill Includes Substantial New Pipeline Safety Grant Program for Upgrades to Gas Distribution Infrastructure
Pipeline Safety Alert
If enacted, the Senate Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 20211 (Infrastructure Bill) would provide $1 billion for the newly established Natural Gas Distribution Infrastructure Safety and Modernization Grant Program (Program) to be administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The program would offer $200 million in grant funding each year for five years, starting in fiscal year 2022. The funding would be available only to municipal and community owned utilities. Eligible projects would include the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of natural gas distribution pipeline systems and the acquisition of equipment to improve pipeline safety and avoid economic losses. In choosing projects, PHMSA would consider: (1) the risk profile of applicant’s current pipeline systems, including if they are prone to leaks; (2) whether a project may generate jobs; (3) whether a project may benefit disadvantaged communities; and (4) and how a project would impact economic growth.
If enacted, the $1 billion Program would reflect a substantial expansion of PHMSA’s current grant programs both in terms of the amount of funding available and because it would authorize spending on capital projects.
Given the scope of this program, if it is adopted into law, stakeholders may have practical questions on how PHMSA would implement it. For example, would capital projects funded through the Program trigger NEPA? Or would a Categorical Exclusion apply? Current DOT Categorical Exclusions may not cover projects and PHMSA does not have its own set of Categorical Exclusions.2 Would PHMSA need...
September 7, 2021EPA and the Corps Revert Back to Pre-2015 Definition of “Waters of the United States”
(by Lisa Bruderly)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) announced, on September 3, 2021, that they would halt implementation of the current definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) effective immediately and revert back to the pre-2015 definition until further notice. The switch is the result of an August 30, 2021 order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which remanded and vacated the definition of WOTUS promulgated by the Trump administration in 2020 (commonly referred to as the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR)). While there was speculation that the court’s vacatur could be narrowly interpreted to apply only to states where the plaintiffs in the case were located (i.e., Arizona, Minnesota, Washington and Wisconsin), EPA and the Corps have changed the WOTUS definition nationwide.
Importance of the Definition of WOTUS
The definition of WOTUS identifies which waters are federally-regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA), and, therefore, determines when a federal permit is required for projects that involve dredging or filling of a waterbody (i.e., a Section 404 permit) or the discharge of pollutants into a surface water (i.e., a NPDES permit). The WOTUS definition also affects federal spill reporting and spill prevention planning.
With regard to Section 404 permitting, the more expansive the definition of WOTUS, the more waters that are federally-regulated. The extent of WOTUS impacts caused by a project determines whether an individual or a...
September 1, 2021How to prevent employees from stealing — and detect theft if they are
(by Sue Ostrowski featuring Kevin Douglass)
You’ve just discovered someone is stealing from your company. Worse yet, what if a high-level person — a partner, an owner, a director or an officer — is involved?
“Particularly if the theft involves a substantial amount of money, an accomplice outside of your business, or if criminal investigatory agencies are involved, you should consult with an attorney about how best to interact with authorities, respond to possible subpoenas, conduct an internal investigation and craft a consistent message to employees and customers,” says Kevin Douglass, a shareholder at Babst Calland.
Of course, every employee with access to company financials poses a risk, and every company should take steps to protect itself.
Smart Business spoke with Douglass about how to keep your business from falling prey to a theft — and what to do if it happens anyway.
How can a company protect its assets?
Employees with the greatest access to the company’s finances are in the best position to take advantage. The easiest way to prevent stealing is to ensure that there are checks and balances built into your company’s financial system, regardless of the trust you have in employees or colleagues responsible for managing that system.
The easiest way to do that is to require that more than one person monitor the company’s cash flow, including approval or review of checks, credit and debit card usage, petty cash and invoicing. If that is not possible, consider an audit every couple of years by an independent accounting firm and provide...
August 19, 2021Keith Coyle Gives Testimony on the Environmental and Economic Benefits of Pipelines
Pennsylvania House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee Hearing
In his testimony on August 17, 2021 at the Pennsylvania House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee public hearing on the Environmental and Economic Benefit of Pipelines, Babst Calland Attorney Keith Coyle, chairman of the Marcellus Shale Coalition's Pipeline Safety Workgroup, explains, "As long as we are relying on fossil fuels to produce power, we need pipelines to deliver them safely. ...It’s pretty clear we are going to be relying on natural gas and petroleum for some time. There is no other way to do this safely and to move product in bulk besides these pipelines.”
To view the video of the full public hearing of the House Environmental Resources & Energy Committee on the Environmental and Economic Benefits of Pipelines, click here.
August 19, 2021Privilege under Texas Audit Act Not Applicable in Federal Court
(by Julie Domike)
An August 10, 2021 decision by Judge Michael J. Truncale of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas may upend assumed privilege for documents and studies gathered as part of an environmental self-audit in Texas. The Order on Motion to Quash Subpoena, Sierra Club v. Woodville Pellets, LLC, No. 9:20-cv-178, 2021 WL 3522443 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2021) addressed the subpoena for stack test reports sought by the Sierra Club in a Clean Air Act enforcement case against the wood pellet manufacturing facility in Woodville, Texas.
On August 18, 2020, Sierra Club filed a complaint under the citizen suit provisions of the federal Clean Air Act, alleging that Woodville Pellets, LLC had violated the statute by emitting unpermitted amounts of air pollutants from its facility. The matter will be tried before a jury in November; during discovery, the Sierra Club sought reports of stack testing that Trinity Consultants conducted as part of a facility audit under Texas law. Failing to receive the documents from Woodville Pellets, the Sierra Club served a subpoena on Trinity, which is not a party to the litigation, seeking these and other documents. Woodville and Trinity moved to quash the subpoena on the grounds that the documents sought are privileged under the Texas Environmental, Health, and Safety Audit Privilege Act (Audit Act) and this prevents their production.
The Court accepted that the stack tests were done as part of an audit under the Audit Act, which extends a privilege to...
August 19, 2021Three Babst Calland Attorneys Named as 2022 Best Lawyers® “Lawyers of the Year”, 31 Selected for Inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America©, and 13 Named to Best Lawyers® “Ones to Watch”
Babst Calland is pleased to announce that three lawyers were selected as 2022 Best Lawyers “Lawyer of the Year” in Pittsburgh, Pa. and Charleston, W. Va. (by BL Rankings). Only a single lawyer in each practice area and designated metropolitan area is honored as the “Lawyer of the Year,” making this accolade particularly significant.
Receiving this designation reflects the high level of respect a lawyer has earned among other leading lawyers in the same communities and the same practice areas for their abilities, professionalism, and integrity. Those named to the 2022 Best Lawyers “Lawyer of the Year” include:
Kevin K. Douglass, Natural Resources Law “Lawyer of the Year” in Pittsburgh, Pa.
Mark D. Shepard, Bet-the-Company Litigation “Lawyer of the Year” in Pittsburgh, Pa.
Robert M. Stonestreet, Environmental Law “Lawyer of the Year” in Charleston, W. Va.
In addition, 32 Babst Calland lawyers were selected for inclusion in the 2022 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America (by BL Rankings), the most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession:
- Chester R. Babst – Environmental Law, Litigation – Environmental
- Donald C. Bluedorn II – Environmental Law, Water Law, Litigation – Environmental
- Dean A. Calland – Environmental Law
- Matthew S. Casto – Commercial Litigation
- Frank J. Clements – Corporate Law
- Kathy K. Condo – Commercial Litigation
- James Curry – Oil and Gas Law
- Julie R. Domike – Environmental Law, Litigation – Environmental
- Kevin K. Douglass – Natural Resources Law
- Christian A. Farmakis – Corporate Law
- Kevin J. Garber – Environmental Law, Natural Resources Law, Energy Law, Water Law, Litigation – Environmental
- Norman E. Gilkey – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Litigation – Bankruptcy, and Mediation
- Steven M. Green – Energy Law
- Lindsay P....
August 19, 2021New Legislation Providing for Deployment of Small Cell Wireless Facilities Becomes Effective August 29th
The Legal Intelligencer
On June 30, 2021, Governor Tom Wolf signed Pennsylvania House Bill 1621, the Small Wireless Facilities Deployment Act as Act 50 of 2021 (“Act 50”), into law. This Act reflects years of negotiations between industry groups and municipalities over the balance of local land use authority and ease of deployment in small cell infrastructure deployment. Effective August 29th, the Act standardizes the local permitting process for small cell facilities located within municipal rights-of-way.
As demand increases exponentially for faster and more reliable wireless service, so does the demand to develop infrastructure capable of providing greater coverage and capacity. A decade ago, a single large cell tower on the outskirts of town could meet a community’s wireless voice and data service needs. However, the reliability of these large “macro cell” wireless facilities has decreased as mobile data traffic exploded. The telecommunications industry responded by developing “small cell networks” distributed throughout communities and buildings to better meet to the constant on-the-go data needs of the modern age. Instead of utilizing a single tower, possibly hundreds of feet high, small cell networks use multiple low-power antennas that connect to fiber optic cables. These small cell systems allow for greater speeds and more uniform coverage where they are deployed. However, they require a greater level of “wireless density” in order to function as intended. In other words, small cell facilities must be installed every few blocks rather than every few miles.
To achieve the desired wireless density...
August 17, 2021Regional Developments
The PIOGA Press
This is another excerpt from The 2021 Babst Calland Report, which represents the collective legal perspectives of Babst Calland’s energy attorneys addressing the most current business and regulatory issues facing the oil and natural gas industry. The full report is available online at reports.babstcalland.com/the-2021-babst-calland-report-1.
Appalachian Storage Hub
As has been chronicled in earlier editions of this white paper, the explosive growth of natural gas production from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in the Appalachian region starting in 2010 produced strong economic gains for West Virginia, Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio for several years.
In addition, much of that gas is relatively “wet”— meaning that it has a high proportion of natural gas liquids (NGLs) such as ethane, propane, butanes and natural gasolines (pentanes) that are used as petrochemicals in various manufacturing industries. Regional leaders, seeking to capitalize on the vast natural gas resources of those shales, began to stress the importance of developing local businesses that use NGLs—rather than allowing plastics manufacturing and other uses to accrue in other areas.
In 2017, the American Chemistry Council published a report suggesting that the buildout of the petrochemical industry in Appalachia could support the construction of as many as five ethane crackers. Among other factors, the report described that a key to the development of petrochemical manufacturing presence in the area would be the establishment of an Appalachian Storage Hub (ASH) that would act as a conduit for the production and sale of NGLs, storing massive quantities of the liquids and...
August 16, 2021Medical Marijuana in the Workplace, Part 4: Recent Cases Add No Clarity to the Law
The Legal Intelligencer
(by John McCreary)
This is the latest installment of the author’s obsessive examination of Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) and the employment law issues it creates. By this point in our examination, it is now established, at least in the trial courts of the Commonwealth, that the MMA created a private cause of action for medical marijuana users claiming that an employer has discriminated against them because of their medical marijuana use. See e.g., Judge William J. Nealon’s comprehensive opinion in Palmiter v. Commonwealth Health Systems, No. 19-CV-1315, 2019 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 12307 (Lackawanna Cty. 2019); Hudnell v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176198; 2020 WL 5749924 (E.D. Pa. 2020)(citing Palmiter). See 35 P.S. § 10231.2103(b)(“No employer may discharge, threaten, refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee … solely on the basis of such employee’s status as an individual who is certified to use medical marijuana …”)(emphasis supplied).
In a surprising development (at least to the author), however, Commonwealth Court construed the emphasized language in a manner favorable to employers who continue to enforce “zero tolerance” and similar drug policies. In Harrisburg Area Community College v. PHRC, 245 A.3d 283 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2020) (HACC) a nursing student with a valid medical marijuana prescription was expelled from the nursing program after testing positive for marijuana metabolites. She brought a claim before the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) for disability discrimination against HACC under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act’s (PHRA) public...
August 9, 2021Biden Administration Sets Target of 50% EV Sales Share by 2030 and Announces New Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Regulations
On August 5, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks (Executive Order). The White House signing event included American automakers Ford, GM, and Stellantis, as well as the United Auto Workers (UAW), demonstrating support for the president’s Build Back Better agenda and investment in U.S. leadership in electric vehicles and batteries, manufacturing, and jobs. In conjunction with the signing of this Executive Order, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) announced coordinated notices of proposed rulemaking that are intended to roll back the previous administration’s emissions and fuel economy regulations.
The Executive Order sets a new target to make half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 zero-emissions vehicles, including battery electric, plug-in hybrid electric, or fuel cell electric vehicles. The Executive Order also directs USEPA to initiate a rulemaking to establish new vehicle and engine emissions standards, including for greenhouse gas emissions. The Administration instructs the agency to set the following:
- New emissions standards, including for greenhouse gas emissions, for light- and medium-duty vehicles for model years (MY) 2027 through at least MY 2030, by no later than July 2024;
- New nitrogen oxides standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles beginning with MY 2027 and extending through and including at least MY 2030, by no later than December 2022; and
- New greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles to begin as...
August 5, 2021Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Releases PFAS Sampling Data and Proposes Drinking Water Standards for Two “Forever” Chemicals
The Legal Intelligencer
(by Matt Wood)
Over the past few months, Governor Tom Wolf’s administration, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and other governmental stakeholders, have made strides toward better understanding and addressing contamination of state waters with perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Specifically, recent sampling efforts of certain public water systems (PWSs) and surface waters have resulted in new information about the prevalence of PFAS in state waters and have informed DEP actions toward regulating certain PFAS compounds.
Public Water Source Sampling
On June 3, 2021, the Wolf administration released sampling results from an approximately two-year long statewide effort to sample PWSs for certain PFAS compounds. PFAS are a group of manmade chemicals used in numerous industrial, commercial, and consumer products. Prominent examples include non-stick and waterproofing applications and as chemical components of fire fighting foams. In recent years, PFAS chemicals have been discovered in the environment, including in groundwater (some used as drinking water sources), and in humans, plants, and animals and some studies suggest that PFAS can negatively affect human health. Because they do not break down naturally in the environment (including in the human body), they are commonly called “forever” chemicals.
In September 2018, Governor Wolf created via Executive Order a PFAS Action Team to investigate and address potential PFAS concerns in the Commonwealth. The Action Team, made up of agency heads from multiple Pennsylvania agencies, subsequently developed a plan to sample PWSs for PFAS. Specifically, the Action Team identified PWSs within a half-mile of potential PFAS sources (such...
August 4, 2021Force majeure: Why these contract provisions are drawing new scrutiny
(by Sue Ostrowski featuring Kate Cooper)
“With the pandemic, our clients suddenly cared a lot about whether their contracts included a force majeure provision, what it said, what it meant and how it could be interpreted,” says Cooper.
Smart Business spoke with Cooper about force majeure provisions and how approaches to them are changing.
What are force majeure provisions?
Force majeure provisions govern the conduct of both parties if unexpected or unforeseeable events result in a party being unable to deliver on the terms of the contract, with an emphasis on the unforeseeable. They’re designed to cover unexpected events and potentially allow you to delay delivering on a contract. But the provisions are not a get-out-of-jail free card, and in most circumstances, they do not let a party to a contract completely off the hook.
The disruption to the supply chain caused by the pandemic and government shutdowns has drawn renewed attention to these clauses. For example, when suppliers couldn’t deliver to their customers, those disruptions had a knock-on effect down the supply chain. Companies aiming to avoid breaching their contracts were hopeful that their force majeure provisions would provide them with relief. However, many were disappointed to find that what they wanted to do — whether that be delay performance obligations, or even terminate the contract entirely — wasn’t permitted by the language of the specific provisions set forth in their contracts.
How is the conversation regarding force majeure changing?
It will be difficult to argue that the pandemic is an unforeseeable event now...
August 2, 2021Donald C. Bluedorn II Elected as an Active Fellow to The American College of Environmental Lawyers
The American College of Environmental Lawyers (ACOEL)
Babst Calland Managing Shareholder Donald C. Bluedorn II was recently elected as an Active Fellow to The American College of Environmental Lawyers for 2021.
The American College of Environmental Lawyers announced that this year it has elected 22 new Active Fellows and two Honorary Fellows to membership in the College. Each individual was selected for his or her distinguished experience, high standards of practice and substantial contributions to the field of environmental law.
ACOEL President, Mary Ellen Ternes, partner with Earth & Water Law, LLC, stated, “The 22 lawyers elected as Fellows to the College represent the best environmental lawyers in government service, public interest, academia, and private practice from across the country. Our new Fellows have earned this recognition based on their career achievements and as leaders in the broad and diverse areas of environmental law and policy. Our Honorary Fellows have distinguished themselves for their substantial contributions as leaders in thought and action regarding Environmental Justice.“
July 22, 2021Litigation, land use and trends in local ordinances
The PIOGA Press
This article is an excerpt from The 2021 Babst Calland Report, which represents the collective legal perspectives of Babst Calland’s energy attorneys addressing the must current business and regulatory issues facing the oil and natural gas industry. The full report is available online at reports.babstcalland.com/the-2021-babst-calland-report-1.
Pennsylvania royalty cases
In two recent cases litigated by Babst Calland, courts applying Pennsylvania law reaffirmed that operators were entitled to deduct post-production costs from royalty payments based on lease language containing references to “at the wellhead” provisions. On April 28, 2021, the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County in Dressler v. PennEnergy Resources considered this issue where the lease provided that the gas royalty was to be paid based on “gas sold at the well.” The court held that phrase equated to “at the wellhead” language, which mandates using the net back method for calculating royalties―thus justifying post-production cost deductions.
A nearly identical decision was rendered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania less than two weeks later in Coastal Forest Resources Co. v. Chevron USA, Inc. There, the district court held that the lease’s royalty provision containing “at the wellhead” language had to be broadly interpreted to also allow for post-production cost deductions. Both cases relied on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Kilmer v. Elexco Land Servs., Inc., where “at the wellhead” was defined, to justify their holdings. It is likely that the two decisions will help temper further royalty litigation on the propriety of...