RMMLF Mineral Law Newsletter
(Joseph K. Reinhart, Sean M. McGovern and Casey J. Snyder)
On February 16, 2021, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board’s (EHB) decision to deny environmental groups’ petition for attorney’s fees after a settlement with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) in a third-party permit appeal over Sunoco Pipeline L.P.’s (Sunoco) Mariner East 2 pipeline because neither side acted in “bad faith.” Clean Air Council v. PADEP, 245 A.3d 1207 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021). After the plaintiffs settled the dispute at the EHB over permits issued to Sunoco for its Mariner East 2 pipeline, the plaintiffs filed an application with the EHB to recover costs and fees of the litigation totaling nearly $230,000 from Sunoco, which was not a party to the settlement. Id. at 1210. The EHB applied a stricter standard for recovering fees from a private party than in applications to recover fees from PADEP, requiring the plaintiffs to show the private party acted in “bad faith.” Id. at 1211. Under this standard, the EHB reasoned, permittees would not be “dissuaded from vigorously protecting their interests . . . in good faith.” Id. (quoting Clean Air Council v. PADEP, 2019 EHB 228, 236). Finding no bad faith, the EHB denied the plaintiffs’ application for costs and fees. Id.
The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the commonwealth court, arguing that the EHB should have applied the less stringent “catalyst test,” which would have required the plaintiffs to meet an easier standard: that the opposing party provided some benefit the fee-requesting party sought, the suit stated a genuine claim, and their appeal was a substantial or significant reason why the opposing party provided the benefit the fee-requesting party sought in the underlying suit. Id. at 1215. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments and held “it was entirely within EHB’s discretion, and eminently appropriate, to apply the instant bad faith standard in deciding whether or not to impose costs and fees upon a private party permittee.” Id. at 1218 (emphasis added). Thus, the catalyst test is not the “sole and exclusive” standard the EHB may employ in cost and fee applications against a permittee under section 307(b) of the Clean Streams Law. Id. The court also determined PADEP had no standing to challenge the EHB’s decision on a costs and fees application against a third party where PADEP’s interest was entirely prospective and concerned how the EHB’s application of the bad-faith standard would be applied in future costs and fees applications.
In a separate decision, the commonwealth court upheld an EHB ruling that reduced the fees awarded to a family that challenged PADEP permits for the Mariner East 2 pipeline crossing their land. PADEP v. Gerhart, No. 107 C.D. 2020, 2021 WL 563313 (Table) (Pa. Commw. Ct. Feb. 16, 2021). The EHB in 2019 held that PADEP misclassified a wetland on the Gerhart’s property and that Sunoco had to conduct additional restoration of the wetland after completing the pipeline’s construction under Sunoco’s approved restoration plan. Id. at *1. The EHB held Sunoco to the bad-faith standard and PADEP to the catalyst test in parceling out who was responsible for the reduced legal fee award to the plaintiff. Following the same logic as its ruling in the Clean Air Council case, the court affirmed that the EHB had the discretion to apply both standards in awarding fees, charging no fees to Sunoco and $13,135.77 in fees to PADEP. Id. at *2–3.
On March 18, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court from the February 16, 2021, commonwealth court decision affirming the EHB’s denial of their request for attorney’s fees. See Petition for Allowance of Appeal, Clean Air Council v. PADEP, No. 131 MAL 2021 (Pa. Mar. 18, 2021). PADEP has also appealed the ruling that it did not have standing. See Clean Air Council v. PADEP, No. 132 MAL 2021 (Pa. filed Mar. 18, 2021). A date for oral argument had not been scheduled as of May 1, 2021.
Environmental Groups, PADEP Reach Settlement over Reissued General Permit
In a February 4, 2021, letter, five environmental groups asked the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to suspend or revoke dozens of permit approvals under recently reissued General Permit WMGR123 (General Permit). See Letter Re: DEP’s Recent Approval of 49 Authorizations Under the New General Permit WMGR123 Without Proper Public Notice (Feb. 4, 2021). The General Permit, created in 2010, provides for the “processing, transfer and beneficial use of oil and gas liquid waste to develop or hydraulically fracture an oil or gas well.” General Permit WMGR123 (as amended Mar. 14, 2012). The General Permit expired on October 4, 2020, but was extended to January 4, 2021, pending PADEP’s planned renewal. PADEP began the process of updating and renewing the General Permit in 2020, and published notification on December 19, 2020, that a new WMGR123 was approved and would become effective January 4, 2021. See 50 Pa. Bull. 7249 (Dec. 19, 2020).
The groups alleged that PADEP failed to follow public notification requirements required under both the reissued General Permit and Pennsylvania regulations at 25 Pa. Code § 287.642(c) for 49 General Permit renewal applications for existing permits. Specifically, the groups alleged PADEP granted 49 total General Permit renewals on December 23, 2020, and January 4, 2021, without providing any public notice, or with providing public notice but under the previous version of the General Permit, despite the new General Permit becoming effective on January 4, 2021. Before any appeals were filed, PADEP and the environmental groups entered into a stipulation of settlement under which PADEP agreed to hold an additional 60-day public comment period and the environmental groups agreed not appeal any of the General Permit approvals based on public notice procedures. See Stipulation of Settlement (Feb. 16, 2021). PADEP published notice of the 60-day public comment period on March 20, 2021, which closed on May 19, 2021. See 51 Pa. Bull. 1535 (Mar. 20, 2021). The groups subsequently filed appeals of six General Permit authorizations with the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board.
Editor’s Note: The reporters’ law firm is representing two companies whose authorizations have been appealed.
Pennsylvania Democrats Granted Intervention in Lawsuit Challenging Delaware River Watershed Drilling Ban
On February 25, 2021, by a 4-0-1 vote, the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) amended its regulations to ban the drilling of unconventional wells in the Delaware River Basin. See News Release, DRBC, “New DRBC Regulation Prohibits High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in the Delaware River Basin” (Feb. 25, 2021). During the special meeting, the United States abstained from the vote, but indicated support for the result, while the vote was unanimous from the state commissioners.
Prior to the amendment to the Basin regulations, Senator Gene Yaw (R-23), Senator Lisa Baker (R-20), and the Pennsylvania Senate Republican Caucus filed a lawsuit to overturn the de facto moratorium that had been in place since 2010. See Yaw v. DRBC, No. 2:21-cv-00119 (E.D. Pa. filed Jan. 11, 2021). The DRBC alleged it maintained its authority to prohibit construction or operation of natural gas wells within the Basin as a valid exercise of its power to regulate “projects” utilizing “water resources.” Delaware River Basin Compact § 3.8 (1961). The lawsuit asserts several counts, including constitutional claims relating to eminent domain, regulatory takings, and the Republican Form of Government Clause (Guarantee Clause), and an ultra vires claim regarding the DRBC’s authority over the moratorium.
On March 12, 2021, Senator Steve Santarsiero (D-10) was joined by Democratic colleagues, including the Democratic Caucus of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, to intervene as defendants in the lawsuit. In one-page orders from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the court allowed the Democratic intervenors to be added as defendants in the case on March 19, 2021, and in a second order, relieved them of any obligation to respond to the initial complaint on March 24, 2021. The intervenors and the DRBC filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on April 15, 2021, after the plaintiffs amended their complaint on March 31, 2021, to reflect the DRBC’s new regulations prohibiting unconventional wells. See Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in Support of County Intervenors’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, Yaw v. DRBC, No. 2:21-cv-00119 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 15, 2021). The motion to dismiss filed by the Democratic intervenors sets forth three main arguments for dismissing the lawsuit. First, the plaintiffs lack standing to file their lawsuit. Second, the plaintiffs’ allegation of a regulatory taking fails as a matter of law. Third, the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to plead a claim under the Guarantee Clause. The court had not ruled on the defendants’ motions as of May 1, 2021.
Chesapeake Reaches $1.9 Million Settlement Agreement with PADEP, EPA over Alleged Wetland and Stream Violations
On March 24, 2021, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Justice executed a consent decree with Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC (Chesapeake) to resolve Chesapeake’s alleged violations of the federal Clean Water Act and the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and Dam Safety and Encroachments Act associated with the alleged failure to identify and protect wetlands at 76 oil and gas well sites in Pennsylvania. See Proposed Consent Decree, United States v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, No. 4:21-cv-00538 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2021). The alleged violations stem from discharges of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States and/or waters of the Commonwealth, creation of unauthorized encroachments, water obstructions, and issues related to earth disturbance activities, and stormwater management. Beginning in 2013 while renewing Pennsylvania Erosion and Sediment Control General Permit authorizations, Chesapeake discovered that some of its operations in Pennsylvania did not completely delineate all required wetlands or required resources. Chesapeake disclosed these sites to PADEP and EPA and, over the course of several years, the parties worked on how to bring Chesapeake back into compliance. Despite Chesapeake’s efforts to discover and report the non-compliance, PADEP and EPA declined to address the matter under their respective policies on voluntary audit and self-disclosures. Proposed Consent Decree at 7.
Under the terms of the consent decree, Chesapeake agreed to:
- pay a $1.9 million civil penalty;
- replace, restore, or enhance 25.778 acres of wetlands and 2,326 linear feet of streams;
- institute a compliance assurance program to ensure its facilities operate in compliance with federal and state law; and
- pay greater stipulated penalties than normally found in state settlement agreements, should Chesapeake fail to meet its obligations.
The consent decree was subject to a 30-day public comment period that closed on April 29, 2021, and is pending final court approval.
Environmental Justice Updates in Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP) Office of Environmental Justice is in the process of updating its environmental justice (EJ) policy titled “Environmental Justice Public Participation Policy,” in line with a recent trend of similar efforts from the Biden administration and several states to increase EJ review in regulatory actions like permitting. See PADEP, Environmental Justice Public Participation Policy (No. 012-0501-002) (effective Apr. 24, 2004). A revised policy could affect the process of PADEP’s permitting, enforcement, and other regulatory activities.
PADEP’s policy went into effect in 2004. The current policy applies to “Environmental Justice Areas,” which are areas of concern (a half-mile radius from the center of the proposed permit activity and any area outside this radius impacted by the proposed activity) that are also part of a census tract with a 30% or greater minority population or 20% or greater at or below the poverty level, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Permitting actions in Environmental Justice Areas are subject to increased public participation requirements. The policy applies to (1) “trigger permits,” which are permits that PADEP determined to have significant public health concerns; and (2) “opt-in permits,” which are all other permits that PADEP may determine warrant EJ consideration under the policy.
While a draft of the revised policy has not yet been released, PADEP signaled that it could be dramatically changing the scope of the policy. PADEP is currently in a public outreach stage of the revision process, seeking comments on how it can address EJ concerns in addition to public participation in the permitting review process. PADEP’s Office of Environmental Justice held public outreach meetings in late March 2021 to discuss the timeline and seek comments on certain questions about the scope of the policy. Also, PADEP could expand the list of “trigger permits” in the revised policy to include certain oil and gas-related permits. The revisions under discussion now constitute the second proposed draft of the policy since it became effective. In a previous 2018 draft revision of the policy that was withdrawn in November 2020, PADEP proposed to include permits to drill and operate underground injection control wells for disposal of oil and gas liquid waste or enhanced recovery. See PADEP, Draft Environmental Justice Public Participation Policy (No. 012-0501-002) (withdrawn draft from 2018).
A draft of the revised policy is expected to be published sometime in fall 2021. See Office of Envtl. Justice, PADEP, “Environmental Justice Policy Revision,” https://www.dep.pa.gov/PublicParticipation/OfficeofEnvironmentalJustice/Pages/Policy-Revision.aspx. A final revised policy could be in effect by spring or summer 2022, after several stages of planned public comment, internal review, and community engagement.
Copyright © 2021, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado
