In unconventional gas well fee, further providing for distribution of fee.
Summary
SB102 amends Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas statutes to change how unconventional gas well fee revenue is distributed to municipalities. The bill would bar the commission from sending fee revenue to any municipality that, in the commission’s view, maintains a zoning or other ordinance that unreasonably limits or prohibits future unconventional natural gas well development. It also creates a presumption that a municipality has imposed an unreasonable limit if its ordinance includes standards or conditions that conflict with or exceed those in Chapter 32 of Title 58, which governs development of unconventional wells.
The bill further requires the commission to hold a municipality’s fee revenue in a restricted account if litigation is filed challenging a local ordinance as violating Chapter 32 or as unreasonably restricting well development. Under that provision, the municipality would not receive the funds until the litigation is resolved. The measure takes effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
SB102 would directly affect the distribution of unconventional gas well fee revenue under Title 58 by conditioning municipal access to those funds on local zoning compliance with state oil-and-gas development standards. It would give the commission a new enforcement role in evaluating municipal ordinances and withholding payments where ordinances are deemed overly restrictive or are under legal challenge. The bill would therefore pressure municipalities to align zoning and other land-use rules with state standards for unconventional natural gas wells, and it could affect local governments, gas operators, and litigants involved in zoning disputes.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill has support within the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, where it was reported as committed by a 7-4 vote. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to indicate detailed arguments for or against the measure. The vote margin suggests the bill is supported by a majority but remains somewhat divisive.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s treatment of municipal zoning authority versus state regulation of unconventional gas development. Supporters are likely to view the measure as a way to prevent municipalities from using zoning to block gas well development while still receiving fee revenue. Opponents are likely to object that it penalizes municipalities for exercising local land-use authority and creates a presumption against ordinances that go beyond state standards. The litigation-hold provision may also be controversial because it can delay municipal revenue while legal challenges are pending.
In oil and gas wells, further providing for Oil and Gas Lease Fund; and, in general budget implementation, further providing for Federal and Commonwealth use of forest land.
In general provisions, further providing for definitions; and, in zoning, providing for accessory dwelling units and for public availability of public utility fees.
In general provisions, further providing for definitions; and, in subdivision and land development, providing for local option for high impact warehouses and distribution centers.