Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Commonwealth, Department of Environmental Protection
135 A.3d 1118
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- PIOGA, an industry trade association, sued DEP in Commonwealth Court seeking a declaratory judgment that DEP may not apply or enforce Section 3215(c) of Act 13 in its well-permitting process (via the Public Resources Form and PNDI Policy) because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enjoined that provision in Robinson Township.
- PIOGA alleges DEP’s permitting instructions, application form, and PNDI Policy require applicants to identify impacts to public resources and species of special concern, and that DEP treats those requirements as grounded in Section 3215(c).
- DEP filed preliminary objections arguing PIOGA lacks standing, the dispute is not ripe, and administrative remedies (appeal to the Environmental Hearing Board) were not exhausted.
- PIOGA seeks pre-enforcement, industry-wide relief to avoid having members either comply with requirements PIOGA says are unlawful or face permit denial and costly appeals.
- The Court considered whether PIOGA’s challenge is justiciable under the Declaratory Judgments Act and whether exhaustion exceptions (e.g., Arsenal Coal) apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring pre-enforcement declaratory action | PIOGA: members face direct, immediate harm because DEP’s permitting process forces costly compliance before permitting; pre-enforcement review is appropriate (Arsenal Coal/Donahue). | DEP: Allegations are speculative; no concrete injury (no permit denials) so no standing. | Court: PIOGA has standing — alleged industry-wide, immediate harms from the permitting process suffice. |
| Ripeness of declaratory challenge | PIOGA: legal question whether DEP may rely on enjoined §3215(c) is sufficiently developed; industry-wide controversy inevitable; ripeness met. | DEP: Factual application issues require administrative development before judicial review. | Court: Claim is ripe — facial/industry-wide challenge does not require administrative record; delay would cause hardship. |
| Adequacy/exhaustion of administrative remedies | PIOGA: EHB cannot grant declaratory relief or pre-enforcement relief; administrative route inadequate; Arsenal Coal exception applies. | DEP: Parties should exhaust EHB remedies; this is an as-applied dispute dependent on individual permit facts. | Court: Administrative remedy inadequate for PIOGA’s facial pre-enforcement challenge; Arsenal Coal exception applies; exhaustion not required. |
| Scope of relief sought (facial vs. as-applied) | PIOGA: challenges DEP’s permitting process as facially invalid insofar as it relies on enjoined §3215(c), seeking declaration preventing DEP from imposing those requirements on all applicants. | DEP: Characterizes claim as as-applied and fact-specific, thus requiring administrative development. | Court: Treats PIOGA’s claim as facial challenge to DEP’s process based on Supreme Court’s Robinson Township injunction; permits proceeding in original jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) (Supreme Court enjoined application of certain provisions of Act 13, including §3215(c) as part of the decisional process).
- Office of Governor v. Donahue, 98 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2014) (agency pre-enforcement interpretation can give rise to standing for declaratory relief where the challenger has a direct, immediate interest).
- Arsenal Coal Co. v. Dep’t of Environmental Resources, 477 A.2d 1333 (Pa. 1984) (pre-enforcement industry-wide challenge permitted where regulations cause direct, immediate hardship and administrative review would be inadequate).
- Empire Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Dep’t of Environmental Resources, 684 A.2d 1047 (Pa. 1996) (EHB lacks power to grant declaratory judgments or pre-enforcement relief; administrative remedy may be inadequate).
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 724 A.2d 413 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (post-enforcement administrative review is adequate unless the regulation itself causes present harm).
- Rouse & Associates – Ship Road Land Ltd. P’ship v. Pa. Env’tl Quality Bd., 642 A.2d 642 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (Arsenal Coal doctrine applied where an immediate, industry-wide impact justified pre-enforcement judicial review).