Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth
108 A.3d 140
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- PEDF filed a declaratory judgment challenge in original jurisdiction seeking relief under the Declaratory Judgments Act regarding past and future leasing of State lands for oil and gas development and the use of monies in the Oil and Gas Lease Fund.
- The case centers on the Commonwealth’s budgeting and leasing decisions tied to the Marcellus Shale era, including the 2008, January 2010, and Anadarko lease sales and related revenue transfers from the Lease Fund to the General Fund.
- Key statutes involved include the Oil and Gas Lease Fund Act ( Lease Fund Act) and Fiscal Code amendments (notably 2009, 2010, and 2014) that alter the appropriation of Lease Fund royalties and transfers to the General Fund and to the Legacy Fund.
- DCNR, empowered by the Conservation and Natural Resources Act, administers leases for mining or removal of minerals on State forests and must consider environmental protections; Governor and General Assembly influence over leasing decisions is contested.
- Executive orders and budget acts from Rendell and Corbett regimes created moratoriums or directed leasing activity to meet General Fund needs, influencing future leasing considerations and the balance of Lease Fund usage.
- The court treats questions about the legality of past lease sales as nonjusticiable absent indispensable parties, and emphasizes that DCNR has exclusive statutory authority to decide whether to lease state lands for oil and gas extraction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do 1602-E and 1603-E violate Art. I, §27? | PEDF asserts these sections improperly limit and redirect Lease Fund royalties away from environmental stewardship. | Commonwealth argues these provisions are constitutional allocations within the General Assembly’s powers and do not breach the Environmental Rights Amendment. | Sections 1602-E and 1603-E not unconstitutional. |
| Do Lease Fund transfers/appropriations from the Fund violate Art. I, §27? | PEDF contends transfers to the General Fund undermine the trust duties to conserve public natural resources. | Commonwealth maintains transfers serve general budgeting needs and do not breach the trustee duties. | Transfers/appropriations do not violate Art. I, §27. |
| Who has the duty to make leasing determinations for state lands? | PEDF contends the trustee duties require adherence to Environmental Rights Amendment in leasing decisions. | Commonwealth argues broader executive/legislative control; Governor may influence but not override DCNR’s statutory authority. | DCNR has exclusive statutory authority to determine whether to lease; Governor may not override. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) (Environmental Rights Amendment creates trustee duties and balancing with development; public resource trust in state lands and resources)
- Payne v. Kassab (Payne I), 312 A.2d 86 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (multifactor test for environmental-rights challenge; later plurality in Robinson limited that test)
- Payne v. Kassab (Payne II), 361 A.2d 263 (Pa. 1976) (trustee duties balanced against development; adopted standard for Act 120 compliance)
- Commonwealth v. Tate, 274 A.2d 193 (Pa. 1971) (courts may compel adequate funding for judicial system; separation of powers limits on budgeting disputes)
- Robinson Twp. plurality discussion cited, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) (self-executing environmental rights; balance with economic development)